Outgoing DOE Secretary Urges Full Funding for SSC
On December 15, Rep. George Brown (D-California), chairman of the House Science Committee, sent a letter to DOE Secretary Admiral James Watkins, requesting detailed information on the status of the Superconducting Super Collider. Watkins responded in a letter dated January 14, just 7 days before he was replaced as Energy Secretary by Hazel O’Leary. The 27-page letter, while mostly restating Bush Administration positions, serves as a good summation of the project’s current status and will probably be used in arguments by both friends and foes of the collider in appropriations battles this year.
Brown questioned the impact of the cut in fiscal year 1993 funding (DOE requested $650 million, $514.5 million was appropriated); the impacts of stretching out or terminating the project; proposals for reducing the project’s scope; alternative methods of funding; benefits from the project; expected operating costs; and expected foreign contributions.
Watkins responded with a plea “that this important national project be completed on schedule independent of foreign contributions.” He recommended appropriating full funding (of $5.5 billion) for the entire project at one time, so construction could go forward on an optimal schedule. Some of the major highlights of the letter are summarized below:
On the impact of the FY 1993 cut: “With the restoration of this shortfall in FY 1994, the impact can be held to a 3-month schedule delay and a $50 million increase in Total Project Cost... If the funds cut from the program in FY 1993 are not restored until FY 1996, the impact could be as high as a 6-month delay and $200 million.”
On the impact of maintaining the present (3-month delay) schedule: “Maintaining this schedule requires total funding of $1,211.1 million in FY 1994 [It is of note that this amount is more than double what was appropriated in FY 1993]... To maintain this present schedule, we must obtain $250 million in foreign contributions in FY 1994 [which is] unlikely to be met without a major commitment from Japan... Thus, I believe that in this critical year, we should make a firm commitment to complete this project whether or not foreign contributions materialize at any particular level.”
On the impact of stretching the program out one or more years: “If the project were to be stretched-out by up to 2 years, a total project cost increase of up to $900 million could occur.”
On reducing the scope and capability of the SSC: “The following considerations...are made under the assumption that the original goals of 20 TEV and 10*33 luminosity operation will be maintained... and that the reduced capabilities can be recovered at a later date.” Watkins’ letter specifies the following options: 1. Do not build campus facilities, but continue to use existing facilities to house staff. 2. Do not build one of the detectors. 3. Do not build the test beam facilities at the SSC lab, but use Fermi and other labs instead. These combined actions would result in apparent cost savings totaling $391 million.
On the impacts of terminating the project: The letter estimates the cost of SSC termination at $278.1 million.
On alternative funding options: “Beginning in FY 1994, the recommended alternative is for Congress to appropriate an amount of $5.5 billion which represents the full remaining funding requirement for SSC.”
On the potential benefits to be derived from the SSC: “The benefits of the SSC range from near-term benefits derived from building the high technology components of the SSC to the long-term benefits forthcoming from basic research and discoveries to be made with the SSC. The near-term benefits do not alone justify the Supercollider; however these benefits have significant value to the economy of the United States and reduce the real cost of the SSC research.”
The letter lists some near-term benefits to U.S. technology, including improvements to superconducting wire, development of specialized integrated circuits, increased high performance computing power, and use of accelerator and detector technologies in medical therapy, diagnostics and instrumentation.
Watkins also writes that the SSC will inspire American youth to pursue careers in science and technology, serve as one of the Nation’s preeminent training grounds for scientists and engineers, and assist in the transition to a stronger civilian industrial base in the wake of the end of the cold war.
On the expected operating budget for the SSC after completion: “The most recent and detailed estimate...shows an annual cost to operate and maintain the SSC Laboratory accelerators, experimental program, and support functions in the first full year of operation (FY 2000) of $317 million (in FY 1991 dollars)... The major elements of the cost estimate are personnel ($126.8 million), materials and services ($72.2 million), electric power and utilities ($49.1 million), cryogens and consumables ($9.7 million), capital equipment ($44.4 million), accelerator improvement projects ($10.0 million), and general plant projects ($5.0 million.) In subsequent years, it was estimated that there would be an annual increase of approximately three percent to $369 million (in 1991 dollars) and about 2600 FTEs [full-time equivalents] by FY 2005.”
On potential opportunities for foreign investments in the SSC: “During FY 1992, the SSC reached agreements with foreign institutions for in-kind contributions from Russia ($9.8 million), Peoples Republic of China (PRC) ($4.5 million), and India ($7.3 million). During FY 1993, the SSC is planning to obtain commitments for $100 million in in-kind contributions, principally from Russia ($53.3 million), PRC ($31.9 million), and India ($7.9 million)... Without a significant contribution from Japan, it is highly doubtful that the one-third foreign funding goal can be met.”
