National Academies Press: OpenBook

Siting the Superconducting Super Collider (1988)

Chapter: Comments on the Evaluation of Site Proposals

« Previous: Evaluating the Proposals
Suggested Citation:"Comments on the Evaluation of Site Proposals." National Academy of Sciences and National Academy of Engineering. 1988. Siting the Superconducting Super Collider. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18540.
×
Page 19
Suggested Citation:"Comments on the Evaluation of Site Proposals." National Academy of Sciences and National Academy of Engineering. 1988. Siting the Superconducting Super Collider. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18540.
×
Page 20
Suggested Citation:"Comments on the Evaluation of Site Proposals." National Academy of Sciences and National Academy of Engineering. 1988. Siting the Superconducting Super Collider. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18540.
×
Page 21
Suggested Citation:"Comments on the Evaluation of Site Proposals." National Academy of Sciences and National Academy of Engineering. 1988. Siting the Superconducting Super Collider. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18540.
×
Page 22
Suggested Citation:"Comments on the Evaluation of Site Proposals." National Academy of Sciences and National Academy of Engineering. 1988. Siting the Superconducting Super Collider. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18540.
×
Page 23
Suggested Citation:"Comments on the Evaluation of Site Proposals." National Academy of Sciences and National Academy of Engineering. 1988. Siting the Superconducting Super Collider. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18540.
×
Page 24
Suggested Citation:"Comments on the Evaluation of Site Proposals." National Academy of Sciences and National Academy of Engineering. 1988. Siting the Superconducting Super Collider. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18540.
×
Page 25

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

4 Comments on the Evaluation of Site Proposals The discussion of criteria for the evaluation of site proposals in the Invitation for Site Proposals is quite detailed and complete. Nonetheless, in its discussions and deliberations, the committee had occasion to elaborate and interpret several of the criteria in order to evaluate the adequacy of a given site proposal in terms of particular criteria and subcriteria. The committee was asked by DOE to perform an evaluation of the site proposals "... developed in the light of past experience with large science research laboratories," and to "stress those items within the DOE-announced criteria and subcriteria and their relative importance, that are likely to be most critical in determining scientific productivity of the SSC laboratory. . . ." GEOLOGY AND TUNNELING Among the geological conditions for SSC construction that the committee considered to be favorable were groundwater table below the tunnel and experimental hall levels; rock or soil with low perme- ability; uniform rock and soil conditions for the entire tunnel or for long sections; rock or soil soft enough to allow for rapid excavation or tunnel advance rate; rock or soil strong enough to stand without sup- port in the tunnel or in steep, high, open cuts; topography allowing efficient open-cut excavation or placement of the tunnel at relatively 19

20 shallow depths; and geological conditions permitting minimal tunnel lining and support or no lining and support at all. Among the unfavorable conditions for construction were: ground- water table at or near surface; high-permeability rock or soil; high hydraulic head because of an overall deep tunnel or mountainous topography; presence of surface water (swamps, lakes, rivers, or streams) that would complicate access or construction or provide recharge for inflows into the tunnel or open excavations; complex rock and soil types with many changes and wide variations in properties; low-strength rock and soil materials (such as loose sands or soft clays) that would require immediate support; hard or abrasive rock; partic- ularly deep tunnels with shafts over a few hundred feet deep caused by topographical features; need for complicated, time-consuming, or highly specialized tunneling procedures to accommodate particular conditions; conditions necessitating slow tunnel advance or open-cut excavation rates; swelling or slaking soil or rock; and highly fractured rock that would require support. The impact of geology on operational stability was also considered. Here, favorable sites were generally characterized by low soil or shale consolidation or heave; absence of active faults or zones of volcanic activity; low seismic exposure; absence of conditions for potential liquefaction or soil deformation; and formations not subject to ad- verse subsidence from subsurface fluid withdrawal, solution cavities, or mines. Adverse site features for operational stability included the oppo- site of each of the favorable conditions listed above and, in addition, potential groundwater inflow leaking through construction joints; possibility of long-term sulfide attack on concrete and corrosion re- sulting from leakage into the tunnel; and potential toxic gas leakage into the tunnel. The primary factors examined in considering the efficiency of in- stallation and operation of the accelerator complex and experimental halls were depth, ease of excavation, and support requirements. In general, a site was found more suitable if it was characterized by shallow depth of cover at the experimental halls and conditions that would allow simple excavation and support procedures. Construction risk, another of the geology subcriteria, was also examined. Here sites were judged positively if the geology was rel- atively simple or well understood and if the proposed method of excavation was shown to be compatible with the possible ground and water conditions that could be encountered. Sites were found to be

21 risky or uncertain if they showed lack of geological information or unknown conditions; fault zones, shear zones, or hydrothermal alter- ation; mixed-face conditions; flowing ground (e.g., water-saturated sands); complex or highly variable geology making it difficult to pre- dict conditions and requiring possible sudden changes in tunneling or excavation methods or water handling; existence of possible large volumes or sudden inflows of groundwater; cavities from rock solu- tion or lava tubes; gas (methane or hydrogen sulfide) with potential for explosion or toxic effects requiring special lining of tunnel and enhanced ventilation systems; buried valleys; and stresses that could cause rock burst or squeezing ground. REGIONAL RESOURCES The various components of what are called in the ISP "regional resources" are less amenable to detailed technical analysis than are geological conditions. The committee was faced with the question of identifying which regional resources are most important to the efficient and effective construction, start-up, and operation of a major scientific facility and laboratory. The criteria and subcriteria listed by DOE in the ISP are, in general, comprehensive, but they provide little guidance as to which components will be most important to the eventual success of the SSC. In its deliberations, the committee found a number of components of regional resources to be of particular importance. Because the SSC will be a very large national laboratory, its abil- ity to attract and retain a first-class staff is of utmost importance to its scientific success. Scientists, engineers, skilled technicians, me- chanical laborers, and professional administrators will number about 3000, including several hundred visiting scientists—many on sabbat- ical leave from U.S. or foreign universities—who may be in residence for periods of weeks to years. Although it may be the case that some high-energy physicists will be drawn to the SSC wherever it is located, this is not the case for most of those who will be involved in the enterprise. What is likely to attract a staff? Community proximity is one factor; other factors include housing, educational, and employment opportunities for staff, visitors, and their families. In this regard, the committee noted the very real and growing im- portance of employment opportunities for spouses of permanent and visiting staff members. A variety of cultural and recreational op- tions, as well as an openness to various lifestyles, is highly desirable

22 if the laboratory and the surrounding communities are to provide an hospitable environment for the diverse (and international) group of people who will be in residence. The quality of medical facilities and local schools is likely to be of great concern to the staff and visiting scientists. It should be noted that while it is not essential for cul- tural and educational resources (such as universities, museums, and theaters) or recreational opportunities to be immediately adjacent to the laboratory, they should be reasonably accessible. As might be expected, there was no detailed consensus among committee mem- bers about how close "close enough" is, though there was agreement on the general proposition that the closer the amenities the better. Ease of access to the laboratory itself received considerable atten- tion. Reasonable proximity to a well-serviced airport was seen to be quite crucial, although here again, no detailed definitions of "reason- able proximity" or "well-serviced" were developed. Access to the site by highway and railroad networks was also treated as an important factor. Construction, start-up, and operation of the SSC will require the availability of an adequate local or regional labor pool of skilled en- gineers, technicians, administrators, and construction workers, the existence of heavy construction capability, and the availability of machine and electronics shops experienced in high-technology ap- plications and vendors with sizeable stocks of small items (pumps, motors, tools, and the like). The final subcriterion in this area, relating to local and regional cooperation, created considerable difficulty for the committee's de- liberations on certain proposals. The material germane to this issue provided in individual proposals varied greatly in quality and com- pleteness, although in almost all cases the proposals indicated that there would be active and effective administrative and institutional support. The result was that the committee was unable to use this subcriterion to discriminate effectively among the proposals. During the course of the committee's work, there have been numerous news- paper accounts of local opposition and support at a number of sites. In addition, members of the committee and staff received numerous letters, signed petitions, and other supplementary materials from individuals and organized groups, most of them attacking particu- lar proposals. Because the committee was charged with reviewing the proposals themselves, because it had no reliable way to gauge the validity or representativeness of the letters or press reports, and because it was unable to evaluate the information received in these

23 letters and reports, the committee agreed not to use this information in its deliberations. The committee strongly believes, however, that community acceptability, support, and cooperation will be important factors that must be considered carefully by DOE as it examines the best-qualified sites in the next stage of the site selection process. ENVIRONMENT Environmental impacts of construction and operation of the SSC were carefully considered. For purposes of analysis, each proposal was examined to determine effects on earth resources, water re- sources, air resources, ecological resources, health and safety, land use, socioeconomics, scenic and visual resources, and cultural and historical resources. Compliance with federal, state, and local laws and regulations and possible mitigative measures also received atten- tion. In its review, the committee found that no site proposal presented environmental problems that could not be prevented or minimized. However, some site proposals suggested environmental strengths or weaknesses that distinguished them from other proposals. A partial list of weaknesses found in some proposals will suffice to describe the kinds of environmental factors that were considered to be of im- portance by committee members (for the most part, environmental strengths were taken to be the converse of the weakness): critical environments and habitats likely to be disturbed or placed at risk; federally or state designated endangered, threatened, or special inter- est species significantly disturbed; managed fish or wildlife resources likely to be affected; impacts on surface water resources; impacts on groundwater resources; loss of prime agricultural land; impacts on federal or state recreational, wildlife refuge, fish and game manage- ment area, or wilderness area; impacts on historical or archaeological resources; impacts on local topography, stream courses, or scenic re- sources; impediments to access to gas, oil, coal, or mineral resources; impacts on air quality that could affect ability to attain air quality standards; noise or vibration likely to disturb sensitive human ac- tivity or animal populations; possible risks to health or safety from construction or operation of the SSC; and inadequate information about proposed mitigation actions.

24 OTHER TECHNICAL CRITERIA The committee considered the other criteria listed in the Invita- tion for Site Proposals: setting (and principally the strengths and deficiencies of the various plans for timely acquisition of the required land), regional conditions, and utilities. Among the regional conditions examined by the committee, noise, vibration, climate, weather conditions, and site-specific land use and activities that might affect construction and operation of the SSC received particular attention. There were some significant differences among the sites—such as major railroads crossing the proposed col- lider ring in a few cases, the presence of quarries and other noise and vibration sources at some sites, and severe climate conditions that might affect construction or operation in some locations—no site was characterized by such negative regional conditions that it could be eliminated on this basis alone. Thus, for example, at those few sites that had potential noise and vibration problems, it was felt that effective remedial actions were possible. The last of the technical evaluation criteria—utilities—provided little discrimination among the sites; all but one of the propos- als demonstrated the ability to provide reliable and stable electric power, water, and fuel, and to handle the wastes generated in the construction and operation of the SSC. COST As noted earlier, costs were to be considered in the evaluation of site proposals, although the precise mechanism for their inclusion in the evaluation was not specified in the Invitation for Site Proposals. Working with a contractor, DOE devoted extensive effort to the calculation of the absolute and relative costs of construction and operation of the SSC at each of the various sites proposed. DOE provided the results of the calculations to the committee during the course of its deliberations. The basic calculations were carried out using procedures that committee members felt were reasonably consistent with currently accepted economic practice. The calcu- lations themselves were painstaking and extensive, but they were unavoidably based, in part, on estimates of future outlays about which there was considerable uncertainty. Social benefits and costs, such as contributions to local employment and environmental dam- age problems, were considered separately and, because of a paucity of definitive data, more or less informally.

25 Cost calculations did play a role in the final evaluation process, but that role was more minor than might have been anticipated. The reason was not lack of concern by members of the committee over the costs. The reason was, rather, the remarkably narrow range within which cost estimates for the different sites fell. The cost of the most expensive sites was only a few percent above the average for the group, and that of the most economical site was only a few percent below the average. Since the range of uncertainty was no doubt at least comparable in magnitude, this obviously weakened considerably the committee's ability to distinguish among the site proposals in terms of the costs each could be expected to entail. The narrowness of the range of calculated cost results in part from imperfect ability to foresee future costs, particularly as they would be affected by unforeseeable contingencies. But the uncertainty is clearly an unavoidable attribute of the nature of the task.

Next: The Best Qualified List »
Siting the Superconducting Super Collider Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF
  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!