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 provided comments

6 Outline of White Paper 1. Introduction 2. Opportunity/Motivation 3. Optimize Baseline 4. Previous Experiments 5. Detector Design 6. Calibration 7. Backgrounds/Overburden 8. Systematics 9. Sites 10. Other physics 11. Tunnel/Shaft 12. Safety 13. Outreach A. Angra B. (Double) CHOOZ C. Daya Bay D. Diable Canyon E. Illinois F. KASKA G. KR2DET

7 Theory Motivation for  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 2004 CERN Courier

11 My view Conclusion at Niigata Workshop  We need Double CH     Z It’s a good opportunity to get going quickly and we’d be crazy not to take it.  We need more than Double CH     Z It 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.