DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

                                 NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

                                                     JOINT REVIEW

                                                          OF THE

                                        ATLAS AND CMS DETECTORS

                                    OCTOBER 30-NOVEMBER 1, 1996

                                P.K. WILLIAMS, CHAIRMAN

Executive Summary and Recommendation

1. CMS

1.0 Overall Comments

1.1 End Cap Muon

1.2 HCAL

1.3 Trig./DAQ

1.4 ECAL

1.5 Pixels

1.6 Software/Computing

1.7 Education

1.8 Management

2. ATLAS

2.0 Overall Comments

2.1 Silicon

2.2 TRT

2.3 LQC

2.4 Tilecal

2.5 Muon

2.6 Trig./DAQ

2.7 Computer/Software

2.8 Education

2.9 Management

3. Cost-Schedule-Funding

Appendices

I. Charge

II. Members

III. Agenda

IV. Action Items

THE DOE/NSF JOINT REVIEW OF THE U.S. ATLAS/CMS DETECTORS

Executive Summary and Recommendations

On October 30-November 1, 1996, the U.S. ATLAS and CMS detector
collaborations were reviewed for their planned participation at the LHC at
CERN. The committee is listed in Appendix I, the charge in Appendix II, the
agenda in Appendix III, and the action items resulting from the meeting in
Appendix IV. As stated in the Charge, the committee reviewed the overall
U.S. contributions, but concentrated on R&D requests for FY97 and
anticipated requests for FY98. The committee finds the physics case for the
U.S. collaboration on the LHC compelling, and the overall approach of the
two collaborations to be sound. Overall, the committee was impressed with
the on-going and planned level of effort. The primary conclusion was that
the collaborations should define deliverables, costs and schedules as soon
as possible so that the scope of their activities conform with the budgetary
constraints and profiles. The committee identified several areas of strength
and weakness which should be noted in preparation for the full technical
cost, schedule, and management reviews to be carried out in the spring,
1997.

General Overview

The energy frontier for high energy physics research will move to the LHC in
the next decade when that collider begins operation. American presence on
that frontier depends on participation in LHC; there is no other comparable
project for this important research. It is essential that the U.S. high
energy physics community be afforded the support necessary to play a
significant role in this international effort.

LHC has an exceptional set of physics goals. First and foremost is the
question of the origin of mass. The successes of the high energy physics
program of the last couple of decades has left us with an impressive model
of the interactions of the fundamental fermions, and a puzzling observation
that the gauge sector of the unified electroweak interaction consists of a
massless photon and very heavy W and Z bosons. Is there a fundamental field,
as the Higgs mechanism proposes, which explains the relationships of masses
of the gauge bosons and gives mass to the fundamental fermions? If so, LHC
should probably be able to create the quanta of this new field and then the
detector collaborations may well be able to find some and measure some of
their properties. If not, they may discover other mechanisms which must
replace the Higgs mechanism to make the theory self-consistent. Whatever
they find, it will be significant advance in our understanding of the
fundamental structure of matter and energy.

Since the termination of the SSC, many U.S. high energy physics groups have
organized their efforts toward a significant contribution to the LHC. In
general these efforts have been very successful, impacting the designs and
plans for the LHC detectors in many ways. However, the scope of the
activities being planned by the U.S. groups appears to exceed the ability of
the DOE and NSF to support them. At the present time the estimated costs of
these activities may be underestimated; furthermore, the funding may fall
short of these estimates. Therefore it is critical that the two U.S.
detector groups review their cost estimates, applying realistic and
conservative contingency analysis, possibly followed by some additional
contingency plans for descoping to match the resources which DOE and the NSF
find for this project.

Both ATLAS and CMS scientists have performed excellently under the pressure
of recovering from the loss of the SSC. U.S. scientists on ATLAS are
recognized as being among the best in the world on many of their subsystems.
CMS scientists are playing a leading role in handling several of the CMS
detector systems. Both teams have successfully completed major descoping
efforts while maintaining morale and a high quality of effort.

However, in this post-SSC era special care must be taken not to overspend or
escalate costs. In this regard, the ATLAS funding profile appears to be
front-end loaded by perhaps a year, while the CMS profile appears to require
more than can be provided for the first several years. All reviewers agreed
that contingencies provided by both groups, though consistent with those of
the SDC Detector, were inconsistent with experience on
previously-constructed large detectors. Finally, operating costs,
particularly in the software arena, will ramp up well before construction is
complete. Most reviewers felt that estimates of operating costs should be
provided in order to give them a more complete picture.

1. The technical and managerial challenges confronting both ATLAS and CMS
are harder than those faced by SLD/CDF/D0, etc. Thus, if SLD/CDF/D0 required
significantly larger than 25 percent contingency, then it is likely that
ATLAS and CMS will also.

2 The use of SSC methodology for estimating contingency has the sole virtue
of being well-defined. It was not tested in practice and cannot be
considered more trustworthy than the experience of prior large HEP
detectors.

3. The issue is fraught with danger for U.S. HEP. DOE and NSF should avoid
the perception that the rest of the HEP program might be compromised in an
uncontrolled fashion to support LHC. So far, things have been handled deftly
and the planned contribution is at a level which is broadly considered to be
reasonable. However, both U.S. ATLAS and U.S. CMS have every reason to
expect that if they get into trouble, DOE will have no choice but to bail
them out. That has been the case in past similar situations. The difference
is that the magnitude is larger for LHC experiments and the politics much
more complex. Nothing could be more destructive to U.S. HEP than for cost
overruns to be borne by the base program. It would inflict significant
damage on the program, and it could destroy the consensus within the field
that was developed regarding LHC support in the aftermath of the SSC
cancellation. These comments apply equally to unplanned liens placed on the
host laboratories as on the university program. No matter how bitter the
pill now, it is important to take whatever steps are necessary to assure
that LHC costs to the U.S. will remain within the agreed- upon range. If
that means increasing contingency and descoping to accommodate it, doing so
now is still better than the alternative.

Both groups at this meeting argued that the rate of ramp-up of DOE and NSF
construction funds provided to them as guidance is insufficient. This was
discussed at the meeting. Both groups should be required to plan within the
budget profile DOE/NSF has given them.

We therefore recommend that both the U.S. CMS and the U.S. ATLAS
collaboration do a serious study of how best to react to these twin problems
of the inappropriate funding profile and the possible need for higher
contingency. One conceivable solution is to slightly reduce the scope of the
U.S. commitment to the two detectors. This will certainly be painful now,
but may be by far the preferable solution in the long run. We note in this
context that both collaborations did a round of scope reductions previous to
this review. They initially anticipated these reductions to be much more
painful then they actually turned out to be. It even seemed at this review
that they now believe they are better off having eliminated some weaker
involvements and then having used the freed up manpower to strengthen some
of the other efforts in a very constructive way.

Computing Costs:

Both collaborations argue that since past DOE practice has been that
off-line computing costs were not part of the project, they should not be
now. If DOE accepts this, it must be recognized that there is a big
difference between the present case and past precedents--namely the
magnitude of the costs. The cost of computing for LHC experiments may be
similar to the total cost of KTeV, to put things in some perspective. That
is, if these funds come from the base program, then some significant other
part of the program--probably good physics--will have to be sacrificed. That
being the case, the collaborations should be careful not to dismiss these
costs and DOE must be very firm in insisting that they be realistically
projected so that surprises can be avoided later on. There is a real danger
that a U.S. contribution toward a CERN computing facility (where initial
data processing will be done) will be solicited in the future. Both
spokesmen said, "no way", or words to that effect; it is important to settle
this issue now and not let it slide until DOE is in too deep to say no. This
is a dangerous issue, in the same sense as the possibility that the
contingencies are too low.

Recommendations

The committee found that, although considerable progress had been made to
rescope activities to stay within overall budgetary guidelines, there was
still a problem with year-to-year profiles.

1. It is recommended that, as soon as possible, the ATLAS and CMS
collaborations plan their activities to conform to budgetary constraints and
profiles. This process should be completed at the earliest possible time.
(See Action Item #1)

2. The ATLAS and CMS collaborations should proceed with FY97 R&D as
described in the material presented to the Committee. It is assumed that NSF
will be able to provide some of the funds requested, and that the net
amounts of funding for the two detectors will be of similar magnitudes.

3. The ATLAS and CMS collaborations should include in their cost estimates
appropriate provision for contingencies. It is the belief of the committee
that when such additional costs are included, the total deliverables will
decrease, or some other arrangement must be made. (See Action Item #2)

4. The committee recommends that a study be carried out to evaluate the
contingency experience of recently completed Large Collider detectors that
were built under similar U.S. budgetary methods, WBS structures, and
periodic cost, schedule, and management reviews.

5. It is again strongly recommended that the "Base" program assume its full
share of the responsibility for manpower support, so that as much as
possible, the requests for project funds are the "core" costs, mainly
materials and supplies. This recommendation should strengthen the case for
maintaining a healthy level of "Base" program "infrastructure" so that the
various institutions can better participate in projects such as LHC detector
fabrication.

6. The collaborations are asked to provide detailed breakdowns of their
collaborations (name-by-name), indicating whether the person is a senior
scientist, postdoc, senior engineer, graduate student, technician, or other;
and the percentage of time of each person now and two years from now.

7. After closing with DOE and NSF, the ATLAS and CMS collaborations should
complete their final project management plans.

1.0 Comments on the CMS effort

The U.S. CMS group has done a good job of organizing the responsibilities
and efforts of the U.S. collaboration. It has helped that Fermilab has
chosen to support the work of the CMS Collaboration. The strategy of
choosing some of the CMS subsystems and concentrating on them is a good
match to the resources of the group and their physics goals.

The contributions of the U.S. groups to the overall intellectual development
of CMS has been significant. They brought expertise and strength to the
project and this has earned them a major role in the hadron calorimeter, the
forward muon system, and the trigger/DAQ system. These are the subsystems
for which major support is proposed. CMS also proposes to work on the
electromagnetic calorimeter and the pixel tracking system, as well as
software.

CMS has strengthened their muon and calorimeter effort by integrating some
collaborating foreign groups into the effort. What they have planned will
require diligent oversight of the extended effort, but it looks like an
effective way to increase their impact on the experiment.

One central goal of the CMS detector is exploration of the mass range just
above the LEPII reach and below the Higgs -> ZZ* threshold: about 100-130
GeV/c2. The plan is to look for the rare decay of the Higgs to two photons.
This demands the best possible electromagnetic calorimeter, which CMS does
with crystals. The U.S. EM calorimeter sub-group brings a great deal of
experience and expertise to the development of this sub-system. They have
also organized their effort quite well, with work planned on crystal
development and monitoring, electronics, and the APDs. They have contributed
significantly to the development of rad-hard crystals, for example, working
on their development for the GEM experiment at the SSC. This background has
allowed them to make important contributions to the understanding of the
lead tungstate crystals that CMS has selected. They are uniquely equipped,
particularly at Caltech and Brookhaven, to guide the evolving understanding,
even if they do not have production responsibilities. After the development
of the crystals with sufficient radiation tolerance, the monitoring system
is key to the successful performance of the calorimeter. This will have a
visible impact within CMS and the U.S. group is up to the task. The CMS
group also plans to contribute in the area of electronics design and APD
production. On both of these areas they are making strong contributions.

There must be some concern for the rad-hardness of the APDs. While the
issues are thought to be under control, the final APD does not exist.

The hadron calorimeter, forward muon, and trigger/DAQ efforts are the most
important contribution to CMS and should be supported to the utmost. They
are in reasonably good shape, but will be resource limited.

The tracking effort does not look as strong as some of the other efforts.
The cost estimates are questionable, particularly the assigned
contingencies. The U.S. pixel effort is troubling since the main U.S.
intellectual strength on pixel detector development comes from the ATLAS
work and the CMS effort appears to depend on it. One wonders whether it
would not be more effective for the U.S. pixel effort to be concentrated on
one of the two LHC detectors. If the tracking part of the proposal survives,
a clear plan of milestones must be developed.

CMS Overall Impression:

The CMS detector is a well conceived instrument that nicely matches the
demanding requirements of the LHC. The U.S. contingent of the CMS group is a
strong team that has valuable expertise and experience with the detector
technologies that will be employed. The group has a strong Fermilab
participation, which provides them with excellent infrastructure for
carrying out their responsibilities.

The largest commitments of the group, i.e. the forward muon systems and the
hadronic calorimeter seem well in hand. In both of these areas, the
technologies appear to be under control and there are adequate organization
structures already in place. The DAQ and triggering systems have designs
that are based on reasonable extrapolations of existing (or soon to be
existing) systems. Here again the effort is being led by very experienced
people and seems to be well organized and making good progress. The group
has developed a substantial amount of software for use in the optimization
of subsystem designs that should provide an excellent starting point for the
development of the complex systems that will be required for running the
detector and analyzing its data. The U.S. team will provide the iron endcaps
and the vacuum vessel for the 4T solenoid as their in-kind contribution to
the CMS common fund. Since the iron endcaps are the backbone of the forward
muon system and the magnet vacuum chamber is the support in element of the
hadron calorimeter, these are good choices for the U.S. team's common fund
contribution. These items match well expertise in the group and the
technical resources available at Fermilab.

The rest of the group's responsibilities, while well matched to be expertise
of the individuals involved, do not have the crisp organizational
arrangements of the above-noted "major elements". For example, the group has
major responsibility for a number of bits and parts of the ECAL, including
the APD light sensors, front-end electronics, and calibration systems. Since
the people involved are very experienced in their respective areas, there is
confidence that the technical issues will be dealt with properly. However,
coordinating the efforts among the various U.S. institutions and funding
agencies and matching to the needs of foreign participants in the ECAL
project will be quite a challenge.

Of particular concern are the APD light sensors and the PbWO crystal
procurement. Although the capabilities of currently available APD's are
suitable for the needs of the detector, they have never been used in an
experiment at anywhere near the scale of the CMS. The group has correctly
identified this as a high priority R&D area. A major concern for the whole
experiment is the procurement of the 110,000 crystals needed for the
calorimeter. Procurement of any types of crystals on this scale has never
been done for a high energy physics experiment and this case is made more
complicated by the fact that the crystals of choice are a new development
and will have to meet very demanding criteria. The U.S. team responsible for
evaluating the quality of the crystals is well suited for this task, so this
important part of the procurement is in good hands. Nevertheless, it will be
difficult to procure the requisite number of high quality crystals on the
schedule presented by the proponents.

A serious concern is the U.S. part of the pixel effort. The researchers
involved have long experience with the technical aspects of pixel detectors
and have made important contributions to the development of effective
readout electronic schemes. This is demonstrated by the excellent conceptual
design for the forward pixel disks. However, the pixel team has not
demonstrated the existence of the substantial engineering and organizational
infrastructure that will be essential for carrying out their plans.

It is recommended that R&D for the APDs and the crystal evaluation effort be
given high priority in the near future. It is also recommended that serious
reconsideration be given to the group's plans and commitments in the area of
the forward pixel system.

The CMS group has a strong commitment to educational outreach programs and a
number of the group's members have made important individual efforts in this
area in the past. Although plans at this stage seem rather vague, this work
is important and should be encouraged and coordinated with similar programs
in other high energy physics activities.

The financial support for the U.S. team does not appear to be sufficient for
the commitments of the group. The group has the responsibility for a number
of high risk items, most notably in the area of the pixel vertex detector
and optical sensors for the ECAL, but has assigned a rather modest overall
contingency allowances in the estimated costs. It seems unlikely that they
will be able to fulfill their commitments within cost and on schedule. It
would be wise if they reconsidered the extent of their commitments and
concentrated their efforts in those areas, such as the HCAL and the endcap
muon system, where the group has the major responsibility and particularly
well matched infrastructure.

1.1 CMS Endcap Muon System

1. Findings

The U.S. CMS group working on the Endcap Muon Project is composed of groups
from Alabama, UC Davis, UCLA, UC Riverside, Carnegie Mellon, FNAL, Florida,
LLNL, MIT, SUNY Stony Brook, Northeastern, Ohio State, Purdue, Rice, UT
Dallas, and Wisconsin. It is led by G. Mitselmakher. The group is
responsible, with other groups from PNPI (Russia), IHEP, and CERN, for the
forward muon systems consisting of some 486 multi-plane Cathode Strip
Chambers (CSC's) and their associated electronics, support and installation
mechanics, alignment systems, and monitoring systems.

The FY97 Activities and Budget Requests cover both R&D or pre-production
engineering for all of the areas. Three rounds of CSC prototypes will be
worked, including cosmic ray testing of the early prototype to design and
construction of the last. CSC design R&D is a substantial part of this
effort. Electronics includes development of 5 ASIC's, prototypes of the DAQ
portion of separate cathode and anode boards, and a 500 channel "Pilot
System 1". Other substantial efforts are the iron design and integration,
trigger system front end design, and alignment system testing. There is a
comparatively small effort on RPC's.

2. Comments

The leadership of the group is good. The use of foreign collaborators in a
subsystem for which the U.S. group has effective responsibility seems fine.

There is significant progress since the last review. The technique of
milling the cathode strips seems reasonable.

The Endcap Muon Project is a very large undertaking. There is a substantial
amount of electronics development and mechanical engineering planned for the
next two years. It seems unlikely that the complete production costs can be
predicted very accurately at this stage of technical development.

3. Recommendations

The overall CMS funding profile is inconsistent with available funding.
Schedule strategies should be evaluated for possible help in alleviating
this problem.

1.2 CMS HCAL

Good performance of the hadron calorimetry is essential for the success of
the experiment. Reliable measurements of missing transverse energy, which
requires excellent hermeticity, are necessary for the identification of
super symmetric particle production. Tests of QCD and searches for evidence
of quark substructure will require that the calibration and response
function of the calorimeter be well understood. Triggering on candidate
Higgs -> gamma gamma decays, a primary goal of CMS and the motivation for
the high quality and expensive crystal calorimeter, will rely heavily on
information from the hadron calorimeter. In virtually all of the
measurements planned for CMS, reliable and well calibrated hadron
calorimeter measurements will be an important ingredient.

Findings:

By taking major responsibility for the hadron calorimetry, the U.S.
contingent of CMS has assured themselves a key role in the experiment. The
U.S. group has the responsibility for the entire barrel, half of the very
forward calorimeter and some important components of the endcap systems.

The tile/fiber technology chosen for the barrel calorimeter is a technology
that was refined as part of the extensive SSC-detector R&D work in which
many of the current team members were participants. The group has
substantial overlap with the team responsible for the new CDF plug
calorimeters, which exploit the same technology and are, in some sense,
large scale prototypes for the devices planned for the CMS. The CDF devices
are currently being installed and the good manpower overlap provides an
excellent opportunity for the experience gained during the commissioning of
the CDF plugs to be transferred efficiently to the CMS effort.

The very forward calorimeter will be situated in a very hostile radiation
environment and in a region where the congestion and the energy of the
hadron jets will be the highest. The CMS group has adopted the innovative
U.S.-team-advocated approach of using high density absorbers with 300 micron
clad quartz fibers used for sampling. Since the calorimeter preferentially
samples electromagnetic showers, it only samples the core of hadron jets,
helping to relieve the congestion problem.

Comments:

The technical aspects of the sensing and optical elements of the calorimeter
are well understood. Of some concern is the copper absorber, which has a
rather complex mechanical structure. The group has correctly identified
prototyping this structure as a high priority R&D project for FY96. The
readout photodiodes have not been used in experiments at the scale planned
for the CMS. It is also important that the group gains operating experience
with large arrays of these photodiodes as soon as possible. Commissioning
and operating experience with the CDF plug calorimeters will be valuable to
the CMS to the extent that the personnel overlap between the teams is
maintained. This is best accomplished by keeping the CMS HCAL effort on
schedule.

1.3 Trigger/DAQ

The U.S. CMS groups have four major construction responsibilities in the
area of trigger and data acquisition. Two of these activities involve the
first level of the trigger, where as in ATLAS high speed dedicated hardware
is used to processes limited samplings of fast digitized data. The Fermilab
and Wisconsin groups have a major role in the Level 1 calorimeter trigger,
while UCLA as well as OSU and UCR and Rice have important responsibilities
related to the endcap muon cathode strip chamber (CSC) Level 1 trigger. Both
these efforts benefit considerably from their close association with other
U.S. CMS responsibilities: the barrel and half the far forward hadron
calorimeter, and the entire endcap muon system. In these areas U.S. CMS
concentrates on well defined projects integrated 'vertically', which is to
say from a detector through its associated electronics and trigger/data
acquisition. Because there is so much design detail that overlaps project
boundaries, such a style tends to be particularly efficient; and the U.S.
groups' impact in such integrated projects is much more significant than if
they were isolated.

The other two areas of U.S. CMS responsibility are associated with the data
acquisition readout and data flow, and with the luminosity monitor. These
are well defined projects and the U.S. groups have major roles. For the
trigger/data acquisition MIT and Fermilab are actively developing one of the
contenders for the data flow network and event builder while a promising
effort is underway at UCSD in designing a readout dual port memory board.

Associated with these projects, U.S. CMS has leadership roles, with Paris
Sphicas (MIT) chairing the trigger/DAQ institutional board, Wesley Smith
(Wisconsin) the overall Trigger leader, and Paris with Irwin Gains
(Fermilab) responsible for the direction of the high level triggers and the
event builder, respectively.

In these construction projects the groups are focusing appropriately on the
critical aspects of the design. As also recognized by the ATLAS groups, the
forefront problems for the calorimeter trigger are the efficient, fast
transfer of data, and its processing, while for the tracking triggers the
issues needing prime attention are the definitions and understanding of
specific trigger primitives that are available from the front end
electronics. For the Level 1 calorimeter trigger, a real milestone was
achieved in 1996 with the delivery of the prototype 160 MHZ backplane. A
major effort is needed here to build and test prototypes of the 3 basic
components (parts of the data receiver, clock, and electron isolation cards)
that with the backplane are planned to move data at this high rate. This
work is commencing. In addition to moving data there is the challenge to
handle it, and again the group has made an excellent start with the
production of a high speed ASIC adder; this chip is the most common such
component, used throughout the calorimeter L1 trigger. Their plans call for
work later in FY97 on the next major ASIC chip, for use with the electron
isolation card. This is a very strong effort addressing the important
issues, and the FY97 request for $265K, supporting both engineering and ASIC
development, is reasonable.

Another major U.S. CMS responsibility is the endcap muon CSC Level 1 muon
trigger. This system is tightly integrated with the CSC readout electronics:
the L1 trigger electronics finds track segments and from them builds tracks
which then are used to provide momentum selection. With the enormous rate in
the endcap system, the key task for this L1 trigger is to make these
earliest possible groupings of hits, in order to suppress backgrounds. In
this work, carried for the most part at present by the UCLA group, there was
considerable progress in FY96 particularly involving beam tests of
electronics to provide good resolution of the muon strips, leading to a
prototype version of the Strip Card early in FY97. Modeling of the data is
important, and progress has been made here also, in understanding and
organizing the data properly. Development of both the Strip and Wire Cards
will continue in '97, together with integration with the trigger Motherboard
and cosmic ray testing. Additionally, work will address the conversion of
the segment-finding logic from FPGAs to the more efficient and inexpensive
ASIC technology. Funds requested to support this effort for FY97 total $40K
for equipment, at UCLA, together with $90K at UCLA and $40K at Rice, for
engineering support. This task is well focused on the critical areas, and
seems to be making good progress in this important construction project; the
requested funding is appropriate for the work outlined.

The Luminosity Monitor is a U.S. CMS project proposed by Greg Snow at
Nebraska. As noted in the previous Review, this project is an excellent one
for a U.S. group; it provides a well focused construction project of limited
scope yet very rich in linkage to key aspects of CMS detector and physics.
Building on experience at the Tevatron, the proposed LM is based on
dedicated small angle counters on either side of the interaction region.

FY97 funds are requested for prototype components of these counters ($21K),
as well as associated engineering/tech support ($38K), to provide
measurements needed for the Proposal to the CMS collaboration later in 1997.
Perhaps there can be some synergy with ongoing efforts associated with the
D0/CDF upgrades; but, considering the special nature of this detector and
its central role in the experiment, there should be funding sufficient to
move forward to the Proposal.

As described in the January Review, the CMS collaboration have settled on a
basic architecture for the high level trigger system and data acquisition.
For CMS as well as for ATLAS, a network carries a subset of the digitized
data to processors for Level 2 algorithms; however, in CMS this is a
'virtual Level-2'. If the event passes these filters, the same network is
used to load data for the entire event for a more complete, higher level
analysis. Within this general structure, the design is still incomplete, and
there remain several different candidates for basic components of the
system. The Readout Dualport Memory Boards (RDPMs) provide the connection
from the digitizing electronics crates to the readout network. The UCLA
groups prototype for a RDPM based on TI C80 processor chips was first built
in '96, and further development and testing of this board is planned for
FY97. A prototype RDPM of a different design, using FPGAs, was build in '96
by a CERN/MIT group. The RDPM is such a fundamental component of the data
acquisition system that investigation of several options makes some sense.
The Fermilab and MIT groups, together with Iowa State and Mississippi, have
a major role in developing and testing the readout event builder. In the CMS
trigger architecture, the network and event handler serves both the partial
and full filter-processing 'levels', so the requirements are more extreme
than if L2 and L3 were separate. Fermilab and MIT have developed in 1996 a
testbench based on a 4x4 ATM 155Mbs switch, while a similar effort based on
Fibre Channel is underway at CERN. These efforts lean on commercial
technology, and the choice of the final system would best be done along the
direction chosen by industry. In this regard it isn't clear that the ATM
choice represents the future, so its particularly important to keep options
open. Meanwhile, significant progress was made in 1996 on the prototype
FMAL/MIT event builder. This work will continue in FY97, addressing basic
design questions regarding use of the switch and communication of control
information. The groups will start testing a higher speed switch, and will
include the UCLA prototype RDPM into the testbench. Funds requested for the
CMS trigger/data acquisition R&D effort in FY97icient. ThisŪ As described in
the January Review, the CMS collaboration have settled on a basic
architecture for the high level trig include $59K equipment for ATM parts,
and prototypes of each variant of the RDPM. These are the basic components
for prototypes of the key components of the CMS trigger/DAQ; the U.S. groups
leading efforts here should be supported, as it remains reasonable that at
least at a single prototype level, multiple design efforts should be
pursued. Associated with UCLAs work with the C80-based RDPM is a $16K
request for software, and engineering needs of $71K. MIT requests tech
support of $19K. The continuing dual-track activity by the CMS groups here
through 1997 will provide the details necessary for the final decisions due
before the spring '98 TDR.

In addition to testbench measurements a serious effort at simulation of the
various trigger/DAQ designs should be undertaken. Modelling done in parallel
with hardware testing can suggest directions for the prototype efforts and
in turn can be calibrated with ongoing measurements. Such work is needed in
the nearterm, as it will be 1997 results which will define the system for
the TDR.

1.4 CMS Electromagnetic Calorimeter

The CMS Electromagnetic calorimeter is central to the physics goals of CMS,
especially exploration of the mass range just above the LEPII reach and
below the Higgs -> ZZ* threshold: about 100-130 GeV/c2. The plan is to look
for the rare decay of the Higgs to two photons. This demands the best
possible electromagnetic calorimeter, which CMS does with crystals. The U.S.
EM calorimeter sub-group brings a great deal of experience and expertise to
the development of this sub-system. They have also organized their effort
quite well, with work planned on crystal development and monitoring,
electronics, and the APDs.

The lead tungstate crystals planned for CMS are still under development. The
eventual production of the required 110,000 crystals is a challenge and full
of risk. The U.S. group has not assumed responsibility for the production,
but it is intimately involved in their development, and particularly the
improvement of the rad-hardness. This work builds on previous work, such as
the development of rad-hard crystals for the GEM experiment at the SSC. This
background has allowed them to make important contributions to the
understanding of the lead tungstate crystals that CMS has selected. They are
uniquely equipped, particularly at Caltech and Brookhaven, to guide the
evolving understanding, even if they do not have production
responsibilities. After the development of the crystals with sufficient
radiation tolerance, the monitoring system is key to the successful
performance of the calorimeter. This will have a visible impact within CMS
and the U.S. group is up to the task.

The U.S. CMS group is contributing to the electronics design and production.
The FPU chip was designed and built by Princeton. This range selecting,
sample and hold has achieved good test results so far. The first attempt at
a full readout system has been achieved and needs iteration and refinement,
which is planned. Effective contributions are being made to the electronics.

Finally, part of the U.S. CMS ECAL group is working on the APDs for the
crystal readout. This effort has a good team with experience working with
APDs. The APDs are not yet ready for production; some rad-hard issues
remain, although the collaboration believes they are understood. This
understanding needs to be implemented with prototypes are soon as possible
to establish the production design. The 25 percent contingency is suspect in
light of the current status of the design.

1.5 CMS SILICON TRACKING

Description of Findings:

1. The U.S. group has made significant progress since the January, 1996 CMS
Review. Positive actions include:

a. Focusing on the forward pixel disks and eliminating work on the gas
microstrip option.

b. Adding strong groups to their team.

c. Providing a Fermilab center for mechanical testing.

2. Despite their progress, this collection of competent scientists remains
weaker than its ATLAS counterpart.

3. The pixel R&D program is specified with insufficient detail, and still
remains mostly in the future. Few goals have yet been achieved.

Comments on Findings:

1. The U.S. CMS silicon team is to be complimented on their progress since
the January 1996 review.

2. The team remains smaller and has less silicon experience than its U.S.
ATLAS counterpart. The pixel team still needs people as well as a more
established management team. They also could benefit from increased
communication/overlap with the U.S. ATLAS team.

3. Reviewers concurred that the CMS pixel team needs to develop a project
"track record" of meeting goals and deadlines.

Recommendations:

1. No comment, keep up the good work.

2. The U.S. CMS Silicon team should add additional groups, and should
re-organize its management to emphasize proven ability in managing large
projects.

3. An R&D plan must be developed which includes more detail and a number of
short-term benchmarks. Developing a proven track record is essential.

1.6 CMS Software and Computing

As high energy physics experiments have become larger and more complex, the
computing problems have become more challenging. The LHC experiments face a
new level of complexity for several reasons, including the globally
dispersed nature of the collaborations. The issues relating to computing and
software should be high priorities for both the CMS and ATLAS
collaborations. In the near-term, realistic detector simulations are
essential inputs to the study of the trade-offs that must be considered in
reaching final optimized detector designs. The longer-term simulation, data
storage, data processing, data analysis, and networking needs must be
understood so that appropriate resources--both facilities and staff--can be
planned in time to be in place when needed.

CMS is currently relying on GEANT-based simulations which fall short of full
detector simulations, but which provide a common software package which can
be used to address detector specific questions. In the U.S., it appears that
the currently needed computing power exists within the university groups and
at Fermilab, although the needs will grow rapidly over time. Since computing
costs associated with LHC detectors are not part of the construction project
and therefore must be born by the base program, avenues for obtaining
non-DOE funding for computing should be explored by both collaborations. An
example is the Grand Challenge proposal described to the committee by ATLAS.

CMS has stated its intention to move from Fortran-based programming to
object oriented programing using C++. This is a daunting undertaking the
full implications of which will not be know for years. Nonetheless, the
Committee believes it is important for both LHC collaborations to move in
this direction as soon as possible. The release of GEANT4 has been
identified as a major milestone after which development of object oriented
code will begin.

CMS expects initial processing of data to occur at a CERN facility, after
which reduced data sets will be distributed to regional centers. The primary
U.S. regional center will be at Fermilab. Some manpower estimates were
provided in the CMS Computing Plan. The Committee would have preferred a
more concise document and one which included cost estimates for setting up
and

operating projected facilities in the U.S. The Committee has subsequently
requested from both collaborations estimates of their operating costs,
including computing.

CMS management stated its opinion that the cost of the CERN facility where
initial data processing will occur is a CERN responsibility. The Committee
is concerned that a U.S. contribution toward such a facility of several
millions of dollars may be requested at a later date.

1.7 CMS Education and Outreach

U.S. CMS is currently searching for an Education Coordinator to be stationed
at the Fermilab U.S. CMS Project Office. The responsibilities of the
Education Coordinator will include coordinating the on-going education and
outreach activities of the CMS community.

If this effort is to be effective, the Education Coordinator will need to
use this office to reach out into the collaboration for help. One option
would be to form a U.S. CMS Committee on Education and Outreach.

Particle Physics will benefit from the public perception that its product
contributes to the Nation, and U.S. CMS, being off-shore, has a particularly
vital role to play in the public discussion of these benefits. The
appropriate goals of the Education and Outreach program in this regard seem
in general to be well-understood by U.S. CMS, namely:

1. To convey to the public the importance and excitement of LHC science.

2. To continue to supply a substantial fraction of the Nation's
highly-trained scientific manpower by ensuring that students trained as part
of the LHC program receive a well-rounded education that will prepare them
for the multi-faceted job market they will face. Care must be taken to avoid
an education focused principally on producing academic particle physicists.

3. To take every opportunity to extend participation in the LHC to
traditionally under-represented institutions and their students.

The new Coordinator (and the Committee) would be well-advised to examine for
ideas the very successful Fermilab program described by Marge Bardeen. Those
and all other ideas should be carefully screened and piloted before the
Coordinator moves to make them available to a broader audience. The role of
the Committee in publicizing the production of technical manpower and in
encouraging U.S. CMS groups to prepare their students for careers in
tomorrow's workplace requires additional development.

In the third area, of involving minority institutions and their students,
the current picture of the role of the Education Coordinator needs
clarification. There are no minority universities in U.S. CMS, and hence no
simple way for their students to participate in LHC physics. The ideal
solution would be to find a meaningful way to bring a minority institution
into the collaboration, but this may not be easy. The U.S. CMS Education
Coordinator might also consider such devices as partnerships between
majority and minority institutions in the same city which would give both
minority students and their teachers hands-on experience building LHC
equipment.

Such a program would require the Committee on Education and Outreach to help
organize funding (perhaps from the appropriate NSF office) to support this
work. It should be noted that this outside funding would benefit both the
minority institutions and U.S. CMS.

It is recommended that, in all its education and outreach activities, the
U.S. CMS group coordinate explicitly its efforts with those of U.S. ATLAS
and of the rest of the U.S. particle physics program. A set of milestones
with quntifiable deliverables should be set by next year, to give the
proposed program of education and outreach real substance.

1.8 U.S. CMS Management

The U.S. CMS Collaboration has presented a detailed management plan at the
review. This plan is based on a strong centralized management for the U.S.
effort under a spokesperson, aided by a Project Office, with line
responsibilities for the technical subsystems clearly defined. The project
office is to be located at Fermilab.

Comments:

1. The overall management seems appropriate. The centralized control is very
desirable, with line responsibilities for the various subsystems placed in
well qualified individuals rather then institutions. This has worked well in
the past.

2. The use of Fermilab as the center for the organization and management of
the U.S. CMS effort is an excellent idea for several reasons. This
arrangement provides efficient management using existing and experienced
infrastructure. It provides activity and intellectual excitement at Fermilab
which is very good, and finally the infrastructure at Fermilab provides for
management oversight and efficient use of contingency funds.

Recommendation:

Keep Going!

2.0 Comments on the ATLAS Effort

The U.S. ATLAS Collaboration continues to make impressive and commendable
progress on its effort within ATLAS. The U.S. group is well integrated into
the overall ATLAS effort. Its impact on the overall ATLAS project has been
impressive. The U.S. ATLAS group is making good progress on its three
principal subsystem efforts: the calorimeter, the muon system, and the inner
silicon tracking system. In each of these systems they have very effectively
leveraged their SSC R&D experience.

The U.S. ATLAS Collaboration has assembled an extremely strong
collaboration, which gives one great confidence that they will succeed with
their project.

The Brookhaven management office is now running effectively and appears to
be providing good management support. It has completed an analysis of the
relative risks of each part of the total project in order to determine the
overall contingency. While the estimated total contingency might not be
adequate, the relative risks are likely accurate and will be useful to the
management as it monitors the progress of the project.

The U.S. Collaboration has carefully narrowed its responsibilities, while
maintaining significant impact overall. Recently the responsibilities for
endcap calorimetry were dropped, and a by-product was a strengthening of the
muon system. This was a good move and all involved in making this decision
and in implementing it should be complimented.

In general, the ATLAS efforts are quite enmeshed within the efforts of the
full collaboration. The U.S. ATLAS group generally does not have full
responsibility for complete sub-systems. This approach may expose the U.S.
Collaboration to cost liabilities outside the direct control of the U.S.
group.

Overall, the U.S. Collaborators have assumed very difficult responsibilities
and have planned a lot of very hard work over the next few years.

The work within ATLAS on the liquid calorimetry is one of the strongest
contributions the U.S. groups can make and are making to the LHC detector
efforts. The technique of liquid argon calorimetry was invented and
developed by members of this U.S. team. Members of this collaboration have
worked on practically every large liquid argon calorimeter ever built. They
have taken the SSC R&D work (which was coordinated at the time with European
effort for LHC) and applied it very effectively to the ATLAS calorimeter.
They have now designed an excellent EM calorimeter which should achieve an
optimal performance. They have wisely assumed the responsibility for the
barrel cryostat and the feedthroughs, common fund projects which are
essential for the success of the liquid argon calorimeter.

The design involves a very aggressive integration of the supercoil into the
vacuum cryostat of the liquid argon calorimeter. This aspect of the design
complicates construction since the super-coil is coming from Japan and the
project is on a tight schedule. This is one glaring example of the
complexities associated with the collaborative approach being used by the
ATLAS group of working on parts of a sub-system, but not having full
responsibility. The U.S. ATLAS group is fully aware of the delicateness of
this issue. The U.S. group has a big role in the electronics and is eager to
get on with it. The intellectual contributions overall have been quite
strong.

The work on the forward calorimeter appears to be going well. The forward
calorimeter design which has been adopted by ATLAS had its origin at the SSC
for GEM. This design, employing a tube electrode structure, suppresses the
buildup of positive ions in the argon gap, increasing the rad-hardness of
the manifestly rad-hard liquid argon calorimeter. The GEM approach of
integrating the forward calorimeter into the endcap calorimeter, rather than
positioning it farther from the interaction region, has also been adopted by
ATLAS. This approach makes the transition at eta=3.2 relatively seamless,
resulting in superior calorimeter performance. It also results in
significant improvements in the muon system, one being the reduction in the
backgrounds. The U.S. group has done an excellent job of bringing many of
the ideas developed at the SSC to this effort.

The estimate of the required network bandwidth required for centralized
computing looks quite high.

The TRT subsystem is planning unnecessary duplication of construction
facilities. It would be more cost effective to consolidate this effort at
one location.

The U.S. ATLAS group will have a serious problem in maintaining the schedule
that has been established. First, their cost estimate saturates the expected
total DOE and NSF funding with a questionable contingency analysis. They
should review their contingency analysis and be absolutely sure that they
have allocated sufficient contingency for unexpected costs. Their funding
resources are particularly short of needs in FY98. The ATLAS group has very
high standards and has made very aggressive design choices. They are pushing
the envelope very hard, and costs may increase. At the present time, the
funding profile likely to be available from the funding agencies is
inconsistent with the ATLAS plan. This is an issue that must be dealt with.

ATLAS Overall Impression:

The U.S.-contingent of the ATLAS collaboration contains many outstanding
researchers with a demonstrated long-term interest in high energy hadron
collider physics. The substantial involvement of Brookhaven, Argonne and
LBNL provides the team with excellent U.S.-based infrastructure. The
U.S.-ATLAS team's commitment to the experiment involves varying levels of
participation in virtually all of the detector subsystems, an approach that
contrasts with that of the U.S.-CMS group, which emphasizes major
responsibilities for a limited number of detector subsystems. While the
ATLAS approach guarantees the complete integration of the U.S. team into all
aspects of the experiment, it presents a considerable organizational
challenge.

The group's work on pixels and silicon strips draws on their considerable
experience with R&D and planning for similar devices for the SSC. This
subgroup is strong, experienced and supported by excellent infrastructure.
The current plans for dealing with the severe radiation damage problem is to
maintain the device at sub-zero temperatures at all times-even during
maintenance periods with the exception of very brief, day-long periods
throughout the lifetime of the device. This will undoubtably prove to be
very difficult, both technically and logistically.

The tracking chamber team also has a core group with considerable SSC
experience and has recently been strengthened by the addition of groups from
Hampton and Norfolk State, both with strong ties to Jefferson Lab. The
current construction plans seem very complex. It appears that a more focused
effort that exploits the recently available Jefferson Lab infrastructure
would be more cost-effective and easier to manage. The projected occupancies
of the straw tubes are very large, nearly 50 percent. Since occupancy
calculations are notoriously difficult to do, such a large projected
occupancy makes one wonder whether this technology will be viable in the LHC
environment.

The U.S. group is playing an important role in the engineering of both the
hadron calorimeter and muon endcap systems. They have responsibility for
constructing part of the barrel calorimeter and all of the crack-filler
devices. They will also provide the high pressure drift tubes for the end
cap muons. In both these areas quite elegant solutions to difficult problems
have been devised.

The work on the trigger DAQ system is well conceived and is being done by an
experienced team. The current status is still quite virtual and realistic
prototyping should start soon. The software plan is well developed and seems
reasonable.

One challenge for the experiment will be the implementation of the
superconducting solenoid coil and the liquid argon electro-magnetic
calorimeter in the same cryostat. This is difficult technical problem and
probably the highest risk component of the entire detector. Its proper
execution is key for the success of the entire experiment. This will require
especially close interactions with the KEK group that is responsible for the
magnet and the BNL group working on the liquid argon. The Rochester group
has built a number of cryostats and the technical staff there has good
experience working both with KEK and BNL. They are the safest hands in the
collaboration for such a delicate task. The U.S. group was wise to take this
as their common-fund project.

The ATLAS group has a strong commitment to educational outreach programs and
a number of the group's members have made important individual efforts in
this area in the past. Although plans at this stage seem rather vague, this
work should be encouraged and coordinated with U.S. CMS and with similar
programs in other high energy physics activities.

The schedule for the ATLAS experiment requires the early availability of the
cryostat. The collaboration has not provided a scenario where this is
possible within the funding profile projections from the U.S. agencies. The
identification of sources of support to keep this work on track should have
high priority in the group.

The financial support for the U.S. team does not appear to be sufficient for
the commitments of the group. The group has the responsibility for a number
of high risk items, most notably in the area of the vertex detector and the
cryogenic systems for the ECAL, but has assigned rather modest contingency
allowances in the estimated costs. It seems unlikely that they will be able
to fulfill their commitments within cost and on schedule. It would be wise
if they reconsidered the extent of their commitments and concentrated their
efforts in those areas, such as the vertex detector and the ECAL, where the
group has expertise and supporting infrastructure unique to the
collaboration.

2.1 ATLAS Silicon Tracking

Description of Findings:

1. The U.S. team is a world leader in the realm of silicon tracking, and is
excellently matched to its project.

2. All choices made thus far, particularly for pixels, appear to be on
target. Design and R&D are progressing rapidly, though tension has been
created by an aggressive schedule which was not entirely set by the U.S.
side.

3. Large-scale bump bonding presents the major uncertainty which is not
generated principally by an aggressive schedule.

4. The silicon strip system appears somewhat less advanced than the pixel
system; several options remain open. The U.S.-side may be driven by funding
to concentrate on a smaller range of silicon-strip activities.

Comments on Findings:

No comments are required for findings 1 and 2. Regarding finding 3, it is
unfortunate that limited funding precludes more extensive testing of bump
bonding. A small amount of money could have a major positive impact.
Regarding finding 4, the U.S. has played a leadership role on the
silicon-strip system in developing electronics, the assembly of detectors,
mounting elements into structures, testing, and developing readout drivers
(RODS). If the U.S. were to reduce scope, they should continue to have
maximal impact in the arena of ASIC and other electronics development.

Recommendations:

1. Keep up the excellent work.

2. Keep up the excellent work.

3. A small influx of additional funds could be provided either by the
funding agencies or by the U.S.-side ATLAS management.

4. In the silicon strip arena, the U.S. side should concentrate most heavily
on electronics development. They should continue to provide RODS to the rest
of the ATLAS collaboration after developing a suitable system of charges.

2.2 TRT

The outer tracking (56CM to 107CM radius) in ATLAS is provided by 73 layers
of straw tubes that provide tracking and particle I.D. via transition
radiation (the TRT). This detector consists of a relatively short barrel
section and two long end cap sections.

The individual straw detectors are of 2mm diameter. About 390 straws (inner
layer) to 750 straws (outer layer) are bundled into individual modules. The
barrel part of the tracker consists of 96 modules arranged in 3 layers with
32 modules per layer, with a total of about 50,000 straws. Each module is
enclosed in a carbon fiber shell, and the modules are supported on a rigid
space frame structure.

The U.S. commitment to the TRT detector is the mechanical design and
construction of the 96 barrel modules and the design and procurement of some
fraction of the electronics. The overall design of the detector, the support
structure, electronics, etc. has been carried out by ATLAS International
(the U.S. contribution to this overall intellectual effort has not been
discussed much at the review). The U.S. institutions involved in this effort
are Duke University and Indiana University on the mechanical side and the
University of Pennsylvania on the electronics. Recently Hampton University
and Norfolk State University have joined the mechanical part of the effort.

Comments:

1. Historically there has been a lot of experience at Duke and at Indiana on
tracking chambers. The addition of Hampton and Norfolk State Universities,
and especially the use of the facilities at Jefferson Lab, provide much
needed additional strength.

2. The electronics effort was not discussed much at this review, so it is
hard comment on the progress of this part of the project. However, the
University of Pennsylvania group, under the leadership of H. Williams, is a
very strong one that inspires confidence. Nevertheless, it would be nice to
hear more about electronics at the next review.

3. The calculated occupancy in the TRT is 17 percent (outside) to 46 percent
(inside layers). These are very high numbers that will make tracking quite
challenging, and real life often is quite a bit worse than what is
calculated ahead of time. However, as mentioned above, the choice of the
technology and the overall design of the TRT is not so much the decision of
the U.S. groups so that there is not too much that can be done about the
high occupancy at this late date.

4. A plan was presented in which three production lines (Duke, Indiana,
Hampton/Norfolk/Jefferson Lab) are set up initially, with the actual
construction to be concentrated at the third facility. Is this an efficient
use of scarce resources? Would it not be better for all the participants to
work together to develop a single production line?

5. The R&D activities outlined for FY97 and FY98 seem necessary and
sensible. The budget for these activities appears to be quite reasonable.

6. The Review Committee was concerned about the schedule of the mechanical
construction, especially in view of the early completion date required for
this detector and the anticipated shortage of FY98 R&D funds. The list of
"Projects at Risk due to lack of funding" that was presented underlines this
concern.

Recommendations:

1. Review the fabrication plan with special attention to the number of
locations of the production lines.

2. Review the feasibility of the schedule.

2.3 ATLAS Liquid Calorimeter

The U.S. ATLAS group is responsible for the cryogenic barrel EM calorimeter
and the forward calorimeter. These systems are central to the physics goals
of ATLAS, particularly the Higgs -> gamma gamma search, and the missing Et
measurements.

The technique of liquid argon calorimetry was invented and developed by
members of this U.S. team. Members of this collaboration have worked on
practically every large liquid argon calorimeter ever built. Needless to
say, this is a very strong group, more than capable for this difficult
project.

They have taken the SSC R&D work (which was coordinated at the time with
European effort for LHC) and applied it very effectively to the ATLAS
calorimeter. They have now designed an excellent EM calorimeter which should
achieve an optimal performance. It includes an integrated pre-shower
detector, optimized 40MHz readout, and minimized cryostat thickness for
preserving the EM resolution.

The U.S. group has a big role in the electronics and is eager to get on with
it. These major responsibilities include defining, optimizing, and
implementing the calorimeter readout. This is a very significant
responsibility.

The barrel cryostat is very aggressive, made from aluminum alloy to minimize
radiation lengths, with the supercoil integrated into the vacuum space to
further minimize material. This aspect of the design complicates
construction since the super-coil is coming from Japan and the project is on
a tight schedule. This is one glaring example of the complexities associated
with the collaborative approach being used by the ATLAS group of working on
parts of a sub-system, but not having full responsibility. The U.S. ATLAS
group is fully aware of the delicateness of this issue, and seems to have
the team in place to pull it off.

They have wisely assumed the responsibility for the barrel cryostat and the
feedthroughs, common fund projects which are essential for the success of
the liquid argon calorimeter. Accepting these common fund projects is a good
way to increase the intellectual impact of the U.S. groups on the ATLAS
project.

The work on the forward calorimeter appears to be going well. The forward
calorimeter design which has been adopted by ATLAS had its origin at the SSC
for GEM. This design, employing a tube electrode structure, suppresses the
buildup of positive ions in the argon gap, increasing the rad-hardness of
the manifestly rad-hard liquid argon calorimeter. The GEM approach of
integrating the forward calorimeter into the endcap calorimeter, rather than
positioning it farther from the interaction region, has also been adopted by
ATLAS. This approach makes the transition at eta=3.2 relatively seamless,
resulting in superior calorimeter performance. It also results in
significant improvements in the muon system, one being the reduction in the
backgrounds. The U.S. group has done an excellent job of bringing many of
the ideas developed at the SSC to this effort.

There is a funding problem, and the schedule is in jeopardy as a result.

2.4 Tilecal

The ATLAS barrel calorimeter uses scintillating tiles read out by means of
wavelength shifting fibers. The design resolution goal of 45 percent/sqrt{E}
+ 1.5 percent for energies near 100 GeV will be adequate for the physics
goals provided that the constant term does not increase significantly at
higher energies. The tiles are oriented perpendicular to the beam line is a
projective-tower geometry. The entire barrel is comprised of identical
elements that are joined together into modules. The outer edge of each
module has a cleverly arranged combined-function support/structure that
houses the readout phototubes and front-end electronics.

The plans now call for the U.S. team to provide about 30 percent of the
entire HCAL subsystem, including one (of two) extended barrel modules (EBM),
crack filling devices for both EBMs, about half of the front end
electronics, and much of the specialized tooling. The U.S. group involved
has experience with similar devices used in the CDF and Zeus detectors and
has the considerable infrastructure at Argonne to support their activities.

Comments:

The calorimeter design is well conceived and mechanically elegant. The use
of standardized interchangeable modules should facilitate both the
construction and the servicing of the device. The devices will meet the
physics requirements satisfactorily. The U.S. team is playing a leading role
in its design and plans for its design and plans for its construction.

The organization of the project is very complex and is a cause for some
concern. The distribution of parts of many tasks provides the group
important input into all of the HCAL systems, at the expense of the
complications of a complex organization. While this arrangement has the
advantage of giving the U.S. groups some considerable leverage, maintaining
lines of authority and responsibility will be difficult.

2.5 ATLAS Muon System

1. Findings

The U.S. ATLAS group working on the muon subsystem is composed of groups
from Boston U, Brandeis U, Harvard, MIT, Northern Illinois, Tufts, U of
Washington and Brookhaven. It is led by V. Polychronakos. The group is
responsible for the forward chambers consisting of Monitored Drift Tubes
(MDT's) and Cathode Strip Chambers (CST's), the readout system for the CSC's
and the forward alignment system.

The FY97 Activities and Budget Requests cover the full range of muon system
and engineering and pre-production development. The MDT mechanics include
studies to ensure adequate stability, various assembly stations with
fixturing, prototype modules, QA apparatus, and background analysis, and
requests $518K. The alignment system work consists of studies of detectors
and laser distribution systems. The MDT electronics includes 3 CMOS front
end submissions and architectural studies. The CSC consists of IC
development, readout architectural studies, studies of CSC performance at
high rate, and design of the support structure. These other activities are
requesting $471K.

The FY98 plan consists of prototype testing, pre- production prototypes,
design of some detail components (mounts and connections), electronics
development, production tooling, and some small ($40K) of industrial
component production. The total request is for $1.9M.

2. Comments

The leadership of the group is good. There is a substantial body of
experienced, competent groups with experience from SSC. The integration of
the University of Washington group is to be commended. The overall project
is a good match to the experience and capability of the team. The project
scope seems well defined.

The technical progress is impressive. The X-ray CCD QC is a clever idea and
has the promise of comprehensive inspection of the MDT's. Nevertheless, it
is a big detector with some 5000 m of precision chambers. There is a
substantial amount of electronics development and mechanical egineering
planned for the next two years. It seems unlikely that the complete
production costs can be predicted very accurately at this stage of technical
development.

3. Recommendations

The overall ATLAS funding profile is inconsistent with available funding.
Schedule strategies should be evaluated for possible help in alleviating
this problem.

2.6 Trigger/DAQ

ATLAS

The U.S. ATLAS Collaboration has important responsibilities related to the
ATLAS trigger/data acquisition systems. In this area the U.S. groups are to
a large extent well focused on specific components that are central to the
operation of the trigger, such that their contribution is very important,
yet separable to the extent that they can take full responsibility for the
design, development and implementation. In addition, members of the U.S.
groups, including Maris Abolins at MSU and Andy Lankford at UCI, have
leadership roles in the overall supervision of the trigger/data acquisition
and are well positioned to maintain the required close communication between
local work and related development efforts elsewhere.

U.S. ATLAS trigger work is concentrated on the Level 2 trigger system. In
ATLAS, as in CMS, the trigger and data acquisition operate together in
stages: Level 1 involves spare data selection and fast dedicated hardware,
while at Level 3 the full data set for each event is analyzed by general
purpose commercial processors. Level 2 (L2) exists in the intermediate state
where the time budget is sufficiently long that general purpose processors
can be considered, yet short that one doesn't move the entire event but
focuses instead on selected subsets associated with specific desired signals
(such as signatures of leptons). L2 does begin with a partial readout of the
fully digitized data, so it is in a sense integrated with the event data
acquisition (as is Level 3) in contrast to Level 1. This transition from the
hardware, highly specialized trigger logic of Level 1 to a detailed analysis
in Level 3 of the entire digitized event data set, presents really central
issues for design of the architecture and control. U.S. ATLAS groups have
the sole responsibility for the key component in this system, the L2
Supervisor and Region-of-Interest Builder (together known as the SRB),
together with important responsibilities associated with the triggers
expected to run in the L2.

The SRB responsibility is shared between Michigan State and Argonne. Its
design is based on the concept that processors at L2 should focus on
studying specific trigger components, guided by Level 1 information as to
the location of associated subsets of the data, or 'regions-of-interest'
(ROI). Thus the SRB receives L1 data, and directs the readout of the
specific data blocks to L2 processors which it selects. Operating at 100 KHz
this system must be fast and efficient. It is central to the operation of
the entire trigger (above L1) and very much integrated with the basic
trigger architecture. Currently, there are 3 possible versions of the ATLAS
Level 2 system, differing in the implementation of the processors that
comprise both the 'local' group (which deal separately with specific
signatures and associated ROI) and the 'global' processors (which study
combined signatures). [Version 1 has specialized local processors, and
general purpose processors at the global stage, while version 2 has general
processors at both stages. Version 3 uses the same general purpose processor
to perform both the local and global analysis.] There must be a version of
the SRB for each of these architectures.

It is important to gain experience with each proposed architecture, and
ATLAS has a demonstrator program to exercise small versions of each. There
has been considerable progress both at ANL and at MSU since the last Review,
in designing the SRB and in beginning detailed work on a prototype, based on
Power-PCS with mezzanine cards to give the required flexibility in
application. The nominal goal is to make a July '97 decision on the basic
architecture, with an early '98 decision on the technical implementation;
and the SRB is said to be on track to permit the necessary demonstrator
tests for these decisions. However, I've been told the group feels these
milestones are somewhat soft. It does seem that with a complete demonstrator
still on the drawing board, July '97 is early for this decision; and delay
may have little impact since the basic interfacing components are designed
to work with any choice. One would like to base the architecture decision on
more than a data flow test involving only a few modules of each component.
Detailed modeling of the different proposed versions of the full system,
simulated in various extreme situations, and correlated where possible with
actual measurements, is very important for understanding the designs and
their limitations. Such work is really just beginning; the ATLAS model
SIMDAQ was rather abstract and not at the detailed level of the SRB/L2
system. MSU has begun this work but has not reported results yet. Further,
one would expect that understanding of the trigger algorithms (particularly
the local triggers) is also an important ingredient to an architecture
decision. As discussed below, the U.S. groups are involved in this work but
it is not fully developed.

The funding request for the SRB work calls for $239K in FY97, split between
ANL and MSU. This largely is needed for engineering/tech work; these are
experienced and capable groups who are making considerable investment from
local sources to build the infrastructure required. Given the central role
of the SRB it should have some priority, particularly as progress towards
functioning 'demonstrators' is needed before the decision milestones can be
achieved. Simulation work needs to be emphasized also, but this can be
driven largely by physicists. The indication of FY98 needs is $445K, with
the work involving detailed designs, full chain prototypes, and demonstrator
studies. It may be that this ramp up can be delayed, which would help the
overall funding profile; and perhaps additional local funds might be
available as they were in FY98.

The other major construction activity in the trigger/data acquisition area,
as discussed at the previous Review, involved the Readout Buffers (ROBs) -
cards which interfaced each of the front end digitizing crates to the data
acquisition. This activity was dropped by U.S. ATLAS in the downsizing
resulting from funding limitations. The ROB activity gave the U.S. groups
detailed technical involvement with each of the detectors at the electronics
readout specification level so it allowed them to play a key role here.
However, the activity was shared with groups outside, where much of both the
engineering and construction was planned; and with limited funds it may not
have been possible to contribute appropriately. To concentrate construction
work on U.S. ATLAS's full responsibility for the L2 Supervisor and the
Region-of-Interest Builders (SRB) is the right choice.

Beyond the focus on the SRB, U.S. ATLAS groups have major responsibilities
involving the local and global trigger algorithms. One major commitment
involves the Semiconductor Tracker (SCT) L2 local trigger, where both Irvine
and Wisconsin together have assumed a 50 percent responsibility (the rest
coming from UK). Here the challenge is to understand the SCT data
sufficiently to be able to design appropriate algorithms and to understand
the resources those algorithms will require. An important component in the
chain is the Readout Driver (ROD), presented in the Review under the Silicon
Subsystem, where both UCI and UW also have responsibilities, and which is a
U.S. construction project. A key requirement of efficient L2 tracking
algorithms is direct access to the trigger primitives from the detector
electronics, without the delays associated with the full readout of the
digitized data. Especially for the SCT trigger, design decisions about the
data structure and content is crucial and it is a good match with the L2 SCT
local trigger to have the Irvine and Wisconsin groups involved in both
areas. As the tracking detectors have evolved, the early studies are largely
irrelevant; so this work is important and may influence the overall trigger
design. Funding requested for the UCI/UW trigger work for FY97 ($68K) would
begin an engineer to be stationed at CERN, who would take a lead role in
modeling; the FY98 request ($150K) continues this effort. Since trigger
algorithm work involves physicists, this engineers efforts will be leveraged
by the sizable manpower resources these groups have in residence.

Michigan State and Argonne have responsibility at the 50 percent level for
the calorimeter L2 local trigger. These algorithms also require detailed
studies, which are beginning. The MSU and ANL groups are approaching this
work technically from their SRB focus, and have not requested specific FY97
funding here.  The FY98 funding request is correlated with extending the
algorithm and performance studies as related to the development of a full
chain L2 prototype. Again, much of these studies are software-based and
physicist-driven, yet they are important and may need to be jump-started.

These groups are also involved, at a 25 percent level, with the L2 global
calorimeter trigger. Both groups have extensive experience with collider
calorimeter triggers so this work builds appropriately on strength. In the
near term the global trigger effort has lower priority since it impacts less
on the hardware decisions and the evolving raw detector data structure.

2.7 ATLAS Software and Computing

As commented upon in the CMS Software and Computing section, it is important
for both groups to give high priority to software and computing issues.
ATLAS has described a coherent approach to these issues. The Committee has
requested from both collaborations estimates of their operating costs,
including computing, over the course of detector construction and beyond.

The near-term computing needs of U.S. ATLAS are substantially met by the
PDSF facility now located at LBL. However, the needs will increase over
time. Some members of the collaboration are submitting a proposal for a
Grand Challenge grant to NSF to address the medium-term computing needs of
ATLAS. This step is applauded by the committee, since computing costs
associated with LHC detectors are not part of the construction project and
therefore must be borne by the base program. Alternative avenues for
obtaining funding for computing should be explored by both collaborations.

As in the case of CMS, ATLAS also plans to move to object oriented
programing using C++. The committee's comments are the same as applied to
CMS.

Two models for the organization of ATLAS computing were described to the
committee, one "fully centralized," in which all data resides at CERN and
users connect to CERN via networks, and the other "partially decentralized,"
in which raw data resides at CERN and initial reconstruction is done there,
but reduced data sets would reside at regional centers. The estimated
bandwidth requirement of 1.2 Gbps to support the fully centralized model
seems somewhat inflated, but the decentralized approach is more congruent
with modern computing trends and obviously reduces the requirement on
trans-Atlantic network bandwidth.

ATLAS management stated its opinion that the cost of the CERN facility where
initial data processing will occur is a CERN responsibility. The Committee
is concerned that a U.S. contribution toward such a facility of several
millions of dollars may be requested at a later date.

2.8 Education

The U.S. ATLAS Collaboration has created a new position of Education
Coordinator, elected for a two year renewable term by the ATLAS
Institutional Board. Duties include promoting educational programs
associated with ATLAS and U.S. member institutions, and acting as the
liaison to DOE and NSF on educational activities. The Education Coordinator
is a member of the U.S. ATLAS Executive Committee.

The first U.S. ATLAS Education Coordinator, Michael Barrett (LBNL), has set
up a Committee on Education and Outreach consisting of six scientists from
ATLAS universities in addition to himself. This is a sensible platform from
which to plan the ATLAS Education and Outreach programs.

Particle Physics will benefit from the public perception that its product
contributes to the Nation, and U.S. ATLAS, being off-shore, has a
particularly vital role to play in the public discussion of these benefits.
The appropriate goals of the Education and Outreach program in this regard
seem in general to be well-understood by U.S. ATLAS, namely:

1. To convey to the public the importance and excitement of LHC science.

2. To continue to supply a substantial fraction of the Nation's
highly-trained scientific manpower by ensuring that students trained as part
of the LHC program receive a well-rounded education that will prepare them
for the multi-faceted job market they will face. Care must be taken to avoid
an education focused principally on producing academic particle physicists.

3. To take every opportunity to extend participation in the LHC to
traditionally under-represented institutions and their students.

The newly-formed Committee on Education and Outreach has many ideas for
achieving these goals, especially those related to the critical area of
outreach to the general public. These ideas should be carefully screened and
piloted before the Committee on Education and Outreach tries to implement
them. The role of the Committee in publicizing the production of technical
manpower and of encouraging U.S. ATLAS groups to prepare their students for
careers in tomorrow's workplace requires additional development.

In the third area--involvement of minority institutions and their
students--a more aggressive program should be considered: creating research
opportunities for students from minority institutions. The recent addition
of Hampton University and Norfolk State University to U.S. ATLAS opens up
many doors in this direction, but the Committee might also consider such
devices as partnerships between majority and minority institutions in the
same city which give both minority students and their teachers hands-on
experience building LHC equipment. Such a program would require the
Committee on Education and Outreach to help organize funding (perhaps from
the appropriate NSF office) to support this work. It should be noted that
this outside funding would benefit both the minority institutions and U.S.
ATLAS.

In all of the efforts it undertakes, it is recommended that U.S. ATLAS
clearly coordinates its efforts with those of U.S. CMS and of the rest of
the U.S. particle physics program. A set of milestones with quantifiable
deliverables should be set by next year to give the proposed program of
education and outreach real substance.

2.9 U.S. ATLAS Management

The U.S. ATLAS Collaboration has presented a detailed management plan for
the U.S. effort on the ATLAS detector. This plan is based on strong central
management, aided by a Project Office, with line responsibility for the
technical subsystem by well qualified individuals. The Project Office is
envisioned to have two branches, the main one at Brookhaven National Labs,
with a second office to coordinate the NSF funding at Columbia University.

Comments:

1. The quality of the individuals in the leadership of U.S. ATLAS is
extremely high and inspires great confidence. This is probably the strongest
and most important feature of the U.S. ATLAS management plan.

2. The overall plan of strong central management with line responsibility
for the subsystems vested in very able individuals, rather then
institutions, is very sound. This model has worked well in the past for
similar projects.

3. The use of Brookhaven and Columbia as the centers for the organization
and management of the U.S. efforts on ATLAS is an excellent idea for several
reasons. Use of these institution provides efficient and experienced
management using existing infrastructure. Such a large project as this
provides activity and intellectual excitement at these institutions. The
existing depth as these places provides backup that might be needed as
problems develop. Finally the close association of the U.S. spokesman, Bill
Willis, with both of these institutions will ensure cooperation and a
smoother working relationship between the management of the DOE and NSF part
of the project.

4. The Review Committee was happy to see the management structure outlined
at the previous review turn into a strong and active management team at both
Brookhaven and Columbia.

Recommendations:

Keep up the good work!

3.0 Cost, Schedule, and Funding Summary

1. Global Funding Levels

Following the recommendations of the previous review, U.S. ATLAS and U.S.
CMS collaborations have each reduced project scope to match the total
funding projections given by the DOE and NSF. Cost estimates have been
refined and made more reliable by the use of WBS structure and MS Project in
the case of CMS. ATLAS is in the process of deploying these same techniques.

We are pleased to see that choices have been made to support projects with
the best scientific prospects and highest levels of U.S. involvement. The
use of a universally understood scheduling and budgeting program which
includes expected overhead charges for each collaborating institution,
including each U.S. national lab, on its explicit work package is also
appreciated.

We believe, based on the following discussion, that the descoping exercises
are not complete. We urge that the collaborations continue to use the same
criteria of scientific impact and appropriate use of U.S. expertise to come
to grips with financial reality.

2. Funding Profiles

First attempts to match construction schedules to achieve the CERN-supplied
milestones show funding profile needs for each collaboration which are not
consistent with DOE and NSF anticipated funding availability.

In both experimental collaborations the funding profile mismatch is caused
or at least exacerbated by a desire to contribute "in kind" equipment to the
respective experiment's common fund. That is, common fund equipment is
typically a large item which has to be in place early, and therefore funded
early, to allow sensible detector construction. The desire to provide this
equipment is understandable in that the proposed common fund contributions
are associated with other U.S. collaboration responsibilities and expertise.
The significant common fund items are the U.S. ATLAS LAr cryostat which is
associated with the collaboration's hadron calorimeter and the U.S. CMS
solenoid vacuum tank and iron end cap disks which are likewise associated
with that collaboration's detector responsibilities.

While the simplest solution to these funding profile problems may be to
reduce the scope of the U.S. involvement further, other solutions are
possible which involve the management of the entire

collaborations and CERN itself. These solutions will involve global
reallocations of resources or the reassignment of milestones or even a
stretchout of the project. Unfortunately, early solutions are needed because
of the complexity of the funding for these detectors, and the creativity of
the project managers will be challenged to arrange something in time.

We recommend that each collaboration resolve its funding profile problem as
soon as possible. As an action item, we request that a balanced budget be
prepared for the upcoming cost and schedule review which uses the funding
profiles already provided by the DOE and NSF.

3. Other Future Expenses

In order to plan for the future, the DOE and NSF will need to know the
anticipated operational expenses once detector construction is completed as
well as any costs which will be incurred in the transition from construction
to operation.

The issue of off-line computing was opened by the previous review and
preliminary responses from the collaborations were made during the present
review. Other costs to be considered include but are not limited to system
integration, travel, subsistence, and detector support.

We recommend, as an action item, that each experiment prepare a year-by-year
estimate of the operating funds which will be needed until 2010, where the
transition from construction funding is explicitly shown. Assumptions of
support from the base program should be indicated.

Remaining R & D Funding

Some areas of R & D funding for FY97 and FY98 fall short of what was
requested and will affect the subsequent construction schedules. The
collaborations have made sensible redirections of effort in these cases to
minimize the adverse consequences of these R&D funding profile problems.

Nevertheless, R & D funding which precedes a large construction project is
highly leveraged in that appropriate efforts can significantly reduce costs
and even avoid costly mistakes. We recommend that the R & D efforts which
have a long-range cost benefit be supported aggressively, both by the
collaborations by making strong cost-savings arguments and the funding
agencies by finding ways to reprogram appropriate funds for them.

5. Contingency

Both the U.S. CMS and the ATLAS Collaborations presented plans for funding
of contingency which was around 25 percent, and maybe a little bit less,
depending on what was included in the denominator. The review committee was
quite skeptical that this level of contingency was sufficient. This
skepticism was based on the considerably higher contingency experience of
previously completed collider detectors in the U.S.

The estimation of the funds required to cover contingency is traditionally
difficult since costs that can be anticipate are presumably included in the
cost estimate. Contingency is required for unexpected reasons and thus
cannot be reliably derived from first principles or estimated by simple
methodologies or formulas. A more reliable procedure is to extrapolate from
the experience of recently completed similar projects.

The review committee recommends that a study be carried out to evaluate the
contingency experience of recently completed large collider detectors that
were built under similar U.S. budgeting methods, WBS structures, and
periodic Lehman/Temple type reviews etc., i.e. projects that had a
comparable level of cost and management oversight and control as we expect
for the U.S. contributions to the LHC detectors. Care must be taken to
include not only contingencies that appear in the construction budgets but
also funds form other sources that were used to cover contingencies. This
information can then be used as a basis from which to extrapolate to the
present LHC situation, taking into account factors that can lower or
increase the needed contingency, such as complexity of he detectors,
complexity of the management environment (single lab, national,
international complications, etc.) and the level of detailed engineering
design and detector quality prototypes available at the time of the cost
estimate.

The review committee realizes that this procedure will require some effort
and may lead to some political complications. However the committee believes
that the alternative possibility of cost overruns would be much more painful
in an international environment where the traditional fixes of time delays
or staging of components may be very difficult.

Recommendation:

A subcommittee, should be commissioned by the DOE and NSF to evaluate the
contingency experience of the recently completed large collider detectors
that were built under similar U.S. budget conventions, WBS structures, and
periodic Lehman/Temple reviews as we expect to be the case for the U.S.
contributions to the LHC detectors. Care should be taken to include not only
contingency included in the construction budgets but also funds from other
sources used to cover contingencies. This information should then be used to
extrapolate to the U.S. ATLAS and CMS projects. The two collaborations
should be advised that they will be under severe pressure to provide a
totally believable justification for the contingency presented at the
upcoming cost and schedule review. We also request that each collaboration
address the question of contingency on common fund equipment as clearly as
possible, reflecting the policies of CERN and the respective collaborations.

                                                          APPENDIX I

                                         Charge to the Review Committee for
the                                                                         
     U.S. Effort in the ATLAS and CMS Detectors

For each U.S. detector collaboration effort:

- Review scientifically the choices made for the U.S. collaboration effort.
Do they make sense in light of the committee's previous recommendations? Are
these choices appropriate for the collaboration groups proposing them?

- Review the R&D planned for FY 1997 and anticipated for FY 1998 (and FY
1999 if applicable). Given the financial guidelines for this work, is the
work appropriate and directed to the task of preparation for the various
stages of fabrication? What is needed?

- Review the cost, schedule and management of the U.S. detector effort as
presented with respect to the given financial guidelines and assumed
profiles. Assess the ability of the collaborating groups to carry out the
necessary activities on time and on budget. Identify problem areas and
issues.

- Report the findings of the committee to John R. O'Fallon (DOE) by January
31, 1997. Report any action items immediately.

- Committee members should communicate their individual views in confidence
by letter to John R. O'Fallon (DOE), (cc: P. K. Williams DOE), and Marvin
Goldberg (NSF), (cc: Patricia Rankin, NSF), by November 22, 1996.

- As an additional charge to the committee members, please provide your
confidential assessments on individual proposals of university groups as
appropriate by letter to Marvin Goldberg (NSF) or P.K. Williams (DOE), by
December 13, 1996. As always, these evaluations are to be on the basis of
scientific and technical merits of the proposed projects; appropriateness of
the method or approach; the number and competency of the personnel and
adequacy of institutional resources; the reasonableness and appropriateness
of the proposed budget. Please also evaluate the ways in which these
proposals support the additional NSF missions of education/outreach and
diversity.

                                                      APPENDIX II

                             ATLAS/CMS R&D Review Committee Members:

Charles Baltay

Yale University

Department of Physics

P.O. Box 208121, 554 JWG

266 Whitney Ave.

New Haven, CT 06520-8121

Jim Brau

University of Oregon

Department of Physics

Eugene, OR 97403

Marty Breidenbach

Stanford Linear Accelerator Center

2575 Sand Hill Road, M.S. 96

Menlo Park, CA 94025

Dave Cutts

Brown University

Department of Physics

Providence, RI 02912

Nathan Isgur

Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility

12000 Jefferson Ave.

Newport News, VA 23606

Rolland Johnson

45 Jonquil Lane

Newport News, VA 23606

Steve Olsen

Department of Physics & Astronomy

University of Hawaii

Honolulu, HI 96822

N. W.(Bill) Reay

Dept. of Physics

Kansas State University

Manhattan, KS 66506-2603

Jack Ritchie

University of Texas at Austin

Department of Physics

Austin, TX 78712

Dennis Theriot

445 Northshore Rd.

Longboat Key, FL 34228

DOE

John R. O'Fallon

U.S. Department of Energy

19901 Germantown Road

Germantown, MD 20874-1290

Daniel Lehman

U.S. Department of Energy

19901 Germantown Road

Germantown, MD 20874-1290

P.K. Williams (Chair)

U.S. Department of Energy

19901 Germantown Road

Germantown, MD 20874-1290

Robert Diebold

U.S. Department of Energy

19901 Germantown Road

Germantown, MD 20874-1290

Gordon R. Charlton

U.S. Department of Energy

19901 Germantown Road

Germantown, MD 20874-1290

Marvin W. Gettner

U.S. Department of Energy

19901 Germantown Road

Germantown, MD 20874-1290

Earle Fowler

U.S. Department of Energy

19901 Germantown Road

Germantown, MD 20874-1290

NSF

Robert Eisenstein

National Science Foundation

4201 Wilson Blvd.

Suite 1015

Arlington, VA 22230

Marvin Goldberg

National Science Foundation

4201 Wilson Blvd.

Suite 1015

Arlington, VA 22230

Patricia Rankin

National Science Foundation

4201 Wilson Blvd.

Suite 1015

Arlington, VA 22230

                                                        APPENDIX III

                                                   TENTATIVE AGENDA

                          DOE/NSF Joint Review of the ATLAS and CMS
Detectors

                                                      Double Tree Hotel

                                                     Rockville, Maryland

                                          October 30 - November 1, 1996

Wednesday, October 30, 1996:

8:30 a.m.          Executive Session

9:30 a.m.         Overview of the U.S. CMS Collaboration                    
  D. Reeder

10:15 a.m.       U.S. CMS Management in CMS                                
   D. Green

11:00 a.m.       Endcap Muon System                                        
           G. Mitselmakher

11:45 a.m.       Hadron Calorimeter                                        
              A. Skuja

12:30 p.m.      Trigger/Data Acquisition                                    
            W. Smith/P. Sphicas

1:15 p.m.        Lunch

2:15 p.m.        Electromagnetic Calorimeter                               
            R. Rusack

3:00 p.m.        Tracking                                                  
                      D. Pellett

3:45 p.m.        Software/Computing                                        
              W. Ko

4:30 p.m.        Project Management/Contingency                            
       J. Hanlon

5:15 p.m.        NSF Issues                                                
                    S. Reucroft

6:00 p.m.        Schedule Issues/Cost Profile                              
             D. Green

6:45 p.m.       Adjourn

Thursday, October 31, 1996:

8:30 a.m.        Executive Session

9:00 a.m.       CMS Close-out

9:30 a.m.       ATLAS Presentations

                       Overview                                            
                            W. Willis

10:00 a.m.    Collboration Changes and Physics Update                      
     J. Huth

10:50 a.m.     Silicon System                                              
                     G. Gilchriese

11:35 a.m.     TRT                                                          
                         S. Oh

12:20 p.m.     Lunch

1:30 p.m.       Liquid Argon including Cryostat                            
             D. Lissauer

2:30 p.m.       Tilecal                                                    
                            L. Price

3:15 p.m.      Muon Spectrometer                                            
                V. Polychronakos

4:00 p.m.       Trigger/DAQ                                                 
                     A. Lankford

4:40 p.m.       Computing                                                  
                        K. Sliwa

5:00 p.m.       Education                                                  
                         M. Barnett

5:25 p.m.      Costs, Schedule and Management                              
          H. Gordon

6:30 p.m.      Adjourn

Friday, November 1, 1996:

8:30 a.m.     Executive Session

9:00 a.m.     ATLAS Close-out with U.S. ATLAS Management

9:30 a.m.     Executive Session (Discussion and Writing)

5:00 p.m.    Adjourn

                                                  APPENDIX IV

                                                  ALAS/CMS Review

                                        October 30 - November 1, 1996

                                                       Action Items

                                              Due by January 15, 1996

1. Given the following tentative profile of funding from the Department of
Energy and the National Science Foundation, develop a plan for a set of
deliverables which has costs and schedule consistent with the funding
profile and the external constraints to be finished on schedule by 2005.

2. Assuming the same level of support and profile of funding as in item (1),
develop a back-up plan, rescoping deliverables, costs and schedule in each
of the following "what if" situations.

      a. If contingency were increased to 35 percent.

      b. If schedule for completion were stretched out by one year.

3. Develop a plan for incremental operating needs for the U.S. collaboration
during and after the period of detector fabrication, including costs by
year, for the following:

     a. Computing, both at CERN and in the U.S. (hardware, software, and
operating costs).

     b. Operating and equipment maintenance common funds at CERN.

     c. Ordinary operating incremental needs (travel, dislocation expenses,
etc.).

                         Department of Energy - National Science Foundation

                                                    ATLAS/CMS

                               Corrected Tentative Funding Profile (3/97)

                                                 (Then-year $M)

ATLAS

19/20

-96

-97

-98

-99

-00

-01

-02

-03

-04

Total

NSF

.80

1.20

1.20

19.46

13.40

13.86

14.33

7.41

--

71.66

DOE

1.70

3.72

9.27

11.55

14.97

14.81

14.66

15.58

14.68

100.94

Total

ATLAS

2.50

4.92

10.47

31.01

28.37

28.67

28.99

22.99

14.68

172.60

CMS

NSF

0.20

0.3

0.3

6.46

4.45

4.60

4.76

2.46

--

23.53

DOE

2.30

4.62

10.17

24.55

23.92

24.07

24.23

20.53

14.68

149.07

Total

CMS

2.50

4.92

10.47

31.01

28.37

28.67

28.99

22.99

14.68

172.60

Total

NSF

1.00

1.50

1.50

25.92

17.85

18.46

19.09

9.87

--

95.19

DOE

4.00

8.34

19.44

36.10

38.89

38.88

38.89

36.11

29.36

250.01

Grand

Total

5.00

9.84

20.94

62.02

56.74

57.34

57.98

45.98

29.36

345.20

71.66

DOE

1.70

3.72

9.27

11.55

14.97

14.81

14.66

15.58

14.68

100.94

Total

ATLAS

2.50

4.92

10.47

31.01

28.37

28.67

28.99

22.99

14.68

172.60

CMS

NSF

0.20

0.3

0.3

6.46

4.45

4.60

4.76

2.46

--

23.53

DOE

2.30

4.62

10.17

24.55

23.92

24.07

24.23

20.53

14.68

149.07

Total

CMS

2.50

4.92

10.47

31.01

28.37

28.67

28.99

22.99

14.68

172.60

Total

NSF

1.00

1.50

1.50

25.92

17.85

18.46

19.09

9.87

--

95.19

DOE

4.00

8.34

19.44

36.10

38.89

38.88

38.89

36.11

29.36

250.01

Grand

Total

5.00

9.84

20.94

62.02

56.74

57.34

57.98

45.98

29.36

345.20