Linac Coherent Light Source Project ETC 18 September 2007

1. Linac Coherent Light Source Project ETC 18 September 2007 • Background • Proposed Baseline • 7/2007 review responses • Contingency • Commissioning

2. Key Actions - Project Control • Cost Growth in Civil Construction • Turner instructed to solicit bids separately for • Beam Path (Tunnels, Near Hall, Far Hall, Utility Plant • Central Lab Office Complex (CLOC) • Encountered unfavorable bidding conditions on Beam Path • Value engineering with Jacobs and Turner • Award beam path to far hall • Authorize Turner to proceed 8/2006 • Removed CLOC from scope of Project • Consumed contingency • With SLAC help, identified space that could be economically rehabilitated to accommodate 160 LCLS staff

3. Issues - Civil Construction • Bids for all civil construction were very unfavorable • Projected cost of Turner subcontracts summed to $100.5M ( incl. 2-story CLOC) • Only $67.3M was budgeted • Project had sufficient contingency to award up to $85.3M • CLOC Removed from WBS, replaced by renovated space • Awards & revised estimates for reduced scope- $84.5M

4. Effect of Continuing Resolution • Budget authorization received in April 2007 • Uncertain budget forced schedule variance (linac, undulator), further reducing contingency • FY2007 Project Budget Authority Reduced $8M • $106M → $101M TEC • $ 16M → $ 13M OPC • No $ restoration until 2009 • Contingency through 2008 not sufficient to preserve original schedule

5. Response to Directed Change • Reschedule acquisition/installation so that Far Experiment Hall Contents installed in 2009/2010 • Compensates 2007 budget cut • Resume construction/commissioning of FEL • Install Near Hall Infrastructure, Initial AMO experiment close to original schedule • 3/2009 →7/2009 early finish

6. TEC $315M, TPC $379M CD-4 3/09 Start of Operations Characterize x-ray flux @ 1.5 Angstroms, in front end enclosure (FEE) Detect X-rays in the Far Experiment Hall TEC $352M, TPC $420M Level 2 DOE milestone 7/09 Start Near Hall Ops Characterize x-ray flux at 1.5 Angstroms, in the Front-end enclosure CD-4 7/2010 Project Complete Detect X-rays in the Far Experiment Hall Project Baseline Proposed BaselineMay 2005 Change September 2007

7. Lehman Review Recommendations • Accelerator Physics • Improve the interface between all groups (SLAC, ANL, and LLNL) responsible for construction, installation, and commissioning of the undulator systems (September 2007). • Focused effort to improve communications • Weeklong meeting at ANL 24-28 September 2007 • Assignment of SLAC personnel to undulator coordination • Jose Chan, ME: CAM • Carl Rago, ME: Undulator systems integration • Don Schafer: SLAC undulator engineering support • Injector/Linac • Re-evaluate the schedule contingency for LTU activity • Done – Adequate schedule contingency in proposed baseline • Determine cost/schedule/risk impact of removal of beam diagnostics with respect to the FEL commissioning. • Beam position monitors tested, functional at beam charge of 0.2 nC or more • Gun readily produces 1.0 nC • Risk assessed, severity considered low • Profile measurement in sector 28 • Re-evaluate cost to completion. • Done

8. Lehman Review Recommendations - Undulator • Fabricate prototypes of each back-up option Vacuum Chamber by end August 2007 • Chamber Prototype progress evaluation will be complete in September • Select the “best” option from the completed prototypes to move into production by mid-September 2007. • Aluminum extrusion meets roughness requirements, now in baseline • Evaluate the potential impact of any anticipated sub-specification performance from the selected chamber option. Include these impacts in the risk registry with any mitigation strategies and potential costs as soon as feasible; in no case later than the next DOE review. • Done • Finish achieved in prototype is satisfactory, does not dominate resistive wall

9. Lehman Review Recommendations - Undulator • Provide adequate support to ensure placement of procurement contracts for RF-BPM cavities on or before end September 2007 • RFBPM procurements underway • Develop the Physics Requirements Document for Beam loss monitors to meet project needs by end August 2007 • Comprehensive requirements document has been drafted, reviewed. Still in revision • Develop a revised estimate for the BLM system as soon as feasible, no later than the next DOE review. • $500K budget is reasonable

10. Lehman Review Recommendations • Photon Beam Systems • The commissioning plans should be reviewed to ensure proper staffing and schedule is allocated for both LLNL and LCLS staff • Done • Bring in and/or visit with experts in mirror vacuum tank design from other light sources (national and international) to critique the proposed design of the mirror motions and drive scheme, specifically to determine if the design will meet the very stringent pointing/stability requirements, before finalizing mechanical/vacuum hardware for the hard X-ray mirrors. Also explore the capability for in-situ optimization of hard X-ray mirror figure before the design is frozen. • In progress • First review this week • Controls • Insure that all costs-to-complete—including any newly identified costs not related to the Continuing Resolution of 2007—are covered in the proposed cost re-baseline. • Done

11. Lehman Review Recommendations – Conventional Facilities • Continue to monitor Turner’s schedule recovery plan 3 July 2007 12 September 2007 • Beam Transport Hall 2 weeks behind 0 weeks on sched. • Undulator hall 6 weeks behind 0 weeks on sched. • Building 3.1 8 weeks behind 5 weeks behind • Beam dump 17 weeks behind 3 weeks ahead • Front End Encl. 20 weeks behind 2 weeks behind • NEH 1 week ahead 2 weeks ahead • Access Tunnel 12 weeks behind 4 weeks behind • Far Expt Hall 15 weeks behind 4 weeks behind • CUP 14 weeks behind 8 weeks behind • Investigate the impact to the project of a failure to achieve the first joint occupancy date of December 2007. Consider the impact of an up to three-month delay of joint occupancy. • Done – no effect on start of NEH ops or CD4 • 1st Critical path runs through cabling in FEE • 2nd critial path runs thru 2008 funding limit

12. Lehman Review Recommendations – Conventional Facilities (continued) • Re-evaluate the cost estimate for the remaining work not under contract. • Done – Basis of estimate is in-house assessment of conceptual design • Validation/check by independent estimator under contract to LCLS • Retain a contingency allowance of between 30 and 50 percent for all CF work for which a final design and an accompanying cost estimate are not in hand, at the time of this review. Retain that level of contingency until contract award. • 60% contingency in the bottoms-up contingency assessment for Bldg 751, Bldg 28, Far Hall hutches • Additional 10% due to complexity of underground work • Prepare a pessimistic worst-case scenario for funding unsettled and future claims arising from the Turner contract. Include these considerations in contingency planning for the project re-baseline. It is essential to avoid forced de-scoping of any remaining project work. • Claim in process - estimated impact $2.25M (2009)

13. Lehman Review Recommendations – Conventional Facilities (continued) • Continue to examine and implement proactively all possible factors necessary to achieve an exemplary safety record on the remaining work. • Safe work observation walk-arounds on Turner site • Use care and maintain some financial flexibility in the latter part of FY 2008. • Close monitoring of 2008 contingency utilization

14. Lehman Review Recommendations – Cost/Schedule/Funding • The proposed baseline should be re-evaluated to incorporate updates to the underlying detailed cost estimate and sequencing of the activity schedule required to manage the revised approach to project completion and transition to operations. This will incorporate knowledge about the detailed work to complete that have resulted from design maturation and review, emerging market conditions, and additional experience and interaction with the vendor base. • Done • Installation • Cabling • Civil construction • Controls for x-ray beams • Contingency is sufficient • Early integration with the user community is a requirement of the project. An interface milestone with the scientific program should be clearly defined and placed into the baseline schedule to clarify what capability will be available to begin the process of integrating experimental activities into the schedule prior to full facility capability. • Milestone for start of NEH operations has been incorporated • Upcoming LCLS user meeting • Rules of access for Instrument teams, general users, new instruments

15. Lehman Review Recommendations – Cost/Schedule/Funding • The method of execution should be reviewed to ensure that the schedule is sequenced appropriately. The FY 2008 funding level is a significant constraint to providing an initial R&D capability in FY 2009. The project should be carefully organized to ensure that all work required deliver the initial capability defined above can be completed free of undue risk to completion of the project as a whole. • Budget constraints, contingency and decision dates are identified • Some margin for avoiding impact to AMO experiment • Late starts, $ defined for X-ray diagnostics and AMO experiment • The contingency estimate to accompany the revised baseline should be derived using a graded risk approach that incorporates both endogenous risk in the baseline estimate and exogenous risk from outside the project. This will provide a risk management pool that is both reliable in derivation and robust in scale to deliver the project with a reasonable level of risk at an acceptable cost. This estimate should include an analysis of the impact of schedule delays at key points in the project that could have an impact on the overall completion date or interim deliverables to the user community. • Contingency estimate is based on • Bottoms-up estimates according to PMD 1.1-021 ( arithmetic sum is $27.7M, 19% ) • Potential contingency needs identified in Risk Registry • Crystal Ball analysis • Supports 22% ($33M) contingency on ETC

16. Contingency • Adequate for Project overall • Contingency through 2008 is very tight - $8M • Additional $4M can be achieved by delay of some installations • $12M contingency on cost to end of FY2008 • Reduced commissioning time for FEL prior to NEH operations • Close management of contingency is essential • Status against proposed baseline as of 11/2007 and 12/2007 will provide crucial information for contingency analysis

17. Cost to Go, Thru 2008

18. Contingency Management Options - 1 • Delay installations to start of FY2009 • Undulator • Beam Dump • Front End Enclosure • >$3M moved out of FY2008 • Just-in-time for AMO installation • No FEL commissioning 10/2008-3/2009 • Two-shift installation to reduce lost commissioning to recover commissioning time • Decision Point: 12/2007

19. Contingency Management Options - 2 • Delay CF activities in access tunnel and Far Hall • Concrete invert slab • MEP minimum for fire safety • $0.5M-$1M reduction in FY2008 • Re-mobilize in FY2009 • $1.5M increase in FY2009 • Decision point: 11/2007

20. Contingency Mgmt: X-ray delays • Delay some FEE controls work (150k) • Decide soon; could delay from early to late FY08 • Risk of delay in FEE operation • Delay some NEH controls work (150k) • Could delay from late FY08 to FY09 • Risk of delay in AMO experiment operation • Delay beam delivery to NEH (200k) • No beam in NEH until FY10 In case of FY08 crunch, one could:

21. Contingency Mgmt: X-ray speedups • Speed up controls and stands for FEE (1000k) • Speed up X-ray monitors in FEE (300k) • Speed up NEH controls and motors (450k) • Speed up XES laser system (340k) • Speed up AMO focusing mirrors (115k) If more FY08 funds become available, one could:

22. Lehman Review Recommendations – Cost/Schedule/Funding • The method of execution should be reviewed to ensure that the schedule is sequenced appropriately. The FY 2008 funding level is a significant constraint to providing an initial R&D capability in FY 2009. The project should be carefully organized to ensure that all work required [to] deliver the initial capability defined above can be completed free of undue risk to completion of the project as a whole. • Budget constraints, contingency and decision dates are identified • Some margin for avoiding impact to AMO experiment • Late starts, $ defined for X-ray diagnostics and AMO experiment • The contingency estimate to accompany the revised baseline should be derived using a graded risk approach that incorporates both endogenous risk in the baseline estimate and exogenous risk from outside the project. This will provide a risk management pool that is both reliable in derivation and robust in scale to deliver the project with a reasonable level of risk at an acceptable cost. This estimate should include an analysis of the impact of schedule delays at key points in the project that could have an impact on the overall completion date or interim deliverables to the user community. • Contingency estimate is based on • bottoms-up estimates according to PMD 1.1-021 • Potential contingency needs identified in Risk Registry

23. Lehman Review Recommendations – Cost/Schedule/Funding • The level of procurement authority ($100K) held by the SLAC site requires that over 80 procurement packages for the project be reviewed and approved by the SSO prior to release and award. This process should be closely managed to ensure that potential impacts to the schedule are appropriately managed until the level of authority is restored by the SSO. • Not a problem, to date.

24. PROJECT SAFETY EXPERIENCE31 August 2007 Lost Time Rate • Total Project Hours • 1.3 M Hours worked • SubContractors • 256 K Hours worked • 4 Lost Time Injuries • 1 Recordable Injury • LCLS Collaboration • 1.05 M Hours worked • 2 Lost Time Injuries • 8 Days Without Lost Time Note: Injury rates based on 200 K hours (100 man years) of effort.

25. Drive Laser Commissioning Summary A GREAT effort: Sasha Gilevich Greg Hays Philippe Hering Alan Miahnahri Chris Melton Bill White

26. Accomplishments • 20 weeks of commissioning – >3000 hours • Three 8 hour downs – Hot swappable parts will be here before next run • One 3 hour down • 2 hours per week for locking problems • 98% up time • Solved spatial flutter problem – further improvement expected • >500 mJ on Cathode – spec was 250 • <1.5% rms stability – spec was 2%

27. Issues • Oscillator locking to RF • Receive new oscillator Sept. 23. Thanks to Femtolaser! • Transport Tube Contamination • Possible glow discharge • Faster, easier and cheaper to change windows • Temporal profile not at spec • Still getting good emittance • Thales will visit in October to work on this • Spatial profile not great • Still getting good emittance • New tripler dichroics • Less optics in transport • System not automated • Design review complete, new parts are on order, install during down

28. Injector Commissioning • Many thanks to all involved (especially daily help): • Laser group (W. White, et al) • Controls (H. Shoaee, E. Williams, et al) • RF Group (R. Akre, et al) • Operations (indispensable help 24 hrs/day) • …and of course many more (please excuse the short list here)… LCLS will continue with phase-II commissioning starting in December 2007…

29. RESULTS • Reproducible x&yemittance1.2 μm (design) at 1 nCcharge (design) • <1.5% rms charge stability (designis 2%) • Drive laser >95% up-time with up to 400 μJ on cathode (250 design) • Bunch compression in BC1 fully demonstrated • Accelerated LCLS beam up to 16 GeV (13.6 design) • X-band RF system and both transverse RF deflectors fully operational • All of new RF systems performing within spec (e.g., <0.1º, <0.1% rms) • Feedback running: launch, charge, energy, RF, & bunch-length • Good injector up-time (>90%) • Many high-level applications developed in Matlab (corr-plots, emittance, alignment, RF phasing, BPM displays, …)

30. Problems/Issues • Gun Faraday cup & toroid not functioning • BC1 dipole field quality inadequate • downtime fix - thanks ASD) • Don’t invest too much work in a sow’s ear • Emittance growth from X-band RF section (“ “) • OTR image biased by coherent OTR (laser heater) • Wire scanner vibration (use corrector scans?) • Initial bunch length still 20% longer than design • Emittance preservation through full linac & two bunch compressors (next year’s challenge)

31. End of Presentation