Due to the rapidly developing technologies associated with these major facilities and the long pre-construction and construction phases, it is likely that there will be upgrades to newly constructed major facilities. This element can not be planned but should be anticipated. It is not valid to assume that more pre-construction research and development or simple waiting will alleviate this possible encumberance; often the technological advance and new scientific opportunities are established during early operation and instrument development. Delaying construction only insures a reduced national capability to meet our economic and technological competition. The four cost elements are presented in the schematic funding profile for a major facility in Figure 1. The elements are optimistically scheduled in this figure. Proper detailed planning by the DOE should optimize the phasing of the elements for each new facility.

We have recommended immediate funding of three new capabilities at existing facilities. The Department's capability to act on these recommendations depends on its existing commitments (and the process of consensus building by the interested user community in the larger scientific community, the DOE, the Executive Branch and in Congress). Shown in Figure 2 are the existing commitments at the time of the DOE Division of Materials Sciences long-range plan (Ref.14). We conclude that the advanced insertion devices should start in the second year to smooth the financial loads and to allow NSLS Phase II and the improvement underway at Stanford to be completed.

Figure 3 is an adaptation of the long-range plan developed by the DOE Division of Materials Sciences (Ref. 14). Several comments are in order. Estimated construction and operating costs are those given in the MMF Report: we believe that they are underestimated. The boxes do not imply uniform yearly funding but only the total estimated cost and the approximate duration of each phase. We have not included in the figure the addition of new advanced insertion devices at Wisconsin and have estimated about $16M for such devices at the NSLS (BNL) and SSRL (Stanford). We estimate that the $30 million pre-construction research and development for advanced neutron sources should begin at the $2.5 million level with about 80 percent going to studies on steady-state sources. Construction projects for the two neutron halls and the 1-2 GeV synchrotron have been previously recommended and have DOE approved construction plans. Pre-construction research and development and the advanced insertion devices costs should be supported by operating and equipment funds as well as by construction funds.

In conclusion, we find that substantial increases in construction commitments must be made, but a reasonable financial plan for the next decade to accommodate the recommendations is possible. For example, if a plan based on the schedule laid out in Figure 3, is implemented starting in FY 1987, then (1.) an annual real increase (in FY 1985 dollars) of about $6-7 million in the DOE Division of Materials Sciences construction budget for each of the first 8 years (over the level in FY 1986), and (2.) an annual real growth (in FY 1985 dollars) of about 6-7 percent, $7-8 million, in the Division's operating budget for each of the first 3 years will provide for the additional expenses associated with the new capabilities at existing facilities and with new facilities. This scenario assumes the 1-2 GeV synchrotron source is delayed one year to improve the design with $2-3 million of pre-construction research and development expenses. Operating and maintenance costs of the

23

three recommended new capabilities are about $4-5 M per annum.

Costs that will arise more than 3 to 5 years in the future are imperfectly known--we believe the MMF estimates, which are used here, are 10-20% too low. Future workshops and pre-construction research and development will be necessary to determine these expenses. A second possible plan which allows an early start

to all of the recommended construction is provided in the MMF Report.

We have pointed out above that not all of the facilities needs are within materials sciences. It follows that not all of the new research and instrumentation funding associated with this plan should derive from the DOE Division of Materials Sciences, but the Division's core research budget will need real annual increases of 2-3 percent over the decade to support its share. This provides for the expanded support as well as some of the additional support of smaller scale research programs and instrumentation mandated by the prerequisites in the MMF Report.

Figure 3

MAJOR MATERIALS FACILITIES PROJECTS

(AREAS PROPORTIONAL TO COSTS IN FY 1985 DOLLARS)

1. Major Facilities for Materials Research and Related Disciplines, NRC Major Materials Facilities Committee, D. E. Eastman and Frederick Seitz, Co-Chairmen, National Academy of Sciences, August, 1984.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

User's Guide to DOE Facilities, DOE/ER-0174, January, 1984.

Office of Basic Energy Sciences 1984 Summary Report, DOE/ER-0146/1,
November, 1984

Materials Sciences Programs Fiscal Year 1984, DOE/ER-143/2,
September 1984.

Materials Research and Development, ERAB Materials R&D Panel,
Robert H. Pry, Chairman, DOE/S-0027, November 1983.

"Scientific Opportunities with Advanced Facilities for Neutron Scattering", G.H. Lander and V.J. Emery, editors, Shelter Island, NY, October 1984.

7. Current Status of Facilities Dedicated to the Production of Synchrotron Radiation, NRC Solid State Sciences Committee, Subcommittee on Synchrotron Radiation Facilities, D.W. Lynch, Chairman, National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C., 1983.

8.

Planning Study for Advanced National Synchrotron--Radiation
Facilities, National Synchrotron-Radiation Planning Committee,
M. Knotek and P. Eisenberger, Co-Chairman, Sandia National
Laboratories, Albuquerque, NM, 14 March 1984.

Report of a

9. Synchrotron Radiation Source Research and Development
Program Review, D. Lynch and M. Weber, presiders, Ames Laboratory,
October 1984.

10.

11.

12.

ORNL Presentation to the Major Materials Facilities Committee or the
National Research Council, ORNL, D.C. Bartine et al., February, 1984, and
The Center for Neutron Research, Prepared by Oak Ridge National
Laboratory, March, 1985.

"Proceedings of the Workshop on Instrumentation for the Advanced High-
Flux Reactor", R. Moon, editor, Oak Ridge National Laboratory,
CONF-8405192, May, 1984.

Report on ALS/SSRL User Workshop, A. I. Bienenstock, T. Elioff and
G. E. Haller, Co-chairman Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Pub. 5095,
May 1983.
See also National Center for Advanced Materials,
Scientific Program Summary, Pub. 5087, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory,
April 1983.

- 25

13. Current Status of Neutron-Scattering Research and Facilities in the
United States, NRC Solid State Sciences Committee, Panel on Neutron
Scattering, John J. Rush, Chairman, National Academy of Sciences,
Washington, DC

1984.

14. Materials Sciences Division Long Range Plan, DOE/ER-0212, December 1984.

15. Articles on Neutron Scattering in Physics Today 38, No.1, January 1985.

16. "Large facilities for condensed-matter science", M. Blume and D. Moncton, Physics Today 38, No.3, March, 1985.