« PrécédentContinuer »
C. Site Selection Task Force Deliberations
The Task Force, under the auspices of the Acting Director of Energy Research, was directed to review and validate the Academies' Committee report and recommended Best Qualified List upon receipt to determine whether the Academies' Committee evaluation process gave appropriate consideration to the technical evaluation criteria and subcriteria, and their relative importance, as well as cost considerations consistent with the Invitation.
In its review and validation of the Academies' Committee report, the Task Force has sought specifically to determine whether:
• The Academies' Committee complied with the requirements of the Statement of Work of its contract with the DOE;
• The results reflect a fair selection process, evaluating sites on their
• The Academies' Committee has recommended a credible Best
Prior to receipt of the Academies' Committee report, the Task Force discussed, in depth, each proposal in order to arrive at a more complete understanding and familiarity. The Task Force proposal review was accomplished by assigning lead responsibility for each technical evaluation criterion and the life cycle cost to an individual Task Force member. In consultation with Task Force members and advisors, as appropriate, each lead member assessed each proposal in his respective area of responsibility. Additionally, a summary presentation of the life cycle cost results was made to the Task Force by the DOE contractor, RTK, a joint venture of Raymond Kaiser Engineers. Inc., Tudor Engineering Company, and Keller & Gannon-Knight, on December 14,1987.
The Acting Director of the Office of Energy Research received the Academies' Committee report on December 24.1987, and copies were distributed to members of the Task Force. The members assessed the report during the period of December 24-28, 1987.
The Task Force met on December 28,1987, to formulate questions to be discussed with the Academies' Committee staff. The questions covered the following areas: the Academies' Committee evaluation procedure; the application and relative importance of the technical evaluation criteria, subcriteria, and cost considerations; the basis and rationale for determining the Best Qualified List sites; and a review of the significant characteristics of each of the qualified proposals.
On December 29,1987, the Task Force had an all day meeting with the Academies' Committee staff members, including the Project Director, Project Manager, and Staff Officers. The Project Director outlined the evaluation methodology followed by the Academies' Committee in their evaluation process.
This process included the requirement that the Academies' Committee reach a consensus that a site was to be included or not to be included on the Best Qualified List. The Academies' Committee staff confirmed that the Committee evaluation was consistent with the guidance specified in the Invitation with regard to the relative importance of the technical evaluation criteria and cost considerations. The staff answered all questions raised and provided elaborations to the Task Force, where appropriate.
During the briefing by the Academies' Committee staff, the Task Force was provided with a description of the significant characteristics of each qualified site as discussed by the Academies' Committee. The Academies' Committee considered each technical evaluation criterion and the life cycle cost estimates in its evaluation of sites. The two most important technical evaluation criteria, as listed in the Invitation, i.e., geology and tunneling and regional resources, provided substantial discrimination among the sites. Some sites had characteristics in the environment criterion that distinguished them from other proposals, but as the Academies' Committee noted in its report, "no site proposal presented environmental problems that could not be prevented or minimized." There were some differences among proposed sites with respect to the setting and regional conditions criteria, but no site had negative setting or regional conditions sufficient to warrant its elimination on these bases alone. The last of the technical evaluation criteria, utilities, provided little discrimination among proposals. Life cycle cost estimates, as calculated for the DOE by RTK, did play a role in the Academies' Committee evaluation, but that role was minor because the estimates fell within such a narrow range.
The Task Force met on December 30,1987, to review results of its meeting with the Academies' Committee staff and in subsequent days to prepare its evaluation of the Academies' Committee report.
D. Task Force Conclusions and Recommendations
In the interest of furthering a fair and objective siting decision process for the Super Collider, the Department commissioned the National Academies to conduct an independent evaluation of the qualified sites. Therefore, it was the opinion of the Site Task Force that the Academies' Best Qualified List recommendation should be accepted in full if: (1) it could be determined that the Academies complied with the requirements of the Department; and (2) there was an absence of any strong justification for altering the list.
Following a review and evaluation of the Academies' Committee report, the Task Force has concluded that:
• The Academies' Committee represented a highly qualified, credible and broad range of experience and expertise;
• The Academies' Committee methodology was consistent with the terms of the Invitation and the contractual Statement of Work agreed to by the Department and the Academies;
• The Best Qualified List recommended by consensus of the Academies' Committee was developed impartially and without bias;
• Based on the technical evaluation criteria and cost considerations specified in the Invitation, the eight sites on the Best Qualified List recommended by the Academies' Committee are supportable.
• The Academies' Committee has made an appropriate determination that important differences among the site proposals, principally in the two major criteria areas of geology and tunneling and regional resources, supported the Academies' Committee decision on the eight recommended sites for the Best Qualified List.
It is the unanimous recommendation of the Task Force that the Best Qualified List recommended by the Academies' Committee be accepted without modification.
Super Collider Site Evaluation Committee
NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS
NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing
The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society
The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of
The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of
The National Research Council was organised by the National Academy of Sciences
The report was sponsored by the Department of Energy under contract number DE-
Super Collider Site Evaluation Committee
National Research Council
2101 Constitution Avenue N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20418
Cover illustration; A computer reconstruction of an event observed in 1.8-TeV proton-
Printed in the United States of America