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. The internal DOE management review included consideration of the capabilities, desires, interests, previous experience and balance among the various possible DOE sites. An important element in deciding to site these facilities at existing DOE laboratories was the recognition that any new free standing facility would entail extensive construction at the facility itself as well as large outyear mortgages in operating expenses for the facility and support activities. The Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory already had designed and DOE had requested funding from Congress for an LBL facility in the energy range 1-2 GeV. The Oak Ridge National Laboratory has been pursuing the advanced reactor concept as a replacement for their successful, but 20-year old research reactor, High Flux Isotope Reactor. National Laboratory has been developing their concept of a 6 GeV facility since the Planning Study for Advanced Synchrotron Radiation Facilities first recommended such a facility in early 1984 and is a logical location for such an interactive facility. Argonne National Laboratory was selected on the basis of the laboratory's technical capability; the consistency of the project to the mission for the laboratory; and the laboratory's ability to accommodate possible classified research. In times of tight fiscal budgets an existing site such as Argonne was considered a viable and technically excellent and economic choice. Argonne BASIC ENERGY SCIENCES FACILITIES Question 7: The Department has included a construction request for FY 1987 for a 1-2 GeV Synchrotron Radiation Source at Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory projected to cost $90 - $100 million. Why is it necessary to initiate construction of the facility prior to the definition of its cost, schedule, and design? Answer: The construction request of $1,500,000 for FY 1987 for a 1-2 GeV purpose of defining more precisely the cost, schedule, and design. UNIVERSITY RESEARCH REACTORS Question 8: On February 26, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission published, in the Federal Register, its final rule limiting the use of highly enriched uranium (HEU) in domestically licensed research and test reactors. The new amendments "generally would require that newly licensed non-power reactors use low enriched uranium (LEU) fuel and, contingent on Federal Government funding for conversion-related costs, that licensees of existing non-power reactors replace HEU fuel with LEU fuel acceptable to the Commission." The NRC notes that "it is anticipated that the funding necessary for conversion activities for both university and other licensees could be provided through DOE or other Federal agency." What is DOE's role in implementing the rule? Answer: The Office of Energy Research, through the University Reactor Fuel Assistance program, will coordinate the conversion process and assist the affected universities as necessary in making the transition from HEU to LEU fuel. This will be carried out in three phases: 1) The universities affected by the conversion rule will submit proposals to DOE to carry out safety analysis studies on the use of LEU fuel in their reactors. DOE would fund the costs of these studies through the University Reactor Fuel Assistance Program. 2) The completed analysis study would be submitted by each university to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) for review and approval. At the same time, DOE would place an order for the required LEU fuel with the fabrication contractor (currently Babcock and Wilcox, Lynchburg, Virginia). 3) When the NRC issues final conversion orders for each university reactor, new LEU fuel would be shipped by DOE to each university and the HEU fuel would be returned to DOE for disposal. It should be noted, however, that the first conversion of a university reactor to LEU fuel (the Phoenix reactor at the University of Michigan) took five years. Thus, we believe the conversion of the other reactors will not, and probably cannot, be accomplished in a short time period. As appropriate, DOE will help Universities through this transition period with funds made available through the appropriation process. OTHER MANAGEMENT/INSTITUTIONAL ISSUES Question 9: What, if any, ceilings is DOE considering regarding the amount of Work for Others a laboratory may perform: Is some work, such as for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission or the SDI program excluded from such a ceiling, or are we being forced to duplicate expensive technical facilities elsewhere? The Answer: The Departmental policy on Work for Others calls for the cognizant Secretarial Officer of the multiprogram laboratories to approve an overall guidance level on the relative amount of non-DOE funded work to be performed at each laboratory. For example, the guidance level at the energy multiprogram laboratories is 20 percent of total laboratory effort. guidance level does not represent a definite ceiling, but a management indicator whereby such work over that level requires additional review. Following the review, which focuses on whether such action would dilute the DOE mission of the laboratory, the work could be authorized by the cognizant Secretarial Officer. Work for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is expressly excluded from the ceiling level because the Department has a special legislative commitment to make its facilities available to the NRC. The legislation states that NRC is precluded from building its own laboratories and that use of the DOE laboratories will ensure the Government is not being forced to duplicate expensive technical facilities elsewhere. Work for SDI is not excluded from the guidance level per se. Special consideration is, however, given to performing work that is closely associated with their mission for the Department of Defense at the weapons laboratories. |