8.

well as energy security. It would seem to me that, we need to begin now a substantial effort in the basic geology of oil reservoirs and the geochemistry of the interfaces between hydrocarbon molecules and mineral grains.

These are

the things that most affect ultimate recovery from oil reserves we have already found, but are now only producing to the fifty percent level because we don't know how to extract the rest. Learning how to make a few percentage points improvement would help offset the decline in production that will be lost due to low prices and the affect they will have on retiring marginal wells from production. Thus, enhanced oil recovery at the basic science level seems one desirable priority. The ERAB

Solid Earth Sciences Panel has been set up, however, to seek answers to the questions you raise about the types of

research that most urgently need support.

Do you believe there is adequate coordination among the various BES subprograms, and the various energy technology programs? How might this coordination be improved?

8.

Insofar as the geosciences are concerned, answers to this
question are one goal of the Solid Earth Sciences Panel. In
other areas, it is my impression from limited data, that
coordination could certainly be improved. Exactly how this
should be done, if there is any generally applicable way,
may emerge from the Solid Earth Sciences Panel study but it
is not now known to me.

9. The Department's High Energy and Nuclear Physics programs are typically presented as "national trust" programs, with the implication that there should be not competition for funding between these programs and the other programs of the Department. Do you agree with this view?

9.

They

ERAB took the position that, if it is decided to go ahead
with specific aspects of the high energy and nuclear physics
program such as construction of the SSC, "it must not
preempt other D.O.E. civilian research priorities as there
are important and less expensive projects to fund in the
near term." My own belief is much stronger than this and
relates generally to the so-called national trust programs.
D.O.E. has been spending and seemingly plans to continue to
spend very large sums on these programs which have become
more and more tenuously related to its energy mission.
must not be protected from competition with the mission
oriented programs of the D.O.E. and, to me, it does not seem
in the national interest, to me, to maintain such a large
emphasis in these programs. Many of them, especially those
related to the construction of large facilities and the SSC
is the prime example, are simply not possible for one nation
to undertake alone. I do not see how they can be seriously
considered except as fully international programs in terms
of site selection, construction and operation. This is
particularly true when our own nation is under enormous
financial pressure as it is now. Some group, probably ERAB,
should make a study of how the "national trust" programs
are, in fact, prioritized against the mission agency
programs and then make recommendations as to how a more
reasonable balance could be achieved.

10. To what extent should the Department's basic research programs support its defense mission versus its energy mission?

10. ERAB did not study this question in the publication on which

I was asked to report so once more I can only provide my own opinion. In terms of the kind of large facilities proposed for Material Sciences research, they clearly must be available to support both defense and civilian R&D

programs. I am troubled at that the apparent trend for more

and more of the D.O.E. budget to be basically defense
related, even though the budget categories used seemed

designed to obscure this development.

Dr. STEHLI. Thank you, sir.

PANEL 1: NEW FACILITIES AND RESEARCH OPPORTUNITIES

Mr. FUQUA. We now have a panel on new facilities and research opportunities, if they will come on as I call their names to the table: Dr. Hermann Grunder, director of the Continuous Electron Beam Accelerator Facility; Dr. John C. Browne, associate director for research, Los Alamos National Laboratory; Dr. David A. Shirley, director, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, accompanied by a stranger to this committee-Martha, we're very glad to have you back-and Prof. Richard B. Bernstein, Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry at the University of California, Los Angeles.

Dr. Grunder, we'd be pleased for you to lead off, and then, after each one has made their presentation we'll then have questions. [A biographical sketch of Dr. Grunder follows:]

DR. HERMANN A. GRUNDER

Dr. Hermann A. Grunder, appointed Director of CEBAF on May 1, 1985, is a native of Basel, Switzerland. Dr. Grunder holds a Ph.D. in Experimental Nuclear Physics from the University of Basel as well as a MS in Mechanical Engineering from the Technologische Hochschule in Karisruhe.

Dr. Grunder's appointment as Director of CEBAF is the latest development in an internationally acknowledged career of progressively increasing significance in Accelerator Physics. Prior to his appointment at CEBAF he was promoted to Deputy Director of General Sciences at Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory upon completing an appointment as Associate Director and Head of the Accelerator and Fusion Research Division at LBL. His leadership of the Accelerator and Fusion Research Division brought the realization of that Laboratory's upgrade of the Super HILAC-BEVATRON/BEVALAC to successful acceleration of uranium ions. This accomplishment had its inception while Dr. Grunder was Group Leader for Super HILAC-BEVARATRON/BEVALAC Operations and Development in his position as Senior Staff Scientist in the Accelerator and Fusion Research Division.

Dr. Grunder has served on many professional committees and in special assignments, among them: Special Assistant for Advanced Facilities, Division of High Energy-Nuclear Physics, U.S. Department of Energy; Department of Energy, High Energy Physics Advisory Panel (HEPAP); Department of Energy/National Science Foundation, Nuclear Science Advisory Committee (NSAC); Gesellschaft fur Schwerionforschung (GSI) Darmstadt, Germany; and many others.

He has published extensively on high energy, heavy-ion accelerators, and accelerators as they apply to medical research and radiation therapy. Recently he was an

60-549 O 86-6

invited speaker at the Workshop on Feasibility of Hadron Colliders in the LEP Tunnel (Lausanne, Switzerland, 1984).

He received the U.S. Senior Scientist Award, presented by the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation, 1979.

Dr. Grunder is a member of the American Physical Society, the European Physical Society and the Swiss Physical Society.

STATEMENT OF DR. HERMANN A. GRUNDER, DIRECTOR, CONTINUOUS ELECTRON BEAM ACCELERATOR FACILITY, NEWPORT NEWS, VA

Dr. GRUNDER. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, it is indeed a great pleasure to appear before you today because I indeed have a number of things to report to you that happened last year in Newport News.

I'm the director of the Continuous Electron Beam Accelerator Facility at Newport News, a research project to be built by the Department of Energy under the auspices of the Southeastern Universities Research Association.

Whilst operated by SURA for the Department of Energy, CEBAF is to be a national facility open to all qualified practitioners in the relevant sciences. CEBAF has been repeatedly identified by the Nuclear Science Advisory Committee as its first priority for a new construction project and recommended to DOE for early construction.

Mr. Chairman, I've prepared a written statement which I would like to submit for the record.

Mr. FUQUA. Yes. We will make that part of the record, and that will apply to all the statements.

Mr. GRUNDER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

About a year ago, I was persuaded by a search committee and influential members of the scientific community to accept my present position. They convinced me that if managed properly there is a real opportunity here to create a center of excellence in nuclear physics including the designing and building of this unique accelerator facility.

Furthermore, if nuclear physics is to survive as a forefront science in this country, facilities such as CEBAF are urgently needed. Before I report about the challenges and accomplishments of the last year, I would like to tell you a little bit of the excitement surrounding the science to be done.

In the early 1970's when the experimental results of our sister science, high energy physics, taught us that the universe is composed of quarks, the constituents of protons and neutrons, nuclear physics changed fundamentally, dramatically, and forever.

I brought with me the nucleus of a carbon atom. Now to set the stage and to complete the atom, the electron cloud surrounding this nucleus is roughly at the radius of 100 kilometers. Also, if you want it in terms of amplification, magnification, of this picture, it is one million billions.

[Slide shown.]