THE INTERNATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE

ON THE J-PARC PROJECTREPORT MARCH 2005

Decay Volume at sunset 1 March 2005

Meeting February 28- March 1 2005

Tsukuba, Japan

-2-

CONTENTSEXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...................................................................................................... 3
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS

4STATE OF THE J-PARC PROJECT

5

ORGANISATIONAL STRUCTURE OF THE J-PARC CENTRE

6MANAGEMENT OBSERVATIONS

7USER SERVICESCOMPUTING ENVIRONMENTEARLY ADVICE TO THE USERS OF THE "RAMP-UP PHASE"

889OPERATIONAL BUDGET

9

ACCELERATOR PROGRAM ......................................................................................... 10
ACCELERATOR STATUS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................. 10
ACCELERATOR INSTALLATION AND COMMISSIONING PLANNING .................... 11

NUCLEAR AND PARTICLE PHYSCS .......................................................................................... 12

CONDENSED MATTER AND LIFE SCIENCES........................................................................... 14

NEUTRON SCATTERINGMUON SCIENCE

14
15

TRANSMUTATION/ADS ............................................................................................................... 16

APPENDIX I

18

APPENDIX II Agenda For The 4th International Advisory Committee Meeting ........................ 20
APPENDIX III Committee Membership ........................................................................................ 22

-3-

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The International Advisory Committee (IAC) for the J-PARC joint project of theJapanese Atomic Energy Research Institute (JAERI) and the High Energy
Accelerator Research Organisation (KEK) met on February 28 - March 1 2005 at
KEK, Tsukuba and toured the construction site at Tokai.
The Accelerator Technical Advisory Committee (A-TAC) met in February 2005 justbefore the IAC. Its interim report, covering the whole accelerator system, wasavailable to the IAC. The Neutron Technical Advisory Committee met in October
2004; reports from the Muon Science Experimental Facilities Advisory Committee(MUSAC), which met in February 2005, and the Nuclear and Particle Physics
Advisory Committee were presented at the 28 February IAC. The agenda of the
IAC meeting is attached as Appendix II and the membership at Appendix III.
The IAC thanks the Director, Professor Nagamiya, and the project team for the detailed
information and discussion provided at the IAC meeting about these developments.
The electronic distribution of papers before the meeting was of great help to themeeting and the Director and his colleagues are thanked for this further innovation.
The IAC notes with approval the extent to which its recommendations for IAC
2004 have been taken up by the project team and the individual project leaders – asreflected in their presentations.
Great progress has been made with the construction of the buildings as well as parts of
the accelerator and the associated target systems. The review of proposals anddesign processes for the instrument construction are well in hand. The IAC
congratulates the project team and the Directors of KEK and JAERI on the work
done. The committee’s 2002 recommendation is being followed of, a "world classstandard in the quality of the construction of the accelerators and the initial suite ofsupporting instruments even if the number of instruments or experiments has to belimited”, is being implemented.
The importance of this project for Japan and the world has not changed – indeed what wehave heard this time about progress on the civil engineering and accelerator
construction has only enhanced our opinion of the value of the project. The
excellence and dedication of the project team from both JAERI and KEK is evident.
That these things have been achieved under very tight budgetary conditions isadmirable.
A vital phase in the work –the shift of staff, installation and component testing to theTokai site will begin in 2005. The importance of this phase cannot be overestimated– it and preparation for operation are the focus of the report of the IAC. The
construction budget situation for JFY 2005 and JFY 2006 to maintain the
momentum of the project, and organisational issues related to the proposed J-PARC
Center, are of concern to the IAC and are the subject of IAC recommendations.

-4-

In addition it is now timely to think about the operational phase of the Major National
Research Facility that J-PARC will become. The combined international experienceof the IAC was brought to bear on possible operational structures to draw in thebest national and international participants as users in the most effective way. The
question of how to provide an operating budget commensurate with the quality of
the infrastructure being created exercised the committee and somerecommendations to this effect are offered.
In this report the principal recommendations have been numbered and brought to the
Executive Summary. There are a number of process recommendations – left unnumbered in the text.
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS

Recommendation 1 The IAC strongly recommends that the governing policy makers
for the J-PARC facility move rapidly to secure increased budgetary funding tosupport the legitimate and necessary incremental construction and operating
funding required by J-PARC in JFY 2005 and JFY 2006. We particularly notethat JFY 2006 shows a construction budget funding outlook with large andalarming projected shortfalls. We urge the policy makers to find ways to provide
needed incremental funding for these next two critical years to avoid the damage
such seriously under-funded budgets will incur.
Recommendation 2 The IAC recommends that the J-PARC partners take serious noteof the IAC’s suggestions on development of the J-PARC Center management
structure.
Recommendation 3 The IAC recommends that J-PARC management complete andhave externally reviewed in 2005, a comprehensive, bottoms-up analysis of theabsolutely essential incremental budgetary amounts required to keep the J-PARC
mission on-track for a timely and successful facility utilisation of its world classscience programs.
Recommendation 4 The IAC recommends that the 400 MeV linac capability be
restored by 2010. The lowered linac energy will limit the ability of the J-PARC
program to achieve its full potential during the initial stages of operations.
Recommendation 5 The IAC endorses the recommendations of A-TAC with respect toimproved intensity for the neutrino experiments in the early operations of JPARC.
Recommendation 6– The IAC recommends that J-PARC management establish a plan
to deliver a day one portfolio of at least 10 neutron scattering instruments prior toinitial operation in 2007.

-5-

STATE OF THE J-PARC PROJECT
The presentations to the IAC and a site visit showed the progress made in 20042005 at the J-PARC site. The construction of buildings has proceeded apace and all
appears to be of high quality. The commonly occurring problems with newbuildings settling have been encountered in places and appropriate action will need
to be taken in the installation of the accelerators to ensure flexible adjustment of thecomponents until equilibrium has been attained. Major technical components of theneutron scattering, nuclear and particle physics programmes, such as the neutron
target station, are being installed and design work on many other technical systems
is at an advanced stage. Presentations to the committee by the scientists responsible
for this work were clear and enthusiastic, showing the high morale of the team.
The J-PARC facility is realizing its potential, year by year in construction, tobecome the premier facility in the world for basic research in very importantscientific and technology fields connected with the use of protons, neutrons,mesons, neutrinos, muons as well as in the field of nuclear waste transmutation.
The J-PARC facility, when completed and operating its scientific program, willbring immense prestige to Japan and will do this in a manner that demonstrates afarseeing and thoughtful integration of many sciences and technologies in a wellconceived and mutually compatible J-PARC array of accelerators, beamlines andexperiments that work harmoniously together for their common scientific andprogrammatic benefit. By its nature, the J-PARC will accomplish this compellingscientific and technical mission in a single operating facility with very significant
synergistic and economic benefits.
The value of the J-PARC and its mission was well appreciated by the JapaneseCouncil of Science and Technology Policy (CSTP) that, following its SeptemberOctober 2004 Review of the J-PARC Project, awarded it the rating of “A = VeryGood”. The J-PARC International Advisory Committee (IAC), with its expert
knowledge of comparable proton based facilities around the world, concurs in the
CSTP assessment and urges that the project be kept on its world class and very
successful programmatic trajectory as it completes the planned facilities and puts
them into operation for science.
With this background, the IAC at its February-March 2005 Meeting was shocked
and surprised to learn that far-reaching organizational changes now underway in theJapanese Government, will directly affect J-PARC sponsors, KEK and JAERI, andwill result in budget projections for J-PARC in JFY 2005 and JFY 2006 that raise
grave concerns for the project’s health, especially in the second of these two fiscal
years. In response to this new input, the IAC makes an important recommendation.

-6-

Recommendation 1
The IAC strongly recommends that the governing policy
makers for the J-PARC facility move rapidly to secure increased budgetaryfunding to support the legitimate and necessary incremental construction andoperating funding required by J-PARC in JFY 2005 and JFY 2006. We
particularly note that JFY 2006 shows a construction budget funding outlookwith large and alarming projected shortfalls. We urge the policy makers to findways to provide needed incremental funding for these next two critical years to
avoid the damage such seriously under-funded budgets will trigger.
The IAC maintains the priorities set in 2004 but also reiterates the commentsof 2004 that, after giving first priority to the neutrino programme, attention be
given in the construction budget context to ensure that “balance” and stability
be provided among individual sector budgets, across the broad J-PARC
program (IAC Recommendation 2 from 2004). We compliment the projectfor securing additional funds from external agencies towards this end (such as
those from the Ibaraki Prefecture in 2005 to address this problem). The
budget for JFY 2005 JFY 2006 must be adequate to allow instrument
construction for the condensed matter and life sciences, transmutation scienceand technology, and hadron physics.
Equally consistent with our Recommendation 4 in 2004, is our continued
view that recovery of the injection energy to 400MeV remains the IAC’shighest priority for the post Phase I programme. This matter is further
addressed in the Accelerator section below.
ORGANISATIONAL STRUCTURE OF THE J-PARC CENTER
The J-PARC construction is moving ahead very effectively and is well organized
and structured for its mission of facilities design and construction. It is now time
for thoughtful consideration of the structure that will manage the scientific programof the J-PARC for the maximum benefit of the scientific users and theirexperiments. We heard presentations and comments about the management
concepts from Dr. Y. Totsuka, KEK director and from Dr. S. Nagamiya, J-PARC
director. Dr. S. Tanaka, JAERI Vice President did not address this topic. The
issues of how experiments would be proposed, considered and approved appeared
in a number of the presentations on the progress of the various J-PARC facilities.
The IAC did not hear complete unanimity on the expectations of the various
presenters.
From the perception of the IAC, the issue of how the experiments in the various
programs will be approved, and by whom, was not fully decided or agreed upon.
The issue is somewhat complicated by the fact that the present J-PARC
organization has as its mission, only the construction of J-PARC but not its
operation. Conceptually, an entity called the “J-PARC Center” is used to refer tothe operating entity. In his talk, Dr. Nagamiya showed an Organization chart,“Currently Agreed Organizational Structure”, reflecting current agreement among

-7-

the organizations, J-PARC, KEK and JAERI. He noted that the Japanese
Government Agency, MEXT, would have to approve the final organization plan.
The director of the Center will report to the KEK director and the JAERI president.
This part of the Center mirrors the J-PARC project structure. Under the Center
director, are shown two Center vice-directors, one for KEK sponsored programs
and one for JAERI sponsored programs. Below this level are the operating andprogrammatic units. All these are shown as reporting to the Center director.
It is also noted that there is an advisory entity called the “User Consultative
Committee” that advises the managers of the Center. Although a number of thepresenters of J-PARC facilities referred to a Programme Advisory Committee“PAC”, it was not clear what form the PAC would take, how many PACs there
would be and to whom the PACs reported their advice. It was also noted that there
could arise issues of proton allocation among the programs (‘proton economics’),as well as Center-wide administrative issues, that could pit programs against one
another. Such issues come on top of the normal competition for approval ofexperiments within each discipline. All of these potential programmatic conflicts
will benefit from a carefully formulated PAC structure that provides advice to the JPARC director and helps insulate the director from divisive conflicts.
We did not hear a plan or policy for bringing all these issues under a specificorganizational structure for the Center. Given the importance of deciding upon andimplementing a structure for organizing and approving the scientific programs, aswell as putting workable administrative and operational structures in place, the IAC
suggests here some science program management principles that have worked
successfully at other multi-program laboratories and centers around the world. We
offer these as potentially helpful suggestions rather than as recommendations.
J-PARC Center - Science Program Management Observations
1. The IAC generally accords with and endorses the “Currently Agreed Organizational
Structure” slide shown by S. Nagamiya in his Status Presentation.
2. The Center director should be (as shown) the decision-maker and responsible
officer for all aspects of the Center operation and for the approval and execution of
the J-PARC program.
3. The Center director is jointly appointed by the KEK director and the JAERI
president; the Center director carries out the missions of the two agencies as they
operate their joint venture at J-PARC to accomplish the J-PARC segments of theirrespective KEK and JAERI programmatic missions.
4. The Center vice-directors are expected to lead the scientific programs that realize
the KEK and JAERI scientific missions. They will seek to stimulate and develop
healthy and innovative proposals for the J-PARC program and will approve theexperiments that can be supported in the J-PARC facilities under their purview. It
may be wise for the Center director to apportion particular scientific andadministrative responsibilities to the vice-directors from time to time.

-8-

5. A number of Program Advisory Committees (PACs) will be appointed by theCenter director, with the concurrence of the cognizant vice-director; these programspecific PACs will review and advise Center management on the relative merits ofthe proposed experiments in each disciplinary group.
6. The Center director will appoint a Center Advisory Council (CAC) to advise on thebalance of the overall program and to help resolve potential conflicts among the
programs for resources. The chairs of the PACs will be ex-officio members of the
CAC, and strong academic involvement at the highest level is suggested..
7. The Center director will, periodically, report to the KEK director and the JAERI
president, the status and progress of the scientific programs of J-PARC.
8. The Center director will foster the creation of an active J-PARC Users Organizationthat will represent the interests and issues of the J-PARC User community; anelected Users Executive Committee (Users Consultative Committee?) will lead theusers organization and act as a voice for the users with Center management.
Recommendation 2 The IAC recommends that the J-PARC partners take serious
note of the IAC’s suggestions on development of the J-PARC Center
management structure.
User Services
The team at J-PARC has initiated some User support groups and thinking
about ancillary facilities to attract and support multidisciplinary users. Some
presentations on these developments were received and good examples ofsuch services are the computing infrastructure and the web interface. The
revamping of the J-PARC Web site will go a long way in making J-PARC
information available to users in a timely and accurate manner. It will also
represent a good outreach tool to showcase J-PARC to the general public.
This effort is essential for efficient communication with the user community
and will be more and more important as J-PARC enters the exploitation phase.
The committee welcomes these developments:
Computing environment
The committee heard a very comprehensive description of the proposedorganisational structures proposed for the J-PARC computing center. From abottom up analysis of the diverse user’s requirements at J-PARC, a unified
environment respecting KEK and JAERI’s own requirements was derived which
would provide a seamless J-PARC computing support for users. A one-stop users
administration database is proposed to simplify users access to the facility and to
centralize all personal information with the ultimate objective of making all userinteractions web-based and minimizing direct-contact requirements. An
information storage system is proposed for all J-PARC experimental data, taking
into account the different requirements of the various scientific groups as well as
access to high performance computing resources for data analysis. These steps areenvisaged at both the KEK and JAERI super computer centers.

-9-

A strategy for LAN and WAN has been adopted, providing reasonable accesswhile preserving security requirements at KEK and JAERI. Manpower has been
identified, both within KEK and JAERI computing groups, to support thedevelopment of the computing centers. Cost estimates and implementation
strategies are being refined, but in any case will be demanding.
The IAC strongly endorses the effort of creating a computing group under Dr.
Kawabata to provide user-friendly and effective computing support for all J-PARC
users. The proposed organization is going a long way towards giving J-PARC its
own recognized identity.
Recommendation: The committee recommends that the resources to develop the
J-PARC computing center be identified.
Early Advice to users on the “ramp-up” phase.
As part of the management plan, the IAC suggests that potential users soon be
informed about the projected lag-time in the build-up to full intensity that is theusual experience for large accelerator systems. We suggest the production of a“discussion paper”, like that produced by the SNS (Oak Ridge) in 2002,
anticipating day-one turn-on in 2006 (“Discussion Paper, February 6, 2002, Thom
Mason/Norbert Holtkamp - The Spallation Neutron Source: Operational aspects
and reliability in the transition from commissioning to fully committed User
Operation “)
OPERATIONAL BUDGET
To quantify its consideration of J-PARC operations after Phase I completion, theIAC reviewed international experience related to the operating budget needs ofuser-based accelerator centers like J-PARC. The IAC asked for preliminary
estimates from Professor Nagamiya and these were provided. The type of analysis
shown was correct – a “bottom-up” evaluation of scenarios for J-PARC use,
together with continued maintenance and value-added technical upgrades to thefacility. We note that for a successful baseline budget exercise to capture J-PARC
operations costs, careful estimation of the required staffing levels across the entire
J-PARC facility must be completed.
As an example of the kind of bottoms up evaluation that would be required tovalidate the proposed operating budget levels, the IAC would like to point out thatmaintenance, repairs and operational requirements will be driven by the harshradiation environment that will be experienced at J-PARC. This environment willlead to major challenges in radiation dose management, a strong spare parts policy
and the development of remote handling expertise. These factors will ultimately
determine the overall availability of beam time. A strong internal technical support
team should be trained to provide expert diagnostics and scope assessment for- 10 -

preventative maintenance and repair activities before turning them over to external
contractors. In this way both contingency maintenance cost and downtime periods,
including scheduled shutdowns, can be minimized at J-PARC. This could have amajor impact on the level of contracted maintenance costs.
Both construction and future operations budgets are at risk from the “far-reachingorganizational changes, now underway in the Japanese Government, which will
directly affect J-PARC sponsors, KEK and JAERI” (mentioned above inconnection with the construction budget.) A most serious issue brought to theattention of the IAC is that a serious administrative problem in the new Japaneseorganizational structure makes it very difficult to create and sustain a suitablebudget to support the operations of J-PARC. The IAC recognizes the vital
importance of overcoming this hurdle in the Japanese administrative system andproviding for adequately funded operations of the J-PARC in the years ahead. In
view of these observations, the IAC makes an associated recommendation.
Recommendation 3 The IAC recommends that J-PARC management complete
and have externally reviewed in 2005, a comprehensive, bottoms-up analysis of
the absolutely essential incremental budgetary amounts required to keep the JPARC mission on-track for a timely and successful facility utilization of its worldclass science programs.
In connection with the longer-term prospects for operating funds, the IAC has been
informed of important policy developments, which should have positive effects on
the operation and international attractiveness of Japanese Major National Facilities
like J-PARC.

ACCELERATOR PROGRAM
Accelerator Status and Recommendations
The IAC received the report from the Accelerator Technical Advisory Committee(ATAC) describing excellent progress on the accelerator construction over the lastyear. We have accepted and endorsed this report. The J-PARC project is now welladvanced, both in terms of civil construction and fabrication of accelerator
components. The installation phase is about to begin and will be followed bycommissioning shortly thereafter. Issues identified by the ATAC for special
attention by management include:• The budget and schedule to completion• RCS and Main Ring performance goals• Installation and commissioning planning, including the transition to operations
Rapid Cycling Synchrotron (RCS) and Main Ring (MR) Performance Goals

- 11 -The J-PARC project was established with Phase 1 performance goals of 1 MW
beam power at 3 GeV in the RCS and 0.75 MW at 40 GeV from the MR. The
decision was taken more than a year ago to reduce the linac energy from 400 MeV
to 181 MeV in Phase 1. This decision not to restore the 400MeV injection wasmade to provide funds for the priority decision to incorporate the neutrino beamline
into Phase 1 of the project. It has been anticipated that the linac energy will be
restored to 400 MeV over the period 2008-2010.
The reduction in linac energy has major implications for the performance of both
the RCS and the MR. Mitigation of these effects and evaluation of likely
performance in the presence of reduced linac energy was a major topic ofdiscussion at the last two ATAC meetings. Newly established performance goals
during the 181 MeV era are 0.6 MW in the RCS and 0.72 MW in the MR. Both ofthese goals involved modifications to the operating modes of the RCS and MR
which, while plausible, were not supported by complete analyses. It was thejudgement of the ATAC in its March 2004 meeting that while these goals should be
retained, higher confidence level goals were 0.33 MW and 0.45 MW respectively.
The ATAC reiterated this assessment at its February 2005 meeting. A number oftechnical issues relating to these performance extrapolations are contained within
the ATAC report and will not be reported here. However, among the options
available for restoration of full performance in the RCS and the MR the ATAC feltthat the linac energy restoration was the most straightforward and encompassed theleast performance risk.
Restoration of the 400 MeV linac energy was estimated at 85 O¥ in the March 2004
ATAC. The provision of funds and manpower for the restoration is of very highpriority in the budgets currently under development.
Recommendation 4: The lowered linac energy will limit the ability of the J-PARC
program to achieve its full potential during the initial stages of operations. The
IAC recommends that the 400 MeV linac capability be restored by 2010.
In the discussion of this recommendation both by the A-TAC and the IAC thescientific priority attached to the neutrino experiments was kept in mind. This
programme still has the highest scientific priority consistent with balance in theoverall programme and to reaffirm this the IAC resolved:
Recommendation 5 We endorse the recommendations of A-TAC with respect toimproved intensity for the neutrino experiments in the early operations of JPARC.
Accelerator Installation and Commissioning PlanningWith the move to the J-PARC site and the beginning of the installation of theaccelerator a very important new phase begins. The coordination of the installation

- 12 -

activities, the actual installation of the components and their testing as well as thecommissioning of the accelerator requires careful planning. During this phase andwhile making the transition from commissioning to operation it is of utmost
importance that line management functions are clearly described and that roles andresponsibilities are captured in a detailed organization chart down to theengineering and technical support level.
Recommendation The IAC recommends the J-PARC management develop andcommunicate an organization chart for each division that lists all personnel
assigned and defines roles and responsibilities clearly.
Developing an integrated installation and especially commissioning plan for thisperiod to come was suggested in the ATAC report. Commissioning steps and goals
have to be written down and communicated across the project. In order tosuccessfully finish the installation and commissioning in time, adequate resources,
meaning sufficient and experienced, need to be dedicated by KEK and JAERI.
During the commissioning period and also going into operation it is likely thatcomponents will fail. It is therefore important to have a spares plan and allocate
sufficient funding to procure them now or within the time the production lines are
up. Failure scenarios for components will help develop such a list and should be
discussed for all accelerators and their components.
Recommendation: The IAC recommends that J-PARC management develop an
integrated installation and commissioning plan and assign experienced resources.
Assemble a list of spares that should be bought as soon as possible and have
ATAC evaluate that list.

NUCLEAR AND PARTICLE PHYSICSThe IAC heard a comprehensive review of progress on all the nuclear and particle
physics experimental fronts, including the high-priority effort to build the neutrino
beamline for the T2K experiment. The goal is still to achieve first beam in the
hadron area in 2008 and first neutrino beam operation in 2009. The 2009 goal forneutrino was stated to be required for J-PARC to remain competitive withpotentially challenging neutrino projects elsewhere (the reactor-based and FermilabNoνa experiments to measure sin2(2θ13) were noted) but the 2009 date will require
an improved funding profile as discussed below. There is impressive progress on
all the nuclear and particle project fronts and the J-PARC team is clearly
demonstrating enthusiasm, competence and commitment.
The hadron area presenter, Dr. K. Tanaka, described nearly complete facility andbeamline designs, as well as advanced progress on the high-intensity target plus
beam-dump R&D and facility design. He also noted that there was an intensive andsuccessful effort to identify re-usable beamline magnets from laboratories aroundthe world that could be acquired by J-PARC to defray the cost of the new J-PARC

- 13 -

beamlines. The project managers have had good success in the magnet initiative
and Tanaka showed a section of proton beam transport that used only re-cycled
magnets from other facilities, including KEK, Tristan and SLAC. The design
portion of the Hadron Facility seems to be moving ahead more or less on-schedule.
For the kaon beams, up to four charged and one neutral kaon beams were sketchedout plus a test beam; all derived from a common target. No details were given to
make this very interdependent multi-beam design credible but it may be possible toachieve and would then make very efficient use of the primary protons in the
hadron area.
Dr. T. Kobayashi made the presentation of the neutrino beam project. In this case,there is a novel proton beam transport utilizing superconducting alternating
gradient dipole magnets. This design, a first, was made necessary by therequirement that the primary proton beam be bent inward from the 50 GeV ring tofall on the neutrino target. This requirement demanded higher magnetic fields thanare practical for normal conducting magnets. The technical design is complete forthe magnets and the first full-size prototype will be completed in March 2005. The
project manager hopes that full production of the SC magnets will begin in JFY2006 in industry. The normal conducting magnets for focusing ad splitting off the
primary beam are in production in JFY 2005 and scheduled for installation in JFY2007 and JFY 2008. The many other technical systems, cryogenics, vacuum, beam
monitors, controls, target systems, horn focusing system, He gas decay pipe andbeam dump are all moving ahead systematically. Of all these systems, the IAC saw
only the civil construction activity at Tokai, where the decay pipe is now installedin the huge civil excavation for the neutrino decay beamline. The neutrino beam
construction site was an impressive demonstration of the scale that characterizes theneutrino beam efforts.
As part of his presentation, Dr. Kobayashi made an urgent and passionate plea tothe IAC for support of a rescheduling plan for the neutrino beam construction,
essentially interchanging construction of the 1st Utility Building with the Target
Station (TS) underground enclosures and building. He quoted as support for thisplea, the impending challenge from the Fermilab Noνa Project, a project that has
yet to be proposed to the Fermilab PAC, much less on a competitive schedule. The
competition from the approved CHOOZ 2 reactor neutrino experiment or thecontemplated ,shorter term Daya Bay reactor neutrino experiment may represent a
more serious competition to the T2K effort. At any rate, from his presentation
slides, the requested scheduling improvement would advance the T2K schedule byabout one year, from JFY 2010 to JFY 2009. The IAC agrees that this schedulerevision will benefit the neutrino program schedule without, as the IAC understands
the argument, affecting any other elements of the J-PARC program).
The scope of anticipated experimental activity is very ambitious and there are cash
flow and installation restrictions that may affect the start-up dates, even for neutrino
beam operation to the existing Super Kamiokande Neutrino Detector. The funding
issues were apparent to the review presenters but they were not able to identify

- 14 -

specific plans for addressing the funding issues in a satisfactory way. This issue
will loom increasingly large in the next few years if not addressed in the near future
However, in view of the similar situation for the J-PARC project as a whole ⎯ inparticular in view of the uncertainties in the 2006 construction budget mentioned
above ⎯ it is not clear yet that these limitations will matter in the end. An evenmore serious concern is the timetable for achieving full proton beam power inPhase 1 of J-PARC. In the case of the nuclear and particle physics program, thehadron facility presenter, Dr. K. Tanaka, dramatically highlighted this problem witha slide showing that the 50 GeV beam power would be cut from 750 KW with the
400 MeV Linac to 270 KW with the 180 MeV Linac. An important rationale forcreating the J-PARC in the first place was the availability of proton beam power
substantially above that available anywhere else in the world. J-PARC will be
under cutting its own rationale by not moving decisively to restore the 400 MeV
Linac as soon as practically possible. This vital concern is linked to ourrecommendation to give high priority to the injector linac energy recovery that weview as the most important missing funding element of the J-PARC construction
budget (also see recommendation 4 of the IAC 2004 Report).
The committee notes the encouraging progress in obtaining commitments fromparticipating countries for T2K. Those can only be realized with the firm
commitment of Japan to deliver beam to the T2K experiment, on-schedule, as
promised.
CONDENSED MATTER AND LIFE SCIENCES
Neutron Scattering
A balanced science programme at J-PARC will have, as a major component, astrong condensed mater and life sciences activity. The prestige of this area will lie
not in a few high profile experiments, but in a wide diversity of multidisciplinary
research utilizing J-PARC’s world-leading neutron and muon instrumentation. JPARC will become a world of excellence attracting thousands of researchers – both
domestic and international - each year, who will bring novel ideas and newscientific perspectives to the facility and beyond.
The committee was impressed by progress in the construction and planning for
initial operation where realistic performance goals were being set andcommunicated to the user community. On-going R&D on the mercury target
lifetime remains necessary for higher power operations and this should be pursued
in an international context.
The committee was also impressed by the diverse and innovate nature of the
proposed neutron instrumentation approved by a rigorous selection process now
under the guidance of Prof Fuji. It remains a challenge for the project to translate

- 15 -

this potential into reality. Although two of the simpler concepts (which haveindustrial relevance) have been funded by the local prefecture, the greatest urgency
remains to identify a funding plan for a comprehensive day one instrument
portfolio. Time is running short for this to be realized.
There is a window of opportunity to install instruments in a relatively
straightforward manner before activation of the target station by the first proton
beam in 2007. After this date, instrument installation will become increasingly
difficult and will be in competition, both for resources and for time, with scientificutilization.
Recommendation 6 The IAC recommends that J-PARC management establish aplan to deliver a day one portfolio of at least 10 neutron scattering instruments
prior to initial operation in 2007.
Muon Science
The Muon facilities were reviewed by the Muon Science Advisory Committee(MuSAC) at its meeting of Feb 25 and 26Th 2005. A technical advisory panel (MTAC) was set up and met in December 04 to review all technical issues in details
with an expert panel prior to the MuSAC meeting. The muon team responded
quickly to the numerous technical recommendations made by M-TAC. Operational
requirements are now incorporated into the design, fabrication and installationplans for all beamline and target components. The committee noted the significant
progress towards construction of the muon facility. A strong involvement on the JPARC site in necessary as the civil construction is moving along rapidly andcritical decisions must be taken. The beamline magnets and target vessel are beingordered.
At the MuSAC meeting, a number of core project ideas which could augment themuon facilities planned for phase I and phase II were presented. These would
provide new resources for developing the Muon scientific program and create
effective feedback for the design and construction of the Muon facilities. MuSAC
reviewed the process which is proposed for evaluating proposed core projects prior
to sending them for funding competition. MuSAC endorsed the proposed format
and timeframe for an international call for Letters of Intent (to be submitted by Dec05) and the proposed reviewing process by both MuSAC and J-PARC management.
This will insure that only core projects in line with the facilities being considered inphase I and II of J-PARC will receive approval in principle and will be allowed togo for funding competitions. The proposed implementation of the core projects is inline with last year’s recommendation from the IAC. It could lead to significant
additional resources to the muon facility which would allow an early start of thescientific program with muons.
Recommendation - The IAC endorses the proposed plan for implementation of
the core projects and for a first call in 2005 for Letters of Intent at the Muon
facilities of J-PARC.

- 16 -Creating a user facility requires more than building the source. To turn what will
be a technically excellent neutron and muon source into a dynamically creative
scientific facility with the capability to stimulate innovation in the materials, nanoand biomedical sciences requires infrastructure and support facilities significantly
beyond what is currently planned. Necessary infrastructure will include support
laboratories for sample preparation and development, a research environment
supporting both in-house and visiting scientists, sophisticated sample environment
capabilities and appropriate complementary scientific equipment.
A comprehensive domestic infrastructure – guest house, hotel and recreational
facilities at a world standard is also required. Only then will the technical potentialof the facility be fully realized. Since J-PARC will have a significant impact on thelocal economy, it may well be appropriate to seek infrastructural funds from theprefecture.
Recommendation – That the Director develops an infrastructure plan andexplores all potential funding sources.

TRANSMUTATION/ADS

An excellent presentation was made showing that the transmutation experimental
facility will provide a unique facility for performing neutronics analyses around a
critical (for FBR transmutation)/subcritical assembly (TEF-P) and a test-bed forirradiation performance of an Accelerator Driven System (ADS) neutron sourceand potential structural materials (TEF-T). Such a facility will provide morecapabilities than those found at PSI or LANSCE. Materials used in transmutation
technologies are put under extreme conditions such as high neutron and highenergy proton fluxes at temperatures from 300 to 800ºC. Because of these
conditions, materials accumulate displacement doses at very fast rates and also highamounts of hydrogen and helium from spallation reactions within the materials.
The TEF-T facility would allow for defining stress allowables for materials used in
an ADS system as well as allow for the development of new improved materials
that have increased resistance to materials degradation under these extreme
conditions. Improved materials with significantly improved stress allowables arelooked at as cost savings to industries which would eventually use thesetechnologies in the future.
The international context of the transmutation/ADS component of J-PARC was
analysed by three expert members of the IAC and this part of their report is given in
Appendix I. The discussions at the committee and this report leads to the following
conclusions:- 17 -The IAC reaffirms the importance and the priority of ADS technology development
at J-PARC for the development of nuclear power and the management of high level
nuclear waste. JPARC is the most advanced research facility designed for ADS.
This is a great opportunity for seeking international collaborations.
Recommendations:• That the project make a detailed comparison of the capabilities of the TEF-P toother ADS experiments such as RACE, Megapie, and MYRRHA.
This is required to highlight the benefits obtained in fabricating the TEF-P facility.
• That the project create a working group/Technical Advisory Committee
consisting of international members from US, France, Switzerland, China, andIndustry representatives (Japanese utilities, Cogema, etc).
This group will aid in design of the facility and design of experiments including thetarget details and fuel compositions.
• That because a review by the committee of AEC is required for starting the ADS
facility, the project director and the JAERI management should push the AEC toinitiate such a committee before the date that the interim review committee will
be held for discussing linac recovery and phase II.

- 18 -

APPENDIX I
Transmutation-ADS - Analysis by Frois, Maloy and Tanaka
Nuclear power is an essential source of energy in Japan. The present generation ofreactors will need to be replaced in the next twenty years. Japan has recently signed
an agreement on an important research program concerning sodium and gas fast
reactors in the GENERATION IV forum. These reactors have the ambition ofburning a significant amount of high level nuclear waste. Because of theintroduction of reprocessing plants and new fuels, the amount of nuclear waste will
be significantly decreased.
Accelerator driven systems present a complementary approach for thetransmutation of a more complete spectrum of radioactive elements. Research
programs exist in Europe, in the United States and in Russia. J-PARC is the mostadvanced program on accelerator driven systems since the abandonment of Carlo
Rubbia’s TRADE project in Italy.
There is a general consensus on the transmutation potential for various technologies.
The results of the various studies indicate the following:•
Economics of energy recovery through transmutation favors thermal
reactors.
•
Efficiency in transmutation while making the greatest use of uranium
resources favors fast reactors.
•
Rapid transmutation with low cost per unit mass of transuranics
transmuted favors accelerator-driven systems.
The optimal combinations of these technologies depend on country-specificconsiderations with respect to nuclear energy use and waste management strategies.
The European collaboration EUROTRANS on ADS now needs to reconsider its
strategy to fill the gap left by the disappearance of TRADE. J-PARC should as soon
as possible contact EUROTRANS to initiate a strong collaboration with Europe inthis domain. EUROTRANS has been recently contacted by the USA and Russia,
but J-PARC has much to offer to EUROTRANS. The IAC recommends to further
the present discussions between EUROTRANS and J-PARC and propose a memoof understanding for foreign collaborations. A series of presentations of J-PARC insome of the major countries participating in EUROTRANS and a dedicated visit to
the European Commission in Brussels would be extremely valuable.
France has an agreement with JAERI that should be used more efficiently now that
TRADE has disappeared. CEA and CNRS have joined their efforts on ADS. The
visit of a delegation of CNRS at KEK in April opens the opportunity to discussvarious France-Japan collaborations. JPARC has an important potential for French
ADS research.

- 19 -

Support to the nuclear industry is essential. The domain of materials and all thequestions about radiation effects in materials subjected to high radiation doses
would be interesting to discuss with the nuclear industry to build a strong research
program supported by the Japanese industry.

- 20 -

APPENDIX IIAgenda for the 4th International Advisory Committee Meeting
J-PARC

Date:
Place:

February 28 (Mon) and March 1 (Tue), 2005
KEK

February 27 (Sun)18:00 – 19:30
Informal Welcome Reception (place TBA)
February 28 (Mon)8:50 – 9:10
Executive Session (Committee + Nagamiya + Oyama)
Change of comm. members, Points of advice,
Agenda, etc.

9:10 – 9:30
9:30 – 9:50

Welcome + KEK and J-PARC
JAERI and J-PARC

9:50 – 10:10

Coffee Break

10:10 – 11:10

GeneralY. Totsuka
T. Okazaki (or S. Tanaka)

S. Nagamiya / Y. Oyama

Progress of Construction, Budget, Schedule,
Organization, Operational Budget, Activities by Committees,
Actions for the last year’s recommendation items, etc.
11:10 – 12:10
12:10 – 12:30

Accelerator Progress, Status
H. Kamiya / Y. Yamazaki
A-TAC report S. Holmes
Executive Session (Committee + Nagamiya? + Oyama)
Review of the Morning Talks, Writing Tasks, etc.

12:30 – 13:30

Lunch

13:30 – 15:00

Materials and Life Experimental Facilities
One Year Progress (40)
NTAC Report (10)Neutron Committee (10)One Year Progress for Muons (20)Muon Committee (10)

Y. Ikeda
Y. Ikeda
Y. Fujii
Y. Miyake
J. –M. Poutissou

- 21 -

15:00 – 15:30

Coffee Break

15:30 – 17:00

Nuclear and Particle Physics Experimental Facilities
Hadron Experimental Area (40)
K. Tanaka
Neutrino Experimental Area (40)
T. Kobayashi
Committee Report (10)
S. Sawada
Executive session
Dinner Party

17:00 – 18:00
18:00 –March 1 (Tue)9:00 – 9:30

Nuclear Transmutation

H. Oigawa

9:30 – 10:00

Network and Computing

S. Kawabata

10:00 – 10:30

Improvement of website

T Komatsubara/ Y. Uno

10:30 – 11:00

Coffee Break

11:00 – 12:30

Working Hours (1)Open Discussion, Report writing (Up to chairperson)

12:30 – 13:30

Lunch (could be a working lunch)

13:30 – 14:30

Working Hours (2)Open Discussion, Report writing (Up to chairperson)

14:30 – 15:00

Summary Session

15:00 – 18:00

Tour of the Site (Return to hotels near KEK)- 22 -

APPENDIX III
Committee Members

CHEN, Jia'er

President, National Natural Science Foundation, China.
chenjer@mail.nsfc.gov.cn

FROIS, Bernard

Director the Department of Energy,Transport, Environment
and Natural Resources, Ministry of Research, France.
bernard.frois@technologie.gouv.fr

FUKUYAMA, Hidetoshi
HENNING, Walter

Professor, Tohoku University, fukuyama@imr.tohoku.ac.jp
Director, GSI, Darmstadt, Germany
W.Henning@gsi.de

HOLTKAMP, Norbert

Spallation Neutron Source, Oak Ridge National laboratory,
USA holtkamp@sns.gov

HOLMES, SteveKIRK, Tom

Associate Director, Fermilab, USA. holmes@fnal.gov
Associate Director, Brookhaven National Laboratory, USA,tkirk@bnl.gov

MALOY, Stuart

Materials Project Leader, Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative,
MST-8, LANL, Los Alamos, NM
maloy@lanl.gov

PETITJEAN, Claude

Deputy Head, Laboratory of Particle Physics, Paul
Scherrer Institute, Switzerland. claude.petitjean@psi.ch

POUTISSOU, Jean-Michel Associate Director, TRIUMF, Vancouver, Canada.
jmp@triumf.ca
SUZUKI Yoichiro:

Director, Institute for Cosmic Ray Research,
University of Tokyo. suzuki@icrr.u-tokyo.ac.jp

TANAKA, Satoru,

Professor, University of Tokyo, s-tanaka@q.t.u-tokyo.ac.jp

TAYLOR, Andrew

Director, ISIS, UK. Andrew.Taylor@.rl.ac.uk

WHITE, John.W.

Professor, Australian National University,
Canberra, Australia, Chairman, National Committee
for Crystallography, (Chairman) jww@rsc.anu.edu.au