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