Continuous Electron Beam Accelerator Facility Question: Please provide a breakdown and explanation of the total operating expenses request for FY 87. Answer: The following table is a breakdown of the FY 87 operating expenses request I would like to insert in the record. These funds would be used entirely for R&D activities in support of the CEBAF construction effort. Question: What is the total estimated cost of the project? What is the basis for this estimate? Answer: The total estimated cost (TEC) for the CEBAF project is $236 million. The estimates for conventional construction are based on a conceptual design study by the A/E firm of Daniel, Mann, Johnston, and Mendenhall. The cost estimates for technical components were based on vendor quotes, current catalogue prices, and estimates by the CEBAF engineering staff. The TEC includes allowances for engineering, design, inspection, administration, and installation. It is based on a construction schedule beginning in the second quarter of FY 1987 and ending the second quarter of FY 1992. The costs have been reviewed by the Office of Energy Research Division of Nuclear Physics Staff, by the Office of Energy Research Division of Construction, Environment and Safety Staff, by the Management and Administration Division of Independent Cost Estimating. Independent Non-DOE experts were also utilized to review specific critical parts of the cost estimates. Question: What is your estimate of the annual operating expenses for the project? What is its estimated useful life? Answer: The estimated annual facility operating costs including in-house research, but not including plant and capital equipment costs are $27 million per year. This reflects an annual savings of $3 million due to reduced power requirements resulting from the improved design. The estimated useful lifetime for a research facility of this type is about 20 years. This useful lifetime can be significantly increased by occasional judicious upgrading in response to technological advances and research requirements. Question: Describe any other sources of funding for the project. Answer: CEBAF has received funding from three sources other than the Federal government. The breakdown of this funding is shown in a table I would like to insert in the record. Contributions from Southeastern Universities Research Association, SURA, member universities are from yearly membership fees of $5,000/university and from special assessments of member universities. The cumulative income from this source as of March 13, 1986, was $394,500. City of Newport News The city of Newport News is donating to DOE, through SURA, a total of 250 acres of land as a site for CEBAF, and is donating to SURA an additional 50 acres to be held for possible future use by the project. Basic Energy Sciences Question: For the record, provide a breakdown of the BES budgets in operating, construction, and capital equipment for FY 80 through FY 87. Answer: The breakdown for the Basic Energy Sciences budget, in millions of dollars, is shown in the a table that I would like to insert for the record. (The information follows:) B/A FY 80 FY 81 FY 82 FY 83 FY 84 FY 85 FY 86 FY 87 Question: Your justification material last year indicated that the principal focus of BES is energy, but a number of other national goals including national security also are supported. Please provide an explanation of national security research and the beam time used by DOD and DOE defense programs at each BES facility for FY 85, 86, and 87. Answer: National security research at each of the BES facilities takes a variety of forms. In some cases beam time is not an appropriate measure of activity, for example the production of certain isotopes for defense applications at High Flux Isotope Reactor/Transuranium Processing Plant (HFIR/TRU) at ORNL. It is useful to separate the answer into the categories of synchrotron radiation facilities (Stanford Synchrotron Radiation Laboratory (SSRL) and National Synchrotron Light Source (NSLS)), neutron facilities (Intense Pulsed Neutron Source (IPNS), Los Alamos Neutron Scattering Center (LANSCE), High Flux Isotope Reactor (HFIR), and High Flux Beam Reactor (HFBR)) and other (primarily the Combustion Research Facility, Electron Microscope Facilities and HFIR/TRU). Use of synchrotron radiation for DOD and DOE defense programs is valuable for calibration of instruments for radiation detection and for research on the properties of materials and interaction of radiation with matter. At SSRL and NSLS this activity has averaged about 10 percent of the available beam time in FY 85 and FY 86 and is expected to remain at that level for FY 87. Several defense laboratories have built beam lines or are in the process of building beam lines at both SSRL and NSLS to conduct their experiments. With the neutron facilities, the situation varies from facility to facility. At the Los Alamos Neutron Scattering Center, defense related activities will be a minimum of 20 percent of available beam time in FY 87. At HFBR and HFIR, users from defense laboratories average about 10 percent of the total number of users, but vary from year to year. At IPNS, a relatively small amount of neutron beam time was used by defense related laboratories. However, the injection system for IPNS has been scheduled for neutral particle beam experiments, important for defense purposes, for 10 weeks in FY 86 and a similar level is expected for FY 87. At the remaining facilities, the Combustion Research Facility conducts 20 percent of their research for defense related activities on a continuing basis, the electron microscope facilities at Argonne National Laboratory are utilized between 1 and 5 percent of the time by defense laboratories; and HFIR produced isotopes are used to a relatively large extent by defense laboratories. For example 30 grams of curium-244 have been shipped so far in FY 86 to DOE defense program laboratories at LLNL and LANL. Although a fraction of the effort around these facilities has been specifically identified as being conducted by defense laboratories, it is clear from our discussions with managers of these facilities that all of the output from the facilities is carefully monitored and useful in a more generic sense. Question: What is the level of operating for materials sciences at the various facilities from FY 81 through FY 87? Answer: The level of operating for the major user facilities for Materials Sciences, in thousands of dollars, is shown in a table I would like to insert in the record. (The information follows:) |