Date: Thu Jun 02 2005 - 13:52:38 CDT
Can you tell us what the questions were related to cost estimates?
Was it the usual: contingency too low, or insufficient backup??
Did they comment on the schedule? Did they believe our timescale?
P.O. Box 500
Batavia, Il 60510
----- Original Message -----
From: Mike Shaevitz <email@example.com>
Date: Thursday, June 2, 2005 1:46 pm
Subject: 1st NuSAG Meeting
> Dear Colleagues:
> All of the reactor experiments (Braidwood, Daya Bay, and
> Double Chooz) made presentations at yesterday's NuSAG
> review. The Braidwood presentation
> seemed to be quite well received. We presented many more
> details of the experiment than other groups. We expect to
> receive written questions to address at a later meeting, but
> here are a few points that came up at the meeting.
> 1) In moving detectors, how does one assure that detectors
> don't change. How robust is the cross check?
> 2) The 12B does not seem to address the relative fiducial
> volume for the Gd captures and leakage.
> 3) Once you dig he far shaft, the baseline is fixed. Is
> this a problem with respect to having a reliable dm2 value.
> (Mike's new plots address this point.)
> 4) There were several questions related to the reliability
> of our cost estimates.
> As expected, the background differences between Braidwood
> and Daya Bay will be an issue of interest to the committee
> -- we will probably have to provide additional details on
> our background rejection/measurement.
> As soon as we receive questions from NuSAG we will schedule
> a phone conference to make a short-term plan.
> Thanks to everyone for their help in preparing for this
> first NuSAG review.
> Mike and Ed
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.6 : Fri Jun 03 2005 - 03:10:14 CDT