OFFICE OF SCIENCE Review Committee for the NuMi Off-Axis Neutrino Appearance (NO A) Experiment at the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory August 9, 2011

OFFICE OF

SCIENCE

Review Committeefor the

NuMi Off-Axis Neutrino Appearance (NO A) Experiment

at the

Fermi National Accelerator LaboratoryAugust 9, 2011

Kurt W. Fisher

Review Committee Chair

Office of Science, U.S. Department of Energy

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

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

2

DOE Organizational Chart

OFFICE OF

SCIENCE

Office of the SecretaryDr. Steven Chu, Secretary

Deputy Secretary* Daniel B. Poneman

Federal EnergyRegulatory

Commission

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.Jun 09

Assistant Secretaryfor Policy and

International Affairs

GeneralCounsel

Chief FinancialOfficer

Chief InformationOfficer

Chief Human Capital Officer

Management

Energy InformationAdministration

Assistant Secretaryfor Congressional and

Intergov’t Affairs

Health, Safetyand Security

Economic ImpactAnd Diversity

InspectorGeneral

Hearings andAppeals

Intelligence andCounter Intelligence

Public Affairs

Bonneville PowerAdministration

Southwestern PowerAdministration

Southeastern PowerAdministration

Western Area PowerAdministration

Deputy Administratorfor Defense Programs

Deputy Administratorfor Defense Nuclear

Nonproliferation

Deputy Administratorfor Naval Reactors

Deputy Under Secretaryfor Counter-terrorism

Associate Administratorfor Defense Nuclear

Security

Associate Administratorfor Emergency

Operations

Associate Administratorfor Infrastructureand Environment


for Science

Steven E. Koonin

Office of Science

Advanced ScientificComputing Research

Basic Energy Sciences

Biological andEnvironmental Research

Fusion Energy Science

High Energy Physics

Nuclear Physics


Kristina M. Johnson

Assistant Secretaryfor Energy Efficiency

and Renewable Energy

Assistant Secretaryfor Environmental

Management

Assistant Secretaryfor Fossil Energy

Assistant Secretaryfor Nuclear Energy

CivilianRadioactive Waste

Management

Electricity Deliveryand Energy Reliability

Legacy Management

Associate Administratorfor Management

and Administration

Workforce DevelopmentFor Teachers/Scientists

Department Staff and Support Offices

Advance ResearchProjects Agency-Energy

3

SC Organizational Chart

OFFICE 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

Office of Science

Review Committee ParticipantsOFFICE OF

SCIENCE

Department of Energy Review Committee

Kurt W. Fisher, DOE, Chairperson Subcommittee 1: Accelerator and Beamlines* John Quintana, ANL

Subcommittee 2: Detector* Bill Wiisniewski, SLAC

Richard Loveless, U of WiscPeter Denes, LBNL

Subcommittee 3: Cost, Schedule and Management*Gil Gilchriese, LBNLEthan Merrill, DOE/SC[Peter Denes, LBNL]

Observers

Ted Lavine, DOE/SCEli Rosenberg, DOE/SCAlan Stone, DOE/SCPepin Carolan, DOE/FSO

5

Charge Questions

1. 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?

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

3. 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?

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

OFFICE OF

SCIENCE

6

Report Outline/Writing Assignments

OFFICE OF

SCIENCE

Executive Summary Fisher

1. Introduction Lavine

2. Technical (Charge Questions 2, 4)

2.1 Accelerator and Beamlines Quintana*/SC1

2.1.1 Findings

2.1.2 Comments

2.1.3 Recommendations

2.2 Detector Wisniewski*/SC2

3. Cost and Schedule (Charge Questions 1, 4) Merrill*/SC3

4. Management (Charge Questions 3, 4) Gilchriese*/SC3

*Lead

SC - Subcommittee

7

Expectations

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

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

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

OFFICE OF

SCIENCE

mailto:[email protected]

2.1 Accelerator and Beamlines Quintana, ANL

8

OFFICE OF

SCIENCE


Yes


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

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.

9

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.

10

11

2.2 DetectorWisniewski, SLAC/Denes, LBNL

Loveless, U of Wisc

OFFICE OF

SCIENCE


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.


The recommendations concerning the detector have been

addressed and, for the most part, satisfactorily closed.

12


Loveless, U of Wisc

OFFICE OF

SCIENCE

■ 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.

13


Loveless, U of Wisc

OFFICE OF

SCIENCE

■ 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.

14


Loveless, U of Wisc

OFFICE OF

SCIENCE

■ 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.

15

3. Cost and Schedule Merrill, DOE/SC

1. 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

4. 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;

OFFICE OF

SCIENCE

16


■ 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

OFFICE OF

SCIENCE

17


■ Recommendations

• None

OFFICE OF

SCIENCE

18

NOvA Project Status Merrill, DOE/SC

OFFICE OF

SCIENCE

PROJECT STATUS as of August 9, 2011Project Type MIE / Cooperative AgreementCD-1 Planned: 5/2007 Actual: 5/2007 CD-2 Planned: 10/2008 Actual: 9/2008CD-3 Planned:

3a – 2/20093b – 10/2009

Actual: 3a – 10/20083b – 10/2009

CD-4 Planned: 11/2014 Actual: TPC Percent Complete Planned: _51.6% Actual: _49%TPC Cost to Date $123.9M

TPC Committed to Date $174.5MTPC $244.1MTEC $278M

Contingency Cost (w/Mgmt Reserve) $33.9M ___27% to go

Contingency Schedule on CD-4b ____10 months _____33%CPI Cumulative 0.97

SPI Cumulative 0.95

19

4. Management *Gilchriese, Denes, LBNL/

Merrill, DOE/SC

OFFICE OF

SCIENCE

3. 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.


YES

20


Merrill, DOE/SC

OFFICE OF

SCIENCE

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 NOA-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.)

21


Merrill, DOE/SC

OFFICE OF

SCIENCE

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

22


Merrill, DOE/SC

OFFICE OF

SCIENCE

Recommendations• Update the QA plan and organization across the project by December 2011 to

prepare for full-scale production, assembly and outfitting.

Documents

OFFICE OF SCIENCE Review Committee for the NuMi Off-Axis Neutrino Appearance (NO A) Experiment at the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory August 9, 2011