Report From NSAC 2012 Committee Robert AtcherPeter JacobsJamie Nagle LANLLBNLColorado Jeffrey BinderDavid KaplanKenneth Nash (ACS) ORNLWashingtonWashington State Jeffery BlackmonJoshua KleinAllena Opper Louisiana StatePennsylvaniaGeorge Washington Gail DodgeKarlheinz LangankeJorge Piekarewicz Old DominionGSIFlorida State Alexandra GadeZheng-tian LuJulia Velkovska Michigan StateANLVanderbilt Susan GardnerRobert McKeownRajugopal Venugopalin KentuckyJefferson LabBNL Donald Geesaman (Chair)Curtis Meyer ANLCarnegie Mellon 1NSAC Report March 15, 2-13

The 2013 President’s Budget Request brings challenges 2NSAC Report March 15, 2-13

FY12 NP down 3.5% from FY11 and NSCL held flat FY13 expect about flat 3NSAC Report March 15, 2-13

FY12 President’s Request FY11 President’s Request In as spent dollars assuming 4% inflation. Actual inflation ~2-3%. In fact through 2012 the summed ONP budget in constant effort dollars from is very close to ONP budget. 4NSAC Report March 15, 2-13

Budget History President’s request matches Long Range Plan scenario Congress appropriates less money in FY11 and FY12 FY13 budget request $20.5M less than FY12 appropriation Current FY13 budget is temporary continuing resolution which runs out in end of March Sequestration, designed as a poison pill to resolve a budget impasse, leads to new reduction - nominally in the press ~5% across the board. 5NSAC Report March 15, 2-13

Office of Science FY 2013 Budget in the House Bill 6 $523.2M compared to $526.9M NSAC Report March 15, 2-13

7

8

9

10NSAC Report March 15, 2-13

11NSAC Report March 15, 2-13

12NSAC Report March 15, 2-13

13NSAC Report March 15, 2-13

14NSAC Report March 15, 2-13

15NSAC Report March 15, 2-13

16NSAC Report March 15, 2-13

17NSAC Report March 15, 2-13

18NSAC Report March 15, 2-13

19 Budget Options II Modest Growth Budget Can run CEBAF and RHIC at reduced levels and continue to build FRIB Research budgets remain tight Rather small amount of funding for new initiatives to FY17 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 Long Range Plan.

20NSAC Report March 15, 2-13

21 No Growth Budgets If a decision were made to force the U.S. nuclear science community to downsize through budgets that provide no growth over the next four years, a choice would have to be made that would fundamentally change the direction of what remained of the field. Because of the superb science lost in either shutting down RHIC or terminating construction on FRIB, the committee was not able to make a choice based on scientific merit alone. Based on additional considerations of timing of the budget crisis relative to the status of the ongoing construction initiative, the subcommittee vote, while closely split, resulted in a slight preference for the choice that proceeds with FRIB. This choice secures the significant non-ONP contributions that are critical to the cost-effective construction of FRIB, ensures a leading position for the U.S. in the central area of nuclear structure and nuclear astrophysics based on FRIB's unprecedented science capabilities. This slight preference arises in the context of facility timelines and the approximate profile for FRIB construction, presented to the subcommittee as a snapshot of the field. If this budget exercise had occurred in a near future year, this snapshot would have changed, and the choice might well have been different.

22NSAC Report March 15, 2-13

Feedback from the Report has been positive Clearly laid out the impacts of cuts Provided an answer if tough budgets do come to pass At March 8, 2013 NSAC meeting, Director of the Office of Science stated, “We are trying to keep all 3 things [CEBAF-12 GeV, FRIB, RHIC]” “I share the view that I don’t think shutting down the RHIC facility at this time is the right thing to do. “ 23NSAC Report March 15, 2-13

Office of Science Facilities Plan OMB and Congress have requested that DOE Office of Science lay out a plan for new construction over the next ten years. Each of the Office of Science Advisory Committees was 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 24NSAC Report March 15, 2-13

The Facilities Plan Facility Science Readiness Existing User Facilities ATLAS absolutely central CEBAF absolutely central RHIC absolutely central New Facilities EIC absolutely scientific/technical central challenges FRIB absolutely ready for construction central Ton scale Neutrino-less absolutely scientific/technical Double Beta Decay central challenges 25NSAC Report March 15, 2-13 Note each has upgrades underway

Conclusion (from Tim Hallman’s 8 March Presentation) Leadership in discovery science illuminating the properties of nuclear matter in all of its manifestations. Tools necessary for scientific and technical advances which will lead to new knowledge, new competencies, and groundbreaking innovation and applications. Strategic investments in tools and research to provide the U.S. with premier research capabilities in the world. The United States continues to provide resources for and to expect: The future of nuclear science in the United States may not be exactly as envisioned in the 2007 Long Range Plan, but it remains rich with science opportunities. Nuclear Science will continue to be an important part of the U.S. science investment strategy to create new knowledge and technology innovation supporting U.S. security and competitiveness 26