January 7, 2011

1. JSA Science Council Context for Discussions Hugh Montgomery January 7, 2011

2. The Talk • Background to this meeting • Agenda for this Meeting • Charge to Science Council

3. Jefferson Lab At-A-Glance

4. Vision, Mission, Strategy Vision To be the provider of choice for world-class science and facilities in support of the DOE Office of Science’s mission. To enable breakthroughs that ensure our nation’s future Mission Advance fundamental research in nuclear physics to gain a deeper understanding of the structure of matter Advance photon science and related research into the nature of materials. Strategy Develop the key technology and position Jefferson Lab’s user facilities for continued leadership roles SRF Technology JLAMP and 4th GLS Major Laboratory Initiatives Exp. Nuclear Physics Program 12 GeV Upgrade Project ELectron Ion Collider Nuclear Physics Accelerator Science Core Capability Groupings Applied Nuclear Science & Tech Large Scale User Fac./Adv. Instr. Photon Science

5. Science Strategy for the Future

6. Responsibilities of the JSA Science Council Advise Board and Lab Director on matters related to scientific mission of the Lab, including long range planning, Lab performance in accomplishing science mission and near-term goals Commission periodic and/or ad hoc independent scientific peer reviews, assessments, and studies Provide effective relations support to promote leadership of Lab user community in larger scientific community

7. Science Council Topics  • Lab Over/Intro Fall 2008, Spr 2009 Spr 2010 Jan 2011 • Accelerator Sci. Spr 2009 • 6 GeV Program Fall 2008, Spr 2009 Fall 2009 Spr 2010 Jan 2011 • 12 GeVUpgradeFall 2008, Spr 2010 • 12 GeV Science Jan 2011 • FEL, Photon Sci Fall 2008, Spr 2009,Fall 2009 Spr 2010 Jan 2011 • EIC Fall 2009 Spr 2010 Jan 2011 • Theory Spr 2009,Fall 2009 Spr 2010 Jan 2011 • Detector R&D • Computing (see theory)

8. Contractor Assurance System  • Reforms by DOE (prompted by attitude of Chu) in the direction of giving M&O Contractors (JSA) responsibility for providing reasonable assurance to DOE. • Hope is to reduce the explicit oversight provided by the DOE • Covers all aspects of the laboratory business. • Business Systems, ESH&Q, Science, …. • Ten-member JSA Board of Directors is responsible for implementing and executing CAS. Seven JSA committees, each chaired by a Director, monitor and review specific areas of Lab operations, and report to the full Board its assessments of performance, risk identification and mitigation, and adequacy of system and processes to achieve Lab mission • Expect that the committee reports (Science Council Report) to the JSA board, form the basis for the annual assurance, by the JSA Board, to the DOE. • Bases for implementation (applies to FY2011). • The Science Council Report, Letter from Science Council Chair to JSA Board Chair • Imperative • This added role for Science Council output should not impair the ability of the Science Council to provide direct, pertinent, incisive, insightful advice and criticism of and to the Laboratory and the Laboratory Director, and to JSA.

9. Comments from Spring 2010 Science Council  • Completion of the 6 GeV Program • No Response Needed • Electron-Ion Collider (EIC) • For the reasons given above, it seems justified to develop both a concept for such a machine at BNL and one at JLab. The costs are likely less at BNL, because of the existence of a hadron machine, while the technical requirements at somewhat reduced energy may be easier to achieve at JLab. The Science Council encourages an aggressive approach to developing a concept for JLab for a future EIC, both in terms of the science opportunities and a machine design. The outcome of the fall workshop on the science of an EIC should provide important new guidance toward such a machine. • See Bob McKeown Presentation • Theory: Lattice Advances • The Science Council expresses it admiration for the lattice-QCD program at JLab, and urges the laboratory leadership to continue its strong support for this important and high-profile work. • No Response Needed

10. Comments from Spring 2010 Science Council  • FEL Photon Science • The Science Council took note of the decision of the Office of Basic Energy Sciences, expressing concern that in the evaluation of the proposal there was no opportunity to discuss the questions raised by the reviewers in a coherent way. Another concern of the Science Council was the use of independent anonymous reviews. The Science Council believes that in this case, one needs to appoint a discussion panel to produce a coherent vision instead of a random set of reviews. • No Response Needed • The progress of HHG sources does not seem to be sufficient to justify the decision of DOE. Present performance of HHG sources is 6 orders of magnitude less bright than the proposed JLAMP source.  Even allowing for success of the proposed 5 year R&D plan in this field as presented at the Compact Light Sources Workshop, the JLAMP source will remain 4 orders of magnitude brighter.  Many of the proposed applications need such brightness. The importance of this question deserves a deeper analysis from a discussion panel. • No Response Needed

11. Comments from Spring 2010 Science Council  • FEL Photon Science Continued • Thus, it appears that this information should be brought to the attention of DOE. The most important step forward would be that JLAB management request the Office of Basic Energy Sciences to appoint a Discussion Panel to extend the review of the JLAMP proposal. • We tempered our reaction in view of encouragement to push the Accel R&D coupled with encouragement to work with divisions (eg Materials Science ) to generate science program. • See Talks by George Neil, Gwyn Williams, and Bob McKeown • From the Science point of view, one of the difficulties is that JLAB does not have an already existing community dedicated to this domain. The support of a dedicated community is essential. In parallel to accelerator developments, JLAB should organize workshops to build the future experimental program and propose exciting new instrumentation. • See Talks by George Neil, Gwyn Williams, and Bob McKeown • The Science Council recommends that the JLAMP efforts continue to be well supported. • See Talks by George Neil, Gwyn Williams, and Bob McKeown

12. Comments from Spring 2010 Science Council  • 12 GeV Project Status • Some discussion was given to the impact of ARRA support to this project, which will shift funds from FY10 and FY11 to FY09. Concerns were expressed that FY11 will be funding limited with no contingency cash flow, and that the funding shift will leave FY12 vulnerable to a continuing resolution. • While this remains a concern, we have been encouraged by the attitude of ONP which appears to intend to support the 12 GeV Project as far as it can. • Concern was expressed also regarding the Hall D solenoid (old MEGA/LASS) magnet, for which refurbishment uncovered significant technical problems. Lehman review panels have requested a plan for replacement or back-up magnet construction. The Science Council recommends defining and implementing immediately the crucial tests and issues to evaluate if this magnet will or will not be suitable. • Following strengthening of the team, considerable progress was made, one coil was successfully tested at 85% full current (sufficient for physics) before the holidays. • Design work on “backup” magnet enabled by new engineer hire.

13. Comments from Spring 2010 Science Council  • 12 GeV Project Status • The Science Council was pleased to hear that the April 2010 DOE Office of Project Assessment review went well, and was generally pleased to be presented with an immense amount of progress towards a successful and timely upgrade. . • A Fall Lehman review was held which was critical of the Hall D Solenoid progress and of the SVT plans. • A December mini-review gave us a clean bill of health. • The current plan calls for (if all goes well, only) a mini review in May 2011. • Next Full review in September 2011. • Separate discussions with ONP about our contingency deployment plan were very positive. • Hall D Ready For Equipment – December 28, 2010 • On track for six-month 12 GeV Upgrade installation starting May 2011 including tunnel stub connection to Hall D

14. Requests/Charge to the Science Council  •   We continue to run the 6 GeV Program with a hard deadline imposed by the 12 GeV project. There has been a lot of progress, but also some issues. We have adjusted the schedule. Please comment briefly on our progress and plans for completion • You will hear a description of progress of developments of the case for the EIC and plans. Brief comments, particularly with respect to missing elements, would be welcome. • At the previous SC Meeting we discussed the 12 GeV Upgrade Project schedule. Progress has continued and some tricky issues appear to be more under control. Here we will present the status of the preparations for the 12 GeV Physics Program. Please comment as appropriate • Since the previous meeting, we have brought on board a new Director for Theory. He will present his vision of the program Please take note and comment if you wish. • You will hear presentations concerning the development of the FEL machine and its capabilities and progress on the developments, both technical and political in the development of the future program. This is, for us, the most important subject for this meeting. We would welcome your continued criticism and guidance.

15. Science Council Meeting Agenda   Meeting Room L102/104 8:30 – 8:45 Executive Session 8:45 - 9:15 Introduction/Charge (20 + 10) H. Montgomery 9:15 – 9:45 6 GeV Program Status (20 + 10) L. Cardman 9:45 – 10:00 Break 10:00 – 10:30 12 GeV Science Program (20 + 10) R. McKeown 10:30 – 11:00 EIC Update (20 + 10) R. McKeown 11:00 – 11:40 Theory Program (30 + 10) M. Pennington 11:40 – 12:00 Executive Session 12:00 – 12:45 Lunch (B207) 12:45 – 1:25 UV FEL Development (30 + 10) G. Neil 1:25 – 2:05 Plans for VUV Science Program (30 + 10) G. Williams 2:05 – 2:45 R&D Towards Future Light Sources (30 + 10) G. Neil 2:45 – 3:00 Future Plans (15 min.) R. McKeown 3:00 – 3:30 Discussion 3:30 – 4:00 Executive Session 4:00 – 4:30 Close-Out 4:30 pm Adjourn