Dr. WILEY. Yes, sir. We intend to complete conceptual design by mid-summer. Mr. MORRISON. What are you going to do in 1989 in the fiscal year? Dr. WILEY. Well, as I indicated, we will complete conceptual design in 1988, which means if there were dollars available you could very well begin detailed design of the facility which is a $40 million facility with about $80 million worth of this frontier level equipment and computational capabilities as described. Mr. MORRISON. Is there a possibility with the building of some outside funding or third-party arrangements? Dr. WILEY. That is possible for the building. We have every reason to believe that that is possible for the building. However, that leaves us with an $80 million budget for the equipment. Mr. MORRISON. I just want to share with the Subcommittee my interest in this. As I have sat through endless hours of hearings this seems to me to be a logical role for taxpayers, all of us collectively, to play in the future of America. One last question, Bill Wiley. If we help you in funding this project, will you somehow make available to this Subcommittee your secret, award-winning gumbo recipe? Dr. WILEY. Absolutely, Congressman. Mr. MORRISON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have no further questions. Dr. WILEY. That's an interesting question. [Laughter.] Mr. BRUCE. For the record, we get the gumbo recipe. Mr. Fawell. Mr. FAWELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Dr. Schriesheim, I am going to return to my favorite subject of the Advanced Photon Source, and I expect it is high on your list also. In fact, I know that it is. You referred to an accelerated schedule, and I am somewhat interested in that also. Could you describe this accelerated schedule that you believe ought to be utilized insofar as the construction of the Advanced Photon Source is concerned? Dr. SCHRIESHEIM. Yes. We have enough money, if you will, with the $6 million request to do largely paper studies basically in 1989. The $6 million construction and $6.2 million for continuing research and development. Of that $456 million total cost, assuming that it is done in seven years, that is 1996, $100 and some odd million are conventional facilities. By conventional facilities, I mean you have to dig a hole, you have to-that's four football fields-you have to pour concrete and a lot of that has to be done before the internals can be put in place. So, the increase from $6 million to $20 million in 1989 would get us a long way toward the conventional-facility construction. Then the logical follow on to that are expenditures that would enable the Laboratory to purchase equipment that would go into those conventional facilities earlier in the cycle than we could purchase those if we were on the seven-year cycle. The accelerated schedule is one that would enable us to construct conventional facilities sooner, purchase the components that need to be put in place in those facilities and, of course, to test the machine. I have such a schedule, and I would be glad, Congressman, to put that schedule in the record. Mr. FAWELL. Yes, I would like to have you do so. But are you talking still about a seven year schedule though? Dr. SCHRIESHEIM. No. The schedule that is our preferred schedule would start in 1989 and have us finish in 1994, for a cost of $430 million instead of the $456 million, or a savings of $26 million over that span. So we could construct it, instead of a seven and one-half year span, we could construct it in a five-year span. Mr. FAWELL. That would be approximately the same, a bit longer than what would be envisioned in Grenoble and also in regard to Japanese schedule to what you mean? Dr. SCHRIESHEIM. We would probably hit pretty close to the same time period, considering the testing and start up of the machine. Under any circumstances, it would be a lot closer than the seven and one-half year timespan. Mr. FAWELL. I notice that the material science budget within the Basic Energy Science is up about 7 percent. Is this a reasonable increase in your view? Dr. SCHRIESHEIM. It's a nice increase but we have to examine what that increase is. About 5 percent of that 7 percent is for facilities, and there is really only a 2 percent increase which is less than inflation, or what I would call the research part-superconductivity, materials science, polymers and so forth. I think we have a gap, if you will, in that particular budget area. Mr. BRUCE. There is an amendment going on in the floor, a Dannemeyer Amendment. We can continue for five more minutes and at the second bell we will suspend the activity here and come back immediately following. Mr. FAWELL. Mr. Chairman, I just have one other question that would be posed to actually all three of the witnesses because the technology transfer has been mentioned by Dr. Zucker. I would wonder in regard to each of your Labs, could you just give a brief summary of technology transfer because I, too, agree that this is something that is so very important. I wonder how much progress we are making. Dr. ZUCKER. We pay a great deal of attention to that at Oak Ridge. We have a separate group that does nothing but technology transfer of about five people. We have so far licensed 20 of our inventions. In other words, we have 20 licenses now in place. At the moment, our licensed inventions are about a $10-million business outside the private. These things that we have not licensed that are essentially not patented are the kinds of things that we have invented like a hip joint, much more important in the commercial sense. We expect in five years to have licenses that are earning about $100 million a year total. We have succeeded in bringing back to the United States, a good fraction of the tool-bit business from Japan. We have returned to the United States I believe from Europe, the heater-wire business, some of the inventions that we have made. So, I think we have been successful in many cases. But we are not by any means home free. It is very difficult to transfer technology, and it's true that the National Laboratories need to exert our effort. I would like to make one statement to industry and maybe they will listen. There is one important barrier, the person, an engineer in industry. He wants to make his way to the top of that industry will not take on a technology transfer job. He will not consider this a way of promoting his own status in the industry. I think that has to change. Industry has to regard that as an important activity and reward it accordingly. I would like to leave that message to whoever wants to promulgate it. That does not exist at the moment. Good people don't do that. Good people have to be engaged in that and we put our best people on that. Mr. FAWELL. Dr. Schriesheim. Dr. SCHRIESHEIM. I agree with everything that my cohort here, Dr. Zucker said. I don't want to cover the licensing ground once again, but I do want to point out something that is a richness that exists within the National Laboratories. That has to do with the fact that technology transfer is a multi-faceted activity. The labs are in an almost unique position in this country, having the ability to transfer not only the specific technology in the sense of licenses, but also, information. We transfer information to universities; we transfer information to industry. We run the major user facilities. The Advanced Photon Source will have a consortium of industries that will utilize that facility. In fact, I might just comment that a group of pharmaceutical companies have formed a consortium to develop a memorandum of understanding so they can use that facility. So the Laboratories represent a whole richness. In thinking about technological transfer from the Laboratories, one has to think of industries putting people in the Lab, of the Lab sending people and the Congress, I believe, needs to make that as easy as possible. Dr. WILEY. Just one statement. We expect to increase our technology transfer through licensing by about 20 different products this year. The important thing is that I think that the National Laboratories represent a mechanism for moving more rapidly from basic science to technology-based businesses. They are spanning a gap between where the university might stop and where industry recognizes it as a business driven basis. I think those are the key efforts that we are concentrating on, is trying to figure out a way to more rapidly move technology. Mr. BRUCE. Thank you. The Committee will stand in recess until 3:15. If this panel would not mind, we would like to reconvene with you because we have further questions of this panel. [A brief recess was taken.] Mr. VALENTINE [presiding]. The Subcommittee will please be in order. I recognize Congressman Stallings. Mr. STALLINGS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is a pleasure, Dr. Schriesheim, to have you here with the Committee. I would just like to make a comment on Argonne and what you are doing particularly in the Idaho operation. I have had the opportunity for the last three years to work very closely with some of those folks, and have been very impressed with the quality, dedication and the commitment that they demonstrate. I think the Argonne operation has been successful. Some times those folks living out in the hinterlands working on the Idaho side are passed over, at least from my point of view are passed over, when it comes to the accolades and compliments for work well done. I want you to know how impressed I am with the operation there with the commitment, and I think that this year's budget particularly on the IFR demonstrate the kind of work that has been going on out there. I was pleased to see the support that the Department of Energy is giving the IFR this year. It is certainly different than what we went through last year. Assistant Secretary Garrish testified last week that it is now the principal direction. It's a great line. The principal direction of the Advanced Reactor Program. Argonne is currently doing so very well in extending the national leadership on that and is certainly to be congratulated on this. You noted that an additional $6 million is needed. Very briefly, why and how much of that would used at the Idaho facility? Dr. SCHRIESHEIM. The $6 million would be split; $4 million and $2 million, $4 million for the Hot Fuel Examination Facility at Idaho and $2 million for fuel fabrication to produce fuel for FFTF. The total $6 million would be spent in Idaho. I can't help, even though I am not objective and admit to not being objective, to agreeing with you in terms of the caliper of the people that are located about an hour outside of Idaho Falls. They really are a national asset, a true national asset. We have the only full-scale capability in nuclear power reactors really that exist in this country today. A good fraction of that exists out there in Idaho. So, it is always a pleasure for me to go there. I will be there this week running program reviews, and I always look forward to the morale, enthusiasm, in addition to going hunting. [Laughter.] Mr. STALLINGS. We are pleased to have you doing what you are doing at the Idaho facility. I certainly again congratulate you on what you are doing. I think the fact that the Department is now recognizing the value of this new IFR project is really self-explanatory. Mr. Chairman, that is the only question I had. Mr. VALENTINE. Thank you, sir. Mr. Hochbrueckner. Mr. HOCHBRUECKNER. I have no questions, Mr. Chairman. [Questions and answers for the record follow:] 1. 2. 3. SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT Hearing on the Department of Energy (DOE) Republican Member Questions for the Record DR. ALAN SCHRIESHEIM, DIRECTOR, ARGONNE NATIONAL LABORATORY The FY 1988 Continuing Resolution included $10 million "to initiate a technology program in X-ray lithography aimed at restoring U.S. leadership in the manufacture of high density computer chips." What role, if any, does Argonne National Laboratory have in carrying out this Congressional directive, and how is the implementation of this Congressional directive impacting the base programs in synchrotron radiation at Argonne National Laboratory? What level of funding would vou recommend for R&D on hightemperature superconductivity? What is the status of the high-enriched uranium target for the Intense Pulsed Neutron Source at Argonne? When will it be installed, and are the funds requested for FY 1989 allow for sufficient running time so that target will be "self-protecting"? 1. Argonne's contribution to the x-ray lithography initiative coordinated by Brookhaven is principally in providing analytical capabilities of extremely high sensitivity, e.g., SARISA (Surface Analysis by Resonance lonization of Sputtered Atoms) a technique developed at Argonne, and the capabilities of Argonne's Electron Microscopy Center for Materials Research. By use of SARISA, impurities in semiconductor chips can be detected down to the low parts per billion range (in examining oxides on silicon by SARISA it has been possible to detect the presence of iron at much lower concentrations than ever before). The Electron Microscopy Center provides the capability to identify particulates on semiconductor chips at dimensions down to the nanometer regime and to do analytical work at tens of nanometers. These advanced, highly sensitive basic research analytical capabilities provide the means to study semiconductors and determine what improvements in the manufacturing technology can lead to higher yields and better semiconductors, thus enhancing the competitive position of the U.S. in this area. The lithography initiative will have no direct impact on the base programs in synchrotron radiation at Argonne. However, the analytical techniques for use at synchrotrons developed by these basic research programs will be applicable in the examination and evaluation of the products of lithography, which in turn will provide the information necessary to the development of improvements in lithographic processes. 2. We would recommend $30M in the DOE Basic Energy Sciences area and $15M in the DOE Conservation area, with a total national commitment by all Federal Agencies of about $150M. 3. The enriched uranium disks for the IPNS booster target have been completed at Y-12 in Oak Ridge. The final assembly and insertion of the target is scheduled for July August, 1988, with the first beam on target scheduled for the middle to end of August. Funds requested for FY 1989 provide for 23 weeks of IPNS operation, the minimum for the target to remain selfprotecting 4/20/88 |