SURA Jefferson Laboratory Committee report

1. SURA Jefferson Laboratory Committee report J. L. Matthews, Chair Massachusetts Institute of Technology November 5, 2004

2. Agenda • Preparing for Competition(A. Street, P. Parrish, J. Draayer) • Competition Process / SWOT Analysis • Stakeholder Issues / Governance Model • Scientific Oversight / Strategic Planning • Special reports • JLab Safety Performance(J. Draayer) • Report from Director(C. Leemann) • Report from User Group(H. Loweth) • JLab Performance: Results of Peer Reviews(H. Loweth) • SURA Stewardship of JLab(H. Loweth)

3. Preparing for Competition (questions, issues raised) • Likelihood of other competitors • What will DOE do if there are none? • Governance model: LLC with joint ownership • SURA (60%-70%) – Partner (40% - 30%) • Members of LLC Board of Directors • President of SURA (ex officio) • Representative of industrial partner (ex officio) • Director of JLab (ex officio) • Representative of Virginia universities • Chair of Science Council • Persons with expertise in finance and audit, risk management, project management • Ex-laboratory director (someone who understands DOE…) • Science Council • “Re-engineering” of JLab Steering Group (subcommittee of JLab Committee) • JLab Users from SURA and non-SURA schools • Other invited scientists with broad expertise (e.g. theorists) • Charter (being developed): strategic planning, monitoring of lab performance… • Concerns: • Lack of involvement of scientists (JLab and external) in Capture Team discussions so far • Will new management structure (LLC and industrial partner) change (adversely) the way science is done at JLab?

4. Jefferson Lab Safety Performance: SURA Responsibility • After meeting with DOE, SURA engaged a safety consultant firm – “fix” safety problems before recompetition • Cultural changes, new attitudes needed • “Schedule does not trump safety” – C. Leeman • “Safety pays” – not only are accidents and injury avoided, but work is of better quality • Incentives needed • “Carrots” as well as “sticks” – K. Cacetta

5. Report from the JLab Director (Christoph Leemann) • Funding • FEL becoming significant ($11.8M from DOD) • Nuclear Physics at $82.4M (FY04); request $86M in FY05 • CEBAF Center addition: $10.5M in peril earlier this year but “saved” • SNS cryomodules: $3.9M but decreasing to $0 as project is completed • 20-year vision for Nuclear Physics • After 12 GeV upgrade, 25 GeV electron-ion collider (in 2020’s) • Increase in funding for Lattice QCD • Increase in superconducting RF, Advanced accelerator R&D • Play “reasonably important” role in cold RF for International Linear Collider • 5-year vision for Nuclear Physics • Sustain high productivity 6 GeV program • Invest in accelerator equipment; work to increase productivity • Strengthen theory group (phenomenology, Excited Baryon Analysis Center) and LQCD capability (joint JLab-MIT effort, national initiative) • 12 GeV: CD0  CD3 • R&D funds for ELIC; prepare for next Long Range Plans • SRF, Accelerator S&T Center as part of national effort • Partner in RIA (Rare Isotope Accelerator)

6. Report from the JLab Director (cont’d) • Free Electron Laser • FEL reached 10 kW • 3-year MOU with Navy, $11M/year, to reach 100 kW • Maybe 1 MW in future?? • Need to develop science program, user community to take advantage of this new technology • Biomedical applications? • 12 GeV upgrade • DOE wants CD1 in July 2005 • Could use more people (sabbatical visitors?) to devote full time to project! • SNS • Cryomodule production coming to conclusion • Delivered performance exceeds specifications; significant R&D achievement for JLab • Overall outstanding technical, cost, and schedule performance ($70M enterprise)

7. Report from the JLab User Group (See Tab 10: presentation by P. Stoler (User Group Chair) at Institutional Management Review (August 31, 2004)) • Issues raised • Future JLab management • Foreign collaborators – remains major issue • Office space in new building • Workshop in June 2004 on pre-12-GeV physics program • 55 talks, vital physics issues, program is “extensive and deep”

8. Jefferson Lab Performance: SURA Results of Peer Reviews • Administrative Review, May 5-7 (Tab 7) • “The Panel has concluded that the new organizational approach is maturing and providing for continued improvement in the quality, timeliness and efficiency of support service delivery.” – Jerry Bellows (NREL) • Science and Technology Review, June 14-16 (Tab 8) • “The review found that TJNAF is conducting a strong and vigorous research program that is attracting attention that extends beyond the nuclear physics community.” – Dennis Kovar (DOE) • Institutional Management Review, August 30-31 (Tab 9) • “Members of the Committee found Jefferson Lab to be a vibrant institution which continues to be well managed and to have a clear vision of its future.” – Charles Shank (LBL) • Results of all reviews: “Outstanding”

9. SURA Stewardship of Jefferson Lab • SURA Residence Facility • Facility upgrades planned • There will be a 20% increase in room charges: necessary because DOE will no longer allow SURA subsidy • Graduate Fellowship and Sabbatical/Research Leave Programs • Record number (23) of fellowship applicants: 8 awarded • No applications for sabbatical support in past two years • Sabbatical Support for MSI Faculty • Draft proposal submitted to DOE; they decided to deal directly with MSI’s rather than with SURA as intermediary • Distinguished Faculty Lecturer/Graduate Student Education Program • Will be included in recompetition proposal • Honors and Awards Program • Needs to be activated