[Senate Hearing 107-445]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 107-445
RAYMOND L. ORBACH NOMINATION
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON
ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
on the
NOMINATION OF RAYMOND L. ORBACH, NOMINEE TO BE DIRECTOR OF THE OFFICE
OF SCIENCE, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
__________
FEBRUARY 26, 2002
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON : 2002
____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512-1800
Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico, Chairman
DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii FRANK H. MURKOWSKI, Alaska
BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico
BOB GRAHAM, Florida DON NICKLES, Oklahoma
RON WYDEN, Oregon LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho
TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming
EVAN BAYH, Indiana RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama
DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California CONRAD BURNS, Montana
CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York JON KYL, Arizona
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington CHUCK HAGEL, Nebraska
THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware GORDON SMITH, Oregon
Robert M. Simon, Staff Director
Sam E. Fowler, Chief Counsel
Brian P. Malnak, Republican Staff Director
James P. Beirne, Republican Chief Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
STATEMENTS
Page
Bingaman, Hon. Jeff, U.S. Senator from New Mexico................ 1
Feinstein, Hon. Dianne, U.S. Senator from California............. 2
Orbach, Dr. Raymond L., Nominee To Be Director of Office of
Science, Department of Energy.................................. 3
APPENDIX
Responses to additional questions................................ 7
RAYMOND L. ORBACH NOMINATION
----------
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 2002
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:08 a.m. in room
SD-366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Jeff Bingaman,
chairman, presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JEFF BINGAMAN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW MEXICO
The Chairman. This morning's hearing is on President Bush's
nomination of Dr. Raymond Orbach to be the Director of the
Office of Science at the Department of Energy. The Office of
Science is one of the leading supporters of basic scientific
research and is the primary supporter of physical science in
the Nation, and the Director of that office is responsible for
overseeing and managing this very important work.
Dr. Orbach's long and distinguished career as a physicist
and as Chancellor of the University of California at Riverside
will make him well qualified for this important post and we are
very glad to see him nominated for this important post.
I understand that perhaps Senator Murkowski will put a
statement in the record in support of the nomination as well.
He is not able to be here this morning.
The rules of the committee which would apply to all
nominees require that they be sworn in connection with their
testimony, so Dr. Orbach, could you just stand and raise your
right hand please.
Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you are about to
give to the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Dr. Orbach. I do.
The Chairman. Please be seated. Before you begin your
statement, let me ask you the three questions that we address
to all nominees before the committee. Number one, will you be
available to appear before this committee and other
congressional committees to represent departmental positions
and respond to issues of concern to the Congress?
Dr. Orbach. I will be pleased to do so.
The Chairman. The second question, are you aware of any
personal holdings, investments or interests that could
constitute a conflict of interest or create the appearance of
such a conflict should you be confirmed and assume the office
to which you have been nominated by the President?
Dr. Orbach. My investments, personal holdings and other
interests have been reviewed both by myself and the appropriate
ethics counselors within the Federal Government. I have taken
appropriate action to avoid any conflict of interest. There are
no conflicts of interest or appearances thereof to my
knowledge.
The Chairman. Thank you very much. The third question is,
are you involved or do you have any assets held in any blind
trusts?
Dr. Orbach. No, sir.
The Chairman. Okay. At this point I am required to be at a
meeting in the Capitol and Senator Feinstein is here to
introduce Dr. Orbach and she is a strong proponent of his
appointment, and she will conduct the rest of this hearing. So,
I wish you well in this new position. I strongly support your
nomination.
Dr. Orbach. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Senator Feinstein.
STATEMENT OF HON. DIANNE FEINSTEIN, U.S. SENATOR
FROM CALIFORNIA
Senator Feinstein [presiding]. Thank you very much, Mr.
Chairman. I am very happy to welcome Dr. Orbach, I do happen to
know him, I do think he is superbly qualified, and it is a
distinct honor for me to be able to introduce him to the
committee or to the record this morning.
He is the Chancellor of the University of California at
Riverside and he has been nominated, as the chairman said, by
the President to be Director of the Office of Science at the
Department of Energy.
Dr. Orbach has had a brilliant career. He is a most able
nominee for this position. He is a distinguished professor of
physics. He assumed the role of the sixth chancellor of the
University of California at Riverside in April 1992. Under his
leadership, University of California at Riverside became the
fastest growing school in the UC system with an annual
enrollment today of just over 14,000 students. Dr. Orbach has
been a leader not only at the university level but also in the
community, working with K through 12 educators and parents to
help chart the academic course students should follow and must
follow to be eligible for college upon graduation.
As was stated, he is a distinguished professor of physics
and he sets high standards for academic excellence. He was a
member of the faculty at Harvard University and at UCLA before
coming to UCR. From 1982 to 1992, he was also provost of the
College of Letters and Science at UCLA.
He has done extensive research into theoretical and
experimental physics. He has been supported by the National
Science Foundation and the Office of Naval Research. His work
has resulted in over 240 scientific papers being published.
He has received numerous honors as a scholar. The 1991-92
Andrew Lawson Memorial Lecture at UCR, a National Science
Foundation post-doctoral fellowship, the Alfred P. Sloan
Foundation fellowship, and the John Simon Guggenheim memorial
fellowship.
He is a graduate of the California Institute of Technology,
known as Cal Tech, with a BS in physics. He attended the school
on a full scholarship. He was awarded his Ph.D. in physics from
the University of California at Berkley in 1960 and was
received into Phi Beta Kappa honor society at that time.
While Chancellor Orbach's nomination is a gain for the
Department of Energy and the energy science community, it is a
loss for the University of California and for both of our
States. I am looking forward to his confirmation and working
with him in the future on many issues of importance to my home
State, California, the Department of Energy, and the Office of
Science.
May I welcome you, Dr. Orbach, and if you would like to
make a statement, the committee would be very happy to receive
it.
TESTIMONY OF DR. RAYMOND L. ORBACH, NOMINEE TO BE DIRECTOR OF
OFFICE OF SCIENCE, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Dr. Orbach. Thank you, Senator, for those wonderful
comments and for coming here this morning. Your introduction of
me is very meaningful and I am greatly appreciative.
I have been honored to be nominated for this position by
the President and the Secretary of Energy. My wife is back in
California doing a number of chores and I am, my family is
represented here by my youngest son, Randy Orbach.
Senator Feinstein. Welcome, Randy.
Dr. Orbach. Randy is chief trust officer for Commercial
Capital Bank, the largest independent bank in Orange County.
I'm very pleased that he was able to come today.
I'm looking forward to this position if I'm confirmed. It
will be an opportunity to champion the cause of science within
the Department of Energy but also on the national scale. It is
an honor to be considered for the Office of Science, which has
10 national laboratories which report to the Office plus a
major responsibility for scientific research in energy
sciences, biological and environmental sciences, and
computational science.
The scientific community today is charged with
responsibilities as serious as any in our Nation's history and
it is imperative that both our educational and research
programs in our country be at the highest level and that we
work very hard to see to it that all children have the
opportunity to excel in their studies and hopefully to
encourage them to go into careers in science and engineering.
I have been very generously supported by the U.S.
Government in my own scientific career and am deeply
appreciative of that and am looking forward to the opportunity
to return some of the trust and the support the government has
given me in this position.
Let me again thank you, Senator, very much for coming here
this morning and introducing me, and I look forward to working
with you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Orbach follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dr. Raymond L. Orbach, Nominee To Be Director of
Office of Science, Department of Energy
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: It is a privilege to
appear before you today as the President's nominee for Director of the
Office of Science at the Department of Energy, to have the opportunity
to talk with you, and to answer any questions you may ask. I am honored
by the President's and Secretary Abraham's confidence in me and I would
like to thank them both for their support.
Because of pressing business in California, my wife of 45 years,
Eva Orbach, is unable to be here. She has been my partner in all of my
professional life, including raising three wonderful children who have
given us seven perfect grandchildren. I know how much she would have
liked to attend this hearing. I am pleased to introduce my youngest
son, Randy Orbach, who is representing our family. He lives in Orange
County, California, and works as Chief Trust Officer for Commercial
Capital Bank, the largest private bank in Orange County.
The Director of the Office of Science serves as the Science Advisor
to the Secretary of Energy, and is the Vice Chair of the Department's
Research and Development Council. The Office of Science is the steward
and principal funding agency of the Nation's research programs in high-
energy physics, nuclear physics, and fusion energy sciences. It manages
important programs of fundamental research in basic energy sciences,
biological and environmental sciences, and computational science, all
of which also support the missions of the Department. An example of the
extraordinary value of these efforts are the insights being gleaned
from the Human Genome Program, an effort initiated by the Office of
Science.
The Office is responsible for the overall health, well being, and
management of ten laboratories, DOE-owned and contractor operated,
recognized internationally for their scientific excellence, for
constructing and operating large scientific user facilities, and for
providing leadership on a world scale for scientific initiatives. The
strength of the United States' economy and defense is dependent in
large part on the successful stewardship of science at the Office of
Science and her sister agencies.
At this time of crisis, the strength of the scientific community,
both in teaching and research, forms the underpinning of our
technological response to terrorism, to homeland security, and to the
economic opportunities available to our citizenry. The mission of the
Office of Science is to provide our President and country with the best
science with which to implement our national energy policy. These are
awesome responsibilities, and if confirmed, I shall do my best to
provide the necessary leadership.
I have been an active scientist for over 43 years. I have been the
recipient of generous federal support, both in terms of graduate and
postdoctoral fellowships, and research grants and contracts from the
National Science Foundation and the Office of Naval Research. I have
served for two decades in educational leadership positions, while
continuing my teaching and research activities. During the past ten
years as Chancellor of the University of California, Riverside, I have
taught the introductory course in Freshman physics every year. I have
been a champion of access to higher education for all children. I have
personally visited elementary, middle, and high schools all over
California and in Northern New Mexico, providing the reasons why, the
path to, and the support mechanisms for attending college. I have seen
my own campus nearly double in enrollment, becoming the most ethnically
diverse Research I university in the United States. My mission has been
to prove that a truly diverse student body can succeed at the highest
level of academic achievement.
If confirmed as Director of the Office of Science, I commit myself
to work with you and your colleagues, listening to your advice and
direction. I intend to assist with the development of not only the
scientific research strength of this nation, but also with the
opportunity for everyone in our country to participate in educational
development at the highest intellectual level.
Mr. Chairman, I again thank you for the privilege of appearing
before you, and your distinguished colleagues. I shall be pleased to
respond to questions.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much, Dr. Orbach, and I
look forward to working with you.
As you can probably tell by the number of committee members
that are here, your appointment has absolutely no controversy
attached to it. If everybody was here, you might think uh-huh,
I might be in trouble. But as you can see, you are very well
thought of.
I would like to just ask two quick questions for the record
if I might. The Office of Science is responsible for conducting
the basic research that underpins the Department of Energy
supply technology programs. Many of these programs such as the
environmental cleanup program, climate change research,
advanced computing, compete for a share of the Department's
limited research budget for basic science. So my question is,
how would you establish priorities among the Department's many
competing claims?
Dr. Orbach. I would be an advocate for science in the
Department of Energy, recognizing the limitations on budget
that the Department faces. I would work with the community,
with Congress, to establish priorities that are important for
the country, and then to champion those priorities within the
Department and the Congress and with the public.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much. Are there
particular areas of basic research such as the human genome,
material sciences, nano-science, particle physics that you
would single out as needing a greater share of the Department's
research budget?
Dr. Orbach. All four of those are major programs within the
Department and I would support all of them plus the other
programs that have been established and try to bring as
sensible a balance as I could for support across the scientific
spectrum.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you. One last question. Have
security concerns reduced the ties between the three main
nuclear weapons laboratories, Lawrence, Las Alamos and Sandia,
and the rest of the national laboratories?
Dr. Orbach. I have not been in the position so I'm not sure
technically what the relationships are, but my impression is
that the relationships have continued. The Office of Science
supports research at the three laboratories that you mentioned,
and I hope that that relationship will continue. It's very
important that the basic sciences in the NNSA laboratories be
at the highest possible level for the purposes that those
laboratories are functioning.
Senator Feinstein. I would certainly agree with that. And
you know, I feel very strongly that the security has to be part
of this. I recall talking with Dr. Atkinson when he came into
my office about this whole issue of security at the labs, and
the culture of the lab which of course is an academic culture,
and whether the two can really be bridged effectively. And I
have a lot of concern that the academic culture is put in
perspective of the labs, because security has to be a major
part of what you look at, I think, and I will be very candid
with you, I think one of the problems we had was when a lot of
the security was relaxed throughout the 1990's and by the end
of the 1990's we found that there were problems because of
that, so I think that is going to be a very interesting area
for you to deal with because the academic culture, so to speak,
militates against the security. And yet, the type of work that
is done, the importance to our Nation of that work militates
toward a greater security, so there is a kind of conflict that
I observed over time is built into the situation.
Dr. Orbach. That tension is there, has always been there,
and security is the most important issue, but the ability to
continue the kind of scientific exchanges and relationships
that will give strength to the weapons program is also
essential. So it has to be managed, but security comes first.
Senator Feinstein. I am very pleased to hear you say that
because I strongly agree and I think the committee would
strongly agree with that as well. It is not so easy because of
what you have to do to really maintain that security over a
substantial period of time. Not only the badges which at one
point were removed, but also the willingness of people that
work there to cooperate with security.
Dr. Orbach. I believe the people I have met are fully aware
of that responsibility. It is nevertheless an issue that they
must deal with in terms of being available to the scientific
community, but I think they understand, and it's very important
that that be front and center.
Senator Feinstein. That is correct. In any event, thank you
so much for being here. I am not going to pursue any other
questions. You are superbly qualified and I really look forward
to working with you, and this hearing is adjourned.
Dr. Orbach. Thank you, Senator.
[Whereupon, at 9:22 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
APPENDIX
Responses to Additional Questions
----------
Responses to Questions From Senator Craig
nanotechnology
Question. I know you are familiar with DOE's work in nanoscience
and technology. When you visited with my office, I appreciated your
awareness of the nanotechnology research going on at Boise State
University. Boise State is working jointly with Micron on exciting new
technology applications.
What do you think is the appropriate role of both universities and
industry partners in the DOE Science program?
Answer. Much of nanoscale science is critical to the principal
missions of DOE in science, energy, defense, and environment. For
example, nanoscale synthesis and assembly methods will result in
significant improvements in solar energy conversion; more energy-
efficient lighting; selective catalysts; stronger, lighter materials
that will improve efficiency in transportation; highly selective
separations membranes; and better sensors and controls to increase
efficiency in manufacturing. For these reasons, DOE has been involved
in nanoscale scale science since the early 1980's.
We have found that there is much current interest in nanoscale
problems related to energy. In FY 2001, a request for applications
resulted in 745 preapplications and 417 formal proposals from
universities; a total of $16.1 million was awarded to 76 of these
applications. The DOE laboratories, which were restricted to 4
proposals per laboratory, submitted 46 proposals; a total of $10.4
million was provided to 12 of these proposals. As you can see,
Universities thus play a major role in the DOE nanoscale science
activities, having won about 60% of the funds in the FY 2001
competition.
In addition, to the basic research in energy related grand
challenges, the Basic Energy Sciences (BES) program supports Nanoscale
Science Research Centers (NSRCs). The NSRCs are research facilities for
synthesis, processing, and fabrication of nanoscale materials. They
will be collocated with existing user facilities and other specialized
facilities at DOE labs, which will provide characterization and
analytical capabilities. The NSRCs will be operated in the same way as
user facilities, but will provide specialized equipment and an
interdisciplinary support staff. Access to the centers will be based on
peer review. The NSRCs will make it possible to do research requiring
specialists in several disciplines and in the use of specialized
synthesis, processing, and characterization equipment to be done in one
place. Again, universities play a major role in these centers.
Principal investigators from universities across the Nation are
participating in open workshops to define the NSRC specifications,
including instrumentation and research focus areas. In addition,
university scientists are expected to make up at least half of the
users of these centers.
Question. At the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental
Laboratory, a consortium of universities through the Intermountain
West--including the University of Alaska--are partners in the
management of the INEEL.
As someone who comes to DOE from a university, what do you think
could be done to strengthen the role of universities in DOE's Science
program?
Answer. The role of university research in the DOE Science program
has been, and continues to be, a key part of the Science portfolio.
Indeed, although it is not well known, the size of the university
research program is very nearly equal to that of the DOE laboratory
research program after laboratory funding for operation of large
science use facilities is set aside. This is because it is important to
incorporate the very best talent from all of the Nation's research
institutions in the DOE Science programs. University investigators are
part of all of our research programs, they participate in the selection
and definition of the large major scientific user facilities that are
operated at our DOE laboratories, and work side by side with laboratory
scientists at these facilities. Our major new initiatives in nanoscale
science and technology, climate change, genomes to life, and high-
performance computing all involve partnerships among university and
national laboratory investigators. These partnerships build on the
strengths of the participating researchers and their institutions to
create programs of outstanding national and international scope.
science in doe
Question. One of the roles you will fill at DOE is that of the
Secretary of Energy's Science Advisor, I am very interested in the
investment in research which has the potential to allow the job of
DOE's massive clean-up program to be done cheaper and quicker.
Do you believe that DOE must invest significantly in environmental
research to find better and more cost effective ways to clean up DOE
sites.
Answer. Cleanup is one of the most technically challenging
environmental issues we have ever faced--many of the problems we face
have never been dealt with before. Estimates for cleanup costs are
huge, and there is no certainty of what the ultimate costs will be.
This tremendous cost uncertainty is due, in part, to a lack of
understanding of the technical issues for understanding risk and
likelihood of exposure, as well as a dearth of modern technologies.
Basic research can help both determine and characterize the extent of
the cleanup program as well as develop capabilities, e.g.,
bioremediation and natural attenuation, to remediate the waste.
Question. If DOE must invest in this research, should this work be
part of the Office of Environmental Management or part of the Office of
Science.
Answer. This work should be done in partnership between the Office
of Environmental Management (EM) and the Office of Science (SC), as it
has since its inception.
Responses to Questions From Senator Cantwell
Question 1. The National Institutes of Health have, over the past
five years, been aggressively expanding health sciences programs, and I
believe we all support that sustained growth strategy. The Department
of Energy also has a biology mission and has been on a relatively flat
growth profile over the same period. Would you clarify your view of the
roles of NIH and DOE around biology and each agency's mission?
Answer. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) biology role
focuses on human health from diagnosis to treatment.
DOE's biology role focuses on DOE's missions in clean energy,
climate change mitigation, bioremediation, and biothreat reduction. DOE
also has a role in addressing the health effects of energy production
and use, including the effects of low dose and low dose rate of
radiation using the modern tools of genomics science and structural
biology.
DOE also pursues constructive collaborations with the NIH and
builds and operates the scientific user facilities, such as synchrotron
light sources, necessary for much NIH funded research. DOE's strengths
in the physical sciences, engineering, mathematics, and computation
will add to the analysis of health issues, particularly in partnership
with the NIH, the National Science Foundation (NSF), and the
Environment Protection Agency (EPA).
Question 2. The DOE Biology Environmental Research budget contains
a Genomes to Life Program, which is taking advantage of the information
gained from the human genome and using it in several applications
including energy, environment, and national security. What, in your
view, are the most opportune applications for Genomes to Life, and how
do you plan to help this program achieve its vast potential?
Answer. The most opportune application of Genomes to Life (GTL) is
in development of clean energy sources. By investing in the four goals
of the basic genomic research of the GTL program, e.g., understanding
the molecular machinery of life, the cellular regulatory networks, the
functional diversity within microbial and plant communities and by
building the appropriate computational infrastructure we can provide
the knowledge base necessary to develop the technologies to produce
abundant clean fuels, such as hydrogen. Energy biomass is another
potential high impact application. Another application is in enhancing
the biosphere to absorb greater amounts of carbon dioxide from the
atmosphere. Other favorable applications are in bioremediation of DOE
sites' stubborn mixed wastes as well as in the national effort to
detect and defeat bioterrorism.
I plan to help this program achieve its vast potential by
leveraging the existing and planned user facilities to realize the
goals of the GTL.
Question 3. A 900 MegaHertz spectrometer, the most powerful nuclear
magnetic resonance (NMR) tool in the world, is due to arrive at Pacific
Northwest National Laboratory next month. Can you describe the
significance of having the largest NMR wide-bore spectrometer at a DOE
Laboratory?
Answer. The 900 MegaHertz NMR is the last of over 100 instruments
to be delivered to the Environmental Molecular Sciences Laboratory
(EMSL). The EMSL is one of many DOE user facilities that serve to
provide the scientific community with unique scientific instrumentation
for cutting edge research. The significance of the 900 MHz NMR to DOE
is that it will allow academic and university scientists funded under
DOE's Genomes to Life and other programs to resolve for the first time
biological structures important to DOE missions. The 900 MHz wide-bore
NMR represents a major technical breakthrough in NMR instrumentation.
The 900 MHz NMR will be used to image and determine the structure of
larger and more complex molecular structures than can be done with
current systems. For example, the higher magnetic field will provide
sharper images and allow scientists to understand how toxic metals
interact with complex cellular machinery and how DNA is damaged and
repaired in response to environmental and energy-related toxic
substances.
Responses to Questions From Senator Landrieu
experimental program to stimulate competitive research
Higher education in the State of California in general, and the
University of California System in particular, has been very fortunate
to have a long-standing relationship with the Energy Department and its
predecessor agencies. This has permitted the development of a very
vigorous energy research capability in the state which, of course,
enables research institutions in their efforts to attract researchers
and additional support for scientific research, particularly in energy-
related fields, such as the basic energy sciences, biological and
environmental research and high-energy physics programs you will
oversee as the Director of the Office of Science.
Question. Are you aware of the Experimental Program to stimulate
Competitive Research (EPSCoR) that is designed to assist states to
build their research capacity?
Answer. Yes I am aware of the DOE/EPSCoR program. The program was
started in FY 1991 with an annual budget of $4,000,000. The FY 2002
request is $7,679,000.
Question. The Energy Department has a modest but effective EPSCoR
program that is managed out of the Basic Energy Sciences office. How do
you intend to use this program to help broaden DOE's energy research
base in states such as Louisiana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Oklahoma,
Idaho, Alabama, Montana, Nebraska and Alaska?
Answer. The DOE/EPSCoR program sponsors two types of research
grants: 1) implementation grants and 2) laboratory-state partnership
grants. Respectively, these grants: 1) allow states to form
``clusters'' of research to build significant state-wide core
competencies and 2) allow researchers in EPSCoR states to participate
individually in the EPSCoR program. Requests for Application (RFA) for
these grants are published in the Federal Register whenever funds are
available for the program. All grant applications are peer reviewed
with respect to the scientific quality, programmatic interests and
priority and relevance to the EPSCoR objective. All the states
mentioned above are DOE/EPSCoR eligible states and are invited to send
applications to the program for possible funding.
Question. Please describe the Department's Experimental Program to
Stimulate Competitive Research. What states currently receive EPSCoR
grants and what are their research topics?
Answer. The Department of Energy's EPSCoR is a federal-state
partnership designed to help the nation and the states better meet
today and tomorrow's energy needs. States eligible for DOE/EPSCoR
support include: Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Hawaii, Idaho, Kansas,
Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New
Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Vermont,
West Virginia, Wyoming, and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. The
principal objective of the DOE/EPSCoR program is to enhance the
abilities of the designated states to conduct nationally competitive
energy-related research and to develop science and engineering manpower
to meet current and future needs in energy related areas. This program
addresses basic research needs across all of the Department of Energy's
research interests. The DOE/EPSCoR program is located in the Department
of Energy's Basic Energy Sciences program.
To maximize the effectiveness of the program, the development of
science and engineering manpower component is closely coupled with the
basic research part of the program. The program places particular
emphasis and priority on collaboration by the state faculty with
scientists from the DOE national laboratories where unique scientific
and technical capabilities are present. This program strives to engage
other DOE program offices within the Department by encouraging
participation by program managers from other offices in the review
process and cofunding of the successful proposals.
Following is a list of states currently receiving EPSCoR grants and
their respective research topics:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
States Research Topic
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama....................... Material Sciences, Computer Science,
Fusion Energy Sciences
Arkansas...................... Materials Science, High Energy Physics,
Fossil Energy
Idaho......................... Biological Sciences, Environmental
Sciences
Kansas........................ High Energy Physics, Materials Science,
Renewable Energy
Kentucky...................... High Energy, Nuclear Physics, Materials
Science
Louisiana..................... Materials Sciences
Mississippi................... Renewable Energy, Materials Science,
Computer Sciences
Montana....................... Materials Science, Fusion Energy
Sciences, Wind Energy
Nebraska...................... Environmental Sciences, Materials
Science
Nevada........................ Defense Programs, Geosciences, Chemical
Sciences, Materials Science, Renewable
Energy
Oklahoma...................... Materials Science, High Energy Physics,
Fossil Energy
Puerto Rico................... High Energy Physics, Materials Science
South Carolina................ High Energy Physics, Chemical Sciences,
Materials Sciences
Vermont....................... Computer Sciences, Materials Science,
Biological sciences
West Virginia................. Fossil Energy, Materials Science,
Chemical Sciences, Fusion Energy
Sciences
Wyoming....................... Materials Science
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. What is the Department's FY 2003 request for the EPSCoR
program?
Answer. The Department's FY 2003 Request is $7,655,000.
Question. What are some of the accomplishments of the Department's
EPSCoR program?
Answer. The EPSCoR program funds basic research in support of all
programmatic needs of the department. The accomplishments are grouped
according to the relevant DOE programmatic office.
Basic Energy Sciences: Direct evidence was demonstrated for the
importance of magnetostatic interactions in characterizing novel
nanostructured materials. Inclusion of such interactions in the study
of new and novel materials should lead to better characterization of
these materials. The Interfacial Force Microscope has been used to
obtain the elastic modulus for several polymer and polymer matrix
composite systems with nanometer spatial resolution. These studies are
important for developing novel lightweight polymer matrix composites.
Kirkwood-Buff theory has been successfully applied for the
interpretation of thermodynamic solvation effects in terms of the
distribution of water and salts around benzene. This successful
demonstration holds promise for application to a wide range of research
studies using molecular dynamics simulations. Purification of single-
walled, shortened, carbon nanotubes by capillary electrophoresis was
demonstrated by using UV/visible and real-time Raman spectroscopy. This
should pave the way for isolating different sizes of carbon nanotubes.
Biological and Environmental Research: Significant progress is
being made in crystallizing and solving the structure of a Q50K mutant
for use in developing a novel methodology for pharmaceutical design
targeting DNA expression.
Environmental Management: Enzyme-activity dependent probes and
inhibitors were used to characterize bacterial isolates from the tri-
chloro-ethylene (TCE) contaminated site at INEEL. These probes will be
very useful in environmental management issues at the DOE sites.
Developed unique magnetorestriction based sensor technology for
measuring temperature, elasticity, pressure, pH, liquid viscosity, and
liquid density. This technology will be very useful for application to
environmental cleanup and environmental management issues.
Renewable Energy and Efficiency: A first commercial wind power
facility, a 22 megawatt wind turbine utility, is being established on
the Blackfeet nation's land. This facility is based on the research
supported by EPSCoR. A new technology ``Resin Transfer Molding'' is
developed and its application to manufacture of wind turbine blades was
demonstrated.
Defense Programs: Optical sensors based on Faraday rotation were
developed for monitoring electric and magnetic fields. These sensors
are being developed for use in improved operation of the electron beam
accelerators and imaging systems that are used in DOE stockpile
stewardship program.
Question. What states currently hold DOE EPSCoR implementation
awards?
Answer. The states of Alabama, Kansas, Kentucky, Mississippi,
Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, Puerto Rico, Vermont, and West Virginia
currently hold DOE EPSCoR implementation awards.
Question. What are The research topics is these states?
Answer. Following are the research topics by states: Alabama
(Materials Science), Kansas (High Energy Physics/Materials Science),
Kentucky (Nuclear Physics/Materials Science), Mississippi (Renewable
Energy/Biomass), Montana (Materials Science), Nebraska (Environmental
Sciences), Nevada (Defense Programs/Radiography), Puerto Rico
(Materials Science), Vermont (Biological Sciences), West Virginia
(Fossil Energy).
national institutes for global environmental change
Question. Are you familiar with the National Institutes for Global
Climate Change (NIGEC) that is headquartered at the University of
California at Davis?
Answer. Yes, I am familiar with NIGEC and the six regional NIGEC
Centers.
Question. Please describe the program and how it can contribute to
efforts to better understand the science of global climate change.
Answer. NIGEC was established to contribute to the knowledge base
of climate change research. Its focus is the reduction of key
scientific uncertainties inherent in the projections of future climate
states, and the perturbations to the climate system attributed to human
activities. NIGEC's mission is to support DOE's climate change research
objectives as well as those of the U.S. Global Change: Research
Program. Present focus areas of NIGEC are the influence of terrestrial
ecosystems in the U.S. on the carbon cycle, and the effects of
increasing carbon dioxide and climatic change on ecosystems important
to the Nation. NIGEC carves out its mission by supporting university
researchers from the National Office at the University of California,
Davis, and the six Regional Centers at Tulane University, the
University of Nebraska, Indiana University, Harvard University, the
University of Alabama, and the University of California, Davis.
Question. What are the Department's plans for this program in FY
2003?
Answer. Most of The NIGEC university grants are on a 3-year cycle,
so about two thirds of the individual projects will continue in FY
2003, For the projects that will turn over in FY 2003, the Department
expects NIGEC to initiate new projects that are similar in scope, but
with an increased emphasis on effects of potential climate change on
ecosystems important to the Nation.
Question. Please describe some of the accomplishments of the NIGEC
program. What are some of the activities of the South Central Center at
Tulane University?
Answer. NIGEC contributed science used in the recent National
Assessment of Potential Consequences of Climate Variability and Change
on the U.S. The primary result of the Assessment was identification of
key uncertainties that need to be resolved by additional research--
NIGEC has also made, and continues to make, critical contributions to
our understanding of the carbon sink strength of forests in several
regions of the country. This is important to predicting future
atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, a main forcing agent in global
warming.
The South Central Center is carrying out the critical task of
testing models used To predict effects of climate change on natural
resources and how the land surface of The U.S. affects climate
variability and change. A notable activity of the South Central Center
is its recent release of a Request for Proposals to begin studies of
encroachment of woody vegetation into grasslands and pastures in the
south central U.S. This is a topic of great importance to U.S.
agriculture, which may be significantly affected by increasing
atmospheric carbon dioxide and climatic change.