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

1. OFFICE OFSCIENCE 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. DOE Review of LBNE OFFICE OFSCIENCE 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 • LBNEwebsite: • https://sharepoint.fnal.gov/project/lbne/reviews/CD1-DOE-Review-Oct-2012/SitePages/Home.aspx • username: review password:rev2pass

3. OFFICE OFSCIENCE DOE Organization Chart Office of the Secretary Dr. Steven Chu, Secretary Deputy Secretary* Daniel B. Poneman Associate Deputy Secretary Melvin G. Williams, Jr. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy Inspector General Loans Program Office American Recovery & Reinvestment Act Office Chief of Staff Technology Transfer Coordinator Office of the Under Secretary for Science Vacant Under Secretary for Science Office of the Under Secretary for Nuclear Security Thomas P. D’Agostino Under Secretary For Nuclear Security Office of the Under Secretary Vacant Under Secretary Assistant Secretary for Policy and International Affairs U.S. Energy Information Administration Assistant Secretary for Congressional and Intergovernmental Affairs Bonneville Power Administration General Counsel Southwestern Power Administration Assistant Secretary for Environmental Management Office of Science Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy National Nuclear Security Administration Chief Financial Officer Southeastern Power Administration Legacy Management Advanced Scientific Computing Research Assistant Secretary for Fossil Energy Deputy Administrator for Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation Deputy Administrator for Defense Programs Chief Human Capital Officer Western Area Power Administration Basic Energy Sciences Assistant Secretary for Electrical Delivery and Energy Reliability Deputy Administrator for Naval Reactors Deputy Under Secretary for Counter-terrorism Chief Information Officer Biological and Environmental Research Assistant Secretary for Nuclear Energy Associate Administrator for Defense Nuclear Security Associate Administrator for Emergency Operations Intelligence and Counterintelligence Management Fusion Energy Science Indian Energy Policy and Programs Associate Administrator for External Affairs Associate Administrator for Acquisition & Project Management Public Affairs Health Safety and Security High Energy Physics Associate Administrator for Management & Budget Associate Administrator for Info. Management & CIO Economic Impact And Diversity Hearings and Appeals Nuclear Physics Associate Administrator for Safety & Health Office of General Counsel Workforce Development For Teachers/Scientists 25 Jul 12 *The Deputy Secretary also serves as the Chief Operating Officer.

4. OFFICE OFSCIENCE SC Organization Chart Office of the Director (SC-1) William F. Brinkman Deputy Director for Field Operations (SC-3) Joseph McBrearty 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) J. LaBarge (A) Chicago Office Roxanne Purucker Workforce Development for Teachers/ Scientists (SC-27) P. Dehmer (A) Ames SO Cynthia Baebler Advanced Scientific Comp. Research (SC-21) Daniel Hitchcock (A) Office of Budget (SC-41) Kathleen Klausing Office of Business Policy & Ops (SC-45) Vasilios Kountouris Argonne SO Joanna Livengood Basic Energy Sciences (SC-22) Harriet Kung Office of Grants/ Cont. Support (SC-43) Linda Shariati Berkeley SO Aundra Richards Office of Safety, Security & Infra. (SC-31) M. Jones SC Integrated Support Center Brookhaven SO Michael Holland Office of Project Assessment (SC-28) Daniel Lehman SC Communications & Public Affairs (SC-4) DollineHatchett Biological & Environ. Research (SC-23) Sharlene Weatherwax Office of SC Program Direction (SC-46) Daniel Division Fermi SO Michael Weis Fusion Energy Sciences (SC-24) Edmund Synakowski Oak Ridge Office Larry C. Kelly Office of Scientific and Tech. Info. (SC-44) Walt Warnick Human Resources & Admin. (SC-45.3) Cynthia Mays Oak Ridge SO Johnny Moore Small Business Innovation Research (SC-29) Manny Oliver Princeton SO Maria Dikeakos High Energy Physics (SC-25) James Siegrist Pacific NWest SO Roger Snyder Nuclear Physics (SC-26) Timothy Hallman Stanford SO Paul Golan (A) Acting Thomas Jeff. SO Joe Arango 7/2012

5. SC1 SC2 SC3 Beamline Detectors Conventional * Tom Roser, BNL * Bill Wisniewski, SLAC * Marty Fallier, BNL Kevin Jones, ORNL Richard Loveless, U of Wisconsin Brad Bull, MSU/FRIB Phil Pile, BNL David Nygren, LBNL Bob Law, SLAC SC4 SC5 SC6 Environment, Safety and Health Cost and Schedule Management * Ian Evans, SLAC * Barbara Thibadeau, ORNL/SNS * Aesook Byon, BNL Frank Kornegay Rick Blaisdell, DOE/APM Thomas Glasmacher, MSU/FRIB Kin Chao, DOE/SC Evelyn Landini, DOE/BHSO Kurt Fisher, DOE/SC Ron Lutha, DOE/ASO Brian Huizenga, DOE/APM Steve Meador, DOE/SC LEGEND Observers Jim Siegrist, DOE/SC Mike Weis, DOE/FSO SC Subcommittee Mike Procario, DOE/SC Jerry Kao, DOE/ASO * Chairperson Ted Lavine, DOE/SC Hemant Patel, DOE/BSO [ ] Part-time Subcommittee Member John Kogut, DOE/SC Glenn Kubiak, LBNL Alan Stone, DOE/SC COUNT: 22 (excluding observers) Pepin Carolan, DOE/FSO Steve Webster, DOE/FSO Review Committee Participants OFFICE OFSCIENCE Daniel R. Lehman, Chairman

6. OFFICEOF SCIENCE Charge Questions • 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? • Do the conceptual design report and supporting documentation adequately justify the stated cost range and project duration? • 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? • 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?

7. Agenda OFFICE OFSCIENCE Tuesday, October 30, 2012—Comitium, WH2SE 8:00 am DOE Executive SessionD. Lehman 9:00 am Welcome/Plenary Sessions – One West (WH1W)P. Oddone 9:10 am Project OverviewJ. Strait 9:40 am Project Design Cost and Schedule E. McClusky 10:10 am Break 10:25 am Conventional Facilities OverviewT. Lundin 10:50 am SURF Working w/LBNEM. Headley 11:00 am Beamline OverviewV. Papadimitriou 11:25 am Far Detector OverviewJ. Stewart 11:50 am Near Detector Complex OverviewC. Mauger 12:00 pm Lunch 1:00 pm Parallel Subcommittee Breakout Sessions (see attached schedule) 4:30 pm Subcommittee Executive Sessions – in Parallel Breakout Session Rooms 5:00 pm DOE Executive SessionD. Lehman 6:30 pm Adjourn

8. Agenda OFFICE OFSCIENCE Wednesday, October 31, 2012 8:00 am Parallel Subcommittee Breakout Sessions 9:30 am Break—Outside Comitium 9:45 am Subcommittee Breakout Sessions 12:00 pm Subcommittee Executive Sessions – Working Lunch—WH2XO 1:00 pm Response to Day 1 reviewer questions/questions from morning breakout—Comitium 2:00 pm Subcommittee Working Session—Comitium 2:45 pm Break—Outside Comitium 3:00 pm DOE Full Committee Executive SessionD. Lehman Thursday, November 1, 2012 8:00 am Subcommittee Working Session—Comitium 10:00 am Break—Outside Comitium 10:15 am DOE Committee Executive Session Dry RunD. Lehman 12:00 pm Working Lunch 1:00 pm DOE Summary and Closeout—One WestD. Lehman 2:00 pm Adjourn

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

10. Closeout Presentationand Final ReportProcedures OFFICE OFSCIENCE

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

12. Format:Final Report OFFICE OFSCIENCE • (MSWord; 12 pt Font) • 2.1 Use Section Number/Title corresponding to writing assignment list. • 2.1.1 Findings • Include an assessment of technical, cost, schedule, and management. Within the text of the Findings Section, include the answers to the review questions. • 2.1.2 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.

13. 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 November 5, 8:00 a.m. (EST).

14. OFFICE OFSCIENCE 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 Daniel R. Lehman Review Committee Chair Office of Science, U.S. Department of Energy http://www.science.doe.gov/opa/

15. OFFICE OF SCIENCE 2.1 BeamlineRoser, BNL*/SC1 • 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? • Do the conceptual design report and supporting documentation adequately justify the stated cost range and project duration? • 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? • Have all prerequisite requirements for CD-1 approval been satisfied? Is the project ready for CD-1 approval? • Findings • Comments • Recommendations

16. OFFICE OF SCIENCE 2.2 DetectorsWisnieski, SLAC*/SC2 • 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? • Do the conceptual design report and supporting documentation adequately justify the stated cost range and project duration? • 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? • Have all prerequisite requirements for CD-1 approval been satisfied? Is the project ready for CD-1 approval? • Findings • Comments • Recommendations

17. OFFICE OF SCIENCE 3. Conventional FacilitiesFallier, BNL*/SC3 • 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? • Do the conceptual design report and supporting documentation adequately justify the stated cost range and project duration? • 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? • Have all prerequisite requirements for CD-1 approval been satisfied? Is the project ready for CD-1 approval? • Findings • Comments • Recommendations

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

19. OFFICE OF SCIENCE 5. Cost and ScheduleThibadeau, ORNL*/SC5 • Do the conceptual design report and supporting documentation adequately justify the stated cost range and project duration? • 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? • Have all prerequisite requirements for CD-1 approval been satisfied? Is the project ready for CD-1 approval? • Findings • Comments • Recommendations

20. OFFICE OF SCIENCE Project Status ChartThibadeau, ORNL*/SC5

21. OFFICE OF SCIENCE 6. ManagementByon, BNL*/SC6 • 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? • Have all prerequisite requirements for CD-1 approval been satisfied? Is the project ready for CD-1 approval? • Findings • Comments • Recommendations