ALICE EMCal Project Execution Plan - Wayne State...

ALICE EMCal Project Execution Plan

at

Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Berkeley, CA

For the U.S. Department of Energy Office of Science

Office of Nuclear Physics

MIE-71-RC

Document EMCal.4.v4

January 2009

ALICE EMCal Project Execution Plan Revision 4.0 January 2009

2

CONCURRENCES: Thomas M. Cormier Date ALICE EMCal Contractor Project Manager Nuclear Science Division Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and Academy of Scholars Professor of Physics Wayne State University James Symons Date Director, Nuclear Science Division Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Barry Savnik Date ALICE EMCal Federal Project Director Department of Energy, Berkeley Site Office Aundra Richards Date Manager Department of Energy, Berkeley Site Office Helmut Marsiske Date Program Manager for Instrumentation Office of Nuclear Physics, Office of Science _________________________________________ Daniel R. Lehman Date Director, Office of Project Assessment Office of Science APPROVED: Jehanne Simon-Gillo Date: Director, Facilities & Project Management Division Office of Nuclear Physics, Office of Science


3

Change Log

Revision No. Pages Effected Effective Date

Revision 0 Entire Document September 2006

Revision 1 Entire Document December 2007

Revision 2 Pgs. 39-40 January 2008

Revision 3 Entire Document January 2008

Revision 4 Entire Document January 2009


4

Table of Contents I. Introduction 5 II. Mission Need 5 III. Functional Requirements 6 IV. Project Overview 7 V. Technical Scope and Deliverables 9 VI. Alternative Analysis 13 VII. Management Organization 14 VIII. Schedule and Cost Baseline 24 IX. Change Control 34 X. Analyses, Assessments, and Plans 35


5

I. Introduction The Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at the European Laboratory for Nuclear Physics (CERN) in Geneva, Switzerland will open a new high-energy frontier in the physics of ultra high-density hadronic matter and the Quark Gluon Plasma (QGP). The ALICE-USA Collaboration1 through Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) is fabricating a Major Item of Equipment (MIE) for the Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Science, Office of Nuclear Physics (NP) to fabricate a large electromagnetic (EM) calorimeter (ALICE EMCal) as an upgrade to the ALICE experiment at the LHC. Over the past several years, the collaboration carried out pre-conceptual research and development (R&D) and identified the technology needed to build a large EM calorimeter capable of addressing the physics requirements within the ALICE experimental infrastructure. Critical Decision-0 (CD-0), Approve Mission Need, for a U.S. involvement in the LHC heavy ion program was approved by the DOE Office of Science on November 16, 2005. The Total Project Cost (TPC) range of the ALICE EMCal was refined from $5 – 16 million approved at CD-0, to $13 – 16 million proposed at CD-1, Approve Alternative Selection and Cost Range. For CD-2/3, Approve Performance Baseline/Approve Start of Construction, the TPC was evaluated to be $13.5 million. R&D was supported in fiscal year (FY) 2006 and completed in FY 2007. Project fabrication started in FY 2008 and will be complete in FY 2011. CD-4, Project Completion, is expected in Q4 FY 2011. This Project Execution Plan (PEP) describes the coordination of efforts of the project team, including the processes and procedures used by the ALICE EMCal Contractor Project Manager (CPM) and Federal Project Director (FPD) to ensure that the project is completed on time and within budget. The PEP defines the project scope consistent with the assumed funding profile and organizational framework, identifies roles and responsibilities of contributors, and presents the work breakdown structure (WBS) and schedule under the assumed funding profile. The PEP also describes the formal change control process by which project cost, schedule, or scope may be revised with appropriate review and approval by the FPD and the DOE Office of Nuclear Physics. II. Mission Need The mission of the Nuclear Physics program is to understand the evolution and structure of nuclear matter from the smallest building blocks, quarks and gluons, to the elements in the universe created by stars. A main objective of this nuclear science field is searching for the QGP and other new phenomena that might occur in the extremely hot, dense plasma of quarks and gluons believed to have filled the universe about a millionth of a second after the “Big Bang.” The program provides world-class peer-reviewed research results in the scientific disciplines encompassed by the Nuclear Physics mission areas under the mandate provided in Public Law 95-91 that established the Department.

1 ALICE-USA is a group of 10 U.S. institutions, National Laboratories and Universities that are participating in the fabrication and utilization of the proposed EM calorimeter as members of the ALICE experiment at the LHC.


6

The ALICE EMCal project directly supports the NP mission and will allow U.S. researchers to explore fundamental questions into the nature of the QGP which cannot be examined with any other experimental facility worldwide. In particular, the ALICE experiment in conjunction with the U.S. built calorimeter will complement and extend the ongoing investigations at the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC), the DOE’s flagship facility in this field, at the Brookhaven National Laboratory. The 2002 Nuclear Science Advisory Committee (NSAC) Long Range Plan recommended that the U.S. heavy ion community participate in the LHC heavy ion program with a focused effort which complements the RHIC program. Specifically, the plan recommended that the program focus on the measurement of probes produced in hard processes. Hard processes will play a dominant role in collisions at the much greater collision energy (√s) of the LHC, and the ALICE EMCal would be the primary instrument within the ALICE experiment for the exploration of these hard processes. The scientific concept that requires the addition of an electromagnetic calorimeter to the ALICE experiment has been thoroughly vetted in a long series of lower energy measurements in experiments at RHIC. In these experiments, electromagnetic calorimetry combined with precision tracking of charged hadrons has become the primary method to trigger on and study hard probes in relativistic heavy ion collisions at RHIC. In its recent sub-committee study “U.S. Program in Heavy Ion Nuclear Physics: Scientific Opportunities and Research Requirements”, the NSAC concluded that: “The developing LHC facility at CERN offers outstanding opportunities for new discoveries in relativistic heavy ion physics, driven by the large increase in center of mass energy, which generates different initial conditions and a larger kinematic reach for hard probes.” III. Functional Requirements The ALICE EMCal project must deliver an electromagnetic calorimeter with acceptance sufficient2 for jet reconstruction in central Pb-Pb collisions and an energy resolution and an electromagnetic shower shape determination sufficient for πο/γ discrimination up to PT ~ 30 GeV/c in central Pb-Pb collisions. These are the most crucial considerations that the detector design must meet for the ALICE-USA physics program. The primary detector design goal is to preserve these latter parameters at the lowest possible cost. The corresponding technical scope and performance specifications required at CD-4 are described in Tables V.1, V.2, and V.3, respectively. Summarizing from the ALICE EMCal Requirements Document, the system parameters desired for the ALICE EMCal are as follows:

1. Large effective acceptance for jets with analysis cones up to radii R=0.5. This is satisfied by a detector spanning 107 degrees in azimuth and 1.4 units of pseudo rapidity.

2. A photon or electron energy resolution better than or equal to σ(Ε)/Ε= ⊕ 3% averaged over the full detector acceptance at energies above 2 GeV and less than 100 GeV. At this resolution, the ALICE EMCal energy measurement for

2 i.e., an acceptance sufficient to provide adequate statistics to permit fragmentation function reconstruction for single inclusive jets with PT up to ~150 GeV/c.


7

electrons is comparable to, or better than, the ALICE tracking system momentum measurement for PT>20 GeV/c.

3. A detector granularity and analog noise sufficient for πο /γ discrimination in central Pb-Pb collisions out to transverse momenta of ~30 GeV/c. This requires greater than a factor of 2 suppression of the πο background at this transverse momentum based on shower shape only.

IV. Project Overview The ALICE EMCal is a joint U.S./French/Italian project. The ALICE Experiment can accommodate up to 10+1/3+1/3 detector units3 or EMCal “super modules”, of which 7+1/3+1/3 are included in the scope of this DOE MIE project. The International EMcal Project is being managed within ALICE in a manner identical to that which has proved successful for all other ALICE sub-systems. A management board (EMCal-MB) has been created with representation from all three national groups. This Board is responsible for the overall coordination of the three national efforts contributing to the project (French-IN2P3, Italian-INFN, and U.S.-DOE) to insure the most efficient utilization of resources, monitor technical matters bearing on design, fabrication and quality control and to nurture the development of the combined EMCal scientific program within ALICE. The U.S. Contractor Project Manager (T.M. Cormier) chairs the EMCal-MB and the U.S. Deputy Contractor Project Manager (J. Rasson) serves as Technical Coordinator for the full International EMCal Project. In the execution of its responsibility to ensure the success and productivity of the international EMCal project, the MB has coordinated the development of a single EMCal final design, a single set of assembly tools and procedures, a single set of QA/QC protocols and a single test, calibration and commissioning procedure. This is done to ensure that the EMCal will function as a single detector within ALICE and quickly achieve the common scientific goals of all three national groups. Within the overarching coordinating structure provided by the EMCal-MB, each of the three national projects retains full responsibility for its own deliverables. These responsibilities are formalized in three separate Construction Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs) between each of the national groups and CERN. No MOUs are emplaced between the national groups, but the content of agreements between the national groups is written into the individual MOUs with CERN. In the case of the U.S. project, this construction MOU will, by agreement with DOE NP, be signed by the Director of the Nuclear Science Division at LBNL on behalf of and representing all of the ALICE-USA institutions. The DOE MIE deliverables are discussed in detail below in section V. Briefly, the DOE MIE will provide approximately 72% of the full detector acceptance. This portion of the full ALICE-EMCal acceptance produces a completely functional detector suitable to address the ALICE-USA physics goals. The technical activities within the MIE project may be divided into two main areas: (1) R&D, and (2) Detector design, fabrication, integration, calibration and commissioning.

3 This notation indicates 10 full size super modules and two 1/3 size super modules.


8

IV.1 R&D A substantial program of pre-conceptual R&D was completed prior to CD-0 and R&D continued through the time period between CD-0 and CD-1. The objective of the R&D was to explore detector technology options and study detector performance for these technology alternatives. Prior to CD-0, an approximately 0.5m x 0.5m prototype was operated in a test beam at Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory (FNAL) to explore operational features of the preferred mechanical/optical technology. The results of the test strongly supported the basic conceptual design and only minor revisions in the mechanical and optical design were necessary. During the first full year of the MIE, R&D efforts continued with the completion of another small prototype built from modules of the final design followed by a second test beam experiment performed on the CERN SPS and PS accelerators. The goal of this second test beam was to establish the operational characteristics of these modules, so that further progress could be made on software and simulation effort, and to demonstrate integration with ALICE online and data acquisition (DAQ) in a full systems test under realistic conditions with beam. This final proof of principle exercise also allowed a full test of detector assembly procedures and tooling and enabled an important verification of material, components and labor cost estimates that define the cost and schedule baseline of this MIE project. IV.2 Fabrication In the following sections, the major systems and activities in the fabrication phase of the project are summarized. IV.2.1 Detector Modules and Super Modules Design and Fabrication The full acceptance electromagnetic calorimeter consists of a barrel section providing coverage for a 107o arc in azimuth and 1.4 units of pseudo rapidity along the beam direction (Figure IV.1). The full coverage is built up from effectively 10 2/3 separate “super modules” spanning this acceptance. Each full size super module, which is the detector building block handled at installation time, thus corresponds to approximately 9% of the total detector area. As discussed in detail in section V., the U.S. DOE scope comprises approximately 72% of the full detector acceptance. Each super module is finely segmented into individual energy-measuring channels called “towers”. There are a total of 12,288 separate towers in the full detector. Each of these towers is a basic detection sensor of the detector capable of high-resolution measurements of electromagnetic energy.


9

IV.2.2 Electronics Electromagnetic energy deposition in the towers produces scintillation light which is transported over optical fibers within the tower to a 5x5 mm2 Avalanche Photo Diode (APD) which converts scintillation light into the electrical signal from the tower. A charge sensitive preamplifier is integrated directly with each APD. These electrical signals are sampled 4 - 5 times in a flash Analog-to-Digital Converter (ADC) on the front end electronics (FEE) boards and passed through a readout control unit (RCU) to data acquisition (DAQ). In parallel, the detector reads out to a trigger processor unit (TRU) which forms sliding 2x2 tower sums for electromagnetic triggers and to a patch trigger processor for jet triggers. The electronics associated with each detector super module resides in a water-cooled crate mechanically attached to the super module and electrically cabled to each tower of the super module. Each of the super modules will include the associated electronics described here. Information from the ALICE EMCal readout electronics is transmitted directly in digital format to ALICE DAQ over optical fibers originating on the RCUs. DAQ software and hardware for the ALICE EMCal are the responsibility of the ALICE project. The ALICE DAQ is responsible for processing and storage of ALICE EMCal generated data. The ALICE EMCal project is required only to satisfy the interface specifications of the DAQ receiver boards and high-level trigger (HLT) hardware. V. Technical Scope and Deliverables The DOE MIE technical scope and deliverables associated with the ALICE EMCal project are described in this section and presented in Table V.2 in terms of the scope

Figure IV.1 The conceptual layout of the full ALICE-EMCal on its support structure


10

associated with a single functional super module described in Table V.1. The ALICE EMCal project will be complete when all DOE MIE deliverables have been received, tested and assembled at the ALICE detector site at CERN. The scope includes the installation of one super module into the ALICE detector, and its operation as described in the CD-4 performance specifications given below in Table V.3. Limiting the scope to the installation of only the first super module largely decouples the project schedule from the CERN/LHC run schedule, which is beyond the control of the project. The scope as described below produces a fully functional electromagnetic calorimeter capable of addressing the ALICE-USA physics program with an acceptance equal to 72% of the full acceptance discussed in section IV.2. Table V.1 The scope associated with a single functional full-size super module Table V.2 The U.S. project scope in terms of functional super modules presented in Table V.1 The French and Italian project responsibilities and contributions to this MIE were finalized in the post CD-1 period. By the time of CD-2/3, the French team had been funded by IN2P3 to contribute substantially to the mechanical design, the hardware associated with the EMCal support structure, to provide super module installation tooling, to design and fabricate the jet trigger, and to conduct the final assembly and calibration of four (4) U.S. super modules. As of October 2008, all of these contributions

o 288 single modules with calibration light source, configured in 24 strip modules and mounted in a super module crate; this provides 1,152 towers with one Hamamatsu S8664-55 APD and charge sensitive preamp each connected to a Front End Electronics (FEE) board; water cooled FEE crates with LV power and control; 1,152 HV Channels with control; 1,152 FEE digitization and readout channels through readout control unit (included in project scope); 288 EM trigger channels through 3 trigger region units (TRU) (included in project scope); 1 readout channel to jet patch trigger board (included in project scope); 1 connection to the detector control system (DCS); readout of all modules complies with the interface specifications of the DAQ receiver boards and high-level trigger (HLT) hardware.

Seven (7) full-size and two (2) 1/3-size functional super sodules subjected to integrated systems testing and pre- calibrated with cosmic rays, delivered to ALICE at the LHC Point-2 site and ready for installation; all mechanical systems required to handle and install super modules into the ALICE experiment and the associated system integration activities including mechanical support, cooling, power distribution, cable trays, and all conventional systems required for EMCal operation in ALICE; installation into the ALICE experiment and operation in an LHC run of the first super module.


11

have been delivered with the exception of the jet trigger, which is in final prototype testing, and the U.S. super module assembly and calibration, which is not scheduled to start in France until 2009. The Italians are funded by INFN to contribute to the mechanical design and the hardware associated with super module structure. As of October 2008, all of these contributions are being delivered on schedule. In addition, the French and Italians will independently fabricate an additional three functional super modules outside the scope of US project. They will bear full responsibility to deliver these three super modules under the conditions of their respective Construction MOUs with CERN. The full range of collaboration between the U.S. and European projects is detailed in “A Letter of Intent to Collaborate” (EMCal document EMCal.6.1.v1). The estimated value of the in-kind contributions to the DOE MIE scope and the treatment of the associated contingency on these contributions are discussed in section VIII.5.1 and Table VIII.5 of this document. The performance specifications required at CD-4 are described below in Table V.3


12

Table V.3 CD-4 Acceptance Criteria

• All absolute gain curves for all APDs in all 7+1/3+1/3 functional super modules will be determined to a precision of < 5% (RMS) for gains resulting from applied HV in the range of 0 to 400V. This requirement guarantees that gains can be efficiently adjusted during calibrations, and initial trigger settings can be made at the first run start-up. The tests required to establish that this CD-4 requirement is met will be performed at the U.S. APD test facility during the course of component assembly.

• All towers and readout channels of all U.S. functional super modules will have an absolute energy pre-calibration to a precision of <10% RMS using cosmic rays. This cosmic ray calibration will be transferred to the light emitting diode (LED) calibration and monitoring system to allow rapid absolute gain setting and monitoring at startup. This requirement guarantees that early LHC run data will be sufficiently calibrated to permit initial reconstruction of electrons and ποs required to begin the calibration bootstrap process. The tests required to establish that this CD-4 requirement is met will be performed at the super module assembly and test facilities in Yale and LPSC Grenoble during the course of assembly and integration. Dedicated, identical cosmic test equipment will be available at the two sites and the measurements will be performed and archived by scientific team members.

• When a super module arrives at CERN, it will already have been tested and fully calibrated with cosmic rays at the Yale or Grenoble assembly sites. Upon delivery to the CERN/LHC Point-2 surface facilities, each super module will be subjected to an integrated system test using the calibrated LED system to verify that no performance degradation has occurred during shipping from the assembly sites. This acceptance test will:

o exercise all electronic channels, including trigger, to verify 100% functionality of all APDs and preamps; and

o power-up all channels to pre-calibrated set points and take calibrated LED data to verify that the LED peak in each tower is within 15% of the same channel as it was after initial cosmic calibration, when the calibration voltage is applied.

• One super module will be installed and fully integrated into the ALICE

detector and will have participated in LHC running. Analysis of actual run data to be performed at U.S. collaborating institutions will demonstrate a global energy calibration precise to <2% and a Gaussian electromagnetic energy resolution better than σ(Ε)/Ε= ⊕ 3%. Offline analysis of electromagnetic shower and jet triggered data will validate the functionality of the EMCal trigger data stream in the ALICE Level-1 (L1) trigger system.


13

The CD-4 criteria given above are sufficient to meet the goals of the ALICE-USA physics program and satisfy the specifications of the ALICE EMCal requirements document. It is anticipated, however, that the ultimate performance of the detector will exceed its CD-4 acceptance criteria. The ultimate performance is expected to be reached after the complete analysis of one full ALICE-year of running with the full complement of U.S. super modules installed and is described below in Table V.4.

Table V.4 Ultimate expected performance one analysis year after CD-4

VI. Alternative Analysis Substantial R&D and pre-conceptual design studies over the past several years were carried out and the detector technology needed to satisfy the ALICE-USA physics requirements was identified. A prototype detector was assembled and tested in beam to allow a critical evaluation of performance parameters. During this process, a number of alternatives in detector design were considered including both scintillation and Cerenkov crystal, and scintillator/Pb tile-fiber sampling calorimeters. Based on performance, integration considerations, and cost, the current design, as described above, has been chosen. Manufacturing studies were also undertaken to establish “proof of principle” mass production techniques in the key areas of detector manufacturing and electronics. The concept of the present moderate resolution, large acceptance, “Shashlik” sampling electromagnetic calorimeter has emerged from this R&D. The ALICE-USA Collaboration at large and the LHCC, the LHC’s detector advisory committee, has reviewed the Requirements Document (document EMCal.3.2.v1), the Conceptual Design Report and supporting test results, and endorses the current concept. Alternative total detector acceptances were considered. The acceptance of the calorimeter, effectively its net surface area, has a stronger than linear bearing on the scope of the proposed physics program. This results because the objects of primary interest, hadronic jets, are finite size objects with a cone-like topology that require a well defined minimum detector surface area before the detection efficiency rises above zero. For example, simulations show that the detection efficiency for jets of dimensionless cone radius R=0.5 rises by approximately a factor of nine between six super modules and

• All towers and readout channels of all functional super modules will have an

absolute energy calibration to the precision of <2% using tracked conversion electrons, πο, J/ψ → e+e- and/or other calibration standards. It is estimated that the ultimate precision of the energy calibration of the detector will approach ~1% after a few years of running but <2% will be achieved in the first year.

• The full complement of super modules will have been fully integrated into the

ALICE detector and have participated in LHC running. Analysis of actual run data will demonstrate a global energy calibration precise to <2% and a Gaussian energy resolution better than σ(Ε)/Ε=

€

12.5%/ E ⊕ 2.5%.


14

eight super modules. Jets of smaller radii exhibit less dramatic dependence on the detector acceptance, but the qualitative result remains – a reduction in the active surface area of the detector significantly reduces the effective jet efficiency and therefore the impact of the U.S. program in ALICE. VII. Management Organization This section discusses the project management structure and practices governing detector design and fabrication. VII.1 Project Management Responsibilities This document provides the management organization and delineates responsibilities within the ALICE EMCal MIE project. Figure VII.1 shows the management organizational chart. VII.1.1 Department of Energy Within the DOE’s Office of Science, the Office of Nuclear Physics has overall responsibility for the ALICE Electromagnetic Calorimeter. The Acquisition Executive (AE) is Jehanne Gillo, Director of the NP Facilities and Project Management Division. As such, she has full responsibility for project planning and execution, and for establishing broad policies and requirements for achieving project goals. Responsibilities: The ALICE EMCal Acquisition Executive responsibilities include: • Chairs the Energy Systems Acquisition Advisory Board (ESAAB) Equivalent Board. • Approves Critical Decisions and Level-1 baseline changes. • Approves the Project Execution Plan. • Conducts Quarterly Project Reviews. • Ensures independent project reviews are conducted.


15

Figure VII.1 ALICE-EMCal Project Management Organizational Chart


16

The ALICE EMCal Program Manager is Helmut Marsiske, Program Manager for Instrumentation in the Facilities and Project Management Division in the Office of Nuclear Physics. Within NP, the Division is responsible for planning and constructing instrumentation to provide special scientific and research capabilities to serve the needs of U.S. universities, industry, and private and Federal laboratories. The Division has direct responsibility for providing funding, and programmatic guidance to the ALICE EMCal project. Responsibilities: The ALICE EMCal Program Manager responsibilities include: • Provides programmatic direction for ALICE EMCal via the Federal Project Director. • Functions as DOE headquarters point-of-contact for MIE matters. • Oversees MIE progress and organizes reviews as necessary. • Prepares, defends, and provides project budget with support from the field

organizations. • Reviews and provides recommendations to the AE on Level 1 baseline changes. • Controls other changes to MIE baselines in accordance with the PEP. • Monitors Critical Decision, Level 1 and 2 technical, cost, and schedule milestones. • Participates in Quarterly Reviews, ESAAB Equivalent Board meetings, and project

reviews. • Ensures ES&H requirements are implemented by the project. • Coordinates with other SC Staff offices, HQ program offices and the DOE Office of

Engineering and Construction Management (OECM). The ALICE EMCal Federal Project Director is B. Savnik from the Berkeley Site Office (BSO). Responsibilities: The Federal Project Director responsibilities include: • Overall responsibility for planning, implementing, and completing ALICE EMCal. • Provides overall MIE management oversight. • Issues work authorization. • Provides necessary funds via approved financial plans. • Manages and allocates the contingency funds according to the procedure defined in

the Baseline Change Control. • Chairs the Baseline Change Control Board (BCCB), and approves Level-2 Baseline

Changes. • Chairs the Integrated Project Team. • Submits project documents and critical decisions to DOE and reports project

progress. • Ensures that the MIE complies with applicable environment, safety and health

(ES&H) requirements (e.g. National Environmental Policy Act [NEPA] requirements).


17

VII.1.2 Host Laboratory and Director of the Nuclear Science Division Host Laboratory: The Host Laboratory is defined as the lead laboratory that is fully responsible for the construction of the ALICE EMCal and assumes fiscal responsibility for the MIE. LBNL will be the Host Laboratory during the R&D, construction and testing of ALICE EMCal and will be responsible for ensuring that the manpower and necessary infrastructure are provided. Director of the Nuclear Science Division at LBNL: Funding for this project will be directed through the LBNL Nuclear Science Division (NSD). Thus, ultimate fiscal and management Contractor responsibility for the fabrication of the ALICE EMCal MIE resides with the NSD Director, T.J.M. Symons. Responsibilities: The NSD Director shall be administratively and fiscally responsible for the entire R&D effort and the MIE. In particular the Director must provide the following: • Overall management oversight for all aspects of the MIE. • Appoint the Contractor Project Manager. • Approve key personnel appointments made by the Contractor Project Manager. • Approve major subcontracts recommended by the Contractor Project Manager. • Ensure that adequate staff and resources are available to complete ALICE EMCal in a

timely and cost effective manner (within constraints of the funding provided by DOE).

• Ensure that ALICE EMCal has demonstrated that it meets the functional requirements.

• Provide documentation and access to information necessary for operation of ALICE EMCal at CERN.

• Ensure the work is performed safely and in compliance with the Integrated Safety Management (ISM) rules.

VII.1.3 Contractor Project Manager (CPM) The LBNL NSD Director has appointed Professor T.M.Cormier LBNL /Wayne State University (WSU) as the ALICE EMCal Contractor Project Manager. Responsibilities: The CPM shall report directly to the NSD Director and will be in charge of the overall management of ALICE EMCal project. The CPM shall appoint the key staff needed for the MIE with the approval of the NSD Director. The Contractor Project Manager also will have the following responsibilities:


18

• Responsible and accountable for the successful execution of contractor’s MIE scope

of ALICE EMCal. • Supports Federal Project Director in implementing DOE project management process. • Provides input on project documentation. • Implements contractor performance measurement system. • Delivers project deliverables as defined in this project execution plan. • Identifies and ensures timely resolution of critical issues within contractor’s control. • Responsible for ALICE EMCal functionality requirements. • Allocates the contingency funds according to the procedure defined in the Baseline

Change Control Procedures. • Acts as the spokesperson for the project to the DOE, the Host Laboratory, other

ALICE-USA participating institutions, the ALICE Collaboration and the scientific community at large. Keeps the ALICE-USA Collaboration and the ALICE Collaboration informed on the status of the ALICE EMCal project by regular updates at collaboration meetings.

• Appoints the Deputy Contractor Project Managers with the concurrence of the Director of the Nuclear Science Division at LBNL.

• Collaborates with the Director of the Nuclear Science Division at LBNL and Deputy Contractor Project Managers to assemble the staff and resources needed to complete the project.

• Advises the Director of the Nuclear Science Division at LBNL on the selection of non-host-site construction teams and sub-contractors and in defining the areas of collaboration and the relationship between LBNL and other institutions participating in ALICE EMCal through Memoranda of Understanding (MOU).

• Recommends major subcontracts to the Director of the Nuclear Science Division at LBNL for approval.

• Ensures the work is performed safely and in compliance with the ISM rules. • Appoints the Quality Assurance Manager (QAM) in consultation with the Deputy

Contractor Project Managers. • Produces necessary ES&H documentation (e.g., Hazards Analysis Documents). • Recommends baseline changes up to Level 2. VII.1.4 Deputy Contractor Project Managers The ALICE EMCal CPM, with the approval of the NSD Director, has appointed two Deputy Contractor Project Managers: J. Rasson (LBNL) and P. Jacobs (LBNL). The Deputy Contractor Project Managers report to the CPM. The Deputy Contractor Project Managers support the function of the CPM by way of both shared and specific responsibilities. The following are responsibilities that the Deputy Contractor Project Managers share: Shared Responsibilities: • Under the direction of, and by delegation from, the Contractor Project Manager,

executes contractor’s MIE scope of ALICE EMCal, and supplies the deliverables on time and within budget.


19

• Collaborates with the Contractor Project Manager to assemble the staff and resources needed to complete ALICE EMCal.

• Collaborates with the Contractor Project Manager in the technical direction of ALICE EMCal project.

• Collaborates with the Contractor Project manager to ensure that work is performed safely and in compliance with the ISM rules.

• Contributes to the preparation of regular reports and project reviews as required by DOE and LBNL.

• Participates in the preparation of project quarterly reports to the DOE • Identifies and ensures timely resolution of critical issues within Deputy Contractor

Project Manager’s control. • Collaborates with the Contractor Project Manager in mitigating project risks. Specific Responsibilities delegated individually to the Deputy Contractor Managers include but are not limited to: J. Rasson Responsibilities: • Develops and maintains the ALICE EMCal documentation. • Communicates the functional requirements to the subsystem managers • Collaborates with the CPM in the development of the ALICE EMCal system design

requirements, including interfaces between subsystems, and methods and practices for achieving these requirements.

• Controls changes in the ALICE EMCal system design requirements, including interfaces between subsystems.

• Responsible for overall engineering safety of project design. • Carries out monthly project progress review and reports results to the Contractor

Project Manager and FPD. • Supervises the LBNL staff of the ALICE EMCal project. • Maintains project files. • Additional responsibilities as delegated by the Contractor Project Manager.


20

P. Jacobs Responsibilities: • Represents the project in discussions with the collaborations concerning physics

requirements and functionality requirements as may arise in the change control process.

• Responsible for simulations that establish and support functionality requirements and CD-4 acceptance criteria.

• Communicates the functional requirements and their relation to physics requirements to the ALICE-USA Collaboration.

• Provides supervisory oversight in the preparation of the of the physics content of ALICE EMCal CDR, TDR and other major ALICE EMCal reports.

• Additional responsibilities as delegated by the Contractor Project Manager. VII.1.5 Subsystem Managers Separate ALICE EMCal Subsystem Managers are responsible for each of the five ALICE EMCal subsystems: ALICE Installation, Mechanical Design and Integration, Detector Fabrication, Electronics and Trigger as shown in Table VII.1. Table VII.1 ALICE EMCal subsystems and subsystem managers ALICE EMCal Subsystem Subsystem Manager Installation Lars Leistam (CERN) Mechanical Integration and Design Manoel Dialinas (SUBATECH, Nantes) Detector Production Vladimir Petrov (Wayne State University) Electronics Terry Awes (ORNL) Trigger Peter Jacobs (LBNL) Subsystem Managers report directly to the CPM and will be responsible for the design, construction, installation, and testing of their respective subsystem, in consultation with the CPM and in accordance with the performance requirements, schedule, and budget. In particular, all subsystem managers have the following general responsibilities: Responsibilities

• Collaborates with the CPM and his Deputies to assemble the staff and resources needed to complete the subsystem.

• Communicates the system design requirements to the sub-system staff. • Ensures that subsystems meet the ALICE EMCal system design requirements,

including interfaces. • Responsible for carrying out the design, construction and assembly of the

subsystem in accordance with the scope, schedule and budget, assuming funding and resources as described in the PEP.

• Provides regular reports on the status of the subsystem to the Contractor Project Manager.

• Ensures the work is performed safely and in compliance with the ISM rules.


21

In addition to these general responsibilities, the subsystem managers have the following specific responsibilities within the DOE scope: Installation The ALICE EMCal CPM has appointed L. Leistam (CERN) as Subsystem Manager for ALICE EMCal Installation. Leistam is the ALICE Project Engineer and has oversight responsibility for all installation activities in ALICE and as such he is responsible for all ALICE EMCal installation and the associated installation tooling and infrastructure. As ALICE EMCal installation subsystem manager he oversees (1) implementation of ALICE EMCal conventional systems and services and their installation consistent with the overall ALICE integration plan, and (2) all infrastructure associated with installation including the EMCal support structure, all super module handling and installation tooling and the physical installation of the first super module. Principal institutional participation in the installation subsystem is limited to CERN. Mechanical Design and Integration The ALICE EMCal CPM has appointed M. Dialinas (Nantes) subsystem manager for Mechanical Design and Integration. Dialinas has overall design and integration responsibility for the ALICE EMCal support structure, Super Module installation tooling, ALICE EMCal module, strip module and super module. Principal institutional participation in Mechanical Design and Integration includes Nantes, LBNL, Subatech, Wayne State, LNF Frascati and INFN Catania. Detector Fabrication The ALICE EMCal CPM has appointed V. Petrov (WSU) subsystem manager for Detector Fabrication. Petrov has overall responsibility for detector component procurement, construction and assembly including Modules, Strip Modules and Super Modules as well as optical and photo sensor elements. Principal institutional participation in detector fabrication includes Wayne State, Yale and Grenoble. Electronics The ALICE EMCal CPM has appointed T. Awes (ORNL) subsystem manager for Electronics. Awes has overall design, procurement, testing, installation and commissioning responsibility for ALICE EMCal electronics beginning with the APD and its charge-sensitive pre amp through the full FEE system through optical cables to ALICE DAQ. Also included is responsibility for electronic conventional systems (LV, HV DC power, etc) and slow controls. Principal participating institutions include ORNL, CERN, University of Tennessee, INFN Catania, Creighton, Purdue, and University of Houston. Trigger The ALICE EMCal CPM has appointed P. Jacobs (LBNL) subsystem manager for the Trigger. Within the trigger subsystem, Jacobs has overall responsibility for design, procurement, testing and commissioning of the ALICE EMCal L1 trigger including the


22

isolated electromagnetic cluster trigger and the jet patch trigger. Also included is responsibility for the HLT software. Principal participating institutions include LBNL, CERN, Grenoble, and Wayne State.

VII.1.6 Quality Assurance Manager (QAM) Q. Li (WSU) will assume the duties of the QAM for the ALICE EMCal project. Responsibilities: • Collaborates with the CPM to ensure the quality of ALICE EMCal. • Ensures that the quality control system is established, implemented, and maintained

in accordance with the ALICE EMCal Quality Assurance Plan. • Provides oversight and support to the partner labs and institutions to ensure a

consistent quality program. VII.1.7 Integrated Project Team The composition of the ALICE EMCal Integrated Project Team (IPT) is given in Table VII.2. Its responsibilities are described in DOE Order 413.3A. The team meets quarterly or as needed. The DOE FPD chairs the IPT. Table VII.2. ALICE EMCal Integrated Project Team

DOE BSO Federal Project Director Barry Savnik (chair) LBNL/WSU Contractor Project Manager T.M Cormier LBNL Deputy Contractor Project Manager J. Rasson LBNL Deputy Contractor Project Manager P. Jacobs DOE BSO Contracting Officer M. Robles LBNL Contracting Officer E. Nasto LBNL ES&H Lead Lead/ALICE EMCal EH&S Liaison

L. Wahl

DOE BSO EH&S S. El Safwany DOE NP Program Manager H. Marsiske VII.1.8 Collaboration Liaisons Liaisons to the ALICE and ALICE-USA collaborations advise the CPM regarding the interests of these collaborations as the detector design, fabrication, and commissioning go forward. The Collaboration Liaisons work with their respective collaborations to monitor and assess project issues that have the potential to impact the ALICE EMCal physics performance. In particular, they are charged with the responsibility to monitor the impact on the physics performance or requirements, of any and all changes in functionality or schedule that might be introduced through the change control process. In addition, they will lead the collaboration review and approval of the initial Physics Requirements Document (completed prior to CD-1) and any revisions, and they participate in the development of the corresponding functional requirements. The ALICE-USA


23

Collaboration Liaison is J.Harris (Yale), National Coordinator of ALICE-USA, and the ALICE Collaboration Liaison is J. Schukraft (CERN), ALICE Spokesperson and Chair of the ALICE Management Board. VII.1.9 Participating Institutions LBNL will be responsible for this MIE. In addition to LBNL personnel, members of the ALICE-USA Collaboration from U.S. Universities and National Laboratories will share major responsibilities for the fabrication of the ALICE EMCal subsystems. These institutions have expertise and past experience in designing and fabricating similar subsystems. An MOU defines the relationship between each institution that has specific fabrication, testing or commissioning responsibilities and LBNL. The full list of ALICE-USA institutions is given below.

† UT Austin is participating in the EMCal MIE project, but is not a member of the ALICE-USA Collaboration.

In addition to the ALICE-USA participating institutions, a number of European institutions are collaborating and contributing resources toward the scope of the MIE:

European Institutions participating in the ALICE-EMCal MIE Project: Nantes, France Grenoble, France Strasbourg, France INFN Catania, Italy LNF Frascati, Italy CERN, Switzerland Jyvaskyla, Finland

ALICE-USA Institutions participating in the ALICE EMCal MIE Project: Cal Poly San Luis Obispo Creighton University University of Houston Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Oak Ridge National Laboratory Purdue University University of Tennessee University of Texas Austin† Wayne State University Yale University


24

The relationship between the U.S. project and the French and Italian collaborators is defined in a Letter of Intent to Collaborate (EMCal document EMCal.6.1.v1). A significant change in contributions from participating institutions has occurred between CD-2/3 and the FY08 Annual Review. The CERN ALICE Team has joined the electronics effort and entered into a Letter of Intent (LOI) with the WSU ALICE Team in which they agree to procure and fabricate EMCal electronics during FY08 and FY09. By agreement, these electronics are then available for purchase by WSU as needed prior to the super module installation over the course of the project. Effectively, the CERN ALICE Team agrees to function as sole-source for EMCal electronics and provide them at actual cost as project funding permits on a just-in-time basis. This amounts to a negotiated purchasing agreement between WSU and CERN. This arrangement has a significant impact on the project schedule. Because the EMCal electronics is now available as needed throughout the project without procurement delay, we have been able to re-baseline the schedule compared to CD-2/3 advancing most control milestones by as much as 6 months. This is discussed further in section VIII. VIII. Schedule and Cost Baseline The ALICE EMCal has been organized into a Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) for purposes of planning, managing and reporting project activities. Work elements are defined to be consistent with discrete increments of project work. Project Management efforts are distributed throughout the project, including conceptual design and R&D. The ALICE EMCal has 5 WBS Level-2 elements:

VIII.1 Schedule The Gantt chart view of the project schedule is shown in Figure VIII.1. The schedule is fully integrated to include DOE and non-DOE contributions to the DOE technical scope. The schedule assumes first significant production procurements in Q2 FY08 and completes delivery of the last super module to CERN in Q2 FY 2011. Project Completion, i.e. CD-4, is expected in Q4 FY 2011. This allows approximately six months of schedule float between the delivery of the last super module to CERN and CD-4.

Level 2 WBS elements


25

Schedule float has been built into the project in the following manner:

1. Lag has been incorporated into the tasks and milestones of the project schedule as deemed necessary by the project team to allow for needed flexibility in the accomplishment of project objectives and deliverables.

2. Learning curves have been integrated into the time estimates used for module, strip module and super module assembly to allow for process development in the first sets of each component.

As needed, the large dollar procurements of material and electronics components have been timed in anticipation of a potential Continuing Resolution process at the beginning of each fiscal year. The critical path is determined by the rate of module production which in turn is set by the project funding profile (component and materials procurement).

Figure VIII.1 The schedule of the high-level WBS elements of the ALICE EMCal MIE


26

VIII.2 Milestones Table VIII.1 shows a list of milestones for the ALICE EMCal MIE. The detector design is primarily based on existing technology and the technical risk in the project is low. The milestones listed here are thus viewed as conservative. The final design was completed and reviewed in Q1 FY 2008. Milestones are assigned to different levels depending on their importance and criticality to other milestones and the overall project schedule. In this document we summarize only Level-1 (Critical Decision), Level-2 (Project Control), and Level-3 (internal project tracking) milestones. These are listed in Table VIII.1. In this table, super module numbers refer exclusively to U.S. super modules (i.e., part of the scope of this MIE) and super module “8” refers to the combination of the two 1/3-size super modules described in Table V.2. Milestones are given both as determined at CD-2/3 and as revised at the FY 2008 annual review. In those cases where an advance of the schedule has occurred, this reflects the impact of the CERN-ALICE participation in the electronics procurement as introduced in section VII.1.9 above. Many of the Level-2 milestones are advance by two quarters and CD-4 is advanced by two quarters. Table VIII.1 Project Level-1, Level-2, and Level-3 Milestones


27

Table VIII.1 Continued - Project Level-3 Milestones

VIII.3 Cost At CD-2/3 the TPC for the project was evaluated to be $13.5 million, in at-year-dollars. The following escalation factors are used: Labor 3% at Universities, 4% at Laboratories and materials 2.6% per year. The estimated budget of $13.5 million includes all DOE base costs, developed “bottom-up” from the lowest appropriate WBS level. The costs shown by fiscal year columns for


28

WBS 1.1 through WBS 1.6 in Table VIII.2 are base costs (i.e., without contingency). The risk- based contingency by WBS is shown in a separate column and totals $1.688 million or 20.0% of the Estimate-To-Complete (ETC) cost, which was evaluated at the start of FY 2009 to be $8.627 million. An additional contingency of $146k is carried on the outstanding balance of $558k of contributed resources, and a total of $647k contingency is not assigned by the risk analysis. Contributed (non-DOE) resources from FY 2009 through project completion, which have an estimated total base value to the project of $558k,and are essential to a successful completion. This amount is the in-kind dollar value to completion that we anticipate to receive from collaborating French and Italian institutions. The delivery of these resources was secured at CD-2/3 under A Letter of Intent to Collaborate (EMCal document EMCal.6.1.v1). This amount is therefore not included in the project TPC. However, to mitigate the risk that these resources might not be provided, a contingency totaling $146k, derived from a risk-based analysis, is included in the budget (26% of estimated contributed resources to completion). The TPC (base + contingency on base + contingency on contributed resources) was determined as $13.500 million. Contributed resources and their associated contingency are discussed further in section VIII.5. The elements of the EMCal could have a useful life of up to 15 years. The components of a total life-cycle cost include: (a) Fabrication, as described in this document; (b) Maintenance and Operation (M&O); and (c) Decommissioning costs. M&O costs attributable to the EMCal, such as consumables, repairs, replacements, and associated labor costs, will be dealt with in a future addendum to the “Memorandum of Understanding for Maintenance and Operation of the ALICE Detector”. The decommissioning of the EMCal covers the disposal of standard electronic, computer, and experimental lab equipment, which must follow accepted standard procedures. The decommissioning activities are not anticipated to be complex or cost prohibitive, and would likely be carried out by U.S. researchers, as is commonly done for pieces of

Table VIII.2 EMCal Project Costs by FY


29

scientific instrumentation. Although a detailed analysis has not been carried out, it is estimated that the decommissioning cost is likely less than $100,000. VIII.4 Funding The ALICE EMCal MIE project will be entirely funded by DOE NP. Collaborating French and Italian institutions supported by L'Institut National de Physique Nucléaire et de Physique des Particules (IN2P3) and Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare (INFN), respectively, are expected to provide technical expertise and resources, as well as in-kind hardware to the MIE. Outside of the scope of the MIE, the French and Italian collaborators are expected to provide an additional three detector super modules. With refinements during the post CD-1 project phase, the estimate for the DOE TPC at CD-2/3 as shown in Table VIII.2 is $13.500 million. The DOE funding profile guidance at CD-2/3 is shown in Table VIII.3, separated into Other Project Cost (OPC), Total Estimated Cost (TEC) and Total Project Cost (TPC). Table VIII.3 ALICE EMCal Project Funding Profile

VIII.5 Contingency Contingency funds are managed in conformance with the policies contained in DOE M 413.3-1 section 3 and as defined in the Baseline Change Control section of this document. VIII.5.1 Contingency Evaluation The process of contingency evaluation is described in detail in the Risk Management Plan (ALICE EMCal document EMCal.4.3.v2). In this section, we give an overview of the strategy and the results of the analysis as it impacts project contingency. The cost control strategy in the EMCal project utilizes both top-down formal risk management as well as bottom-up risk-based contingency reserve to ensure overall cost and schedule performance. Project risk management is based on a top-down risk analysis that identifies all significant cost and schedule risks. The risk management process employs expert risk identification in which potentially significant risk events are evaluated based on the


30

impact to the project. For each risk event, risk-handling strategies are identified that include risk mitigation and monitoring measures. For those most significant risks not yet retired at this point in the project, we have developed mitigation strategies that are taken into account when making decisions about purchasing, production methodologies and schedules, and other significant aspects of project management and execution. Ongoing risk analysis and assessment are integral to the day-to-day operation of the project, as the project management team responds to new vendor quotes, exchange rate fluctuations, further experience with module production, etc. In addition, project management will perform reviews of project risks and risk management performance on a quarterly basis. In preparation for seeking CD-2/3 approval for the project, contingency percentages were derived from a quantitative risk assessment system which was developed and applied successfully in the past to several DOE-funded projects4. Project contingency funds were determined by evaluating every task for cost, technical, schedule and design risks at the lowest appropriate WBS level and then applying a weighting factor to account for single or multiple risks in a single WBS entry. This approach to developing contingency rates, by its nature, considers the current development status of each WBS item, and the uncertainties plus risks in completing the design, construction and testing. For example, parts and components which have been manufactured for one or more of the prototypes and for which firm mass production quotes exist are assigned lower risk. Similarly, labor costs that have been carefully studied through the prototypes are assigned lower risk. Conversely, activities which have received little or no attention in the prototypes, or which have significant design activity remaining, will naturally receive higher contingency percentages in this analysis. As noted above, the total project scope presented in this document includes contributed resources from several ALICE EMCal collaborating institutions with particularly large contributions from European collaborating institutions. These contributed resources played a significant role in the conceptual design and R&D phase of the project. At the beginning of FY 2009, with over 50% of planned contributed resources already delivered to the project, and with a signed LOI in place specifying future contributions, we have re-evaluated the risk associated with these contributed resources and the resulting contingencies are given by WBS category in Table VIII.5. A total contingency of $146k, corresponding to 26% of the estimated in-kind value of contributed resources ($558k), is reserved in our budget (Table VIII.2). This component of the contingency utilizes expert judgment on the part of the project team, considers earlier performance by collaborating institutions and current ongoing interactions with those institutions as to their ability to deliver on their commitments. The quantitative guidelines used to establish the contingency percentages for the DOE MIE costs are listed in Tables VIII.6 and VIII.7 for weight factors Wi and risk factors Ri, respectively. The scalar product of the Risk and Weight vectors, ∑WiRi, defines the 4 For example, STAR at RHIC.


31

WBS category contingency in percent as applied to the corresponding base cost to completion. Expert judgment is used to cross check the calculated contingency as is qualitative comparison with the guidelines of the Risk Registry (EMCal document EMCal.4.4.v1) and general guidelines of the Risk Management Plan. In some cases these comparisons and expert review have lead to an increase in the adopted contingency.

Table VIII.5 Estimated contributed resources and associated contingency for FY 2009 and beyond by level 2 of the WBS, for which credit has been taken in the base budget. Table VIII.6 Contingency weighting factors


32

Table VIII.7 Contingency risk factors


33

The contingency assignment per WBS category resulting from the contingency analysis is shown in Table VIII.8. These contingency amounts were utilized to develop the overall project contingency.

The schedule shown in Figure VIII.1 has been established with a spending profile which retains an approximately constant contingency reserve by FY as a fraction of the base budget by FY.

Table VIII.8 The MIE budget at completion (BAC) by Level-2 WBS category and the corresponding estimated cost to completion (ETC) effective 9/30/08. Also shown is the contingency for each WBS element with its percentage relative to ETC.


34

IX Change Control Changes to the technical, cost and schedule baselines will be controlled using the thresholds described in Table IX.1 All changes that include or exceed Level 3 approval thresholds (as defined in Table IX.1) will be submitted to the CPM using a Project Change Request form (PCR). All PCRs become part of the permanent project documentation maintained by the CPM. All Level-3 PCRs will be reviewed and decided by the CPM in consultation with the Deputy CPMs. For changes exceeding Level 3, the CPM will endorse the request (i.e., recommend approval) to higher authority or reject the request. If endorsed, the CPM will then transmit the PCR to the FPD with recommendations. All Level-2 PCRs will be reviewed by the Baseline Change Control Board (BCCB, see below) and acted on by the FPD. If the request exceeds Level 2, the FPD will submit the PCR to the ALICE EMCal Program Manager at DOE Headquarters for approval. The BCCB consists of the ALICE EMCal FPD (chair), the BSO Manager (or designee), the LBNL NSD Director (or designee), the CPM, and others as directed by the FPD. Technical advisors will be included in the BCCB as needed. The chair has the final responsibility to endorse the PCR. If a PCR is approved, a copy of the approved PCR, together with any qualifications or further analysis or documentation generated in considering the request, is returned to the requestor, and copies are sent to the official at the next higher control level and to the CPM for filing. If approval is denied, a copy of the PCR, together with the reasons for denial, is returned to the requestor, and a copy is filed. The official at the next higher control level may review the granted change to ensure proper application of the procedure and consistency of the change with the goals and boundary conditions of the project.


35

Table IX.1. Summary of Baseline Change Control Thresholds. “Level-N” in the Schedule column refers to the milestone levels in Table VIII.1.

Authorizing Organizational Element Level

Cost

Schedule

Technical Scope

DOE-NP Associate Director Level 0

≥ 25% cumulative increase in TPC

≥ 6 months cumulative delay in a Level-1 milestone date

Any change in scope and/or performance affecting Mission Need

DOE-NP Program Manager Level 1

Any increase in TPC, or ≥ $500K cumulative contingency allocation

≥ 3 months cumulative delay in a Level-1 milestone date

Any changes affecting CD-4 performance deliverables (Table V.3)

DOE-BSO Federal Project Director Level 2

≥ $250K cumulative increase in a WBS Level-2 element, or ≥ $250K cumulative contingency allocation

≥ 1 month delay in a Level-1 milestone date, or ≥ 3 months cumulative delay in a Level-2 milestone date

Any deviation from technical deliverables (Tables V.1 and V.2) that does not affect expected performance

ALICE EMCal Contractor Project Manager Level 3

≥ $50K increase in a WBS Level-2 element

≥ 1 month delay of a Level-2 milestone date

Any significant change in the System Requirements Document

X Analyses, Assessments, and Plans X.1 Environment, Safety and Health The basic ALICE EMCal detector design concept is very similar to other calorimeters successfully constructed by the present project team for the STAR detector at RHIC, the AGS experiment E864, and the Aleph detector at CERN. Therefore, the significant safety and environmental hazards associated with this project are expected to present almost identical concerns as those encountered in past detectors. Given this general appreciation for the risks and hazards associated with calorimeter construction and commissioning, a detailed safety plan has been generated (documents number EMCal.2.1.v1 and EMCal.2.2.v1). For the purposes of this Project Execution Plan, the underlying philosophy of the ALICE EMCal safety plan is presented.


36

X.1.1 Integrated Safety Management Policy This ALICE EMCal safety plan identifies the steps that will be taken to manage and control risks to an acceptable level in accordance with LBNL’s Integrated Environment, Health and Safety Management Policy, PUB-3140. Environment, safety and health (ES&H) concerns will be integrated into all phases of planning and implementation through to the final design and production processes of ALICE EMCal by applying the Integrated Safety Management (ISM) policy. This plan requires that safety management functions and principles apply to all activities through all phases of the project. The ALICE EMCal management team is committed to conducting all work so that the mission can be accomplished with adequate controls in place to protect the public, the workers, and the environment. X.1.2 ES&H Line Management As discussed in section X.1.1, the Integrated Safety Management policy employed in the ALICE EMCal project requires the full commitment of the project management team. The line management of each organization involved in the project retains supervisory authority of their personnel and responsibility for the safety of work at their home Laboratory or University. Line management in each Laboratory and University will inform the CPM about their Laboratory’s management and ES&H organization structures. Any safety related concerns of ALICE EMCal personnel are to be communicated to the CPM, the line management where the concern occurs and the employee’s home Laboratory or University. The ALICE EMCal line management, described in section VII of this document, is responsible for the preparation of all safety reports for the project. In particular, we emphasize here the line management authority for ES&H vests executive authority with the LBNL NSD Director through the CPM and his Deputies. X.1.3 Fabrication and Assembly Work at Wayne State University (WSU) and Yale Since the bulk of the fabrication and assembly will take place at WSU and Yale under subcontract from LBNL, the ALICE EMCal management team is planning to implement specific steps to insure that all work is carried out in a manner consistent with PUB-3000, LBNL’s Health and Safety Manual to protect project personnel, equipment and the environment. Both WSU and Yale have very extensive ES&H programs in place. WSU has an excellent track record as was demonstrated during the design and construction of the electromagnetic calorimeter for the STAR detector at RHIC and the AGS E864 detector. Detailed information about the ES&H programs at WSU and Yale can be found at the following URLs: http://www.oehs.wayne.edu/ and http://www.yale.edu/oehs/, respectively.


37

X.1.4 Installation and Commissioning Work at CERN

On site at CERN, installation of general infrastructure and super modules, as well as operational ES&H concerns will be managed directly by CERN’s Safety Commission: http://safety-commission.web.cern.ch/safety-commission/SC-site/index.html. CERN has extensive experience in similar operations. Because of CERN’s international status and because some of its activities are unique in Europe, CERN has its own specific safety regulations based on those of the Member States, with a bias in favor of those safety regulations that are the most rigorous. In all cases, CERN is required to comply with the rules in force on the territory of the Host States, and to ensure that a level of safety is maintained that is at least equivalent to that provided for by the latter’s own regulations.

In addition, EMCal project management in collaboration with ALICE management will communicate safety expectations and training requirements to U.S. personnel working on this project at CERN to ensure that U.S. personnel are as knowledgeable and comfortable with CERN’s work environment and requirements as when working at any DOE National Laboratory. This includes but is not limited to:

• Understanding supervisory, oversight responsibilities for specific installation and commissioning jobs (e.g. CERN vs US);

• Procedures for formalizing work planning as needed to evaluate and mitigate job hazards and obtain approvals as needed from the Group Leader in Matters of Safety (GLIMOS), the Flamable Gas Safety Officer (FGSO), the Radiation Safety Officer (RSO) and the Link Person to the Installation Nucleaire de Base (INB) regulations that govern all nuclear facilities in France.

As with all ES&H matters in this project, executive authority and reporting responsibility for all of the above vests with the LBNL NSD Director through the CPM and his Deputies.

X.1.5 NEPA and CEQA A NEPA review has been completed and a determination made that the ALICE EMCal project is included under a Categorical Exclusion covering a range of research and related activities. Work at LBNL is covered for California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) purposes under existing CEQA documentation. X.2 Quality Assurance The ALICE EMCal project team defines Quality as the “fitness of an item or design for its intended use” and Quality Assurance (QA) as “the set of actions taken to avoid known hazards to quality and to detect and correct poor results.” The project team has formulated an ALICE EMCal QA plan (document EMCal.4.5.v1) which details how the ALICE EMCal project will deliver a quality product consistent with LBNL QA policy:


38

• It is the policy of the Ernest Orlando Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory to carry out all our activities that contribute to the scientific and operational objectives of the ALICE Electromagnetic Calorimeter (EMCal) Project in a reliable, safe, and quality focused manner. The EMCal Quality Assurance Plan (EMCal/QAP EMCal.4.5.v1) provides the framework for a results-oriented management system that focuses on performing work safely and meeting mission and customer expectations efficiently through process improvement. It is line management’s responsibility to plan for and achieve compliance with the objectives of the EMCal/QAP.

X.3 Risk Management The ALICE EMCal project team views risk management as an ongoing task that is accomplished using a formalized plan to identify, analyze, mitigate and monitor the risks that arise during the course of completing the project. Risk is a measure of the potential for failing to achieve overall project objectives within the defined scope, cost, schedule and technical constraints. ALICE EMCal has established its own formal Risk Management Plan (document EMCal.4.3.v1) using the guidelines set forth in Section 14 of DOE M 413.3-1, Project Management for the Acquisition of Capital Assets. The purpose of this analysis is not solely to avoid risks, but to understand the risks associated with a project and devise methodologies and strategies for managing them.

The final responsibility for risk management rests with the CPM. However, effective risk management is a multi-step process that requires continued involvement of all project members, and the ALICE EMCal management will encourage such involvement. ALICE EMCal uses key procedures proven to be an effective strategy in the management of risk on scientific projects: planning, assessment, handling and monitoring.

Cost and Schedule Baseline: ALICE EMCal is judged to be low risk in terms of completing the MIE on cost and on schedule. The cost estimates are based mainly on existing quotes for the detector parts and components, actual cost of production of prototype items, and to a significantly lesser degree on budgetary quotes and engineering experience. To the extent feasible, procurements have been accomplished by fixed-price contracts awarded on the basis of competitive bids. Incremental awards to multiple subcontractors to assure total quantity or delivery have been performed to reduce schedule risk. The EMCal project includes foreign procurements. Due to the cost risk associated with an unfavorable dollar vs. Euro or dollar vs. Yen exchange rate, additional contingency has been applied to several key items. In addition, risk has been reduced by placing early procurements of some of these key items. Adequate cost and schedule contingencies are included in the MIE’s performance baselines. The current contingency for the remaining fabrication costs totals $1.688 million or 20% of ETC. In addition, $146k (or 26%) of contingency is carried to cover the risks associated with planned contributed resources based on evaluating the risk associated with the likelihood that a given MOU may not be fully executed. An additional contingency of $647k remains, which is unassigned by the risk analysis at this point.


39

Congressional budget actions could delay the placement of procurements during the early part of each fiscal year. To mitigate this risk, the project team has attempted to avoid scheduling critical procurements for the first quarter of any fiscal year, and it is expected that some funds will be carried over from a previous fiscal year into the next. Funding and Budget Management: ALICE EMCal is budgeted as an MIE in the DOE NP Program starting in FY 2007. The estimated funding to complete the project is currently planned in the NP five-year planning scenario. Funding will be provided by NP to LBNL per the terms of its management and operating (M&O) contract with DOE. These funds are under the management of the ALICE EMCal FPD at the DOE BSO. LBNL will be responsible for distributing the funds to collaborating institutions. Technology and Engineering: The technical risks of the ALICE EMCal project are low. R&D efforts have decreased the risk related to the design being unable to reach desired performance specifications critical to the ALICE-USA science program. This work culminated in a full systems test in a beam at FNAL of a 16-module prototype detector, and a subsequent test in October of 2007 at the SPS and PS accelerators at CERN. The performance of prototype detectors in these tests substantially exceeded minimum requirements. X.4 Value Engineering Value Engineering (VE) is a systematic method to improve the "Value" of goods and services using a careful examination of function. Value, as defined in this context, is qualitatively the ratio of Function to Cost. Value can therefore be increased by either improving the Function or reducing the cost. It is a primary tenet of Value Engineering that basic functions be preserved and not be reduced as a consequence of pursuing Value improvements. As applied to the ALICE EMCal, this implies a careful examination and validation of Detector Requirements coupled with an Alternative Analysis of engineering and design choices with special attention to cost. The EMCal Project Value Engineering (VE) studies followed the traditional approach to VE at various stages of the project’s Critical Decision process. Prior to CD-0 as part of the EMCal proposal process to DOE and NSAC, a review team was formed by project management (VE team) including collaboration members expert in both calorimetry in heavy ion physics and the intended physics goals of the ALICE-USA EMCal. This led the collaboration to adopt the EMCal baseline physics and functionality requirements as documented in EMCal document EMCal.3.2.v1. The first engineering solution to meet the functionality requirements resulted in a large tile-fiber calorimeter very similar to the STAR calorimeter at RHIC. The technology in the STAR detector was familiar to many in the ALICE EMCal collaboration and known to be a generally low-cost solution for large areas at modest resolution. It was thus natural to assume this as the starting point prior to CD-0. In the ramp up to CD-0, and at a time when the EMCal support structure design and integration studies were about to begin, project management convened the VE team to study alternative detector designs consistent with the functionality requirements. The


40

charge to the VE team was to generally examine Value Engineering issues with particular attention to integration costs which were becoming substantial as the integration of the tile-fiber calorimeter was investigated. The result of this analysis was a recommendation to explore a Shashlik module design. Detailed cost comparisons, engineering risk analysis and performance considerations strongly favored changing the design and the Shashlik design was ultimately presented at CD-0 as the baseline design. With minor revisions to facilitate integration, this design has become the basis of the EMCal final design at CD-2/3. It is estimated that the VE analysis has resulted in a minimum cost savings of $1M (largely in optical fiber material and associated labor costs) while producing a detector with approximately 25% better performance. The VE analysis has continued with the Shashlik design. A team of outside experts was convened on October 3 and 4, 2007 to examine the completeness, design effectiveness and construction readiness for both EMCal mechanical systems and EMCal electronics. Those reviews motivated additional design optimization resulting in cost saving measures which have been implemented in the strip module strong backs and other structural components of the modules. In addition, management developed a plan to utilize two super module assembly facilities, one at Yale University and a second in Europe at LSPC in Grenoble, France. This plan resulted in cost saving to the project, an acceleration of the assembly schedule and a reduction of project risk. X.5 Preliminary Security Vulnerability Assessment X.5.1 Physical Security The ALICE EMCAL project is led by LBNL, a Class C Threat Level IV Facility of the Department of Energy. LBNL has an approved Site Security Plan which integrates key security controls into unclassified research work at LBNL and helps to protect the site and its work. The EMCal will be installed and operated at CERN which has restricted access to authorized individuals, thus providing the necessary physical security plan, and its threat assessment has been reviewed by DOE through the Security Survey Team in cooperation with the BSO. ALICE EMCAL is an unclassified research project with no particular security concerns and fits within LBNL security envelope. The project is committed to follow the LBNL Site Security Plan. X.5.2 Cyber Security The ALICE EMCAL detector will be installed and operated at CERN. Data analysis will take place in the context of the LBNL Research and Operations Enclave and its associated Cyber Security Program Plan, which is fully certified and accredited per DOE 205.1. LBNL conducts continuous monitoring of the security controls in this enclave, including continuous intrusion prevention, continuous vulnerability scanning, and detailed forensic


41

logging. The program has been validated by external peer reviews, external assessments, continuous external vulnerability scanning conducted by DOE Health Safety and Security, numerous external audits, and the DOE SC Site Assistance Visit process. The program was recently called "best in class" by the Office of Science and has received high marks in annual performance reviews. Security planning and performance information is available from the Computer Protection Program [email protected] and ALICE EMCAL fits within this envelope. X.6 Project Controls and Reporting System The ALICE EMCal project has been entered into the Project Assessment and Reporting System (PARS) and its status will be updated on a monthly basis by the FPD. The Deputy Contractor Project Manager (J. Rasson) will lead monthly cost and schedule performance reviews based on schedule, cost, and technical data and report the result to the CPM and the FPD. The CPM will lead quarterly overall cost, schedule and technical performance reviews and report the results to the BSO. The FPD will report progress to the DOE NP Program Manager on a quarterly basis. The Office of Nuclear Physics will conduct annual progress reviews with a panel of experts. The standard LBNL accounting system will be the basis for collecting cost data. A direct one-to-one relationship will be established between each WBS element of Level 3 or lower and a separate account code under the LBNL accounting system. Technical performance will be monitored throughout the project to insure conformance to approved functional requirements. Design reviews and performance testing of the completed systems will be used to ensure that the equipment meets the functional requirements.

Date post:	19-Mar-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	19 times
Download:	0 times