1. Mu2e Ron Ray Mu2e Project Manager Jan. 11, 2012

2. Scope of Mu2e Project R. Ray - Mu2e Overview 2 Design, construct, and install the Mu2e detector, modify and upgrade the accelerator complex to provide 8 GeV protons with the appropriate intensity and time structure and build a new detector hall.

3. Project Status R. Ray - Mu2e Overview 3 Received CD-0 in November 2009 In the past year we have Completed draft CDR > 550 pages of detailed conceptual design across the project Conducted a number of internal design reviews Successful Independent Design Review of Project held in May Chaired by Jim Yeck. 29 reviewers in 8 subgroups from inside and outside Fermilab Lots of comments and recommendations but conclusion was that the overall design was at the CD-1 level. Compiled a > 3000 line RLS. Still lots of work to do to get it ready for CD-1. Expecting CD-1 by beginning of 4 th quarter of FY12. Important because of PED funds

4. L2 Managers R. Ray - Mu2e Overview 4 2 Accelerator S. Werkema FNAL 3 Conventional Construction T. Lackowski FNAL 4 Solenoids M. Lamm FNAL 5 Muon Channel S. Feher FNAL 6 Tracker A. Mukherjee FNAL 7 Calorimeter S. Miscetti Frascati 8 Cosmic Ray Veto C. Dukes UVa. 9 Trigger and DAQ M. Bowden FNAL 1 Project Management R. Ray FNAL

5. Project Office R. Ray - Mu2e Overview 5 Ron RayPM Doug GlenzinskiDeputy PM Kurt KrempetzProject Mechanical Engineer Marcus LarwillProject Electrical Engineer David LeebLead Project Controls Dale KnappBudget Nathan DuffES&H Teri DykhuisNEPA Cindy KennedyAdmin support Ron EvansProcurement Contact Andrew NormanDocDb support Mike DinnonRisk Management Jamie BlowersConfiguration Management

6. Cost R. Ray - Mu2e Overview 6 In the process of assembling our cost and schedule it became apparent that the cost was going to be too high. Accelerator work was the primary culprit, but the solenoids and conventional facilities were also up from CD-0  Conventional Facilities were up because of added scope associated with accelerator shielding.  Never finished the original estimate, but the trend was clear.

7. Our Response R. Ray - Mu2e Overview 7 We paused to Re-visit and Re-evaluate  Accelerator Task Force appointed to re-evaluate proton delivery scheme  Committee re-visited the Requirements Documents  Established Cost Scrubbing Committees  Pursued several value engineering possibilities In the end we’ve identified a Project design with a total cost much closer to the CD-0 estimate.  Will continue to evolve as estimates mature in preparation for CD-1 review in the Spring.

8. Current Status and Summary of Changes R. Ray - Mu2e Overview 8 L2 SystemNew Base Cost + Contingency (Burdened AY$) Changes Made Project Management$16M Accelerator$38MEliminate Accumulator, tungsten from heat shield, move common items off-project. Conventional Construction $24MEliminate AP shielding, squeeze building footprint. Solenoids$106MEliminate iron yoke, reduce peak field, simplify coil designs, common cryo facility. Muon Channel$10MEliminate internal neutron shielding Tracker$8M Calorimeter$0Supported off-project Cosmic Ray Veto$5M DAQ$6MChange mix of on/off-project labor to mirror NOvA. Reduced hardware. Total$213M

9. Disclaimers R. Ray - Mu2e Overview 9 Cost estimates are still under construction. Will move around a bit before CD-1. These costs represent the most likely or mid-point cost, not the upper end of the cost range required for CD-1. The upper and lower ranges will be determined based on an analysis of our risk/opportunity registry.

10. Accelerator Task Force R. Ray - Mu2e Overview 10 Original accelerator scheme delivered 25 kW, 8 GeV proton beam (6 Booster batches) to the Mu2e detector using the Recycler Ring, Accumulator Ring and the Debuncher Ring. The Accelerator subsystem was ~$100M over the estimated cost at CD-0. The Lab appointed a task force to figure out how to deliver protons to Mu2e for significantly less money.  E. Prebys, I. Kourbanis, J. Morgan, V. Nagaslaev, V. Shiltsev, S. Werkema, C. Ankenbrandt The task force was wildly successful!

11. Accelerator Task Force R. Ray - Mu2e Overview 11 The task force realized that significant cost reductions were possible by backing off from 6 Booster batches to just two. This cascades into a number of cost saving advantages: Less shielding. Re-bunch beam in Recycler in the same way as g-2.  Just pay for this function once instead of twice Bypass the Accumulator Ring  Eliminates kickers and 2 RF systems and allows us to us to reuse Accumulator components for the external beamline. Relaxes timing requirements on remaining components This led us to consider other synergies with g-2.

12. Accelerator Cost Savings R. Ray - Mu2e Overview 12 Re-bunch in RR Bypass Accumulator Ring Reduced Shielding Relaxed timing specs, no threading between NOvA batches Synergy with g-2 6 2 Booster Batches Eliminate kickers, RF, power, cooling loads Reuse magnets

13. Shielding R. Ray - Mu2e Overview 13 There are two shielding issues in Mu2e that have significant cost implications. Shielding of the Production Solenoid from the production target.  Heat and Radiation shield Shielding of the Antiproton Service buildings

14. Service Building Shielding R. Ray - Mu2e Overview 14 Tunnel Service building Existing shielding adequate for relatively small currents of pbars but not for 25 kW proton beam. Gravel has natural voids and low H 2 O content

15. Service Building Shielding R. Ray - Mu2e Overview 15 First estimate of shielding for a 25 kW proton beam required 8 feet of concrete around 3 AP service buildings at a total cost of ~$20M.

16. Service Building Shielding R. Ray - Mu2e Overview 16 Based on reduced beam power, a clearer understanding of the appropriate figure of merit and a better understanding of continuous unshielded losses:  No additional shielding is required to run 1 Booster Batch  ~1 foot of shielding would be required to run 2 Booster Batches. The Project does not intend to provide any enhanced shielding of the service buildings. Local shielding of known loss points, machine tuning, loss monitors and administrative controls should allow us to run with 2 Booster Batches. Will have a chance to get a first look at actual losses when beam is commissioned for g-2. There is a risk that we cannot run 2 full Booster Batches. Captured in Risk Registry $3-5M to mitigate, or mitigate with more running time.

17. Heat Shield R. Ray - Mu2e Overview 17 The heat and radiation load from the particle spray on the Production Solenoid surrounding the Production Target can cause the magnet to quench or fail due to radiation damage. To shield the original 25 kW beam required a 60 ton shield of tungsten and copper. Production Target Production Solenoid Tungsten Copper

18. Heat Shield R. Ray - Mu2e Overview 18 No Tungsten is required for 8 kW beam.  Significantly simplifies mechanical construction and cooling  Saves ~$6M. Production Target no longer requires water cooling  Simplifies service and replacement

19. Solenoids R. Ray - Mu2e Overview 19 PS IRON DS IRON Power Supply/Quench Protection Cryoplant Field Mapping Ancillary Equipment Installation and commissioning Production Solenoid (PS) Transport Solenoid (TS) Detector Solenoid (DS) Cryogenic Distribution Insulating Vacuum ~60/40 of Base Cost Solenoids/Infrastructure

20. Solenoid Cost Estimate R. Ray - Mu2e Overview 20 CD-0 estimate for solenoids was based on MECO base cost from 2005, escalated to 2009  $60M Added 50% contingency based on reviews of MECO  $90M. However, MECO cost had no R&D ($2-4M) No conductor ($6M) Engineering cost of $90/hr (unburdened) compared to $150/hr (burdened) at Fermilab (~$15M) No M&S overhead M&S escalation not correct  Metals have escalated much faster than inflation

21. Mu2e Solenoid Cost Estimate R. Ray - Mu2e Overview 21 We estimated our cost in several ways  Bottoms-up engineering estimate  Parametric estimate (Green & St. Lorant )  Budgetary quotes from multiple vendors in response to an RFI All consistent at the ~30% level. Initial rollup was ~$140M (base + contingency, fully burdened and escalated) We have been working hard for several months to reduce the cost of the solenoid system, with good results.

22. Cost Saving Changes to Solenoids R. Ray - Mu2e Overview 22 Remove DS and TS Steel (~$5M)  Changes field distribution slightly, impacts radiation shielding and shielding for Cosmic Ray veto Reduce PS field from 5 T to 4.4 T  Reduces stopped muon yield by ~ 10% Simplify DS design – single coil Reduce number of TS cryostats Scaled down magnetic measurement system  Labor to map fields provided by Collaboration Dedicated Mu2e cryoplant replaced by GPP for centralized Muon Program cryoplant. Many smaller changes.

23. Calorimeter R. Ray - Mu2e Overview 23 1760 LYSO crystals 3×3×10 cm 3 Calorimeter helps to reject background and provides a trigger that reduces rates into DAQ  Reduces cost of DAQ. Assumption for CD-1 is that INFN provides in-kind.  Want to find some funds so that Caltech can participate in crystal work and US institutions can contribute to electronics. There is a risk that INFN will not provide the calorimeter. The upper end of the CD-1 cost range will include the full cost of the calorimeter if it were to be provided by the US.

24. Tracker R. Ray - Mu2e Overview 24 ~21,000 thin-wall straw tubes mounted transverse to the beam direction  5 mm diameter straws  15  m thick walls Early simulations with background overlays indicate that resolution requirement (  < 180 KeV) is easily met. MeV

25. Cosmic Ray Veto R. Ray - Mu2e Overview 25 Cosmic Rays are a known background. Scale with time, so longer running time means tighter performance requirements. Studies indicate that layer under detector can be removed Neutron Shielding

26. Detector Hall R. Ray - Mu2e Overview 26 Squeezed footprint Excavation not as deep  Depth depends on shielding required for beamline. Radiation fencing around beamline allows for a shallower enclosure.

27. R. Ray - Mu2e Overview 27 Schedule Critical Path Commit funds for PS and DS procurement (~ $20M)

28. Funding Profile R. Ray - Mu2e Overview 28 FY12FY13FY14 Mu2e$20,000$24,000$35,000 g-2+AIP+GPP$3100$18,705$26,419 Total$23,100$42,705$61,419 Guidance$23,100$43,000$50,000 Difference0295($11,419) $20,000k in FY12 is Mu2e’s funding in FY12. FY13 and FY14 are estimated needs. Mu2e has already done some resource leveling to try and make these numbers work. This is not an ideal profile. Problem results from advancing accelerator work from FY15 - FY17 to FY13 – 15.

29. Funding Profile R. Ray - Mu2e Overview 29 FY12FY13FY14 Mu2e$20000$24,000$35,000 g-2+AIP+GPP$3100$18,705$26,419 Total$23,100$42,705$61,419 Guidance$23,100$43,000$50,000 Mu2e carryover$10,000 Difference0295($1419) Problem can be mitigated by Mu2e carryover from FY12 Mu2e has $20M in FY12 $7.5M R&D funds $12.5M PED Because of delayed CD-1 I can’t spend most of the PED this year. Assume $10M in carryover

30. Funding Profile R. Ray - Mu2e Overview 30 FY12FY13FY14 Mu2e$20000$24,000$35,000 g-2+AIP+GPP$3100$18,705$26,419 Total$23,100$42,705$61,419 Guidance$23,100$43,000$50,000 Mu2e carryover$10,000 Difference0295($1419) Things are a little tight in FY14, but not too far off. We don’t understand our profiles with a precision of a few million dollars at this point A few million extra in FY14 could help keep all of this on schedule.

31. Overall Funding Profile R. Ray - Mu2e Overview 31 FY12FY13FY14FY15FY16FY17FY18FY19 Mu2e $20000$24,000$35,000 $30,000 $20,000$6000 $13M spent in FY10-11 This is still just a best guess. We will know this much better by our CD-1 review.

32. Mu2e Summary R. Ray - Mu2e Overview 32 The system worked. Mu2e Project did it’s job by early identification of a significant cost overrun. The Lab did it’s job by putting on the breaks and sending a clear message that cost reductions were necessary. The Project, Collaboration and Lab all worked together to come up with solutions. The decision to reduce the Mu2e beam power opened up many possibilities and led to significant cost reductions and the realization that there were many synergies between Mu2e and g-2 that could be exploited. Mu2e is back on track and working towards a Director’s CD-1 Review in March and a DOE Review in May.

33. Overall Summary R. Ray - Mu2e Overview 33 We have developed a Muon Program that costs less than the two Projects executed independently and re-purposes existing Lab facilities in an efficient and cost-effective way. The AIP and GPPs that have been proposed are self contained, stand on their own, provide necessary functionality for both Projects and can service future projects, possibly using beam from Project X. The anticipated availability of funds over the next few years is adequate to execute this program, except in FY14 where funds are uncomfortably tight. Both Mu2e and g-2 can run before the end of this decade, providing exciting insights into physics beyond the Standard Model in a way that is complementary to the high-profile direct searches being done at the LHC.

34. Reuse of existing equipment for the Muon Program R. Ray - Mu2e Overview 34 g-2 ring Other g-2 equipment? Debuncher Ring Magnets, pumps, stands and other Accumulator Ring components AP transfer lines AP-0 Target Station AP-2 beamline magnets Main Injector RF ferrites Tevatron satellite refrigerators Tevatron N 2 and He storage tanks Tevatron cryo line Tevatron High Temperature Superconducting leads Tevatron vacuum equipment Tevatron loss monitors Tevatron BPM electronics Tevatron electronics crates Tevatron control cards Tevatron damper system Misc. Tevatron Instrumentation Shielding steel Transformers

35. R. Ray - Mu2e Overview 35 Project X