1

The International Reactor 13 Working Group

2

Or Three Meetings and a

White Paper

April 2003 University of Alabama

October 2003 Munich TUM (Technische Universitat Munchen)

March 2004, Niigata, Japan

3

Workshop Participants

Alabama 26 Munich 58 Niigata 61

Total at any workshop or on author list

~200

4

International Working Group

Alabama Argonne Berkeley Cal Tech Chicago Columbia Fermilab IIT Kansas State LSU Michigan Minnesota Northwestern Stony Brook Tennesee Texas Virginia Tech Washington

Munich TUM MPI-Heidelberg MPI-Munich SISSA College de France CEA/Saclay INFN Bologna INFN Trieste

Brasileiro Campinas Rio

Kurchatov

Tohoku Niigata Tokyo Institute

Technology Tokyo

Metropolitan U IHEP Beijing Academia Sinica

5

125 authors from 40 institutions

9 countries

~30 people provided contributions

Another 10-15 provided comments

6

Outline of White Paper

1. Introduction2. Opportunity/Motivation3. Optimize Baseline4. Previous Experiments5. Detector Design6. Calibration7. Backgrounds/Overburden8. Systematics9. Sites

10. Other physics11. Tunnel/Shaft12. Safety13. OutreachA. AngraB. (Double) CHOOZC. Daya BayD. Diable CanyonE. IllinoisF. KASKAG. KR2DET

7

TheoryMotivationfor 13 ?

8

A year of Reactor Meetings Besides 3 IWG meetings APS study kickoff/final meetings Dec/June 2 APS Reactor Working Group meetings Feb/May “US Meeting for a Future Neutrino Observatory at

Reactors” at San Luis Obispo March US/UK meeting June 2 hour meeting at 2004 June 2 workshops in China Nov/Jan Collaboration meetings of midwest group, CHOOZ,

etc. The meeting I didn’t know about?

9

Future of the International Working Group

We didn’t need a 1.5 day meeting in Paris this June.

It isn’t really one group. It’s several collaborations

Assuming more than one collaboration forms, continued meetings are useful,

But not more than once per year.

10

Promote the Concept

June 2004CERN Courier

11

My viewConclusion at Niigata Workshop

We need Double CHZIt’s a good opportunity to get going quickly and we’d be

crazy not to take it.

We need more than Double CHZIt doesn’t cover the reasonably accessible range of

parameter space.

12

A Thought on Future International Cooperation in Reactor experiments

“National Experiments”

1. Braidwood

2. CHOOZ

3. Diablo Canyon

4. KASKA

“International”

1. Angra

2. Daya Bay

3. Krasnoyarsk

more difficult

May be naïve…

13

Conclusion

The International Working Group isn’t alive and it isn’t dead.

It’s there and could be put to use for a good purpose.