The 2014 Committee of Visitors (COV) Report to
the Fusion Energy Sciences Advisory Committee
Table of Contents
I. Introduction
A. Charge
B. COV Members
C. COV Process
D. Layout of Report
II. Selected Findings and Recommendations
III. Project Management, including US ITER
A. Background
B. Scope of Program Area
C. Project Portfolio Review, Management Processes, and Documentation
IV. Program on Toroidal Experiments, International Collaborations, and Diagnostics
A. Scope of Program area
B. Progress on Action Items from Previous COV Review
C. Solicitation, Review, and Documentation
D. Monitoring Active Awards
E. Breadth, Depth, and Quality of Program Portfolio
F. National and International Standing
V. Program on Experimental Plasma Research and HEDLP
A. Scope of Program area
B. Progress on Action Items from Previous COV Review
C. Solicitation, Review, and Documentation
D. Monitoring Active Awards
E. Breadth, Depth, and Quality of Program Portfolio
F. National and International Standing
VI. Program on Theory and Computation
A. Scope of Program area
B. Progress on Action Items from Previous COV Review
	
  

1	
  

C. Solicitation, Review, and Documentation
D. Monitoring Active Awards
E. Breadth, Depth, and Quality of Program Portfolio
F. National and International Standing
VII. Program on General Plasma Science
A. Scope of Program Area
B. Program on Action items from Previous COV Review
C. Solicitation, review, and documentation
D. Monitoring Active Awards
E. Breadth, Depth, and Quality of Program Portfolio
F. National and International Standing
VIII. Program on Enabling Technology
A. Scope of program area
B. Program on Action Items from Previous COV Review
C. Solicitation, Review, and Documentation
D. Monitoring Active Awards
E. Breadth, Depth, and Quality of Program Portfolio
F. National and International Standing
AppendicesA. Charge Letter
B. Members of the COV
C. US Representation on ITER Governing and Advisory Panels

	
  

2	
  

I. Introduction
A. Charge
The 2014 Committee of Visitors (COV) was initiated by a letter from Dr. Patricia Dehmer, Acting
Director of the Office of Science to Professor Mark Koepke, Chair of the Fusion Energy Sciences
Advisory Committee (FESAC) on April 8, 2014. (This letter is included in this Report as Appendix
A.) The COV was charged with the consideration and evaluation of:•

The efficiency and quality of the process used by FES to solicit, review, recommend, monitor,and document awards and declinations for universities, national laboratories, and industry.

•

The breadth, depth and quality of the resulting program portfolio, and providing an evaluationof the program’s national and international standing.

•

FES’s management of its portfolio of line item construction and Major Items of Equipment
Projects, including the US contributions to ITER project. Assessment of FES’ projects
performance, including contractor and Federal Project Director management of projects, isperformed by periodic Office of Science Independent Project Reviews, and is not part of thisCOV.

The 2014 COV was charged with reviewing the entire FES Program for activities during the Fiscal
Years (FY) 2010-13, following the last COV which evaluated the program through 2009. The present
COV was also charged with on FES’s progress in addressing action items from the 2009 COV.
B. COV Members
The Chair of the 2014 COV was selected by Professor Mark Koepke, who also proposed a slate ofmembers of the COV to the Chair (in consultation with FES management). The list was finalized by
iteration between Professor Koepke and the Chair. The membership of the COV and the institutional
affiliation of the members are listed in Appendix B, and cover the entire range of FES programs
covered by the charge.
For the purpose of this COV, the budget categories used were the ones that were existing in FES
during the period covered by the review (FY 2010-13), not the ones that have been proposed recently.
Specifically, the categories used were:
•
•
•
•
•
•

Project Management, including ITER
Toroidal Experiments, International Collaborations, and Diagnostics
Experimental Plasma Research, and High-Energy Density Laboratory Plasma (HEDLP)
Theory and Computation
General Plasma Science
Enabling Technology

To avoid conflicts of interest, the members of the COV were divided into subcommittees not in theirarea of funding. Every subcommittee has contributed its own section to the Report, and the text for a
	
  

3	
  

section, which the subcommittee was assigned to write, was written by member(s) without conflictsof interest. Every member signed a Conflict of Interest Statement and a Confidentiality Statement.
The various members of the subcommittees are given in Appendix B.
C. COV Process
Although the COV was staffed soon after the COV charge was issued, 2014 was a very busy time for
the FES as well as the fusion community due to the demands of the Strategic Planning process thatwas well under way at the time. The FES was busy through most of Fall 2014 as well, and the visit of
the COV to Germantown did not occur until December 2-4, 2014. Since the original charge letter
required submission of the report on the COV activity by January 2015, an extension was sought andgranted until March 2015.
Prior to the visit and after, the COV conducted a number of teleconferences and communicated by email. These deliberations were carried out without direct involvement of FES members. Prior to thevisit to Germantown, the Chair met with FES members by teleconference and exchanged e-mail,requesting information on various items required for the review by the COV. This information wasprovided by FES, and helped prepare the COV members for the visit to Germantown. Preliminary
findings and recommendations were developed during the visit to Germantown, and reported to FES
in the closing session on the last day of the visit. After the visit, the FES provided additional
information requested by the Chair. The COV interacted via teleconferences and e-mail in finalizing
the Report.
D. Layout of Report
The Report is organized as follows. The subcommittee findings and recommendations on each of thesix categories listed above (in sub-section B) are discussed in Sections III-VIII. Each of the Sections
addresses the various elements of the original charge letter.
Section II lists selected 2014 COV findings and recommendations that may be regarded as highlights,
and are gleaned from the detailed findings and recommendations discussed in Sections III-VIII. In
most cases, these highlights synthesize COV findings and recommendations that appear separately in
Sections III-VIII, but have been brought together in Section II for emphasis. They also include aspectsof the 2009 COV recommendations not captured in Sections III-VIII.

II. Selected Findings and Recommendations
FINDINGS	  •The COV was very pleased with the quality of the information provided, and the openness,
accessibility, and professionalism of the FES personnel during the entire process. The
documentation and presentation provided by FES management and staff was thorough andwell organized.

•

The implementation and use of the Portfolio Analysis and Management System (PAMS) has
been a huge benefit for the efficacy and quality of FES processes----to solicit and review

4	
  proposals and applications, to recommend award or declination of funds, and to document
these actions. All programs in FES appear to be making effective use of PAMS, reducing
drastically irregularities reported by the 2009 COV.
•

Despite the regularization of the process made possible by PAMS, the COV was concernedwith the statistically insignificant differences in reviewer rankings between proposals
approved and declined in some of the programs.

•

The COV was impressed with certain efforts introduced to improve the quality of the proposal
review process. In the HEDLP program, for example, virtual panel reviews were
implemented, allowing group discussion of proposals and, in some cases, clarification oftechnical issues discussed in the proposals prior to the writing of the reviews. This process
appears to be effective and mitigates potential deficiencies in having isolated mail-in reviews.

•

In response to the 2009 COV recommendation on defining, collecting, and analyzing metricsof performance for the programs reviewed, FES is beginning to use Information Technology(IT) toolsets (e.g., Web of Science, Web of Knowledge, PAMS etc.) and engage the US DOE
Office of Science and Technical Information, located at Oak Ridge National Laboratory(ORNL), to identify, collect, and analyze performance metric and measures. Measures such as
prizes and awards are commonly included in reports to Congress and other stakeholders tohighlight the quality of the FES portfolio. To date, FES has not directly used metrics relating
to refereed publications or citations, as the office is still developing an understanding of how
such measures can be used in responsible ways.
While we commend FES for undertaking a preliminary study, much more needs to be done fora thorough evaluation of the national and international standing of the various programs,
required by the charge to this COV. Capabilities to monitor active awards, projects, andprograms in PAMS seem to be under way, and when implemented, would greatly enhance themonitoring process in the post-award phase. As an example, the NSF Fastlane system greatly
facilitates the entry and tracking of publications.

	
  

•

The COV is concerned that FES continues to be under-staffed in both managers andadministrative assistants in moving forward with leadership of some its key programs and datacollection.

•

It was troubling for the COV to learn that there was no community input or peer review soughtfor the decision to close Alcator C-Mod. The COV notes that this lack of external input to FES
is damaging to the fusion community as a whole and has eroded trust between the community
and the FES management. The COV recognizes that budget exigencies can and do arise in the
program as a whole, but the manner in which the C-Mod process was communicated andhandled was cause for concern.

•

The COV was concerned that there were no targeted solicitations for research at DIII-D or CMod, nor were any proposals with new PI’s funded at these facilities over the period reviewed.

5	
  

•

The breadth of the Experimental Plasma Research (EPR) Program is excellent. However, only
one solicitation was issued for the period covered by this COV, with one-year extensions
granted to key experimental programs for the remaining period. This practice encourages
continuation of the status quo, and inhibits innovation in the EPR Program.

•In the Enabling Technology area, since the funding of proposals from the last solicitation onmaterials, OFES has decided to make a change in direction. All of the PIs have been informedby the Program Manager that there will not be a renewal of the awards from the last
solicitation. When asked about the processes being followed for the closeout of these
proposals, no plan for review was proffered. When asked what the follow on process forfunding activities in the materials area would be, it was stated that no decision had been made.

•The project portfolio managed by the Facilities, Operations and Projects (FOP) Division for
the FES is not broad and will be limited to the US ITER project, with completion of the
NSTX-U project expected in 2015.

RECOMMENDATIONS

	
  

•

Consider vetting programmatic decisions on the potential shutdown of a major US facility by
the peer-review process and community participation in order to maintain the integrity of the
US Fusion Program and faith in OFES.

•

Make sure future plans are well formulated and communicated before canceling a program(e.g., in the Enabling Technology area, and in the closure of Alcator C-Mod). (This echoes asimilar recommendation from the 2009 COV, made with respect to the ICC program,regarding transparency in redirection of funds.)•

Restore the Budget Planning Meeting (or variant thereof) that provides the community with aforum to discuss future plans openly, and can inform FES decision-making.

•Continue defining, collecting, and analyzing meaningful metrics, and develop capabilities in
PAMS to enable this objective. (This repeats a 2009 COV recommendation.)•

Consider extending the virtual panel review mechanism employed in HEDLP to otherprograms in FES. Such a mechanism could be useful in mediating cases in the absence of asite visit for panelists.

•

Offer regular, targeted Funding Opportunity Announcements (FOAs) for research on DIII-D
and future major tokamak facilities as well as the EPR program.

•

FOP Division should utilize the impending FES strategic plan in conjunction with a series ofuser and scientific community workshops to develop its project portfolio to further definescience and project needs that could be considered for CD-0 (see Section III).

6	  III. Project Management, Including US ITER
A. Background
The Facilities, Operations and Projects (FOP) Division manages the project portfolio for Fusion
Energy Sciences (FES). Large projects are initiated with the DOE Order 413.3B (O 413.3B) Critical
Decision (CD) process that allows FES to identify a “Mission Need” (CD-0). Support for the missionneed is obtained primarily from fusion community advice on the directions and priorities of the field
through the FESAC Long Range Plan process. Currently, the FES portfolio of large-scale projects(greater than $50M) consists of two projects: the National Spherical Torus Experiment Upgrade(NSTX-U) project at the Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory (PPPL) and United States (US)Contributions to the ITER project. The overall ITER Project is being executed by the ITER
Organization (IO), an international collaboration of seven members, and is currently underconstruction in Cadarache, France. For US ITER, the US ITER Project Office (USIPO), located at
ORNL, manages the project.
Major Item of Equipment (MIE) projects (greater than $2M) and smaller projects (less than $2M) areoften initiatives coming from the community that undergo science and technical reviews to establish
the need and requirement for a particular project. FES often conducts scientific and technical reviews
to establish the need and requirement for a particular project. This approach is well conceived and an
effective approach that nurtures new projects of all scales that are required to conduct the forefront
research of the field. New projects and their development are key to scientific advances in the field.
The funding of MIE and smaller projects has been diminished by an increasing construction budget
for the largest projects.
In the portfolio of small-scale projects, there were two MIE projects that were also delivered during
the period of this review, using O 413.3B tailored as appropriate. One is the Neutralized Drift
Compression eXperiment (NDCX-II) project, with a Total Project Cost (TPC) of $11M, at Lawrence
Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) and the other is the Materials in Extreme Conditions (MEC)
project, with a TPC of $19.97M, at SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory (SLAC), both of whichwere completed in 2012 using American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) funds.
The Office of Science (SC) requested and in 2011 the Deputy Secretary approved an exemption fromthe requirements of O 413.3B. The exemption was based on SC having satisfactorily met all criteria
necessary for exemption set forth in the Order, including an excellent past performance record in thearea of project management. The exemption delegates most Acquisition Executive (AE) approvalauthorities for project CDs down to the SC Director with the ability to further delegate and tailor
application of Order requirements. The SC Director then further delegated to Associate Directors
including FES some project approval authorities and tailoring of the Order. Also, in December 2012,
the Deputy Secretary removed the US ITER project’s designation as a capital asset project under O
413.3B, given that all hardware would eventually be delivered to Cadarache, and delegated AE
approval authority down to the SC Director. US ITER remains a Congressional Line Item project.
Prior to the formal delegation, the SC Director acting as the AE in November 2012 approved theEnergy Systems Acquisition Advisory Board (ESAAB) decision to authorize execution of FY
2013/FY 2014 activities for the US ITER project, in lieu of having an approved CD-2 and CD-3 forthe project. Subsequently, the Acting SC Director as AE in August 2014 approved a revision to the

	
  

7	
  

Preliminary Project Execution Plan (PPEP) for US ITER, which called for the AE to approve anannual Performance Plan (PP) to allow execution of project activities after 2014. This approval
process for FY2015 was still being worked at the time of the COV review.
B. Scope of Program Area
The Project Management subpanel identified the key relevant processes in this area as: (a) the DOE
Project Management Order (O 413.3B); (b) the SC Office of Project Assessment (OPA) led peer
reviews of projects; and (c) the SC Management System (SCMS).
The subpanel reviewed and assessed the application of the methods prescribed above as adequate andsuccessful in delivering projects on schedule, within budget and meeting the baseline technicalperformance parameters.
A total of 4 projects were reviewed, one Line Item project and three MIE projects, as summarized inTable 1.

Table 1
C. Project Portfolio Review, Management Processes and Documentation
Project Management review process description
The subpanel discussed the elements of the charge with the FOP division staff and reviewed records
and detailed reports on the projects identified within the scope of the COV. The COV subpanel’s
recommendations are noted below.

	
  

8	
  

Metrics and User definitions
Metrics utilized to evaluate the construction projects and MIE component for the COV include
standard cost and schedule indexes (Table 1) for the projects that are in progress, and final costs andschedules versus approved baselines for completed projects. For the period of the COV, Table 1
shows that FES met the goals of within 10% for cost/schedule performance.
FINDINGS•The FES Strategic Planning effort is ongoing and the Plan is expected to be issued in 2015.
The COV strongly encourages this effort and its socialization within the FES scientificcommunity when complete.

•

For FY15, the FES Program was given a budget of $464.5M, with 47% devoted to science and53% supporting facility operations and projects under the FOP Division (US ITER @ $150M).
To date, all projects have met or are meeting baseline delivery objectives.

•

The efficacy of the processes to monitor and review active projects, programs and facilities isadequate – 4 projects were reviewed:
o
o
o
o

	
  

MEC – Completed on time, on budget
NDCX-II – Completed on time, on budget
NSTX-U on track to be completed on time, on budget
US ITER - Active, currently at CD-1•

US ITER is the dominant project within FES. US ITER contribution to the ITER IO is fixed
at 9.09% of total ITER cost. The US ITER is at CD-1 with a TPC currently estimated at$4.055B, which is a mix of hardware and cash contributions to ITER IO. US ITER uses a
tailored approach to O 413.3B to manage the US ITER project.

•

ITER IO has experienced a number of significant management challenges over several years.
Recently, a new ITER IO Director General has been nominated to lead the project and if
appointed, will be implementing several recommendations from the ITER Council andManagement Assessment Report which are intended to improve the cost and schedule
performance of the project.

•

FES (and FOP and US ITER) is to be commended for its active involvement in supporting the
IO and the development of recommendations for improvements. The committee concluded
that there is active US representation in the various ITER advisory panels and governing
boards including the ITER Council (currently U.S. Chair) as well as active representation in
the Management Advisory Committee (MAC), Science and Technology Advisory Committee(STAC), as well as the recent ITER Management Assessment, which was U.S. led. (SeeAppendix C for detailed representations).

•

The COV noted that many ITER IO programmatic issues (e.g., cash contributions, programrisks, off-project dependencies including international issues such as the ITER international
school, taxation, IO HR policies, French regulatory environment, etc.) are currently being9	
  directly managed by the US ITER project team, which are a distraction from US ITER project
execution efforts.
•

FES, including FOP Division, focuses on a set of key factors to manage project success,including a strong reliance on qualified and experienced managers in both government and its
Management and Operations (M&O) contractor, an integrated project team, risk management,
active program involvement with committed management from executing laboratories,
adequate budget and schedule contingencies and a stable funding profile when projects arebase-lined.

•

FOP has implemented over the past 4 years the Office of Science Management System(SCMS), a web-based management tool that provides a comprehensive description of the
Office of Science Project Management responsibilities, associated authorities andmanagement approaches designed to deliver the SC projects.
o FOP implements the principles and practices of O 413.3B tailored to monitor andcontrol projects through a CD milestones approach.
o FES could benefit from a similar description of responsibilities and management
approaches for program management.
o US ITER Project is reviewed semi-annually through the Office of Project Assessment
and the review teams are carefully selected for subject matter expertise and lack ofconflict of interest. The performance of the US ITER Project was not within thepurview of this COV.

•

The project portfolio is not broad and will be limited to the US ITER project, with completionof the NSTX-U project expected in 2015.

•

While successful in executing projects now, the trend in reduced projects could result in theeventual dilution of project management expertise and possibly jeopardize continued success.

RECOMMENDATIONS

	
  

•

Consider separating the ITER program from the US Contributions to the ITER Project andmanaging the program issues from Headquarters.

•

Consider developing a defined set of roles, responsibilities, and processes that include metrics
for decision making codified in a FES Program Management Plan.

•

FOP Division should utilize the impending FES strategic plan in conjunction with a series ofuser and scientific community workshops to develop its project portfolio to further definescience and project needs that could be considered for CD-0.

10	
  IV. Program on Toroidal Experiments, International Collaborations, andDiagnostics
A. Scope of Program Area
The US Program maintains three large tokamak devices: DIII-D managed by General Atomics (GA)in San Diego, California; the National Spherical Tokamak Experiment-Upgrade (NSTX-U), managed
by the Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory (PPPL) in Princeton, New Jersey; and Alcator C-Mod,
managed by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Theseexperiments are focused on multiple objectives: developing the predictive science needed for ITER,
the exploration of the innovative spherical torus (ST) concept and the capability to test novel plasmafacing components, the operation of plasmas above the ITER design magnetic fields and densities,
and exploring steady-state operations. All three facilities mentioned above are operated as user
facilities and involve users from Universities and national laboratories who collaborate with scientists
at the three facilities.
The International Collaborations program supports work on leading experimental facilities fromother partner nations in ITER. It was introduced by a Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA) in
FY2012 targeting collaborative research on international experimental facilities that are not available
in the US. Experimental facilities outside of the US constitute a healthy base of internationally fundeddevices, and offer opportunities to study effects such as long-pulse plasma operation and plasma-wallinteraction effects.
The Advanced Diagnostics program seeks to support experimental research for the development ofinnovative and advanced measurement capabilities for magnetic fusion plasmas, leading to improved
understanding of plasma behavior in fusion experiments relevant to magnetic fusion energy sciences
through validation and verification with theory and simulation, and in developing tools for plasma
control.
B. Progress on action items from previous COV review•

FES program managers made considered efforts to address the recommendations of theprevious COV.

•At the time of this COV review, FES was in the process of transitioning to PAMS. FES should
be commended for making use of a modern IT system as it addresses numerous past COV
recommendations. Access to PAMS for the present COV was limited to requesting printouts
of individual “folders” from the program managers. Future COV’s will have online access tothe system and should then critically evaluate the implementation and efficacy of PAMS.

C. Solicitation, Review, and Documentation
US Program
The funding for the operations of the three large facilities in the US Program is typically through 5year cooperative agreements between DOE and the facility host institutions. The funding for facility

	
  

11	
  

operations provides experimental tools such as plasma heating, fueling, and exhaust systems andsupports operation costs. Research funding supports collaborative teams to conduct research on thesefacilities. While the NSTX program has regular FOAs, there have been no targeted solicitations forresearch at DIII-D or C-Mod over the period reviewed.
The NSTX solicitations are carried out in a three-year cycle with approximately ⅓ of thecollaborations reviewed each year. The process followed excellent review practices. The proposals
were reviewed by 3-4 subject matter experts. When comparing the rankings from the reviewers, there
was often little numerical difference (likely statistically insignificant) between the proposals that werein the range to be funded. This left significant burden on the Program Manager to delineate and thesedecisions followed programmatic considerations that were well documented. The programmatic rating
decided by NSTX management was included in the folders for each review. Peer reviewed
publications, invited talks, contributions to ITPA, and significant awards were also used as metrics toevaluate the quality of the research and leadership roles within NSTX and were noted as importantfactors in evaluating renewal proposals.
FINDINGS•

It was troubling for the COV to learn that there was no community input or peer review soughtfor the decision to close C-Mod. The COV notes that the lack such input to FES is damaging
to the fusion community as a whole and has eroded trust between the community and FES
management.

•

There were no targeted solicitations for research at DIII-D or C-Mod over the period reviewed
and it appears that this limits consideration of new proposals. Over the period reviewed by this
COV, there were no proposals with new PI’s funded at DIII-D or C-Mod.

•The NSTX three-year proposal cycle is effective in minimizing disruption to the NSTX
program as only 1-2 collaborations are likely phased out at any time.

•

We are concerned about the low number of new proposals overall that are funded for researchon NSTX in this COV period. For example, DE-FOA-0000576, “National Spherical Torus
Experiment: Diagnostic Measurements of Spherical torus Plasmas,” resulted in 15 grantapplications with a nearly even split between new and renewal proposals, but only two of thenine funded proposals were new.

•

Reviewer rankings were often statistically insignificant between proposals.

RECOMMENDATIONS

	
  

•

Programmatic decisions on the potential shutdown of a major US facility need to be vetted by
the peer-review process and community participation in order to maintain the integrity of the
US Fusion Program and faith in OFES.

•

Offer regular, targeted FOAs for research on DIII-D and future major tokamak facilities.

12	
  

•

Consider more balance between new and renewed proposals when evaluating closely ranked
proposals.

•

Consider using a virtual panel of reviewers to foster discussion on selected proposals that willfurther help the Program Managers in selecting the final proposals, particularly when thereviewer rankings do not statistically guide the process.

International Collaborations
FINDINGS•

During the period reviewed by this COV, a single FOA was offered; 13 proposals were
submitted and 3 projects were selected for funding. There are now semi-annual reviews, andcurrent projects are due to end in 2016, with a new solicitation expected approximately in
December 2015. This is a strong program with depth, but the breadth of projects is limited.

•

The research supports projects that complement work on US experiments.

RECOMMENDATIONS•

The move towards a specific FOA and a peer-reviewed process for international projects is an
important step forward and should continue. Because of the large number of extremely highly
rated projects, a more discerning peer review process should be considered.

•

When possible, the targeted experimental facilities should have a chance to give input on the
proposed research projects in a way similar to the process used to distinguish between projects
proposed for research on US facilities. This should go beyond simply writing a letter of
support, but instead should involve asking a panel of international facility experts to give aranking to the specific proposals.

Advanced Diagnostics
FINDINGS	  •The major activity for the advanced diagnostics systems for magnetic fusion energy sciences
consisted of a single FOA during 2012. The FOA was developed with input from an ad hoc
FES Workshop Group in diagnostics and the solicitation was published on June 22, 2012 as
DE-FOA-0000744. The close date for receipt of completed proposals occurred on a very shorttime frame, with the proposal deadline being August 14, 2012. Despite this, 39 total proposals
were received. Thirty-two proposals were sent for review after filtering for redundant or
proposals that were not responsive to the solicitation.

•

Of the 32 proposals reviewed under DE-FOA-0000744, 14 were described by the program
manager as “truly outstanding.” Of these 14, only 9 were funded, primarily due to budgetary
constraints. Of these nine, eight were renewal awards and one was new. This ratio was ofsome concern to the sub-committee since we could not properly evaluate its impact on what13	
  

would constitute an “advanced” diagnostic from the time of the original proposal, through therenewal, to its eventual implementation as a proven diagnostic.
RECOMMENDATIONS•

Explore alternate ways to ensure that truly outstanding and innovative proposals do not haveto wait four years to re-compete.

D. Monitoring Active Awards
FINDINGS•FES used effective processes to manage the US Program. Progress was monitored throughannual progress reports, presentations at major meetings, and presentations to Program
Advisory Committees. Additionally, detailed and laudable presentations on the Program
Governance for each device were given to the COV.

•

The monitoring process for Advanced Diagnostics awards was not well articulated to the subcommittee.

RECOMMENDATIONS•

See the recommendation on metrics in Section II.

E. Breadth and Depth of Program Portfolio
FINDINGS	  •We are concerned that the lack of targeted FOAs for research at DIII-D is preventing growthand innovation for new science. It is not clear that there are sufficient pathways for unfunded
investigators to join the collaborations and the facility is limited to a very tight knit
community, rather than the breadth in community participation one expects of a User Facility.

•

Both the depth and breadth of the NSTX program are excellent, and are anticipated to grow as
the NSTX upgrade is completed.

•

During the period reviewed by this COV, a single FOA for International Collaborations wasoffered; 13 proposals were submitted and 3 projects were selected for funding. This is a strong
program with depth, but the breadth of projects is limited.

•

For the only Advanced Diagnostics solicitation under this COV’s review, just 9 out of 14
proposals described by the program manager as “truly outstanding” could be funded due tobudgetary constraints. This suggests that the breadth of the program can be expanded.

14	
  RECOMMENDATIONS•

The breadth of International Collaborations and Advanced Diagnostics programs should be
expanded to include more funded proposals.

F. National and International Standinga. US ProgramThis program covered a significant amount of research and generated very good results during theperiod of review. DIII-D and C-Mod covered a broad range of physics issues related to developing theconventional tokamak as a fusion energy source, and NSTX extended the program capabilities to low
aspect ratio and high normalized pressure. The research programs on the three devices covered a
range of areas, and supported a large number of excellent, highly cited, papers, including some major
award winners. There are capabilities within the US program unparalleled elsewhere in the world,which made the US an attractive place to do research.
FINDINGS•This program showed excellent breadth and depth, and was recognized both nationally andinternationally as providing world leadership.

•

The program’s impact in the future will be constrained by the elimination of one of its threemajor facilities (C-Mod), one that is truly unique in the world program. This will inevitably
diminish the breadth of the program by removing key capabilities from the portfolio. It will
also do damage to the US’s ability to design and operate future toroidal devices given the
reduced capability to train students and young scientists on domestic facilities.

RECOMMENDATIONS•FES should organize community workshops to hear input on how the program should move
forward, and serious consideration should be made for major facilities that will enable thisProgram to maintain its breadth and depth.

International Collaborations
FINDINGS•	  For the Asian collaborations, research is primarily in the startup phase, and modestly funded.
Given that, these programs seem to be achieving a reasonable amount. It is too early to judge
the international standing of this research. European collaborations are not particularly well
supported by FES.

15	  

RECOMMENDATIONS•

Promote stronger collaboration ties with the European tokamaks, particularly JET, byrebalancing collaborative efforts between Asia and Europe.

Advanced Diagnostics
FINDINGS•The U.S. has long held a leadership role in the development of advanced plasma diagnostics.
However, this position is being eroded in the face of increased international investments(particularly by the European Union) in diagnostics development with concomitant support ofrobust workforces. The budget for the U.S. program has decreased from roughly $3.9M to$3.5M from FY 2010 to FY2013. The COV is concerned about the long-term standing of the
U.S. program given the domestic budget trends.

RECOMMENDATIONS•OFES should assess the long-term health and international standing of this program.

V. Program on Experimental Plasma Research and High Energy Density
Laboratory Plasma
A. Scope of Program Area
The Experimental Plasma Research (EPR) Program (formerly known as the ICC Program)emphasizes plasma physics and plasma-material interaction studies across a wider range of regimes
than those provided by the major tokamak facilities. The EPR Program includes a diverse set of small
and medium scale facilities, including stellarators, spherical tori, compact tori and advanced
tokamaks. The reorganization of FES has resulted in the division of the EPR Program into threedifferent areas in the new organization structure and it no longer exists beyond the scope of this COV.
The High Energy Density Laboratory Plasma (HEDLP) Program comprises the study of ionizedmatter at extremely high density and temperature, including both matter at order megabar pressures,and warm dense plasmas at somewhat reduced pressures. During the period under consideration thebalance of the program has shifted largely toward discovery driven science.
B. Progress on Action Items from Previous COV Review
Program managers were in general responsive to all of the past COV recommendations. While there
has been some effort at determining effective metrics to evaluate program quality, it is a nascent toolin program evaluation.

	
  

16	
  

RECOMMENDATION•

See the recommendation on metrics in Section II.

C. Solicitation, Review, and Documentation
EPR
In the EPR Program a solicitation was issued in 2010 and the awards from that solicitation were madeduring the time span covered by this COV. Both an open (non-DOE laboratory) Funding Opportunity
Announcement and a companion laboratory announcement were issued. All details of the evaluation
process were supplied to the COV. The COV found no irregularities in the evaluation or selection of
proposals. Subsequent to the expiration of the issued awards resulting for this solicitation, the selected
projects received continued funding through two one-year extensions.
HEDLPThe HEDLP program has established a goal of issuing solicitations on a yearly basis, with the intent
of awarding grants for three-year periods. Active researchers were given opportunities to submit
short-term renewal proposals until the advent of a new solicitation in 2011. Another solicitation
followed in 2012. None was issued in 2013 due to budgetary constraints.
The review process for HEDLP proposals differs from that of most programs at FES in its use ofpanel reviews moderated by program managers. Experts engage in discussion of a series of proposals
enabling the reviewers of each proposal (who maintain anonymity) the opportunity to resolve theirquestions or misapprehensions. In some cases clarifying questions may be asked of the proposers
themselves before the actual reviews are written. This mechanism is especially valuable as SC policy
no longer allows for proposer rebuttals in the review process.
FINDINGS•Awards in both programs are made considering both numerical rankings and reviewer
commentary, as well as programmatic priorities. Thorough justification for award
recommendations has been maintained within the office.

EPR

	
  

•

One solicitation for proposals was issued in EPR during the period under review.

•

The review of submitted proposals consisted of a standard mail-in peer review process
utilizing both numerical ratings and textual comments.

•

Anonymous and redacted copies of the reviews were provided to all PIs after the outcome ofthe solicitation was finalized.

•

For projects not being renewed, closeout funding was provided.

17	
  

•

Subsequent to the expiration of the issued awards resulting for this solicitation, two one-year
extensions were used to continue funding of the selected projects. The reason given was thatthe program elements were to be redistributed under an updated FES organizational structure,and thus it made sense to defer a new solicitation until the reorganization was approved. The
COV understood the rationale for such a procedure, yet is concerned about the long duration
between solicitations.

HEDLP
•

HEDLP made good progress toward its goal of issuing solicitations on a yearly basis, with theintent of awarding grants for three-year periods.

•

Because all current activities are fully funded, existing activities in HEDLP are protected fromyearly contractions in the program budget.

•

The panel review process appears very effective and mitigates potential deficiencies in having
isolated mail-in reviews.

RECOMMENDATIONS•Regular solicitations should continue in order to allow new projects and ideas to compete forfunding in these programs. Within the new FES structure, the projects formerly in EPR would
benefit from new competitive FOAs, which would both strengthen existing projects and bringin new ideas. (This recommendation is duplicated under Section V.D, E.)•

The virtual panel review mechanism employed in HEDLP should be considered for use inevaluating proposals under other FES programs.

D. Monitoring Active Awards
Activities in the EPR and HEDLP programs are monitored appropriately. Records of grant monitoring
are readily accessible and information was shared freely with the COV.
FINDINGS	  •As is standard practice, monitoring in both programs is performed through submission of
yearly progress reports, or the annual Field Work Proposal (in the case of national lab
projects).

•

Subsequent yearly funding is contingent on submission of acceptable progress reports.

•

Submitted scientific highlights, publications and direct interactions with the projects PIs at
meetings and conferences are also used to monitor the projects.

18	
  

•

Communication between HEDLP program management and PIs appears especially strong, andconsists of a mix of email, phone calls, and direct contact at scientific meetings.

RECOMMENDATIONS
NoneE. Breadth, Depth, and Quality of Program Portfolio
FINDINGSEPR•

The breadth of the EPR program has been excellent, resulting in EPR research projects being
reassigned in the new FES structure into Foundations (LTX, Pegasus, HBT-EP), Long Pulse(HSX, CTH, theory support), as well as Discovery Science (SSX, HIT-SI, Caltech, and othernon-stellarator/non-tokamak confinement research). The EPR community is unique in its
representation in three of the new FES categories.

•

We are concerned that, due to the rather long period of time that has elapsed since the last
solicitation in this area, the program has suffered by not incorporating new ideas and currently
relevant topics.

•

Since the Program no longer exists in the form that was reviewed during this COV, thought
should be given on how effectively it is continuing its mission within the new management
framework.

HEDLP

	
  

•

Significant changes have occurred in the HEDLP program composition since the previous
COV, partly in response to serious budget pressures. Using both the output of the 2009
ReNeW process, and the makeup of proposals that were submitted to the recent solicitations in
HEDLP, the program has been significantly rebalanced in proportion to the needs of theresearch community.

•

Currently around 50 active projects are supported at universities and labs. There is goodutilization of several world-class facilities, including MEC, NIF, Z and Omega.

•

A deliberate refocusing of the program onto the MEC instrument occurred during the period
under consideration, with cuts announced in other parts of the program. This appears to havebeen done in a thoughtful way, and the reasons for the programmatic decisions werecommunicated to the research community in an open and candid manner. The premierfacilities besides MEC remain productive, and represent a good opportunity for program
expansion, in the event additional HEDLP funding becomes available.

19	
  

•

A number of mid-scale user facilities have declined in scientific productivity in the past
several years, due to reduced investment in facilities. Re-investment in these facilities would
have a positive impact on the quality of scientific research performed, and provide criticalneeds for research and workforce training.

RECOMMENDATIONS•

Within the new FES structure, the projects formerly in EPR would benefit from newcompetitive FOAs, which would both strengthen existing projects and bring in new ideas.
(This recommendation is duplicated under Section V.B, E.)•

Organize a HEDLP community workshop on how best to couple theory and simulation
support for shot time on MEC.

•

Solicit community input on how best to utilize the portfolio of HEDLP user facilities, should
additional funds become available. Special attention should be given to the status of mid-scale
facilities and needed investment.

F. National and International Standing
FINDINGS
EPR

	
  

•

The EPR Program has a long history of innovative and timely research activities. The program
has trained excellent scientists working at major domestic and international fusion researchfacilities, and has an excellent record of peer-reviewed publications and APS-DPP Invited
Talks.

•New experimental techniques developed at EPR facilities have been adopted on larger
experiments. For example, HBT-EP control techniques are being implemented on DIII-D;
LTX lithium-wall research is implemented on NSTX/NSTX-U; HIT and Pegasus noninductive helicity injection current drive (HICD) techniques have been implemented andstudied on NSTX/NSTX-U (as well as HIT’s HICD method being implemented on theJapanese QUEST tokamak). The CTH, HSX, and stellarator theory projects are wellrecognized both nationally and internationally. The EPR compact torus (CT) community is
actively involved in US/Japan CT workshops (with 114 attendees at the most recent August
2014 EPR/CT Joint Workshop).

•

Unfortunately, given the long period without new competitive FOAs, there have not been any
recent new initiatives in EPR. The COV is concerned that delays in new solicitations havenegative effects on the program’s standing. This practice encourages continuation of the statusquo, and inhibits innovation in the EPR Program.

20	  HEDLP•As mentioned in Section V.D, the HEDLP Program decided to focus available funding on
MEC activities. This research is recognized throughout the national and international
communities as being world-class. However, other areas of HEDLP research have suffered asa result of the reduction of resources.

RECOMMENDATIONS•When programs are terminated, necessity may require funding redirection on a short-termbasis, such as one-time supplements to existing programs. Long term, such funding should berecompeted using the traditional practices of solicitations, reviews and awards.

•

Within the new FES structure, the projects formerly in EPR would benefit from newcompetitive FOAs, which would both strengthen existing projects and bring in new ideas.
(This recommendation is duplicated under V.B, D.)•Consider targeted solicitations in HEDLP, as funding becomes available, to revitalize parts ofthe HEDLP Program that have suffered during recent budget cutbacks.

VI. Program on Theory and Computation
A. Scope of program area
The Theory and Computation Program manages 57 grants (~$25M/year) and 8 SciDAC programs(~$8M/year; 5 solely funded by FES and 3 jointly-funded with ASCR).
Information accessed included:• Summary information (as spreadsheets) for both Theory and SciDAC, for all solicitations
during FY10-FY13• A sampling of 10 proposals (w/at least one from each solicitation) with 6 approved & 4
declined; including proposals near the approve/decline line
• Pie charts of portfolio distributions (upon request)• A more complete spreadsheet for FY13, including individual reviewer scores (upon request)• Three additional declined proposals (upon request)
Theory programs are on a three-year funding cycle (~$25M/year):• 57 currently funded grants• Theory proposals consistently had three reviewers each
SciDAC programs are on a 5-year funding cycle (~$8M/year):• 5 solely funded by FES• 3 funded via partnership with ASCR (1 funded during this FY)

	
  

21	
  

•
•

Five year funding cycles are one year out of phase between FES-only and ASCR partnerships.
SciDAC proposals consistently had 6-8 reviewers each.

B. Progress on action items from previous COV review
Program managers were in general responsive to all of the past COV recommendations. The
development of metrics is ongoing and is repeated as a recommendation below.
C. Solicitation, Review, and Documentation
FINDINGS
•

•

•

•
•

Theory solicitations have been made each year during the period 2010 to 2013.
o 117 proposals were reviewed (63 new/54 renewals)
o 57 awarded (9 new/48 renewals)
o 60 declined (54 new/6 renewals)
SciDAC solicitations were made in 2010 and 2011 (partnership w/ASCR)o 23 proposals were reviewed (18 new/5 renewals)
o 7 awarded (3 new/4 renewals – 2 (new) partnership with ASCR, 5 solely funded by
FES)
o 16 declined (15 new/1 renewals)
Review criteria appear to be consistently and appropriately applied to balance between
programmatic priorities and long-term continuity of research projects. A sound review process
is maintained by recognizing “outlier” reviews, both low and high. Notes on both successfulproposals and the highest-ranked unsuccessful proposals are retained.
The Theory program tends to have higher renewal vs. new approvals than other FES
programs.
However, the renewal programs are of very high quality, which is reflected in the reviewer
ratings.

RECOMMENDATION•

If in-person panel reviews are impractical, strongly encourage the use of virtual panels,
including input from applicants during review process

D. Monitoring Active Awards
FINDINGSThe Theory and Computation program appropriately follows the general FES-wide guidelines:
•
•
•
•

	
  

Progress reports required each year before continued funding.
Standardized reporting as being developed under PAMS.
Reverse site visits are conducted when appropriate due to DoE travel restrictions.
SciDAC programs have mid-cycle panel reviews.

22	
  RECOMMENDATIONS•••

Encourage more site visits as travel budgets allow, or reverse site visits when appropriate.
If in-person review panels are impractical (due to cost or scheduling), strongly recommend the
expanded use of virtual review panels, including applicant feedback during the review
process, to further improve review quality and more fairly discriminate between
approve/decline decisions.
Encourage continued metrics development, including a well-defined plan for their usage.

E. Breadth, Depth, and Quality of Program Portfolio
FINDINGS••

Breadth and depth of Theory and Computation Program are excellent.
Research component funding levels are consistent with the recommendations of the 2005
FESAC report (entitled “Report on Scientific Challenges and Priorities”).

RECOMMENDATIONS
•

None.

F. National and International Standing
FINDINGS
US computational work in fusion science continues to be recognized as world class:• There is continued strong international requests for use of US codes.
• This excellence is recognized by US researchers winning international prizes, such as the
Alfven Prize and the Nuclear Fusion journal prize (twice).
• US theorists give the majority of plenary presentations at international fusion conferences.
• International organizations model their programs after SciDAC.
RECOMMENDATIONS•

Encourage the use of open-source codes and open proxy applications in FES-sponsoredcomputational activity.

•

Continue development of quantifiable metrics; develop a plan on how to use them.

VII. Program on General Plasma Science
A. Scope of Program Area
One of the key missions of the U.S. Fusion Energy Sciences program is to increase fundamental
understanding of basic plasma science beyond burning plasmas. Stewardship of General Plasma
	
  

23	
  

Science (GPS) is accomplished through a program consisting of four program elements. Theseelements include; 1) the National Science Foundation (NSF)/Department of Energy (DOE)
Partnership in Basic Plasma Science & Engineering, 2) the DOE National Laboratory General Plasma
Science Program, 3) Plasma Science Centers, and 4) the Madison Symmetric Torus intermediatescale device. The NSF/DOE partnership is focused on individual investigator research of fundamental
plasma science and engineering issues awarded through an annual joint NSF/DOE solicitation for
universities. This program also supports the Basic Plasma Science Facility at UCLA, the Center for
Magnetic Self-Organization, anti-hydrogen trapping for the international ALPHA collaboration at
CERN, and the Max-Planck/Princeton Center for Plasma Physics. The DOE National Laboratory
Program on General Plasma Science supports individual and collaborative research that addresses
specific applied plasma, laboratory, space, and astrophysical plasma issues. For example, work onmagnetic reconnection, solar flares, flows in magnetic nozzles, plasma sheath and surface interactions
are funded under this program. During the review period two plasma science centers were supported.
These were the Center for Predictive Control of Plasma Kinetics led by the University of Michigan,
and the Center for Momentum Transport and Flow Organization led by the University of California,
San Diego. The final element in the DOE GPS program is the Madison Symmetric Torus (MST)
experiment at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, which is the only Reversed Field Pinch (RFP)
configuration device in the U.S. Research at this facility focuses on increasing fundamental
understanding of the physics of the RFP magnetic configuration, expanding validated predictive
capability of toroidal magnetic confinement, and advancing discovery science and its links to plasma
astrophysics.
B. Progress on action items from previous COV review
FES program managers have responded constructively to the previous COV recommendations.
Current travel resources limit the ability of program managers to make site visits, but FES hasaddressed this limitation by implementing processes such as reverse site visits and teleconferences.
Documentation on Plasma Science Center selection processes was improved by inclusion of a written
report on the overall process and rationale for funding recommendations. Due to staffing constraints
OFES did not implement a change to the form letters sent out for unsuccessful applications, but
applicants are welcome to contact program managers for additional information. The availability anduse of PAMS is likely to improve further the quality of the review process.
OFES is currently examining a variety of metrics for evaluating program quality, but a structured
process has not yet been adopted.
C. Solicitation, Review and Documentation
NSF/DOE Partnership
Proposals in this research area were solicited in an annual announcement. The announcement waswell written and described opportunities in all areas of general plasma science. Reviews were carriedout jointly with the NSF. Three to four reviews were obtained for each proposal. Proposals wereselected at random for review by the Committee of Visitors, including proposals that received awards
and proposals that were declined. In all cases, the proposal summary review reflected the content of

	
  

24	
  

the reviewers’ comments. The highest rated proposals were excellent and were funded although thelow success rate, about 15%, is a concern since many excellent proposals were not funded. The
declined reviews received a form letter of declination but were also offered a copy of the comments of
the reviewers after eliminating any information that would identify the reviewer. The process was
conducted very well and in a fair, consistent and transparent manner.
Laboratory General Plasma Science
In the time period of 2010-2013, there was one solicitation (Lab 12-01) for research on generalplasma science at the National Laboratories. The proposals all received three to four reviews. Each
proposal received a summary numerical score based on the reviewer ratings. The highest rated
proposals were excellent and were funded. Declined proposals received a form letter and the
proposers had access to reviewer comments. The Committee reviewed two proposals, one acceptedand one declined. The procedures for these two proposals were done correctly. The entire process wasvery well done and there were no issues. However, there have been no new solicitations since 2012
and a new solicitation seems very advisable.
Plasma Science Centers
There are two Plasma Science Centers within the General Plasma Science portfolio, the Center for
Predictive Control of Plasma Kinetics (University of Michigan lead) and the Center for Momentum
Transport and Flow Organization (University of California---San Diego, lead). The solicitation forthese Centers was in 2009 and thus predates the time period covered by this Committee. We cancomment that it is important for DOE FES to issue a new solicitation for Plasma Science Centers withallowance for Centers of both smaller size and intermediate size.
Madison Symmetric Torus (MST)
There were no solicitations covering the MST in the time period covered by this Committee ofVisitors.
RECOMMENDATION•

Issue new solicitations for National Laboratory General Plasma Science and for Plasma Science
Centers.

D. Monitoring Active Awards
FINDINGSAn impressive set of management tools has been developed for monitoring active GPS awards. The
specific set of processes used to monitor a particular award depends on the scope and scale of the
project or program. Nevertheless all programs are required to submit annual written progress reports.
Annual reviews are conducted for the science centers. Many other methods are frequently used at thediscretion of the DOE program manager such as regular email contact between DOE program
managers and project principal investigators (PIs); focused discussions with facility/center directors;

	
  

25	
  

research opportunity forum-type events; scientific highlights submitted by PIs; preprints and reprints
of scientific papers submitted by PIs; occasional site visits by program managers or reverse site visits
at DOE GTN; periodic seminars, which are conducted either in person or by videoconference; andannual appraisals of national laboratory performance evaluations. The COV finds the management
tools and processes used for monitoring active GPS awards are adequate and effective.
RECOMMENDATIONS•Regular site visits by DOE program managers is encouraged, but the COV recognizes that such
visits may be problematic due to limited travel funds.

•

Visits by PIs and other key program staff to DOE Germantown for reviews are encouraged as a
substitute for site visits but these are judged to be less informative for DOE program managers

E. Breadth and Depth of Program Portfolio
NSF/DOE Partnership
The NSF/DOE call for proposals provides an opportunity for proposal submissions in a very wide
area of plasma science outside of the area of fusion energy research. The resulting program has an
excellent breadth of research activities, as would be expected. The very wide range of universities
supported by this program area encourages competition and innovation. This program is widely
appreciated for its high quality of research, student training and exciting, innovative research projects.
Laboratory General Plasma Science
The National Laboratory program in General Plasma Science is a relatively small program,supporting six research programs. There are five different national laboratories supported by thisprogram, providing good breadth of performing institutions. As stated in Section B, DOE FES is
encouraged to issue a new solicitation to increase the breadth of this program.
Plasma Science Centers
The two Plasma Science Centers are organized with a lead institution and a large number of affiliateduniversities, National Labs and small businesses. The Centers achieve excellent depth of coverage of
their research topics through intensive research by a large team of scientists. Obviously, with just two
Centers, it is not possible to have a broad program. DOE FES is urged to create additional Centers toachieve greater coverage of important topics in General Plasma Science. Such Centers could range
from smaller Centers to Centers of a larger or intermediate size. They could also be developed as User
Facilities. Another concern is the longevity of these Centers once they are established. A path tocontinue these Centers for a longer term should be established to take advantage of the maturecapabilities of the Center once it is established and performing at a high level; of course, suchextensions should be carefully peer reviewed. As stated in Section B, DOE FES is urged to issue new
solicitations for Plasma Science Centers.

	
  

26	
  

Madison Symmetric Torus
The Madison Symmetric Torus is a major basic research facility conducting important and uniqueresearch. It occupies a unique position within the DOE FES portfolio, being larger than other generalplasma science experiments but much smaller than the major facilities such as DIII-D and NSTX.
There is no existing long term plan for MST, either in terms of a non-competing or competing
renewal. DOE FES should provide a plan for a review and a decision on the future of this importantresearch program.
RECOMMENDATIONS§ DOE FES should provide a plan for a review and a decision on the future of the MST research
program.
• A path to continue the Plasma Centers for a longer term should be established following peer
review, in order to take advantage of the mature capabilities of the Centers once they have been
established.
F. National and International Standing
DOE FES is working to develop metrics of national and international standing of their programs.
RECOMMENDATION•

See the recommendation on metrics in Section II.

VIII. Program on Enabling Technology
A. Scope of Program Area
The Enabling Technology program includes R&D activities related to development of hardware andmaterials relevant to existing fusion experiments, ITER, and future facilities. Development areas
include RF heating, fueling, superconducting magnets, fusion systems studies, structural materials,
plasma-facing components, breeding blankets, neutron degradation, and safety analysis. While the
new FES budget structure specifically calls out Materials and Fusion Nuclear Science under the“Burning Plasma Science: Long Pulse” category, the rest of the enabling technology program is
expected to be carried forward under the “Advanced Tokamak” sub-category under “Burning Plasma
Science: Foundations.”
B. Progress on Action Items from Previous COV Review:
The previous COV (2006-2009) made the following recommendations:• Use solicitations when initiating new activities.
• Employ carefully designed solicitations to strengthen the program.

	
  

27	
  

•
•
•
•

Prepare and have on hand a number of peer-reviewed activities that can be submitted on short
notice if funds are made available on short notice.
Peer review all Enabling R&D activities on a regular basis and document.
Review the VLT mission and evaluate need and scope.
Improve the depth of research in materials technology.

FES was responsive to most of the prior COV recommendations in this area. A program manager
specific to fusion materials was hired. There was a broad solicitation for activities in development ofstructural materials, plasma-facing components, and blankets when new funding was made available.
Awards were made based on peer review with some consideration for programmatic needs.
Procedures were very clear and decisions documented. A review of the existing program is ongoing
and mostly complete with documentation of decisions.
The Virtual Laboratory for Technology (VLT) was defunded during the period under review although
the structure was retained to facilitate conference calls among program participants to coordinate
activities. Retirement of the VLT director left a leadership opening that was filled by the FES
program manager, who has acted as a coordinator. This situation is not ideal.
C. Solicitation, Review, and Documentation
During the review period one FOA was issued that covered the areas of Plasma-facing Materials,
Structural Materials, and Blankets in 2011. The solicitation was quite broadly defined encompassing
the entirety of the fusion materials area. A very large number of pre-proposals (92) were submitted
and only four were rejected for being non-responsive. Many actual proposals (79) were submitted
indicating wide spread interest in the solicitation. A large review panel (24 members) was assembled
and each proposal was assigned a numerical score by three reviewers and the proposals were ranked
according to average numerical score. Eight of the proposals were funded (all at the full funding
request). All of the top four ranked proposals were funded. The next four were selected from a large
number of proposals with high average scores, with a programmatic rationale for each proposal
selected. This process appears to have been extremely well run and responsive to the suggestions of
the 2009 COV.
RECOMMENDATIONS
None.
D. Monitoring Active Awards•	  In response to the previous COV recommendations the program managers have initiated, andvery nearly completed, a comprehensive review of the entire portfolio of continuing projects
within the Enabling Technologies activity. For each program area a review panel of experts
was formed, with each panel generating a status report. Copies of the reports were madeavailable to the COV review panel. The information in the reviews has been taken into
account when making continuing funding decisions. One final review is pending. The
processes followed during this review were exemplary.

28	
  

•

These ongoing proposals are being monitored directly with regular conference calls between
the program manager and the PIs. No written reports were available.

•

Since the funding of proposals from the materials solicitation, OFES has decided to make achange in direction in the materials research area. All of the PIs have been informed that there
will not be a renewal of the proposals. When asked about the processes being followed for thecloseout of these proposals, no plan for a review was proffered. When asked what the follow
on process for funding activities in the materials area would be, it was that stated no decision
had been made.

RECOMMENDATION•

Make sure future plans are well formulated and communicated before canceling programs.

E. Breadth and Depth of Program Portfolio•

Most of the Enabling Technology program consists of continuing research and, as a result, theoverall breadth and depth of the program is not changed much by the new funding decisions.
However, during the review period the breadth and depth of the Enabling Technology
portfolio has temporarily increased due to the expanded activities in materials research. Someof the researchers were new to fusion materials research, but are highly respected scientists inthe materials research community. It is unfortunate to have enticed these researchers into thefield for such an abbreviated period and the abrupt end to the funding stream in basic materials
research is likely to dissuade further interest from the materials research community. No
review of the ongoing activities is planned, nor is there a clearly articulated plan for future
activities in this area.

•

The loss of community leadership that came with the retirement of the Director of the Virtual
Laboratory for Technology has concentrated coordination of the VLT activities within OFES.

RECOMMENDATION•

Revise VLT structure to separate program management from project leadership, and moveleadership of the program to outside of FES.

F. National and International Standing•	
  Despite reduced funding the US still has significant international standing in fusion
technology. Notable examples include development of technology in coordination with the US
ITER Project on the ECH heating system and pellet injection for ELM pacing and disruption
mitigation; development of suitable conductors and joint designs for high current magnets;
experiment, simulation, and materials testing in support of breeding blanket design; simulation
codes used in ITER nuclear regulatory compliance, neutron heating and activation, andsystems studies.

29	
  

•

The materials research program was expanded with a new solicitation in research on structural
materials, plasma facing components, and blanket first walls. The impact of this expansion on
program quality is unknown due to the recent nature of the awards, but the awardees havebeen informed that there will be no call for renewals. This decision is not the result of a budget
exigency, but rather a program priority redirection towards addressing the challenges ofcharacterizing changes to bulk material properties due to irradiation by 14 MeV neutrons andplasma surface interactions at high heat flux. The planning for this program change has not yet
been articulated, but will likely require substantial facilities development. The impact of therecent expansion in materials development activities on international standing is left uncertain
due to the lack of a scientific review prior to the program redirection.

RECOMMENDATIONS

	
  

•

Initiate a scientific review of the closed out materials research. Where appropriate, consider
impact of cancellations on future activities.

•

Initiate a scientific review for any proposed new facilities, whether or not an open solicitation
is offered for a larger experimental materials facility.

30	
  Appendix A

Appendix B: Members of the COV
The Members of the COV as well as the subcommittees they served on are listed below:
Project Management, including US ITER
Joseph Arango (Thomas Jefferson Site Office)Mark Reichanadter (SLAC National Acceleration Laboratory)
John Tapia (Los Alamos National Laboratory)
Program on Toroidal Experiments, International Collaborations, and Diagnostics
Dustin Froula (Laboratory for Laser Energetics, University of Rochester)
Alice Koniges (Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory)
Steven Vincena (University of California-Los Angeles)
Program on Experimental Plasma Research and HEDLP
Jerry Hughes (MIT)Russ Doerner (University of California-San Diego)
Program on Theory and Computation
William Amatucci (Naval Research Laboratory)
Brian Nelson (University of Washington)
Program on General Plasma Science
Richard Temkin (Massachusetts Institute of Technology)
Richard Kurz (Pacific Northwest National Laboratory)
Program on Enabling Technologies
David Gates (Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory)
Mark Nornberg (University of Wisconsin-Madison)
COV Chair
Amitava Bhattacharjee (Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory/ Princeton University)

	
  

31	
  

Appendix C
US Representation on ITER Governing and Advisory Panels
Council
Chair of the ITER Council
Representatives
Michael L. Knotek

Robert Iotti, President, CH2M Hill Nuclear Business Group

Edmund Synakowski
John C. Glowienka
Thomas J. Vanek

Head of Delegation, Deputy Undersecretary for Science andEnergy, DOE
Associate Director FES, Office of Science
U.S. ITER Program Manager, FES, Office of Science
Senior Policy Advisor, FES, Office of Science, DOE

Experts
Marcos Huerta
Devon Streit
Neevy Van Laningha
Ned R. Sauthoff

Special Assistant to the Director, Office of Science, DOE
Senior Advisor, Office of Space and Advanced Technology, DOE
Foreign Affairs Officer, U.S. Department of State
Director, U.S. ITER, ORNL

MAC
US Member Adam Cohen
US Member Thomas Vanek
US Expert John Glowienka
US Expert William Cahill
US Expert Mickey Wade
US ITER Ned Sauthoff

Deputy Laboratory Director, PPPL, Princeton University
DOE-FES
DOE-FES
Federal Project Director, DOE
Director, DIII-D National Fusion Program, General Atomics
Director, US ITER, ORNLSTAC
US Member Robert Goldston
US Member Charles Greenfield
US Expert Jürgen Rapp
US Expert Earl Marmar
US Expert James Van Dam

PPPL/Princeton University
Chief Scientist, US ITER Project Office
ORNL
Plasma Science and Fusion Center, Massachusetts Institute ofTechnology
FES, Office of Science, DOE

In addition, the US presence at the IO is ~6% of total staff. The highest ranking US staff member isMary Erlenborn, who is Deputy Director General (DDG) and Director of General Administration(HR, Procurement and Document management)

	
  

32