Since this subject came up at this last meeting, I thought I would forward this update. You may not have time to read it all, but don't miss the last two paragraphs. Does anyone have info on the NSF workshop and NAS report? Fritz ----- Original Message ----- From: "AIP listserver" To: Sent: Tuesday, April 09, 2002 2:11 PM Subject: FYI #42 - Homestake Mine Update > FYI > The American Institute of Physics Bulletin of Science Policy > News > Number 42: April 9, 2002 > > Homestake Mine Update > > It is not often that a proposal for a physics facility becomes > entangled in a high-stakes Senate race. That is, however, the > position of a plan to build an underground physics laboratory > in South Dakota's Black Hills. The contemplated laboratory > has attracted the attention of the White House, Senate > leaders, the House Science Committee chairman, and several > national newspapers, including a recent front page article in > The Washington Post. > > What sets this project apart is The Homestake Mine Conveyance > Act of 2001, provisions of which were incorporated into the FY > 2002 defense appropriations legislation passed by Congress and > signed into law by President Bush. The legislation provides > for the donation of the now-closed 8,000 foot deep gold mine > for use as an underground laboratory if the United States > assumes undetermined potential liability concerning the mine > or the operation of the laboratory. This donation, under the > provisions of Public Law 107-117 "shall be effective > contingent on approval by the National Science Board and the > making of an award by the National Science Foundation for the > establishment of the laboratory at the Mine." > > Much of the press coverage about this legislation has > mentioned the Senate race in South Dakota this fall. Current > Senator Tim Johnson (D-South Dakota) and Rep. John Thune (R- > South Dakota) are seeking voter recognition for their efforts > to locate the laboratory in the mine. With control of the > Senate so closely divided, both parties on both ends of > Pennsylvania Avenue are looking for deciding factors. > > The Homestake provisions were included in the defense > appropriations bill last December, and so were not subject to > a separate roll call vote. Senator Christopher Bond (R- > Missouri) commented, ". . . I believe in deferring to the > scientific expertise and judgement of the NSF and its Science > Board in determining which projects had scientific merit and > deserved funding. The Congress should not be in the business > of legislating what is scientifically meritorious. The > Homestake legislation totally circumvents the merit review > process long-established and followed by the agency. The > reality of the matter is that the South Dakota Senators are > using NSF as a means to save jobs that will be lost from the > closing of the mine. While I appreciate the effort to save > people's jobs, it should not be done by undermining the > scientific merit review process." Bond is the Ranking > Minority Member of the Senate VA, HUD, Independent Agencies > Appropriations Subcommittee, which funds NSF. > > In reply, Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle (D-South Dakota) > stated: "This important legislation will enable the > construction of a new, world-class scientific research > facility deep in the Homestake Mine in Lead, SD. Not only > will this facility create an opportunity for critical > breakthroughs in physics and other fields, it will provide > unprecedented new economic and educational opportunities for > South Dakota." He continued, "Earlier this year, I met with > several of these scientists to determine how they planned to > move forward. They told me they intended to submit a proposal > to the National Science Foundation for a grant to construct > the laboratory. After a thorough peer review, the National > Science Foundation would determine whether or not it would be > in the best interests of science and the United States for > such a laboratory to be built. The scientists also explained > that since the National Science Foundation normally does not > own research facilities, the mine would need to be conveyed > from Homestake Mining Company to the State of South Dakota for > construction to take place. For the company to be willing to > donate the property, and for the state to be willing to accept > it, both would require the Federal Government to assume some > of the liability associated with the property." > > Daschle explained, "The purpose of the Homestake Mine > Conveyance Act of 2001 is to meet that need. It establishes a > process to convey the mine to the State of South Dakota, and > for the Federal Government to assume a portion of the > company's liabilities. This Act will only take effect if the > National Science Foundation selects Homestake as the site for > an underground laboratory. Only property needed for the > construction of the lab will be conveyed, and conveyance can > only take place after appropriate environmental reviews and > after the Environmental Protection Agency certifies the > remediation of any environmental problems. If the mine is > conveyed, the State of South Dakota will be required to > purchase environmental insurance for the property and set up > an environmental trust fund to protect the taxpayers against > any environmental liability that may be incurred. I believe > this process is fair and equitable to all involved. It will > enable the laboratory to be constructed and the environment to > be protected." > > House Science Committee Chairman Sherwood Boehlert (R-New > York) also commented on the legislation when it was being > considered in the House last December. Boehlert stated, > "Under this bill, the federal government will be responsible > for any environmental liability connected with the portions of > the Homestake mine that are conveyed to South Dakota - even if > they originated while the mine was privately operated. And > while the mine will be owned by South Dakota, the state will > have no financial responsibility for it; that will rest solely > with the federal taxpayer." Boehlert later stated, "This bill > must not be used to pressure NSF to change or circumvent its > traditional, careful selection procedures. Normally, a > project of this magnitude would require several years of > review. NSF would have to determine its relative priority > among other Major Research Equipment proposals. And NSF would > have to ensure that proper management is in place. Those > procedures must be followed in this case. Indeed, this is > even more important in the case of Homestake because any > mismanagement could result in both environmental harm and > substantial liability for the Federal Government." In > concluding his remarks, Boehlert added, "The Science Committee > will be following this matter extremely closely to ensure that > the environmental review is rigorous and protects the public > interest. We will watch closely to ensure that the laboratory > is being reviewed in the same manner as every other NSF > project and does not distort the agency's processes or > priorities or weigh it down with unsustainable costs. The > risks of proceeding with this bill are clear; we will work to > see that they are never realized." > > Boehlert included an exchange of letters with NSF Director > Rita Colwell about the project. Colwell's December 14 reply > was as follows: > > "DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: > > "Thank you for your letter regarding S. 1389, the 'Homestake > Conveyance Act of 2001' and its possible implications for the > National Science Foundation (NSF). > > "The following responds to your requests: > > "(1) A plan for how NSF would absorb the expected costs of an > underground laboratory at Homestake beginning in Fiscal Year > 2003, with special attention to the impact on other projects > in the Major Research Equipment account. > > "NSF has not identified funds to support the conversion of the > Homestake mine into an underground research laboratory. > Unless the President requests and Congress appropriates > additional monies for the lab, its establishment would force > us to reconsider the priorities within the Research and > Related Activities appropriation or reevaluate the funding > profiles and timelines of existing MRE projects. > > "(2) A plan for how NSF would ensure that the laboratory was > properly managed, even if a project were awarded in calendar > 2002. > > "An applicant for a grant of this magnitude must submit a > management plan for NSF's review prior to any funding decision > by the Foundation. That plan must cover all phases of the > project including the planning process, construction or > acquisition, integration and test, commissioning, and > maintenance and operations. The management plan sets forth the > management structure and designates the key personnel who are > to be responsible for implementing the award. This proposed > management plan then becomes the basis for NSF's review of the > adequacy of management for the project. > > "The technical and managerial complexity of the proposed lab > suggests that NSF would utilize a Cooperative Agreement as the > funding instrument. The particular terms of a Cooperative > Agreement covering the lab would be established prior to NSF's > funding of the proposal. That Cooperative Agreement would > specify the extent to which NSF would advise, review, approve > or otherwise be involved with project activities. To the > extent NSF does not reserve or share responsibility for > certain aspects of the project, all such responsibilities > remain with the recipient. > > "(3) A plan for how NSF would interact with the Environmental > Protection Agency (EPA) and the State of South Dakota to > ensure that the mine is in proper condition for the > establishment of a laboratory and to determine amounts NSF > grantees would have to pay into the Environment and Project > Trust Fund established under the bill. > > "NSF would interact in good faith with the EPA and the State > of South Dakota to ensure that the mine is in satisfactory > condition for the establishment of a laboratory. Additionally, > assessment of the proposal before us will presumably require > an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The findings of that > EIS would very much inform our evaluation of the proposal. > > "We share your concern about the mandatory contribution to the > Fund required of each project conducted in the lab. Our review > of each proposal for science in the lab would include a > careful analysis of (1) the projected costs of removing from > the mine or laboratory equipment or other materials related to > a proposed project, and (2) the projected cost of claims that > could arise out of or in connection with a proposed project. > Meaningful analysis of both factors would require close > cooperation with the lab's Scientific Advisory Board, the > State of South Dakota, and the EPA. These costs will factor > into our evaluation of each proposal. > > "I appreciate the opportunity to work with you in assessing > the possible impact of this legislation on the National > Science Foundation. > > "The Office of Management and Budget advises that there is no > objection to the submission of this report from the standpoint > of the President's program. > > "Sincerely, > > Rita R. Colwell, > Director" > > > Currently, $10.00 million in HUD funding is being provided to > "the State of South Dakota to maintain the physical integrity > of the Homestake Mine in preparation for the potential > development of a major research facility on that site." (For > additional report language, see FYI #137.) Similar funding > has been requested for FY 2003. > > The FY 2003 budget submission to Congress states that the > foundation requested $60 million for high-energy physics. > "This request includes an expenditure over $2 million for > research on neutrino collectors, including applications for > underground research. Such research, including underground > applications, will also be the subject of a major NSF workshop > on neutrino research projects and a National Academy of > Sciences' Report," the document explains. NSF Director > Colwell goes before the House VA, HUD Appropriations > Subcommittee this Thursday, and the Senate subcommittee on > May 15. > > ############### > Richard M. Jones > Media and Government Relations Division > The American Institute of Physics > fyi@aip.org > (301) 209-3095 > http://www.aip.org/gov > ##END########## >