ERAB RECOMMENDATIONS FOR BASIC ENERGY SCIENCES Question 2: The ERAB Long-Range Energy R&D Study Research Subpanel also recommended that "[a] Basic Energy Sciences Committee should be established to make recommendations with respect to scientific opportunities and priorities as well as future facilities." The Committee has been making a similar recommendation for the past several years. Do you agree with this recommendation, and if not, what are your reasons for disagreement? If you do agree with this recommendation, when do you plan to implement it? Answer: We do agree in principal, that a judiciously structured oversight committee would give valuable input to BES program plans, but there are several potential problems implementing this recommendation. The Basic Energy Sciences encompasses an imposing number of subdisciplines; nuclear, atomic, condensed matter, classical and accelerator physics, all subdisciplines of chemistry, metallurgy, ceramics, most fields of engineering, geosciences, molecular biology and biotechnology, mathematics and the computer sciences. In order to achieve balanced representation for all of these fields (as well as for the government laboratory, university, and industrial sectors and the energy technologies) membership would be large in number and the body would require additional BES staff to provide adequate staff assistance. Currently BES management is able to draw from the entire scientific community as a source of information on which to base technical decisions. We continue to study the problem of the best ways to judge among competing priorities and believe continued reliance should be given to maintaining a full time program staff with outstanding credentials. They give a full hearing to each of the special research interests related to the BES objectives, and work together to arrive at the most balanced total program that can be achieved. ERAB RECOMMENDATIONS FOR BASIC ENERGY SCIENCES If you Question 3: The ERAB Long-Range Energy R&D Study Research Subpanel also recommended that the establishment of "a separate budget category for facilities construction and operation". Do you agree with this recommendation, and if not, what are your reasons for disagreement? do agree with this recommendation, when do you plan to implement it? At present the BES budget is broken down into Answer: We do not agree. subdivided where appropriate into operating, equipment, and construction lines. To add another subheading with three or more subdivisions would result in unnecessary segmentation. With funds appropriated and controlled at this multiplicity of levels, BES has very restricted flexibility in responding to unforeseen budget emergencies. To "fence off" the facilities would compound the problem with little real benefit to programmatic goals since the details of the actual support categories are readily available. Additionally, the facilities are managed within "host" subprograms without specific additional staff. A step logical with independent budgeting would be independent BES management. As it is, program managers can weigh the problem of additional funds for facilities at the possible expense of research in their area of responsibility to achieve a truly well balanced program. ERAB RECOMMENDATIONS FOR BASIC ENERGY SCIENCES Question 4: In June 1985, the ERAB Materials Ad Hoc Review Panel published its "Review of the National Research Council Report 'Major Facilities for Materials Research and Related Disciplines."" The Panel made 4 recommendations in order of descending priority with regard to the DOE's construction of materials facilities. The first priority was to upgrade three existing facilities, the second priority was to immediately initiate non-site-specific R&D and engineering on a 6 GeV Synchrotron Radiation Source and an Advanced Steady State Neutron Facility, and the third priority was the 1-2 GeV Synchrotron Radiation Source. One of the first priority items, to provide for guide hall facilities and associated instruments for cold neutron research at the High Flux Beam Reactor (HFBR) at Brookhaven has not been proposed by the Department, yet construction funds are being requested for the 1-2 GeV Synchrotron Radiation Source, which is a third priority item. What is the justification for excluding the cold neutron facility and including the Synchrotron Radiation Source. What is the status of the HFBR Project? Answer: The justification for excluding the cold neutron facility and including the Synchrotron Radiation Source was based on the need to examine the total budget profile for several years and to spread out the costs and balance the types of facilities requested. It was considered essential to include the Los Alamos project for an experimental hall at the Neutron Scattering Center in order to take advantage of the world-class facility soon to be available there. With one new neutron project, it appeared appropriate to start a new synchrotron radiation source which has been ready for some time now, instead of a second neutron source project. It was also known that a new cold neutron facility was being requested for the NBS reactor and, therefore, it would be appropriate for a second national facility to be delayed slightly while the new light source was started. Current plans call for the incorporation of the HFBR Guide Hall project in future budgets at a more appropriate time. BASIC ENERGY SCIENCES FACILITIES Question 5: The FY 1987 request notes that there are additional requirements at the High Flux Beam Reactor at Brookhaven "for safeguards and security." We understand that the reactor was shutdown for several months earlier this fiscal year due to safeguards and security concerns. What is the status of the reactor, and what are the additional costs of the new requirements.? Answer: The reactor is back on line operating now that the safeguards and security issues are being addressed and a satisfactory method of operations has been agreed to. The safeguards and security costs are estimated to be $4,595,000 at BNL for FY 1987 of which an incremental $2,000,000 will be directly charged to the Materials Sciences subprogram. The remainder will be charged against overhead to all programs at the laboratory. BASIC ENERGY SCIENCES FACILITIES Question 6: Work on three new BES facilities is proposed in the FY 1987 request, a 6 GeV Synchrotron Radiation Source at Argonne National Laboratory, an Advanced Steady State Neutron Source at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, and a 1-2 GeV Synchrotron Radiation Source at Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory. There may have been other parties interested in having one of these facilities at a different site. In particular, in addition to Argonne National Laboratory a number of institutions including Cornell University, Stanford University, and Brookhaven National Laboratory have expressed keen interest in being the site of the 6 GeV Synchrotron Radiation Source. How and why were these particular sites for these facilities selected? Please elaborate on the decision process which resulted in these sites being selected for these particular facilities. What peer review or other processes were used to select these sites? Why was no formal competition allowed? Answer: The decision process for all the facilities followed a careful study and recommendation by ERAB of the appropriateness of these facilities for inclusion within DOE programs. The decision process included an examination of the total plan to construct advanced scientific facilities, including the timing; each laboratories' expertise, background, and interests; plus the need to plan for possible use of these facilities for defense purposes including classified research. The internal DOE management decision process considered the admonition from ERAB not to start another laboratory, considered the recommendations from several committees to begin the process of planning for new facilities as soon as possible and took into consideration the recommendation from the Packard Committee on Federal Laboratories of the need to revitalize selected laboratories. In view of extensive discussions, and outside advice, in addition to internal management review, no peer review process or formal competition was deemed necessary. |