IV. OPERATION RECORDS

RIKEN Accel. Prog. Rep. 54 (2021)

RIKEN Accel. Prog. Rep. 54 (2021)

Program Advisory Committee meetings for nuclear physics and formaterials and life sciences
H. Ueno,∗1 K. Yoneda,∗1 K. Ishida,∗1 H. Yamazaki,∗1 N. Imai,∗2 Y. X. Watanabe,∗3 K. Yako,∗2 Y. Hirayama,∗3and M. Iwasaki∗1
There are two Program Advisory Committees(PACs) that are responsible for reviewing submitted
proposals in the fields of nuclear physics (NP-PAC)
and materials and life science (ML-PAC). The NPPAC is co-organized by the RIKEN Nishina Center(RNC), the Center for Nuclear Study (CNS), the University of Tokyo, and the Wako Nuclear Science Center (WNSC), Institute of Particle and Nuclear Studies(IPNS), KEK. The NP-PAC reviews experimental programs at RI Beam Factory (RIBF), whereas the MLPAC reviews those at the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory (RAL) and RIBF.

reviewed. As with the NP-PAC, a face-to-face meeting was avoided, and in consideration of the number ofapplications, the review was conducted through email.
For experimental proposals using RIBF, the same evaluation grade as for NP-PAC was adopted. The outcome of the meeting is summarized in Table 2.
The members of the 20th ML-PAC meetingwere A. D. Hillier (Chair, RAL-ISIS), T. Takayanagi(Saitama Univ.) Y. Kobayashi (Univ. of ElectroCommunications) Z. Qin (CAS-IMP), and Y. Miyazawa(Yamagata Univ.).

NP-PAC

Table 1. Summary of the outcome of the 21st NP-PAC
meeting. The sum of the proposals ranked with S andA is listed in the “approval” columns.

The 21st NP-PAC meeting was held online on December 14–16, 2020 at 9:00 p.m.–2:00 a.m. JST,1)where 30 proposals were received and reviewed. This
was the first online meeting conducted owing to thetravel restrictions imposed by COVID-19. The PAC
members watched the presentation videos prepared by
the applicants in advance, and only conducting a question and answer session with the applicants on the dayof the meeting, thus streamlining the meeting. Proposals were evaluated on the basis of five grades: S,A, B, C, and D. Those with a grade of B or higher
were approved, of which those with a rating of S or A
will be given priority for beamtime allocation. Table 1
summarizes the outcome of the 21st NP-PAC meeting.
The members of the 21st NP-PAC meeting wereR. V. F. Janssens (Chair, Univ. of North Carolina), D. Ackermann (GANIL), N. Aoi (OsakaUniv.), M. J. G. Borge (CSIC, Madrid), R. Charity (Washington Univ. in St. Louis), A. O. Macchiavelli (LBNL), G. Martinez-Pinedo (GSI/TU Darmstadt), I. Moore (Univ. of Jyväskylä) D. J. Morrissey(MSU), H. Nakada (Chiba Univ.), A. Obertelli (TUDarmstadt), T. Saito (RIKEN), K. Sekiguchi (TohokuUniv.), P. J. Woods (Univ. of Edinburgh), A. Vitturi(Univ. of Padova), and X. Zhou (IMP).

21st NP-PAC (December 14–16, 2020)
beam time (days)
proposal numberrequest∗1∗2∗3request

approval

RILAC (GARIS, ...)AVF (CRIB, ...)RRC (KISS, ...)BigRIPS/ZD
SHARAQ/OEDO
SAMURAI
Rare RI Ring

572
7
1
91

2
4
1
30
4
0

61.5
85.5
12.5
56.5
7.5
81.5
1215
51
6
160
32.50( BigRIPS-relatedTotal

1832

714157.531748.5 )120.5Table 2. Summary of the outcome of the 20th ML-PAC
meeting. For the RIBF proposals, the sum of the proposals ranked with S and A is listed in the “approval”
columns.
20th ML-PAC (January 2021)
beam time (days)
proposal number
request

ML-PACThe 20th ML-PAC meeting was held in January
2021.2) At this meeting, only proposals for the use ofthe RIBF were solicited, and not proposals for the useof muon beams at RAL owing to the RAL-ISIS long
shutdown. All the five submitted RIBF proposals wereapproval

RALRIBF

5Total5approval

requestapproval—no call for proposals—
520
5201717References

1) http://www.nishina.riken.jp/RIBF/NP-PAC/ .
2) http://www.nishina.riken.jp/RIBF/ML-PAC/ .

RIKEN Nishina Center
Center for Nuclear Study, the University of Tokyo
Wako Nuclear Science Center (WNSC), IPNS, KEK- 181 -1