1. OFFICE OF SCIENCE Review Committee for the Muon to Electron Conversion (Mu2e) Experiment Project Fermilab June 5-7, 2012 Daniel R. Lehman Review Committee Chair Office of Science, U.S. Department of Energy http://www.science.doe.gov/opa/

2. DOE Review of Mu2e DOE EXECUTIVE SESSION AGENDA Tuesday, June 5, 2012—Wilson Hall, The Comititum 8:00 a.m.Introduction and OverviewD. Lehman 8:10 a.m.Program Office PerspectiveM. Procario/T. Lavine 8:15 a.m. Federal Project Director PerspectiveP. Philp 8:30 a.m. Questions 8:45 a.m.Adjourn OFFICE OF SCIENCE Project and review information is available at: Username: reviewer Password: mu2ereviewer 2

3. Review Committee Participants OFFICE OF SCIENCE 3

4. DOE Organization Chart OFFICE OF SCIENCE 4

5. SC Organization Chart OFFICE OF SCIENCE Chicago Office Roxanne Purucker Office of the Director (SC-1) William F. Brinkman Advanced Scientific Comp. Research (SC-21) Daniel Hitchcock 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 12/2011 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 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) Rebecca Kelley Office of Grants/ Cont. Support (SC-43) Linda Shariati Office of Business Policy & Ops (SC-45) V. 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) D. Streit 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 J. Eschenberg (A) 5

6. Charge Questions OFFICE OF SCIENCE 1.Does the conceptual design satisfy the performance requirements? 2.Do the conceptual design report and supporting documentation adequately justify the stated cost range and project duration? 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 and are future plans sufficient given the projects current stage of development? 5.Is the documentation required by DOE, satisfying Order 413.3B, ready for approval of CD-1? 6

7. Agenda OFFICE OF SCIENCE Tuesday, June 5, 2012—Wilson Hall, the Comititum 8:00 amDOE Executive Session Charge and ProceduresD. Lehman High Energy Physics PerspectiveM. Procario, T. Lavine Project OverviewP. Philp 8:45 amPlenary Session—1 West, WelcomePier Oddone 9:55 amProject OverviewRon Ray 10:10 amBreak—Outside 1 West 10:25 amWBS 1.2 AcceleratorSteve Werkema 10:50 amWBS 1.3 Conventional ConstructionTom Lackowski 11:15 am WBS 1.4 SolenoidsMike Lamm 11: 45 amWBS 1.5 Muon BeamlineSandor Feher 12:05 pmLunch—WH2XO 1:05 pmWBS 1.6 TrackerAseet Mukherjee 1:25 pmWBS 1.7 CalorimeterStefano Miscetti 1:45 pmWBS 1.8 Cosmic Ray VetoCraig Dukes 2:05 pmWBS 1.7 Trigger and DAQMark Bowden 2:25 pmCommon Projects that Support Mu2eDoug Glenzinski 2:50 pmBreak—Outside 1 West 3:10 pmSubcommittee Breakout Sessions SC1 Accelerator and Muon Beamline—1 North (WH1NW) SC2 Solenoids—Hornet’s Nest (WH8XO) SC3/4 Calorimeter, Cosmic Ray Veto, Tracker, DAQ—Snake Pit (WH2NE) SC5 Conventional Construction—Racetrack (WH7XO) SC6/7 Project Management—Comitium (WH2SW) 4:40 pmDOE Executive Session—ComitiumD. Lehman 6:30 pmAdjourn 7

8. OFFICE OF SCIENCE Wednesday, June 6, 2012 8:00 amSubcommittee Breakout Sessions SC1 Accelerator and Muon Beamline—1 North (WH1NW) SC2 Solenoids—Hornet’s Nest (WH8XO) SC3/4 Calorimeter, Cosmic Ray Veto, Tracker, DAQ—Snake Pit (WH2NE) SC5 Conventional Construction—Racetrack (WH7XO) SC6/7 Project Management—Comitium (WH2SW) 9:30 amBreak—Outside Comitium 9:45 amSubcommittee Breakout Sessions (Continued in same rooms) 11:30 pmLunch—WH2XO 1:30 pmSubcommittee Working Session—Comitium 3:00 pmBreak—Outside Comitium 3:15 pmDOE Full Committee Executive Session—ComitiumD. Lehman Thursday, June 7, 2012 8:00 amSubcommittee Working Session—Comitium 10:00 amBreak—Outside Comitium 10:15 amDOE Full Committee Executive Session Dry Run—ComitiumD. Lehman 12:00 pmLunch—Outside Comitium 2:00 pmDOE Summary and Closeout—1 WestD. Lehman 3:00 pmAdjourn 8 Agenda

9. Report Outline/ Writing Assignments OFFICE OF SCIENCE 9 Executive SummaryMerrill 1.IntroductionLavine 2.Technical Systems Evaluation (Charge Questions 1, 2, 5) 2.1Accelerator PhysicsGerig*/SC-1 2.1.1 Findings 2.1.2 Comments 2.1.3 Recommendations 2.2Superconducting SolenoidsWanderer*/SC-2 2.3Detector SystemsKettell*/SC-3 2.4Electronics/DAQ/Control SystemsVan Berg*/SC-4 3.Civil Construction (Charge Questions 1, 2, 5) Sims*/SC-5 4.Cost and Schedule (Charge Questions 2, 5) Merrill*/SC-6 5.Project Management & ES&H (Charge Questions 3, 4, 5) Loveless*/SC-7 *Lead

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

11. Format: Closeout Presentation OFFICE OF SCIENCE (Use 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. 11

12. OFFICE OF SCIENCE (Use MS Word / 12pt 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. Format: Final Report 12

13. 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 Monday, June 11, 8:00 a.m. (EDT). OFFICE OF SCIENCE 13

14. OFFICE OF SCIENCE Closeout Report by the Review Committee for the Muon to Electron Conversion (Mu2e) Experiment Project Fermilab June 7, 2012 Daniel R. Lehman Committee Chair Office of Science, U.S. Department of Energy http://www.science.doe.gov/opa/

15. 2.1 Accelerator Physics R. Gerig, ANL / Subcommittee 1 OFFICE OF SCIENCE 1.Does the conceptual design satisfy the performance requirements? 2.Do the conceptual design report and supporting documentation adequately justify the stated cost range and project duration? 5.Is the documentation required by DOE, satisfying Order 413.3B, ready for approval of CD-1? Findings Comments Recommendations 15

16. 2.2 Superconducting Solenoids P. Wanderer, BNL / Subcommittee 2 OFFICE OF SCIENCE 1.Does the conceptual design satisfy the performance requirements? 2.Do the conceptual design report and supporting documentation adequately justify the stated cost range and project duration? 5.Is the documentation required by DOE, satisfying Order 413.3B, ready for approval of CD-1? Findings Comments Recommendations 16

17. 2.3 Detector Systems S. Kettell, BNL / Subcommittee 3 OFFICE OF SCIENCE 1.Does the conceptual design satisfy the performance requirements? 2.Do the conceptual design report and supporting documentation adequately justify the stated cost range and project duration? 5.Is the documentation required by DOE, satisfying Order 413.3B, ready for approval of CD-1? Findings Comments Recommendations 17

18. 2.4 Electronics/DAQ/Control Systems R. Van Berg, U of PA / Subcommittee 4 OFFICE OF SCIENCE 1.Does the conceptual design satisfy the performance requirements? 2.Do the conceptual design report and supporting documentation adequately justify the stated cost range and project duration? 5.Is the documentation required by DOE, satisfying Order 413.3B, ready for approval of CD-1? Findings Comments Recommendations 18

19. 3. Civil Construction J. Sims, ANL/ Subcommittee 5 OFFICE OF SCIENCE 19 1.Does the conceptual design satisfy the performance requirements? 2.Do the conceptual design report and supporting documentation adequately justify the stated cost range and project duration? 5.Is the documentation required by DOE, satisfying Order 413.3B, ready for approval of CD-1? Findings Comments Recommendations

20. OFFICE OF SCIENCE 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 4. Cost and Schedule E. Merrill, DOE/SC/ Subcommittee 6 20

21. OFFICE OF SCIENCE 4. Cost and Schedule E. Merrill, DOE/SC/ Subcommittee 6 21 2.Do the conceptual design report and supporting documentation adequately justify the stated cost range and project duration? 5.Is the documentation required by DOE, satisfying Order 413.3B, ready for approval of CD-1? Findings Comments Recommendations

22. 4. Project Management & ES&H D. Loveless, U of Wisconsin/Subcommittee 7 22 OFFICE OF SCIENCE 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 and are future plans sufficient given the projects current stage of development? 5.Is the documentation required by DOE, satisfying Order 413.3B, ready for approval of CD-1? Findings Comments Recommendations