Page 1
Page 2
Page 3
Page 4
Page 5
Page 6
Page 7
Page 8
Page 9
Page 10
Page 11
Page 12
Page 13
Page 14
Page 15
Page 16
Page 17
Page 18
Page 19
Page 20
Page 21
Page 22
Page 23
Page 24
Page 25
Page 26
Page 27
Page 28
Page 29
Page 30
Page 31
Page 32
Page 33
Page 34
Page 35
Page 36
Page 37
Page 38
Page 39
Page 40
Page 41
Page 42
Page 43
Page 44
Page 45
Page 46
Page 47
Page 48
Page 49
Page 50
Page 51
Page 52
Page 53
Page 54
Page 55
Page 56
Page 57
Page 58
Page 59
Page 60
Page 61
Page 62
Page 63
Page 64
Page 65
Page 66
Page 67
Page 68
Page 69
Page 70
Page 71
Page 72
Page 73
Page 74
Page 75
Page 76
Page 77
Page 78
Page 79
Page 80
Page 81
Page 82
Page 83
Page 84
Page 85
Page 86
Page 87
Page 88
Page 89
Page 90
Page 91
Page 92
Page 93
Page 94
Page 95
Page 96
Page 97
Page 98
Page 99
Page 100
Page 101
Page 102
Page 103
Page 104
Page 105
Page 106
Page 107
Page 108
Page 109
Page 110
Page 111
Page 112
Page 113
Page 114
Page 115
Page 116
Page 117
Page 118
Page 119
Page 120
Page 121
Page 122
Page 123
Page 124
Page 125
Page 126
Page 127
Page 128
Page 129
Page 130
Page 131
Page 132
Page 133
Page 134
Page 135
Page 136
Page 137
Page 138
Page 139
Page 140
Page 141
Page 142
Page 143
Page 144
Page 145
Page 146
Page 147
Page 148
Page 149
Page 150
Page 151
Page 152
2014 ANNUAL REPORT 27 of value might be added as part of our user facilities.The same can be said about the PIE facilities So we have evolved. Rather than just one single entity user facility we are now a network of facilities stretching from one coast to the other all dedi- cated to the study and advancement of nuclear science. And so because were expanding our resources our capabilities and the community we engage we started the conversation about changing our name to reflect this growing organization that had taken on a national scope. After a great deal of discussion we decided to change the name from the ATR National Scientific User Facility to the Nuclear Science User Facili- ties which expresses more accurately what we really are a broader national program that encompasses partner facilities around the country.And thats what we want to reflect.This also keeps the NSUF abbreviation that everyone is accustomed to. Q Another significant change in policy is project- forward funding.Can you tell us about that AYes.This was a very good sugges- tion from DOE because it alleviates the potential for fluctuations in funding from one year to the next. Up until now each project was funded one year at a time. So the possibility existedand it has happenedthat a project would have to be interrupted because there was not enough funding for it in the budget for that year. Now we get a cost estimate for the full scope of the project and the full cost of the project comes out of the funding for the year the project is approved.That money is then distrib- uted as needed over the life of the project. So instead of going year- to-year with the funding the entire amount of support is there to carry the project to its completion. Not surprisingly the facilities look very favorably on this since it allows them to plan their facilities usage and budgets better sometimes years in advance. Another thing weve done that affects forward-funding is weve expanded the maximum length of time well support large irradiation and PIE projects up to seven years. Here we envision this schedule to cover one year for design and fabrication three years irradiation and three years PIE. This year is our first experience with forward funding and were learning a lot. But we have a schedule we have the funding we have the people and we have the facilities. So even with its challenges were excited about the process improvements forward- funding can provide us. Q Can you tell me about some other changes that youre working on A Were learning and were insti- tuting other practices that will help us improve our processes even more. For example this year weve set up a number of metrics that will help us evaluate the effectiveness of these new processes and how the partnership program as a whole is progressing. Another thing we changed in 2014 was designating who can lead a project. Previously the policy was that only a university could submit an application to the NSUF.This year weve opened the submission process up to everyone. So now university national laboratory private industry and small business can all apply as principal investigator. And this is true not only for entities in the U.S. but foreign researchers as well.The only stipulation is that they have a U.S. entity as a co-lead.We want to make the benefits of the partnership program available to the broadest possible number of users and the broadest possible number of ideas. We want to encourage as many good ideas as we can no matter where they come from. Q It sounds like youre looking to expand the partnership program. AYes we are and on two fronts.Weve always been open to increasing the number of partners that offer unique capabilities but were also trying to increase our use of the partners to engage them more and to allow them to be more involved as significant contributors to the user community. Its all part of why were changing the name to be more inclusive.We want the user facility as an organization to support the partners and we want the partners to support the user facility as an organization. Q In your letter at the beginning of this annual reportyou mention two resources youre developing to help researchers in their work.Can you talk about those A Were creating a database of all the capabilities available to DOE NE-supported researchers through this effort.There are a whole slew of analyses well be doing with this database cost to maintain facilities cost to replace equipment facilities utilization cost of utilization equip- ment condition anticipated remaining life and lots more. Connected to that is something were calling a gap analysis which is basi- cally compiling a list of the capabilities we may want to invest in according to