Lessons Learned

PDF Version Also Available for Download.

Description

LLNL turned in 5 Declaration Line Items (DLI's) in 2006. Of these, one was declared completed. We made some changes to streamline our process from 2005, used less money, time and fewer team members. This report is a description of what changes we made in 2006 and what we learned. Many of our core review team had changed from last year, including our Laboratory Director, the Facility safety and security representatives, our Division Leader, and the OPSEC Committee Chair. We were able to hand out an AP Manual to some of them, and briefed all newcomers to the AP process. ... continued below

Physical Description

PDF-file: 5 pages; size: 0 Kbytes

Creation Information

Dougan, A D & Blair, S November 14, 2006.

Context

This report is part of the collection entitled: Office of Scientific & Technical Information Technical Reports and was provided by UNT Libraries Government Documents Department to Digital Library, a digital repository hosted by the UNT Libraries. More information about this report can be viewed below.

Who

People and organizations associated with either the creation of this report or its content.

Publisher

Provided By

UNT Libraries Government Documents Department

Serving as both a federal and a state depository library, the UNT Libraries Government Documents Department maintains millions of items in a variety of formats. The department is a member of the FDLP Content Partnerships Program and an Affiliated Archive of the National Archives.

Contact Us

What

Descriptive information to help identify this report. Follow the links below to find similar items on the Digital Library.

Description

LLNL turned in 5 Declaration Line Items (DLI's) in 2006. Of these, one was declared completed. We made some changes to streamline our process from 2005, used less money, time and fewer team members. This report is a description of what changes we made in 2006 and what we learned. Many of our core review team had changed from last year, including our Laboratory Director, the Facility safety and security representatives, our Division Leader, and the OPSEC Committee Chair. We were able to hand out an AP Manual to some of them, and briefed all newcomers to the AP process. We first went to the OPSEC Committee and explained what the Additional Protocol process would be for 2006 and solicited their help in locating declarable projects. We utilized the 'three questions' from the AP meeting last year. LLNL has no single place to locate all projects at the laboratory. We talked to Resource Managers and key Managers in the Energy and Environment Directorate and in the Nonproliferation Homeland and International Security Directorate to find applicable projects. We also talked to the Principal Investigators who had projects last year. We reviewed a list of CRADA's and LDRD projects given to us by the Laboratory Site Office. Talking to the PI's proved difficult because of vacation or travel schedules. We were never able to locate one PI in town. Fortunately, collateral information allowed us to screen out his project. We had no problems in downloading new versions of the DWA and DDA. It was helpful for both Steve Blair and Arden Dougan to have write privileges. During the time we were working on the project, we had to tag-team the work to allow for travel and vacation schedules. We had some difficulty locating an 'activities block' in the software. This was mentioned as something we needed to fix from our 2005 declaration. Evidently the Activities Block has been removed from the current version of the software. We also had trouble finding the DLI Detail Report, which we included in our signature process last year. This report had been inadvertently omitted from the version of the software we used. We typed our own version of the Detail Report and the package was sent to signature. The final software was not available in time to include the DLI Report. We streamlined our review process for the Technical and Security Reviews by sending one letter to each entity instead of getting separate approvals from the subordinates, then getting an approval from the lead reviewer. The Review process took 20 days, far shorter than the 6 weeks it required last year. It will be difficult to shorten the process much more. One of our projects had associated laboratory work at NIF. This required many discussions with NIF management during the review process and before their paperwork came to them for signature since they were not aware of the Additional Protocol.

Physical Description

PDF-file: 5 pages; size: 0 Kbytes

Language

Item Type

Identifier

Unique identifying numbers for this report in the Digital Library or other systems.

  • Report No.: UCRL-TR-226213
  • Grant Number: W-7405-ENG-48
  • DOI: 10.2172/896012 | External Link
  • Office of Scientific & Technical Information Report Number: 896012
  • Archival Resource Key: ark:/67531/metadc882237

Collections

This report is part of the following collection of related materials.

Office of Scientific & Technical Information Technical Reports

Reports, articles and other documents harvested from the Office of Scientific and Technical Information.

Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI) is the Department of Energy (DOE) office that collects, preserves, and disseminates DOE-sponsored research and development (R&D) results that are the outcomes of R&D projects or other funded activities at DOE labs and facilities nationwide and grantees at universities and other institutions.

What responsibilities do I have when using this report?

When

Dates and time periods associated with this report.

Creation Date

  • November 14, 2006

Added to The UNT Digital Library

  • Sept. 22, 2016, 2:13 a.m.

Description Last Updated

  • Nov. 29, 2016, 6:28 p.m.

Usage Statistics

When was this report last used?

Congratulations! It looks like you are the first person to view this item online.

Interact With This Report

Here are some suggestions for what to do next.

Start Reading

PDF Version Also Available for Download.

International Image Interoperability Framework

IIF Logo

We support the IIIF Presentation API

Dougan, A D & Blair, S. Lessons Learned, report, November 14, 2006; Livermore, California. (digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc882237/: accessed November 18, 2018), University of North Texas Libraries, Digital Library, digital.library.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.