Charge to the Committee
on an Underground National Laboratory
(Draft 11/03/00)
The Committee on an Underground National Laboratory is asked to prepare a
white paper that responds to the following issues:
The Scientific Justification for an Underground National Laboratory (50%)
-
To evaluate the scientific justification for a national facility
for deep underground science. The committee should consider the potential
physics that will be produced by the next generation of solar neutrino,
double beta decay, proton decay, dark matter, and related
background-sensitive experiments. It should also consider the possible
relevance of such a facility to other sciences and to industry.
- Experiments (25%)
If the scientific justification for a national deep underground
facility is judged to be sufficiently strong, the committee should
consider the experiments such a facility might host and thus the
attributes of the underground laboratory. Important issues include the
depth; the number and dimensions of the experimental halls; access
requirements (e.g., desirable lift dimensions in the case of vertical
access); background radioactivity requirements that will influence
ventilation, hall design, and other engineering aspects; and anticipated
needs, such as cryogenic facilities, that could have major impacts on
design. The committee's views on supporting facilities, both above and
below ground, will also be very valuable. This includes power, data, and
communications requirements; shops, computing facilities, and above-ground
staging or laboratory space; and support facilities for visiting
scientists (offices, library, living quarters, food services,
administrative assistance). The committee should envision a facility-an
above-ground campus, state-of-the-art deep laboratories, and support
facilities, services, and personnel-that would remove many of the existing
obstacles to underground experiments. The goal is to move the US to the
forefront of underground science.
- Potential Sites (25%)
To evaluate the suitability of suggested sites (Homestake, San
Jacinto, etc.). This should include the potential quality of the
envisioned laboratory; estimated construction costs; the convenience of
the site (road and air access, nearby towns); practical obstacles to
developing the site; the certainty of the geology (rock quality,
hydrology, seismology, etc.); the plan for operating, administering, and
maintaining the facility; and issues of ownership, liability, and
remediation (in case the site is eventually abandoned). It would be most
appropriate to invite proponents of various sites to address these issues
in presentations to the committee.
- If an outstanding site (or sites) is identified, the committee should
recommend procedures for formulating the strongest possible proposal. It
would also be helpful if the committee could discuss possible
administrative structures for the laboratory: how will the scientific
community and host institution work together to guarantee that the best
science is done? What structure-ownership, management, operations - will
produce the strongest laboratory?
Back to Underground Laboratory
Address questions and comments about this server to webmaster@sns.ias.edu