Images de page
PDF
ePub

Dr. TRIVELPIECE. No; I am trying to avoid doing that. I am trying to say that there are things that need to be done in the fiscal year 1987 budget.

Chairman HATFIELD. Without funding?

Dr. TRIVELPIECE. It depends on whether or not the Secretary believes that we ought to proceed with this project, and there are at least four different alternatives to choose from: no, never; not in fiscal year 1988; yes in 1989; yes, in fiscal year 1988.

Chairman HATFIELD. Let's take the most immediate action. Let's play through a scenario. I am trying to find out where your secret fund is. (Laughter.]

FISCAL YEAR 1987 FUNDING POSSIBILITIES If the Secretary should say, “Dr. Trivelpiece, full steam ahead,” what would you do? Where would you get the funds?

Dr. TRIVELPIECE. I don't believe that it would be necessary to ask for any additional funding than that which is already in the fiscal year 1987 High Energy Physics Program budget.

Chairman HATFIELD. How much is in there?

Dr. TRIVELPIECE. Well, for generic activities which involve magnets and other things not necessarily SSC-related, there is about $90 million. This is an amount which is included

Chairman HATFIELD. Did you say $19 million?
Dr. TRIVELPIECE. $90 million.

Chairman HATFIELD. In other words, you have an unobligated account here of funds that are available that you can move around as you want. (Laughter.]

Dr. TRIVELPIECE. Absolutely not, let the record show, please.
Chairman HATFIELD. All right (Laughter.]

I am just trying to determine where you are going to get the money for the SSC or how much of that $90 million is SSC related..

Dr. TRIVELPIECE. There is a collection of activities that we need to be doing in the course of building magnets, designing them, testing them, that is both related to the SSC and is unrelated to the SSC.

Somewhere down the line, other accelerator facilities are going to be needed, for which these kinds of magnets are generic.

The kind of work that would go on would change in emphasis, and we would, modify some of the ongoing programs at the laboratories in such a way as to emphasize things that are SSC-related versus things that are not, but that is within the definition of that appropriation account, things that we change on a yearly basis, anyway.,

Chairman HATFIELD. And you say there is $90 million of potential resource budgeted to fund whatever action that you might determine should be the next step following your in-depth review?

Dr. TRIVELPIECE. Yes; you could think of it as a reprogramming, but I believe that it is within the limits of things for which a specific congressional reprogramming request would not be necessary in that it is allowed within that appropriation account to conduct these activities.

that are now, Wuto emphasize the ongoing po

Chairman HATFIELD. Well, if you run into problems in carrying out the review schedule that you have outlined-a schedule that I am not quite sure I understand please don't hesitate in asking for help in reprogramming the funds included in the budget. [Laughter.]

I understand that procedure.

Dr. TRIVELPIECE. That is why I stated in my opening remarks that we will keep you informed as we proceed through this process.

Chairman HATFIELD. I have a very sadistic recommendation here by staff that I will not pursue. (Laughter.]

I am tempted, however. (Laughter.]
I will resist the temptation.

Dr. TRIVELPIECE. I suppose you will pursue it with me later. [Laughter.)

Mr. Chairman, I would like to provide for the record an explanation of the activities conducted under the high energy technology subprograms and how they relate to the SSC, as well as other advanced accelerator concepts.

(The information follows:)

HIGH ENERGY TECHNOLOGY R&D The fiscal year 1987 President's budget request includes $95.5 million for high energy technology. This subparagraph supports a broad spectrum of advanced accelerator and detector R&D studies. The SSC R&D activities have been funded within the advanced accelerator R&D part of this subprogram. The advanced accelerator R&D program includes studies to devise means to enhance scientific performance, operating reliability, and cost effectiveness of existing facilities; studies related to ongoing major projects such as Tevatron I, SLC, and the AGS accumulator booster; and studies of advanced accelerator concepts and technologies.

Technical subjects which are the focus of advanced accelerator R&D include advanced magnet development with particular emphasis on superconducting magnets for a broad range of applications including the S$C; topics in accelerator physics including the theory of magnetic optical systems, both linear and nonlinear; studies of beam dynamics in linear accelerators, circular accelerators, storage rings, and charged particle beam transport systems; studies of advanced radio frequency power sources and ac celerating structures including klystrons, lasertrons, gyroklystrons, and free electron lasers; new and innovative advanced accelerator concepts include laser and plasmadriven beat wave accelerators, wakefield accelerators, laser grating accelerators, collective effect accelerators, and the inverse free electron laser accelerator.

In the area of facility R&D, advanced technology R&D supports work on improved beam target technology; improved secondary support work on improved beam target technology; improved secondary particle beam transport systems; new and improved detector technology such as liquid argon time projection chambers, solid state microvertex detectors, and ring imaging Cherenkov detectors; and advanced data processing systems including the use of computation "farms,” development of standardized electron instrumentation systems (e.g., Fastbus), and hardware and software for parallel data processing.

If we proceed with SSC construction in fiscal year 1988, it would be possible to accommodate SSC R&D within the high energy technology request in fiscal year 1987 by concentrating on highest priority tasks, perhaps with some reduction of other technology R&D. If we decide not to proceed with SSC, it is still essential to provide new forefront research capabilities for the High Energy Physics Program by about the mid1990's and a hadron collider using superconducting magnets is the only feasible way to achieve this goal. Thus, there will be a need for continued superconducting magnet R&D-in fiscal year 1987 even if the specific focus on SSC is discontinued.

SSC SITING Chairman HATFIELD. As you probably know, we have some rather enthusiastic constituents in Oregon that are interested in this project When do you expect that site criteria might be developed so interested groups can nail down a little more precisely whether they might be qualified for further consideration?

Dr. TRIVELPIECE. Yes; we do have a site criteria document which has been prepared. I have made copies available to all the Governors of the States.

We have received some comments back from them. I don't believe the site criteria is likely to change very much, although it is presumably merely a draft document at this point and has not been approved by the Department and is not part of any official proposal submission request.

Chairman HATFIELD. But you feel that it is specific enough to be able to winnow out, obviously, unqualified areas as site possibilities?

Dr. TRIVELPIECE. Yes; I believe so.

Chairman HATFIELD. We have three excellent potential sites in our State. (Laughter.]

Dr. TRIVELPIECE. I am aware of the interest of the constituents of your State in this matter, Mr. Chairman.

Senator DOMENICI. How about mine? (Laughter.]

Chairman HATFIELD. The Senator from New Mexico is out of order. (Laughter.)

The line forms right here. (Laughter.]

Dr. TRIVELPIECE. I think by last count, there are only eight States from which we haven't heard.

Chairman HATFIELD. Only eight States. Dr. TRIVELPIECE. That we have not heard from. Chairman HATFIELD. Good. (Laughter.] When the site selection is made, then only one State will be interested from then on.

Dr. TRIVELPIECE. I suspect.

Chairman HATFIELD. And that State ought to have some place in the hierarchy of the Congress, where they can implement that selection. (Laughter.]

Senator DOMENICI. Are you suggesting there is only one such source? (Laughter.)

Chairman HATFIELD. There is only one committee where this money will be provided. (Laughter.]

MAGNETIC FUSION ENERGY

PRODUCTION OF SPECIAL NUCLEAR MATERIALS Dr. Trivelpiece, I would like to turn now, momentarily, to the Magnetic Fusion Program.

I have a copy of a letter dated February 10, 1986, addressed to the Honorable Joseph S. Salgado from Donald A. Hicks from the Depart

fusion to Would you as a nealectricity: 6-87? we don't propof studieubject

city? por magne. Also, lear bomagnetic

ment of Defense. Of course, I am sure you are familiar with this letter. It refers to a research project initiated by you relating to magnetic fusion as a means of producing special materials for nuclear weapons in the future. For years, my understanding of the magnetic fusion program has been that the first fusion reactor would not be a breeder of nuclear materials. Of course, the focus has been upon producing energy.

I understand now that a study is proposed to look at using magnetic fusion to produce special nuclear materials used for nuclear bombs and warheads. Would you comment on this study? Also, do you see this military application as a near-term use of magnetic fusion rather than, say, using it to generate electricity? How much do you propose to spend on this effort in fiscal years 1986-87?

Dr. TRIVELPIECE. The last question first, we don't propose to spend anything on that activity. There have been a number of studies that have been done by various companies and scientists on this subject, both in the United States and outside the United States, on what you might do with the neutrons from the fusion reaction once you have successfully made fusion work. These range from producing fuel for fission reactors to breeding tritium.

· There are a large number of these studies. There are many proponents for them. What I decided to do was to ask the National Academy of Sciences to look into these various studies and make some comparison of them and advise me as to what they thought of them from a scientific point of view, a technical point of view, and so on.

There is no escaping the physics fact that fusion neutrons can be used to make various kinds of bred fissile atoms, which range all the way from plutonium to tritium and quite a few things in between. Whether or not this does it in a cost effective and energy effective manner I think is a subject of a lot of engineering design work, and whether or not this particular utilization of fusion reaction would be something that would occur sooner than or at the same time or later than other civilian applications, I think, would depend on the emphasis that was put onto it and the purpose to which it was put.

But I think it is something which is not ignorable from the physics point of view. Those were the facts, it can be done; and the question is whether or not that should be the direction or the technology that would be emphasized is a question that comes in another arena.

Chairman HATFIELD. Do I hear you saying, then, that there is not necessarily a major shift in the Department's program on magnetic fusion as much as it is a possibility of this becoming a secondary or preferable. benefit that might come to the military vis-a-vis your ongoing program?

Dr. TRIVELPIECE. I think that is the thrust of Dr. Hick's letter, and I think it was based on a report that had been done by some people at Livermore that point out certain advantages if the fusion reaction is going to work in a certain way, that that compared technically with a new production reactor, has certain advantages in the tritium arena. It is a matter of cost and cost effectiveness as to which of those is a more important thing to do.

way from pokler various kinds physicsodiace of view, ament of them

CE. You may Senator from.ch Mr. Chainid not get herhree

PROPO

D DEFERRAL

86

But there is no shift in the Department's program or emphasis of this activity at this time.

Chairman HATFIELD. If a shift should be contemplated in the future, I would hope that this committee would be informed before that decision is made.

Dr. TRIVELPIECE. You may count on it.
Chairman HATFIELD. The Senator from New Mexico?
Senator DOMENICI. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I was delayed, and consequently, I did not get here in time to inquire of Assistant Secretary Fitzpatrick. I have two or three questions.

PROPOSED DEFERRALS FOR 1986 Senator DOMENICI. Secretary Fitzpatrick, it is my understanding that in the 1987 budget request, DOE proposed several deferrals. I understand they may amount to about $1.6 billion, some of which would terminate programs. Many of these funds were added by Congress and weren't in your original budget, the administration budget.

Then I understand that in February of this year, Secretary Herrington changed some of those and informed the chairman of the subcommittee that certain deferrals for six university projects would be revised to rescissions. I don't know whether the six have some extraordinary characteristics, but I wonder how that kind of decision was made, especially since all projects and universities weren't treated that way. I have one at New Mexico State University, a small one, $450,000 for a solar project. I think it is a good one. It received a national award as the best United States demonstration program, according to the expert group that researched it, as to the efficacy of different programs.

Do you have any knowledge as to what criteria were used to change the six from deferrals to rescissions and leave others as deferrals?

Ms. Fitzpatrick. No; I don't, Senator.

Excuse me. The one thing that I do know is that I think those six involve construction projects. The one that I know about specifically that is under my purview is a construction project.

Senator DOMENICI. Would you look into that?
Miss FrTZPATRICK. Yes; certainly.
Senator DOMENICI. And let us know, please?
Miss FITZPATRICK. Yes.
(The information follows:)

SOUTHWEST RESIDENTIAL DEMONSTRATION PROJECT Unlike the six university projects in the Basic Energy Sciences Program which are being reclassified as rescissions, the renewable energy Southwest residential demonstration project is not a construction project. Rather, the project involves the operation and monitoring of photovoltaic arrays under the direction of the New Mexico Energy Re search Institute. Although the project is associated with New Mexico State University, it is not considered to be a university program.

« PrécédentContinuer »