Appendix 2
Information-Gathering Activities of the Committee

COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDAS

Committee Meeting 1

January 22, 2004 - January 23, 2004

National Academies Building, Room 150

2100 C St. NW, Washington, DC

January 22, 2004

CLOSED SESSION

8:30-11:00 am

Committee working breakfast and executive session

OPEN SESSION

11:00

Discussion of the committee’s charge via teleconference with Everet Beckner, deputy NNSA administrator for defense programs

11:30

Discussion with William Press, LANL’s deputy laboratory director for science and technology, on the current state at LANL, what makes it special, and what needs to be preserved

12:00

Lunch; continue discussion with William Press and discussion of charge



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 42
Maintaining High Scientific Quality at Los Alamos and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories Appendix 2 Information-Gathering Activities of the Committee COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDAS Committee Meeting 1 January 22, 2004 - January 23, 2004 National Academies Building, Room 150 2100 C St. NW, Washington, DC January 22, 2004 CLOSED SESSION 8:30-11:00 am Committee working breakfast and executive session OPEN SESSION 11:00 Discussion of the committee’s charge via teleconference with Everet Beckner, deputy NNSA administrator for defense programs 11:30 Discussion with William Press, LANL’s deputy laboratory director for science and technology, on the current state at LANL, what makes it special, and what needs to be preserved 12:00 Lunch; continue discussion with William Press and discussion of charge

OCR for page 42
Maintaining High Scientific Quality at Los Alamos and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories 2:00 pm Discussion with Steve Henry, deputy assistant to the secretary of defense for nuclear matters, about DOD’s expectations from LANL and the weapons complex in the future 2:30 Short comments from selected committee members about what factors lead to high scientific quality in the organizations that they have managed 3:30 Break 3:45 Panel discussion continues 4:30 Discussion by telephone with Sidney Drell of the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center on the challenges of maintaining excellent scientific quality at LANL 5:15 Other comments 5:30 Adjourn 5:45 Reception; guests invited CLOSED SESSION 6:30 pm Committee working dinner January 23, 2004 OPEN SESSION 8:00 am Breakfast 8:30 Summary of results of the recent study on DOE science and the study’s insights of relevance to the LANL management competition. Briefing by phone from James Duderstadt, president emeritus, University of Michigan, who was a member of the committee that authored Critical Choices: Science, Energy, and Security 9:00 Discussion by telephone with William Spencer, chairman emeritus of SEMATECH and a member of the 1994-1995 Galvin Commission (Task Force on Alternative Futures for the Department of Energy Laboratories) 10:00 Break

OCR for page 42
Maintaining High Scientific Quality at Los Alamos and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories 10:15 Discussion with Allan Burman, Jefferson Solutions, a member of a recent National Research Council study that reviewed and assessed the progress made by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) to identify and implement policies, procedures, and practices for improved project management, joined by Richard Little and Michael Cohn, NRC staff members who assisted with the study 11:15 Committee discussion continues 11:45 Lunch, including a discussion of the committee’s charge with Robert Simon, minority staff director of the Senate Energy Committee1 CLOSED SESSION 1:00-4:00 pm Committee in closed session 4:00 Adjourn Committee Meeting 2 March 1, 2004 - March 3, 2004 March 1, 2004 CLOSED SESSION 12:00-1:30 pm Committee working lunch OPEN SESSION (Wyndham Albuquerque Hotel, 2910 Yale Blvd. SE, Vista Norte Room, Albuquerque, NM) 1:30 Opening remarks by committee chair 1:40 Principles for Managing Research and Development Laboratories by C. Paul Robinson, president and director, Sandia National Laboratories 1   Committee interactions with three invited guests that were scheduled for this meeting had to be cancelled because of unavoidable last-minute schedule conflicts: (1) Presentation by David Crandall, assistant deputy NNSA administrator for research, development, and science (invited) giving an overview of the entire weapons complex and how the components complement, and differ from, one another. (2 and 3) Discussion with David Heyman, senior fellow and director of science and security initiatives at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), about the CSIS report Science and Security in the 21st Century. This summary was to have focused on the security issues at LANL that helped spark the call for a new management competition. Mr. Heyman was to have been joined by Anne Witkowsky, senior fellow in CSIS’s Technology and Public Policy Program, who staffed the study leading to Science and Security in the 21st Century.

OCR for page 42
Maintaining High Scientific Quality at Los Alamos and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories 2:10 Open discussion among committee and Sandia executive management Sandia representatives include C. Paul Robinson, president and laboratories director; Alton Romig, vice president for national security and arms control; Frank Figueroa, vice president for business management and chief financial officer; Jerry McDowell, deputy to the vice president of DOD programs; and Mike Cieslak, director, materials and process science 3:00 Open session ends CLOSED SESSION 3:00-3:30 Bus to Sandia National Laboratories 3:30-5:30 Small-group discussions with groups of Sandia staff members, to discuss the SNL 1992 competition and subsequent management transition 7:00 Committee working dinner March 2, 2004 CLOSED SESSION 7:45-8:45 am Committee working breakfast OPEN SESSION (Fuller Lodge, Los Alamos, NM) 10:00-11:50 Discussions with LANL Senior Executive Team, including G. Peter Nanos, LANL director - Introduction and purpose of visit - Laboratory overview - General discussion 12:00 Open session ends CLOSED SESSION 12:00-3:15 pm Tours plus small-group discussions with groups of LANL staff members, to discuss what needs to be preserved at LANL during the competition and possible management transition

OCR for page 42
Maintaining High Scientific Quality at Los Alamos and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories OPEN SESSION (Fuller Lodge, Los Alamos, NM) 3:30-5:30 Public comment session: Maintaining scientific quality at the NNSA laboratories 5:30 Adjourn CLOSED SESSION 7:00 Committee working dinner March 3, 2004 CLOSED SESSION (Hotel Santa Fe, Santa Fe, NM) 8:00 am-3:00 pm Committee in closed session 3:00 Adjourn Committee Meeting 3 April 5, 2004 - April 6, 2004 April 5, 2004 OPEN SESSION (Hertz Hall, University of California at Davis, Livermore campus) 10:00-11:50 am Discussions with Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Senior Executive Team, including Michael R. Anastasio, LLNL director - Introduction and purpose of visit - Laboratory overview - General discussion 11:50 Open session ends CLOSED SESSION 12:00-3:15 pm Tours plus small-group discussions with groups of LLNL staff members, to discuss what needs to be preserved at LLNL during the competition and possible management transition OPEN SESSION (Hertz Hall, University of California at Davis, Livermore campus) 3:30-5:30 Public comment session: Maintaining scientific quality at the NNSA laboratories 5:30 Open session ends

OCR for page 42
Maintaining High Scientific Quality at Los Alamos and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories April 6, 2004 CLOSED SESSION (Hilton Garden Inn, Livermore, CA) 8:00 am-3:00 pm Committee in closed session 3:00 Adjourn SITE VISITS AND TELECONFERENCES February 6, 2004, meeting at Sandia National Laboratories (SNL). Committee members Arthur Guenther and Edward Giller met with the SNL director to discuss planning for the committee’s visit to SNL on March 1, 2004, Sandia’s strategic plan, the director’s views on prime factors that have ensured top-quality S&T work and workforce at SNL, the NNSA management system at SNL, the transition in management and operations (M&O) contractors at SNL, and Sandia’s special tax arrangement with the state of New Mexico. February 13, 2004, meeting at LANL. Committee members Arthur Guenther and Edward Giller met with the LANL director to discuss planning for the committee’s visit to LANL on March 2, 2004, his views on prime factors that will ensure top-quality S&T work and workforce at LANL, and the NNSA management system at LANL. The insights gained from this meeting were shared with the full committee through e-mail. February 18, 2004, meeting at the Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL). Committee members Paul Fleury and James Glimm met first with the three members of the BNL search committee that was responsible for finding the current BNL director, and they were joined later by the BNL director. The three members of the search committee were all at Brookhaven before, during, and after the change of BNL’s M&O contractor. Fleury and Glimm sought the thoughts of these four on the past management competition and transition at BNL and, more generally, their thoughts on how the choice of M&O contractor for a national laboratory affects the scientific quality of the organization. Observations from this site visit were shared with the full committee at its March 1-3, 2004, meeting. February 23, 2004, teleconference with Norman Augustine, retired CEO of Lockheed Martin. Committee members Paul Fleury (serving as meeting chair), Arthur Guenther, Alan McLaughlin, Cherry Murray, and John Sommerer, along with study director Scott Weidman and NRC staff members Richard Rowberg and Cy Butner, participated in the call. The purpose of the conference call was to obtain Mr. Augustine’s insights into the 1992 transition in management of SNL. (The transition of the SNL M&O contract to Martin-Marietta was in place before the merger between

OCR for page 42
Maintaining High Scientific Quality at Los Alamos and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories it and Lockheed took place, and Lockheed Martin then assumed the SNL management contract as part of the merger.) The insights gained from this conversation were shared with the full committee at its meeting of March 1-3, 2004. February 24, 2004, meeting at the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory (INEEL). Committee chair Paul Jennings and study director Scott Weidman met first with a group of senior managers to hear their reflections on past management competitions at INEEL and, more generally, to discuss how the choice of M&O contractor for a national laboratory affects the scientific quality of the organization. Jennings and Weidman then met with a group of experienced bench scientists and engineers and one human resource person to discuss their thoughts on the same questions. Observations from this site visit were shared with the full committee at its meeting of March 1-3, 2004. March 16, 2004, meeting at Sandia National Laboratories. Committee members Arthur Guenther and Edward Giller met with the SNL director to hear his thoughts on current and proposed NNSA management systems for SNL, on potential contacts for the committee to make who were knowledgeable about nuclear weapons issues, and about the potential problems of bidding the LANL and LLNL contracts together and of managing the two laboratories with different mixes of contractors. The results of this meeting were shared with the full committee by e-mail. March 26, 2004, meeting at Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL). Committee member John Sommerer and study director Scott Weidman met first with a group of senior managers, including the ORNL director, to hear their reflections on the most recent management competition at ORNL and, more generally, to discuss how the choice of M&O contractor for a national laboratory affects the scientific quality of the organization. Sommerer and Weidman then met with a group of experienced bench scientists and engineers to discuss their thoughts on the same questions. Observations from this site visit were shared with the full committee at its meeting of April 5-6, 2004. OTHER INFORMATION-GATHERING MEETINGS AND CONTACTS January 26, 2004, discussion between committee member David Campbell and former DOE Undersecretary Ernest Moniz about the general context of the management competitions. February 9, 2004, telephone conversation between committee member Cherry Murray and Praveen Chaudhari, director of Brookhaven National Laboratory, about how BNL is managed.

OCR for page 42
Maintaining High Scientific Quality at Los Alamos and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories February 9-10, 2004, conversation with Siegfried Hecker, director of Los Alamos National Laboratory from 1986 to 1997, at the NRC Governing Board meeting in Irvine, California. Committee member Cherry Murray discussed LANL governance with him and he subsequently provided copies of two documents he wrote: an article on laboratory governance and a written statement for Senate testimony on this subject. This information was shared with the full committee through e-mail. February 19, 2004, conversation with Jay C. Davis, former head of the Defense Threat Reduction Agency and a member of the Argonne Board of Governors, at the Board of Governors’ meeting in Batavia, Illinois. Through contact with committee member Cherry Murray, Dr. Davis provided his proposed set of scientific selection criteria for national laboratory contractors. This information was shared with the full committee through e-mail. February 26, 2004, meeting with Anne Witkowski, Center for Strategic and International Studies. Richard Rowberg, NRC staff, met with Ms. Witkowski to discuss the CSIS report on security at the DOE weapons labs and how security issues might affect science and technology performance at those labs. No information beyond that distributed to the committee in the form of the executive summary of the CSIS report was obtained at this meeting. Additional information was to be provided by CSIS but did not arrive. March 30, 2004, telephone conversation with James O. Ellis, Jr., commander, United States Strategic Command. Committee chair Paul Jennings spoke with ADM Ellis about his organization’s future expectations from LANL and LLNL and his thoughts on the interplay of these two laboratories. The results of this conversation were reported at the committee meeting held in Livermore, California, on April 6, 2004. April 1, 2004, telephone conversation between Roger Jackson, nuclear weapons team leader, United Kingdom Atomic Weapons Establishment (AWE), and Richard Rowberg, NRC staff, discussing the process by which AWE carried out the competition for its management contract in 1999. The conversation focused on how that competition included ways to ensure quality management of the science and technology at AWE. The results of this conversation were reported at the committee meeting held in Livermore, California, on April 6, 2004. April 2, 2004, telephone conversation between committee member David Campbell and Richard Jacobsen, associate laboratory director for Energy and Environmental Sciences at DOE’s Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory (INEEL) about the M&O management competitions at INEEL.

OCR for page 42
Maintaining High Scientific Quality at Los Alamos and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories April 7, 2004, e-mail response to Cherry Murray from William F. Brinkman about the DOE blue-ribbon study, of which he was a member. This e-mail generated several responses from the committee and focused on the question of whether LANL and LLNL should have the same M&O contractor. This information was shared by e-mail with the full committee. April 16, 2004, meeting between committee member David Campbell and William Frazer, professor emeritus at the University of California at Berkeley, about the University of California’s role in ensuring coordination and cooperation between LANL and LLNL. Frazer, who is a member of the University of California’s President’s Council on the National Laboratories, has a long history of dealing with the University of California’s oversight of the two laboratories.