1. OFFICE OF SCIENCE Review of Critical Decision 1 for the Large Liquid Argon Detector for Neutron Physics (MicroBooNE) at Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory March 2-3, 2010 Daniel R. Lehman Review Committee Chair Office of Science, U.S. Department of Energy http://www.science.doe.gov/opa/

2. OFFICE OF SCIENCE 2 DOE Review of MicroBooNE DOE EXECUTIVE SESSION AGENDA Tuesday, March 2, 2010—Wilson Hall, Hornet’s Nest (WH8X0) 8:00 a.m.Introduction and Overview D. Lehman 8:10 a.m.HEP Perspective T. Lavine 8:20 a.m.Federal Project Director PerspectiveP. Philp 8:30 a.m.Questions http://www-microboone.fnal.gov/project/cd1_doe/index.html username – reviewer; password – ureview

3. OFFICE OF SCIENCE Review Committee Participants Daniel Lehman, SC, Chairperson, U.S. Department of Energy *Lead

4. OFFICE OF SCIENCE 4 Department of Energy Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy

5. OFFICE OF SCIENCE 5 Office of Science Office of the Director (SC-1) William F. Brinkman Adv. Scientific Comp. Research (SC-21) Michael Strayer Workforce Development for Teachers/ Scientists (SC-27) Wm. Valdez Basic Energy Sciences (SC-22) Harriet Kung Fusion Energy Sciences (SC-24) Edmund Synakowski High Energy Physics (SC-25) Dennis Kovar Biological & Environ. Research (SC-23) Anna Palmisano Nuclear Physics (SC-26) Timothy Hallmon (A) Acting 12/2009 Deputy Director for Science Programs (SC-2) Patricia Dehmer Deputy Director for Resource Management (SC-4) Jeffrey Salmon Deputy Director for Field Operations (SC-3) George Malosh 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) Vicki Barden Office of Grants/ Cont. Support (SC-43) Martin Rubenstein Office of Business Policy and Ops (SC-45) Thomas Phan Business Mgmt. Sys. & Serv. (SC-45.1) Thomas Phan (A) Human Capital Resources (SC-45.2) Thomas Phan (A) Ames SO Cynthia Baebler Thomas Jeff. SO James Turi Stanford SO Paul Golan Pacific NWest SO Michael Weis Princeton SO Jerry Faul Oak Ridge SO Johnny Moore Fermi SO M. Bollinger (A) Brookhaven SO Michael Holland Berkeley SO Aundra Richards Argonne SO J. Livengood (A) Chicago Office Roxanne Purucker Oak Ridge Office Gerald Boyd SC Integrated Support Center Office of Lab Policy & Evaluat. (SC-32) D. Streit Office of Safety, Security and Infra. (SC-31) M. Jones

6. OFFICE OF SCIENCE 6 Agenda

7. OFFICE OF SCIENCE 7 Agenda cont.

8. OFFICE OF SCIENCE 8 Charge Questions 1.Does the conceptual design and planned implementation satisfy the performance specifications required to meet the project objectives? 2.Are the estimated cost and proposed schedule ranges realistic, consistent with the technical and budgetary objectives, and justified by the supporting documentation? Has all the work been appropriately identified, estimated and scheduled, including the work associated with performing the preliminary design, final design and value engineering? 3.Does the proposed project team have adequate management experience, design skills and laboratory support to produce a credible technical, cost and schedule baseline? 4.Are ES&H aspects being properly addressed at the project’s current stage of development? 5.Is the DOE project scope well defined within the DOE and NSF funded collaboration? Are all the other parts of the project uncerstood to be the responsibility of the other collaborators? 6.Is the documentation required by DOE O413.3A in order and ready for approval of the Critical Decision 1?

9. OFFICE OF SCIENCE 9 CD Requirements

10. OFFICE OF SCIENCE Report Outline/ Writing Assignments 10

11. OFFICE OF SCIENCE MicroBooNE Cost Sheet 11

12. OFFICE OF SCIENCE 12 Closeout Presentation and Final Report Procedures

13. OFFICE OF SCIENCE 13 Format: Closeout Presentation (No Smaller than 18 pt Font) 2.1[Use number and title corresponding to writing assignment list.] List Review Subcommittee Members 2.1.1Findings In bullet form, include an assessment of technical, cost, schedule, and management. 2.1.2Comments In bullet form, list descriptive material assessing the findings and the conclusions based on the findings. This is narrative material and is often omitted as a separate heading and the narrative included either under Findings or Recommendations as appropriate. This heading carries more emphasis than the Findings, but does not require an action as do the Recommendations. Do not number your comments. 2.1.3Recommendations 1. Begin with action verb and identify a due date. 2.

14. OFFICE OF SCIENCE 14 Format: Final Report 2.1[Use number and title corresponding to writing assignment list.] 2.1.1Findings Include an assessment of technical, cost, schedule, and management. 2.1.2Comments Descriptive material assessing the findings and the conclusions based on the findings. This is narrative material and is often omitted as a separate heading and the narrative included either under Findings or Recommendations as appropriate. This heading carries more emphasis than the Findings, but does not require an action as do the Recommendations. Do not number your comments. 2.1.3Recommendations 1. Begin with action verb and identify a due date. 2. 3.

15. OFFICE OF SCIENCE 15 Expectations  Present closeout reports in PowerPoint.  Forward your sections for each review report (in MSWord format) to Casey Clark, casey.clark@science.doe.gov, casey.clark@science.doe.gov by March 8, 8:00 a.m. (EST).

16. OFFICE OF SCIENCE Review of Critical Decision 1 for the Large Liquid Argon Detector for Neutron Physics (MicroBooNE) at Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory March 3, 2010 Daniel R. Lehman Review Committee Chair Office of Science, U.S. Department of Energy http://www.science.doe.gov/opa/

17. OFFICE OF SCIENCE 2.1 Cryostat and Cryo-System Fuerst, Strauss 1.Does the conceptual design and planned implementation satisfy the performance specifications required to meet the project objectives? 5.Is the DOE project scope well defined within the DOE and NSF funded collaboration? Are all the other parts of the project uncerstood to be the responsibility of the other collaborators? 6.Is the documentation required by DOE O413.3A in order and ready for approval of the Critical Decision 1? 17  Findings  Comments  Recommendations

18. OFFICE OF SCIENCE 2.2 Detector and Electronics Wisniewski, Stroynowski 1.Does the conceptual design and planned implementation satisfy the performance specifications required to meet the project objectives? 5.Is the DOE project scope well defined within the DOE and NSF funded collaboration? Are all the other parts of the project uncerstood to be the responsibility of the other collaborators? 6.Is the documentation required by DOE O413.3A in order and ready for approval of the Critical Decision 1? 18  Findings  Comments  Recommendations

19. OFFICE OF SCIENCE 2.3 Infrastructure and Installation Sims, Edwards 1.Does the conceptual design and planned implementation satisfy the performance specifications required to meet the project objectives? 5.Is the DOE project scope well defined within the DOE and NSF funded collaboration? Are all the other parts of the project uncerstood to be the responsibility of the other collaborators? 6.Is the documentation required by DOE O413.3A in order and ready for approval of the Critical Decision 1? 19  Findings  Comments  Recommendations

20. OFFICE OF SCIENCE 20 3. Cost Estimate Gines, Fisher 2.Are the estimated cost and proposed schedule ranges realistic, consistent with the technical and budgetary objectives, and justified by the supporting documentation? Has all the work been appropriately identified, estimated and scheduled, including the work associated with performing the preliminary design, final design and value engineering? 6.Is the documentation required by DOE O413.3A in order and ready for approval of the Critical Decision 1?  Findings  Comments  Recommendations

21. OFFICE OF SCIENCE 21 4. Schedule and Funding Gines, Fisher 2.Are the estimated cost and proposed schedule ranges realistic, consistent with the technical and budgetary objectives, and justified by the supporting documentation? Has all the work been appropriately identified, estimated and scheduled, including the work associated with performing the preliminary design, final design and value engineering? 6.Is the documentation required by DOE O413.3A in order and ready for approval of the Critical Decision 1?  Findings  Comments  Recommendations

22. OFFICE OF SCIENCE 22 5. Management and ES&H Gilchriese, Fisher, Gines 3.Does the proposed project team have adequate management experience, design skills and laboratory support to produce a credible technical, cost and schedule baseline? 4.Are ES&H/QA aspects being properly addressed at the project’s current stage of development? 5.Is the DOE project scope well defined within the DOE and NSF funded collaboration? Are all the other parts of the project uncerstood to be the responsibility of the other collaborators? 6.Is the documentation required by DOE O413.3A in order and ready for approval of the Critical Decision 1?  Findings  Comments  Recommendations