AFRD HEP: Issues

1
AFRD - HEP Issues

• William Barletta
• DOE/HEP Review
• February 19, 2004

2
The Bottom Line

• Outstanding results in high profile programs
• Center for Beam Physics in financial free fall
• Supercon program on verge of financial collapse
• Options
• Significant increase in base budget
• Radical surgery
• Context for decision LHC turn-on LARP

Despite losing 3 senior staff this year, we are
faced with an immediate Engineering RIF an AFRD
RIF before October without an added 850 K in
FY05 base
3
Despite superlative vision success, Supercon
is rapidly becoming sub-critical
Program is at serious risk due to decaying
infrastructure
4
Radical Surgery Eliminate a Vital High Profile
Progam

• Assumptions
• 1) we maintain total funds
• 2) we can reallocate funds between CBP
  Supercon
• Option 1 Eliminate lOASIS experimental program
• Transfers world leadership in laser acceleration
  to Europe
• Option 2 Eliminate conductor program in Supercon
• Eliminates critical inernational resource
• Does not save enough for restructuring CBP
  Supercon
• Option 3 Eliminate BEG
• Maximizes RIF, no PEP-II support, maims LARP
  instrumentation
• Option 4 Eliminate superconducting magnet
  program
• Catastrophic for National Magnet Program LARP

5
LHC Accelerator Research Program Maximize
luminosity, prepare for upgrades

• Leadership roles in LARP management
• Instrumention based on extensive beam-based
  experiments (J. Byrd)
• BEG infrastructure decay compromises this effort
• First generation Nb3Sn magnets for accelerators
  (Steve Gourlay)
• Supercon success with Nb3Sn essential to LHC
  upgrades
• LARP presupposes a strong base program

3.3 M/yr
LHC Energy Doubler LHC Luminosity Upgrade
10 M/yr
6
Root cause of financial instability the 6
take away
FY04 supplemental
Inflation 4 overhead increase in FY04 make a
bad situation much worse The FY04 supplemental is
lifesaver for the next several months
7
HEP Funding Data (LHC project not included)
8
Only continuing investment by LBNL Director has
preserved AFRD vitality
LDRD to CBP SC
l O S A I S
Fiscal Year
Main thrust of LDRD investment is now outside HEP
9
Catastrophic FY05 Presidents budget
Correct amount ?
Delaying urgent decisive action is irresponsible
without specific guidance
10
FY01-FY03 Past management actions to mitigate
eroding base support

• Cancel low profile programs 3
• Restructure budget to minimize overhead3
• Consume equipment funds on fabrications 3
• Increase percentage of expenses for labor 3
• Reduce salary increases, enforced vacations 3
• Reductions-in-force, restructure staff 3
• Defer critical infrastructure improvements 3
• Reduce commitments deliverables 3
• Terminate early career term staff ASAP

These are one-time fixes - What is left to do
11
The Tyranny of ArithmaticHEP Base Program is
87 labor
Recharges space utilities, etc. fixed
of labor
Purchases (2) includes stipends for visiting
scientists i.e.,labor

• Reducing costs gt reducing staff
• Budgeted EQU costs cannot support experimental
  programs
• For past 3 years we have spent EQU funds on labor
  to avoid RIF

12
Supercon FY04 Base Budget

• Does not support large magnet program
• Seriously jeopardizes underpinnings of LARP
• LARP technology resides solely at LBNL
• Endangers preserving the staff that delivered
  HD-1
• Mechanical engineers, technicians test facility
  personnel
• Test facility requires substantial upgrade

Projection in January 200 K
overspent Supplemental funds restore solvency,
but long term crisis remains
13
Supercon Program Needs FY04

• With 770k over base funding we can
• Provide minimal test facility maintenance
  improvements (Priority 1)
• Restore large magnet program
• Design and build HD-2
• Test HD-1 at 1.9K (Should reach 17 T)
• Provide critical technical support for LARP

Test Facility upgrade proposal has been
presented during February DOE/HEP Review
14
CBP FY04 Financial Freefall

• CBP HEP base budget status
• Jan. 04 Guidance allocation is 4,494k
• Obligation projection from FY03 is 5,144k
• gt 650 k shortfall
• January actions Supplemental reduce Shortfall
  to 250k
• Action necessary to address the FY04 shortfall
• Reduce 2 FTE Technical support (sub-critical
  level remaining)
• Dont replace 2 departing senior staff (Turner,
  Placidi)
• Defer equipment purchases
• gt Dramatically slow progress on 1 GeV module
  (lOasis)
• limit assistance to PEP-II Tevatron improvement
• Without additional FY04 funds, further cuts
  needed
• RIF of up to 2 FTE from the scientific staff
  before Oct 1

15
Projected Post-doc Term Appointments are
Insufficient to Meet Commitments
From institutional funds Tevatron support
funds
16
Summary Management Plan Cuts by Program Area -
FY04

• Supercon
• Do not replace senior physicist (Scanlan) 3
• RIF 1 - 2 techs at test facility
• Eliminate equipment purchases
• Mothball full scale magnet fabrication and
  testing 3
• CBP General
• Do not replace senior physicist (Turner) 3
• LOASIS
• Cut 1 (0.5 FTE) computational theorist
• Eliminate equipment purchases 3
• RIF 1- 2 techs
• BEG
• Do not replace senior physicist (Placidi) 3
• Do not hire post-doc
• Eliminate equipment purchases 3
• Theory
• Do not renew term scientist

3 Already implemented
17
FY04 incremental funding requests
FY04 Incremental Requests (0ver initial
financial plan February supplemental)
Supercon 500 K (begin test facility upgrade)
LOasis 200 K (critical retention
issue) BEG 100 K ( to maintain term
staff) Theory 100 K ( to maintain term
staff) Total 900 K
Despite losing three senior staff, we are faced
with an Engineering RIF immediately and AFRD
RIF before October
18
FY05 request Restore funding to FY01 level
Continue magnet facilty upgrade
Allows healthy lOASIS and Supercon programs
19
Responsible Management Demands Decisive Action

• Insufficient staff on top priorities Supercon,
  lOasis, AMAC
• Insufficient resources for top programs
  Supercon, lOasis,
• Supercon infrastructure becoming inconsistent
  with safe, effective working environment
• Our highest priorities in the longer term will
  be
• Breakthrough accelerator technology for near
  future
• Support of LHC-based physics via LARP (aligned
  with PD)
• Maintain leadership in accelerator modeling and
  simulation
• LC PEP-II activites only if directly funded
  from SLAC

We must adjust our resources now to match
priorities