Office of Science and Technology Policy Interagency 

Working Group on Neutron Science: 

Report on the Status and Needs of Major Neutron Scattering 

Facilities and Instruments in the United States 

JUNE 2002 
About the Office of Science and Technology Policy

 

The Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) was established by the 

National Science and Technology Policy, Organization and Priorities Act of 1976. 

OSTP’s responsibilities include advising the President in policy formulation and budget 

development on all questions in which S&T are important elements; articulating the 

President's S&T policies and programs; and fostering strong partnerships among Federal, 

state and local governments, and the scientific communities in industry and academe. 

 

For additional copies and further information, contact the Office of Science and 

Technology Policy at (202) 395-7347 (voice), (202) 456-6027 (fax) or see our web site at 

www.ostp.gov. 

 
Office of Science and Technology Policy Interagency 

Working Group on Neutron Science: 

Report on the Status and Needs of Major Neutron Scattering 

Facilities and Instruments in the United States 

JUNE 2002 
 

 
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT 

OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20502 

June 10, 2002 

Dear Colleague:

Advances in scientific instrumentation have led to new applications in medicine, 

microelectronics, and other fields that improve the lives of all citizens. One of these

essential tools of modern science is neutron scattering. Neutron scattering plays an 

important role in opening new scientific frontiers and in establishing the nation’s leadership 

in many fields of science and technology. In an effort to provide the essential tools for 

scientific discovery and technological advancement, the United States has made substantial 

investments in neutron scattering facilities that have reaped substantial benefits. 

Since the initial development of neutron scattering techniques, we have seen remarkable

changes in the science of neutron scattering, the range of applications, and the number of 

users. During the past decade, neutron scattering has found an increasing number of 

applications in materials and life sciences research. During this time, the number of users 

at U.S. neutron facilities nearly doubled, the overall number of instruments available 

dropped more than 15 percent, one major facility was closed, and the United States 

undertook the construction of one major new neutron facility, the Spallation Neutron 

Source. Such changes point to significant scientific opportunities as well as significant 

challenges in coordinating our efforts to assure that our vital national neutron scattering

resources continue to play their essential role in science and technological development. 

To this end, the Office of Science and Technology Policy asked an interagency working

group to assess the state of the U.S. neutron scattering facilities and to make specific 

recommendations on how to maximize the impact and effectiveness of all of our facilities. 

In their enclosed report, the working group has reviewed the current status of the U.S. 

neutron scattering infrastructure and, for the first time, has made a detailed, comparative 

assessment of the performance of these facilities over the past 10 years. Using the lessons 

learned from this analysis the group recommends that the United States: (1) focus on 

developing high-quality instrumentation at the best sources; (2) establish a framework for

using interagency partnerships to develop neutron instrumentation that ensures balanced 

use and access; (3) improve the coordination among all stakeholders in the nation’s neutron 

facilities (agencies, facility management, and users); and, (4) invest in advancing the state 

of the art in neutron sources and methods. The group also ranks their recommendations in 

order of priority for implementation. 

I am pleased to transmit to you the results of this review. 

Sincerely, 

 John H. Marburger, III 

 Director 

i 
ii

Table of Contents 

Letter from the Director, Office of Science and Technology Policy....................................ii 

Acronyms.............................................................................................................................iii 

Executive Summary.............................................................................................................. 1 

Introduction........................................................................................................................... 4 

Neutron Science: Overview, Trends, and International Perspectives.................................. 7 

Neutrons and their uses...................................................................................................... 7 

What is neutron scattering?................................................................................................ 7 

Neutron sources for neutron scattering.............................................................................. 8 

Between sources and instruments...................................................................................... 9 

Scientific use of neutron scattering techniques.................................................................. 9 

Trends in neutron scattering use ...................................................................................... 11 

Biology research with neutrons ....................................................................................... 11 

History of neutron facility development.......................................................................... 12 

Current status in the United States................................................................................... 13 

Current international status.............................................................................................. 14 

Findings ........................................................................................................................... 15 

Conclusions...................................................................................................................... 16 

Assessment of U.S. Neutron Facilities ............................................................................... 17 

Comment on facility budget data..................................................................................... 17 

Facility data sheets........................................................................................................... 18 

Facility Performance History........................................................................................... 25 

Detailed assessment for FY2000 ..................................................................................... 30 

Conclusions...................................................................................................................... 44 

Recommendations and Priorities ........................................................................................ 45 

Implementation of recommendations at U.S. neutron facilities: Priorities...................... 48 

Appendix: NSF-NIST Center for High Resolution Neutron Scattering ............................ 53 

Table References................................................................................................................. 56 

Figure References ............................................................................................................... 59 

Participation ........................................................................................................................ 60 

References........................................................................................................................... 62 
iii

Acronyms 

ANL Argonne National Laboratory (DOE) 

ANS Advanced Neutron Source 

BES Basic Energy Sciences (DOE Office of Science) 

BESAC Basic Energy Sciences Advisory Committee 

BNL Brookhaven National Laboratory (DOE) 

CHRNS Center for High Resolution Neutron Scattering 

DOC Department of Commerce 

DOE Department of Energy 

ENSA European Neutron Scattering Association 

ESF European Science Foundation 

HFBR High Flux Beam Reactor (Brookhaven National Laboratory) 

HFIR High Flux Isotope Reactor (Oak Ridge National Laboratory) 

ILL Institut Laue-Langevin (Grenoble, France) 

IPNS Intense Pulsed Neutron Source (Argonne National Laboratory) 

ISIS Pulsed Spallation Neutron Source (Rutherford-Appleton Laboratory, UK) 

IWG Interagency Working Group 

LANL Los Alamos National Laboratory (DOE) 

LANSCE Los Alamos Neutron Scattering Center 

NBSR Neutron Beam Split Core Reactor (NIST) 

NCNR NIST Center for Neutron Research 

NIH National Institutes of Health 

NIST National Institute of Standards and Technology 

NNSA National Nuclear Security Administration (DOE) 

NSF National Science Foundation 

NSTC National Science and Technology Council 

OBER Office of Biological and Environmental Research (DOE Office of Science) 

OECD Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development 

ORNL Oak Ridge National Laboratory (DOE) 

OSTP Office of Science and Technology Policy 

SANS Small angle neutron scattering 

SNS Spallation Neutron Source (Oak Ridge National Laboratory) 
Executive Summary 

The use of neutrons as a probe of atomic or molecular structure and dynamics is an 

essential measurement tool for researchers in a wide variety of scientific fields including

physics, chemistry, biology, materials science, earth science and engineering. Neutron 

scattering techniques are well suited to characterization of materials in high growth 

research fields such as nanoscience, biology, and polymer science, and demand for these 

techniques continues to increase. Production of high-intensity neutron beams for research 

requires large reactor- or accelerator-based neutron sources and advanced neutron 

scattering instruments to exploit the neutrons from those sources. The United States 

presently operates four major sources for neutron scattering, three at Department of Energy

(DOE) laboratories and one at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). 

A fifth, the Spallation Neutron Source (SNS), is under construction at DOE’s Oak Ridge 

National Laboratory. However, the United States is at a distinct disadvantage in overall 

neutron scattering capability per capita compared to Western Europe or Japan. Numerous 

reports have concluded that the vital role of neutron-based measurements in important 

scientific and technological areas will cause demand to outstrip the available supply in this 

country for the foreseeable future. 

To explore ways to ensure that the U.S. neutron facilities, including the SNS, provide the

maximum scientific benefit to the broadest possible research community in the most cost 

effective manner, the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) formed an 

Interagency Working Group (IWG) on Neutron Science. The initial charge to this IWG 

was to develop strategies to maximize the effectiveness of neutron facilities in the United 

States. Comprised of representatives from various federal agencies that either operate, or 

partner in the use of the major neutron facilities, the IWG was charged with conducting an 

in-depth review of the status of existing neutron scattering facilities and to recommend 

ways to maximize their use for U.S. science programs. Because of the impact of these

facilities on a variety of scientific disciplines, several federal agencies share responsibility

for various aspects of developing, operating or supporting their use. A primary goal of the 

IWG was to establish an effective mechanism of interagency collaboration to harness the

benefits of constructive partnerships among these participating federal agencies for the

U.S. neutron scattering infrastructure. 

Based on findings from a detailed assessment of the U.S. neutron facilities, the IWG 

concludes: 1) the NIST facility is the only U.S. facility which currently provides a broad 

range of world-class capability, and 2) the completion of the SNS at Oak Ridge is the most 

significant new opportunity to provide world-leading neutron scattering capability in the 

United States. However, the IWG also finds that the SNS alone cannot provide the 

necessary neutron scattering capability and ways must be found to enhance the 

effectiveness of other sources as well. Thus, the IWG concludes that it is also important to 

improve both the number and quality of neutron scattering instruments at the Nation’s best 

neutron sources and to broaden access to those facilities by the U.S. research community. 

1 
From these conclusions, the IWG recommends that: 

1. The highest priority for federal investments in neutron scattering is to fully exploit 

the best U.S. neutron source capabilities – including the SNS – for the benefit of

the broadest possible scientific community. Specifically, these investments should 

aim to: 

Fully develop at least 85% of available beam lines with neutron instrumentation 

that exceeds, or is at least competitive with international best-in-class instruments; 

Maximize the amount of beam time made available to the broad scientific 

community through an independent, peer-review based general user program;

Provide resources to fully staff and support the high productivity operation of the 

neutron scattering instruments; 

Provide additional support for research using neutron scattering techniques. 

2. The steward agency for each of the major neutron facilities form partnerships 

with other federal agencies for the purposes of meeting the objectives of the first 

recommendation. These partnerships should be based on the following principles: 

They must support the role of the steward agency; 

They must promote the role of the facility staff to manage and operate the

instruments; 

They must provide adequate resources to develop instruments and to operate them 

in a robust user program; 

They must meet the needs of the U.S. research community and support the specific 

program objectives of the participating agencies; 

The scope and terms of the partnership should be mutually agreed upon by the 

partners and then clearly stated to all stakeholders;

Participating agencies should use joint mechanisms to select and review projects in 

the partnership. 

3. A series of actions be undertaken to improve coordination between participating 

agencies, facility managers, and user organizations in order to maximize the

overall effectiveness of the nation’s neutron resources. These actions include: 

Continued interagency coordination through OSTP for the development and use of 

neutron scattering capability in the United States; 

The establishment of a regular venue for the management of the nation’s neutron 

facilities, to foster inter-facility cooperation, mutual planning and strategic 

planning for the neutron field, and to improve collaboration, and communication 

between the facilities; 

The steward agencies, in coordination with neutron facility management, should 

take steps to foster improved communication and coordination between the user 

communities (through their representative organizations) of the neutron facilities. 

4. Participating federal agencies promote and coordinate efforts to advance neutron

scattering methods and neutron source technology needed for the future. 

Specifically, this includes promoting:

Upgrades and enhancements to neutron scattering instruments; 

Research and development in neutron source (including moderator) technology;

2
Efforts to develop new and improved neutron scattering methods; and 

Efforts to expand the application of neutron scattering to new areas of science. 

The IWG has also established the priorities for applying these recommendations to the

neutron facilities: 

1. The Department of Energy, the National Science Foundation, and other interested 

agencies should immediately establish a framework for an interagency partnership 

to provide funding resources to develop and operate a robust suite of instruments, 

approximately 75% of full instrumentation, to address a broad spectrum of neutron 

scattering measurements at the SNS. To be timely, the framework for instrument 

development should be affected within the next six months. 

2. NIST and the Department of Commerce along with their partners, including the 

NSF, should continue to fully support the operations of the NCNR, continue 

improvements in source and instrument capability, and seek increased levels of

support for both the NIST research program and to support the general user 

program. In addition, because of the essential role of this facility to the nation’s 

neutron measurement infrastructure, the IWG recommends that NIST and the 

Department of Commerce fully support all activities related to the license renewal 

for the NIST reactor by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

3. The Department of Energy should fully support the cold source and instrument 

upgrade project at the High Flux Isotope Reactor (HFIR) and ensure that the 

instruments are operated to support a robust general user program. 

3
Introduction 

The scattering of low-energy thermal and cold neutrons from samples yields important and 

unique information about the atomic or molecular structure and the dynamics of materials. 

The importance and high scientific and technological impact of neutron scattering research 

activities has been well documented in a number of important reviews (many of which are

referenced in the bibliography of this report). These reports find that neutron scattering

plays a vital role in a very broad range of scientific and technological areas and that 

demand for this measurement capability will continue to far outweigh supply for the 

foreseeable future. As noted in Neutron Sources for America’s Future1 (hereafter referred 

to as the Kohn panel report): 

“Neutrons provide critical information that is impossible to acquire by any

other means. For many purposes they provide a necessary complement to xrays, and the parallel development of both neutron sources and x-ray 

synchrotron sources is essential.” 

The United States currently operates four major neutron sources for neutron scattering

research. All of these facilities were developed between the late 1960’s and early 1980’s. 

The Department of Energy is host to three of these facilities, including the High Flux

Isotope Reactor (HFIR) at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, the Intense Pulsed Neutron 

Source (IPNS) at Argonne National Laboratory, and the Los Alamos Neutron Scattering

Center (LANSCE) at Los Alamos National Laboratory. Another DOE facility, the High

Flux Beam Reactor (HFBR) at Brookhaven National Laboratory was permanently

shutdown in 1999. The Department of Commerce is host to the fourth operating facility, 

the NIST Center for Neutron Research (NCNR), at the National Institute of Standards and 

Technology’s main campus in Gaithersburg, MD. In addition to these operating facilities, 

the Department of Energy is constructing a major new neutron source, the Spallation 

Neutron Source (SNS) at Oak Ridge National Laboratory. The SNS will provide a worldleading neutron source capability in the United States for the first time since the early

1970’s. These neutron source facilities represent a tremendous national investment; the 

SNS will cost $1.4B to build and the four operating facilities have a combined replacement 

cost of over $3B. 

In spite of the size and cost of these major facilities, the United States is at a distinct

disadvantage in the overall amount of neutron scattering capability per capita compared to 

Europe and Japan. Further, new advanced sources and instrumentation that are planned or 

under construction in Europe and Japan will keep these regions in a strong or superior 

position internationally for the foreseeable future. The recent report from the National

Academy of Sciences, Experiments in International Benchmarking of U.S. Research 

Fields2

, looked at indicators of leadership position in materials research and found that “in 

some areas, such as neutron scattering, U.S. facilities have not kept up with foreign 

competition.” Because of the very high cost of new neutron sources and the competing

demands for limited resources for priority projects in other scientific areas, the immediate

U.S. goal is to complete construction of the SNS source and to ensure that the U.S. neutron 

scattering infrastructure provides the maximum scientific resources to the broadest possible 

user community in the most cost effective manner. 

The large investments required to develop, maintain and operate neutron source facilities 

combined with the diverse multidisciplinary use of these facilities by researchers has led to 

4
a split approach to funding and managing these facilities, called the “steward-partner 

model”. This model was the focus of a recent report from the National Research Council, 

Cooperative Stewardship: Managing the Nation’s Multidisciplinary User Facilities for 

Research with Synchrotron Radiation, Neutrons, and High Magnetic Fields3 (hereafter 

called the Cooperative Stewardship report). The steward-partner model for neutron 

facilities is based on making a functional distinction between the source and the research

parts of the facility: 

The source facility is that portion of the neutron facility that produces the neutron 

beams. Typically this includes the development and operation of the reactor or 

accelerator and often the associated moderator systems. 

The research facility is the part of the facility that uses the neutron beams. 

Typically this includes the beam delivery systems, instrument systems, supporting

shops and laboratories and all the staff and program support needed to conduct 

research and support a user program at the facility. 

In the steward-partner model, a single government agency (the steward) funds and manages 

the neutron source facility. Funding and management for the research facility, however, is 

diversified. It includes the steward, but it can also include other federal agencies, 

industries, or private institutions (the partners). Funding of major new scientific facilities 

routinely embody the principles of the steward-partner model when defining the scope of 

the source construction project. For example, DOE’s project funding for the SNS 

construction includes the full cost of developing the source, but only includes a small suite 

of about five instruments in the project baseline. Consistent with the steward-partner 

model, there is an expectation (although not a formal arrangement) that DOE will develop 

the remainder of the research facility outside of the formal project in conjunction with other

partners. 

The steward-partner model can satisfactorily provide facility resources to the scientific

community if: 1) the steward meets its responsibility to operate the source; and 2) if there 

are adequate and stable resources from the steward and partners to provide full 

development and robust operation of the research facility. Indeed, the Cooperative 

Stewardship Report3

 noted that this approach has historically proven superior to other cost 

sharing models attempted for these types of facilities (including diversified funding of total 

facility costs, host-parasite models and cost recovery through user fees). However, a

variety of issues can adversely impact the effectiveness of the steward-partner approach to

funding and managing major research facilities. 

To address these issues for U.S. neutron facilities, the Office of Science and Technology

Policy (OSTP) formed an Interagency Working Group (IWG) on Neutron Sciences. The 

initial charge to the IWG was to develop strategies to maximize the effectiveness of the

neutron facilities in the United States. This is a particularly opportune time since the 

effective use of the SNS by the science community depends upon promptly identifying

specific mechanisms to fund the instrumentation and operation of the research facility. A 

primary goal of the IWG was to establish an effective mechanism of interagency

collaboration so that the benefits of the steward-partner approach can be fully realized for 

the vitally important U.S. infrastructure in neutron scattering. This goal echoes calls for 

similar interagency mechanisms in the Cooperative Stewardship Report3

, in the National 

Science and Technology Council (NSTC) report on Improving Federal Laboratories to 

5
Meet the Challenges of the 21st Century: An Action Plan4

, the report from the OSTP IWG 

on Structural Biology at Synchrotron Radiation Facilities, Synchrotron Radiation for 

Macromolecular Crystallography5

, and the DOE’s Basic Energy Sciences Advisory

Committee (BESAC) report, Subpanel Report of the Intense Pulsed Neutron Source at 

Argonne National Laboratory and the Manuel Lujan Center at Los Alamos National 

Laboratory6

. 

The IWG was comprised of representatives from various federal agencies that either 

operate, or partner in the use of the major neutron facilities. OSTP charged the IWG with 

conducting an in-depth review of the status of existing neutron scattering facilities, 

including their operational schedules, facility budgets, staffing levels, neutron measurement 

capabilities, and the quality and scope of their in-house science program and external user 

program. The IWG was directed to use existing reviews and reports, drawing on external 

sources as needed, and to make recommendations on ways to maximize for the U.S. 

science program the availability, use and impact of these facilities. Specifically, the IWG 

was asked to consider, but not be limited by, the following questions: 

1. Are existing neutron facilities scheduled to operate at the maximum extent possible

and do they have the resources to meet that schedule?

2. What are the available opportunities to provide needed state-of-the art scientific 

capabilities at these facilities? 

3. What are the issues facing (current and prospective) users of neutron facilities and 

what can be done to maximize the scientific impact of these facilities?

The following report is organized into three major sections: Neutron Science: Overview, 

Trends and International Perspectives; Assessment of U.S. Neutron Facilities; and 

Recommendations and Priorities. The first section provides an overview of neutron 

science, especially neutron scattering techniques, including a discussion of the 

multidisciplinary use of neutron scattering and expected trends in its use. The first section 

also gives an overview of neutron facilities, a historical review of their development, and a

discussion of the current status of U.S. neutron capability compared with other

international facilities. The second section provides a detailed review of the performance 

of U.S. neutron facilities. The assessment covers both a 10-year review of the operation of

the U.S. facilities, and a detailed analysis of their performance over the last year. In both 

of these sections, the IWG includes findings and conclusions that were based on this 

analysis and related deliberations within the IWG. Based on these findings and 

conclusions, the final section presents the recommendations of the IWG and the priorities 

for implementing these recommendations. 

6
Neutron Science: Overview, Trends, and International Perspectives 

Neutrons and their uses

A neutron is a constituent of the nucleus of an atom (along with the proton) and is present 

in every element’s nucleus except the lightest isotope of hydrogen. To be used for the 

purposes discussed below, a neutron must be liberated from its bound state within a 

nucleus by a nuclear reaction. A neutron has no net electric charge but possesses a 

magnetic moment from its nuclear spin. It interacts primarily through magnetic and 

nuclear forces. Neutrons are exploited and studied in many ways. Neutron-initiated 

nuclear reactions are exploited in nuclear fission for reactors and to make new isotopes 

(including radioactive isotopes for research and nuclear medicine). The secondary

radiation from these nuclear interactions can also be used as sensitive probes of atomic

species for analytical chemical analysis or to probe the structure and dynamics of a target

material. Neutrons are also intrinsically interesting and used in nuclear and other medium 

energy physics experiments and as model quantum mechanical systems. The Kohn panel 

report1

 gives a good overview of these important areas of neutron research. All of these 

uses are important and many are part of the overall use of neutron sources in the United 

States. 

The primary focus of the IWG was the use of neutrons as probes of atomic and molecular

structure and dynamics in a process known generally as neutron scattering because it 

represents the largest use of the major U.S. neutron sources. The high demand for neutron 

scattering capability is currently the primary driver for neutron source development, 

upgrades and operations. Even facilities originally optimized for other uses, such as HFIR

(isotope production), now are operated to maximize the effectiveness of their neutron 

scattering programs. 

What is neutron scattering? 

In the process of scattering, neutrons are used as a probe of a target material usually

referred to as the sample. Information about the properties of a sample can be obtained by

measuring the properties of the neutrons before and after they interact with the sample. The

scattering of low-energy neutrons from samples yields important information about the 

atomic or molecular structure and the dynamics of the sample because the neutron energy

is similar to the energy of atomic and molecular vibrations and excitations and the

deBroglie wavelength of the neutron is similar to atomic and molecular length scales. In

this sense, neutron scattering is similar to other scattering probes of atomic and molecular

structure such as x-ray photons, electrons, ions, muons, etc. However, because a neutron 

interacts with a sample very differently than these other probes, the information obtained 

about the sample from neutron scattering is often unique. Neutron scattering is most 

important when it can provide unique information unavailable by other means. Examples 

of specific areas where neutron scattering is particularly powerful include: 

Magnetic scattering; 

7
Sensitivity to specific isotopes and the ability to differentiate isotopically labeled 

molecules; 

Sensitivity to hydrogen; 

Sensitivity to low energy vibrations and excitations in materials. 

Neutron scattering instruments can be separated into several classes: 

Neutron diffraction instruments measure atomic and molecular structure: i.e. the

relative positions of atoms and molecules in a material. There are typically several 

neutron diffractometers at a given facility, each optimized to make a specific kind 

of measurement. Examples include single crystal diffractometers, powder 

diffractometers, liquids/amorphous materials diffractometers and texture or residual 

stress diffractometers.

Low-Q diffraction is a subset of neutron diffraction that is designed to measure the 

structures of very large molecules, or “macromolecules”. Two examples are small

angle neutron scattering (SANS) and neutron reflectivity. Due to the tremendous 

growth of research in large molecule systems such as polymers, natural and manmade composites (and other multi-phase systems) and biological systems, neutron 

instrumentation in this class has become heavily oversubscribed, particularly at 

facilities with high-intensity cold neutron sources. 

Inelastic neutron scattering measures atomic and molecular motions in a sample. 

Instruments that perform inelastic neutron scattering are typically called neutron 

spectrometers. There are a wide variety of spectrometer types covering a broad 

measurement range of energy and length scales. Examples include triple axis, 

Time-Of-Flight (TOF), Backscattering, Spin Echo, etc. A combination of modern 

neutron methods allows measurements of dynamic processes in materials to be 

made over eight orders of magnitude in time and energy.

Neutron sources for neutron scattering 

The essential criterion for an effective neutron source for scattering is to produce high

fluxes of neutrons at the “right” energy. The processes of nuclear fission in a reactor and 

spallation by a particle accelerator both produce sufficient numbers of neutrons to be 

suitable sources for high-intensity neutron beams. However, the energy of the neutrons 

produced must be reduced from the millions of electron volts they possess after the nuclear

reaction, to the several thousandths of an electron volt needed for neutron scattering. This 

is accomplished by allowing the neutrons to pass through a moderator where they dissipate

energy. The temperature of the moderator is used to characterize the energy of the 

moderated neutrons. The most commonly used neutron energies for neutron scattering are 

thermal (corresponding to a room temperature moderator), and cold (corresponding to a 

moderator at cryogenic temperatures). Other components of a neutron source include 

neutron reflectors and absorbers to scatter neutrons to where they are wanted or to 

eliminate them where they are not wanted. 

Reactor-based sources use the neutrons from fission of U-235 in a nuclear reactor. The 

reactor core provides thermal moderation of the neutrons, but additional types of 

moderators (hot or cold) can be added to vary the energies of the extracted neutron beams. 

Reactor designs optimized for use as high-intensity neutron sources have high power 

density cores and a moderator-reflector geometry that facilitates extraction of high intensity

8
thermal neutron beams while minimizing the number of “fast” (i.e. high-energy) neutrons. 

Reactor-based neutron sources nearly always operate as steady-state sources, producing

high neutron intensities at a fixed power level that does not change with time. Neutron 

instruments at a reactor source are optimized to exploit the high average intensity of the 

source. 

Spallation-based sources collide high-energy proton beams from an accelerator with a 

stationary target, typically a heavy metal such as tungsten, uranium or mercury. The 

resulting collision puts the neutron-rich target nucleus in an excited unstable state that

decays by “boiling off” neutrons in a process called spallation. Most spallation sources 

utilize a storage ring as part of the accelerator that allows the proton beam to be “bunched” 

and then delivered in pulses (in time) to the spallation target. This mode of operation 

results in very intense neutron “bursts” from the target followed by periods of no neutron 

production. Moderators of various types are placed around the target both to slow the highenergy neutrons and to control the timing of the neutron pulse. Spallation sources are

typically characterized by high peak intensity, but with lower average intensity than steadystate sources. Neutron instruments at a spallation source are optimized to exploit the time

structure of the pulsed neutron beams, and the specific details of the time structure of the

neutron pulses are an important part of the source characteristics. 

Between sources and instruments 

Neutron sources are weak in comparison to other scattering probe sources, such as 

synchrotron photon sources or lasers. The flux limitations of neutron sources ultimately

limit neutron scattering capability in one way or another. As a result, one of the key

features in any neutron facility is the optimization of the instruments to the source. 

Achieving full performance can mean optimizing the source performance to the desired 

instrument capability. This is often done with the moderator assemblies at spallation 

sources that, in this regard, have more flexibility than the moderator assemblies at reactor 

facilities. More universally, the instrument design must be optimized to fully exploit the

performance characteristics of the source. Large performance gains today are usually the 

result of advanced neutron optical elements, large detection area or efficiency and other 

advanced beam delivery or beam tailoring techniques. This careful matching of instrument 

design to the specific capabilities of the neutron source has traditionally meant that the

facility staff play a central role in neutron scattering instrument development. 

Scientific use of neutron scattering techniques 

 Diffraction Low Q Diffraction Inelastic Scattering 

Condensed Matter 

Physics 

magnetic structures, short

and long range order,

ferroelectrics

flux line lattices in superconductors,

Magnetic semiconductors, giant

magnetoresistance (GMR) and 

colossal magnetoresistance (CMR) 

materials 

phonons, magnetic

excitations, rotons in He 

Materials Science 

structures of

superconductors,

magnetoresistive oxides,

ceramics, hydrides

microstructures in metals, ceramics, 

cement, thin films, surface depth 

profiling 

atomic diffusion 

9
 Diffraction Low Q Diffraction Inelastic Scattering 

Chemistry/Chem.

Physics 

Fullerenes, carbon 

nanotubes, catalysts, sieves,

fuel cells

sol gels, polymer processing, electrochemistry, Langmuir-Blodgett films

chemical spectroscopy,

absorbates on catalytic

surfaces & molecular sieves,

molecular rotation, diffusion 

Macromolecules polymer structures

structures of polymer melts,

microemulsions, block copolymers,

polymer thin films & interfaces

vibrational spectroscopy,

polymer relaxation, diffusion,

micelle/ colloid dynamics

Biology protein crystal structures tertiary structures of proteins,

biological membranes

dynamics of biological

macromolecules

Other (e.g. Geology and 

Engineering ) 

residual stress and texture of

engineered materials

microstructures of engineered 

materials 

Table 1 Examples of neutron scattering techniques in a number of scientific research areas. See table 

references. 

The ability to measure basic materials properties with neutrons has lead to their wide use in 

physics, chemistry, materials science, biomolecular science, engineering, environmental 

science and geosciences. Furthermore, all indicators are that this multidisciplinary

scientific base in the use of neutron scattering is likely to grow broader as new neutron 

scattering capabilities are added. Table 1 shows some of the applications of various 

neutron scattering techniques in various scientific disciplines. Figure 1 shows the share of 

U.S. neutron users by scientific discipline in fiscal year 2000. The data illustrate the 

multidisciplinary nature of neutron scattering research. 

Physics & Materials 

Science

63% Chemistry

7%

Macromolecules

16%

Biology

5%

Other

9%

Figure 1 Share of U.S. neutron users in FY 2000 by field of research. See figure references. 

10
Trends in neutron scattering use

Neutron scattering usage by the “traditional” fields of condensed matter physics, materials 

science and chemistry, will continue to be a large element of the research program at

neutron facilities--they are well suited to neutron scattering techniques and continue to be

very active areas of science. Worldwide, the largest growth in neutron scattering use over 

the past decade has occurred in fields that exploit low-Q diffraction and high-resolution 

spectroscopy instrumentation at high-intensity cold sources. These include polymer 

science, including the large growth in biopolymer research; materials science and nanomaterials (composites, etc.); complex fluids and other areas of “soft” condensed matter 

physics and biology. These fields represent large growth areas in basic research and are 

also well suited to neutron scattering techniques. The Organization for Economic 

Cooperation and Development (OECD) report on A Twenty Years Forward Look at 

Neutron Scattering Facilities in the OECD Countries and Russia7 provides a useful 

analysis for estimating future trends in the use of neutron scattering techniques and is 

shown in Table 2. This report, and the1996 European Science Foundation 

(ESF)/European Neutron Scattering Associations (ENSA) workshop results on Scientific

Prospects for Neutron Scattering with Present and Future Sources8

, both emphasize the 

wide range of current and potential applications of neutron measurements. 

 

Solid State 

Physics, 

Magnetism

New 

Materials 

Chemical 

Aspects 

Chemical 

Reactions 

Amorphous 

Materials 

Material

Science Biology

Soft 

Condensed 

Matter

Earth

Science Enginer.

Diffraction 

Single crystal **   **  

Powder *** *** *** ** 

Diffuse *** 

Stress, texture ** *** 

Inelastic 

TOF   ** * *** *** * * **

3-axis *** * 

Spin Echo * ** *** * *** 

Backscattering * ***   **  ** ** * 

Low-Q diff. 

SANS * ** ** *** ** *** *** 

Reflectivity   **  * ** *** * 

Table 2 Estimate of future instrument needs by scientific prospect . Key: * valuable, ** necessary, 

***essential. See table references. 

Biology research with neutrons 

One area of particular interest for the IWG was the use of neutron scattering techniques for 

biology research. Motivated in part by the tremendous explosion of protein 

crystallography measurements at the U.S. synchrotron light sources5

, the IWG was 

interested in identifying whether or not similar growth could be expected in neutron 

scattering. The consensus of the IWG was that use of neutron scattering by biologist was 

likely to increase in all three instrument areas (diffraction, low-Q diffraction, and inelastic 

techniques). However, the needed capability is just coming on-line in the United States

and it will be difficult to project the ultimate demand until the new facilities at LANSCE 

(protein crystallography), HFIR (dedicated biology SANS), and the NCNR (dedicated 

biology reflectometer and SANS, and high resolution inelastic scattering capability) have

11
operated longer. The IWG agreed that demand in this area should be carefully monitored 

to see how usage grows in the biological research community. 

History of neutron facility development 

The development of nuclear reactors towards the end of WWII was quickly exploited for 

research applications. Early reactors were used as general-purpose research facilities for 

nuclear physics, reactor development, materials irradiation, neutron activation analysis and 

neutron scattering. The 1994 Nobel Prize in physics was awarded to Clifford Shull (United 

States) and to Bertram Brockhouse (Canada) for their pioneering work developing neutron 

scattering methods for structure and dynamics measurements. The years following the 

launch of Sputnik saw the development of a series of new neutron facilities. This new push 

lead to the construction of the HFBR at Brookhaven, the HFIR at Oak Ridge and the 

Neutron Beam Split-core Reactor (NBSR) at the National Bureau of Standards (now NIST) 

in Maryland. They were all commissioned between 1965 and 1969. These reactors were 

optimized for specific research programs – neutron scattering at the HFBR and NBSR and 

isotope production at the HFIR. The combination of these new facilities with the strong

science programs at these laboratories resulted in U.S. scientific leadership in neutron 

scattering that lasted through most of the 1970’s. 

In 1972, the Institut Laue-Langevin (ILL) began operation of a new high flux reactor in 

Grenoble, France. The reactor design concept was similar to the HFBR, but with larger 

beams and an optimized cold neutron source. In addition, the scientific management of this 

new international facility (France, England and Germany were the primary partners)

focused on attracting outside users to the facility and on using the in-house staff to develop 

and operate new instrumentation. By the late 1970’s it was becoming increasingly evident 

that this “user facility” approach was effective both at developing high quality

instrumentation and at attracting robust use by the scientific community. Also during this 

period, significant new reactor-based neutron scattering capability was being added in 

Germany and France, while older facilities were closed in the United States. 

The late 1970’s and early 1980’s also saw the development of spallation-based sources for 

neutron scattering research. In 1981, the Intense Pulsed Neutron Source began operations 

at Argonne. Using an existing accelerator infrastructure from high energy physics projects, 

the IPNS was the world’s first dedicated spallation neutron source and gave the U.S. an 

early lead in this new approach to neutron source technology. A similar facility (KENS) 

was developed at the Japanese high-energy physics lab KEK and began operations at the 

same time. In 1985, a dedicated spallation neutron source in England (ISIS) with twenty

times the beam power of IPNS quickly erased the U.S. leadership role. As the data in the

next section will show, attempts to provide ISIS-class performance at the Los Alamos 

spallation-source (LANSCE) have not resulted in a competitive capability. By the mid1980’s it was clear that leadership in neutron scattering had shifted to Western Europe. 

Early Policy Developments

In response to these developments, a series of studies and reports were initiated in the 

United States beginning in the late 1970’s. They culminated in a 1984 study requested by

12
President Reagan’s Science Advisor, George Keyworth III, to address U.S. capabilities and 

needs for large materials research facilities including neutron sources. The resulting study, 

known as the Seitz-Eastman report9

, was based on several earlier reports dating back to 

1977 that generally endorsed the development of new source capability, adding capability

to existing sources and expanding the level of instrumentation support at the facilities. The 

recommendations of this report played a central role in defining the priorities for

investments in major scientific facilities, including neutron facilities, for more than a

decade. The Seitz-Eastman report called for the following priorities for neutron sources in 

the United States: 

development of an advanced reactor-based neutron source;

development of a plan towards a major spallation neutron source; 

major upgrades at the HFBR and NIST to provide cold neutron capability; and 

a new experimental hall and neutron scattering instrumentation at Los Alamos. 

Current status in the United States 

Today it is clear that the success at implementing these recommendations has been mixed. 

Some of the successes include: 

The Spallation Neutron Source, a 1-2MW pulsed spallation neutron facility that will 

provide the world’s highest performance neutron source capability when completed, 

is under construction at Oak Ridge National Laboratory. 

A new major cold neutron capability was added at NIST beginning in 1987 that has 

resulted in substantial growth in the number of users – it is now the most widely

used neutron facility in the United States. 

However, the neutron scattering infrastructure in the United States has suffered several 

major setbacks: 

The Advanced Neutron Source (ANS) project to build a 300MW reactor facility at 

Oak Ridge with a peak thermal flux of over 7x1015 neutrons/cm2

·sec was cancelled 

in early 1995 before construction began due to concerns over nonproliferation and 

major cost escalations. 

Proposals to add cold neutron capability to HFBR were not acted on. Then, in 

1999, DOE decided to permanently close the Brookhaven HFBR facility following

a two-year shutdown caused by the discovery of a tritium leak from the fuel storage

pool. 

The Manuel Lujan Scattering Center was built at the LANSCE facility at Los 

Alamos. However, despite several efforts to improve reliability and capability at

LANSCE, a recent BESAC report concluded that the LANSCE facility has failed to 

perform up to expectations, leaving the United States without an ISIS-class 

spallation neutron facility. 

13
Current international status 

The international neutron scattering community has settled on a facility strategy that is very

similar to the one adopted in the United States. Namely, it calls for developing neutron 

scattering capabilities in three areas: 

new sources. 

new or expanded capability at existing neutron sources; 

robust support for instrumentation development and facility operations. 

Based on this strategy, the following major neutron facilities developments are underway

or have recently been completed:

Japan has approved development of a 1MW pulsed spallation neutron facility to be

completed in 2006 – the Japanese Spallation Neutron Source (JSNS); 

Europe is presently negotiating on a multinational project to construct a 5MW 

pulsed spallation facility, the European Spallation Source (ESS); 

The ISIS facility is seeking funding for a second target station; 

Germany is seeking startup authority for the new FRM-2 reactor neutron source at

the Garching campus of the Technical University of Munich. The FRM-2 is a 

20MW facility with nearly ILL class neutron performance;

Japan replaced the reactor vessel at an existing facility, creating a new 20MW

neutron source, the JRR-3; 

Australia is developing a new 20MW reactor-based neutron facility at Lucas 

Heights, near Sydney;

In Taiwan, a new 20MW reactor, the TRR-2, is under development and will support 

a significant neutron scattering research program; 

A 20MW research reactor facility has come on line in Korea and the neutron 

scattering instrumentation is under development; 

A continuous beam spallation neutron source, SINQ, has come on line in 

Switzerland, and the neutron scattering program is now reaching a mature phase; 

Canada has proposed replacing the NRU reactor facility with a new 20MW research 

reactor capability. 

The ILL has begun their “Millennium Program” to upgrade and modernize the

instrumentation at the ILL facility. 

These developments are further summarized in Table 3. It should be noted that peak flux

(number of neutrons per square centimeter of area per second – a measure of intensity) is 

only meaningful when comparing sources of the same type (continuous or pulsed). In

addition, other factors including beam number and size, geometric factors, sources of 

background, etc., will also significantly affect the final performance of the source for 

neutron scattering. 

14
Instruments 

Facility

Start

Operation 

Cease 

Operation Country Type Timestructure

Peak Flux 

x 10-14 Power Total Diffraction Low Q Inelastic

NRU 1957 2005 Canada Reactor Continuous 3 120MW 5 2 1 2

R-2 1960 Sweden Reactor Continuous 1 50MW 6 5 0 1

IBR-2 1961 Russia Reactor Pulsed 2MW 13 5 4 4

FRJ-2 1962 2006 Germany Reactor Continuous 2 23MW 15 5 5 5

DR3 1963 2000 Denmark Reactor Continuous 1.5 10MW 7 2 3 2

HFBR 1965 1999 US Reactor Continuous 4 30MW 13 7 2 4

HFIR 1966 US Reactor Continuous 12 85MW 10 3.7 3 3.3

NCNR 1969 US Reactor Continuous 2 20MW 17 2 6 9

ILL 1972 France Reactor Continuous 12 58MW 34 15 4 15

BER-2 1973 Germany Reactor Continuous 2 10MW 15 10 2 3

Orphee 1980 France Reactor Continuous 3 14MW 25 12 6 7

KENS 1980 Japan SpallationPulsed 3 3kW 15 5 4 6

IPNS 1981 US SpallationPulsed 5 7kW 12 5 4 3

ISIS 1985 England SpallationPulsed 20-100 160kW 19 9 3 7

LANSCE 1988 US SpallationPulsed 30 56kW 7 3 2 2

JRR-3M 1990 Japan Reactor Continuous 2 20MW 23 7 5 11

SINQ 1996 Switzerland Spallation Continuous 2 1MW 10 5 2 3

Under development 

FRM-II 2002 Germany Reactor Continuous 7 20MW 17

RR 2005 Australia Reactor Continuous 4 20MW 18

SNS 2006 US SpallationPulsed 200 2MW 24

JSNS 2006 Japan SpallationPulsed 100 1MW 24

ESS† 2010 Europe SpallationPulsed 2000 5MW 40

 Table 3 Major international neutron scattering facilities. ( † Proposed: not yet funded.) See table 

references. 

Findings 

Neutron scattering is an important and essential part of the measurement infrastructure 

for the study of molecular and atomic structure and dynamics of materials. Its use is 

complementary to other probes such as x-rays, electrons, etc. 

Neutron scattering use is broad and multidisciplinary with use in physics, chemistry,

materials science, macromolecular science, biology, engineering and geosciences. 

Recently the areas of highest growth have been low Q diffraction and high-resolution 

spectroscopy. Both techniques are well suited to sources producing intense cold 

neutron beams. Fields impacted include materials sciences, chemistry and 

macromolecular science, including both polymer and biological macromolecules. 

Use of neutron scattering methods in biology is likely to increase, but it is too early to 

project the specific areas of high demand (diffraction, low Q, or inelastic) or how large 

the demand will become. 

Europe enjoys a substantial lead over other regions of the world, including the United 

States in neutron source capability. The leading facilities in each class are the ILL in 

France (reactor) and ISIS (spallation) in the U.K. 

The United States is currently constructing the SNS which will be the first high power

(megawatt-class) spallation source in the world. 

The number of neutron scattering instruments available in the United States now and in 

the future will be less than half that available in Western Europe and less than available

in Japan. On a per capita basis, the United States has half the neutron scattering

capacity of either Western Europe or Japan – and this shortfall is unlikely to change for

the foreseeable future. 

15
Conclusions 

An overview of neutron scattering capabilities in the United States demonstrates a 

dichotomy. On one hand, the evidence is clear that neutron scattering techniques are an 

essential component of the U.S. scientific infrastructure for measurements of the molecular 

structures and dynamics of materials. These powerful techniques are broadly applicable 

across many scientific fields, including the traditional areas of physics and materials 

science, and also chemistry, engineering, earth sciences and biology. Furthermore, with 

increased interest in research fields well served by neutron-based measurements 

(nanosciences, biology, polymers, complex fluids, and other types of soft condensed matter 

science), it is expected that demand for these techniques will grow in the future. On the

other hand, in spite of early roots in North America, leadership for neutron scattering

capability moved to Western Europe in the 1970’s and has remained there ever since. With 

the majority of new sources developed in Asia and Europe, the United States finds itself

with a serious shortfall in overall neutron scattering capability. This shortfall is apparent 

both quantitatively, in terms of the number of instruments available for needed science, and 

qualitatively, in terms of the leadership position of the ILL and ISIS facilities in Europe. 

The main charge to this IWG was to identify the opportunities for improving the access of 

U.S. researchers to high quality neutron scattering capability, with the available neutron 

source infrastructure and the SNS. As the first megawatt-class spallation source to be

constructed in the world, the completion of the Spallation Neutron Source at Oak Ridge 

will be the most significant new opportunity to provide world-leading neutron scattering

capability in the United States. Nevertheless, the addition of the SNS cannot alone make 

up for the overall shortage of neutron scattering capability in the United States compared to 

Europe or Japan. In this context, the IWG also explored ways to improve the quality of

and access to U.S. neutron scattering capability. The objective was to identify

opportunities to provide the broadest possible scientific community access to the best 

possible neutron instruments using the entire U.S neutron source infrastructure, including

the SNS. In the following section, the IWG assesses the condition of the U.S. neutron 

facilities with the objective of identifying these opportunities.

16
Assessment of U.S. Neutron Facilities

The IWG was specifically charged with reviewing the status and capability of existing U.S. 

neutron facilities. This review includes the SNS as it will have a dominant impact on the

overall neutron scattering capability in the United States once it is operational. However,

until then, no performance data for that facility will be available. For context, the IWG 

also examined data from the recently closed High Flux Beam Reactor (HFBR) facility at 

Brookhaven National Laboratory. The HFBR was an important element in the U.S. 

neutron infrastructure until operations ceased in 1997. The review conducted by the IWG 

was based on information collected from a number of different sources: 

Existing reports on U.S. neutron facilities 

The IWG was able to utilize a significant number of published reports regarding the 

planning, capability and performance of the neutron scattering infrastructure in the United 

States and on the impact and importance of neutron techniques to specific scientific areas. 

The majority of reports were either conducted by the advisory committee for Basic Energy

Sciences at DOE, or by committees of the National Academy of Sciences. Reports cited in 

this assessment are included in the Reference section at the end of this report. 

Data collected from U.S. neutron facilities 

To supplement the available reports, the IWG requested additional data from the neutron 

facilities in the United States. Much of these data were is routinely collected by the

steward agencies, but it is not generally compiled in a report format. Because two steward 

agencies are involved for neutron facilities (DOE and NIST), there are significant 

differences in the type of data collected by the facilities. To make useful comparisons, the

IWG refined some of the questions, requested follow up information, and, with input from 

neutron facility management, made some adjustments to the data. Specific data and their

treatment are described in the Figure Reference section for each figure at the end of this

report. 

Benchmarking Data 

The IWG also collected data on other neutron facilities from around the world to compare 

with the U.S. neutron scattering effort. Much of these data were was assembled from 

public information for the facilities and from data made available by members of the IWG. 

Key reports from international organizations on neutron scattering facilities and neutron 

scattering programs are noted in the reference section at the end of this report. 

In addition, the IWG assembled data on the available instruments from the Institut LaueLangevin (ILL) in Grenoble, France and from the ISIS facility at the Rutherford Appleton 

Laboratory near Oxford in the UK. These two facilities are widely considered to be the

best in class for reactor-based and spallation-based neutron facilities respectively. 

Comment on facility budget data 

The IWG was asked to examine facility budgets as part of its charge to assess whether 

resources were adequate to maximize operations. However, after a preliminary

examination, the IWG concluded that a budget comparison between the facilities was not a 

useful way to understand the resources available for operations because of the large 

17
differences in the cost basis between each of the facilities. For example, a large accelerator 

complex and a reactor have significantly different operating costs, but these differences say

little about the resources available for robust operation and more about the technical 

complexity of operating the source. Therefore, the IWG focused on other types of needed 

resources, such as staffing, in the assessment. 

Organization of assessment data and analysis 

The IWG assessment of the U.S. neutron facilities is organized into three main sections: 

1. Facility data sheets – These provide a summary description for each facility, 

performance history data since 1990, and highlights. 

2. Performance history since 1990 – This section is organized into two sub-sections 

that examine:

a. Source facility performance

b. Research facility performance

3. Detailed assessment for FY 2000 – This section analyzes the use, performance and 

resources available to U.S. neutron facilities in fiscal year 2000 in the following

areas:

a. Instrument ownership and access

b. Instrumentation

c. Research facility staffing

d. User demographics

e. Research facility outputs and outcomes

Specific findings are summarized at the end of each of the bolded sections identified above 

and general conclusions are presented at the end of the Assessment section of the report. 

Facility data sheets 

The following data sheets provide a summary description for each facility, including the 

steward agency, year that operations began (and, if applicable, ended) and major research 

programs using the source facility. A table summarizes the performance history since

1990. Highlights are described at the end.

18
Spallation Neutron Source (SNS) 

Host laboratory:

Oak Ridge National Laboratory

Oak Ridge, Tennessee 

Steward agency: Office of Basic Energy Sciences, DOE

Start Operations: 2006 (planned completion of source construction) 

Facility Description: The Spallation Neutron Source is a 1 MW spallation neutron source 

under construction at Oak Ridge, Tennessee. The SNS is a high power, 60Hz short-pulsed 

spallation source using protons from a 1.0GeV full power linac and accumulator ring on a 

mercury (flowing) target. Four moderator assemblies are planned for the target, 2 ambient 

and 2 cryogenic. The target assembly and target building are designed to accommodate up 

to 24 neutron instruments. The design provides for a possible future source expansion 

consisting of a second, low-repetition rate (15Hz) target station, which could accommodate 

an additional 18 instruments. 

Program Description: Neutron scattering

Highlights:

Source construction is on schedule to begin commissioning in 2006. 

Project cost is $1.4B with anticipated operating costs of approximately $150M per 

year. 

The SNS will be the world’s first advanced-design, high power spallation neutron 

source. Many of its design features are being incorporated in the development of 

other spallation sources being planned for construction in Europe and Japan. 

SNS design provides for the possibility of future expansions in source capacity

through the addition of a second target station. An NSF-funded proposal to study a 

low-repetition rate target station facility, called the long-wavelength target station, 

was withdrawn in order to focus attention on developing instrumentation at the

“high power” target station currently under construction. 

Project funding includes 5 neutron instruments plus some shared component 

development for other neutron instruments. 

Funding for an additional 2 spectrometers has been provided to university

investigators by DOE/BES. 

Negotiations have begun between the DOE and NSF, and with other interested 

partners, on arrangements to fund development of additional instruments at the 

SNS. 

19
High Flux Isotope Reactor (HFIR) 

Host laboratory:

Oak Ridge National Laboratory

Oak Ridge, Tennessee 

Steward Agency: Office of Basic Energy Sciences, DOE 

Started Operations: 1966 

Facility Description: The High Flux Isotope Reactor is an 85MW (100MW design power) 

beryllium-reflected, light-water cooled and moderated research reactor. The reactor design is 

optimized for isotope production and incorporates a “flux trap” region in the center of the 

reactor core for high intensity irradiations. Four major beam ports provide high intensity

beams for neutron scattering. 

Major Programs: HFIR supports a strong multi-component research program at the facility. 

Major programs include neutron scattering, isotope production, materials irradiation and 

neutron activation analysis. 

Instrumentation: HFIR presently operates 10 instruments and is considered fully

instrumented in its present configuration. (Additional instrument capability is being added as

part of ongoing upgrades.) 

Year 

Beam Days

Scheduled

Beam Days

Delivered Availability

No. of 

Instruments 

Instrument Days

Delivered Users

1990 N/A 214 59% 4 858 38

1991 N/A 214 59% 4 858 95

1992 223 153 42% 7 1072 102

1993 235 192 53% 7 1347 91

1994 174 174 48% 8 1393 128

1995 209 209 57% 10 2085 130

1996 230 230 63% 10 2300 146

1997 167 167 46% 10 1674 167

1998 219 159 44% 10 1594 168

1999 237 226 62% 10 2258 176

2000 261 242 66% 10 2424 153

2001 0 0 0% 10 0 0

Table 4 Performance data from the High Flux Isotope Reactor neutron scattering program. See table 

references.

Highlights:

HFIR is completing a planned shutdown for a replacement of the beryllium reflector and to 

install new instrumentation. 

A second shutdown is planned for 2003 to install a new cold source in beam tube HB-4. 

A new guide hall for cold neutron instrumentation is being developed adjacent to the 

reactor building.

The upgrade project includes significant new or improved neutron scattering instruments, 

especially for cold neutrons (see Table 12). 

20
High Flux Beam Reactor (HFBR)

Host laboratory:

Brookhaven National Laboratory

Brookhaven, New York 

Steward Agency: Office of Basic Energy Sciences, DOE 

Started Operations: 1965 

Ceased Operations: 1999 

Facility Description: The High Flux Beam Reactor was a 60MW (but operated at 30MW)

light-water cooled, heavy water moderated research reactor. The reactor design was optimized 

for neutron beam research. Nine major beam ports provided high intensity beams for neutron 

scattering. 

Major Programs: HFBR operated primarily as a neutron scattering facility, although some 

irradiations and activation analysis were performed as well.

Instrumentation: HFBR typically operated with a full complement of 12-15 neutron 

scattering instruments.

Year 

Beam Days

Scheduled

Beam Days

Delivered Availability

No. of 

Instruments 

Instrument Days

Delivered Users

1990 N/A 0 0% 9 0 0

1991 N/A 60 16% 9 539 168

1992 261 227 62% 14 3177 272

1993 110 107 29% 15 1599 192

1994 240 150 41% 15 2250 194

1995 240 192 53% 14 2694 277

1996 270 264 72% 15 3960 280

1997 35 35 N/A 13 458 89

Table 5 Performance data from the High Flux Beam Reactor neutron scattering program. See table 

references.

Highlights:

The HFBR ceased routine operations in 1997 after it was discovered that low-level 

tritium contaminated water had leaked from the fuel storage pool into ground water on 

the laboratory site. 

The Secretary of Energy decided to permanently close the HFBR in 1999. The facility

is presently being decommissioned. 

When operating, the HFBR was one of the premier neutron facilities in the world. The

research performed at the HFBR resulted in over 2500 peer-reviewed publications in its 

35 years of operation. 

21
Intense Pulsed Neutron Source (IPNS) 

Host Laboratory: 

Argonne National Laboratory

Argonne, Illinois 

Steward Agency: Office of Basic Energy Sciences, DOE 

Started Operation: 1981 

Facility Description: The IPNS is a 30 Hz short-pulsed spallation neutron source using

protons from a linac and rapid cycling synchrotron to produce neutrons in a depleted 

uranium target. Proton power on target is 7kW. Three cryogenic methane moderators 

produce short pulses of slow neutrons. Twelve beam lines currently serve 13 instruments, 

one of which is a test station for instrument development. 

Program Description: The IPNS is essentially a single program facility, operating a

successful user program in neutron scattering. 

Instrumentation: The IPNS currently operates 12 neutron scattering instruments and is 

considered fully instrumented in its present configuration. 

Year 

Beam Days

Scheduled 

Beam Days

Delivered Availability

No. of 

Instruments 

Instrument 

Days Delivered Users

1990 119 113 31% 10 1130 254

1991 112 106 29% 10 1064 236

1992 98 93 26% 10 931 181

1993 91 86 24% 10 865 186

1994 98 93 25% 10 930 172

1995 112 106 29% 11 1171 199

1996 161 154 42% 11 1697 201

1997 147 139 38% 12 1671 228

1998 168 164 45% 12 1964 221

1999 171 156 43% 12 1872 208

2000 158 160 44% 12 1921 230

2001 161 165 45% 12 1980 240

Table 6 Performance data from the Intense Pulsed Neutron Facility neutron scattering program. See table 

references.

Highlights:

Upgrades are in progress to significantly enhance the performance of five instruments 

(HERMCS, GLAD, SCD, SAD, and GPPD – see Table 12).

New scientific and support staff have been added to the program.

Currently, there are no funded upgrades to the source or target facilities at IPNS.

22
Los Alamos Neutron Science Center (LANSCE) 

Host Laboratory: 

Los Alamos National Laboratory

Los Alamos, New Mexico 

Steward Agency: National Nuclear Security Administration, DOE 

Started Operation: 1985 (Lujan Center) 

Description: The Los Alamos Neutron Science Center (LANSCE) is based on the 800 MeV 

LANSCE linac which can simultaneously accelerate both H+ and H- beams and route them to

separate experimental areas and a proton storage ring (PSR). The neutron scattering program 

is operated out of the Manuel Lujan Jr. Neutron Scattering Center (Lujan Center) which 

operates as a 20Hz short-pulse spallation source with a proton beam power of 56kW (80kW

design) on a tungsten target. The Lujan Center target has three water moderators and one 

liquid hydrogen moderator. 

Major Programs: LANSCE supports a multi-component program in weapons, energy and 

materials research. Major programs include: neutron scattering, proton radiography, materials 

irradiation, isotope production and weapons research.

Performance History (Lujan Center only):

Year 

Beam Days

Scheduled

Beam Days

Delivered Availability

No. of 

Instruments 

Instrument 

Days Delivered Users

1990 N/A 69 19% 10 693 183

1991 N/A 21 6% 10 206 79

1992 N/A 46 13% 9 414 120

1993 N/A 48 13% 10 479 108

1994 N/A 16 4% 10 158 73

1995 N/A 35 10% 9 318 47

1996 117 98 27% 7 683 62

1997 150 135 37% 7 945 126

1998 0 0 0% 7 0 0

1999 108 30 8% 7 213 20

2000 39 31 8% 7 215 25

2001 120 98 27% 6 588 114

Table 7 Performance data from the LANSCE neutron scattering program (Lujan Center). See table 

references. 

Highlights:

The Lujan Center began full user operations in July 2001 for a six-month period ending in 

December 2001. This was the first extended operations period since 1997.

Four new spectrometers have been successfully commissioned at the Lujan center, and 

several more are under development (see Table 12).

The LANSCE/Lujan Center is presently shutdown to perform planned routine linac 

maintenance and for upgrades to the spallation target. Routine operations are scheduled to 

resume July 1, 2002.

LANSCE and LANL management have begun to respond to recommendations from a 

recent BESAC review6

 that was highly critical of the governance of the LANSCE facility. 

These changes aim to clarify lines of responsibility for the source facility and for the 

integration of projects from all three DOE program offices that use the facility.

23
NIST Center for Neutron Research (NCNR) 

Host Laboratory: 

National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) 

Gaithersburg, Maryland 

Steward Agency: National Institute of Standards and Technology, DOC 

Started Operation: 1969 

Description: The NCNR facility source is a 20 MW, heavy water cooled, moderated and 

reflected neutron beam split-core reactor (NBSR). The reactor core is optimized for neutron 

beam research with the fuel arranged in a split-core design, which provides a fuel-free gap at 

the center plane of the beam tubes. In addition to nine thermal beam tubes, a large diameter 

beam tube is installed with a liquid hydrogen cold source illuminating a large guide tube and 

cold beam tube network. The reactor design also includes several irradiation facilities and a 

graphite moderated thermal column. 

Major Programs: The NCNR is primarily operated for the neutron scattering program, 

although other programs use the facility, including: neutron activation analysis, neutron 

radiography, neutron dosimetry, standards and physics. 

Instrumentation: The NCNR presently operates 21 beam instruments, 17 are for neutron 

scattering. The facility is considered fully instrumented. 

Year 

Beam Days

Scheduled

Beam Days

Delivered Availability

No. of 

Instruments 

Instrument 

Days Delivered Users

1990 210 202 55% 8 1613 207

1991 290 256 70% 8 2044 265

1992 290 257 70% 9 2311 332

1993 290 274 75% 12 3290 397

1994 120 115 32% 12 1386 498

1995 0 0 0% 12 0 0

1996 266 249 68% 12 2991 549

1997 266 248 68% 12 2975 593

1998 238 231 63% 13 3008 679

1999 266 268 73% 15 4020 705

2000 228 196 54% 17 3328 723

2001 240 240 66% 17 4080 750

Table 8 Performance data from the NIST Center for Neutron Research. See table references. 

Highlights:

The NCNR recently installed a new cold source, replaced the reactor cooling tower (plume

abatement design) and performed planned maintenance. 

The new advanced design liquid hydrogen cold source yielded a performance gain of two 

over the previous design. 

The NCNR is licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission through 2004. NIST will 

apply for a 20-year license renewal. 

A major instrument upgrade and expansion project is funded and underway (see Table 12). 

The NIST/NSF Center for High Resolution Neutron Scattering (CHRNS) was expanded in 

2000 to included three new inelastic spectrometers (see Appendix). 

24
Facility Performance History

Source facility performance

The performance of neutron facilities can be measured by their ability to produce neutron 

beams for the maximum number of days per year. For purposes of this comparison, facility

availability is defined as the number of beam days operated divided by the number of days per

year. 

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

Days Operated

NCNR

HFBR

HFIR

Lujan

IPNS

Figure 2 Number of beam days operated at U.S. neutron facilities. See figure references. 

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

Availability

IPNS

Lujan

HFIR

HFBR

NCNR

Figure 3 Availability of U.S. neutron facilities. See figure references. 

25
Findings – source performance 

The peak year in neutron production was 1996 (coinciding with a DOE funding

initiative for major facilities). 

Neutron beam days operated dropped sharply in 1997 with problems at LANSCE and 

the end of operations at the HFBR. 

Facility availability data show that reactor sources generally operated more beam-days 

per year than their spallation counter parts. Based on these data, reactors typically

operate approximately 250 days per year (68% available) and spallation sources about 

150 days per year (41% available). Variations from these maximum levels depend on 

maintenance requirements, funding for operations and other interruptions to planned 

service. 

Research facility performance

To analyze the overall performance history of the research facilities, levels of instrumentation 

and number of users per year were examined for each facility. Other types of research facility

output - such as publications, research outcomes, etc. – were not used for this historical 

analysis. Generally, the outputs of the facility, and its scientific impact, will be directly related 

to the number of instrument-days operated and to the number of scientific researchers who 

utilize the facility, all other things being equal. Later sections will look in more detail at 

facility performance in FY2000 to examine research facility output and effectiveness. 

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

Number of Instruments

NCNR

HFBR

HFIR

Lujan

IPNS

Figure 4 Number of neutron scattering instruments reported at U.S. facilities. See figure references. 

26
0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

Instrument Days Operated

NCNR

HFBR

HFIR

Lujan

IPNS

Figure 5 Neutron scattering instrument days operated at U.S. facilities. See figure references. 

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

Users

IPNS

Lujan

HFIR

HFBR

NCNR

Figure 6 Number of users at U.S. neutron facilities. See figure references. 

27
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

Users per instrument

IPNS

Lujan

HFIR

HFBR

NCNR

Figure 7 The average number of users per instrument at U.S. facilities. See figure references. 

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

HFIR IPNS Lujan NCNR ILL ISIS

Users per instrument (2000)

Figure 8 Instrument throughput: users per instrument at selected neutron facilities in 2000. See figure 

references. 

28
Findings – research facility performance

The overall number of neutron scattering instruments available in the U.S. dropped 

more than 15% since 1998 with the loss of the HFBR facility. Other trends include the 

doubling of instruments at the NCNR (due to an added cold neutron guide hall facility) 

and increases at the HFIR. The number of instruments at LANSCE decreased during

this period. 

Instrument operation data (instrument days operated) demonstrate the very large impact 

of the HFBR shutdown after 1996. Other notable trends include the nearly insignificant 

impact of LANSCE due to the source facility problems. 

The number of U.S. neutron scattering users has nearly doubled over the past decade, 

but all of the growth has occurred at the NIST facility. The NCNR now supports nearly

twice the number of users as all of the other facilities combined. 

The increase in the number of users at the NCNR is too large (nearly a four-fold

increase) to be attributed to the increased number of instruments alone. Looking at the 

number of users per instrument for each year over this period demonstrates that the 

most significant difference between the NCNR and other U.S. neutron facilities is the

dramatic increase in user throughput. 

Comparing the number of users per instrument in 2000 at the U.S. neutron facilities 

with the ILL and ISIS facilities in Europe shows that user throughput is higher at the 

NCNR, ILL, and ISIS facilities and lower at the HFIR, LANSCE and IPNS. 

29
Detailed assessment for FY2000 

To further examine the differences in instrument productivity at the U.S. facilities, the IWG 

looked at several additional factors: 

Instrument ownership and access to neutron facilities 

Neutron scattering instrumentation installed at U.S. facilities 

Levels of support for instrument operations and neutron research 

Instrument ownership and access policies 

Instrumentation use is related to the mode of user access and to the levels of user support for 

the facility. User access modes typically vary between facilities, and often between specific 

instruments at a given facility. The following general observations and distinctions are made

to frame the discussion: 

Instrument ownership: Instrument ownership is determined by who provides funding to build 

and operate an instrument. Typically instruments are either owned as “sole proprietorships” 

with one owner or as “partnerships” with a group of owners. Most sole owner instruments are 

built and operated by the facility. Partnership owned instruments roughly fall into two specific

types: 

Partnership teams that invest in a particular instrument. These teams have different 

names at each facility: Instrument Development Team (IDT) at the SNS, and 

Participating Research Team (PRT) at LANSCE and the NCNR. 

Interagency partnerships that invest in a suite of instruments (this was referred to as a 

“sub-facility” in the Cooperative Stewardship report3

). The NIST/NSF Center for High

Resolution Neutron Scattering at the NCNR is the primary example of this type of 

partnership (see Appendix). 

The motivating factor for investments by partners in neutron instrumentation is to control beam 

time on that instrument. The consequences of instrument ownership on instrument access are 

discussed below. 

Apportioning instrument time: Instrument time is allocated to meet a variety of needs 

beyond serving the general science community. These include the needs of the facility to 

operate, calibrate and maintain the instruments and the research needs of the instrument 

owners. Facility access policies must be designed to balance these needs. 

The IWG made a distinction based on how instrument use for research is controlled: 

Collaborative access means that beam time is controlled by the instrument owners, 

either the facility scientists or the partners in a jointly owned instrument. Collaborative

access does not refer to the relative formality of the system for requesting beam time 

and reviewing the requests. 

General user access means that instrument time is controlled by a panel that is 

independent from the instrument owners. Typically, this process is based on formal 

submission and peer-review of proposals for beam time. However, the IWG used the 

existence of an independent panel, which awards time on the instruments based on 

scientific merit, as the test for general user access.

It is important to note that both types of access are “merit based” – only quality research should 

be performed – even though they are not both “peer reviewed”. 

30
Consequences of different access modes: Collaborative access tends to create stable, long

term relationships with particular users. This arrangement is often preferred for highly

specialized types of measurements, and is in general very efficient when measured on the basis 

of productivity per user. This mode of operation also ends up requiring less support because 

the frequent collaborators become expert users of the instruments. 

General user access is the preferred mode of access for the “casual user”, or less frequent user. 

This mode of operation is most appropriate for general techniques that are not highly

specialized or that require extensive specialized expertise. This mode of operation is more 

efficient than collaborative access at attracting large numbers of users and is very efficient

when measured on the basis of productivity per instrument. This mode of operation requires a 

facility that can train and support users, regardless of their level of expertise with the 

instruments. Because of the demands placed on support staff by large numbers of non-expert 

users, a facility will often limit general user access when there are insufficient levels of user 

support. 

Facility Facility owned Partner owned

Total FY 2000 

Instrument Time

to General Access 

HFIR 8 3 0%

IPNS 13 0 75%

LANSCE 7 0 0%

NCNR 11 6* 60%

Table 9 Breakdown of the number of facility owned, partner owned (including interagency partnerships) at

U.S. neutron facilities in FY 2000. The total fraction of instrument time allocated in FY 2000 through the 

general user program (with an independent panel) is shown in the last column. *Includes instruments in 

the NIST/NSF Center for High Resolution Neutron Scattering. See table references. 

Access policies at U.S. facilities 

Neutron facilities in the United States employ a variety of ownership modes for instruments. 

Based on differences in ownership and on available support for general user operations, facility

managers have adopted different access policies to control the allocation of instrument time to 

users of their instruments. Table 10 summarizes the access policies in place at U.S. neutron 

facilities in FY 2000. 

Findings 

NCNR and HFIR both employ a variety of ownership models for neutron scattering

instrumentation. At LANSCE and IPNS all instruments are owned by the facility. The 

SNS will have both facility-owned and partnership instruments. 

Access policies have been developed to control the allocation of beam time that is 

consistent with the needs of the instrument owners and with the available level of user 

support. 

In FY 2000, only NCNR and IPNS used an independent panel to allocate instrument 

time to the general users. LANSCE typically uses such a panel but did not in FY 2000 

due to the limited operating time. 

The amount of beam time available through the general user programs is being limited 

to some degree at all facilities by the amount of resources available for full user 

support.

31
Facility Highlights 

SNS Two ownership modes: Instrument Advisory Teams (IAT, facility-owned)

and Instrument Development Teams (IDT, partnership-owned) 

For IAT instruments, 75% of instrument time is scheduled through an

external program advisory committee (PAC) and 25% is facility controlled. 

For IDT instruments, up to 65% of instrument time is scheduled by IDT 

partners (in proportion to level of cost sharing for full development and 

operating cost contributions over a five year period) and the remainder is 

scheduled by the facility. 

IDT partnerships are re-evaluated every five years and the access allotment

adjusted accordingly.

HFIR Prior to 2001, all access was controlled by facility staff (collaborative), 

following a peer review process. 

After 2001, the access model will be the same as for the SNS. 

IPNS All instruments are facility owned. 

Up to 75% of the instrument time is scheduled through an external program 

advisory committee (PAC) and 25% is facility controlled. 

The fraction of time in the general user program is adjusted for levels of

available user support. Currently access to several instruments is limited by

available user support. 

LANSCE For facility owned instruments, up to 75% of the instrument time is 

scheduled by an external Program Advisory Committee and the remainder is 

scheduled by the facility. 

For partnership owned instruments (PRT), up to 75% of the instrument time

is scheduled by the partners (fraction depends on amount of cost sharing to 

build/operate instrument) and the PAC schedules the remainder. 

The fraction of time in the general user program is adjusted for levels of

available user support. Currently general access to several instruments is 

limited by available user support. 

NCNR For facility owned cold neutron instruments, 67% to 75% of the instrument 

time is scheduled through an external PAC the remainder is scheduled by the

facility. 

For facility owned thermal neutron instruments, up to 25% of the instrument 

time is scheduled by the PAC and the remainder by the facility. 

For partnership owned (PRT instrument), up to 75% of the beam time is 

scheduled by the partners (in proportion to cost sharing on instrument 

development/operation) and the remainder is scheduled through the PAC. 

For the NIST/NSF Center for High Resolution Scattering instruments 

(interagency partnership), control over the schedule is assigned as it is for 

PRT instruments, but the NSF fraction of time is scheduled through the

PAC. 

The fraction of time in the general user program is adjusted for levels of

available user support. Currently access to most thermal neutron instruments 

is limited by available user support. 

Table 10 Summary of access policies at U.S. neutron facilities. See table references. 

32
Instrumentation 

Data were examined for FY 2000 for the neutron scattering instruments operated at each U.S.

neutron facility. Other types of instruments (such as testing stations, activation analysis, 

physics research, etc) are not included in this assessment. Data collected on neutron 

instrumentation operated in FY 2000 are shown below: 

Instrument Type Year 

World

Class? 

Instrument

Class Ownership

Main

Access 

Mode 

SANS SANS 1986 N Low Q Facility Collaborative

reflectometer reflectometer 1990 N Low Q Facility Collaborative

USANS double-crystal spectrometer 1995 Y Low Q Facility Collaborative

HB1 polarized triple-axis spectrometer 1968 Y Inelastic Facility Collaborative

HB1A fixed incident energy triple-axis spectrometer 1990 N Inelastic Partnership Collaborative

WAND high intensity diffractometer 1980's N Diffraction Partnership Collaborative

HB4A High resolution powder diffractometer 1980's N Diffraction Facility Collaborative

HB2B* residual stress diffractometer 1990's Y Diffraction Partnership Collaborative

HB2* triple axis spectrometer 1969 Y Inelastic Facility Collaborative

HB3 triple axis spectrometer 1968 Y Inelastic Facility Collaborative

HFIR

HB2A 4-circle single-crystal diffractometer 1995 N Diffraction Facility Collaborative

GLAD Glass, Liquids and Amorphous Mat. Diffract. 1990 Y Diffraction Facility General

QENS Quasielastic Neutron Spectrometer 1987 Y Inelastic Facility General

HRMECS High Resolution Med. Energy Chopper Spect. 1982 N Inelastic Facility General 

SAND Small Angle Neutron Diffractometer 1996 Y Low Q Facility General 

POSYI Polarized Neutron Reflectometer 1985 N Low Q Facility General 

POSYII Neutron Reflectometer 1987 N Low Q Facility Collaborative

SAD Small Angle Diffractometer 1982 N Low Q Facility General 

GPPD General Purpose Powder Diffractometer 1981 Y Diffraction Facility General

HIPD/MiDaS High Intensity Powder Diffractometer 1995 N Diffraction Facility Collaborative

LRMECS Low Resolution Med. Energy Chopper Spect. 1981 Y Inelastic Facility General 

SEPD Special Environment Powder Diffract. 1981 Y Diffraction Facility General 

IPNS

SCD Single Crystal Diffractometer 1981 Y Diffraction Facility General

NPD High resolution powder diffractometer 1988 Y Diffraction Facility Collaborative

HIPD Low resolution powder diffractometer 1983 Y Diffraction Facility Collaborative

SCD Single crystal diffractometer 1981 N Diffraction Facility Collaborative

FDS Filter Difference Spectrometer 1981 N Inelastic Facility Collaborative

LQD SANS 1986 Y Low Q Facility Collaborative

SPEAR Reflectometer 1993 Y Low Q Facility Collaborative LANSCE

PHAROS Chopper spectrometer 1992 N Inelastic Facility Collaborative

BT-1 High resolution powder diffractometer 1990 N Diffraction Facility Collaborative

BT-2 Spin-polarized triple-axis spectrometer 1980 N Inelastic Facility Collaborative

BT-4 FANS Filter analyzer spectrometer 2000 Y Inelastic Partnership Collaborative

BT-5 USANS Double perfect crystal SANS 2000 Y Low Q Partnership General

BT-7 Fixed-incident energy triple axis 1999 N Inelastic Facility Collaborative

BT-8 DARTS Residual Stress Diffractometer 1996 Y Diffraction Facility Collaborative

BT-9 Triple axis 1985 N Inelastic Facility Collaborative

NG-1 Reflect. Reflectometer 1996 Y Low Q Facility General 

NG-1 8m SANS 8m SANS 1990 N Low Q Facility Collaborative

NG-2 HFBS High Resolution Backscattering Spectrometer 1998 Y Inelastic Facility General

NG-3 30m SANS 30m SANS 1992 Y Low Q Partnership General

NG-4 DCS Disk Chopper TOF Spectrometer 2000 Y Inelastic Facility General 

NG-5 SPINS Spin-polarized triple-axis spectrometer 1994 Y Inelastic Partnership General

NG-5 NSE Neutron Spin Echo Spectrometer 2000 Y Inelastic Facility General 

NG-6 FCS Fermi Chopper TOF Spectrometer 1992 N Inelastic Facility Collaborative

NG-7 Reflect. Horizontal sample Reflectometer 1994 Y Low Q Partnership General

NCNR 

NG-7 30m SANS 30m SANS 1991 Y Low Q Partnership General

Table 11 Neutron scattering instruments operating at U.S. facilities in FY 2000. Access mode refers to the 

access mode for the majority of beam time on that instrument for FY 2000. * Note: The HB2 and HB2B 

instruments share time on a common beamline at the HFIR. The time sharing is approximately 1/3 HB2 

(triple axis) and 2/3 HB2B (residual stress). See table references. 

33
0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

HFIR IPNS LANSCE NCNR US total

Total instruments by class

Diffraction

Low Q

Inelastic

 Figure 9 Number of instruments by class at U.S. neutron facilities in FY 2000. See figure references. 

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Diffraction Low Q Inelastic

Instruments

Western Europe

Russia

Japan

US

Figure 10 Comparison of instrument totals by instrument class between major international neutron 

facilities. See figure references. 

 

34
0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

HFIR IPNS LANSCE NCNR

No. instruments

Not competitive

World-class

Figure 11 Fraction of instruments claimed as “world class” by each U.S. neutron facility in FY 2000. See 

figure references. 

New and upgraded instruments 

The IWG also looked at instrument development or upgrade efforts at all of the facilities. For 

comparison, only projects that are funded are included for each facility. 

Spallation Neutron Source: The SNS project baseline includes a fixed budget of $60M for 

instrument development and not a fixed number of completed instruments. Current plans 

project that approximately five instruments as well as all of the common component instrument 

systems will be provided under the project baseline. DOE/BES has funded two additional 

instruments to be built by university partners. 

Other facilities: New instrument development or major instrument upgrades are summarized 

in the table below: 

35
Instrument Type

New (N) or

 Upgrade (U) Instrument Class 

SANS1 40m SANS N Low Q

SANS2 35m Biology SANS N Low Q 

reflectometer reflectometer U Low Q

STAR cold neutron triple axis N Inelastic

USANS double-crystal spectrometer U Low Q

HB1 polarized triple-axis spectrometer U Inelastic

WAND high intensity diffractometer U Diffraction 

HB2A high resolution powder diffractometer U Diffraction 

HB2B residual stress diffractometer U Diffraction 

HB2D triple axis spectrometer U Inelastic

HB3 triple axis spectrometer U Inelastic

HFIR

HB2A 4-circle single-crystal diffractometer U Diffraction 

GLAD Glass, Liquids and Amorphous Materials Diffract. U Diffraction 

HRMECS High Resolution Medium Energy Chopper Spect. U Inelastic

SAD Small Angle Diffractometer U Low Q 

GPPD General Purpose Powder Diffractometer U Diffraction 

IPN

S

SCD Single Crystal Diffractometer U Diffraction

PCS Protein diffractometer N Diffraction

SMARTS Engineering powder diffractometer N Diffraction

HIPPO Texture powder diffractometer N Diffraction 

ASTERIX Polarized beam reflectometer N Low Q 

L

IN500 Chopper spectrometer N Inelastic

ANSCE

PHAROS Chopper spectrometer U Inelastic

BT-7 Triple axis U Inelastic

BT-9 Triple axis U Inelastic

NG-0 Cold Neutron Triple Axis (NSF funded) N Inelastic

NG-1 Reflectometer Biology Reflectometer (NIH funded) N Low Q 

NG-1 9m SANS 9m SANS (CHRNS) N Low Q 

NG-3 30m SANS 30m SANS (CHNRS) U Low Q 

NG-5 SPINS Spin-polarized triple-axis spectrometer (CHRNS) U Inelastic

NCNR 

NG-7 30m SANS 30m SANS U Low Q 

Table 12 New or upgraded instrument projects (with committed funding) at U.S. neutron facilities to be 

developed over the next five years at existing facilities. Outside agency funding is shown in parenthesis, if

applicable. See table references. 

Findings – instrumentation 

There are significant differences in the instrument distribution by class between the 

U.S. facilities. Instruments for low Q and inelastic scattering represent a higher

fraction of the total instrument suite at the NCNR compared to the DOE facilities. The

difference is largely attributable to the focus at the NCNR on providing instrumentation 

that is well matched to its cold neutron capability. 

Western European facilities provide substantially greater instrument capability in all 

instrument classes over other regions of the world, including the United States. 

The level of instrumentation identified by U.S. facilities as being “world class” only

represents 40-65% of the total instrument capability at any facility. This indicates that

a substantial fraction of U.S. neutron instrumentation is not considered to be in the 

same competitive class with ILL/ISIS instruments. The highest rate of competitive

instrumentation in FY2000 exists at the NCNR and the lowest at the HFIR. 

Instrument projects underway (either new or upgrades) will improve the quality of 

neutron instruments at U.S. facilities. 

The largest unmet instrumentation need is at the SNS. This facility has capacity for, up 

to 25 neutron instruments at the target station. Presently, only 7 have committed 

funding. A suite of approximately 15 instruments will be needed to provide a basic, 

broad range of measurement capability. 

36
Research facility staffing 

The IWG requested facilities provide their staffing levels for all aspects of research facilities 

operations. This includes all staff except those that operate the neutron source (including

reactor/accelerator operators, target/moderator support staff, etc.). 

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

HFIR LANSCE IPNS NCNR ISIS ILL

Research Facility Staff

Figure 12 Number of research facility support staff at selected facilities in FY 2000. Research facility staff 

includes all staff that support use and operation of the neutron instruments, but excludes staff that support

operation of the source. See figure references. 

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

HFIR LANSCE IPNS NCNR ISIS ILL

Staff per instru

ment

Figure 13 Research facility support staffing per neutron scattering instrument at selected facilities in FY 

2000. See figure references. 

37
0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

HFIR IPNS NCNR ISIS ILL

Users per staff

Figure 14 Users per research facility support staff member at selected neutron facilities. See figure 

references. 

Findings – facility staffing 

Traditionally U.S. facilities have been staffed at a lower level per instrument than at

ILL and ISIS. Normal staffing levels are considered to be 3-4 per instrument in the 

U.S. and 5-6 per instrument at ISIS and ILL. Only HFIR is staffed below these 

“nominal” levels. 

The number of users supported per staff member can be interpreted as a number 

representing the “load” on staff. Staff loads are similar at HFIR, IPNS and ILL, but 

approximately 70% higher at the NCNR and ISIS facilities. 

Since user throughput at the SNS can be expected to be similar to ISIS, the demand on 

the support staff at SNS will be considerable if traditional U.S. support levels of 3-4 

staff members are used as a benchmark. 

38
User demographic data 

The IWG looked at the available data for FY 2000 on the users of the U.S. neutron facilities. 

These data were supplemented with survey results from the European Neutron Scattering

Association in order to estimate the composition of the U.S. neutron users. 

Professional User

29%

Very Frequent User

15%

Frequent User

19%

Casual User

37%

Figure 15 European neutron scattering community by usage. Users were defined according to the fraction 

of their research program based on neutron scattering: Professional (75-100%), Very Frequent (50-75%), 

Frequent (25-50%), and Casual (0-25%). See figure references. 

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

Physics &

Materials Science

Chemistry Macromolecules Biology Other

Users

NCNR

HFIR

Lujan

IPNS

Figure 16 U.S. neutron scattering users by field of research. See figure references. 

39
0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Physics &

Materials

Science

Chemistry Macromolecules Biology Other

Share of users

NCNR

HFIR

Lujan

IPNS

Figure 17 Share of users at U.S. neutron facilities by scientific field. See figure references. 

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

HFIR IPNS NCNR

Usage by field

Other

Biology

Macromolecules

Chemistry

Physics & Materials Science

Figure 18 Share of scientific field by users at each U.S. neutron facility. See figure references. 

40
0

100

200

300

400

500

600

University Host Lab Government Industry Other (incl.

Foreign)

Users

NCNR

HFIR

Lujan

IPNS

Figure 19 Number of users by individual affiliation at U.S. neutron facilities. Foreign participation is 

mostly as part of multinational collaborations with U.S. participation. See figure references. 

Findings – user demographics 

European survey results indicate that, for the majority users, neutron scattering

measurements represent 50% or less of their overall research program. Similar data

were unavailable for the U.S. community, but substantial use by “non-experts” is also 

found at U.S. neutron facilities. 

U.S. neutron scattering usage is broadly multidisciplinary, with the “traditional”

neutron scattering fields, physics and materials science, only accounting for 50-60% of 

all users (see also Figure 1). 

Science fields representing the “physical sciences” (all fields except biology) account 

for over 90% of all users at U.S. facilities. 

The mixture of fields at a particular facility reflects the capabilities at that facility. For

example, the fraction of users in macromolecular and biological sciences at the NCNR

is twice that at IPNS or HFIR due to the emphasis on cold neutron capability. 

University researchers are the largest segment of the U.S. neutron scattering user 

community (50%), followed by scientists from the host laboratory (30%). Foreign 

participation is significant, but is nearly always part of multinational collaborations that

include U.S. researchers. 

41
Research output and outcomes 

The main purpose of neutron-based research facilities is to perform leading-edge research

using the unique properties of neutrons. The IWG examined some available data on the 

outcomes of this research and on some of the research output, namely publications, from the 

U.S. neutron research facilities. 

Year Name Award Research Area 

1957 Clifford Shull (MIT) APS Buckley Prize Neutron diffraction, magnetic structure 

1963 Bertram Brockhouse 

(AECL) APS Buckley Prize Phonons, magnons

1973 John Axe, Gen Shirane 

(BNL) ACA Warren Diffraction Award Soft modes, phase transitions

1973 Gen Shirane (BNL) APS Buckley Prize Phonons, soft modes

1974 Paul Flory (Cal Tech) Nobel Prize, Chemistry Polymer structure 

1978 Henri Benoit (Strasbourg) APS High Polymer Prize Neutrons, polymer structure 

1982 

Edwards (Cambridge), 

Pierre de Gennes (Col.

Paris)

APS High Polymer Prize Polymer structure, dynamics 

1984 Charles Han (NIST) APS Dillon Medal Polymer structure 

1986 Muthu Kumar (U. Mass) APS Dillon Medal Polymer structure, dynamics

1987 Robert Birgeneau (MIT) APS Buckley Prize Magnetism

1988 Robert Birgeneau (MIT), 

Paul Horn (IBM) ACA Warren Diffraction Award Low-dimensional systems

1988 Jean Guenet (Sacley) APS Dillon Medal Gel formation 

1989 Frank Bates (AT&T) APS Dillon Medal Block copolymers

1990 Pierre de Gennes (Col.

Paris) Nobel Prize, Physics Theory of polymers, liquid crystals

1990 James Jorgensen (ANL) ACA Warren Diffraction Award Structure of ceramic superconductors

1990 Dieter Richter (KFA), 

John Huang (Exxon) Max Planck Research Prize Dynamics of polymers and microemulsions

1991 Ken Schweitzer (Sandia) APS Dillon Medal Polymer RISM theory

1992 Glenn Fredrickson (UCSB) APS Dillon Medal Theory of microsphere polymer structure 

1992 Phil Pincus (UCSB) APS High Polymer Prize Theory of complex fluids

1992 Alice Gast (Stanford) 

Colburn Award (American 

Institute of Chemical

Engineering) 

Colloids and polymers

1994 

Clifford Shull (MIT), 

Bertram Brockhouse 

(AECL)

Nobel Prize, Physics Neutron scattering methods for structures and 

dynamics

1996 Frank Bates (U. Minn.) APS High Polymer Prize Structure of copolymers

1996 Nitash Balsara (N.Y. 

Polytech.) APS Dillon Medal Properties of polymer blends

1997 David Price (ANL) ACA Warren Diffraction Award Structure of disordered systems

1998 Eric Kaler (U. Delaware) ACS Colloid & Surface

Chemistry Award Complex fluids

1998 Spiros Anastisiadis 

(U. Crete) APS Dillon Prize

Structure and dynamics of polymer solutions, melts

and films

1999 Anne Mayes (MIT) APS Dillon Prize Polymer self-organization 

1999 Richard Stein (U. Mass) MRS Von Hippel Award Polymer structure 

1999 Charles Han (NIST) APS High Polymer Prize Neutron scattering, polymer phase separation 

2000 Lewis Fetters (Exxon) APS High Polymer Prize Polymer entanglement, miscibility and microphase 

separation 

2000 Lewis Fetters (Exxon) ACS Applied Polymer Science 

Award Polymer science and applications

2000 Robert Birgeneau (MIT) APS Lilienfeld Prize Phase transitions

Table 13 Major scientific awards for, or strongly influenced by, neutron scattering research. See table 

references. 

42
Publications: The IWG also looked at publications from the neutron facilities in FY 2000. To 

make comparisons, facilities were asked to estimate the number of journal articles published in 

FY 2000 in the area of neutron scattering research. The data show that a total of approximately

400 journal publications were published from all of the U.S. neutron facilities for research 

using neutron scattering. Approximately half of the U.S. publications were from the NCNR. 

The U.S total is about the same as the number of publications from either the ILL or ISIS

alone. 

Recent research highlights 

The IWG collected from the steward agencies a small selection of research highlights 

performed over the past five years at U.S. neutron facilities. This collection is representative,

but not all-inclusive, of the breadth and quality of recent neutron scattering research in the 

United States. Some of the research highlights include: 

Neutron scattering studies of spin dynamics and nanoscale polaron formation in new 

colossal magnetoresistive materials, which have important applications in magnetic

data storage and sensor technology.

Fundamental breakthroughs in the understanding of quantum mechanical behavior of 

low dimensional and frustrated magnet systems. 

Neutron reflectivity measurements have greatly advanced the understanding of polymer 

thin films, adsorbed polymer layers and membranes under a variety of conditions 

critical to applications in coatings, adhesion and composite lamination. 

Neutron studies have been used to probe the role of “stripes” (i.e. magnetic structure) in 

the behavior of high temperature superconductors. 

SANS has revealed the types of structural changes occurring at the nano-scale that can 

cause embrittlement of power reactor vessels. 

Direct determination by neutron inelastic scattering of molecular interactions, which are

the basis for the design of, advanced polymer materials. 

Advances in the understanding of the behavior of molecules and atoms in nanoporous 

materials using inelastic neutron techniques. These materials have important 

applications for chemical separation and environmental clean up technology.

Neutron and synchrotron x-ray powder diffraction studies have greatly advanced the 

ability to tailor new zeolyte molecular sieves used for chemical separations. 

Neutron residual stress measurements now validate the finite element analysis

techniques used for optimizing production of industrial products. 

Findings – research output and outcomes 

Reviews of neutron scattering (see References section at the end of this report) all 

conclude that neutron scattering provides essential research tools needed for leading

edge research. 

The number of major scientific awards attributable to neutron scattering research is 

substantial and increasing.

The total number of U.S. publications in FY 2000 was approximately 400. This is 

about the same as the number of publications from either the ILL or ISIS over the same 

period. Half of the U.S. publications are from the NCNR. 

A quick review of recent research highlights using neutron scattering shows highimpact research, consistent with the conclusions from earlier reports. 

43
Conclusions 

The assessment by the IWG of the condition of U.S. neutron scattering facilities provides 

convincing evidence that there is a substantial need for improving both the number and quality

of neutron scattering instruments, and in broadening the access to them by the U.S. research 

community. The SNS stands out as the most significant opportunity to increase both the 

quantity and quality of neutron scattering capability at a U.S. source. The completion of the

SNS construction project will still leave the majority of potential beamlines undeveloped and 

thus the full SNS capability under-utilized. Given the large investments being made to develop 

the SNS source, the most cost effective approach is to completely instrument the source so that

it can realize its full potential. Doing so would yield a neutron scattering capability unmatched

in the world. The four operating U.S. sources are essentially at capacity with regard to the

number of instruments, but a significant fraction of those instruments need upgrades or 

replacement to be competitive with capability available elsewhere. The IWG found that most 

facilities have major instrument upgrade or replacement efforts underway that, if successfully

completed, should substantially improve the overall quality of neutron scattering capability in 

the United States. 

The other significant challenge is to expand access to these neutron instruments for U.S.

researchers. Clearly, this goal is related to the quality of the neutron scattering instruments and 

will be impacted by the activities described above. However, a vigorous user program that 

brings part-time neutron scattering researchers to the facility also depends upon: 1) adequate 

research facility staff; 2) instrument ownership modes that do not increase the time controlled 

through collaborative access; and 3) a commitment to an independent, merit-based general user 

program. The historical success of the ILL and ISIS facilities that are committed to this mode

of operation, and the evidence presented in this report on the similar success at the NCNR 

show the benefits of this type of operation. 

44
Recommendations and Priorities 

In consideration of these findings and conclusions, the IWG believes that the highest priority

goals for the U.S. neutron scattering facilities are:

To seek ways to fully exploit the best present neutron source facilities and the SNS; 

To broaden access to these facilities for the benefit of the broadest possible scientific 

community; 

To improve coordination between agencies, facilities and stakeholders so that the

overall U.S. neutron capability is fully optimized; and 

To foster the advances in neutron source technology and neutron methods needed to 

develop advanced neutron techniques and develop future neutron scattering

capability. 

In support of these goals, the IWG makes the following general recommendations: 

Recommendation 1: 

The IWG recommends that the highest priority for federal investments in neutron

scattering is to fully exploit the best U.S. neutron source capabilities – including the 

SNS – for the benefit of the broadest possible scientific community. Specifically, these 

investments should aim to: 

Fully develop at least 85% of available beam lines with neutron instrumentation that 

exceeds or is at least competitive with international best-in-class instruments; 

Maximize the amount of beam time made available to the broad scientific community

through an independent, peer-review based general user program;

Provide resources to fully staff and support the high productivity operation of the neutron 

scattering instruments; 

Provide support for research using neutron scattering techniques. 

Discussion: 

The IWG believes that the high priority and significant resources devoted to developing and 

operating the nation’s neutron sources have not been matched with the commitment and 

resources to fully instrument and staff those sources so that they achieve the highest level of 

scientific productivity and serve the broadest possible scientific user community. The 

assessment data clearly demonstrate the major gains in per instrument productivity that can 

result from state-of-the-art neutron instrumentation and the resources to operate a robust user 

program. However, even the remarkable gains at the NCNR are now being limited because

the growth in users has outstripped the size of the research facility staff. 

The specific goals for this investment strategy reflect the findings from the IWG assessment:

A facility should strive for 100% leading or competitive class instrumentation. 

However, the IWG believes that the recommended level of 85% or better takes into 

account the flexibility needed by a facility for a reasonable program of instrument 

replacement and upgrade. 

The IWG recognizes a legitimate need for collaborative access to specialized 

capability, but believes that the goal should be to maximize general user access to the 

instruments with broad scientific appeal. 

The IWG believes that a robust general user program requires significant staffing

resources and a strong in-house science program at the facility. The assessment data 

demonstrate that the traditional staffing benchmark level of 3-4 scientific, engineering

45
and technical support staff per instruments is too low to sustain the maximum number 

of users. The appropriate staffing level appears to be closer to 5 for the present

generation of best-in-class instruments. This is a useful starting point for the SNS, 

but it may not be sufficient for the high productivity expected for the SNS instrument 

suite.

Recommendation 2: 

The IWG recommends that the steward agency for each of the major neutron facilities 

form partnerships with other federal agencies to meet the objectives of

Recommendation 1. These partnerships should be based on the following principles:

They must support the role of the steward agency; 

They must promote the role of the facility staff to manage and operate the instruments; 

They must provide adequate resources to develop instruments and to operate them in a 

robust user program; 

They must meet the needs of the U.S. research community and support the specific 

program objectives of the participating agencies; 

The scope and terms of the partnership should be mutually agreed upon by the partners 

and then clearly stated to all stakeholders;

Participating agencies should use joint mechanisms to select and review projects in the 

partnership. 

Discussion: 

The size of neutron facilities and the breadth of their use have increasingly required cost 

sharing to support the continued development and operation of the research facilities. The

Cooperative Stewardship3 report provides a helpful framework for cost sharing mechanisms 

that allow for diverse sources of support without undermining the stable operation of the 

central source facility. Specifically, the Cooperative Stewardship report found that: 

Growth in the use and size of major user facilities has given rise to funding stresses at 

the facilities to support robust user operations; 

Early U.S. management models (and European models) based on dispersed 

stewardship and funding, have been shown to be unsatisfactory for user facilities 

because of the diffusion of responsibility and the instability of funding; 

User fee-based cost sharing mechanisms would undermine merit based access to 

major facilities and would destabilize the funding for operation and maintenance; 

The preferred funding and management model is single agency stewardship of the 

core facility (called source facility in this report), and the use of partnerships for the

research facility. 

The IWG fully endorses these findings and believes that the need for partnerships extends to 

large neutron sources. Furthermore, the IWG believes that that the goals for the U.S. neutron 

facilities given in Recommendation 1 can be best met through partnerships between the

federal agencies that support the many scientific and engineering areas that use neutron 

scattering methods. The “small science at a large facility” character of neutron scattering

research means that investments in neutron source capability are truly investments in a

national measurement infrastructure that has broad appeal beyond the mission focus areas of 

the steward agencies. The IWG believes that with proper care, interagency partnerships can 

be an effective method to provide adequate stable resources to develop and operate highquality neutron scattering instruments, while ensuring the broadest possible access to those 

instruments by the U.S. scientific community

46
Recommendation 3: 

The IWG recommends a series of actions to improve coordination between

participating agencies, facility managers, and user organizations in order to maximize

the overall effectiveness of the nation’s neutron resources. These actions include: 

Continued interagency coordination through OSTP for the development and use of 

neutron scattering capability in the United States; 

The establishment of some regular venue for the management of the nation’s neutron 

facilities to foster inter-facility cooperation, mutual planning and strategic planning for 

the neutron field, and to improve collaboration, and communication between the 

facilities; 

The steward agencies, in coordination with neutron facility management, should take 

steps to foster improved communication and coordination among the user communities 

(through their representative organizations) of the neutron facilities. 

Discussion: 

As neutron source capability is limited within the U.S., the IWG focused on ways to ensure

that this precious resource is wisely exploited. Improved coordination at all levels is needed

to make certain that instrument development meets the national needs of the U.S. neutron 

scattering community, is well matched to the source performance, and minimizes

unnecessary duplication of capability. The IWG found that there were few formal 

mechanisms to organize or coordinate efforts at the U.S. neutron facilities. Because of the 

limitations in the U.S. neutron scattering infrastructure, it is imperative to improve the

effectiveness of these facilities by closer coordination at a variety of levels: 

Interagency coordination, along the lines of this IWG, should continue so that 

stakeholder agencies can have a regular forum to evaluate the effectiveness of their 

investments in neutron scattering programs; 

Inter-facility coordination should be formally established so that senior managers of 

the U.S. neutron facilities have a regular venue to discuss operations schedules, 

instrument and source improvements, options to develop new and needed capability

and to explore ways to eliminate barriers to neutron facility use by the broader

scientific community. 

Coordination should be established between the facility-based user groups and 

national user organizations such as the Neutron Scattering Society of America. The 

diverse scientific fields served by neutron scattering methods should have some 

common forum for providing their input to facilities and to agencies, but also for 

promoting the kinds of interdisciplinary contacts that often fuel new developments. 

Recommendation 4: 

The IWG recommends that participating federal agencies promote and coordinate 

efforts to advance neutron scattering methods and neutron source technology needed

for the future. Specifically, this includes promoting:

Upgrades and enhancements to neutron scattering instruments; 

Research and development in neutron source (including moderator) technology;

Efforts to develop new and improved neutron scattering methods; and 

Efforts to expand the application of neutron scattering to new areas of science. 

47
Discussion: 

The IWG assessment projected an increased demand for future neutron scattering capability. 

U.S. researchers will face this increased demand with a very limited neutron measurement 

capability (both sources and instruments). The future health of the neutron scattering

program in the United States requires a continuous effort to improve the present capability

and to develop tomorrow’s capability. The IWG believes that the steward and partner

agencies should focus efforts in these areas and ensure that they receive appropriate 

resources. Traditionally, the specialized expertise to advance neutron source and scattering

methods has resided within the neutron facilities. The IWG believes that this core 

competency of the science and technical staff at the facilities should be enhanced. The IWG 

also notes that universities have a critical role developing new talent in neutron techniques 

and believes that university-based efforts must also be supported. The IWG noted the 

comparatively better organized efforts in Europe and Japan for research and development in 

neutron techniques. It is important to ensure a robust effort in this area for the United States 

as well. 

Implementation of recommendations at U.S. neutron facilities: Priorities 

Spallation Neutron Source 

The SNS project represents the most significant enhancement of neutron source capability in 

the United States at this time. As such, it also represents the largest opportunity to 

significantly enhance U.S. neutron scattering capability through investments in a robust 

instrument suite and strong scientific and technical support to operate those instruments. As 

stated in the 2000 BESAC Subpanel on Neutron Scattering report10: 

The Spallation Neutron Source will, when operational, be a world leader in 

neutron science, and a focal point of neutron scattering in the U.S. More than 

an order of magnitude gain in intensity over existing pulsed neutron sources, 

combined with an innovative and robust initial instrument suite (emphasis 

added), will provide entirely new possibilities for forefront research, and will 

re-establish this country as a leader in neutron scattering. It is the highest 

priority for the neutron community... 

Meeting this opportunity will require a commitment to fully achieve the goals in 

Recommendation 1 for the SNS soon after commencement of routine source operations. 

Consequently, the IWG considers the needs of the SNS research facility to be the highest 

priority within the U.S. neutron program: 

Implementation Priority 1:

The Department of Energy, the National Science Foundation, and other interested 

agencies, should immediately establish a framework for an interagency partnership to 

provide funding resources to develop and operate a robust suite of instruments, 

approximately 75% of full instrumentation, to address a broad spectrum of neutron 

scattering measurements at the SNS. To be timely, the framework for instrument 

development should be affected within the next six months. 

48
Status:

The President’s FY03 budget request to Congress includes a program within DOE’s Office 

of Basic Energy Sciences (DOE/BES) for support of instrumentation and associated R&D for 

x-ray and neutron science at a level of approximately $15M beginning in FY2003, with at 

least $5M of this funding allocated for new instruments and instrument upgrades at the SNS. 

Furthermore, DOE/BES intends to provide operating support for most new instruments built 

for the physical sciences regardless of the support of capitalization. This will provide stable 

support for these instruments and will maximize access for the broad user community. 

DOE/BES will also support research using these instruments appropriate to its mission. 

The National Science Foundation is also developing plans to institute a program for 

instrument development at major user facilities, including neutron and x-ray sources. This 

program will accept proposals on a competitive basis for the cost to develop or upgrade 

instruments at major facilities. Negotiations are underway between these two agencies to 

explore ways to coordinate their activities through a joint partnership to develop 

instrumentation at the SNS. 

NIST Center for Neutron Research

The NCNR is the highest performing and most used neutron facility in the United States at

this time, and will remain in that position at least until the SNS is operational and robustly

instrumented. With high quality instrumentation, especially for cold neutron techniques, and 

a robust user program, the NCNR facility serves the majority of U.S. neutron scattering

users. Recent activities at the NCNR have aimed to further enhance instrument capability

and to expand access to these instruments. Highlights include:

Upgrade of the liquid hydrogen cold source to double cold neutron intensity; 

Funded upgrade of thermal neutron scattering instruments; 

New NIST/NSF/John’s Hopkins University partnership to develop high intensity cold 

neutron triple axis capability; 

New NIST/NIH partnership to develop dedicated capability for low-Q diffraction of 

protein membranes; 

Expansion of the NIST/NSF Center for High Resolution Neutron Scattering

(CHRNS). The Center provides enhanced support for a selected suite of instruments 

and results in an increased fraction of instrument time available through the general 

user program. A more complete description of the CHRNS is found in the Appendix. 

The 2001 expansion doubled the number of instruments in the Center. 

In spite of these improvements, the IWG assessment finds that the NCNR is still under 

funded to fully exploit its measurement capability for the general user community. At this 

time, only about 60% of the available beam time is access through the general user program 

and available staffing and research support limit this fraction. Furthermore, the present NRC 

license for the reactor expires in May, 2004 requiring a timely license renewal application for 

a 20-year extension. 

49
Implementation Priority 2:

The IWG recommends that NIST and the Department of Commerce along with their 

partners, including the National Science Foundation, continue to fully support: 1) the

source operations of the NCNR; 2) the improvements in source and instrument

capability; and 3) the increased levels of support for both the NIST research program

the general science community. 

In addition, because of the essential role of this facility to the nation’s neutron 

measurement infrastructure, the IWG recommends that NIST and the Department of

Commerce fully support all activities related to the license renewal for the NIST reactor 

by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Status:

The President’s FY 2003 budget request to Congress includes a $6M increase for the NCNR 

to enhance in-house research activities and to increase staffing support. These resources will 

allow the NCNR to bring more beam time into the general user program as the instrument 

upgrades described above are completed. This should result in a 30% increase in the number 

of users at the NCNR making it comparable to the present capacity of ISIS. In addition, the 

NCNR is actively fostering instrument development partnerships with agencies and 

institutions when it is an appropriate mechanism for the development of a particular

instrument capability. The Department of Commerce and NIST fully support all preparations 

for a timely license renewal application to the NRC. 

The High Flux Isotope Reactor 

The HFIR is in the midst of a major project to enhance its neutron scattering capability. 

Major elements of this project include: 

Modification of the beryllium reflector geometry to allow larger diameter beam tubes; 

Installation of a super-critical hydrogen cold source in beam tube HB-4; 

Construction of a cold neutron guide tube network and associated guide hall facility; 

Development of four new cold neutron spectrometers. New capability includes two 

SANS instruments, one reflectometer and one cold neutron triple axis spectrometry;

and 

Major upgrades to thermal neutron scattering instruments. 

The IWG believes that the successful completion of this upgrade project and the subsequent 

operation of the HFIR instruments in a vigorous general user program is essential for the

health of the U.S. neutron scattering program and therefore, a high priority for the 

Department of Energy and Oak Ridge National Laboratory. The HFIR will, when complete, 

offer complementary capability to the SNS and “will join the NIST reactor as a major facility

on the world scene, and become an essential component of the U.S. neutron scattering

capability.”10 

A 1998 BESAC report on the High Flux Isotope Reactor Upgrade and User Program10 made 

several specific recommendations to Oak Ridge National Laboratory regarding the HFIR: 

1. Develop a plan to address long-term reliability of the HFIR;

2. Develop a coherent vision of the expected outcome of the ongoing upgrades and 

develop and implement a management plan to reach that goal;

50
3. Develop a viable plan to develop a high quality user program at the upgraded 

HFIR that is tightly coordinated with the user program at the SNS; and

4. Develop a staffing plan that broadens the existing science program.

As stated in the report10: “Access to neutron facilities remains an important national issue. 

Access to the HFIR remains based on a collaborative philosophy and continuation of that 

approach cannot be justified with the upgrade investment.” The IWG concurs with this 

conclusion. 

Implementation Priority 3:

The IWG recommends that the Department of Energy should fully support the cold

source and instrument upgrade project at the HFIR and ensure that the instruments 

are operated to support a robust general user program .

Status:

The President’s FY 2003 budget request to Congress includes funding to support the upgrade 

program and to continue fabrication of new instruments. The operating budget of the facility

will be adjusted in FY 2003 and beyond to support a growing user program as instruments 

are reinstalled at the reactor following the year-long outage to replace the beryllium reflector. 

 The Intense Pulsed Neutron Facility

The IPNS has been one of the most successful DOE neutron sources, operating with 

consistent, high reliability; developing new moderator and instrument capability; and 

operating a well-run general user program. Currently the IPNS has several modest 

instrument improvement efforts underway that will improve capability on selected 

instruments. In addition, Argonne National Laboratory is the lead lab within the SNS project 

for development of instruments at the SNS. The IPNS staff plays a key leadership role in the 

development of SNS instrument and moderator capability. A recent BESAC panel examined 

the neutron scattering programs at IPNS and at the Lujan Center at LANSCE. This panel 

found that6

 the IPNS “is an extremely reliable source with a talented and experience staff. 

However, the facilities (source and some instruments) are in need of improvements to make 

them more competitive and to maintain reliability.” 

The IWG decided not to make the IPNS one of the implementation priorities at this time. 

The long-term future of the IPNS must be assessed with a clear-headed appraisal of how it 

can contribute when the SNS is operational. The IPNS has been a great success, and 

continues to outperform the other DOE neutron facilities in many respects. However, it will 

not be able to provide competitive capability in comparison to the SNS. The IWG believes 

that any recommendations regarding the future of this facility should wait until the SNS is 

functioning as an effective neutron scattering facility. 

The Los Alamos Neutron Scattering Center

The IWG assessment makes clear a troubling history of poor source performance at 

LANSCE that has crippled attempts to foster a strong neutron scattering program. 

The BESAC review of IPNS and LANSCE6

 reached a similar conclusion and 

recommended changes in the governance and management of this facility. In

response, Los Alamos and DOE management have articulated a new governance 

model for LANSCE, made changes in the LANSCE leadership and instituted reviews 

of various aspects of the LANSCE program. The IWG was pleased with the 

51
aggressive response on the part of LANSCE and the Department to address the 

problems at this facility, and early signs point to improvements in restoring reliable

source operations. 

The IWG believes that the success of LANSCE – a diverse multi-program effort – depends 

on strong leadership by Los Alamos and by the agency steward, the National Nuclear 

Security Administration (NNSA) at DOE. A major effort to define the role of this facility

within Los Alamos National Laboratory and within the NNSA is underway. Because of this 

ongoing process, the IWG decided not to make any specific recommendation regarding

LANSCE at this time. Based on the ability of LANSCE to convincingly demonstrate that it 

can reliably operate the neutron source, it may be possible at a future date to re-examine the

role that LANSCE should play in the U.S. neutron infrastructure, particularly for the broader, 

general scientific community. 

52
Appendix: NSF-NIST Center for High Resolution Neutron Scattering 

The Center for High Resolution Neutron Scattering (CHRNS) is an interagency partnership 

between the National Science Foundation and NIST which aims to: 

Develop and operate state-of-the-art neutron scattering instrumentation for use by the 

general science community; 

Promote effective use of those instruments by having identifiable staff whose primary

function is to assist users; 

Conduct research and development that advances the capability of the CHRNS 

facility; 

Contributes to the development of human resources through education and outreach 

efforts. 

Under a series of cooperative agreements, NSF and NIST agree to share resources under 

CHRNS to develop and operate “best-in-class” neutron scattering instruments at the NCNR 

with an agreed upon fraction of the beam time made available through the general user 

program and scheduled by an independent Program Advisory Committee based on outside

peer review of beam time proposals. The current list of CHRNS instruments and the fraction 

of time made available to the general user program is: 

Instrument type (name) 

Fraction of time

in general user 

program

Year entered

CHRNS

30m small angle scattering (SANS) 75% 1992 

Spin polarized, cold neutron triple axis (SPINS) 67% 1993 

Ultra high resolution sans (USANS) 67% 2000 

High flux backscattering spectrometer (HFBR) 67% 2001 

Neutron spin echo spectrometer (NSE) 67% 2001 

Disk chopper spectrometer (DCS) 67% 2001 

9m small angle scattering (SANS) 50% 2003 

Table 14 Instruments included in the NIST/NSF Center for High Resolution Neutron Scattering. 

Program Highlights: 

CHRNS instruments supported over 260 neutron scattering users in FY00: more neutron 

scattering users through CHRNS than through any other U.S. neutron facility (excluding

the NCNR). 

Research on CHRNS instruments in FY00 resulted in over 85 publications in refereed 

scientific journals. 

The CHRNS sponsors an annual summer school and supports other outreach efforts. 

This program allows expanded access to NIST facilities through instrument 

improvements, resources to fully staff instruments for general user access. 

CHRNS effectively serves users from general science community, especially at

universities (see Figure 22). 

53
0

50

100

150

200

250

300

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

Users



Figure 20 Number of neutron users through the CHRNS program at the NCNR. See figure references. 

Polymer science

34%

Complex fluids & gels

34%

Structural biology

16%

Materials science

13%

Magnetism & 

superconductivity

3%

Figure 21 Share of CHRNS users by scientific field of research for FY00. See figure references. 

54
Universities

58%

Industry

5%

Government

25%

Foreign

12%

Figure 22 Share of CHNRS users by affiliation in FY00. See figure references. 

55
Table References 

Table 1. Source: Adapted from the Report of the Basic Energy Sciences Advisory 

Committee on Neutron Source Facility Upgrades and the Technical Specifications for the 

Spallation Neutron Source11 with updates provided by IWG members. 

Table 2. Source: Adapted from A Twenty Years Forward Look at Neutron Scattering 

Facilities in the OECD Countries and Russia7, with updates provided by IWG members. 

Table 3. Source: Adapted from Research Infrastructures: Neutron Sources12 and updated by

J. Rush, NIST. 

Table 4. Source: DOE/BES compilation of annual facility survey results, courtesy R. 

Astheimer, DOE. Instrument numbers modified to reflect neutron scattering instruments 

only courtesy of J. Roberto, Oak Ridge National Laboratory.

Table 5. Source: DOE/BES compilation of annual facility survey results, courtesy R. 

Astheimer, DOE. 

Table 6. DOE/BES compilation of annual facility survey results, courtesy R. Astheimer, 

DOE. Instrument numbers modified to reflect neutron scattering instruments only courtesy

of R. Teller, Argonne National Laboratory.

Table 7. DOE/BES compilation of annual facility survey results, courtesy R. Astheimer, 

DOE. Instrument numbers modified to reflect neutron scattering instruments only courtesy

of P. Lisowski, Los Alamos National Laboratory.

Table 8. Source: NIST, courtesy of J. M. Rowe. 

NOTE: NIST tracks research participants instead of users, as defined by DOE/BES. Users, 

as defined in this report, includes all researchers who actually come to the facility at least 

once in a given year to perform neutron scattering research (excludes casual visitors, but 

includes facility research staff). Users are only counted once per year per facility, even if 

they make multiple visits over the year. Research participants, as defined by NIST, includes 

all users plus all research collaborators that participate in the research, but who do not come 

to the facility. To make comparisons, NIST provided both research participant data and user 

data for FY00. The ratio of neutron scattering users to all research participants at the NCNR 

that year was 0.43. This factor was multiplied by the historical research participant data 

provided by NIST and rounded to the nearest whole number to estimate the number of users 

reported in this table.

Table 9. Source: columns 1 and 2 are compiled from Table 11. The total beamtime 

scheduled through the general user program committee was provided courtesy of J. M. Rowe

(NCNR), and R. Teller (IPNS). 

Table 10. Source: DOE/BES and NIST representatives to the IWG. 

Table 11. Source: DOE/BES and NIST through the directors of the neutron facilities: HFIR

data courtesy of J. Roberto, IPNS data courtesy of R. Teller, LANSCE data courtesy of P. 

Lisowski, and NCNR data courtesy of J. M. Rowe. 

56
NOTES: 

1. Instrument names and types are shown as reported by the facilities. 

2. “Year” refers to the year since the instrument was first commissioned or since its most 

recent major upgrade, whichever is earlier. 

3. “World Class?” refers to whether the instrument is considered by the facility management 

to be competitive (“Y” or yes) or not (“N” or no) with similar best-in-class instruments 

available worldwide. Condition is shown as reported by the facilities. 

4. “Ownership” refers to whether the capital costs to develop and/or operate the instrument 

came from the facility or from an instrument development partnership team. 

5. “Access mode” refers to whether the majority of beam time is scheduled by the

instrument owners (collaborative) or through an independent access committee (general). 

This distinction does not rely on whether or not merit review of formal proposals is used. 

Table 12. Source: DOE/BES and NIST through the directors of the neutron facilities: HFIR

data courtesy of J. Roberto, IPNS data courtesy of R. Teller, LANSCE data courtesy of P. 

Lisowski, and NCNR data courtesy of J. M. Rowe. 

Table 13. Source: Adapted from Neutron Sources for America’s Future: Report of the Basic 

Energy Sciences Advisory Committee Panel on Neutron Sources1 and Cooperative 

Stewardship: Managing the Nation’s Multidisciplinary User Facilities for Research with 

Synchrotron Radiation, Neutrons, and High Magnetic Fields3

 with updates courtesy of J.

Rush (NIST) and H. Kerch (DOE/BES). 

NOTES: Award descriptions: 

1. The Nobel Prize (Physics and Chemistry) is one of the highest international honors in 

science. The award is made to those who have made the most important discoveries or 

inventions in physics or chemistry.

2. The Max Planck Research Prize is an international award bestowed by the Max Planck 

Society in recognition of outstanding scientific achievement. 

3. The APS Buckley Prize (Oliver E. Buckley Condensed Matter Prize) is given by the 

American Physical Society in recognition of outstanding theoretical or experimental 

contributions to condensed matter physics. 

4. The APS High Polymer Prize (now Polymer Physics Prize) is given by the American

Physical Society in recognition of outstanding accomplishment and excellence of 

contributions in polymer physics research. 

5. The APS Dillon Medal (John H. Dillon Medal) is awarded by the American Physical 

Society in recognition of outstanding research accomplishments by young polymer 

physicists who have demonstrated exceptional research promise early in their careers. 

6. The APS Lilenfeld Prize (Julius Edgar Lilienfeld Prize) is awarded by the American

Physical Society in recognition of a most outstanding contribution to physics. 

7. The ACS Applied Polymer Science Award is awarded by the American Chemical Society

in recognition of outstanding achievement in the science or technology of plastics, 

coatings, polymer composites, adhesives and related fields. 

8. The ACS Colloid and Surface Chemistry Award is awarded by the American Chemical

Society in recognition of outstanding scientific contributions to colloid chemistry in 

North America. 

9. The ACA Warren Diffraction Award (Bertram Eugene Warren Diffraction Physics 

Award) is awarded by the American Crystallographic Association in recognition of an 

57
important recent contribution to the physics of solids or liquids using x-ray, neutron, or 

electron diffraction techniques. 

10. The MRS Von Hippel Award is the highest award given by the Materials Research 

Society.

Table 13. Source: NIST/NSF Center for High Resolution Neutron Scattering, courtesy of C. 

Glinka, director. 

58
Figure References 

Figure 1. Source: DOE/BES and NIST. 

Figures 2-7. Source: Data in Tables 4-9. 

Figure 8. Source: Data on U.S. facilities compiled from Tables 4-9. Data from the ILL

courtesy of C. Carlile, Director. Data from ISIS courtesy of A. Taylor, Director. Ratio of

users per instrument based on 1250 users at ILL and 1080 users at ISIS in 2000. Instrument 

totals for these facilities are shown in Table 3. 

Figure 9. Source: Data from Table 11. 

Figure 10. Source: Data from Table 3. 

Figure 11. Source: Data from Table 11. 

Figure 12. Source: For U.S. neutron sources, data is from DOE/BES and NIST through the 

directors of the neutron facilities: HFIR data courtesy of J. Roberto, IPNS data courtesy of

R. Teller, LANSCE data courtesy of P. Lisowski, and NCNR data courtesy of J. M. Rowe. 

Data from the ILL courtesy of C. Carlile, Director. Data from ISIS courtesy of A. Taylor, 

Director. 

Figure 13. Source: Figure 12 and Table 11. 

Figure 14. Source: Figure 12 and Tables 4-9. 

Figure 15. Source: Adapted from Survey of the Neutron Scattering Community and 

Facilities in Europe13, European Neutron Scattering Association (ENSA), August 1998. 

Available on-line at: 

Figures 16-19. Source: Data is from DOE/BES and NIST through the directors of the 

neutron facilities: HFIR data courtesy of J. Roberto, IPNS data courtesy of R. Teller,

LANSCE data courtesy of P. Lisowski, and NCNR data courtesy of J. M. Rowe. 

NOTE: Because data is collected by user, it does not necessarily reflect the make-up of 

multinational research teams participating on a particular experiment. Data available from 

the NCNR IN 2000 indicate that fewer than 3% users were affiliated with foreign institutions 

and participating in research teams without U.S. researchers. This indicates that most foreign 

research users are members of multi-national teams with U.S. participation. 

Figures 20-22. Source: NIST/NSF Center for High Resolution Neutron Scattering, courtesy

of C. Glinka, Director.

59
Participation 

Department of Commerce 

Patrick Gallagher (chair)

NIST Center for Neutron Research 

John J. Rush 

NIST Center for Neutron Research 

Department of Energy 

Patricia Dehmer

Office of Basic Energy Sciences 

Iran Thomas 

Office of Basic Energy Sciences 

Helen Kerch 

Office of Basic Energy Sciences 

Robert Astheimer

Office of Basic Energy Sciences 

Maureen McCarthy

National Nuclear Security Administration 

Roland Hirsch 

Office of Biology and Environmental Research 

Department of Health and Human Services 

Michael Marron 

National Center for Research Resources (NIH)

John Norvell 

National Institute of General Medical Sciences (NIH)

National Science Foundation 

Robert Eisenstien 

Directorate for Mathematical and Physical Sciences 

Adriaan deGraaf 

Directorate for Mathematical and Physical Sciences 

Thomas Weber 

Division of Materials Research 

Lance Haworth 

Division of Materials Research 

60
Office of Management and Budget 

Michael Holland 

David Radzanowsky

Steven Suh 

Office of Science and Technology Policy 

Robert Marianelli 

Cliff Gabriel 

Amy Flatten 

Patrick Looney 

61
References 

1 Neutron Sources for America’s Future: Report of the Basic Energy Sciences Advisory 

Committee Panel on Neutron Sources, DOE/ER-0576P, January 1993. (Commonly referred 

to as the “Kohn panel report”.) Available on-line at: 

http://www.sc.doe.gov/production/bes/BESAC/Neutron%20source%20America%20Future.p

df

2 Experiments in International Benchmarking of U.S. Research Fields, National Academy

Press, January 2000. Available on-line at: http://books.nap.edu/html/exp_in_bench/pdf/

3 Cooperative Stewardship: Managing the Nation’s Multidisciplinary User Facilities for 

Research with Synchrotron Radiation, Neutrons, and High Magnetic Fields, National 

Academy Press, 1999. Available on-line at: 

http://www.nap.edu/books/0309068312/html/index.html

4 Improving Federal Laboratories to Meet the Challenges of the 21st Century: An Action 

Plan, National Science and Technology Council, April 1999. Available on-line 

at:http://www.ostp.gov/html/fedlabs.html 

5 Synchrotron Radiation for Macromolecular Crystallography, Office of Science and 

Technology Policy, February 5, 1999. (“Cassman report”) Available on-line at: 

http://www.ostp.gov/Science/html/cassman_rpt.html 

6 Report of Basic Energy Sciences Advisory Committee Subpanel Review of the Intense 

Pulsed Neutron Source (IPNS) at Argonne National Laboratory and the Manuel Lujan 

Center at Los Alamos National Laboratory, DOE/SC-0037, February 2001. Available online at: http://www.sc.doe.gov/production/bes/BESAC/IPNS-Lujan%20Rpt.pdf 

7 A Twenty Years Forward Look at Neutron Scattering Facilities in the OECD Countries and 

Russia, OECD and the European Science Foundation, January 1998. Available on-line at: 

http://www.oecd.org/pdf/M00004000/M00004506.pdf 

8 Scientific Prospects for Neutron Scattering with Present and Future Sources: An ESF 

Exploratory Workshop in Collaboration with the European Neutron Scattering Association 

(ENSA), European Science Foundation, January 1996. Available on-line at: 

http://www1.psi.ch/www_ensa_hn/ensa/autrans.pdf

9 Major Facilities for Materials Research and Related Disciplines, National Academy Press, 

1984 (“Seitz-Eastman Report”). Available on-line at: 

http://www.sc.doe.gov/production/bes/BESAC/major.pdf

10 Report of the Basic Energy Sciences Advisory Committee Subpanel on Neutron Scattering, 

DOE/SC-0017, February 2000, (“Blume/Rowe report”). Available on-line at: 

http://www.sc.doe.gov/production/bes/BESAC/neutronrpt.pdf

11 Report of the Basic Energy Sciences Advisory Committee on Neutron Source Facility 

Upgrades and the Technical Specifications for the Spallation Neutron Source, DOE/SC,

March 1998. 

62
12 Research Infrastructures: Neutron Sources, Edited by Campbell Warden, Report of the 

European Roundtable for Neutron Sources, European Commission, 2001. 

13 Survey of the Neutron Scattering Community and Facilities in Europe, European Neutron 

Scattering Association (ENSA), August 1998. Available on-line at: 

http://ensa.web.psi.ch/ensa/survey.pdf. 

63
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT 

Office of Science and Technology Policy

Washington, D.C. 20502 

http://www.ostp.gov/