1. Outline Overview of Activities FY 09 Budget  Changes since baseline budget Fall ’08. FY 09 Budget Status Mid-year Review  FY 09 so far.  Projection for the remainder of FY 09. Opportunities for new ECAL participants Housekeeping issues Summary US CMS Annual Meeting US CMS ECAL Manager Report B. Cox May 8, 2009

2. Opening of the CMS detector to allow access to the ECAL. Repair of bad channels; At present, the percentage of bad channels are less that 1% in the barrel and endcaps (0.64% for the barrel 60,000 channels and 0.38% of the endcap 14,468 crystals). Addressing the B field (600 G) problem in the laser barracks. At present, we have dealt with air conditioning, interlocks of laser lamps so they are off during ramp- down of CMS solenoid, magnetic shielding of the lasers, and purchase of instrumentation that is tolerant of magnetic fields. In June when the magnet once again turned on, we will see of there is anything more to do. LED’s on both endcaps are totally functional after all fixes. Both blue superbrights and orange LEDs are operational. The operation of the LED system from the cavern in a “manual”mode is in place. Full operation from the cavern under computer control is well along. Upgrade of the barrel low voltage and optical links Overview of Activities – FY 09 Slide I

3. The strategy of operation of the LED and the Laser calibration system by the CMS DAQ via the TTCci and the EMTC modules with the full calibration, testing, and soak light pulses in the 11.4K of abort gaps has been decided. This strategy has been partially implemented. At present, since the checkout of the ECAL is still underway, with the trigger checks and repairs of individual channels still on progress, the LED system is heavily used for this check out. This slows the integration of the LED and Laser together and into the DAQ since the requests are to keep flashing manually. Participation in the CRAFT runs and the PFG are on- going but more manpower needed. Severe shortage of office space (need contiguous space if possible) Overview of Activities – FY 09 Slide II

4. An extra $11,817 was allocated to the University of Virginia for a small test beam LED system for the planned checks of lead tungstate and photodetector rad damage vulnerability. An extra $4,431 was allocated to Caltech to purchase a B-Field tolerant power meter and IR viewer. An additional $21,761 was approved for extra COLA’s for new, long term postdocs and faculty who were arriving in May and June. Approved Budget (Fall 08)871.361 Additions after March Review38,009 Current FY 09 Budget909,370 DOE Budget738,583 NSF Budget 170,787 Total909,370 FY 09 Budget

5. Team Account - DOEFY 09 Budget FY 09 Oblig thru Mar09 Projected FY 09 Oblig Personnel344,307194,850$349,000 M&S126,44222,613$55,000 Travel + Transport27,17833,101$70,000 COLA +short term stays205,42897,054$228,000 Communications3,3097662,000 Total706,664348,384$704,000 The main readjustment is to “rationalize” and, perhaps, readjust the distribution of funds between the M&S and the COLA and travel budgets Still may not be completely fully accounted for are the barrel low voltage and optical link upgrades: more M&S than has been allowed in the projection? The radiation tests at H4 and other places will require more resources in FY09/10? CERN Team Account

6. FY 09 Summary FY 09 Summary and FY 10 Estimate FY 09 Budget Projected FY 09 Oblig FY 09 Excess or (Shortfall) Personnel$383,304$389,000($5,696) Cornell (not agreed to yet)$25,000 M&S$227,785$144,000$83,785 Travel + Transport$27,178$80,000($52,822) COLA$267,794$290,366($22,572) Communications$3,309$2000$1,309 Total$909,370$930,366($20,996) The major imbalance appears to be between M&S and Travel + Transport + COLA, which may indicate a shift from detector workto physicist intensive work.

7. Opportunities for New ECAL participants DAQ - DQM - DCS - Operations/Monitoring (Borheim) Calibration (Gataullin) Simulation - (Heltsley) Craft/Cruzet analysis (Franzoni) Prompt Feedback Group (Ortimoto) Barrel (Singovski) Endcap (Ledovskoy) US Contacts to talk to Number of players: See the overall ECAL organization chart

8. Housekeeping issues Office space; trying to get three offices in Bldg 510 We are renting the “Chalet” for the summer- June 1-August 30 Occupancy for 4-6; I need to know who wants a place. I need information about the FTE’s at CERN in FY09 and FY10; most institutions have been responsive but those that have, please respond.. Be alert and let me know if there are any NEW requests for funds to cover COLAs, new M&S, short term visits, transport. Be aware that midsummer, I will be preparing the FY10 budget request. Think hard about what you might need in FY10. Any other complaints/beefs/needs I should know about?

9. Summary and Conclusions II We are on budget at present/ perhaps a bit over with new colas. The major uncertainty in the 2009 budgeting is how much M&S compared to for Travel + Transport + COLA’s, ie. people expenses vs. M&S at CERN. The ECAL detector is coming together nicely. Concerns:  The schedule for the magnet operation should not slip in order for us to see if the laser barracks B field problem is solved.  The final insertion of the laser/LED into the controls system (fast and slow) is not yet completed. On track for mid summer but will be nervous until we can sit in the control room and control!  The upgrade work on optical links and LV for the barrel. How do we meet the service obligations of US ECAL within a reasonable budget is unclear since most of the ways you can get credit requires one to be at CERN.

10. My major concern is too few people on the ground at CERN  on the short term to man the 24/7 CRAFT/CRUZET runs to start in June and go until full running in the fall.  in the next 1-2 years, to bring the ECAL up to optimal performance.  A very annoying concern is office space. I expect the budget for next year to be similar but with the emphasis shifting from M&S to physicist expenses as we try to calibrate and stabilize the ECAL detector. There will be off-line test beam work and test bench work to continue studying details of the detector performance. Summary and Conclusions II