OFFICE OF SCIENCE DOESC CD1 Review of the

OFFICE OF SCIENCE DOE/SC CD-1 Review of the Proton Improvement Plan (PIP-II) Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory December 12 -14, 2017 Kurt Fisher Committee Chair Office of Science, U. S. Department of Energy http: //www. science. doe. gov/opa/

OFFICE OF Deliverables – Due Dates SCIENCE • Closeout report (prepared in Power. Point) • Presented Thursday, December 14 • Instructions—slide 12 • Template—slide 14 • Final report draft (prepared in MS Word) • Due Monday, December 18 to Casey (casey. clark@science. doe. gov) • Instructions—slide 13 2

DOE Executive Session OFFICE OF SCIENCE DOE EXECUTIVE SESSION AGENDA Tuesday, December 12, 2017—Wilson Hall, The Comitium 8: 00 a. m. 8: 15 a. m. 8: 30 a. m. 8: 45 a. m. 8: 55 a. m. DOE Executive Session Program Perspective Federal Project Director Perspective Questions Adjourn K. Fisher M. Procario/M. Harrison A. Bihary Project and review information is available at: https: //indico. fnal. gov/event/15757/ https: //web. fnal. gov/organization/OPSS/Projects/PIPII/_layouts/15/start. aspx#/Site. Pages/DOE%20 CD 1%20 Review%20 of%20 PIP%20 II%2 c%20 December%2012 -14%2 c%202017. aspx https: //web. fnal. gov/project/piptech/Site. Pages/DOE%20 Independent%20 Project%20 Review%20 of%20 PIPII%20 for%20 CD-1, %20 Dec%2012 -14, %202017. aspx Username: review Password: pip 2 rev 2 pass 3

Review Committee Participants Kurt Fisher, DOE/SC, Chairperson OFFICE OF SCIENCE

OFFICE OF SC Organization SCIENCE 5

Charge Questions OFFICE OF SCIENCE 1. Has the project team documented a carefully considered analysis of alternatives that supports the preferred alternative? 2. Does the conceptual design satisfy the performance requirements? 3. Does the conceptual design report and supporting documentation adequately justify the stated cost range and project duration? 4. Does the proposed project team have adequate management experience, design skills, and laboratory support to manage all aspects of this project and produce a credible technical, cost, and schedule baseline? 5. Are the ES&H aspects of the project being properly addressed and is the ES&H planning currently sufficient for this stage of the project? 6. Is the documentation required by DOE O 413. b for CD-1 approval complete and in good order? 7. Is the allocation of the technical scope that will be contributed by international partners sufficiently understood and documented such that the conceptual design and cost range can be relied on? 8. Has the project satisfactorily responded to the recommendations from previous reviews? 6

CD-1 OFFICE OF SCIENCE 7

Agenda OFFICE OF SCIENCE 8

Agenda (cont’d) OFFICE OF SCIENCE 9

OFFICE OF Report Outline/Writing SCIENCE Assignments 10

OFFICE OF SCIENCE Closeout Presentation and Final Report Procedures 11

Format: Closeout Presentation OFFICE OF SCIENCE 12

Format: Final Report OFFICE OF SCIENCE (Use MS Word / 12 pt Font) 2. 1 Use Section Number/Title corresponding to writing assignment list. 2. 1. 1 Findings – What the project told us Include a brief narrative description of technical, cost, schedule, management information provided by the project. Each subcommittee will emphasize their area of responsibility. Cost and schedule subcommittee should provide attachments for approved project cost breakdown and schedule. Management subcommittee should provide attachment for approved project organization and names of personnel. 2. 1. 2 Comments – What we think about what the project told us Descriptive material assessing the findings and making observations and conclusions based on the findings. The committee’s answer to the charge questions should be contained within the text of the Comments Section. Do not number your comments. 2. 1. 3 Recommendations – What we think the project needs to do 1. Beginning with an action verb, provide a brief, concise, and clear statement with a due date. 2. Please Note: Recommendations are approved by the full committee and presented at the review closeout briefing. Recommendations SHOULD NOT be changed or altered from the closeout report to the Final Report. 13

OFFICE OF SCIENCE Closeout Report on the DOE/SC CD-1 Review of the Proton Improvement Plan (PIP-II) Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory December 12 -14, 2017 Kurt Fisher Committee Chair Office of Science, U. S. Department of Energy http: //www. science. doe. gov/opa/

2. 1 RF Systems A. Nassiri, ANL / Subcommittee 1 OFFICE OF SCIENCE 1. Has the project team documented a carefully considered analysis of alternatives that supports the preferred alternative? 2. Does the conceptual design satisfy the performance requirements? 6. Is the documentation required by DOE O 413. b for CD-1 approval complete and in good order? 8. Has the project satisfactorily responded to the recommendations from previous reviews? • • • Findings Comments Recommendations 15

2. 2 Accelerator Support Systems D. Rubin, Cornell / Subcommittee 2 OFFICE OF SCIENCE 1. Has the project team documented a carefully considered analysis of alternatives that supports the preferred alternative? 2. Does the conceptual design satisfy the performance requirements? 6. Is the documentation required by DOE O 413. b for CD-1 approval complete and in good order? 8. Has the project satisfactorily responded to the recommendations from previous reviews? • • • Findings Comments Recommendations 16

2. 3 SRF and Cryogenics M. Howell, ORNL / Subcommittee 3 OFFICE OF SCIENCE 1. Has the project team documented a carefully considered analysis of alternatives that supports the preferred alternative? 2. Does the conceptual design satisfy the performance requirements? 6. Is the documentation required by DOE O 413. b for CD-1 approval complete and in good order? 8. Has the project satisfactorily responded to the recommendations from previous reviews? • • • Findings Comments Recommendations 17

3. Conventional Facilities J. Harkins, LBNL / Subcommittee 4 OFFICE OF SCIENCE 1. Has the project team documented a carefully considered analysis of alternatives that supports the preferred alternative? 2. Does the conceptual design satisfy the performance requirements? 6. Is the documentation required by DOE O 413. b for CD-1 approval complete and in good order? 8. Has the project satisfactorily responded to the recommendations from previous reviews? • • • Findings Comments Recommendations 18

4. Environment, Safety and Health H. Vogel, ORNL / Subcommittee 5 OFFICE OF SCIENCE 5. Are the ES&H aspects of the project being properly addressed and is the ES&H planning currently sufficient for this stage of the project? 6. Is the documentation required by DOE O 413. b for CD-1 approval complete and in good order? 8. Has the project satisfactorily responded to the recommendations from previous reviews? • • • Findings Comments Recommendations 19

5. Cost and Schedule E. Merrill, DOE/OPA / Subcommittee 6 OFFICE OF SCIENCE 3. Does the conceptual design report and supporting documentation adequately justify the stated cost range and project duration? 6. Is the documentation required by DOE O 413. b for CD-1 approval complete and in good order? 7. Is the allocation of the technical scope that will be contributed by international partners sufficiently understood and documented such that the conceptual design and cost range can be relied on? 8. Has the project satisfactorily responded to the recommendations from previous reviews? • • • Findings Comments Recommendations 20

5. Cost and Schedule E. Merrill, DOE/OPA / Subcommittee 6 OFFICE OF SCIENCE PROJECT STATUS Project Type MIE / Line Item / Cooperative Agreement CD-1 Planned: Actual: CD-2 Planned: Actual: CD-3 Planned: Actual: CD-4 Planned: Actual: TPC Percent Complete Planned: _____% Actual: _____% Contingency Cost (w/Mgmt Reserve) $ _____% to go Contingency Schedule on CD-4 b ______months _____% TPC Cost to Date TPC Committed to Date TPC TEC CPI Cumulative SPI Cumulative 21

6. Management T. Glasmacher, MSU / Subcommittee 7 OFFICE OF SCIENCE 1. Has the project team documented a carefully considered analysis of alternatives that supports the preferred alternative? 4. Does the proposed project team have adequate management experience, design skills, and laboratory support to manage all aspects of this project and produce a credible technical, cost, and schedule baseline? 6. Is the documentation required by DOE O 413. b for CD-1 approval complete and in good order? 7. Is the allocation of the technical scope that will be contributed by international partners sufficiently understood and documented such that the conceptual design and cost range can be relied on? 8. Has the project satisfactorily responded to the recommendations from previous reviews? • • • Findings Comments Recommendations 22