Siting the Superconducting Super Collider (1988)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

REFERENCE COPY FOR IWW USf ONLY 5ITINB THE SUPERCONDUCTING 5UPER COLLIDER PROPERTY OF NRC LIBRARY Super Collider Site Evaluation Committee National Academy of Sciences and National Academy of Engineering Order trom National Technical information Servid. Springfield, Va. 22161 Order No.1. NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS Washington, B.C. 1988

cc 7/T -P* 3»/ rfJlf NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils *- / / of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of the committee responsible for the report were chosen for their special competences and with regard for appropriate balance. The report was reviewed by a committee of the Governing Board. The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. Upon the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Frank Press is president of the National Academy of Sciences. The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. Robert M. White is president of the National Academy of Engineering. The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, upon its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Samuel O. Thier is president of the Institute of Medicine. The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy's purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Frank Press and Dr. Robert M. White are chairman and vice chairman, respectively, of the National Research Council. The report was sponsored by the Department of Energy under contract number DE- AC01-87-ER40355. Available from: Super Collider Site Evaluation Committee National Research Council 2101 Constitution Avenue N.W. Washington, D.C. 20418 Cover illustration: A computer reconstruction of an event observed in 1.8-TeV proton- antiproton collisions showing a section of the detector oriented perpendicular to the beam direction. The curved tracks give the trajectories of charged subatomic particles created in the collision. In this example, the detected particles cluster into two back-to-back "jets" that indicate that a very energetic billiard-ball-like collision took place. Printed in the United States of America

SUPER COLLIDER SITE EVALUATION COMMITTEE EDWARD A. FRIEMAN (Chairman), Scripps Institution of Oceanography and the University of California, San Diego, California ROBERT McCORMICK ADAMS, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. WILLIAM J. BAUMOL, Princeton University, New Jersey, and New York University, New York JOHN E. CANTLON, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan LLOYD S. CLUFF, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, San Francisco, California ERNEST D. COURANT, Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, New York DON U. DEERE, consultant, Gainesville, Florida THOMAS E. EVERHART, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, California MARVIN L. GOLDBERGER, Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton, New Jersey WILLIAM R. GOULD, Southern California Edison Company, Rosemead, California LTG ELVIN R. HEIBERG, III, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, D.C. EDWARD G. JEFFERSON, Du Pont Company, Wilmington, Delaware HERMAN B. LEONARD, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts WALTER E. MASSEY, University of Chicago and Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, Illinois PAUL J. REARDON, Science Application International Corporation, Princeton, New Jersey NICHOLAS P. SAMIOS, Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, New York ROY F. SCHWITTERS, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts CHARLES H. TOWNES, University of California, Berkeley,. California VICTORIA J. TSCHINKEL, consultant, Tallahassee, Florida STEVEN WEINBERG, University of Texas, Austin, Texas iii

STANLEY G. WOJCICKI, Stanford University, Stanford, California, and the Superconducting Supercollider Central Design Group, Berkeley, California Staff Raphael G. Kasper, Project Director William Spindel, Project Manager P. Brett Hammond, Staff Officer Lawrence E. McCray, Staff Officer Thomas M. Usselman, Staff Officer Jaroslava P. Kushnir, Administrative Specialist Sandra Nolte, Administrative Secretary Roseanne Price, Editor Robert C. Rooney, Editor 1V

Preface The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and National Academy of Engineering (NAE) were asked by the Department of Energy (DOE) to undertake, on an exceptionally tight schedule, the mon- umental task of assisting the department in selecting a site for the proposed Superconducting Super Collider (SSC). A committee was appointed by the academies, and according to several news stories, about 750 pounds of proposals were sent to each committee volun- teer. Although we have not, ourselves, weighed the proposals, we can verify the reasonableness of that estimate. The Super Collider Site Evaluation Committee was charged with developing guiding principles for evaluating proposed sites, consider- ing the relative advantages and disadvantages of various sites referred to it by DOE, and identifying an unranked list of best-qualified sites, giving particular attention to the technical requirements and such other factors—known in light of past experience with large science research laboratories—as would assure scientific productivity. The final selection of a site remains to be made by DOE, not by the academies, and will, of course, depend on considerations of concern to DOE, some of which may lie outside the areas of expertise repre- sented by the academies. It is important to keep in mind that the academies were asked to advise on desirable locations—those particularly promising for scientific productivity—for an SSC; they were not asked to evaluate

the scientific feasibility, opportunities, or need for an SSC. It was, however, important for the committee to understand the nature of the SSC and the scientific expectations of the high-energy physics community in order to evaluate effectively what site-specific factors were likely to be important for efficient construction and scientifically productive operation of such a facility. I am pleased to acknowledge the substantial contributions of many individuals, agencies, and organizations to this important effort and, on behalf of the academies, to thank them. First and foremost, I am indebted to the committee's volunteer members. Together we are grateful to our dedicated staff for their effective efforts in collect- ing and analyzing data, preparing drafts, and generally facilitating our work. Without their brilliant support, we could scarcely have completed this awesome assignment on schedule. We are indebted to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for helping to analyze the strengths and weaknesses of the proposals in regard to real estate title and costs. We appreciate the assistance provided by special staff consultants, Jerry Okeson and Richard C. Armstrong, to committee members Edward Jefferson and LTG E.R. Heiberg, respectively, and the contributions of Don Deere, Jr., and James Gamble, who helped analyze the geology and tunneling aspects of the proposals. DOE staff graciously provided the information and resources we requested. We appreciate the information and thoughtful comments provided by a number of colleagues who participated in subgroup meetings. Val Fitch, of Princeton University, offered a useful perspective on the site selection task at the committee's first meeting. Dan Lehman and Robert Selby, of DOE, and Tom Elioff and Mack Riddle, of RTK Associates, contributed to the July meeting of our Costs subgroup. Similarly, the August meeting of our Regional Resources subgroup benefited greatly from insights provided by Leon Lederman of the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, Wolfgang Panofsky of the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center, Louis Rosen of the Los Alamos Meson Physics Facility, Samuel Ting of Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and Paul van den Bout of the National Radio Astronomy Observatory, Socorro, New Mexico. Finally, my colleagues and I want to recognize the effort expended by those who prepared the proposals we evaluated and the high quality of the result of that effort. Although we were charged with identifying a short list of best-qualified sites, many—indeed most— of the proposals were impressive; in general they were thorough, Vl

informative, and complete. It is reassuring that so many proposing organizations should have shown so much vision, competence, and commitment to excellence. Edward A. Frieman Chairman, Super Collider Site Evaluation Committee Vll

Contents Executive Summary 1 1. Introduction 2 2. The Superconducting Super Collider 4 3. Evaluating the Proposals 14 4. Comments on the Evaluation of Site Proposals 19 5. The Best Qualified List 26 Arizona/Maricopa, 26 Colorado, 28 Illinois, 29 Michigan/Stockbridge, 30 New York/Rochester, 31 North Carolina, 33 Tennessee, 34 Texas/Dallas-Fort Worth, 35 Sites not on the Best Qualified List, 36 APPENDIXES A. Statement of Work for the Committee 39 B. Meetings of the Committee and Its Subgroups 42 C. September 17 Letter from James F. Decker to Edward A. Frieman 44 D. October 26 Letter from Wilmot N. Hess to Edward A. Frieman 49 E. Biographical Sketches of Committee Members 50 IX