1 / 7

Kurt W. Fisher Review Committee Chair Office of Science, U.S. Department of Energy

Review of Critical Decision 2 for the Large Liquid Argon Detector for Neutron Physics ( MicroBooNE ) at Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory August 10-11, 2011. Example. Kurt W. Fisher Review Committee Chair Office of Science, U.S. Department of Energy http://www.science.doe.gov/opa/.

nura
Download Presentation

Kurt W. Fisher 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. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Review of Critical Decision 2 for the Large Liquid Argon Detector for Neutron Physics (MicroBooNE) at Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory August 10-11, 2011 Example Kurt W. Fisher Review Committee Chair Office of Science, U.S. Department of Energy http://www.science.doe.gov/opa/

  2. 2.1 Cryostat and Cryo-SystemFuerst, ANL / Strauss, DOE/SC • Do the proposed technical design and associated implementation approach satisfy the performance requirements? Are the CD-4 goals well defined? • 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? • Findings • Comments • Recommendations

  3. 2.2 Detector and ElectronicsWisniewski, SLAC / Denes, LBNL /Stroynowski, SMU • Do the proposed technical design and associated implementation approach satisfy the performance requirements? Are the CD-4 goals well defined? • 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? • Findings • Comments • Recommendations

  4. 2.3 Infrastructure and InstallationGuarino, ANL / Sims, ANL • Do the proposed technical design and associated implementation approach satisfy the performance requirements? Are the CD-4 goals well defined? • 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? • Findings • Comments • Recommendations

  5. 3. Cost and ScheduleMerrill, DOE/SC • 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? • 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? • Findings • Comments • Recommendations

  6. Project StatusMerrill, DOE/SC

  7. 4. Management and ES&HSims, ANL / Loveless, U. of Wisc. Do the proposed technical design and associated implementation approach satisfy the performance requirements? Are the CD-4 goals well defined? Are the management structure and resources adequate to deliver the proposed technical scope within specifications, budget, and schedule? Is the documentation required by DOE Order 413.3B for CD-2 and CD-3a complete? Are ES&H aspects being properly addressed given the project’s current stage of development? 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? • Findings • Comments • Recommendations

More Related