Martin Cooper, Los Alamos Co-spokesperson for the EDM Project for presentation to

1. Collaboration Business Martin Cooper, Los Alamos Co-spokesperson for the EDM Project for presentation to The EDM Collaboration Los Alamos, NM January 22, 2006

2. Outline • a) Election of new collaborating institutions • b) Excerpts from the critical decision(CD)-0 document • c) Project organization • d) DOE order 413.3 • R&D funding for FY’06 • Work breakdown structure • Undertaking work package responsibilities • The next collaboration meeting

3. EDM Executive Committee Doug Beck – University of Illinois Brad Filippone – Caltech Bob Golub – North Carolina State University Haiyan Gao – Duke University

4. Excerpts from the CD-0 Document • The CD-0 document has not been released • Excerpts come from a document provided by Jehanne Simon-Gillo, DOE Office of Nuclear Physics

5. Election of New Collaborators Petitioners approved by the EDM Executive Committee University of Tennessee Arizona State University Recruits MIT Boston University Argonne National Laboratory

6. CD Schedule Proposed CD schedule (There is a lot of float in CD4 date):

7. Funding Profile • These are actual year dollars. • This is the upper part of the DOE TPC range with no slop allowed. • TPC range includes CDR, R&D, design (PED), fabrication, preops (commissioning). • Dollar amounts are in thousands of dollars. • Schedules imply that you can baseline the project in two years after $1.3M of design and R&D efforts. Starting in FY08, EDM would complete final design and start fabrication. • You may decide that the schedule is too aggressive and that CD2 would happen in FY08 instead.

8. Funding Profile

9. Funding Profile

10. Allowable Project Costs NP general guidance on how to cost labor to a project in the context of existing research core bases at universities and laboratories: - University scientific labor should be identified, but wages zeroed out, unless the scientist is acting as a project manager. University engineers, designers and technicians contributing to the fabrication of the project should be costed. Graduate students hired specifically to perform technician activities on the project should be costed at the appropriate hourly rate. - Laboratory scientific labor (research physicist or accelerator physicist) should also be identified and zeroed out unless the individual is performing well-defined engineer, design or technical tasks that are typically only assigned to engineers, technicians and designers, or project management. If a scientist is performing a task that is best performed by a scientist instead of an engineer, technician or designer, then they are generally not part of the project costs.

11. Next Steps • Identify CPM and FPD by the end of the month. • Provide feedback on CD schedule, cost profile (but be prepared to live with as is) – January-ish • Define what funds you need for CDR – if you want funds in January, DOE needs your input by December 12th, otherwise you are looking at February. • Submit updated R&D request- increments of $50K up to $300K DOE dollars and additional for NSF. Present big picture. Identify which ones could be covered with NSF funding – end of December would be good. • Get your WBS in order- before CD-1 review

12. Next Steps • Start on drafts of management plan, CDR and acquisition strategy that will all be needed for CD1 review- we need to start iterating on management plan about 6 weeks prior to review and the acquisition strategy 8-10 weeks prior to review. • Do ping David Arakawa (FNPB FPD) for advice on what to generate for CD1.

13. Contract Project Manager (CPM) • The individual responsible to the funding agencies to document the scientific quality, the fiscal responsibility, and the adherence to schedule of the project • The individual responsible to track the project and to urge the collaborating institutions to meet their commitments • The individual responsible to prepare the collaboration for the CD reviews • MDC has petitioned the EDM executive committee for a recommendation to the collaboration to become the CPM

14. Organization Chart DOE Office of Nuclear Physics Dennis Kovar Acquisition Executive NSF Nuclear Physics Brad Keister Program Director DOE Office of Nuclear Physics Jehanne Simon-Gillo Program Manager Los Alamos Site Office Eugene Colton Federal Project Director Integrated Project Team DOE/NSF LANL/EDM LANL Physics Division Jack Shlachter Division Leader EDM Spokespersons Martin Cooper, LANL Steve Lamoreaux, LANL EDM Interface to the NSF Contract Project Manager NSF Funded PIs LANL EDM Martin Cooper Contract Project Manager EDM Executive Committee Spokespersons Four PIs Institutional Principal Investigators Subsystem Managers Work Package Leaders

15. Interactions with the NSF • CPM is the principal contact by DOE mandate • With a CPM from a DOE funded national laboratory, the CPM can make no impact on the NSF without the direct involvement of the NSF funded PIs • We must work out a cooperative arrangement between the project and the NSF

16. Organization Chart DOE Office of Nuclear Physics Dennis Kovar Acquisition Executive NSF Nuclear Physics Brad Keister Program Director DOE Office of Nuclear Physics Jehanne Simon-Gillo Program Manager Los Alamos Site Office Eugene Colton Federal Project Director Integrated Project Team DOE/NSF LANL/EDM LANL Physics Division Jack Shlachter Division Leader EDM Spokespersons Martin Cooper, LANL Steve Lamoreaux, LANL LANL EDM Martin Cooper Contract Project Manager EDM Safety Officer Subsystem Managers Work Package Leaders

17. Integrated Project Team

18. DOE Order 413.3 • A roughly 50 page document that sets the rules for DOE procurement of capital equipment • For projects between $5-20M, 413.3 defines how the project must be executed

19. CD Schedule Proposed CD schedule (There is a lot of float in CD4 date):

20. Work for CD-1 by June/August 2006 • Strengthen the collaboration • Fill out the organizational chart • MOUs with Subsystem Managers’ Organizations in draft form • Complete conceptual engineering • Values Engineering Assessment • Complete most of the R&D • Conceptual Design Report (CDR) • Risk Analysis • Alternatives Analysis • WBS (Resource Loaded) and WBS Dictionary • Hazard and Safety Analysis • Preliminary Project Execution Plan • Acquisition Strategy

21. CD-1 Priorities • Funding Profile • Federal Project Director • Gantt Chart for CD-1

22. Work for CD-2 by August 2007 • Complete preliminary engineering? • Complete all of the R&D • Get NSF funding in place • Technical Design Report (TDR) • Risk Analysis • WBS and WBS Dictionary • Project Execution Plan • Acquisition Strategy

23. Project Safety • DOE Order 413.3 will be revised to expressly require the highest safety standards • EDM will be done at a national laboratory - ORNL • Two stories

24. Teleconferences with DOE • One hour at 11 AM MST on the third Thursday of every month • On occasion, MDC may call on collaboration members to participate • Regular participants: • DOE • Jehanne Simon-Gillo • Wlodek Guryn • Gene Henry • Eugene Colton? • EDM • Martin Cooper • John Tapia • Bill Louis – LANL NP Program Manager

25. Coffee Break • Enjoy!

26. R&D Priorities • Highest Priority • 3He relaxation time from T = 0.5-4.0 K at the proper concentration, including a SQUID NMR signal • Neutron storage time at ~4 K in a cell coated with deuterated polystyrene • Light collection design with the expectation of ~40 photoelectrons • Reliable valves • Understanding the geometric phase systematic error • 4He dielectric strength at low pressures or for a presurized superfluid • Moderate priority • Surface HV breakdown of acrylic and the Kerr effect • 3He evaporator • 3He injector volume test • Beamline and measurement cell neutronics Monte Carlo • Quite Useful • Magnet development • Atomic magnetometers • Laser induced flourescence

27. The Request - $300k • The following is a prioritized list for a funding request to your office for • the EDM project FY'06: • $87k to LANL for engineering and project management/CDR development • $87k to the University of Illinois for 3He relaxation time/SQUID measurements and project engineering, split roughly equally • $25k to Duke University for 3He and light detection studies • $50k to North Carolina State University for field gradient systematic studies • $25k to Caltech for magnet and shielding development • $25k to UC Berkeley for high voltage studies using the Kerr effect. • We are postponing neutron guide and fluorescence studies as a cost • savings for this year.

28. The Request - $300k The bigger funding picture for EDM funding includes: $100-200k to the universities for R&D, primarily for Caltech and Illinois, from the NSF. An NSF grant could reduce the DOE load above but would come much later in the FY. $115k for Paul Huffman and Bob Golub at NCSU as a capital equipment request to Gene Henry. There is complete overlap with the request above and this request to Gene. The LANL commitment to NCSU may inhibit LANL finishing its R&D program. $50-75k for CDR/project management from Don Rej, head of LANL's Office of Science $200k for 3He diffusion studies and equipment from LANL LDRD $300k for technicians and engineers from LANL LDRD for R&D (The balance of LDRD funding pays physicists' salaries.) The Duke and NCSU people wanted me to ask if any granted funds to them could go directly to TUNL instead of going through LANL.

29. The Grant - $150k less $5k • $00.0k to LANL for engineering and project management/CDR development • $60.0k to the University of Illinois for 3He relaxation time/SQUID measurements and project engineering, split roughly equally • $17.0k to Duke University for 3He and light detection studies • $34.0k to North Carolina State University for field gradient systematic studies • $17.0k to Caltech for magnet and shielding development • $17.0k to UC Berkeley for high voltage studies using the Kerr effect.

30. Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) • Needs to be reviewed to see that it makes sense • Needs to be brought into conformance with DOE standards • Some complaints from Simon-Gillo • Some complaints from the LANL review committee

31. WBS Subsystem Managers

32. WBS Work Package Leaders

33. WBS Work Package Leaders

34. WBS Work Package Leaders

35. WBS Work Package Leaders

36. WBS Work Package Leaders

37. WBS Work Package Leaders

38. WBS Work Package Leaders

39. Undertaking Resonsibilities • At the next collaboration meeting, as many names as possible need to filled into the list of subsystem managers and work package leaders as possible • The blanks will tell us tell us where we need to recruit new institutions • Homework: • Between now and the next collaboration meeting, think through what your institution can commit to doing • Be prepared to state what responsibility you will undertake • Negotiate affiliations to team on larger projects • Do not over commit

40. The Next Collaboration Meeting • Week of March 6-10, 2006 • At NCSU