Canadian Neutron Beam Centre Status Report to CINS Annual General Meeting John Root , Director

1. Canadian Neutron Beam Centre Status Report to CINS Annual General Meeting John Root , Director Canadian Neutron Beam Centre Chalk River Laboratories, Chalk River, Ontario University of Western Ontario October 13, 2006

2. Research Staff Ian Swainson gives a demonstration at the 2006 Chalk River summer school

3. Supporting Team Raymond Sammon filling the M5 cryomagnet, which has been operating since 2003, but is currently being repaired.

4. Neutron Source ~ 73.7% availability in 2005/2006 ~ 1350 neutron beam days AECL succeeded to extend the operating license beyond 2005 and is preparing a request to operate to an approximate horizon ~2012. NRC Senior Executive are engaged in coordinating a discussion in government to formulate a recommendation for a longer term replacement – the Canadian Neutron Centre.

5. 5 thermal-neutron spectrometers operating 24h/day, 7 days/week. 2 beam lines under development N5 Upgrade in progress Beam Lines

6. N5 Upgrades • Goals: • Reduce radiological hazard from beam stop and beam channel • Improve beam hazard indication • Reduce background for measurements (factor of 10 improvement) • Increase signal for measurements (triple-axis) • Control system upgrade – first “production” roll-out / D3 prototype • Make N5 an attractive alternative triple-axis to C5, reducing clash with reflectometry applications in the short term • Activities in 2005-2006: • Replaced the articulated detector / 2qA shield with an integral shielding package, similar to the low-background design on C5; • Installed a tall diffracted-beam channel, purchased PG for analyzer and monochromator(quality unacceptable – returned to vendor); • Made progress on motor control system to C5 standard; • Discussed concept of shielding around the incident-beam channel to reduce gamma-ray fields near the specimen table.

7. T3 beam line prototype Vessel (vacuum option) Detector canister 24” rupture disk Rear servicing hatch Replaceable plate for feed through connectors (not shown) Ø 2” window with rupture disk Rails for variable sample distance Mar345 detector Design-in option for evacuated flight path

8. Current StatusFabrication Detector on xy translation Detector canister & rear door cover Front view after test assembly

9. Heavy door twists vessel Current StatusCommissioning NRU Operations approval required before installation

10. Delays • Financially driven: • Change in AECL-NRC agreement led to underestimated costs (50%), prematurely exhausting budget • Reduced budget/revenue year • Human Resource driven: • AECL priorities compete for design and fabrication resources • CNBC priorities: User-experiments, D3 Reflectometer, other • Commissioning discoveries: • Heavy door, requiring re-design and fabrication

11. Further Work • Phase 1: Functioning instrument suitable for many experiments and establishing final requirements • Adjustable beam stop • Rapid operation beam shutter • Remaining commissioning • Detector calibration • Software & hardware integration • Electronics repair and upgrade • Phase 2: Final T3 instrument • Multiple incident beam configurations • Outer water shield if required • Vacuum features added if required

12. Outreach 2006 • 9th biennial neutron scattering summer school at Chalk River • Symposium for Bill Buyers • Neutron reflectometry workshop • Powder Diffraction workshop

13. Capacity / Occupancy (All classes of user)

14. Reflectometry ~ ½ year Facility Access From a total of 1610 spectrometer days

15. CNBC Proposals Proposal Review Procedure… something to note 1. Upon receipt of a Proposal, the Director will ensure that a Local Contact has been assigned, and will forward the proposal to the Review Administrator. 2. The Review Administrator will register receipt of the Proposal, assign a number (e.g. CNBC-123), and deliver it to the Local Contact. 3. The Local Contact will review the Proposal, in consultation with the Technology Group Leader and the primary Proponent to: a) ensure that the proposal is correct and complete b) evaluate the effort and cost required to mitigate any identified hazards c) ensure that the experiment is feasible with CNBC equipment 4. Within one week from receipt, the Local Contact will either send a message of rejection (with reason) to the Review Administrator and primary Proponent, or return the correct and complete Proposal to the Review Administrator, for scientific review (cc primary Proponent). 5. The Local Contact may recommend which … etc…. Scientific Review NEXT

16. CNBC Proposals Proponents are responsible to indicate on their proposals any hazards associated with their requests. Discussion at an early stage enables us to figure out if and how to mitigate risks. Categories include: • Explosive • Radioactive • Biologically active • Corrosive / reactive / flammable / toxic … Please talk to us!

17. Access vs Funding 2005-2006 Total Spectrometer Days 1610 Total Expenses $4.05M Experiments with Canadian academics occupied 51% of spectrometer time. MFA covered 24% of CNBC expenditures. CNBC in-house exp’ts and method development occupied 16% of spectrometer time.

18. Record of Access vs Funding Canadian Academics

19. Other User Statistics

20. CNBC ~ 20% short Benchmarks Sources: NIST Annual Report, Jan. 2003 Meeting of North American Neutron Facility Directors, Feb. 2006

21. Feedback Part II of CINS Business Meeting, tomorrow John.Root@nrc-cnrc.gc.ca 613 584 8811 x 3974