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.
3 Evaluating the Proposals The 43 proposals originally received by the Department of En- ergy (of which 35 were eventually evaluated by the committee) were written in response to an April 1987 DOE document entitled In- vitation for Site Proposals for the Superconducting Super Collider (SSC) (DOE/ER-0315). That documentâthe ISPâoutlined the in- formation that would be required in proposals and described the qualification criteria, technical evaluation criteria, and cost consid- erations that were to be used in the site selection process. (A list of the 43 proposals submitted to DOE appears in Appendix C.) Proposals were required to show, first, that the site met a set of five qualification criteria before they could be forwarded to the committee by DOE. The qualification criteria, as stated by DOE (Section 3.2 of the ISP, p. 28), were: 1. Location entirely in the United States of America. 2. Land size and configuration to accommodate the SSC facility as specified in this Invitation. . . . 3. Absence of cost to the Government for land acquisition. 4. Capability of providing at least 250 MW of electrical power with at least 500 gpm of industrial water or 200 MW of power with 2,200 gpm of industrial water, or an appropriate interpolated combination. 5. Absence of known unacceptable environmental impacts from siting, constructing, operating, and decommissioning the SSC. Reasonable mitigation measures may be taken into consideration. 14
15 (Thirty-six proposals were deemed by DOE to have met the qualifi- cation criteria and were sent to the committee for evaluation. One of these was subsequently withdrawn from consideration by the State of New York.) The ISP indicated that information in the proposals would be evaluated against a set of technical evaluation criteria and subcrite- ria in determining the best qualified list (BQL) and, eventually, in identifying the preferred site. As stated by DOE (Section 3.3 of the ISP, pages 28 to 29), the technical evaluation criteria were: 1. Geology and Tunneling A. Suitability of the topography, geology, and associated geohydrol- ogy for efficient and timely construction of the proposed SSC underground structures. B. Stability of the proposed geology against settlement and seismic- ity and other features that could adversely affect SSC operations. C. Installation and operational efficiency resulting from minimal depths for the accelerator complex and experimental halls. D. Risk of encountering major problems during construction. 2. Regional Resources A. Proximity of communities within commuting distance of the proposed SSC facilities capable of supporting the SSC staff, their families, and visitors. Adequacy of community resourcesâe.g., housing, medical services, employment opportunities for family members, recreation, and cultural resourcesâall available on a non-discriminatory basis. B. Accessibility to the site, e.g., major airport(s), railroads, and highway system serving the vicinity and site. C. Availability of a regional industrial base and skilled labor pool to support construction and operation of the facility. D. Extent and type of state, regional, and local administrative and institutional support that will be provided, e.g., assistance in obtaining permits and unifying codes and standards. 3. Environment A. Significance of environmental impacts from siting, constructing, operating, and decommissioning the SSC. B. Projected ability to comply with all applicable, relevant, and ap- propriate federal, state, and local environmental/safety require- ments within reasonable bounds of time, cost, and litigation risk. C. Ability of the proposer, the DOE, or both to reasonably mitigate adverse environmental impacts to minimal levels. 4. Setting A. Ability of the proposer to deliver defendable title, in accordance with the schedule in [the ISP]. . . for land and estates in land that will adequately protect the Government's interest and the integrity of the SSC during construction and operation.
16 B. Flexibility to adjust the position of the SSC in the nearby vicinity of the proposed location. C. Presence of natural and man-made features of the region that could adversely affect the siting, construction, and operation of the SSC. 5. Regional Conditions A. Presence of man-made disturbances, such as vibration and noise, that could adversely impact the operation of the SSC. B. Presence of climatic conditions that could adversely impact construction and operation of the SSC. 6. Utilities A. Reliability and stability of the electric power generating and transmission grid systems. Flexibility for future expansion. B. Reliability, quality, and quantity of water to meet the needs of the facility. C. Availability of fuel, waste disposal, and sewage disposal. In laying out the technical evaluation criteria, DOE noted in the ISP: In descending order of relative importance, the criteria are Geology and Tunneling, Regional Resources, Environment, Setting, Regional Condi- tions, and Utilities. Under each major criterion heading, the subcriteria are listed in descending order of relative importance. However, a serious deficiency in any one subcriterion may prevent the proposal from being included in the BQL. DOE further stated that "cost considerations are important to the selection process and will be used in conjunction with the technical evaluation criteria in selecting the most desirable site." The depart- ment indicated that it would prepare a life cycle cost (LCC) estimate for each proposal and stated: Although cost considerations are significant, primary emphasis will be placed on the results from the evaluation of the technical evaluation crite- ria by the NAS/NAE in the development of their BQL recommendation to the DOE. The process used by the committee was consistent with the in- structions provided in the ISP. Early in its life, before any proposals had been received by DOE, the committee agreed on a set of pro- cedures designed to permit the detailed and equitable evaluation of the voluminous set of proposals and supporting materials that it expected to receive and ultimately did. The committee was faced with the task of evaluating the pro- posals using a multiplicity of technical criteria and subcriteria and costs. Because of the difficultyâperhaps impossibilityâof directly comparing the various criteria and the extent to which individual proposals met or did not meet the criteria, the committee decided
17 against adopting a rigid set of weights that would allow a mechanical means of scoring or grading proposals. Seven working groups, focusing on each of the six criteria and costs, were established by the committee to assure careful, detailed examination of each proposal. Each working group was composed of members of the committee with particular expertise in its area of fo- cus. The working groups were charged with identifying strengths and weaknesses of the proposals in their areas of concern and with pro- viding an initial evaluation of proposals on a scale with three values (good, satisfactory, and questionable) as a basis for discussion by the full committee. The committee did not seek to verify independently and systematically information presented in the proposals; such ver- ification may be necessary in subsequent stages of the site selection process. In its review of proposed plans for timely acquisition of the required land, the committee received assistance from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers drawing upon that agency's long experience and substantial expertise for an analysis of the plans. From the outset, the committee recognized the complexity of ag- gregating ratings for all the criteria and subcriteria. It noted that any single mechanical method (such as assignment of explicit numerical weights, explicit cutoff ranges for individual criteria or subcriteria, or preselected stepwise disqualification rules) would embody poten- tial technical and practical Saws that would make its adoption by the committee unwarranted. Thus, although the committee asked its staff to try alternative aggregation methods and to note their sensitivity to basic assumptions, the committee used the ratings of individual members and working groups, and the staff analyses of sensitivity to different assumptions, only as guides to direct its dis- cussions and deliberations. At its final meeting, the committee discussed the strengths and weaknesses of the 35 proposals that remained for evaluation and for each site made an explicit determination of whether or not the site merited inclusion on the best qualified list. No explicit weighting or ranking was used to determine the list; thus the list itself is an unranked list of the best-qualified sites. At no point did the committee consider an "appropriate" length for the list. The best qualified list presented in this report is the result of 35 decisions made by the committee after careful consideration of the proposals, and the list includes all the sites on which a committee consensus for inclusion was reached. The list represents the best collective judgment of 21 individuals, carefully chosen for their expertise and
18 impartiality, after a detailed assessment of the proposals using 19 technical subcriteria and DOE's life cycle cost estimates. The committee recognized that it was dealing with proposals pre- pared by proponents of sites and that it was therefore likely that proposals would present sites in the best possible light. One way of obtaining additional information about some or all of the proposed sites might have been through visits to the sites. However, because the procedures for site selection presented in the ISP precluded site visits by the committee, and because the time constraints under which the committee was asked to work would have made any but the most superficial site visits difficult or impossible, the committee did not visit any sites as part of its evaluation. The committee is confident that the breadth of experience represented by its members and its detailed and comprehensive discussion of individual propos- als were sufficient to assure that each proposal received adequate and equitable consideration and that the best qualified list reflects a judicious selection of those sites that best meet the selection criteria listed in the ISP. The committee does believe that site visits can provide a valuable means of confirming the information contained in the proposals and urges that, in further action by the Department of Energy on selection of a preferred location for the SSC, site visits and other confirmatory studies be used. In the next chapter of this report, the committee presents an outline of some of the factors that weighed most heavily in its delib- erations. This is followed by a chapter that briefly comments on the strengths and weaknesses of the sites that, in the judgment of the committee, were the best qualified of the proposed locations for the SSC.
