1. US Belle II Project Overview Jim Fast Pacific Northwest National Laboratory

2. Outline Project Scope Key Performance Parameters Project Schedule Project Cost Project Management Project Risks Project Reviews and Responses CD-2/3 Requirements Checklist Summary 16-17 January 2013James Fast, US Belle II Directors Review (Pre CD-2/3)2

3. US Belle II project scope: delivering key systems to KEK US Belle II Project 1.1 Project Integration and Support 1.2 iTOP Optics 1.3 Readout Systems 1.4 KLM Systems 1.5 Commissioning Detector KLM (WBS 1.4, readout WBS 1.3) iTOP (WBS 1.2, readout WBS 1.3) Trigger and Data Acquisition (WBS 1.3) Commissioning Detector (WBS 1.5) 16-17 January 2013James Fast, US Belle II Directors Review (Pre CD-2/3)3

4. CD-4 Definition Scope chosen to meet available funding Scope completion must not be contingent on external factors such as Super-KEKB operation Leads to somewhat unusual choice of where we transition from construction project to post- project integration, installation and commissioning phase (operations funds) – Construction project delivers parts or sub-assemblies for Belle II and KPPs defined around pre-installation testing of these, not final in situ performance

5. Key performance parameters 16-17 January 2013James Fast, US Belle II Directors Review (Pre CD-2/3)5

6. US Belle II project schedule is driven by KEK Belle II/SuperKEKB schedule KLM module installation summer 2013 Commissioning detector for SuperKEKB runs in 2014 and 2015 iTOP module installation spring 2015 16-17 January 2013James Fast, US Belle II Directors Review (Pre CD-2/3)6

7. US Belle II project funding sufficient to complete in-scope work Cost estimate including contingency in at-year M$ $1.6M spent & committed 14% contingency on remaining costs 30% contingency on remaining non-quartz costs* 16-17 January 2013James Fast, US Belle II Directors Review (Pre CD-2/3)7 *Further discussed in WBS1.02 breakout in context of scope contingency related to preproduction optics

8. Project Contingency Assume use of preproduction bars and mirrors in experiment and total fabrication of 18 sets of optics (16 + 2 spares) TEC+OPC = 12.68M; contingency $2.31M – Contingency 18.2% of total Remaining costs = $11.76M – Contingency 20.9% of remaining costs Remaining non-quartz costs = $6.75M – Allow for $0.3M contingency for quartz (allows for all Zygo bars) – $2.0M is then 34.3% of non-quartz remaining costs Question: Should the project assume use of preproduction optics in baseline at CD-3? 16-17 January 2013James Fast, US Belle II Directors Review (Pre CD-2/3)8

9. Funding profile matches guidance from OHEP 16-17 January 2013James Fast, US Belle II Directors Review (Pre CD-2/3)9

10. Strong management team in place and working together US Belle II Project IPT Members Federal Program Manager (Helmut Marsiske OHEP) Federal Project Director (Jeff Day PNSO); Contracting Officer (Ryan Kilbury PNSO) Contractor Project Manager (Jim Fast PNNL) 16-17 January 2013James Fast, US Belle II Directors Review (Pre CD-2/3)10

11. Major risks identified and mitigation strategies being executed The major risks have been identified and mitigation strategies developed Handling actions and due dates have been identified and are monitored Risks and handling actions are reviewed and reassessed ~quarterly Key risks: – ASIC developer is overcommitted and cannot complete all assigned scope on schedule. Mitigation strategy: Offloading work to other institutions (IU, Pittsburgh, PNNL, VT, WSU) – Quartz vendors have production problems and delivery of quartz is delayed or vendors must be added. Mitigation strategy (schedule): Prototyping, use of multiple vendors, understanding implications of non-ideal articles Mitigation strategy (cost): Multiple vendors have been identified and developed; contracts (to) include clauses allowing quantities to be reduced to allow flexibility to move production to alternate vendors in case of quality or schedule issue; differential cost for bars is understood and has been used to develop baseline cost and contingency – ASICs (TARGET or IRS) require an additional design cycle, delaying production. Mitigation strategy: Advanced TARGET testing with off-project collaboration interested in chip for other uses; following lower- risk development of IRS chip with discrete RF amplifiers rather than BLAB with integrated RF amplifiers – Grant-funded tasks do not produce required project-related outcomes and funding must be supplemented by project. Mitigation strategy: Working closely with grant monitor so that required funding levels are understood. Project contingency in these areas is high to account for possible need to move to project-funded resources 16-17 January 2013James Fast, US Belle II Directors Review (Pre CD-2/3)11

12. Belle II and US Belle II have been reviewed thoroughly Technical Design Review (KLM/Com. Det.) 13 December 2013 Technical Design Review (iTOP)/BPAC iTOP Mini Review 6-7 December 2013 Belle II Focused Review (BPAC) 9-10 September 2013 7 th BPAC 10-11 March 2013 DOE Mini Review 17 December 2012 Belle II Focused Review (BPAC) 1-2 October 2012 CD-1 Independent Project Review 26 June 2012 Peer Review 29-30 March 2012 Conceptual Design Review 15-16 March 2012 6 th BPAC 26-27 February 2012 Directors Review 15-16 December 2011 Belle II Focused Review (BPAC) 11-12 November 2011 5 th BPAC 14-15 February 2011 Black: US Belle II Project Reviews Blue: Belle II Project Reviews BPAC: Belle Physics Advisory Committee 16-17 January 2013James Fast, US Belle II Directors Review (Pre CD-2/3)12

13. DOE Mini Review Recommendations Technical: 1.(Unchanged from June 26, 2012 DOE/SC CD-1 Review) See subsequent slides 2.Explore with Belle II management the possibility of shifting the iTOP installation date later by up to six months. This should be done before the next CD review. After September, 2013 BPAC Focused Review, Belle II management decided on partial iTOP installation on original schedule (spring 2015), followed by complete installation in future shutdown (summer 2017). Cost and Schedule: None Management: 3.Optimize the number of prototype quartz bars required and determine the overall vendor production rate for these materials in support of the CD-2/3 decision. Revised prototyping plan to 4 full sets of optics to evaluate vendor quality and production rates Prototype bars ordered from two vendors to compare cost/quality/production 4.Re-evaluate the current plan of requesting CD-3b in April 2013 and focus on a CD- 2/3 review request in July 2013. Eliminated CD-3b in light of technical readiness and continuing resolution 16-17 January 2013James Fast, US Belle II Directors Review (Pre CD-2/3)13

14. CD-1 IPR Recommendations Technical: 1.WBS 1.02 (iTOP) – Further work is needed to demonstrate the performance of the counter, both in Monte Carlo and prototypes. We recommend: a.The existing prototype should be tested with a particle beam and/or Cosmic Rays over the entire phase space (azimuth, track position, and polar angle) in the presence of backgrounds similar to what is expected in Belle II. The MC should also explore performance across the phase space of tracks in the bars of Belle II. b.The prototype results should be compared to a detailed Monte Carlo simulation to ensure that all features of the counter’s performance are adequate and well simulated. 2.WBS 1.05 (Commissioning Detectors) – Redundant neutron detector systems should be considered to back-up the “Micro TPCs” See subsequent slides Cost and Schedule: None Management: 3.Evaluate the potential of increasing the upper limit of the TPC TPC raised from $14M to $15M 4.Prepare for another mini-review in September Mini Review conducted December 2012 16-17 January 2013James Fast, US Belle II Directors Review (Pre CD-2/3)14

15. Mini Review and CD-1 Recommendation 1a. The existing prototype should be tested with a particle beam and/or Cosmic Rays over the entire phase space (azimuth, track position, and polar angle) in the presence of backgrounds similar to what is expected in Belle II. The MC should also explore performance across the phase space of tracks in the bars of Belle II. Beam test was conducted the first week of June 2013 Full-size bars, spherical mirror, prism, IRS and CFD readouts Data taken at [cos  =0, x=0], [cos  =0.4, x=0], [cos  =0.4, x=200mm] Cosmic Ray Test stand established at KEK Fuji hall Prototype from beam test with CFD readout installed 1b. The prototype results should be compared to a detailed Monte Carlo simulation to ensure that all features of the counter’s performance are adequate and well simulated Significant simulation progress reported at BPAC Beam test conditions simulated for comparison with data details in next presentation and breakout sessions 16-17 January 2013James Fast, US Belle II Directors Review (Pre CD-2/3)15

16. CD-1 IPR Recommendation 2. WBS 1.05 (Commissioning Detectors) – Redundant neutron detector systems should be considered to back-up the “Micro TPCs” Alternatives reviewed and documented – most systems detect thermal neutrons Proton recoil only direct fast neutron technique Liquid scintillator counters are best alternative (gamma discrimination) Source direction possible using multiple cells (neutron scatter camera) however, there is not sufficient space in Belle to accommodate this He-3 thermal neutron detectors added to suite of instruments for commissioning System will be provided by new Canadian collaborators 16-17 January 2013James Fast, US Belle II Directors Review (Pre CD-2/3)16

17. BCR-01 Project is utilizing baseline change request process to track changes BCR-01 captures comprehensive set of changes after CD-1 IPR Need to add summaries of each BCR 16-17 January 2013James Fast, US Belle II Directors Review (Pre CD-2/3)17

18. CD-2/3 requirements on track RequirementDocumentationStatus Approve Updated Acquisition StrategyBelle-II Acquisition Strategy Updated. Approval at CD-2/3 Establish a Performance Baseline Belle-II Preliminary Project Execution Plan ✔ Approve Updated Project Execution Plan (PEP) Belle-II Preliminary Project Execution Plan Updated. Approval at CD-2/3 Complete a Final Design Belle-II Technical Design Report ✔ Conduct a Final Design Review Held 6-7 December 2013 at U. Tokyo and 13 December 2013 at SLAC ✔ Complete a Final Design Report Technical Design Report Completed December 2013 ✔ Employ a certified EVMS systemN/A RequirementDocumentationStatus Perform Baseline Validation (CD- 2) and Execution Readiness (CD-3) Review Planned for March/April 2013 – pending SC-28 guidance Prepare (CD-2) and Update (CD-3) Hazard Analysis Report Belle-II Hazards Analysis Report ✔ Continue with (CD-2) and Update (CD-3) Quality Assurance Program (QAP) Belle-II Project-Specific Quality Assurance Program ✔ Conduct Preliminary Security Vulnerability Assessment, if necessary (CD-2) and finalize SVA report (CD-3) Belle-II Preliminary Project Execution Plan, Section 8.8N/A Complete National Environmental Policy Act Strategy by issuing a Final Determination (i.e., EA). Categorical Exclusion (B3.6) for the US Belle-II Project ✔ 16-17 January 2013James Fast, US Belle II Directors Review (Pre CD-2/3)18

19. Summary The project management team is organized, capable and ready to proceed The Technical Design has been reviewed The recommendations from previous reviews have been addressed All of the CD-2/3 requirements have been met We are excited to execute the project and access the science that it will enable! 16-17 January 2013James Fast, US Belle II Directors Review (Pre CD-2/3)19