# Presentation: 755441

## BESAC Subpanel Review of IPNS and LANSCE/Lujan Center

***Washington, D. C.***
***December 11, 2000***

-  Introduction		Ward Plummer, Chair
-  Evaluation Procedure &	Jack E. Crow
-      User Community
-  Facility Evaluation	Andrew Taylor
- _[http://www.sc.doe.](http://www.sc.doe.gov/production/bes/BESAC/Meetings3.html)__[gov](http://www.sc.doe.gov/production/bes/BESAC/Meetings3.html)__[/production/](http://www.sc.doe.gov/production/bes/BESAC/Meetings3.html)__[bes](http://www.sc.doe.gov/production/bes/BESAC/Meetings3.html)__[/BESAC/Meetings3.html](http://www.sc.doe.gov/production/bes/BESAC/Meetings3.html)_

## Charge to the Committee

- •	In September 1999, the Chair of BESAC, Geri Richmond, charged by Martha Krebs, Director of the DOE Office of Science to convene Subpanel to review the Intense Pulsed Neutron Source (IPNS) at ANL and the Manuel J. Lujan Neutron Scattering Center at LANL
- •	Charge
- 	The first activity is a review of the IPNS and MLNSC.  As you know, BES has begun the construction of the Spallation Neutron Source (SNS) at Oak Ridge National Laboratory and is upgrading the MLNSC jointly with the Office of Defense Programs.  When commissioned in 2005, the SNS will be the world’s premier spallation source for neutron scattering research.  However, during the interim and even past the time of the SNS commissioning, IPNS and MLNSC will be critical components of this country’s capabilities in neutron scattering.  Therefore, I would like BESAC to review the science and the user programs at IPNS and MLNSC.  The group that you assemble for this task should, of course, contain experts in the sciences enabled by neutron scattering, but it should also contain members who will be able to address the effectiveness of the user program; user support; proposal review mechanisms; availability, dependability, and reliability; and the vision for the future of each facility.  By analogy with the Birgeneau study of the synchrotron radiation light sources, the review should consider the full range of activities at IPNS and MLNSC regardless of whether they are supported by the BES program.  I would like to have this report by July 2000.  With the completion of this study and that already under way for the electron beam microscharacterization centers, BESAC will have reviewed all of the major BES facilities.  These reviews represent an outstanding effort that is recognized throughout the scientific community.  I want to thank and congratulate you for the thorough and professional way in which _x0008_BESAC has conducted these reviews.
- •	Because of circumstances at LANL (safety stand down, fire, etc.), the review was delayed until the fall of 2000.

## National Agenda

- •**	****Truths**
- 	‰	**Neutrons are good**
- 		–	Reports:
- 			Teal-Schull Report on *Neutron Research on Condensed Matter *(1977)
- 			Seitz-Eastman Report on *Major Facilities for Materials Research and Related Disciplines *(1984)
- 			Kohn Report on *Neutron Sources for America’s Future *(1993)
- 			BESAC Subpanel Report on *Reactors, Spallation Sources, and the Spallation Neutron Source (SNS) *(1995–1996)
- 	 ‰ **	****National Agenda**
- 		–	Bring the U.S. into a leadership position in the use of neutrons for science, medicine, and national defense
- 		–	The flagship of this endeavor will be the $1.41B Spallation Neutron Source, which will be commissioned in the summer of 2006 and reach full power in 2008.
**•****	****Facts**
- 	**‰****	****~1000 user base in the U.S.**
**	**** ****‰**** ****	****4000–5000 users in Europe**

## Subpanel Members

- •	Chair, **Ward Plummer**, Distinguished Professor, The University of Tennessee
- •	Meigan Aronson, Department of Physics, University of Michigan
- •	Kent Blaisie, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania
- •	Collin Broholm, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Johns Hopkins University
- •	Jack Crow, Director, National High Magnetic Field Laboratory, Florida State University
- •	Charles Duke, Vice President and Senior Research Fellow, Xerox Research and Technology
- •	Zach Fisk, Department of Physics, Florida State University
- •	Stephen Lovesey, Head, Condensed Matter Theory Division, Rutherford Appleton Laboratory
- •	Toby Perring, ISIS, Rutherford Appleton Laboratory
- •	Andrew Taylor, Deputy Chief Executive Director, ISIS, Rutherford Appleton Laboratory
- •	John Tranquada, Head, Neutron Scattering Section, Department of Physics, Brookhaven National Laboratory

## Agenda

- •	Kickoff Meeting, October 12–13, 2000, Gaithersburg, Maryland
- •	Request for Information from Directors of the Facilities, October 25, 2000
- •	**Site Visits**
- 	 ‰ 	LANL/LANSCE/Lujan Center, November 14–15, 2000
- 	 ‰ 	ANL/IPNS, November 16–17, 2000
- •	Report Preparation, November 18–December 8, 2000
- •**	****Presentation to BESAC, December 11, 2000**

## LANSCE Source:   +

**80 kW --  100  μA at 20 Hz**

## IPNS Source:  - 

**7 kW --  14  μA at 20 Hz**
**U****235**** target****	****	**** x 2**
**Solid Methane ****	****    x 3.5**
***15 kW Thermal / Epithermal ***
***50 kW Cold ***

***Dedicated Facility***

## International Benchmark

**ISIS (200 kW)**** ******** ****ILL (58 MW)**

- History of peak fluxes for both neutron and pulsed spallation sources

## Proton Beam Power

- x
- Target Effectiveness
- x
- Moderator Optimization
- x
- Number and Type of Instruments
- x
- Quality of Instruments
- x
- Reliability
- x
- Facility Support
- x
- Users
- =
- Impact: Scientific Output

## LANSCE/Lujan Summary

***Potential to be a world ranking user facility***
***Latent user community - both internally and in the UC Campuses***
***Staff on the Lujan floor and in the SDTs show promise***
***Evidence of commitment at all levels***
*but*
***Lack of integration renders this ineffective***

## IPNS Summary

***Outstanding value***
***Impressively well integrated team keeps an outmoded source operational at the highest levels of efficiency***
***Can be sustained and enhanced -- with modest investments***
***Plan for cost effective upgrades identified***
***Window of opportunity to pass on expertise to a new generation***
***Committed to success at all levels***

**Source****	****	****	****+****	****  -**
**Reliability****	****	****	****- ****	****++**
**Instrumentation****	****	****-****	****  -**
**Support Facilities****	****	****- ****	****  -**
**Support Staff****	****	****+ ****	**** +**
**User Community****	****	****+ ****	**** +**
**Cost Effectiveness**
** ****- Operations****	****	****	****- - ****	****+ +**
** ****-  Science****	****	****	**** - ****	**** +**
**Stewardship/Management****	****- -****	**** +**
**Impact****	****	****	**** - ****	**** +**

## The User Community

## General Overview of Findings

***“******The Most Important thing these facilities can do is to run reliably, build a user base, and do good science—training scientists to utilize the unique instrumentation associated with a pulsed spallation source.”***
- Thom Mason, Director, Experimental Facilities Division, SNS

**•****	****Findings**
***	****** *****‰***** ******	*****It is imperative that every spallation source in the U.S. is utilized to its full potential to assure that a sufficiently large and well-trained user community exists when SNS is fully operational in ~2008.**
***	****** *****‰***** ******	*****It is essential to substantially increase the neutron user community in order to fully exploit the SNS.  This will not occur in a timely fashion without an active program.**