html5-img
1 / 22

Daniel R. Lehman Review Committee Chair Office of Science, U.S. Department of Energy

Review of Critical Decision 1 for the Large Liquid Argon Detector for Neutron Physics ( MicroBooNE ) at Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory March 2-3, 2010. Daniel R. Lehman Review Committee Chair Office of Science, U.S. Department of Energy http://www.science.doe.gov/opa/.

pelham
Télécharger la présentation

Daniel R. Lehman Review Committee Chair Office of Science, U.S. Department of Energy

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Review of Critical Decision 1 for the Large Liquid Argon Detector for Neutron Physics (MicroBooNE) at Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory March 2-3, 2010 Daniel R. Lehman Review Committee Chair Office of Science, U.S. Department of Energy http://www.science.doe.gov/opa/

  2. DOE Review of MicroBooNE DOE EXECUTIVE SESSION AGENDA Tuesday, March 2, 2010—Wilson Hall, Hornet’s Nest (WH8X0) 8:00 a.m. Introduction and Overview D. Lehman 8:10 a.m. HEP Perspective T. Lavine 8:20 a.m. Federal Project Director Perspective P. Philp 8:30 a.m. Questions http://www-microboone.fnal.gov/project/cd1_doe/index.html username – reviewer; password – ureview

  3. Daniel Lehman, SC, Chairperson, U.S. Department of Energy Review Committee Participants *Lead

  4. Office of the Secretary Dr. Steven Chu, Secretary Deputy Secretary* Daniel B. Poneman Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Chief of Staff Department Staff and Support Offices Assistant Secretary for Policy and International Affairs Assistant Secretary for Congressional and Intergov’t Affairs Office of the Under Secretary for Nuclear Security/ Administrator for National Nuclear Security Administration Thomas P. D’Agostino Office of the Under Secretary Kristina M. Johnson Office of the Under Secretary for Science Steven E. Koonin General Counsel Health, Safety and Security Chief Financial Officer Economic Impact And Diversity Office of Science Chief Information Officer Inspector General Deputy Administrator for Defense Programs Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Advanced Scientific Computing Research Deputy Administrator for Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation Assistant Secretary for Environmental Management Chief Human Capital Officer Hearings and Appeals Basic Energy Sciences Deputy Administrator for Naval Reactors Assistant Secretary for Fossil Energy Management Intelligence and Counter Intelligence Biological and Environmental Research Deputy Under Secretary for Counter-terrorism Assistant Secretary for Nuclear Energy Public Affairs Fusion Energy Science Associate Administrator for Defense Nuclear Security Civilian Radioactive Waste Management Energy Information Administration High Energy Physics Associate Administrator for Emergency Operations Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability Bonneville Power Administration Southeastern Power Administration Nuclear Physics Associate Administrator for Infrastructure and Environment Legacy Management Southwestern Power Administration Western Area Power Administration Workforce Development For Teachers/Scientists Associate Administrator for Management and Administration Jun 09 *The Deputy Secretary also serves as the Chief Operating Officer. Department of Energy Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy

  5. Office of the Director (SC - 1) William F. Brinkman Deputy Director Deputy Director Deputy Director for Field Operations (SC - 3) for Science Programs (SC - 2) for Resource Management (SC - 4) George Malosh Patricia Dehmer Jeffrey Salmon Office of Ames SO Chicago Adv. Scientific Office of Budget Workforce Lab Cynthia Baebler Office Comp. Research (SC - 21) Office of (SC - 41) Development Policy & Roxanne Michael Strayer Business Policy Kathleen Klausing for Teachers/ Evaluat. Argonne SO Purucker and Ops (SC - 32) Scientists J. Livengood (A) D. Streit (SC - 45) (SC - 27) Basic Energy Office of Grants/ Cont. Berkeley SO Thomas Phan Sciences (SC - 22) Wm. Valdez Office of Support (SC - 43) SC Aundra Richards Harriet Kung Safety, Martin Rubenstein Integrated Security Brookhaven SO Support Business Mgmt. and Infra. Biological & Environ. Michael Holland Office of Scientific and Office of Center Sys. & Serv. (SC - 31) Research (SC - 23) Tech. Info. (SC - 44) Project M. Jones (SC - 45.1) Fermi SO Anna Palmisano Walt Warnick Assessment Thomas Phan (A) M. Bollinger (A) (SC - 28) Oak Ridge Fusion Energy Human Capital Office of SC Project Daniel Lehman Oak Ridge SO Office Sciences (SC - 24) Resources Direction (SC - 46) Johnny Moore Gerald Edmund Synakowski (SC - 45.2) Vicki Barden Boyd Thomas Phan (A) Princeton SO Jerry Faul High Energy Physics (SC - 25) Pacific NWest SO Dennis Kovar Michael Weis Stanford SO Nuclear Physics Paul Golan (SC - 26) (A) Acting Timothy Hallmon Thomas Jeff. SO James Turi 12/2009 Office of Science

  6. Agenda

  7. Agenda cont.

  8. Charge Questions Does the conceptual design and planned implementation satisfy the performance specifications required to meet the project objectives? Are the estimated cost and proposed schedule ranges realistic, consistent with the technical and budgetary objectives, and justified by the supporting documentation? Has all the work been appropriately identified, estimated and scheduled, including the work associated with performing the preliminary design, final design and value engineering? Does the proposed project team have adequate management experience, design skills and laboratory support to produce a credible technical, cost and schedule baseline? Are ES&H aspects being properly addressed at the project’s current stage of development? Is the DOE project scope well defined within the DOE and NSF funded collaboration? Are all the other parts of the project uncerstood to be the responsibility of the other collaborators? Is the documentation required by DOE O413.3A in order and ready for approval of the Critical Decision 1?

  9. CD Requirements

  10. Report Outline/ Writing Assignments

  11. MicroBooNECost Sheet

  12. Closeout Presentationand Final ReportProcedures

  13. Format: Closeout Presentation • (No Smaller than 18 pt Font) • 2.1 [Use number and title corresponding to writing assignment list.] • List Review Subcommittee Members • 2.1.1 Findings • In bullet form, include an assessment of technical, cost, schedule, and management. • 2.1.2 Comments • In bullet form, list descriptive material assessing the findings and the conclusions based on the findings. This is narrative material and is often omitted as a separate heading and the narrative included either under Findings or Recommendations as appropriate. This heading carries more emphasis than the Findings, but does not require an action as do the Recommendations. Do not number your comments. • 2.1.3 Recommendations • Begin with action verb and identify a due date. • 2.

  14. Format: Final Report • 2.1 [Use number and title corresponding to writing assignment list.] • 2.1.1 Findings • Include an assessment of technical, cost, schedule, and management. • 2.1.2 Comments • Descriptive material assessing the findings and the conclusions based on the findings. This is narrative material and is often omitted as a separate heading and the narrative included either under Findings or Recommendations as appropriate. This heading carries more emphasis than the Findings, but does not require an action as do the Recommendations. Do not number your comments. • 2.1.3 Recommendations • Begin with action verb and identify a due date. • 2. • 3.

  15. Expectations • Present closeout reports in PowerPoint. • Forward your sections for each review report (in MSWord format) to Casey Clark, casey.clark@science.doe.gov, by March 8, 8:00 a.m. (EST).

  16. Review of Critical Decision 1 for the Large Liquid Argon Detector for Neutron Physics (MicroBooNE) at Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory March 3, 2010 Example Daniel R. Lehman Review Committee Chair Office of Science, U.S. Department of Energy http://www.science.doe.gov/opa/

  17. 2.1 Cryostat and Cryo-SystemFuerst, Strauss • Does the conceptual design and planned implementation satisfy the performance specifications required to meet the project objectives? 5. Is the DOE project scope well defined within the DOE and NSF funded collaboration? Are all the other parts of the project uncerstood to be the responsibility of the other collaborators? 6. Is the documentation required by DOE O413.3A in order and ready for approval of the Critical Decision 1? • Findings • Comments • Recommendations

  18. 2.2 Detector and ElectronicsWisniewski, Stroynowski • Does the conceptual design and planned implementation satisfy the performance specifications required to meet the project objectives? 5. Is the DOE project scope well defined within the DOE and NSF funded collaboration? Are all the other parts of the project uncerstood to be the responsibility of the other collaborators? 6. Is the documentation required by DOE O413.3A in order and ready for approval of the Critical Decision 1? • Findings • Comments • Recommendations

  19. 2.3 Infrastructure and InstallationSims, Edwards • Does the conceptual design and planned implementation satisfy the performance specifications required to meet the project objectives? 5. Is the DOE project scope well defined within the DOE and NSF funded collaboration? Are all the other parts of the project uncerstood to be the responsibility of the other collaborators? 6. Is the documentation required by DOE O413.3A in order and ready for approval of the Critical Decision 1? • Findings • Comments • Recommendations

  20. 3. Cost EstimateGines, Fisher • 2. Are the estimated cost and proposed schedule ranges realistic, consistent with the technical and budgetary objectives, and justified by the supporting documentation? Has all the work been appropriately identified, estimated and scheduled, including the work associated with performing the preliminary design, final design and value engineering? • 6. Is the documentation required by DOE O413.3A in order and ready for approval of the Critical Decision 1? • Findings • Comments • Recommendations

  21. 4. Schedule and FundingGines, Fisher • 2. Are the estimated cost and proposed schedule ranges realistic, consistent with the technical and budgetary objectives, and justified by the supporting documentation? Has all the work been appropriately identified, estimated and scheduled, including the work associated with performing the preliminary design, final design and value engineering? • 6. Is the documentation required by DOE O413.3A in order and ready for approval of the Critical Decision 1? • Findings • Comments • Recommendations

  22. 5. Management and ES&HGilchriese, Fisher, Gines • 3. Does the proposed project team have adequate management experience, design skills and laboratory support to produce a credible technical, cost and schedule baseline? • 4. Are ES&H/QA aspects being properly addressed at the project’s current stage of development? • 5. Is the DOE project scope well defined within the DOE and NSF funded collaboration? Are all the other parts of the project uncerstood to be the responsibility of the other collaborators? • 6. Is the documentation required by DOE O413.3A in order and ready for approval of the Critical Decision 1? • Findings • Comments • Recommendations

More Related