2002 Executive Meeting Minutes

December 9, 2002

Attendees:   Uwe Bergmann, Corwin Booth, Ben Bostick, Lisa Dunn,
Britt Hedman, Keith Hodgson, Cathy Knotts,
Erik Nelson, Piero Pianetta, Tom Rabedeau, Martina Ralle, Deanne Jackson Rudd

  • Uwe Bergmann, SSRLUO-EC Chair, called the meeting to order at 11 am.
  • Keith Hodgson reported that a Lehman review of SPEAR3 was held at SLAC
    on December 4th. The review focused on installation plans and provided very
    positive feedback. The SPEAR3 project remains on time and on budget. The DOE
    did make a few constructive comments on managing the construction schedule and
    recommended adjusting the 5.7 month installation schedule to 6 months to leave
    more time for soliciting and reviewing construction bids.
  • Keith reported that the budget picture remained a bit uncertain, as we
    are still operating under a "continuing resolution". Further news is expected
    in January or shortly thereafter. While this does not create an especially
    difficult problem for most of SSRL, it does impact LCLS because they can not
    access designated funds until the entire appropriations are passed. Budget cuts
    for the high energy physics program at SLAC may affect SSRL in that some
    critical support services are provided by SLAC for SSRL operations.
  • Keith reported that the SLAC Scientific Policy Committee (SPC), which
    is the highest level advisory body for SLAC, met on Dec. 6-7. Several
    presentations on the synchrotron program, including SPEAR3, LCLS, SPPS, beam
    line developments, and science highlights were made. The new committee members
    were also named: Douglas Rees, Marvin Cassman and Denis Roux. The committee's
    discussion was very supportive of the work being done at SSRL. The SSRLUO-EC
    will be asked to make a presentation to the SPC at their May meeting. The SPC
    has recommended more formal interactions between the users' organization at
    SLAC and SSRL. Even though they represent two very different user communities
    with different needs and interests, there are areas on common interest such as
    funding, user accommodations, and joint programs such as LCLS. As an example,
    in response to SLUO users' needs for office space, DOE supported the new
    research office building at SLAC which was built requests for more SLUO users.
    It was suggested that periodic meetings be arranged or invitations be extended
    to members of the respective groups to each others meetings. Uwe Bergmann, who
    participated with SLUO members, on the SLAC Guest House Guidelines committee
    agreed that it was important to learn more about each others' needs and
    commented that he found the recent committee informative and helpful from that
    perspective.
  • Uwe reported that he had lunch along with Dr. Orbach and other users'
    during the 10/15/02 institutional review at SLAC. Dr. Orbach and Dr. James
    Decker (Director and Deputy Director of DOE SC, respectively) were accompanied
    by a number of staff from DOE headquarters, DOE Oakland and the DOE local site
    office. Uwe reported the Dr. Orbach warned users that the budget would be
    tight, and urged them to be realistic in requests. It was suggested that users
    sit down with management to discuss ideas. Uwe urged other users to think about
    and suggest options that might be considered for post SPEAR3 operations that
    would not require major budget commitments.
  • Tom Rabedeau shared beam line development slides that he presented to
    the SPC which were essentially the plans and priorities which had been shared
    with SSRL users previously. The priority remains to have all the front ends
    500mA capable when SPEAR3 turns on. Insertion device beam lines are the next
    priority. Four engineers are working on the bending magnet beam lines and have
    been asked to develop ways that these beam lines may be able to accept higher
    than 100mA current. Tom and others have been working with SLAC Radiation
    Physics which must evaluate and approve plans related to beam line design,
    implementation, shielding, etc. Not much response has been received from them
    to date regarding beam line plans. Slippage in the schedule due to rad physics
    will continue to be brought to the attention of SSRL management and the
    SSRLUO-EC. Rad physics may demand full radiation shielding up to 500mA which
    will involve a significant amount of work.
  • Uwe reported that there was general consensus among users that they
    wanted more beam lines even at lower current at the beginning of the 1/04 run
    rather than shutting down all but the 500mA beam lines. Tom reportedly that,
    based on prior experiences with other RF systems, this could naturally be
    achieved because ramp-up plans predict that it will take 6-9 months before
    delivering 500mA.
  • Piero Pianetta stated his high priority to get bending magnet beam
    lines up to speed. BL8 is in fairly good shape, assuming ok by Rad physics
    without a hutch. BL3 could be changed to sulphur and silicon edge on up at low
    cost; silicon may suffer during this interim measure, but sulphur should be ok
    pending resolution of rad shielding uncertainties. Piero asked for the
    committee's input on impact to help set priorities.
  • Tom noted that SLAC HEP cutbacks have increased resources for SSRL, and
    that needed support such as for brazing may be able to be accomplished more
    quickly than in the past.
  • Tom and Keith reported on new capabilities and showed the committee a
    diagram of where 8-9 new beam lines could be installed. Many of these beam
    lines are up for definition and demonstrate SSRL's desire to stay at the
    forefront of synchrotron radiation science. Another proposal will be submitted
    as part of the nanoscience program to build out one or more of these beam
    lines. Outside funding is also being sought to build out these beam lines.
  • Keith reported that it was unlikely that either of BL10 PRT's would
    continue post SPEAR3, and this beam time would revert back to general users.
    BL10-2 may be available for BL4 users and had been previously been approved for
    radioactive materials use. Keith reported that Jo Stohr was working on
    resolution with the PRT's, and future PRT's would be considered only if there
    was intellectual and development support on both sides.
  • Uwe noted that XANES and EXAFS would profit from SPEAR3 if beam lines
    were ready to make use of higher flux and brightness with more powerful beam
    lines. He suggested that more continuous type scans be incorporated to measure
    several samples quickly. This would require new designs and more motor
    controllers as well as additional staffing for programmers and beam line staff.
    Keith reiterated his goal to find the resources to dedicate 1 staff scientist
    per beam line. Going from step mode to continuous is not trivial and would need
    to incorporate sample manipulations into EXAFS software.
  • Britt Hedman reported that there is a prototype to put shutters in and
    out, but that it was not quite ready. Sample manipulation may be easy to put
    into software, but that would put a higher demand on sample quality - may be
    detrimental to signal to noise and actual results. She noted that there may be
    a benefit to magnifying beam and taking out the focus to make the beam spot
    larger (e.g., with new BL7-3 control system and intelligent controller).
  • Uwe noted that better detectors are needed. He questioned whether the
    SSRL Proposal Review Panel (PRP) may want to address demand for lower
    brightness experiments in evaluating proposals.
  • Piero reported on a DOE detector initiative and that Hal Tompkins and
    John Arthur were pulling together proposals to address this. User input would
    be welcome.
  • Martina Ralle noted that the beam was already extremely bright and
    focused that it burned a hole in her sample. A discussion about other materials
    to better hold samples followed, but no easy resolution was determined.
  • Uwe requested that SSRL consider replacing the old SR key with other
    options. Systems at other facilities were discussed, but since SSRL is such an
    open facility (limited control over numerous doors and perimeters) it would be
    difficult to remove the SR key. It was noted that even though it can be
    frustrating when previous users forget to turn in the SR key and take it back
    to their hotel or home institution, the system has worked well historically. In
    addition to limiting control for beam lines to specific individuals, the
    current system allows duty operators to interact with the users and know who is
    working on the various beam lines when they deliver the SR keys. Since any
    staff that may be allocated to work on replacing the system is currently busy
    with beam line upgrades, SPEAR3 preparations, and SPPS, it was unlikely that
    this would become a priority in the near future. The committee was agreeable to
    putting this issue on the back burner.
  • Plans for the SLAC Guest House were discussed. The reservation system
    is now live and taking reservations for stays after July 2003. The front desk
    will be staffed 24 hours a day and will also have a small convenience shop to
    purchase food and sundries. It was suggested that the committee look into ways
    to improve the reliability of the Marguerite shuttle service between SLAC,
    Stanford, and the shopping center.
  • Keith urged users to be continue to be proactive in providing these and
    other types of input.
  • Cathy Knotts distributed minutes of the October 8, 2002 meeting for the
    committee to review, and these were subsequently posted to the web for all
    users.
  • The meeting adjourned at 1:30 pm.

October 8, 2002

Agenda - Open Session (All Interested SSRL Users Invited)

  • Introduce Newly Elected Members
  • Elect Vice Chair for 2003
  • SPEAR3 Update - Impact on Users

Attendees:   Uwe Bergmann, Corwin Booth, Ben Bostick, Cathy Knotts, Erik Nelson, Nick Pingitore, Deanne Jackson Rudd, Vittal Yachandra

  • Corwin Booth, SSRLUO-EC Chair, called the meeting to order around 12:30 p.m.
  • Corwin updated the committee on activities in Washington related to SR funding. He had visited DC, OMB, OSTP, and DOE recently, and wrote letters to Pedro Montano and OSTP. In September, Corwin sent an email to users and encouraged each to write a letter to Congress, with a copy to Cathy Knotts, the liaison between users and SSRL management so that the committee could track how many letters were sent (We were informed that letters were sent by Nancy Hess, Nick Pingitore, Deanne Jackson Rudd, and Glen Waychunas). Corwin suggested that users visit the APS website which includes a section that allows users to enter their zipcode and get contact information for their local representative. In addition to letters urging users to support the latest bill 5270, it was suggested that letters could be sent to thank representatives who had already signed and expressed their support.
  • Corwin noted that his tenure as Chair of the SSRLUO-EC had been a learning experience and that having two EC members participate in meetings in DC had been useful from several perspectives: having broader representation of user interests and experiences, having two backups in case one person was not available, establishing consistency and providing training for new representatives (Chair shares experience with Vice Chair, who becomes Chair the following year .). Since Congressional representatives usually have very tight schedules, the importance of delivering an enthusiastic but concise message was noted. The importance of being flexible was also stressed since schedules can change at the last minute, and getting time with Congressional staff can be as valuable as with the representatives themselves.
  • Corwin noted that encouraging enthusiasm among users was going to be important in the coming year and he encouraged the EC members to help generate interest among other users who have not been active in user organization activities in the past. In addition to responses to lobbying support, there is a need to increase user response to the annual call for candidates for the EC and nominations for the Lytle Award.
  • Election results were announced at the October 7 Oktoberfest dinner. Corwin asked the newly elected members of the committee present to introduce themselves, and turned the meeting over to Uwe Bergmann, Vice Chair of the SSRLUO-EC who will take over as Chair for the coming year.
  • In response to a call for nominations for the Vice Chair position, Ben Bostick, Erik Nelson, and Jane DeWitt were nominated. Ben Bostick was subsequently elected by the EC to serve as Vice Chair for the coming year, and co-chair the 2003 users' meeting.
  • Regarding quality of life issues for SSRL users, it was suggested that SSRL look into mechanisms to incorporate SPEAR3 monitors in the new Guest House and that more food options be investigated for vending machines. There was a consensus at this meeting that expanding cafeteria hours would probably not be practical, since users don't usually think about eating during the short window of time that might be available, and many look forward to getting offsite for a real meal at least once a day while they are utilizing beam time.
  • Someone asked if other mechanisms for the SR keys might be available so that options may be sent to SSRL for consideration.
  • Regarding SPEAR3, several members expressed concern about detectors and suggested that SSRL be encouraged to develop a detector group to work on developing detector technology, particularly for EXAFS.
  • In response to the long shutdown planned for SPEAR3, the EC anticipates that there will be more pressure to collect data more rapidly. A suggestion was made that the EC and SSRL work together to develop methods and educate users about ways to increase scan speed and run samples more quickly, e.g., Quick EXAFS?
  • It was suggested that the EC give some thought to James Penner-Hahn's presentation during the users meeting related to optimizing samples and how that could be incorporated at SSRL.
  • With many beam lines not 500mA capable when SPEAR3 operations resume in January 2004, the EC expressed a desire to learn what plans are in place for how beam lines will be brought up, when and at what current, 100mA, 200mA, 500mA? The EC anticipates that users will want more beam time on more beam lines than currently planned, particularly bending magnet beam lines. They felt that users may be willing to take less current for lower concentration samples. It was suggested that the EC might want to solicit broader user input once a clearly articulated message of options is developed. A follow-up meeting will be scheduled in December with the SPEAR3 Task Force to discuss these issues.
  • The meeting adjourned around 2:00 pm and many attendees joined the workshops which were already in progress.

​May 9, 2002

Agenda - Open Session (All Interested SSRL Users Invited)

  • SSRL Update (Keith Hodgson)
  • Follow up on SPEAR3 shutdown/impact on users (Britt Hedman)
  • Feedback from April 17-18 meetings in DC with SR user representatives (Corwin Booth)
  • 29th Annual User Meeting Plans (Oct 7-8, 2002) (Uwe Bergmann, John Pople)
  • Review SSRLUO-EC Membership/Solicit Nominations for upcoming election (Corwin Booth)
  • Annual Lytle Award Nomination Process (Corwin Booth)

Welcome Remarks

  • Corwin Booth, SSRLUO-EC Chair, called the meeting to order at 10:00 am. No walk-in issues were identified.

SSRL Update

  • Keith Hodgson thanked the SSRLUO-EC for their efforts to increase awareness about the importance of synchrotron science and for conveying their enthusiasm for SSRL in particular. Feedback from the recent meetings in DC was very positive.
  • In April, the LCLS program had a successful review by the DOE. This major construction project has progressed from the R&D phase for the last 3 years to the preconstruction phase. The project engineering design phase (2003-2005) involves detailed cost schedules and advance procurements, with total costs estimated at approximately $270 million. Construction is projected in 2007, with the completion of the experimental hall and commissioning in 2008. As this project develops, Keith asked for EC input into how best to incorporate LCLS activities into the current users' organization. Although a specific user community does not exist at present, this is a growing area which will be at the forefront in the near future.
  • Keith visited the Photon Factory in Japan and started discussions for SAS users. ACTION: Keith will continue negotiations for SAS users to utilize the Photon Factory during the SPEAR3 shutdown.
  • SSRL activities were presented recently to the SLAC Science Policy Committee (SPC). SPEAR3 plans are 60% complete and on budget. There is a potential issue with the production of the vacuum system. There are 3 major components to this system; BM2 is in prototype but not production, which puts this about 1 month behind schedule. Two vendors had difficulty delivering the RF system on time, so the klystron is being built internally instead. There is significant scheduling contingency in place, and problems are not anticipated, but everyone should be aware of these potential issues and concerns. SSRL is currently working on a detailed installation schedule. ACTION: We expect to have an installation schedule ready for external review in July/August.

SPEAR3 User Issues

  • Britt Hedman reiterated the priority to have front ends 500mA capable. Unless additional funding is made available BL4 is scheduled to be completed in 2006. With an additional $500K/year for the next several years, this schedule could be accelerated by 1 year. Insertion devices for BL4/7 have been ordered; 1 was delivered, and the other is being shipped. Because of the design of BL4, BL4-2 could be opened before BL4-1 and 4-3 which are expected to take longer. Erik Nelson asked about accommodating actinide users on BL11-2 if BL4-3 is down for an extended period. Britt responded that this will be dependent on availability, ratings, and other scheduling factors.
  • The task force is investigating scenarios to utilize BL8-1 and 2-3 in the interim until these BL's are SPEAR3 compatible. BL8-2 is more difficult. BL5 will be upgraded over the summer shutdown and will provide additional SPEAR3-ready capacity after January 2004.
  • Upgraded instrumentation as part of ongoing beam line development activities has (and will) create some parts which may be utilized on other beam lines. For example, the old BL6-2 mono may be moved to BL3-3, pending radiation safety calculations and extra shielding/enclosures that may be required. Other equipment from BL7-3 (goniometer), 10-2, 6-2, 4-2 may be utilized elsewhere. SSRL is still investigating how best to utilize existing equipment in order to get the most beam lines equipped and ready for users.
  • Britt mentioned that users may be able to run very dilute and more concentrated XAS samples simultaneously. This idea will be investigated, and may only work in large hutches and require additional electronics, software, control systems.
  • Uwe asked about the possibility of running 100mA BL's during some of the interim time until all BL's are 500mA capable. One suggestion was to open shutters for low current users before the next scheduled fill (1-2 am?) with filters in front of first optical elements for some BL's. ACTION: While the goal is clearly to get all BL's to 500mA as quickly as possible, Britt mentioned that the option of running some BL's at 100mA or 200mA will be investigated.
  • Shielding and heat loads are also issues that need to be investigated. ACTION: SSRL is working with SLAC health physicists, however, that team is currently short staffed so we are investigating other scenarios where, if the SLAC ES&H Division accepts the approach, we might bring in outside expertise for radiation calculations and work with SLAC for certification.
  • In response to a request from users, SSRL drafted and distributed at the meeting a table of SSRL beam lines, techniques and contact person per beam line, status of the beam line after SPEAR3 (January 2004), and information on other facilities where similar research may be conducted. Sensitivities associated with this list were discussed. It is impossible to make this list 100% up to date or inclusive as facilities periodically add or change instrumentation, flux, etc., and BL's at other facilities may not be exactly comparable to SSRL facilities. ACTION: The table was revised to reflect the discussions and posted to the SSRL SPEAR3 website. Feedback and input from uses in maintaining this list is encouraged. See: http://www- ssrl.slac.stanford.edu/beamlines/bl_sp3_table.pdf (requires Acrobat reader 4.0 or higher) or http://www-ssrl.slac.stanford.edu/beamlines/bl_sp3_table.rtf (rich text document).

EC Update

  • Corwin Booth mentioned that he and Uwe had recently met with Britt Hedman, Piero Pianetta, and Cathy Knotts regarding SPEAR3 issues as a follow up to the March EC meeting.
  • A letter on behalf of the EC has been sent to the DOE to request changes to the funding profile in order to add funds for bend magnet BL's as discussed by Britt in her presentation.
  • Two representatives from each of the four DOE SR facilities met in DC on April 17-18: House and Senate Energy and Water appropriations committee members; OMB Office of Science, Technology and Policy; staff of Ellen Tauscher (San Francisco), Barbara Lee (Oakland), Dian Feinstein, Barbara Boxer, and with Zoe Lofgren (San Jose). Corwin noted that having more than one representative attend these meetings was useful as having eight opinions and voices at the meetings on April 17 was very helpful in seeking support for physical sciences as well as life sciences, which many representatives could already relate to.
  • An email was sent last week calling users to support these activities with the individual Senators or Congressional representatives. A useful website with additional information is maintained at www.aps.org/public_affairs. ACTION: Users are asked to let Cathy Knotts know when they send letters or meet with House/Senate Representatives so we can track who sent what.
  • Corwin mentioned that it is important for users to specify that they "want to talk about science" when arranging meetings so the correct person (usually a science advisor) can be included in order to build enthusiasm from staff as well as representatives. It was also noted that meetings can be arranged via email; meetings should be brief, well organized, and respectful. Users were encouraged to display enthusiasm and keep the meeting moving quickly as representatives and their staff are usually very busy and can only allocate brief amounts of time to meetings - but they can have a great deal of impact. ACTION: Corwin and Uwe agreed to document their experiences in order to pass it on to future SSRLUO-EC members who are sent to DC and other meetings with House/Senate/DOE representatives.
  • Corwin gave a presentation on the SSRL users' organization to the SLAC Science Policy Committee on May 3.

Plans for 29th Annual SSRL Users' Meeting

  • Uwe Bergmann and John Pople will co-chair this years' meeting. They have met with SLAC Tech Pubs and developed a logo for the meeting which is an artistic impression of passing the torch from SPEAR2 to SPEAR3. Deadlines for abstracts, early registration etc. have been determined. ACTION: Uwe and John will contact people to give invited presentations and serve as session chairs. Users will be informed about the meeting plans via mailings, emails, notice in Headlines, and the meeting website: http://www-ssrl.slac.stanford.edu/conferences/ssrl29/
  • Yves Petroff, former director general for ESRF, has agreed to give a keynote address. Other invited speakers include: Magnus Sandstrom and James Penner-Hahn. ACTION: Users are encouraged to suggest ideas for workshops to be held in conjunction with the users' meeting.
  • It was noted that the next poster session could be enhanced by reminding advisors to encourage students to submit abstracts for oral or poster presentations. ACTION: URA will work with spokespersons and students to communicate this opportunity.
  • Corwin mentioned that he would like to increase nominations for the Lytle Award, and may consider whether the wording or nomination criteria should be expanded. ACTION: A call for nominations for the 2002 Lytle Award will be made to SSRL users shortly.
  • The committee decided to add one additional position to the EC to represent the growing LCLS user community. However, they did not feel familiar enough with this field to suggest people and they asked for SSRL's assistance in identifying people with interest or expertise related to LCLS who might be approached about being nominated in the next election. Information on several experiments related to the LCLS is available on the webpage: http://www-ssrl.slac.stanford.edu/LCLS/papers/LCLS_Experiments_2.pdf ACTION: Cathy Knotts will compile and forward names of potential nominees for the LCLS representative to the EC. The call for nominees for the 2003 SSRLUO-EC will shortly be distributed to users, with the election to take place during the Oct 7-8, 2002 users' meeting.

Miscellaneous

  • Corwin Booth expressed his desire to increase user input from the current ~35% return rate on the end of run summary (EORS) forms. Several options to encourage or enforce compliance were discussed, including sending reminders several weeks after beam time if survey was not completed, incorporating a reminder with beam time requests, and establishing a more formal checkout process. Corwin also asked if anyone was interested in being the designated EC member to review input from the EORS process. Uwe Bergmann and several other members expressed a willingness to help with this process. ACTION: Cathy Knotts will work with EC to provide EORS data.
  • A suggestion was made to include information on publications in the proposal process in order to factor that in to proposal review and rating as well as to facilitate collection and distribution of publication data including theses. Currently, this information is only requested and considered when spokespersons are requesting extensions for program proposals. ACTION: Cathy Knotts will raise this idea at the next meeting of the SSRL Proposal Review Panel, which is scheduled on August 26, 2002.
  • NO closed session discussion items were identified.
  • The meeting adjourned at 12 noon.

March 15, 2002

Agenda - Open Session (All Interested SSRL Users Invited)

10:30am Welcome/Identify "Walk-In Issues"/Update on SSRLUO EC Activities (Corwin Booth)
10:40am Representing SSRL Users Interests to Funding Sources (Paul Foster)
10:50am Feedback from Oct. 18-19, 2001 Users' Meeting and Plans for Oct. 7-9, 2002 Users' Meeting (Corwin Booth/Uwe Bergmann)
11:00am Report by the SSRLUO EC Subcommittee on Impact of SPEAR3 on SSRL Users (Corwin Booth)
11:10am SSRL Update (Keith Hodgson)
  • SPEAR3 Status (Construction, Funding)
  • Housing Update
11:30am SSRL Beam Line Development (Tom Rabedeau)
  • Status of new monochromators and other equipment installations
  • Schedule for BL Upgrades
11:50am Questions and Discussion
12:10pm Walk-In Issues/Other Business
12:30pm Adjourn

OPEN SESSION

Welcome Remarks

  • Corwin Booth, SSRLUO-EC Chair, called the meeting to order at 10:30 am. No walk-in issues were identified.

Representing Users Interests to Funding Sources

  • Uwe Bergmann reported that he attended a meeting in DC on March 4-5 with representatives from the DOE and the 4 DOE supported SR facilities. Uwe reported that Pat Dehmer presented an early look at the budget and Pedro Montano discussed a shift in strategy to support increased funding for beam line support staff.
  • Keith Hodgson mentioned that DOE seemed to be moving towards the SSRL model, which has assigned staff to various beam lines but could benefit from more staff resources - particularly after SPEAR3 which will provide and require more complexity, more sophisticated optics, etc. Keith mentioned that the ESRF model of several scientists per beam line was the most efficient, and that SSRL would like to move towards the goal of at least 1 dedicated scientist per beam line.
  • Uwe requested additional information on the number of users accommodated and not accommodated, including a breakdown of users from industry and from each state. He reported that there may still be some opportunity to provide input for SR facilities, if done by early April. An important message would be support for the President's budget which included a line item for LCLS.
  • Uwe mentioned that an industry lobby group, ASTRA (Alliance for Science and Technology in America) gave a presentation on how they might work with SR users for increased visibility and support. This group has representatives in DC year long, and this might be a way to piggyback their efforts with light source activities, particularly as they relate to industry users who may already be members of ASTRA, such as IBM, Lucent, Chiron, etc. These industry users could be asked to work with ASTRA for the light sources. Uwe asked for SSRL's help in identifying exciting research and collecting data on the number of users accommodated and not accommodated due to oversubscribed beam lines.
  • Paul Foster emphasized the importance of users contacting their representatives to let them know how important this facility is to their research. Corwin and Uwe asked for a volunteer to follow up with personal contact to representatives and to users who may be encouraged to contact their respective representatives. Jane DeWitt volunteered to lead this effort. SSRL agreed to provide a list of appropriations committee members and users from states represented by people on the appropriations committee. It was reiterated that the message could be as simple as asking for support for the President's budget.
  • Another visit to DC by the SR representatives has been scheduled for April 17-18. Corwin and Uwe plan to participate.
  • Keith gave a general overview of SSRL activities, including an update on the user lodging facility, west area beam line enclosure (added 6,000 sf of ground floor space for additional beam lines), LCLS ($6 M line item in President's budget for LCLS project engineering and design). Using existing infrastructure, SPPS is a new opportunity for short pulse picosecond studies which could begin as early as November/December. Although this is not a general user facility, Keith would appreciate hearing from users who have interest and expertise in this area to possibly help with diagnostics and commissioning.

Impact of SPEAR3 on SSRL Users

  • Corwin started the discussion by noting that the shutdown is quickly approaching and that a primary concern of the EC was to ensure that users were informed about the potential impact. A questionnaire was developed and circulated to users in late February; 24 responses were received. These were tabulated and distributed at the meeting (15 were from XAS users; 9 from crystallography users). The results of this survey as well as a casual poll of users as they check in indicates that most users are now aware of the shutdown and that they are making alternate arrangements from April 2003-January 2004.
  • In order to assist users, Piero Pianetta, Britt Hedman, and others will work on developing a list of beam lines at other facilities that are comparable to SSRL beam lines.
  • Uwe asked about the possibility of sending staff and equipment to other facilities during the shutdown to support SSRL users, which when it was done in the past was viewed as a significant benefit that was very much appreciated by users.
  • Keith mentioned that he had recently had a meeting with the directors of APS, NSLS, and ALS. All agreed in principle to the idea of assisting SSRL users, but added that proposals and scheduling are handled differently at other facilities and not centrally as at SSRL. In the past, SSRL worked out some arrangements with other facilities to honor SSRL proposals for a specific amount of beam time on specific beam lines. SSRL also sent equipment and staff to set up and support SSRL users during those times. A key component for these exchanges was that there was available time on these other beam lines and that regular users of these other facilities were not displaced.
  • Keith noted that sending some equipment would be straightforward (e.g., cryostat) but that some equipment required significant overhead to set up and one had to evaluate the potential damage risk in transporting sensitive equipment back and forth. This may only be practical if significant amounts of contiguous beam time were allotted at other facilities.
  • A question was raised about what special circumstances might arise that would warrant priority status for beam time during this period. The group agreed that graduate students who need to complete thesis should be given priority.
  • Tom Rabedeau reported that new SPEAR3 compatible LN monochromators had already been installed on BL's 11-2, 9-3, 10-2. The new mono for BL6-2 is scheduled for installation in April; however, due to procurement and shipping issues, multilayers will not be available until the Fall.
  • Tom reported that significant concrete shielding work for the SPEAR tunnel was scheduled in June and that this would close BL5 early (BL5-2/3 not available after 6/3; BL5-4 not available after 6/17). Due to the installation of a new monochromator in the Fall, BL5-2 will not be available for users until after SPEAR3 (except for the possibility of commissioning).
  • A priority of the beam line development group is to have all front ends 500 mA compatible when SPEAR3 turns on. Front ends include isolation valves and all other components related to isolating radiation and vacuum from the SPEAR storage ring. Another goal is to have the insertion device beam lines 500 mA compatible as quickly as possible; consequently, BL5, BL6, BL9, BL10, and BL11 are scheduled to be ready in January 2004, when user commissioning and operations are expected to resume. We anticipate that BL7 will be 500 mA compatible around June 2004. BL4 will still require extensive work and resources, so this beam line may not be 500 mA compatible until 2006. In the interim, we plan to accommodate the small angle scattering users on BL6-2. Bending magnet beam lines (BL1, BL2, BL3, and BL8) will require additional work to be fully compatible with SPEAR3. All of these activities are resource driven, so these plans could be accelerated or delayed depending on the availability of funding.
  • Corwin raised concern about the plans for BL4 and BL2, and the potential impact of spillover on other beam lines.
  • Tom reported that SSRL is pursuing technical options that will allow us to operate these beam lines prior to their SPEAR3 upgrade.
  • Tom also reported that there may be an opportunity to expedite this schedule with parallel fabrication, if, for example, an additional $500K were received in each of the next 5 years, the schedule to complete BL4 could be shortened by 1 year.
  • A suggestion was made to get this message to the users and to the DOE (Pat Dehmer and Pedro Montano).

CLOSED SESSION

  • All attendees except the SSRLUO-EC members left the meeting when the closed session was announced. There were no closed session agenda items, but there was a brief conversation on how to effectively follow up on the issues discussed at todays meeting.
  • Feedback and ideas for the next users meeting, which has been scheduled on October 7-8, were also discussed. Uwe Bergmann and John Pople will co-chair this meeting. There will also be a SLAC 40th anniversary celebration scheduled around the same time (tentatively scheduled on 10/8/02 or 10/09/02 depending on the availability of key speakers).
  • Corwin and Uwe suggested scheduling meetings within the next 2 weeks to follow up on SPEAR3 impact, the next users' meeting, and funding issues. ACTION: Cathy Knotts arranged 2 meetings on March 25th. A meeting with Keith to discuss funding will be scheduled shortly.
  • The meeting adjourned at approximately 12:30 pm.
Find Stanford Synchrotron Radiation Lightsource on FlickrFind Stanford Synchrotron Radiation Lightsource on YouTubeFind Stanford Synchrotron Radiation Lightsource on Twitter