P25 Business 11/1/07 #1 Martin Cooper, Los Alamos Co-spokesperson for the EDM Project for presentation to The nEDM Collaboration MIT-Bates, Middleton, MA November 1, 2007 Collaboration Business

P25 Business 11/1/07 #2 Outline A.Meeting Goals B.Results of the DOE annual review C.NSF proposal (Brad Filippone and Doug Beck) D.Budgetary information E.Funding for optimizing the design F.Collaboration communication G.MOU H.Engineering and safety reviews I.The hotel experience J.The next collaboration meeting

P25 Business 11/1/07 #3 Meeting Goals A.Scientific 1.Solution to the 3 He transport problem 2.Evaluation of R&D completed to date B.Project 1.Rate of progress/completion-dates for ongoing R&D 2.CD-2/CD-3a date 3.Reacting to funding changes 4.Funding for design optimization 5.Engineering progress 6.Full system test specifications

P25 Business 11/1/07 #4 Results from the Annual Review A.In general, a very favorable review B.The reviewers were surprised at how much work had been done C.Five Recommendations – a small number 1.The new R&D activity related to the operating temperature should be investigated and a new plan to address the problem developed and reported to the agencies by the end of the calendar year. 2.Have a cryogenics expert evaluate the layout of the EDM hall at ORNL to ensure that the layout is optimized. Report back at the next annual review.

P25 Business 11/1/07 #5 Results from the Annual Review C.Five Recommendations – a small number 3.Provide a new projected date for the CD-2 request, based on progress on R&D activities, and in the context of funding guidance from the agencies. 4.Given the large time span of the project, the CD-2 staffing plan should include a succession plan. 5.Highest priority should be given on behalf of the collaboration and LANL management in finding the necessary scientific, engineering and technical workforce needed to complete the R&D program and demonstrate technical feasibility to ensure a successful path forward for the project.

P25 Business 11/1/07 #6 Results from the Annual Review D.It was a mistake on my part not to have most of the senior investigators and laboratory management present

P25 Business 11/1/07 #7 NSF Proposal I yield to Brad and Doug

P25 Business 11/1/07 #8 Budgetary Information

P25 Business 11/1/07 #9 Budgetary Information New FY’08 DOE Funding Request Engineering$550k LLP – Cryogenics$1,840k Rough contingency$760k Project Office$200k Totals$3,350k New FY’08 DOE Funding Actual Engineering$550k LLP – Cryogenics$1,575k Rough contingency$675k Project Office$200k Totals$3,000k New FY’08 NSF Funding Request for Engineering – $145k+($80k) New FY’08 NSF Funding Actual for Engineering – Unknown

P25 Business 11/1/07 #10 Budgetary Information New DOE Guid- ance

P25 Business 11/1/07 #11 nEDM Project Schedule CD-0CD-1 CD 2/3a CD-4 Conceptual Engineering R&D Time Now P-Eng R&D F-Eng LLP Construction Oper. FY05FY06FY07FY08FY09FY10FY11FY12FY13FY14 R&D/CDR Design LL Proc. Const. $175$550 $850$950 $2625 $250 $6850$2650$2300$1175$575$25 F-Eng CD-3b TPC: $18,975,000 CryoInsertCoil3He

P25 Business 11/1/07 #12 Funding for Optimizing the Design A.“Optimizing the Design” is a euphemism for continued R&D that does not impact technical feasibility B.There is no new money to do this work – rather it is an advance on construction funds that should already have been planned as part of the construction costs and it is not to cover overruns in current R&D efforts

P25 Business 11/1/07 #13 Funding for Optimizing the Design C.The extent to which these funds are spent in 2008, they may delay the cryogenics subsystem, e.g. the money for the liquefier goes for optimizing the design and the liquefier slack is reduced from 416 to 120 days D.For the NSF funded institutions, it would be a loan to be paid back after NSF construction funds begin to arrive or an advance from the NSF

P25 Business 11/1/07 #14 Funding for Optimizing the Design GuidesKentuckyORNLIndianaTennessee CryogenicsNCSUMIT 3 HeIllinoisDukeSFUBrown CoilsCaltechASU CentralLANLIndianaBerkeleyBostonYale ElectronicsBostonMITMarylandDuke InfrastructureLANLORNL

P25 Business 11/1/07 #15 Collaboration Communication A.It is quite good that people are publishing their work B.It is not very good that there have been very few technical notes C.There have been very few phone calls to discuss technical changes that affect more than one subsystem D.There should be a weekly teleconference of the engineering team E.It may be that our engineering server can also be our document storage facility

P25 Business 11/1/07 #16 MOU A.I have written a prototype with Caltech as the Guinea pig; Brad has not seen it B.The following are excerpts C.It conforms with a LANL standard that has been forced on me D.It is 8 pages long

P25 Business 11/1/07 #17 MOU

P25 Business 11/1/07 #18 MOU

P25 Business 11/1/07 #19 MOU

P25 Business 11/1/07 #20 MOU

P25 Business 11/1/07 #21 MOU

P25 Business 11/1/07 #22 MOU

P25 Business 11/1/07 #23 MOU

P25 Business 11/1/07 #24 MOU

P25 Business 11/1/07 #25 Engineering and Safety Reviews A.There will be both preliminary and final engineering reviews of every subsystem B.All engineering reviews will be held at ORNL to obtain advanced safety approval of the apparatus and its assembly by nEDM personnel C.The preliminary review of the cryostat could be as early as February (Jan) D.The balance of the preliminary reviews and the final review of the cryostat could be as early as the beginning of April (Jan) – A single multiple day session with some outside people E.All reviews must have reports for DOE to see

P25 Business 11/1/07 #26 The Hotel Experience A.What did you think of using a hotel for the collaboration meeting? B.Was it worth the cost and effort? C.If we like it, how often should we use a hotel?

P25 Business 11/1/07 #27 The Next Collaboration Meeting A.When B.Where