Date post: | 12-Jan-2016 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | tabitha-goodwin |
View: | 213 times |
Download: | 0 times |
Jlab Users’ Group Meeting – May 2013
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 CommitteeRobert Atcher Peter Jacobs Curtis MeyerLANL LBNL Carnegie Mellon
Jeffrey Binder David Kaplan Jamie NagleORNL Washington Colorado
Jeffery Blackmon Joshua Klein Kenneth Nash (ACS)Louisiana State Pennsylvania Washington State
Gail Dodge Karlheinz Langanke Allena OpperOld Dominion GSI George Washington
Alexandra Gade Zheng-tian Lu Jorge PiekarewiczMichigan State ANL Florida State
Susan Gardner Robert McKeown Julia VelkovskaKentucky Jefferson Lab Vanderbilt
Donald Geesaman (Chair) Rajugopal VenugopalinANL 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 2012Chaired by Robert TribbleTransmitted to DOE & NSF February 1, 2013
Committee of Visitors of The Office of Nuclear Science(FY 2010, 2011, 2012) July 2012Chaired by John HarrisTransmitted to DOE March 20, 2013
Major Nuclear Physics Facilities for the Next Decade January 2013Chaired by Robert RedwineTransmitted 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 Curtis Meyer – CMUBrad Filippone – Caltech Jamie Nagle – CUStuart Freedman*– UCB & LBL Witold Nazarewicz – UT & ORNLHaiyan Gao – Duke Krishna Rajagopol – MIT Donald Geesaman – ANL (ex-officio) Michael Ramsey-Musolf – U WiscBarbara Jacak – SUNYSB Lee Sobotka – Wash UPeter Jacobs – LBL Robert Tribble (chair) – TAMU David Kaplan – UW & INT Michael Wiescher – NDKirby Kemper – FSU John Wilkerson – UNCKrishna Kumar – U Mass Adam Burrows – Princeton Naomi Makins – U Ill George Crabtree – ANL
* Deceased
Subcommittee website: http://cyclotron.tamu.edu/nsacpsubcommittee-2012
Jlab Users’ Group Meeting – May 2013
Subcommittee Finding
“The subcommittee is unanimous in reaffirming the LRP vision for the field. Each of the recommendationsis 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, scientificleadership, development of important new applications, and education of a technically skilled workforce to support homeland security and economic development.”
Implementing the 2007 Long Range Plan
Not a surprise, but a very important step.
Jlab Users’ Group Meeting – May 2013
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
Implementing the 2007 Long Range Plan
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 endorsingthe modest growth budget scenario as the minimum level of support that is needed tomaintain a viable long-term U.S. nuclear scienceprogram 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 NPJuly 23, 2012: Charge given to NSAC for triennial review
Jlab Users’ Group Meeting – May 2013
Joseph Arango, JLAB Site Office
Kelly Beierschmitt, ORNL
Elizabeth Beise, Maryland
Jeffery Blackmon, LSU
David Dean, ORNL
Latifa Elouadrhiri, 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
COV Membership
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 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.
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 U. IllinoisJim Beene ORNLBrian Cole Columbia U.Carl Gagliardi TAMUDon Geesaman ANL (ex officio)Rod Gerig ANLKeith Griffioen William and Mary Kim Lister U. Mass. LowellZein-Eddine Meziani Temple U.Bob Redwine MIT (Chair)Don Rej LANLHamish Robertson U. WashingtonJames Symons 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
24
Note each has upgrades underway
Jlab Users’ Group Meeting – May 2013 25
Facility Science Readiness
New Facilities EIC absolutely scientific/technical central challenges
FRIB absolutely ready for central construction
Ton scale Neutrino-less absolutely scientific/technicalDouble Beta Decay central challenges
The NP Facilities Plan
Jlab Users’ Group Meeting – May 2013
Robert Atcher Zheng-tian Lu Robert Rundberg (ACS)LANL ANL LANL
Jeffrey Binder Berndt Mueller (DNP) Kate ScholbergORNL Duke/BNL Duke
Jeffery Blackmon Jamie Nagle Jurgen SchukraftLouisiana State Colorado CERN
Vincenzo Cirigliano Eric Ormand Matthew ShepardLANL LLNL Indiana
Alexandra Gade Allena Opper Julia VelkovskaMichigan State George Washington Vanderbilt
Donald Geesaman (Chair) Jorge Piekarewicz Rajugopal VenugopalinANL Florida State BNL
Karlheinz Langange Patrizia RossiGSI JLab
2013/14 Committee
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 initiateLBNE important ready to initiate lays the foundations for absolutely central programLSST abs. central ready to initiateHigh Lum. LHC upgrade
Accelerator abs. central challenges to resolveATLAS Upgrade abs. central challenges to resolveCMS Upgrade abs. central challenges to resolve
ILC (hosted in Japan)Accelerators abs. central ready to initiateDetectors abs. central challenges to resolve
Project X (muon storage ring) abs. central mission/tech not definedNew Project X experiments abs. central mission/tech not definednuSTORM (muon storage ring) don’t know yet mission/tech not defined3rd generation Dark Matter abs. central challenges to resolveNext 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.