office of science review of critical decision 2 /3a for the large liquid argon detector for neutrino...

OFFICE OF

SCIENCE

Review of Critical Decision 2 /3a for the

Large Liquid Argon Detector for Neutrino Physics (MicroBooNE)

atFermi National Accelerator Laboratory

August 10-11, 2011

Kurt W. FisherReview Committee Chair

Office of Science, U.S. Department of Energyhttp://www.science.doe.gov/opa/

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

OFFICE OF

SCIENCEReview Committee Participants

Department of Energy Subcommittee 1- Cryostat and Cryo-systemKurt W. Fisher, DOE, Chairperson *Joel Fuerst, ANL

Bruce Strauss, DOE/SC

Subcommittee 2- Detector and Electronics *Bill Wisniewski, SLAC

Peter Denes, LBNLRyszard Stroynowski, SMU

Observers Subcommittee 3- Infrastructure and InstallationTed Lavine, DOE/SC *Victor Guarino, ANLEli Rosenberg, DOE/SC [Jeff Sims, ANL]Paul Philp, DOE/FSO Steve Webster, DOE/FSO Subcommittee 4- Management, Cost, Schedule

and ES&H, QA *Jeff Sims, ANL

Richard Loveless, U of Wisc.Ethan Merrill

OFFICE OF

SCIENCE

3

Department of EnergyOffice of the Secretary

Dr. Steven Chu, Secretary

Deputy Secretary* Daniel B. Poneman

Melvin G. Williams, Jr.Associate Deputy Secretary

Office of the Under Secretary

for Nuclear Security/Administrator for National Nuclear

Security AdministrationThomas P. D’Agostino

Chief of Staff

*The Deputy Secretary also serves as the Chief Operating Officer. May 3, 2011

Energy InformationAdministration

Bonneville PowerAdministration

Southwestern PowerAdministration

Southeastern PowerAdministration

Western Area PowerAdministration

Intelligence andCounterintelligence

Assistant Secretary forPolicy and International

Affairs

Assistant Secretary forCongressional and

Intergovernmental Affairs

General Counsel

Chief FinancialOfficer

Chief Human CapitalOfficer

Chief InformationOfficer

Public Affairs

Economic ImpactAnd Diversity

Deputy Administratorfor Defense Programs

Deputy Under Secretaryfor Counter-terrorism

Associate Administratorfor Emergency

Operations

Associate Administratorfor Acquisition &

Project Management

Associate Administratorfor Defense Nuclear

Nonproliferation

Deputy Administratorfor Naval Reactors

Associate Administratorfor Defense Nuclear

Security


for Science

Steven E. KooninUnder Secretary

for Science

Office of Science

Advanced ScientificComputing Research

Basic Energy Sciences

Biological andEnvironmental Research

Fusion Energy Science

High Energy Physics

Nuclear Physics


VacantUnder Secretary

Associate Administratorfor External Affairs

Workforce DevelopmentFor Teachers/Scientists

Management

Health Safety andSecurity

Hearings and Appeals

Advanced ResearchProjects Agency-Energy

Loans ProgramOffice

American Recovery &Reinvestment Act Office

Federal EnergyRegulatory Commission

Inspector General

Assistant Secretaryfor Environmental

Management

Assistant Secretaryfor

Fossil Energy

Legacy Management

Indian EnergyPolicy and Programs

Assistant Secretaryfor Energy Efficiency

and Renewable Energy

Assistant Secretaryfor Electrical Delivery and

Energy Reliability

Assistant Secretaryfor

Nuclear Energy

Associate Administratorfor Info. Management

& CIO

Associate Administratorfor Management &

Budget

Associate Administratorfor Safety & Health

4

OFFICE OF

SCIENCEOffice of Science

Chicago Office

Roxanne Purucker

Office of the Director (SC-1)William F. Brinkman

Advanced ScientificComp. Research (SC-21)Daniel Hitchcock (A)

Workforce Development for Teachers/

Scientists (SC-27)

Wm. ValdezBasic Energy

Sciences (SC-22)Harriet Kung

Fusion EnergySciences (SC-24)

Edmund Synakowski

High EnergyPhysics (SC-25)

Michael Procario (A)

Biological & Environ. Research (SC-23)

Sharlene Weatherwax (A)

Nuclear Physics(SC-26)

Timothy Hallman (A) Acting

7/2011

Deputy Directorfor Science Programs (SC-2)

Patricia Dehmer

Deputy Directorfor Resource Management (SC-4)

Jeffrey Salmon

Deputy Directorfor Field Operations (SC-3)

Joseph McBrearty (A)

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)

Rebecca Kelley

Office of Grants/ Cont. Support (SC-43)Linda Shariati

Office of Business

Policy and Ops (SC-45)

Thomas Phan

Business Mgmt & Planning Div

(SC-45.1)Vasilios

Kountouris

SC Systems & Ops Div

(SC-45.2)Steven Demore

Ames SOCynthia Baebler

Thomas Jeff. SOJoe Arango

Stanford SOPaul Golan

Pacific NWest SOJulie Erickson (A)

Princeton SOMaria Dikeakos

Oak Ridge SOJohnny Moore

Fermi SOMichael Weis

Brookhaven SOMichael Holland

Berkeley SOAundra Richards

Argonne SOJoanna Livengood

Oak Ridge Office

Paul Golan (A)

SCIntegratedSupportCenter

Office of Lab

Policy & Evaluat.(SC-32)D. Streit

Office of Safety,

Security and Infra.

(SC-31)M. Jones

Human Capital Resources Div.

(SC-45.3)Cynthia Mays

Small BusinessInnovationResearch(SC-29)

Manny Oliver

5

OFFICE OF

SCIENCECharge Questions

1. Do the proposed technical design and associated implementation approach satisfy the performance requirements? Are the CD-4 goals well defined?

2. Is the cost estimate and schedule consistent with the plan to deliver the technical scope with the stated performance? Is the contingency adequate for the risk?

3. Are the management structure and resources adequate to deliver the proposed technical scope within specifications, budget, and schedule?

4. Is the documentation required by DOE Order 413.3B for CD-2 and CD-3a complete?

5. Are ES&H aspects being properly addressed given the project’s current stage of development?

6. Are the requested long-lead procurements and any related activities necessary to achieve the stated schedule? Has the Project done the necessary preparations to execute these activities?

6

OFFICE OF

SCIENCEReport Outline/ Writing Assignments

Executive Summary Fisher

1. Introduction

Lavine

2. Technical Status (Charge Questions 1, 6)

2.1 Cryostat and Cryo-System *Fuerst/Strauss/SC1

2.1.1 Findings

2.1.2 Comments

2.1.3 Recommendations

2.2 Detector and Electronics Wisniewski*/Stroynowski/Loveless/SC/2

2.3 Infrastructure and Installation Guarino*/Sims/SC3

3. Cost Estimate and Schedule (Charge Questions 2, 6)

Merrill*/SC4

4. Management and ES&H (Charge Question 1, 3, 4, 5, 6)

Sims*/SC4

*Lead

SC Subcommittee

7

OFFICE OF

SCIENCEExpectations

Present closeout reports in PowerPoint. Forward your sections for each review report

(in MSWord format) to Casey Clark, [email protected],

by Aug. 15, 8:00 a.m. (EDT).

mailto:[email protected]

OFFICE OF

SCIENCE2.1 Cryostat and Cryo-SystemFuerst, ANL / Strauss, DOE/SC

1. Do the proposed technical design and associated implementation approach satisfy the performance requirements? Are the CD-4 goals well defined?

YES


YES

8

OFFICE OF

SCIENCE

9

Findings– Project scope does not include initial LAr fill.– A make/buy analysis has been performed for the cooling &

purification systems as requested in the CD-1 Review Committee Report.

– Cryostat/detector interface issues have been addressed as requested in the CD-1 Review Committee Report.

– Pressure safety strategy is based on ASME/ANSI codes and established FNAL procedures.

– Access to the pit will be controlled by an interlock system.– Three pieces of cryogenic equipment have been identified as long-

lead procurements.– The cryostat is not presently a long-lead procurement item.– Alternative funding sources may be available for long-lead items.

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

OFFICE OF

SCIENCE

10

Comments– The BNL/FNAL relationship is working well.– The project intends to allow vendors to select a cryostat end joint

strategy (welded vs. flanged).– Separation of cryostat and cryogenics elements between Detector

Systems and Infrastructure DPMs appears reasonable given the interface issues involved.

– Foam insulation appears to be an optimal choice for the cryostat.– Foam support cradles are established technology and a good choice

for the cryostat.– Preliminary oxygen deficiency hazard (ODH) analyses look

reasonable.– The proposed LAr spill mitigation strategies appear to be workable.


OFFICE OF

SCIENCE

11

Recommendations– Determine a preferred cryostat head joint strategy by 30OCT11 to

assist the evaluation of bids based on “best value.”– Approve CD-2/3a.


OFFICE OF

SCIENCE2.2 Detector and Electronics

Wisniewski, SLAC / Denes, LBNL /Stroynowski, SMU

12

1. Do the proposed technical design and associated implementation approach satisfy the performance requirements? Are the CD-4 goals well defined? Yes.

2. Is the cost estimate and schedule consistent with the plan to deliver the technical scope with the stated performance? Is the contingency adequate for the risk?

Yes. Detector and Electronics cost estimates were reviewed, including Bases of Estimate. The costs are consistent with the plan to deliver the technical scope. The contingency estimates appear to be adequate for the risks.

OFFICE OF



13


There are no items for Detector and Electronics that are targeted as long-lead time procurements.

OFFICE OF



14

Findings• The PMT system is an in-kind contribution funded by the NSF. It

consists of 30 PMTs arrayed on a slide in structure to be located behind the TPC readout plane.

• The system has 10% spares, which should be adequate.• Wavelength shifter painted onto plates held between the PMT and the

TPC array is used to match photocathode sensitivity to the scintillation light emitted by Ar. Plate handling techniques to limit degradation have been developed.

• Long term and LN2 testing of the PMTs is in progress.• Cost estimates and schedules were presented. The total costs will be

close to budgeted costs. MIT provides financial backup for overruns. The schedule has a quarter year float if executed serially; taking advantage of parallel production can advance the schedule.

OFFICE OF



15

Findings• The TPC system is an in-kind contribution of NSF. The TPC has

three views, U, V, Y, of the chamber, with the stereo wires ~twice as long as the vertical wires. These anode plane wires are attached to wire carrier boards (32 wires per board) that are fixed to the anode plane frame. Structures are stainless steel.

• TPC design activities are centered at BNL. Half of the drawings are done, though none signed off.

• Fab will be done at Yale and Syracuse shops, supplemented by external vendors. Wire stringing will take place at Yale and Syracuse. Integration will occur at FNAL. Prototype wire stringing machines have been built. The team estimates that 1 minute will be needed to prep each of the ~8000 wires.

• Transportation issues have been considered. Work on assembly schemes has begun, as well as conceptual design of the roll-in cart.

• Costs appear to be reasonable. Contingency appears low at 25% on M&S and 20% on labor. Schedule looks reasonable.

OFFICE OF



16

Findings• The only technical change from CD-1 was to adopt a CMOS ASIC

front end. The ASIC development is being carried out at BNL, supported under LBNE.

• A third iteration of the 0.18 um CMOS Front-End ASIC has been submitted. There is sufficient float in the schedule for another iteration if needed.

• An integrated readout test, with a full crate of readout electronics, ADCs and Front-End Electronics will take place in early CY12, and will add confidence to the design performance.

• The committee drilled down through the cost documentation of several items. The Bases of Estimate are extensive. Costs appear to be well developed.

OFFICE OF



17

Comments• The mixed funding and complex institutional responsibility

patterns for construction push interface control to be a central concern for the success of the project. Interface control was a focus of all of the L2 Managers’ presentations to the committee. Consciousness of this issue is high, making success in this complicated environment likely.

• Quality Assurance plans are quite mature for this stage of the experiment.

• The PMT system has continued to make technical progress. It’s schedule has sufficient float.

• The TPC system has made good design progress. The committee expects that this will be complete in time for construction. Assembly design is making good progress. With assembly ‘just around the corner’, fleshing out assembly needs more effort.

OFFICE OF



18

Comments• A cold test of a full length wire carrier assemblies to verify

engineering concepts should be performed by the end of the year.• Breaking of a wire in the TPC during operation can be catastrophic.

The team should put more effort into mitigation of this unlikely event (eg, advance wire catcher design).

• The electronics team has a full chain test planned in the first quarter of CY2012. This is an important test that needs to proceed in this timely way.

• The project should be commended for the careful thought given to power distribution and grounding.

• The project should give highest priority to rapid evaluation of the third iteration Front-End ASIC, in order to retire the risk.

OFFICE OF



19

Recommendations

• Approve CD-2/3a.

OFFICE OF

SCIENCE2.3 Infrastructure and InstallationGuarino, ANL / Sims, ANL

20

1. Do the proposed technical design and associated

implementation approach satisfy the performance

requirements? YES Are the CD-4 goals well defined? YES

6. Are the requested long-lead procurements and any related activities necessary to achieve the stated schedule? Has the Project done the necessary preparations to execute these activities? There are no long-lead procurements in this WBS.

OFFICE OF


Findings• The WBS is well organized and all of the documentation is in

place. CD4 goals are well defined. • There is a very experienced team at Fermi that is responsible

for the installation. BOE labor estimates for installation is based on this past experience and justifies the contingencies that are used.

• The recent creation of WBS 1.10 for integration is a good development.

21

OFFICE OF


Comments• Timely completion of the 3D CAD model for the piping will

help to finalize the cost estimates. 2D prints as well as the 3D renderings on the shop floor during installation will help eliminate any potential problems with the layout during construction.

• Interface agreements between all of the subgroups should be completed as soon as possible.

• A system for travelers for each piece of equipment should be developed and implemented.

• The insertion and fishing of the wire/cables during the installation of the TPC appears to be difficult and testing of this process using a mockup could be useful.

22

OFFICE OF


Recommendations• The final design of the cart for the TPC installation is

potentially a schedule driver and should be completed as soon as possible.

• There is a good conceptual design for the installation of wires and the assembly of the TPC. Detailed assembly plans need to be developed that include all of the fixturing/tooling needed.

• Recommend CD 2-3a approval

23

OFFICE OF

SCIENCE

24

3. Cost and ScheduleMerrill/SC4

2. Is the cost estimate and schedule consistent with the plan to

deliver the technical scope with the stated performance?

YES

Is the contingency adequate for the risk? YES

6. Are the requested long-lead procurements and any related

activities necessary to achieve the stated schedule? YES

Has the Project done the necessary preparations to execute

these activities? YES

OFFICE OF

SCIENCE

25


Findings TEC = $15.596M, Contingency = $4.403M (28%), TPC = $19.999M; 27 month to-go construction period; Currently 21 Months Schedule Contingency (Dec 2013 to Sept 2015) based on

the current working schedule; 11 Level 2 WBS Elements (8 DOE/3 NSF); Project requires a $6.6M GPP multi-use facility funded off-project to meet CD-4

requirements; All MOUs with contributing institutions are in place; Project is proposing $342K in early procurements (CD-3a); Cost estimates are based on bottoms-up analysis and contingency built in at

activity level; Project schedule has been scrubbed and logic ties reevaluated; Project critical path goes through Enclosure Availability, Cryostat Construction,

and Frontend Electronics; Risk Registers are complete and up-to-date;

OFFICE OF

SCIENCE

26


Comments Funding vs. Obligations profile is satisfactory for project although FY11 carryover

to FY12 is critical and CR beyond Jan 2012 will likely impact project schedule; FNAL has committed to funding the GPP as a priority to support the project; Robust risk management process in place; some risks retired and built into

baseline; Some schedule contingency is built into labor estimates based on Monte Carlo; Cost estimates are defensible and based on input from L2 managers, market

surveys, vendor quotes, project experience, etc. BoEs are detailed and traceable although project should consider reviewing

supporting documentation to ensure it is accurate and complete; At this time, the project end date is directly linked to receipt of construction funds; Significant project effort is associated with BNL and labor is split ~50/50 between

BNL and FNAL; Proposed CD-3a procurements are not on the critical path however items are “off

the shelf” with 6-10 month lead times and vendor quotes in-hand. Early procurement seems reasonable and these items should be purchased.

OFFICE OF

SCIENCE

27


• Recommendations• Approve CD-2/3a

OFFICE OF

SCIENCE

28

PROJECT STATUSProject Type MIE / Cooperative AgreementCD-1 Planned: Actual: 7/9/2010CD-2/3a Planned: 9/2011 Actual: CD-3b Planned: 3/2012 Actual: CD-4 Planned: 9/2015 Actual: TPC Percent Complete Planned: _17____% Actual: _17____%TPC Cost to Date $3.324M

TPC Committed to Date $4.256MTPC $19.999MTEC $14.893MContingency Cost (w/Mgmt Reserve) $4.439M ____34% on to goContingency Schedule on CD-4 _____13_months _____48%CPI Cumulative N/A

SPI Cumulative N/A

Project Status

OFFICE OF

SCIENCE

29

4. Management and ES&HSims, ANL / Loveless, U. of Wisc.

1. Do the proposed technical design and associated implementation approach satisfy the performance requirements? Yes. Are the CD-4 goals well defined? Yes.

3. Are the management structure and resources adequate to deliver the proposed technical scope within specifications, budget, and schedule? Yes, a well structured and experienced team is in place

4. Is the documentation required by DOE Order 413.3B for CD-2 and CD-3a complete? Yes.

5. Are ES&H aspects being properly addressed given the project’s current stage of development? Yes.

6. Are the requested long-lead procurements and any related activities necessary to achieve the stated schedule? Yes, three items have been identified that could accelerate the project by 2 to 3 months. Has the Project done the necessary preparations to execute these activities? Yes, the design and procurement information is complete.

OFFICE OF

SCIENCE

30


FindingsThe Project collaboration consists of 13 institutions and approximately 70 physicists. Seven of these institutions are delivering parts of the Project. Both NSF and DOE are providing funding.

The Project Key performance parameters and CD-4 definition were presented.

A configuration management plan was provided . Documents and technical configuration are controlled through project Docdb information repository. The following CD-2 required documents were provided to the review team:

Acquisition StrategyProject Execution PlanTechnical Design Report (Preliminary Design)Risk Management PlanRisk RegisterQA PlanNEPA Categorical Exclusion dated 3/8/11Hazard Assessment Report

OFFICE OF

SCIENCE

31


FindingsA detailed Integrated Safety Management Plan was provided.

The detector hall will be constructed as General Plant Project where the Project will be the first occupant experiment. The L2 Manager for infrastructure and the Federal Project Director are heavily involved in the GPP project.

A list of 42 risks was provided along with the related Monte Carlo simulations for cost and schedule contingency.

The team presented responses to the recent CD-2/3a Directors review and the CD-1 review. All recommendations appear to be closed out.

The Project is considered a new start so the initial funding in FY12 will not be received until a potential FY12 continuing resolution is over. This is recognized as a significant risk to the schedule. Approximately $3M will carry over into FY12 to allow the team to finish design and prepare for FY12 procurements.

OFFICE OF

SCIENCE

32


CommentsThe team is commended for presenting very clear and concise presentations and well

developed project documentation.

The project is well organized and staffed with experienced professionals.

The Project and collaboration has done an outstanding job developing relationships with the external organizations necessary to make the Project a success. The MOU’s and communication with external organizations were judged to be in very good condition.

A new start in FY12 exposes the Project to the potential for significant delays. Consider using “stop at award” approaches on some FY12 equipment procurements so it proceeds in parallel with the continuing resolution.

Risks appear to be appropriately developed for this phase of work.

Early procurement items proposed for CD-3a are reasonable, and they should proceed as planned.

OFFICE OF

SCIENCE

33


RecommendationsApprove CD-2/3a

office of science review of critical decision 2 /3a for the large liquid argon detector for neutrino...

Documents

director sc

support sc

ops sc

science programs sc

nuclear physics sc

resource management

field operations sc

teachers scientists