June 2010 - Neams-pmt - mailman3.cels.anl.gov

Re: [Neams-pmt] FY11 planning budget
by Cook, Trevor 29 Jul '10

29 Jul '10

Rob, great start, here is my edited version. I think this should be sent out under the signature of Alex. Trevor. Dear PMT, Attached is our budget guidance for planning the FY 2011 work packages. This guidance supports the President's FY 2011 budget. Work packages will likely need to be revised after a FY 2011 budget is passed, but in the meantime, these are our planning numbers and reflect our best judgment on meeting the needs of the NE R&D programs. We are sharing with all of you the complete program allocation ($30.1 million) because we believe that transparency is productive. I have asked Keith and Hussein to follow up with each of you to discuss your plans for FY 2011 and to register your concerns, if any, with this budget allocation. We note that the affect on NEAMS from the HUB has not been quantified and is not reflected in these planning numbers. We expect you, the PMT member, to work with your multi-lab team to determine the scope of work and budget for each team member. New for FY11 is the requirement that you use about 5% of your budget for contracting with universities. Rather than taking 20% off the top for NEUP, we have negotiated 15% for NEUP under the condition that direct contracts with universities (i.e., not through NEUP) will make up the difference. This gives your team members more control over what support to get from universities. In FY11 NEAMS does not have its own budget line in the NE budget. The planning budget is sourced from various other programs, some allocated to NEAMS before NEUP and SBIR taxes, some after. The NEUP an SBIR elements in the table take this into account. We are keeping about $2.2 M as a reserve at HQ in order to handle Hub fallout and other unforeseen items. We have a PMT meeting July 20-21 where we expect to see high-level planning packages including planned fund allocations to institutions and a first shot at how you intend to involve university partners. Comments are always welcome, though we suggest that you talk to Keith/Hussein first. Alex. -----Original Message----- From: Sent: None To: 'neams-pmt(a)lists.mcs.anl.gov' Subject: FY11 planning budget Dear PMT, I am distributing the attached FY11 planning budget on behalf of and with the full concurrence of the NE-71 team, including Keith Bradley and Hussein Khalil. We waited with distributing the FY11 NEAMS planning budget until the Hub announcement was made public. Even though there will be further impacts on NEAMS personnel and priorities that will take some time to sort out, we want you to get on with the FY11 planning. The attached list names the NEAMS program elements, each with their FY11 planning budget and the comparable FY10 allocation. The program description was largely taken from the Integrated Priority List used for the FY12 budgeting process; it is provided primarily to show you how we described the NEAMS elements to the rest of NE. Observations and explanations: -It goes without saying that the actual FY11 budget that Congress will appropriate is unknown. We have based these planning numbers on the President's budget; the NEAMS total for FY11 ($30.1 M) reflects a high priority within NE. Include a good deal of flexibility in your planning; there will be changes. -We are sharing with all of you the complete program allocation because we believe that sufficient transparency is productive even though it may lead to some heated discussions. -Despite its tentative nature, this FY11 planning budget conveys a message about how NE-71 sees the relative priorities of the program elements. Keith and Hussein plan to follow up with each of you soon to discuss your reaction, to ask you about your plans, and to discuss any changes that are likely to happen because of the Hub or otherwise. -We expect you, the PMT member, to work with a multi-lab team and to negotiate scopes of work and budgets with each team member; it is not desirable that you keep as much as possible for your lab. We expect to see the best use of the budget for NEAMS. -New for FY11 is the requirement that you use about 5% of your budget for contracting with universities. Rather than taking 20% off the top for NEUP, we have negotiated 15% for NEUP under the condition that direct contracts with univeristies (i.e., not through NEUP) will make up the difference. This gives your team members more control over what support to get from universities. -In FY11 NEAMS does not have its own budget line in the NE budget. The planning budget is sourced from various other programs, some allocated to NEAMS before NEUP and SBIR taxes, some after. The NEUP an SBIR elements in the table take this into account. We are keeping about $2.2 M as a reserve at HQ in order to handle Hub fallout and other unforeseen items. -We have a PMT meeting July 20-21 where we expect to see high-level planning packages including planned fund allocations to institutions and a first shot at how you intend to involve university partners. Comments are always welcome though we suggest that you talk to Keith/Hussein first. Robert Versluis, PhD - tel: 301-903-1890 mob: 202-834-2292 *****************************************************************

2 2

FW: NEAMS PMT Draft Meeting Agenda
by Larzelere, Alex 12 Jul '10

12 Jul '10

NEAMS PMTers, It looks like things are shaping up nicely for the joint meeting of NEAMS and the NE Materials programs. Attached is the latest agenda for the materials meeting and as you will see -- we are set for the joint meeting on Thursday morning. Please note a couple of things: * If you have not booked your room (or had trouble finding a room at government rates) Jeremy Busby has invited us to use the blocks of room that he had set aside for the meeting. Just click on this link: http://www.ms.ornl.gov/nmrm/index.shtml and go the "accommodations" button. * The NEAMS folks are invited to participate in the materials workshop either the day before (7/19) or after. I anticipate that the NEAMS PMT meeting is going to be rather busy, so I do not anticipate there will be too much time to slip away to the materials workshop. So - things are looking good for the meeting on the week of the 19th. Please let me know if you have any questions or comments. Regards, Alex -----Original Message----- From: Busby, Jeremy T. [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 2010 9:20 AM To: Larzelere, Alex; Lesica, Sue Subject: Re: NEAMS PMT Draft Meeting Agenda Hi Alex, Sorry for the slow response. (too much travel!). Attached is a revised draft of the agenda. I've just slipped your joint session on NEAMS into our materials agenda. I think that's a nice addition. I'd like to offer a few other things: First, other folks are more than welcome to attend the other materials sessions. I know your meeting runs on Tues-Thurs. But, if folks are there on Monday, they should feel welcome to sit in. So, please forward the agenda as you see fit. Second, I've got most of the conference center blocked off for that week. We can use the big conference room for this joint session. And, I've already got breaks and refreshments covered. Lastly, we've already got a bunch of hotel blocks setup, but reservations are lagging. If any of our crowd would like to make use of a negotiated rate, there are rooms available in these blocks through Saturday (then they will be released). That information is in the link below. Please feel free to share as needed. http://www.ms.ornl.gov/nmrm/index.shtml Thanks again for the input. Jeremy On 6/16/10 4:29 PM, "Larzelere, Alex" <alex.larzelere(a)nuclear.energy.gov> wrote: Sue, Jeremy, FYI - attached is the draft agenda for the NEAMS PMT meeting that will occur at ORNL on July 20th and 21st. As you will see, we are hoping to hold a joint session with NEAMS and the NE-Materials group on the morning of the 22nd. I hope that does not disrupt your workshop plans too badly. Also, I am planning to be at the Materials workshop all day on the 19th. I will be interested to hear what is going on in the NE-Materials world and your plans for the future. Please let me know if you have any questions or comments. Regards, Alex ________________________________________________ Alex R. Larzelere Director, Advanced Modeling and Simulation Office of Nuclear Energy U.S. Department of Energy 202-586-1906 Alex.Larzelere(a)nuclear.energy.gov -- Jeremy T. Busby Materials Science and Technology Division Oak Ridge National Laboratory P.O. Box 2008 Oak Ridge, TN 37831-6138 Phone: 865 241-4622 Fax: 865 241-3650 Email: busbyjt(a)ornl.gov

2 1

Frameworks discussion for NEAMS
by Diachin, Lori A. 08 Jul '10

08 Jul '10

Hi All, Over the past several months there have been several discussions regarding the framework requirements for the NEAMS program. Note that we are now referring to the much overloaded word "framework" to include issues such as build and configure, release and distribution, work flow management, data management, along with the "multi-physics" coupling and pre-/post-processing tools we were discussing and considering early this year. We anticipate that working on some of these issues early in the NEAMS program in the ECT/CT program element will bear significant fruit later, but for us to be maximally effective we need a solid understanding of your (and your teams) thoughts on these issues. To do this, we would like to hold a full-day meeting in Oak Ridge on Monday 19 July (just prior to the PMT meeting). We're budgeting a day because it is a large area to cover, and it will be the first time we've had a chance to seriously discuss them, so we're expecting a lot of back-and-forth even among the different IPSC teams. We do expect to finish up in time for those not staying for the PMT meeting should be able to make a late flight home on Monday night. To help make the face-to-face meeting as effective as possible, we'd like to have a telecon this Friday to get people thinking about the questions we need to cover, calibrate expectations, and begin laying out a detailed agenda. Telecon details: 9am PT/12n ET Friday 2 July, 866-740-1260 code 2178367 Please plan to have someone from your team who is knowledgeable about both your code development efforts and various framework efforts join us for both discussions if at all possible. Currently, we would like include the following people but are open to other suggestions: David Bernholdt, Jay Billings, Lori Diachin, John Magerlein, Tim Tautges, Carter Edwards, Ross Bartlett, Kevin Clarno, Valmor de Almeida, and Jim Stewart. If you are not able to attend the telecon on Friday, please let us know. Thanks! Lori Diachin and David Bernholdt

9 11

IMPORTANT: Upcoming FCRD Board Review
by Bradley, Keith S. 05 Jul '10

05 Jul '10

PMT, During our last teleconference, you may recall discussion of an FCRD Board Review of FY2011 planning packages (in Germantown) which will coincide with our PMT face-to-face on July 20-21 (in Oak Ridge). Alex has asked me to defend our FY2011 plan by phone so I don’t miss the PMT face-to-face. The timing is doubly unfortunate because it also requires us to complete the planning packages before we’ve met in person. This is regrettable, but unavoidable. We each have tasks in preparation for this review. Please provide your planning packages to us (Hussein, HQ and myself) by COB July 12. Attached is a set of viewgraphs provided by Brad Couch in the TIO. They describe how to prepare our FY2011 planning packages (and how to enter them into FCPICS). Please study these closely before beginning. Some helpful observations and guidance: 1. FCRD planning packages (FCRD-PP) and NEAMS “master work packages” (NEAMS-MWP) are closely related, but not identical. This means that the noodling required for the latter should naturally contribute to the former. Unfortunately, it also means some redundant reformatting. 2. Guidance from Alex states that a NEAMS-MWP should be produced for each ~$1M worth of work. This is probably, but is not necessarily a finer granularity than what is required for the FCRD-PP’s. My advice would be to produce a single FCRD-PP for each NEAMS element (each IPSC and cross-cut). But, you may decide that it is in your best interest to produce more than one (eg. one for safeguards and one for separations in the SafeSeps IPSC). Ultimately it is your decision. 3. (Consistent) milestones and deliverables are very important in both exercises. They are the primary window through which our customers (HQ, other campaigns, etc.) judge our success. Please spend the time to create milestones and deliverables that represent tangible and achievable product. You should be able to produce at least one level 2 (M2) milestone for each ~$1M, and 1-2 level 3 (M3) milestones that contribute to the M2 milestone. Please, please, PLEASE do not choose all your M2’s to mature on September 30. NEAMS is in the monthly spotlight at HQ for having done so in FY2010. 4. FCRD is requesting lab funding splits in the planning packages. This is in direct conflict with instructions we provided you for the PMT face-to-face. For now, please ignore this requirement. (I have opinions about the utility of such an exercise with no mark-up guidance from the Hill, but my personal opinion is academic.) Alex, Hussein and I are exploring how to reconcile this conflict. We will get back to you. (Regardless, you should be thinking about these splits now. They will be due soon enough.) Ideally, we would have completed and vetted our NEAMS-MWP’s as a group (PMT face-to-face) before we were forced to prepare and defend the FCRD-PP’s. Alas, that won’t happen. Maybe things will work out more advantageously next year. Thanks, all. ~Keith

1 1

Master Work Package Draft Template
by Larzelere, Alex 01 Jul '10

01 Jul '10

Everyone, As promised - I was having a heck of a time with Word to try to insert some bullets under the places for lists of items. Hopefully you will not run into the same problem. Please look this over and let me know if you have and thoughts or questions. For the WBS, let's use: 1.0 = Fuels IPSC 2.0 = Reactor IPSC 3.0 = SafeSeps IPSC 4.0 = Waste & Repository IPSC 5.0 = Fundamental Methods and Models 6.0 = Verification, Validation and Uncertainty Quantification 7.0 = Capability Transfer 8.0 = Enabling Computational Technologies Just add a X.1, X.2, X.3 to your packages to provide an identifying number. Regards, Alex ________________________________________________ Alex R. Larzelere Director, Advanced Modeling and Simulation Office of Nuclear Energy U.S. Department of Energy 202-586-1906 Alex.Larzelere(a)nuclear.energy.gov

3 5

CASL Summary
by Larzelere, Alex 29 Jun '10

29 Jun '10

Everyone, Sorry for the delay in getting this out - I am still "slogging" through the email that came in last week. Attached is the long promised detailed summary of the scope of the CASL Hub. As you will see, this provides a bit more "meat" about the scope of CASL and the people who will be involved. Since I know everyone is thinking about their master work packages in anticipation of the NEAMS PMT Face-to-Face meeting at ORNL on July 20th ant 21st, hopefully the attached document will provide information that will identify potential interfaces. I you still have detailed questions about CASL, I recommend you contact your appropriate counterpart on the CASL team. Please keep in mind that CASL is still in the process of starting up, so they probably do not have all the answers. On the other hand, this also means that there is flexibility to make sure that both CASL and NEAMS carve out the right goals and the appropriate scope. Regards, Alex ________________________________________________ Alex R. Larzelere Director, Advanced Modeling and Simulation Office of Nuclear Energy U.S. Department of Energy 202-586-1906 Alex.Larzelere(a)nuclear.energy.gov

1 0

Experiment in Social Networking
by Larzelere, Alex 29 Jun '10

29 Jun '10

Everyone, Just to let you know - after my vacation I decided to conduct a little experiment in social networking for NEAMS. As it turns out, the NEAMS calendar that was set up by Brea Grischkat and Dan Funk is running on a Microsoft SharePoint site. That allows me to provide short "Twitter-like" updates on what is going on here at HQ. So - I have started to do that (hopefully on a daily basis). These posts are for "information only" and hopefully will provide some insights into what is happening from my perspective. Reading these posts is strictly optional and I will not pass along any program policies or guidance via this site. On the other hand, it does provide a bit more informal channel. Eventually, I would like to see the larger NEAMS community get access to the site so they can also get a sense of what we are doing as a program. Here is the link, and hopefully you have gotten your user name and password (if you haven't or forgotten it, please contact Brea). https://nepoint.ne.anl.gov/NEAMS/default.aspx As you will also find, the site contains a good calendar of NEAMS activities and I have also started to post some documents that could be useful for the group. Please let me know if you have any questions or comments. Regards, Alex ________________________________________________ Alex R. Larzelere Director, Advanced Modeling and Simulation Office of Nuclear Energy U.S. Department of Energy 202-586-1906 Alex.Larzelere(a)nuclear.energy.gov

1 0

NEAMS Cross-fertilization by Monthlies
by Versluis, Rob 25 Jun '10

25 Jun '10

The mission of NE-AMS (the Office of Advanced Modeling and Simulation) is the creation of predictive (also flexible and upgradeable) code capabilities of interest to its sponsoring DOE-NE programs using modern computational tools and methods. NEAMS is interested in coordinating the NEAMS reactor, fuel, and fuel cycle code efforts, including the high-fidelity, predictive modeling of reactor fuels, neutronics and thermofluid dynamics, etc., with activities conducted under other NE programs. To raise awareness of work conducted by others, we believe it useful to share monthly reports across the spectrum of researchers and program leads/managers involved in such work. We are convinced that this will lead to new connections and the leverage of results obtained by one party to the advantage of other parties. If any recipients have a monthly report to share that is not included here, feel free to send it to me for further distribution or use this distribution list yourself. I also accept new names that should be on distribution. Apologies to those who are on multiple lists and receive more than one copy of this email. Robert Versluis, Ph.D. - tel: 301-903-1890 mob: 202-834-2292 *****************************************************************

1 5

Deep Burn Monthly Highlights May 2010
by Hulsey, Ana A. 23 Jun '10

23 Jun '10

Attached is ORNL/TM/2010/56, the MAY 2010 Report, "Deep Burn: Development of Transuranic Fuel for High-Temperature Helium-Cooled Reactors". This report will be posted soon to the Deep Burn Website, http://www.ms.ornl.gov/deep_burn/monthlyreports.shtml Thanks, Ana Hulsey for Lance L. Snead and Bill Wiffen Ana Hulsey Program Assistant, Advanced Reactors Oak Ridge National Laboratory 1 Bethel Valley Road B-159 Building 4500S Oak Ridge TN 37831-6140 Tel (865) 574-3955 Fax (865) 241-3650 Ana Hulsey Program Assistant, Advanced Reactors Oak Ridge National Laboratory 1 Bethel Valley Road B-159 Building 4500S Oak Ridge TN 37831-6140 Tel (865) 574-3955 Fax (865) 241-3650

1 0

Fw: FYI #66: Praise for Administration's Nuclear Energy Strategy
by Bradley, Keith S. 18 Jun '10

18 Jun '10

________________________________ From: fyi(a)aip.org <fyi(a)aip.org> To: KSBRADLEY(a)LLNL.GOV <KSBRADLEY(a)LLNL.GOV> Sent: Fri Jun 18 14:10:49 2010 Subject: FYI #66: Praise for Administration's Nuclear Energy Strategy [http://*www.*aip.org/fyi/images/fyi_em_head2.jpg]<http://*www.*aip.org/fyi> Number 66: June 18, 2010 Positive Response to Administration’s Nuclear Energy Strategy “In order to meet the Administration’s goals of energy security and greenhouse gas reductions, nuclear energy must play an important role in the national energy portfolio.” - Nuclear Energy Research and Development Roadmap An indication of how opinion has changed regarding the Obama Administration’s position on nuclear energy was the favorable reaction of hearing witnesses and Members of the House Science and Technology Committee to the Department of Energy’s “Nuclear Energy Research and Development Roadmap.” This 60-page strategy, released in April, was the focus of a May 19 hearing. Members of Congress have previously expressed concerns about the position of the Administration on nuclear energy. In the early months of the Administration, Energy Secretary Steven Chu was asked<http://*www.*aip.org/fyi/2009/031.html> repeatedly about nuclear energy, answering questions such as “are you for it or against it?” Those questions are not being asked with the same frequency as the Administration more clearly describes its nuclear energy policy, although there is still much criticism about DOE’s decision to terminate the Yucca Mountain project. Few questions were asked at the hearing about the safety or reliability of nuclear energy. Members were far more interested in the financing and licensing of new nuclear plants, the supply of uranium, and advanced reactor designs. Small Modular Reactors (SMR) were discussed at length. Warren Miller, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Nuclear Energy at the Department of Energy highlighted SMRs in his opening testimony, describing an upcoming June 29 and 30 workshop<http://*nuclear.energy.gov/smrworkshop/index.html> on these reactors that will have lower capital costs and offer greater flexibility. SMRs would be 300 MWe or less, built at factories and transported by trucks to the site, and would offer what DOE describes as a “plug and play” capability. The Department has requested $38.9 million in new money for an SMR program in FY 2011. For more information see this document<http://*nuclear.energy.gov/pdfFiles/factSheets/2011_SMR_Factsheet.pdf!>. Members asked about the disposition of spent nuclear fuel. Miller said dry cask storage has been successfully utilized for more than 20 years, telling the committee that there is “no need to rush” in the determination of a future waste policy. He spoke of the Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future <http://*brc.gov/default.html> that has been charged with conducting “a comprehensive review of policies for managing the back end of the nuclear fuel cycle, including all alternatives for the storage, processing, and disposal of civilian and defense used nuclear fuel, high-level waste, and materials derived from nuclear activities.” A draft report is expected by the middle of next year. The committee also received testimony from senior officials of Babcock & Wilcox Nuclear Energy, the Federation of American Scientists, Argonne National Laboratory, JP Morgan Chase, and the American Nuclear Society. While offering recommendations and describing obstacles to the expansion of nuclear energy, they each praised the DOE R&D roadmap. Their testimony may be read here<http://*science.house.gov/publications/hearings_markups_details.aspx?NewsID=2818> The road map outlines “the NE [DOE Office of Nuclear Energy] role and mission in enabling the benefits of nuclear energy for our nation; and presents a strategy and roadmap to guide the NE scientific and technical agenda. The report presents a high-level vision and framework for R&D activities needed to keep the nuclear energy option viable in the near term and to expand its use in the decades ahead.” The roadmap focuses on four R&D objectives: "Develop technologies and other solutions that can improve the reliability, sustain the safety, and extend the life of current reactors. Develop improvements in the affordability of new reactors to enable nuclear energy to help meet the Administration's energy security and climate change goals Develop Sustainable Nuclear Fuel Cycles Understand and minimize the risks of nuclear proliferation and terrorism" The report may be viewed here<http://*nuclear.gov/pdfFiles/NuclearEnergy_Roadmap_Final.pdf>. Richard Jones Media and Government Relations Division American Institute of Physics rjones(a)aip.org<mailto:[email protected]> 301-209-3095 Subscribe to FYI If this was forwarded to you, you can subscribe to FYI by sending a blank e-mail to fyi-subscribe-request(a)listserv.aip.org<mailto:[email protected]>. You may also subscribe via RSS [http://*www.*aip.org/images/rss.gif] <http://*www.*aip.org/rss/fyi.xml> For permission to use text from this e-mail, please contact Richard M. Jones<mailto:[email protected]>. For more science policy news, visit FYI's website<http://*www.*aip.org/fyi/>. If you no longer wish to receive this newsletter, please send a blank e-mail to fyi-signoff-request(a)listserv.aip.org<mailto:[email protected]>. A publication of the American Institute of Physics<http://*www.*aip.org> © 2009

1 0