1 / 22

OFFICE OF SCIENCE

OFFICE OF SCIENCE. Review Committee for the Muon to Electron Conversion (Mu2e) Experiment Project Fermilab June 5-7, 2012. Daniel R. Lehman Review Committee Chair Office of Science, U.S. Department of Energy http://www.science.doe.gov/opa/. DOE Review of Mu2e. OFFICE OF SCIENCE.

meir
Download Presentation

OFFICE OF SCIENCE

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. OFFICE OFSCIENCE Review Committee for the Muon to Electron Conversion (Mu2e) Experiment Project Fermilab June 5-7, 2012 Daniel R. Lehman Review Committee Chair Office of Science, U.S. Department of Energy http://www.science.doe.gov/opa/

  2. DOE Review of Mu2e OFFICE OFSCIENCE DOE EXECUTIVE SESSION AGENDA Tuesday, June 5, 2012—Wilson Hall, The Comititum 8:00 a.m. Introduction and OverviewD. Lehman 8:10 a.m. Program Office PerspectiveM. Procario/T. Lavine 8:15 a.m. Federal Project Director PerspectiveP. Philp 8:30 a.m. Questions 8:45 a.m. Adjourn Project and review information is available at: Username: reviewer Password: mu2ereviewer

  3. OFFICE OFSCIENCE Review Committee Participants

  4. DOE Organization Chart OFFICE OFSCIENCE Office of the Secretary Dr. Steven Chu, Secretary Deputy Secretary* Daniel B. Poneman Associate Deputy Secretary Melvin G. Williams, Jr. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy Inspector General Loans Program Office American Recovery & Reinvestment Act Office Chief of Staff Technology Transfer Coordinator Office of the Under Secretary for Science Vacant Under Secretary for Science Office of the Under Secretary for Nuclear Security Thomas P. D’Agostino Under Secretary For Nuclear Security Office of the Under Secretary Vacant Under Secretary Assistant Secretary for Policy and International Affairs Energy Information Administration Assistant Secretary for Congressional and Intergovernmental Affairs Bonneville Power Administration General Counsel Southwestern Power Administration Assistant Secretary for Environmental Management Office of Science Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy National Nuclear Security Administration Chief Financial Officer Southeastern Power Administration Legacy Management Advanced Scientific Computing Research Assistant Secretary for Fossil Energy Associate Administrator for Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation Deputy Administrator for Defense Programs Chief Human Capital Officer Western Area Power Administration Basic Energy Sciences Assistant Secretary for Electrical Delivery and Energy Reliability Deputy Administrator for Naval Reactors Deputy Under Secretary for Counter-terrorism Chief Information Officer Biological and Environmental Research Assistant Secretary for Nuclear Energy Associate Administrator for Defense Nuclear Security Associate Administrator for Emergency Operations Intelligence and Counterintelligence Management Fusion Energy Science Indian Energy Policy and Programs Associate Administrator for External Affairs Associate Administrator for Acquisition & Project Management Public Affairs Health Safety and Security High Energy Physics Associate Administrator for Management & Budget Associate Administrator for Info. Management & CIO Economic Impact And Diversity Hearings and Appeals Nuclear Physics Associate Administrator for Safety & Health Workforce Development For Teachers/Scientists 06 December, 2011 *The Deputy Secretary also serves as the Chief Operating Officer.

  5. OFFICE OFSCIENCE SC Organization Chart Office of the Director (SC-1) William F. Brinkman Deputy Director for Field Operations (SC-3) Joseph McBrearty Deputy Director for Science Programs (SC-2) Patricia Dehmer Deputy Director for Resource Management (SC-4) Jeffrey Salmon Office of Lab Policy & Evaluat. (SC-32) D. Streit Workforce Development for Teachers/ Scientists (SC-27) P. Dehmer (A) Ames SO Cynthia Baebler Advanced Scientific Comp. Research (SC-21) Daniel Hitchcock Chicago Office Roxanne Purucker Office of Budget (SC-41) Kathleen Klausing Office of Business Policy & Ops (SC-45) V. Kountouris Argonne SO Joanna Livengood Basic Energy Sciences (SC-22) Harriet Kung Office of Grants/ Cont. Support (SC-43) Linda Shariati Berkeley SO Aundra Richards Office of Safety, Security & Infra. (SC-31) M. Jones SC Integrated Support Center Brookhaven SO Michael Holland Office of Project Assessment (SC-28) Daniel Lehman SC Communications & Public Affairs (SC-4) DollineHatchett Biological & Environ. Research (SC-23) Sharlene Weatherwax Office of SC Program Direction (SC-46) Rebecca Kelley Fermi SO Michael Weis Fusion Energy Sciences (SC-24) Edmund Synakowski Oak Ridge Office J. Eschenberg (A) Office of Scientific and Tech. Info. (SC-44) Walt Warnick Human Resources & Admin. (SC-45.3) Cynthia Mays Oak Ridge SO Johnny Moore Small Business Innovation Research (SC-29) Manny Oliver Princeton SO Maria Dikeakos High Energy Physics (SC-25) James Siegrist Pacific NWest SO Roger Snyder Nuclear Physics (SC-26) Timothy Hallman Stanford SO Paul Golan (A) Acting Thomas Jeff. SO Joe Arango 12/2011

  6. OFFICEOF SCIENCE Charge Questions Does the conceptual design satisfy the performance requirements? Do the conceptual design report and supporting documentation adequately justify the stated cost range and project duration? 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 and are future plans sufficient given the projects current stage of development? Is the documentation required by DOE, satisfying Order 413.3B, ready for approval of CD-1?

  7. Agenda OFFICE OFSCIENCE • Tuesday, June 5, 2012—Wilson Hall, the Comititum • 8:00 am DOE Executive Session Charge and ProceduresD. Lehman • High Energy Physics PerspectiveM. Procario, T. Lavine • Project OverviewP. Philp • 8:45 am Plenary Session—1 West, WelcomePier Oddone • 9:55 am Project OverviewRon Ray • 10:10 am Break—Outside 1 West • 10:25 am WBS 1.2 AcceleratorSteve Werkema • 10:50 am WBS 1.3 Conventional ConstructionTom Lackowski • 11:15 am WBS 1.4 SolenoidsMike Lamm • 11: 45 am WBS 1.5 Muon BeamlineSandorFeher • 12:05 pm Lunch—WH2XO • 1:05 pm WBS 1.6 TrackerAseetMukherjee • 1:25 pm WBS 1.7 CalorimeterStefano Miscetti • 1:45 pm WBS 1.8 Cosmic Ray VetoCraig Dukes • 2:05 pm WBS 1.7 Trigger and DAQMark Bowden • 2:25 pm Common Projects that Support Mu2eDoug Glenzinski • 2:50 pm Break—Outside 1 West • 3:10 pm Subcommittee Breakout Sessions • • SC1 Accelerator and Muon Beamline—1 North (WH1NW) • • SC2 Solenoids—Hornet’s Nest (WH8XO) • • SC3/4 Calorimeter, Cosmic Ray Veto, Tracker, DAQ—Snake Pit (WH2NE) • • SC5 Conventional Construction—Racetrack (WH7XO) • SC6/7 Project Management—Comitium (WH2SW) • 4:40 pm DOE Executive Session—ComitiumD. Lehman • 6:30 pm Adjourn

  8. OFFICE OF SCIENCE Agenda • Wednesday, June 6, 2012 • 8:00 am Subcommittee Breakout Sessions • • SC1 Accelerator and Muon Beamline—1 North (WH1NW) • • SC2 Solenoids—Hornet’s Nest (WH8XO) • • SC3/4 Calorimeter, Cosmic Ray Veto, Tracker, DAQ—Snake Pit (WH2NE) • • SC5 Conventional Construction—Racetrack (WH7XO) • SC6/7 Project Management—Comitium (WH2SW) • 9:30 am Break—Outside Comitium • 9:45 am Subcommittee Breakout Sessions (Continued in same rooms) • 11:30 pm Lunch—WH2XO • 1:30 pm Subcommittee Working Session—Comitium • 3:00 pm Break—Outside Comitium • 3:15 pm DOE Full Committee Executive Session—ComitiumD. Lehman • Thursday, June 7, 2012 • 8:00 am Subcommittee Working Session—Comitium • 10:00 am Break—Outside Comitium • 10:15 am DOE Full Committee Executive Session Dry Run—ComitiumD. Lehman • 12:00 pm Lunch—Outside Comitium • 2:00 pm DOE Summary and Closeout—1 WestD. Lehman • 3:00 pm Adjourn

  9. Report Outline/ Writing Assignments OFFICE OF SCIENCE • Executive SummaryMerrill • 1. IntroductionLavine • 2. Technical Systems Evaluation (Charge Questions 1, 2, 5) • 2.1 Accelerator PhysicsGerig*/SC-1 • 2.1.1 Findings • 2.1.2 Comments • 2.1.3 Recommendations • 2.2 Superconducting SolenoidsWanderer*/SC-2 • 2.3 Detector SystemsKettell*/SC-3 • 2.4 Electronics/DAQ/Control SystemsVan Berg*/SC-4 • 3. Civil Construction (Charge Questions 1, 2, 5)Sims*/SC-5 • 4. Cost and Schedule (Charge Questions 2, 5)Merrill*/SC-6 • 5. Project Management & ES&H (Charge Questions 3, 4, 5)Loveless*/SC-7 • *Lead

  10. Closeout Presentationand Final ReportProcedures OFFICE OFSCIENCE

  11. Format: Closeout Presentation OFFICE OFSCIENCE • (Use PowerPoint / No Smaller than 18 pt Font) • 2.1 Use Section Number/Title corresponding to writing assignment list. • List Review Subcommittee Members • List Assigned Charge Questions and Review Committee Answers • 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.

  12. Format: Final Report OFFICE OFSCIENCE • (Use MS Word / 12pt Font) • 2.1 Use Section Number/Title corresponding to writing assignment list. • 2.1.1 Findings • Include an assessment of technical, cost, schedule, and management. Within the text of the Findings Section, include the answers to the review questions. • 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.

  13. Expectations OFFICE OFSCIENCE • Present closeout reports in PowerPoint. • Forward your sections for each review report (in MSWord format) to Casey Clark, casey.clark@science.doe.gov, by Monday, June 11, 8:00 a.m. (EDT).

  14. OFFICE OFSCIENCE Closeout Report bythe Review Committee for the Muon to Electron Conversion (Mu2e) Experiment Project Fermilab June 7, 2012 Example Daniel R. Lehman Committee Chair Office of Science, U.S. Department of Energy http://www.science.doe.gov/opa/

  15. OFFICE OF SCIENCE 2.1 Accelerator PhysicsR. Gerig, ANL / Subcommittee 1 • Does the conceptual design satisfy the performance requirements? • Do the conceptual design report and supporting documentation adequately justify the stated cost range and project duration? • Is the documentation required by DOE, satisfying Order 413.3B, ready for approval of CD-1? • Findings • Comments • Recommendations

  16. OFFICE OF SCIENCE 2.2 Superconducting SolenoidsP. Wanderer, BNL / Subcommittee 2 • Does the conceptual design satisfy the performance requirements? • Do the conceptual design report and supporting documentation adequately justify the stated cost range and project duration? • Is the documentation required by DOE, satisfying Order 413.3B, ready for approval of CD-1? • Findings • Comments • Recommendations

  17. OFFICE OF SCIENCE 2.3 Detector SystemsS. Kettell, BNL / Subcommittee 3 • Does the conceptual design satisfy the performance requirements? • Do the conceptual design report and supporting documentation adequately justify the stated cost range and project duration? • Is the documentation required by DOE, satisfying Order 413.3B, ready for approval of CD-1? • Findings • Comments • Recommendations

  18. OFFICE OF SCIENCE 2.4 Electronics/DAQ/Control SystemsR. Van Berg, U of PA / Subcommittee 4 • Does the conceptual design satisfy the performance requirements? • Do the conceptual design report and supporting documentation adequately justify the stated cost range and project duration? • Is the documentation required by DOE, satisfying Order 413.3B, ready for approval of CD-1? • Findings • Comments • Recommendations

  19. OFFICE OF SCIENCE 3. Civil ConstructionJ. Sims, ANL/Subcommittee 5 • Does the conceptual design satisfy the performance requirements? • Do the conceptual design report and supporting documentation adequately justify the stated cost range and project duration? • Is the documentation required by DOE, satisfying Order 413.3B, ready for approval of CD-1? • Findings • Comments • Recommendations

  20. OFFICE OF SCIENCE 4. Cost and ScheduleE. Merrill, DOE/SC/Subcommittee 6

  21. OFFICE OF SCIENCE 4. Cost and ScheduleE. Merrill, DOE/SC/Subcommittee 6 • Do the conceptual design report and supporting documentation adequately justify the stated cost range and project duration? • Is the documentation required by DOE, satisfying Order 413.3B, ready for approval of CD-1? • Findings • Comments • Recommendations

  22. OFFICE OF SCIENCE 4. Project Management & ES&HD. Loveless, U of Wisconsin/Subcommittee 7 • 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 and are future plans sufficient given the projects current stage of development? • Is the documentation required by DOE, satisfying Order 413.3B, ready for approval of CD-1? • Findings • Comments • Recommendations

More Related