Review of Critical Decision 3b for the
This presentation is the property of its rightful owner.
Sponsored Links
1 / 33

Kurt W. Fisher Review Committee Chair Office of Science, U.S. Department of Energy http://www.science.doe.gov/opa/ PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 119 Views
  • Uploaded on
  • Presentation posted in: General

Review of Critical Decision 3b for the Large Liquid Argon Detector for Neutrino Physics ( MicroBooNE ) Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory February 29 – March 1, 2012. Kurt W. Fisher Review Committee Chair Office of Science, U.S. Department of Energy http://www.science.doe.gov/opa/.

Download Presentation

Kurt W. Fisher Review Committee Chair Office of Science, U.S. Department of Energy http://www.science.doe.gov/opa/

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.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript


Kurt w fisher review committee chair office of science u s department of energy http www science doe gov opa

Review of Critical Decision 3b for the

Large Liquid Argon Detector for Neutrino Physics (MicroBooNE)

Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory

February 29 – March 1, 2012

Kurt W. Fisher

Review Committee Chair

Office of Science, U.S. Department of Energy

http://www.science.doe.gov/opa/


Review committee participants

Department of EnergySubcommittee 1- Cryostat and Cryo-system

Kurt W. Fisher, DOE, Chairperson*Joel Fuerst, ANL

Bruce Strauss, DOE/SC

Subcommittee 2- Detector and Electronics

*Bill Wisniewski, SLAC

Karen Byrum, ANL

ObserversSubcommittee 3- Infrastructure and Installation

Alan Harris, DOE/FSO*Victor Guarino, ANL

Ted Lavine, DOE/SC

Eli Rosenberg, DOE/SC Subcommittee 4- Management, Cost, Schedule

Paul Philp, DOE/FSO and ES&H

*Jeff Sims, ANL

Gil Gilchriese, LBNL

Ethan Merrill, DOE/SC

Review Committee Participants


Department of energy

Department of Energy

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

  • Hearings and Appeals

*The Deputy Secretary also serves as the Chief Operating Officer.


Kurt w fisher review committee chair office of science u s department of energy http www science doe gov opa

Office of Science

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)

J. Salmon (A)

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


Charge questions

Charge Questions

Final Design: Is the design sufficiently mature so that the project can continue with procurement and fabrication? Baseline Cost and Schedule: Are the current project cost and schedule projections consistent with the approved baseline cost and schedule? Is the contingency adequate for the risks?

Management: Evaluate the management structure as to its adequacy to deliver the proposed final design within the baselines as identified in the PEP. Has there been adequate progress on the fabrication activities approved under CD-3a?

Has the project responded satisfactorily to the recommendations from the previous independent project review?


Report outline writing assignments

Report Outline/ Writing Assignments

Executive SummaryFisher

1.IntroductionLavine

2.Technical Status (Charge Questions 1, 3)

2.1Cryostat and Cryo-SystemFuerst*/Strauss

2.1.1Findings

2.1.2Comments

2.1.3Recommendations

2.2Detector Wisniewski*/Byrum

3.Infrastructure and Installation (Charge Questions 1, 2, 3) Guarino*

Management , Cost, Schedule and ES&H(Charge Questions 2, 3)Sims*/Gilchriese/Merrill

*Lead


Expectations

Expectations

  • Present closeout reports in PowerPoint.

  • Forward your sections for each review report (in MSWord format) to Casey Clark, [email protected],

    by March 5, 8:00 a.m. (EDT).


2 1 cryostat and cryo system fuerst anl strauss doe sc

2.1 Cryostat and Cryo-SystemFuerst, ANL/Strauss, DOE/SC

  • Final Design: Is the design sufficiently mature so that the project can continue with procurement and fabrication? Baseline Cost and Schedule: Are the current project cost and schedule projections consistent with the approved baseline cost and schedule? Is the contingency adequate for the risks? Yes.

    3.Has the project responded satisfactorily to the recommendations from the previous independent project review? Yes


2 1 cryostat and cryo system fuerst anl strauss doe sc1

2.1 Cryostat and Cryo-SystemFuerst, ANL/Strauss, DOE/SC

  • Findings

    • LAr pumps, cooldown compressor, and heat exchanger (long-lead procurements) are on order.

    • The cryostat bid package is complete.

    • The LAr fill is not a KPP.

    • “Piston purge” has proven successful in LAPD and will be used instead of evacuation for initial cryostat purification.

    • The welded (vs. flanged) cryostat head design choice has been made.

    • A thorough Hazard Analysis Review exists including cryogenics ODH.


2 1 cryostat and cryo system fuerst anl strauss doe sc2

2.1 Cryostat and Cryo-SystemFuerst, ANL/Strauss, DOE/SC

  • Comments

    • There may be additional risk associated with failure of the long-lead cryogenic rotating machinery in the absence of on-hand spare parts.

    • The cryostat bid package should continue to be expedited to enhance the schedule.

    • A strategy for LAr removal should be considered.

  • Recommendations

    • By 15MAR2012, consider ordering the recommended spare parts kit (or a reasonable subset thereof) for the cooldown compressor.


3 infrastructure and installation guarino anl

3. Infrastructure and InstallationGuarino, ANL

  • Final Design: Is the design sufficiently mature so that the project can continue with procurement and fabrication? YES Baseline Cost and Schedule: Are the current project cost and schedule projections consistent with the approved baseline cost and schedule? Is the contingency adequate for the risks? YES

  • Management: Evaluate the management structure as to its adequacy to deliver the proposed final design within the baselines as identified in the PEP. Has there been adequate progress on the fabrication activities approved under CD-3a? YES

  • 3. Has the project responded satisfactorily to the recommendations from the previous independent project review? YES


3 infrastructure and installation guarino anl1

3. Infrastructure and InstallationGuarino, ANL

  • Findings

    The group has performed a many tests of wire strength and has changed the diameter of the pins and applied tension as a result.

    A cold test of the wire assembly has been performed.

    The infrastructure for TPC assembly is well underway.

    The group has a good plan for TPC installation and cryogenics assembly

    The group has solid QA procedures and processes defined.

  • Comments

    The TPC assembly manpower relies on university labor and approximately 1FTE of a FNAL technician. For continuity, efficiency, and quality the group should consider using a minimum of 2 dedicated techs throughout the TPC assembly process.

    The re-welding of the flange and potential damage to the electronics is a concern and some testing might be warranted

  • Recommendations

    None


2 2 detector and electronics wisniewski slac byrum anl

2.2 Detector and ElectronicsWisniewski, SLAC/Byrum, ANL

Detector & Electronics review scope includes PMT (WBS 1.8), TPC (1.4), Front End Electronics (1.5); Electronics Readout (1.11), DAQ / Monitoring & Slow Control (1.9) and some of infrastructure. PMT, TPC and Electronics Readout are in-kind contributions funded by NSF. FEE and DAQ are DOE funded.

The Committee commends the team on continued progress since the last review.

1. Final Design: Is the design sufficiently mature so that the project can continue with procurement and fabrication? Baseline Cost and Schedule: Are the current project cost and schedule projections consistent with the approved baseline cost and schedule? Is the contingency adequate for the risks?

The design is sufficiently mature to continue with procurement and fabrication. Cost performance since the last review has been good, using little contingency and allowing fractional contingency on work remaining to increase. Contingency is adequate to the risks.


2 2 detector and electronics wisniewski slac byrum anl1

2.2 Detector and ElectronicsWisniewski, SLAC/Byrum, ANL

  • Findings:

    • PMT has continued to make progress. Key components are in hand, with all remaining materials to be purchased soon. Costs are close to estimates.

      • SHV connectors have been found to be unreliable when cold. New cabling solutions, possibly with no intermediate cold connections, are under consideration.

      • Optical simulations have been performed and indicate that typically 10 PE can be seen in most of the TPC volume.

      • All PMTs have been tested in air.

14

Has the project responded satisfactorily to the recommendations from the previous independent project review?

There were no recommendations for the experimental team at the last review. However, there were Comments. The team has addressed these as if they were recommendations, and have made satisfactory response.


2 2 detector and electronics wisniewski slac byrum anl2

2.2 Detector and ElectronicsWisniewski, SLAC/Byrum, ANL

  • Findings:

    • PMT:

      • The PMT LN2 test stand is in now in use. 4 PMTs can be tested simultaneously. Gain vs HV is measured using an LED calibrator.

      • Cold test procedures passed safety review, allowing unattended cold tests to be performed.

      • Cold tests are expected to be complete by the start of CY2012Q4

      • A long full PMT unit test is planned to follow.

      • WLS degradation on the plate has been found to be due to light, not humidity. Care will be taken to limit exposure to light after plate painting; in particular, the assembly tent lights will be UV filtered.

      • Fabrication will commence in CY2013Q1, under the current schedule, with PMT unit assembly complete in Q4.

15


2 2 detector and electronics wisniewski slac byrum anl3

2.2 Detector and ElectronicsWisniewski, SLAC/Byrum, ANL

  • Findings:

    • TPC:

      • Work since the last review has been focused on completing drawings for the TPC components, winding machines and tension devices.

      • The first wire winding machine has been assembled and tested. Teams at Yale and Syracuse have been trained. The first machine is now at Syracuse ready for use. This is about a month later than expected at the time of the last review. Yale’s line will start in a month

      • The wire carriers have been refined (thicker pins, bigger resistors, smaller caps, simpler connections

      • A wire catcher system will not be used. Instead, the QA program was expanded. In the process, a cold test of the full-length wire carrier assembly has been successfully performed, and no breakage found up to 2.5kg (tension below yield point).

      • Milestones were adjusted to reflect sequential release of TPC component part POs, allowing revision of parts for theCathode. Anode parts are in fab, and field cage tubes out for quote.

16


2 2 detector and electronics wisniewski slac byrum anl4

2.2 Detector and ElectronicsWisniewski, SLAC/Byrum, ANL

  • Findings:

    • TPC:

      • Wire winding is expected to be complete by CY2012Q4, with other parts fab’d on the same time scale, and delivered to Fermilab.

      • There appears to be adequate manpower to complete the task. Wire breakage is not expected to be a problems after the extensive test program and under the QA program. There is a tension safety factor of 4.5 (RT) to 6 (LN2).

    • Front end electronics:

      • FEE prototype cycle 1 development was finished and successfully tested. Development of the cycle 2 prototype, which is the pre-production prototype, is almost complete, with preparations for testing the electronics for a full TPC feed-through in progress. Many boards have already been fab’d and tested toward this goal. A 2nd prototype TPC signal feed-through has been produced, as well as cables, and a power supply candidate ordered.

17


2 2 detector and electronics wisniewski slac byrum anl5

2.2 Detector and ElectronicsWisniewski, SLAC/Byrum, ANL

  • Findings:

    • Front end electronics:

      • The CMOS front end ASIC 3rd version was received in late Oct. 2011. Thirty-eight were warm tested. Eight, mounted on a motherboard, have been cold tested through more than 50 LN2 immersions. The ASIC was found to function with increased gain and lower noise.

      • A 4th ASIC cycle will be submitted in early March to address fabrication issues: channel-to-channel variations for two chips is +/-4% (higher than expected); defects seen at one edge of the chips; chip level yield of ~60% with single channel yield of 97%. More conservative design rules will be used. Options are being considered to mitigate the cost and schedule impact of this unexpected extra ASIC cycle.

    • Readout Electronics:

      • The Front End Module was tested with TPC FEE prototypes. ADC data was received correctly, calibration triggers could be propagated through the system. Baseline noise, cross-talk and linearity were measured.

18


2 2 detector and electronics wisniewski slac byrum anl6

2.2 Detector and ElectronicsWisniewski, SLAC/Byrum, ANL

  • Findings:

    • Readout Electronics:

      • The PMT electronics chain, which operates at a higher frequency, was also tested: the shaper can send data to the PMT ADC, where it was successfully digitized; the FEM can receive that data and generate a trigger. Proto 2 tests are on the horizon.

      • Production of components has begun, with completion expected February 2013.

      • DAQ is responsible for assembling events into a file, as well as monitoringand control, run control, calibration sequencing, file management.

      • Glomation has been selected as the slow monitoring and control hub.

      • PCIe functionality, network, and calibration process were specified. PCIe testing is being carried out on Fermilab and Nevis test stands.

      • Calibration Hardware Interface code was developed.

      • Event building is largely finished, including MicroBooNE specific fake data files.

19


2 2 detector and electronics wisniewski slac byrum anl7

2.2 Detector and ElectronicsWisniewski, SLAC/Byrum, ANL

  • Findings:

    • DAQ:

      • Processes for Online monitoring and EPICs issues are understood, with IOCs accessing shared memory.

      • Relying on experience from PHENIX, ATLAS, NOvA, DoubleChooz and D0.

      • The D0 Assembly Building test stand is imminent.

      • CD resources have been identified. The consequent rework of the schedule is in progress, and was unavailable to the Committee.

      • Hardware costs and purchase sequencing are well understood.

20


2 2 detector and electronics wisniewski slac byrum anl8

2.2 Detector and ElectronicsWisniewski, SLAC/Byrum, ANL

  • Comments:

    • PMT has continued to make progress. Most components are in hand, and the schedule of work moving forward is not demanding, but does merit continuing attention.

    • TPC has been very aggressive in understanding wire issues. Cold tests have been performed on the full length wire system. The stringing tension has been reduced to provide more headroom at room temperatures and at LN2 temperatures. The team has put heavy emphasis on QA. The Committee commends the team on this work. In light of what has been learned in this program, the decision to dispense with the complications of a wire catcher system is reasonable.

21


2 2 detector and electronics wisniewski slac byrum anl9

2.2 Detector and ElectronicsWisniewski, SLAC/Byrum, ANL

  • Comments:

    • The TPC group is aware of the consequences of an approximate 4 month shut down if a wire should break once the experiment is taking data.

    • The current TPC cost projection is consistent with the approved baseline. The group identifies the biggest risk to be one of the wire winding assemblies not working and wire breakage rate being larger than expected. Mitigation in both cases relies on the team working longer and spreading the load between the two groups.

    • While there appears to be enough manpower available, a detailed schedule utilizing this manpower is missing.

    • Solid progress continues in Readout Electronics. The full chain prototype readout is an important forward step and its success is welcome.

22


2 2 detector and electronics wisniewski slac byrum anl10

2.2 Detector and ElectronicsWisniewski, SLAC/Byrum, ANL

  • Comments:

    • DAQ has made good progress on design. Purchase planning has received adequate attention. ‘Construction’ is starting. The status of manpower after the negotiations with CD, as well as the consequent schedule changes, was not clear to the committee. The team is encouraged to develop a clearer path forward here.

    • Front End Electronics has in general made good progress in moving forward, developing the front end boards through to the pre-production stage. The ASIC presents complications in this picture.

    • Since the 3rd version of the CMOS ASIC would be acceptable, though not preferred, for the needs of the experiment, the suite of tests to fully characterize this version of the ASIC should be carried out on the remaining chips. This will mitigate the risk if the 4th version has serious problems: there will at least be one solution available for production. The schedule consequences on the project’s schedule should be evaluated.

23


2 2 detector and electronics wisniewski slac byrum anl11

2.2 Detector and ElectronicsWisniewski, SLAC/Byrum, ANL

  • Recommendations

    1. Execute the complete suite of tests to fully characterize Version 3 of the ASIC.

    2. Understand the effects of Version 4 of the ASIC on the project schedule.

    3. Conduct a design review of the ASIC before submission of the production run.

    4. Approve CD-3b

24


Kurt w fisher review committee chair office of science u s department of energy http www science doe gov opa

MicroBooNE Project Status

Sims, ANL/Gilchriese, LBNL/

Merrill, DOE/SC


4 management cost schedule and es h sims anl gilchriese lbnl merrill doe sc

4. Management, Cost, Schedule and ES&HSims, ANL/Gilchriese, LBNL/Merrill, DOE/SC

  • Management: Evaluate the management structure as to its adequacy to deliver the proposed final design within the baselines as identified in the PEP. Has there been adequate progress on the fabrication activities approved under CD-3a? Yes, CD-3a scope appears to be on schedule.

  • 3. Has the project responded satisfactorily to the recommendations from the previous independent project review? Yes. CR-019 for ASIC replan is still in progress


4 management cost schedule and es h sims anl gilchriese lbnl merrill doe sc1

4. Management, Cost, Schedule and ES&HSims, ANL/Gilchriese, LBNL/Merrill, DOE/SC

  • 4.1 Findings

  • The GPP funded facility LARTF is under construction and ahead of schedule with nearly 6 months of float off the Microboone critical path

  • The OPC scope is substantially complete.

  • The project presented the change request that is being prepared to revise the logic and durations related to front end electronics. This change may reduce the current 18 months of project float on CD-4 to 12 months.

  • The TEC scope design is complete and the cryostat related items are in the solicitation phase.

  • A detailed analysis of schedule and cost using Monte Carlo was performed which confirmed the current cost and schedule contingency.


4 management cost schedule and es h sims anl gilchriese lbnl merrill doe sc2

4. Management, Cost, Schedule and ES&HSims, ANL/Gilchriese, LBNL/Merrill, DOE/SC

  • 4.1 Findings

  • Quality Assurance modules with detailed procedures and requirements for each level 2 work package were presented.

  • There are 36 active risks that are updated quarterly.

  • A Project Hazard Analysis and Environment Safety and Health Plan have been developed for all assembly and installation activities.

  • Project schedule has been updated incorporating all changes through February 2012

  • The project schedule has ~400 total remaining activities, ~ 60 activities on the critical path, and ~100 activities within 30 days of the critical path.

  • Critical Path has shifted to Front End Electronics followed by Installation.

  • MIE funding in FY12 is $6.0M. The program will convert FY11 carry over (approximately $3M) to MIE funds to meet planned obligations

  • The project has processed ~$100K in changes since CD-2/3a in September 2011


4 management cost schedule and es h sims anl gilchriese lbnl merrill doe sc3

4. Management, Cost, Schedule and ES&HSims, ANL/Gilchriese, LBNL/Merrill, DOE/SC

  • 4.2 Comments

  • The project management team is complete and functioning very well. The team should be commended on its vigilance in project management processes.

  • The management structure and team appears adequate to deliver the baseline design.

  • There has been adequate progress on the activities approved under CD-3a.

  • As of January, contingency of about $4M remains for an ETC of about $11M.

  • There appears to be adequate float between the forecast project completion and the CD4 milestone, even after including the delays expected from a fourth round of front-end ASIC fabrication and testing that is not yet in the baseline schedule.

  • QA processes and plans are well developed for a project of this scope


4 management cost schedule and es h sims anl gilchriese lbnl merrill doe sc4

4. Management, Cost, Schedule and ES&HSims, ANL/Gilchriese, LBNL/Merrill, DOE/SC

  • 4.2 Comments

  • Additional resource loading of student and scientific staff is needed, primarily in the areas of assembly and installation labor.

  • CR-19 related to the ASIC front end electronics should be processed promptly.

  • A call on remaining contingency could be as high as $0.9M (25 % of current contingency) for the procurement and testing of front-end ASIC round 4. Almost all of this results from personnel costs (project management, engineering) maintained for approximately an additional 6 months to complete the project. With project management excluded contingency is approximately 30% on remaining work.

  • Contingency needs should be re-evaluated after major procurements are placed in FY2012.


4 management cost schedule and es h sims anl gilchriese lbnl merrill doe sc5

4. Management, Cost, Schedule and ES&HSims, ANL/Gilchriese, LBNL/Merrill, DOE/SC

  • 4.2 Comments

  • A risk review and status effort should be performed about once per month as the project progresses. The status should use the risk registry, include mitigation steps from the risk owners and address risks by both timeliness and impact.

  • The QA modules should be signed by the L2 and related managers to ensure concurrence and acceptance.

  • The current prediction of completion of the LARTF as much 6 months ahead of the project critical path is commendable. The project should leverage this float to prepare the LARTF with MicroBooNE specific needs.

  • The assembly and installation L2 managers must be very vigilant to ensure the visiting team members are properly trained and adhere to Fermilab safety procedures .

  • Develop a plan to utilize potential unused contingency at the end of the project.


4 management cost schedule and es h sims anl gilchriese lbnl merrill doe sc6

4. Management, Cost, Schedule and ES&HSims, ANL/Gilchriese, LBNL/Merrill, DOE/SC

  • 4.2 Comments

  • 25% of project activities are on or near critical path. This should be monitored to ensure the percentage does not increase.

  • The project is cautioned against over-reliance on the risk simulations


4 management cost schedule and es h sims anl gilchriese lbnl merrill doe sc7

4. Management, Cost, Schedule and ES&HSims, ANL/Gilchriese, LBNL/Merrill, DOE/SC

4.3 Recommendations

Update the schedule and cost to include the impact of the run 4 ASIC fabrication and test cycle and initiate change control actions to make the updated schedule/cost the basis prior to CD-3b.

Sign off on Quality Assurance modules by L2 and related managers should be completed prior to CD-3b


  • Login