Organization – Work Units General layout Neutronics Target design RIBO calculations Yields Beam optics Target handling Shielding Safety target Safety converter Other converters Time Final report

Work – units: Description and responsibility (1) General layout (CERN) –Conceptual lay-out of the new target station with all target positions and neutron facilities. This lay-out will serve us reference for all other activities. –Deliverable: Report on conceptual lay-out Neutronics including local moderation (CERN, ITN, PSI) –Neutron flux and energy spectrum study for the target positions with different local moderators. –Deliverable: Report on neutronics study Target design including characterization (LNL) and thermal calculations (CERN) –Technical Design of target, target holder and target cooling system. Characterization of target samples from LMU to measure thermal conductivity. –Deliverable: Report on target design Optimization of target geometry with RIBO (LNL) –Within the design limits of the target design from CERN simulate release properties for different target geometries to maximize the extraction of RIBs. In particular, study different inner geometries to maximize extraction for the baseline RILIS ion-source. –Deliverable: Report on RIBO calculations for different target geometries

Work – units: Description and responsibility (2) Yield estimates from neutronics and RIBO data (PSI, LNL) –Yield estimate for the “Nupecc isotopes” (Be, Ar, Ni, Ga, Kr, Sn and Fr) and the EURISOL reference isotopes. Input data are neutronics, target material characteristics and RIBO calculations. Both in-target production and estimated extracted yields should be calculated. –Deliverable: Reports on yields for the multiMW target station Beam optics for extraction (NIPNE, LNL) –Design of a beam-optics system for the extraction of ions from the target. The beam extraction system should include the bending elements on top of the shielding unit and the beam-lines out and through the shielding but not the merging elements. –Deliverable: Proposal for beam transport system Target handling system (NIPNE, LNL) –Design of a target handling system which permits safe handling (and change) of new and highly radioactive target and ion sources. The system should include depositories and hot cells for waste conditioning and inspection (modification?) of target and ion source units. –Deliverable: Proposal for target handling system

Work – units: Description and responsibility (3) Shielding requirements (CEA, LNL, CERN) –Shielding requirements for the target and converter. Shielding requirement for the target handling room and activation calculations for this room. –Deliverable: Report on shielding requirements incl. shielding for target handling area Safety issues for target and target handling (CEA, CERN, ITN) –In close collaboration with the target handling activity study the proposed system to assure that it is safe and that all known requirements from member state authorities can be fully satisfied. –Deliverable: Report on safety aspects of target handling Safety issues for neutron converter (CEA, CERN, ITN) –Study the specific safety issues for the neutron converter for this NEW solution e.g. how can the converter be maintained and maybe replaced in this confined space. –Deliverable: Report on safety aspects for the neutron converter Conceptual study of “flat converter” and “liquid curtain” converter with the MAFF concept (PSI, IPUL, CERN) –The agreed baseline solution for the MAFF type target station is the round SNS type converter. The optimization of target positions and neutronics in the activities above will be done with this converter. However, there are other possible solutions such as using a horizontally flat SNS type converter or a liquid curtain type converter. In this activity the other solutions will be studied. –Deliverable: Report on alternative solutions for the neutron converter

Resources and key dates Existing resources within the study –Re-direct foreseen effort for first multiMW design Additional resources from participating labs Additional resources from new contributors Decision on conceptual design, JM in February 2008 Reports from work-units, 14 months Final report on mMW target station, 18 months Follow-up in Joint target task meetings and coordination boards

Introduction, Yorick Blumenfeld Comparison between facilities SPIRAL, MAAF and EURISOL –Task 1 (Mgt), who? Cost driving elements should be reviewed in view of the new option. –Please, clarify

Organization, Mats Lindroos Optimize technical overall coordination of the project. –Task 1 Precisely define tasks and resources and follow up to ensure that no gap is left in the design study of the entire chain from radioisotope production to beam formation. –Task 1 2 task leaders claim that available resources are a limiting factor to meeting deliverables on time. –Task 1 support, no budget reserve in EURISOL DS Requirement for a precise definition of each deliverable required by the final report along with an analysis to confirm that resources are in place to achieve these deliverables in a timely fashion. –Joint meeting, February

Organization, Mats Lindroos A figure of merit (Thermal and fast n-induced fissions/s, 132Sn production rate) should be derived to compare the n- spallation source scenarios and thermal vs. fast neutrons yields. –Task 10 and 2?, 132Sn/n and 132Sn/mg Uranium The efficiencies of beam or isotope merging schemes/studies are an intrinsic part of the production yield that should not be separated or isolated from the study of the complex multi target system, (alternative could be separate use of i.e. 2 target stations). –Task 9, JYFL or LPSC? Review other RIB production mechanism (i.e. 9Be n-alpha 6He –Should we ask WI, SOREQ and GANIL?

Overview of MAFF type mMW target station for EURISOL, Y. Kadi Provided resource availability, alternative non symmetric system may be interesting (as demonstrated by the Hg curtain option) and should be investigated (i.e. similar to the flat Hg-target used at Oak Ridge). –Task 2, PSI - neutronics Good idea of local moderator allowing use of different n- spectra. Decide and freeze one new baseline (cylindrical, flat or curtain) to be used by all other teams ASAP. –Joint meeting, February Contained Hg curtain could be an option (?) or does it generate a window problem ? In light of the resource and time limitations it seems imperative to quickly settle on one option. –Task 2 – PSI but do we have the resources

Neutronics and yield calculation including comparison to the first mMW target station, Luca Zanini Improve figure of merit for Hg curtain and MAFF design check 132Sn and other yields. –Tsk 2 - PSI

Integration and target handling, Florin Negoita Consider the need for and impact on servicing and safety of water cooled conductors. The committee felt that based on existing experience that high current leads will be eventually required for external heating of the targets as well as cooling of other types of ion sources and the design should anticipate the requirement. –Task 4 Major input required to not exclude other sources, beam diagnostics is required. The efficiency of the laser ion- source should be validated (no Efield and no metallic cavity). –Task 4

Integration and target handling, Florin Negoita Consider moveable shielding to be installed during operation –Task 4 Define operation and maintenance scenarios and reaction to failures, focus on water leak penetrating into hot UCx. Thermal shielding of cryo panels to avoid freezing cooling water. Water activation. –Task 4 Consider the option of having the target at ground potential (or small HV). –Task 4 Consider target system options with non-vertical beam axis. –Task 4

Target design and thermal analyses of target, Cyril Kharoua Credible designs presented for two n-spallation sources scenarios, clear line towards completion presented. Comparison with Pb, PbBi E done Impact on the fluid dynamics of hydrodynamics parameters after irradiation should be investigated (viscosity, surface tension). –Task 2 Remote handling of the Hg loop. –Task 2 Temperature regulation scenarios and monitoring. –Task 4 Conditioning of the new target. –Task 4 If time permits, consider the option of a non-cylindrical target container. –Clarify, RIST?

RIBO calculations for release properties, Luigi Tecchio Parametric study of RIBO presented Realistic parameters and materials should be used in the study. –Task 4 A target component thickness of one mm seems to be a reasonable model for the investigation –Task 4, RIST?

Safety aspects, Thomas Otto Operation scenarios should be discussed with safety experts (not only RP). Aim should be a credible licensable (not necessary optimized) design. –Task 5 General guide lines should be derived and agreed upon within the Projects later implemented as boundary conditions by the different tasks. –Joint meeting, February

Characterization of target material, Thierry Stora Material parameters must be derived, preferably measured before and after irradiation. This critical task shall be given appropriate resources and priority. –Task 3 (Task 2?) Possible low activation high dpa reactions could be used to address Ucx status after irradiation. –Task 3

Overall comments The large amount of work achieved within a short time is a clear sign that the training of the new EURISOL-DS participants was successful. The capability of the EURISOL- DS participants is appropriate for the task. Promising ideas for a multi mega watt uranium carbide target system were presented and no show stopper was identified, however, at this early stage of the work a real effort of coordination and communication is necessary as many grey zones were identified at the interface between various tasks. The resources originally dedicated towards the massive uranium target should be reallocated following the IAP conclusions.

Next step Fix date for Joint task meeting in February (T2, T3, T4, T5, T9) Freeze parameter list for new mMW target station design Agree on work plan for next 12 months –Deliverables and milestones –Discuss necessary action from Mgt for resources