How DOE Decides Who Gets The SSC

WASHlNGTON—In less than six weeks, energy Secretary John Herrington will announce where he plans to build the $5.4 billion Superconducting Supercollider Will the decision be remembered as another flagrant example of pork-barrell science ? Or will the secretary actually manage to avoid politics and make his decision on technical and scientiftc merits. Most observers feel that the Department of Energy must avoid even the appearance of political patronage if it wants its decision to be acceptable to Congress. “[Energy John] Herrington doesn’t want to make a decision that is controversial,” says Peter Sloan. a Washington lobbyist hired by Arizona to handle congressional relations. “He wants the selection process to be completely above suspicion so that it doesn’t become a political issue." Adds Ed Forgotson, a Washington lobbyist for North Carolina, "any whiff of politics will quse queer the deal, and he knows it.," So how will Herrington arrive at his momentous decision? DOE of ficials say that the secretary's decision expected to be delivered, a week or so after the election, will rely on information gleaned this month from a personal meeting with each state delegation a report from a special departmental task force and an environmental impact statement compiled by the same task force af ter visits this this spring to each of the seven sites. Complementing all this impartial information are the individual proposals from each .com petitor--in some cases cases, hundreds of pounds of documents promoting the advantages of placing the SSC in their state. The first of the three crucial events comes this week, as Herrington and his top aides on the project hold 90-minute meetings with blue ribbon delegations of politicians, business leaders, and scientists from each of the seven competing states. Each state will try to sell the secretary on the depth of its commitment pointing to the financial backing and human resources that it plans to lavish on the project. Herrington wants to make sure that the project remains successful and viable after he’s gone," says Sloan "That means states must offer evidence of solid for the project from state and local officials, private industry. and the academic community, as well as from citizens and environ- mental groups." In midmonth, Herrington is expected to receive a report from a departmental task force, chaired by Wimot Hess of the office of Energy Research. Last December, a National Academy of Sciences’ panel whittled the original list of 25 states in eight. (New York with drew earlier this year to leave seven finalists). But the panel refused to to rank the proposals or weigh any of the six technical factors they explored each site is qualified to be home for the SSC. The task force is expected to submit a confidential report to Herrington that goes into greater detail on the strengths and weaknesses of each state’s proposal. The final piece of evidence is a report on the environmental impact of the SSC in each state, state. The 4000 page document, a draft of which was released in late August, contains detailed information on hundreds of factors, ranging from the miles of roads that must be built at each site to the number of endangered plants and animals that could be affected by the project. The task force will conduct hearings this month to receive public comments on the report, which will be revised and issued in final form in December. The task force’s report will also be reviewed by a permanent advisory committee that is responsible for all major DOE purchases and contracts. Although some observers expect that group to simply the material along to the secretary, others note that its roster includes presidential appointees with sensitive political antennae. The group is chaired by Joseph Salgado, a loyal aide whose promotion from deputy secretary to undersecretary is currently stalled in the Senate, where the Democratic majority is unwilling to ratify any last-minute Reagan appointments. Herrington will make what one observer calls a “clean decision” hasn't caused state delegations to just sit idly by. Most plan to continue their lobbying right up to the November announcement of a preferred site, arguing to Congress, DOE, and the public that the SSC is vital to the nation's future in science and, at the same time, that their states are the best place to put it. Illinois officials, for example recently assembled a four-man team brief East Coast media on the merits of the SSC. Their efforts paid off last month in a column on the editorial pages of The Wall Street Journal that explained the advantages of having an experienced team already in place and the proposed use of Fermilab as an injector for the giant accelerator. At the same time, Arizona officials have been seeking fertile ground out west. In addition to netting endorsements of the project in several Utah newspapers, the state’s SSC project last month announced the results of a study it commissioned that spelled out the economic benefit to California of locating the SSC in Arizona. But not everyone plays the media game the same way. Texas officials say they are not conducting any organizedf public relations effort, explaining that all their attention is aimed at responding to queries from DOE on the technical aspects of their proposal. But their campaign is far from invisible University of Texas physicist Steven Weinberg has been a prominent spokesman in the administration’s efforts to promote the SSC, and was one of three scientists to testify in August before the Republican platform committee on the importance of science to the nation’s future. Whatever approach a state is taking in these final weeks, the goal is to get an edge on the opposition. And that includes making sure that nobody scores points. North Carolina, whose Paul Frampton joined Weinberg before the platform committee, has written a letter to the Wall Street Journal ob- jecting to the reasons that the Illinois team gave for picking its site alongside Fermilab. ‘We’re tired of hearing that b—,” says lobbyist Forgotson. “Now that they’ve brought it up, we have no choice but to respond publicly." Several states also are fuming at a recent item in US. News and World Report saying that Illinois and Texas are on a “short list” of favorite sites. "DOE has assured us there is no such list,”says one disgruntled scientist from another state “and besides, the reasons the article stated are out-of-date.” -J.M.

How DOE Decides Who Gets The SSC

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of