National Academies Press: OpenBook

Siting the Superconducting Super Collider (1988)

Chapter: The Best Qualified List

« Previous: Comments on the Evaluation of Site Proposals
Suggested Citation:"The Best Qualified List." 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 26
Suggested Citation:"The Best Qualified List." 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 27
Suggested Citation:"The Best Qualified List." 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 28
Suggested Citation:"The Best Qualified List." 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 29
Suggested Citation:"The Best Qualified List." 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 30
Suggested Citation:"The Best Qualified List." 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 31
Suggested Citation:"The Best Qualified List." 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 32
Suggested Citation:"The Best Qualified List." 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 33
Suggested Citation:"The Best Qualified List." 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 34
Suggested Citation:"The Best Qualified List." 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 35
Suggested Citation:"The Best Qualified List." 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 36
Suggested Citation:"The Best Qualified List." 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 37
Suggested Citation:"The Best Qualified List." 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 38

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.

5 The Best Qualified List In agreeing on a best qualified list, the committee took as its goal precisely that articulated by DOE in the Invitation for Site Proposals: "... to select [sites] that will permit the highest level of research productivity and overall effectiveness of the SSC facility at a reasonable cost of construction and operation and with minimal adverse impact on the environment." The committee is confident that the list that follows meets that goal in the sense that a productive and effective SSC could be built and operated at any of the sites on the list. In alphabetical order, the sites on the best qualified list are: ARIZONA/MARICOPA The Maricopa site is located about 35 miles southwest of Phoenix in an area of desert plains bisected by a mountain range. The SSC would be located in an area whose geology is quite favorable for construction using a combination of cut-and-fill and tunneling methods. Much of the planned ring would be in fanglom- erate (a lightly cemented sedimentary rock resulting from coalescing alluvial fans), which allows rapid advance rates by either method. The remainder of the tunnel would pass through a mixture of fan- glomerate, granitic rocks, and interbedded volcanic and sedimentary rocks; here, too, tunneling is easily accomplished. Water problems 26

27 are unlikely since the ring would pass through unsaturated materials and lie above the water table. Although the geology is generally quite good, there are a few com- parative weaknesses of the site in this regard, most notably the need for considerable mixed-face tunneling, the interception of possible faults and shear zones (particularly in the granitic segments), and the uncertainty arising from the limited availability of information on the moderately complex mountainous terrain. Some deep shafts would be required in parts of the ring that would pass through the mountainous area. The regional resources necessary for the construction and oper- ation of the SSC are present at or near the site. The area has a strong technical and labor base whose effects can already be seen in the growing electronic and semiconductor industry and scientific laboratories in the region. Convenient access and housing, and em- ployment and educational opportunities are all available, although some upgrading of roads and highways in the immediate vicinity of the proposed site would be needed. The SSC would be unlikely to cause major environmental impacts at the site; indeed, the proposal demonstrates the possibility that the project could actually enhance a somewhat degraded environment by salvaging and replanting desert vegetation. The Arizona proposal was particularly strong in its response to the environmental criterion of the ISP. A relatively small number of property owners would be affected by the land acquisition plan. Much of the land required for the site is federal land under the administration of the Bureau of Land Management of the Department of Interior. A main and busy branch of the Southern Pacific Railroad would cross directly over the SSC ring; the proposal states that vibration problems from the railroad, if they exist, could be mitigated. Oth- erwise, no serious deleterious regional conditions were noted by the committee. According to the life cycle cost estimates provided by DOE, con- struction and operating costs for a super collider located at the Maricopa site would be slightly higher than the mean costs for all proposed sites, although the difference from the mean is smaller than the likely accuracy of the estimates themselves.

28 COLORADO The Colorado site is in an area of slightly hilly topography in a region of grasslands some 60 to 70 miles northeast of Denver. The SSC would be located in an area whose geology is very sim- ple and predictable (100 percent Pierre shale) and would enable rapid construction—advance rates consistent with estimates in the proposal—using routine tunnel boring machines. The shafts and other experimental facilities would be surface excavated, and they are moderately shallow, the average depth to the ring being about 100 feet. Groundwater problems would be minimal in this imperme- able rock. Although the geology is highly favorable, there are a few com- parative weaknesses involving construction. The shale would need immediate sealing to prevent slaking—i.e., the breaking up of shale upon exposure to air—and some routine dewatering would be re- quired for shafts and interaction chambers in the near-surface soils. Deep foundations would be required for surface structures, but this is a routine construction method in the area. The proposed site would draw on the strong regional resources of the somewhat distant Denver and Boulder areas, although the distance would make easy commuting or ready access to the em- ployment, housing, and cultural resources difficult. A comparative weakness is the current virtual absence of communities in close prox- imity to the proposed facility. The location of the newly planned airport and the outward growth of Denver are likely to help this situ- ation. The transportation systems are good, and Colorado proposes to improve access by constructing a new highway to the site. Major environmental impacts from construction are unlikely, as the tunnel would be bored with modest habitat disturbance. For the surface excavations and structures, any impacts resulting from the construction could be readily minimized. Relatively few property owners would be affected by the land acquisition plan, and few relocations would be necessary; the ap- propriate legislation is in place. Although regional conditions at the site are good in general, some attention must be paid to possible vibration due to nearby oil well pumping. According to the life cycle cost estimates provided by DOE, con- struction and operating costs for a super collider located at the Colorado site would be slightly less than the mean costs for all pro- posed sites, although the difference from the mean is smaller than the likely accuracy of the estimates themselves.

29 ILLINOIS The Illinois site is located about 40 miles west of Chicago, directly west of the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory in Batavia. The SSC would be located in a flat to gently rolling area, and the tunnel would be excavated in uniform dolomite. There is extensive tunneling experience in the area, and the rock can easily be exca- vated by machine with excellent advance rates and minimal required support. The experimental halls would be mined excavations with minimal roof supports of rock bolts and reinforced shotcrete. A weakness of this site would be the depth of excavation (generally between 270 and 430 feet) and routine groundwater control required for shafts. The Chicago area is a major urban center offering a wide ar- ray of excellent regional resources, including universities and diverse cultural and recreational activities. An extensive transportation in- frastructure, including highway, air, rail, and water, is in place. Also in plentiful supply are machine tool and fabrication companies, as well as a skilled labor force experienced in high-technology appli- cations. Ample housing is available in the numerous neighboring communities. An additional strength of the site is an existing infrastructure built upon on almost two decades of experience in operating an outstanding high-energy physics research laboratory. Tunneling would be done by boring machine, thus reducing effects on the surface. The site has no developed oil, gas, or coal deposits; impacts on surface and ground waters would probably be modest; no highly sensitive animal or human population is likely to be affected by SSC operational noise; and no federally endangered or threatened species or Illinois species of interest is at risk. Weaknesses include air quality attainment problems in the Chicago area with respect to ozone; loss of some prime farmland and wetland habitat; and a risk of increased siltation of streams during construction. These negative impacts can probably be satis- factorily minimized by such steps as lease back and creation of new wetlands. A rather large, complex acquisition and relocation program would be involved in conveying the land, but the state has already enacted the Superconducting Super Collider Act of Illinois, granting quick- take land acquisition authority. The presence of quarries and gravel pits at the site requires some

so study but does not appear to present a fundamental difficulty. Cli- mate conditions are not as favorable as at some other sites. According to the life cycle cost estimates provided by DOE, con- struction and operating costs for a super collider located at the Illinois site would be slightly higher than the mean costs for all pro- posed sites; if credit is allowed for the use of components of the existing Tevatron, however, the site becomes one of the less costly.* MICHIGAN/STOCKBRIDGE The Stockbridge site is located in a relatively flat, predominantly rural farming and recreational area in the south central portion of Michigan, approximately 35 miles from Ann Arbor and equidistant from East Lansing. The geology of the proposed site is on the whole favorable for construction of a tunnel driven through shales, limestone, dolomites, and sandstone. A tunnel through such formations is likely to include long unlined sections and relatively high advance rates. There are, however, a few comparative weaknesses, including the need for signif- icant groundwater control in certain tunnel sections. Groundwater is found near the surface, and dewatering of shafts as well as slurry walls for experimental halls would be necessary. In addition, there is a risk of encountering a buried valley during tunneling. Regional resources essential for construction and operation of the SSC are present at or near the site. The area is close to two major research universities, and it offers diversified housing, recreational *In the course of its evaluation of the Illinois proposal, the committee was given the report of a DOE-sponsored study on the technical feasibility and estimated costs that would be involved in using the Fermilab Tevatron complex as an injector for the SSC. (Analysis of the Fermilab Tevatron at an Injector for the SSC, RTK, October 1987.) The report concludes that, with certain modifications and improvements, it is reasonable to expect that the existing Fermilab accelerators could meet SSC design requirements. Cost estimates for the alterations are given, although they show a wide range because of uncertainty about whether or not the existing main ring would have to be replaced to meet SSC performance specifications. (Further measurements at Fermilab would be necessary to determine the need for replacement of the main ring.) Although the committee did not question the report's conclusions, it did note that the report does not discuss whether the Tevatron would meet reliability criteria for the SSC. Given the importance of the reliability of the injector to the SSC and the age of the Tevatron magnets and components, some members of the committee felt that some or all of the aging components might have to be replaced. If this were necessary, there would, of course, be cost implications that are not discussed in the report.

31 and employment opportunities, and reasonable access to the Detroit International Airport. It has an excellent industrial base includ- ing large numbers of machine shops and a major concentration of advanced technology manufacturers. An SSC would be likely to cause relatively limited environmental effects at the site. There are no threatened or endangered species or habitats at risk in the area, and there would be little likelihood of significant impacts on scenic aspects of the area because tunnel- ing detritus would be disposed of in nearby gravel pits. An SSC is unlikely to add significantly to environmental air pollution in this nonattainment area for ozone, but several historical and archaeo- logical sites may require attention. Some abundant stream courses will need protection during construction in order to preserve wetland habitats. Michigan has proposed a complex, time-sensitive plan for acquisi- tion of the site. There are some 700 landowners whose parcels must be purchased and 221 homes and residences whose occupants must be relocated under reasonable state acquisition laws and procedures. The proposal states that a number of roads and railroads would cross directly over the SSC ring; it is expected that vibration prob- lems either would not be severe or could be minimized. Winters in the area are somewhat cold and snowy. According to the life cycle cost estimates provided by DOE, con- struction and operating costs for a super collider located at the Stockbridge site would be very close to the average for all proposed sites. NEW YORK/ROCHESTER New York proposes a site for the SSC in a moderately hilly location between the cities of Rochester and Syracuse on the shore of Lake Ontario in the central portion of the state. The site is currently about two-fifths in forest and brush and three-fifths in agriculture. The major SSC facilities would be located about 18 miles east of Rochester. The site's geology, which is favorable for construction of a tunnel at medium depth, is marked by surficial glacial drumlins (oval hills caused by glacial drift) underlain by interbedded sedimentary rocks. Its specific strengths include good tunneling conditions in sedimen- tary rocks with well-understood and predictable geology leading to

32 rapid advance rates and minimal required support. Cut-and-fill con- struction techniques could be used for the near cluster experimental halls and underground excavations for the far cluster. Comparative site weaknesses are the presence of hydrogen sulfide and methane gas requiring continual ventilation or other controls, corrosive sulfate water requiring special concrete tunnel lining, local artesian ground- water conditions, and high in-situ stresses that might cause localized spalling in the shaly materials. Regional resources necessary for construction and operation of the 8SC are present at or near the site. The area allows access to several colleges and research universities, with a good range of living, educational, employment, and recreational opportunities. A particular strength of the area is its advanced technology industrial production and research base. The site is less readily accessible than several others. Construction and operation of the SSC are likely to have rela- tively limited environmental effects in the region. No rare habitats are threatened, and no long-term impacts would be expected on surface and ground waters. In addition, the area's air quality attain- ment is likely to remain within federal standards, and tunneling and construction spoils could be disposed of in local quarries. Construc- tion would be expected to remove prime farmland from production, although the amount could be reduced by lease back, and the loss of some wetlands would require examination. Several historical and archaeological sites might need special consideration. A number of roads and railroads would cross directly over the SSC ring; the proposal anticipates that vibration problems at the interaction points either would not be severe or could be mitigated. Winters in the area are cold and very snowy, and they could affect a construction schedule for surface facilities. According to the life cycle cost estimates provided by DOE, con- struction and operating costs for a super collider located at the Rochester site would be slightly lower than the mean costs for all proposed sites, although the difference from the mean is smaller than the likely accuracy of the estimates themselves. The Rochester site was one of those about which committee mem- bers and staff received a large number of letters and supplementary materials from residents of the area. Almost all the letters opposed the site. As noted earlier, the committee was unable to use the letters in its evaluation of the site; but it feels strongly that DOE must, in the next stage of the site selection process, look closely at

33 the extent to which the vocal opposition represents a true absence of local support. NORTH CAROLINA North Carolina proposes a site near its northern border with Virginia. Located in rolling terrain in a rural, mostly forested area near the cities of Durham and Raleigh, the site's campus would be about 20 miles from Research Triangle Park. The tunnel would be bored in interlayered metamorphosed vol- canic and sedimentary rocks. The average depth below the surface would be about 175 feet, and the site's experimental halls would be in excavated caverns. The geological advantages of the site include favorable tunneling characteristics that promise rapid excavation and little need for supports. Site weaknesses include a major shear zone, localized areas of potential instabilities, and probable modest water inflow in some areas. The North Carolina site is generally quite strong in local attributes that would attract and support the scientific and technical staff of the SSC. The immediate proximity of several major research universities, the presence of urban amenities including those of Research Triangle Park, and employment prospects for family members of staff are notable. Accessibility to transportation is adequate but less strong than for some other sites, although Raleigh-Durham Airport serves as a hub for a major air carrier and is currently undergoing significant expansion. The site is generally favorable on environmental grounds, with no major risk to identified species or critical habitats and very little long-term impact on wetlands or water quality, but the discussion of this last matter in the proposal was not very extensive. The en- vironmental disadvantages that exist are generally associated with effects of urbanization on an area that is now largely forested. How- ever, some prime farmland would be lost, and about 100 relocations would be required, including several facilities of the North Carolina National Guard. Regional conditions for this site are quite good, with only seasonal rains creating slight problems for year-round construction. According to the life cycle cost estimates provided by DOE, con- struction and operating costs for a super collider located at the

34 North Carolina site would be slightly below the average for all pro- posed sites, although the difference from the mean is smaller than the likely accuracy of the cost estimates. TENNESSEE Tennessee proposes a site in the central part of the state, near the city of Murfreesboro and about 30 miles southeast of Nashville. The area is one of generally rolling to hilly terrain, and the site mainly occupies undeveloped rural lands. Geological conditions are generally favorable. The collider tunnel would be bored through a bed of homogeneous Ordovician limestone at an average depth of about 400 feet below the surface. The tunnel would be placed below the zone in which groundwater would present an impediment. Strengths of the site include favorable prospects for rapid machine excavation with minimal support and lining. The experimental halls would be mined excavations requiring minimal roof supports. Comparative drawbacks include the tunnel depth and karst solution features in the upper 200 feet, which would require groundwater control during shaft construction. The site is near the requisite regional resources, as is reflected in recent decisions by General Motors and Nissan Motor Company to locate new plants in the area. The site is easily accessible through the Nashville Metropolitan Airport, which serves as a hub for a major air carrier and is currently undergoing significant expansion. There are other important local resources, including the nearby city of Nashville and Vanderbilt University. The depth of the facility would minimize environmental impacts. There would be neither significant loss of prime farmland, nor sig- nificant risk to wetlands, surface waters, or groundwater, and the placement of the project's surface features is such that it would avoid impacts on the cedar glade and limestone cave habitats present in the area. However, the presence of several threatened and endangered species and the presence of historic structures would require special attention. Regional conditions at the site are good, with the only drawback of note being seasonal rains that could slightly affect the construction schedule. According to the DOE estimates, the Tennessee site ranks among the lowest in construction costs and labor rates. Its overall life cycle costs are estimated at slightly below the mean for all sites.

35 TEXAS/DALLAS-FORT WORTH The Dallas-Fort Worth site is in an area of gently rolling prairie about 30 miles south of Dallas. The SSC would be located in an area whose geology is excellent for construction. The planned ring would be in chalk and marl, which allow for very high advance rates using tunnel boring machines (based on tunneling experience elsewhere in the same formations) and are at the same time of high strength, permitting a minimum of support and lining. The shafts and other experimental facilities would be surface-excavated and of moderate depth. A few of the experimental halls would range from 165 to 220 feet below the surface; the strength of the rocks would permit stable, unsupported, near-vertical cuts. Although the geology is quite favorable for SSC construction, there are a few comparative weaknesses. Several of the experimental halls that bottom in shale have a potential bottom heave; there are plans to relocate these halls to avoid the shale. Within the marl there are local slickensided blocky ground and slaking (breaking up of the marl upon exposure to air); the marl in surface excavations would need to be sealed fairly soon after exposure. Excavations in weathered marl would need to be supported. The regional resources and technological base of the region offer most of the advantages of a major urban center. The Dallas-Fort Worth airport is one of the nation's leading air hubs and a major in- ternational point of entry. In addition, the transportation network of highways and railroads is excellent. There is a diversity of attractive housing in the region, and cultural, recreational, educational, and employment opportunities are plentiful. The SSC is unlikely to have major environmental impacts on the site because the tunnel would be bored with modest habitat disruption. One of the comparative weaknesses is that a substantial acreage of prime farmland would be lost, but lease-back opportunities might diminish much of this. There are a moderate number of property owners (420), and a number of residences and businesses would be affected (224) by site acquisition. Slightly less than one-half of the land would be in stratified fee. The acquisition plan is well conceived and could easily be executed. Regional conditions at the site appear quite good, with only a few possible vibration sources requiring some attention. According to the life cycle cost estimates provided by DOE, con- struction and operating costs for a super collider located at the Dallas-Fort Worth site would be slightly less than the mean costs for

36 all proposed sites, but the difference from the mean is smaller than the likely accuracy of the estimates themselves. SITES NOT ON THE BEST QUALIFIED LIST As noted earlier, the committee used a procedure for examination of the proposals that it developed before receipt of any proposals from DOE. The procedure involved careful examination of each proposal by working groups that paid particular attention to criteria in their areas of expertise. The working groups reported to the full committee on the results of their examinations, including an initial evaluation of each proposal using the categories good, satisfactory, and ques- tionable. The reports formed part of the basis for the committee's discussions and final deliberations. Those deliberations involved the review and synthesis of a vast amount of information by a group with broad and varied experience, perspectives, and expertise. The very nature of this process does not permit determination of the extent to which any specific factor or combination of factors influenced how individual judgments were formed or a group consensus achieved. Nonetheless, some general comments are possible and warranted. Among the remaining sites, a number displayed unfavorable geo- logical conditions. Some sites were likely to be subject to excessive water inflow during tunneling; others could be expected to demon- strate uneven subsidence from subsurface fluid withdrawal. A small number were characterized by seismicity or zones of volcanic activity that could present problems in the operation of the SSC. Finally, some sites demonstrated complex or uncertain geological character- istics that suggested possible substantial delays in construction. Other proposed sites, including some with quite favorable geo- logical characteristics, were less successful in meeting the regional resources criteria than were those included on the best qualified list. Several lacked existing communities near the site; others were not particularly accessible because of their distance from a major, well-serviced airport. In some cases, there was no evidence of a strong infrastructure of machine and electronics shops, vendors, or labor force experience in high-technology endeavors. A few sites were quite distant from universities and medical centers; others did not offer opportunities for professional employment of spouses of SSC staff. No site presented insurmountable environmental problems, or un- solvable problems of site acquisition or regional conditions, although,

37 as might be expected, some sites would have posed more serious dif- ficulties than others. It should be noted, again, that the committee chose not to adopt any arbitrary set of scores or weights to reach its decision about the inclusion or exclusion of any particular site on the best qualified list. The list, then, is the outcome of committee judgment about which sites most effectively demonstrated in their proposals that they met or could meet the set of criteria established by DOE at the start of the site selection process.

Next: APPENDIXES »
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!