Transcript NSAC – Recent Activities A.K. Opper – The George Washington University with thanks to Don Geesaman for sharing his slides Jlab Users’ Group.

NSAC – Recent Activities
A.K. Opper – The George Washington University
with thanks to Don Geesaman for sharing his slides
Jlab Users’ Group Meeting – May 2013
2012/13 Committee
Robert Atcher
LANL
Peter Jacobs
LBNL
Curtis Meyer
Carnegie Mellon
Jeffrey Binder
ORNL
David Kaplan
Washington
Jamie Nagle
Colorado
Jeffery Blackmon
Louisiana State
Joshua Klein
Pennsylvania
Kenneth Nash (ACS)
Washington State
Gail Dodge
Old Dominion
Karlheinz Langanke
GSI
Allena Opper
George Washington
Alexandra Gade
Michigan State
Zheng-tian Lu
ANL
Jorge Piekarewicz
Florida State
Susan Gardner
Kentucky
Robert McKeown
Jefferson Lab
Julia Velkovska
Vanderbilt
Donald Geesaman (Chair)
ANL
Rajugopal Venugopalin
BNL
New members sworn in just prior to March meeting
Jlab Users’ Group Meeting – May 2013
Three NSAC Charges in 2012-2013
Implementing the 2007 Long Range Plan April 2012
Chaired by Robert Tribble
Transmitted to DOE & NSF February 1, 2013
Committee of Visitors of The Office of Nuclear Science
(FY 2010, 2011, 2012) July 2012
Chaired by John Harris
Transmitted to DOE March 20, 2013
Major Nuclear Physics Facilities for the Next Decade
January 2013
Chaired by Robert Redwine
Transmitted to DOE March19, 2013
Jlab Users’ Group Meeting – May 2013
Implementing the 2007 Long Range Plan
April 5, 2012: Charge given to NSAC
Jlab Users’ Group Meeting – May 2013
Implementing the 2007 Long Range Plan
Subcommittee Membership
Joseph Carlson – LANL
Brad Filippone – Caltech
Stuart Freedman*– UCB & LBL
Haiyan Gao – Duke
Donald Geesaman – ANL (ex-officio)
Barbara Jacak – SUNYSB
Peter Jacobs – LBL
David Kaplan – UW & INT
Kirby Kemper – FSU
Krishna Kumar – U Mass
Naomi Makins – U Ill
Curtis Meyer – CMU
Jamie Nagle – CU
Witold Nazarewicz – UT & ORNL
Krishna Rajagopol – MIT
Michael Ramsey-Musolf – U Wisc
Lee Sobotka – Wash U
Robert Tribble (chair) – TAMU
Michael Wiescher – ND
John Wilkerson – UNC
Adam Burrows – Princeton
George Crabtree – ANL
* Deceased
Subcommittee website:
http://cyclotron.tamu.edu/nsacpsubcommittee-2012
Jlab Users’ Group Meeting – May 2013
Implementing the 2007 Long Range Plan
Subcommittee Finding
“The subcommittee is unanimous in reaffirming the
LRP vision for the field. Each of the recommendations
is supported by an extremely compelling science case. If
any one part is excised, it will be a significant loss to the
U.S. in terms of scientific accomplishments, scientific
leadership, development of important new applications,
and education of a technically skilled workforce to
support homeland security and economic development.”
Not a surprise, but a very important step.
Jlab Users’ Group Meeting – May 2013
Implementing the 2007 Long Range Plan
Budget Options
Starting with President’s FY2013 request, 3 options
considered:
• Flat-flat funding (no growth, no COL increase)
• Cost of Living (no growth, COL increase)
• Modest Growth (poorly defined in charge letter)
For comparison:
• Used LRP line adjusted for inflation
Jlab Users’ Group Meeting – May 2013
Implementing the 2007 Long Range Plan
Jlab Users’ Group Meeting – May 2013
Implementing the 2007 Long Range Plan
No Growth Budgets (Flat-Flat and FY13+COL)
Will loose:
• A major facility that supports or will support more
than 1/4 of the nuclear science workforce
• A significant drop in Ph.D. production (minimal
beam time)
• Many discoveries that will not be made
Further fallout:
• Negative incentive for universities to replace
retirements in the field
Jlab Users’ Group Meeting – May 2013
Implementing the 2007 Long Range Plan
Modest Growth Budget (1.6% over COL):
• Can run CEBAF and RHIC at reduced levels, and
build FRIB
• Research budgets remain tight
• Rather small amount of funding for new initiatives
during FRIB construction
the subcommittee was unanimous in endorsing
the modest growth budget scenario as the
minimum level of support that is needed to
maintain a viable long-term U.S. nuclear science
program that encompasses the vision of the LRP
Not a surprise, but details are important.
Jlab Users’ Group Meeting – May 2013
Implementing the 2007 Long Range Plan
No Growth Budgets (Flat-Flat and FY13+COL)
Will loose:
• A major facility that supports or will support more
than 1/4 of the nuclear science workforce
• A significant drop in Ph.D. production (minimal
beam time)
• Many discoveries that will not be made
Further fallout:
• Negative incentive for universities to replace
retirements in the field
Jlab Users’ Group Meeting – May 2013
Implementing the 2007 Long Range Plan
Feedback on report:
• Clearly laid out the impacts of cuts
• Provides input if tough budgets occur
• At March 8, 2013 NSAC meeting, the
Director of the Office of Science stated, “We
are trying to keep all 3 things [CEBAF-12
GeV, FRIB, RHIC]”
FY14 Budget Request $570M = Modest Growth Budget
Jlab Users’ Group Meeting – May 2013
COV Review of DOE Sci NP
July 23, 2012: Charge given to NSAC for triennial review
Jlab Users’ Group Meeting – May 2013
COV Membership
Joseph Arango, JLAB Site Office
John Harris (Chair),Yale
Kelly Beierschmitt, ORNL
Stuart Henderson, FNAL
Elizabeth Beise, Maryland
Kate Jones, Tennessee
Jeffery Blackmon, LSU
Joshua Klein, Pennsylvania
David Dean, ORNL
Reiner Kruecken, TRIUMF
Latifa Elouadrhiri, JLab
Berndt Mueller, Duke-BNL
Olga Evdokimov, Illinois-Chicago
Michael Pennington, JLAB
Paul Fallon, LBNL
Aundra Richards, LBNL Site Office
Alexandra Gade, MSU
Lee Roberts, Boston
Susan Gardner, Kentucky
Thomas Roser, BNL
Donald Geesaman, ANL
Susan Seestrom, LANL
Jlab Users’ Group Meeting – May 2013
COV Observations
COV congratulated the NP for its oversight of a
distinguished nuclear science program that is world
leading in many aspects.
The responsibility of the NP is vast, requiring a high
level of effort from individuals in the Office. The goals of
the Office are met through dedication and hard work of
the staff. It is the opinion of the COV that the processes
utilized to evaluate proposals (grants and projects) and
assign awards are appropriate; however, the balance
between long-term productivity, innovation, and risk
must continually be monitored to continue to foster
forefront and world-leading research.
Jlab Users’ Group Meeting – May 2013
COV Major Recommendations
• The COV recommended in 2007 and stressed again in 2010
that it was imperative to develop and implement a database
to track relevant proposal and grant information. We
reiterate the critical need for the rapid implementation
of such a database.
• We recommend that NP track the participation of underrepresented groups and make the information
available. The COV urges that the necessary authorization
be obtained, consistent with Federal requirements, to track
diversity and demographic information.
• We recommend that, after the PAMS system is in
operation, its effectiveness to address the relevant
issues raised in this report (such as tracking
demographics of the workforce, proposal and grant
applications, workload of Project Managers, and impact
on NP operations) be evaluated. We request that NP
report to NSAC yearly on this evaluation.
Jlab Users’ Group Meeting – May 2013
COV Major Recommendations cont’d
• The COV recommends an increased focus on timely
delivery of reports, and development of a set of
written guidelines for Laboratory Review Reports
to streamline the process.
• The COV recommends the development of a set of
guidelines defining roles, responsibilities,
authorities, and accountabilities for both the
research and facilities Program Managers. Such
guidelines across the NP portfolio would help
consolidate best practices throughout.
Jlab Users’ Group Meeting – May 2013
COV Process Specific Recommendations
Soliciting and reviewing proposals:
• The NP should work with the community to enhance
the peer review process for university grants such
that, while continuing to be fair, it is even more
discriminating in the evaluation process. The NP could
consider the implementation of a quantitative
component into the grant evaluation process.
• We recommend that NP advocate for a change in the
administration of the ECA program to give greater
control to the individual programs over the size and
number of ECA awards. The NP should provide direct
feedback to the Early Career Award applicants regarding
the relative competitiveness of their proposals,
relevance to the priorities of the NP program, and
potential alternative routes for funding for the declined
proposals.
Jlab Users’ Group Meeting – May 2013
COV Process Specific Recommendations
Monitoring projects and programs:
• It is essential that the NP complete the filling of the
Research Division Director and Medium Energy Program
Manager positions.
• The COV recommends that NP define the process and
timeframes for the major reviews including the 2013
Comparative Review and communicate this to the field
as soon as possible. It is important to provide the guidance
to the PIs of the groups and to the panel as soon as possible.
• The NP should perform further analysis of the workforce
data and develop plans as needed to mitigate the impact of
potentially constrained budgets on the workforce.
• We recommend continued engagement with the User
Facilities to establish facility performance metrics that more
directly measure the scientific productivity of those facilities.
• The COV recommends that the coordination and the
information exchange of accelerator R&D activities
between SC offices be strengthened.
Jlab Users’ Group Meeting – May 2013
COV Process Specific Recommendations
Portfolio for the Future:
• We recommend a systematic assessment of
computational needs across all theoretical and
experimental subfields, especially for the smaller-scale
projects in the Medium and Low Energy programs to see
if further coordinated efforts within NP are needed.
• The COV endorses the creation of a distinct
neutrino, neutron, and fundamental symmetries
portfolio within the office.
Jlab Users’ Group Meeting – May 2013
COV Process Specific Recommendations
COV Specific Recommendations:
• The COV recommends that the NP prepare a written
response to the COV recommendations within 30
days of receiving them from NSAC as per guidance
from the Office of Science. This response should
contain a plan of action to address the recommendations
in this report. A report card that details the progress on
the COV recommendations should be sent to NSAC at the
time of charging the next COV committee. We note that
such a report card was not presented to NSAC in 2012 at
the receipt of the current charge.
Jlab Users’ Group Meeting – May 2013
Major Nuclear Physics Facilities
for the Next Decade
January 2013
• OMB and Congress requested DOE Office of
Sci lay out a plan for new construction over
the next ten years.
• All Office of Sci Advisory Committees asked to
grade existing user facilities and new
initiatives with cost >$100M
• Initial list of facilities prepared by the Office of
Nuclear Physics.
• NSAC could add or subtract facilities from the
list.
• Facilities were not to be ranked.
Jlab Users’ Group Meeting – May 2013
Facilities Subcommittee
Doug Beck
Jim Beene
Brian Cole
Carl Gagliardi
Don Geesaman
Rod Gerig
Keith Griffioen
Kim Lister
Zein-Eddine Meziani
Bob Redwine
Don Rej
Hamish Robertson
James Symons
U. Illinois
ORNL
Columbia U.
TAMU
ANL (ex officio)
ANL
William and Mary
U. Mass. Lowell
Temple U.
MIT (Chair)
LANL
U. Washington
LBNL
Jlab Users’ Group Meeting – May 2013
The NP Facilities Plan
Facility
Science
Readiness
Existing User Facilities
ATLAS
absolutely
central
CEBAF
absolutely
central
RHIC
absolutely
central
Jlab Users’ Group Meeting – May 2013
Note each has
upgrades
underway
24
The NP Facilities Plan
Facility
Science
Readiness
New Facilities
EIC
absolutely
central
scientific/technical
challenges
FRIB
absolutely
central
ready for
construction
Ton scale Neutrino-less absolutely
Double Beta Decay
central
scientific/technical
challenges
Jlab Users’ Group Meeting – May 2013
25
2013/14 Committee
Robert Atcher
LANL
Zheng-tian Lu
ANL
Robert Rundberg (ACS)
LANL
Jeffrey Binder
ORNL
Berndt Mueller (DNP)
Duke/BNL
Kate Scholberg
Duke
Jeffery Blackmon
Louisiana State
Jamie Nagle
Colorado
Jurgen Schukraft
CERN
Vincenzo Cirigliano
LANL
Eric Ormand
LLNL
Matthew Shepard
Indiana
Alexandra Gade
Michigan State
Allena Opper
George Washington
Julia Velkovska
Vanderbilt
Donald Geesaman (Chair) Jorge Piekarewicz
ANL
Florida State
Karlheinz Langange
GSI
Rajugopal Venugopalin
BNL
Patrizia Rossi
JLab
Jlab Users’ Group Meeting – May 2013
Questions?
Jlab Users’ Group Meeting – May 2013
The HEPAP Facilities Plan
They did not address operating facilities
Mu2e
abs. central
ready to initiate
LBNE
important
ready to initiate
lays the foundations for absolutely central program
LSST
abs. central
ready to initiate
High Lum. LHC upgrade
Accelerator
abs. central
challenges to resolve
ATLAS Upgrade
abs. central
challenges to resolve
CMS Upgrade
abs. central
challenges to resolve
ILC (hosted in Japan)
Accelerators
abs. central
ready to initiate
Detectors
abs. central
challenges to resolve
Project X (muon storage ring) abs. central
mission/tech not defined
New Project X experiments
abs. central
mission/tech not defined
nuSTORM (muon storage ring) don’t know yet mission/tech not defined
3rd generation Dark Matter
abs. central
challenges to
resolve
Next generation Dark Energy abs. central
mission/tech not defined
Jlab Users’ Group Meeting – May 2013
COV Items to Review
• The effectiveness, efficiency and quality of the
processes used to solicit, review, recommend, and
document proposal actions.
• The monitoring of active projects and programs.
• Effect of the award process on the breadth and
depth of the NP portfolio.
• The national and international standing of the NP
portfolio.
• Progress made towards addressing action items
from the previous COV review.
• Suggestions regarding the COV process.
Jlab Users’ Group Meeting – May 2013