Inquir y I s sue
2
| 2014
11
its successful path. If some FWPs do not review well, that’s
certainly an issue for us.
So we’re having discussions on what our core capabilities
are and what areas we would like to strengthen if there is the
budget. Money is tight, and we can’t do everything we want
to do or think we need to do. None of the national Labs can
do everything they want to do. So we have to be selective,
focus on our strengths and clearly articulate where the Lab is
now and where we need to go to address scientific challenges
that are part of DOE’s mission. That’s our short, intermediate
and long-term priority.
Another near-termpriority is that the Sensitive Instrument
Facility be built on time and on budget. After a rainy spring
and summer, things are going great. The walls are up, the
roof is on, work is progressing well and it’s all very exciting.
An intermediate priority associated with this is populating
the SIF with state-of–the-art equipment. We’re making
progress on that, and I’m optimistic. We’ve had discussions
with Iowa State administration and a number of the
department chairs and we are building a coalition with the
intent of purchasing a focused-ion-beam (FIB) instrument
and an aberration-corrected scanning transmission electron
microscope (STEM).
We recently had discussions in Washington, D.C. with
both Linda Horton (Materials Sciences and Engineering
Division Director) and Harriet Kung (Associate Director of
Science for Basic Energy Sciences) where we laid out our
plan to build this coalition, and those meetings were both
positive. We will be requesting mid-year funds to help fund
those instruments, and while I don’t have a definitive “yes”
in my pocket, I’m optimistic we’ll be able to order that
equipment within the year.
Another intermediate term priority is working on our
computational-science capabilities. We are basically maxed
out on power and HVAC to house computer clusters in our
existing research buildings. The Laboratory has presented a
proposal for a new computational science facility to DOE for
the last two years, and we’ve been encouraged to come up
with alternatives.
After the Lab Plan review this summer, we came back to
Ames and evaluated some of our other buildings, and we’re
looking closely at the paint and air conditioning shop. We’ve
had a pair of architectural firms evaluate whether we can
convert that well-built building into a good, intermediate
solution for our computational facility. DOE is receptive
to the idea of repurposing existing space. We might be a
little out of sync with the budget cycle, but we have a good
plan and a good building. It would serve our needs on an
intermediate basis, and we’ll work with DOE on acquiring
funding to accomplish that.
4. How much have you traveled so far? How
many trips have you made to D.C.? Is it what
you expected?
I’m not sure I want to know. I have a feeling it’s been eight
or so trips to D.C. There was the Lab Plan in week number
two, a couple of trips for the National Laboratory Directors
Council, and National Lab Day, which was an outstanding
opportunity to highlight the work we do at Ames Laboratory.
In addition, I’ve been to Oak Ridge National Laboratory for a
meeting with the Secretary of Energy’s Advisory Board. The
travel schedule has been seemingly every other week, pretty
much what I expected.
The meetings with the national laboratory directors are
very important, interesting, and productive because we’re
trying to tackle some longstanding problems within the
national laboratory complex. The Secretary of Energy, Ernest
Moniz, is very interested in our input and in working together
to improve DOE and the national lab complex. We’ve been
picking important problems and making some progress.
The Ames Laboratory is well-known within DOE, but
not necessarily within other parts of Washington so I believe
it’s important to get out and meet with Iowa’s Congressional
delegation. I’ve had the chance to visit all but one of the
offices so far. I’ll be back out to D.C. in December to receive
our laboratory grades, and hope to take some extra time to
once again meet with our representatives. It’s important to
let them know what great science we’re doing, to show them
the importance of the national laboratories and how we are
contributing to the nation, as well as Iowa and the local
economy.
5. Any other opportunities for improvement/
changes that you’ve identified so far?
The Laboratory has been very successful in securing the
funding for state-of-the-art equipment. The CMI has two
signature pieces of instrumentation – the laser engineered
net shaping (LENS) for additive manufacturing—as well
as the robotic system for synthesizing catalysts. Those two
systems are the envy of many laboratories and position us
very well. Additionally, both the Chemical and Biological
Sciences and Materials Sciences and Engineering divisions
have done well in recent years. We are in the process of
procuring a field-emission electron scanning microscope
that will go into the SIF and, as I mentioned earlier, we are
optimistic about getting the other two pieces—the STEM
and FIB—as well.
On the operations side, one area where we experienced
an early success was the roll out of the new website. We
still have work to do on that, but things are moving in the
right direction. As far as operational efficiency, I’m amazed
at what we get done for the budget we have. Things run
very smoothly, and I’m impressed across the board, from
accounting to finance to budget to procurement. I’m always
looking for ways to improve efficiency, but I’m not sure there
are any big ones to be had. We’re bringing in a new manager
for Facilities and Engineering Services so we will see new
leadership in that area.
