DUSEL - Cascades FAQ

FAQ---Frequently Asked Questions about the proposed Deep Underground Science and Engineering Laboratory near Leavenworth

Over the course of the last several months, numerous questions have been asked about the proposed Deep Underground Science and Engineering Laboratory. Below we respond to some of the questions most frequently raised. This document will be periodically updated as necessary.

Q1: Where can I find a description of the underground laboratory proposed for Cashmere Mountain and its current status?

A1: The University of Washington web site http://int.phys.washington.edu/DUSEL/icicle.html describes the proposed laboratory and its current status. For answers to more specific questions, see the list below contact icicle2@phys.washington.edu.

Q2: When will the proposal be submitted?

A2: We recently posted a pre-proposal on the web site (see address in A1). We are currently asking the public and our science colleagues for informal input. The pre-proposal is a draft, not a formal proposal, but it does include most of the work done to date on DUSEL-Cascades. We expect the National Science Foundation to provide funds later this year to develop conceptual proposals for promising sites. We anticipate that we will be asked to submit an brief outline of the DUSEL-Cascades project to obtain these funds. If we are successful with this funding request, a DUSEL-Cascades conceptual proposal based on the pre-proposal will be prepared and submitted to the NSF. The due date for such proposals is expected to be early in 2005.

Q3: To whom will the proposal be submitted?

A3: The final conceptual proposal will be submitted to the Mathematical and Physical Sciences Directorate of the National Science Foundation. The Foundation is a federal agency that supports much of the basic research that is done in fields like physics, astronomy, earth science, biology, and engineering. For more information please see the Foundation's web site, http://www.nsf.gov.

Q4: What is the process by which a decision will be made to construct the underground laboratory and associated facilities?

A4: There are two main parts to this process. First, scientific approval must come from the National Science Foundation, the federal agency that has taken responsibility for the underground laboratory. During the agency's review process the underground laboratory must gain the approval of the National Science Foundation's Science Board and Director. Second, the underground laboratory requires explicit approval and funding by Congress and the President.

Regarding the first part, the National Science Foundation recently announced (February 6, 2004) that it is restarting the process to select a site for the underground laboratory. This letter may be viewed on the UW website. It will likely take the NSF two or more years to progress through a 3-part solicitation process. The first part entails a review of the justification for DUSEL by the science community. The conceptual proposal (see Q2 above) will be prepared in response to Solicitation Two. The NSF is expected to then select one or two proposals to advance to the Solicitation-Three stage, which provides funding for full engineering proposals. Based on the submitted engineering proposals, the NSF hopes to decide early in 2006 whether to proceed with DUSEL. If so, it will designate the site. Gaining funding approval from Congress and the Executive Branch is expected to take two more years. Thus the earliest construction date is believed to be 2008.

The selected site must also go through the environmental impact statement and permitting processes (see the question below on public input). This will involve all of the local, state, and federal agencies with permitting or regulatory responsibilities. Examples include the Forest Service, Chelan County, the Department of Ecology, and the National Science Foundation. These processes will be open and the public will be asked to participate.

Q5: Who will make the final decision on this proposal?

A5: The decision to recommend creation of a U.S. Underground Laboratory will be made by the Director of the National Science Foundation, in consultation with the National Science Foundation's Science Board and with the National Science Foundation's Assistant Directors. That recommendation will designate a preferred site. The Director's recommendation will be considered by Congress, which must approve the project and provide funding. The President must sign the bill that provides that funding.

As noted above, numerous other decision-making agencies will be involved on issues like permits and environmental impact. For example, the Forest Service must decide whether to grant a special-use permit to construct and operate the underground laboratory. Such permitting processes will go on in parallel with the National Science Foundation deliberations, and must also be successfully concluded.

Q6: Are there other proposals being considered? If so, what are some of those other proposals and how can I find out more information?

A6: During the period 2001-2003 three unsolicited proposals were submitted to the National Science Foundation. The proposed sites were the Homestake Mine (South Dakota), the Soudan Mine (Minnesota), and Mt. San Jacinto (California). In a preliminary evaluation in May 2003, Homestake was designated the preferred site.

On February 6, 2004, the National Science Foundation returned all proposals and rescinded the Homestake selection because flooding had changed conditions in the mine. (The mine owner turned off the mine's pumps in June 2003.) The National Science Foundation held a meeting on March 29, 2004, in which it described the new "roadmap" that it would follow to establish DUSEL. That roadmap includes the three solicitations described in A4.

It is expected that the three original proposals (for the Homestake Mine, the Soudan Mine, and Mt. San Jacinto) will be resubmitted and reconsidered. In addition to DUSEL-Cascades, two new sites have now emerged, the Kimballton Mine in West Virginia and the Henderson Mine in Colorado. Information on all six sites can be found at http://www.int.washington.edu/DUSEL/.

Q6a: What is the status of the Homestake Mine proposal and why is the University of Washington now focused on the Cascades site?

A6a: In its May 2003 National Science Foundation Site Panel Report, the NSF Site Panel reviewed three early DUSEL proposals, including the one UW Physicists had submitted for the Homestake mine in South Dakota. While recommending Homestake, the panel also unanimously called for the continued maintenance of the mine, pointing out the significant damage that would otherwise occur:

"Important reasons to continue pumping include maintenance of mine stability, avoidance of equipment replacement or damage, consistency with existing operating approvals, and preservation of the rock mass." The panel expressed concern that flooding could destabilize the mine.

Ten days after the release of the report, the mine owner dismantled the pumps. The area of the mine designated for DUSEL flooded in January 2004. The mine currently contains 2 million tons of water and is unventilated. The water is rising at a rate in excess of 100,000 tons per month.

The flooding prompted the University of Washington to conduct a national search for an alternative site. This led to the identification of DUSEL-Cascades in October 2003. The changing conditions in the Homestake mine also led the NSF in February 2004 to rescind its selection of Homestake as the DUSEL site.

According to the engineers who designed both facilities, the estimated construction costs of DUSEL-Homestake and DUSEL-Cascades are almost identical, about $300 million. However, the Homestake cost estimate was based on a dry and fully functional mine. DUSEL-Cascades is projected to be much less expensive to operate than any of the three sites considered by the NSF panel because of its horizontal access and lower power costs.

Next year the NSF will examine all of the locations that have been proposed as DUSEL sites. The NSF will select the site that can best serve science and the nation, while being cost-effective and environmentally responsible.

Q7: What are the various steps and timeframes for this project from today through a decision to begin construction?

A7: As described in A4, the new National Science Foundation roadmap calls for a decision on DUSEL in 2006. If that decision is positive, a site will be designated. If Congress then allocates funding and the President signs the funding bill, construction could begin as early as 2008.

Q8: How and when will the public have an opportunity to provide input on the proposal near Leavenworth?

A8: The formal mechanisms for public involvement are through the permitting and environmental impact statement processes. State and federal governmental agencies will require the project to go through a very careful, open process in which every aspect of the project - environmental, social, economic, and technical -- will be examined. Both proponents and opponents will be able to comment and raise questions and concerns. These processes typically take at least two years and are designed to be fair to all parties, to provide accurate information to everyone concerned, and to reach a decision that serves the best interests of the community and the state.

Another mechanism for public involvement is more informal, and has to do with our hopes for working with local citizens. As you know, we decided to come to the citizens of Leavenworth and Chelan County very early, in order to share our ideas about the potential of the underground laboratory well before writing a proposal. This approach is unusual in large projects: most projects are supported by prepared proposals before release to the public. Our decision to pursue a different course has to do with our hope that this project will become a collaboration with the community. Large projects present challenges and opportunities. Many times the opportunities come from recognizing how a well-run project can help a community tackle other issues of concern. We need help from you to identify such opportunities.

This approach means that discussions are occurring well before we have all the answers. In certain areas the concepts are evolving as we learn more and as we add components suggested by you. We ask you to be understanding and patient. Our intent is to find answers to all of the important problems while working with you. We have already benefited enormously from questions you have raised. The conceptual proposal will address issues such as sustainable design, affordable housing, stream flows, and traffic reduction that were brought to us first by local citizens.

Public input is now being sought on our pre-proposal (see A2). We intend to continue this open process as we draft the conceptual proposal, and later in the engineering proposal phase, if the DUSEL-Cascades site remains in competition. Your input will help us make the conceptual proposal and possible future proposals as strong as possible.

Q9: How will ventilation be treated at the underground laboratory? Will there be ventilation shafts? Will the ventilation system be audible?

A9: As described in the pre-propopsal, the underground laboratory will be vented along the length of the tunnel with its outflow being at the portal itself. The current design includes no shafts or vents to the surface at any point along the tunnel. The only opening to the surface will be the portal entrance. Air will be brought into the tunnels and laboratory areas through the portal.

Because there will be no internal combustion engines underground, the air along the tunnels and in the laboratory itself will remain quite clean. This has allowed the engineers to lower air flow requirements by about a factor of four, compared to conventional tunnels. The ventilation fans will be underground, in sound-proof rooms, with baffled intakes. Our goal is to make operations very quiet. The final engineering design will specify the noise level, which we would then like to demonstrate for nearby residents and campers. This information will be available to the public as part of the Environmental Impact Statement.

Q10: How will vehicles be handled at the portal to the underground laboratory? Will there be a parking lot at the portal to the underground laboratory?

A10: As described in the pre-propopsal, we are not planning any surface parking that would be visible at the portal. Any parking associated with the underground laboratory will first be minimized by limiting personal vehicles and relying on shuttle vehicles. Our current plans call for these shuttle vehicles to be electric in order to minimize air exhaust, thereby allowing the vehicles to drive right into the tunnel. Any parking will be located underground inside the portal entrance.

The main center of activity will be the Science Building, located on a site in or near Leavenworth. The electric shuttle vehicle will operate between this building, Leavenworth, and the underground laboratory. The intent is to encourage both permanent staff and visitors to use the shuttle instead of personal cars. The use of a shuttle will reduce the number of trips to the portal.

While we will discourage the use of private cars, there will be occasions when individuals will feel they must bring a car to the portal. We will have an area for parking underground, in the portal cavity, for such instances. These parking spots will not be visible from the outside.

During construction we will shuttle construction workers to the site. However, there will be construction vehicles in the "staging area," which includes a surface area as well as an area underground. There is an existing cleared area by the portal that we propose be used for staging. This use will be temporary and the area will be restored after construction.

Q11: Will the road be open year around up to the portal? Who will be responsible for plowing the road in winter?

A11: Yes, as described in the pre-propopsal, Icicle Creek Road up to Bridge Creek will need to be kept open year around. We have not yet discussed responsibilities with the Forest Service, the County, or residents in that area. The project proponents will provide funding or equipment to keep the road open, if this proves necessary. This issue will be addressed in the permitting process.

Q12: What kinds of road improvements will be required on the Icicle Creek Road and any other roads or bridges necessary to reach the portal for the underground laboratory?

A12: During the permitting process studies will be done to determine traffic and road impacts. At this time, we believe that the roadbed up to the four-mile point on Icicle Creek Road is quite adequate for this project. This is the point at which the road changes from a county road to a Forest Service road. On the Forest Service portion of the road (from the Snow Lakes trailhead to Bridge Creek), the roadbed is not strong. This means the weight of heavy trucks would cause pot holes and other road surface defects. The Forest Service indicates we would need to make the road bed stronger and resurface it before trucking begins.

Before construction of the underground laboratory, all aspects of road use and the trucking route will be examined by us, by the County, and by other permitting agencies. This includes not only roadbeds, but also evaluating whether bridges are strong enough to withstand the proposed truck traffic. We will work closely with the County, the Forest Service and the State Department of Transportation to make sure the trucks satisfy any weight limitations placed on them and to assure the roads and bridges will withstand the weight.

We understand that certain repairs of this road have been planned by the Forest Service. Some of these repairs may be addressed by improvements made in the course of constructing the proposed underground laboratory.

At this time, we believe that no other work on the Forest Service part of Icicle Creek Road will be required for the construction of the underground laboratory. We do not believe the project will require widening or straightening of the road, just a stronger roadbed.

Whether other work is done on the road will be up to other users of the road and its owners, the County and the Forest Service. We are aware that climbers want roadside climbing rocks protected. We also know that some citizens feel that portions of the road are dangerous for pedestrians. We would anticipate that the Forest Service will listen to all of these comments and concerns before arriving at the best plan for the road.

As part of any resurfacing of the road or roadbed strengthening, we propose to bury any electric and communication lines needed for the underground laboratory. Doing this utility work at the same time as road construction will minimize traffic disruptions along the road.

Q13: How will this underground laboratory be similar or different from the underground laboratories in Italy, Russia and Japan?

A13: The proposed underground laboratory will be most similar to the Russian laboratory, Baksan. The Baksan laboratory was built by tunneling under a mountain in the Caucasus, just as is proposed for Icicle Creek. The Italian laboratory at Gran Sasso uses a pre-existing highway tunnel, while the Japanese laboratory at Kamioka uses a horizontal-access mine.

These other laboratories were built around 1980. DUSEL-Cascades will differ from them by being significantly deeper and significantly cleaner (in the sense of eliminating dust or any other potential contaminants that could interfere with measurements).

Q14: Could a spill of chemicals, like that which recently occurred at the Italian Laboratory at Gran Sasso, occur at the proposed underground laboratory near Leavenworth? What was spilled? How much? What harm resulted?

A14: The U.S. has a 40-year record of doing experiments deep underground. Many underground sites have been used, including the Homestake Mine in South Dakota, the Soudan Mine in Minnesota, the Silver King Mine in Utah, and the Morton Salt Mine in Ohio. Another important North American site is the Sudbury Mine, in Ontario, Canada. To our knowledge no spill has occurred during any of the experiments done at these sites.

U.S. science agencies have very high standards for containing liquids in facilities like the proposed underground laboratory. Double containment is required. Double containment is analogous to a double-hull on a container ship. If one container fails, a second takes over.

The recent spill that occurred at the Italian laboratory at Gran Sasso involved scintillator, a liquid similar to gasoline. The size of the spill was 11 gallons. The spill occurred when a worker turned a valve in the wrong direction. The worker reported the accident immediately. The leak would have been prevented had the containment vessel had double containment. After the spill occurred, a local magistrate ordered the offending experiment (Borexino) to shut down. Since that time the experiment has been modified to prevent any recurrence. The detector recently passed an interim stage in the reapproval process.

When this spill occurred, the Gran Sasso laboratory re-examined all of its safety measures. It decided, on its own, that a second experiment should be terminated.

The proposed underground laboratory near Leavenworth will have several staff members dedicated to a program to prevent and control any environmental or worker safety incidents or concerns. These staff, and others with regulatory oversight, will have to certify that every experiment meets the highest environmental and health safety standards before that experiment can operate. The proposed underground laboratory procedures for handling materials, such as double containment, will have to be approved as part of the permitting process. The underground laboratory will have an Emergency Response plan for addressing any incident that might accidentally occur. The Forest Service, the State Department of Ecology, and other state and federal regulatory agencies will all place requirements on the underground laboratory. The public will have opportunities to participate in the permitting process to assure the highest level of protection.

Q15: What kinds of gases will be used in the proposed underground laboratory? Are they harmful? What will happen if some of this gas is accidentally released?

A15: The gases most likely to be used in experiments in the underground laboratory are helium, nitrogen, argon, and neon. Helium and nitrogen are used in most physics laboratories. Some detectors use noble gases such as argon and krypton. None of these gases is considered dangerous. For example, nitrogen is the major component of air. Helium is used in children's balloons.

These gases are used underground in small rooms. The underground laboratory will be designed to prevent the accidental release of any gas. In addition, the ventilation system will be capable of completely changing the air in each room several times each hour. Should gases be released, this ventilation system mixes laboratory air with a large amount of fresh air, guaranteeing everyone's safety. This includes scientists underground and any users of the surrounding National Forest.

The danger associated with the use of these gases is not with the gas itself, but with the potential, in a small confined space, for the gas to displace the oxygen. The ventilation system will prevent this from occurring.

Q16: What kinds of hazardous materials might periodically be used or found in the underground laboratory? How will these be managed or contained? What will happen in the event of a spill?

A16: The major constituents of detectors include water, liquid scintillator (a hydrocarbon), various cryogenic liquids, plastics, and crystals such as germanium and sodium iodide. There will also be lots of lead-brick, copper, and iron shielding. The underground laboratory will be built to above-ground civil engineering codes (which are more stringent, for example, than mining codes). These codes require specific large-volume sprinkler systems to suppress fires in plastic, for example. Liquid scintillator is an example of a liquid that must have double containment, to guard against spills.

In industry and science, materials handling issues are addressed through Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) which provide both workers and emergency personnel the information important for those materials. The information provided by the MSDS includes physical data, health effects, first aid procedures, storage procedures, disposal procedures, any requirements for protective equipment, and spill/leak procedures.

During the permitting process for the underground laboratory, the proponents, and various responsible agencies will have to decide on a protocol for emergency responses to spills, fires, or similar events. Most laboratories of this sort have trained fire and safety crews, and are required to contact local and state authorities immediately when any incident occurs. It is also very common for local emergency response teams (fire, medical, Department of Ecology) to coordinate training with the safety and environmental staff of the underground laboratory. It is important for everyone who responds to an emergency to be aware of the materials in the underground laboratory and of laboratory safety protocols. The Department of Ecology will require a Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure (SPCC) Plan.

Our plans call for the underground laboratory to have very sophisticated sensor, control, and emergency communications systems. TV monitors will view the underground laboratory, and locations of laboratory occupants will be known electronically. The control room will be staffed by at least two trained controllers 24 hours a day, seven day a week.

Q17: Will any nuclear material be used in any experiments in the underground laboratory?

A17: None of the materials used in detectors are nuclear: the main reason for the underground laboratory is to create an environment free of the radiation that abounds on the earth's surface. (This radiation is due to cosmic rays and to natural radiation of the materials around us.) In fact, most of the materials used underground will be carefully manufactured so that they are free of any trace activities.

Occasionally scientists will use radioactive diagnostics to test experiments, just as medical doctors use such probes to diagnose ailments in the human body. For example, a gamma ray source could be used to check the operations of a water-based detector. Such sources have to be exceedingly weak and must be carefully contained so that they do not activate or contaminate the laboratory's sensitive experiments.

Q18: What will happen during a worst-case scenario accident, such as an underground explosion, earthquake or tunnel failure?

A18: In the case of an earthquake, deep underground is often one of the safest locations: there are many stories of miners returning to the surface, unaware that a devastating quake has occurred.

The reason the underground laboratory will have two tunnels - with two separate atmospheres - is to guarantee that an escape route exists if an explosion or fire occurs. There will be "cross-cuts" linking the two tunnels every 500 yards, to allow a person to escape from one to the other. The emergency ventilation system will be capable of isolating and separately venting any area where a fire occurs.

All occupied areas underground will have a refuge area. This is a room designed to safely isolate people, who then wait for rescue.

A tunnel failure is almost unimaginable, but if one should occur, the second tunnel would be used. Another possible failure could be a rock slide covering the portal area. The portal has to be designed to withstand rock falls of a specified size, and positioned to minimize such hazards.

Q19: What impact will the proposed tunnels have on the lakes or watersheds within the Alpine Lakes Wilderness Area?

A19: The geotechnical report being prepared by the consulting firm of Shannon and Wilson will be part of the conceptual proposal we will submit to the National Science Foundation. This geotechnical report is the first step of a continuing study to characterize the rock near the proposed tunnels and to understand the region's hydrology. The expectation of favorable hydrology is one of the main reasons for selecting Cashmere Mountain. Cashmere Mountain rock is granitic. The porosity and permeability -- the ability for water to pass through rock - is generally low in granite, compared to other types of rock. Moreover, it often becomes even lower at greater depth, as a result of the increased pressure closing pores and reducing the width and number of fractures and joints. Most important, the fractures and joints in the rock at depth tend to become discontinuous and disconnected. This means that there is a limited volume of rock near the tunnel that is connected hydraulically to the tunnel. The rock at the surface, a mile and a half from the tunnel, should be hydraulically disconnected from the tunnel. This means that the chance of surface water infiltrating the tunnel is very low.

But most important: before the tunnel is ever built, detailed studies of the hydrology will be made. In one of these studies a small hole will be drilled into the tunnel area from above, allowing the geologists to directly measure water movement and water pressure. The test is called a packer test. The geologists will also lower a miniature television camera down the small drill hole, to directly observe the deep rock and groundwater conditions. Very careful surface studies and modeling will also be done. These will all be necessary components of the environmental review conducted as part of the permitting processes, including the environmental impact statement.

There is a history of tunneling in the Mt. Stuart batholith - the granite mass that includes Cashmere Mountain. Examples include the old and new Cascade tunnels (which held length records for decades), the Pioneer tunnel, and Snow Lakes water tunnel. The success of these major tunneling projects sets a significant benchmark. The tunnels themselves are a great source of information for project experts who are modeling Cashmere Mountain and its hydrology.

In the permitting process we will be required to demonstrate that the tunnels do not jeopardize or impair the area's hydrology. If it were discovered during construction that the tunnels would drain large amounts of water, the tunnel boring would stop, and the workers would seal the tunnel below the groundwater level. This would stop the water flow.

Some have claimed that the tunneling in Italy through Gran Sasso affected some springs. The rock at Gran Sasso is very different from that near Icicle Creek. The Italian rock formation is sedimentary, not granite, and is heavily faulted. Sedimentary rock is typically more porous than granite. The tunneling was not done for the laboratory, but to create a new highway. The laboratory was built after the highway tunnel was finished.

Q20: How will the water quality of water found or used in the tunnel be handled to assure that once disposed, it does not affect the water quality of Icicle Creek?

A20: Any water pumped from the tunnels will be stored and monitored for quality and temperature. The underground laboratory will have to meet standards specified by the Department of Ecology for release or discharge of any water. These standards would, among other things, limit solids and define an acceptable temperature range. There are several possibilities for returning the water to the environment, including use of Icicle Creek and an injection gallery that deposits water underground.

The underground laboratory will have full-time environmental officers who will be in charge of water quality and other environmental issues. They would work closely with state officials who regulate water discharges.

Q21: How much water is needed for this project and where will the water come from?

A21: As described in the pre-proposal, the normal daily needs of the underground laboratory are small: we estimate 2000 gallons/day. This water is for personal use and for laboratory uses such as washing equipment.

There is one type of large observatory - called a water Cerenkov detector - for which there is a one-time need for water, when the detector is filled. The water used in such a detector has to be made exceedingly clean, to guarantee exceptional visibility through the water.

The largest water detector in North America is in the Sudbury nickel mine, in Canada. It contains 8000 metric tons of water. Were such a detector built in the proposed underground laboratory, it would require a similar amount of water. Once filled, the detector runs for many years with no further water requirement.

We are well aware of the water limitations in the Icicle Creek and Wenatchee River watersheds. Were such a water detector to be built in the underground laboratory, we would hope to fill the detector during a high-flow period, purchasing or leasing the necessary water rights. We do not yet know what the best source of water will be or the nature of the needed water rights. We will continue to explore these issues with local and state officials.

Some water will be needed during the construction phase, for personal use, for concrete work, and for preparing the coating that protects the walls of the tunnels. We do not yet have estimates of this usage, though we intend to seek an estimate from an experienced contractor. We will also need to address water rights issues for this usage. This is another issue under discussion with local and state officials.

Based on similar buildings elsewhere, the water use in our Science/Administration and Visitor Center buildings is predicted to be approximately 20,000 and 10,000 gallons/day, respectively. However, we have proposed using sustainable-design strategies for both of these buildings. We will strive for significant reductions in water (and power) use through gray-water systems, natural landscaping, etc. We expect these buildings to be connected to public water systems. We will work with local jurisdictions to make sure there is sufficient capacity for these building hook-ups.

Q22: Does any portion of the tunnel extend into the congressionally designated Wilderness Area?

A22: In the Conceptual Proposal, to achieve the 7000 foot depth required for our experiments, we propose to extend the last 640 meters of the tunnels and the laboratory area under the Alpine Lakes wilderness area. The laboratory area is roughly circular, with a diameter of about 260 meters. The facilities that extend under the wilderness will be more than a mile below the surface. Any activity in the tunnels or laboratory will be undetectable by anyone using the surface in the wilderness area.

In Appendix B of the preproposal the policy of the National Park Service in addressing science under the 1964 Wilderness Act is summarized. Most of the nation's wilderness is administered by the National Park Service. Science is one of the justifications cited in the 1964 act for creating wilderness. Our use appears fully consistent with the Park Service interpretation of the Wilderness Act as promoting science uses that do not impact wilderness values. We have not found any written policy by the Forest Service for scientific use of wilderness it administers.

Prior to any construction, and as part of the evaluation of the decision to permit this project by the Forest Service, the legal ramifications of this project will be fully evaluated.

Q23: How long will it take to construct the underground laboratory? How long is the excavation period, during which trucks will be hauling waste rock?

A23: The earliest date we envision for a positive decision by the National Science Foundation and funding by Congress is sometime during 2008. But delays could occur if the NSF decision process takes longer or if Congress decides other science projects should be funded first. Once funding occurs, if all the permits are in hand at that time, the project could begin. Before construction starts, preliminary activities such as bid preparation, design, and equipment assembly must take place.

The construction phase requires the hauling of the rock produced by tunnel and room excavation. The plan recommended by our geotechnical consulting firm estimates that all excavation (tunnels and rooms) will be completed in a period of 2.6 years. Within this 2.6 year period, the most intense construction is the tunnel boring, which is estimated to take 1.3 years. The pace of construction during the remaining 1.3 years is slower: this is the more detailed work of laboratory room construction.

This time frame is a prediction by our engineers. The tunnel boring machine progresses at a known pace: this estimate of 1.3 years is fairly certain. The 1.3 years for the room construction is less certain because different contractors will approach the work in different ways. It would be reasonable to assign an uncertainty of about 50% in the length of the less intense laboratory room construction phase.

Q24: How much rock will be excavated? How is this figure calculated? What "swell" factor did you use to calculate this volume?

A24: In the pre-proposal, the total volume of in-place rock to be excavated (all tunnels, rooms, cross-cuts, underground parking areas) is estimated to be 430,000 cubic meters. This is calculated by adding up the volumes of all tunnels and rooms; a 10% overbreak (excess rock) is assumed for rooms, which are created by drill-and-blast, rather than by boring.

Approximately 94% of this rock will have to be removed from the site. (The remainder will be used as gravel in the construction of the tunnel roadbeds.) In the conceptual proposal we use a swell factor of 1.6 � 0.1. The swell factor is the ratio of the volume of crushed rock to the volume of in-place rock: once rock is broken up by excavation, it fills a larger volume. (A swell factor of 1.5 was found in hard-rock tunnel-boring-machine excavations done in the Midwest, while a factor of 1.7 was recommended by a Leavenworth engineer. Here we use an average value of 1.6. The resulting volume of crushed rock is thus 647,000 cubic meters (430,000 x .94 x 1.6 = 647,000 cubic meters).

Q25: How many rock trucks will be necessary on an average day to haul this amount of rock?

A25: In the pre-proposal, the geotechnical report (Appendix A) estimates that, over the 2.6 years of construction, given the amount of rock expected to be excavated, the average number of truck loads per day will be approximately 44. Each trip is a round trip, as the trucks return empty.

Many steps will be taken to minimize the impact of trucking including: maintaining quiet times from evening through early morning; caravanning trucks; using modern, quieter, low-emissions trucks; covering loads; wheel washes; controlling speeds with experienced lead drivers; and using safety monitors where needed.

While 44 is the average, the trucking will vary. The majority of trucking will occur during the 1.3 year portion of construction when the tunnels are being bored. The traffic during the times when rooms are being constructed will be lighter.

We expect to use standard 10-cubic-yard trucks with 10-cubic-yard trailers (pup).

Q26: What is the estimated increase in traffic caused by the rock trucks?

A26: A preliminary estimate of current traffic on Icicle Creek Road is an average of 1100 vehicles per day. Of course, the traffic is highly variable, peaking in summer and fall, and declining in winter. Weekend traffic is generally much higher than weekday traffic. Scheduled festivals in Leavenworth also impact the traffic on the road. Our preliminary estimate is based on the number of annual visitors that travel up the Icicle Creek Valley, as used by the City of Leavenworth. That number is 800,000. We estimated that visitors traveled in cars with an average of two occupants per car. Thus this provides the estimate of 400,000 round trips per year, or 1100 roundtrips per day.

The Forest Service recently provided information it collected based on monitoring traffic over three different periods in 2003. The counting was done over a total of 52 days, and measured only those cars which traveled to the upper Icicle Valley, beyond the Snow Lakes trailhead at milepost four. The Forest Service estimated an average of 278 round trips per day. Thus if the 1100 figure above is correct, this suggests that about 25% of the visitor traffic using Icicle Creek Road travels beyond the Snow Lakes trailhead (where the road changes from County to Forest Service ownership).

While there are significant uncertainties in both round-trip traffic counts, they do allow some estimate of the projected traffic increase. Using 1100 round trips per day for the lower valley, the projected 44 trucks per day will increase the total vehicle load by 4%. Using 278 round trips per day for the upper valley (beyond the four-mile post), the estimated total vehicle load increase is 16%. There will be no impact on the upper valley beyond the 8.5-mile mark, as our rock trucks will originate at that point.

It would be helpful to have more accurate data on current traffic. As part of the environmental review, more specific traffic information will be collected and made part of the environmental documents.

Q27: Where will the rock be trucked to or stored?

A27: This has not been decided. There are several large open pits in the County that could be used. We have suggested sites that would minimize the hauling distance.

Q28: At the portal to the underground laboratory, will there be any lights? If yes, how will these be constructed to protect the dark skies we now enjoy?

A28: Residents living near Bridge Creek have expressed their desire that the laboratory maintain dark skies in the upper Icicle Creek area. Because of this, in our pre-proposal we are proposing to construct a "portal cavity" -- a substantial underground room - just inside the portal. This would allow many underground laboratory activities to be conducted underground, including loading, parking, security, etc. We believe a well engineered site could confine light to the underground areas, during normal operations. The portal cavity will also be used during construction to minimize construction noise, light pollution, and construction impacts on the national forest.

In one design we are considering, automatic lights would turn on when a vehicle approaches the site, helping to guide the visitor. We will design these to be low-yield, shielded lights that will direct light downward. Once the visitor is underground, the lights will automatically shut off, returning the portal area to darkness and preserving the dark skies.

We want to be a good neighbor: we understand that people living or recreating near the proposed underground laboratory site cherish the darkness and the quiet.

Q29: How many people will the underground laboratory bring to our area during construction? How many of these will be from the Leavenworth-Wenatchee region? How many will come from outside the region?

A29: A rough estimate of the construction work force is 90. One consultant estimated that two-thirds of these would come from the local work force. However, this estimate has not yet been verified by local contractors familiar with worker availability.

Q30: What kinds of jobs will be created by the construction of the underground laboratory and associated facilities?

A30: The heavy construction includes both tunnel boring machine crews and drill-and-blast (conventional mining) crews. Truck drivers and concrete workers will be needed. There will be design, architectural, and engineering jobs. Geologists and hydrologists will be needed. The finishing work will require electricians, ventilation engineers, and environmental engineers. Air conditioning and cleanroom experts will be required.

Q31: How many jobs will the underground laboratory bring to our area during the operation of the laboratory? How many of these will be from the Leavenworth-Wenatchee region? How many will come from outside the region?

A31: As described in our pre-proposal, we estimate that the project will employ about 100 permanent staff members. We think about two-thirds of these will be hired locally. In addition, we expect an average of 100 visiting scientists, some of whom will spend substantial periods in residence.

Q32: What kinds of jobs will be required to operate and maintain the underground laboratory and associated facilities?

A32: The jobs will be varied, with the range being similar to that of a university science department. The scientist positions will include faculty, postdoctoral research associates, and graduate and undergraduate students. The support staff will include computer specialists, chemists, machinists, draftspeople, environmental and safety engineers, maintenance technicians, large-equipment assemblers, drivers, executive officers for personnel, finance, reporting, and community relations, accountants, and office assistants. The Visitor Center staff includes display artists, computer support, tour guides, and specialists in K-12 education and outreach. The detailed plan will be included in the Conceptual Proposal.

Q33: What will the impact of this proposed project have on housing cost and availability in the general Leavenworth area?

A33: We expect about one-third (30-35 people) of the project's permanent staff to come from outside the area. The laboratory also expects to host many scientists as visitors, on average perhaps 100 each day. While many of these will use local hotels, others involved in long-term projects will look for apartments or rental houses.

We are aware of the local concern about the availability of housing, especially affordable housing. This will affect current, as well as future residents of the Leavenworth area, including graduate or post-graduate student scientists and technicians who will work at the underground laboratory and associated facilities.

While we cannot offer a solution at this time, housing experts at the University of Washington have addressed similar problems in Seattle through public/private partnerships. A private builder constructs and operates rental housing on a site owned by the university, at below-market rates. After some designated time (30 or 40 years), the property reverts to University ownership. A similar effort could be considered in Leavenworth, should the concept be supported by the community, and if a market analysis shows that the project is economically viable. Such a project would address housing needs of laboratory staff and scientists. Some portion of this housing might be available to others, addressing the general housing shortage.

Further evaluation of the impact this proposal will have on housing availability will be made in the environmental impact statement.

Q34: How many visitors will come to Leavenworth as a result of the facilities associated with the underground laboratory?

A34: We expect an average of 100 scientists or contractors to be in the Science/Administration building as visitors each day. The Visitor Center is being designed to host up to 250,000 visitors annually. Many of these visitors will come from Leavenworth's existing tourist base. Some tourists may make the Visitor Center their primary destination. During the school year many K-12 school groups are expected to visit the Center.

Q35: What will happen to the underground laboratory after it is no longer necessary for neutrino research? Could the government convert it from a research facility into a repository for waste?

A35: Following a thorough environmental review through an Environmental Impact Statement, permit decisions will be made by a variety of federal, state, and local governmental entities. Each of these may condition their permit (permission) on the proposal as put forward in the original application and as addressed in the Environmental Impact Statement. The environmental review and permit decisions will be based on the use specified in the applications. Changing the purpose of use requires changing the underlying permits. In particular, the Forest Service will evaluate these concerns when it decides whether to grant a lease or special use permit for the underground laboratory. The permit, if granted, will specify all of the allowed activities. The use permit will also require, at the conclusion of all experiments, the permit holder to remove all materials from underground, to physically close off the tunnels, and to return the site to as natural a condition as possible. The Forest Service remains the owner of the property before, during, and after the proposed use.

By law, any proposed new use would require the completion of a new environmental review and new permitting and appeals processes.