Scribd Logo
Загрузить

Добро пожаловать в Scribd!

  • DelaineShaneComment Letter 3

    Загружено:

    BeyondThe710
    102 просмотров26 страниц
    DelaineShaneComment Letter 3

    Авторское право

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Доступные форматы

    PDF или читайте онлайн в Scribd

    Этот документ был вам полезен?

    Это неприемлемый материал?

    Пожаловаться на этот документ
    DelaineShaneComment Letter 3

    Авторское право:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Скачайте в формате PDF или читайте онлайн в Scribd
    Отметить как неприемлемый контент
    102 просмотров26 страниц

    DelaineShaneComment Letter 3

    Загружено:

    BeyondThe710
    DelaineShaneComment Letter 3

    Авторское право:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Скачайте в формате PDF или читайте онлайн в Scribd
    Отметить как неприемлемый контент
    из 26
    SCH Number: 1982092310 File: 07-LA-710 (SR 710) Project: EFIS 0700000191 (EA: 187900) State Route 710 North Study August 5, 2015, Mr. Garrett Damrath Chief Environmental Planner/Caltrans District 7 Division of Environmental Planning. 100 $ Main St, MS-16A Los Angeles, CA 90012 Subject: Letter No. 3: Comments on the SR 710 North Study Draft EIR/EIS Dear Mr. Damrath: This letter is the third and final comment letter to you on the subject project from me. As an environmental planning professional with over 34 years of experience in CEQA and NEPA preparation and processing, I have reviewed the SR 710 North Study Draft Environmental Impact Report/ Environmental Impact Statement (Draft EIR/EIS) and have comments that are found in the following pages of Attachment No. 1. If you did not receive my first two letters, please send me an email and I will resend them to you. I was not able to upload my files into your Caltrans website. I tried several times, but the response was always the same, i, upload document failed. As a consequence, I emailed you directly as well as snail-mailed in my letters. Twill do the same for this letter, as well. 1 would also appreciate receiving your responses to my comments ten days prior to the certification of the Final EIR, along with future planning/environmental documentation on this project, Finally, as Caltrans and Metro review the thousands of public comments they will undoubtedly receive by August 5" it may be relevant to remember a historic fact about President Eisenhower and his perspective on the interstate system, Because of his leadership and support, President Eisenhower successfully initiated the political will that resulted in the construction of our nationwide interstate system back in the 1950s. However, by the end of his term in office, President Bisenhower had a different viewpoint that is never mentioned by the Federal Highway Administration, Caltrans, or Metro: “An ‘anti-city’ Interstate disappointed Eisenhower because he had hoped it would proceed on the European model and avoid central cities. “The matter of running Interstate routes through the congested parts of the cities was entirely against his original concept and wishes,” his biographer, Stephen Ambrose, wrote. ‘He never anticipated that the program would turn out this way.” From: Defining a Nation: Our America and the Sources of lis Strength, 2006. Edited by David Halberstam, page 129. National Geographic Society. Delaine W. Shane 2003 Meridian Avenue, South Pasadena, CA 91030 wehoa_402@outlook.com Mr. Garrett Damrath, Caltrans August 5, 2015 SR 710 North Study Project Draft EIR/EIS Page 1—Attachment No. | Lack of a Contingency Plan for Tunnel Boring Machine Failures and Analysis ‘As mentioned in my first letter, I could not find anything in the Draft EIR/EIS regarding an environmental analysis of TBM failures during tunnel construction, The only thing that was even hinted at was on page 28 in the Executive Summary under Areas of Controversy and Unresolved Issues: “Constructability of tunnels of this size and potential for machinery malfunction.” On that same page, the response to this “issue” or “controversy” was: “Caltrans and Metro are continuing to work with the affected communities to resolve concems through the ongoing community participation framework for the SR 710 North Study.” That is not sufficient, Potential impacts from implementing a contingency plan in the event of a TBM failure must be part of the environmental analysis and cannot simply be an exercise in a community participation framework. Proposed mitigation measures also need to be presented in the Draft EIR/EIS and analyzed or else this is deferred mitigation. Such deferral is prohibited under CEQA especially where there are no performance standards identified (and no plan identified) to guide the content and outcome of minimizing the significant environmental impacts that would result from a TBM “rescue.” [Endangered Habitat League, Inc. v. County of Orange (2005) 131 Cal. App. 4" 777; San Joaquin Raptor Rescue Center v. County of Merced (2007) 149 Cal. App. 4!" 645; Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino (1988) 202 Cal. App. 34 296], Thave enclosed an e-news account of the TBM known as “Bertha” who is now undergoing extensive repairs in Seattle. She has been out of operation since 2013 and only got as far as 10 percent of the way into the tunnel before failing. As you already know, a substantial rescue for this largest in the world TBM resulted in the excavation of a huge shaft (over 80 feet wide) and well over 100 feet deep. Thave also attached to this letter, a well researched, annotated table prepared by Avram Gold, a 29-year resident of Pasadena, His table provides an overview of worldwide tunneling with 19 recorded TBM failures. Mr. Gold has spent considerable energy and time in studying tunnel construction with respect to the SR 710 North Study Project. He works on citizen committees in Pasadena and coordinates with the Planning Commissioners as well. Though not a tunnel expert, he is a graduate from USC in fine arts and cinema arts. He is also a novelist and has published three books currently in distribution world-wide. He has worked for all the major studios in Post Production Sound in Feature Films and has two Emmys and five Golden Reel awards. He is also a chair on the Film ‘Academy Sound Branch Executive Board for the past16 years. I bring this up because Mr. Gold is an excellent example of a passionate citizen who wants to be informed about this project and hhas taken months of his own personal time to understand its complexities and question the analysis, or lack thereof, concerning construction of the tunnels. He also has excellent research and analytical skills that help to examine this major issue. Since he has gathered, synthesized, and questioned the material he has found in your agency's documentation and elsewhere, I asked him for his take about how and where a huge TBM could possibly fail while tunneling beneath the San Gabriel Valley. I relay this in particular, because his response is in plain language and because, even as a non-technical person, his research underscores the need that Caltrans failed to evaluate in the Draft EIRVJEIS the high probability of ‘TBM failure and did not provide any mitigation. ‘This failure violates the intent and spirit of CEQA and NEPA for not fully disclosing all relevant significant environmental issues and Mr. Garrett Damrath, Caltrans August 5, 2015 SR 710 North Study Project Draft EIR/EIS Page 2—Attachment No. | mitigating to the maximum extent feasible. The TBM failure has been an issue brought to Caltrans/Metro’s attention prior to the release of the environmental documentation. In an email he sent to me on August 3" 2015, Mr. Gold states: “TBM’s stall because the boring conditions (the muck) in front of the cuttethead can’t be controlled and adequately moved away through the TBM conveyor system. Sometimes there’s too much water in the ground, Sometimes the ground is harder than expected and it breaks the cutting tools. Sometimes there are cave-ins, And many times, dirt and grit gets past the TBM seals and into the gears, which is what happened in Seattle. Since TBM’s build a tunneling lining behind them as they dig forward, TBMs can’t back up into a narrower, cement lined tube [say, if the TBM failed near the portals]. Parts can be dismantled and removed backwards, but that’s costly and impractical, So usually, ‘TBM are repaired with the least amount of disassembly required. Many times a TBM can be fixed from behind the cuttinghead but when it can’t, a larger cavity is excavated around the TBM’s forward section (the shield) so miners can work in front of the cuttinghead. Sometimes, additional tunnels are blasted around the failed TBM to create an underground workspace. In many cases, DEWATERING is needed when mining a bigger hole around the TBM. Dewatering would probably be needed for our tunnel route, since it goes through the water basins, Settlement above ground might be a repercussion, Buildings might crack on the surface. And additionally, the underground ‘water would have to be replaced if it were pumped out. That’s a law. Where that replenishing water would come from, is still an unanswered question. We're in a drought! Ifa TBM cannot be fixed underground, the Seattle scenario happens anywhere the TBM stalls along the alignment - Pasadena, South Pasadena or El Seremo, Since we have TBM’s drilling from the North and from the South, if one of them failed completely, it could be dismantled underground and the TBM boring in the opposite direction could finish the job. That happens. If the failed TBM needs to complete its drive and can be repaired, it is, no matter what the cost. Now, according to the DEIR the TBM’s are supposed to meet up underground where they will be dismantled and rolled back to the portals, piece by piece. That meeting point was not specified, Wherever the North-South rendezvous happens, there will be homes and businesses above it. With the SR-710 tunnels, wherever the TBMs breakdown, there will be homes and businesses above them. If a giant hole needs to be dug to get to one of them, buildings will have to be bought and removed, dewatering pumping stations will need to be constructed and giant cranes will need to be transported into the neighborhoods wherever the access pit ends up. It would be a huge, huge impact, everywhere.” Iconcur with Mr. Gold, that having to rescue a stuck TBM would be a significant impact to so ‘many different environmental resources (land use planning, historic resources, traffic, access, utilities, hazards, etc.). To be silent on an issue that the engineers of Caltrans and Metro were very well aware of during the preparation of the environmental documentation is very disappointing. Per the California Code of Regulations (§ 15378), a project means the whole of an action for purposes of a CEQA analysis. Mr. Garrett Damrath, Caltrans August 5, 2015 $R'710 North Study Project Draft EIR/EIS Page 3—Attachment No. | ‘As noted by Bass, RE, Bodgan, KM, and AA Rivasplata (2012-CEQA Deskbook, 3”! Edition, Published by Solano Press Books-page 175): “...even when an EIR is prepared, deferred mitigation should be the exception not the rule.” It is clear from the Project Risk Register that the engineers and environmental planners were aware of TBM failures and it was noted as an issue to be resolved or area of controversy, but there was no discussion of why such mitigation (ie, a contingeney plan) was not assessed for in the Draft EIR/EIS, According to Bass er al (2012) also on page 175: “To support the concept of deferral, the mitigation measure must meet three basic elements: First the agency must commit itself to the mitigation. In other words, it must identify and adopt mitigation, Second, the agency must establish performance standards for what the end result of mitigation must achieve (some agencies call this the desired future condition). Thied, the agency must provide a range of feasible mitigation options from which the applicant or agency staffs can choose to achieve the stated performance standards (Sacramento Old City Assoc. v. City Council of Sacramento (1991) 229 Cal. App. 3d 1011).” However, the Draft EIR/EIS is silent on the need for a contingency plan and does not meet the three basic elements discussed by Bass ef al So, with the possibility of failure for the yet to be built, world’s largest TBM for the SR-710 North Study Project, why isn’t a contingency plan (i.e., emergency intervention) discussed, analyzed, and mitigations presented? Perhaps the answer lies with the Project Risk Register- draft Project Report (Attachment ©) dated January 2015. Ive already sent you this consultant prepared draft document in my second letter. Here are some relevant quotes from that document that underscores the deferral mentality of this most important component of the constructability of the tunnel alignment (I've added italics to highlight certain statement): * Item No. 42: “Environmental clearance for power generation or transmission facilities required. Provide power supply for TBM. Evaluate other avenues to address power supply transfer the impact analyses to power agencies to be done separately.” [This can be construed potentially as piecemealing or segmentation of the proposed action.] * Item No. 78: “Unprecedented TBM design. Largest diameter TBM in the world. Will be the largest diameter TBM. Watch construction at Alaskan Way and implement lessons learned. Slightly larger than Alaskan Way Tunnel; larger tunnels are being considered in Europe.” [Please note this is “Bertha” in Seattle and after two years, she is still being worked on and the schedule is still not known as to when she will resume service.] * Item No. 113: “Power loss/brownouts during construction, delays providing power to TBMs. No power to drive TBM. Loss of power. Coordinate with power agency. Plan for backup plan if feasible.” © Item No. 118: “Major TBM Equipment Failure (main bearing, bull gear, etc.) Breakdown of components of TBM machine and assembly. Have a plan to repair quickly and back on service.” Item No. 119: “TBM Stuck, squeezing, or swelling ground. Difficult site conditions. Difficult soil conditions. Provide adequate characterization to handle differing site conditions. Plan for contingency during construction.” Mr. Garrett Damrath, Caltrans August 5, 2015 SR-710 North Study Project Draft EIR/EIS Page 4—Attachment No. | ‘© Item No. 122: “Delays due to the transport of large/heavy loads to the construction site. Space and clearance to bring construetion material from port, including TBM. components. To be addressed by the contractor. May need fabricating yard on site.” Lastly, there was mention of “intervention” of the cutter tools for pressurized-face TMBs due to primary and secondary wear on page 11 of Appendix C to the SX 710 Tunnel Evaluation Report. The conclusion was that for such wearing down of the cutter tools, depending on the ground and groundwater conditions: ‘...these interventions could be performed in free air [ie., by workers being positioned directly behind the cutterhead in a specially designed excavation chamber that is pressurized to create the necessary hyperbaric conditions}.” ‘The report indicates this strategy is also what has been designed for the SR-99 Tunnel in Seattle. «As we know now, that strategy failed once Bertha overheated due to either soft soil encounter and/or hitting a buried object. Even this piece of information was not explicitly stated in the Draft EIR/EIS. Confusion over Type of TBM to be Used and Related Impacts associated with Historical Resources and Paleontological Resources ‘According to page 13 in the Executive Summary and page 2-80 (Chapter 2-Project Alternatives): “Current design plans indicate that the bored tunnel section of the Freeway Tunnel Alternative would be excavated using pressurized-face TBMs.” For the mitigation measure listed in Table 2.15, i., GEO-4: Tunnel Construction (applies to the LRT or Freeway Tunnel Alternative): It is expected the LRT or Freeway Tunnel Alternative would be constructed using a tunnel boring machine (TBM). During construction, the Project Engineer will select a pre-qualified contractor with experience with large, pressurized-face TBMs.” Yet, in that same table under the category of Paleontology, it is stated for LRT and the Freeway Tunnel Alternative: “The potential for ssil recovery during tunnel excavation will depend on the type of tunnel boring machine used.” ‘This statement is also found on page 4-57. Then, for Table 3.7.3 (for example, Historic Properties-100 North Fremont Avenue in the city of Alhambra) on page 3.7-61, it states in the second paragraph: “The tunnels would be excavated with pressurized-face TBMs that would inherently lessen ground movement...” In the Geology/Soils/Seismic/Topography Section 3.10 on page 3.10-21, the first full paragraph after the bullet items is devoted to why a pressurized- face TBM is expected to be used for construction of the tunnels. However, on page 3.11-24 in reference to the LRT Alternative (Section 3.1 1-Paleontology) first full paragraph: “The TBM will grind sediments and rock, thereby limiting the opportunity for fossil recovery. However, the size of the material recovered and the actual amount of fossil recovery will depend on the specific type of machinery used.” The exact same statement for the Freeway Tunnel Alternative is found on page 3.11-25. After reading these sentences, several questions come to mind: Did the project description accurately portray the type of TBM that would be used? Or, is there a possible range of TBM types that could be called upon, as suggested by the Paleontological mitigation measure as well as in the Paleontological Resources chapter of the Draft EIVEIS? If there is such a range of ‘TBM types being considered, then why wasn’t that stated upfront in the Project Alternatives, Chapter 2? And, furthermore, if a different TBM is ultimately used that produces larger rocks ‘for examination by the paleontological monitor, are the environmental impacts then more severe to the historie structures because the pressurized-face TBM is not being utilized? Mr. Garrett Damrath, Caltrans August 5, 2015 SR'710 North Study Project Draft EIR/EIS Page 5—Attachment No. | Follow-up on NOP/NOI Comment Letter During the 2011 review period for the Notice of Preparation/Notice of Intent (NOP/NOD), I provided comments to Mr. Ron Kosinski in a letter dated April 13, 2011, According to the Caltrans’ 710 North Gap Closure Project Scoping Summary Report Volume I (September 30, 2011) on page 17, my comments were summarized to merely “information requests.” | also note that in the summary table, not all of my “themes” were identified in the table, including no mention of non-building and sustainable alternatives, permitting, and the establishment of a proper baseline. again repeat in this current letter (2015) that the NOP/NOI that was circulated in 2011 had several substantive inadequacies and procedural errors that should have been “cured” legally by re-citculating a NOP/NOT that would fulfill both CEQA and NEPA requirements. | am therefore enclosing my 2011 NOP/NOT comment letter into this 2015 letter to reiterate the problems with this particular project’s CEQA/NEPA process starting with the NOP/NOI preparation. From a substantive overview, the NOP/NOI was so vague that the public, potential stakeholders and affected public agencies could not precisely comment or provide information germane to the proposed action/proposed project, In effect, the scoping process was a squandered opportunity that could have resulted in a less voluminous and more focused Draft EIR/EIS. Given all of the concerns and comments stated in my three letters, Caltrans and Metro need to rethink the project and examine the Beyond the 710 Moving Forward alternative in a re- circulated revised Draft EIR/Supplemental EIS. ‘rasn01s ‘Aastan Wy Viadu- Jy 17 projet update: Seatle Tenet Parnas suri naw schedde for competing SR 88 Tune Project, mall dates 5 val tome | about | senedute | avaget | rameraring | press | Ubrary | Mlepost 21 | contact Us North ena fe cameras | Search | Contact Us | ste Index {Reva ‘Tunnel Pr Poste on ul 17 2015 5:13.84 This week, Seattle Tunnel Partners begen istaing @ new mein bearing en the SR 99 tunneling machine, Instaliaton ofthe machine's most tical pare comes on the heels of another vial pece of SIPS rapa effort: an Updated senedule that outines the path for the machine's launch beneath downtown and competion ofthe tunel project ‘The SR 99 tuanelis now scheduled to open to drivers In spring 2018, according toa revise schedule (pd? 156 ko) TS submntted to the Washington State Deparment of Transportation. Machine repairs are schedule to wrap Up iis fa StP and manufacurer tachi zosen wi then perform an extended sens of tests to ensure the machine (= Feady to complete te tunel arve. July 17 project update: Seattle Tunnel Partners submits new schedule for aampieting SR ct “Tunneling ie slated to resume i late Noversber, withthe machine emerging atthe north end of downtown pproximately one year later, The state ls not ble to vert tre contractors schedule “The contractor's schedule nes changed, but the contract that governs thelr work remains the same,” sald Todd ‘Tepsnier, WSDOT Alaskan Way Viaduce Replacement Program admustrator. The state 9 paying customer In this Cansacton, and were ntent on geting what we contractea for. We oil continue to protect taxpoyers and hale the contractor responsible fortheir work bs they deliver this wtsl projec” Since iting the front end ofthe machine from the ground In Marc, STP has fuly assessed the disassembled machine parts and mace siificint pars and eqnaacements (pd 6.2 Mb). In adtion to begining nstelltion of the main bearing, STP crews have instaled portions of the New seal system thet wil proted the bearing. HModreatlons inde the addition of renforang steel new monkoring Systems and upgrades tothe ol anaioning system to prevent cogging. “Fully disassembling ond assessing the machine was always the Key to determining how long the capac would tke" said Cars Oxon, Seattle Tunrel Partners project manager. "We want to reassemble Wie machine Nd Fesuine tunneling 2s ques as possble, bt we also want fo enure the repars are done right ‘SI and Htachi are responsible fr the repair efor, nciding the schedule. wile the machine has been uncer repair STP hos continued essential work at tne future tunnel portals, nduding construction of ramp and NNWAY {pnnedtons, and the buldings tat wil house tunnel operations STP crews halted tunneling in December 2013 after the machine overheated. Aer an investigation, they fiscoverad darmage to the seal system and Sesermined t neeced to be replaced along mit the rain beaeag. The {use of the damage has not bean determec. Respansity for costs essociated withthe delay mil be ‘Getermined through tre process gutlied Inthe une coat Recent photos of ST's sensi eto 1 Hineagee vdeo of SIP {nes to YouTube) sou Poley | Access Tee Wl hpinwnvsdet va govPrjects aductCortentserDisplay244 w Expanded descriptions of TBM Failures (The “Two ofthe four TAMs clogged and filed in this | Keith Ervin, “Deop inside big dig, Brightwater | project. The EPB machine was fined ater a three | fr stalled Brightwater sewage Conveyance | month stl, The slurry machine was damaged | plan", The Seattle Times, Tunnel, | beyond repair and needed tobe disassembled Itpliseatdetimes.com/himViocaln ‘Washington | the tunnel ‘ows/2010478184 brightwater! Im, State hntml, December 11, 2009. ‘Tho slurry TBM broke down 320 feet below a school in Bothell and could only be reached through | paula Walls, “Excavation the tunnel, Repair erews called “Divers passing | complete on Brightwater,” through an ai lock into a pressurized pocket, TunnefTalk, ‘worked in an environment similar 70 feet itpJfvyne tumetak.com/Bright Underwater, reduced to 40 feet when 16 wells were | water-Augl I-Final- drilled around the tannel to reduce the groundwater | Breakihrough hip, August 2011 pressure. Stil, the TBM could not be repaired, even | ‘witha seven-mouth delay. An EPB TBM, already drilling an adjacent tunnel, was modified to finish the project. D Gaga —}*...after boring 43k oF tunna, the imlake portal — | Tara Driussi, “Success after Gibe ‘TBM encountered a fall that spewed flowing mud | mammoth struggles in Ethiopia, Headrace | under 40 bar pressure that pushed the TBM back | TunnelTalk, ‘Tunnel, land crushed the last meters of fining installed. Two | hitp:/www.cunnetalkcom/TBM- Ethiopia _| years of hard work and special measures were | Reeorder-Nov09-SELI- necessary to recover the situation. The rescue work | breakthrough-in-Ethiopia.php, included 230 m of bypass tunnels; removal of | November 2009. 39,600m3 of mud out ofthe tunnel, and dling of 1,600m of drainage/exploratory holes.” ““Bventually, the TBM had tobe dismantled and reassembled a few hundreds meters behind the fault, From thee, it started again in August 2008 and followed a new alignment to bypass the fault.” (@) OARS. “Tunnel was cut by a TBM named Marsha, Water ‘Lucas Sullivan, “Project to bore Tunnel and a giant hunk of bedrock 200 feet bencath tunnel under Columbus faces $29.5 Columbus, | Columbus bogged dowa the city’s giant boring | million eost overun,” The Ohio ‘machine, leading toa two-year delay and a $29.5 | Columbus Dispatch, milion cost overun, Engines spent nearly a year] plan dich ono reconfiguring Marsha with new, larger pipes and /Noeal/2014/1/06/dauntng- ping ou te conveyer system toadd another | driling ml, December 6, 2014 large serew that would break dow the rock even GB Lake] From 2010 on, nothing has been simple bout the | Peter Kenyon, “Pushing TBM ‘Mead Intake | hard-fought 4,500m TBM drive at Lake Mead. The | design limits under Lake Mi Tunnel #3 | last 18 months was marked by spurts of rapid open | TunnelTalk, Nevada, USA | mode progress, followed by frustratingly slow | hitp/www tunnetalk.com/Lake- ‘advances in closed mode through worse than ‘anticipated ground conditions. Water inflows were recorded at rates of up to 3,000 gal/min (226 lite/sec) at an applied pressure of 10 bar, the equivalent of approximately 12-18,000 gal/min ‘Meaul-O4Sep2014-Pushing-TBM- ddesign-limits-in-Nevada-USA php, September 3, 2014, inflow at normal atmospheric pressure. ‘The already delayed project ~ now scheduled for ‘completion in Summer of 2015, has suffered a ‘number of further TBM-related delays, including: 1. A seven-weck stop to exeavate by hand a niche in the face to carry out repair and replacement of heavily worn cutter disks and repair substantia damage to the cutterhead itself (March-April 2013) 2..A six-week stop to excavate a 1.5m deep cavern inthe face and to the full diameter of the TBM to ‘carry outa full bearing seal replacement (December 2013-fanuary 2014), and 3. Two stops fora total of about six weeks to repair ‘broken pinions on the bearings bullgear (May 2014 and August 2014) @ Gotthard | “There was bad news for the engineers and clients | Herrenknecht AG News Release, Base Tunnel, | in June 2005. Suddenly and without warming, “Epocli-making Gotthard Baseline” Switzerland | loosened rock mixed with mountain water TunnelTalk, infiltrated TBM Gabi 2s cutter head in the western | hitp://v-ww.tunneltalk.com/Gotthar tube from the Amsted access adit. At first, the ‘d-Baseline-Oct10-Epoch- tunnelers tried to clear the cutter head of the fine | achievements.php, October 2010. ‘material by hand and back up the TBM a few centimeters. Without success. Eventually, the ‘unconsolidated area ahead of the machine's cuter hhead was soliditiod by injecting it with a mixture of ccement and bentonite. At the same time, the tunnel ‘builders excavated a 50m tunnel from the east tube to the west tube to free the TBM's cutter head from the front. Regular tunneling was not resumed until November 2005 aftera standstill of five months.” @) Tellier | Just before the TBM *Excalibore’ reached the St. | Mike Lindlom, “Canada’s tunnel Tunnel Calir River, inspectors found clay inthe grease that | saga offers lessons on Bertha fix,” Sarnia, lubricated the bearing seals. Rather than risk a Seattle Times, Ontario, breakdown under the river, the Canadian National | hip//scatletimes.com/himViocaln, Canada’ Railroad stopped for repairs 820° from the tunnel | ews/202290S964_berthasarniaxm. portal. An access pit was needed to reach the TBM. | jumnl, Febroary 13, 2014. ‘The cutting head and shield seals were repaired, taking seven months. [NOTE: Author?]Supreme Court finds forthe engineers,” In 1994 Excalibore was largest EPB machine in| Twnne!Talk, ‘North America and was the cutting edge of butp://v-ww.tunneltak.com/Sarnia- technology, but it failed. As Judge Binnie ofthe | TBM-Supreme-Court-Ruling- ‘Canadian Supreme Court stated while deciding a | Canada. php, December 2008. insurance law suit yeas later in favor of the contractors, “The design exhausted the state of the art but let residual risk. Failure is not the same thing as fault of impropriety...” a “In 1993, whon work on the main tunnels began, | “Taiwan, Taipei-lan— bw", Hsuehshan | two larger TBMs went into operation, one on the | Tunnelbuilder ‘Tri Tunnels | eastbound route and the other on the westbound | hiip:/unnelbuilder.com/ArchiverP Taiwan, ‘route, both starting from the east portal. The sojects/Taiwan.aspx. (NOTE: Is China machines cost roughly USD704 million, However, | there an author? ‘the tunnel drives were severely delayed by difficult geology, with fractured rock and massive inflows of ‘vate, Workers had also to deal with complex fault lines and other hazards that constantly delayed the project. Since work began 13 yers ago, its ‘completion date has had tobe postponed four mes ‘because of countless cave-ins, flooding, mud and rock sides caused by massive inflows of groundwater. Eleven people wer killed inthe fccidens. In oder to speed vp eonsiraction, ‘rllblst alternatives from additional work faces atthe ventilation shat If fr al throo tunnels and an additional drive atthe interchange station It forthe westbound tunnet were adopted. In December 1997, a large rush of water int the westbound lanes as wel as «collapse forced to thandon the TBM, which was destroyed. The project had tobe halted for one year. A smaller "TBM was then used to complete the main portion of the westbound tonnel." “Because ofits complexity, the funn ha tobe built at all costs, for about USD billion." a our weeks of tunneling were ost into Peter Kenyon, “Tail seal asus Fall Waterview | unscheduled stops for tho fall replacement of he | to slow Auckland moga-T]3M," Tunnel, | TBM tal seals afer the contractor discovered leaks_| TunnelTal, ‘Auckland | inthe shield skin. inipifwoytunneltalk,com/New ‘New Zealand Zealand-1Oct2014-Breakthrough- for-Well-Connected-Alliance-o Waterviow-highway-projct-ine ‘Avvkland php, October 2014, (1B) Sparve | "Tho absence of water inthe cena par of he | "Unleash the beast” Western Tunnel, | excavation chamber causing a complete urope Special Report, Tuels & Sparvo, Italy | cementation ofthe clay, jamming the machine and | Twnmeling International, causing a shutdown, The damage onthe sealing, | hip:/wwwz.it- System ofthe main bearing took two months | aies. cis Cc solve,” chanizovane_tunclovani/zajimavos tihunel spar italic pd September, 2012. (19) Alaska | "Washington Sate Depariment of Transporation | Peter Kenyon and Shani Walls, Way Viaduet_| (WSDOT) has finely admitted is worst nightmare | “TBM Bertha sufers main bearing Tunnel, | has come tr the seals that protect the main | sealfilre;”TumetTalk, Seatle bearing ofthe world record 17 48m diameter np sunnelacomSeatle= Hitachi Zosen EPBM have been compromised.” “Under what Project Manager Chris Dixon called ‘an “aggressive schedule”, replacement of the main bearing, repairs to the ruptured sealing system that ‘should have protected the bearing from dirt and grit, and installation of 86 tonne of extra steel ribs and 11Reb2014-TBM-Bertha-t bearing-scal-dameged php February 11,2014. Peter Kenyon, “Bertha bearing to ‘got 86-tonne reinforcement,” TunnelTalk, ‘blocks to make the machine more rigid, wll ke | bitp:/tunneltalk,convSeattle- ‘until January next year (2015) to complete.” ‘Alaskan-Way-25}une2014-TBM. Bertha-to- J-as-part- At the time of this finding, the TBM Bertha has yet | of- to be completely rebuilt. Tunneling has not resumed | June 25, 2014. ‘but might continue in August. List of Relevant Tunnel Projects, Technical Parameters And Construction Information ‘Brightwater- | Sewage | Single | I7fect | 13 | FourTBMs | Hemenknecht | Two TBMs ‘Washington tube riles | /Stuny and | Germany’ failed, the EPB State! EPB (both | Lovat TBM by. | was fixed, types) | Caterpillar | Shury TBM. Usa’ had tobe ssembled and its parts removed Gilgel Gibe it | Hydro | Single [229 %eet | 161 | TwoTBMs | SELT ‘TEM buried for Blectic | tube miles | Double | Italy twa years under Shield Both ‘mud from fault ‘Types 2006-2008, Sewage | Single | 23ieot [43 | One TBMT | Obayashi Japan | Clogaed in ‘ube miles | Duel Mode slurry mode, (Open and needed an Closed underground rebuild, wo years behind Schedule Crossrail | Subway | Two | 253feet | 13 | Bight TBMs | Herrenkneaht | To be finished London, Tight | parallet miles | Two Stutry | Germany in2018 ux? Rail | tubes Mixsields and EPBS Take Mead ‘Water | Single | 23:55feet [Smiles | One TBM” | Werrenknecht | Challenges Intake Tunnel | Delivery | tube Mixshiold | Germany forced the 6 ‘Multimode replacement of Nevada, the cutter discs, usaistt all bearing seals and pinions on ‘the bearing bull gears Boles Th Hydro | Single | 266te [745 | One TBM | SELT “Tunnel Fave Headrace Blestric | tube miles | Duel Mose | Italy collapsed with Tanne, Double rocks blocking Bthiopia!® Shield EPB cutting head 2008 ‘Enaiish) Rail Wee 31 Five TENG | The Robbins | Three wnels— (Channel Tunnel niles 1 | Company USA | two rl and one France tofrom Five service and England!™ iferent emergency. PB Consirution designs cclated to an 80% cost, Goithard Base [Ral | Two | Three [354 | FourTBMs | Herrenkneeht | 5-month TBM Tannel parallel | sizesof | miles | and SEM/ | Germany break down, Switzerland tubes | TBMs Hard rock needed SO 29 feet, Gripper access tunnel 31 feet forrepairs and 315 fet Page | of 6 3 Rail] Single | 30.34feet } 116 | One TBM | Lovat ‘Seven-month| Tube miles PB | Canada delay needing an acess pit to repair broken seals and cating head TO | Hallandsis Rail | Rail [Two | 3477 Rer | 31 | One TBMT | Herrenkneeht | Needed ground Tunnels parallel miles | Duct Mode | Germany freezing and Sweden!" tubes Open and pre-grouting to Closed ‘onitl high Shiold water pressures TT | AR6 Eat ‘Ouly | One| 3795 Teer [C2 | One TBMT | Herrenknecht Extra lane each Duplex Tumnot | cars | tube miles | Mixshield | Germany eck for break Pars allowed | Two multimode downs — isolated asalury completed 2003, ‘decks ‘or EPB and then 2008 12] auehshan ‘Auto| Three [383 Teet | 81 | Four TBMs | The Robbins | Severe flooding Snow Mountain | and | paral |" and | miles | (twosmall | Company USA. | destroyed one Tunnels truck | tubes | 15.75 feet ‘0 large)! TBM. Itwas 3isa ‘unknown disassembled service ‘ypes ‘underground tunnel and removed fiom the tunnel Project took 13 ‘years and was delayed four times. 13 | Dublin For Tato ete [6 ‘SEMand | Werronkneeht —[ The boulder Tunnel and niles | twoTBMs | Germany clay could not Ireland” truck One hard- suppor the rock ‘Weight ofthe shielded and tock TBM ‘one open cutterhead. faced ‘Twenty-four beckhoe restraining cables were needed regain stecring. Ta | Miami Pore ‘ato [Two [ade [073 | One TMT | Hlerenkneeht | Designed for Linke ‘nd | parallel, niles | Hybrid EPB | Germany varied Floride™™™™" | truck | “tubes ‘Slurry hydrostatic conditions. No failures but leaks 1 | Wateriew Tato | Two | 4725 fet ‘One TBMT | Herreakneckt [Two Tunnel ‘and | parallel EPR | Nansho, China | equipment- Auckland, truck | “bes related stalls New totaling four Zealand” ‘weeks to replace ta seals, 2014 16 [NBO Calle ‘aio | Two | ai feet [348 ‘Seven | Herrenkneeht & | The largest Madrid, ‘and | parallel rriles | TBMs/all | Mitsubishi | TBMsas of ‘Spain! snuck | “tubes EPB, | Heavy 2005 that did SEM, | Industies & — } not fil Cutand | Doro Felguera Cover | SA Page 2 of 6 ‘Yangwe River | Auto | Two | S06fet |55 | TwoTBMs | Herrenknecht | The largest Tunnel ‘and | parallel, miles | Germany ‘TBM as of | Shaneha, truck | ‘tubes both Story 2009 that did china’ | above, Mixabield not fail rail below. Sparvo Tunnel | Auto | Two | Sifet ] 16 | OneTGM | Flerrenknecht | TAM Sparyo, ‘and | parallel, miles | and SEM/ | Germany inoperable for Tay truck /2 | “tubes EPB ‘wo months under ground 2011 ‘Alaska Way | Auto | One | 373 Teer ‘One TEMT | Hitschi Zoren | TBM became Viaduct and | tube- mi EPR | Japan inoperable Seat, ruck | double December 2013 Washingtont"* deck andis still stalled in tune, at east 2 ‘125M fix and ising ‘SRT Tunnel | Auto| THD | Goer [49 | TwoTBWs | Yerwbe Proposed TBM Alternative and miles | endCutand | contacted | will be the ‘Los Angeles | truck Cover! largest ever County, US. Slurry ‘made andor mixed mode ‘Orlovaki=St. | Avo Bier [30 TEM | Horenkresht | Project Peter, and feet | ordered but | Germany cancelled due to ‘ruck never built ‘escalating Shutry mix ‘budget shield Page 3 of 6 " Paula Wallis, , “Brightwater TBMs in trouble,” Twnne/Talk, http://www. tunneltalk.com/Brightwater-Mar09-Brightwater-TBMs trouble.php, June 2009 2 Keith Ervin, “Deep inside big dig for stalled Brightwater sewage pat Seattle Times http:/vww,seat sewage-plant/ Dee 11, 2009 * Paula Wallis, “Excavation complete on Brightwater” Tunne/Talk http://www. tunneltalk.com/Brightwater-Aug] |-Final-Breakthrough.php, Aug 2011 “Tlavia Driussi, “Success after mammoth struggles in Ethiopia” Tunne/Talk, hitp://www.tunneltalk, com/TBM-Recorder-Nov09-SELI-breakthrough-in-Ethiopia.php Nov, 2009 5 Patrick Reynolds & Shani Wallis, “Repair of limited collapse in Ethiopia” TunnelTalk, http://www .tunneltalk, com/Ethiopia-Marl0-Recovery-and-lining-performance.php Mar 2010 © Paul J. Smith, “Columbus mobilizes the OARS project” TunnelTalk, http://tunneltalk.com/Columbus-Ohio-Dec10-Mobilization-of-OARS.php Jan 2011 Lucas Sullivan, “Project to bore tunnel under Columbus faces $29.5 million cost, overrun” The Columbus Dispatch http://www. dispatch. com/content/stories/local/2014/12/06/daunting-drilling.html Dec 6, 2014 ® TBM Recorder “Herrenknecht begins roll out of Crossrail orders” TunnelTalk, ‘http:/tunneltatk.comv Dec I -First-TBMs-ready-for-dispatch,php Dee 2011 ? Crossrail Project “Mcet Crossrail’s giant tunneling machines” Youtube Video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=238JIqGDZVU Dec 6, 2012 "© fim McDonald & Wemer Burger “Lake Mead TBM designed for the extreme” TunnelTalk http://www tunneltalk.com/Lake-Mead-Nov09-Design-of-the-Mixshield.php Nov 2009 '' Peter Kenyon, “Pushing TBM design limits under Lake Mead” TunnelTalk, ‘http://www tunneltalk.com/Lake-Mead-04Sep2014-Pushing-TBM-design-limi ‘Nevada-USA.php Sept 3, 2014 © Paula Wallis, “Collapse of headrace tunnel after grand opening” TunnelTalk, http: junneltalk,com/Gilgel-Gibe-II-Feb 10-collapse.php Feb 2010 Simon Moore “Project Failure ~ Channel Tunnel” Strategic Project & Portflio Management https://strategieppm. wordpress.com/2010/11/16/project-failure-channel- tunnel/ Nov 16, 2010 * John Keefe “The Channel Tunnel infrastructure” Groupe Eurotunnel itp: ://www.eurotunnelgroup.com/uk/the-channel-tunnel/infrastructure/ "5 Lok Home, Pres. “The Channel Tunnel completed by a team of Robins TBMs” The Robins Company Website & Product Line http:/www.therobbinscompany.com/ '® Herrenknecht AG News Release “Epoch-making Gotthard Baseline” TunnelTalk, http://www.tunneltalk.com/Gotthard-Baseline-Oct10-Epoch-achievements.php Oct 2010 ‘7

    Вам также может понравиться