Cost & Schedule Review I

1. Cost & Schedule Review I • Terms of reference: • To review the Cost and schedule of the MICE Muon beam • To review the Cost and schedule of the MICE UK project: • To review the MICE Work Breakdown Structure • UK ACTIVITIES not MICE ACTIVITY • Output & Response: http://www.isis.rl.ac.uk/accelerator/MICE/cost_schedule/Actions%20and%20Response.pdf

2. Cost & Schedule Review II • Overall response is positive • …costs reasonable… …30% contingency • … timescale for the beam-line seems to be achievable if money is available soon. • Some criticism, some actions, but on the whole - a good outcome. • Implications for the AFCWG?

3. Recommended outsourcing • Twice! • MICE-UK should look seriously at outsourcing the hydrogen cryogenic system for the absorber, including the design. • The hydrogen control & safety system is a UK responsibility while the hydrogen cryogenic system is part of the absorber and is a Japanese responsibility. The associated UK R&D project deals with the safety control system for the gas supply & the hydride bed. A collaborative project is planned which integrates the gas system with the absorber. The operating parameters of the complete system are important for safety. Outsourcing would need iMICE agreement and careful coordination of tasks already in progress. The MICE-UK Project Team do not feel that outsourcing the complete system is easily possible; however, an investigation can be made. The HAZOP/Risk analysis is identified as a suitable task for outsourced expertise. • Thumbs up to the Management of this activity!

4. Cost & Schedule Review II • Design reviews do not seem to have been put into the schedule • Partly True! • The design review at the end of ’05 had been included in the FC - WBS. • Plans for a Design & Safety Working Group • Lead to an independent review of engineering and safety reporting back to MICE. • There does seem to be an absence of commissioning/ pre-operating costs. This could be quite significant as soon as the beam exists, and an allowance should be included in the overall costing.

5. NB this is UK Only And I invite you to comment!

6. Muon Ionisation Cooling Experiment MICE • Gateway 1 Review: • Main problem was funds vs project • Gateway 2 Review: 20th December • Project changed to match funds…. Includes R&D Will Christmas come early?

7. In progress…

8. Proposal for a Design & Safety Review • The AFCSWG proved to be a successful model - important safety features and risks could be critically examined. • This experience has been beneficial to MICE • motivation and focus • confidence within the collaboration • Confidence at RAL • Sufficient progress has been made to move to the next stage – • MICE will expand the scope of the task to include • engineering designs and • safety aspects • of all the components of MICE: detectors and cooling channel. • Safety Group core: • Engineering: • Wing Lau Convenor • Steve Virostek • Cooling Channel: • Mike Zisman • Magnets & Absorber: • Elwyn Baynham • Mike Green • Integration: • Yury Ivanyushenkov • Detectors & Electronics: • Alan Bross • Interlocks: • “Tom Bradshaw” Group’s task is to solicit additional information (papers, reports, presentations). to meet as part of the existing AFC series of meetings to avoid meeting escalation. It is up to the Convenor to initiate meetings of one or other of the groups. The group should consider the design of MICE, including the beam line & target, and all infrastructures (shielding, RF power, electrical power systems, controls etc).

9. Charge to the Group The remit of the group is to: • Document the parts… •  design detail and analysis that an  (for assessment against appropriate engineering design rules) • Consequences of components in the integrated environment interconnections, forces, integrated vacuum systems etc. • safety & hazard assessment of  the components in the operational phase;  identify procedures, risks, consequences,  identification of fault conditions etc. • The completed information will be presented through the TB to the EB EB will then initiate an independent review which will inform the EB.  EB will then take action on the report of the review.