## C-A/AP/#266

## January 2007

**Internal Cost Review**

**of the**

**RHIC II Project**

Michael Harrison

Erik Johnson

A. McNerney

#### Thomas Roser

![](media/image1.png){width="2.792361111111111in"
height="1.7798611111111111in"}

**Collider-Accelerator Department**

# Brookhaven National Laboratory

**Upton, NY 11973**

### BROOKHAVEN NATIONAL LABORATORY

**Internal Cost Review**

**of the**

**RHIC II Project**

**Physics 266**

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Michael Harrison Date

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Andrew McNerney Date

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Erik Johnson Date

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Thomas Roser Date

**[Summary]{.underline}**

Project costs were conservatively estimated in several areas and
opportunities' exist to reduce scope, e.g., magnets, power supplies and
conventional facilities. If ESH&Q, R&D and supporting scientific
staffing are not included, a TPC of less than \$100 M is possible. An
integrated schedule was not presented which will be essential for an
accurate cost estimate.

The C-A Department is fortunate to have a very experienced staff in
place to carry out the project.

# Introduction

An internal project cost review was held on January 4, 2007 to solicit
an assessment of the cost and scope of the RHIC II project at an early
stage of the project. In particular, input was requested on what
additions would be needed for a Lehman type review.

In addition to the presentations, an excellent project overview (RHIC II
White Paper) was made available before the review. An integrated
schedule for project execution has not yet been developed. There were
also fairly recent realizations that some of the RHIC diagnostics do not
need to be moved, but can be relocated within the 2 o'clock area. This
will most probably have a very beneficial impact on the overall project
cost and schedule.

[Comments and Recommendations on Presentations:]{.underline}

**1. Project
Overview**..........................................\.........I. Ben-Zvi

It was agreed that defining CD-4 as "Commissioning ends and CD4 is
achieved when a beam from the E-Cooler circumnavigates the tunnel "is an
excellent decision. At some point a straw man schedule will be necessary
since it does impact most estimates in some way and is necessary to
predict resource needs external to the Department. No R&D costs were
presented but commissioning (pre-ops) was included. Also, the project
should if possible use equipment that is available from the R&D effort.

**2. Conventional
Facilities**..............................\.........\....A. Pendzick

Conventional facilities are 13% of TPC. The service building is 9,300
sq.ft. Use of existing 1002 service building and reduction of
requirements for power supplies should reduce this substantially.

Also, water-cooling system is presently marginally above BRAHMS
capabilities. Reduction of transport magnets (see sections 8 & 9) should
make it possible to use existing BRAHMS water-cooling system. This could
reduce costs by having a smaller service building ( - \$1M) and
eliminating a new water system (\$1M). These changes would lower power
requirements for ac, water and power supply systems and may eliminate
need for new power feed.

Vibration specifications are needed for the conventional construction
with to deal with the affects of the refrigeration system.

The radiation shielding in the connection tunnel needs scrutiny.

The Project should work with Plant Engineering to weigh the pros and
cons of using an outside AE firm and to develop realistic costs for
construction oversight

**3. RHIC Ring
Modifications**........................\............\...G. McIntyre

There is good understanding of what is needed to accomplish the
modifications of RHIC. The only main issue here is scheduling the
required approximately 10 months RHIC shutdown. This could be done with
two shutdowns (RHIC modifications plus e cooling components) with the
longest being \~ 7 months. The pitching magnets and undulators are not
yet included (+ \$1.0M).

**4. Instrumentation
Relocation**..............................\...\.........T. Russo

The latest plan for instrumentation involves leaving the devices at 2
o'clock but relocating in this region. This potentially saves most of
the cost. The estimate needs a rework. (- \$2M).

**5. Injection
System**...............................................\...\.....A.
Burrill

Injection system assumes implicitly the on-going R&D program is
completed. There ensued a discussion about how to handle scientific
manpower and "taking credit "for design work done as part of Navy work
for PED reductions in this part of the project. Risk analysis assumes no
R&D program, which again seems somewhat conservative. A successful
demonstration of the injector for the ERL would change many of the
assumptions used for the estimate.

It was assumed that R&D on Diamond cathode is not successful. This may
be fine for now to give a good estimate for the contingency range.

**6. Superconducting RF Components**.............................\....I.
Ben-Zvi

The Superconducting RF components are estimated using AES quotes with
built in contingency. At a minimum the project contingency should be
reduced to about 10% to reduce double counting. (- \$1M)The scope is the
gun cavity, the two main ERL cavities and one-third harmonic cavity. The
total cost for the four cavities of \$14M direct seems high and should
be investigated and/or more clearly justified The cavities estimates
contain \~ 15 man-years of effort The SRF component estimates are tied
into the on-going ERL R&D program in a complicated way. A sole source
procurement seems implied which might be difficult to justify.

Also, the existing five-cell cavity can produce the required
accelerating gradient and therefore two copies of this cavity would work
for the electron cooler making new design work unnecessary. (- \$1M).

**7. RF
Systems**........................................................A.
Zaltsman

The rf system is the same as presently constructed for the test ERL. The
contingency of 30% is high in this situation. 20% would be more
appropriate (-\$0.6M). Also, the PED for the LLRF is 40%. The LLRF
system will be based on the LLRF upgrade for Booster, AGS, and RHIC and
will be well developed by the time of the RHIC II project. A more
appropriate PED is 20% (- \$0.5M).

Some concern on limited number of klystron vendors

**8. Magnet
Systems**.....................................................G. Mahler

The scope is transport magnets, solenoids, pitching magnets and
undulators. The pitching magnets and undulators have not been costed. (+
\$1M). The PED is very high (45%). There are no particularly difficult
performance requirements for the magnet system that would justify such
high design costs. 20% would be a more appropriate amount for PED (-
\$3.7M). The design for the magnet transport calls for 122 quads for the
160 m long transport. With one quadrupole every 1.3 meters this is very
much over-designed. It should be possible to design a beam transport
with one quad every 3 m or about 50 quadrupoles total. (- \$3M).

**9. Magnet Electrical Systems**......................................R.
Lambiase

The scope includes a total of 475 power supplies. The high contingency
of 36% was justified by the uncertainty of the foreign currency exchange
rate since most power supply vendors are outside the US. There are plans
to have main supplies, trim supplies and corrector supplies for the
dipoles magnets and main supplies and trim supplies for the quadrupoles.
This seems very redundant. Removing this redundancy and with the
reduction of the number of quadrupoles from 122 to 50 (see above) the
number of power supplies is reduced from 475 to 260. (- \$1.2M) If the
proposed scope is actually what is built, the commissioning manpower
looks light. Can the number of supplies be reduced by operating them in
families? The contingency appears high and arbitrary even considering
the foreign currency risk.

**10. Power Supply Modifications**..........................
.............D. Bruno

The modifications were well motivated and costed.

**11. Beam
Instrumentation**............................................P. Cameron

The instrumentation of the electron beam transport is quite extensive
with 60 BPMs and about 30 profile monitors. No justification for the
number of instruments was given. Spares were not costed for current
transformers or streak cameras. Instrumentation needs to be evaluated
with a view to performing the required accelerator physics measurements.
A careful design of the needed instrumentation should be performed. Loss
monitors need to be evaluated for performance in electron/ion
environment. It should be determined what loss is acceptable for
equipment protection. A reduction of the number of instruments might be
possible.

**12. Vacuum
Systems**.....................................................H. Hseuh

Some of the vacuum work will change because some diagnostics (RHIC) will
not be moved to sectors 9&10 The \$9.3M cost estimate for 360 m of
vacuum system seems high, but no single item stands out with the
exception of maybe the contingency of 30%, which is high for mainly
catalog items.

**13.Cryogenic
Systems**..................................................Y.R. Than

Well motivated and costed

**14.
Installation**.........................................................G.
McIntyre

Appears to be in good shape

**15.Controls**............................................................\...B.
Oerter

Well motivated and costed. Scope could be reduced if the number of power
supplies is reduced.

**16.Commissioning**..................................................E.
Pozdeyev

Commissioners need to look at worst-case beam loss scenarios.

This effort Includes 47MM of physicists. Scientists might not have to be
included in the project. (- \$0.5M)

**17.Project Management & Controls**...........................\...K.
Mirabella

[Cost & Schedule]{.underline}

The assumed schedule of 5.5 years is too long. 4 years is more
reasonable. (- \$2M). Manpower estimates are based on a fungible
scenario not a constant workforce. Project needs to differentiate
between FTE's and man-years especially in an environment where the
schedule is ill defined. Manpower loading is also a potential issue.
Need uniform policy on spares and they should be listed separately.

Potential cost savings recommended in this report could be \~ \$15M or
TPC of \$97 M. Using equipment from R & D facility could save an
additional \$7M.

[Some presentation suggestions from Erik Johnson :]{.underline}

The format for the sub-talks was basically pretty good, and I endorse
the idea of making them as similar as possible. I would suggest changing
the contingency and risk slides to 'Risks and Mitigation'. The point
would be to show that you have identified the risks, and have mitigation
measures in mind. In addition one can break out the types of risks as
technical, cost and schedule (see Dicks talk for example). This also
aligns with the 'standard' formulae for setting the 'bottoms up
contingency'.

For the overview presentation one may also wish to have a high level
Risks and Mitigation slide. This basically becomes the early version of
the 'Risk Registry'.

Some overview of the manpower, cost and contingency distribution in an
overview presentation would also be welcomed. From the talk materials
and the table provided by Kerry, I made up a spreadsheet. The numbers
may not be an accurate reflection of the presentations (there was some
duplication) and will almost certainly change. The following table is
only an example of the kind of thing some of us would look for (or
prepare ourselves) as a reviewer on a Lehman panel.

![](media/image2.wmf){width="5.999305555555556in"
height="2.5659722222222223in"}

This highlights the relatively small portion of the project in
conventional facilities, and the relatively large portion in the
injection/SCRF/RF power systems (22% of the project in direct cost).

Similar tables for FTE distribution are informative as
well:![](media/image3.wmf){width="5.99375in"
height="3.292361111111111in"}

**ATTACHMENT A**

**Internal Cost Review**

**of the**

**RHIC II Project (RHIC II)**

**Bldg. 911 Large Conference Room**

**January 4, 2007**

**AGENDA**

8:30
Welcome/Introduction..................\.........\.........\...\...D.
Lowenstein

8:40 Project
Overview..........................................\.........I. Ben-Zvi

9:00 Conventional
Facilities..............................\.........\....A. Pendzick

9:20 RHIC Ring Modifications........................\............\...G.
McIntyre

9:40 Instrumentation
Relocation..............................\...\.........T. Russo

10:00 Injection
System...............................................\...\.....A.
Burrill

10:15 Superconducting RF Components.............................\....I.
Ben-Zvi

10:30 Break

10:45 RF
Systems........................................................A.
Zaltsman

11:00 Magnet
Systems.....................................................G. Mahler

11:15 Magnet Electrical Systems......................................R.
Lambiase

11:35 Power Supply Modifications..........................
.............D. Bruno

12:00 Lunch

1:00 Beam Instrumentation............................................P.
Cameron

1:20 Vacuum
Systems.....................................................H. Hseuh

1:40 Cryogenic
Systems..................................................Y.R. Than

2:00
Installation.........................................................G.
McIntyre

2:20 Break

2:40
Controls............................................................\...B.
Oerter

2:55 Commissioning..................................................E.
Pozdeyev

3:10 Project Management & Controls...........................\...K.
Mirabella

3:20 Final
Questions/Callbacks...............................................TBD

4:30 Adjourn

##### ATTACHMENT B

[Perspective on CD-0 (Erik Johnson)]{.underline}

The stated scope of the review was to assess the credibility of the cost
estimate in its present state. From my perspective it is also useful to
remember that this is being done as part of the drive to obtain a CD0
(Mission Need) decision from DOE. The CD0 statements I have seen usually
have three elements:

Declaration of mission need (What DOE needs to have in its portfolio)

Objectives for the project (How the project addresses the mission need)

Cost Range

In the case of RHIC II I presume the declaration of the mission need
will hinge on a physics case that requires high luminosity beams beyond
the capabilities of the current RHIC complex. The physics justification
has certainly been worked up and for my purposes I'll assume its
compelling, if for no other reason than the fact that DOE has evidently
entered into a dialog with BNL on the project, so the first element is
met.

For the second element, the BNL proposal will be the E-cooling
activities which were presented in the review. It will be somewhat
tricky to make the proper definition for the project and its completion.
As was mentioned in the review the most plausible case will be
generation of electron beam, transport to the intersection areas with
the RHIC machine and energy recovery, without interaction with the
actual RHIC beam. The CD0 statement will most likely require some kind
of beam parameters (e.g. current and emittance) as well as any other
parameters that would credibly couple to the mission need target, i.e.
the luminosity increase that cooling is simulated to provide. The
separation of the RHIC II electron machine commissioning from any actual
RHIC operation, as outlined during the review, seems like a very good
idea to me. It will, however, make it essential to include in the scope
of the project any diagnostics that would allow you to prove you have
achieved the performance metrics. This should be part of the planning
associated with preparing a CD0 statement.

The third element, establishing a cost range, was notionally the focus
of the review and in my opinion is off to a very promising start. A
great deal of thinking has gone into assessing the scope of the project.
As noted by the team itself, some major elements have yet to be costed
(the undulators come to mind for example). The team also noted that the
schedule had not yet been developed. For many projects the schedule can
be quite notional to establish the TPC, but I believe it will be
important to work to reasonable detail for RHIC II both to be credible,
and to assure adequate funding when you do get the project funded. Of
particular concern are the coordination with RHIC physics operation, and
the potentially very large number of people who are needed to work the
project in a fairly compressed time. To establish the cost base line,
the project needs to be convinced that it's manpower profile is
realistic, and that it's schedule (and shift structure) can support
timely completion of the project.