On April 24, 1990, Dr. James F. Decker, Acting Director, Office
of Energy Research, gave testimony before your subcommittee
on Superconducting Super Collider programs.

Prior to that hearing, you submitted written questions for
our response to supplement the record. Enclosed are the
answers to those questions.

If you have any questions, please have your staff call
Barbara Campbell on 586-8687. She will be happy to assist
you or your staff.

PRE-HEARING QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

FOR THE
APRIL 24, 1990, HEARING

BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES

UNITED STATES SENATE
WITNESS: JAMES F. DECKER

ACTING DIRECTOR OF ENERGY RESEARCH

QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR FORD

1. Cost Estimate

Question 1:

The sum of as-spent dollars for the SSC project from FY 1988
through FY 1998 is estimated at $5.9 billion in Department of
Energy budget justifications for FY 1990. DOE has since
indicated that this cost will increase by $1 to $2 billion.
How much is the increase: closer to $1 or closer to $2 billion?

Answer:

The Department is in the process of refining the cost estimates for the SSC project and is conducting a number of independent reviews of the SSC Laboratory's estimate. These reviews will be completed in the June time frame. The Department plans to have validated a cost estimate, along with a baseline design and schedule, in August of this year. A report on this new cost estimate will be provided to the Congress at that time.

In the meantime, it is fair to say that the estimated cost
increase is expected to be closer to the $2 billion number.

Answer:

The details will be provided to the Congress when the final cost
estimate for the ssc project, along with the baseline design and
schedule have been validated by the Department. This is
expected to occur in August 1990.

Question:

How did the need for this cost increase become apparent?

Answer:

The need for this cost increase is related to two major factors: better estimates of schedule, updated funding profiles, labor, material, and tooling costs; and technical changes.

The technical changes arise from two technical factors related

to so-called persistent currents in the magnets that were
unknown at the time of the 1986 conceptual design and beam
stability requirements to reduce the number of particles lost
from the beam as it makes the 10 million turns necessary at
injection. These two factors result in the need to increase the
injection energy from 1 to 2 Tev, to increase the magnet bore
diameter from 4 to 5 centimeters, and a slight increase in the
circumference from 52 to 54 miles.