NSAC – Recent Activities

1. NSAC – Recent Activities A.K. Opper – The George Washington University with thanks to Don Geesaman for sharing his slides

2. 2012/13 Committee Robert Atcher Peter Jacobs Curtis Meyer LANL LBNL Carnegie Mellon Jeffrey Binder David Kaplan Jamie Nagle ORNL Washington Colorado Jeffery Blackmon Joshua Klein Kenneth Nash (ACS) Louisiana State Pennsylvania Washington State Gail Dodge KarlheinzLangankeAllenaOpper Old Dominion GSI George Washington Alexandra GadeZheng-tian Lu Jorge Piekarewicz Michigan State ANL Florida State Susan Gardner Robert McKeownJulia Velkovska Kentucky Jefferson Lab Vanderbilt Donald Geesaman (Chair) RajugopalVenugopalin ANL BNL New members sworn in just prior to March meeting

3. 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

4. Implementing the 2007 Long Range Plan April 5, 2012: Charge given to NSAC

5. Implementing the 2007 Long Range Plan • Subcommittee Membership • Joseph Carlson – LANL Curtis Meyer – CMU • Brad Filippone – Caltech Jamie Nagle – CU • Stuart Freedman*– UCB & LBL WitoldNazarewicz– UT & ORNL • HaiyanGao – Duke Krishna Rajagopol – MIT • Donald Geesaman – ANL (ex-officio) Michael Ramsey-Musolf – U Wisc • Barbara Jacak – SUNYSB Lee Sobotka – Wash U • Peter Jacobs – LBL Robert Tribble (chair) – TAMU • David Kaplan – UW & INT Michael Wiescher – ND • Kirby Kemper – FSU John Wilkerson – UNC • Krishna Kumar – U Mass Adam Burrows – Princeton • Naomi Makins – U Ill George Crabtree – ANL • * Deceased • Subcommittee website: • http://cyclotron.tamu.edu/nsacpsubcommittee-2012

6. 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.

7. 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

8. Implementing the 2007 Long Range Plan

9. 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

10. 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.

11. 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

12. 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

13. COV Review of DOE Sci NP July 23, 2012: Charge given to NSAC for triennial review

14. COV Membership Joseph Arango, JLAB Site Office Kelly Beierschmitt, ORNL Elizabeth Beise, Maryland Jeffery Blackmon, LSU David Dean, ORNL LatifaElouadrhiri, JLab Olga Evdokimov, Illinois-Chicago Paul Fallon, LBNL Alexandra Gade, MSU Susan Gardner, Kentucky Donald Geesaman, ANL John Harris (Chair),Yale Stuart Henderson, FNAL Kate Jones, Tennessee Joshua Klein, Pennsylvania Reiner Kruecken, TRIUMF Berndt Mueller, Duke-BNL Michael Pennington, JLAB Aundra Richards, LBNL Site Office Lee Roberts, Boston Thomas Roser, BNL Susan Seestrom, LANL

15. 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.

16. 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 under-represented 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.

17. 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.

18. 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.

19. 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.

20. 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.

21. 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.

22. Major Nuclear Physics Facilities for the Next Decade January 2013 • OMB and Congress requested DOE Office of Scilay out a plan for new construction over the next ten years. • All Office of SciAdvisory 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.

23. Facilities Subcommittee Doug Beck U. Illinois Jim Beene ORNL Brian Cole Columbia U. Carl Gagliardi TAMU Don Geesaman ANL (ex officio) Rod Gerig ANL Keith Griffioen William and Mary Kim Lister U. Mass. Lowell Zein-EddineMeziani Temple U. Bob Redwine MIT (Chair) Don Rej LANL Hamish Robertson U. Washington James Symons LBNL

24. The NP Facilities Plan Facility Science Readiness Existing User Facilities ATLAS absolutely central CEBAF absolutely central RHIC absolutely central Note each has upgrades underway

25. The NP Facilities Plan Facility Science Readiness New Facilities EIC absolutely scientific/technical central challenges FRIB absolutely ready for central construction Ton scale Neutrino-less absolutely scientific/technical Double Beta Decay central challenges

26. 2013/14 Committee Robert Atcher Zheng-tian LuRobert Rundberg (ACS) LANL ANLLANL Jeffrey Binder Berndt Mueller (DNP)Kate Scholberg ORNL Duke/BNLDuke Jeffery Blackmon Jamie NagleJurgenSchukraft Louisiana State ColoradoCERN Vincenzo CiriglianoEric OrmandMatthew Shepard LANLLLNLIndiana Alexandra Gade AllenaOpper Julia Velkovska Michigan State George Washington Vanderbilt Donald Geesaman (Chair) Jorge PiekarewiczRajugopalVenugopalin ANL Florida State BNL KarlheinzLangangePatrizia Rossi GSIJLab

27. Questions?

28. 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

29. 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.