1. P25 Business 2/8/08 #1 Martin Cooper, Los Alamos Co-spokesperson for the EDM Project for presentation to The nEDM Collaboration ASU, Tempe, AZ February 8, 2008 Collaboration Business

2. P25 Business 2/8/08 #2 Outline A.Response to the DOE annual review B.Impact of DOE guidance and the federal budget C.NSF news (Brad Filippone and Doug Beck) D.Budgetary information E.Status of dispersing funds F.An August agency review? G.Preliminary engineering review H.Teleconferences I.The next collaboration meeting

3. P25 Business 2/8/08 #3 Response to the DOE Annual Review Five Recommendations - Five Page Response 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. Attached the report from the 3 He transport team by Paul Huffman Stated that the most important element was detailed calculations Stated that the 3 He transport team would decide if there was a key experimental demonstration necessary

4. P25 Business 2/8/08 #4 Response to the DOE Annual Review 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. Committed Ernie Ihloff to write a report on the nEDM usage of the FNPB-UCN building Committed to have Ernie’s report reviewed by JLab cryogenics team Committed to be done by the preliminary design review of the FNPB-UCN building

5. P25 Business 2/8/08 #5 Response to the DOE Annual Review 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. Reevaluated the R&D risk table based on last collaboration meeting Stated that the collaboration was defining technical feasibility as eliminating the high risk items and having the information for a sensitivity calculation Committing to finish all R&D by June 30 except 3 He injection and new 3 He transport test Requested the CD-2/CD-3a review for ~Dec. 1

6. P25 Business 2/8/08 #6 Response to the DOE Annual Review

7. P25 Business 2/8/08 #7 Response to the DOE Annual Review Assumed NSF funding at the proposed amounts and times Assumed all FY’08 carryover, an additional $0.5M in FY’09 above $1.1M, and $4M in FY’10 Projected a 6 month delay in CD-4 Acknowledged Congressional action 3 days prior to submission of the response

8. P25 Business 2/8/08 #8 Response to the DOE Annual Review 4.Given the large time span of the project, the CD-2 staffing plan should include a succession plan. Noted there was no preventing the evolution of the collaboration leadership Took credit for smooth transition from Chris Gould to Jim Miller Acknowledged the responsibility of the CPM to manage leadership changes Acknowledged LANL responsibility, as lead laboratory, to manage leadership changes

9. P25 Business 2/8/08 #9 Response to the DOE Annual Review 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. Took credit for collaboration responding to needs, e.g. a student for David Haase and Xiaofeng and Ameya’s visits to LANL Identified the need for a student at Berkeley Stated that the LANL technician problem was solved Identified the possibility of more engineering at MIT and LANL

10. P25 Business 2/8/08 #10 Response to the DOE Annual Review Noted that Justin Torgerson had committed 25% of his effort Stated that recruiting was going on within the existing LANL nuclear physics staff Discussed in detail the LANL hiring situation in view of general reductions in force

11. P25 Business 2/8/08 #11 Budgetary Scenarios New DOE Guid- ance MDC DOE NSF Reality DOE NSF 0.180 1.200 0.200 1.200 0.200 3.000 0.250 2.500 ? 1.100 1.600 2.525 1.100 ? 4.000 2.150 ? 6.000 < 1.325 ? 3.000 … 0.500 … 0.575 0.050 0.025 19.105 11.605 7.700 19.105

12. P25 Business 2/8/08 #12 Impact of DOE guidance and the federal budget Assumed all FY’08 carryover, an additional $0.5M in FY’09 above $1.1M, and $4M in FY’10 In actuality, $0.5M in FY’08 rescinded, no additional FY’09 funds, possibly $4.5M in FY’10 If NSF participates, the profile is uncertain Once NSF informs me, I will do an exercise to understand the impact Anticipate putting the cryogenics back on the critical path and seeing what else bad happens. Report on February 27 to DOE

13. P25 Business 2/8/08 #13 NSF Proposal I yield to Brad and Doug

14. P25 Business 2/8/08 #14 Budgetary Information

15. P25 Business 2/8/08 #15 Status of Dispersing Funds w w P All NSF waiting for NSF advance or DOE approval

16. P25 Business 2/8/08 #16 Status of Dispersing Funds J P J P P P

17. P25 Business 2/8/08 #17 An August Agency Review? A.Funding agencies will decide in the Spring (late April?) whether to hold an August review depending on what I report on R&D progress B.A guess at what evidence will satisfy them 1. 3 He relaxation time at Duke/NCSU taking data 2. 3 He relaxation time at Illinois taking data 3.Light collection with preliminary results 4. 3 He transport calculations show practicality of the multi-temperature scheme – an experimental design if necessary 5.HV at 500 mK taking data 6. 4 He evaporative purification taking data 7. 3 He injection prepared (waiting) for dual-use cryostat 8.Full valve test taking data

18. P25 Business 2/8/08 #18 Engineering and Safety Reviews A.Preliminary engineering review of FNPB-UCN building in early April combined with briefing of ORNL safety people B.Preliminary design review of the main cryostat in ~June C.Final design review of the main cryostat ~September D.Preliminary design review of full project ~September

19. P25 Business 2/8/08 #19 Engineering and Safety Reviews P-Cryogenics – 4 h in June F-Cryogenics – 4 h P-Beam/Shielding – 2 h P- 3 He services – 4 h P-Central detector – 4 h P-Magnets – 4 h P-Computing/electronics – 2 h P-Infrastructure – 2 h i.e. 3-4 days at ORNL in September

20. P25 Business 2/8/08 #20 Engineering and Safety Reviews Committee Paul Huffman (chair) Martin Cooper (ex-officio) Steve Lamoreaux Vince Cianciolo JLab specialist in cryogenics 2 engineers from subsystems not being reviewed (rotating) A very experienced machinist from … (ORNL?) ORNL safety people 1-2 collaboration volunteers optional A written report from the committee is necessary Jan sets the agenda with advice from Martin and Paul Possible talks by subsystem managers, work package leaders, and design engineers

21. P25 Business 2/8/08 #21 Engineering and Safety Reviews Material to be covered Specifications and goals A breakdown of the subsystem into subassemblies Assembly drawings of all subassemblies (the model) Finite element analyses where appropriate Other simulations where appropriate to back up specs Heat transfer and dissipation where appropriate Justification of tolerances Compatibility with neighboring parts Compatibility with other subsystems Accounting for CTE’s of dissimilar materials were needed Meeting materials specs for n-activation, n-absorption, n- and 3 He- depolarization, magnetism, electrical conductivity, etc. Safety issues Value engineering (cost minimization) Assembly scenarios Required tests Service and repair scenarios

22. P25 Business 2/8/08 #22 Collaboration Teleconferences A.Comments

23. P25 Business 2/8/08 #23 The Next Collaboration Meeting A.When B.Where