Some of the issues identified at the workshop are summarized for the reader. These issues not to be interpreted as the views of the board on Infrastructure and the Constructed Environment or the National research Council.

The following issues were identified in the technical breakout session:

• Threats to the infrastructure are both physical threats and cyber-threats; and an overriding concern is that most of the nation's critical infrastructures are owned by the private sector.

• The private sector's record on protecting infrastructures is mixed. A comprehensive solution involving UGFs will certainly require a partnership between the private sector and the federal government.

• Critical infrastructures must be defined.

• Tools and educational data should be developed to explore the long-term trade-offs between UGFs and other options to protect critical infrastructures.

• Going underground has some clear benefits, such as improved security and opportunities for dual uses of existing facilities.

• Cost is a major issue. In the United States (though not in Scandinavia) the initial construction cost of UGFs is considerably higher than the cost of above-ground facilities. Cost will be considered a "barrier" by some infrastructure owners and operators who are considering underground relocation. Over the entire life cycle of UGFs, there are operations and maintenance cost savings; in the long run, UGFs can be considered very cost competitive.

• Specific threats must be addressed, and UGFs must be well designed and difficult to attack. Technical concerns include external lifeline connections, fire, and protecting the facilities against chemical and biological weapons.

The policy breakout session identified the following issues:

• Public perception is clearly a key issue. Corporate America needs to be made aware of the benefits of UGFs, and the public needs to be educated about their uses and benefits for protecting critical infrastructures.

• Cost is a major policy issue because of the substantial difference in cost between UGFs and above-ground structures. Before a more aggressive public effort can be mounted in support of an underground program, more definitive cost data must be available.

• The dual-use capabilities of facilities should be emphasized. A great deal can be learned from the Norwegian experience with dual-use UGFs. The

Front Matter (R1-R6)

Introduction (1-4)

Welcoming Address (5-6)

Findings of the President (7-11)

Key Issues in Going Underground (12-12)

Infrastructure Protection in the United States: A Norwegian Perspective (13-14)

Panel Discussions, Panel 1: Infrastructure Protection Issues (15-23)

Panel 2: Needs and Requirements of the Infrastructure Community (24-29)

Panel 3: Experience with Underground Facilities: Capabilities, Limitations, and Applications (30-37)

Panel 4: Factors Influencing the Decision-Making Process (38-44)

Breakout Sessions (45-47)

Closing Remarks (48-49)

Appendix A: Speaker Biographies (50-58)

Appendix B: Workshop Agenda (59-61)

Appendix C: Workshop Participants (62-63)