##  May 17, 2005

##  [RSVP Review Report]{.underline}

**[Executive Summary]{.underline}**

[Introduction.]{.underline} The Rare Symmetry Violating Process (RSVP)
Review Panel met at Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL) April 20-22,
2005, to evaluate the status of the RSVP project. More specifically, the
charge to the Panel was to review the cost, schedule, scope, technical
and management project baseline as well as the plans for operations and
the associated costs and schedule. The evaluation of physics importance
was not a part of the charge, which is being evaluated by a separate
Panel; however we were invited to comment on the significance of the
physics should we so desire.

The RSVP project is quite complex and extensive. It includes two
experiments, KOPIO (rare K decay) and MECO (muon capture with electron
emission), in addition to required modifications to the BNL Alternating
Gradient Synchrotron (AGS), beamlines for the experiments, and the
associated Project Management structure. To cover the diverse nature of
the Project, the Panel was subdivided by expertise into six subgroups,
each covering one aspect of the project. The six areas were: KOPIO
experiment; MECO experiment; MECO solenoid magnet; AGS, Booster and
associated beamlines; operations and commissioning; and management. The
MECO magnet was split out as a separate topic because of its highly
technical nature and significant cost. After plenary introductory talks,
most of the Panel's work was done in individual breakout groups
involving presentations by and discussions with the cognizant
physicists, engineers, and/or project staff and internal discussions in
executive sessions. The Panel held periodic executive sessions with all
members present. In the following, we present our findings on issues
requested in the charge.

[State of readiness.]{.underline} The Panel was impressed with the
amount of work that has been done on this Project. The results of that
work are clearly visible in the much better understanding today of the
technical, cost, and schedule issues of different Project elements than
was true a year ago, as well as we can judge it from the reports of
previous reviews. The state of readiness of different components,
however, is still rather uneven. In some areas, such as the AGS
modifications and the MECO solenoid, significant engineering design has
already been done. A number of the detector subsystems, on the other
hand, are still in rather early phases of development. However, there do
not appear to be any irresolvable technical challenges in these areas
and they are not on a critical path. Their "benign neglect" to date has
been frequently due to conscious decisions by the Project management as
to how best to allocate scarce engineering resources. For both
experiments, the simulations in several areas still need to be refined
and made more realistic (e.g. full reconstruction algorithms need to be
incorporated) in order to validate to the extent possible the current
design.

[Technical design.]{.underline} The Panel felt that the technical design
of the experiments and associated accelerator infrastructure is well
matched to the stated physics goals. However, there are some areas of
concern. The recent change to the baseline design of the MECO tracker
and the immaturity of the design of the trigger and data acquisition
systems for KOPIO are examples. We found no show-stoppers that would
prevent the achievement of these goals with the proposed apparatus. The
experiments, however, are very difficult and frequently push the
available technology to its performance limit. Several of the
accelerator performance requirements, while not necessitating new
technology to achieve them, will explore as yet untested domains. (A
particular example is the MECO criterion of 10E-9 inter-bunch extinction
of the extracted beam in the presence of high peak currents circulating
in the AGS.) Thus, technical risks are present that could have
implications on both cost and schedule and on the ultimate ability of
the experiments to achieve their sensitivity goals..

Ideally, one would like to test the feasibility and performance of high
risk items as soon as possible so as to minimize cost and schedule risk.
Some that might need iteration are accelerator modifications and their
impact on high intensity operation; KOPIO neutral beam and its neutron
halo; and performance of detector subsystems in their actual
environments. Unfortunately, many of these are long lead items and
generally require operation in full intensity environment. The
commissioning schedule must be thought out very carefully so as to
optimize opportunities for "early warnings."

[Schedule.]{.underline} The tight schedule being proposed may be one of
the most significant contributors to the cost risk. The technical
challenges in both accelerator and detector areas may well cause
slippage of the start of data taking by a year or more. Thus, a float of
roughly this duration should be built in into the construction and
operation schedule. The cost impact of such a prolongation is not yet
accounted for.

[Construction cost.]{.underline} The cost is a major concern for this
Project and the Panel tried to understand the estimates as well as it
could in the limited time available. The reliability of cost estimates
clearly depends on the state of readiness of a given subsystem. As
stated above, the latter is rather uneven throughout the Project at this
time and hence the costs quoted vary in their precision. We found that
the "Lockheed formula," used by the proponents to calculate the
contingency for each subsystem so as to take proper account of the state
of its readiness, significantly underestimates the contingency required.
The top level Project management has tried to correct for this by
imposing an overall project contingency of 45%. This is as yet
undifferentiated among the various project segments.

In evaluating the validity of the cost estimates, we examined all the
components of major subsystems to see if any essential elements were
left out. We feel comfortable that no large cost elements are missing.
We have also looked in some detail at the methodology used to obtain the
cost estimates for various selected items and found no obvious flaw that
would invalidate those estimates. The current cost estimates appear most
reliable for the AGS upgrades, MECO magnets, and the Project Management:
the 45% top-down cost contingency imposed seems to be an overestimate in
these areas. On the other hand, because of their less mature status, the
45% contingency might be an underestimate for the two detector
subsystems. The Panel thus feels that the Project's estimate of total
MREFC cost of \$282M in then-year dollars (including pre-operations and
commissioning) could be adequate, the assumed contingency being
sufficient to cover potential cost underestimates. This cost estimate is
based on an inflation rate of 2.8%, whereas the feeling of the Panel was
that this rate is likely to be higher over the period of this project.
For example, the current labor rate escalation used by the DOE
Laboratories is in the 3.5-4% range. The difference becomes significant
when one extrapolates 10 years or so into the future. The quoted
detector construction cost assumes very significant physicist
contribution in labor; new groups will need to be recruited or currently
involved groups greatly enlarged to meet those projected contributions.
No contingency is provided to cover possible shortfalls in "off-project"
physicist labor that would have to be compensated by "on-project" hires.

RSVP (especially KOPIO) has significant participation from groups
outside the United States; they are playing important role in the
experiments and are counted on for significant in-kind contributions. It
is quite likely that a decision to go ahead expeditiously would result
in significant additional participation, relieving somewhat the pressure
on contributions from the US groups. We urge creation of appropriate
financial and management structures to encourage significant and timely
participation of non-US groups.

[Operations costs.]{.underline} The success of RSVP goes beyond the
completion of the construction of the experiments and of the accelerator
upgrades and beamlines. The goal, after all, is production of scientific
results. Thus, attention and high priority must be given to the creation
of appropriate conditions for operation of the experiments. At the
conclusion of MREFC, there will be additional costs related to RSVP
operation falling mainly in two categories: incremental costs for
operation of the AGS/Booster complex and costs for incremental support
of the participating university and National Laboratory groups. The
Panel tried to estimate these costs under different scenario
assumptions.

Based mainly on input from the experimental collaborations (which
appears reasonable to us) we estimate that the additional required
support level per experiment for participating groups is \$2.5M per
year. This will need to start during the construction phase and continue
through the operations phase. Most likely this sum would be divided
between NSF and DOE in a ratio reflecting the traditional support source
of the participating groups. Thus the funding required is about \$25M
(in FY05\$) for both experiments during construction phase and \$5M
(FY05\$) per year during the operations phase of the Project. Because of
the importance of this issue, NSF should work with DOE to see how one
can achieve the required staffing levels of the involved groups.

The estimate of NSF-borne AGS operational costs is somewhat more
complicated, depending on the fraction of the time that RHIC is running
and the details of its mode of operation. We were asked to evaluate what
these costs might be to achieve the goals of the experiments for three
different scenarios assuming different levels of DOE support of RHIC
(and hence AGS). We did so based on the input of the AGS staff, who used
the data from the prior operating experience of AGS. The support level
scenarios were cost optimized for most economic delivery of the number
of protons on target requested by RSVP experiments and the most relevant
numbers are given in Table I below. For "1/3 healthy RHIC" scenario,
RHIC and RSVP running would be in alternate years. The costs are given
in then-year \$. 3.5% annual inflation rate was used since the costs are
dominated by expenditures on power and labor.

Table I. Estimated AGS Operating Costs to be Borne by NSF

  --------------------------- ------------ --------------- ---------------
  Mode                        Years of     Weeks/year      Cost to NSF
                              operation                    

  Healthy RHIC                2011-2019    25              \$156M

  1/3 Healthy RHIC            2011-2018    42 or 0 \*      \$195M

  No DOE funds for AGS        2011-2015    42              \$361M
  --------------------------- ------------ --------------- ---------------

\* In this mode RHIC and RSVP run in alternate years

It is clear to us that there is a major NSF cost exposure connected with
the operating costs, especially if one allows for the likelihood that
these experiments will require a substantially longer period of data
taking than the number of years currently planned.

The potential NSF cost burden is directly related to the DOE plans
regarding its support of AGS operations. NSF should initiate discussions
with DOE on this issue as soon as possible.

[Cost Summary.]{.underline} We summarize in Table II the major costs of
the RSVP program for both the construction and operations phases. All
costs are expressed in then-year dollars.

Table II. Summary of the major costs of the RSVP program

  ------------------------------------------------ ----------------------
  Activity                                         Cost (then year \$)

  Construction (MREFC)                             \$267 M

  Pre-operations and commissioning                 \$15 M

  Physicist Support (construction and operations)  \$61 -- 92M

  Operations                                       \$156 -- 361 M

  Decontamination and Decommissioning (D & D)      \$20 M
  ------------------------------------------------ ----------------------

There are a number of potential cost risks for the items in the Table II
that are difficult to quantify. One might highlight the lack of float in
the construction and preoperations schedule and the possibility that the
initial data taking will be slower than expected. The Panel also felt
that 25% contingency assumed for D&D was too low in light of inherent
uncertainties involved here.

[Management]{.underline}. There has been a recent management
reorganization with the creation of a centralized office charged with
overseeing all different components of the Project. The Panel endorses
this management change and sees it as an essential step in getting the
Project on the way. This transition is still in process; undoubtedly
there will be some painful adjustments but we are confident that with
good will all around, good communications, and development of a
management plan that achieves a wise balance between centralized and
delegated responsibilities, this reorganization will lead to creation of
conditions that will greatly enhance the likelihood of a successful
construction project and achievement of the Project's scientific goals.
As an example, there are a number of areas where some rearrangement of
responsibilities between different subprojects might be productive. We
recommend active involvement by the central Project office in studying
and adjudicating these issues.

An important element in the execution of this project is the novel
relationship between the Project, the host Laboratory, and the two
funding agencies. Even though BNL and DOE are not the official
"sponsors" of RSVP, they will play a crucial role in it. BNL has to have
a strong commitment to the success of RSVP and we were gratified to hear
such a commitment from BNL directorate. DOE, besides supporting the
activities of BNL, will need to support a large (probably major)
fraction of university groups participating in RSVP. Those groups will
be crucial to RSVP success and their operating budgets will have to
receive high enough priority among competing requests so as to be able
to discharge their anticipated obligations. Even though most of these
groups will probably be groups with traditional support from HEP
division, a number of DOE NP supported groups may also want to be
involved. We urge the NSF to review current communication mechanisms
between NSF, DOE, BNL and RSVP management to see whether they are
adequate for the success of the RSVP Project.

[Conclusion.]{.underline} To conclude, the Panel believes that the RSVP
physics program addresses frontier physics questions that are not likely
to be addressed elsewhere on this time scale. Furthermore, the
construction and initial operation would occur in a time frame when few
other particle physics activities will be going on in US. Thus it would
make a major contribution to the health of the field in US. The proposed
experimental arrangements appear well suited towards addressing the
physics goals and we see no major show-stoppers. There are a number of
technical challenges but they do not seem to be fundamental; no new
inventions are required to achieve the proposed goals. The experiments
are very difficult, however, and achievement of the proposed sensitivity
is not certain. The management team in place is experienced and a
management structure is being developed that should significantly
improve the probability of success. Because of the long range nature of
the program, there has to be a commitment on the part of US funding
agencies to support it for at least a decade. There are cost risks to
NSF arising principally from technical uncertainties that might affect
the length of operation required to reach science goals and from the
uncertainty in the extent of DOE support for AGS operations in the
future.

###### [Introduction]{.underline}

The Rare Symmetry Violating Process (RSVP) Review Panel met at
Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL) April 20-22, 2005, to evaluate the
status of the RSVP project. More specifically, the charge to the Panel
was to review the cost, schedule, scope, technical and management
project baseline as well as the plans for operations and the associated
costs and schedule. The evaluation of physics importance was not a part
of the charge, which is being evaluated by a separate Panel; however we
were invited to comment on the significance of the physics should we so
desire. The charge to the Panel is attached to this Report as Appendix
A.

## The RSVP project is quite complex and extensive. It includes two experiments, KOPIO (rare K decay) and MECO (muon capture with electron emission), in addition to required modifications to the BNL Alternating Gradient Synchrotron (AGS) and the booster synchrotron, beamlines for the experiments, and the associated Project Management structure. To cover the diverse nature of the Project, the Panel was subdivided by expertise into six subgroups, each covering one aspect of the project. The six areas were: KOPIO experiment; MECO experiment; MECO solenoid magnet; AGS, Booster and associated beamlines; operations and commissioning; and management. The membership of the Panel and its division into subgroups is given in Appendix B.

The morning part of the first day was spent in plenary session listening
to the overview talks about different parts of the RSVP Project. The
Panel also heard brief comments about RSVP by Dr. Michael Turner, the
Associate Director of NSF for Mathematics and Physical Sciences. In the
afternoon four separate breakout sessions were held corresponding to
KOPIO experiment, MECO experiment, MECO magnet, and AGS/booster
upgrades. The management and operations/commissioning groups split
themselves up between the fours sessions so as to get the flavor of
issues of concern to their subgroups but specific to the four
subprojects.

The following two days were spent in breakout sessions or in executive
sessions. The latter were sometimes internal to subgroups and sometimes
included the whole Panel. The NSF program officers sat on all
presentations and discussions. The breakout sessions had some prepared
presentations but were for the most part discussions focusing on
specific questions that the Panel had for the proponents. The meeting
ended with a closeout session, open to the senior members of the
collaboration and RSVP Project. This session was also attended by theNSF
officials including Dr. Turner, and representatives of the DOE NP
office. The session was followed by a brief executive session to draft
the outline of the Executive Summary. The detailed agenda is attached to
this report as Appendix C.

This report is organized as follows. We start with a brief discussion of
the physics of the RSVP Project and our general view of its
significance. Subsequently we discuss the findings, comments, and
recommendations of each Panel subgroup regarding the issues in their
"jurisdiction". Finally, at the end we summarize our finding and
conclusions, identifying what we view as potentially most important
issues to resolve, the most likely cost exposures, and the most
important actions NSF needs to take to make the Project a success.

**[Physics of RSVP]{.underline}**

The RSVP Project consists of two experiments, KOPIO and MECO. The former
proposes to search for and measure the branching ratio for the decay
mode with a sensitivity about two orders of magnitude better than the
projected limit from the ongoing experiment in Japan. The MECO
experiment is a search for the capture of ^-^ on a nucleus (Al target)
with the emission of an electron, a process forbidden in the Standard
Model (SM). The projected sensitivity of the experiment (5 events at
BR=10^-16^ ) is about 3 orders of magnitude below the existing limit of
6 x 10^-13^ (on Ti target).

The evaluation of physics significance of these experiments was not part
of the charge to the Panel. The Panel was invited, however to comment if
it so desired about the importance of the physics and how it fits in
with the world efforts in particle physics. The Panel held no discussion
on this topic so what follows is a rather informal view of Panel's
members on this subject.

The RSVP Project addresses what are undoubtedly key issues in particle
physics today, ie the physics beyond the Standard Model. The experiments
are complementary to the experiments at the energy frontier at the Large
Hadron Collider (LHC) at CERN in Geneva, Switzerland, in which many US
groups are playing a prominent role. These experiments could probe mass
scales of new physics (through virtual diagram effects) which are
inaccessible to high energy colliders like Tevatron and LHC..
Observation of the process ^-^ -\> e^-^ or measurement of the branching
ratio for K^00^ bar that is in disagreement with the Standard Model
would be a conclusive indication of new physics beyond the Standard
Model. Numerous recent theoretical extensions of the Standard Model
predict significant effects in these two channels that the RSVP Project
should be able to observe and measure.

The ongoing experiments addressing the RSVP goals - in Japan for the
KOPIO channel and in Switzerland for the search for the muon number
violation - will undoubtedly improve our knowledge of these processes
but will still be significantly short of the RSVP goals. The E931a, at
KEK, has a sensitivity goal of about 10^-10^ for the branching ratio of
the decay K^00^ bar, compared to SM prediction of 3 x 10^-11^. The MEG
experiment at PSI for the decay e has a goal of ultimate sensitivity of
10^-14^. At that level, the ability of MEG to search for new physics
would approach that of MECO.

There are tentative plans, at the Letter of Intent level, to propose
experiments of comparable sensitivity to KOPIO and MECO at the new
Japanese accelerator JPARC, currently under construction and scheduled
to start commissioning in 2007. Whether these efforts will come to
fruition is uncertain at this time and it is unlikely that they could
compete with RSVP if the latter were to proceed expeditiously. Thus RSVP
is well positioned to be able to make potentially significant impact on
the particle physics if it proceeds on current schedule and is able to
reach the proposed sensitivity.

# [KOPIO Detector System (WBS 1.2)]{.underline}

###### Summary

KOPIO is one of two experiments comprising the RSVP project. The goal of
this experiment is to observe the ultra-rare decay K~L~ ^0^ \_bar and to
measure its branching ratio to about 10% accuracy. Within the Standard
Model, this decay is dominated by direct-CP violating processes and is
expected to have a branching ratio of 3 ± 0.6 x 10^-11^ with very small
theoretical uncertainties. Determination of the branching ratio (K~L~
^0^ \_bar) cleanly measures the height of the unitary CKM triangle, and
thus probes directly the source of CP violation in the Standard Model.
Any deviations from expectations, such as discrepancies with
measurements from the b-quark sector, would signal the presence of new
physics.

The experimental aspects of measuring B (K~L~ ^0^ \_bar) are challenging
since only the final state ^0^ can be directly observed. KOPIO proposes
to reconstruct and identify the K~L~ ^0^ \_bar final state through a
precise reconstruction of the decay kinematics (energy, position and
angles) of the photons, use of the time-of-flight to determine the
K^0^~L~ momentum, and construction of a hermetic photon veto for the
entire apparatus. The largest single source of background is expected to
be the CP-violating decay K~L~ ^00^. Other decay modes and accidental
photons are also potential sources of background and have to be
suppressed by many orders of magnitude through timing, energy, and
kinematic constraints. The proposed technique requires that beam be
extracted from the AGS every 40ns in 200ps bunches. Two new RF cavities,
driven at 25MHz and 100MHz, will be used to achieve such a micro-bunched
structure and together with hermetic photon and charged particle veto
systems will provide critical tools for background rejection.

The panel was impressed with the amount of effort to date expended on
the planning of the experiment. At the conceptual level KOPIO appears to
be well thought-out and ingenious. It is also understood that limited
funds available so far have led to a yet-incomplete detailed design of
the experiment, but the panel has not identified any "show-stoppers".
Significantly more effort, however, is necessary to bring all the
components of the apparatus to the same detailed level of design and
understanding of performance limitations. More realistic and high
statistics simulation studies are needed.

Due to the limited time available for the review the panel was unable to
thoroughly review the physics capabilities of KOPIO, but no reason was
found to doubt the claims presented in the Conceptual Design Report
available to the panel. The panel also points out that findings and
recommendations of the recent Ritchie's Panel, which reviewed the state
of simulations and the physics reach of KOPIO, have been largely
accepted by the KOPIO collaboration. Finally, past history teaches that
experiments of this type will require significant upgrades and/or
modifications to reach the design sensitivity.

The WBS structure of KOPIO and the baseline costs of KOPIO systems are
shown in the Table below. Based on prior experiments, the panel judged
that the assignment of contingency costs based on the bottoms-up
"Lockheed formula" is not correct for this type of project. The top-down
contingency proposed by the RSVP management is 45%. While this is more
reasonable, the contingency should be based explicitly on the maturity
of design, the schedule risk, and prior experience with the technology.
Hence, the panel recommends that KOPIO redo the contingency analysis for
each task, taking into account these factors.

  --------- --------------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------
  WBS       System Name           Material Cost   Labor Cost      Base Cost

  **1.2**   **KOPIO**             **\$31,638K**   **\$21,581K**   **\$53,219K**

  1.2.1     Vacuum                \$2,019K        \$1,188K        \$3,206K

  1.2.2     Preradiator           \$12,140K       \$5,071K        \$17,210K

  1.2.3     Calorimeter           \$3,160K        \$2,133K        \$5,293K

  1.2.4     Charged Particle Veto \$1,389K        \$1,242K        \$2,631K

  1.2.5     Photon Veto           \$4,319K        \$2,875K        \$7,194K

  1.2.6     Catcher               \$3,006K        \$145K          \$3,151K

  1.2.7     Trigger               \$889K          \$1,734K        \$2,622K

  1.2.8     DAQ                   \$1,882K        \$713K          \$2,595K

  1.2.9     Off-line Computing    \$591K          \$185K          \$776K

  1.2.10    Detector Systems      \$1,864K        \$4,195K        \$6,059K

  1.2.11    Project Services      \$378K          \$2,102K        \$2,480K
  --------- --------------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------

The KOPIO sub-panel reviewed mainly the detector system and only
peripherally discussed related beam issues. It should be, however,
emphasized, that the parameters of the beam and precision of the beam
line construction are crucial for the performance of the entire
detector. For example, a 1mm shift in collimator causes a 37% increase
in the beam halo.

Detailed findings, comments and recommendations of the KOPIO sub-panel
are presented below. First, we summarize our direct response to the
charge to the KOPIO sub-panel:

-   **Technical approach and feasibility**

    -   The panel assesses that conducting early beam tests, as the
        beamline elements become available, is the only way to assure
        that the background rates and the detector performance will be
        adequate.

    -   Refine simulations to improve credibility of background
        calculations.

-   **Completeness of the plan (WBS)**

    -   The panel found the KOPIO work breakdown structure to be
        reasonably complete.

    -   The panel does not concur with the project management's plans to
        include the cost of spares in the contingency funds. Spares
        should be included in the baseline cost.

-   **Readiness to proceed to construction**

    -   The panel concurs with KOPIO's assessment that significant
        engineering is required to the complete detailed design and
        bottoms-up costing of the experiment.

    -   A significant expansion of the Collaboration will be necessary
        to complete the design and prepare production plans.

-   **Likely duration of the experiment**

    -   Past experience for this type of experiment teaches that
        upgrades and improvements will be necessary to reach the design
        sensitivity.

-   **Technical metrics of progress**

    -   The panel deemed it necessary to develop a comprehensive set of
        technical milestones to be used to measure the progress.

    -   The panel assesses that the growth of the collaboration, which
        is required for the project execution, should be monitored.

-   **Costs and schedule**

    -   The panel recommends that KOPIO refines its contingency analysis
        to improve credibility of cost estimation.

The sub-panel also judges that KOPIO is an extremely challenging
experiment and the achievement of the proposed sensitivity (requiring
12000 hours of data taking at 100 Tp/spill) may take longer than
anticipated in terms of calendar years due to numerous technical
challenges in the Project\... Furthermore, as discussed in Operations
section, for several of the possible AGS operating scenarios the
required projected running time is longer than 5 years.

###### Vacuum system

##### Findings

The vacuum system consists of five major parts: the upstream decay
vessel, the magnet vacuum box, the downstream vacuum tank, the vacuum
pumping station, and the vacuum transition parts (windows and a vacuum
membrane). This is "the biggest technical challenge" of the experiment.
Most of this 12 m^3^ vacuum system should operate with 10^-7^ torr
vacuum, and the vacuum vessels need to house the Charged Particle Veto
system which will hermetically cover all the walls. This veto system and
the Magnet Photon Veto systems will reside in a 10^-3^ torr vacuum
separated from the high vacuum by a thin membrane.

The vacuum vessels have to be thin (less than 7% of a radiation length)
and are the central components of the experiment, which would be built
around them. The collaboration has spent significant engineering effort
on the decay vessel. After investigating and prototyping several
options, the design chosen is a spun aluminum tank for which a vendor
quote exists. The design of the pumping system is advanced and well
understood. The state of engineering of other components, including
mounting of the inner vetoes, is less advanced. The collaboration
recognizes and has budgeted for the still-significant engineering
necessary for a detailed design of all the system components.

##### Comments

The collaboration spent a significant fraction of scarce engineering
resources on the design of the vacuum system. Given the central location
and criticality of the system this was a good judgment**.** The vacuum
system, however, needs further more detailed integration with the veto
systems to be installed on the walls of all vacuum vessels. More
specifically, the mounting scheme of the Charged Particle Veto and the
Magnet Photon Veto, the signal and voltage feed-through connectors, and
the membrane need to be designed in detail.

The costing of the system appears to be well advanced. The schedule
depends on the available engineering resources for completing the
detailed design which still has some challenging pieces only in an early
conceptual stage (e.g., feedthroughs). The costing of the magnet and
downstream vacuum boxes agrees well with the past experience of
constructing similar devices at BNL. The main cost drivers are the decay
vessel and the pumping station. Their cost with an overall contingency
level of 45% seems adequate.

##### Recommendations

1)  Complete the engineering design of the vacuum system integrating
    inside-vacuum veto systems.

###### Preradiator

# [Findings]{.underline}

The Preradiator is a 3 x 3 m^2^ set of 8 modules comprised of cathode
strip drift chambers and scintillator planks (8 mm thick) with lead
radiators. Each module consists of 8 planes of drift chambers and 9
planes of scintillators. The total depth of the Preradiator is 1.375 m
(2.8 radiation lengths). It has been designed to measure the gamma ray
location with a position accuracy of 5 mm and an angular accuracy of 25
mrad. The probability of converting 2 photons within the Preradiator is
about 80%. The cathode strip chambers consist of 74k channels of anode
readout (wire TDCs) and 74k channels of cathode readout (strip ADCs).
There are roughly 8k channels of scintillator readout.

Surrounding the scintillator-drift chamber central portion is an array
of 1152 External Photon Vetoes (EPV). These EPV modules are made of a
lead-scintillator shashlyk design with a depth of 15.9 radiation
lengths. They are identical to the modules in the calorimeter, and the
phototubes are readout in the same standard method as the other photon
vetoes in KOPIO.

The TRIUMF group is responsible for the design, construction,
installation and operation of the Preradiator scintillator - drift
chamber modules. This includes the design and construction of the
front-end electronics. It does not include the EPV modules.

# [Comments]{.underline}

The conceptual design developed by the Preradiator group is a good match
to the requirements of finding and measuring accurately the photons from
the ^o^ decay. The group has done a very good job and should be
congratulated on the thoroughness of their work.

The cathode strip drift chambers are well-suited to measuring the
position and angle of the ^o^ conversions. This is a well-developed
technology that has been used in other contemporary experiments. TRIUMF
has found a local source for the large 5ft x 5ft fiberglass-epoxy
panels, which are difficult to find.

The scintillator design uses extruded planks with holes for the
wavelength-shifting (WLS) fibers, a technology used by MINOS. Each
scintillator plank is read out at both ends, and a trigger is generated
using mean-timer techniques. The design is both clever and compact.

The WBS structure shows good detail and is fairly complete. It includes
three years of funding for a Project Engineer to provide the engineering
discipline necessary to guide this system through production and
commissioning. The labor costs defined for the chamber-scintillator
production are comparable to the material costs, which seems reasonable.
However, the labor costs for the electronics are significantly less than
the material costs, which may indicate a shortage of estimated labor. In
general, a large fraction of the labor comes from physicists (post-docs,
students, etc.), which poses a risk if the base program funding does not
cover this projected number of physicists.

The estimated base cost for the drift chamber front-end readout is at a
reasonable cost. However, the WBS structure allocates all electronics
labor to the anode readout, and none to the cathode. The labor costs
should be parceled out correctly for each item. The present cost
estimate includes no cost for spares. Clearly these are important, and
it should be a general policy to incorporate at least 10% spares for all
electronics boards and components. This is particularly true for any
components such as Field Programmable Gate Arrays (FPGAs) that are
likely to go out of production before the experiment is finished.

Electronics testing is assumed to be done by the vendors as part of the
production contracts. While this is necessary, it is likely that
additional testing will be required during the final assembly and
commissioning of the Preradiator, which has not been included in the WBS
costs.

Although the External Photon Vetoes are included in the WBS funding
structure, there is no group that currently has the responsibility for
them. The Russian groups will produce the lead-scintillator shashlyk
modules, but the work of integrating and commissioning these modules has
not been allocated.

The cathode strip chambers are excellent antennas and thus are very
susceptible to noise. Solids grounds are essential. Grounding, of
course, is very much an art and this may require considerable work and
testing at Brookhaven during the installation and commissioning which
has not been costed in the WBS.

The contingency of 31% seems low in view of the risks (physicist labor,
additional testing, External Photon Veto integration and installation,
lack of spares, etc.).

# [Recommendations]{.underline}

1\) Evaluate the need for spares and increase the cost estimates
appropriately.

2\) Define the responsibility for integration and installation of the
External Photon Vetoes.

3\) Redo the labor costing for the electronics, allocate the costs to
the correct WBS tasks.

4\) Do a bottoms-up contingency estimate using a better suited algorithm
than the Lockheed formula.

###### Photon Vetoes, Calorimeter, Beam Catcher

[Findings]{.underline}

Photon vetoes: The photon veto system of KOPIO consists of five
subsystems: Upstream, Barrel, Magnet, and Downstream Vetoes, as well as
the External Photon Veto associated with the Preradiator. This system
must achieve photon veto inefficiencies of order 10^-4^ for KOPIO to
succeed. Therefore the demands on this system, both in construction and
monitoring, are extraordinary. The Upstream Veto hermetically covers the
upstream end of the vacuum decay region, while the Barrel Veto surrounds
the vacuum decay region. The Magnet Veto lines the inside of the D4
magnet, although the phototubes are outside region of magnetic field.
The Downstream Veto lines the inside of the downstream vacuum tank.

All parts of the veto systems are a lead/scintillator technology read
out with wavelength- shifting fibers into phototubes. The Barrel Veto
and Preradiator External Photon Veto consist of so-called "shashlyk"
construction, while all other components of the photon veto are "log"
construction. Shashlyk modules consist of a lead-scintillator sandwich,
with the wavelength-shifting fibers perpendicular to the scintillator
tiles and passing though holes in the scintillator and lead. The "log"
construction is also a lead-scintillator sandwich, but with the
wavelength-shifting fibers mounted in grooves along the length of the
scintillator slabs.

The total number of readout channels in all five systems is about 2700.
KOPIO's Russian collaborators have the major responsibly for
construction and testing of all of the photon vetoes. This group has
extensive experience with this technology and a good track record of
delivery for PHENIX, LHC-b and HERA-b. Their cost estimates are detailed
and based on past experience.

The signal will be read out through wavelength-shifting fibers into
phototubes. Tubes from the BNL experiment E949 detector will be recycled
where possible. The Upstream Veto and Barrel Veto will use E949
phototubes, with 20-30% spare phototubes in each case. New phototubes
will be needed from the Magnet Veto and Downstream Veto. The Magnet Veto
will require long optical fibers to bring the light outside of the
magnet region to the phototubes. The Downstream Veto will also require
optical fibers since the phototubes will be outside of the downstream
vacuum tank.

The high voltage supplies and front-end electronics will be uniform
throughout the photon veto system and will be constructed by the Russian
collaborators. Prototypes have been constructed, and an example was
shown at the review.

Calorimeter: The calorimeter will be a shashlyk design, also built by
the Russian collaborators. The total number of channels in the
calorimeter is 1600, read out through avalanche photodiodes (APDs)
rather than phototubes. A specific APD and vendor have been identified.
The front end electronics for the APDs is similar to the photon veto
electronics, but details such as overall gain are modified to fit the
requirements of the APDs. Beam tests indicate that the calorimeter will
achieve the required energy resolution of ΔE/E = 3%/√E(GeV). Prototypes
of the shashlyk Barrel Veto and Calorimeter modules were shown at the
review.

Beam Catcher: The most downstream veto is a novel design to be
constructed by the Japanese collaborators. This detector sits in a very
intense neutron flux. It must be insensitive to neutrons and efficient
at the 99% level for photons of energy 300 MeV and above. The solution
is an aerogel Cherenkov counter with lead converter sheets, read out by
5 inch phototubes. The total number of channels in this sub-detector is
420. The Japanese group has built prototypes and tested them in the KEK
beam. Good agreement between simulations and data has been achieved.
Even though the Beam Catcher is sensitive to only 0.3% of the neutrons,
it still contributes 4-5% dead-time to the experiment.

Light Emitting Diode (LED) Monitoring system: All channels of the photon
veto and the calorimeter will be continuously monitored with an LED
flasher system. This system will be constructed by the Russian
collaborators, who have adopted a design used in LHC-b and have already
chosen a specific blue LED as the light source. It will continuously
monitor the gain of all channels and will detect a component failure
within a few beam spills.

##### Comments

Photon vetoes: The level of photon rejection required by this detector
is extraordinary, but seems achievable. A great deal of effort has
already gone into the design of this system, consistent with its
importance and difficulty.

Spares: Except for the calorimeter, no spares of the front end
electronics are costed in the baseline. Subsystems that are using
photomultipliers from BNL experiment 949 have adequate spare phototubes.
For the cases when new phototubes must be purchased, no spares are
included. In a system such as the photon veto which cannot tolerate even
one dead channel, spares must be included as part of the baseline.

Mechanical mounts and integration: Items that stood out as
not-yet-engineered are the mechanical mounts and details of integration
of the photon vetoes into the rest of the detector. In most cases there
was not even a conceptual design for the mechanical mounts, and the
responsibility is not clearly defined. Design and construction of the
mounts requires some care, since gaps and inert material must be
avoided.

##### Recommendations 

1\) Conduct beam tests of the Photon Veto system as soon as possible to
verify that the extraordinary demands placed on this system are met.

2\) Assign responsibility for the mechanical mounting of the Photon
Vetoes and develop a detailed design.

3\) Include spares in the baseline costing.

###### Charged Particle Veto

######## Findings

The Charged Particle Veto (CPV) is a 2 mm thick segmented scintillator
envelope inside the vacuum vessel to detect charged particles with
\>99.99% efficiency and \~100% solid angle. Neighboring scintillator
plates, with areas up to 40x50 cm^2^, overlap by as much as 2 cm to
avoid cracks in the acceptance. The only hole in the acceptance is at
the vacuum vessel's upstream end. Each scintillator is viewed by 2---3
direct-mount phototubes for redundancy, to compensate for the servicing
inaccessibility. Each phototube is coupled to a Cockroft-Walton style
base. An external LED-based flasher system is used to monitor the gain
stability (to \~20%) and to detect phototube/base failures.

The Zurich group is responsible for the design, fabrication, validation,
shipping, installation, and maintenance of the Barrel CPV, located
inside the main vacuum vessel. The design is well-advanced, and has been
proven with beam tests at PSI. BNL is responsible for the Downstream
CPV, located inside the downstream rectangular pipe of the vacuum
vessel. This design is conceptual. The CPV will adopt the design of the
front-end electronics to be used in the other scintillator-based
subsystems.

######### Comments

A 2---3 mil thick barrier is proposed between the 10^-7^ torr vacuum in
the center of the main vessel and the \~10^-3^ torr vacuum in its
periphery (where the out-gassing Barrel CPV components reside). Perhaps
this barrier will also separate the main vessel's vacuum from the
downstream pipe's \~10^-3^ torr vacuum. This barrier is conceptual, and
there is some apparent tension in its design due to the conflicting
goals of a good central vacuum (to avoid neutron-induced π^0^
backgrounds) and a thin inert-material layer in front of the Barrel CPV
(already wrapped in opaque VM2000). No mechanism for maintaining the
structural integrity of this barrier---to avoid its collapse into the
central volume---has been suggested, but this mechanism will no doubt
contribute to the dead layer budget.

No vacuum barrier is needed for the Downstream CPV, since the downstream
pipe's vacuum is \~10^-3^ torr. However, the opaque barrier must be \~1
mg/cm^2^ thick BaF~2~ so that the effective dead layer is within bounds
for the grazing-entry charged particles.

The electronics procurement and installation cost is included in WBS
1.2.4, but it is not clear if Zurich/BNL or an as-yet-unspecified data
acquisition group will be responsible for the work.

The base cost of this subsystem is reasonable. The cost drivers
(on-detector readout components and scintillator) were probed to WBS
level 7 and were well documented with recent price quotations for
materials and estimates for fabrication/assembly costs. All aspects of
the work, including material procurement, design, labor, testing,
tooling, integration, shipping and installation, are included in the
WBS. The manpower needs, as addressed in the WBS, are adequate.

Integration with the vacuum vessel (feedthroughs for the signals, low
voltage, and LED-flasher fibers; mechanical support of the CPV; heat
transfer; high/low-vacuum barrier design) should be addressed as soon as
possible, to avoid delays in the procurement of the vacuum vessel and/or
later redesign of it to accommodate the needs of the CPV. This has been
recommended earlier in the Vacuum section.

A determination of the steady-state lifetime of the actual phototube
models to be used in the CPV (after initial burn-in to cull any that
suffer infant mortality) is critical and should be performed in a dark
vacuum environment as early as possible. This lifetime is one of the
ingredients in determining the "mean time between failures" (MTBF) of a
CPV element. The same configuration can be used to test for other
potential failure modes (of the mechanical couplings or bases, for
example).

##### Recommendations

1)  Transfer the responsibility for procurement, installation,
    commissioning, operation, and maintenance of the readout electronics
    to the Data Acquisition Group, when it is firmed.

2)  Determine as soon as possible a "mean time between failures" of CPV
    subsystems operated in KOPIO-like conditions.

###### Electronics, Trigger and DAQ 

##### Findings

KOPIO front-end electronics consists of: 1) Photo-detector (avalanche
photodiode -- APD or photomultiplier tube -- PMT) front-ends, followed
by high-speed waveform digitizers; 2) Anode wire time digitizers in the
Preradiator, and 3) Cathode wire ADCs in the Preradiator.

To simplify the front-end electronics, KOPIO will use the same basic
electronics for all photo-detectors in the experiment. The readout
consists of PMT bases and APD preamp/shapers which have been prototyped.
Their outputs feed into 250 MHz ADCs, which can be staggered to obtain
500 MHz sampling. For prototype tests, an 8-channel CAMAC digitizer,
produced by Yale, has been used. The Preradiator chamber electronics
makes use of ASICs developed for LHC and is described under WBS 1.2.2.

Following the front-end, data are concentrated by collector boards and
fed to the Level 1 trigger as well as the data acquisition (DAQ) system.
The dead-timeless Level 1 trigger consists of various FPGA-based logic
boards as well as the experiment timing distribution. A further Level 3
software trigger will consist of a 400-node processor farm. A separate
Level 2 trigger is being left open as an option in case the Level 3
trigger is not sufficiently powerful.

The electronics, DAQ and trigger are conventional designs, with
prototypes existing for most of the front-end. Photo-detectors are
"owned" by sub-systems, and in the present WBS photo-detector front-end
electronics and integration are also "owned" by the sub-system.
Photo-detector calibration systems will be designed by the calorimeter
group and used by all of the experiment. Slow control is part of DAQ. A
common user interface will be provided as part of the online system, and
each sub-system "owns" its slow control data.

The Level 1 trigger will consist of full-custom boards. The Level 1
trigger will be dead-timeless, and is scaleable via backplane
communication. Whereas much of the front-end has been prototyped, the
Level 1 trigger is still in the conceptual design phase, and it is
assumed that new groups from Italy will pick up this task. In addition
to the main physics trigger, triggers are foreseen for calibration,
cosmic rays, pre-scaled ^00^ events (or pre-scaled micro-bunches) but
other triggers are still in the conceptual phase.

The Preradiator chamber electronics (see section 1.2.2) has been
engineered by TRIUMF, which will also oversee production.

##### Comments

The use of a common readout platform for all photo-detectors represents
an efficient and economical choice.

The electronics effort is understaffed. Only a small amount of
engineering, other than for the Preradiator, has been done. Electronics
engineering manpower must be identified to: port the 8-channel
digitizers into a 36-channel 9U VME card, including back-end FPGAs for
data concentration and communication to the DAQ and trigger; design the
data collectors; design the Level 1 trigger boards; and implement
electronics tests, integration and QA/QC.

An experiment integration manager is part of the project. However, the
interface between the integration manager and the electronics activity
-- particularly in matters of grounding -- is not well defined.
Electronics and data acquisition is presently informally coordinated by
Stony Brook.

The schedule is tight in two areas:

1)  The Level 1 trigger has roughly 6 months of float (which is quite
    short for this stage of the project)

2)  A 10x10 calorimeter prototype, with final electronics, is planned to
    be ready in roughly 18 months. This sets a deadline for, at a
    minimum, the waveform digitizers.

The "Lockheed formula" for contingency dramatically underestimates the
appropriate contingency on the electronics. Given sufficient manpower, a
contingency on the order of 50% is not unreasonable. However, if
schedule crunches require employing significant amounts of professional
engineering, costs may be considerably higher. Further, manpower
estimates are not unreasonable, but are more appropriate for an
"iteration" rather than production of the final electronics.

##### Recommendations

1\) Consider forming an electronics group for all electronics exclusive
of the chamber electronics. Appoint a WBS Level 3 electronics manager
who coordinates all of the photo-detector readout, trigger and DAQ.

2\) Add manpower to the electronics, and use that as a metric of
progress.

###### Offline software

######## Findings

The Offline subsystem is responsible for all data that flows out of the
L3 trigger. The hardware consists of off-the-shelf components: a tape
silo (with 4 tape drives and 600 1-tera bytes (TB) tapes) to accommodate
all of the raw data acquired in a 25-week run; a 100-TB disk farm to
store the skimmed data from this run; an 84 dual-CPU processor farm to
analyze a subset of the data in real time at \~1000 events/second; 15
workstations for users; network switches; and racks. The software
consists of the codes and specifications for simulation, event
reconstruction, calibration-constants generation and validation, quality
assurance monitoring, analysis, skimming, and data management.

Non-real-time event reconstruction, calibration constants generation,
reprocessing, analysis, and skimming will be accomplished using the
offline farm, the L3 farm, and off-site computing power at the
collaborators' institutions (utilizing Internet-2 and other high-speed
networking interconnects that are being implemented now for LHC and
similar needs).

The hardware requirements and costs have been determined by a
conservative "Moore's Law" like extrapolation of the performance and
storage capability of equipment available today to FY2009, when the
equipment will be purchased. The number of CPUs needed in the offline
farm is determined by the processing time per event (based on GLAST and
E949 experience) and the 1 kHz processing target. The base hardware cost
is reasonable, and is well-documented with recent price quotations for
comparable equipment. This includes a 0.5 FTE system manager, to be
shared with the L3 trigger group. The WBS for the hardware is complete.

The base software cost is dominated by the salary of one software
professional, who will be responsible for the design of the data format,
the data management system, the analysis framework, the detector
description language, and all documentation. He/she will be assisted by
a no-cost 0.2 FTE/year physicist.

The manpower requirements for code development in FY2005---2010 are
estimated at 9---12 FTE/year of no-cost physicists, rising in the out
years. The present staffing level is 9 FTE.

######### Comments

The software cost is underestimated, unless another FTE, i.e., no-cost
physicist(s), can be named to work with the salaried programmer. The WBS
for the software has a complete list of items, but the timelines for the
work to be performed are still undefined: they will be solidified at a
workshop to be held in Fall 2005.

The timelines for the software work need to be determined sooner so that
code development is not delayed: the proposed software workshop should
be held in Summer 2005. The task managers for each code development
effort should be identified as soon as possible thereafter.

The anticipated workload for the software professional appears to be
spread out uniformly over FY2005---2007. However, the bulk of the design
work should be completed in FY2005, so 2 additional FTE's (no-cost
physicists) may need to be allocated in FY2005 to assist this
professional. Only the software professional and a 0.2---0.5 FTE no-cost
physicist is required in the out years for maintenance and refinement of
the code/data design and continuing documentation work.

The anticipated workload for the code-development no-cost physicists
appears to be spread out uniformly over FY2005-2010. However, the bulk
of the code development (for simulation, event reconstruction,
calibration constants generation, and analysis) should be completed in
FY2005 so that realistic detector simulations that might affect KOPIO
final design can be carried out in FY2006. Therefore, at least 18
no-cost physicist FTE's (preferably each \>0.5 FTE) will likely be
necessary in FY2005-2006, before tailing off to the steady state of 12
FTE's in FY2009 stated in the Offline group's plan. Hence, the Offline
effort appears substantially understaffed.

######### Recommendations

1\) Establish the timelines and task managers for the software
development by the end of summer 2005.

2\) Expand the software development manpower by allocating 10 more FTE
physicists in the early stages of the project.

####### The MECO Detector System (WBS 1.3)

**Overview**

The charge to the MECO subcommittee regarding the MECO WBS element was
to evaluate the "science requirements, technical requirements (flow-down
from science requirements), system design, design and development tasks,
critical design issues, performance simulations, DAQ and data systems,
magnet specifications, background issues, completeness of design,
readiness to proceed, and proper identification and management of
risks." To gather the information and make our evaluation, we met with
the experimental team (headed by Bill Molzon, the spokesperson) for most
of the days of April 20-22, 2005. We would like to acknowledge the
complete cooperation of all the proponents of MECO and the thoroughness
and high quality of their response to our inquiries; they made our work
efficient.

The scientific goal of the MECO experiment is to search for the rare
process, muon-electron conversion, in the field of an aluminum nucleus
with a single event branching ratio sensitivity of 2 x 10^-17^. The
search is to be carried out using the Alternating Gradient Synchrotron
(AGS) at Brookhaven National Laboratory. To achieve this sensitivity the
experimenters plan to collect data for 2 x 10^7^ live-seconds over a
calendar period of 5 years This assumes 24 week/yr AGS operation, equal
sharing of beamtime between MECO and KOPIO during those 5 years, and AGS
intensity of 20 Tp/s. The backgrounds from all sources are expected to
0.25 events in a 2 window around the characteristic energy of 105 MeV.

The four crucial characteristics for success of the experiment are the
muon flux, the interpulse extinction of 10^-9^, the electron-momentum
resolution, and the cosmic-ray veto efficiency. The muon flux and
interpulse extinction depends on developments within the AGS complex and
the operation of the extremely clever magnet system. Other parts of the
RSVP review panel are examining these systems.

A very simplified view of the MECO detector is that electrons from the
conversion are contained in a magnetic field where their momentum is
measured by a straw tube tracker and candidate events trigger the data
acquisition if sufficient energy is observed in a lead-tungstate
calorimeter. The center of the detector is non-interacting to control
the rates from other modes. Backgrounds from cosmic rays are eliminated
by active veto detectors. For the detector to be successful in limiting
backgrounds to the 0.25-event level, the resolution from the straw
tracker, , needs to be 0.29 MeV. This non-Gaussian response function is
also characterized by an equivalent FWHM resolution of 0.90 MeV. The
overall tracking efficiency of is expected to be 80%. The inefficiency
of the cosmic-ray veto system must be less than or equal to 0.01%. The
trigger calorimeter resolution, (cal), must be better than 8% for the
trigger acceptance to be slowly varying above 80 MeV with a value of
80%.

The overall impression of the MECO detector system is positive. The
subcommittee finds the detector to be well designed to meet the
scientific and technical requirements. An experiment that proposes a
10^4^ increase in sensitivity beyond previous measurements cannot be
without risk, but the proponents have identified and planned for the
challenges. The momentum resolution has passed extensive Monte-Carlo
studies and provides only a moderate risk from degraded resolution in
the actual data. The cosmic-ray shield should work. The calorimeter
requirements should easily be exceeded, and the collaboration goal of
better than 6% seems achievable.

-   In our judgment, the experiment appears ready to proceed on
    technical grounds.

In general, the detectors are not particularly high-risk technologies.
All of them have to work well for the experiment to succeed,
particularly the tracking detectors, which make the primary physics
measurement, and must have well-understood momentum resolution. The
calorimeter forms the trigger. If the resolution is not as now
conceived, the consequence is a higher trigger rate but not necessarily
a loss in physics performance. The cosmic ray veto is also relatively
straightforward technology and should be able to eliminate backgrounds
that originate outside the experiment with the required rejection. We
have a general worry about the cost for hidden labor. Student and
physicist labor is accounted for but included at zero dollar cost. And
there is a lot of it involved in the detector construction. This must be
supported by university grants sufficiently to perform the project. The
costs for different subsystems, as provided to us, are listed in the
Table below. These do not include any contingency.

  ------------ -------------------------- --------------- -------------- ------------
               System Name                Material Costs  Labor Costs    Base Cost

  **1.3**      **MECO**                   **\$13,052K**   **\$8,722K**   **\$21,774
                                                                         K**

  **1.3.1**    Extinction                 \$1,062K        \$624K         \$1,686K

  **1.3.2**    Production Target and      \$2,490K        \$219K         \$2,709K
               Shield                                                    

  **1.3.3**    Muon Beamline              \$1,209K        \$1,265K       \$2,473K

  **1.3.4**    Straw Tracker              \$2,280K        \$998K         \$3,277K

  **1.3.5**    Electron Calorimeter       \$3,466K        \$1,177K       \$4,643K

  **1.3.6**    Cosmic Ray Shield          \$1,003K        \$306K         \$1,309K

  **1.3.7**    Trigger and DAQ            \$884K          \$584K         \$1,468K

  **1.3.8**    Simulations and Offline    \$148K          \$113K         \$261K
               Analysis                                                  

  **1.3.9**    Integration and            \$125K          \$1,266K       \$1,391K
               Installation                                              

  **1.3.10**   Project Office             \$386K          \$2,169K       \$2,555K
  ------------ -------------------------- --------------- -------------- ------------

**Straw Tube Tracker**

The straw tracking system measures the trajectory of electrons generated
from the decay of muons in the stopping target. It thus provides a
crucial means of rejecting electrons from the decay of muonic atoms and
accepting electrons from the signal reaction N eN. Since a significant
part of the resolution comes from multiple scattering in the target,
there is some safety factor in the detector performance. Regardless,
great care is required to see that this detector nearly achieves its
design resolution, especially in the face of foreseeable pattern
resolution difficulties.

The straw tracking system faces a major decision in August 2006 to
choose between the L (straws nearly parallel with the magnet axis) and
the T (straws perpendicular with the magnet axis) tracking detector
design. Some simulation work and prototype development are now going
forward at a low level on university budgets. The prototypes have had
some nice preliminary results. The MECO team is waiting for the
beginning of fiscal year 2006 when, if approved, funding will begin for
the design and construction of demonstration prototypes of both the L
and T type tracker.

-   The subcommittee was comfortable with this schedule given that the
    tracker design decision does not negatively impact the overall
    schedule by waiting a year.

The design of the central tracking system is driven mainly by the
requirements of the physics; namely accurate track measurement, large
background rejection and good pattern recognition. The current design
gives a calculated width of the signal electron energy peak of 0.9 MeV
FWMH. The resulting size and complexity of the detector is comparable to
the barrel straw tracking system at ATLAS at CERN.

In general, the technical design does not push the limits of technology.
The use of straws with 15 micron walls in a vacuum, however, is close to
the edge. If the thinner walls induce a problem, the straws with 25
micron walls remain back-up.

The use of gas containing CF~4~ requires special precautions regarding
chamber current and gas water content. With the relatively low chamber
current in MECO, compared to ATLAS for example, there should be a
comfortable operating range in MECO as long as all the wires are gold
plated. If stainless steel or nichrome wires are used to exploit the
charge division option, the aging of the wires will have to be studied.

Nevertheless, it might be advantageous to instrument the unconnected
wire ends in the T- Tracker so that charge division measurements can be
made.

-   Charge division should be studied with simulations in the next few
    months to discover whether a significant increase in performance of
    the tracker is probable.

The simulations should uncover whether the pattern recognition is
substantially improved under adverse rate or background conditions. The
cost of additional channels is relatively small because the high fixed
costs of ASIC production have already been paid.

The schedule appears to be well thought out and matched to the resources
available. In particular there do not appear to be any bottlenecks where
too many tasks are scheduled at the same time.

The total cost of the straw tracker as presently estimated is \$3,277K
without contingency. This number appears to be properly evaluated. The
contingency, taken as 45% additional, is \$1,475K. The main cost drivers
are in the electronics: the design and fabrication of the preamplifiers
take up \$656K, and the same for the digitizers take up \$906K exclusive
of contingency. It is difficult to estimate the contingency on this type
of product, but 45% is at least close (see below). Among the mechanical
items, the straws themselves are the biggest cost driver at \$247K. The
company that makes them, Lamina, is a unique supplier whose product has
been qualified by many experiments. In the past they have been
reasonable about their charges and the 45% contingency should be
adequate.

-   As always with tasks distributed among several groups of
    collaborators, it is important to have a coordinator in the areas of
    mechanical items, electronic items and cost and schedule.

In general the straw tube tracking system shows good preliminary design
and careful attention to detail.

**Calorimeter**

The review of this part of the project is positive. The total cost is
\$4.64M plus 24.3% contingency. The cost estimate is well done and well
documented. The cost drivers are PbWO~4~, for which there are two
foreign vendors and for which the costs appear appropriate at this time.
The second cost driver is the avalanche photo-diodes (APDs) built by
RMD. In this case there is either insufficient data about the yield to
know precisely how many to order, or an increased cost per unit than is
presently used as a result of sending tighter specifications to the
company. Coupled with only 5% spares ordered, there seems to be risk in
the cost larger than the 31% contingency assigned to this part.

-   We suggest both an early order of 10% of the APDs, so that an
    evaluation can be made to better determine the yield of the final
    product, and that the spares-count is increased to at least 10%.

The calorimeter support is to be carbon fiber. However, there is no
engineering, so the 20% contingency seems low by at least a factor of
two on this \$220,000 item. The calorimeter electronics is priced at a
20% contingency level, and is based on vendor estimates for stuffed
boards.

The overall schedule is believable and has sufficient slack that the
calorimeter should be completed well in advance of the project, provided
the delivery of the crystals is not 1.5 times as long as expected. The
subcommittee was impressed by the emphasis on technicians and engineers
for quality control and testing in the subproject.

**Cosmic-Ray Veto**

The cosmic ray veto is essential for the success of the experiment and
is straightforward technology. The cosmic ray veto scintillators
surround the detector and have to reduce external backgrounds by a
factor of 10,000. The use of overlapping scintillator modules with three
layers is an appropriate solution to the problem.

-   However, the project planning is not up to the standards of the
    other detector elements and should be brought to the same level as
    other tasks.

The total cost is listed \$1.3M plus 14.8% contingency. The principal
costs of the extruded scintillating bars and wavelength shifting fiber,
module assembly, multi-anode phototubes, and preamplifier electronics
looks accurate, but there are worries about some details and about
missing items in the cost estimate. For instance, a missing piece of the
cost estimate is several months of travel to support a technician or
engineer in the vicinity of Itasca Plastics in Illinois. The material
for the bars includes a factor of 25% for extrusion waste and for
spares, but there is only 10% spare fiber and that may not be enough.
The wavelength-shifting fiber is to be purchased cut and polished. It is
then to be aluminized on one end, but the cost of the aluminizing
process is not within the cost estimate. Drawing on advice or experience
from Fermilab or from an experienced collaborator would be useful for
handling the fibers. Fixtures needed during assembly are not included in
the cost. As assemblies come together, spare modules are nonexistent.

The detector construction schedule stretches until October 2010, making
this among the last detectors to be finished and is determined by the
university constraints, such as space available for the assembly work
and other resources. It is worrisome that the schedule for assembly does
not include identification and cost of space available at the
university, as that is an issue in this case. It is noted that there is
no post-assembly detector testing and characterization indicated in the
WBS. It is expected that the plan will undergo significant evolution as
further development of the detail occurs. A 50% contingency level would
be more appropriate at this time.

**Electronics**

The Committee has an overall positive view of the MECO electronics and
data acquisition system. The electronics systems considered were the
straw tracker electronics, the calorimeter electronics, the cosmic ray
shield electronics and the trigger and DAQ . The estimated costs, and
costs with contingency are listed in the Table below.

The overall contingency on the electronics is 26%, which traditionally
is rather low for electronics and DAQ. Previous experiments had
contingencies as high as 50% to 70%. The scope of the electronics, the
number of channels, the data rates, and the processing requirements are
all well within the bounds of what has been already achieved in other
experiments. Much of the cost estimate is based on existing designs of
running systems, and appears to the committee to be a conservative
estimate. Given this consideration, the committee's view is that the
cost estimate and contingency is at the right level.

  ----------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------
  System                  Cost                    Cost with Contingency

  Straw Tracker           \$1,652K                \$2,134K

  Electron Calorimeter    \$1,145K                \$1,374K

  Cosmic Ray Shield       \$254K                  \$283K

  Trigger and DAQ         \$1,468K                \$1,897K

  Total                   \$4,519K                \$5,688K
  ----------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------

The committee believes that the collaboration overall has the technical
skills to accomplish the goals of the project, however, there remains a
need for a project electronics engineer. The coordination between the
straw tracker electronics project, the calorimeter electronics project
and the DAQ and trigger needs to be improved.

-   An overall optimization of the electronics systems, paying
    particular attention to the interfaces between the systems and
    commonality of solutions should take place.

The committee believes that while an optimization may result in a
slightly different system design, the overall costs will remain the
same.

There are several minor omissions the committee found during
discussions: 1) The signals from the target monitor, extinction monitor
and magnetic field monitor are not accounted for in the event record; 2)
The cooling for the crates in the racks is also not included in the cost
estimate, even though the title of section 1.3.7.3 is "Enclosures,
Power, Cooling, and Interconnects"; 3) The description of the
electronics for the cosmic ray shield appears to be a place holder for
an actual design.

**Extinction magnet**

The extinction factor of 10^-9^ is crucial to the success of the
experiment. The RF modulated magnet is important to guarantee
achievement of the goal. The subcommittee did not feel technically
qualified to judge the extinction magnet and refers it to the AGS
subcommittee.

**Other tasks**

A number of the tasks associated with the target, vacuum systems, and
software were examined. All cost and labor estimates matched well with
the experience of the subcommittee.

**Management**

The subproject will undergo a change of its project leader. Some
question arose regarding the ease with which UC Irvine will be able to
disperse money throughout the MECO collaboration. Considering this type
of managerial issue, where should the new subproject leader reside,
Irvine or BNL? This decision will soon face the project office.

The collaboration presented its estimate of how much it must grow to
have adequate manpower for carrying out the experiment. The academic
staff (in FTEs) needs to grow by more than 100%, currently estimated to
be 3 faculty, 14 postdocs and 13 graduate students.

-   We estimate the cost of this growth to be \$2.5M/yr to the funding
    agencies and they should plan for the growth.

While the schedule is achievable, there is inadequate float called out
in the project document. An example of where it could be helpful to plan
for float would be to know who to give the highest priority for early
funding in a constrained budget profile.

-   Float should be explicitly added to the detector part of the project
    planning.

The WBS contains some tasks that look like they belong to the
accelerator project. Examples include the extinction magnet and the
proton target, where the AGS staff will apply their expertise to their
proper operation. As they are part of the primary proton beam line, the
accelerator staff will ultimately be responsible for their performance.
However, the experimenters have invested heavily in their success
because of their importance to the experiment. The AGS subcommittee of
this review finds that the experimenters can carry out these WBS
elements so long as they involve the AGS staff at a detailed level in
their development.

As noted by other subcommittees, the Lockheed contingency methodology
seems to fail in the MECO detector application. The resulting
contingency is just too small for a project with the identified
uncertainties.

**[MECO Magnet System]{.underline}**

# Introduction

The magnet system is a key element of the MECO experiment, and at a
fractional base cost of 28%, is the single most expensive and
technically demanding element of RSVP. A high energy proton beam from
the AGS is directed into the bore of the Production Solenoid (PS),
producing pions. A fraction of the resulting muons are captured in the
PS and in the Transport Solenoid (TS). Finally, the muons are brought to
rest in the Detector Solenoid (DS).

# Findings

Brad Smith, manager for the MECO magnet system, described the design as
being between conceptual design and preliminary design. Based on the
information presented, the Sub-Panel concurs. The Sub-Panel wishes to
thank Brad Smith, Joe Tuzullo, George Ganetis, and the other presenters
for their excellent presentations and discussions which were so
essential to this review

**MECO Magnet System Design Details**

The Sub-Panel received presentations on the magnet designs, cryogenic
system and power supplies along with in-depth discussions on them. Based
on this, the Sub-Panel found the designs to be well conceived, with no
significant outstanding issues. However, a number of design
recommendations are made (see the Recommendations section) which are
primarily offered for consideration to reduce costs and possibly reduce
risks. Notes from these presentations are presented below as background
information for the sections which follow:

-   Final design activities are just getting underway in some areas.

-   Magnet system has benefited from multiple successful reviews:

    -   Interim design review in September, 01.

    -   FDR in February, 02.

    -   Magnet Acquisition Panel review in September 02.

    -   RSVP review in October 04.

-   The primary design driver is the field specification.

    -   Field quality is achieved through coil geometry, current
        selection and placement, tolerance analysis (corroborated by
        vendor quotes on dimensioned and toleranced mandrel drawings),
        and fabrication control. An installation alignment procedure has
        been developed to compensate for cool-down deformations; magnet
        mounts permit an additional 1-2 cm of adjustment.

        -   Some studies of the effect of steel properties remain to be
            performed, but are not expected to present difficulties or
            introduce changes to the magnet design philosophy.

        -   Field mapping using Hall probes on cross structures is
            conceptually planned to confirm installation.

-   Brad Smith notes that the field meets all specifications, including:

    -   Temperature. margin \>1.5K

    -   J/J~c~(B,T)\<0.4

    -   Structural design meets the FIRE (Fusion Ignition Research
        Experiment) structural design criteria.

        -   Meets structural criteria throughout transient.

        -   Includes any combination of magnets energized or not,
            cryogenic bores at vacuum or atmosphere, and combined
            thermal, EM, and gravity loads.

-   Superconductor for DS, PS, and TS magnets consist of NbTi soldered
    into a Cu channel. The TS coils near the APS window do not use the
    copper channel.

    -   Cabled SSC superconductor; now in warehouse near MIT will be
        used.

    -   Conductor is similar to G0 superconductor which is now in
        operation.

    -   Conductors from each end of each spool will be tested at BNL for
        J~c~(B,T).

    -   Quench analysis using MIT 3-D

        -   Adiabatic calculation.

        -   Dump initiated when coil resistive voltage \>100 mV for
            \>1s.

    -   Vmax\<2kV; Tmax\<150

-   Insulation:

    -   Turn to turn: ½ lap 0.001" Kapton + ½ lap of 0.004 fiberglass.

        -   R&D planned to evaluate if interleaving glass with Kapton is
            advantageous.

    -   Ground insulation: 40mil of Kapton/ glass. Mix is not specified

        -   Ground voltage is 1 kV using balanced, floating power
            supplies with single point ground.

        -   Ground planes are planned over ground wrap of PS coils.

    -   TS and DS are encased in Cu sheets which perform same function
        as the ground wrap in detecting degradation in ground
        insulation.

    -   Cold leads will have center plane grounded .

    -   Lifetime neutron fluence is 3.3 X 10^20^ neutrons. Total
        estimated dose is 36 Mrads.

        -   It was stated during presentation that mechanical or
            dielectric strength will not be degraded at these levels.
            Data in the literature supports this conclusion.

        -   Radiation induced gas evolution in the insulation needs to
            be adequately addressed in operational plans. The magnet
            group contracted an insulation study with CMI; in their
            report, they recommended that the coils be pumped to remove
            gas and warmed to room temperature at 1/3-life intervals.

    -   Electrical tests: hipot, megger, and turn to turn voltage tests
        planned before and after VPI. Levels were not stated.

        -   The plan is to perform electrical tests before and after
            "cold cycle" 80K --RT and repeat the tests.

-   Magnet fabrication

    -   Build to specification approach is planned.

    -   Fixed price contract(s) after successful Final Design Reviews
        (FDRs).

    -   The current plan is to supply tooling and conductor in order to
        meet schedule.

    -   Schedule:

        -   Complete final design by 3/16/07.

        -   Complete tooling by 4/28/08.

        -   Issue RFPs 10/23/06; 1/3/07; 3/16/07.

        -   Award contracts, 8/30/07; 11/6/07; 1/23/08.

        -   Solenoid fabrication complete 6/9/10.

    -   The magnets will be purchased through MIT's procurement office
        under MIT rules and requirements which will flow down from NSF.

    -   Requests for Information are planned to be issued later this
        year to get feedback on strategy / plans from industry.

**Cost Estimates and Estimating Methodology**

In general, the Sub-Panel found that the estimating approaches for all
three elements of the magnet system (magnets, cryogenic system, and
power supplies) were sound.

1.  Magnet cost estimates and schedules:

    -   Established with MIT-developed process based spreadsheet
        estimates supplemented by vendor quotes and a 2001 General
        Atomics study.

    -   Costs include required G&A for procurements; estimates in
        current \$, industrial labor rates, a G&A rate of 16.2% with a
        13.7% fee added (based on data from the ITER survey).

    -   Contingency, based on the Lockheed formula, resulted in 14% for
        simple items like shipping to 39% for fabrication of complex
        items such as vacuum enclosures or items which are at an early
        stage of development such as the magnetic field mapping. The
        Sub-Panel considers these levels to be appropriate.

    -   The Sub-Panel\'s major concern is the use of a fee of 10 to 13%,
        which may be low for fixed price contracts in which this factor
        would cover both the vendor's profit and contingency for
        unexpected costs.

    -   The currently proposed schedule shown below was judged to be
        realistic but challenging. Funding and project decisions must be
        made on a timely basis for this schedule to be achieved:

        -   Complete final design by 3/16/07.

        -   Complete tooling by 4/28/08.

        -   Issue Requests for Proposals (RFPs): 10/23/06; 1/3/07;
            3/16/07.

        -   Award contracts, 8/30/07; 11/6/07; 1/23/08.

        -   Solenoid fabrication complete 6/9/10.

> It may be necessary to re-assess this schedule if it is decided to
> have the magnet fabricator(s) provide the tooling.

-   There were several aspects of the current plans for design,
    development, and fabrication plans for the magnet that cause
    concerns. The current plan to design, fabricate, and supply tooling
    to the coil manufacturer(s) has serious downside risks. Not only may
    this approach be incompatible with the customary fabrication
    procedures of the manufacturer selected, but it introduces major
    concerns over who is responsible for the tooling performance, for
    manufacturing problems introduced by tooling, schedule delays,
    responsibility for safety, etc.

    -   Magnet system costs increased from \$35M to \$58M recently for
        the following reasons:

        -   Magnet iron added \$2.8M (1500 tonnes of plates bolted
            together)

        -   Cryogenics system was included in this WBS \$4.5+2.6= \$7.1M

        -   Coil Tooling costs were added - ( PS tooling=\$1.9M; TS
            tooling = \$1.65M+1.62 M; DS tooling =\$1.53M Coil tooling
            design =\$0.9M ) Coil Tooling Total = \$7.5 M

> The remaining costs are primarily due to the addition of 2 PS coils, a
> thickness increase in the transport vacuum. liner, the addition of a
> base frame under TS, and the addition of superconductor testing at
> BNL.

2\. Cryogenic System Cost Estimate:

-   The estimate is based on the MIT design. the BNL estimate was very
    close to a recently obtained industrial estimate which is reflected
    in the project estimate for the cryogenic system.

-   The BNL department C-AD expects that design changes can be made
    which will save \~\$500K; even more if conduction cooling of the PS
    magnet is adopted.

-   The cryogenic system is state of the art, but does not break any new
    ground. Highly experienced RHIC engineers and technicians will be
    responsible for the system.

-   1000 W is a standard refrigerator size.

-   There are only 2 qualified suppliers, and both are European.

-   C-AD will install, assemble, test, commission, operate, and perform
    periodic inspections. All of this is well within their capability.

3\. Electrical System Cost Estimate:

> Total cost is \$1903K plus 26 % contingency (Installation cost is
> covered by other systems). Spares are not costed, but there are RHIC
> spares for all except for the high current power supplies; these
> should be costed and added.

-   Very experienced RHIC engineers and technicians will be in charge of
    the MECO electrical system.

-   6 power supplies will be used; they are 12 pulse SCR converters,
    similar to RHIC insertion region design for which specifications
    exist.

-   Having a common design between RHIC and MECO is a maintenance and
    operational advantage. BNL has spares for RHIC which can be shared.
    Existing controls software and hardware can be used. The control
    system and quench protection system is similar RHIC's with slow and
    fast power extraction systems. Mature diagnostics software will make
    commissioning faster.

-   Recent quotes on RHIC components were used in developing the MECO
    cost estimate. The energy extraction resistor cost estimate received
    is high: it is planed to explore ways to reduce the cost.

-   RHIC quench detector design of which 24 are currently in use and
    which are fail safe will be used. The RHIC quench protection system
    with modifications will be adopted.

-   The lack of environmental controls in the RHIC service building
    caused trips on RHIC, especially in spring. This is not expected to
    be an issue for MECO because of operational experience and a better
    quality and different location for the apparatus.

-   Voltage taps across each of the 96 coils and at each joint between
    the coils for redundancy are planned.

> **Project Approach**

-   The Sub-Panel concurred with the current plan for a copper R&D coil,
    the additional superconductor tests which were recently added, and
    the planned additional insulation R&D. However, it is also strongly
    recommended that consideration be given to fabricating a "first
    article" coil to confirm manufacturing and QA plans and magnet
    design and performance.

-   The Sub-Panel applauds the features of the plan to promote buy-in
    and ownership by BNL. Using the cryogenic capability to supply the
    refrigerator system, using the power supply group to supply that
    feature and the quench protection is a very good start of this
    effort. It is recommended that the vacuum system, magnetic field
    measurement and cryostat assembly around the cold mass be regarded
    as other candidates for buy-in.

-   The Sub-Panel commends the plan to adopt as much of the RHIC power
    supply and control system designs and control software as possible.
    This will be advantageous for operation, spares and maintenance.

-   No technical risk assessment has been performed to date; this must
    be performed as soon as possible.

-   The Sub-Panel concurs with the general manpower and management
    plans. MIT, BNL-C-AD, and BNL-SMG all have extremely well qualified
    and experienced managers and key personnel assigned to the magnet
    project. MIT will require a peak of 15 people; currently \~7.5 are
    available. This shortfall is planned to be covered by new hires.

# Recommendations

1.  The current plan to supply tooling for coil manufacturers should be
    re-considered or at least confirmed through discussions with
    potential coil manufacturers since it may not be compatible with the
    manufacturer selected, and introduces concerns over who is
    responsible tooling performance, manufacturing problems introduced
    by tooling, schedule delays due to tooling, responsibility for
    safety, etc. It is suggested that:

    a.  An option where emphasis is placed on finishing FDR's as quickly
        as possible and the tooling is part of the coil subcontracts be
        considered.

    b.  "Bag molding" as an alternative to hard VPI molding be
        considered. It could possibly save cost and schedule.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
1.  Confirm that the large sizes and weights of the units as presently
    planned can be shipped to BNL from suppliers and handled at BNL.

2.  Review if the 13.7% fee (currently used in cost estimates) to
    determine if it is sufficient to cover vendor's contingencies and
    profit which manufacturers will include into fixed price proposals.

3.  A high level of quality assurance (QA) will be necessary for the
    success of the project since a magnet repair with welded cryostat
    design will be very difficult.

    a.  It is recommended that the Specifications and Statements of Work
        (SOWs) be very carefully written and internally peer reviewed to
        ensure that adequate QA is included, all essential functional
        and technical requirements are defined and, where methods are
        critical, that they are extensively described (for example: LN
        cold cycling tests).

    b.  If full time on site QA is planned, it should be defined in the
        SOW so it is negotiated up front.

    c.  A cryostat design which anticipates the need for access for
        maintenance or repairs should be considered.

4.  Introduce an offset in the cryogenic and utility feeds of the
    magnets to improve maintainability.

5.  Consider further the concept of short cold bus runs between the
    cryostat and the vapor cooled copper leads, all of which would be
    inside the shield wall. Conduction cooled buses appear to be a lower
    cost option than the RHIC cold-cross connect concept. Costs for
    planned RHIC type cold cross connects are high (now costed at
    1083K\$ - for equipment, WBS 1.5.2.17.3, and 890K\$ - for
    installation, WBS 1.5.3.15)

6.  The Sub-Panel was pleased to learn that consideration is being given
    to a PS and TS magnet cryostat design approach to improve the
    possibility of making repairs and easing shipping concerns. Under
    discussion is the proposal for BNL to be responsible for the
    assembly of the cryostats around delivered cold masses. If this
    approach is adopted, it should be critically examined and peer
    reviewed.

7.  Current plan to cold cycle test the coils should be reviewed.

    a.  It is essential to assure that magnets are not damaged during
        this test by excessively severe thermal transients or condensed
        moisture.

    b.  As an alternative, shipping one or more of the first coils of
        each type to BNL for superconducting operational tests should be
        considered. The Sub-Panel strongly concurs with the current plan
        to have the manufacturers supply completed cold masses; the cold
        test program would need to be accommodated by either returning
        an individual coil to the manufacturer after tests or installing
        the tested coil at BNL.

8.  It is recommended that consideration be given to making the
    manufacturer's first article coil a prototype. Since a total of 96
    coils are required, this addition would be a relatively minor cost
    increase. A TS coil is suggested because of the high number of coils
    and their smaller radius. This first article would confirm
    manufacturing and QA plans and magnet design and performance.

9.  A reduction of the number of coils in the PS and DS should be
    considered. This may simplify the design and could reduce costs, but
    will require a new and detailed magnetic field analysis.

10. Where possible, an increase in the electrical insulation thickness
    to make it more tolerant of manufacturing irregularities should be
    considered, and:

    a.  Develop insulation design / test criteria and peer review them
        thoroughly.

    b.  Confirm the dielectric strength with tests of actual materials
        planned for use.

11. It is recommended that electromagnetic load analysis, field
    analysis, and structural analyses of closely interfaced items such
    as the production target, radiation shield, anti proton absorber
    windows be performed by the magnet group.

12. A separate vacuum system for the target area, independent of the
    cryostat should be seriously considered. This will simplify magnet
    design and alignment. It is recognized that this is not an easy
    task, and will require some thought.

13. No safety issues were identified; however, it is recognized that
    this project will require a number of safety reviews. Therefore it
    is strongly recommended that ES&H reviews be explicitly included in
    schedules and manpower plans.

14. Although many power supply spares can be shared with RHIC, spares
    should be added for the unique components. The BNL engineer roughly
    estimates the cost of spares to be \$50 -60K.

15. Costs given for field measuring (31 days +\$70K for equipment)
    appear low and should be reviewed.

16. It is recommended that the magnetic field specifications be
    finalized as quickly as possible. This is necessary for the magnet
    work to proceed efficiently.

17. Although the Sub-Panel was made aware of an earlier recommendation
    by the Magnet Oversight Group to consider conduction cooling for the
    PS magnet, the Sub-Panel has serious reservations as to the
    advisability of pursuing this design change in view of the
    uncertainties inherent in the calculations of the magnitude of the
    nuclear heating and its effect on the temperature margin of the
    superconductor.  The Sub-Panel recommends that pool boiling  helium
    remain the preferred cooling method for the PS magnet.

18. Materials in heavily irradiated areas should be carefully chosen to
    minimize activation. This will be beneficial both to maintenance and
    to the ultimate disposal and decontamination and decommissioning
    cost.

**[AGS/Booster Upgrades (WBS 1.4)]{.underline}**

Summary

This part of the project consists of upgrades to the AGS, AGS Booster
and beam lines to meet the physics demands of MECO and KOPIO in a way
consistent with uninterrupted RHIC operation. This involves the
replacement of some radiation damaged components, replacement of certain
devices and the addition of others to meet the special experimental
requirements of RSVP. Beam lines must also be rebuilt to meet the
special requirements.

We concluded that this part of the project is well planned and the costs
conservatively estimated. We find the schedule for final engineering,
procurement, installation and commissioning to be quite aggressive,
leading to concomitant schedule risk. The need for continuous high
intensity running while maintaining beam quality needed for success
presents challenges of a unique nature. Beam halo and extinction quality
will be intensity dependent and achieving the needed values could limit
the intensity, thereby extending the operating time required to meet the
physics goals. As it will not be practical to assess these matters
experimentally until very late in the project, it will be important to
use all of the simulation tools now available to gain confidence that
the designs will meet the requirements or to show in a timely fashion
that modifications are required.

# Technical Approach and Feasibility of meeting MECO and KOPIO Requirements

A table of the technical specifications that the accelerator complex is
required to provide to the experiments was made available to the
committee, and is included in the conceptual design report. The
challenging components of the requirements are the overall charge, the
peak current, timing considerations, and a specification on the absence
of particles between micropulses, a parameter that the project refers to
as "extinction". Many of these requirements have already been met by the
AGS in previous operation. The committee is most concerned about the
extinction requirement. For the MECO experiment the requirement is
10^-9^. This has not been provided in operation, although a low
intensity experiment yielded 10^-7^. Simulations and, where possible,
experiments need to be done to continue to provide confidence that this
parameter can be met. There are multiple systems in the baseline to deal
with extinction. First is an AC magnet, kicker system in the AGS itself.
Second is a gap cleaning system in the switchyard using a high frequency
resonant dipole. This could not be tested until late in the construction
process. The committee feels that there should not be any showstoppers
in this technique, but that thorough simulations need to continue to:

-   better define engineering specifications (e.g., tolerances)

-   indicate where the kicked out particles end up (what gets activated)

-   provide confidence that the extinction criteria can be met

*Management Issue* : The resonant dipole is one of several systems which
presently resides in a WBS other than 1.4, although it will ultimately
be the responsibility of BNL to maintain and operate. There is debate
within the project as well as within the review committee whether this
responsibility should be transferred to BNL. The committee encourages
the project to ensure that the responsibilities for these systems are
clearly defined and that the other party is fully involved in a complete
and formal review process.

# Technical Approach and Feasibility of the Required AGS Upgrades

-   The project has noted that there are four drivers for AGS upgrades:

-   Ensure that RSVP Operations do not interfere with RHIC

-   Ensure that RSVP operations comply with BNL environmental protection
    guidelines

-   Ensure clean operation at high intensity

-   Provide unique RSVP operational requirements

The first three of these are fairly straight forward upgrades involving
replacement of standard components. The committee believes they are
feasible, and not challenging. The final driver, providing for the
unique RSVP requirements will be more challenging, but are feasible and
well thought out. Many of the techniques have been demonstrated. We
continue to express concern that they must provide the science
requirements at the very high intensities needed, and with a number of
new components installed in the AGS that could excite instabilities.
This needs the attention of extensive simulations, and experiments where
possible.

-   Application of extensive simulations and experiments, where
    possible, are needed

# Overall Readiness of RSVP WBS 1.4 to Proceed to Construction

The committee was told by the project that they believe they are ready
to proceed with construction of all components. The committee concurs
with this conclusion on all the components in the first three categories
noted in above charge element. We are less certain on the new items
needed for RSVP scientific requirements. However, we don't believe there
are fundamental issues that would require significant engineering, so
that the project could proceed with long lead or critical path items.

# Likely Duration of Construction, Commissioning and Operation

The committee believes that the construction schedule can be met but
that commissioning and the full achievement of required beam parameters
will take longer than anticipated. As noted above, there is schedule
risk for the duration of operations arising from the need for continuous
high intensity operation.

## Technical Metrics for Progress

Performance of the AGS has been monitored against technical metrics for
many years. Key metrics are total charge, peak current, repetition rate,
beam energy, and the temporal properties of the extracted beam. These
metrics are presented in tables, for best past performance and for RSVP
needs. As noted earlier the new challenging metric is "extinction",
namely the measure of particles outside of the extracted micro bunches.
It will not be possible to measure this accurately until well into
construction. However it is planned to measure extinction in the
beamline, and by the experiments.

Suggested end of project metrics for AGS/Booster are: MECO -- 10 TP/
pulse; slow extracted from AGS; extinction measured externally 10E^-8^
with internal extinction system operating; rep time of \<10s; dp/p \<
1.5 of design goal.

# Assessment of Cost and Schedule by Examining WBS Plan Down to the Lowest Level

We drilled down in several different areas. The "area categories" are:
complex new items (extinction hardware), labor intensive tasks (cable
replacement), straightforward procurements (F6 septum), and large ticket
items (booster and AGS caps, the largest single item). In each case we
found the cost estimates to be well based, detailed and contain adequate
ED&I. Labor hours were counted based on tasks that BNL engineers have
performed. In cases where there is uncertainty, healthy line item
contingency was assigned (although the overall WBS 1.4 contingency from
the bottoms-up derivation is 24.4%).

*Example ( WBS 1.4.2)*: The beam line design is not yet finalized and
aperture requirements need review. Mechanical modifications : The
costing was based on similar work preformed for the Spallation Neutron
Source; Installation: A bottom up estimation for the installation of one
magnet and its power supply was done. The comparison was made to a
historical installation of a particular beam line by looking at the time
for installation of the whole beam line divided by the number of
elements. The agreement was satisfactory and was a good consistency
check on the number of hours needed; Vacuum: A detailed look at the cost
of the vacuum part of the switchyard inside the AGS enclosure was
carried out. A bottom up figure of \$13.5K was derived and \$15K was
entered in the Project spread sheet; Instrumentation: The cost of the
external profile monitors (EPM) was examined. These devices have been
built in the recent past and there is a provision to reuse some parts.
The cost estimate appears sound.

*Management Issue*: The current view seems to be that the experiment
will be in control of the beam line including the final extinction
device. There is a potential for conflict between the accelerator
operations group and the experiment operations. This needs attention.

# Completeness of the WBS Structure

At this stage of the project we feel that the work scoped in WBS 1.4 is
not omitting any major items. The overall project contingency of 45%,
will cover minor omissions. It is worth noting that the AGS team that
will perform this work just completed the SNS ring, utilizing less than
5% contingency from the original baseline. We note that spares needed
for RSVP operation are not included in the baseline although spares
needed for reliable RHIC operation in concert with RSVP operation are
included. This does present some operational risk to RSVP since a
failure of one of these components will not only cause RSVP downtime,
but also consume RSVP operating funds.

# Conclusion

While there is engineering work and extensive simulation work yet to be
done, the WBS 1.4 part of the project is under control. As mentioned
above, the nature of the project makes it difficult to estimate now the
needed operating period duration adding a schedule risk with concomitant
cost risk.

## [Operations and Preoperations Costs]{.underline}

##### **Summary costs and risks** 

*The operating costs are evaluated in FY-05 dollars for the three
requested scenarios ("healthy RHIC", "1/3 healthy RHIC", no DOE support
for RHIC/AGS operations), assuming an energy cost of \$65/MWhr. This
energy rate has been negotiated through 2008 and is likely to go up
during actual RSVP operations. The costs in parentheses are actual-year
dollars calculated for an overall inflation rate of 3.5% per year. The
risk of higher than inflation power cost increases has not been
assessed. These cost estimates are based on stated integrated
intensities required for the achievement of the proposed scientific
goals: 4 x 10^20^ protons for MECO and 6 x 10^20^ protons for KOPIO.*

### Cost of meeting RSVP needs in "Healthy RHIC" scenario \$110 M (\$156 M)

#### Completion of the planned program in 9 years of operations, FY11-FY19

### Operating cost for "1/3^rd^ Healthy RHIC" \$139 M (\$195 M)

#### Completion of the planned program in 8 years of operations, FY11-FY18

#### Assumes alternating years of RHIC-only and RSVP-only operations, with 42 weeks for RSVP during the on-year

#### Meets MECO integrated luminosity need, KOPIO integrated luminosity need within 10%

#### Added cost (compared to "Healthy RHIC") \$29 M (\$38 M)

### Operating cost if RHIC/AGS operations is not supported by DOE \$274 M (\$361 M)

#### Completion of the planned program in 5 years of operations, FY11-FY15

#### Assumes 4 years of AGS operations at 43 weeks/year and 1 year at 25 weeks per year

#### Added cost (compared to "Healthy RHIC") \$164 M (\$205 M)

### Increased support of university groups to run experiments \$5 M/yr

#### Same level of support is needed during construction: total of \$25 M

#### During RSVP operations, the total burden to the core HEP/NP programs at DOE and/or NSF will be between \$25-45 M (\$33-64 M) depending on scenario

### D&D (Decontamination and Decommissioning) costs have been estimated at \$20 M. They have not been incorporated into the operations budget, but are part of the total R&RA budget. There is a significant risk that the actual cost can increase significantly due to changing regulations and/or unanticipated findings during actual D&D. Neither this risk, nor inflation have been quantified.

### Additional cost risks occur related to slippages in schedule, uncertainties of the ultimate beam intensity, background issues, and degree of success in the beam elimination strategy. These risks have not been quantified.

###  {#section .unnumbered}

## Detailed findings -- Operations Cost

RSVP operations costs reflect the incremental costs to the RHIC program
that cover expected incremental needs for the accelerator-beam transport
system including the H^-^ ion source, RFQ linac, 200 MeV linac, Booster
synchrotron, the AGS, extraction, switchyard transport, proton transport
to the 2 target stations for KOPIO and MECO, the neutral kaon beam for
KOPIO and the muon beam line for MECO.

The accelerator and beam-line system needed to operate RSVP includes 4
accelerators with over 300 magnets and a comparable number of power
supplies, approximately 1400 meters of vacuum system and components,
pertinent RF systems, instrumentation, access control systems, radiation
security systems. The operating costs reported include the incremental
costs for electrical power, crafts and shops support, computer network
infrastructure, waste management expenses, HVAC, and, in addition, the
cryogenic operations of the MECO solenoid transport and detector magnet,
as well as all the utilities and infrastructure support for the
accelerator, beam line magnets and power supplies and vacuum systems, as
well as physics, engineering and technical support for both KOPIO and
MECO.

### Not included in these cost are the costs of running the detectors by the experimental groups nor the costs of analyzing the experiments. These costs are not fully determined and are supposed to be covered by the HEP/NP base programs. A crude guess of this additional obligation for the base program is of the order of \$2.5 M/year/experiment, \$5M/year total in FY2005 dollars. This requires an approximate commitment of \$25-45 M by the base budgets over 5-9 years.. Assuming 3.5% inflation per year, the actual-year totals are estimated at \$33-64 M, depending on operating scenario.

### The cost of preoperations, is estimated at approximately \$12 M (\$4 M/year, over three years). The first two years are identified in the R&RQA budget and the third year is identified in the MREFC budget. BNL estimates the total actual-year cost for pre-operations and commissioning at \$15.4 M. This cost has been analyzed for the "healthy" RHIC funding scenario, but is not likely to increase much for the 1/3^rd^ "healthy" RHIC scenario since the needed RSVP commissioning runs are short (8 weeks) and can be spread over the entire RHIC operations period. If DOE funding of RHIC/AGS is terminated, the full AGS operating cost must be carried by RSVP.

### Normal, experience-based mitigation of unscheduled downtime from component failures (appropriate spare parts) is included via the M&S component of the operating budget.

BNL has analyzed the cost of several running scenarios by using an
experience-based model for the manpower needs. They include models with
concurrent RHIC operations, combinations with and without concurrent
operations and two models for 25 and 42-week runs without RHIC
operational during the running year. In the "Healthy RHIC" scenario, 15
weeks of operation is concurrent and 10 weeks is for RSVP alone. BNL has
provided a model for "1/3 Healthy RHIC". This model would address
situations in which RHIC is only funded to operate a combined run every
2 years. During the off year, RSVP would receive an increased proton
flux per hour, as there would be no need to use the AGS for RHIC
injection. This increase in intensity occurs also for the portion of the
"Healthy RHIC" operation that is for RSVP alone. The magnitude of this
week-averaged intensity gain can be up to 50%, depending on the ion
species delivered to RHIC. The cost model is based on a full cost
recovery of all aspects of operations. The assumptions about the RHIC
scenario are somewhat arbitrary and are meant to display a reasonable
range of possibilities. Actual costs will depend on the funding for
RHIC, and over the several years of operations, can be a combination of
the several scenarios. We expect that the actual costs will fall
somewhere within the range of scenarios presented here.

The manpower need is estimated on an incremental basis to the RHIC
staff, because the base RHIC staff is insufficient to support RSVP
operations without the additional personnel. RSVP operations will use
the combined matrixed RHIC and RSVP staff to run the program. The
estimated incremental staff of 18 FTE for concurrent operations with
RHIC is reasonable, based on past experience. A detailed work-load
analysis for this staff does not exists and cannot yet be developed in
good faith years ahead of actual operations.

The budget scenario for "1/3^rd^ Healthy RHIC" operations requires
additional effort to compensate for the anticipated loss in RHIC
personnel: BNL estimates that NSF funding for 33 FTE will be needed for
25 weeks operations and 45 FTE for 42 weeks operations during a non-RHIC
running year. The 25 and 42 week/year models assume that RHIC and RSVP
would operate in alternating years. The AGS stand-alone model
(termination of the RHIC program) requires support for 135 FTE.

The tables below summarize possible RSVP operations plans for three RHIC
support scenarios ("Healthy RHIC", "1/3 Healthy RHIC", "No DOE Funds for
RHIC/AGS Operations"). All costs are in FY05 dollars and assume the
currently negotiated energy cost of \$65/MWhr -- a rate that BNL has
negotiated through 2008. Included in parentheses are actual-year dollars
based on an annual inflation rate of 3.5%. While the energy cost is
likely to go up during actual RSVP operations, the risk of power cost
increases higher than inflation has not been assessed further.

  ------------ ---------- --------- --------- ------------ --------- ----------- --
  **Healthy                                                                      
  RHIC Funding                                                                   
  Scenario**                                                                     

               Cost                 MECO                   KOPIO                 

  year         FY05-M\$   AY-M\$    weeks     protons      weeks     protons     
                                              (10^20^)               (10^20^)    

  2011         12.4       (15.2)    0                      25        0.7         

  2012         11.6       (14.8)    25        0.9          0                     

  2013         12.9       (17.0)    0                      25        1.1         

  2014         11.6       (15.8)    25        1.5          0                     

  2015         12.5       (17.6)    0                      25        1.1         

  2016         11.3       (16.5)    25        1.6          0                     

  2017         12.5       (18.9)                           25        1.1         

  2018         12.5       (19.5)                           25        1.1         

  2019         12.5       (20.2)                           25        1.1         

  Totals       109.8      (155.6)             4.0                    6.2         
  ------------ ---------- --------- --------- ------------ --------- ----------- --

The preferred mode of operations in the "Healthy RHIC" funding scenario
is 25 weeks per year RSVP operations to allow time for RHIC startup and
maintenance. The table assumes 10 weeks of AGS stand-alone operations
for RSVP and 15 weeks of concurrent RSVP and RHIC operations (with 10
weeks heavy ions and 5 weeks protons in RHIC through 2014 and 5 weeks of
heavy ions and 10 weeks of protons in RHIC starting in 2015). The total
operations cost in FY05 (actual year) dollars would be \$110 M (\$156
M). An additional \$45 M (\$64 M) for university support would have to
be provided from the base HEP programs at NSF and/or DOE.

The other two scenarios do not involve concurrent RHIC and AGS
operations. In the "1/3 Healthy RHIC" funding scenario, RHIC operations
would alternate with AGS stand-alone operations with 42 weeks of RSVP
running time during the on-years. In this scenario, the program could be
completed in 8 years. The total operations cost in FY05 (actual year)
dollars would be \$139 M (\$195 M). An additional \$40 M (\$56 M) for
university support would have to be provided from the base HEP programs
at NSF and/or DOE.

  ------------ ---------- --------- --------- ------------ --------- ------------
  **1/3                                                              
  Healthy RHIC                                                       
  Funding                                                            
  Scenario**                                                         

               Cost                 MECO                   KOPIO     

  year         FY05-M\$   AY-M\$    weeks     protons      weeks     protons
                                              (10^20^)               (10^20^)

  2011         4.0        (4.9)     0                      0         

  2012         30.4       (38.7)    21        1.1          21        0.6

  2013         4.5        (5.9)     0                      0         

  2014         30.4       (41.4)    21        1.6          21        1.1

  2015         4.5        (6.3)     0                      0         

  2016         30.4       (44.4)    17        1.3          25        1.4

  2017         4.0        (6.0)     0                      0         

  2018         30.4       (47.5)    0                      42        2.4

  Totals       138.6      (195.3)             4.0                    5.5
  ------------ ---------- --------- --------- ------------ --------- ------------

If there should be no DOE funds for RHIC/AGS operations, the preferred
mode for RSVP operations would be 4 years of AGS stand-alone operations
with 42 weeks/year followed by 1 year with 25 weeks. The total
operations cost in FY05 (actual year) dollars would be \$274 M (\$361
M). An additional \$25 M (\$33 M) for university support would have to
be provided from the base HEP programs at NSF and/or DOE.

  ------------ ---------- --------- -------- ----------- -------- ----------- --
  **No DOE                                                                    
  funds for                                                                   
  RHIC/AGS (42                                                                
  weeks/year                                                                  
  ops)**                                                                      

               Cost                 MECO                 KOPIO                

  Year         FY05-M\$   AY-M\$    weeks    protons     weeks    protons     
                                             (10^20^)             (10^20^)    

  2011         56.7       (69.7)    0        0           42       1.2         

  2012         56.7       (72.1)    42       2.2         0                    

  2013         56.7       (74.7)    0                    42       2.4         

  2014         56.7       (77.3)    23       1.8         19       1.0         

  2015         47.5       (67.0)    0                    25       1.4         

  Totals       274.3      (360.8)            4.0                  6.0         
  ------------ ---------- --------- -------- ----------- -------- ----------- --

An alternate operating plan with only 25 weeks/year RSVP operations
would reduce the annual expenditure rate from \$56.7 M to \$47.5 M, but
the total operations cost would increase to \$333 M (\$454 M) since it
would require two additional years of operations. The additional support
needed for university groups would increase to \$35M (\$48 M) in this
scenario.

##### Approach used by BNL for cost breakdown

The RSVP manpower estimate has been broken down into 8 categories.

#### The "machine" category consist of physicists, engineers and technicians that are in the main control room and provide for the trouble-shooting and repair of machine components. 

#### The "controls" group supports all the machine and beam line hardware and software. 

#### The "beams" group maintains all the switchyard and external beam line components, such as power supplies, vacuum, instrumentation and provides the support watch during operations. 

#### The "utilities" group maintains and operates, the power, water, HVAC etc. utilities for the accelerators, beam lines and experiments.

#### The "access control" group provides the necessary support and testing of all the safety systems for the accelerators and experimental area.

#### The "experiment" group provides the direct technician support that the AGS provides to KOPIO and MECO and responds to the experimenter requests. This includes the liaison physicist and engineer who have the responsibility for the care and feeding of their assigned experiment. 

#### "Beam tuning" is one of the major responsibilities for the physicist at the initial stages of operations. The experimental groups invariably lack the adequate technical support staff to prepare, modify and repair much of their equipment. 

#### The "cryogenic" group has the responsibility to operate and maintain the cryogenic equipment for MECO.

The budget estimates are broken down into the following categories:

#### Salary -- includes wages, overtime, shift differential and fringe;

#### Distributed technical services -- includes the purchased services of BNL trades, crafts and shops;

#### Purchases -- includes the purchases of materials, supplies, expendables, spares;

#### MECO fixed cost -- includes the year round base costs to keep the solenoids cold;

#### Power -- includes the incremental power costs to operate all the accelerators and beams for RSVP and assumes a newly negotiated rate of \$65/MWhr;

#### Waste management -- includes the costs to remove and ship various wastes, both hazardous and radioactive;

#### Overhead -- includes the BNL overhead, allocations, material handling burden and the C-AD organizational burden piece that supports the RSVP part of the costs for BNL ES&H oversight, experimenter training, radiation technician (health physics) support, computer network infrastructure support and department administrative and financial support.

#### 

## Detailed Findings -- Operations Planning and Risks

##### ES&H planning

BNL has done a good job in identifying hazards and ES&H documentation
requirements that must be met for commissioning and operations. The
group is aware that they will need SAD's (Safety Analysis Documents),
ASE (Accelerator safety Envelope), ARR (Accelerator Readiness Review), a
commissioning plan and conduct of operations document. As appropriate at
this stage, the documentation needs have been identified and are
understood. There will sufficient time to develop and document the
detailed ES&H plans if RSVP proceeds. At this early stage no issues of
concern are identified.

##### Spare Parts

While some significant upgrades are planned to improve the reliability
of AGS high intensity operations, no spare parts specific to RSVP needs
are planned -- in the (reasonable) hope that major components (e.g.
magnets, electrostatic septum)) would not fail during the planned
lifetime of RSVP. The operating plan includes an experience-based budget
for expected replacement and for building needed spare parts when the
needs are clear. If, for example, the septum should fail, the AGS could
run in a less than optimal mode while a spare is being put together. The
operations group is also planning to purchase selected long lead-time
items that would help mitigate the amount of downtime for single point
failures. While this strategy helps contain cost, it also entails an
enhanced risk of sometimes running at lower intensity -- or not at all.

##### Operations Plan

BNL has developed the various operating plans depending on the different
RHIC funding scenarios, but it must be also recognized that these plans
will evolve over time as the project gets closer to pre-operation and
operation. The AGS group has an outstanding track record (50 years of
experience) in operating the accelerator, and they have run at high
intensity (710^13^ protons/spill) in the past. Much of their operations
planning is based on past experience. There is some unknown risk of
instabilities developing in the particular running modes required for
RSVP at intensities above about 610^13^ protons/spill that could cause
unwanted beam losses or unanticipated problems with the cleanliness of
the beam extinction. The magnitude of this potential risk will remain
unknown until the required beams can be developed and the extinction can
be diagnosed. This should clearly be done as early in the project as
possible.

The issue of beam intensity is most critical for MECO. KOPIO has the
ability to mitigate the impact of lower than expected beam intensity by
adjusting the AGS duty factor to optimize the experiment's sensitivity.
For instance, a 30% reduction of beam intensity would only result in a
12% reduction in sensitivity.

[Production Target Region of MECO]{.underline}

We asked more detailed questions about the equipment in the vicinity of
the muon production target region of MECO and arrived at the following
findings:

### The external magnetic field of the MECO solenoid extends out to very large distances -- the 5 Gauss contour is nearly at the outer walls of the experimental hall. Additional analyses of the effects of this field are needed -- in particular the iron-dominated proton beam transport near the solenoid may be affected. Regions from which electric motors and power transformers must be excluded must be defined as well as the region in which magnetic tools must be excluded. Analyses of the forces on the transport magnets are also needed.

### In the event of a quench, this external field will drop rapidly. Some components may heat up -- in particular the copper heat shield surrounding the production target might have a problem -- and substantial mechanical forces may appear at the heat shield and beam transport magnets. An analysis of the mechanical and thermal stresses on equipment in the external field region and inside the P solenoid needs to be done.

### Conversely, the effect of the soft iron beam transport magnets near the production target on the field inside the solenoid needs analysis that has yet to be provided.

### The proposed production target, vacuum windows, and heat shield designs seem adequate. However, the mechanical design of the support mechanisms for the production target and the heat shield need to be more robust -- and the superconducting magnet designers suggest that the 30-ton heat shield should not be supported from the magnet cryostat.

### The radiation shielding provided by the heat shield appeared to be adequate, but there is only a safety factor of x2-3 in both the thermal load on the superconducting coils and the radiation lifetime of the organic materials in the magnet coils. The detailed design process for the superconducting solenoids of MECO should be carefully monitored to assure that these safety factors are not compromised. We heard from committee member Steve St. Lorant about a 5-Tesla superconducting solenoid that survived 1011 Rads at SLAC. The lessons learned from the post mortem of this design should be incorporated into the MECO magnet. 

### The radiation shielding provided by the heat shield, together with the coil design, results in the temperature margin of 1.5 K (which is the design criteria value) for the superconductor at the peak nuclear heat load. The peak radiation induced heating contributes to a temperature rise of \~0.1K. Therefore it would be reasonable to expect that the magnets could operate at nuclear heating multiples of 2-3 times this, albeit with a reduced temperature margin of 1.3-1.4 K, which is still a reasonable margin. The maximum calculated radiation dose to the insulator is 3.6x10^7^ rads; the literature indicates epoxy-glass can withstand \~10^9^ rads with reasonable radiation damage. We heard from committee member Steve St. Lorant about a 5-Tesla superconducting solenoid that survived 10^11^ Rads at SLAC. The lessons learned from the post mortem of this design should be incorporated into the MECO magnet. MECO\'s operating scenario must take into account the possibility of radiation-induced gas evolution insulation damage. Based on a contracted study of this, the magnets should be pumped to remove the hydrogen gas which is evolved on warmup from the epoxy by radiation exposure and they should be warmed up to room temperature at insulation. Continued attention to detail during the final design and construction is necessary to assure that these valuable design margins are not compromised. 

### Considerable experience with large-volume external magnetic fields was gained in the G-2 experiment at BNL. Bringing some of this experience to the MECO team would be a wise move. Further, the superconducting magnet group is well-equipped to handle the issues of heating and forces in the event of a quench. This group should be able to quickly evaluate quench-induced effects in the MECO production target heat shield, a calculation that has not yet been done. They may also be in a position to evaluate effects of external soft iron magnets on the internal field of the MECO solenoid and forces on these soft iron magnets. 

### 

.

# [Management]{.underline} 

# Findings and Comments

RSVP is joint responsibility of NSF with US and international university
and national laboratory partners. The DOE, through Brookhaven laboratory
has the responsibility to upgrade and operate the AGS to meet the RSVP
requirements and for onsite integration and installation of the
experiments and AGS upgrades.

RSVP is embedded in an unusual management environment that has the
following elements:

-   An NSF project using the accelerator facility at Brookhaven, a DOE
    National Laboratory.

-   Shared agency responsibility for the accelerator facility: the NSF
    would support incremental AGS operating costs assuming that DOE
    funding for base operations continues for the needed operating life
    of the MECO and KOPIO experiments.

-   Brookhaven as host laboratory for RSVP is very supportive of the
    science and project but is not a sponsor that could provide
    supporting resources. DOE is also not a direct sponsor of the
    project.

-   The host laboratory as a DOE laboratory does not have full
    responsibility for the success of the NSF project.

-   The RSVP project itself is very complex with project offices at
    Columbia and BNL and four almost stand-alone subprojects, including
    two complex multi-university experiments---KOPIO and MECO and two
    technical subprojects---the MECO magnet, and a series of AGS
    upgrades as well is the task of integrating these elements. There is
    a transition now taking place from distributed management of the
    sub-projects to a centralized management of RSVP as a single
    project.

-   From the DOE perspective the DOE Brookhaven Site Office has
    oversight responsibility for the AGS scope including integration of
    the project and so has assigned a Federal Project Director for this
    part of RSVP.

After much negotiation a unique and complicated management structure has
been developed to address this situation and to account for the needed
oversight given the responsibilities of the two funding agencies and
Brookhaven. The management structure can be viewed as a work in progress
and, as such, should be given adequate time to see if it works. If not,
changes should be made.

For RSVP to be successful, coherent and cooperative management and
communications is needed within and between the project team, the host
lab, the scientific collaborations, the agencies (NSF and DOE), and the
foreign partners. Since the ultimate scientific success of RSVP is the
overriding consideration, this requirement extends well beyond the needs
of just executing a successful MRE project.

A key challenge for all of these entities is the integration of the
existing semi-autonomous sub-projects into a single well-managed project
focused on delivering what is needed to achieve the scientific goals of
RSVP.

During the past year with the appointment of an RSVP Project Director
and deputy, RSVP has embarked on the difficult transition from two
semi-independent experiments towards and integrated project with a
centralized management structure.

The new project leadership brings considerable experience and a
successful track record with big complex projects. One of their
challenges is to put together a truly integrated project management team
that works well together.

This difficult transition to an integrated project is by no means
complete. There continues to be ample indication of conflicting cultures
(management and scientific) and a reluctance to modify long-standing
ways of doing things. This results in differing expectations among the
participating cultures and severe communications challenges.

A major challenge for RSVP management, Brookhaven and the agencies will
be to act constructively and effective on this issue so that a smoothly
functioning management environment that embraces and is supported by the
RSVP management, the collaborations, the agencies and Brookhaven
management can be developed rather rapidly.

A key element for success is open and frequent communication between the
central management team, the collaboration spokespersons and the
laboratory management. The management subcommittee suggests that such
meetings begin as soon as possible and occur at least on a monthly basis
if not more frequently.

A fully engaged host laboratory is also required for this project to
succeed. We are pleased to note that the Brookhaven Director has assured
the committee of his full support and the Associate Director for High
Energy and Nuclear Physics is very committed to the success of RSVP.
Within existing constraints they are seeking positive steps to take in
support of RSVP. In addition, the AGS management is fully engaged in
meeting RSVPs needs.

The success of the RSVP science program will require significant and
sustained support from the NSF's research program to assure that the
collaborations are of sufficient size to succeed, and that the
operations of the AGS are sustained for a long enough period of time to
achieve the goals of the experiments.

The funding climate is now difficult in both NSF and those parts of DOE
that are relevant to RSVP. This increases the difficulty of assuring
adequate support for the RSVP collaborations and could limit the support
for RSVP at Brookhaven.

There are important elements of RSVP that will be contributed by foreign
partners and collaborators. It is important that structures such as the
International Finance Committee be put in place and made active as soon
as possible to enable foreign participation to move forward and to allow
foreign collaborators to obtain the support they need to fully
contribute to RSVP.

The overarching RSVP management structure involves a cooperative
agreement between NSF and the Columbia RSVP Office that distributes NSF
funds under subcontract to Stony Brook for distribution to KOPIO
institutions, to UC Irvine for MECO institutions and to MIT for the MECO
Magnet. Funds for Brookhaven project activities will go from NSF to DOE
through an Interagency Transfer and then to Brookhaven. There will be
MOUs between the Columbia RSVP Office with Stony Brook for KOPIO, with
UC Irvine for MECO, with MIT for the MECO Magnet, and with Brookhaven
for AGS project activities. The MOUs are not yet in place.

There will also be MOUs between the project management for each of the
experiments and the collaborating institutions that execute work
packages. These MOUs are not yet in place. An RSVP MOU template exists
which generally does address the right items.

The philosophy of the project leadership is to centralize project
management support (e.g. schedulers, safety and QA oversight) in the
Brookhaven Project office rather than with the subproject management
(KOPIO, MECO, etc.). This is the right philosophy because it will enable
a more integrated project team and provide for more centralized control
of the work and resource flow. It is important that there be buy-in to
this approach by the sub-project managers.

The RSVP Project office advocates an overall project contingency of 45%
based on the community's experience-base with large complex detector
projects. The committee agrees that at least 45% is appropriate for the
project at this stage. Significant uncertainties exist because some
subsystems lack mature designs, spares have not been included in a
consistent manner, unusual cost escalations and currency exchange issues
have not always been taken into account, and labor shortfalls,
especially for uncosted physicist labor have not been taken into
account. There is no schedule float in the current plan so any delay
will likely result in increased costs that must come from the project
contingency. This contingency must be "centrally managed" by the RSVP
project office utilizing a formal change control process that includes a
change control board. The contingency will be used flexibly by RSVP
project management to deal with problems as they arise and is not owned
by any of the sub-projects. We suggest that a spokesperson from each
experiment sit on the change control board so that the impacts on the
physics-driven requirements are always considered in change control
actions.

Defining the MECO magnet as a separate subproject was only done a few
months ago. The committee views this as a positive step because it will
assure more focused central management attention and support the
procurement strategy recommended by the management oversight group. The
planned integration of BNL personnel into the MECO magnet effort is a
big plus to assure smooth integration of the magnet. This should be
fully implemented as soon as possible and be reflected in the project's
organization chart.

There are some scope elements in the detectors' WBS or the AGS WBS that
might better be moved to the other. Examples include heat shield in MECO
and the extinction system in the MECO beam-line. The committee suggests
that the RSVP project office carefully evaluate these types of items and
determine where they belong in the project to minimize the overall risk
to RSVP.

At this stage the RSVP draft project management plan is an overarching
document which refers to separate project management plans for KOPIO,
MECO, AGS upgrade and the MECO magnet. These separate project management
plans are appendices to the overall RSVP project management plan and not
integrated into the document.

This use of separate project management plans for MECO, KOPIO, AGS and
the MECO Magnet dilute the coherence and authority of the RSVP project
office, risks inefficiencies and duplication of effort as well as
multiple overlapping management processes. A single integrated project
management plan should be developed with buy-in from all levels of the
management structure. Special attention should be paid to the difficult
problem of tracking costs and progress at a variety of institutions with
different accounting practices and systems.

The management subcommittee has several comments concerning the baseline
cost estimate:

-   The base cost estimate for the RSVP project management is \$9.1M for
    the Columbia office and \$8.6M for the BNL office. The assigned
    contingency for each is 11%, which we regard as too low. The
    staffing and other costs that would be supported by this budget seem
    adequate and appropriate for a project of this scale and complexity.
    A 20% contingency would be more appropriate.

-   The baseline cost estimate was prepared without the usual level of
    engineering effort so there is some risk associated with the
    traditional optimism of physicists in regard to cost, schedule and
    technical uncertainties as well as overall systems engineering
    issues.

-   The overall RSVP cost estimate uses an inflation rate of about 2.8%
    throughout the whole project duration. Although this is roughly the
    DOE guideline for materials and supplies, it is significantly below
    the current effective yearly increase in the cost of doing business
    for many research institutions and doesn't represent to true current
    inflation rate that is relevant to RSVP. DOE laboratories currently
    estimate real inflation for labor costs is in the 4-5% range. In
    addition there is a significant likelihood that inflation will grow
    during the period of RSVP construction.

-   It is clear that a significant expansion of research grants will be
    needed for NSF funded RSVP collaborators to provide needed manpower
    the cost of which in the construction estimate and not now covered
    by grants. This is especially important because there is no
    contingency in the construction phase explicitly provided to deal
    with shortfalls in physicist effort.

-   The overall RSVP schedule is aggressive with no little or no float
    and so represents a substantial challenge to the management and a
    significant cost risk to the project.

There are also a number of significant cost exposures for the NSF that
extend beyond the cost of the construction project. These exposures
include:

-   The cost for AGS operations. The estimated cost has no contingency.
    The yearly AGS operating costs that may be higher than expected due
    to increases in power costs, increased inflation-driven personnel
    costs, unexpected maintenance costs, etc.

-   History indicates that it is likely that AGS operation will have to
    extend significantly longer than the minimum 5-9 years we estimate
    are needed to successfully reach the stated scientific goals of
    RSVP. Also it is likely that some significant additional operating
    time will be needed to deal with accelerator commissioning issues
    such as beam halo and extinction.

-   The assumption that NSF will only have to provide incremental AGS
    operating costs may not be sustained. Should the DOE NP program
    terminate its support of operations of AGS, NSF would have to bear
    full \~\$50M (FY05\$)/year cost of AGS operations if RSVP is to
    reach its scientific goals.

-   The estimated D & D cost of \$20M has an estimated 25% contingency
    that is much too low. There are many uncertainties related to D&D,
    especially looking many years into the future.

-   The AGS is a fifty-year old accelerator facility that has not been
    used for robust fixed target operations for many years. RSVP
    requires high intensity, robust operations over long periods with a
    resulting high radiation environment for accelerator components.
    There is a risk that the facility components may not perform
    reliably in this environment over the many years of running needed.
    Higher failure rates and longer repair and maintenance times are
    possible. The resource planning for RSVP should take this
    possibility into account.

The extremely high intensity beams required by RSVP and the resulting
radiation environment as well as challenging experimental components
will present potential elevated safety risks that must also be addressed
by the project and later by the management of the operations phase of
RSVP.

The draft management plan indicates that safety and QA are being
delegated from the RSVP project office to the sub-project managers. The
RSVP project office at Brookhaven will include a safety officer and a QA
officer to assure that safety and QA are properly addressed by the
project. Safety at collaborating institutions will be a local
responsibility and the standard safety requirements for equipment to be
operated at the AGS are operative for all RSVP equipment and will be
adhered to by collaborating institutions.

# Recommendations

1\. NSF should immediately set up frequent stakeholders meetings to
assure that all elements of RSVP are well coordinated and that the
project, the collaborations, the funding agencies and the host
laboratory are all fully aware of the status of all relevant activities
and issues.

2\. A rapid transition to an integrated project under the direction of
the RSVP Project Director should be accomplished. This should include
but not be limited to the following:

-   Developing and implementing a single management plan covering all
    aspects of RSVP.

-   Assuring that sub-project managers are fully accountable to the
    project office.

-   Significantly increasing communications between the central
    management, the sub-project management, the collaboration
    spokespersons and the Brookhaven management

-   Completing the MOUs between the central project office and the
    institutional centers for the major sub-projects.

3\. RSVP and NSF should address the overall costing issues:

-   Utilize more realistic inflation rates (e.g. 4%- 5% for labor
    costs).

-   Reanalyze the project schedule allowing realistic schedule float so
    that the cost risk of using the current schedule can be qualified.

-   Analyze the relevant risks and include appropriate contingency in
    estimates of operations costs.

-   Include in the base construction cost adequate spares to cover yield
    problems and infant mortality at startup; Include in the operations
    cost adequate spares and replacements to maintain the physics
    capability of the accelerators, beamlines, target stations, and
    experiments.

4\. RSVP should complete the MOUs involving institutions handling work
packages. These MOUs should be detailed and specify the scope of work
packages, the method of accomplishing the work, deliverables, resources
provided by RSVP, specific manpower including names of key people,
facilities to be provided by the institution, and schedules with
milestones.

5\. Structures such as the international finance committee should be put
in place and made active as soon as possible to enable foreign
participation to move forwards and to allow foreign collaborators to
obtain the support they need.

6\. The inter-agency agreement between DOE and NSF should be put in
place to facilitate the timely flow of funds for activities at
Brookhaven so that the schedule for these activities can be met.

7\. Clear performance goals for the AGS defining the successful
completion of that portion of the project should be part of the project
plan. There should also be a documented agreement between NSF, BNL and
RSVP indicating a time-dependent set of operational goals (e.g. protons
on target, extinction level, etc.) for the AGS beam delivered to the
experiments. We suggest specific performance goals in this area in the
chapter on AGS upgrades.

**[Summary]{.underline}**

RSVP is a very difficult project but its physics is exciting and
important. Achievement of RSVP goals will be very challenging. This is
not surprising -- were it not so it would have been done already or be
in the process of being done by others. The successful execution
requires pushing the technology to its limit, both in the detector and
in the accelerator areas. The complex management issues are
unprecedented in high energy physics.

These are formidable challenges but they would likely be manageable in
normal fiscal times. Unfortunately, the times we are in are not
ordinary. The budgetary conditions that we live under have strongly
influenced the rate at which the RSVP project has been able to proceed
and hence also the state of its readiness today. They will also
undoubtedly affect the ultimate decision as to whether and how one
should proceed with the Project in the future.

In our review we have found that even though significant amount of work
has been done to date, there are a number of areas where the current
status is still relatively immature. For example, due to the lack of
adequate engineering support in the past, several of the RSVP systems
are still incompletely defined. Deficiencies in addressing some of the
simulation issues are strongly correlated with insufficient university
group strengths. In the body of the report we make specific
recommendations to the NSF, Project Management and the Collaborations
regarding actions that are required. We end this report by underlining
several general areas where significant action is needed and/or where
there is potentially significant cost exposure to the Foundation.

1\. The success of this Project will require extraordinary coordination
between the NSF and DOE (both its NP and HEP Divisions). We urge NSF to
formulate specific agreements with DOE regarding the responsibilities
and fiscal obligations of each party for the wide spectrum of possible
future developments. We specifically point to the issue of future of
RHIC and hence responsibility for AGS operations cost and the possible
need to extend the schedule of RSVP beyond 2016 that is currently
envisaged. These and other uncertainties in the post-construction phase
represent risks in several hundred million dollar range. It is important
for the funding agencies to take the steps needed to reduce or account
for these risks in their planning for RSVP.

2\. The current strength of RSVP groups is insufficient to carry out
this program successfully and expeditiously. Additional groups (both
from US and abroad) will need to join and the strength of the existing
groups will have to be augmented. Presumably, the program will become
more attractive to the non-US groups once a firm commitment, with
associated funding, is made to proceed with the program. To achieve the
required stronger US participation, there has to be a high priority
given to this Project by the funding agencies. This will necessitate a
commitment by both NSF and DOE to provide sufficient funds to the
research groups desiring to participate in RSVP. Short of that, the
schedule will slip and/or significant "on-project" costs will be
incurred to fill in for the anticipated "off-project" physicist
contributions.

3\. There are a number of technical challenges in the Project and they
have the potential of generating schedule slippage and cost overruns.
The most important of these should be identified and given sufficient
resources so as to minimize these risks. Furthermore, the overall
construction and commissioning schedule, currently very tight in a
number of areas, should be allocated adequate float (schedule
contingency) and associated cost risk to allow for the level of
unexpected developments due to technical difficulties and other unknowns
that usually are associated with a project of this complexity..

4\. In the scenario where RSVP runs concurrently with RHIC operations,
the goals of the experiments, as expressed in the CDR and presentations
to the Panel and translated into number of protons on target, cannot be
met in five years. Thus one should plan from the beginning on longer
operation period if those goals need to be achieved.

**APPENDIX A**

**CHARGE TO THE\
RSVP BASELINE REVIEW COMMITTEE\
April 12, 2005**

The NSF requests that you review the cost, schedule, scope, technical,
and management project baseline for the Rare Symmetry Violating Process
(RSVP) project. We ask that you also review the plans for operations and
the associated costs and schedule.

The review will be held at Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL) on April
20-22, 2005. We ask that you provide a preliminary executive summary of
your report by Friday, May 6, and a full report describing your
findings, assessment, and recommendations on or about Friday, May 20,
2005. This schedule is aggressive, but the timing is dictated by
internal NSF reviews leading up to the planned presentation to the
National Science Board in August 2005.

The RSVP project consists of two experiments -- MECO and KOPIO -- that
will be mounted and run at BNL, in an incremental mode relative to the
DOE/BNL RHIC program. If the project is approved, NSF would provide
funds for the associated construction project, and later, the
incremental costs of maintenance and operations (M&O) of the AGS and the
M&O for the experimental apparatus during the conduct of the
experiments. The goal of the MECO experiment, which stands for 'Muon to
Electron Conversion', is to measure the branching ratio for this lepton
flavor-changing process with a sensitivity of \~1 in 10^17^. The goal of
the KOPIO experiment is to measure the branching ratio for the process
$Κ^{0} \rightarrow \pi^{0}\nu\overline{\nu}$, a process of fundamental
interest in understanding the observed matter-antimatter asymmetry in
the universe, with an uncertainty of \~10% for a 3.10^-11^ branching
ratio. Both experiments, at their design sensitivity, should shed light
on possible new physics beyond the Standard Model.

Your review should include:

-   an assessment of the technical approaches and feasibility of the
    MECO and KOPIO experiments that constitute the RSVP project,
    including what the likely performance regarding the level of
    sensitivity will be;

-   an assessment of the technical approach and feasibility of the
    required AGS upgrades and external beam lines;

-   an assessment of the overall readiness of RSVP, including each
    subsystem, to proceed to construction, recognizing, importantly,
    that the construction project will include significant engineering
    design and development activity;

-   an assessment of the likely duration of the experiment construction,
    commissioning, and the needed period of operations;

-   identification of the technical metrics against which progress can
    be measure (e.g., beam performance, detector efficiency,
    signal-to-noise that can be achieved);

-   an assessment of costs of RSVP operations under different scenarios
    for AGS running: a 'healthy' RHIC/AGS operating budget, RHIC not
    running, and RHIC/AGS running 1/3^rd^ the 'healthy' level.

-   an assessment of costs and schedule by scrutinizing the RSVP WBS
    plan down to the lowest level for key cost drivers, and for
    technically-challenging elements, and using agreed-upon sampling of
    other WBS elements; and

-   an assessment of the completeness of the WBS structure, possible
    items omitted, and the associated cost and schedule impacts, and,
    where appropriate, opportunities for cost reductions consistent with
    meeting the project science goals.

In carrying out this work, we ask that you examine each of the major
RSVP subsystems, project management, and commissioning/operations. The
key elements of these major tasks are given below, for reference:

-   [MECO detector]{.underline}: science requirements, technical
    requirements (flow-down from science requirements), system design,
    design and development tasks, critical design issues, performance
    simulations, DAQ and data systems, magnet specs, background issues,
    completeness of design, readiness to proceed, proper identification
    and management of risks;

-   [MECO magnet]{.underline}: technical feasibility of the high-field,
    large volume, tapered-field superconducting solenoid, plans for
    design and development, schedule for design and development,
    prototyping and testing plans, integration issues, control system
    issues, critical issues, procurement plans, project oversight,
    safety issues, manpower plans, risk assessment and management;

-   [KOPIO detector]{.underline}: science requirements, technical
    requirements (flow-down from science requirements), system design,
    design and development tasks, critical design issues, performance
    simulations, DAQ and data systems, vacuum system, safety matters,
    background issues, completeness of design, readiness to proceed, and
    proper identification and management of risks;

-   [AGS modifications and external beam lines]{.underline}: pulse
    structure, beam extinction requirements, beam halo requirements,
    beamline design, beamline instrumentation needs, diagnostic
    instrumentation needs, beam development plans/running, systems
    integration regarding controls, cryogenics, and safety, reliability
    issues, radiation effects issues, cooling, shielding, and proper
    identification and management of risk;

-   [Project management]{.underline}: organization (including the
    BNL/project interface), internal oversight, reporting and NSF
    oversight plans, advisory mechanisms, PMCS cost and schedule
    tracking, resource loading of schedule, FTE analysis, staffing
    buildup issues, contingency management approach, change control
    process, project integration activities, critical path analyses for
    major subsystems, status of MOUs with foreign partners,
    appropriateness of the cost and scope of the planned management
    activity;

-   [Commissioning/operations]{.underline}: commissioning plans and beam
    development (both part of the construction project), engineering
    runs at reduced sensitivity or for other purpose, analysis of
    incremental FTE needs, completeness of plans for commissioning and
    for operations, appropriateness of staffing, availability of (and
    priority in obtaining) appropriate BNL staff for operations, EH&S
    issues (radiation mitigation, status of clearances by relevant
    external organizations, plans for D&D), and any analysis computing
    infrastructure needed beyond that normally provided in base grants.

In conducting your review of RSVP, your scrutiny should extend down to
and include examination of work-package costs, bases-for-cost-estimates,
the labor involved and time involved, and the risk
analysis/appropriateness of contingency in both cost and schedule.
Finally, while an independent HEPAP subcommittee review of the science
of RSVP is also being carried out, the Panel may also wish to comment on
the scientific importance of RSVP in the context of the worldwide
program in elementary particle physics.

**APPENDIX B**

**PANEL MEMBERSHIP**

**[KOPIO Subpanel]{.underline}**

Marjorie Corcoran, Rice University

Peter Denes, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory

Karol Lang (Subpanel chair), University of Texas, Austin

Richard Loveless, University of Wisconsin

Leo Piilonen, Virginia Polytechnic Institute

Stan Wojcicki (Panel chair), Stanford University

**[MECO Subpanel]{.underline}**

Myron Camp bell, University of Michigan

Martin Cooper (Subpanel chair), Los Alamos National Laboratory

Tom Diehl, Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory

David Rust, University of Indiana (ret)

**[MECO Magnet Subpanel]{.underline}**

George Biallas, Jefferson Laboratory

Phil Heitzenroeder (Subpanel chair), PPPL

Steve St.Laront, SLAC (ret)

**[AGS Subpanel]{.underline}**

Rod Gerig, Argonne National Laboratory

Craig Moore, Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory

Maury Tigner (Subpanel chair), Cornell University

**[Commissioning/Operations Subpanel]{.underline}**

Konrad Gelbke (Subpanel chair), MSU/NSCL

Robert Mau, Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory

Arch Thiessen, Los Alamos National Laboratory (ret)

**[Management Subpanel]{.underline}**

Joel Butler, Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory

Jay Marx (Subpanel chair), Lawrence Berkeley NationalLaboratory

Stan Wojcicki (Panel chair), Stanford University

**APPENDIX C**

**RSVP AGENDA**

**Wednesday 20 April 2005**

08:00 -- 09:00 *Executive Session - Berkner Hall, Room B*

09:10 -- 11:50 PLENARY SESSION -- Berkner B

09:10 -- 09:30 Introduction (Willis)

09:30 -- 10:10 Overview of RSVP Project (Kotcher)

10:10 -- 10:30 KOPIO Overview (Littenberg)

10:30 -- 10:50 MECO Overview (Molzon)

10:50 -- 11:10 Break

11:10 -- 11:30 MECO Magnet (Smith)

11:30 -- 11:50 AGS Overview (Pile)

11:50 -- 12:10 BNL Management View (Chaudhari)

12: 30 -- 13:30 *Executive Session Working Lunch -- Berkner A*

13:45 -- 17:30 BREAKOUT SESSION A

(These sessions should start with 30-minute presentations by Project
Managers)

KOPIO

MECO Detectors

MECO Magnet

AGS -- Construction

17:30 -- 18:30 *Executive Session -- Berkner B*

18:30 -- Adjourn

18:35 -- Drinks at Berkner Hall

19:00 -- Dinner at Berkner Hall

**Thursday 21 April 2005**

08:00 -- 09:00 *Executive Session -- Berkner B*

09:00 -- 12:00 BREAKOUT SESSIONS B

KOPIO

MECO Detectors

MECO Magnet

AGS -- Construction

Operations

Management

12:00 -- 13:00 *Executive Session Working Lunch -- Berkner A*

13:00 -- 16:00 BREAKOUT SESSIONS C

Detectors

AGS Construction & Operations & MECO Magnet

Management

Projects provided with questions from Committee, if any

16:00 -- 17:30 *Executive Session -- Berkner B*

**Friday 22 April 2005**

**Berkner Hall, Room B**

08:30 -- 09:30 Response from Projects to questions from Committee, if
any

09:30 -- 14:00 *Executive Session including Working Lunch*

14:30-16:00 Closeout

16:00-18:00 *Executive Session* *(Report Development)*