UEC meeting -- September 13, 2003
Present: Bloom, Gottschalk, Groer, Hagopian, Jenkins(GSA), Messier, Rolli,
Sheldon, Tanaka, Trischuk, Tschirhart, White, Zhang(GSA), Zimmerman
White called the meeting to order at 9:00am. Introduction of new UEC members.
How the UEC works:
New members of the committee were introduced to
the goals and operations of the UEC. Main activities are
the DC trip in the spring and the users meeting in June.
White updated the committee on activities over the summer
including his being approached by users committees from other
labs (notably BNL) to join forces in some of our common efforts.
The UEC will send representative(s) to a joint meeting of UEC
chairs to be held at Brookhaven at the end of October where visa
issues and new government regulations will be discussed. There was
a brief discussion of the reorganisation at the DOE earlier this summer.
Nominations for UEC chair
Hagopian is nominated followed by a brief discussion of what
the goals of the committee should be for the coming year. Tschirhart
suggests that we see if there is some way the user community can
get more involved in helping out with the accelerator. This
discussion is suspended when the director arrives to give us
an update and answer questions..
Witherell was introduced to the new members of the committee. In a brief
statement he comments that 240 pb^-1 of luminosity was delivered
to the collider experiments and they now have data samples roughly
twice as big as those of run I on tape. He outlined some of the
plans for the 10-week shutdown currently underway that includes
work on every machine. They plan to aggressively commission the
recycler during the next fiscal year. Machine studies have
been successfully merged into operations over the last month
returning to decent luminosities after study periods. The
long range machine plan was reviewed in July. The plan is to get
to 150-300 E30 leading to 4-8 fb^-1 prior to LHC startup. The
reduced luminosity prospects and financial cut backs led him to
cancel the IIb silicon upgrades for both experiments. D0 is working
hard on a L0 addition to their silicon tracker to maintain
efficient tracking as radiation damage, sensor and readout
attrition and increased luminosities all lessen the capabilities
of the current D0 silicon detector.
Mini-boone should get a factor of two increase in protons/hr
allowing them to reach 5 E20 protons on target one year from now.
The shutdown includes all the work needed to keep the NuMI project
on schedule, aiming for the first neutrinos at the end of 2004.
We will know more about the prospects for BTeV and CKM when
the P5 panel report is released at the HEPAP meeting on Sept 29.
The international linear collider project continues to evolve,
heading towards a world-wide decision process on the accelerator
technology. The long range planning (LRPC) exercise at the lab
is starting to hold public meetings and the director is expecting
a report by the end of the calendar year.
The director then took questions from members of the committee:
Q: Will there be enough protons for MiniBoone and the collider
(and later MINOS)?
A: Specific interventions are planned in the proton source that
should bear fruit as we come out of the shutdown.
Q: How will users know which shutdown tasks have been successful?
A: Progress on the accelerator upgrade program is begin tracked
in detail and most of the information is publicly available.
The accelerator plans and the presentations for the July 2003
accelerator review include milestones through FY04. These and
the report of the review are posted at:
There will be a mini-review of the machine progress October 8
and the next full review is scheduled for late February. The
The documents and presentations for that review will also be
posted, and will include tracking of progress against the
milestones. On a shorter timescale, progress is reported
in public at the ops meetings (MWF 9AM) and the all
experimenters meeting (M 4PM). The lab is trying to make
information presented at the all experimenters meeting more
accessible, and the program planning office has set up a
web page: http://www.fnal.gov/directorate/program_planning/all_experimenters_meetings/index.html
Monthly Run II strategy meetings are held to discuss the balance between
machines studies, operations and shutdowns. These are not public, but
representatives from the experiments attend and are expected to communicate
with their collaborators. Finally, monthly program management group
meetings review the progress and identify problems that need attention.
The Beams Division also reviews critical work before it is done. For example,
before the present shutdown, Peter Limon chaired a review of the recycler
shutdown work and Helen Edwards a review of Tevatron alignment. Such reviews
are included in the milestones tracked and reported at the DOE reviews.
Q: What is the FY04 budget for FNAL?
A: $285M. House has has added 10M$ to the President's budget request
for all of HEP. Senate committee stuck with the original budget
that included $285M for FNAL. The FY03 budget was $286M.
Q: How will the director convince the funding agencies that RunII
remains the highest priority for the lab after canceling the
A: Staffin has said he will support the continuation of run II and
supports the detector upgrade decision the laboratory made. He
intends to support it fully beyond FY04 but of course there can
be no guarantees for anything in the federal budget. Witherell
discussed the cancellation with Staffin and Goldberg prior to making
the announcement to cancel. We are still in a position to double
datasets on the 1-2 year timescale. Other running experiments would
like to have doubling times this short.
Q: What are the prospects for BTeV and CKM?
A: The director could not comment on the outcome of the P5 process that
will be made public at the HEPAP meeting at the end of the month.
More discussion of this could occur at the October UEC meeting.
Q: Prospects for neutrino physics at FNAL?
A: Feldman had given a wine and cheese talk at the lab the day before
and is chairing the neutrino working group of the LRPC. An off-axis
neutrino experiment could be complementary to reactor experiment.
The director expects a proposal for an off-axis experiment later
this year. This will be a topic for the 2004 PAC meeting. Fermilab
and Argonne are also contacting the local power utilities as it might
make sense for one of them to provide the base for a reactor experiment.
However Fermilab is not in a position to pursue it as aggressively as
LBNL at this time. DNP/DPF are sponsoring an extended workshop to
consider these issues.
Q: How should users be interfacing with the long range planning committee (LPRC)?
A: The laboratory planning process is designed to extend HEPAP planning
exercises rather than to compete with them. SLAC is going through
a very similar process. There are five university physicists on the committee.
Real work is being done by sub-committees that have been bolstered
by additional users. The sub-committees are in the middle of hosting
a series of workshops describing their thinking and soliciting input
from the community. Montgomery should be invited to a future UEC
meeting to explain more. LPRC is not intended to prioritise, just
lay out the sensible options. The PAC and users will then be asked
for comment prior to any decisions being made.
UEC chair election:
Hagopian was acclaimed to the chair of the UEC. The only
negative comments were that someone would have to replace
her as minute-taker and webmaster...
Trischuk volunteers to take minutes. Gottschalk volunteers to
Priorities for the coming year:
Some discussion of Hagopian (and other's) priorities then
followed. Continue to press on visa issues, quality of life
and other issues. We should consider polling the user community for
input on various issues facing the lab and its users. Should
re-consider how we are interacting (if at all) with LRPC (a
few members of the UEC are helping out on the sub-committees
but none are on the committee itself). Should continue to ensure
one or more UEC members attend HEPAP meetings. Should consider
finding someone on the committee to track shutdown progress and machine
Formation of Committees:
Hagopian and returning members outlined the roles of each of
the UEC sub-committees. There was some consideration given to
whether this set of committees were still the ones we needed
but in the end they were all retained. Chairs were found for
each of them and their membership was fleshed out:
Inreach: SHELDON, Groer, Tanaka, Zimmerman, Bloom
Outreach: WHITE, Tschirhart, Gottschalk, Messier
Users Meeting: WHITE, Tschirhart, Zimmerman, Trischuk, Bloom, Rolli,
DC trip: ZIMMERMAN, Tschirhart, Tanaka, Sheldon, Gottschalk
Non-US Issues: GROER, Trischuk. Gottschalk, Tanaka, Rolli
Quality of Life: MESSIER, Trischuk, Groer, Rolli
(chair in CAPS)
GSA representatives will be found for each of these committees
however the GSA election is coming at the end of September so
no attempt was made to match the outgoing GSA members with
July HEPAP report (Sheldon and Tschirhart)
Crawford gave a talk on performance metrics -- the new mantra
in Washington. Goals for the year, goals for the next 5 years.
Funding in subsequent years will depend on meeting your goals.
The committee members raised the concern that this will lead
naturally to a minimisation of expectations and a reduction in
risk taking and initiative.
The DOE Facilities report remains under consideration at that Office
of Science and in the Secretary of Energy's office. 51 possible future
projects are considered, 13 of them are from HEP. An APS FYI article in
May quoted Orbach as stating that current funding can support 29 of
them. At this point there is no clear time-table for the release of
UEC response to announcement of IIb silicon upgrades:
Next year is critical for FNAL and we have to keep the
pressure on to get the highest possible integrated luminosity.
The concern seems to be how the resources, human and financial,
from silicon detector upgrades can be redirected to the
accelerator. Users have also questioned whether the funding
crisis that appears to have played a major role in the decision
could have been relieved if users -- particularly non-US users
had been informed and asked for help.
There are already anecdotes from people who were working
on IIb silicon who are losing their funding. The fear is that
there is a tendency to support construction projects at a
higher level than experiment operations and data analysis.
This might be particularly true in Europe where there will
be great pressure to bring European collaborators on the
run II collider experiments back "into the fold" for the LHC.
Non-collider members of the UEC also expressed the worry that
this decision will impact their ability to sign up foreign
collaborators for future Fermilab projects.
Future meetings: October 25, November 22 and December 13