1. OFFICE OF SCIENCE Review of Critical Decision 2 /3a for the Large Liquid Argon Detector for Neutrino Physics (MicroBooNE) at Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory August 10-11, 2011 Kurt W. Fisher Review Committee Chair Office of Science, U.S. Department of Energy http://www.science.doe.gov/opa/

2. OFFICE OF SCIENCE Review Committee Participants Department of EnergySubcommittee 1- Cryostat and Cryo-system Kurt W. Fisher, DOE, Chairperson *Joel Fuerst, ANL Bruce Strauss, DOE/SC Subcommittee 2- Detector and Electronics *Bill Wisniewski, SLAC Peter Denes, LBNL Ryszard Stroynowski, SMU ObserversSubcommittee 3- Infrastructure and Installation Ted Lavine, DOE/SC *Victor Guarino, ANL Eli Rosenberg, DOE/SC [Jeff Sims, ANL] Paul Philp, DOE/FSO Steve Webster, DOE/FSO Subcommittee 4- Management, Cost, Schedule and ES&H, QA *Jeff Sims, ANL Richard Loveless, U of Wisc. Ethan Merrill

3. OFFICE OF SCIENCE 3 Department of Energy

4. OFFICE OF SCIENCE 4 Office of Science Chicago Office Roxanne Purucker Office of the Director (SC-1) William F. Brinkman Advanced Scientific Comp. Research (SC-21) Daniel Hitchcock (A) 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) Michael Procario (A) Biological & Environ. Research (SC-23) Sharlene Weatherwax (A) Nuclear Physics (SC-26) Timothy Hallman (A) Acting 7/2011 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) 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 SO Cynthia Baebler Thomas Jeff. SO Joe Arango Stanford SO Paul Golan Pacific NWest SO Julie Erickson (A) Princeton SO Maria Dikeakos Oak Ridge SO Johnny Moore Fermi SO Michael Weis Brookhaven SO Michael Holland Berkeley SO Aundra Richards Argonne SO Joanna Livengood Oak Ridge Office Paul Golan (A) SC Integrated Support Center 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 Business Innovation Research (SC-29) Manny Oliver

5. OFFICE OF SCIENCE 5 Charge Questions 1.Do the proposed technical design and associated implementation approach satisfy the performance requirements? Are the CD-4 goals well defined? 2.Is the cost estimate and schedule consistent with the plan to deliver the technical scope with the stated performance? Is the contingency adequate for the risk? 3.Are the management structure and resources adequate to deliver the proposed technical scope within specifications, budget, and schedule? 4.Is the documentation required by DOE Order 413.3B for CD-2 and CD-3a complete? 5.Are ES&H aspects being properly addressed given the project’s current stage of development? 6.Are the requested long-lead procurements and any related activities necessary to achieve the stated schedule? Has the Project done the necessary preparations to execute these activities?

6. OFFICE OF SCIENCE Report Outline/ Writing Assignments 6 Executive SummaryFisher 1.IntroductionLavine 2.Technical Status (Charge Questions 1, 6) 2.1Cryostat and Cryo-System*Fuerst/Strauss/SC1 2.1.1Findings 2.1.2Comments 2.1.3Recommendations 2.2Detector and ElectronicsWisniewski*/Stroynowski/Loveless/SC/2 2.3Infrastructure and InstallationGuarino*/Sims/SC3 3.Cost Estimate and Schedule (Charge Questions 2, 6) Merrill*/SC4 4.Management and ES&H (Charge Question 1, 3, 4, 5, 6) Sims*/SC4 *Lead SC Subcommittee

7. OFFICE OF SCIENCE 7 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 Aug. 15, 8:00 a.m. (EDT).

8. OFFICE OF SCIENCE 2.1 Cryostat and Cryo-System Fuerst, ANL / Strauss, DOE/SC 1.Do the proposed technical design and associated implementation approach satisfy the performance requirements? Are the CD-4 goals well defined? YES 6.Are the requested long-lead procurements and any related activities necessary to achieve the stated schedule? Has the Project done the necessary preparations to execute these activities? YES 8

9. OFFICE OF SCIENCE 9  Findings –Project scope does not include initial LAr fill. –A make/buy analysis has been performed for the cooling & purification systems as requested in the CD-1 Review Committee Report. –Cryostat/detector interface issues have been addressed as requested in the CD-1 Review Committee Report. –Pressure safety strategy is based on ASME/ANSI codes and established FNAL procedures. –Access to the pit will be controlled by an interlock system. –Three pieces of cryogenic equipment have been identified as long- lead procurements. –The cryostat is not presently a long-lead procurement item. –Alternative funding sources may be available for long-lead items. 2.1 Cryostat and Cryo-System Fuerst, ANL / Strauss, DOE/SC

10. OFFICE OF SCIENCE 10  Comments –The BNL/FNAL relationship is working well. –The project intends to allow vendors to select a cryostat end joint strategy (welded vs. flanged). –Separation of cryostat and cryogenics elements between Detector Systems and Infrastructure DPMs appears reasonable given the interface issues involved. – Foam insulation appears to be an optimal choice for the cryostat. –Foam support cradles are established technology and a good choice for the cryostat. –Preliminary oxygen deficiency hazard (ODH) analyses look reasonable. –The proposed LAr spill mitigation strategies appear to be workable. 2.1 Cryostat and Cryo-System Fuerst, ANL / Strauss, DOE/SC

11. OFFICE OF SCIENCE 11  Recommendations –Determine a preferred cryostat head joint strategy by 30OCT11 to assist the evaluation of bids based on “best value.” –Approve CD-2/3a. 2.1 Cryostat and Cryo-System Fuerst, ANL / Strauss, DOE/SC

12. OFFICE OF SCIENCE 2.2 Detector and Electronics Wisniewski, SLAC / Denes, LBNL / Stroynowski, SMU 12 1.Do the proposed technical design and associated implementation approach satisfy the performance requirements? Are the CD-4 goals well defined? Yes. 2.Is the cost estimate and schedule consistent with the plan to deliver the technical scope with the stated performance? Is the contingency adequate for the risk? Yes. Detector and Electronics cost estimates were reviewed, including Bases of Estimate. The costs are consistent with the plan to deliver the technical scope. The contingency estimates appear to be adequate for the risks.

13. OFFICE OF SCIENCE 2.2 Detector and Electronics Wisniewski, SLAC / Denes, LBNL / Stroynowski, SMU 13 6.Are the requested long-lead procurements and any related activities necessary to achieve the stated schedule? Has the Project done the necessary preparations to execute these activities? There are no items for Detector and Electronics that are targeted as long-lead time procurements.

14. OFFICE OF SCIENCE 2.2 Detector and Electronics Wisniewski, SLAC / Denes, LBNL / Stroynowski, SMU 14  Findings The PMT system is an in-kind contribution funded by the NSF. It consists of 30 PMTs arrayed on a slide in structure to be located behind the TPC readout plane. The system has 10% spares, which should be adequate. Wavelength shifter painted onto plates held between the PMT and the TPC array is used to match photocathode sensitivity to the scintillation light emitted by Ar. Plate handling techniques to limit degradation have been developed. Long term and LN2 testing of the PMTs is in progress. Cost estimates and schedules were presented. The total costs will be close to budgeted costs. MIT provides financial backup for overruns. The schedule has a quarter year float if executed serially; taking advantage of parallel production can advance the schedule.

15. OFFICE OF SCIENCE 2.2 Detector and Electronics Wisniewski, SLAC / Denes, LBNL / Stroynowski, SMU 15  Findings The TPC system is an in-kind contribution of NSF. The TPC has three views, U, V, Y, of the chamber, with the stereo wires ~twice as long as the vertical wires. These anode plane wires are attached to wire carrier boards (32 wires per board) that are fixed to the anode plane frame. Structures are stainless steel. TPC design activities are centered at BNL. Half of the drawings are done, though none signed off. Fab will be done at Yale and Syracuse shops, supplemented by external vendors. Wire stringing will take place at Yale and Syracuse. Integration will occur at FNAL. Prototype wire stringing machines have been built. The team estimates that 1 minute will be needed to prep each of the ~8000 wires. Transportation issues have been considered. Work on assembly schemes has begun, as well as conceptual design of the roll-in cart. Costs appear to be reasonable. Contingency appears low at 25% on M&S and 20% on labor. Schedule looks reasonable.

16. OFFICE OF SCIENCE 2.2 Detector and Electronics Wisniewski, SLAC / Denes, LBNL / Stroynowski, SMU 16  Findings The only technical change from CD-1 was to adopt a CMOS ASIC front end. The ASIC development is being carried out at BNL, supported under LBNE. A third iteration of the 0.18 um CMOS Front-End ASIC has been submitted. There is sufficient float in the schedule for another iteration if needed. An integrated readout test, with a full crate of readout electronics, ADCs and Front-End Electronics will take place in early CY12, and will add confidence to the design performance. The committee drilled down through the cost documentation of several items. The Bases of Estimate are extensive. Costs appear to be well developed.

17. OFFICE OF SCIENCE 2.2 Detector and Electronics Wisniewski, SLAC / Denes, LBNL / Stroynowski, SMU 17  Comments The mixed funding and complex institutional responsibility patterns for construction push interface control to be a central concern for the success of the project. Interface control was a focus of all of the L2 Managers’ presentations to the committee. Consciousness of this issue is high, making success in this complicated environment likely. Quality Assurance plans are quite mature for this stage of the experiment. The PMT system has continued to make technical progress. It’s schedule has sufficient float. The TPC system has made good design progress. The committee expects that this will be complete in time for construction. Assembly design is making good progress. With assembly ‘just around the corner’, fleshing out assembly needs more effort.

18. OFFICE OF SCIENCE 2.2 Detector and Electronics Wisniewski, SLAC / Denes, LBNL / Stroynowski, SMU 18  Comments A cold test of a full length wire carrier assemblies to verify engineering concepts should be performed by the end of the year. Breaking of a wire in the TPC during operation can be catastrophic. The team should put more effort into mitigation of this unlikely event (eg, advance wire catcher design). The electronics team has a full chain test planned in the first quarter of CY2012. This is an important test that needs to proceed in this timely way. The project should be commended for the careful thought given to power distribution and grounding. The project should give highest priority to rapid evaluation of the third iteration Front-End ASIC, in order to retire the risk.

19. OFFICE OF SCIENCE 2.2 Detector and Electronics Wisniewski, SLAC / Denes, LBNL / Stroynowski, SMU 19  Recommendations Approve CD-2/3a.

20. OFFICE OF SCIENCE 2.3 Infrastructure and Installation Guarino, ANL / Sims, ANL 20 1.Do the proposed technical design and associated implementation approach satisfy the performance requirements? YES Are the CD-4 goals well defined? YES 6.Are the requested long-lead procurements and any related activities necessary to achieve the stated schedule? Has the Project done the necessary preparations to execute these activities? There are no long-lead procurements in this WBS.

21. OFFICE OF SCIENCE 2.3 Infrastructure and Installation Guarino, ANL / Sims, ANL  Findings The WBS is well organized and all of the documentation is in place. CD4 goals are well defined. There is a very experienced team at Fermi that is responsible for the installation. BOE labor estimates for installation is based on this past experience and justifies the contingencies that are used. The recent creation of WBS 1.10 for integration is a good development. 21

22. OFFICE OF SCIENCE 2.3 Infrastructure and Installation Guarino, ANL / Sims, ANL  Comments Timely completion of the 3D CAD model for the piping will help to finalize the cost estimates. 2D prints as well as the 3D renderings on the shop floor during installation will help eliminate any potential problems with the layout during construction. Interface agreements between all of the subgroups should be completed as soon as possible. A system for travelers for each piece of equipment should be developed and implemented. The insertion and fishing of the wire/cables during the installation of the TPC appears to be difficult and testing of this process using a mockup could be useful. 22

23. OFFICE OF SCIENCE 2.3 Infrastructure and Installation Guarino, ANL / Sims, ANL  Recommendations The final design of the cart for the TPC installation is potentially a schedule driver and should be completed as soon as possible. There is a good conceptual design for the installation of wires and the assembly of the TPC. Detailed assembly plans need to be developed that include all of the fixturing/tooling needed. Recommend CD 2-3a approval 23

24. OFFICE OF SCIENCE 24 3. Cost and Schedule Merrill/SC4 2.Is the cost estimate and schedule consistent with the plan to deliver the technical scope with the stated performance? YES Is the contingency adequate for the risk? YES 6.Are the requested long-lead procurements and any related activities necessary to achieve the stated schedule? YES Has the Project done the necessary preparations to execute these activities? YES

25. OFFICE OF SCIENCE 25 3. Cost and Schedule Merrill/SC4  Findings  TEC = $15.596M, Contingency = $4.403M (28%), TPC = $19.999M;  27 month to-go construction period;  Currently 21 Months Schedule Contingency (Dec 2013 to Sept 2015) based on the current working schedule;  11 Level 2 WBS Elements (8 DOE/3 NSF);  Project requires a $6.6M GPP multi-use facility funded off-project to meet CD-4 requirements;  All MOUs with contributing institutions are in place;  Project is proposing $342K in early procurements (CD-3a);  Cost estimates are based on bottoms-up analysis and contingency built in at activity level;  Project schedule has been scrubbed and logic ties reevaluated;  Project critical path goes through Enclosure Availability, Cryostat Construction, and Frontend Electronics;  Risk Registers are complete and up-to-date;

26. OFFICE OF SCIENCE 26 3. Cost and Schedule Merrill/SC4  Comments  Funding vs. Obligations profile is satisfactory for project although FY11 carryover to FY12 is critical and CR beyond Jan 2012 will likely impact project schedule;  FNAL has committed to funding the GPP as a priority to support the project;  Robust risk management process in place; some risks retired and built into baseline;  Some schedule contingency is built into labor estimates based on Monte Carlo;  Cost estimates are defensible and based on input from L2 managers, market surveys, vendor quotes, project experience, etc.  BoEs are detailed and traceable although project should consider reviewing supporting documentation to ensure it is accurate and complete;  At this time, the project end date is directly linked to receipt of construction funds;  Significant project effort is associated with BNL and labor is split ~50/50 between BNL and FNAL;  Proposed CD-3a procurements are not on the critical path however items are “off the shelf” with 6-10 month lead times and vendor quotes in-hand. Early procurement seems reasonable and these items should be purchased.

27. OFFICE OF SCIENCE 27 3. Cost and Schedule Merrill/SC4 Recommendations Approve CD-2/3a

28. OFFICE OF SCIENCE 28 PROJECT STATUS Project TypeMIE / Cooperative Agreement CD-1Planned:Actual: 7/9/2010 CD-2/3aPlanned: 9/2011Actual: CD-3bPlanned: 3/2012Actual: CD-4Planned: 9/2015Actual: TPC Percent CompletePlanned: _17____%Actual: _17____% TPC Cost to Date $3.324M TPC Committed to Date $4.256M TPC $19.999M TEC $14.893M Contingency Cost (w/Mgmt Reserve)$4.439M____34% on to go Contingency Schedule on CD-4_____13_months_____48% CPI Cumulative N/A SPI Cumulative N/A Project Status Project Status

29. OFFICE OF SCIENCE 29 4. Management and ES&H Sims, ANL / Loveless, U. of Wisc. 1.Do the proposed technical design and associated implementation approach satisfy the performance requirements? Yes. Are the CD-4 goals well defined? Yes. 3.Are the management structure and resources adequate to deliver the proposed technical scope within specifications, budget, and schedule? Yes, a well structured and experienced team is in place 4.Is the documentation required by DOE Order 413.3B for CD-2 and CD-3a complete? Yes. 5.Are ES&H aspects being properly addressed given the project’s current stage of development? Yes. 6.Are the requested long-lead procurements and any related activities necessary to achieve the stated schedule? Yes, three items have been identified that could accelerate the project by 2 to 3 months. Has the Project done the necessary preparations to execute these activities? Yes, the design and procurement information is complete.

30. OFFICE OF SCIENCE 30 4. Management and ES&H Sims, ANL / Loveless, U. of Wisc. Findings The Project collaboration consists of 13 institutions and approximately 70 physicists. Seven of these institutions are delivering parts of the Project. Both NSF and DOE are providing funding. The Project Key performance parameters and CD-4 definition were presented. A configuration management plan was provided. Documents and technical configuration are controlled through project Docdb information repository. The following CD-2 required documents were provided to the review team: Acquisition Strategy Project Execution Plan Technical Design Report (Preliminary Design) Risk Management Plan Risk Register QA Plan NEPA Categorical Exclusion dated 3/8/11 Hazard Assessment Report

31. OFFICE OF SCIENCE 31 4. Management and ES&H Sims, ANL / Loveless, U. of Wisc. Findings A detailed Integrated Safety Management Plan was provided. The detector hall will be constructed as General Plant Project where the Project will be the first occupant experiment. The L2 Manager for infrastructure and the Federal Project Director are heavily involved in the GPP project. A list of 42 risks was provided along with the related Monte Carlo simulations for cost and schedule contingency. The team presented responses to the recent CD-2/3a Directors review and the CD-1 review. All recommendations appear to be closed out. The Project is considered a new start so the initial funding in FY12 will not be received until a potential FY12 continuing resolution is over. This is recognized as a significant risk to the schedule. Approximately $3M will carry over into FY12 to allow the team to finish design and prepare for FY12 procurements.

32. OFFICE OF SCIENCE 32 4. Management and ES&H Sims, ANL / Loveless, U. of Wisc. Comments The team is commended for presenting very clear and concise presentations and well developed project documentation. The project is well organized and staffed with experienced professionals. The Project and collaboration has done an outstanding job developing relationships with the external organizations necessary to make the Project a success. The MOU’s and communication with external organizations were judged to be in very good condition. A new start in FY12 exposes the Project to the potential for significant delays. Consider using “stop at award” approaches on some FY12 equipment procurements so it proceeds in parallel with the continuing resolution. Risks appear to be appropriately developed for this phase of work. Early procurement items proposed for CD-3a are reasonable, and they should proceed as planned.

33. OFFICE OF SCIENCE 33 4. Management and ES&H Sims, ANL / Loveless, U. of Wisc. Recommendations Approve CD-2/3a