Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
OFFICE OF
SCIENCE
DOE/SC Status Reviewof the
Proton Improvement Plan (PIP-II)
Fermi National Accelerator LaboratoryDecember 4-6, 2018
Kurt Fisher
Committee Chair
Office of Science, U.S. Department of Energy
http://www.science.doe.gov/opa/
OFFICE OF
SCIENCE
2
Deliverables – Due Dates
• Closeout report (prepared in PowerPoint)
• Presented Thursday, December 6
• Instructions—slide 11
• Template—slide 13
• Final report draft (prepared in MS Word)
• Due Monday, December 10 to Casey
• Instructions—slide 12
OFFICE OF
SCIENCE
3
DOE EXECUTIVE SESSION AGENDA
Tuesday, December 4, 2018—Wilson Hall, The Comitium
8:00 a.m. DOE Executive Session K. Fisher
8:15 a.m. Program Perspective M. Procario/M. Harrison
8:30 a.m. Federal Project Director Perspective A. Bihary
8:45 a.m. Questions
8:55 a.m. Adjourn
DOE Executive Session
Project and review information is available at:
https://web.fnal.gov/project/piptech/reviews/DOE%20IPR%20for%20PIP-II/_layouts/15/start.aspx#/SitePages/Home.aspx
Username: review Password: pip2rev2pass
OFFICE OF
SCIENCEReview Committee
Participants
4
Kurt Fisher, DOE/SC, Chairperson
SC1 SC2 SC3 SC4
Accelerator Upgrades,
Accelerator Systems Linac and I&C SRF and Cryogenics Conventional Facilities
* Ali Nassiri, ANL * Thomas Roser, BNL * Matt Howell, ORNL * Brad Bull, MSU
Chris Adolphsen, SLAC Peter Ostroumov, MSU Brian DeGraff, ORNL Gary Bloom, ORNL
Matthew Bickley, TJNAF Marion White, ANL Ting Xu, MSU
Charles Reece, TJNAF
SC5 SC6 SC7
Env, Safety and Health Cost and Schedule Project Management
* Dave Rodgers, LBNL * Ethan Merrill, DOE/OPA * Mark Reichanadter, SLAC
Andrew Ackerman, BNL Frank Gines, DOE/ASO Greg Hays, SLAC
Lanson Oukrop, PNNL Joe Ingraffia, retired ANL
Robbie Leftwich-Vann, LBNL
Steve Meador, DOE/OPA
Observers LEGEND
Mike Procario, DOE/HEP SC Subcommittee
Ted Lavine, DOE/HEP * Chairperson
Mike Harrison, DOE/HEP [ ] Part-time Subcom. Member
Adam Bihary, DOE/FSO
Pepin Carolan, DOE/FSO Count: 23 (excluding observers)
OFFICE OF
SCIENCE
5
SC Organization
OFFICE OF
SCIENCE
6
Charge Questions
1. Is the project making adequate technical progress to ensure that the completed project will
perform as planned and meet the key performance parameters?
2. Will execution of PIP-II design plans and planned R&D program activities ensure most major
technical risks will be appropriately mitigated or retired prior to CD-3?
3. Has the project made adequate progress on its resource-loaded schedule to complete it by the
time of CD-2?
4. Are preparations for defining, documenting, and managing the international in-kind
contributions suitable to ensure their timely delivery and technical fidelity?
5. Is the proposed CD-2 timeline reasonable and consistent with the current project status?
6. Is ESH&Q being handled appropriately?
7. Are the proposed risk mitigation strategies reasonable and are the proposed contingencies
acceptable?
8. Has the project satisfactorily responded to the recommendations from previous reviews?
9. Are there any other significant issues that require HEP or project’s attention?
OFFICE OF
SCIENCE
7
Agenda
Tuesday, December 4, 2018
8:00 am DOE Full Committee Executive Session (Comitium – WH2SE) .............. K. Fisher
9:00 am Welcome (One West – WH1W) ............................................................. C. Mossey
9:05 am PIP-II Overview and International Context ......................................... L. Merminga
9:50 am Project Management and CD-2/3a Preparation ..................................... M. Kaducak
10:05 am Technical Integration ............................................................................. A. Klebaner
10:30 am Break
10:45 am Accelerator Systems.................................................................................P. Derwent
11:10 am SRF and Cryogenics ....................................................................................... G. Wu
11:35 am Linac Installation and Commissioning ....................................................... F. Garcia
12:00pm Lunch
1:00 pm Accelerator Complex Upgrades .............................................................I. Kourbanis
1:20 pm Conventional Facilities ............................................................................... S. Dixon
1:40 pm Incorporating Lessons Learned ................................................................ J. Adetunji
2:00 pm Break
2:20 pm Subcommittee Breakout Sessions
4:20 pm Break
4:30 pm DOE Full Committee Executive Session
6:00 pm Adjourn
OFFICE OF
SCIENCE
8
Agenda (cont’d)
Wednesday, December 5, 2018
8:00 am Subcommittee Breakout Sessions (cont.)
12:00 pm Lunch
1:00 pm Tour of PIP2IT and Lab 2
2:00 pm Subcommittee Breakout or Follow-up Sessions
4:00 pm DOE Full Committee Executive Session (Comitium – WH2SE)
Thursday, December 6, 2018
8:00 am Subcommittee Follow-up/Full Committee Prep (Comitium – WH2SE)
10:00 am DOE Full Committee Executive Session/Dry Run
12:00 pm Lunch
1:00 pm Closeout Presentation (One West – WH1W)
2:00 pm Adjourn
OFFICE OF
SCIENCE
9
Report Outline/Writing
Assignments
Executive Summary/2-page Summary Report .......................................................................Fisher*
1. Introduction ..................................................................................................................Harrison*
2. Technical Systems Evaluations (Charge Question 1, 8, 9)
2.1 Accelerator Systems................................................................... Nassiri*/Subcommittee 1
2.1.1 Findings
2.1.2 Comments
2.1.3 Recommendations
2.2 Accelerator Upgrades, Linac, and I&C ........................................ Roser*/Subcommittee 2
2.3 SRF and Cryogenics ..................................................................Howell*/Subcommittee 3
3. Conventional Facilities (Charge Question 1, 8, 9) .................................. Bull*/Subcommittee 4
4. Environment, Safety and Health (Charge Question 6, 8, 9) ............. Rodgers*/Subcommittee 5
5. Cost and Schedule (Charge Question 2, 3, 7, 8, 9) ............................. Merrill*/Subcommittee 6
6. Management (Charge Questions 4, 5, 8, 9) .............................. Reichanadter*/Subcommittee 7
*Lead
OFFICE OF
SCIENCE
10
Closeout Presentation
and Final Report
Procedures
OFFICE OF
SCIENCE
11
Format:
Closeout Presentation
OFFICE OF
SCIENCE
12
Format:
Final Report
Please Note: Recommendations are approved by the full committee and presented at the review closeout briefing.
Recommendations SHOULD NOT be changed or altered from the closeout report to the Final Report.
(Use MS Word / 12pt Font)
2.1 Use Section Number/Title corresponding to writing assignment list.
2.1.1 Findings – What the project told us
Include a brief narrative description of technical, cost, schedule, management information
provided by the project. Each subcommittee will emphasize their area of responsibility.
2.1.2 Comments – What we think about what the project told us
Descriptive material assessing the findings and making observations and conclusions
based on the findings. The committee’s answer to the charge questions should be
contained within the text of the Comments Section. Do not number your comments.
2.1.3 Recommendations – What we think the project needs to do
1. Beginning with an action verb, provide a brief, concise, and clear statement with a due date.
2.
Cost and schedule subcommittee should provide attachments for approved project cost breakdown and schedule. Management
subcommittee should provide attachment for approved project organization and names of personnel.
OFFICE OF
SCIENCE
13
Closeout Report on the
DOE/SC Status Review of the
Proton Improvement Plan (PIP-II)
Fermi National Accelerator LaboratoryDecember 4-6, 2018
Kurt Fisher
Committee Chair
Office of Science, U.S. Department of Energy
http://www.science.doe.gov/opa/
OFFICE OF
SCIENCE
14
2.1 Accelerator Systems
A. Nassiri, ANL / Subcommittee 1
• Findings
• Comments
• Recommendations
1. Is the project making adequate technical progress to ensure that
the completed project will perform as planned and meet the key
performance parameters?
8. Has the project satisfactorily responded to the recommendations
from previous reviews?
9. Are there any other significant issues that require HEP or project’s
attention?
OFFICE OF
SCIENCE
15
2.2 Accelerator Upgrades,
Linac and I&C
T. Roser, BNL / Subcommittee 2
• Findings
• Comments
• Recommendations
1. Is the project making adequate technical progress to ensure that
the completed project will perform as planned and meet the key
performance parameters?
8. Has the project satisfactorily responded to the recommendations
from previous reviews?
9. Are there any other significant issues that require HEP or project’s
attention?
OFFICE OF
SCIENCE
16
2.3 SRF and Cryogenics
M. Howell, ORNL / Subcommittee 3
• Findings
• Comments
• Recommendations
1. Is the project making adequate technical progress to ensure that
the completed project will perform as planned and meet the key
performance parameters?
8. Has the project satisfactorily responded to the recommendations
from previous reviews?
9. Are there any other significant issues that require HEP or project’s
attention?
OFFICE OF
SCIENCE
17
3. Conventional Facilities
B. Bull, MSU / Subcommittee 4
• Findings
• Comments
• Recommendations
1. Is the project making adequate technical progress to ensure that
the completed project will perform as planned and meet the key
performance parameters?
8. Has the project satisfactorily responded to the recommendations
from previous reviews?
9. Are there any other significant issues that require HEP or project’s
attention?
OFFICE OF
SCIENCE
18
4. Environment, Safety and Health
D. Rodgers, LBNL / Subcommittee 5
• Findings
• Comments
• Recommendations
6. Is ESH&Q being handled appropriately?
8. Has the project satisfactorily responded to the recommendations
from previous reviews?
9. Are there any other significant issues that require HEP or project’s
attention?
OFFICE OF
SCIENCE
19
5. Cost and ScheduleE. Merrill, DOE/OPA / Subcommittee 6
2. Will execution of PIP-II design plans and planned R&D program activities
ensure most major technical risks will be appropriately mitigated or retired
prior to CD-3?
3. Has the project made adequate progress on its resource-loaded schedule to
complete it by the time of CD-2?
7. Are the proposed risk mitigation strategies reasonable and are the proposed
contingencies acceptable?
8. Has the project satisfactorily responded to the recommendations from previous
reviews?
9. Are there any other significant issues that require HEP or project’s attention?
• Findings
• Comments
• Recommendations
OFFICE OF
SCIENCE
20
5. Cost and ScheduleE. Merrill, DOE/OPA / Subcommittee 6
PROJECT STATUS
Project Type MIE / Line Item / Cooperative Agreement
CD-1 Planned: Actual:
CD-2 Planned: Actual:
CD-3 Planned: Actual:
CD-4 Planned: Actual:
TPC Percent Complete Planned: _____% Actual: _____%
TPC Cost to Date
TPC Committed to Date
TPC
TEC
Contingency Cost (w/Mgmt Reserve) $ _____% to go
Contingency Schedule on CD-4b ______months _____%
CPI Cumulative
SPI Cumulative
OFFICE OF
SCIENCE
21
6. ManagementM. Reichanadter, SLAC / Subcommittee 7
4. Are preparations for defining, documenting, and managing the international
in-kind contributions suitable to ensure their timely delivery and technical
fidelity?
5. Is the proposed CD-2 timeline reasonable and consistent with the current
project status?
8. Has the project satisfactorily responded to the recommendations from
previous reviews?
9. Are there any other significant issues that require HEP or project’s attention?
• Findings
• Comments
• Recommendations
