Department of Energy

Review Committee Report

on the

Technical, Cost, Schedule, and Management Review

of the

LCLS ULTRAFAST

SCIENCE INSTRUMENTS

(LUSI) PROJECT

August 2008

i

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

A Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Science review of the Linac Coherent Light Source (LCLS) Ultrafast Science Instruments (LUSI) project, to be located at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center (SLAC), was conducted at SLAC in Menlo Park, California on August 19-21, 2008. The review was conducted at the request of the Office of Basic Energy Sciences (BES), and chaired by Mr. Daniel Lehman, Office of Project Assessment. The purpose of the review was to assess all aspects of the project—technical, cost, schedule, management, and environment, safety and health (ES&H). This information would subsequently help in the evaluation of the project’s readiness for Critical Decision (CD) 2, Approve Performance Baseline, which is a prerequisite for proceeding with detailed design.

The Committee concluded that the project should proceed with CD-2 approval.

The project constructs three specialized instrument stations that will complement the initial instrument included in the LCLS construction. The three LUSI instrument stations are X-ray Pump Probe Diffraction, Coherent X-Ray Imaging, and X-Ray Photon Correlation Spectroscopy. Each instrument station is designed to support scientific studies of a certain type, and was identified as a high-priority need by the scientific community, as documented in the LUSI Mission Needs Statement, CD-0, that was approved in August 2005. These instrument stations are designed to use “hard” X-rays (i.e., those at the shorter wavelengths, or higher energies of the LCLS output spectrum, specifically between 4-25 keV).

The Total Project Cost is $60.0 million with a Total Estimated Cost of $55.1 million, which includes a total contingency of $12.9 million. Other Project Costs are $4.9 million.

The overall schedule for LUSI is approximately seven years, starting with CD-0 and ending with CD-4c, Approve Start of Operations, scheduled for August 2012.

The Committees identified several issues to be resolved in the project’s future, including

those described below: The X-ray Pump Probe (XPP). As the first LUSI instrument scheduled to be completed, XPP is under particular pressure to balance “early science” against “efficiency”. Sample exchange/ environment equipment and measurement capability were recently descoped to develop the baseline instrument design. The Committee encouraged LUSI to consider, as funds permit, future

ii

restorations of these features or any other minor investments that can have long-term benefits to the future XPP user program, as well as increasing the cost contingency for the detector. Coherent X-ray Imaging (CXI). The KB mirror focusing is critical and nontrivial to guarantee in installation of procured hardware. Also, a KB mirror manipulator system was a missing component. To address these and other front-end optics issues (e.g., radiation damage testing), the Committee suggested that the project have more X-ray optics expertise than currently planned.

X-ray Correlation Spectroscopy (XCS). Preservation of the X-ray beam’s coherence is

important—in the surface specifications of all optical elements in beam path, and particularly in the split-and-delay optics—the Committee suggested that the project consider using environmental controls (and other means) to ensure beam stability. The Committee also recommended strengthening outreach efforts to the User Community in order to solicit broad input into the instrument design and potential future experimental programs.

Diagnostics/Common Optics. A large offset monochrometer is planned, but its

performance is uncertain, pending details of final design (choice of crystalline materials and cut); therefore, the detailed physics specifications, once developed, should be reviewed by independent X-ray optics experts external to SLAC. Other specific concerns, including the angular stability requirements, are challenging with the monochromator placed up front as planned. In addition surface roughness and microstructure of commercial Be materials may adversely affect beam coherence. Within the next 12 months, preliminary R&D on such commercial lenses should be a priority. The Committee noted that to support future experiments, considerable off-project computational resources may be needed in order to process the X-ray pulse diagnostic data that is collected from wavefront monitors.

Controls/Data Acquisition (DAQ) Systems. These systems are well developed and

early tests of interfaces between the DAQ system and readout electronics for LUSI detectors are going well. Since beam diagnostic information on a pulse-by-pulse basis is important to future experiments, the Committee recommended regularly scheduled meetings between the instrument scientists, diagnostics physicists, and control system design engineers.

The Committee made several other technical recommendations as shown in

the body of this report. Some of these items pertain to LUSI project readiness to receive CD-2 approval, and others have longer-term time horizons.

iii

LUSI planning conforms to the BES program funding profile as presented at the review, and assumes a Continuing Resolution through March 2009. Contingency (33 percent on the estimate to complete) is adequate at this stage of the project and preliminary scope contingency has been identified (at approximately $1 million). The level of detail and basis behind the cost estimate are very good.

The Committee commented that all CD-2 ES&H requirements per DOE Order 413.3A

have been met. Hazards Analysis Report (HAR) has been developed and approved by the DOE/Stanford Site Office for the LUSI instruments.

The Committee noted that all External Independent Review elements were addressed,

supporting design documentation and processes are at an advanced state of development for CD-2, and the instruments’ Team Leaders have signed-off on the Physics Requirements Documents. Design reviews were well-planned. The Committee suggested that the project clarify CD-4 deliverables and coordinate re-structuring of CD-3/CD-4 milestones with BES prior to Project Execution Plan approval, and enhance the instrument team leaders’ participations in LUSI project.

The LUSI project responded adequately to the recommendations from the July 2007 DOE

review. The project was integrated within the LCLS organization: the LUSI project director now reports to the LCLS project director. This enables the LUSI team to take advantage of the systems and expertise already available at LCLS—in particular project controls, procurement services, controls and data management, and safety.

iv

Intentionally Blank

CONTENTS

Executive Summary ......................................................................................................................... i 1. Introduction ...............................................................................................................................1 2. Technical Systems Evaluations .................................................................................................5

2.1 X-ray Pump Probe Diffraction Instrument (WBS 1.2).....................................................5 2.2 Coherent X-ray Imaging Instrument (WBS 1.3) ..............................................................7 2.3 X-ray Photon Correlation Spectroscopy Instrument (WBS 1.4)......................................9 2.4 Diagnostics and Common Optics (WBS 1.5).................................................................11 2.5 Controls/Data Acquistion System (WBS 1.6)................................................................15

3. Environment, Safety and Health..............................................................................................19 4. Cost and Schedule ...................................................................................................................21 5. Project Management (WBS 1.1)..............................................................................................25 Appendices A. Charge Memorandum B. Review Participants C. Review Agenda D. Cost Tables E. Schedule Charts F. Management Table G. EIR Assessment

1

1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background

Now under construction at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center (SLAC), the Linear Coherent Light Source (LCLS) is designed to be the world’s first hard X-ray Free Electron Laser (FEL). Its goal is to produce intense, ultrashort, coherent laser pulses of X-rays with wavelengths between 15 and 1.5 Angstroms. The technical approach is to inject the energetic electron beam from the SLAC LINear ACcelerator (LINAC) into an undulator magnet in order to generate synchrotron radiation of two types—spontaneous emission, as well as “Self Amplified Spontaneous Emission” (SASE) X-rays. When fully operational, the LCLS will be a scientific user facility to enable researchers in the United States and abroad to apply this new X-ray tool to the study of phenomena in ultrafast chemical reaction dynamics, precision imaging of macromolecules, novel physical effects (of atoms, molecules, and condensed matter), and other material systems.

Current plans call for this X-ray beam to be delivered to several endstation locations that

will contain instrumentation to enable experiments of different types to be performed. To maximize the use of LCLS for scientific studies, it is desirable to develop these specialized instrument stations in a timely manner—by constructing them over the next several years, for use as soon as practicable when the LCLS X-ray beam becomes available.

The LCLS Ultrafast Science Instruments (LUSI) project constructs three such specialized

instrument stations as its scope. Each instrument station is designed to support scientific studies of a certain type, and has been identified as a high-priority need by the scientific community, as documented in the LUSI Mission Needs Statement (MNS) (and references therein) that was approved in August 2005 as Critical Decision (CD) Zero. These instrument stations are designed to use hard X-rays (i.e., those at the shorter wavelengths, or higher energies, of the LCLS output spectrum, specifically between 4-25 keV).

The technical objective of the LUSI project is to design, build, and install at LCLS three

X-ray instruments that will complement the initial instrument included in the LCLS construction. This initial LCLS instrument is designed for atomic, molecular, and optical physics studies. The three LUSI instrument stations are X-ray Pump Probe Diffraction, Coherent X-Ray Imaging, and X-Ray Photon Correlation Spectroscopy. The purposes, functions, technical performance parameters, and fuller descriptions of each of these LUSI stations are described in the Conceptual Design Report (CDR) and other project documents. Below is a brief summary of each LUSI instrument station.

2

X-ray Pump Probe (XPP) Diffraction Instrument

This station is designed to probe dynamics of a sample system at ultrafast timescales (e.g., reactions or relaxation processes with subpicosecond timeconstants) using X-rays (i.e., on systems for which X-ray scattering constitutes a useful and informative signal). In this setup, a short pulse of an optical laser creates excitations in a sample, which is then probed by an X-ray pulse that interrogates the sample as it evolves over time after the initial laser excitation. The timing between the optical laser pulse and the X-ray probe pulse is experimentally measured and tuned as a parameter that can be varied. The X-ray pump probe incident upon the sample generates scattered X-rays that are detected in order to measure properties of the excited, transient system and its dynamical evolution. Use of the ultrashort intense LCLS X-ray pulse enables a separate image of the system to be created via the scattered X-ray intensity pattern from each pulse, with sub-picosecond time resolution. Coherent X-Ray Imaging (CXI) Instrument

This station is designed to conduct experiments that use the X-ray beam to image a) molecules that are free-standing targets (e.g., not periodic or bound in a lattice), and/or b) systems that are susceptible to radiation damage (because the scattered signal from each pulse is generated prior to any sample degradation from the X-ray power). In this setup, an intense X-ray pulse is incident upon a sample molecule (e.g., a large protein), to create a detectable diffraction pattern that is dependent upon the molecule’s structure and spatial orientation. This process is repeated several times, with successive X-ray pulses incident upon molecules of varying orientations, each time producing a diffraction pattern with features that depend upon the sample’s molecular structure and orientation. All of these diffraction images, produced by the same molecule but with different orientations, are then analyzed with computational algorithms to calculate a three-dimensional structural image of the sample molecule. The brightness, energy, and coherence of LCLS X-ray pulses could create images of single molecules at close to atomic resolution. X-Ray Photon Correlation Spectroscopy Instrument (XCS)

This station is designed to conduct correlation spectroscopy using X-rays. In this setup, an X-ray pulse is directed onto a sample, creating a scattered intensity pattern characteristic of the location of scattering centers within the sample. After an experimentally controlled time delay, a second X-ray pulse re-interrogates the sample, creating a second scattered intensity pattern. The difference in the two scattered intensity patterns is telling of time scales of motions within the sample. The two intensity patterns are intercompared quantitatively by calculating the

3

degree of correlation (e.g., the contrast in intensity in each detector pixel, for long time delays that are greater than the detector resolution time; for times shorter than this, each detector pixel collects an intensity sum that can be compared to the single shot intensity pattern). These intensity correlations are measured as a function of the time delay in order to map characteristic time scales at which disorder occurs in the sample. Using the short, intense, and coherent LCLS X-ray pulses, X-ray correlation spectroscopy can be applied to several scientific problems, and in particular can probe condensed matter sample dynamics in regimes of imparted energy and momentum transfer that other experimental techniques cannot attain.

All of these experiments require X-ray optics to guide the beam, X-ray beam diagnostics to measure beam properties, control systems, two-dimensional pixilated detectors with fast read-out capability, a data acquisition architecture that includes fast signal processing algorithms, and significant data storage and handling requirements. Therefore, these technical features are also part of the LUSI project scope. Note: the LUSI project will create the ability to sample and store diagnostic data collected on pulse-by-pulse X-ray beam properties (e.g., wavefront and intensity profiles), but software development for reconstruction of shot-by-shot beam characteristics, and the use of this information in experimental data analysis, are outside the LUSI project scope.

The LUSI is a Major Item of Equipment (MIE) project of the U.S. Department of Energy

(DOE) Office of Science (SC). The Project Execution Plan (PEP) shows each instrument to be a deliverable that is organized and managed as a separate element of the project’s Work Breakdown Structure (WBS). The PEP shows the project’s $50-60 million Total Project Cost (TPC) range (in as-spent dollars) through FY 2012. Technical staff at SLAC conduct design work in consultation with members of the scientific user community for each instrument. To this end, each Instrument Scientist has an advisory “Instrument Team” composed of active researchers outside the project, and the Instrument Team Leader approves the Physics Requirement Document (PRD) that captures the technical requirements of the instrument to be built. The Instrument Scientist, Lead Engineer, Design Engineers, and other SLAC staff plan to finish the engineering design by tapping relevant technical expertise elsewhere as needed. The SLAC staff will procure individual components and subsystems that will be assembled into complete instrument stations in the hutches of the Near and Far Experimental Halls, buildings which are nearing completion as part of the LCLS construction project. 1.2 Charge to the DOE Review Committee In a May 28, 2008 memorandum (see Appendix A), Dr. Eric A. Rohlfing, then the Associate Director (Acting) of the Office of Science for the Office of Basic Energy Sciences,

4

requested that Daniel R. Lehman, Director of the Office of Project Assessment (OPA), organize and conduct a review to assess several aspects of the LUSI project—including technical, cost, schedule, management, and environment, safety, and health (ES&H) issues. The purpose of this assessment is to inform a decision of whether the project is ready for CD-2, Approve Performance Baseline. 1.3 Membership of the Committee The OPA formed a Committee composed of members (see Appendix B) selected based on their independence from the project, as well as for their technical and management expertise, and experience with building large, complex, and highly specialized scientific instruments. Daniel Lehman, Director OPA, chaired the Committee. 1.4 The Review Process

The LUSI team provided project documents (e.g., the PEP, basis of cost estimates, PRDs, and preliminary design reviews of the three instruments) to the Committee as downloadable read-aheads prior to the review. The review was conducted at SLAC in Menlo Park, CA, during August 19-21, 2008. Representatives from SLAC, the DOE/Stanford Site Office (SSO), DOE/SC, and the DOE/OPA jointly developed the meeting agenda (see Appendix C).

The first day of the review consisted of presentations given by SLAC staff and

discussions to answer detailed questions from the Committee. The LCLS and LUSI project managers and other principals overviewed LUSI information and the context offered by LCLS. Each LUSI instrument scientist then presented more detailed material on each subproject instrument, including its specific plans, schedules, and cost estimates, in order to status the conceptual design work to date for that instrument. In the late afternoon, the Committee toured the LCLS site, and then met briefly in Executive Session.

Breakout sessions were held in the morning and early afternoon of the second day to

discuss additional follow-up questions and issues of interest to the Committee. The late afternoon of the second day and the morning of the third day were devoted to Committee deliberations, report writing, and drafting a closeout report. Preliminary results were discussed with LUSI and LCLS staff at a closeout session on the last day of the review.

5

2. TECHNICAL SYSTEMS EVALUATIONS 2.1 X-ray Pump Probe Diffraction Instrument (WBS 1.2) 2.1.1 Findings

The X-ray Pump Probe Diffraction Instrument (XPP, WBS 1.2) has a Total Estimated

Cost of $5.9 million (without contingency). The Project Execution Plan (PEP) major deliverables are shown in Table 2-1:

Table 2-1. Major CD-4 Deliverables

WBS 1.2.3

Laser system $1.2M XPP will use the AMO (LCLS project) laser system; will add a 20 mJ amplifier, OPA, diagnostics, etc.; and aims for a system where a “non laser-trained user can perform an XPP experiment”

WBS 1.2.4

X-ray Detector for collecting X-ray scatter at 120 Hz

$1.5M LUSI/LCLS have sub-contracted development of a (1k 90 μm)2 passive pixel sensor, amplifier/ multiplexer ASIC and digitizer to BNL

WBS 1.2.5

Diffractometer and Detector Mover

$1.1M

Data acquisition, (common) controls and (common) X-ray optics are provided by LUSI

under separate WBS elements. The scope of XPP is consistent with the CD-4 deliverables as defined in the PEP. For XPP, the Cost Basis of Estimate falls into three categories (these estimates are detailed and escalated (in P3, not the BOE):

• 25 percent of TEC “Level of Effort”–WBS 1.2.1 (LOE) and 1.2.8 (“scaled from

LCLS”, but not broken out) • 25 percent of TEC Detector (see below) • 50 percent of TEC WBS 1.2.2, 3, 5, 6, 7–vendor quotes, engineering estimates

Contingencies were estimated using the LCLS “maturity/judgment” algorithm. In LUSI de-

scoping (to fit within the funding envelope) potentially useful operations features were removed from XPP, in particular: sample exchange/environment equipment, SAXS measurement capability, and “Detectors” emerged as a common concern for all LUSI instruments.

6

XPP and XCS plan to use detectors developed by Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL) under LUSI, and CXI plans to use a detector developed by Cornell University under LCLS (not part of LUSI scope). Although part of XPP scope, the XPP detector (WBS 1.2.4) is managed by the LCLS/LUSI detector Control Account Managers (CAM), heavily supported by the LCLS Detector Advisory Committee (LDAC). Operationally, this functions as follows:

Figure 2-1. XPP Detector Management Operation

The LDAC meets twice per year, and those meetings are attended by the detector development teams, LUSI and LCLS personnel. For XPP, three months of detector commissioning have been budgeted, which helps ensure usability of the detector. XPP and XCS have each identified only one major risk: the detector. A “go/no-go” decision for the (currently proposed) XPP detector is planned for the December or June LDAC meeting. XPP estimates 15 percent contingency on the detector.

Overall, the XPP team is enthusiastic and eager, and that enthusiasm will serve the

project well.

2.1.2 Comments XPP, as the first LUSI instrument scheduled to be completed, is under particular pressure

to balance “early science” against “efficiency”. The Committee encouraged LUSI to consider: 1) benefits to the XPP user program of restoration of de-scoped sample environment apparatus as funds permit; 2) benefits to the XPP user program of restoration of de-scoped SAXS capability as funds permit; 3) any other minor investments that can have long-term benefits in XPP efficiency.

Integration of the scientific team leaders is critical to LUSI/LCLS success. The Committee

encouraged LUSI to find ways to enhance the integration of team leaders in the LUSI project.

LCLS LUSI (XPP, CXI, XCS)

CAMLDAC

BNLCornell

LUSILCLS

7

2.1.3 Recommendations

1. Revisit, prior to CD-2, the contingency analysis on the XPP detector in light of recent experience of comparable DOE Order 413.3A detector development projects.

2. Carefully consider, prior to CD-2, the 120 Hz readout rate as a CD-4 deliverable, recognizing that scientific objectives could be achieved at a lower rate.

3. Evaluate, prior to CD-3, if the baseline XPP instrumentation is sufficient to find pump probe to overlap efficiently, and consider adding missing capability at an early stage.

4. Explore, prior to CD-3, engineering modular sample environments (XPP would not have to provide the environment, just the design) and give high priority to the restoration of sample exchange to the project as funds permit.

5. Maintain the benefit of common optics, common controls, common detectors through oversight of senior LCLS/LUSI staff.

2.2 Coherent X-ray Imaging Instrument (WBS 1.3) 2.2.1 Findings

Very exciting science appears to be only four years away. The experiments to be

conducted with the CXI instrument will take advantage of 1) the high X-ray photon flux per laser shot, 2) the tight focus and superb coherence, 3) short pulse duration/high repetition rate of the LCLS beams. The combination of the powerful X-ray source with the unique target injector may make the dream of three-dimensional imaging of single bio-molecules come true.

2.2.2 Comments

The Committee agreed that the overall plan for the instrument appears sound. There will

be two mirror chambers, one for the 1 micron beam and the other for the 100 nanometer beam. The 1 micron setup will be constructed first. In addition, there will be two sample chambers, one for the 1 micron beam and the other for the 100 nanometer beam. The internal parts will be shared with the two to cut the cost. The two chambers have ports for optional target manipulating lasers beams.

8

The injector will be ready for some experiments. The injector will deliver different kind of targets (single bio-molecules, nanocrystals, etc.) into the focus of the X-ray beam with sufficient high density. It is based on a Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) design but will be constructed by the CXI team. While it is difficult to produce identical individual bio-molecules, the injector should be able to deliverer a variety of less challenging samples for early experiments. The cost estimate is reasonable.

The reference laser is in good shape. Compared to other components of the instruments, the reference laser is the least challenging one. The laser will be a conventional, low-power, low-cost He-Ne laser that is commercially available. The laser beam will be collinear with the X-ray, but they will not propagate in the apparatus at the same time. The reference laser beam will be directed into and out of the optical path by using a mirror on a translation mount. The challenge is the reproducibility of beam direction when the directing mirror is dropped in. The engineering team is working on this issue. The cost estimate is appropriate.

The wave front measurement is quite important. The Committee understood that there are difficulties in constructing the wave front sensor for X-rays. The Committee noticed that the wave front sensor will be replaced by a combination of a beam profile monitor and off-line slow speed wave front reconstruction. This change and its consequences should be identified in the CD-4 deliverables.

The X-ray detector will be provided by LCLS. It has 760x760 pixels, with a variable center hole at the center, and can transfer an image at 120 Hz. The detector will be provided by Cornell University and will be delivered prior to CD-4. The detector stage will be built by the CXI team. The stage design is good.

The KB mirror focusing is the most critical aspect of the XCI instrument. The overall

plan for the KB mirror appears sensible. A deliverable of a 1.0 micron setup according the PEP is feasible and a provisional 100 nanometer setup is also reasonable. A 400-mm-long mirror that focuses 15 keV radiation to 75 nm has been demonstrated by the quoted vendor, J-TEC. This is comforting; however, a manipulator system for the mirrors, designed for use at the LCLS, was not demonstrated and this is a concern. The plan to have information obtained on the final mirror design in the front-end guide is a very reasonable way to address possible beam-induced degradation of the mirrors. However, the involvement of LLNL in making simulations appears somewhat informal. The Committee judged that it would be best if a person is defined as having overall responsibility for the KB mirror systems including the manipulator and incorporating lessons learned from front-end mirrors. The effort of this person should be a substantial fraction

9

of their time. The Committee estimated that it should be approximately 30 percent of the time until all KB systems are fully designed.

2.2.3 Recommendations

1. Design a KB mirror manipulator for the 1.0 micron system and have it reviewed prior to CD-4.

2. Plans for calculations and simulations for the KB mirrors that incorporate lessons-

learned from mirrors put in the front-end should be treated more formally. 3. Assign a single individual to take the KB mirror systems as his/her responsibility and

be the contact point with the vendor and for possible radiation damage related simulations.

4. Quantify the specifications of the target injector such as the sample density and

reproducibility. Work out schemes to characterize the targets. 5. Recommend that CXI proceed to CD-2.

2.3 X-ray Photon Correlation Spectroscopy Instrument (WBS 1.4) 2.3.1 Findings

The design of the XCS instrument has made significant progress. The design is sound and satisfies the general physics requirements for a general purpose instrument. The cost, schedule, and contingency are reasonable for this stage of the project.

The project effectively utilizes the components from existing LCLS, Advanced Photon

Source (APS), and LUSI designs, which should lead to savings in engineering design, and greater flexibility for future experimental programs.

Initial testing of the Split-Delay unit seems to be encouraging. XCS development is still in its early stage. The program seems to be on track. LDAC is

providing adequate oversight. The mitigation plan is sound.

10

2.3.2 Comments

Development of local expertise in Split-Delay optics should be a high priority for LCLS. The effect of pulse-to-pulse intensity fluctuations on the measured intensity

autocorrelation needs more consideration, although it does not appear to be a serious issue. The performance of the common optical elements is absolutely critical to the success of

the XCS instrument. Additional scientific and engineering personnel would be highly desirable to develop and

oversee the key common optics components. More attention to coherence preservation is important, especially in surface specifications

of all optical elements along the beam path. Comments from previous reviews should be addressed more carefully. More stakeholder input beyond the team leaders is highly desirable in design decisions

and in conceiving XCS experiments. This could be accomplished by increasing the number of Team Leaders, and by holding regularly scheduled Team Leader meetings to discuss beamline and experimental design details.

It would be valuable for the XCS beamline scientist to develop collaborations with XCS

researchers and carry out experiment at other facilities. The Committee applauded the plan to utilize common designs where possible to

maximize savings. The design of the XCS instrument is quite mature. The development of the instrument

could be accelerated if additional funding is made available. 2.3.3 Recommendations

1. Document the performance of the Split-Delay unit in the proof-of-concept experiment recently carried out at HASYLAB and ESRF.

11

2. Consider including environmental control of the Split-Delay optical systems to ensure beam stability.

3. Strengthen and broaden outreach to and input from the User Community in beamline design and in conceiving XCS experimental programs.

4. Recommend that XCS proceed to CD-2. 2.4 Diagnostics and Common Optics (WBS 1.5) 2.4.1 Findings

The LCLS X-ray FEL pulses exhibit intrinsic fluctuations in position and in their transverse intensity profile on a pulse-by-pulse basis. Pop-in Profile Monitors and Pop-in Intensity Monitors are required to capture the transverse intensity profile, aid in the alignment of X-ray optic and as beam diagnostic devices, and more importantly are required to obtain a quantitative measurement of the beam quality. The LCLS X-ray FEL pulses also exhibit intrinsic intensity, position, and pointing fluctuations. Intensity-Position Monitors are required to measure the intensity and position, and when two monitors are used in tandem can determine the extent of possible pointing variations of the X-ray beam, as well as to aid in the alignment of X-ray optics and diagnostics. Wavefront monitors are required to access the spatial distortions of the coherence in the LCLS beam near the sample location. The commercial wavefront monitors proposed earlier in the project were found to be unsatisfactory for hard X-ray applications and have been replaced by high-resolution beam profile monitors. The proposed design for the wavefront monitors is the similar to that of the Pop-in Profile Monitors.

With the exception of the Large-offset Monochromator, Physics Specification Documents

have been finished for Diagnostics and Common Optics components (WBS 1.5). The physics requirements for the LUSI Pop-in Profile Monitors are given in document No. SP-391-000-04 R1, while those for the LUSI Pop-in Intensity Monitor are provided in document No. SP-391-000-09 R1, requirements for LUSI Intensity-Position Monitor appear in document No. SP-391-000-08 R1 and physics specifications for the Wavefront Monitors are given in document SP-391-000-15 R0. These documents describe the key performance parameters, capturing the technical scope of this project and describe the Control and Data interfaces. The general and mechanical requirements for the first three of these devices are given in documents No. SP-391-000-83 R0, No. SP-391-000-81 R0, No. SP-391-000-80 R0, respectively, which describe these aspects in depth. There will be a total of twelve Profile Monitors (three in XPP, four in CXI, and five in

12

XCS); nine Intensity Monitors (three in XPP, two in CXI, and five in XCS); and eleven Intensity-Position Monitors (three in XPP, three in CXI, and five in XCS)—in each case no spares are planned. The environment concerns have been addressed for the assembly sensors, pneumatic actuators, stepper drives, camera, lens optics and others. The sensor assembly requirement and the optical path mechanical requirement have been treated in-depth outlining many practical conditions. The mechanical interface of this device to the chamber has also been given adequate attention. Many other important items such as thermal issues, structural issues, alignment, stability, and kinematic supports have also been discussed.

Both the XPP and the XCS beamlines will use Beryllium compound refractive lenses to

provide X-ray focusing. For the XPP instrument the focused beam size is between 2 -10 µm while out of focus the size is expected to be between 40-60 µm. The lens systems are required to withstand the full LCLS beam. The focusing lens will significantly attenuate the beam at energies below 3 keV.

All three LUSI beamlines will use a common slit system. Slits are required for beam

definition in all the beamlines. A total of 13 slit assemblies will be distributed on the beamlines (three in XPP, four in CXI and six in XCS). The slits are designed to be used in direct LCLS beam as well as in the monochromatic beam. The designs for all the slit systems will be the same, with the actual slit blades differing for different roles. The slits will have both coarse motion, as well as fine motion to provide a precision of 0.5 µm. The total travel for the slits is expected to be 0-10 mm.

The filter assemblies provide beam attenuation via absorption by the filter material.

Polished Si wafers of various thicknesses were chosen as the preferred filter material. The attenuator assembly is expected to consist of a series of actuators with different thickness filters to provide the required flux/brilliance on sample consistent with experimental requirements. Three filter assemblies will be built (one for each LUSI beamline).

The pulse picker is a beamline component that is planned for use in all the LUSI

beamlines when experiments require a low-pulse repetition rate. This device will be used to adjust the beamline operation for repetition rates below the 10 Hz rate as required by the experiment. The design is based on a commercial mechanical teeter-totter design used at the SLS and elsewhere. The blade is made of steel and will be coated with 100 µm silicon nitrate film so that it will be capable of stopping the full beam. The device is designed for operation with a maximum close/open cycle time of 8 ms. The device is expected to be triggered with a TTL pulse. Pulse picker assemblies will be located at all three LUSI beamlines.

13

The XPP and XCS beamlines will use harmonic rejection mirrors to remove the higher harmonics of the LCLS beam. The expected operational range for the mirrors is between 6-8.265 keV. The mirrors are expected to be made of highly polished Si substrate of 300 mm length and to nominally operate at a 3.5 mrad incident angle. 2.4.2 Comments

The Pop-in Profile Monitor has three main functions, to aid in X-ray optics alignment to achieve maximum productivity, characterize X-ray beam spatial profile and to characterize X-ray beam transverse spatial jitter. The Pop-in Profile Monitor is a destructive type device when in “In” position, but is fully retractable when in “Out” position. This device provides variable field of view (FOV) with an appropriate resolution of 100 micron resolution with a 24x24 mm2 FOV and 8 micron resolution with 2x2 mm2 FOV. It is capable of operating up to 120 Hz update rate. The Committee judged that the preliminary design is technically sound and meets the requirements for the accurate beam delivery to the LUSI experimental stations.

The Pop-in Intensity Monitor is a destructive type device when in “In” position, but is

fully retractable when in “Out” position. This device provides, a relative accuracy less than one percent a working dynamic range of 100, a large sensor area 20x20 mm and operation up to a rate of 120 Hz. The preliminary design is technically sound and meets the requirements for the accurate beam intensity measurements.

The Intensity-Position Monitor device is in-situ, but with retractable foil, if necessary.

This device will have high transmission (greater than 95percent), precise measurement capability with a relative accuracy less than 0.1 percent, a working dynamic range of 1000, a position accuracy in xy < 10 microns, and can operate at a rate of up to 120 Hz. The implementation is based on Compton back scattering from a thin Be foil with measurement of 4-Si photodiode detectors used. The Committee judged that the preliminary design is technically sound and meets the requirements for the accurate beam intensity/position measurements.

While the design of the wavefront monitor appears to be nearly identical to that of the

Pop-in Profile Monitor the resolution and field of view requirements are somewhat different with 24x24, 12x12 and 1x1 mm2 FOV, providing resolutions of 100, 50, and 4 µm. To achieve real-time performance, considerable computational resources will be required for the wavefront monitors. It is planned that these resources will be provided by future LCLS operations funding.

14

The focusing lens has been used at other facilities such as the European Synchrotron Radiation Facility (ESRF) and APS routinely for focusing white or monochromatic X-ray beam. The mechanical design presented is based on a system currently in use and is easily achievable. The design with the exception of a few parts, are from commercial vendors. The choice of Be CRLs for the lens material will provide low attenuation to the beam at the operating energy. The actual Be lens will be procured from a commercial vendor who has also supplied similar lens to ESRF. The LUSI team should pay attention to the quality of the lens to make sure that the lens does not distort the coherence of the beam.

The LUSI project to procure most of the slit assembly commercially. The project is to be

cautioned about the accuracy, stability, and repeatability of the coarse linear motions. Since the precision motion will ride on the coarse motion the choice of the coarse motion has to be considered with care.

The attenuator assembly is being designed with commercial pneumatic actuators to insert

or retract from the beam. This scheme is simple and will be very effective to quickly introduce or retract the filters. The choice of Si wafers for the filter material is good, since high-polished, single-crystal Si material is easily obtainable.

The simple design of the pulse picker provides for very reliable operation of the device.

Similar devices have been used at the SLS and other synchrotron facilities with good success. The harmonic rejection mirrors are flat mirrors in a simple vacuum chamber. Commercial

vendors are available to produce a whole system based on the specifications. Care has to be taken with the technical specifications for the surface roughness and the slope errors for the mirrors. The amount of contingency allocated is about 45 percent due to the level of design at this stage of the project, slightly high for an easily available commercial product.

Physics specifications are in development for the Large Offset Monochromator. Details

of the engineering specifications, cost and device performance will depend critically on the choice of monochromator crystals and cut. The design and cost estimate presented are for a monochromator using Si 111 crystals and were developed for the initial design of a similar monochromator to be deployed at the APS. In the APS application, replacement of the Si 111 monochromator crystals with diamond 111 crystals substantially reduced costs, as well as cost and schedule risks resulting from the requirement for a stable long second crystal slide in the original concept. The amount of contingency allocated, 45 percent, is reasonable due to the level of component design.

15

The LUSI project plans to assemble and test the diagnostics and common optics devices except the Large-Offset Monochromator and Harmonic Rejection mirrors in house. The contingency for the remainder of the devices (about 35 percent) is consistent with risks involved in in-house assembly estimates.

2.4.3 Recommendations

1. Deployment of the large offset monochromator is required for practical experimental

operations of the CXS beamline. X-ray optics experts including reviewers from outside the laboratory should review detailed physics specifications for the Large Offset Monochromator.

2. In addition, the angular stability requirements for the Large Offset Monochromator

may not be obtainable at a reasonable cost with the current monochromator placement. Project management should consider reserving an alternative position near the far experiment hall for this component.

3. Surface roughness and microstructure of commercial Be CRLs may adversely affect

beam coherence. Within the next 12 months, preliminary R&D on the commercial lenses should be a priority for the project.

4. Recommend that Diagnostics and Common Optics proceed to CD-2.

2.5 Controls/Data Acquisition System (WBS 1.6) 2.5.1 Findings

The LUSI presented very good controls and data acquisition (DAQ) systems that have the maximum capability to interoperate with existing hardware and software infrastructure at the LCLS control system and the Scientific Computing and Computing Services (SCCS) system of SLAC. The risk is low particularly since they are building with existing proven technology.

The proposed controls and DAQ systems are scalable and upgradeable to take advantage

of the fast moving technological advances in data systems. It will provide flexibilities to the future instrumentation upgrade.

16

The interface to LCLS control infrastructure will provide machine timing, laser timing, and 120 Hz LCLS beam data at the LUSI end-station. Information from the LCLS machine protection system, hutch protection system, and laser safety system will also be available at the LUSI end-station.

The DAQ systems are designed for the extremely high raw data rates and potentially

huge volume of accumulated data generated by two-dimensional megapixel detectors with high intensity resolution and unique tagging of beam diagnostics information for each image on a pulse-by-pulse basis. 2.5.2 Comments

The LUSI controls and DAQ systems design is technically sound. The project’s scope, attendant cost, and schedule are all satisfactory for CD-2. The Committee was pleased to see that the LUSI controls and DAQ systems design team included expertise from LCLS and SLAC PPA and SCCS group.

The project team is taking advantage of established designs from existing LCLS and

SLAC high energy physics projects. It is a very cost effective approach to have a considerable amount of hardware and software design copied and imported from existing SSRL, LCLS, and BaBar control and data systems.

A low latency 120-Hz beamline data communication will be established for real-time

data feedback applications, such as real-time vetoing of image samples using LCLS per-pulse data, and a real-time feedback loop to adjust accelerator or beamline optical components based on photon diagnostics data for beam position stability improvement.

The DAW systems concept and architecture for high peak rate and large data volume are

well developed. It will use a standard interface to all LUSI detectors. The test of interface between LUSI DAQ systems and readout electronics for LUSI detectors had a good start.

Since beam diagnostics information for each experimental data set is critical on a pulse-

by-pulse basis, it is very important to have a strong technical connection between beamline scientists, diagnostics physicists, and control system design engineers.

17

2.5.3 Recommendations

1. Recommend regularly scheduled meetings between the beamline scientists, diagnostics physicists, and control system design engineers.

2. Recommend that the LUSI controls and DAQ systems proceed to CD-2.

18

Intentionally Blank

19

3. ENVIRONMENT, SAFETY and HEALTH 3.1 Findings and Comments

The CD-2 ES&H requirements applicable to LUSI per DOE Order 413.3A are: a Hazard Analysis Report (HAR); DOE approval (field level) of HAR; and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documentation in place. Hazards Analysis Report

The HAR was developed for the LUSI instruments. During this evaluation it was affirmed that the development of the HAR was subject to a series of internal reviews and reviews by individuals external to the LUSI project. The DOE/SSO also completed a review and approved the document. National Environmental Policy Act

Compliance with NEPA was met and an Environmental Assessment (EA) was developed for LCLS. The scope of this document encompasses the physical space occupied by LUSI and its operations. A Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) was determined in 2002 and reaffirmed in 2005.

The CD-2 ES&H requirements have been met. Other Observations

Safety Reviews: At the time of the July 2007 DOE review the SLAC Safety Oversight Committee (SOC) conducted an initial evaluation of the project and identified several areas to be reviewed in more detail as the design progresses. The SOC has since begun the detailed reviews, including radiation safety, and are satisfied that the LUSI project was responsive to their comments and suggestions.

ES&H in Preliminary Design Reviews: LUSI is following the LCLS Design Review Guidelines that includes ES&H requirements. Presentations made during the review provided evidence that due-consideration for ES&H is being included in the development of the instruments, appropriate to the current level of design.

20

ES&H Scope, Schedule, and Cost: LUSI management addressed safety in their project planning considerations. This is reflected as line items in the LUSI budget, including safety analysis and safety support. Time allocation for safety reviews is included in the LUSI P3 schedule. Addition safety support (as required) is available through the LCLS project and SLAC subject matter experts. The current level of ES&H support provided to LUSI is adequate and consistent with the work being performed.

Off-Site Collaborators in LUSI Instrument Development: Currently two “off-site” collaborators, BNL (detectors) and the DESY (Split-Delay system) are involved in the LUSI development. LUSI has Memorandums of Understanding with these organizations. During development and prior to installation of these components, they will be subject to safety reviews, following the LCLS Design Review Guidelines. Integrated Safety and Environmental Management Systems

The project is being managed per the SLAC Integrated Safety and Environmental Management Systems (ISEMS) and the LCLS Directorate Plan and is consistent with the project’s current state of development. The ES&H aspects of LUSI are being appropriately addressed. 3.2 Recommendation

1. Approve CD-2 for the LUSI project.

21

4. COST and SCHEDULE 4.1 Findings

The LUSI Mission Need Statement (MNS)/CD-0 was approved in August 2005. The project’s technical goal, as stated in the MNS, was to augment the LCLS construction project with a suite of four X-ray instruments, to be built over a period of six fiscal years. At CD-0 the preliminary range for the TPC was set at $50-60 million, and CD-4, Approve Start of Operations, was planned to be phased from 2010-2012.

The initial cost estimate provided by the project for this scope in August 2006

significantly exceeded the cost range set at CD-0. As a result, at the January 2007 DOE review, the project proposed a revised scope that would meet the CD-0 cost range target, but only deliver two instruments (the XPP and the CXI) and beam delivery for the other two instruments (the XPCS and Soft X-ray Scattering). The details for a $60 million maximum cost were presented with a proposed TEC of $43.0 million, $3.6 million of OPC, and a contingency of $13.4 million (31.2 percent on TEC and 28.8 percent on TPC). Escalation rates were based on the published DOE rates. Numerous recommendations were made by the review committee and documented in their report.

In March 2007, as directed by DOE/BES, another plan was put forth that committed

LUSI to produce science when LCLS becomes operational and settled on three instruments with priority given to CXI. Accordingly, for this review, the project team presented the project scope that will deliver three instruments (the XPP, CXI, and XCS). Two of these instruments (XPP and CXI) will be ready to produce science when the LCLS is operational in FY 2010. The XCS will follow a later schedule due to a constrained funding profile. In July 2007, the project proposed a CD-1 scope that consisted of a TEC of $55.10 million and included a contingency of $13.18 million. The OPC of $4.9 million resulted in a TPC of $60.0 million. CD-1 was approved by the Office Science in September 2007.

During this review, the project presented technical, cost, and schedule details as part

of their application for a CD-2, Approve Performance Baseline. This consisted of a TEC of $55.1 million, including a contingency of $12.98 million. The OPC of $4.9 million is then added to result in a TPC of $60.0 million. The total costs accrued through June 2008 was approximately $3.2 million of MIE funding and all but approximately $40,000 of OPC funding, leaving a ETC of $51.9 million, including the contingency of $12.98 million. Project completion is now defined as August 2012.

22

The project now has a resource-loaded P3 schedule with milestones indicated. The schedule consists of 4,131 tasks with 6,159 relationships that are detailed in 64 Control Accounts. The project identified three separate CD-4 milestones, one for each instrument to mark the “turn over” point where the instrument is provided to the LCLS project. This “turn over” point only provides a minimally functional instrument—as envisioned, the LUSI project would continue to improve each instrument to full functionality. The critical path for each instrument is as follows:

• XPP – through the diffractometer design and fabrication. There are 75 working

days of schedule contingency to CD-4a. • CXI – through the 1 micron KB mirror system. There are 95 working days of

schedule contingency to CD-4b. • XCS – through the design, diagnostic and common optics, and component

assembly and installation. There are 80 working days of schedule contingency to CD-4c. However, should funding constraints be relaxed, the schedule contingency could grow to as much as 182 days.

The LUSI Project Management Cost and Schedule system was created to implement

earned value management (EVMS) processes for this project. This system is based the validated EVMS systems utilized on other SLAC projects including the LCLS project. The project plans to work with their partner laboratories to coordinate earned value reporting on their activities.

All recommendations from the July 2007 DOE review for CD-1 and the majority of

the comment suggestions have been implemented. 4.2 Comments

The LUSI project plan for staffing and procurements conforms to the program funding profile and assumes a Continuing Resolution through March 2009. The project has assumed that the funding would be based on 1/12 per month of the $6.0 million authorized in FY 2008. However, at the meeting, BES provided revised Continuing Resolution (CR) guidance of $10.0 million until such time as the CR is resolved. The project has not yet had the opportunity to fully evaluate how this additional funding in the first half of FY 2009 could be effectively utilized. Failure to obtain the full FY 2009 funding (e.g., if the CR exceeds six months) could result in delays in the project schedule.

The level of detail and basis behind the cost estimate are very good for the CD-2 stage

of the project. The cost estimate is well detailed to WBS Levels 4 or 5 with PED, construction

23

labor, and material costs shown for all items. Appropriate burdens were applied and are shown in the estimate at the task level. Quotes were obtained for approximately 80 percent of procurements and an additional ten percent of the remaining estimates were based on previous experience on projects at SLAC. Internal and an independent cost reviews were conducted of the CD-2 estimates to validate WBS elements, activity durations, and material costs.

An escalation rate of 4.0 percent for labor was considered reasonable and compares well

with the rates used for LCLS. However the average 2.3 percent escalation rate on materials was considered low and was primarily based on the LCLS assumptions. Mitigating the impact of the low material escalation rates was the fact that the majority of catalogue and vendor quotes were obtained within the last nine months or less. None the less, the project should reassess current market conditions and adjust this rate as appropriate. The project should then continue to monitor market conditions that could affect these rates, and consider adjusting the rates by judicious use of contingency as appropriate.

The project contingency was calculated at each task level of the cost estimate by

using the risk registry. Risks are well defined using technical, cost, and schedule categories. Risks were appropriately weighted based on design or manufacturing requirements, material and labor cost certainty, and schedule impact. The overall project contingency based on a bottoms-up process was approximately 26 percent with an additional seven percent assigned for a total of 33 percent to match the $60 million TPC target. This amount of contingency is considered reasonable for the work scope and stage of this project.

Preliminary scope contingency consisting of the 0.1 micron KB mirror system has

been identified. The approximate cost of this system is approximately $1.0 million. The impact of foregoing this capability would be to limit the mirror focus to 1.0 micron. However, this could be added at a later date if deemed necessary.

A separate schedule was provided for the detector work performed at BNL and has

now been fully integrated into the project schedule. The project started tracking cost and schedule indices (CPI and SPI) in April 2008, using

March 2008 data. Although schedule statusing commenced then, the project has yet to require the CAM to prepare variance analysis reports. It is important that each CAM take “ownership” of his/her Control Accounts and it is felt that implementing variance analysis even before a performance measurement baseline is implemented would assist in this process.

24

It was noted that there were several inconsistencies in the PEP relative to the information presented at the time of the review (e.g., CD-3c and CD-4b dates). These inconsistencies should be resolved prior to sign off of the PEP.

The cost and schedule subcommittee reviewed several External Independent Review lines

of inquiry relative to project readiness for CD-2. Those elements included: work breakdown structure, project cost/resource loaded schedule, cost/schedule assumptions, critical path, funding profile and project controls/EVMS. The project was found to be in compliance with the requirements in these. A summary of the assessment is included in Appendix G.

The Committee reviewed the project’s assessment of costs and contingency by WBS. The Committee concluded that the costs/contingency was appropriate. 4.3 Recommendations

None.

25

5. PROJECT MANAGEMENT (WBS 1.1)

In the broadest sense, the objective of the LUSI MIE project is to provide three working instruments for LCLS operations within an overall TPC of $60 million so the facility can produce science from this unique source as soon as possible. A central challenge for project management in this setting is executing the project with adequate flexibility to maximize scope delivered to LCLS, while providing sufficient clarity in the deliverables to unambiguously determine project completion. Achieving this balance is a recurring theme as the Committee addressed charge questions regarding aspects of project management and readiness for CD-2. 5.1 Findings

Overall the Committee was impressed with the state of readiness of the project for establishing its baseline. The supporting design documentation and processes are at an advanced state of development for a CD-2 decision. Clearly, the LUSI project is capitalizing on the methodologies established for LCLS. Of particular note for LUSI are the fairly mature Physics Requirements, Engineering Specifications, and Interface Control Documents. The application of a healthy Systems Engineering approach to design was in evidence, which will serve the project well as it faces decisions on scope contingency [both up and down].

The preliminary design is substantially complete. Some preliminary design reviews have

been conducted and the methodology continues to evolve to capture lessons learned from the early reviews. The project has implemented a Value Management Plan. A formal documented value management/value engineering (VM/VE) exercise was available for the review, which included internal and external participants. The VE information was utilized to identify alternative solutions and select the most promising options for technical development.

Across the project, cost contingency estimates were developed for each major cost

element, usually at WBS element Level 4 or lower, using a systematic risk-based contingency approach. A Risk Management Plan is in place and the project team is engaged in identifying, assessing, and mitigating the identified risks. The project utilizes the SLAC EVMS that was certified in 2008. At this stage (prior to baseline) the project is only reporting performance indices (CPI/SPI) and has not yet started preparing variance reports.

With respect to the Integrated Project Team (IPT), the roles and responsibilities for the

Federal Project Director (FPD), LUSI Program Manager, and LCLS Project Manager are defined in the PEP and appear to meet the needs of the project. The FPD is Level 3 certified and well

26

qualified to serve the needs of the project. Support staff appear to be allocated with a sufficient percentage of their time available to the project.

Communication within the project and with the program office appears to be functioning

adequately. Emerging project issues are discussed weekly with the Laboratory Director and site office. The FPD meets weekly with project team and every two weeks meets with the program manager. The project received adequate senior site office and laboratory management oversight.

The level of project review is adequate. The LUSI Advisory Committee meets one to two

times per year and appears to have good interaction with the project. DOE program reviews are anticipated every six months for the rest of the project. Closeout of past CD-1 review recommendations appears to be complete.

The Committee noted that the Team Leaders for the three instruments signed-off on the

physics requirement documents, illustrating an important link between science goals and project deliverables at the initiation of the project. Start-up and Test Plans are in place for all three instruments. These plans describe the acceptance and operational system tests required to satisfy the CD-4 requirements for each instrument. The schedule for each instrument includes equipment acceptance testing activities and a final Instrument Readiness Review. Successful completion of these activities constitutes project completion (CD-4) as defined in the PEP.

The AS outlines a competitive procurement for the three major instruments using fixed-

price contracts. Advanced procurement plans will be developed for all procurements exceeding $25,000. The project contains five dedicated buyers and a procurement manager who are experienced and able to perform the work. The procurement manager has procurement authority of $2 million dollars and can access individuals with higher level procurement authority as needed. The procurement group is co-located with the project and participates in weekly procurement meetings with the project including appropriate CAMs. The weekly meetings include reviewing the status of procurements pre and post award.

Succession and transition planning were discussed in several presentations. The LUSI

project is clearly integrated into an overall strategy within the LCLS directorate to move the instruments constructed by LUSI into routine LCLS operations.

27

5.2 Comments

The Committee judged that the CD-4 deliverables in the draft PEP are too ambiguous regarding acceptance criteria and the handoff from LUSI to LCLS operations. Consideration should be given to developing additional detail prior to CD-2 and certainly before CD-3. Establishing the roles and responsibilities between LCLS operations and LUSI, as well as itemizing the key documentation required (procedures, interface equipment control, and the process for acceptance testing) may help achieve the necessary clarity. At the same time, the structuring of the CD-4 milestones in stages may limit the flexibility of the project to respond to emerging science needs that are within the nominal project scope. The management objectives intended by the separate CD-4a, b, and c might be as readily accomplished by making the a and b points Level II schedule milestones and having a single CD-4 date coinciding with the original CD-4c.

The PEP contains the elements needed although consideration should be given to adding

the elements necessary to have the full IPT charter contained within the PEP. A number of minor editorial inconsistencies were noted in the draft PEP that should be resolved before submitting it for CD-2 approval.

One area that concerned the Committee was the apparent distance of the scientific team

leaders from the execution of the project. Their signatures on the PRDs indicate a leading role in the inception of the instruments, but their participation in the ongoing give-and-take necessary to execute the project was not in evidence. To maintain agility in responding to changes that will inevitably occur in the design and construction of the instruments, continuing engagement from the end users is necessary. The project should look for ways to enhance this dialogue.

One potential tool for the project might be the development of a well-documented scope

contingency list. This should be created with input from the scientists and socialized across the project. It should include elements of scope that could be modified, added, or removed as circumstances dictate. Each option might also have a ‘decision date’ indicating the latest time at which that option could be exercised. Developing this list with the participation of the scientists representing the end user community might engender the ownership necessary to achieve the best possible outcomes for the project.

The plan for design reviews is well thought-out but the review process is at an early

stage. Future reviews should include external reviewers and a diverse mix of engineers, as well as physicists as participants. Follow-up actions arising from the reviews should also be

28

documented. The Start-up Plans are well thought-out and acceptable although consideration should be given to including LCLS management as a signatory since they are a key stakeholder.

The amount of cost and schedule contingency in the baseline was deemed sufficient to

cover identified, as well as unknown, risks. The Committee judged that the project should consider revisiting contingency estimates at least once a year to ensure that adequate contingency remains to complete the project. At future reviews, the project should present early finish dates; this is what they are managing to and is consistent with the funding plan. It is important to keep the team focused on early finish.

Finally in discussing the funding profile with the project it became evident that

significant improvements in project performance (scope delivered for project dollar and schedule acceleration) could be achieved by providing a bit more funding earlier in the project. The current schedule is constructed around the agreed upon funding profile. This results in multiple procurements of some items that are common to more than one instrument. This is particularly costly for fabricated items where set-up time can be a significant part of the cost of an item. Moving some of the FY 2011 profile into FY 2010 could achieve up to a six-month acceleration with associated cost savings and/or scope enhancement. If any type of acceleration plan is to be developed, it will be important to ensure that all aspects of a compressed schedule could be supporting including manpower, fabrication, and procurement resources. 5.3 Recommendations

1. Clarify CD-4 deliverables and coordinate structure of CD-3/CD-4 milestones with the program prior to submission of PEP.

2. Enhance participation of instrument team leaders in LUSI project execution. 3. Approve CD-2 for the LUSI project.

APPENDIX A

CHARGE MEMORANDUM

2

DATE: May 28, 2008 REPLY TO

ATTN OF: Office of Basic Energy Sciences, SC-22

SUBJECT: DOE REVIEW OF THE LINAC COHERENT LIGHT SOURCE (LCLS) ULTRAFAST SCIENCE INSTRUMENTS (LUSI) PROJECT

TO: Daniel R. Lehman, Director, SC-28 This memorandum modifies the review dates and the scope of the previous charge memorandum dated February 25, 2008. I request that your office organize and conduct an Office of Science (SC) Independent Project Review (IPR) of the LUSI Major Item of Equipment (MIE) project at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center (SLAC) in Menlo Park, California, during May 14-16, 2008. The purpose of the LUSI project is to expand upon and utilize the unique scientific capability of the LCLS by building instruments that use the LCLS X-ray beam for research. To this end, the technical objective of the LUSI project is to design, build, and install at LCLS three instruments that will complement the initial atomic, molecular, and optical physics instrument that is included in the LCLS project scope. The LUSI instruments are X-ray Pump Probe Diffraction (XPP), Coherent X-Ray Imaging (CXI), and X-Ray Photon Correlation Spectroscopy (XPS). The capabilities, technical performance parameters, and fuller descriptions of each of these instruments are described in project documents to be available prior to the review. This project achieved its Critical Decision-1 (CD-1) milestone, Approval of Alternative Selection and Cost Range, on September 27, 2007. The preliminary schedule in the Acquisition Strategy and preliminary Project Execution Plan (PEP) shows the LUSI instruments to be designed and built in a phased approach, with completion of some capability for early science in Fiscal Year (FY) 2010, and all instruments completed by FY 2012. The project has a Total Project Cost range of $50-60 million projected through FY 2012. The purpose of this IPR is to evaluate the project’s readiness to achieve the milestone of CD-2, Approve Performance Baseline, for all elements of the Work Breakdown Structure (WBS), which at level 2 are overall project management and support (WBS element 1.1), the XPP instrument (WBS element 1.2), the CXI instrument (WBS element 1.3), the XPS instrument (WBS element 1.4), Diagnostics and Common Optics (WBS element 1.5), and Control and Data Acquisition Systems (WBS element 1.6). This review should examine the performance baseline for these WBS elements, in fulfillment of the CD-2 IPR requirement that is specified in DOE Order 413.3A, Program and Project Management for the Acquisition of Capital Assets. To carry out this charge, the review committee should evaluate the project’s readiness in all aspects (technical, cost, schedule, management, and environment, safety and health (ES&H)) that relate to establishing a performance baseline, and should respond to the following questions:

memorandum

DOE F 1325.8 (08-93)

United States Government Department of Energy

1. Technical Scope: Is the preliminary design technically sound and adequate to establish a

reasonable performance baseline? Has an appropriate design review been performed? Is the design likely to meet performance expectations? Do the Key Performance Parameters in the PEP adequately capture the technical scope of the project?

2. Project Management: Is the management team organized and staffed to successfully

execute the project? Have project risks and uncertainties been identified and appropriately addressed? Are procurements appropriately planned, including any early (e.g., long-lead) requests?

3. Cost and Schedule: Are cost and schedule estimates complete and reasonable to

accomplish the planned scope? Do these estimates include adequate contingency that is based on a risk analysis?

4. ES&H: Are ES&H aspects being properly addressed?

5. Overall readiness for CD-2: Is LUSI ready for CD-2? Have all the prerequisite activities

and documents been completed adequately? Is the project baseline plan, including major assumptions and interfaces, sufficiently well developed to engender successful outcomes? Are any changes recommended?

Thomas E. Kiess, the LUSI Program Manager, will serve as the Basic Energy Sciences point of contact for this review. I would appreciate receiving your committee's report within 60 days of the review's conclusion.

/signed/ Eric A. Rohlfing Associate Director (Acting) Office of Basic Energy Sciences Office of Science

cc: P. Montano, SC-22.3 T. Brown, SC-22.3 T. Kiess, SC-22.3 L. Cerrone, SC-22.3 S. Tkaczyk, SC-28 K. Chao, SC-28 C. Clark, SC-28 P. Golan, SSO H. Lee, SSO H. Joma, SSO D. Knutson, SLAC J. Galayda, SLAC

APPENDIX B

REVIEW PARTICIPANTS

Department of Energy Review of the LCLS Ultrafast Science Instruments (LUSI) Project

Daniel R. Lehman, DOE/SC, Chairperson

SC-1 SC-2 SC-3 SC-4

Diagnostics & Controls/Data AcquisitionXPP Instrument (WBS 1.2) CXI Instrument (WBS 1.3) Common Optics (WBS 1.5) Systems (WBS 1.6)

* Peter Denes, LBNL * Al Macrander, ANL * Mark Beno, ANL * Deming Shu, ANL Stephan Kevan, Oregon Zenghu Chang, Kansas SU Mohan Ramanathan, ANL Karim Karim, U. of WaterlooStephen Leone, LBNL Om Singh, BNL Karen White, ORNL

SC-5 SC-6 SC-7 SC-8

XPCS Instrument (WBS 1.4) Cost and Schedule Project Management ES&H* Chi-Chang Kao, BNL * Bob Simmons, PPPL * Erik Johnson, BNL * Arnold Clobes, LLNL

Simon Mochrie, Yale Steve Tkaczyk, SC John Haines, ORNLAli Khounsary, ANL Scott Mallette, DOE/TJSO

LEGEND Pedro Montano, DOE/SC Hannibal Joma, DOE/SSO Thomas Kiess, DOE/SC Hanley Lee, DOE/SSO * ChairpersonThomas Brown, DOE/SC Brian Huizenga, OECM [ ] Part-time Subcom. Member

Count: 21 (excluding observers)

Observers

APPENDIX C

REVIEW AGENDA

Department of Energy Review of the LCLS Ultrafast Science Instruments (LUSI) Project

AGENDA

Tuesday, August 19, 2008—Kavli Auditorium, Building 51 8:00 am Executive Session—Kavli 3rd Floor Conf Rm. ......................Committee 9:00 am Welcome .................................................................................. D. Knutson 9:15 am LCLS Overview.........................................................................J. Galayda 9:40 am LUSI Science Overview ........................................................... J. Hastings 10:15 am Break 10:30 am LUSI MIE Project Overview ......................................................T. Fornek 11:05 am Engineering Overview ................................................................ N. Kurita 11:45 pm ES&H.............................................................................. M. Scharfenstein 12:00 pm Lunch 12:45 pm XPP Instrument Overview ............................................................. D. Fritz 1:10 pm CXI Instrument Overview............................................................S. Boutet 1:35 pm XCS Instrument Overview..........................................................A. Robert 2:00 pm Diagnostics and Common Optics...................................................Y. Feng 2:25 pm Controls and Data Systems ...........................................................G.Haller 2:50 pm Transition to Operations .............................................................. J. Arthur 3:15 pm Break 3:30 pm LCLS Tour 5:00 pm Executive Session—Kavli 3rd Floor Conf Rm. 6:30 pm Adjourn Wednesday, August 20, 2008—Breakout Sessions 8:00 am Subcommittee Breakout Sessions

Group Subcommittee(s) Conference Room Instruments 1, 2, and 5 Kavli 3rd Floor Diagnostics & Common Optics/DAC/Controls

3 and 4 Pine/Madrone, 2nd Floor, Bldg 48

Management 6 and 7 Kavli 2nd Floor 12:00 pm Lunch 1:00 pm Subcommittee Breakout Sessions 2:30 pm Executive Session / Discussion & Drafting of closeout remarks Thursday, August 21, 2008

8:00 am Executive Session Closeout Dry Run 11:00 am Closeout Briefing 12:00 pm Adjourn

APPENDIX D

COST TABLE

SIC Bas e

•.•USI DOEManagemen

" <\

Sase Cost (SCWS) $42.13M

Contingency $12.97M

TEC $55.10M

OPC $4.90M

TPC $60.00M

19,2008p.13

TomFb[lac.stanford.f!

Fuldi p

LUSI Funding Profile (AYM$)

Prior FY07 FY08 FY09 FYI0 FYll FY12 TotalYrs

MIE 0.50 6.00 15.00 15.00 13.50 5.10 55.10

ope 3.40 1.50 4.90

Total 3.40 2.00 6.00 15.00 15.00 13.50 5.10 60.00

"LUS I LCLS Ultrafast Science Instruments ~, lIfom For.tomf@Slac.s:tanford.edu

APPENDIX E

SCHEDULE CHART

Su ijma~ Schedule

CD·1 ApprovalSep 2007

CD·2 ReviewAug 2008

o =Level1 & 2 DOE

o =Level 3 Project Ready

Ready for CD·3aFeb 2009

0-0-0Ready for CD4a

Jul2010

o-~--o

Ready for CD·3bOct 2009

Ready for CD4bApr 2011

~~oReady for CD·3c

Feb 2010Ready for CD4c

Mar 2012

0-0-0

APPENDIX F

MANAGEMENT TABLE

I••......L

DOE-HQH. Kung, Acquisition ExecutiveT.E. Kiess, Program Manager

IDOE-SSO DOE-SSO.......

SupportH. JomaDOE Federal Project Director

Instrument Team I LCLS Directorate Support

Leaders (Advisory) ... SLAC....... ES&H, QA, Finance, EVMS,

T. Fornek Procurement. ..

Technical Configuration Control.... LUSI Project Manager Engineering

Committee (Scope Decisions) Deputy - TBD N. Kurita - Chief Engineer

T

WBS 1.2 XPP liT WBS 1.3 CXI liT WBS 1.4 XCS liT WBS 1.5 WBS 1.6Diagnostics &

D. Fritz S. Boutet A.Robert Common Optics Data Acquisition &(Instr. Scientist) (Instr. Scientist) (Instr. Scientis,t) Controls

Y.FengJ. Langton P. Montanez E. Bong - Acting (Lead Scientist) G. Haller( Lead Eng) ( Lead Eng) (Lead Eng) (Lead)

E. Ortiz(Lead Eng )

APPENDIX G

EIR ASSESSMENT

LUSI EIR Elements: IPR Committee Assessment

1. Work Breakdown Structure Project Assessment: Completed and placed under change control as of March 2008. Available for review: Structure PM-391-000-96; Dictionary PM-391-001- 12 Committee Assessment: Satisfactory 2. Project Cost and Resource Loaded Schedule Project Assessment: Completed and placed under change control as of March 2008. Working baselines set as of month end March 2008 for both the schedule in Primavera and the project cost in Cobra. Committee Assessment: Satisfactory pending input from the technical committees on contingency assessment. 3. Key Project Cost and Schedule Assumptions Project Assessment: Assumptions were identified and covered in the Management and EVMS presentations. Committee Assessment: Satisfactory 4. Critical Path Project Assessment: Critical paths have been identified for the project’s major deliverables. The paths support CD-4a (XPP), CD-4b (CXI), and CD-4c (XCS). Committee Assessment: Satisfactory

5. Risk Management Project Assessment: Project risks have been identified and are classified as High, Medium, and Low. The risks are documented with mitigation plans identified. Contingency is risk-based. Risk Management Plan (RMP), Doc. No. PM-391-001-02. Risk Registry, Doc. No. PM-391-001-11. Committee Assessment: The LUSI MIE Project Risk Management approach is described in detail in the RMP for LUSI. The LUSI project manager has overall responsibility for implementing the RMP; however, the expertise and resources of the entire project team are involved in identifying, assessing, and mitigating risks. Each risk mitigation strategy has been assigned to a responsible individual. According to the RMP, risk assessment items are reevaluated by the project on at least a quarterly basis, but the project is currently performing a monthly reassessment.

Cost contingency estimates were developed for each major cost element, usually at WBS element Level 4 or lower, using a systematic risk-based contingency approach. The Committee felt that the LUSI PEP, quality assurance (QA) plan, hazard assessment, cost estimates, and schedule were each prepared with an awareness of project risks. The amount of cost contingency in the baseline (and included in the TPC) is sufficient to cover identified, as well as unknown risks. Similarly, the schedule contingency is sufficient to cover the schedule risks that have been identified. 6. Funding Profile Project Assessment: The fiscal year funding profile was provided and used as the basis for finalizing the preliminary cost and schedule baselines, including six months of Continuing Resolution for FY 2009. Details are discussed in both the Management and EVMS presentations. Committee Assessment: Satisfactory 7. Project Controls/EVMS Project Assessment: Implemented based on the DOE certified SLAC EVMS processes and procedures. Available to and statused by the project since March 2008. Overview and status covered in this presentation. Committee Assessment: Satisfactory 8. Basis of Design Project Assessment: Preliminary Instrument Design Reviews were conducted by qualified committees for XPP, CXI and XCS. Results indicated that the instruments are ready for CD-2 baselines. Recommendations from the reviews have been adequately addressed. Details are discussed in the Engineering presentation. Committee Assessment: Satisfactory 9. Design Review Project Assessment: The Preliminary Instrument Design Review confirmed that the preliminary design is consistent with the system functions and requirements in the Physics Requirement Document and is at the Preliminary Design level Details are discussed in the Engineering presentation. Committee Assessment: Satisfactory with comments: • Reviews conducted to date utilized external reviewers (this is good). • As process matures, the review teams should also include a diverse mix of engineering and

physics participation. • Recommendations from the reviews need to be tracked to closure and recommendations from

the preliminary design reviews must be addressed to satisfy EIR requirements.

10. System Functions and Requirements Project Assessment: System functions and requirements are documented in the Physics Requirements Documents. Details are discussed in the Engineering presentation. Committee Assessment: Satisfactory. Detailed discussion of documents reveals they are in an advanced state for CD-2. 11. Sustainability Project Assessment: This requirement is not applicable. Committee Assessment: Agree. 12. Hazard Analysis Project Assessment: The CD-1 Preliminary Hazards Analysis (Document No. PM-391-000- 99) and CD-2 Hazards Analysis (Document No. PM-391- 001-01 ) are complete. Details are discussed in the Engineering presentation. Committee Assessment: Satisfactory with comments: • LUSI management adequately addressed safety in their project planning. • Appropriately addressed are safety scope, safety schedule including allocation for reviews

in the LUSI P3 schedule, and safety costs as a line item in the LUSI budget for analysis and support.

• Analysis of the natural phenomena hazards at the SLAC location is limited to seismic concerns. The safety significant SSCs as a result of operations are: Shielding; Personnel Protection Systems; and Beam Containment Systems. The SOC will review these systems as they reach the appropriate design maturity.

• It was affirmed that the development of the HAR was subject to a series of internal reviews, and reviews by individuals external to the LUSI project. The DOE SSO also completed a review of the document based upon which they approved it.

• Based on DOE Order 420.2B criteria, LUSI was determined to be a low hazard facility. There have been no interfaces with the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board or the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

13. Value Management/Engineering Project Assessment: LUSI Value Management Plan (Doc No. PM-391-000-02). Committee Assessment: Satisfactory: The LUSI Value Management Plan describes the details of the LUSI MIE Project’s approach to value management. A formal VM/VE exercise, which included internal and external participants, was utilized to identify alternative solutions. Results of the process were documented. Alternative/tradeoff analysis and utilization of common designs continues as part of the everyday process among LUSI project staff members. The LUSI project team appears to be committed to continue using VE practices.

14. Start-Up Test Plan

Project Assessment: Document Nos. SP-391-001-15, - 16, -17 (XPP, CXI, XCS). Committee Assessment: Satisfactory with comments: Start-Up Plans are in place for all three instruments. These plans describe the acceptance and operational system tests required to satisfy the CD-4 requirements for each instrument. The schedule for each instrument includes equipment acceptance testing activities and a final Instrument Readiness Review. Successful completion of these activities constitutes project completion (CD-4) as defined in the PEP. The Committee considered the Start-Up Plans to be well thought-out and acceptable. Commissioning with beam is an LCLS operations activity (not funded by the LUSI project) that occurs after project completion. This appears to be satisfactory to DOE/SC and LCLS management, however LCLS management was not included on the sign-off for these documents. Although a more detailed and formal process will need to be implemented to ensure a smooth transition from the construction project to start-up/commissioning, the level of detail in the current version of the plans is consistent with this phase of the project. 15. Project Execution Plan

Project Assessment: Draft ready for signature pending CD-2 review changes. Committee Assessment: The CD-4 structure needs to be updated and revised before submission for approval. Minor inconsistencies also need to be reconciled before submission. 16. Acquisition Strategy Project Assessment: Approved August 22, 2007 (DOE Controlled Document). Committee Assessment: Satisfactory; no deficiencies identified in the approved document.

16. Integrated Project Team Project Assessment: The Integrated Project Team is in place and functioning. The IPT structure has been explained in this presentation and documented in the approved PEP. Committee Assessment: Satisfactory with comments: Revisions of the PEP should include a charter for the IPT that reflects any changes in membership in force at that time.