**Report on the Mini-Review of the Impact of MINERvA on Fermilab.**

# Monday, March 29, 2004

A Fermilab internal mini-review was conducted on Monday March 29, 2004
to assess the issues and impact of approval of the MINERvA experiment on
Fermilab and on the MINOS experiment. The committee membership, the
charge to the committee, the review methodology, and the presentation
agenda are included as Appendix I to this report.

> **Summary:**

1.  The committee did not identify any unusual safety issues.

2.  The sense of the committee is that the Minerva collaboration has
    provided a fairly complete analysis of the resources they will
    require from Fermilab, but some omissions were noted.  We would
    estimate that when the analysis is more fully refined, that the base
    cost to Fermilab will likely increase by of order 40%, and that a
    contingency of 40% would be appropriate.  The proposed schedule is
    somewhat tight, which may lead to\
    less than 4 years of running.

3.  The sense of the committee is that the MINOS experiment will likely
    benefit from the information provided by Minerva, and that we do not
    anticipate any significant negative impact from either the
    installation or running of Minerva on the operation of MINOS. 
    Minerva intends to run parasitically to MINOS and make no
    independent beam requests.  It is likely that interactions in the
    Minerva apparatus will contribute a few\
    percent additional deadtime to the MINOS near detector.

4.  There is an issue with the availability of cooling in the MINOS
    cavern. The preliminary Minerva estimates assumed the nominal
    estimated rates of water flow into the cavern.  Recent measurements
    have shown that the actual flow rate is 240 gpm instead of the
    expected 300 gpm.  This new information was not available to Minerva
    during their preparations for this review.  The sense of the
    committee is this is not a major issue, but\
    it will necessitate the additional cost of larger heat exchangers.

**Findings & Comments:**

1.  The Minerva collaboration has developed a detector design, which
    takes significant advantage of existing resources such as the Lab 5
    extrusion facility, the existing and unused D0 TRIP chips.

2.  The detector design is robust, and the changes which occur, as the
    design is refined are not likely to significantly affect the overall
    project cost or schedule.

3.  The impact of Minerva on Fermilab is primarily in the form of
    engineering, design, drafting, and technician support for a the
    installation of the experiment and for a list of Fermilab
    deliverables including support stands, rigging fixtures, power and
    cooling, front-end electronics, and computing support.

4.  The M&S component of the Fermilab effort is a very small fraction of
    the total cost to Fermilab.  The cost estimates were presented in a
    way that did not explicitly identify M&S costs.  At the committee\'s
    request, Jorge Morfin was able to quickly produce a more detailed
    cost spreadsheet, which broke out the M&S explicitly and confirmed
    the above conclusion. This spreadsheet is attached as Appendix II.

5.  The cost estimates are complete in that they identify all of the
    elements of effort required to mount the experiment.  However the
    committee felt that the engineering, design, and drafting,
    technician, and rigging requirements were systematically
    underestimated.  In addition, the design estimates do not include
    adequate time for preparing safety documentation, interfacing with
    review committees, load tests, or additional \"outside\" reviews
    (such as might be done by FESS.)

6.  The estimates of power and cooling requirements for the experiment
    are included as installation. This organization of the impact
    document fails to draw attention to the engineering, design, and
    drafting effort required for the experiment power, for the magnet
    coil, and for the cooling.

7.  The Minerva estimates of cooling impact are based on the nominal
    assumption that the water intrusion rate into the NUMI/MINOS
    excavation is 300 gal/min.  Recent measurements place this figure at
    240gal/min. This situation has impact on both MINOS and Minerva
    cooling.  Dave Pushka has provided some additional analysis of this
    new situation.  His conclusion is that the cooling be adequate for
    both experiments, but that Minerva may need to bear the cost of an
    additional heat exchanger. The cost of this is estimated to be in
    the \$10K-\$20K range.  Dave\'s report is attached as Appendix III.

8.  There doesn\'t appear to be a well-developed design for the magnet
    coils.  The coils are a significant driver of the cooling load of
    the experiment. Problems with the cooling design may lead to a
    reconsideration of the choices of the parameters of the magnet coil.

9.  The estimated engineering time for the development of the front-end
    board is light.  The estimates assume that the work will be done by
    the same D0 engineer who did the original D0 TRIP chip work.  If
    this person is not fully available, the effort will increase.  The
    estimate also does not explicitly include any effort for PCB layout
    or technician support.

10. In the Minerva installation phase, there are some concerns about the
    occupancy limits of the cavern.  During MINOS installation, the
    limit is 25 people.  This reduces to 13 during MINOS running.  The
    Minerva plan assumes that the 25-person limit will be appropriate
    for Minerva installation.  This may present some scheduling
    challenges.

11. Minerva installation will require some welding during MINOS running.
    This is a potential technical challenge, but not insurmountable.

12. Minerva anticipates a test beam run with a complete vertical slice
    of the detector.  The Meson Lab test beam is now operational, so the
    impact of a test run is minimal.

13. The installation estimates do not appear to include cable trays.

14. The Minerva collaboration will require some office space at
    Fermilab. Office space for experimenters is a continuing problem for
    PPD. It may not be possible to locate all Minerva collaborator
    offices in close proximity to the MINOS offices.

15. The scope of this review is limited to the stated Fermilab
    deliverables.

**Recommendations:**

1.  Expand the engineering request to include a project engineer
    responsible for overall coordination of the design, fabrication, and
    installation.

2.  Reorganize the cost tables so that there is a clearly visible list
    of Fermilab deliverables with separate estimates of engineering,
    design, drafting, technician, and rigging labor required for each.

3.  Separate M&S costs from labor costs and include a specific
    contingency for each item.

4.  Include engineering effort for the design integration of the magnet
    coil. This effort should include optimization of conductor mass
    versus power consumption and the effect on the cooling system
    design.  It should also include an analysis of supply current versus
    number of turns and how this affects the details of the mechanical
    design.

5.  Include engineering effort for the power and power distribution,
    racks and rack protection, cables and cable trays.

6.  Include engineering effort for the cooling requirements of the
    experiment.

7.  Include a timeline (a simplified project schedule) that is based on
    the resources requested and on the best estimate of funding
    availability.

**APPENDIX I**

  ----------------------------------- -----------------------------------
  **The committee:**                  **PAC Observers:**

  Mike Crisler (chair)                Jim Alexander

  Kurt Krempetz                       Jim Brau

  Qizhong Li                          Heidi Schellman

  Bill Louis                          

  Doug Moehs                          

  Rich Stanek                         
  ----------------------------------- -----------------------------------

**The charge:\
**

To understand at a significantly enhanced level, the issues and impact
of approval of the MINERvA experiment. Areas of potential impact are:

-   any safety issues

-   cost to the laboratory: M&S cost, effort, interference with
    operations  (The funding goal is that the detector be funded
    primarily externally: NSF and DOE Universities and DOE Nuclear
    Physics.) The committee should consider the impact on all Divisions.
    (It is anticipated that the experiment will seek help from the
    Laboratory for the physical mounting of the detector, engineering
    for this and safety related issues, etc.)

-   impact on the operation and physics reach of the MINOS Near Detector
    (This needs cooperation of the MINOS management and collaboration.)
    Is there any benefit to MINOS of having the MINERvA results
    available?

**Methodology:**

Starting with an executive session at 10:00, moving to MINERvA (and
possibly MINOS) presentations from 10:30 until a late lunch, and
finishing by 4:00 in executive session - if needed, with questions to
the experimenters and their answers during that afternoon session.

A written summary of conclusions and any open questions will be made for
transmittal the Director and the PAC.

**Agenda:\
**

March 29, 2004, 10:00 am to 4:00 pm.  Black Hole.

Presentations per MINERvA\
\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\--

Summary of Physics Goals - Jorge Morfin\
Detailed Description of Detector - Kevin McFarland\
Impact on the MINOS experiment - Stan Wojcicki\
The MINOS near detector hall - what is there, what does MINOS need -
Dave Pushka\
What does MINERvA need? Impact on Fermilab - Peter Shanahan

**APPENDIX II**

**APPENDIX III**

From [pushka@fnal.gov]{.underline} Wed Mar 31 18:14:22 2004\
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 15:50:44 -0600\
From: Dave Pushka \<[pushka@fnal.gov\>]{.underline}\
To: Richard P. Stanek \<[rstanek@fnal.gov\>]{.underline}, Peter Shanahan
\<[shanahan@fnal.gov\>]{.underline}, Kurt J. Krempetz
\<[krempetz@fnal.gov\>]{.underline}, Michael B. Crisler
\<[mike@fnal.gov\>]{.underline}, Jorge_G_Morfin
\<[morfin@fnal.gov\>]{.underline}\
Cc: Catherine C. James \<[cjames@fnal.gov\>]{.underline}, Robert K.
Plunkett \<[plunk@fnal.gov\>]{.underline}\
Subject: Minerva Cooling and its impact on NuMI/MINOS

Dear All,

Attached is a block diagram, which attempts to show how the sump water
is used to cool MINOS, NuMI, and perhaps MINERvA. The latest information
from Lee Hammond (FESS engineering) is that the total inflow to the sump
is only 235 gpm.

I have used 240 gpm in this schematic.

Earlier predictions of the inflow were 300, 325, and 350 gpm.  That is
why the schematic shown on the NuMI outfitting drawings (SB&O) show 280
gpm as the inflow.

The key points to see from this schematic are:

1.  There is no water available for the spare fan coil taps.  Therefore,
    heat given up to air by sources not already taken into account will
    cause the air temperature in the MINOS near detector hall to
    increase.  This may only be noticed in the long term, because in the
    short term, the rock will absorb some heat from the air.

2.  An 80 kW addition heat load can be readily absorbed as shown on the
    schematic, but will mean that the object being cooled will reject
    heat to water system with inlet temperatures of 68 F and an outlet
    of 75 F.

3.  Unless insulated from the air, the 75 F outlet water temperature
    will add heat to the air.  Unless insulation or other means are
    employed, the air temperature will increase.

4.  An additional 80 kW heat load has little affect on the absorber and
    decay pipe cooling.

5.  The temperatures shown on the schematic indicate that the heat
    exchanger for the MINERVA 80 kW load will need to be fairly large
    and expensive to be sure that the approach across the heat exchanger
    (and therefore the average temperature to the MINERVA loads) is kept
    as small as reasonably achievable.

6.  In light of the reduced water flow and since MINOS has not operated
    the near detector or its electronics yet, the MINOS system may need
    some modifications to meet the temperature requirements set by the
    experiment.  Such changes will affect additional loads also.

7.  Lastly, the careful reader will see that I omitted some detail
    present on the P&ID from the block diagram schematic to keep it
    simpler to read.

Dave