1. OFFICE OF SCIENCE Review Committee (CD-1) for the Long Baseline Neutrino Experiment (LBNE) Project at Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory October 30-November 1, 2012 Daniel R. Lehman Review Committee Chair Office of Science, U.S. Department of Energy http://www.science.doe.gov/opa/

2. 2 DOE Review of LBNE DOE EXECUTIVE SESSION AGENDA Tuesday, October 30, 2012—Comitium 08:00 a.m. DOE Executive SessionD. Lehman 08:15 a.m.HEP PerspectiveM. Procario/T. Lavine 08:25 a.m.FSO PerspectiveP. Carolan 08:35 a.m. Questions 08:45 a.m.Adjourn OFFICE OF SCIENCE LBNE website: https://sharepoint.fnal.gov/project/lbne/reviews/CD1-DOE-Review-Oct- 2012/SitePages/Home.aspx username: review password:rev2pass

3. DOE Organization Chart OFFICE OF SCIENCE 3 Office of General Counsel

4. 4 OFFICE OF SCIENCE SC Organization Chart 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) P. Dehmer (A) Basic Energy Sciences (SC-22) Harriet Kung Fusion Energy Sciences (SC-24) Edmund Synakowski High Energy Physics (SC-25) James Siegrist Biological & Environ. Research (SC-23) Sharlene Weatherwax Nuclear Physics (SC-26) Timothy Hallman (A) Acting 7/2012 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 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 Program Direction (SC-46) Daniel Division Office of Grants/ Cont. Support (SC-43) Linda Shariati Office of Business Policy & Ops (SC-45) Vasilios Kountouris SC Communications & Public Affairs (SC-4) Dolline Hatchett Ames SO Cynthia Baebler Thomas Jeff. SO Joe Arango Stanford SO Paul Golan Pacific NWest SO Roger Snyder 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 SC Integrated Support Center Office of Lab Policy & Evaluat. (SC-32) J. LaBarge (A) Office of Safety, Security & Infra. (SC-31) M. Jones Human Resources & Admin. (SC-45.3) Cynthia Mays Small Business Innovation Research (SC-29) Manny Oliver Oak Ridge Office Larry C. Kelly Chicago Office Roxanne Purucker

5. 5 OFFICE OF SCIENCE Review Committee Participants Daniel R. Lehman, Chairman SC1SC2SC3 BeamlineDetectorsConventional *Tom Roser, BNL*Bill Wisniewski, SLAC*Marty Fallier, BNL Kevin Jones, ORNLRichard Loveless, U of WisconsinBrad Bull, MSU/FRIB Phil Pile, BNLDavid Nygren, LBNLBob Law, SLAC SC4SC5SC6 Environment, Safety and HealthCost and ScheduleManagement *Ian Evans, SLAC*Barbara Thibadeau, ORNL/SNS*Aesook Byon, BNL Frank KornegayRick Blaisdell, DOE/APMThomas Glasmacher, MSU/FRIB Kin Chao, DOE/SCEvelyn Landini, DOE/BHSO Kurt Fisher, DOE/SCRon Lutha, DOE/ASO Brian Huizenga, DOE/APMSteve Meador, DOE/SC LEGEND Jim Siegrist, DOE/SCMike Weis, DOE/FSOSCSubcommittee Mike Procario, DOE/SCJerry Kao, DOE/ASO*Chairperson Ted Lavine, DOE/SCHemant Patel, DOE/BSO[ ]Part-time Subcommittee Member John Kogut, DOE/SCGlenn Kubiak, LBNL Alan Stone, DOE/SCCOUNT:22 (excluding observers) Pepin Carolan, DOE/FSO Steve Webster, DOE/FSO Observers

6. Charge Questions 1.Does the conceptual design provide increased research capabilities envisioned in the mission need? Does the conceptual design satisfy the performance requirements recently recommended by the LBNE reconfiguration steering committee? 2.Do the conceptual design report and supporting documentation adequately justify the stated cost range and project duration? 3.Does the proposed project team and staffing plan offer adequate management experience, technical expertise, and Laboratory support to produce a credible technical, cost and schedule baseline required for CD-2? 4.Are ES&H aspects being properly addressed and are future plans sufficient given the project's current stage of development? 5. Have all prerequisite requirements for CD-1 approval been satisfied? Is the project ready for CD-1 approval? 6 OFFICE OF SCIENCE

7. 7 Agenda OFFICE OF SCIENCE Tuesday, October 30, 2012—Comitium, WH2SE 8:00 amDOE Executive SessionD. Lehman 9:00 amWelcome/Plenary Sessions – One West (WH1W)P. Oddone 9:10 amProject OverviewJ. Strait 9:40 amProject Design Cost and Schedule E. McClusky 10:10 amBreak 10:25 amConventional Facilities OverviewT. Lundin 10:50 amSURF Working w/LBNEM. Headley 11:00 amBeamline OverviewV. Papadimitriou 11:25 amFar Detector OverviewJ. Stewart 11:50 amNear Detector Complex OverviewC. Mauger 12:00 pmLunch 1:00 pmParallel Subcommittee Breakout Sessions (see attached schedule) 4:30 pmSubcommittee Executive Sessions – in Parallel Breakout Session Rooms 5:00 pmDOE Executive SessionD. Lehman 6:30 pmAdjourn

8. 8 Agenda OFFICE OF SCIENCE Wednesday, October 31, 2012 8:00 amParallel Subcommittee Breakout Sessions 9:30 amBreak—Outside Comitium 9:45 amSubcommittee Breakout Sessions 12:00 pmSubcommittee Executive Sessions – Working Lunch—WH2XO 1:00 pmResponse to Day 1 reviewer questions/questions from morning breakout—Comitium 2:00 pmSubcommittee Working Session—Comitium 2:45 pmBreak—Outside Comitium 3:00 pmDOE Full Committee Executive SessionD. Lehman Thursday, November 1, 2012 8:00 amSubcommittee Working Session—Comitium 10:00 amBreak—Outside Comitium 10:15 amDOE Committee Executive Session Dry RunD. Lehman 12:00 pmWorking Lunch 1:00 pmDOE Summary and Closeout—One WestD. Lehman 2:00 pmAdjourn

9. Report Outline/ Writing Assignments 9 OFFICE OF SCIENCE Executive SummaryMeador 1.IntroductionProcario 2.Technical Systems – Instruments (Charge Questions 1, 2, 3, 5) 2.1BeamlineRoser*/SC1 2.1.1Findings 2.1.2Comments 2.1.3Recommendations 2.2DetectorsWisnieski*/SC2 3.Conventional Facilities (Charge Questions 1, 2, 3, 5) Fallier*/SC3 4.Environment, Safety and Health (Charge Questions 4, 5) Evans*/SC4 5.Cost and Schedule (Charge Questions 2, 3, 5) Thibadeau*/SC5 6.Management (Charge Questions 3, 5) Byon*/SC6

10. 10 Closeout Presentation and Final Report Procedures OFFICE OF SCIENCE

11. 11 Format: Closeout Presentation OFFICE OF SCIENCE (PowerPoint; No Smaller than 18 pt Font) 2.1Use Section Number/Title corresponding to writing assignment list. List Review Subcommittee Members List Assigned Charge Questions and Review Committee Answers 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.

12. 12 Format: Final Report OFFICE OF SCIENCE (MSWord; 12 pt Font) 2.1 Use Section Number/Title corresponding to writing assignment list. 2.1.1Findings Include an assessment of technical, cost, schedule, and management. Within the text of the Findings Section, include the answers to the review questions. 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.

13. 13  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 November 5, 8:00 a.m. (EST). OFFICE OF SCIENCE Expectations

14. Closeout Report on the Review Committee (CD-1) for the Long Baseline Neutrino Experiment (LBNE) Project at Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory October 30-November 1, 2012 OFFICE OF SCIENCE Daniel R. Lehman Review Committee Chair Office of Science, U.S. Department of Energy http://www.science.doe.gov/opa/

15. 1.Does the conceptual design provide increased research capabilities envisioned in the mission need? Does the conceptual design satisfy the performance requirements recently recommended by the LBNE reconfiguration steering committee? 2.Do the conceptual design report and supporting documentation adequately justify the stated cost range and project duration? 3.Does the proposed project team and staffing plan offer adequate management experience, technical expertise, and Laboratory support to produce a credible technical, cost and schedule baseline required for CD-2? 5.Have all prerequisite requirements for CD-1 approval been satisfied? Is the project ready for CD-1 approval?  Findings  Comments  Recommendations 15 OFFICE OF SCIENCE 2.1 Beamline Roser, BNL*/SC1

16. 16 OFFICE OF SCIENCE 2.2 Detectors Wisnieski, SLAC*/SC2 1.Does the conceptual design provide increased research capabilities envisioned in the mission need? Does the conceptual design satisfy the performance requirements recently recommended by the LBNE reconfiguration steering committee? 2.Do the conceptual design report and supporting documentation adequately justify the stated cost range and project duration? 3.Does the proposed project team and staffing plan offer adequate management experience, technical expertise, and Laboratory support to produce a credible technical, cost and schedule baseline required for CD-2? 5.Have all prerequisite requirements for CD-1 approval been satisfied? Is the project ready for CD-1 approval?  Findings  Comments  Recommendations

17. 17 OFFICE OF SCIENCE 3. Conventional Facilities Fallier, BNL*/SC3 1.Does the conceptual design provide increased research capabilities envisioned in the mission need? Does the conceptual design satisfy the performance requirements recently recommended by the LBNE reconfiguration steering committee? 2.Do the conceptual design report and supporting documentation adequately justify the stated cost range and project duration? 3.Does the proposed project team and staffing plan offer adequate management experience, technical expertise, and Laboratory support to produce a credible technical, cost and schedule baseline required for CD-2? 5.Have all prerequisite requirements for CD-1 approval been satisfied? Is the project ready for CD-1 approval?  Findings  Comments  Recommendations

18. 18 OFFICE OF SCIENCE 4. Environment, Safety and Health Evans, SLAC*/SC4 4.Are ES&H aspects being properly addressed and are future plans sufficient given the project's current stage of development? 5.Have all prerequisite requirements for CD-1 approval been satisfied? Is the project ready for CD-1 approval?  Findings  Comments  Recommendations

19. 19 OFFICE OF SCIENCE 5. Cost and Schedule Thibadeau, ORNL*/SC5 2.Do the conceptual design report and supporting documentation adequately justify the stated cost range and project duration? 3.Does the proposed project team and staffing plan offer adequate management experience, technical expertise, and Laboratory support to produce a credible technical, cost and schedule baseline required for CD-2? 5.Have all prerequisite requirements for CD-1 approval been satisfied? Is the project ready for CD-1 approval?  Findings  Comments  Recommendations

20. 20 OFFICE OF SCIENCE Project Status Chart Thibadeau, ORNL*/SC5 PROJECT STATUS Project TypeMIE / Line Item / Cooperative Agreement CD-1Planned:Actual: CD-2Planned:Actual: CD-3Planned:Actual: CD-4Planned:Actual: TPC Percent CompletePlanned: _____%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

21. 21 OFFICE OF SCIENCE 6. Management Byon, BNL*/SC6 3.Does the proposed project team and staffing plan offer adequate management experience, technical expertise, and Laboratory support to produce a credible technical, cost and schedule baseline required for CD-2? 5.Have all prerequisite requirements for CD-1 approval been satisfied? Is the project ready for CD-1 approval?  Findings  Comments  Recommendations