Program Advisory Committee (PAC)
PAC 14 Call for Proposals
April 22, 1998
During the week of July 13-17, the Jefferson Laboratory Program Advisory Committee (PAC14) will consider new proposals, updates, and letters-of-intent. PAC14 will also review the schedule for experiments in the three Halls. The JLab Technical Advisory Committee will make comments on the technical viability of the proposals and provide these comments to the spokespersons and the PAC prior to the meeting. As always, proposals will be judged on the quality of the physics, technical feasibility, and the ability of the group to carry out the proposed measurements.
The ground rules for this PAC will be somewhat different than has been the case in the past. The PAC will be given guidance on the maximum amount of beam time it should recommend for approval for each hall.
As you know, the backlog of approved experiments at Jefferson Lab is large -- between six and seven years for our present schedule with our present overall operating efficiency (~50%). We have requested from DOE a $3M increment to the laboratory's operating budget to address both the accelerator efficiency and experimental support issues. We estimate this would increase the physics throughput of the laboratory by about 25%. A second $3M/year would permit us to increase throughput by about an additional 25%, further reducing the backlog. However, it is not yet known if we will receive this funding, and, in any event, we must take some action in the interim to begin to address the backlog.
The Users Group Board of Directors (UGBoD) has recommended that the backlog be reduced from its present 6-7 years to between 3 and 4 years. One obvious step toward this goal, which was recommended by both the PAC and the UGBoD, is to provide guidance to the PAC on the total amount of beam time for proposals they recommend for approval. We currently operate each of the three halls for about six months of 24 hour/day, 7 day/week beam delivery (corresponding to three months of beam at 100% efficient operation) per year. Therefore, if each (biannual) PAC approved three months of running per hall (or 1-1/2 months of 100% efficient operation) then the backlog would be in equilibrium. All future PACs will receive guidance that no more than this equilibrium level of beam time be recommended for approval. This guidance will not be so rigid as to preclude PAC consideration and recommendation of important new experiments and/or programs that cannot be accommodated within the nominal beamtime limits, but any such exceptions will have to present a compelling scientific case.
The laboratory also has a 3-year jeopardy rule that will eventually provide a second mechanism for keeping the backlog roughly constant. Jeopardy doesn't begin until three years after a hall has begun taking data (PAC 15 for Hall C, Summer 2000 for Hall A, and Winter 2000 for Hall B) or three years after the proposal was approved, whichever is later. We are working with the PAC and UGBoD on how best to implement jeopardy, and a later memo will provide all users with information on the subject. In addition, the spokespersons of all approved experiments will be provided with information on when their experiments will need to be updated for the PAC as part of the jeopardy process. However, it is already clear that the 3-year rule will result in a significant number of proposals being reviewed in each hall at the first PAC after jeopardy is active.
To begin the process of cutting back on the backlog before improved operations and jeopardy become effective, we will ask PAC14 to restrict its recommendations to about two thirds of the beam time that would maintain the backlog at equilibrium. This will correspond to a guideline of about 2 months of running per hall (i.e. about 1 month of data-taking at 100% efficiency per hall). As a result, if a typical number of new proposals are received by PAC14, approval will be harder than it has been in the past. The intent of this new procedure (and the limit we are setting) is to require new experiment proposals to face the PAC-recommendation process with the same constraints as will be experienced by many older proposals when those proposals must undergo a jeopardy review.
Guidelines for New Proposals, Updates and Letters-of-Intent
New proposals requiring beam energies up to 6 GeV will bereviewed by the PAC.
Experiments with Similar Physics Goals:
On your proposal cover sheet indicate any existing approved, conditionally approved, or deferred experiments that have physics goals similar to those in your proposal. In the text of your proposal, compare and contrast your proposal with respect to these proposals and experiments already considered or under consideration by previous PACs. Note, there are one page summaries formost proposals at the URL given at the end of this letter. Contact UserLiaison (see below) for copies of proposals submitted to previous PACs.
Note: spokespersons for the experiments and proposals you have listed, will receive copies of your proposal prior to the PAC meeting. They will be allowed to submit written comments to the TAC that will then be passed on to the PAC with a copy provided to you. If you fail to identify a previously approved proposal with similar physics goals, the spokesperson for the previously approved proposal may request that final approval of your proposal be contingent on review of the issues raised by a subsequent PAC.
A summary of all approved and conditionally approved experiments can befound online at http://www.jlab.org/exp_prog/PACpage/. Previous PAC reports can be found online at http://www.jlab.org/exp_prog/PACpage/pac.html.
The beam time request should be provided in some detail. Do not request any contingency time as the scheduling process includes this time. The beam requirements and time request, on your attached forms, should include all of the time for the following activities:
- setup & installation
- alignment, calibration, check out and testing without beam
- commissioning with beam
- physics measurements - list all currents, energies, targets, and angles (Halls A and C)
- angle, spectrometer, target, and configuration changes
If your collaboration has an approved experiment, aconditionally approved experiment, or a deferred proposal and you would like to modify the physics goals, significantly change your running conditions, receive reconsideration of your scientific rating, or achieve full approval for a conditionally approved or deferred experiment, please submit an update.
Note: The PAC may or may not choose to hear an oral presentation for updates depending on the scope of the proposed changes.
Deferred experiments must be updated within one year or they will be removed from future consideration.
A proposal based on a previously rejected proposal is considered a 'new' proposal. Further, this 'new' proposal must include substantive changes that fully address the issues raised by the PAC that rejected it for it to be considered by the new PAC.
Letters-of-intent may be submitted to solicit the evaluation by the PAC of a new line of research before investing the large effort required to prepare a full proposal. In general, the letters-of-intent will involve either a major new experimental apparatus or extension of present beam properties.
Letters-of-intent will be made public after receiving PAC appraisal in the same manner as full proposals. This means that the research program contained in them would enter the public domain; therefore, the letters-of-intent mechanism cannot be viewed as a means of "staking out territory." Rather, it provides experimenters with feedback at an early stage on the PAC's views on the scientific and technical merit of an idea which the experimenters intend to develop into a full proposal.
Due Date New Proposals, Updates and Letters-of-Intent
Proposals, Updates and Letters-of-Intent are due to UserLiaison by close of business Thursday, June 4, 1998.
User Liaison Office, MS 12B
12000 Jefferson Avenue
Newport News, Virginia
All submissions can be mailed or submitted electronically. Faxes will not be accepted. If you would like to experiment with submitting your proposal electronically in either HTML, PDF or postscript format, please contact User Liaison by May 29, 1998. We will test our ability to locally acquire and print a draft of your proposal. If successful, you may submit your proposal electronically by 3:00 p.m. on the due date stated above.
All proposals and updates to be considered by the PAC must also include a completed:
- Cover sheet
- Lab Resources Requirements List
- Hazard Identification Checklist
- Beam Time and Requirements List
These sheets are available at http://www.jlab.org/exp_prog/PACpage/PACinfo.html or via anonymous ftp at ftp.jlab.org in pub/pac/attachments in PDF and postscript formats.
Procedures for Experiments
Procedures for experiments are provided at http://www.jlab.org/user_resources/PFX/. The procedures include the submission and re-submission of proposals, the PAC's scientific ratings and recommendations of Approval, Conditional Approval, Deferral or Rejection, the Directors award of beam-time, the experiment preparation and scheduling processes, the associated Environment, Health and Safety reviews, the running of the experiments, the allocation of computational resources, and the publication of results including presentations at conferences.
Reference Material Hard Copies
If you would like any of the materials on the Web sent to you in hardcopy, please contact User Liaison via phone (757-269-7586), fax(757-269-7003) or e-mail (firstname.lastname@example.org).
I look forward to seeing you at Jefferson Lab.
User Liaison Manager