Daniel R. Lehman Review Committee Chair Office of Science, U.S. Department of Energy science.doe/opa/

1. OFFICE OFSCIENCE Review Committee of Critical Decision 1 for the Accelerator Project for Upgrade of the LHC (APUL) at Brookhaven National Laboratory January 20-21, 2010 Daniel R. Lehman Review Committee Chair Office of Science, U.S. Department of Energy http://www.science.doe.gov/opa/

2. DOE Review of APUL OFFICE OFSCIENCE DOE EXECUTIVE SESSION AGENDA Wednesday, January 20, 2010—Berkner Hall, Conference Room B 8:00 a.m. Introduction and Overview D. Lehman 8:15 a.m. HEP Prospective B. Strauss 8:25 a.m. Site Office Perspective R. Caradonna 8:35 a.m. Questions

3. *Lead OFFICE OFSCIENCE • Department of Energy: Daniel Lehman, SC, Chairperson • Observers • Dennis Kovar, DOE/SC • Bruce Strauss, DOE/SC • Robert Caradonna, DOE/BHSO • Committee Members • Technical • Paolo Ferracin, LBNL* • Leigh Harwood, TJNAF • Cost and Schedule • Diane Hatton, BNL* • Kurt Fisher, DOE/SC • Management and ES&H • Marty Breidenbach, SLAC* • Dan Green, FNAL • Ron Lutha, DOE/CH Review Committee Participants

4. Office of the Secretary Dr. Steven Chu, Secretary Deputy Secretary* Daniel B. Poneman Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Chief of Staff Department Staff and Support Offices Assistant Secretary for Policy and International Affairs Assistant Secretary for Congressional and Intergov’t Affairs Office of the Under Secretary for Nuclear Security/ Administrator for National Nuclear Security Administration Thomas P. D’Agostino Office of the Under Secretary Kristina M. Johnson Office of the Under Secretary for Science Steven E. Koonin General Counsel Health, Safety and Security Chief Financial Officer Economic Impact And Diversity Office of Science Chief Information Officer Inspector General Deputy Administrator for Defense Programs Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Advanced Scientific Computing Research Deputy Administrator for Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation Assistant Secretary for Environmental Management Chief Human Capital Officer Hearings and Appeals Basic Energy Sciences Deputy Administrator for Naval Reactors Assistant Secretary for Fossil Energy Management Intelligence and Counter Intelligence Biological and Environmental Research Deputy Under Secretary for Counter-terrorism Assistant Secretary for Nuclear Energy Public Affairs Fusion Energy Science Associate Administrator for Defense Nuclear Security Civilian Radioactive Waste Management Energy Information Administration High Energy Physics Associate Administrator for Emergency Operations Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability Bonneville Power Administration Southeastern Power Administration Nuclear Physics Associate Administrator for Infrastructure and Environment Legacy Management Southwestern Power Administration Western Area Power Administration Workforce Development For Teachers/Scientists Associate Administrator for Management and Administration Jun 09 *The Deputy Secretary also serves as the Chief Operating Officer. DOE Organization Chart OFFICE OFSCIENCE Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy

5. OFFICE OFSCIENCE SC Organization Chart Office of the Director (SC-1) William F. Brinkman Deputy Director for Field Operations (SC-3) George Malosh Deputy Director for Science Programs (SC-2) Patricia Dehmer Deputy Director for Resource Management (SC-4) Jeffrey Salmon Office of Lab Policy & Evaluat. (SC-32) D. Streit Workforce Development for Teachers/ Scientists (SC-27) Wm. Valdez Ames SO Cynthia Baebler Chicago Office Roxanne Purucker Adv. Scientific Comp. Research (SC-21) Michael Strayer Office of Budget (SC-41) Kathleen Klausing Office of Business Policy and Ops (SC-45) Thomas Phan Argonne SO Ronald Lutha Office of Grants/ Cont. Support (SC-43) Martin Rubenstein Berkeley SO Aundra Richards Office of Safety, Security and Infra. (SC-31) M. Jones SC Integrated Support Center Basic Energy Sciences(SC-22) Harriet Kung Brookhaven SO Michael Holland Business Mgmt. Sys. & Serv. (SC-45.1) Thomas Phan (A) Office of Project Assessment (SC-28) Daniel Lehman Biological & Environ. Research (SC-23) Anna Palmisano Office of Scientific and Tech. Info. (SC-44) Walt Warnick Fermi SO J. Livengood Oak Ridge Office Gerald Boyd Fusion Energy Sciences (SC-24) Edmund Synakowski Office of SC Project Direction (SC-46) Vicki Barden Human Capital Resources (SC-45.2) Karen Dickenson Oak Ridge SO Johnny Moore Princeton SO Jerry Faul High Energy Physics (SC-25) Dennis Kovar Pacific NWest SO Michael Weis Nuclear Physics (SC-26) Timothy Hallman Stanford SO Paul Golan (A) Acting Thomas Jeff. SO James Turi

6. OFFICEOF SCIENCE APULCharge Questions • Does the conceptual design of the two APUL subsystems satisfy the performance requirements? 2. Does 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? • Are ES&H aspects being properly addressed and are future plans sufficient given the project’s current stage of development? 5. Is the U.S. project scope well defined within the CERN collaboration? Are all the other parts of the project and integration issues understood to be the responsibility of CERN? 6. Is the need, technical justification and schedule justification sufficient to approve early materials procurement? 7. Is the documentation required by DOE O 413.3A in order and ready for Approval of CD-1?

7. APULAgenda OFFICE OFSCIENCE Wednesday January 20, 2010—Berkner Hall, Conference Room B 8:00a.m. DOE Executive Session.…………………………………….………..D. Lehman 8:45 a.m. Welcome……………..……………………………………..S. Aronson, S. Ozaki 8:55 a.m. WBS1.Project Overview....……………………………….................P. Wanderer 9:55a.m. Break 10:20 a.m. WBS 2. D1 Magnets Overview...…………………………………….M.Anerella 11:05 a.m. WBS 3. Cold Powering Overview..……………………………………...S. Feher 11:50 a.m. Lunch Breakout Sessions TechnicalBerkner Hall Room D 1:00 p.m. WBS 2.1 & 2.2 D1 Design/ Tooling...………………………………..M. Anerella 1:15 p.m. WBS 2.3 & 2.4 Proto./Prod. individual cold mass……………...……J. Schmalzle 1:35 p.m. WBS 2.3 & 2.4 Proto./Prod. Combined cold mass……...………………...S. Plate 1:55 p.m. WBS 2.3 & 2.4 Proto./Prod. Cooling.……………………………………K.C. Wu 2:10 p.m. WBS 2.3 & 2.4 Proto./Prod. Field Quality………………………………R. Gupta 2:30 p.m. WBS 2.3 & 2.4 Proto./Prod.Superconductor…………………………...A. Ghosh 2:40 p.m. WBS 2.5 Testing, D1 magnets………………………………………...J. Muratore 2:55 p.m. Break

8. OFFICE OF SCIENCE APULAgenda (con’t) Wednesday January 20, 2010—Berkner Hall, Conference Room B, cont. Technical (con’t) 3:20 p.m. WBS 3.1 DFX………………………………………………………T. Peterson 3:45 p.m. WBS 3.2 Current Lead………………………………………………..J. Brandt 4:10 p.m. WBS 3.3 SC Link…………………………………………………...F. Nobrega 4:35 p.m. WBS 3.4 Test and Integration………………………………………T. Peterson Management 1:15 p.m. Project Management Plan…………………………………………P. Wanderer 1:55 p.m. Risk Management……………………………………………………...S. Feher 2:25 p.m. ES&H, QA, Configuration Management………………………….M. Kaducak 2:55 p.m. Break 3:20 p.m. Cost & Schedule Discussions using Primavera……………………………..All Executive Session 5:00 p.m. Executive Session…………………………………………………..D. Lehman

9. OFFICE OFSCIENCE APUL Agenda (con’t) Thursday, January 21, 2010BerknerHall Room B 8:00 a.m. APUL Response to Committee Questions 9:00 a.m. Executive Discussion 9:30 a.m. Subcommittee Working Session and Report Writing with Working Lunch 1:00 p.m. Committee Dry Run 2:30 p.m. Closeout Presentation 3:30 p.m. Adjourn

10. APULReport Outline/ Writing Assignments OFFICE OF SCIENCE Executive Summary……...…………………………………………………………...Fisher 1. Introduction............………………………………………………………...…Caradonna 2. Technical Status (Charge Questions 1,6,7)…………….….............Ferracin*/Harwood 2.1.1 Findings 2.1.2 Comments 2.1.3 Recommendations 3. Cost Estimate (Charge Questions 2,6,7)…………………………..........Hatton*/Fisher 4. Schedule and Funding (Charge Questions 2,6,7)………………….........Hatton*/Fisher 5. Management and ES&H (Charge Questions 3,4,5,6,7)........Breidenbach*/Green/Lutha *Lead

11. Closeout Presentationand Final ReportProcedures OFFICE OFSCIENCE

12. Format: Closeout Presentation OFFICE OFSCIENCE • (No Smaller than 18 pt Font) • 2.1 [Use number and title corresponding to writing assignment list.] • List Review Subcommittee Members • 2.1.1 Findings • In bullet form, include an assessment of technical, cost, schedule, and management. • 2.1.2 Comments • 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. • 2.1.3 Recommendations • Begin with action verb and identify a due date. • 2.

13. Format: Final Report OFFICE OFSCIENCE • 2.1 [Use number and title corresponding to writing assignment list.] • 2.1.1 Findings • Include an assessment of technical, cost, schedule, and management. • 2.1.2 Comments • 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. • 2.1.3 Recommendations • Begin with action verb and identify a due date. • 2. • 3.

14. Expectations OFFICE OFSCIENCE • Present closeout reports in PowerPoint. • Forward your sections for each review report (in MSWord format) to Casey Clark, casey.clark@science.doe.gov, by January 19, 8:00 a.m. (EST).

15. OFFICE OFSCIENCE Review Committee of Critical Decision 1 for the Accelerator Project for Upgrade of the LHC (APUL) at Brookhaven National Laboratory January 20-21,2010 Example Daniel R. Lehman Review Committee Chair Office of Science, U.S. Department of Energy http://www.science.doe.gov/opa/

16. OFFICE OF SCIENCE APUL2. Technical StatusPaolo Ferracin, Leigh Harwood • Does the conceptual design of the two APUL subsystems satisfy the performance requirements? • Is the need, technical justification and schedule justification sufficient to approve early materials procurement? • Is the documentation required by DOE O 413.3A in order and ready for Approval of CD-1? • Findings • Comments • Recommendations

17. OFFICE OF SCIENCE APUL3. Cost EstimateDiane Hatton, Kurt Fisher • Does the conceptual design report and supporting documentation adequately justify the stated cost range and project duration? • Is the need, technical justification and schedule justification sufficient to approve early materials procurement? 7. Is the documentation required by DOE O 413.3A in order and ready for Approval of CD-1? • Findings • Comments • Recommendations

18. OFFICE OF SCIENCE APUL4. Schedule and FundingDiane Hatton, Kurt Fisher • Does the conceptual design report and supporting documentation adequately justify the stated cost range and project duration? • Is the need, technical justification and schedule justification sufficient to approve early materials procurement? 7. Is the documentation required by DOE O 413.3A in order and ready for Approval of CD-1? • Findings • Comments • Recommendations

19. OFFICE OF SCIENCE 5. Managementand ES&HM. Breidenbach, D. Green, R. Lutha • Does the proposed project team have adequate management experience, design skills, and laboratory support to produce a credible technical, cost and schedule baseline? • Are ES&H aspects being properly addressed and are future plans sufficient given the project’s current stage of development? • Is the U.S. project scope well defined within the CERN collaboration? Are all the other parts of the project and integration issues understood to be the responsibility of CERN? • Is the need, technical justification and schedule sufficient to approve early materials procurement? 7. Is the documentation required by DOE O 413.3A in order and ready for Approval of CD-1? • Findings • Comments • Recommendations