oversight

Use and Operating Costs of the Atomic Energy Commission's High Energy Accelerators

Published by the Government Accountability Office on 1971-02-08.

Below is a raw (and likely hideous) rendition of the original report. (PDF)

JOINT COMMITTEE ON ATOMIC ENERGY. ’ ’
CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES




Use And Operating Costs
Of The Atomic Energy Commission’s
High Energy Accelerators B- 159687




BY THE COMPTROLLER GENERAL
OF THE UNITED STATES


                     FEB. 8,1971
                    COMPTROLLER    GENERAL        OF   THE   UNITED    STATES
                                  WASHINGTON.      D.C.   20248




      ~-157687




      Dear   Mr.   Chairman:

 I
 1’
              The General    Accounting    Office has reviewed     the use and      7 4- 1
      operating    costs of the Atomic     Energy   Commission’s      high energy
      physics   research   accelerators.       The review     was made in ac-
      cordance    with a request    dated October     22, 1969, from the
      G hapman,     Joint Committee      on Atomic    Energy.

        /
          ‘? A copy of this report   is being sent today to the Vice Chair-
      man‘of  your Committee.      Copies are also being sent to the Atomic         -2
      Energy   Commission.

             We believe that the contents  of this report  would be of in-
      terest  to other committees  and members     of Congress.      There-
      fore, as agreed to by the Committee,     we are making    distribu-
      tion of this report to such other committees     and members        of
      Congress.

                                                Sincerely         yours,




                                                Comptroller           General
                                                of the United         States

      The Honorable   John 0. Pastore,    Chairman
      Joint Committee   on Atomic   Energy
 4
      Congress  of the United States
“B
        COMPTROLLER GENER4L'S REPORTTO                                  USEAND OPERATING  COSTSOF
        THE JOINT COMMITTEEON ATOMIC ENERGY                             THE ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSI?lN'S
;       CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES                                   HIGH ENERGY ACCELERATORS
I                                                                       B-159687
I

        DIGEST
        ------

        WHYTHE REVIBW WASMADE
              The Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) provides more than 90 percent of
              the Federal Government's      financial     support for h
              research.    AEC supports   the design, development,
              qgqqfion   o f accelerators     and associated     facilities   and research
I
I
              conducted at Government-owned        accelerator     laboratories and at univer-
I             sities.   A high energy accelerator         is a machine which provides      a pri-
I             mary beam of protons or electrons          having an energy of 1 billion       elec-
I
I             tron volts or greater.       (See pa 7.)
I
I             Annual operating       costs for AEC's high energy physics program currently
I
I             total    about $118 million.       The costs of constructing          accelerators       and
I             related     facilities    have varied from a few million         dollars     to $250 mil-
I             lion,    the estimated     cost of the 200-billion-electron-volt             accelerator
I             currently      under construction    at Batavia,     Illinois.
I
I
I             The Joint Committee           on Atomic   Energy   requested    the General    Accounting
I
              Office   (GAO)        to
1             GAO reviewed
I
I                       he methods used by AECand five of its contractor-operated    ac-
I                      celerator  laboratories for allocating funds to various program
                       activities  and

             /-other            matters   relating   to accelerator    utilization    and operating
                       costs.


        3'INDINGSAND CONCLUSIONS
               The questions      raised      by the Joint Committee and GAO's findings           and con-
               clusions   follow.

               Whodecides that interest              in research conducted at a given accelerator
               has declined  to the point            at which support from the high energy physics
               budget should be curtailed              or stopped?

               These decisions    are made by AEC, with the advice of its High Energy
               Physics Advisory    Panel, on the basis of their        collective    judgment con-
               cerning the relative    priorities    and needs of various program activities
               and in the context    of overall   funding limitations.          For example,

        Tear Sheet
                                                                               FEE.     3,1.971
    I
substantial reductiovls in AEC's fiscal        year 1970 operating     budget and
anticipation    of continued    restrictions   resulted  in a decision    to re-
duce operating    funds for the Princeton-Pennsylvania       Accelerator.      Fur-
ther reductions     in the fiscal     year 1971 budget led to a decision     to
shut down the accelerator       by the end of that year.     (See pp* 23 to 26.)

 Is it more appropriate   for all contractors     operating             high energy ac-
celerators    to accept somewhat curtailed    productivity              or for the op-
eration    of one or more to be substantially     curtailed             so that those
remaining?

This question      cannot be answered categorically          because consideration                I

must be given to scientific        and technical     factors,     such as the unique
capabilities     of individual    accelerators    and the quality      and signifi-
cance of the research performed.           GAO believes,      however, that more in-
formation     should be available on the costs of operating the accelera-
tors at various levels than is routinely           provided to AEC by the lab-
oratories.      This would enable AECto evaluate more fully             the effects
of alternative      funding decisions.       (See ppa 15 to 26.)

Are there standards    against which actual performance    and potential
performance   are gauged? If standards do not exist or are tenuous,
could AEC develop,   through management cost analysis     OP other tech-
niques, standards   which might provide for a more efficient      alloca-
tion of funds and improved overall     quality of research within      the
budgets provided by the Congress?

II? the final analysis,          overall performance      of the accelerator      lab-
oratories    is gauged by the quality          of the research performed.          There
are specific       criteria    for evaluatl"ng     new proposals    as well as past
performance.        There is no clearly       defined formula,      however, for weight-
ing these criteria          so as to give each proposal or experiment            a quan-
titative   grade.         Whether or not a project      has scientific     merit is de-
cided by scientists          who are considered      by AK to be experts       in their           I
respective     fields.       (See p. 27 at--d pp4 48 to 51.)                                      I
                                                                                                  I
Because of the scientific         and technical    factors   involved,    GAO could
                                                                                                  I
not determine       whether more quantitative      standards    could be developed
to assist     laboratory and AEC personnel a"n evaluating           research quality.             I
                                                                                                  I
Laboratory     officials     were generally   of the opinion that development of                  I
a quantitative        formula for evaluating    proposed and completed experi-                    I
                                                                                                  I
ments was not feasible.          (See pp- 52 and 53.)                                             I
                                                                                                  I
With respect     to accelerator         operations,     no formal standards       have been
established    relating       accelerator      performance     to operating    costs at
various operating        levels.      Some cost data being reported          to AEC by the
laboratories were not on a una'form basis.                  This was caused, in part,             I

by different     interpretations          by the laboratories      of AK's reporting        re-
quirements.     Also the laboratories            d"d not have detailed       written    de-
scriptions   of the accounts used in their               internal   accounting     systems.
(See pp. 27 to 30.)
          GAOadjusted the laboratories'      cost data for greater       uniformity and,
          with the assistance  of laboratory     personnel,   developed information
          about the cost of operating    accelerators     at various   levels of beam
          output.   (See pp. 30 to 37.)

          GAO believes    that such information        could be useful to AEC in consider-
          ing alternative     allocations     of available      funds.      The information     could
          be considered     in conjunction     with such factors          as (1) the effects     on
          the research efforts       of individual     scientists       and on ongoing research
          programs and (2) the possible         need for shifts         in other research     funds
          among the laboratories.         The information       also could be used in com-
          paring expected operating        costs and output with those actually              achieved.
          Variances could be analyzed and corrective               action taken, if needed.
           (See pp. 38 to 42.)

          Who would decide      to change the support category of an accelerator
          from high energy      physics to some other field   like biology and medi-
          clne, chemistry,      or various combinations?

          Only one of the laboratories     had proposed a major shift    of its program
          to some other research discipline.       The decision  to sponsor the pro-
          posed shift    rested with AEC and would have involved    a commitment of
          funds from programs other than high energy physics for the construc-
          tion of major facilities     as well as for a share of the accelerator     op-
          erating  costs.

          Technical    reviews of the proposal were made by AEC and by scientists
          in other research disciplines.           The proposal,  however, was not ap-
          proved by AEC, and it does not appear that the proposed shift            will
          be carried    out in view of AEC's decision        to shut down the accelerator
          in fiscal    year 7971.       AEC said that its decision   had been made after
          considering     the scientific     merits of the proposal and its increasingly
          tighter    budgets.    (See pp. 43, 46, and 47.)

          Experiments   involving other       research disciplines     have been run on some
          of the accelerators.    At all        but one laboratory,    the high energy physics
          program was bearing the cost          of these experiments.      GAO believes    that
          such costs should be charged          to the programs benefiting     in order to
          accurately  show the costs of         the various   programs involved.      (See
          pp. 43 to 45.)
I
I
I
I   RECOWENDATIONS
                 OR SUGGESTIONS
I
I
I         AEC should
I
I            --implement     procedures   to achieve greater        uniformity in the cost        data
I
                 reported   by the accelerator    laboratories       (see pp. 40 and 41.)

             --require    the laboratories    to provide estimates         of accelerator    operat-
                 ing costs and related     beam output at various         operating   levels  (see
                 pp. 41 and 42), and

    Tear Sheet

                                                   3
                                                                                           I
      --require      laboratories       to charge the costs of providing    services to
          other   research     disciplines     to the programs benefiting   (see p. 45.)   I
                                                                                           I

AGENCYACTIONS AND UNRESOL~DISSUES                                                          I
                                                                                           I
    AEC has agreed:

      --To implement      procedures  to achieve greater      uniformity   in the cost     i
                                                                                           I
         data reported     by the accelerator   laboratories.        (See p. 41.)          I

      --To require       the laboratories      to provide,    on a trial   basis,  data
         relating    to estimated      accelerator    operating    costs and related
         beam output at various         operating    levels.    AEC will   subsequently
         assess the overall       value of such information         in program adminis-
         tration   in relation      to the time and effort       required   by the lab-
         oratories     to develop the information.           (See p. 42.)

      --To charge the incremental         costs of providing   services   to other
         research    disciplines    to those programs benefiting      when the costs
         are significant       and when adequate mutuality   of interest     does not
         exist.     (See p. 45.)




                                        4
                           Contents
                                                                  Page

DIGEST                                                              1
CHAPTER

  1       INTRODUCTION                                              5
              Nature of high energy physics                         7
              Costs of high energy physics                         12
  2       PROCEDURES   FOR ALLOCATING HIGH ENERGY
          PHYSICS FUNDSAMONGPROGRAMACTIVITIES                      15
             Current budget development procedures                 15
                   Budget assumptions                              16
                   Program assumptions                             17
                   Annual budget requests                          18
                   Financial  plans                                20
             Method of allocating     funds among labora-
                tories                                             21
             Decisions to reduce or discontinue      sup-
                port of specific    accelerators                   23
             Conclusion                                            26
  3       DEVELOPMENT OF IMPROVED COST AND OPERATING
          DATA FOR USE IN ALLOCATING FUNDS                         27
              Nonuniform cost data reported by labora-
                tories                                             28
             Cost of operations      at alternative      oper-
                ating levels                                       33
             Use of additional      cost data in evaluat-
                ing alternative     fund allocations               38
              Conclusions    and recommendations                   40
                   Need for uniform cost reporting          for
                      high energy-physics     subactivities        40
                   Need for cost and operating        data at
                      various operating    levels                  41.

  4       USE OF ACCELERATORSIN PROGRAMS    OTHERTHAN
          HIGH ENERGYPHYSICS                                       43
              Potential  cost sharing by programs other
                than high energy physics                           43
                   Recommendation                                  45
                                                             Page
CHAPTER

               Possibility  of shifting accelerator   sup-
                 port to other research discipline           46

       5   STANDARDSUSED FOR EVALUATINGRESEARCH
           QUALITY                                           48
              Use of standards in evaluating     research    48
              Comments concerning development of quan-
                 titative  standards for selecting    ex-
                 periments                                   52
       6   SCOPEOF REVIEW                                    54
APPENDIX

       I   Letter of October 22, 1969, from the Chair-
             man, Joint Committee on Atomic Energy           57
  II       ExcerptfromGAO   report dated May 13, 1970,
             to the Chairman, Atomic Energy Commission,
             on selected aspects of the management of
             the high energy physics research program
              (B-159687)                                     59
III        GAO Estimates of Fiscal Year 1969 Accelerator
             Operations Costs and Beam Hours at Selected
             Operating Levels
               Argonne National Laboratory                   Ei;
               Lawrence Radiation Laboratory                 69
               Brookhaven National Laboratory                70
               Princeton-Pennsylvania   Accelerator          70
               Stanford Linear Accelerator    Center         70
                             ABBREVIATIONS

AEC    Atomic Energy Commission

Bev    billion     electron     volts

GAO    General    Accounting      Office

HEP    high energy physics
       Lawrence     Radiation     Laboratory,      Berkeley,    California

OMB    Office     of Management and Budget

SLAC   Stanford     Linear    Accelerator       Center,   California
COMPTROLLER GENERAL'SREPORTTO                                  USE AND OPERATING COSTS OF
THE JOINT COU4'ITTEEON ATOMIC ENERGY                           THE ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION’S
CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES                                  HIGH ENERGY ACCELERATORS
                                                               B-159687


DIGEST
------

WHYTHE REVIEW WASMADE
     The Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) provides more than 90 percent                 of
     the Federal Government's     financial     support for high energy physics
     research.   AEC supports   the design, development,           construction,    and
     operation  of accelerators     and associated     facilities      and research
     conducted at Government-owned       accelerator     laboratories      and at univer-
     sities.   A high energy accelerator        is a machine which provides         a pri-
     mary beam of protons or electrons        having an energy of 1 billion           elec-
     tron volts or greater.     (See p. 7.)

     Annual operating        costs for AEC's high energy physics program currently
     total    about $118 million.       The costs of constructing           accelerators       and
     related      facilities   have varied from a few million          dollars     to $250 mil-
     lion,     the estimated     cost of the ZOO-billion-electron-volt             accelerator
     currently       under construction    at Batavia,    Illinois.

     The Joint Committee on Atomic Energy requested   the General Accounting
     Office   (GAO) to review aspects of AEC's high energy physics program.
     GAO reviewed
         --the methods used by AEC and five of its contractor-operated       ac-
             celerator  laboratories for allocating funds to various   program
             activities   and

         --other   matters   relating    to accelerator        utilization     and operating
            costs.


3'INDINGSAND CONCLUSIC'NS
     The questions      raised   by the Joint      Committee      and GAO's findings      and con-
     clusions   follow.

     Who decides that interest          in research conducted            at a given accelerator
     has declined  to the point         at which support from            the high energy physics
     budget should be curtailed           or stopped?

     These decisions    are made by AEC, with the advice of its High Energy
     Physics Advisory    Panel, on the basis of their          collective      judgment con-
     cerning the relative     priorities    and needs of various          program activities
     and in the context    of overall    funding  limitations.          For example,
substantial    reductions    in AEC's fiscal    year 1970 operating     budget and
anticipation    of continued     restrictions   resulted  in a decision    to re-
duce operating     funds for the Princeton-Pennsylvania       Accelerator.      Fur-
ther reductions      in the fiscal     year 1971 budget led to a decision     to
shut down the accelerator        by the end of that year.     (See ppO 23 to 26.)

Is it more       appropriate for all contractors       operating      high energy ac-
celerators       to accept somewhat curtailed     productivity        or for the op-
eration    of    one or more to be substantially       curtailed      so that those
remaining       can operate at relatively    full  utilization?

This question cannot be answered categorically         because consideration
must be given to scientific and technical      factors,    such as the unique
capabilities     of individual    accelerators     and the quality    and signifi-
cance of the research performed.            GAO believes,    however, that more in-
formation     should be available     on the costs of operating       the accelera-
tors at various       levels than is routinely       provided to AEC by the lab-
oratories.      This would enable AEC to evaluate more fully            the effects
of alternative      funding decisions.       {See pp. 15 to 26.)

Are there standards     against which actual performance     and potential
performance    are gauged? If standards     do not exist or are tenuous9
could AEC develop,    through management cost analysis      or other tech-
niques,   standards  which might provide for a more efficient       alloca-
tion of funds and improved overall      quality  of research within      the
budgets provided by the Congress?
In the final       analysis,      overall performance      of the accelerator     lab-
oratories    is gauged by the quality           of the research performed.         There
are specific       criteria     for evaluating      new proposals    as well as past
performance.        There is no clearly        defined formula,      however, for weight-
ing these criteria          so as to give each proposal or experiment            a quan-
titative    grade.        Whether or not a project       has scientific     merit is de-
cided by scientists          who are considered       by AECto be experts in their
respective     fields.       (See pe 27 and pp- 48 to 51.)

Because of the scientific         and technical    factors   involved,     GAO could
not determine       whether more quantitative      standards    could be developed
to assist     laboratory and AEC personnel in evaluating            research quality.
Laboratory     officials     were generally   of the opinion that development of
a quantitative        formula for evaluating    proposed and completed experi-
ments was not feasible.          (See pp. 52 and 53.)

With respect to accelerator           operations,     no formal standards       have been
established   relating      accelerator      performance     to operating    costs at
various operating      levels.      Some cost data being reported          to AEC by the
laboratories were not on a uniform basis.                 This was caused, in part,
by different    interpretations         by the laboratories      of AEC's reporting       re-
quirements.    Also the laboratories           did not have detailed       written    de-
scriptions   of the accounts used in their             internal   accounting     systems.
(See pp. 27 to 30.)



                                       2
    GAO adjusted   the laboratories'     cost data for greater      uniformity  and,
    with the assistance    of laboratory     personnel,   developed information
    about the cost of operating      accelerators     at various  levels of beam
    output.    (See pp. 30 to 37.)

    GAO believes     that such information         could be useful to AEC in consider-
    ing alternative      allocations      of available      funds.      The information     could
    be considered      in conjunction      with such factors          as (1) the effects     on
    the research efforts         of individual     scientists       and on ongoing research
    programs and (2) the possible           need for shifts         in other research     funds
    among the laboratories.           The information       also could be used in com-
    paring expected operating          costs and output with those actually              achieved.
    Variances    could be analyzed and corrective              action taken, if needed.
    (See pp. 38 to 42.)

    Who would decide      to change the support category of an accelerator
    from high energy      physics to some other field   like biology and medi-
    cine, chemistry,      or various  combinations?

    Only one of the laboratories     had proposed a major shift    of its program
    to some other research discipline.       The decision  to sponsor the pro-
    posed shift    rested with AEC and would have involved    a commitment of
    funds from programs other than high energy physics for the construc-
    tion of major facilities     as well as for a share of the accelerator     op-
    erating  costs.

    Technical    reviews of the proposal were made by AEC and by scientists
    in other research disciplines.            The proposal,  however, was not ap-
    proved by AEC, and it does not appear that the proposed shift             will
    be carried    out in view of AEC's decision         to shut down the accelerator
    in fiscal    year 1971.       AEC said that its decision    had been made after
    considering     the scientific     merits   of the proposal and its increasingly
    tighter    budgets.    (See pp. 43, 46, and 47.)

    Exoeriments      involvinq other     research disciplines     have been run on some
    of'the    accelerators.-   At all      but one laboratory,    the high energy physics
    program was bearing the cost           of these experiments.      GAO believes    that
    such costs should be charged           to the programs benefiting     in order to
    accurately     show the costs of       the various   programs involved.      (See
    pp. 43 to 45.)


RECOMMENDATIONS
             OR SUGGESTIONS
    AEC should

      --implement     procedures   to achieve greater          uniformity in the cost         data
         reported    by the accelerator    laboratories         (see pp. 40 and 41.)

      --require    the laboratories    to provide estimates           of accelerator    operat-
          ing costs and related     beam output at various           operating   levels  (see
         pp. 41 and 42), and



                                              3
       --require      laboratories       to charge the costs of providing     services to
          other    research     disciplines     to the programs benefiting    (see p. 45.)


AGENCY ACTIONS AND UNRESOLVEDI;SSVES

    AEC has agreed:

       --To implement      procedures  to achieve greater      uniformity   in the cost
          data reported     by the accelerator   laboratories.        (See pm 41.)

       --To require       the laboratories      to provide,     on a trial   basis,  data
          relating    to estimated      accelerator     operating    costs and related
          beam output at various         operating    levels.     AEC will   subsequently
          assess the overall       value of such information          in program adminis-
          tration   in relation      to the time and effort        required   by the lab-
          oratories     to develop the information.            (See p. 42.)

       --To charge the incremental         costs of providing   services   to other
          research    disciplines    to those programs benefiting      when the costs
          are significant       and when adequate mutuality    of interest    does not
          exist.     (See p. 45.)
                                CHAPTER1

                              INTRODUCTION

      The General Accounting Office has reviewed selected
aspects of the Atomic Energy Commission's high energy phys-
ics (HEP) program inaccordancewith     a request of October 22,
1969, from the Chairman, Joint Committee on Atomic Energy,
Congress of the United States.     A copy of the request is
included as appendix I.
      Our review was directed primarily         toward (1) evaluating
the methods used by AEC and five of its contractor-operated
accelerator   laboratories     for allocating     funds to the vari-
ous HEP program activities        and (2) .developing information
concerning accelerator     utilization      and operating costs.     The
scope of our review is described in chapter 6.
       Following is a list of the five accelerator      laborato-
ries included in our review and the accelerator        names. Tke
multiprogram    laboratories   conduct research in several dif-
ferent scientific      fields.  The two single-purpose    laborato-
ries conduct only HEP research.
      Multiprogram        laboratories:
            Argonne National Laboratory           (Argonne), Argonne,
               Illinois--Zero        Gradient Synchrotron
            BrookhavenNationalLaboratory             (Brookhaven),      Upton,
               New York--Alternating         G:r:adient Synchrotron
            Lawrence Radiation Laboratory            (LRL), Berkeley,
               California--Bevatron
      Single-purpose         laboratories:
            Princeton-Pennsylvania          Accelerator     (Princeton-
               Penn), Princeton,         New Jersey--Princeton-
               Pennsylvania Accelerator
            Stanford Linear Accelerator           Center (SIX),       Stanford,
               California--Stanford         Linear Accelerator
        In addition    to supporting    the five accelerator     labora-
tories,    AEC provides all the financial        support for (1) the
2000billion-electron-volt         accelerator   currently   being con-
structed at the National        Accelerator     Laboratory at Batavia,
Illinois,     and (2) the Cambridge Electron Accelerator
(Cambridge) operated        by Harvard     University    at Cambridge,
Massachusetts.

      Under its statutory  authority,   AEC supports basic re-
search in the p.hysical sciences.     The objectives    of this
research are to further   man's understanding     of the natural
laws and phenomena related to atomic energy and to increase
the body of knowledge in each of the disciplines        involved,

        AEC's Division      of Research has primary responsibility
for directing       the physical research program,             The Office
of the Assistant        Director    for the High tiergy Physics Pro-
gram is responsible,         within that division,        for the technical
administration        of the HEP program.         AECss field operations
offices    provide contract        administration;      however, they do
not have responsibility          for management of the technical
aspects of the program.            The responsibility       for managing
the day-to-day       research activities        at the accelerator      labo-
ratories    rests with the laboratory           directors    and associate
directors,     who are considered by AEC to be experts in their
respective     fields.

       Certain of the controls   exercised by AEC and its con-
tractors    were commented on in our report dated May 13, 1970,
to the Chairman, Atomic Energy Commission, on selected as-
pects of the management of the HEP program (B-159687).
Pertinent    sections of that report are included in appen-
dix II.
NATUREOF HIGH ENERGYPHYSICS

      HEP is a basic science which studies and investigates
the nature of subnuclear,       or "elementary,"  particles    and
their interaction     with one another and with matter.        Its
goals are to determine the fundamental and unifying          laws
which govern the behavior of the material        universe.     Physi-
cists believe that such knowledge will greatly          enhance man's
understanding     of nature and will have a profound influence
on man's ability     to utilize   his resources in controlling      the
environment.

       A high energy accelerator     is a machine which provides
a primary beam of protons or electrons       having an energy of
1 billion    electron volts (Bev) or greater.      The term “elec-
tron volt" refers to the amount of energy gained by an elec-
tron when it is accelerated      through an electrical    potential
difference    of 1 volt.

        The beams of particles     produced by an accelerator,     in
effect,    provide a "light"    for the physicist    to "see" the
inner nature of protons,       electrons,   and other subnuclear
particles.      In this sense the accelerator      is analogous to a
super microscope that enables man to study the substructure
of nuclear particles      that have dimensions billions      of times
smaller than the smallest object that he can see with an
optical    microscope.
      Accelerators   can be used to create other particles        by
accelerating    the primary beam particles       to a desired energy
level and colliding     them with targets either within,      or ex-
ternal to, the accelerator.        In the latter    case the primary
beam is extracted    and transported      by a system of magnets
from the accelerator      to the targets.

      A large variety     of secondary particles    are produced at
each target as a result of the collisions.          Another system
of magnets and particle      separators selects the appropriate
secondary particles     from all those emanating from the target
and transports    them as a beam to an experimental        area.    The
drawing and photographs on the following         pages, which were
provided by AEC, show the relative      size and location        of the
major accelerator     components and experimental      areas.
?
by
m




                 /           /
             I           /
         /           /




     8
’   r   ‘”   .   ”
       At the experimental   area such devices as spark chambers
and bubble chambers are used for detection       and study of
elementary particles     and their interactions.    In the bubble
chamber, particles    pass through a superheated liquid    and
trails   of bubbles form along the paths followed by the
charged particles.     The trails  are photographed for subse-
quent analysis.

      Spark chambers are similar    in purpose to bubble cham-
bers in that they are used for detecting         and measuring paths
of charged elementary particles.       Charged particles      pass
through a parallel   array of electrically       charged metal
plates located in the chamber.      The spaces between the
plates are filled  with an inert gas.        Events occurring
within the chamber are revealed by sparks which jump between
the plates at the points traversed       by the charged particles.
These events are recorded optically        or electronically.

       After an experiment has been completed, the resulting
data are analyzed by using a wide variety         of complex equip-
ment. When the experimental       results    have been evaluated,
related    findings are generally    published   in scientific
journals.

        With respect to the accomplishments  resulting              from the
field    of high energy physics, AEC advised us that:

        "Within the last twenty years a phenomenal new
        world of subnuclear particles         has been discovered
        including     many of the anti-world       counterparts.
        This new world within the proton and the neutron
        manifests     itself   when particles    from proton and
        electron     accelerators     collide with protons or
        neutrons.       The fundamental properties        of many of
        these particles       as well as the manner in which
        they mutually interact         have been successfully        in-
        vestigated.        A scheme of classifying      types of
        particles     and their excited states has developed
        in a manner analogous to the classification               of
        atomic spectra which ultimately          revealed the elec-
        tronic    structure     of the atom. The importance of
        that achievement cannot be overexaggerated               since
        it has affected       every aspect of modern man's life.



                                       11
      "The new world within the proton when fully under-
      stood may also provide a wealth of undreamed phe-
      nomena. In concert with the past experimental
      discoveries,    advances in the understanding       of the
      elementary particle     interactions      have not only
      clarified    the subnuclear phenomena of nature, but
      have also given new insights         into all aspects of
      nature.

      "These many discoveries     have been made possible
      because of the outstanding     advances in accelerator
      technology    together with the development of many
      new detection     devices such as the bubble chamber
      and the spark chamber.      Advances in fast electron-
      ics, computer techniques,     and superconducting   mag-
      nets have provided for efficient      utilization  of the
      new devices.

     "The accomplishments       of high energy physics have
     been outstanding     and revealing.      It is significant
     also that while Western Europe and the USSR main-
     tain competitive      programs in HEP, the dominant re-
     search results    have originated     with the US program.
     As an indication     of the significance      of the accom-
     plishments,    it is noteworthy that 13 individuals
     associated   with US elementary particle        physics
     programs have received the Nobel Prize Awards since
     1957.    These as well as other awards attest to the
     world-wide   recognition     of the high quality     research
     and the leadership      of the US high energy physics
     effort."
COSTS OF HIGH ENERGYPHYSICS

      The following      table shows the construction  costs of
the original     accelerator   facilities  (excluding subsequent
conversion   and improvement costs) at AECss six operating
accelerator    laboratories    and the estimated cost of the
ZOO-Bev accelerator.




                                  12
                              Construction     costs of      Year full
                               original   accelerator       beam energy
     Accelerator            facilities    (000 omitted)       obtained

Alternating     Gradient
   Synchrotron
   (Brookhaven)                      $ 30,600                     1960
Bevatron (LRL)                          9,900                     1954
Cambridge Electron
   Accelerator                            10,200                  1962
Princeton-
   Pennsylvania     Ac-
   celerator                              11,600                  1963
Stanford Linear Ac-
   celerator                             l13,600a                 1966
Zero Gradient Syn-
   chrotron    (Argonne)                  51,400                  1963
ZOO-Bev Accelerator
   (AEC estimates)                       250,000a                 1971

aConstruction       costs included costs associated       with   the es-
 tablishment       of completely  new laboratories.

     AEC provides more than 90 percent of the Federal Gov-
ernment's financial   support for the national   HEP program.
The National  Science Foundation,   the Department of Defense,
and the National Aeronautics    and Space Administration   pro-
vide the remaining support.

      The annual operating   costs        of AEC's HEP program have
increased substantially    over the         past decade from about
$51 million  in fiscal   year 1962        to about $118 million   esti-
mated for fiscal   year 1971. As          shown in the above table,
four new accelerators    came into        operation  during this pe-
riod.
       Of the estimated costs of $118 million            for fiscal   year
1971, about $93 million       will be used for HEP at AEC-supported
accelerator     laboratories   and about $25 million        will be used
to support theoretical       and experimental       research conducted
by groups of scientists       resident    at universities.        These
university    research groups generally        perform their experi-
ments at AEC’s accelerator        laboratories      but plan the experi-
ments and analyze the experimental           results    at their home
institutions.
                                    13
       The following  table shows the actual operating    costs
for fiscal    years 1969 and 1970 and the estimated costs for
fiscal   year 1971 at the five accelerator   laboratories   in-
cluded in our review.

                            Fiscal      Fiscal       Fiscal
                             year        year         year
                             1969        1970         1971

                                     (000 omitted)

         Argonne           $17,411     $17,250       $16,700
         LRL                18,219      17,738        16,585
          Brookhaven        21,153      21,473        22,050
          Princeton-Penn     4,974       4,129         2,000
          SLAC              23,465      23,819        24,300

               Total       $85,222     $84,409       $81,635
      Total capital  equipment and construction  costs for such
items as computers, experimental   facilities,  and accelerator
improvements incurred by the five laboratories    in fiscal
years 1969 and 1970 and estimated costs for fiscal     year 1971
are shown below.

                            Fiscal      Fiscal       Fiscal
                             year        year         year
                             1969        1970         1971

                                     (000 omitted)

         Argonne           $12,518     $ 5,412       $ 3,231
         LRL                 3,171       1,960        10,002
         Brookhaven         20,076      16,914        10,670
         Princeton-Penn      1,378          880           128
         SLAC                7,156       2,786         3,425

               Total       $44,299     $27,952       $27,456




                               14
                                  CHAPTER2

         PROCEDURES
                  FOR ALLOCATING HIGH ENERGYPHYSICS

                   FUNDS AMONGPROGRAMACTIVITIES

       In its request the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy
raised a question concerning whether it was more appropriate
for all contractors          operating   high energy accelerators          to
accept somewhat curtailed            productivity     or for the operation
of one ar more of the accelerators                to be substantially      cur-
tailed    so that the remaining facilities             could be operated
at relatively     full utilization.           In consideration       of this
question,     we examined into the procedures used and factors
considered     in allocating       HEP funds among the various pro-
gram activities.

CURRENTBUDGETDRVELOPMENT
                       PROCEDURES
        The process of planning and developing ABC's operating
budget for the HEP program requires            input from the Congress,
Office of Management and Budget COMB), officials                 at ARC
Headquarters     and field offices,       contractor-operated       accel-
erator laboratories,        and university     research contractors.
In addition,     the High Energy Physics Advisory Panel, com-
posed of a group of scientists--primarily              physicists     in-
volved in HEP at accelerator         laboratories      and universities--
provides assistance       to ARC through its review of program
plans and budgets and through advice on matters relating                   to
priorities,     plans, and the allocation         of funds among the ac-
celerator    laboratories     and other research contractors.

     The budget classifications              used by AEC for formulating
the operating  budget estimates             and for allocating  funds are
shown below.

      Category--high      energy physics:
           Activity--   each of the seyen ARC contractor-operated
             accelerator      laboratories
                 Subactivity:
                      Research
                      Design and development of devices
                      Operations


                                       15
              Activity--general      research   and development
                     Subactivity:
                           Research
                           Design and development    of devices
                           Advanced accelerator   research    and develop-
                             ment

        AEC's Assistant      Director     for       the High Energy Physics
Program stated       that generally       all       costs of operating       the
accelerators     should be included           in      the operations     subactiv-
ity and that those costs incurred                   by research     groups and in
operating    general     research     devices,          such as bubble chambers,
should be included         in the research            subactivity.

       The design and development              of devices     subactivity       in-
cludes    costs related         to the design,      development,       and im-
provement       of accelerator       components     and associated        experi-
mental    apparatus.       The general       research    and development          ac-
tivity    includes     research      and development       costs which cannot
be specifically        identified       with one of the seven accelera-
tors.     The university         research    program is the major part of
this   activity.

      The annual         high energy physics        operating    budgets for
the laboratories           involve    the preparation       and consideration
of the following           documents.

Budget     assumptions

        Laboratory      officials       develop     budget assumptions           on the
 basis of their       judgment        of the projected        needs of the over-
 all HEP program as related               to their    laboratory.         The budget
 assumptions      are submitted         to ARC 18 months before             the start
 of the budget year for which funds are being requested                             and
 are intended       as long-range         forecasts     of laboratory         needs
 for use in planning           future     fund allocations        for each labora-
 tory0     The budget assumptions              show funding     requirements          for
 the budget year and projected                needs for the following             4
years.      They are not based upon the requirements                      of specific
 experiments      because,       at the time that they are submitted,
 such information        is not completely           available;      instead,       the
projections       are based upon avenues of research                   which are
considered      to be important          and within       the capability        of the
laboratory.
Program assumptions

       AEC develops program assumptions for use by each lab-
oratory    as general guidelines   for the preparation     of the
laboratories'    annual budget requests.     The assumptions are
provided to the laboratories      about 15 months before the
start of the budget year and show the total HEP funds which
AEC estimates will become available       to the laboratories     for
the budget year and the following      4 years.   The projections
contained in budget and program assumptions are helpful           in
the long-range     planning for the HEP program.

        AEC officials    advised us that long-range     planning for
the HEP program was particularly        important   because of the
relatively     long period of time required for experiments;           a
typical    HEP experiment takes about 3 years from conception
to completion.        They also stated that the importance of
long-range      planning had been recognized     in all countries
engaged in HEP research.         For example,  the  HEP facility      at
the European Organization        for Nuclear Research is set up so
that it has firm budget plans for 2 years in advance, plus
a tentative      budget for the third year, with provision        for
cost escalation.

      AEC develops the program assumptions on the basis of
the laboratories'     budget assumptions,   AEC and OMJ3estimates
of funding availability,      and the knowledge and experience
of AEC officials,     as well as their personal familiarity
with the funding and programmatic needs of each laboratory.

      As shown below, for fiscal  year 1969 the amounts in-
cluded in the program assumptions were significantly       less
than the amounts included in the budget assumptions submit-
ted by each of AEC's six operating    accelerator  laboratories.
                                    Assumptions  for   fiscal   year 1969
                                   Laboratory                      A!32
              Laboratory      budnet assumotions         program assumptions
                                              (000 omitted)

            Argonne               $ 22,220                      $ 19,700
            LRL                     22,000                        19,200
            Brookhaven              24,140                        23,300
            Cambridge               11,090                         9,250
            Princeton-Penn           9,765                         9,250
            SLAC                    34.000                        27.500
                 Total            $123.215                      $108.200



                                      17
AEC officials  explained that the projected    funding estimates
appearing in the program assumptions were rough estimates
of the future needs of the laboratories     matched to a rough
estimate of funding to be available     to the overall HEP
program.

Annual budget requests

      The laboratories    submit their annual budget requests
to AEC about 13 months before the start of the budget year
for which funds are being requested.       They contain estimates
which are of assistance      to AEC in its preparation  of the
annual President's     budget which is submitted to the Con-
gress about 5 to 6 months before the start of the budget
year.

      Preparation of the budget requests involves          a detailed
process during which each laboratory       considers factors       such
as manpower needs of accelerator      and supporting     organiza-
tions; materials,   services,    and subcontract    requirements;
needs of experimental     groups; and other factors.

      The requests generally    show the laboratories'       projec-
tions of accelerator   operations     and research needs     rather
than a level of operations     and research consistent       with
AEC's estimates of available      funds as shown in the      program
assumptions.

      For example, the program assumptions furnished      to SLAC
and LRL for fiscal   year 1969 clearly    indicated  that the
probability  of sustaining  the amounts included in the as-
sumptions was negligible.     In a letter    dated March 23, 1967,
transmitting  the SLAC program assumption, AEC stated in
part:

     "The FY 1969 estimates shown above are intended
     to be preliminary     guideline amounts; it should
     be recognized that there is no assurance that
     they will survive the budget cycle.       Realisti-
     cally,   in view of the many fiscal   demands con-
     fronting   the Administration,   the prospects for
     successful    support of the estimates are not
     overly optimistic."
Similar comments were expressed by AEC in a letter  dated
March 21, 1967, transmitting  the LRL program assumptions.

      Notwithstanding   this advice, the SLAC and LRL budget
requests submitted to AEC exceeded the assumption guide-
lines by $4.7 million     and $2.3 million  respectively.    The
SLAC request provided for funds sufficient       to enable it to
achieve an average of twenty-one 8-hour accelerator       oper-
ating shifts    a week even though the program assumption is-
sued by AEC stated that SLAC was expected to achieve only
an average 15-shifts-a-week     operation  with the estimated
funds available.
      Other accelerator laboratories also submitted budget
estimates which exceeded AEC program assumption guidelines,
as shown below.

                                          Amount over
                                          assumptions
                                          (millions)

               Cambridge                     $2.9
               Brookhaven                     1.2
               Argonne                          .9
               Princeton-Penn                   .3

AEC officials    advised us that it was consistent         with their
desires and needs that the laboratories          indicate   the fund-
ing needed to carry out their recommended programs and not
limit their requests to the amounts given by AEC as guide-
lines concerning the availability         of funds.     AEC added
that it considered     the indications     of the laboratories'
needs as important     input during its process of continually
refining    the budget allocations     throughout     the budget for-
mulation cycle.

      The annual budget requests furnished      by the laborato;
ries also show revised estimates for the fiscal        year begin-
ning about a month after their submission to AEC. The re-
vised estimates    are based on the laboratories'     reconsidera-
tion of funding needs as well as amounts included in the
President's   budget which provide additional     guidance to the
laboratories   with respect to funding availability.

                                  19
Financial   plans

        The revised budget estimates are of assistance       to AEC
in its preparation      of financial   plans which provide for an
allocation     of HEP funds for each of the activities      and sub-
activities     assigned by AEC. The plans, which take into
consideration      amounts authorized    or expected to be autho-
rized by the Congress, are sent to the laboratories          at the
start of the budget year; however, they are usually revised
several times during the year on the basis of changes in
the availability      of funds following     congressional appropria-
tion and OMB apportionment        and of changes in the needs and
levels of financial      support required by the laboratories
and for other activities       and subactivities.



       We attempted to make a detailed        analysis of the manner
 in which the above documents were developed and utilized
for fiscal    year 1969. Considerable       documentation was pre-
pared and maintained      in support of the laboratories'        annual
budget requests,    much of which was included in the budget
documents furnished     to AEC. The documentation,          however,
did not show all the various alternatives           considered by the
laboratories    in determining   their programmatic and related
funding needs but supported primarily          those needs as finally
agreed upon by the laboratories'       officials      during budgetary
meetings and related discussions.

        The decisions regarding      the specific       amounts included
in the various AEC budget documents were              reached by MC
officials    on the basis of the input from           the laboratories,
and their scientific      judgment, knowledge         of program needs
and priorities,      and personal experience.          Alternatives     con-
sidered in arriving      at specific    allocations       of funds gener-
ally were not documented.
     The following     section describes the manner in which
fund allocation    decisions   are arrived at by AEC.




                                    20
METHODOF ALLOCATING FUNDS
AMONGLABORATORIES

     During the budget formulation        cycle the expected overall
level of financial    support for physical        research undergoes
numerous revisions    resulting    from internal      budget reviews
by the AEC Commissioners,       the General Manager, and the AEC
Budget Review Committee and from external            reviews by OMD
and various congressional       committees,      The Director,   Divi-
sion of Research, with the assistance          of his staff gener-
ally allocates    the total funds for physical          research among
the various program categories,        including     HEP.
     Decisions concerning       the amounts to be allocated  to
each activity     and subactivity    of the HEP program generally
are made on the basis of recommendations by AEC's Assistant
Director    for the High Energy Physics Program and his staff.
      The Assistant    Director     advised us that each staff mem-
ber is responsible      for maintaining       a detailed    knowledge of
certain    accelerator    laboratories     or university      research
contractors     and for maintaining       a general knowledge of all
phases of the HEP program.          Each staff member participates
in formulating      the recommended allocations          of HEP funds to
the various activities        and subactivities       of the program
during staff meetings with the Assistant              Director,

     During the meetings,      tentative     allocations     are discussed
in consideration    of needs and priorities           and a decision      is
reached regarding    recommended levels of financial              support
for each laboratory      and contractor      on the basis of the judg-
ment, knowledge, and experience           of the HEP staff,
                                                                ?
     The following    statement by AEC contained          in the hear-
 ings on AEC's fiscal     year 1971 authorization         bill    conducted
by the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy provides some in-
sight into the manner in which each member acquires his
knowledge of laboratory       activities.

     *'-k-k* In establishing  funding levels each year *** a
     great deal of effort     is expended in keeping up to
     date in assessing and understanding       the various re-
     quirements at the different      labs.  A large part of
     this effort     takes the form of studying budget
     documents,     having   conversations      with lab officials,
     lab staff,     and users,    conducting     program reviews,
     meeting    with High Energy Physics         Advisory  Panel and
     studying    the periodic     reports    from the lab. **-kr'

      Many factors    are considered       in determining      the specific
funding   levels   for the various        accelerators    and the final
budget amounts have, in the past,             been determined     by making
selective    but widespread     allocations        of any increases    or
decreases    in available   funds.




                                    22
DECISIONS TO REDUCEOR
DISCONTINUE SUPPORTOF SPECIFIC
ACCELERATORS
       In its request,   the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy
raised a question concerning who makes the decision that
interest    in the research to be conducted at a given acceler-
ator has declined to the point when support from the high
energy physics budget should be curtailed     or stopped.

      As a result of substantial     reductions    in AEC's fiscal
year 1970 operating   budget and in anticipation       of continued
funding restrictions,    AEC decided to explore the possible
consequences of significant     reductions    in the financial     sup-
port for Princeton-Penn.

      On July 8, 1969, AEC requested Princeton-Penn     to make
a detailed   analysis of the impact on its operations     at an-
nual funding levels of $2.5, $3.5, and $4.75 million,       com-
pared with a $4.95-million   level of funding in fiscal     year
1969. The study was completed by Princeton-Penn       and a reply
was submitted to AEC on September 19, 1969.

      AEC advised us that it met with the High Energy Physics
Advisory Panel in October 1969, at which time the alterna-
tive levels of financial     support for Princeton-Penn,      among
other topics,   were discussed.     Following this meeting, the
Chairman of the Panel reported its reaction       in a letter
dated October 15, 1969, to the Director,      Division   of Re-
search:
      "1 would like to report to you the reaction        of
      the High Energy Physics Advisory Panel (HEPAP)
      to the present FY 1971 budget figures.        up to
      now the response to increasingly       tight budgets
      has been a more or less uniform sharing of the
      burden among the different   institutions.      This
      has been a wise policy but the cumulative       effect
      of several years of reduced budgets and the un-
      likelihood  of an early improvement of the sit-
      uation now brings this policy into question.
      The cuts have caused serious damage to all cen-
      ters of research and this is why selective       cut-
      ting is necessary in order to allow the more

                                   23
       vital   centers       to survive       without      the   gravest
       damage.

       "'Under these unfortunate                    circumstances        we come
       to the conclusion               that,      because of the low beam
       energy and because many--but                       not all--of      PPA's
        [Princeton-Penn]            capabilities           can be matched
       elsewhere,        it is logical              to reduce the PPA pro-
       gram.      We regret         to be forced           to such a step be-
       cause we consider              the work at PPA to be of sci-
       entific      and educational               importance.        We there-
       fore believe          that such selective               reduction      of
       support      should not be equivalent                   to a shutdown.
       We quote from our Report                     (page 39):        'At this
       time (1969) all of the high energy accelerators
       in the United           States       are performing          important
       work (within          funding        limitations)         and are of
       great     educational         value with programs               of consid-
       erable     scientific          interest         and significance.
       None should be shut down in the immediate                            fu-
       ture.'

       "The decrease         of    support      for PPA is suggested   in
       order to support            the most urgent      programs   at
       other   institutions,              and we recommend that this
       decrease      be limited           so that the program will    not
       be eliminated         but     will    continue  at a reduced
       rate.     It is still          an important     part of the high
       energy effort         in    the U.S. and should remain so
       for a long time.s'

       AEC subsequently      reduced     financial  support    for
Princeton-Penn      to $4 million     for fiscal    year 1970, corre-
sponding     to an effective     annual support     level   of about
$3.5 million     for the latter      half    of the fiscal   year.

        Because of sizable       reductions      in AEC's budget for fis-
cal year 1971 made midway during              the budget process,      the HEP
staff    considered     two different       approaches   to allocating      the
reduction      in program funds.         Under the first    approach,      per-
centage reductions        would have been made in the existing
planned    levels    of fiscal     year 1971 financial      support    for
each contractor.



                                            24
       Under the second approach, the higher energy accelera-
tors (those capable of performing       the more forefront   re-
search) would have received sufficient       funds to conduct a
constant level of research with modest cost-of-living          in-
creases.    This alternative     would have had the effect of as-
signing priority    to the higher energy accelerators      and re-
ducing the financial      support for the lower energy machines

      The consensus of AEC and the High Energy Physics Advi-
sory Panel was to follow a policy of protecting           those facil-
ities   capable of performing       the more forefront   research.
AEC decided, with the Panel's concurrence,           to shut down the
Princeton-Penn    accelerator      by the end of fiscal   year 1971.
The operating    budget for Princeton-Penn       was reduced to
$2 million    for fiscal     year 1971 to enable an orderly closing
of the laboratory,       including    completion of the most impor-
tant experiments under way.

       The following   table compares the fiscal     year 1970 fund-
ing level,    as shown in the President's     budget for fiscal
year 1971, with the amount requested for fiscal          year 1971,
as shown in that budget.      The table shows that the three
highest energy accelerators     were allocated    increases in op-
erating funds whereas the financial       support for the other
accelerators     was reduced.  Funding levels for the general
research and development activity,       which is shown separately
in the table, were also reduced.

                                                        Funding levels
         Accelerators    at the fol-                Fiscal        Fiscal     Increase or
      lowing laboratories     (and Bev)            year 1970     year 1971   decrease(-)
                                                                (millions)
 National Accelerator    Laboratory   (200)         $ 6.6         $ 9.4         $2.8a
 Brookhaven (33)                                       21.3           22.0         .7
 SLAC (21)                                             23.9           24.5         .6
 Argonne (12.5)                                        17.2           16.9       -.3
 LRL (6.2)                                             14.1           13.5       -.6
 Cambridge (6)                                          3.5            2.4     -1.1
 Princeton-Penn   (3)                                   4.0            2.0     -2.0
           Total                                       90.6           90.7         .1
      General research   and development               29.9           28.8      -1.1
           Total                                    $120.5        $119.5      -$l.Jl
 aThe annual funding level for the 200-Bev accelerator       is expected to increase
  to more than $40 million    by fiscal  year 1975 following   completion of con-
  struction  of the accelerator    and associated research facilities.


                                              25
       In summary decisions   concerning the reduction    or dis-
continuance    of support for specific   accelerators  generally
are made by AEC, with the advice of the High Energy Physics
Advisory Panel, on the basis of their collective       judgment as
to the relative    priorities  and needs of the various activi-
ties within the HEP program and in the context of overall
funding limitations.

CONCLUSION

         As noted on page 15, the Joint Committee on Atomic En-
ergy raised a question as to whether it would be more appro-
priate for all contractors      operating high energy accelera-
tors to accept somewhat curtailed        productivity   or for the
operation     of one or more to be substantially      curtailed,      so
that those remaining could be operated at relatively             full
utilization.

       On the basis of our review, we do not believe that the
above question can be answered categorically           because, in any
given situation,     consideration    must be given to factors such
as the unique capabilities        of the various accelerators     and
the quality    and significance     of the research output.      We do
believe,    however, that, in exercising       the judgments involved,
more information     should be available      as to the costs of op-
erating   the accelerators     at various levels to enable AEC to
more fully evaluate the effects         of alternative   funding deci-
sions, as discussed in the following          chapter.




                                                                           p
                                   26
                                CHAPTER3

                   DEVELOPMENTOF IMPROVEDCOST

                    AND OPERATINGDATA FOR USE

                         IN ALLOCATING FUNDS

       In its letter of October 22, 1969, the Joint Committee
on Atomic Energy raised a question as to whether there were
standards against which actual performance and potential
performance of the AEC accelerator   laboratories    were gauged.
The Joint Committee requested that, if standards did not
exist or were tenuous, we determine whether AEC could de-
velop, through management cost analysis     or other techniques,
standards which might provide for a more efficient      alloca-
tion of funds and for improved overall    quality   of HEP re-
search within the budgets provided by the Congress.
      In the final analysis,     the overall   performance of the
accelerator  laboratories     is gauged by the quality     of the
research performed.       Our comments regarding    the standards
used for evaluating     research quality    are contained in chap-
ter 5.

       With respect to accelerator      operations,      AEC has not
established    formal standards for relating         accelerator      per-
formance to operating        costs at various operating       levels.
Therefore,    we examined into the feasibility          of having in-
dividual    accelerator    laboratories   submit their proposed
budgets in a manner that would disclose           the cost of accel-
erator operations       at various operating    levels.

        We directed       our study primarily     to the operations     sub-
activity     since the costs of this subactivity          are directly
related    to the operating        level of the accelerator.        costs
related    to research and the design and development of de-
vices at various operating            levels were not developed be-
cause such factors as the mix of in-house and outside users,
size and complexity          of experiments,    and the size of the lab-.
oratory's      scientific     staff affect these costs and do not
necessarily      vary directly       with accelerator   operating    levels.
As such, although decisions             as to amounts to be expended in


                                    27
 these areas should be influenced    by the amount of accelera-
 tor operating   time available,  such decisions must be based
 to a large extent on scientific    and technical judgment of
 laboratory   and AEC officials.

NONUNIFORMCOST DATA
REPORTEDBY LABORATORIES

      According to the AEC Manual, the operations             and re-
search subactivities  are defined as follows:

Operations    - "Includes     all costs incurred for the op-
                eration of this machine (and facility)
                for such items as salaries         and wages of
                the operating      staff,   power, supplies,     and
                equipment not meeting capitalization            cri-
                teria,    maintenance and repairs,      costs of
                getting     ready to operate,including       sala-
                ries and wages of personnel hired in ad-
                vance of operation        in order to have them
                available     at the start of operations        un-
                less they are used in construction           or
                fabrication      of the machine, and test costs
                exclusive     of tests during construction         or
                fabrication      designed to prove out the fa-
                cility    and assure compliance with de-
                sign."

Research      - "Includes  all costs of physics,    includ-
                ing the operation   of the machines, carried
                out with (a) accelerators   or other devices
                whose primary radiation   exceeds 1,000 Mev
                per nucleon or electron   accelerated    and
                (b) cosmic rays."

         Our examination     into the types of costs that were be-
ing reported by the five laboratories              in the above subac-
tivities     showed that none of the laboratories            had detailed
written     descriptions     of the types of costs included in their
internal     accounts.      Because of the importance of written
account descriptions         in facilitating      our examination of
operations     costs, we inquired         into the possibility    of labo-
ratory officials        preparing    such descriptions.


                                    2s
        LRL and SLAC officials      advised us that the preparation
of account descriptions        would require a detailed,      time-
consuming study and that, in many instances,            the informa-
tion needed would have to be obtained from the individual
researchers    who charge their costs to the accounts.            Offi-
cials at Argonne similarly        told us that the development of
written    account descriptions      would require a major effort.
Princeton-Penn    and Brookhaven officials        prepared and fur-
nished account descriptions         to us for use in making our re-
view.

       Cur discussions    with the laboratories'       officials,
analyses of the laboratories'       accounts, and reviews of ac-
count descriptions     where available     indicated    that cost data
reported to ARC by the laboratories          in the operations       and
other budget subactivity      accounts were not reported on a
uniform basis.      We noted that the nonuniformities            in cost
data reported in the research and operations            subactivities
were caused, in part, by differences           in the laboratories'
interpretations     of the ARC definitions       of those subactivi-
ties and the types of costs which should be included
therein.

       For example, at LRL certain          costs of operating     and
maintaining     beam lines and costs associated with setting
up experiments,       which amounted to about $1.2 million           in
fiscal   year 1969, were included in LRL's internal              account
designated as "Bevatron Operations.!'             In accordance with
LRL's interpretation        of the ARC reporting       requirements,
these costs were reclassified          and reported to ARC as re-
search subactivity        costs.   Brookhaven also reported such
costs as research costs.          Similar-type     costs incurred by
SLAC and Princeton-Penn,         however, were reported to ARC as
operations     costs.     At Argonne, similar      costs were reported
as either research or operations            costs, depending upon the
organizational      unit which incurred       them.

       Brookhaven, in fiscal  year 1969, included electric
power costs of about $131,000 for operating      the $0.inch
bubble chamber in amounts reported as research costs and
included all other power costs, which amounted to about
$759,000, including   an estimated $34,000 for operating     the
30- and 31-inch bubble chambers, in amounts reported as
operations    costs. Brookhaven officials   advised us that,

                                    29
 because of the significance    of electric power used in op-
 erating the 80-inch chamber, the group responsible    for
 operating  and maintaining  all of Brookhaven's bubble cham-
 bers decided to separately   meter t'he power used in operat-
 ing the 80-inch chamber and to monitor the power costs in-
 curred in its operation.

        At Argonne, power used in operations    and research is
 separately   metered.  Power costs during fiscal    year 1969
 amounted to about $1.7 million    of w'hic'h about $923,000 was
 reported as operations   costs and $742,000 as research costs.

     Princeton-Penn,  SMC, and LRL do not separately   meter
power and the related  costs are included in their entirety
in amounts reported as operations   costs.

         Because of the lack of a uniform interpretation                of the
 definition     of the operations       subactivity     and consequent
 lack of uniformity        among the laboratories          in t'he classifica-
tion and reporting         of costs to AEC, we found it necessary
to redefine      operations     costs to obtain more uniform data
for our study at each of the five laboratories,                    We rede-
fined operations        costs as including        all those incurred         in
obtaining,      accelerating,      and directing      beams of subnuclear
particles     into the various experimental            areas existing       at
the accelerators        including    the costs of setting up and
s'hielding    such areas,       Also, we considered all power costs
to be operations        costs because the lack of separate meter-
ing at some locations          made it infeasible       to limit the in-
clusion of such costs to those applicable                 to operating      the
accelerators.

       Althoug'h another definition    might be considered ap-
propriate    by AEC, the one which we adopted appeared reason-
able and was similar      to that used by SLAC and by Princeton-
Penn, with certain     relatively   minor exceptions.

       On the basis of our definition      of operations   costs, we
recomputed fiscal     year 1969 operations    costs with the as-
sistance of laboratory     personnel.    The following   table
compares the operations     costs reported by the laboratories,
in accordance with their interpretations        of AEC reporting
requirements,    with the costs as computed in accordance
with our definition.

                                     30
                           Actual operations    costs
                             in fiscal  year 1969
                        As reported
 Accelerator                by the      As recomputed
  laboratory            laboratories         by GAO             Difference

                                          (000 omitted)

Argonne                    $ 4,561             $ 8,156            $3,595
LRL                          3,789               5,040             1,251
Brookhaven                   3,878               7,630             3,752
Princeton-Penn               4,754               4,680               -74
SLAC                        11,332              11,063              -269

       We also obtained information   as to the number of ac-
celerator    beam hours used for HEP research during fiscal
year 1969. We computed, as shown below, the cost per beam
hour in fiscal    year 1969 on the basis of (1) operations
costs as reported by the laboratories     and (2) operations
costs as recomputed by us in accordance wit'h our definition.

                                                 Cost per beam hour
                                              Based on
                                             operations      Based on
                                              costs as      operations
                         Number of            reported       costs as
                        beam hours             by the         defined
  Laboratory             achieved          laboratories       by GAO

Argonne                     6,045              $ 755             $1,349
LRL                         6,159                  615               818
Brookhaven                  4,890                  793            1,560
Princeton-Penn              3,791               1,254             1,235
SLAC                        4,627               2,449             2,391

The above table s'hows that the cost per beam hour varies
considerably     among the accelerators.            It should be noted,
however, that there are substantial             differences    in the
operations,     ancillary      beams and facilities,       and basic char-
acteristics     of each accelerator,        which result     in consider-
able differences         in the types of equipment, shielding,           ex-
perimental     facilities,      and related   costs associated      with
operating    the various accelerators.



                                     31
       As di>:cussed previously,         the development of accelera-
 tor operate;;lg costs for each of the laboratories              on a more
uniform basis involved a reclassification               of various types
of costs, primarily        those charged to the research and op-
erations    subactivities.        In this regard, the laboratories!
research subactivities         included,    in addition     to the costs
relating    to a wide variety       of functions     involving    the sup-
port of in-house research groups, costs of operating                 and
maintaining     various types of equipment and facilities              used
in the performance of experiments at the accelerator                 lab-
oratories.

      The types and complexity     of such equipment and facili-
ties and the related operation      and maintenance costs at
each of the laboratories   varied widely,      We considered some
of these costs as operations     in accordance with our defini-
tion.

        On the basis of our review, we believe that there is
 a need for AK to redefine         the operations       subactivity      in
 a more precise manner so as to provide for more uniform
 cost reporting     by the accelerator       laboratories.        In addi-
tion, we believe that the usefulness             to AEC of the cost
data currently      reported as research and operations              could
be increased if the costs of operating and maintaining
those facilities      and major equipment not considered by AEC
to be part of accelerator         operations     were reported sepa-
rately.     Such a change would result in greater uniformity
in reporting     the costs of the various functions             included
in the subactivities        of the HEP program,         In our opinion,
the availability      of more uniform cost information             could be
of assistance     to AEC in evaluating        the operations       of the
accelerators     and in determining       the relative     funding needs
of the laboratories,




                                   32
COST OF OPEZATIONSAT
ALTERNATIVE OPERATINGLEVELS

       The laboratories'      officials      advised us that fiscal   year
1969 costs and utilization          were generally    not typical   of nor-
mal operating     conditions.       They stated that, in some cases,
severe restrictions       on fiscal      year 1969 funding were met by
instituting    short-term     economies in the laboratories'        pro-
grams and that the operating            modes in effect during fiscal
year 1969 could not have been sustained over the long run.

       For example, although LRL's output (6,159 beam hours)
was near optimum, the officials      advised us that this level
could not be sustained in the long run under the 1969 fund-
ing level and that significantly      greater funding would have
been required to achieve this output under normal operating
conditions.    They stated also that the high level of produc-
tivity   was achieved, in part, by deferring      a scheduled b-week
shutdown for maintenance, machine modification,        and develop-
ment work and by instituting     other short-term    economies.

       SLAC officials   stated that funding restrictions        were
largely met by curtailing      planned accelerator    shifts,    support
to research groups, maintenance,       and development work.       Ac-
cording to SLAC officials,      such cuts have resulted       in de-
layed startup and completion of experiments and in lesser
productivity     than could have been achieved under normal fund-
ing conditions.

       Princeton-Penn,     on the other hand, did not achieve the
number of beam hours during fiscal           year 1969 which it would
have expected to achieve under more normal operating              condi-
tions.     Princeton-Penn     officials   explained that a greater
number of beam hours was not achieved largely             because of a
major shutdown of the accelerator           during fiscal   year 1969
for maintenance and modification          work which had been deferred
in the prior fiscal       year.     They stated that the work which
would normally have been performed during fiscal              year 1968
was deferred because the experimental            program dictated   a con-
tinual    operation   of the accelerator      in fiscal   year 1968 and
into fiscal     year 1969.

         At Brookhaven, the number of beam hours achieved during
fiscal     year 1969 was similarly affected by an unscheduled

                                      33
shutdown of the accelerator for motor generator repairs   and
a scheduled shutdown for major modification  and improvements.

       As part of our review, we developed estimates of accel-
erator operations      costs and beam output which would have
been expected to be achieved if the laboratories           had been
funded at a level that would have permitted           them to opti-
mize their fiscal      year 1969 operations    under normal operat-
ing conditions.      We also developed similar      information   on
operations    costs and beam output at levels of 50 percent
and 75 percent of optimum.        Our estimates were developed
with the assistance      of laboratory   personnel who provided us
with most of the operating       data relative   to the mode of ac-
celerator   operations     and beam output at the various levels.

      The charts on pages 35 and 36 show total estimated op-
erations  costs and accelerator beam hours for each labora-
tory at the selected levels of operation.    Additional de-
tails on costs and beam hours are presented in appendix III.

       As shown in the first  chart, the costs of achieving     an
operating   level of 50 percent of optimum are substantially
greater than those required to increase operations       from 50
percent of optimum to 100 percent,    thus indicating    the mag-
nitude of the fixed costs involved in operating       the acceler-
ators.

       The second chart shows the amounts by which the average
costs per beam hour decrease as operating      levels increase.
The difference     in the number of beam hours estimated by the
laboratories    at the optimum level results   from differing     ex-
pectations    and judgments with regard to accelerator      shutdown
requirements    for maintenance, repairs,   machine modification,
improvements,     and development work. The number of beam
hours corresponded either directly      to the selected operating
level or to a level nearest to the selected level which the
laboratories    considered necessary in order to achieve peak
efficiency.




                                 34
                          ESTIMATED OPERATIONS COSTS AT SELECTED
                               ACCELERATOR  OPERATING LEVELS

DOLLARS   (IN MILLIONS)
14


13


12


11


10


 9

                                            ..................
 a                                       ..................
                                            ..................
                                         ...................
                                            ..................
                                         ...................




 7


 6

                                                                         ..,,..*,,*           e,.,..
 5                                                               .I................
                                                                    . ...,....,...,.,,*
                                                                 .I.................
                                                                    . . ..I.............
                                                                 . . . . . . . . . . ..I.....




 4


 3


 2


 1


 0
          ARGONNE              LRL            BROOKHAVEN             PRINCETON-                        5LAC
                                                                         PENN




                                                     35
                  ESTIMATED BEAM HOURS AND COSTS PER BEAM HOUR
                   ATSELECTEDACCELERATORDPERATINGLEVELS
BEAM HOURS   (IN THOUSANDS)


                                          [i]     ,oo%


                                                  75%

                                                  50%




                              $     897

                         ~

                                                           $ 962




       ARGONNE                    LRL      BROOKHAVEN    PRINCETON-   SLAC
                                                             PENN
      Although the cost per beam hour achieved is lower when
the five accelerators  are operated at their optimum levels,
four of the five accelerators    were operated at considerably
below optimum during fiscal    year 1969, as shown below.      AEC
advised us that this situation     resulted from overall  limita-
tions on program funding.

                              Beam hours             Actual as a
 Accelerator             Actual             At        percent of
  laboratory              1969          optimum        optimum

Argonne                   6,045           7,503          80.6
LRL                       6,159           6,277          98.1
Brookhaven                4,890           5,770          84.7
Princeton-Penn            3,791           5,700          66.5
SLAC                      4,627           6,360          72.8
    Total                25,512                          80.7




                                  37
USE OF ADDITIONAL COST DATA IN
EVALUATING ALTERMATIVE FUND ALLOCATIONS

      In recent years, funds available     for the HEP program
have not been sufficient    to enable each of ABC's accelera-
tors to be fully utilized.      It appears likely    that program
funds will continue to be limited     in the future,     especially
in view of the estimated operating     funds of $40 million       a
year that will be required    in connection with the operation
of the 200-Bev accelerator,    an amount that is about 33 per-
cent of the current HEP budget.

        It is apparent that, under such circumstances        in the
future,    AEC would be required     to make extremely difficult
decisions    as to the allocation      of available funds among the
various accelerator    laboratories.

     We believe that     information    showing accelerator  operat-
ing costs at various     operating   levels could be useful to
AEC in assessing the     effects   of shifting  operating funds
from one accelerator     to another.

         For example, on the basis of the estimated fiscal       year
1969 costs, as developed by us (see pp. 34 to 36), the
following     allocation   of fiscal   year 1969 funds for the ac-
celerator     operations   subactivity   would have resulted  in
providing     the funds for the operation,     at the optimum level,
of the Brookhaven and SLAC accelerators,         AEC's two highest
priority     operating   accelerators,

                         e                         Total operations
                    Operating      Number of            costs
  Laboratory          level        beam hours       (000 omitted)

Argonne                 50%             3,751              $ 6,539
LRL                     75              4,708                4,704
Brookhaven             100              5,770                8,635
Princeton-Penn          50              2,600                3,304
SLAC                   100              6,360               13,431

    Total                              23,189              $36,613




                                  38
       Under the above allocation,     total costs for accelera-
tor operations   at the five laboratories       would have been
about the same as those actually       incurred   in fiscal year
1969.l    Total accelerator   beam hours would have been reduced
by about 2,300 or 9 percent,       but beam hours available   on the
Brookhaven and SLAC accelerators       would have increased by a
total of about 2,600 hours or about 27 percent.

       We are not suggesting      that an actual allocation      of
funds, as shown above, would have represented          a more desir-
able and appropriate       action under fiscal   year 1969 operat-
ing conditions.       Instead,   our purpose is to illustrate       that
 information    of the type developed in our review, together
with management's 'knowledge as to the priorities          of the dif-
ferent accelerators,       would be useful in evaluating      alterna-
tive funding decisions,
        We recognize that, in assessing the desirability        of a
fund allocation      similar    to that shown above, AEC would have
to consider such factors         as (1) the effects  on the research
efforts    of individual     scientists  and on ongoing research
programs, and (2) the possible need for shifts          in research
funds among the laboratories.

        Also, our above allocation           of funds was limited     to a
consideration       of three operating        levels--50,    75, and
100 percent.        In developing     cost    and operating    data at var-
ious levels,      however, AEC might         wish to consider smaller
operating     increments so that it          could evaluate the desir-
ability     of alternatives     involving       smaller shifts    in funding.

1
 Actual accelerator    operations costs (according              to the GAO
  definition)  incurred by the five laboratories               in fiscal
 year 1969 amounted to about $36,569,000.




                                       39
CONCLUSIONS   AND RECOFMENDATIONS
     -I_.-__-_-_-         --
       We believe that the opportunity      exists for AEC to ob-
tain improved information       concerning  estimated and actual
costs which would be useful in allocating         available program
funds and in evaluating      the operations   of the accelerators.
Our specific     conclusions   and recommendations are discussed
below.
Need for uniform cost reporting
for high energyphysics   subactivities
        Our review has shown that the laboratories              have not re-
ported operations       and research subactivity         cost data to ABC
on a uniform basis.         The laboratories'        nonuniformities      in
reporting     costs for the subactivities          were caused, in part,
by the different      interpretations      placed on AEC's definitions
of operations      and research.       We adopted a definition        of
operations     costs similar      to the interpretation        of AX's def-
inition    by Princeton-Penn        and SLAC and applied it uniformly
in classfying      the fiscal    year 1969 costs at each of the five
laboratories.       We found that there were significant             differ-
ences among the laboratories           in distributing      costs to the
various subactivities.

      We believe that the availability    of more uniform cost
information   would be of assistance   to AEC in evaluating      the
operations   of the accelerators   and in determining    the rela-
tive funding needs of the laboratories.      We believe also
that the development by the laboratories      of written    account
descriptions   would tend to ensure that the cost data are re-
ported on a uniform basis and in accordance with AEC require-
ments.
      Recommendations

     We therefore     recommend that      AEC:

      1. Redefine the operations   subactivity     in a more pre-
         cise manner so as to provide for more uniform cost
         reporting by the accelerator    laboratories.

      2. Require the laboratories    to report        separately    the
         costs of operating    and maintaining        facilities    and

                                     40
         major equipment relating    to the performance of ex-
         periments at the laboratories     which are not con-
         sidered by AEC to be part of the operations     subactiv-
         ity.

      3. Require the laboratories   to develop written  account
         descriptions  as part of their formal accounting    sys-
         tems.

        AEC agreed that greater uniformity         in reporting    cost
data could be obtained and could be helpful             in the adminis-
tration    of the HEP program.     AEC stated that it plans to
formulate new definitions      of the research and operations
subactivities,    which will include the segregation            of the
costs of operating     and maintaining    facilities      and major
equipment relating     to the performance of experiments,
       AEC agreed also to work with       the laboratories   to de-
velop written    account descriptions       and to ensure greater uni-
formity in cost reporting.

Need for cost and operating        data
at various operating levels

       As previously     noted (see p. 271, AEC has not estab-
lished formal standards for relating          accelerator      performance
to operating     costs at various operating       levels.      In our opin-
ion, additional      information,  similar to that which we de-
veloped showing the cost of operating           accelerators      and ac-
celerator    beam output at various operating         levels,    would be
helpful   to AEC in considering     alternative      allocations      of
available    funds to the accelerator      laboratories.
      In this regard, we noted that Cambridge recently             sub-
mitted budget requests to AEC, which included estimates for
both a lo-shift     weekly operation  and a 14-shift       weekly opera-
tion.    Cambridge had been operating     on a lo-shift       basis due
to budget reductions,      and its experimental   program apparently
had been significantly      reduced by the fund limitations.
Cambridge submitted the two estimates to provide AEC with
information     showing the effect that different       levels of
funding would have on its operations.



                                    41
       We also believe that such information     could be useful
to AEC in comparing expected accelerator       operating levels
at the time funds are allocated     with the actual levels that
are achieved during the year.      We recognize that there may
be large variations     between expected and actual operating
levels due to unscheduled downtimes for maintenance,        setup,
repairs,   and improvements,   as well as continuous changes in
the experimental     schedule which would explain some of these
variances.    The variances could be analyzed by AEC to de-
termine their causes and possible need for corrective        action.

      Recommendation

      We therefore   recommend that AEC require the laboratories
to provide,   during the budget formulation     cycle, data relat-
ing to estimated accelerator     operations   costs and related
beam output at various operating      levels.   Although for the
purpose of our study we selected operating        levels of 50, 75,
and 100 percent and made various assumptions regarding re-
lated costs and beam output, the levels selected and assump-
tions made in implementing our recommendation would be for
AEC's determination.

         In commenting on our recommendation,         AEC stated that
additional      data concerning operations      subactivity      costs and
beam output at various levels of accelerator              operation might
be useful in program administration.            AEC pointed out, how-
ever, that considerable        information   relating     to this topic
was already available       for the laboratories,       although not on
a uniform basis, and that supplementary            information     could be
obtained when required.         According to AK, any additional
benefit     that could be derived from such a requirement             for
more data of this type must be carefully            weighed in terms of
the expenditures      of time and effort     the laboratories       would
have to make in developing the additional             data at the ex-
pense of research effort.          AEC agreed, therefore,       to imple-
ment this recommendation on a trial          basis and to follow-up
with an assessment of its overall value in program adminis-
tration.




                                    42
                            CHAPTER4

                USE OF' ACCELERATORSIN PROGRAMS

                OTHERTHAN HIGH ENERGYPHYSICS

       The Joint Committee on Atomic Energy requested that we
examine into the costs and/or savings involved        in shifting
the program of an accelerator       to some other research disci-
pline.    The Joint Committee also raised the question as to
who would or could decide that the support category of an
accelerator    might be changed from HEP to some other re-
search discipline.     We therefore    examined into the extent
that the accelerators    at the five laboratories     included in
our review were being used, or were planned to be used, in
non-HEP research programs.

      We found that some experiments related  to nuclear
physics or nuclear chemistry research had been conducted at
four of the five laboratories.    Except at one laboratory,
the HEP program was charged for the cost of providing       the
beam and other services for the experiments.

      Of the five laboratories,        only Princeton-Penn  had pro-
posed shifting     a major part of its program to some other re-
search discipline.       The proposal,     however, was not approved
by ARC, and it does not appear that the shift will be made
in view of AEC's decision       to shut down the Princeton-Penn
accelerator    in fiscal   year 1971.

POTENTIAL COST SHARINGBY PROGRAMS
OTHERTHAN HIGH ENERGYPHYSICS

       We noted that nuclear chemistry experiments were being
carried out on the Brookhaven accelerator        by scientists
from the laboratory's     chemistry department.      Brookhaven al-
located the estimated costs incurred       in providing    accelera-
tor operating     time for such experiments   to the benefiting
program.     During the 3-year period ended June 30, 1969,
costs of about $590,000 were allocated       by Brookhaven to its
chemistry program for the use of the accelerator          for the
nuclear chemistry experiments.      We noted, however, that the



                                 43
other laboratories were not requiring          reimbursement    for    non-
PEP research use of their accelerators.

       During the period 1964 through 1969, Princeton-Penn
ran a total of 19 experiments which,according        to Princeton-
Penn officials,   were either in the nuclear physics field or
in the nuclear chemistry field.      Two additional     non-HEP ex-
periments were run during the first      half of fiscal    year
1970, and three additional    experiments were scheduled to be
started in the spring and summer of 1970. Of the 19 non-
PEP experiments,   nine were completed during fiscal       year
1969 or were running at the year-end.        Of these, six were
nuclear physics experiments and three were nuclear chemis-
try experiments.    A total of 1,704 prime research hours was
charged to these experiments during fiscal       year 1969.
      During fiscal   year 1969 the Princeton-Penn   accelerator
was used for a total of 17,602 research hours (hours charged
to experiments    run on the accelerator   plus hours used for
machine physics).     Based on the number of research hours
achieved and total operations     costs incurred in fiscal    year
1969 ($4,680,000),    the average cost for each research hour
was about $266. Using this average, we estimated that the
costs charged to the HEP program in setting      up and running
non-HEP experiments    during fiscal   year 1969 amounted to
about $453,000.

      Princeton-Penn officials     stated that they had never
considered the possibility      of charging non-HEP research
users for the cost of using the accelerator          and facilities.
They said that they considered the laboratory          to be a          .
Government-financed  institution      available    to any person
or group wishing to conduct research,         as long as it was
good research.

      At LRL the accelerator     was being used periodically    for
nuclear chemistry research.       During the period January 1968
through June 30, 1969, a total of 2,868 research hours was
charged to nuclear chemistry experiments performed on the
accelerator  by researchers    in LRL's Nuclear Chemistry De-
partment.   LRL officials    advised us that the nuclear chemis-
try experiments did not interfere       with other ongoing HEP
experiments  and that the costs relating      to such experiments


                                   44
were mainly setup costs which were relatively       minor--
$6,890.    They stated that, as a matter of policy,    IRL did
not require that these costs be allocated   to the programs
benefiting   because the additional expense of separately     ac-
counting for the costs would not be warranted.

       At Argonne we were advised that, since the inception
of accelerator    operations     in 1963, a group of nuclear chem-
ists has conducted a continuing        series of nuclear chemistry
experiments using the internal        beam of the accelerator.
We were told that the experiments required          the exclusive
use of the accelerator       for about 2 hours a week. We esti-
mated that the average annual cost (in fiscal          year 1969
dollars)   to the JSEPresearch program for providing        chemistry
experiments on the Argonne accelerator        was about $30,560.
Argonne officials    advised us that they had no requirement
that such costs be allocated        to the chemistry program.

Recommendation
       We recommend that ARC require the accelerator   labora-
tories   to charge to non-REP programs the costs of providing
services to such programs in order to accurately     show the
costs of the various    research programs involved.

       In commenting on our recommendation,       ARC noted that
the non-HEP experiments conducted at the accelerators           were
a small part of the program and that the incremental           cost
to the program for each experiment was often small since
the non-REP experiments    often did not interfere       with other
ongoing I-ZP experiments.     Furthermore,    a substantial    pro-
portion of these were of mutual interest         to J.BP and non-m
users, so the REP program benefited        in these instances,
ARC agreed that, when the incremental        costs are significant
and when it has been determined that adequate mutuality            of
interest   does not exist,  such costs will be charged to the
benefiting   program.




                                  45
POSSIBILITY OF SHIFTING ACCELERATOR
SUPPORTTO OTHER RESEARCHDISCIPLINE

      Our review at the five accelerator       laboratories    indi-
cated that only Princeton-Penn       had proposed to shift a part
of its program to another research discipline.            In September
1969 Princeton-Penn    submitted a proposal to AEC for a heavy
ion improvement program, a major construction          project  for
the modification    of the accelerator.      The program was de-
signed to permit the acceleration       of heavy ions--including
uranium --up to 800 million    electron volts per nucleon.

     According to the proposal the project would cost be-
tween $4.5 million and $5.725 million  and would be completed
in four phases over a period of about 3-l/2 to 4 years.

       In a letter     submitted for the record during the fiscal
year 1971 authorization          hearings before the Joint Committee
on Atomic Energy, the laboratory            director    stated that the
program would cost about $2.5 million.                The director    subse-
quently advised us, however, that the $2.5 million                 cost re-
lated to phases I and II only.            These two phases could pro-
vide some of the heavy ion capability              stated in the proposal
without proceeding to phases III and IV. According to the
proposal full capability          would have required the completion
of phases III and IV and would have cost an additional
$2 million.     AEC officials       advised us that its technical          re-
views of the proposal indicated           that the cost estimates sub-
mitted by Princeton-Penn          were too low. They stated that the
proposal also did not contain estimates of the additional
funding that would be needed to provide laboratory                 facili-
ties required      for utilizing      the proposed heavy ion accelera-
tor's capabilities.

      We were advised by Princeton-Penn         officials     that the
impact of a heavy ion capability         on operating     costs had not
been studied but that they believed that there would be lit-
tle or no effect on such costs.          They stated that the heavy
ion experiments would require shorter secondary beam lines
and less shielding     materials    than those required       for proton
experiments;   therefore    certain    costs, such as secondary
beam power and setup costs incurred          in supporting      the heavy
ion experiments,    would be expected to be less.           On the other
hand, they advised us that it would be more difficult               to


                                     46
operate the machine for heavy ion experiments and that              addi-
tional personnel would be required   so that any savings            in
power and setup costs would be offset.

        According to the director       of the laboratory      and corre-
spondence furnished        to us by the director,     there was consid-
erable interest       in the project    by scientists    in the nuclear
physics,     chemistry,    and biomedical   fields.     Princeton-Penn
officials     advised us that, if the project were completed,
the accelerator       would probably be used for HEP research
about half the time and for heavy ion--nuclear              physics,
chemistry,      or biomedical--experiments       the other half.

      The decision    to sponsor the project       rested with AEC and
would have involved a commitment of program funds, other
than HEP program funds, for the construction            of the project
and for a share of the accelerator         operating    costs.  The
support category would have been dependent on which of AEC's
programs would benefit       from the project     and on whether there
was sufficient    scientific     or program interest,     need and pri-
ority for the project,       in relation   to other competing proj-
ects within the programs.
        Princeton-Penn's      proposal was reviewed by various AEC
officials     within the Division       of Research, who were respon-
sible for the nuclear chemistry and physics programs.               Also,
the Division      solicited     the views of scientists    in other
laboratories      and institutions      regarding  the scientific   merits
of the proposal.          AEC advised us that, after considering       the
scientific      merits of the proposal and after being faced with
increasingly      tighter    budgets and competition    for available
research funds, it had decided not to provide financial
support for the heavy ion project. - -
        AEC's Assistant    Director    for Chemistry Programs stated
that the chemistry programs' immediate needs for experiments
involving    the acceleration       of heavy ions were expected to be
satisfied    by the new, super HILAC (heavy ion linear acceler-
ator) which is under construction           at LRL and by the heavy
ion linear accelerator        at Yale University.        He pointed out,
however, that there was an increasing           interest    by nuclear
chemists and physicists        in Princeton-Penn's       adaptability  to
accelerate     heavy ions.


                                    47
                              CHAPTER5

       STANDAEtDS USED FOR EVALUATING RESEARCHQUALITY

      The Joint Committee on Atomic Energy requested that we
examine into the ground rules or standards used by AEC and
the High Energy Physics Advisory Panel to decide what was
good proposed research and into whether there were standards
for evaluating  actual performance in relation  to potential
performance.

USE OF STANDARDSIN EVALUATINGRESEARCH

      AEC and the High Energy Physics Advisory Panel generally
are not involved in evaluating      the quality    of individual     pro-
posed experiments;    however,  they   are involved    in  assessing
the quality   of the overall   research program.       AEC, in addi-
tion, becomes involved with the details         of research proposed
by university   research groups as part of its annual review
of contracts.

      The final evaluation     and approval of all experiments at
each accelerator   are made by the laboratory     directorate     upon
the recommendations of the scheduling or program advisory
committees which are charged with the responsibility          for re-
viewing the scientific     merit of proposed experiments.        Our
report to the Chairman of AEC (B-159687, May 13, 1970) in-
cluded comments on program committee procedures.          (See
app. II.>

       To perform an experiment using one of the accelerators,
a research group must submit a proposal outlining         the objec-
tives,    methods, and requirements   of the proposed investiga-
tion.     The program advisory committee evaluates the proposal
on the basis of its scientific      merit (i.e.,  if it is "good
physics")    and in the light  of the existing   accelerator   ex-
perimental    schedule and other proposed experiments.

       Laboratory     officials advised us that a clearly   defined
quantitative      formula for determining   whether a proposed ex-
periment was good physics did not exist.          We were advised
that such decisions were made on the basis of the recommen-
dations of each laboratory's        program committee, the


                                  48
recommendations being based on the judgment of and scien-
tific  evaluations  made by committee members. AEC advised
us that the evaluations   by the program committees were
based on a range of both quantitative     and qualitative cri-
teria,  some of which are listed   below.

     1. Will the proposed experiment obtain information      on
        specific     parameters that describe elementary par-
        ticle    reactions?

     2. Will the experiment discover new particles,    uncover
        new concepts or principles,  or stimulate   new ideas?

     3. Will the probable results      answer a fundamental     the-
        oretical question?

     4. If the experiment     is highly speculative,  will the
        potential benefits      or gains merit the undertaking?

     5. Will the proposed experimental       apparatus   be capable
        of obtaining  the results?

     6. Is the available   manpower and competence of the ex-
        perimental   group adequate for performing the exper-
        iment?

     7. Will the experiment     establish   or test   new experi-
        mental techniques?

     8. Have adequate steps been taken to ensure that unde-
        sirable particle  reactions     will be minimized and
        that the data resulting     from the experiment will be
        valid?

      AEC advised us that the quality  and performance of the
research programs at the laboratories   were continually     eval-
uated by the program advisory committees,    other laboratory
advisory groups9 and the laboratory   senior staffs.

     The program committees at SLAC and Princeton-Penn,        for
example, make a review of the results    of ongoing experiments
if and when the experimenter   requests accelerator    running
hours or pictures  in addition   to the hours or pictures



                                49
allotted    at the time that the experiments were approved.
LRL requires     that experimenters give an oral presentation
of the status of their ongoing experiments during regular
meetings of the program committee.        We were advised by of-
ficials    at each of the five laboratories    tLat the program
committees reviewed the past performance of those scientists
submitting    new proposals for experiments.

        Laboratory  officials     generally stated that they be-
lieved that HEP research was being adequately evaluated on
an informal basis by the laboratory         staffs and by the sci-
entific    community as a whole and that the evaluations      were
based on scientific       opinions and judgment.

      AEC advised us that, in developing    scientific    opinions
and in making judgments with respect to evaluations        of com-
pleted experiments,   the laboratories  considered     such cri-
teria as those listed    below.

      1. Did the experiment achieve its          fundamental    purpose
         and obtain the expected result?

      2. Was the accuracy of the results          as good as that
         projected or better?

      3. Did the group recognize new phenomena in the inves-
         tigation and take appropriate action?  Were any im-
         portant steps overlooked?

      4. Were the results   obtained    within      the projected   time
         and cost estimate?

      5. Were the results    received   favorably      by the physics
         community?
      6. Were the experimental     results  published, and were
         many theoretical    papers published by others dealing
         with these results?

      We were advised that there were specific         quantitative
and qualitative    criteria     for evaluating  new proposals as
well as completed experiments but that there was no clearly
defined quantitative       formula for weighting   these criteria
so as to give each proposal or experiment a quantitative


                                 SO
grade.   The assessment of the scientific    merit of experi-
ments in meeting the above criteria     was based on the judg-
ment of scientists  who were considered by AEC to be experts
in their respective   fields.
       LRL advised us that some other approaches to quantita-
tive evaluation       of research had been discussed in the past
but that each approach had been found to have certain                  sig-
nificant     flaws.     One approach was related to the number of
scientific      publications    emanating from various experiments;
however, because individual          publications      may vary in scope
and quality,      they were considered unreliable          for making
quantitative      comparisons.     LRL advised us that consideration
also had been given to using the number of times that dif-
ferent publications         had been referred      to by scientists      in
connection with their own published results               but that publi-
cations which reflected         questionable      results  sometimes had
been referred       to more often.     AEC advised us, however, that
these methods were helpful         in the qualitative        evaluations    of   ,
the research.

       The AEC Assistant       Director   of the High Energy Physics
Program stated that he and his staff evaluated the quality
of research performed at laboratories             through various means,
such as program reviews made during periodic              visits  to the
laboratories,     participation       in conferences    and other meet-
ings, and discussions         with members of the scientific        commu-
nity.     The Assistant     Director    said that the assessments and
evaluations    made by the scientific         community and conveyed to
AEC were a significant         mechanism that was used by his office
in evaluating     the quality      of research performed at the lab-
oratories.




                                      51
COMMENTSCONCERNINGDEVELOPMENT
OF QUANTITATIVE STANDARDS
FOR SELECTING EXPERIMENTS

      Because of the scientific  and technical   factors   in-
volved, we could not determine whether more quantitative
standards could be developed to assist laboratory       and AEC
personnel in evaluating   the quality of research.

        We did, however, inquire into the feasibility       of devel-
oping more quantitative      standards for evaluating    the quality
of proposed HEP experiments.        We also inquired  into the pos-
siblity    that such standards could be developed by a central
group of scientists,      such as the High Energy Physics Advi-
sory Panel, which would also become involved in the selec-
tion of experiments to be run on the accelerators.           The fol-
lowing discussion    relates    to comments obtained during our
inquiries.

       Argonne, Brookhaven, and LRL officials            stated that the
possibility     of developing a clearly       defined quantitative       for-
mula for evaluating        the quality    of proposed research was
questionable     because such a formula would be based on many
factors not applicable        to all experiments.        Also the rela-
tive weighting      of these factors would be based on value
judgments which would differ           among scientists.      Brookhaven
explained that, although a clearly           defined formula could be
helpful     in determining    the priority    for selection      of pro-
posed experiments,       the state of the art--high         energy phys-
ics--had not advanced to the point at which such a defini-
tion would be possible.

        SLAC officials       asserted that the use of clearly      defined
criteria    and other formalized         procedures for selecting    ex-
periments would amount to only a recordkeeping             exercise.
Princeton-Penn       officials     stated that it was not necessary to
develop specific        criteria    or procedures because its program
committee considered the most vital             questions, including    the
question of whether the proposed experiment was good physics.
They also stated that a determination             of what was good phys-
ics was a matter of scientific            judgment.

     The laboratories generally           were not in favor of using
a central review committee for           the selection  of experiments.

                                    52
SLAC pointed out that it would be difficult             to attract   qual-
ified and creative      scientists     because of the time that would
be required to serve on such a committee.             Both SLAC and
Princeton-Penn     expressed some concern that, under a central-
ized selection    process , proposed experiments w'hich were con-
sidered highly exploratory         would not be approved over the
more conservative,      classical-type     experiments.     Various lab-
oratory officials     explained that the probability          of success
of exploratory    experiments was somewhat doubtful           but that
the payoff was usually greater if they were successful.

      Each of the laboratories   thus felt that the initiative
for selecting   experiments should remain with the laborato-
ries.   The laboratories   also were generally     of the opinion
that development of precise quantitative       standards for eval-
uating researc'h results was not feasible      because of the
many judgmental factors involved.




                                    53
                              CHAPTER6

                          SCOPEOF REVIEW

      We conducted our review at AEC Headquarters     in German-
town, Maryland, and at five of the AEC contractor-operated
accelerator  laboratories  at the following locations.

   -Argonne     National   Laboratory,    Argonne, Illinois
       Brookhaven National    Laboratory,     Upton, New York
       Lawrence Radiation    Laboratory,     Berkeley, California
   -Princeton-Pennsylvania        Accelerator,     Princeton,  New Jer-
          sey
  - Stanford Linear Accelerator          Center, Stanford,    Califor-
         nia

      We directed   our review toward obtaining        an understand-
ing of the manner in which operating         funds were allocated
to the various activities      and subactivities      of the HEP pro-
gram. We examined into the laboratories1           procedures used
in arriving    at amounts included in requests for operating
funds submitted to AEC and into the AEC policies,           practices,
and procedures employed in determining          the amount of funds
for allocation    to the laboratories    and to other activities
and subactivities    of the HEP program.

      We examined into certain   aspects of the laboratories'
accounting  systems to evaluate their adequacy for providing
useful cost and other information     to AEC for program plan-
ning and budgeting.   With the assistance     of laboratory     per-
sonnel, we developed pertinent    data regarding    accelerator
operating  costs and utilization   for fiscal   year 1969,

       We also examined into the scheduling    and use of accel-
erator operating    time and into the criteria   used by AEC and
the laboratories    in evaluating the quality   of REP research.
Our review did not, however, include an evaluation       of the
quality   of the research work conducted under the HEP pro-
gram.
      We reviewed applicable    legislative    history  and records
available   at the laboratories    and AEC Headquarters     and ob-
tained the views of various AEC and laboratory         personnel
knowledgeable   of, and responsible      for, the administration
and conduct of the HEP program.
                                 54
APPENDIXES




55
                                                                                                            APPENDIX I
                                                                                                                Page 1




                                               WASHINGTON.         D.C.    20510

                                                    October          22,   1969




Honorable    Elmer      B. Staats
Comptroller     General       of the United                 States
U. S. General      Accounting       Office
Washington,     D. C.

Dear     Mr.      Staats:

            The purpose            of this   letter     is to formally             request      the assistance
of your      office     in connection         with     a selective        review        of certain        aspects
of the Atomic           Energy        Commission’s             high   energy        physics       research        pro-
gram.        In particular          the Committee             is interested          in the AEC’s           method
of allocating         resources         among       the various         activities         of this    program,
including        the bases       for determining            where       to apply       budget       reductions         to
the operation           of high energy          accelerators.             Often      in the past,         when     pro-
posed     budgets        were     reduced       as a result         of the authorization               and appro-
priation       process,        the AEC      has imposed             essentially         a pro rata         or equitable
reduction         among      all its operating           contractors.

             The central          question       seems     to be whether           it is more            appropriate
for all contractors              operating        high   energy      accelerators              to accept       somewhat
 curtailed      productivity           or for the operation            of one or more                of the accelerators
to be substantially              curtailed       so that the remaining               facilities         can be operated
at relatively         full utilization.            An effort     should      be made             to determine           the
 “ground      rules”      or standards          used by the AEC            and the High              Energy        Physics
Advisory         Panel       (HEPAP)       to decide      what     is “good”        proposed           research.            This
 request      stems       from     a statement         in the HEPAP            report         of June 1969 to the
AEC,       namely,         in the fifth      paragraph        on page      20 where             it is stated        that:

                         “During       the next decade      several   of the existing
               accelerators          will    be operated   at a reduced     level   or shut
               down     when     interest      declines  in the research       that  can be
               accomplished           there.    ”




                                                              57
APPENDIX I
    Page 2

 Several              questions          are    raised       by     this      statement:

                     1.      Who makes    the decision     that “interest”        in the research      to be
 conducted                  at a given accelerator      has declined       to the point    where    support
 from    the              high  energy  physics    budget    should    be curtailed      or stopped?

                     2.     Who would   or could    decide     that the                      support       category      of an
  accelerator                might  be changed   from      high energy                         physics       to some      other
  field       like        biology       and    medicine           or   chemistry,           or   various       combinations?

                     3.     Are     there      standards            against       which     actual       performance           and
  potential               performance           are       gauged?

              If standards        do not exist         or are tenuous,        you should        determine        if the
  AEC     could    develop,        through       management       cost analysis          or other      techniques,
  standards       which     might       provide      for a more     efficient     allocation        of funds     and
  improved       over-all      quality        of high    energy  research        within      the budgets       pro-
  vided     by the Congress.

              It is expected           that GAO will            wish      to examine            (1) the on-line          time      for
 experiments            of each       of the major          high      energy        accelerators,            (2) the program
 of operation          of accelerators               to determine            whether        fiscal    economies            could       be
 realized        through       more       efficient      scheduling           of accelerator            use time,           (3) the
 costs      of operating         and maintaining               such facilities            in order        to provide          reason-
 able     estimates         of funds        required       for various            levels       of accelerator          operations,
 and (4) the costs             and/or         savings     involved          in shifting         part   of, or the entire
 program          of an accelerator               like the Princeton-Pennsylvania                           accelerator,             from
 high     energy       physics       to research          in biology          and medicine,             chemistry,             nuclear
 physics        or some        other      recognized          discipline.

              It would        be particularly        appreciated           if your    staff    could      advise     the
  Committee           of any significant         findings        developed       which      might      assist     the Com-
  mittee      during       its review       of AEC’s      fiscal      year    1971 budget         request,       even if
  your    final     report      cannot     be prepared         by that time.

                                                                           Sincerely        yours,         ,    (




                                                                           Chet Holifield
                                                                           Chairman




                                                                              58
                                                                    APPENDIX II
                                                                        Page 1
               Excerpt from GAO report dated May 13, 1970,to the Chairman,
               Atomic Energy Commission,on selectedaspectsof the management
               of the high energy physics researchprogram (B-159687)


                                 CHAPTER2

                METHODOF MANAGINGAND CONDUCTING
                  HIGH ENERGYPHYSICS RESEARCH
MANAGINGHIGH ENERGYPHYSICS RESEARCH

       The Division      of Research at AEC Headquarters has the
responsibility       for the technical    administration    of the high
energy physics research program in AEC contractor-operated
laboratories      and outside organizations.        Although AEC's
operations     offices,    which are located throughout      the United
States, provide contract        administration,      they generally  do
not get involved        in the programmatic direction      and manage-=
ment of high energy physics research activities.

      The Office of the Assistant  Director  for the High
Energy Physics Program within the Division    of Research com-
prises three branches:    the Advanced Accelerator    Branch,
the University   Research Branch, and the Accelerator    Centers
Branch.
      The Advanced Accelerator Branch is concerned with that
part of the high energy physics research program relating
to the development of future accelerator     capability.   The
University  Research Branch is responsible    for that part of
the program carried out by university    research groups.
These include theory groups, accelerator     user groups, and
other experimental  groups.

       The Accelerator      Centers Branch is responsible          for that
part of the program directly           related    to AEC's six accelera-
tor laboratories.         In addition     to supporting    the four lab-
oratories    included in our review, AEC supports accelerator
laboratories      at Harvard and Princeton Universities.              Ac-
cording to AEC, the responsibility             for carrying     out the
day-to-day     activities    at the accelerator       laboratories     is
placed upon the laboratory          directors     and associate    direc-
tors who are directly        involved in the laboratories'          pro-
grams and who are considered to be experts in their respec-
tive fields.
APPENDIX II
    Page 2
 CONDUCTINGHIGH ENERGYPHYSICS EXPERIMENTS

      Each of the four accelerator         laboratories      included in
our review has several research groups which plan and exe-
cute experiments on the accelerator           as well as groups which
perform such support functions         as maintenance of certain
equipment.    There is a great diversity          in the types of ex-
periments undertaken in high energy physics and in the
methods employed in carrying        them out.       Some experiments
are conducted entirely       by members of the research groups
associated   with the laboratories.          Other experiments,       how-
ever,   are conducted    by  the  many  university     research    groups
or by joint   laboratory-university        groups.     University     re-
search groups usually       perform the initial       planning,    prepare
specialized   equipment, and conduct the final analysis               of
the experimental    data at their home institutions.
        Before developing     an experiment proposal,  a research
group studies the physics process to be investigated          and
reviews experimental       requirements   and methods of making
measurements, detection         devices to be used, and the charac-
teristics     of the particle     beam needed.  The experiment pro-
posal resulting      from the above process is submitted to an
accelerator     laboratory    for review and possible acceptance.

      If   the proposal is accepted, the research group pro-
ceeds to design and fabricate        any special equipment re-
quired for the experiment,,       The experiment is scheduled,
and available     equipment and space are allocated      by the lab-
oratory for the duration      of the proposed experiment.       The
staff at the accelerator      laboratory,   often assisted by
university    groups, designs and sets up the beam and other
major pieces of experimental       apparatus required    for the ex-
periment and cooperates with the research group in working
out the final details      of accelerator   operations.,

      During a given running period at an accelerator,   sev-
eral experiments usually run simultaneously,    While these
experiments are gathering   useful data, others are usually
being removed, installed,   tested, or held in standby.

       When energetic   particles collide with, and dislodge
electrons   from, the atoms located near their path, they
leave a trail    of ions as a brief trace of their existence.
                                                          APPENDIX II
                                                              Page 3

Under suitable   conditions, this trail  of ions can be made
to appear as a track of small bubbles in a superheated
liquid,  such as hydrogen in a bubble chamber; as a flash of
light in a counter; or as a series of sparks between elec-
trically  charged plates in a spark chamber.    The detection
device to be used generally    depends upon the objectives    of
the experiment.
       A typical   spark chamber research group might spend
several months setting up its equipment at the accelerator
site, follow this with a comparable period of running time
at the accelerator,       and then return to the university    for
a period of extensive measurement and analysis of the data
resulting     from the experiment and for preparation      of the
results    for publication.

      A bubble chamber research group obtains film for analy-
sis by sending some of its members to the accelerator           site
for an extended period to assist with the bubble chamber ex-
periment.     AEC advised us that such a group also operates
the particle-beam-control       magnets and supervises the opera-
tion of the bubble chamber.        The bubble chamber facility,
however, g enerally     is provided and operated by the accelera-
tor laboratory.

         Data analysis requires    extensive     facilities     for scan-
ning, measuring,      and encoding    the  data    as   well as  many hours
of high-speed computer processing          time.      The need for such
facilities     accounts for a significant        portion of the costs
of high energy physics research.
       Once the data are analyzed and the theoretical        impli-
cations are reviewed,   the experimental      results  are usually
published   in the open literature     and otherwise distributed
so that other groups of theorists       and experimentalists     may
assess the observed results      in the light of their own re-
search work and future plans.




                                     61
APPENDIX II
    Page 4

                                  CHAPTER3

                       PROCEDTJRES
                                FOR REVIEW AND
                       APPROVALOF EXPERIMENTS

       To perform an experiment using one of the major accel-
erators,   a research group must submit to the laboratory         op-
erating   the accelerator     a proposal outlining   the objec-
tives, methods, and requirements        of the proposed investiga-
tion.    The proposal is reviewed for acceptance by a labora-
tory program advisory committee (program committee) which
evaluates     the proposal on the basis of its scientific       merit
and feasibility      and in the light of the existing    accelera-
tor experimental      schedule and other proposed experiments.
       The program committee meets periodically     to evaluate
proposals and makes appropriate     recommendations concerning
their disposition.     On the basis of the recommendation of
the program committee, the laboratory      director   (associate
laboratory    director at Argonne) may either approve, reject,
or defer the experiment;    or approve the experiment par-
tially   for a smaller number of running hours than re-
quested; or require modification     of the experiment,

        Therefore,     the committees,    acting as bodies of spe-
cialists     in the field of high energy physics research,         sub-
stantially      influence   the selection     of, and emphasis placed
on, the type of research experiments conducted.
COMPOSITIONOF PROGRAMCOMMITTEES

       As shown below, the program committees at the four
laboratories   included in our review were composed of indi-
viduals from various institutions,
                 Membership    of ~xmgram committees        as of January 1970
                                   Institution     with which associated
              Total     Laboratory      at which                        Other AEC
             members   accelerator      is located     Universities    laboratories
Argonne          7                 1                       5                1
Broakhaven      11                 5
Berkeley         9                 3                      ii                i
SLAC             9                 4                      4                 1




                                       62
                                                         APPENDIX II
                                                             Page 5

       The program committees are composed of physicists      who
are generally    appointed for Z-year terms by the laboratory
directors,    except at Argonne where the associate   laboratory
director   for high energy physics makes such appointments on
a yearly basis.     All the program committees except the SLAC
committee have, in addition     to the membersshown in the
above table, ex officio    members who serve as consultants.

      We noted that as of January 1970 there was one indi-
vidual who was serving on three of the four program commit-
tees functioning     at the four laboratories  included in our
review.    This individual    was serving on committees at
Berkeley,Brookhaven,      and SLAC.
        The Brookhaven program committee has found it benefi-
cial to have a physicist        from the European Organization       for
Nuclear Research high energy physics facility            sit as an ob-
server at its meetings and to have a physicist            from
Brookhaven sit as an observer at the European Organization's
meetings.     By mutual agreement these physicists          serve
l-year terms as participants        in the research programs of the
respective     laboratories,   'and during these terms they attend
program committee meetings as observers.            Brookhaven offi-
cials advised us that this arrangement enabled the two fa-
cilities,    which are very similar,      to preclude unnecessary
experiment duplication       and to capitalize    from the experi-
ences gained by each.
      In addition,  three of the laboratories     have a physi-
cist from one of the other laboratories      serving on their
program committees.     We were told by Argonne that this ar-
rangement provided a very good means of determining        what
items of scientific    interest were occurring     at the other
laboratory.




                                   63
APPENDIX II
    Page 6

METHODS-OF MONITORINGPROGRAM
                           COMMITTEES

      The ARC contract   with Stanford University    requires
that the procedures of the SLAC program committee, includ-
ing written   procedures for programming and scheduling       exper-
iments, be approved by AEC. Contracts with the other three
laboratories   do not have a similar    requirement.   The SLAC
program committee's    scheduling  procedures are also reviewed
by the SLAC Scientific     Policy Committee, which reports to
the president   of Stanford University,    and whose members are
appointed with the concurrence of AEC.

       AEC provided us with the following   additional  informa-
tion   concerning the monitoring  of program committees.

       Each laboratory's      program committee receives appre-
ciable direct monitoring        from various organizations     composed
of accelerator     users and from laboratory       management. There
is also much indirect       monitoring   of the actions and proce-
dures of the committees by AEC. For example, very close
contact is maintained between the AEC high energy physics
staff and (1) program committee members, (2) accelerator
laboratory    personnel,    including   the director    and top staff,
(3) accelerator     user groups, principal      investigators,   and
senior physicists,       and (4) various program evaluation      com-
mittees,   such as the High Energy Physics Advisory Panel,
SLAC"s Scientific      Policy Committee, and user committees,
AEC also maintains close contact through receipt of frequent
periodic   reports and through publications.

POLICIES AND PROCEDURES
OF PROGRAM COMMITTEES

      We were advised that data relating     to proposed experi-
ments were informally   exchanged between the program commit-
tees at the various laboratories.     We were told that commit-
tee members also received information     relating   to proposed
or completed experiments informally    through personal con-
tacts with physicists   from other laboratories.

      Laboratory    officials     stated that, in evaluating    a pro-
posed experiment,      the program committees generally      considered
the following    factors,     although not necessarily    in this or-
der of priority.


                                   6?
                                                         APPENDIX II
                                                             Page 7

     1. The scientific  value of the proposed experiment          and
        whether it could be considered "good physics."

     2. The ability    of the experimental     group to accomplish
        the objectives    of the proposed     experiment.

     3. The characteristics    of the proposed experiment and
        its compatability   with the capabilities   of the ac-
        celerator  and with other scheduled or proposed ex-
        periments.

     4. The magnitude of the proposed experiment,  as mea-
        sured in terms of cost and running time required.
     We have noted the following       differences     in the proce-
dures of the program committees       at the four    laboratories.

     1. In evaluating    experiment proposals,      only the pro-
        gram committee at Berkeley receives,         as a standard
        procedure,    an oral presentation     from a spokesman
        representing    the research group.       The presentation
        describes the nature, goals, justification,          tech-
        nique, and apparatus to be used in the proposed ex-
        periment.     At SLAC, research    groups may request to
        present their proposals orally        and, in some cases,
        the program committee may request that they do so.
        At Argonne, a spokesman for the research group is re-
        quested to attend the program committee meeting to
        answer questions     concerning the proposal,       At
        Brookhaven, however, research groups are not given
        the opportunity    to present their proposals to the
        program committee unless the committee specifically
        requests that they do so.

     2. The Brookhaven program committee has found it very
        useful to make a compilation      of data concerning     pro-
        posed and completed experiments at other laborato-
        ries that are similar      to each experiment proposed
        for consideration    by the committee.       These "memory
        refreshers"    are provided to each committee member in
        advance of the meetings and are used, among other
        things,    to avoid duplication   of effort,     The other
        three laboratories     do not use similar-type     memory
        refreshers.


                                 65
APPENDIX II
    Page 8

     3. After an experiment proposal is received at Argonne,
         the program committee appoints one of its members
         to act as a "contact man" with the research group.
         It is the contact man's responsibility           to make
         judgments on program areas and to provide pertinent
         and relevant   information     concerning the proposal to
         the program committee.       In addition,     for counter
         and spark chamber experiment proposals,            a coordina-
         tor is appointed to act as a consultant            to work
        with the research group and to assist it in evaluat-
         ing beam requirements      and length of running time.
        This coordinator      is appointed at the request of the
         program committee by the operations          committee--a
         committee which aids the program committee in evalu-
        ating the feasibility       and compatibility      of proposed
        experiments.     Brookhaven stated that all propo~kls
        were studied by the Experimental          Planning Division
        and that its findings       were reported to the commit-
        tee via its division      leader and the chairman of the
        Accelerator   Department who were ex officio           members
        of the program committee.         SLAC advised us that,
        after a proposal was received by the program commit-
        tee, two of the committee members were assigned re-
         sponsibility  for making a detailed        analysis of the
        proposal for presentation        before the committee at
        one of its bimonthly meetings.          Prior to September
        1969, Berkeley did not have a similar           procedure.
        We have been advised, however, that Berkeley cur-
        rently employs a procedure whereby its committee
        assigns one or more members to make a detailed              eval-
        uation of each proposal before the meeting at which
        it is to be considered.




                                  66
                                                        APPENDIX II
                                                            Page 9

EFFECTIVENESSOF PROCEDURESFOR
REVIEWINGAND APPROVINGEXPERIMENTS

       As previously     noted, the program committees at the ac-
celerator    laboratories,     acting as bodies of specialists      in
the field of high energy physics research,         substantially
influence    the selection     of, and emphasis placed on, the
type of experiments conducted.         As shown on page 12, more
than half of the committee members at each accelerator            lab-
oratory we reviewed were associated with institutions            other
than that AEC laboratory        and thus provided outside users of
the accelerator      with a voice in the selection    of experi-
ments.

      On the basis of our review, it appears that the exist-
ing program committee system should provide an effective
method of selecting    the most appropriate       experiments to be
performed at each accelerator        from those proposed and that
the broad spectrum of accelerator         users represented    on the
committees should provide reasonable assurance against un-
necessary duplication     of research activities.        We did note,
however, that AEC was not represented          on these committees
and that AEC officials     generally     did not attend committee
meetings, even as observers.

      We recognize the advantages of AEC's indirect       monitor-
ing of the program committee's actions,      as discussed on
page 14. We believe,     however, that attendance at some of
the committee meetings by AJZCrepresentatives       could provide
an additional    method of reviewing and evaluating     the proce-
dures in use to independently      determine whether proposed
research experiments are being adequately      evaluated and
whether the decisions    to approve, reject,   defer, or modify
proposed experiments appear appropriate      under the circum-
stances.

       Therefore,   in view of AEC's responsibilities        for en-
suring that the substantial      funds being expended on the
high energy physics research program are used as effec-
tively   as possible,   we proposed that ARC Division       of Re-
search representatives     attend as many of the program com-
mittee meetings at the various laboratories           as necessary to
directly    observe the procedures in use and to independently
evaluate their effectiveness.        AEC officials     could also


                                   67
APPENDIX II
    Page 10
become aware of differences     in the procedures used by the
various committees,    such as those pointed out in this re-
port, and, where appropriate,     could suggest changes de-
signed to improve the selection      processc    By attending some
of the program committee meetings, AEC could, in our opin-
ion, further  assure itself   that (1) proposed experiments
are receiving   adequate consideration,     (2) steps are being
taken to avoid unnecessary duplication        of experimental ef-
fort,  and (3) experiments are being approved consistent
with the overall   aims and purposes of the high energy phys-
ics research program.

      AEC stated that a number of the monitoring    procedures
previously   discussed had a clear advantage over personal
attendance at the program committee meetings and personal
evaluation,    in that they not only utilized  the individual
technical   capabilities   of the AEC staff member but also
made fuller   use of the judgment, knowledge, and technical
capability   of the foremost experts in the field.

        AEC recognized,    however, that it might be useful for
Division    of Research representatives     to attend such meet-
ings from time to time and agreed to do so as an additional
monitor and source of information        on the relative    values and
activities     of the various parts of the high energy physics
program.     AEC stated that attendance at the meetings would
be an additional      source of information    for evaluation     of
the various user groups as well as the accelerator            labora-
tories and that there might also be value in attending             some
of the meetings to intercompare       the committee procedures
and perhaps suggest improvements in the procedures of some
of the committees,




                                  68
                                                                     APPENDIX III
                                                                           Page 1
                  GAO ESTIMATES OF FISCAL YEAR 1969
                     ACCELERATOROPERATIONSCOSTS
                              .AXDBEAMHOURS

                     AT SELECTEDOPERATINGLEVELS

                     ARGONNENATIONAL LABORATORY

                                             Optimum
                            Actual            level
                            FY 1969          (note a)      75% level     50% level

Salaries                   $2,291,288   $ 2,851,998       $2,243,824    $1,885,463
Materials and services      1,906,847     2,459,959        1,941,873     1,449,476
Power                       1,664,270     2,003,040        1,637,280     1,271,520
Overhead and other in-
  direct costs              2,293,645        2,760,798     2,255,059     1,932,747   n
     Total                 $8,156,050   $10,075,795       $8,078,036    $6,539,206

Accelerator   beam hours      6,045           7,503          5,627         3.751
                     LAWRENCERADIATION LABORATORY

                             Actual          Optimum
                             FY 1969          level        75% level     50% level
Salaries                   %;@9;g        $L;;;,~;$        $2,g1g        %~~~,~~~
Materials and services
Power                         631:501          639; 674      512;469       426:773
Overhead and other in-
  direct costs              1,358,lOO        1,536,972     1,289,275     1,116,126
     Total                 $5,039,992    $5.630.671       $4,703,757    $4.0679174
Accelerator   beam hours      6,159            6,277         4,708          3,139

aThe cost data at the optimum level are based on an average of six
 to seven simultaneous experiments which Argonne officials         stated
 could be accommodated by the accelerator    at that operating      level.
 Subsequent to our review, however, the laboratory's     officials
 stated that their reanalysis   of the experimental  program indicated
 that only an average of four simultaneous experiments could have
 been run and that the estimated costs at the optimum level would
 be somewhat lower than the amounts shown above.



                                        69
APPENDIX III
     Page 2

                          _BROOKHAVEN
                                   NATIONAL LABORATORY

                                    Actual      Optimum
                                  FY 1969
                                  --             level       75% level        --50% level
     Salaries                   $ 3,519,927 $ 4,035,200 $ 3,487,100 $3,125,600
     Materials and services       1,216,457   1,436,900   1,228,200  1,093,OOO
     Power                           889,739     961,000     846,000    744,000
     Overhead and other in-
       direct costs               2,004,051     2,201,400     1,986,400       1,835,900
         Total                  $ 7,630,174   $.8.634,500   $ 7.547.700     $6,798,500

     Accelerator   beam hours      4,890         5.770         4,346            ?,


                        PRINCETON-PENNSYLVANIA
                                             ACCELEXATOR

                                   Actual       Optimum
                                  FY 1969        level       75% level        50% level
     Salaries                   $ 1,875,X9    $ 2,206,632   $ 1,790,190     $1,416,863
     Materials and ser-
       vices                        906,289     1,126,928       825,142         523,356
     Power                          368,743       448,700       358,766         284,974
     Overhead and other in-
       direct costs               1,529,719    J--O,316       1,373,962       1,079,081
         Total                  $ 4,680,070   $ 5.482.576   $ 4,348,0%$3,304,274

     Accelerator   beam hours      3,791         5,700         I!Ld&            2,600

                        STANFORDLINEAR ACCELERATOR
                                                 CENTER

                                   Actual       Optimum
                                  FY 1969        level       75% level       50% level
    Salaries                    $ 1,995,552 $ 2,106,480     $ 1,995,552 $1,826,115
    Materials and services        5,489,805    7,233,253      5,588,335  4,658,437
    Power                            767,791  l,012,000          806,700    568,533
    Overhead and other in-
      direct costs                2,809,752     3,079,584     2,809,752      2,597,814
        Total                   $11,062,900   $13,431,317
                                               --           $11.200.339     $9.650.899

    Accelerator    beam hours      4,627         6.360         4,776            3,184




                                                                          U.S. GAO, Wash., D.C.