Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

OFFICE OF SCIENCE Review Committee of Critical Decision 1 for the Accelerator Project for Upgrade of the LHC (APUL) at Brookhaven National Laboratory January.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "OFFICE OF SCIENCE Review Committee of Critical Decision 1 for the Accelerator Project for Upgrade of the LHC (APUL) at Brookhaven National Laboratory January."— Presentation transcript:

1 OFFICE OF SCIENCE Review Committee of Critical Decision 1 for the Accelerator Project for Upgrade of the LHC (APUL) at Brookhaven National Laboratory January 20-21, 2010 Daniel R. Lehman Review Committee Chair Office of Science, U.S. Department of Energy

2 2 DOE Review of APUL DOE EXECUTIVE SESSION AGENDA Wednesday, January 20, 2010Berkner Hall, Conference Room B 8:00 a.m.Introduction and OverviewD. Lehman 8:15 a.m.HEP ProspectiveB. Strauss 8:25 a.m. Site Office PerspectiveR. Caradonna 8:35 a.m. Questions OFFICE OF SCIENCE

3 Review Committee Participants OFFICE OF SCIENCE *Lead Department of Energy: Daniel Lehman, SC, Chairperson Committee Members Technical Paolo Ferracin, LBNL* Leigh Harwood, TJNAF Cost and Schedule Diane Hatton, BNL* Kurt Fisher, DOE/SC Management and ES&H Marty Breidenbach, SLAC* Dan Green, FNAL Ron Lutha, DOE/CH Observers Dennis Kovar, DOE/SC Bruce Strauss, DOE/SC Robert Caradonna, DOE/BHSO

4 4 DOE Organization Chart OFFICE OF SCIENCE Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy

5 5 SC Organization Chart OFFICE OF SCIENCE Office of the Director (SC-1) William F. Brinkman Adv. Scientific Comp. Research (SC-21) Michael Strayer Workforce Development for Teachers/ Scientists (SC-27) Wm. Valdez Fusion Energy Sciences (SC-24) Edmund Synakowski High Energy Physics (SC-25) Dennis Kovar Biological & Environ. Research (SC-23) Anna Palmisano Nuclear Physics (SC-26) Timothy Hallman (A) Acting Deputy Director for Science Programs (SC-2) Patricia Dehmer Deputy Director for Resource Management (SC-4) Jeffrey Salmon Deputy Director for Field Operations (SC-3) George Malosh Office of Project Assessment (SC-28) Daniel Lehman Office of Budget (SC-41) Kathleen Klausing Office of Scientific and Tech. Info. (SC-44) Walt Warnick Office of SC Project Direction (SC-46) Vicki Barden Office of Grants/ Cont. Support (SC-43) Martin Rubenstein Office of Business Policy and Ops (SC-45) Thomas Phan Business Mgmt. Sys. & Serv. (SC-45.1) Thomas Phan (A) Human Capital Resources (SC-45.2) Karen Dickenson Ames SO Cynthia Baebler Thomas Jeff. SO James Turi Stanford SO Paul Golan Pacific NWest SO Michael Weis Princeton SO Jerry Faul Oak Ridge SO Johnny Moore Fermi SO J. Livengood Brookhaven SO Michael Holland Berkeley SO Aundra Richards Argonne SO Ronald Lutha Chicago Office Roxanne Purucker Oak Ridge Office Gerald Boyd SC Integrated Support Center Office of Lab Policy & Evaluat. (SC-32) D. Streit Office of Safety, Security and Infra. (SC-31) M. Jones Basic Energy Sciences (SC-22) Harriet Kung

6 APUL Charge Questions 1.Does the conceptual design of the two APUL subsystems satisfy the performance requirements? 2. Does the conceptual design report and supporting documentation adequately justify the stated cost range and project duration? 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 aspects being properly addressed and are future plans sufficient given the projects current stage of development? 5. Is the U.S. project scope well defined within the CERN collaboration? Are all the other parts of the project and integration issues understood to be the responsibility of CERN? 6. Is the need, technical justification and schedule justification sufficient to approve early materials procurement? 7. Is the documentation required by DOE O 413.3A in order and ready for Approval of CD-1? 6 OFFICE OF SCIENCE

7 7 APUL Agenda OFFICE OF SCIENCE Wednesday January 20, 2010Berkner Hall, Conference Room B 8:00 a.m.DOE Executive Session.…………………………………….………..D. Lehman 8:45 a.m.Welcome……………..……………………………………..S. Aronson, S. Ozaki 8:55 a.m. WBS 1.Project Overview....……………………………… P. Wanderer 9:55 a.m. Break 10:20 a.m.WBS 2. D1 Magnets Overview...…………………………………….M. Anerella 11:05 a.m. WBS 3. Cold Powering Overview..……………………………………...S. Feher 11:50 a.m. Lunch Breakout Sessions Technical Berkner Hall Room D 1:00 p.m.WBS 2.1 & 2.2 D1 Design/ Tooling...………………………………..M. Anerella 1:15 p.m.WBS 2.3 & 2.4 Proto./Prod. individual cold mass……………...……J. Schmalzle 1:35 p.m.WBS 2.3 & 2.4 Proto./Prod. Combined cold mass……...………………...S. Plate 1:55 p.m.WBS 2.3 & 2.4 Proto./Prod. Cooling.……………………………………K.C. Wu 2:10 p.m.WBS 2.3 & 2.4 Proto./Prod. Field Quality………………………………R. Gupta 2:30 p.m.WBS 2.3 & 2.4 Proto./Prod. Superconductor…………………………...A. Ghosh 2:40 p.m.WBS 2.5 Testing, D1 magnets………………………………………...J. Muratore 2:55 p.m.Break

8 APUL Agenda (cont) Wednesday January 20, 2010Berkner Hall, Conference Room B, cont. Technical (cont) 3:20 p.m.WBS 3.1 DFX………………………………………………………T. Peterson 3:45 p.m.WBS 3.2 Current Lead………………………………………………..J. Brandt 4:10 p.m.WBS 3.3 SC Link…………………………………………………...F. Nobrega 4:35 p.m.WBS 3.4 Test and Integration………………………………………T. Peterson Management 1:15 p.m.Project Management Plan…………………………………………P. Wanderer 1:55 p.m.Risk Management……………………………………………………...S. Feher 2:25 p.m.ES&H, QA, Configuration Management………………………….M. Kaducak 2:55 p.m.Break 3:20 p.m.Cost & Schedule Discussions using Primavera……………………………..All Executive Session 5:00 p.m.Executive Session…………………………………………………..D. Lehman 8 OFFICE OF SCIENCE

9 APUL Agenda (cont) Thursday, January 21, 2010 Berkner Hall Room B 8:00 a.m.APUL Response to Committee Questions 9:00 a.m.Executive Discussion 9:30 a.m.Subcommittee Working Session and Report Writing with Working Lunch 1:00 p.m.Committee Dry Run 2:30 p.m.Closeout Presentation 3:30 p.m.Adjourn 9 OFFICE OF SCIENCE

10 APUL Report Outline/ Writing Assignments Executive Summary……...…………………………………………………………...Fisher 1. Introduction ………………………………………………………...…Caradonna 2. Technical Status (Charge Questions 1,6,7)…………….… Ferracin*/Harwood 2.1.1Findings 2.1.2Comments 2.1.3Recommendations 3. Cost Estimate (Charge Questions 2,6,7)………………………… Hatton*/Fisher 4. Schedule and Funding (Charge Questions 2,6,7)………………… Hatton*/Fisher 5. Management and ES&H (Charge Questions 3,4,5,6,7) Breidenbach*/Green/Lutha 10 OFFICE OF SCIENCE *Lead

11 11 Closeout Presentation and Final Report Procedures OFFICE OF SCIENCE

12 12 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 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 Recommendations 1. Begin with action verb and identify a due date. 2. OFFICE OF SCIENCE

13 13 Format: Final Report OFFICE OF SCIENCE 2.1[Use number and title corresponding to writing assignment list.] 2.1.1Findings Include an assessment of technical, cost, schedule, and management 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 Recommendations 1. Begin with action verb and identify a due date

14 14 Expectations Present closeout reports in PowerPoint. Forward your sections for each review report (in MSWord format) to Casey Clark, by January 19, 8:00 a.m. (EST). OFFICE OF SCIENCE

15 Daniel R. Lehman Review Committee Chair Office of Science, U.S. Department of Energy Review Committee of Critical Decision 1 for the Accelerator Project for Upgrade of the LHC (APUL) at Brookhaven National Laboratory January 20-21,2010

16 Paolo Ferracin, Leigh Harwood APUL 2. Technical Status Paolo Ferracin, Leigh Harwood 1.Does the conceptual design of the two APUL subsystems satisfy the performance requirements? 6.Is the need, technical justification and schedule justification sufficient to approve early materials procurement? 7.Is the documentation required by DOE O 413.3A in order and ready for Approval of CD-1? Findings Comments Recommendations 16 OFFICE OF SCIENCE

17 APUL 3. Cost Estimate Diane Hatton, Kurt Fisher 2.Does the conceptual design report and supporting documentation adequately justify the stated cost range and project duration? 6.Is the need, technical justification and schedule justification sufficient to approve early materials procurement? 7.Is the documentation required by DOE O 413.3A in order and ready for Approval of CD-1? Findings Comments Recommendations 17 OFFICE OF SCIENCE

18 APUL 4. Schedule and Funding Diane Hatton, Kurt Fisher 2.Does the conceptual design report and supporting documentation adequately justify the stated cost range and project duration? 6.Is the need, technical justification and schedule justification sufficient to approve early materials procurement? 7.Is the documentation required by DOE O 413.3A in order and ready for Approval of CD-1? Findings Comments Recommendations 18 OFFICE OF SCIENCE

19 5. Management and ES&H M. Breidenbach, D. Green, R. Lutha 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 aspects being properly addressed and are future plans sufficient given the projects current stage of development? 5.Is the U.S. project scope well defined within the CERN collaboration? Are all the other parts of the project and integration issues understood to be the responsibility of CERN? 6.Is the need, technical justification and schedule sufficient to approve early materials procurement? 7. Is the documentation required by DOE O 413.3A in order and ready for Approval of CD-1? Findings Comments Recommendations 19 OFFICE OF SCIENCE


Download ppt "OFFICE OF SCIENCE Review Committee of Critical Decision 1 for the Accelerator Project for Upgrade of the LHC (APUL) at Brookhaven National Laboratory January."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google