It was given a presentation of and was impressed by the additional work that has been carried out since the Bonn proposal for ESS to reduce further uncertainties, refine performance and fill in costing and design details. Most of that work is complete now, and all of it will be available electronically and in a printed version by the end of 2003 as “The ESS Project Volume III Update. Technical Report. Status 2003”.

With this the Council has accomplished the first objective it has set out for itself in the MoU of 2002, namely to present a detailed project proposal for what should be the best neutron facility in the world for all classes of instruments. It has become clear over the past half year that chances of getting a positive funding decision on the present project in the next few years are small. Therefore, after its decision in January not to continue the detailed engineering and costing work for a project baseline, it now has also decided to terminate the MoU effective 1 September 2003: the Council cannot realistically accomplish the other objective of the MoU, namely to advance a decision within the MoU’s time schedule.

The members of the Council underlined the need for a new major facility in Europe and discussed next steps.

First, they supported the view of those Council members who operate facilities that their first obligation is now to redefine priorities to make sure that the European users will benefit in the best way possible from the current facilities in Europe, on the basis of existing and planned resources for them. These facilities include for several years to come the world’s best facilities, ILL and ISIS. At the same time Council members expressed once more their conviction that, if the governments/funding agencies do not provide a clear perspective for a planning horizon for a new major facility that will represent a clear lead to all facilities in the world when it will become operational, serious damage to the European user community will be done.

The members of the Council re-iterated, while regretting that a decision on the envisaged time scale has now turned out to be impossible, that the work on ESS has created the conceptual, technical and scientific foundations for such a new major European spallation neutron source. It also has helped the US and in a different way Japan to proceed on their way towards realizing such a source. The members of the Council acknowledged the recommendation of its Scientific Advisory Council that there are good arguments to consider an optimized and upgradeable version of a long-pulse ESS as maybe the most competitive and cost-effective option. Further technical and scientific advances over the next few years will, however, inform the final design that would be built.

As to the activities to be carried out in the next few years, the members of the Council agreed that it is important to continuously advance the science case; special efforts are needed to involve increasingly communities which are not traditional neutron users.
Also, the work in the ESS project has clearly identified a number of areas in accelerator technology, target and moderator technology, and generic instrument technologies that should be picked up by an advanced technology development programme. Such a programme, though, need not be set up and funded with the exclusive aim of a neutron scattering spallation source; it would benefit from a broader approach.

Co-operation with SNS is a third area in which efforts are underway. A further proposal will be discussed at the coming ECNS Montpellier conference.

The members of the Council discussed at length what would be the best way of organizing the work. There is agreement that there should be a close involvement of governments/funding agencies. The members of the Council welcomed the initiative of the CCLRC in the UK to organize a high-level meeting in the early autumn to discuss time scales and other policy issues associated with a decision plan for a next generation neutron source in Europe.

While existing mechanisms can be used wherever possible, it was stressed that there is a definite need for a body that in a comprehensive and pro-active way can try to make sure that all the activities mentioned above will be carried out. A more detailed discussion and the establishment of such a mechanism have to await the first policy meeting in the autumn, but some contours should be clear. The major centres of expertise, where resources and expertise need to be maintained, should as ‘Competence Centres’ constitute one of its pillars. There is much to be said to continue to involve the site contenders. Also the users must be involved. Council members would hope that if things will move in this direction, ILL’s management readiness to host such a new mechanism and be its focal point will be supported by ILL’s Associates. The advanced plans to establish a common European neutron and muon website as a joint ESS, ENSA, NMI3 and the muon scientists’ initiative is a first way of providing continuity and access to all ESS documents. The present ESS Council chairman was entrusted to take the initiative to consult with CCLRC quickly on what next steps after the policy meeting would be suitable.

Leipzig
02 July 2003.