Committee of Visitors Review of the BES Scientific User Facilities Division Update for BESAC

1. Committee of Visitors Review of the BES Scientific User Facilities Division Update for BESAC March 1, 2013 James B. Murphy Director, Scientific User Facilities Division

2. History of COVs in SC/BES • The first SC-BES COV was in 2002. • This will be the fourth review for SUFD and the twelfth COV review in BES. • All previous COV reports and BES responses can be found at: http://science.energy.gov/bes/besac/bes-cov/ • COVs are now a standard part of BES practice. • COV recommendations are taken very seriously by BES and have resulted in substantive changes.

3. Committee of Visitor Charge 1. For the scientific user facilities including the accelerator and detector program, assess the efficacy and quality of the processes used to: (a) solicit, review, recommend, and document proposal actions and (b) monitor active projects, programs and facilities.  2. Within the boundaries defined by DOE missions and available funding, comment on how the award process has affected: (a) the breadth and depth of portfolio elements, and (b) the national and international standing of the portfolio elements.

4. Committee of Visitor Coverage: FY 2010-2012 • Facility Operations • - Five X-ray Light Sources • Three Neutron Scattering Facilities • Five Nanoscale Science Research Centers • Three Electron-beam Microcharacterization Centers • 14 Construction Projects and Major Items of Equipment • NSLS II - LCLS - USB -STS • - LCLS II - PULSE -LUSI -NGLS • - APS-U - SING -SING II -TEAM II • NEXT - PUP • Accelerator and Detector Research

5. FY 2013 Committee of Visitors • William Barletta, MIT/USPAS, Chair • April 24-26, 2013 at DOE Germantown • 17 COV panelists organized into 4 panels • Panelist statistics: • Academia: 5 Funded by BES: 7 • DOE Lab: 5 Not funded: 10 • Non-DOE Federal Lab: 3 • Industry: 2 • Other: 2 • Male: 13 • Female: 4 • 4 (and Chair) are on BESAC • 4 (and Chair) served on 2010 SUFD COV

6. BES SUFD Committee of VisitorsDr. William Barletta (MIT/USPAS), Chair • Construction Projects • James Krupnick (LBNL, Ret.) • Angus Bampton (PNNL) • Jeff Hoy (Trident Service LLC) • Maria Dikeakos (DOE PPPL) • Nano-Science & E-Beams • Prof. Donald Tennant (Cornell) • Prof. Beatriz RoldanCuenya (UCF) • Dr. Ernie Hall (GE) • Dr. James Liddle (NIST) • Light Sources, Accelerator & Detector R&D • Dr. Simon Bare (UOP) • Prof. Nora Berrah (WMU) • Dr. Gene Ice (ORNL) • Dr. Joel Ullom (NIST) • Dr. David Robin (LBNL) • Neutron Facilities • Prof. Sunil Sinha(UCSD) • Dr. Robert Dimeo (NIST) • Prof. Thomas Russell (UMass) • Dr. John Tranquada (BNL) Chairman in Red BESAC Member in Italics

7. COV Agenda Wednesday, April 24th, 2013

8. COV Agenda, cont’d Thursday, April 25th, 2013

9. COV Agenda, cont’d Friday, April 26th , 2013

10. Back-Up Slides

11. 2010 COV Recommendations / SUF Response Recommendation: Implementation of Previous COV Recommendations As the budget allows, continue to explore ways to establish theory programs at existing facilities where they do not exist. In the view of the COV, this is a highly cost-effective way to make the facilities even more productive. SUF Response: BES concurs with the COV recommendation and will continue to explore ways to expand theory activities at BES facilities pending funding availability. Update: The light sources and neutron sources have included theory activities in a variety of ways, ranging from embedded theory groups including joint appointments, to theory collaborations, to visiting scientists. The nanocenters have had theory groups embedded since they were formed.

12. 2010 COV Recommendations / SUF Response, cont Recommendation: COV Process Effectiveness COV timing: Avoid repeated coincidence with the cycle of nanocenter reviews. At the first breakout session of the COV subpanels, schedule a brief update by the cognizant SUFD program manager for the facility type being assessed. Consider making the documentation available in the future in electronic form. SUF Response: BES concurs with the COV recommendation and will consider altering the SUFD facility review cycle schedules prior to the 2013 COV. BES concurs and will implement this recommendation at the next COV. All SUFD documentation is already in electronic form. We will consider supplying COV documentation in an electronic format provided that all DOE information management requirements can be satisfied. Update: The nanocenter reviews will be held after the 2013 COV. Program manager updates are planned for the 2013 COV breakout sessions. Electronic files are planned for the 2013 COV.

13. 2010 COV Recommendations / SUF Response, cont Recommendation: Facility Review Process Description and Effectiveness As part of future 3 year reviews, ask the facilities how previous recommendations have been implemented. Provide the facilities with the questions directed to reviewers. Further diversify the types of organizations the reviewers are drawn from, including industry representatives. Establish a uniform definition of publications and high impact publications. Establish a uniform definition of off-site users. Ask reviewers to summarize major findings and recommendations at the beginning of their report.

14. 2010 COV Recommendations / SUF Response, cont SUF Response: • BES concurs with the COV recommendation. The previous reports will be included in future COV documentation to be provided to the members prior to the review. • BES concurs & will implement the recommendation in future reviews. • BES concurs with the recommendation and has already started to draw reviewers from diverse organizations, including industry. • BES concurs with the recommendation and has already started to interact with the facilities to establish a clear definition of high impact publications. • BES has established a clear definition of off-site users. • BES concurs and is implementing this recommendation. Update: Items 1-3, 5-6 have been implemented and relevant documentation will be included in the 2013 COV materials. Item 4 has been implemented for synchrotron and neutrons and is planned for nanocenters.

15. 2010 COV Recommendations / SUF Response, cont Recommendation: General Issues Request an annual listing of publications and currently available equipment from all facilities. Place added emphasis on maintaining state-of-the-art experimental apparatus, sample environment and software at all facilities to maximize scientific productivity. Foster a pipeline of instrumentation, accelerator, detector experts. Encourage more outreach to train present and future users in the use of the facilities Increase the SUFD Program Managers’ travel- budget so as to be commensurate with the mission of the BES SUFD. Provide additional office space for the SUFD.

16. 2010 COV Recommendations / SUF Response, cont SUF Response: • SUFD already requests such information annually. • BES concurs with the recommendation. • BES agrees and has started to address this issue through its research support at universities and laboratories. • BES concurs with the COV recommendation and will continue to engage the facilities in outreach and training efforts. • BES concurs with the recommendation and will continue to work with SC management to seek increases in travel funding for program managers. • BES concurs with the COV recommendation and is in the process of requesting more space to accommodate the space needs of the staff. Update: All items have been implemented and relevant documentation will be included in the 2013 COV materials. For item 3, SUFD is providing opportunities for junior scientists in instrumentation, accelerator and detector areas through the early career program.