Excerpts of the 1995 UCORP Meeting Minutes on the DOE Lab
Consultation
A summary of testimony from various consultants on the role of the
University of California in managing the DOE Laboratories.
Laboratory Testing in a Test Ban/Non-Proliferation Regime
This is a study by well-informed public citizens groups on the role
of
the DOE National Laboratories in maintaining US nuclear supremacy in
an
era of above-ground testing and simulation. The implications of the
federal investment in these programs for the Non-Proliferation Treaty
and
Complete Test Ban Treaty are examined.
The Nuclear Deterrence Role of the DOE Weapons Laboratories in the
Post-Cold War Era
This is a position paper by the Office of Research on the Nuclear
Deterrence Role of the DOE Weapons Laboratories in the Post-Cold War
Era.
It summarizes the goals of START I and START II, the
Non-Proliferation
Treaty and the Complete Test Ban Treaty, the importance of the
Science
Based Stockpile Stewardship to these treaties, and the role of the
DOE
Laboratories in attaining these goals. The perspective is that of the
DOE
and the National Laboratories.
Galvin Report
The DOE asked a special task force of experts, the Galvin Committee,
to review and "propose alternative futures" for the DOE National
Laboratories. In a 1995 report,
The Galvin Committee recommended establishment of clear missions with
lead laboratories and Centers of Excellence to foster basic science
integrated with university research, as well as national security,
energy, environment, and waste management. The Galvin Report also
recommended much more public involvement in decision making,
especially in matters related to the environment.
Much more controversial was the Galvin report's recommendations that
weapons design, development and direct stockpile support be moved
from LLNL to other laboratories; and that the Federal support for the
national laboratories should be based on a "private sector
style--"corporatized"-- laboratory system.
Jendresen Report
The Jendresen Committee in 1989 was charged by the UC Academic
Council to provide a thoughtful and independent evaluation of the
role of the University in managing the DOE Labs. In responding to the
Academic Council's statement that the public service function of the
University is central to the argument justifying the University's
role in managing the Labs, the Committee proposed a set of general
criteria for public service appropriate to the University.
Of the eight members of the Jendresen Committee, all but one member
found that the University operation of the Laboratories failed to
satisfy these criteria. Six members concluded that the University
should, in a timely and orderly manner, phase out its responsibility
for operating the Laboratories while maintaining its cooperative
relationship with them in teaching and research. Two members felt
that a contractual break was not required.