1. 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

2. Jlab Users’ Group Meeting – May 2013 2012/13 Committee Robert AtcherPeter JacobsCurtis Meyer LANLLBNLCarnegie Mellon Jeffrey BinderDavid KaplanJamie Nagle ORNLWashingtonColorado Jeffery BlackmonJoshua KleinKenneth Nash (ACS) Louisiana StatePennsylvaniaWashington State Gail DodgeKarlheinz LangankeAllena Opper Old DominionGSIGeorge Washington Alexandra GadeZheng-tian LuJorge Piekarewicz Michigan StateANLFlorida State Susan GardnerRobert McKeownJulia Velkovska KentuckyJefferson LabVanderbilt Donald Geesaman (Chair)Rajugopal Venugopalin ANLBNL New members sworn in just prior to March meeting

3. 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

4. Jlab Users’ Group Meeting – May 2013 Implementing the 2007 Long Range Plan April 5, 2012: Charge given to NSAC

5. Jlab Users’ Group Meeting – May 2013 Implementing the 2007 Long Range Plan Subcommittee Membership Joseph Carlson – LANL Curtis Meyer – CMU Brad Filippone – Caltech Jamie Nagle – CU Stuart Freedman*– UCB & LBLWitold Nazarewicz – UT & ORNL Haiyan Gao – DukeKrishna 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 & INTMichael Wiescher – ND Kirby Kemper – FSUJohn Wilkerson – UNC Krishna Kumar – U MassAdam Burrows – Princeton Naomi Makins – U IllGeorge Crabtree – ANL * Deceased Subcommittee website: http://cyclotron.tamu.edu/nsacpsubcommittee-2012

6. Jlab Users’ Group Meeting – May 2013 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.” Implementing the 2007 Long Range Plan Not a surprise, but a very important step.

7. 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

8. Jlab Users’ Group Meeting – May 2013 Implementing the 2007 Long Range Plan

9. 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

10. 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.

11. 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

12. 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

13. Jlab Users’ Group Meeting – May 2013 COV Review of DOE Sci NP July 23, 2012: Charge given to NSAC for triennial review

14. 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

15. 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.

16. 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.

17. 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.

18. 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.

19. 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.

20. 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.

21. 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.

22. 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.

23. Jlab Users’ Group Meeting – May 2013 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-Eddine Meziani Temple U. Bob Redwine MIT (Chair) Don Rej LANL Hamish Robertson U. Washington James Symons LBNL

24. 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

25. Jlab Users’ Group Meeting – May 2013 25 Facility Science Readiness New Facilities EIC absolutely scientific/technical central challenges FRIB absolutely ready for centralconstruction Ton scale Neutrino-less absolutelyscientific/technical Double Beta Decay central challenges The NP Facilities Plan

26. Jlab Users’ Group Meeting – May 2013 Robert AtcherZheng-tian LuRobert Rundberg (ACS) LANLANLLANL Jeffrey BinderBerndt Mueller (DNP)Kate Scholberg ORNLDuke/BNLDuke Jeffery BlackmonJamie NagleJurgen Schukraft Louisiana StateColoradoCERN Vincenzo CiriglianoEric OrmandMatthew Shepard LANLLLNLIndiana Alexandra GadeAllena OpperJulia Velkovska Michigan StateGeorge WashingtonVanderbilt Donald Geesaman (Chair) Jorge PiekarewiczRajugopal Venugopalin ANLFlorida StateBNL Karlheinz LangangePatrizia Rossi GSIJLab 2013/14 Committee

27. Jlab Users’ Group Meeting – May 2013 Questions?

28. Jlab Users’ Group Meeting – May 2013 The HEPAP Facilities Plan They did not address operating facilities Mu2eabs. centralready to initiate LBNEimportantready to initiate lays the foundations for absolutely central program LSSTabs. centralready to initiate High Lum. LHC upgrade Acceleratorabs. centralchallenges to resolve ATLAS Upgradeabs. centralchallenges to resolve CMS Upgradeabs. centralchallenges to resolve ILC (hosted in Japan) Acceleratorsabs. centralready to initiate Detectorsabs. centralchallenges to resolve Project X (muon storage ring)abs. centralmission/tech not defined New Project X experimentsabs. centralmission/tech not defined nuSTORM (muon storage ring) don’t know yetmission/tech not defined 3 rd generation Dark Matterabs. centralchallenges to resolve Next generation Dark Energyabs. centralmission/tech not defined

29. 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.