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?