OFFICE OF
This presentation is the property of its rightful owner.
Sponsored Links
1 / 21

Daniel R. Lehman Review Committee Chair Office of Science, U.S. Department of Energy http://www.science.doe.gov/opa/ PowerPoint PPT Presentation


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

OFFICE OF SCIENCE. Review Committee (CD-1) for the Long Baseline Neutrino Experiment (LBNE) Project at Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory October 30-November 1, 2012. Daniel R. Lehman Review Committee Chair Office of Science, U.S. Department of Energy

Download Presentation

Daniel R. Lehman 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


Daniel r lehman review committee chair office of science u s department of energy http www science doe gov opa

OFFICE OFSCIENCE

Review Committee (CD-1)

for the

Long Baseline Neutrino Experiment

(LBNE) Project

at

Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory

October 30-November 1, 2012

Daniel R. Lehman

Review Committee Chair

Office of Science, U.S. Department of Energy

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


Doe review of lbne

DOE Review of LBNE

OFFICE OFSCIENCE

DOE EXECUTIVE SESSION AGENDA

Tuesday, October 30, 2012—Comitium

08:00 a.m. DOE Executive SessionD. Lehman

08:15 a.m.HEP PerspectiveM. Procario/T. Lavine

08:25 a.m.FSO PerspectiveP. Carolan

08:35 a.m. Questions

08:45 a.m.Adjourn

  • LBNEwebsite:

  • https://sharepoint.fnal.gov/project/lbne/reviews/CD1-DOE-Review-Oct-2012/SitePages/Home.aspx

  • username: review password:rev2pass


Daniel r lehman review committee chair office of science u s department of energy http www science doe gov opa

OFFICE OFSCIENCE

DOE Organization Chart

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

U.S. 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

Deputy 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

Office of

General Counsel

Workforce Development

For Teachers/Scientists

25 Jul 12

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


Daniel r lehman review committee chair office of science u s department of energy http www science doe gov opa

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)

J. LaBarge (A)

Chicago Office

Roxanne Purucker

Workforce Development for Teachers/ Scientists

(SC-27)

P. Dehmer (A)

Ames SO

Cynthia Baebler

Advanced Scientific

Comp. Research (SC-21)

Daniel Hitchcock (A)

Office of Budget

(SC-41)

Kathleen Klausing

Office of Business Policy & Ops

(SC-45)

Vasilios

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)

Daniel Division

Fermi SO

Michael Weis

Fusion Energy

Sciences (SC-24)

Edmund Synakowski

Oak Ridge Office

Larry C. Kelly

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

7/2012


Review committee participants

SC1

SC2

SC3

Beamline

Detectors

Conventional

*

Tom Roser, BNL

*

Bill Wisniewski, SLAC

*

Marty Fallier, BNL

Kevin Jones, ORNL

Richard Loveless, U of Wisconsin

Brad Bull, MSU/FRIB

Phil Pile, BNL

David Nygren, LBNL

Bob Law, SLAC

SC4

SC5

SC6

Environment, Safety and Health

Cost and Schedule

Management

*

Ian Evans, SLAC

*

Barbara Thibadeau, ORNL/SNS

*

Aesook Byon, BNL

Frank Kornegay

Rick Blaisdell, DOE/APM

Thomas Glasmacher, MSU/FRIB

Kin Chao, DOE/SC

Evelyn Landini, DOE/BHSO

Kurt Fisher, DOE/SC

Ron Lutha, DOE/ASO

Brian Huizenga, DOE/APM

Steve Meador, DOE/SC

LEGEND

Observers

Jim Siegrist, DOE/SC

Mike Weis, DOE/FSO

SC

Subcommittee

Mike Procario, DOE/SC

Jerry Kao, DOE/ASO

*

Chairperson

Ted Lavine, DOE/SC

Hemant Patel, DOE/BSO

[ ]

Part-time Subcommittee Member

John Kogut, DOE/SC

Glenn Kubiak, LBNL

Alan Stone, DOE/SC

COUNT:

22 (excluding observers)

Pepin Carolan, DOE/FSO

Steve Webster, DOE/FSO

Review Committee Participants

OFFICE OFSCIENCE

Daniel R. Lehman, Chairman


Charge questions

OFFICEOF

SCIENCE

Charge Questions

  • Does the conceptual design provide increased research capabilities envisioned in the mission need? Does the conceptual design satisfy the performance requirements recently recommended by the LBNE reconfiguration steering committee?

  • Do the conceptual design report and supporting documentation adequately justify the stated cost range and project duration?

  • Does the proposed project team and staffing plan offer adequate management experience, technical expertise, and Laboratory support to produce a credible technical, cost and schedule baseline required for CD-2?

  • Are ES&H aspects being properly addressed and are future plans sufficient given the project's current stage of development?

    5. Have all prerequisite requirements for CD-1 approval been satisfied? Is the project ready for CD-1 approval?


Agenda

Agenda

OFFICE OFSCIENCE

Tuesday, October 30, 2012—Comitium, WH2SE

8:00 amDOE Executive SessionD. Lehman

9:00 amWelcome/Plenary Sessions – One West (WH1W)P. Oddone

9:10 amProject OverviewJ. Strait

9:40 amProject Design Cost and Schedule E. McClusky

10:10 amBreak

10:25 amConventional Facilities OverviewT. Lundin10:50 amSURF Working w/LBNEM. Headley

11:00 amBeamline OverviewV. Papadimitriou

11:25 amFar Detector OverviewJ. Stewart

11:50 amNear Detector Complex OverviewC. Mauger12:00 pmLunch

1:00 pmParallel Subcommittee Breakout Sessions (see attached schedule)

4:30 pmSubcommittee Executive Sessions – in Parallel Breakout Session Rooms

5:00 pmDOE Executive SessionD. Lehman

6:30 pmAdjourn


Agenda1

Agenda

OFFICE OFSCIENCE

Wednesday, October 31, 2012

8:00 amParallel Subcommittee Breakout Sessions

9:30 amBreak—Outside Comitium

9:45 amSubcommittee Breakout Sessions

12:00 pmSubcommittee Executive Sessions – Working Lunch—WH2XO

1:00 pmResponse to Day 1 reviewer questions/questions from morning

breakout—Comitium

2:00 pmSubcommittee Working Session—Comitium

2:45 pmBreak—Outside Comitium

3:00 pmDOE Full Committee Executive SessionD. Lehman

Thursday, November 1, 2012

8:00 amSubcommittee Working Session—Comitium

10:00 amBreak—Outside Comitium

10:15 amDOE Committee Executive Session Dry RunD. Lehman

12:00 pmWorking Lunch

1:00 pmDOE Summary and Closeout—One WestD. Lehman

2:00 pmAdjourn


Report outline writing assignments

Report Outline/ Writing Assignments

OFFICE OF

SCIENCE

  • Executive SummaryMeador

  • 1.IntroductionProcario

  • 2.Technical Systems – Instruments (Charge Questions 1, 2, 3, 5)

  • 2.1BeamlineRoser*/SC1

    • 2.1.1Findings

    • 2.1.2Comments

    • 2.1.3Recommendations

  • 2.2DetectorsWisnieski*/SC2

  • Conventional Facilities (Charge Questions 1, 2, 3, 5)Fallier*/SC3

  • Environment, Safety and Health (Charge Questions 4, 5)Evans*/SC4

  • Cost and Schedule (Charge Questions 2, 3, 5)Thibadeau*/SC5

  • Management (Charge Questions 3, 5)Byon*/SC6


Closeout presentation and final report procedures

Closeout Presentationand Final ReportProcedures

OFFICE OFSCIENCE


Format closeout presentation

Format:Closeout Presentation

OFFICE OFSCIENCE

  • (PowerPoint; No Smaller than 18 pt Font)

  • 2.1Use Section Number/Title corresponding to writing assignment list.

  • List Review Subcommittee Members

  • List Assigned Charge Questions and Review Committee Answers

  • 2.1.1Findings

  • In bullet form, include an assessment of technical, cost, schedule, and management.

  • 2.1.2Comments

  • 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.

  • 2.1.3Recommendations

  • Begin with action verb and identify a due date.

  • 2.


Format final report

Format:Final Report

OFFICE OFSCIENCE

  • (MSWord; 12 pt Font)

  • 2.1 Use Section Number/Title corresponding to writing assignment list.

  • 2.1.1Findings

  • Include an assessment of technical, cost, schedule, and management. Within the text of the Findings Section, include the answers to the review questions.

  • 2.1.2Comments

  • 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.

  • 2.1.3Recommendations

  • Begin with action verb and identify a due date.

  • 2.

  • 3.


Expectations

Expectations

OFFICE OFSCIENCE

  • Present closeout reports in PowerPoint.

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

    by November 5, 8:00 a.m. (EST).


Daniel r lehman review committee chair office of science u s department of energy http www science doe gov opa

OFFICE OFSCIENCE

Closeout Report on the

Review Committee (CD-1)

for the

Long Baseline Neutrino Experiment

(LBNE) Project

at

Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory

October 30-November 1, 2012

Daniel R. Lehman

Review Committee Chair

Office of Science, U.S. Department of Energy

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


2 1 beamline roser bnl sc1

OFFICE OF

SCIENCE

2.1 BeamlineRoser, BNL*/SC1

  • Does the conceptual design provide increased research capabilities envisioned in the mission need? Does the conceptual design satisfy the performance requirements recently recommended by the LBNE reconfiguration steering committee?

  • Do the conceptual design report and supporting documentation adequately justify the stated cost range and project duration?

  • Does the proposed project team and staffing plan offer adequate management experience, technical expertise, and Laboratory support to produce a credible technical, cost and schedule baseline required for CD-2?

  • Have all prerequisite requirements for CD-1 approval been satisfied? Is the project ready for CD-1 approval?

  • Findings

  • Comments

  • Recommendations


2 2 detectors wisnieski slac sc2

OFFICE OF

SCIENCE

2.2 DetectorsWisnieski, SLAC*/SC2

  • Does the conceptual design provide increased research capabilities envisioned in the mission need? Does the conceptual design satisfy the performance requirements recently recommended by the LBNE reconfiguration steering committee?

  • Do the conceptual design report and supporting documentation adequately justify the stated cost range and project duration?

  • Does the proposed project team and staffing plan offer adequate management experience, technical expertise, and Laboratory support to produce a credible technical, cost and schedule baseline required for CD-2?

  • Have all prerequisite requirements for CD-1 approval been satisfied? Is the project ready for CD-1 approval?

  • Findings

  • Comments

  • Recommendations


3 conventional facilities fallier bnl sc3

OFFICE OF

SCIENCE

3. Conventional FacilitiesFallier, BNL*/SC3

  • Does the conceptual design provide increased research capabilities envisioned in the mission need? Does the conceptual design satisfy the performance requirements recently recommended by the LBNE reconfiguration steering committee?

  • Do the conceptual design report and supporting documentation adequately justify the stated cost range and project duration?

  • Does the proposed project team and staffing plan offer adequate management experience, technical expertise, and Laboratory support to produce a credible technical, cost and schedule baseline required for CD-2?

  • Have all prerequisite requirements for CD-1 approval been satisfied? Is the project ready for CD-1 approval?

  • Findings

  • Comments

  • Recommendations


4 environment safety and health evans slac sc4

OFFICE OF

SCIENCE

4. Environment, Safety and HealthEvans, SLAC*/SC4

  • Are ES&H aspects being properly addressed and are future plans sufficient given the project's current stage of development?

  • Have all prerequisite requirements for CD-1 approval been satisfied? Is the project ready for CD-1 approval?

  • Findings

  • Comments

  • Recommendations


5 cost and schedule thibadeau ornl sc5

OFFICE OF

SCIENCE

5. Cost and ScheduleThibadeau, ORNL*/SC5

  • Do the conceptual design report and supporting documentation adequately justify the stated cost range and project duration?

  • Does the proposed project team and staffing plan offer adequate management experience, technical expertise, and Laboratory support to produce a credible technical, cost and schedule baseline required for CD-2?

  • Have all prerequisite requirements for CD-1 approval been satisfied? Is the project ready for CD-1 approval?

  • Findings

  • Comments

  • Recommendations


Project status chart thibadeau ornl sc5

OFFICE OF

SCIENCE

Project Status ChartThibadeau, ORNL*/SC5


6 management byon bnl sc6

OFFICE OF

SCIENCE

6. ManagementByon, BNL*/SC6

  • Does the proposed project team and staffing plan offer adequate management experience, technical expertise, and Laboratory support to produce a credible technical, cost and schedule baseline required for CD-2?

  • Have all prerequisite requirements for CD-1 approval been satisfied? Is the project ready for CD-1 approval?

  • Findings

  • Comments

  • Recommendations


  • Login