NSLS-II Beamline Development

1. NSLS-II Beamline Development Steve Dierker Associate Laboratory Director for Light Sources, NSLS-II Project Director Information Session April 14, 2010

2. Topics NSLS-II Project Overview Potential Funding Opportunities for Additional Beamlines Beamline Development Policy and Proposal Review Process User Access Policy

3. NSLS-II Project Overview

4. Project Scope Accelerator Systems • Storage Ring (~ ½ mile in circumference) • Linac and Booster Injection System Conventional Facilities • Ring Building and Service Buildings • Laboratory/Office Buildings (LOBs) to house beamline staff & users • Reuse of existing NSLS office/lab space for NSLS-II staff • Total of ~ 500,000 gsf new construction Experimental Facilities • Initial suite of 6 insertion device beamlines and instruments • Capable of hosting at least 58 beamlines R&D • Advanced optics for achieving 1 nm and 0.1 meV • Nanopositioning and mirror metrology • Advanced insertion devices

5. NSLS-II Design Features • Design Parameters • 3 GeV, 500 mA, top-off injection • Circumference 791.5 m • 30 cell, Double Bend Achromat • 15 high-b straights (9.3 m) • 15 low-b straights (6.6 m) • Novel design features: • Damping wigglers • Soft bend magnets • Three pole wigglers • Large gap IR dipoles • Ultra-low emittance • ex, ey = 0.6, 0.008 nm-rad • Diffraction limited in vertical at 12 keV • Small beam size:sy = 2.9 mm, sx = 33 mm, s’y = 2.7 mrad, s’x = 17 mrad • Pulse Length (rms) ~ 15 psec

6. NSLS-II Beamline Capacity 27 straight sections for undulators • Fifteen 6.6 m long low-b and twelve 9.3 m long high-b • Highest brightness and flux sources from UV to hard x-ray 27 BM ports for IR, UV and Soft X-rays • Any of these can also have a three pole wiggler for hard x-rays 4 Large Gap BM ports for far-IR At least 58 beamlines More beamlines by canting multiple IDs per straight Multiple end-stations/beamline are also possible For comparison, NSLS has 62 operating beamlines

7. Aerial View NSLS-II CFN NSLS

8. Latest Rendering w/ Final LOB Design

9. Status of NSLS-II Project • Excellent progress • Project is 26% complete as of end of March 2010 • Full construction phase with a burn rate of ~$11M per month in 1st quarter of 2010, ramping up to ~$21M in 4th quarter of 2010 • On schedule and on budget • Excellent technical, cost & schedule performance to date • All major procurements, totaling $214M to date, were awarded within 1% of planned cost • 16 month float based on technically limited schedule has been holding for last 8 months • Key Project Milestones • Jan 2009 CD-3, Approve Start of Construction(Complete) • Feb 2009 Contract Award for Ring Building(Complete) • Aug 2009 Contract Award for Storage Ring Magnets(Complete) • Feb 2011 1stPentant Ring Building Beneficial Occupancy; Begin Accelerator Installation • Feb 2012 Beneficial Occupancy of Experimental Floor • Oct 2013 Start Accelerator Commissioning • Feb 2014 Projected Early Completion; Beam Available to Beamlines • Jun 2014 Early Project Completion; Beam Available to Beamlines • Jun 2015 CD-4, Approve Start of Operations

10. Construction Progress June 2009 April 2010

11. Construction Progress cont’d Photo From BGRR Stack 4-7-10 SR Tunnel Walls SR Tunnel Slab Structural Steel Erected Vehicle Tunnel Column Footings Pentant 1 Roof Joists • Concrete Footings, Tunnel Slab, Tunnel Walls almost completed for Pentant 4 • Structural Steel Erected for SB1, CT bldg, RF Bldg, Lobby, • Pentant 1 Steel and Roof Joists completed • Pentant 2 Steel and Roof Joists in progress

12. Safety • Extensive investigation following construction injury on Sep 30, 2009 • 46 Corrective Actions (38 contractor, 8 NSLS-II) completed and closed • Safety program has been substantially strengthened • Project Staff: • 1 Recordable in >800,000 hours worked • Construction Contractors: • Prior to 9/30/09 Injury (7 injuries for 60,000 contractor hours worked) • One injury per 9,000 contractor hours worked • Since 9/30/09 Injury (1 injury for 100,000 contractor hours worked) • One injury per 100,000 contractor hours worked • 10x reduction in injury rate since the accident

13. LOB Design Complete & Bids Received

14. Installation and Commissioning • Detail installation and commissioning schedule formulated • BO and start of installation in February 2011 Beneficial Occupancy Installation

15. Six Project Beamlines Inelastic x-ray scattering (IXS) 100m long Hard x-ray nanoprobe (HXN) • Initial suite of insertion device beamlines • World-leading characteristics • Meet the needs of user community • Enable new science 1 meV 0.1 meV Coherent hard x-ray scattering (CHX) Coherent soft x-ray scattering/polarization (CSX) X-ray powder diffraction (XPD) 30m long hutch Sub-mm resolution x-ray spectroscopy (SRX)

16. Beamline Advisory Teams (BATs) • Beamline Advisory Team represents a segment of community to advise XFD during design & construction and participates in commissioning of beamline • All BATs have met at least twice in FY09 and once in FY10 • Excellent progress continues in scientific and technical developments IXS BAT SRX BAT XPD BAT HXN BAT CSX BAT CHX BAT

17. User Program Goals • Very fast ramp up of science program • Continuous service to user community • Dramatically advanced capabilities

18. Potential Funding Opportunities for Additional Beamlines

19. Beamline Development Beyond the Project • DOE-BES • Planning “NEXT” MIE (“NSLS-II Experimental Tools”) • 5-6 ID beamlines starting FY12 • NEXT-II MIE expected to follow • 5-6 ID beamlines, possibly starting in FY15 • Early operations starting in FY12 for establishing ~ 20 BM/3PW beamlines • NIH • Committed $45M to fund construction of four ID beamlines • $12M awarded to NSLS-II in FY10 (ARRA) to design & construct undulators • $33M in President’s FY11 budget request for beamlines • DOE-BER • Expressed interest in possibly funding from one to seven beamlines, possibly starting in FY12 • NSF • Discussions with program managers ongoing regarding opportunities for partnering in development of NSLS-II experimental facilities

20. Beamline Development Prospects #TypeSourceFunding StartOperatingTotal 6 ID Project FY09 FY14 6 4 ID NIH FY10 FY14 10 6 ID MIE-1 FY12 FY16 16 20 BM/3PW/IR BES Ops FY12 FY16 36 1 ID BER FY12 FY16 37 2 ID Other FY12 FY17 45 6 ID/3PW/IR BER FY13 FY17 43 6 ID MIE-2 FY15 FY19 51 CD-4 moved up by 16 months 37 Beamlines by FY16 Funding for these is NOT assured

21. Historical Experience withBeamline Development at other Facilities FacilityBL CapacityYears to N BLUsers/BL/5000hrs NSLS 75 7 to 40 36 ALS 50 8 to 20 65 APS 68 8 to 40 66 ESRF 46 3 to 20 - SPring8 62 6 to 40 - Diamond 45 4 to 20 - NSLS-II 58 2 to 37 66 • Average is about 7 years to 40 beamlines • Users/bl/5000hrs higher for 3rd gen ALS/APS than 2nd gen NSLS due to: (a) higher performance = higher throughput (b) higher ops budget & staffing levels = better user support Goal for NSLS-II is 37 beamlines supporting 66 users/bl/5000hr in 2nd year of operations. This is 3x to 8x faster than any other facility.

22. Accelerator Operations Ramp Up FY15 FY14 FY16 1500 Hrs 3500 Hrs 5000 Hrs Finishing project early enables accelerator performance to ramp up while NSLS is still operating and servicing most of the users 200 mA 350 mA 500 mA 70 % 85 % 95+ %

23. Light Sources User Program:Two Possible Scenarios CD-4 moved up by 16 months Does NSLS closure move up with project or stay at end of FY15? Assumes funding for beamlines is provided on the indicated time scales

24. Beamline Development Policy And Proposal Review Process

25. Beamline Development Process The Letter of Intent (LOI) identifies the beamline Proposal Team that intends to submit a Beamline Development Proposal (BDP) and provides a brief description of the science program and type of beamline The BDP describes the scientific programs that such a beamline would serve and the main technical requirements that the beamline must meet to enable those programs The Beamline Project Execution Plan (BPEP) describes the membership of the Beamline Advisory Team (BAT), the plan for formation of the Beamline Development Group (BDG), the plan for managing and executing the design and construction of the beamline, the pre-conceptual technical design, the preliminary cost and schedule estimates, and a commitment for the necessary funding

26. 2010 Call forBeamline Development Proposals • Scope • Any area of science • Any beamline type – ID, BM, 3PW, IR • Independent of funding source or implementation approach (i.e., new, reused, who builds) • Science case and technical requirements • Schedule • Issued on March26 • Letters of Intent due on April 26 • Beamline Development Proposals due on June 21 • Reviewed by Science Advisory Committee and decisions by August • Future calls will be issued on an annual basis

27. Letter of Intent • Proposal Teams planning to submit a BDP are requested to submit a LOI to enable us to better prepare for the review process by knowing how many, and what kind, of proposals to expect • Submission of a LOI is not a prerequisite for submitting a BDP, and a BDP can be submitted without a LOI • The LOI should include: • descriptive title of proposal • one sentence description of science program • one sentence description of beamline (principal technique and type of source) • whether the proposal is Type I or Type and potential sources of funding if Type II • name and contact information for all Proposal Team members • Identification of one Proposal Team member who will act as the Proposal Spokesperson, in the case of Type I proposals, or as the Beamline Project Director, in the case of Type II proposals • If a Type I proposal is approved, the proposal spokesperson is expected to work with the NSLS-II Experimental Facilities Director in forming the beamline BAT and to serve on the BAT and represent the interests of the proposal team if the Beamline Project Execution Plan is approved • The LOI is not binding and does not enter into the review of a subsequent BDP submission. • The LOI is to be sent by email by April 26 to nsls2bdp@bnl.gov • We plan to post the titles and contact info for the proposal spokesperson for each LOI so that the community can communicate their input to the proposal teams

28. Type I and Type II Beamline Development

29. Beamline Development Proposals BDPs should contain the following information and should be a maximum of 10 pages long (A template is posted on the website) • Beamline title and a three-letter acronym. • Indicate whether it is a Type I or a Type II proposal. • Name and contact information for all Proposal Team members. One team member who will act as the team Spokesperson (Type I proposals) or Beamline Project Director (Type II proposals) should be identified. • A succinct statement of the scientific case for the beamline, including a description of the key scientific questions the beamline will address, the capabilities that establishing such a beamline at NSLS-II will provide and whether any of these would be unique, and how these would impact the field and the community. If the beamline is being proposed as part of a suite of beamlines, indicate the role and importance of the proposed beamline in the context of the suite and the impact if the proposed beamline is not approved. • Description of the pre-conceptual layout of the proposed beamline, including technical requirements and specifications and justification for why these are necessary to address the intended scientific mission. These should span from the radiation source to the endstation(s). Describe any special source parameter requirements such as pulse length, repetition rate, coherence, stability, etc. For insertion devices, indicate preferred type of straight section (high or low beta). For bending magnet ports, indicate the required type of sources - standard bend magnet, 3-pole wiggler, or infrared. Include a summary of the expected performance with emphasis on the appropriate utilization of NSLS-II.

30. Beamline Development Proposals • A description of any technical advances required for the proposed beamline to achieve the level of performance required by the proposal. • Evidence of user demand for the capabilities to be provided by the beamline. This could include, but is not limited to, evidence from historical usage of similar beamlines at other facilities, user workshops held, white papers written, etc. An optional appendix (not included in the page count) containing a list of supporters/potential users may be attached to the Beamline Development Proposal. • Describe the expertise and experience of each Proposal Team member. Include an appendix (not included in the page count) with a one page bio for each Proposal Team member including publication references. • (Type I proposals) Optionally include suggestions of individuals who are willing to serve as BAT members for the proposed beamline (in addition to the proposal spokesperson). Nominees for BAT membership must have agreed to serve if asked and may include, but are not limited to, the Proposal Team members. If the proposal is approved, the proposal spokesperson is expected to work with the NSLS-II Experimental Facilities Director in forming the beamline BAT, and to serve on the BAT and represent the interests of the proposal team if the Beamline Project Execution Plan is approved. Full contact information should be provided for each nominee (not included in the page count). • (Type II proposals) A succinct statement of plans for seeking funding and a succinct description of approach for managing the beamline development. (not included in page count).

31. Beamline Development Proposal Review • Evaluation Criteria: • Science Case: Does the research enabled by establishment of the proposed beamline have the potential to address important scientific and/or societal questions? • User Demand: Is there evidence of significant interest, engagement, and support for the proposed beamline facility by the scientific community? • Performance: Will the proposed beamline provide the performance necessary to fulfill its scientific mission, with characteristics well matched to the NSLS-II source? • Technical Feasibility: Is achieving the proposed beamline capabilities technically feasible? • Quality of Proposers: Are the proposal team members experienced in the proposed field of research and technique and are they representative of the corresponding user community that would be served by the beamline? • Proposals will be peer reviewed by the Science Advisory Committee • Each proposal team will be asked to present their case in person to the SAC • Review by the SAC will include evaluation of both the written proposal and the oral presentation • Proposals must receive a positive recommendation from the SAC and the approval of the ALD

32. Light Sources DirectorateScience Advisory Committee • Provides recommendations on all scientific and policy issues that bear on the full and effective utilization of NSLS & NSLS-II and on developments required to maintain their scientific productivity at the highest possible level • An outstanding group has been appointed, with a good balance between national/international, academic/national-lab/industrial, and different areas of science and technique • Includes a few members from each of the previous NSLS SAC and NSLS-II EFAC in order to provide some continuity and institutional memory NameInstitutionPosition Simon Bare UOP Research Scientist, former member of NSLS SAC, and member of BESAC Murray Gibson ANL ALD for Photon Science and APS Director Ernie Hall GE Global Research Chief Scientist Jerry Hastings SLAC LCLS Scientist and former member of NSLS-II EFAC RusselHemley Carnegie Director, Geophysical Laboratory and former member of NSLS-II PAC John Hemminger Univ. Cal. Irvine Dean of Physical Sciences and Chair of BESAC Keith Hodgson, Chair SLAC ALD for Photon Science Leemor Joshua-Tor Cold Spring Harbor Dean of Biological Sciences and former member of NSLS SAC Steve Kevan Univ. Oregon Professor and former member of NSLS-II EFAC Sine Larsen Univ. Copenhagen Professor and former director of Life Sciences at ESRF GerdMaterlik Diamond Director of Diamond Light Source and former member of NSLS-II PAC Simon Mochrie Yale Professor and former member of NSLS SAC and NSLS-II EFAC Harald Reichert ESRF Director of Physical Sciences at ESRF Janet Smith Univ. Michigan Collegiate Prof of Life Sciences Friso van der Veen SLS Director of Swiss Light Source, Prof at ETH-Zurich Pierre Wiltzius Univ. Cal. Santa Barbara Dean of Mathematical, Life, and Physical Sciences and former Chair of APS SAC

33. BDP Review Outcomes • Approved Type I BDP • ALD seeks funding on behalf of NSLS-II for developing the beamline • NSLS-II prepares & seeks approval of a Beamline Project Execution Plan (BPEP) • Proposal spokesperson is expected to work with NSLS-II in forming the BAT and to serve on the BAT and represent the interests of the proposal team if the BPEP is approved • Approved Type II BDP • Proposal team is encouraged to seek funding and to prepare & submit a BPEP for approval • Letter of support is provided by NSLS-II For approved BDPs of either Type I or Type II: • Up to two years can elapse between approval of BDP and submission & approval of BPEP • A beamport of the required type and experimental floor space is reserved during this period • Specific beamport and floor space assignments are made once the BPEP is approved • BDP not approved • Reasons for not being approved, including feedback from the SAC, conveyed in writing to proposal team • Proposal team may resubmit the BDP in a future proposal review round

34. Beamline Project Execution Plan • Approval of a BDP authorizes development and submission of a BPEP • The BPEP presents the plans for beamline project execution, including the scientific need and justification; project objectives and description; management systems; environment, safety, health, and security; resource planning; transition to operations; project controls (management, the baseline, and change systems); and reporting • Upon approval of the BPEP, a Beamline Development Agreement will be executed between NSLS-II and the BDG that outlines the rights and obligations of the BDG and assigns a beamport and experimental floor space for use by the beamline • Some of the required elements include: • Beamline Advisory Team membership • Staffing plan for Beamline Development Group • Management Plan • Pre-conceptual Design • Preliminary Cost and Schedule Estimate • Funding Committment • A Beamline Development Guide will be issued at a future date to provide additional information and definition of requirements for the BPEP

35. (Draft) User Access Policy

36. User Access Policy • User Access Modes • General User • Peer reviewed, open access • Proposals may be allocated assured beamtime extending over multiple cycles • Some time would be reserved each cycle for new proposals • Review criteria designed to recognize value of both basic and applied research as well as contributions of users to improving the overall scientific program • Includes Rapid Access • Expected to accommodate many of the current CUs and MIDTs • Partner User • Researchers wishing to partner with the facility in the development and operation of a beamline • Staff research and development • Beam time allocation • 80% to GUs (averaged over the facility) • 20% shared by local beamline staff and Partner Users • Beamline upgrades and maintenance does not count as user time

37. Partner Users • Contribute to on-going development of a substantial portion of a beamline • Contribute to support of general users on the beamline through resident staff • Have a role in stewarding, together with the facility beamline staff, the future evolution of the beamline, including, for example, participating in decisions on future upgrades or improvements in the technical capabilities of the beamline which may be made to improve the support for targeted scientific areas • Partner Users share, together with the facility beamline staff, in the use of the 20% of beam time (averaged over all beamlines but excluding PRT beamlines at NSLS) that is not allocated to the General User Program for their own discretionary scientific research • Partner Users may also apply for General User time on any beamline, including ones on which they are Partner Users • Partner User proposals will be reviewed by the SAC • The criteria for evaluation of Partner User proposals are positive impact of the partnership on General Users through participation in the development and operation of a beamline, including contributing to the support of General Users on the beamline • The rights and obligations of the Partner User will be negotiated on a case by case basis and spelled out in a Partner User Agreement • The terms of the partnership agreement may extend up to five years with the possibility of renewal

38. Beam Time Proposal Review Criteria • If judged to be technically feasible, the Proposal Review Panel (PRP) evaluates the proposals in the following categories: • Scientific and/or Technical Innovation and Originality • Scientific and/or Technical Importance • Capability of Experimental Group and Quality of Past Performance Based on Track Record (Publications, Patents, Corporate Impact Statements) • Experimental Plan and Technical Feasibility • These criteria are designed to recognize the value of both basic and applied research as well as encouraging the contributions of users that improve the overall scientific program • For highly-rated proposals requesting multi-cycle status, the Beam Time Allocation Committee (BAC) makes the determination whether multi-cycle status should be granted based on meeting one or more of the following additional criteria: • Contribution of apparatus or resources to bring a new experimental capability to facility users that is otherwise not available • Development a new experimental capability or a new scientific application • Clearly demonstrated scientific and technical needs for guaranteed access for a single experiment over multiple cycles (e.g. effect of asthma medicine on lungs in live mice) • General users receiving multi-cycle beam time allocations are not expected to provide support to other general users who may use equipment they contribute or develop.

39. Implementation • Plan to institute this policy at NSLS as soon as practical • Promotes a unification of approach between NSLS & NSLS-II • Allows us to upgrade the support procedures for NSLS now and take advantage of the investment in the future with NSLS-II • Is expected to ease the transition from one to the other • Existing NSLS PRTs continue during NSLS ops but no new PRTs • Existing CU/MIDTs continue for remainder of their term but not renewed • This is will remain a draft proposal until the SAC meets and reviews and comments on it

40. QUESTIONS?