Review of Critical Decision 1 for the
This presentation is the property of its rightful owner.
Sponsored Links
1 / 22

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


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

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/.

Download Presentation

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.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

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/


Doe review of microboone

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 PerspectiveP. Philp

8:30 a.m.Questions

http://www-microboone.fnal.gov/project/cd1_doe/index.html

username – reviewer; password – ureview


Review committee participants

  • Daniel Lehman, SC, Chairperson, U.S. Department of Energy

Review Committee Participants

*Lead


Department of energy

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


Daniel r lehman review committee chair office of science u s department of energy

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


Daniel r lehman review committee chair office of science u s department of energy

Agenda


Daniel r lehman review committee chair office of science u s department of energy

Agenda cont.


Charge questions

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?


Cd requirements

CD Requirements


Report outline writing assignments

Report Outline/ Writing Assignments


Microboone cost sheet

MicroBooNECost Sheet


Closeout presentation and final report procedures

Closeout Presentationand Final ReportProcedures


Format closeout presentation

Format: Closeout Presentation

  • (No Smaller than 18 pt Font)

  • 2.1[Use number and title corresponding to writing assignment list.]

  • List Review Subcommittee Members

  • 2.1.1Findings

  • 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

  • 2.1[Use number and title corresponding to writing assignment list.]

  • 2.1.1Findings

  • Include an assessment of technical, cost, schedule, and management.

  • 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

  • Present closeout reports in PowerPoint.

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

    by March 8, 8:00 a.m. (EST).


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 3, 2010

Example

Daniel R. Lehman

Review Committee Chair

Office of Science, U.S. Department of Energy

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


2 1 cryostat and cryo system fuerst strauss

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


2 2 detector and electronics wisniewski stroynowski

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


2 3 infrastructure and installation sims edwards

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


3 cost estimate gines fisher

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


4 schedule and funding gines fisher

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


5 management and es h gilchriese fisher gines

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


  • Login