operation at somewhat higher energies than are SLAC's. During SLAC for FY 1985 were 43 percent for SPEAR operation for High Question: What assurance can DOE provide that SSC, CEBAF and existing facilities will be optimally utilized if CEBAF and the SSC are approved for construction by the Congress? Answer: We can, of course, give no firm assurance of optimum utilization of facilities which will depend on budgets as much as a decade from now. We constantly assess and prioritize program activities and do our best to assure that highest priority activities are carried out to the extent possible within the constraints of available funding and the essential need to maintain proper program balance. It is crucial to maintain a proper balance between short-term productivity and making adequate preparation to ensure the longer term viability of the program. Within the available funding it is necessary to carefully assess the various program elements to ensure proper emphasis for the best national program. Facility operations must be assessed within the broader context of all program needs. With regard to the specific question of operation of major new facilities such as SSC and CEBAF, the Department carefully examines the productivity and research potential of existing facilities as well as the need for new experimental capabilities continually. Cost of Physics Facilities Question: The current budget environment is making it increasingly difficult to fund new accelerator upgrades and facilities. DOE must ensure that federal funds are earmarked for accelerator upgrades or facilities that are likely to gain congressional approval. Is DOE required to approve advance research, conducted by a DOE accelerator facility, which is directed toward upgrading an existing facility or building a new facility? there a limit on funds spent for such research? Is Answer: DOE gives its laboratories the freedom to pursue generic R&D studies within the scope of the Department's program guidance and specific funding allocations for high energy technology, without specific approval of each subactivity. Only when the R&D becomes focused on a specific project for which a line item construction proposal will result does the Department become involved with specific approvals. There are specific limitations on R&D associated with each project which are determined as part of the annual budget process and these begin when the R&D makes the transition from generic to project specific R&D. Question: What is the status of research being conducted at SLAC related to a large linear collider? How much has SLAC spent on such research? Answer: There is no R&D directed toward designing a large linear collider at SLAC or anywhere else. However, SLAC has spent about $1.5 million on generic R&D studies of advanced accelerator concepts. This generic R&D at SLAC, which might at some future date relate to such a machine, focuses on trying to understand what beam and performance parameters, and what technology, would be required for such a device. There is enough already known about these parameters to clearly indicate that the technology to build a large linear collider is not yet available. An early step in the long process of developing such technology will be the successful operation of the Stanford Linear Collider, SLC. However, many years of generic R&D on many seemingly unrelated technical questions still must be successfully completed before the design of a large linear collider can be undertaken. The state of this technology was recently reviewed in depth by the High Energy Physics Advisory Panel, HEPAP, and the results of this review are contained in the "Report of the HEPAP Subpanel on Advanced Accelerator R&D and the SSC," DOE/ER-0255, December 1985. One of the major conclusions of this study is that "... the earliest time at which an electron positron linear collider, if feasible, could overlap the range of physics interest of the SSC is 15-20 years." Question: For any existing DOE accelerator facility, DOE utilizes the same contractor for physics research, operating a facility, and upgrading the facility. How does DOE assure that funds earmarked for research and operations are not used for accelerator upgrades? Answer: DOE has a number of mechanisms to monitor contractor technical and cost performance. Technical performance is monitored primarily by the DOE headquarters' program division through review of monthly progress reports; formal laboratory-wide on-site annual reviews, including outside expert consultants; semi-annual project reviews; frequent on-site visits by DOE staff; ad-hoc reviews on special topics; and participation by DOE staff in laboratory advisory committee meetings. DOE has an on-site office at each of the major facilities to monitor activities on a day-to-day basis. Responsibility for fiscal and contract administration rests with the DOE field offices and their on-site area offices. The field office monitors fiscal performance through a variety of means including monthly cost reports submitted by the contractor, annual financial audits, approval authority on procurement actions above a specified limit (typically about $250,000), approval of subcontracts, annual performance appraisals, and detailed appraisals at the time of contract renewal. Other Questions Question: Briefly describe the process used to select the magnet design for SSC. Include who made the selection and what criteria was used. Answer: The extensive magnet selection process was developed by the Central Design Group, CDG, in consultation with the scientific and technical community, and with the concurrence of DOE. Initially, a Technical Magnet Review Panel of experts was convened by the CDG to review the status of the magnet R&D program relative to each style of magnet studied. The CDG also set up three special task forces of experts to collect and evaluate specialized information related to the required magnet characteristics. These were the Aperture Task Force, Cost Comparison Task Force, and Operations and Commissioning Task Force. The Magnet Selection Advisory Panel, chaired by Professor Frank Sciulli of Columbia University, considered all five styles of magnets that had been studied. The advisory panel included three industrial consultants. The basic issues considered included relative capital cost of the overall project, workability of the design, complexity of the overall magnet system, operational complexity, costs and flexibility, impact on construction scheduling, further R&D requirements, and accelerator physics questions. The panel included in their considerations the reports and discussions of the task forces and Technical Magnet Review Panel and presentations and discussions of the design and R&D results by the scientists and engineers involved with each type of magnet. The recommendation of the panel and its consultants was unanimous. This recommendation was accepted by the Director of the CDG, Dr. M. Tigner, who made the final decision. This decision and the selection process were presented to and concurred in by the Department, and subsequently was the subject of a hearing by the House Science and Technology Committee on October 29, 1985. The chosen design has been incorporated into the Conceptual Design Report and is the focus of the present magnet R&D program. Question: In the fusion energy program, provide the most recent program milestones, including scientific feasibility, breakeven, engineering feasibility, and commercial feasibility. Our Answer: We expect to produce plasma conditions equivalent to breakeven conditions in the TFTR during the coming year, with actual tritium burning at breakeven occurring in 1989. The current program plan provides for an assessment of fusion's economic and environmental potential around the turn of the century. current program plan contains a more detailed identification and discussion of the interim milestones leading up to this assessment. This plan is supported by more detailed analysis being prepared by the technical planning activity managed by Argonne National Laboratory. I would like to provide a copy of our summary Magnetic Fusion Program Plan for the record. (NOTE: The information referred to was placed in the subcommittee files.) Question: What is the definition of a multi-program laboratory? How are these research facilities different from other DOE facilities? Answer: The Department of Energy defines nine major laboratories as multiprogram laboratories. These are Argonne National Laboratory, Brookhaven National Laboratory, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Los Alamos National Scientific Laboratory, Idaho National Engineering Laboratory, and Sandia National Laboratory. The designation "multiprogram laboratory" is based on the mixture of scientific and R&D activities at these laboratories which serve multiple DOE programs and on the large size of these institutions. Other large laboratories, such as Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory and Stanford Linear Accelerator Center, are devoted almost exclusively to activities related to a single program, in this case high energy physics, and thus are considered single purpose or dedicated laboratories rather than multiprogram laboratories. The designation as a multiprogram laboratory carries with it policy and procedural requirements such as adherance to the institutional planning process, which are specific to this category of research facility. To simplify the oversight process, a few smaller laboratories which serve more than one program are not classified by DOE as "multiprogram laboratories" and, therefore, they are not required to follow the policies and procedures that are appropriate to the larger multi-program laboratories. Question: Each of the DOE's multipurpose labs are recommended to receive a new research facility in this year's budget request. What is the rationale of limiting such requests to the institutions which are designated as multiprogram labs to the exclusion of other DOE labs that do conduct activities in a number of areas such as the Ames Laboratory? Answer: The rationale for assigning certain new research facilities to specific multiprogram laboratories is based on DOE management's assessment of the capabilities, desires, interests, previous experience and balance among the various possible DOE sites. The Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory already had designed and DOE had requested FY 1984 funding from Congress for an LBL synchrotron 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. Argonne 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. Since each of the new BES facilities requires considerable staff and effort to develop, considering the work loads at other laboratories, this decision is very appropriate. The DOE management decision process also considered the admonition from ERAB not to start another laboratory, the recommendations from several committees to begin the process of planning for new facilities as soon as possible, the need to plan for possible use of these facilities for defense purposes including classified research and the recommendation from the Packard Committee on Federal Laboratories. The smaller laboratories such as Ames Laboratory will be assigned suitable projects, but these three have been given to the appropriate laboratories with the above rationale. Question: Has the development of the Center for Advanced Materials at Lawrence Berkeley Lab caused any reductions in the program support for other on-going research programs in materials research? Answer: The development of the Center for Advanced Materials (CAM) at Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory has not caused reductions in the program support for other on-going research programs in materials research. The CAM program is proceeding with a steady buildup with funds specifically earmarked for it. Construction of the two CAM buildings is on schedule with the first building, the Surface Science and Catalysis Laboratory to be ready for occupancy about May 1987. The CAM research program will continue to grow at a modest rate until the buildings are fully occupied. No reductions of other programs to fund CAM are contemplated, although priorities within the materials sciences do shift with new opportunities and emphasizing new priorities will cause changes in program direction. Question: Do you have an institutional plan for the development of the labs under your direction? Does this plan include recognition of the role of these labs as engines for economic growth in particular regions? Answer: The plans for the development of laboratories under my direction are contained in the annual results of the institutional planning process. Senior laboratory management and senior Departmental officials participate in the process of establishing the future plan for each laboratory in the system. Laboratory management proposes appropriate missions and long range development goals for each laboratory. Departmental management shapes these missions and plans through policy, general guidance on the relative role of the laboratories, and individual annual planning guidance to each laboratory's management. Although the laboratories have historically had responsibility for providing new technology to the private sector, the advent of the Stevenson-Wydler Act has increased the emphasis on effecting these transfers. The laboratories have established specific offices within their organization to accelerate the transfer of new technology to industry. Most laboratories have established a method of promoting the regional possibilities for use of the new technologies. These methods vary depending upon the nature of the laboratory and the development environment of its region. The regional approaches are still too new to permit a concrete assessment of their eventual effectiveness. Magnetic Fusion Question: Given the President's endorsement of magnetic fusion at the Geneva Summit, why did the Administration propose cutting the budget for FY 1987? Answer: The cuts that you refer to in the FY 1987 budget were necessitated by our concern over growing budget deficits. However, the reductions in fusion were made in carefully selected areas, such as research on the tandem mirror concept, so that our ability to cooperate with the Soviets would not be jeopardized. Question: How much money has been spent on the large Mirror Fusion Test Facility/B (MFTF/B) to date? Answer: A total of about $354 million has been spent on MFTF-B. This includes construction costs of $241 million plus $113 million for design, research, and development support and fabrication of auxiliary components. |