slide1 n.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Kurt W. Fisher Review Committee Chair Office of Science, U.S. Department of Energy PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Kurt W. Fisher Review Committee Chair Office of Science, U.S. Department of Energy

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 22

Kurt W. Fisher Review Committee Chair Office of Science, U.S. Department of Energy - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 126 Views
  • Uploaded on

OFFICE OF SCIENCE. Review Committee for the NuMi Off-Axis Neutrino Appearance (NO  A) Experiment at the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory August 9, 2011. Kurt W. Fisher Review Committee Chair Office of Science, U.S. Department of Energy http://www.science.doe.gov/opa/.

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Kurt W. Fisher Review Committee Chair Office of Science, U.S. Department of Energy' - liseli


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
slide1

OFFICE OFSCIENCE

Review Committee

for the

NuMi Off-Axis Neutrino Appearance (NO A) Experiment

at the

Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory

August 9, 2011

Kurt W. Fisher

Review Committee Chair

Office of Science, U.S. Department of Energy

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

doe organizational chart

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.

DOE Organizational Chart

OFFICE OFSCIENCE

Advance Research

Projects Agency-Energy

slide3

OFFICE OFSCIENCE

SC Organizational Chart

Office of the Director (SC-1)

William F. Brinkman

Office of Science

Deputy Director

for Field Operations (SC-3)

Joseph McBrearty (A)

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)

Wm. Valdez

Ames SO

Cynthia Baebler

Advanced Scientific

Comp. Research (SC-21)

Daniel Hitchcock (A)

Chicago Office

Roxanne Purucker

Office of Budget

(SC-41)

Kathleen Klausing

Office of Business Policy and Ops

(SC-45)

Thomas Phan

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 and Infra.

(SC-31)

M. Jones

SC

Integrated

Support

Center

Brookhaven SO

Michael Holland

Office of Project Assessment

(SC-28)

Daniel Lehman

Business Mgmt & Planning Div

(SC-45.1)

VasiliosKountouris

Biological & Environ. Research (SC-23)

SharleneWeatherwax (A)

Office of Scientific and Tech. Info. (SC-44)

Walt Warnick

Fermi SO

Michael Weis

Fusion Energy

Sciences (SC-24)

Edmund Synakowski

Oak Ridge Office

Paul Golan (A)

Office of SC Project Direction (SC-46)

Rebecca Kelley

SC Systems & Ops Div

(SC-45.2)

Steven Demore

Oak Ridge SO

Johnny Moore

Small Business

Innovation

Research

(SC-29)

Manny Oliver

Princeton SO

Maria Dikeakos

High Energy

Physics (SC-25)

Michael Procario (A)

Human Capital Resources Div.

(SC-45.3)

Cynthia Mays

Pacific NWest SO

Julie Erickson (A)

Nuclear Physics

(SC-26)

Timothy Hallman

Stanford SO

Paul Golan

(A) Acting

Thomas Jeff. SO

Joe Arango

7/2011

review committee participants

OFFICE OF SCIENCE

Department of EnergyReview Committee

Kurt W. Fisher, DOE, Chairperson Subcommittee 1: Accelerator and Beamlines

* John Quintana, ANL

Subcommittee 2: Detector

* Bill Wiisniewski, SLAC

Richard Loveless, U of Wisc

Peter Denes, LBNL

Subcommittee 3: Cost, Schedule and Management

*Gil Gilchriese, LBNL

Ethan Merrill, DOE/SC

[Peter Denes, LBNL]

Observers

Ted Lavine, DOE/SC

Eli Rosenberg, DOE/SC

Alan Stone, DOE/SC

Pepin Carolan, DOE/FSO

Review Committee Participants

charge questions
Charge Questions

OFFICE OFSCIENCE

  • Baseline Cost and Schedule: Is project’s plan and performance consistent with the approved baseline? Are remaining cost contingency and schedule float adequate for the risks?
  • Technical: Are accomplishments to-date and remaining activities planned sufficient to meet baseline scope objectives?
  • Management: Are the management resources adequate to deliver the project within specifications, budget and schedule, including management and mitigation of remaining technical, cost and schedule risks?
  • Has the project responded satisfactorily to the recommendations from the previous independent project review?
report outline writing assignments
Report Outline/Writing Assignments

OFFICE OFSCIENCE

  • Executive SummaryFisher
  • 1. IntroductionLavine
  • 2. Technical (Charge Questions 2, 4)
  • 2.1 Accelerator and BeamlinesQuintana*/SC1
  • 2.1.1 Findings
  • 2.1.2 Comments
  • 2.1.3 Recommendations
  • 2.2 DetectorWisniewski*/SC2
  • 3. Cost and Schedule (Charge Questions 1, 4)Merrill*/SC3
  • 4. Management (Charge Questions 3, 4)Gilchriese*/SC3
  • *Lead
  • SC - Subcommittee
expectations
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 August 15, 8:00 a.m. (EDT).

2 1 accelerator and beamlines quintana anl
2.1 Accelerator and Beamlines Quintana, ANL

OFFICE OFSCIENCE

Technical: Are accomplishments to-date and remaining activities planned sufficient to meet baseline scope objectives?

Yes

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

Yes, however availability of ceramic beam tubes continues to be an issue.

slide9

Findings

    • The NOvA project is beginning to develop an installation plan for upgrading the Recycler to a Proton ring while upgrading the power to the NuMI target station to 700 kW.
    • The NOvA project let a PO for target fabrication in March 2011 for expected delivery in Fall 2011.
    • The NOvA installation coordinator is preparing detailed schedules and plans for the accelerator work in the March 1, 2012 – February 1, 2013 shutdown that includes strategies for limiting radiation dose to workers.
    • Procurement of ceramic beam tubes continue to be an issue.
    • The ANU portion of the NOvA project has potential personnel challenges in some technical areas.
slide10

Comments

    • While a PO has been issued for the target to RAL, NOvA needs to continue to monitor construction progress to insure delivery to meet project schedule.
    • The NOvA project requires continued Lab management support with respect to personnel
  • Recommendations
    • The NOvA project should insure that the development of the installation schedule includes contingency planning if ceramic beam tubes are delayed.
2 2 detector wisniewski slac denes lbnl loveless u of wisc
2.2 DetectorWisniewski, SLAC/Denes, LBNLLoveless, U of Wisc

OFFICE OFSCIENCE

Technical: Are accomplishments to-date and remaining activities planned sufficient to meet baseline scope objectives?

The detector construction will begin in earnest in the next few months. Extruded parts will arrive before the end of the year. This will allow comparison of task time estimates with reality. Additional problems may arise. The next year will be critical to determination of the course of the project. At this time it appears that the project will be able to meet its baseline scope objectives.

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

The recommendations concerning the detector have been addressed and, for the most part, satisfactorily closed.

2 2 detector wisniewski slac denes lbnl loveless u of wisc1
2.2 DetectorWisniewski, SLAC/Denes, LBNLLoveless, U of Wisc

OFFICE OFSCIENCE

  • ■ Findings
    • Near detector has been assembled and read out. This provides good experience for future Far Detector assembly.
    • Manifold cracking observed last year has been understood, and new designs implemented to decrease the likelihood of cracking. Furthermore, procedures for repairing existing cracks have been developed.
    • The design of the block pivoter has proven to be more difficult than anticipated.
    • Procedures planned for block assembly have been reworked with an eye to improvement.
    • 12,000 Avalanche Photodiode (APD) arrays, which are a variant of a commercial device, are required. Failures have been observed, and are thought to be related to contamination. The devices are un-passivated or sealed, and coating them is considered to be a likely solution.
    • Production quantities are delivered 7 months after receipt of order, and an initial lot of 250 devices could be delivered 5.5 – 6 months after order. An order for the full quantity of APDs, with a silicone coating has been placed.

12

2 2 detector wisniewski slac denes lbnl loveless u of wisc2
2.2 DetectorWisniewski, SLAC/Denes, LBNLLoveless, U of Wisc

OFFICE OFSCIENCE

  • ■ Comments
    • Redesign of the extruded manifolds provides very little time for testing before beginning production.
    • Testing of the block pivoter with FHEP will occur in the next few months. Success is critical to beginning block production in time.
    • Infrastructure at Ash River is a very large job and the assigned manpower seems small for building an experiment at a remote site. Delays in infrastructure construction can impact the assembly schedule.
    • Assembly planning calls for 2 10-hour shifts for 4 days, a grueling schedule, which allows little room for adding extra shift as a contingency.
    • Significant value engineering has occurred in the last year. Included in this effort is the use of uniform PVC extrusions as well as adjustment of module layers in the blocks. The consequence is significantly enhanced performance against buckling.
    • The project team should review all procedures for points of failure. They should develop possible alternatives for the most critical of these.

13

2 2 detector wisniewski slac denes lbnl loveless u of wisc3
2.2 DetectorWisniewski, SLAC/Denes, LBNLLoveless, U of Wisc

OFFICE OFSCIENCE

  • ■ Recommendations
    • Conduct an APD review by October 31, 2011, with international experts, to ensure fallback plans and planned testing are thorough and complete. Speed up delivery of an initial lot of coated devices in order to verify the solution.

14

3 cost and schedule merrill doe sc
3. Cost and ScheduleMerrill, DOE/SC

OFFICE OFSCIENCE

  • Baseline Cost and Schedule: Is project’s plan and performance consistent with the approved baseline? YES Are remaining cost contingency and schedule float adequate for the risks? YES
  • Has the project responded satisfactorily to the recommendations from the previous independent project review? YES
  • ■Findings
    • Project is currently 49% complete;
    • Project is 72% obligated;
    • 270 of 500 project milestones complete;
    • SPI = 0.95, CPI = 0.97;
    • Project has updated contingency use plan;
    • Cost contingency is allocated based on risk to discrete activities;
    • Schedule contingency is backend loaded;
3 cost and schedule merrill doe sc1
3. Cost and ScheduleMerrill, DOE/SC

OFFICE OFSCIENCE

  • ■ Comments
    • Project is actively managing project risks (252 risks/126 retired);
    • Project has recovered 3 of 6 months lost of schedule contingency;
    • Funding vs. Obligation curve is satisfactory;
    • Block Pivoter completion is currently critical path and there are several significant “near critical path” activities;
    • Schedule has been revised to reflect “new” detector production process but project is in the process of restarting production
    • Schedule milestones have been added to track detector assembly;
    • Project is currently in a transition period and uncertainty exists; expect “steady state” for detector assembly by August 2012;
    • High Risk activities currently being managed by project include APDs, detector production, and ANU activities; continue active management to mitigate risks to critical path
    • Consider adding cost and schedule impacts to Risk Register
3 cost and schedule merrill doe sc2
3. Cost and ScheduleMerrill, DOE/SC

OFFICE OFSCIENCE

  • ■ Recommendations
  • None
4 management gilchriese denes lbnl merrill doe sc
4. Management *Gilchriese, Denes, LBNL/Merrill, DOE/SC

OFFICE OFSCIENCE

Management: Are the management resources adequate to deliver the project within specifications, budget and schedule, including management and mitigation of remaining technical, cost and schedule risks?

YES. However, continued vigorous support from the Laboratory and the Collaboration will be necessary to provide personnel resources to the project in order to deliver the project on budget and schedule, and to meet specifications.

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

YES

4 management gilchriese denes lbnl merrill doe sc1
4. Management *Gilchriese, Denes, LBNL/Merrill, DOE/SC

OFFICE OFSCIENCE

  • Findings
  • There is 24% contingency (about $30M compared to about $124M to go) on remaining work. Of this, most is assigned at a low level (according to risk) with about $2.7M considered available and not associated with current risk.
  • The management is tracking float to CD-4. There is currently about 500 days of float for the accelerator aspects and about 200 days for the detector. The remaining duration to CD-4 is about 40 months
  • The project has added milestones and plans to add additional milestones to assess float related to critical start dates and to track steady state assembly.
  • There are 252 documented risks of which 126 have been retired. There are seven remaining top-priority risks.
  • Elements of quality assurance are distributed within the project. A top-level QA plan (last updated in July 2009) exists.
  • The project has responded to the recommendations from the previous IPR (August 2010) in NOA-doc-3079 and references therein One open recommendation remains - #5 (Commodities: Complete the vertical slice test by December 15, 2010 to ensure that there are no surprises in light production and collection.)
4 management gilchriese denes lbnl merrill doe sc2
4. Management *Gilchriese, Denes, LBNL/Merrill, DOE/SC

OFFICE OFSCIENCE

  • Comments
  • The project should deliver information in a more timely way for the next IPR or other reviews
  • The project is on track to meet the specifications in the threshold KPPs.
  • The project has a clear process and timescale in place to assess if contingency can by utilized to meet the objective KPPs
  • The enhanced near detector would have to be added to the objective KPPs and the process for potentially doing this is understood
  • The management plans for possible utilization of contingency to meet the objective KPPs recognizes the need to maintain contingency for a robust start to production of the detector components and for the accelerator. Most decision dates for use of contingency are in 2012 after steady-state production & assembly has been reached.
  • The remaining contingency is adequate to deliver the project on schedule, but it also important to maintain contingency for commissioning and transition to operations
  • The risk evaluation process should continue to be exercised on a regular basis, and major risks updated.
  • Of the sixteen recommendations from the August 2010 IPR, 15 have been closed. The remaining open recommendation (#5) will be closed by September.
  • 888
4 management gilchriese denes lbnl merrill doe sc3
4. Management *Gilchriese, Denes, LBNL/Merrill, DOE/SC

OFFICE OFSCIENCE

  • Recommendations
  • Update the QA plan and organization across the project by December 2011 to prepare for full-scale production, assembly and outfitting.