National Academies Press: OpenBook

Review of New York State Low-Level Radioactive Waste Siting Process (1996)

Chapter: 6 Potential Sites Identification

« Previous: 5 Candidate Area Identification
Suggested Citation:"6 Potential Sites Identification." National Research Council. 1996. Review of New York State Low-Level Radioactive Waste Siting Process. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5325.
×

6
Potential Sites Identification

The Potential Sites Identification (PSI) step of the screening process (Figure 3.1) was described in the September 1989 Siting Commission's Report on Potential Sites Identification (ROPSI), which was published about 10 months after the Siting Plan itself (see Table 2.1). The report was published as part of New York State's effort to meet the January 1, 1990, milestone set by the 1985 Amendments Act (Table 2.1) so that waste generators in New York could retain access to disposal sites in other states. The objective of this screening step was to identify a small number of potential sites for a low-level radioactive waste (LLRW) disposal facility from among the 10 candidate areas identified in Candidate Area Identification (CAI) screening (Chapter 5). The PSI process involved detailed screening of the candidate areas, limited field observations at individual sites, and comparative evaluations. It resulted in the selection of five potential sites (Figure 6.1).

PSI screening involved four discrete activities, each involving the application of a different combination of exclusionary and preference criteria (Figure 6.2):

  • Geographic Information Systems (GIS) Screening. The 10 candidate areas were screened using 13 exclusionary and 27 preference criteria to identify 96 sites, which ranged in area from one-half to several square miles.
  • Qualitative Map Assessments. These 96 sites were rescreened using 1 exclusionary and 5 preference criteria. A total of 51 sites were selected.
  • Field Surveys. Limited field inspections (''windshield surveys'') were performed on these 51 sites and 4 other "offered" sites1 to identify unfavorable conditions. A total of 19 sites were selected for further review.

1  

These sites were offered to the Siting Commission as possible host sites for an LLRW disposal facility by the landowners. These sites are discussed in more detail later in this chapter.

Suggested Citation:"6 Potential Sites Identification." National Research Council. 1996. Review of New York State Low-Level Radioactive Waste Siting Process. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5325.
×

Figure 6.1

Map of New York State showing the five potential sites, with the candidate areas  included for reference. Source: ROPSI.

Suggested Citation:"6 Potential Sites Identification." National Research Council. 1996. Review of New York State Low-Level Radioactive Waste Siting Process. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5325.
×

Figure 6.2

PSI screening process flowchart.

Suggested Citation:"6 Potential Sites Identification." National Research Council. 1996. Review of New York State Low-Level Radioactive Waste Siting Process. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5325.
×
  • Rescreening Using All Criteria. These 19 sites were rescreened using all 17 exclusionary and 43 preference criteria defined in the original siting plan (Appendix I). Five potential sites were selected.

Table 6.1 shows the land areas of the state that were eliminated using the exclusionary criteria in the various steps of PSI screening.

Shortly before the Siting Commission issued the ROPSI, it issued the Disposal Method Screening Report (1989a), which ruled out the use of vertical shaft mines for disposal. Consequently, drift mine disposal was the only underground storage method under consideration during PSI. At this time, the Siting Commission screened areas and sites for both aboveground or belowground methods and for drift mine disposal.

GIS Screening

GIS Screening was carried out at a scale of 1:24,000,2 which represented about a 10-fold increase in resolution from CAI screening. A grid consisting of 40-acre areas, or cells, was imposed on each of the 10 candidate areas identified through CAI screening. Each of the cells was evaluated using all of the exclusionary and preference criteria applied during CAI screening, in combination with an additional set of two exclusionary and six preference criteria. A list of these criteria is given in Appendix I. It is important to note that this group of criteria was significantly smaller than the full set specified in the original Siting Plan. Many of the socioeconomic criteria and a few of the performance criteria were not applied in this step of screening.

As in previous screening steps, cells containing excluded features were eliminated from consideration. The remaining cells were then scored using the preference criteria.3 Based on the distribution of scores

2  

At this scale, 1 inch on the map is equal to 2,000 feet on the ground (or I centimeter on the map is equal to 240 meters on the ground).

3  

In this screening step, scores were calculated in a different way than in previous steps. In particular, the weights of the preference criteria were not normalized to 1,000 before composite scores were calculated. Instead, composite scores were calculated using the "raw" weights shown in Table 1.2, and the composite scores were then normalized to

Suggested Citation:"6 Potential Sites Identification." National Research Council. 1996. Review of New York State Low-Level Radioactive Waste Siting Process. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5325.
×

TABLE 6.1

Lands Excluded During PSI Screening (after New York State Siting Commission, 1993, p. 4-6, table)

 

Acres Excluded

Percentage of State Excludeda

Criterion

Aboveground/ Belowground

Mines

Aboveground/ Belowground

Mines

6

105,100

105,100

0.33

0.33

11

2,120

2,120

< 0.01

< 0.01

15

12,320

0.04

16

169,200

169,200

0.53

0.53

17

140,680

0.44

28

5,840

5,840

0.02

0.02

32

2,320

2,320

< 0.01

< 0.01

36

3,800

3,800

0.01

0.01

38

26,720

26,720

0.08

0.08

41

600

600

< 0.01

< 0.01

44

170,300

170,300

0.54

0.54

57

1,280

1,280

< 0.01

< 0.01

Totalb

463,360

404,800

1.46

1.28

a Percentages computed using 31,728,640 acres as the area of the state of New York.

b Total is less than the sum because of mutually exclusive conditions.

and the need to select a manageable number of sites, the Siting Commission imposed a cutoff score of 3,900 points over a minimum of five contiguous 40-acre cells in an approximately square pattern. A total of 96 sites with scores of 3,900 or higher were identified.

   

5,000 points. Except for rounding differences, this method should yield results identical to those obtained by normalizing the weights.

Suggested Citation:"6 Potential Sites Identification." National Research Council. 1996. Review of New York State Low-Level Radioactive Waste Siting Process. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5325.
×

Qualitative Map Assessments

The 96 sites were rescreened qualitatively using criteria that could be evaluated on the basis of map data (Table 6.2). For each of these criteria, the sites were assigned qualitative scores of "+," "0," or "-." These scores were then aggregated, and an overall rating was applied as shown below:

  • A:  

    A site received no more than one 0 score and no-scores.

  • B:  

    A site received more than one 0 score and no-scores.

  • C:  

    A site received at least one-score.

Sites that received an A or B rating and that were at least 400 acres in size were selected for further analysis.

Field Surveys

The 51 sites selected by Map Assessments screening, and 4 additional sites offered by private landowners (see discussion later in this chapter), were subjected to reconnaissance, or "windshield surveys."4 The purpose of these surveys was to identify changes in the sites since

TABLE 6.2

Criteria Used for Qualitative Map Screening

Criterion Number

Description

31, 35

Proximity to incompatible activities/

nonresident populations

44a

Mineral soil groups

19

Drainage

20

Erosion

49

Existing transportation

a Exclusionary criterion.

4  

"Windshield surveys" were conducted by Siting Commission staff from their vehicles; staff did not enter the sites during these surveys.

Suggested Citation:"6 Potential Sites Identification." National Research Council. 1996. Review of New York State Low-Level Radioactive Waste Siting Process. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5325.
×

collection of the GIS data, to observe current land use, and to look for obvious exclusionary features.

The sites were evaluated first for characteristics such as wetlands, soils, geologic complexity, erosion, mineral resources, and proximate incompatible activities. Some of these criteria were duplicative of criteria used in the Map Assessments step (Table 6.2). Aerial photos were used to augment field observations (e.g., of heavily wooded or otherwise inaccessible areas). Supplemental technical information provided by local government units also was used in some cases (see discussion later in this chapter). A team of geological and mining experts performed an additional survey at selected sites being considered for the drift mine disposal method. Local geologists (not Siting Commission staff) also made a series of selected site visits. The details of this screening step (e.g., what combinations or levels of unfavorable conditions would exclude a site) were not described fully in the ROPSI. Based on this procedure, the Siting Commission excluded 16 of the 55 sites.

The remaining sites were then rescreened using the following criteria: drainage, presence of hydric soils, ground water discharge within the site, presence of nonresident populations, and slopes that were too steep for aboveground or belowground methods and too shallow for drift mines. This evaluation eliminated an additional 20 sites. Again, the basis for making site selections, or for excluding sites, was not discussed fully in the ROPSI.

Rescreening Using all Criteria

Field screening reduced the number of potential sites to 19. These were located in the Allegany, Chenango North, Cortland, Montgomery, and Washington candidate areas (Figure 5.4). The Siting Commission rescreened these sites by applying the entire set of exclusionary and preference criteria identified in the Siting Plan (Appendix I). 5 The ROPSI summarizes the results of this screening as follows (p. 9-1):

5  

The Siting Commission never applied criterion 9, a preference criterion relating to existing mines, because existing mines were excluded before this criterion had been used.

Suggested Citation:"6 Potential Sites Identification." National Research Council. 1996. Review of New York State Low-Level Radioactive Waste Siting Process. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5325.
×

As a result of the comparative assessments described in the previous sections, staff concluded that many of the 19 sites appeared to be technically excellent and had a high potential for ultimately being found suitable for certification and licensing as a low-level radioactive waste disposal facility. Nevertheless, in moving forward into the next phase of the siting process, staff also recognized that schedule and cost constraints dictate that attention must be focused on a limited number of sites that appear most suitable. For these reasons, five sites with greatest potential, in staffs judgment, are recommended; the others would be set aside along [with] the sites previously considered.

Thus, 14 of the 19 sites were set aside by a staff decision, leaving 5 potential sites for further study (Table 6.3; Figure 6.1). Although in the ROPSI the Siting Commission describes some of the factors considered in making this decision and provides some explanation for why 14 areas were set aside, the details of the screening and the basis for the selection of the 5 potential sites are not described.

Site Characterization

During the last step of phase 1 of the screening process (Figure 3.1), additional field studies were to be undertaken of the five potential sites to further assess their suitability. These studies were to have included limited drilling and surface assessments. As noted in Chapter 3, however, the screening process was halted by the governor before these investigations could be initiated.

Once these field studies had been completed, at least two sites were to be identified for more detailed characterization. Full site characterization was to last at least a year to allow technical experts to observe changes at the sites over an annual cycle. Studies were to address geology, ground and surface water conditions, weather patterns, plants and animals, population, land use, archeological and cultural resources,

Suggested Citation:"6 Potential Sites Identification." National Research Council. 1996. Review of New York State Low-Level Radioactive Waste Siting Process. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5325.
×

TABLE 6.3

Final Potential Sites (after ROPSI, Table S-1)

Site Name

County

Town(s)

Size (Acres)

Taylor Central

Cortland

Taylor

473

Taylor North

Cortland

Taylor

686

West Almond

Allegany

West Almond

918

Caneadea

Allegany

Caneadea, Allen

1,039

Allen

Allegany

Allen

780

Total

 

 

3,896

transportation, and other natural and human features of the sites. Information gathered and analyzed during site characterization was to provide the necessary data for the Siting Commission to recommend one or more sites for certification.

Volunteer and Offered Sites

In its Siting Plan the Siting Commission recognized that landowners might "volunteer" land for an LLRW facility. The Siting Plan indicated (pp. 2-5 and 2-6) that

such volunteers will be subject to the same technical and regulatory requirements applicable to other areas and sites. . . . An assessment will be performed first against statewide exclusionary criteria to determine whether the recommended site or area merits further consideration. If these criteria are satisfied, the volunteer will be carried through subsequent stages of the screening process. Unless exclusionary conditions rule out a volunteer site supported by a community, every effort will be made to keep it under consideration until the point where it can be compared with other potentially suitable sites in terms of technical suitability and other decision factors.

Suggested Citation:"6 Potential Sites Identification." National Research Council. 1996. Review of New York State Low-Level Radioactive Waste Siting Process. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5325.
×

Recommended sites without community support must be obviously superior compared to other potential sites in order to continue evaluations beyond the initial steps.

During the GIS Screening, five parcels of land were offered by private landowners.6 None of the landowners offered evidence that these sites had support from their surrounding communities. In its consideration of these properties, the Siting Commission made several amendments to the procedures of the Siting Plan in a resolution passed at its January 1989 meeting. The resolution distinguished between offered sites, which were offered by landowners without community support, and volunteer sites, which were offered by landowners with the support of the surrounding communities. The January 1989 resolution established new procedures for determining the suitability of both types of sites.

Unlike the original Siting Plan, however, the language of the resolution was vague about the particular screening procedures that would be applied to the volunteer and offered sites. On this point, the newly stated procedure was only to

perform initial in-house review against technical criteria to determine that the parcel meets the cutoff level in use at the current selection stage. The parcel must be at least as good as the sites being considered at that stage.

Four of the offered sites were added to the list of 51 sites being evaluated during the Field Surveys step. The offered site in Cortland County (Taylor North) was included among the five final potential sites (Table 6.3; Figure 6.1).

Contributed Information

Following the conclusion of the CAI screening (Chapter 5), the Siting Commission requested information from local governments on each of the 10 candidate areas identified, including data on the following:

6  

According to the ROPSI, four of the sites are located in Allegany, Clinton, Cortland, and Franklin counties. The location of the fifth site is not given.

Suggested Citation:"6 Potential Sites Identification." National Research Council. 1996. Review of New York State Low-Level Radioactive Waste Siting Process. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5325.
×

population, zoning, local climate, well records, and locations of recreational facilities, ecologically sensitive areas, historic zones, large private institutions, schools, hospitals, tourist attractions, inactive waste disposal sites, and floodplains. The contributed information was reviewed to determine whether it affected the sites under consideration in PSI screening. Some of this information was used during the windshield surveys and some during the Rescreening step to verify previous Siting Commission conclusions. Most of the information, however, was set aside for site characterization activities and preparation of the draft environmental impact statement.

In their responses to this request, most of the counties criticized the siting process and argued that no potential sites could be found in their candidate areas. The counties believed that the contributed data could be used to exclude their areas from consideration, just as much of the state had been excluded in previous screening steps. The Siting Commission, however, decided that most of the data were too detailed to be used at this stage and preferred to defer application of the information until characterization, after potential sites had been chosen.

A description of the information contributed by local governments is summarized in the ROPSI. On the basis of information received on the sites in Allegany County, two surface water bodies and watersheds were excluded, and the location of a surface water intake was corrected in the Siting Commission database. Extensive information was received from Cortland County, but the Siting Commission decided not to utilize most of it for PSI screening. Cortland County argued that the 1980 census was outdated and that the 1986 census should have been used. The Siting Commission defended the use of the 1980 census data, noting that they were available for all candidate areas.

Washington County submitted information on regional geology and cultural and historic resources. The Siting Commission used the regional geology in its windshield surveys. Cayuga County conducted a GIS analysis similar to the Siting Commission's exercise. That analysis and other contributed information were reviewed by the Siting Commission to verify its GIS database. Oswego County also conducted a GIS analysis and produced a composite map showing areas that should be excluded. These results corresponded closely with the Siting Commission's analysis. Chenango County provided general background

Suggested Citation:"6 Potential Sites Identification." National Research Council. 1996. Review of New York State Low-Level Radioactive Waste Siting Process. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5325.
×

data on the candidate areas. The county argued that the lack of information on the local ground water hydrology was a reason to exclude its candidate area. The Siting Commission responded that a thorough study of ground water would be conducted during the site characterization step if a potential site was identified.

Sensitivity Analyses

During GIS Screening, the Siting Commission performed a rudimentary sensitivity analysis to test the importance of three exclusionary criteria (44—mineral soil groups; 17—wetlands exclusion; and 6—reforestation areas). The purpose of the analysis was to determine the sensitivity of these criteria in siting decisions, and particularly to determine whether more potential sites would be identified if these criteria were relaxed. As a result of this analysis, the Siting Commission decided that the exclusion of all soils in mineral soil groups 1 through 4 was too restrictive. This criterion was redefined, based on guidance from the state's Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) and the Department of Agriculture and Markets, to exclude only farms with at least $10,000 of annual production. The Siting Commission also found that criteria 17 and 6 excluded a significant number of sites, but because these exclusionary criteria were based on state laws or regulations, the commission decided that it had no flexibility to change them.

Public Participation

During PSI, the Siting Commission's work focused increasingly on the selection of a small number of sites for an LLRW disposal facility. Correspondingly, its relations with citizens of communities living around these sites became more contentious. Over the summer of 1989, the Siting Commission held meetings with task force groups that had been formed by local governments to study disposal issues. These groups were supposed to obtain comments from the public and make recommendations on the conditions under which a proposed facility would be acceptable to their communities.

Suggested Citation:"6 Potential Sites Identification." National Research Council. 1996. Review of New York State Low-Level Radioactive Waste Siting Process. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5325.
×

In September 1989 the Siting Commission released the ROPSI, which included its recommendations for the five potential sites. The commission had sent advance copies of the ROPSI to selected communities in Allegany and Cortland counties, and it invited officials to meet to discuss the report. This effort had an unanticipated effect -- news of the site selections was leaked to the public, sparking protests in Allegany and Corland counties before the official announcement.

The Siting Commission made an effort to reach out to affected communities in order to obtain public input and strengthen public awareness of all aspects of its work. These efforts were unsuccessful, however. Many of the Siting Commission's attempts to schedule meetings in affected communities were rejected. Invitations to nominate county representatives for the Advisory Committee (see Chapter 3) were also rejected. The Siting Commission encountered a high level of opposition at a public meeting held in Cortland County in November 1989. Also in November, the Cortland Country Legislature passed a resolution calling for the Siting Commission to cease consideration of the two sites in the country.

A public patricipation status report was issued by the Siting Commission on January 19, 1990. It summarized activities up to that time and outlined future outreach efforts. The Siting Commission recognized that it could not overcome all opposition to siting, so it decided to concentrate its outreach efforts on less vocal segments of the affected communities, disseminate information of local concern, improve responses to public questions and comments, and coordinate technical and field activities so that accurate information would be provided.

The Siting Commission's difficulty in responding to the large volume of public questions and comments added to criticisms of the siting process. Members of the public complained that draft documents were not available for review or comment, that comment periods were too short, that final reports were not available, and that there were long delays in responding to requests for information. By the latter part of 1989, Siting Commission staff were apparently unable to handle the volume of correspondence, and a backlog developed. Between September 1989 and January 1990, more than 3,500 pieces of correspondence were handled by the Siting Commission; 90 individual letters were answered, more than 200 letters transmitting reports and program updates were sent to elected

Suggested Citation:"6 Potential Sites Identification." National Research Council. 1996. Review of New York State Low-Level Radioactive Waste Siting Process. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5325.
×

officials and task forces, and 120 letters were mailed to civic and environmental organizations.

The formal public comment period on the ROPSI had generated more than 510 pieces of written correspondence, including many multipage reports and documents. The Siting Commission estimated that more than 2,000 questions and comments would have to be addressed in its comment/response document. Some of the letters, especially those from Cortland County, required detailed answers.

In general, the Siting Commission was not welcomed in the affected communities. In December 1989 the commission's efforts to perform field investigations were blocked by citizens opposed to a disposal facility. The attempt to conduct inspections was ended in January 1990 because of public opposition. The Siting Commission's January 1990 Public Participation Status Report indicates that at least four attempts were made to meet with Cortland County officials in November and December 1989. One meeting was canceled by Cortland County, and an invitation to meet with the Siting Commission for a site walkover was declined. A meeting of Siting Commission staff and Cortland County officials and technical staff was finally held to discuss technical issues in February 1990. The videotape of the meeting reveals a chaotic scene at the morning session. Siting Commission staff attempted to make a presentation but were not allowed to use the overhead projector and were interrupted by protesters holding signs.

The Siting Commission opened a public information office in Cortland County and a temporary trailer office in Allegany County. There were daily public protests leading to numerous arrests. In April 1990 the governor closed these offices and ceased siting activities.

The citizens of Cortland and Allegany counties also sought legal relief in their dispute with the Siting Commission. Two suits were brought under freedom-of-information laws for GIS records, correspondence between the DEC and the Siting Commission, and a mine feasibility study prepared by the contractor, Roy F. Weston, Inc. Another suit alleged that the Siting Commission had violated the open-meetings law. Lawsuits challenged the Siting Commission's right to enter private property without a landowner's permission. Cortland and Allegany counties also joined with New York State in challenging the federal legislation that required states to take title to waste produced in their states after January 1, 1993 (see

Suggested Citation:"6 Potential Sites Identification." National Research Council. 1996. Review of New York State Low-Level Radioactive Waste Siting Process. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5325.
×

Chapter 2). As noted in Chapter 2, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down that provision in 1992.

Citizens were also successful in changing New York's siting law. After suspending the activities of the Siting Commission, the governor introduced legislation in June 1990 to amend the 1986 State Act that established New York's siting process (Chapter 2). The act, which took effect in July, involved the following changes:

  • The Advisory Committee was reformed into the Citizens Advisory Committee, with enhanced citizen membership and a greater role in facilitating public comment and review regarding the work of the Siting Commission.
  • Public participation and review of the Siting Commission's work were expanded.
  • An independent technical and scientific review panel was created to review the work of the Siting Commission.7
  • Two new members were to be added to the Siting Commission: a social scientist and a person with environmental interests.
  • A report to review the rationale for the exclusionary criteria was commissioned. This report, the Excluded Areas Report, was issued by the Siting Commission in August 1993.
  • The act required that the disposal method be identified before the site selection work.

Analysis and Discussion

As noted previously, all 17 exclusionary criteria and 43 preference criteria were applied during PSI screening. The committee identified problems with several of these criteria. The problems with some of the criteria applied during CAI screening were discussed in Chapter 5. The remainder are discussed below.

7  

As noted in Chapter 1, this legislation resulted in the formation of this National Research Council committee.

Suggested Citation:"6 Potential Sites Identification." National Research Council. 1996. Review of New York State Low-Level Radioactive Waste Siting Process. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5325.
×

Criterion 1—Geologic Complexity

Prefer areas that contain uniformly distributed soils, sediments, and/or rock that are relatively undeformed and devoid of fractures, faults, and other discontinuities that may influence predictions of performance of the facility.

The intent of this criterion is to select sites with relatively uniform geology in order to simplify assessments of long-term performance. Such assessments usually involve modeling exercises to predict radionuclide transport times and pathways through the subsurface.

The Siting Commission made an implicit—and in the committee's opinion, a simplistic—assumption, namely, that uniform geology provides simple or predictable subsurface flow pathways. Flow complexity depends on the distribution of porosity and permeability, which is partly related to rock type and state of deformation and partly to fracture characteristics (spacing, length, interconnectivity, and orientation), particularly in bedrock.8 In bedrock, much of the ground water in New York State is transmitted by fractures, and all previous deformation is unimportant unless it involved fracture generation. Very few rocks of this region have a porosity and permeability generated during the formation of the rocks; some (limestone, rock salt; see next section) have a porosity and permeability generated by solutions reacting with the rocks after their formation. In its response to the committee's questions (Appendix F), it is clear that the Siting Commission did not recognize that modeling capability depends on more than geologic and lithologic complexity, terms that are themselves vague and scale dependent. For a review of the current state of modeling and its applications, see NRC (1990) and Sullivan and Chehata (1995).

Another problem with this criterion is that it was difficult to apply without site-specific data. This criterion was scored on the basis of surrogate characteristics such as rock type and structural features such as

8  

Porosity is the percentage of the volume of a soil, rock, or sediment, that is made up of pore, or open, space. Permeability is the capacity of a substance to transmit fluids. It depends on the size, shape, and interconnectedness of pores.

Suggested Citation:"6 Potential Sites Identification." National Research Council. 1996. Review of New York State Low-Level Radioactive Waste Siting Process. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5325.
×

folding and regional faults. In the committee's judgment, such superficial assessments, based on maps with limited resolution, were inappropriate at this stage of screening.

Criterion 3—Subsurface Dissolution

Prefer areas that do not demonstrate significant past or active subsurface dissolution.

Subsurface dissolution is a process that affects carbonate rocks (limestone and dolomite) and evaporites (halite, gypsum, and anhydrite). This criterion was designated as a preference criterion, although DEC regulations indicate clearly that it should have been an exclusionary condition. Specifically, the DEC regulations state:

The disposal site must not be located in an area where subsurface hydrogeologic processes, such as dissolution, occur with such frequency and extent [as] to adversely affect the ability of the underground mined repository to meet the performance objectives of Subpart C of this Part. (6 NYCRR 382.23(c)(2))

An exclusionary criterion is warranted because of the significant performance implications of dissolution. Past or present subsurface solution can produce large subsurface voids, leading to subsidence or collapse. In the committee's opinion, no LLRW disposal site should be located where there is any indication of dissolution, regardless of disposal methodology. Geologic maps and cross sections of New York show the locations of these potentially soluble rocks both on and below the surface, and the presence of dissolution features can be ascertained through field studies.

Criterion 20—Erosion

Prefer sites exhibiting no existing or potential erosional characteristics that could adversely affect waste containment.

Suggested Citation:"6 Potential Sites Identification." National Research Council. 1996. Review of New York State Low-Level Radioactive Waste Siting Process. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5325.
×

This is another example of a preference criterion for which there is a clear regulatory requirement addressed to an important performance specification. Specifically, DEC regulations state:

The site must not be located in areas where the surface runoff could expose, erode or inundate the disposal units. (6 NYCRR 382.22(a)(4))

In the judgment of the committee, LLRW disposal facilities should not be located in areas with a high potential for surface erosion. Thus, this should have been an exclusionary criterion.

Criterion 44—Mineral Soil Groups

Exclude all lands in mineral soil groups 1-4, as designated by the New York State Land Classification System, that are in active agricultural production.

This criterion is based on a system for quantifying the agricultural productivity of soils.9 The Siting Commission implemented this criterion by excluding sites with more than 5 acres of land in active agricultural use with mineral soil groups 1 through 4. Active agricultural use was defined as use resulting in the production of more than $10,000 of income per farm per year from farming as reflected in agricultural tax exemption records.

For the GIS Screening analysis, the center points of all lands in mineral soil groups 1 through 4 were entered into the GIS using a cell size of 40 acres. A cell was considered to contain soils in these groups if the center point (centroid) of an area with these soils fell within the cell. The centroids and acreages of tax-exempt farm properties for 1988 were obtained from the New York State Department of Equalization and Assessment. Squares representing the acreages were entered into the GIS around the center points of the farms. If the square representing a farm fell into a cell containing mineral soil groups 1 through 4, that cell was eliminated.

9  

The classification is based on the productivity and the total digestible nutrients of the soil. The index values range from 1 to 10, where 1 is the highest grade.

Suggested Citation:"6 Potential Sites Identification." National Research Council. 1996. Review of New York State Low-Level Radioactive Waste Siting Process. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5325.
×

The problem with this methodology is that it did not exclude all of the cells containing soils in these groups. If the centroid of an area with soils in groups 1 through 4 was near the edge of a 40-acre cell, for example, the adjacent nonexcluded cell could have contained significant acreage with the soil groups that should have been excluded.

Indeed, Criterion 44 was reevaluated by the Siting Commission during its Rescreening of the 19 sites. The precise polygonal boundaries of all soils within groups 1 through 4 were digitized from Soil Conservation Service (now Natural Resources Conservation Service) county soil surveys and matched to the GIS cells. The results showed that only 2 of the 19 sites had no soils in mineral groups 1 through 4. Three of the sites contained soils in groups 1 and 2, the most productive agricultural land, and the remaining sites contained soils in groups 3 and 4. Thus, in applying this criterion as it did, the Siting Commission deviated from its previous practices of removing cells that contained any part of an exclusionary feature.

Surface and Subsurface Drainage

Regulations for surface and subsurface drainage around LLRW facilities are provided by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (USNRC) in 10 CFR 61.50(a)(5) and 61.51(a)(6) as follows, respectively:

The disposal site must be generally well drained and free of areas of flooding or frequent ponding. Waste disposal shall not take place in a 100-year flood plain, coastal high-hazard area or wetland, as defined in Executive Order 11988 Floodplain Management Guidelines.

The disposal site must be designed to minimize to the extent practicable the contact of water with waste during storage, the contact of standing water with waste during disposal, and the contact of percolating or standing water after disposal.

The corresponding DEC regulations are given in 6 NYCRR 382.

Suggested Citation:"6 Potential Sites Identification." National Research Council. 1996. Review of New York State Low-Level Radioactive Waste Siting Process. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5325.
×

The Siting Commission's strategy for meeting these regulations was to site the facility in an area with low annual precipitation (Criterion 23), good surface drainage (Criterion 19), and impermeable but sorptive 10 stratigraphic units (Criterion 14). This approach is effective for meeting two of the requirements implicit in the regulations: (1) minimizing the percolation of surface and subsurface water into the facility and (2) minimizing radionuclide migration out of the facility and into the environment should water come in contact with the waste after disposal. This strategy may be ineffective, however, for meeting the third requirement of the regulations: minimizing the contact of standing water with waste after disposal

It is important to recognize that an impermeable stratigraphic unit provides a barrier to water flow in all directions. This barrier keeps water out of a facility, but it also prevents any water that makes its way into the facility—for example, by the failure of the repository cap—from escaping into the subsurface. Thus, water can accumulate in a facility developed in an impermeable stratigraphic unit, absent active pumping.11 If the repository is located near the surface, this water may eventually fill the facility and overflow into the surface environment

A strategy for minimizing the contact of standing water with waste would be to develop the facility in more permeable stratigraphic units with proven sorptive capacity in order to promote the subsurface drainage of water entering the facility. To some, it may seem counterintuitive to develop an LLRW facility in a permeable stratigraphic unit through which radionuclide-laden water could ''flush'' into the water table, but, in fact, permeable and sorptive stratigraphic units, if present, may provide excellent performance as one component of a comprehensive system design. Such a design should also include a facility with an impermeable cap (natural or purpose-built) and good surface drainage to divert surface water from the facility. In addition, the

10  

Sorption refers to the process by which radionuclides or other contaminants are attached to the surfaces of host particles (e.g., clay particles) by local electrostatic charges or surface complexation reactions.

11  

This so-called "bathtub effect" has been observed in other LLRW facilities, most notably the West Valley, New York, and Maxey Flats, Kentucky, facilities (see Chapter 2).

Suggested Citation:"6 Potential Sites Identification." National Research Council. 1996. Review of New York State Low-Level Radioactive Waste Siting Process. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5325.
×

facility could be placed at a site that was well above the water table to prevent subsurface water intrusion into the facility.

The committee concludes that the design of "drainage" criteria, particularly Criterion 14 was unnecessarily restrictive. Indeed, the application of this criterion during the PSI stage of screening may have eliminated some otherwise suitable areas of the state from consideration.

GIS Screening

The committee identified one problem with the GIS Screening step of the siting process: namely, that it employed an arbitrary cutoff score to select sites. As with CAI Initial Preference Screening, the committee questions the use of a cutoff score when a high score may correlate only weakly with adequate site performance (see Chapter 5 and the discussion of sensitivity analyses later in this chapter). Also, although the cutoff score was chosen to produce a manageable number of sites, it should be noted that the 3,900-point cutoff score chosen was substantially lower than the 4,400-point score used in the CAI Initial Preference Screening step.

Map Assessments

The committee had several concerns regarding the Qualitative Map Assessments step of screening. It should be noted that this step was not discussed in the Siting Plan but was added later in the process. The committee's primary concern with the Map Assessments step is that the screening methodology transformed preference criteria into exclusionary conditions. A single negative mark for one of the five preference criteria was sufficient to exclude a site. Moreover, the screening process selected sites with some limitations (i.e., sites with an "A" or "B" rating), yet there was no attempt to assess whether the limitations outweighed the positive attributes of the sites. An additional problem with this screening step is that some of the criteria were sensitive to the age of the data. This is of particular concern for data regarding proximity to incompatible activities and nonresident populations. Thus, these criteria may have been applied nonuniformly between areas.

Suggested Citation:"6 Potential Sites Identification." National Research Council. 1996. Review of New York State Low-Level Radioactive Waste Siting Process. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5325.
×

Field Surveys

The committee has reviewed the plan of the surveys, the training of the staff performing the surveys, and the factors to be evaluated. All appear to be conceptually sound, but the committee did not obtain sufficient data to assess their application in screening.

The Siting Commission provided the committee only with examples of windshield survey form results for the four offered sites. The committee received little direct information regarding the procedures and evaluations for the other 51 sites, and no information was provided for the mine suitability evaluations.

These surveys were conducted over a two-week period. The ROPSI provides the windshield survey results only for those sites that were set aside, not for those that were kept. Thus, it is difficult for the committee to assess how the Siting Commission used this information to make its siting decisions.

The data collection forms for the windshield surveys (see Appendix K) indicate that a broad range of information was to be collected. This information would complement the data evaluated during the Map Assessments step. However, it is unclear to the committee how this information was actually used in the site selection. The ROPSI is also vague on this point; the report states (ROPSI, p. 5-1):

The purpose of the limited site inspections was to identify those sites that continued to appear technically superior, as measured against the criteria in the Site Selection Plan, in light of the added information gained through visual inspection of site conditions.

The committee asked the Siting Commission to provide documentation regarding the criteria for the windshield surveys. Its response to this issue focused on the information that was collected, not on how it was used. The use of the windshield surveys during PSI screening was controversial because of county allegations that information was collected that should have been used to exclude two of the final potential sites (Taylor North and Taylor Central; Table 6.3; Figure 6.1). Specifically the survey forms for these sites show that newly

Suggested Citation:"6 Potential Sites Identification." National Research Council. 1996. Review of New York State Low-Level Radioactive Waste Siting Process. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5325.
×

constructed incompatible structures were observed close to (and within) the site boundaries. Such information would have given the sites a "-" score and disqualified them during Qualitative Map Assessments screening. Indeed, similar information was used to exclude three other sites during the map screening step. Thus, the committee judges that the Siting Commission did not adhere to its stated goals (or to good scientific practice) in the windshield surveys, that is, to evaluate the sites "in light of additional information gained through visual inspection."

The committee also notes that the Siting Commission's use of information gathered from windshield surveys to confirm the overall favorability of the sites with high GIS scores may not have been clear to the public. This may explain why many members of the public believed that denying access to the sites would severely hamper the Siting Commission's inspections and that the windshield surveys would yield very little information with which to judge the sites. It was too late for the Siting Commission to justify its judgment that the 19 sites carried forward had superior conditions for siting based on observations made during the surveys because the public had very little confidence in the commission's decision-making process.

Rescreening Using All Criteria

Despite the considerable effort made by the Siting Commission to develop a technically sound screening and scoring process, it appears that the commission departed from its own plan at this final stage of screening. The committee believes that the reduction to five sites without detailed supporting documentation and technical justification was a significant flaw in the site selection process.12 This decision may have contributed to the public perception that the process moved quickly to "volunteer" sites, bypassing the technical process defined in the Siting Plan.

12  

Notably, the 5 potential sites selected in this step of the screening process (Table 6.3) were not the highest-scoring sites. The 5 sites were ranked 1, 5, 6, 7, and 13 for aboveground or belowground disposal and 1, 2, and 4 for mine disposal, based on scoring using the 43 preference criteria. Two of the sites were not under consideration for mine disposal. While these choices may well have reflected the Siting Commission's recognition of the weaknesses of the scoring system that have been noted elsewhere in this report, the commission did not explain its underlying logic.

Suggested Citation:"6 Potential Sites Identification." National Research Council. 1996. Review of New York State Low-Level Radioactive Waste Siting Process. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5325.
×

This is the first (and only) stage of the screening process in which all 43 preference criteria are used for screening, and it is in this stage that some of the technical deficiencies of the scoring system first become apparent. One area of particular concern to the committee is the scaling factors used in scoring the sites. Scaling factors for most of the preference criteria used in this step of screening were assigned values of 1, 3, or 5 according to the conditions at the site, but there were several exceptions. For example, the scaling factor for Criterion 52—transportation safety—took values of 2, 3, or 4; Criterion 50—multimode access—took scaling factor values of 3, 4, or 5. Several criteria (e.g., 19—drainage; 33—low population densities; and 34—highly populated places) took scaling values of 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5.

The design of scaling factors is not documented in any of the Siting Commission's reports, and the committee questions whether the scaling factors used in scoring are justified technically. Although the committee recognizes that scaling factors are subjective, it particularly has concerns about the range of scaling factors applied to each criterion. A scale factor value of 5, for example, produced five times the number of points as a scale factor value of 1. Such a difference can produce a large change in the overall score and can have a significant effect on the suitability of the site—changes that may not be justified in all cases.

Consider the effects of these scaling factor values on Criterion 23—annual precipitation—for example. A locality with annual precipitation of 50 inches or more would receive a scale factor value of 1, whereas a locality with 39 inches per year would receive a scale factor value of 5. There is no evidence to demonstrate that such a nonlinear sensitivity to rainfall values is warranted by related impacts of rainfall on a low-level waste disposal site.

Volunteer and Offered Sites

Because Taylor North, an offered site, was among the five potential sites, there was considerable scrutiny of the Siting Commission's activities regarding the screening of offered land. Indeed, an August 1992 report by the U.S. General Accounting Office on the selection process for the Taylor North site concluded that "the New York Low-Level Radioactive Waste Siting Commission did not comply with

Suggested Citation:"6 Potential Sites Identification." National Research Council. 1996. Review of New York State Low-Level Radioactive Waste Siting Process. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5325.
×

the letter of its procedures for an offered site. . ." (U.S. General Accounting Office, 1992, p. 18).

From its own analysis, the committee believes that the Siting Commission's decision to include the Taylor North site in the final list of five potential sites was inconsistent with the commission's requirement that an offered site must be "at least as good as" other sites. The Taylor North site should have been excluded based on Criterion 44 because it had more than 5 acres of land in agricultural production in soils of groups 1 through 4.13 Second, the site did not meet the minimum score that was applied at this stage of screening (3,900 in five contiguous 40-acre cells). The Taylor North site contained only two cells with scores above the cutoff. Eleven other cells had scores ranging from 3,709 to 3,879. Although this cutoff score of 3,900 points was arguably arbitrary, it was the value applied to all other sites in the PSI process and should have been applied to the offered lands as well.

Contributed Information

The committee reviewed the circumstances surrounding the solicitation of contributed information from affected communities by the Siting Commission. The committee believes that the commission made a reasonable effort to obtain contributed information. Further, the committee believes that the commission made a sincere effort to review and use information supplied to it by local governments. Information that was neither used directly nor used to verify information obtained from other sources was deferred for use during independent evaluation of sites rather than for comparison of sites with each other.

In hindsight, however, the Siting Commission's decision to defer consideration of these data was not successful from a public relations point of view, primarily because it appeared to local governments that their offered information was being ignored. Although the Siting Commission did endeavor to utilize all of the information supplied by local governments, it did not effectively communicate to local governments and the public why it decided to defer using much of the information until later

13  

The Taylor North site had 171 acres of land in group 4, most of which was in active agriculture. The Siting Commission noted in the ROPSI (p. 9-2) that a variance would be required to develop this site.

Suggested Citation:"6 Potential Sites Identification." National Research Council. 1996. Review of New York State Low-Level Radioactive Waste Siting Process. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5325.
×

stages. The Siting Commission believed this decision was based on its best judgment of information available at the time, given the circumstances (the need to identify potential sites quickly); however, it would have been very difficult for the commission to fully explain how it used the information and to assure local governments that it was not making an arbitrary decision. Thus, critics of the process viewed this as just another example of decisions made without sound scientific and technical bases.

A review by the committee of materials submitted by the counties revealed no inconsistencies with data in the databases utilized by the Siting Commission to apply exclusionary criteria in the GIS Screening step of PSI screening. Given the definitions of the exclusionary criteria and the resolution of the databases, it appears that the Siting Commission correctly identified all of the features that should have been excluded during screening. The committee emphasizes, however, that this is a qualified conclusion; the committee reviewed materials data only for the 10 candidate areas, which represent a small portion (approximately 2 percent; see Chapter 5) of the state. The committee makes no judgments regarding the use of data during previous exclusionary screenings. The committee also makes no judgments regarding the use of the data in scoring the preference criteria in PSI screening. Scoring was a very controversial issue, but some degree of interpretation was inherent in the scoring process.

Sensitivity Analyses

For the PSI phase of screening, the Siting Commission focused its sensitivity analysis largely on criteria that were constrained by law or regulation, where few modifications could be made. As described in Chapter 5, the purpose of sensitivity analyses is to identify and remedy weaknesses in the screening process. When measured against this objective, the analysis undertaken by the Siting Commission was of limited value. It is important to recognize that the commission had considerable flexibility in the interpretation and implementation of the preference criteria used in PSI screening. Thus, a detailed sensitivity analysis would have been useful for assessing the sensitivity of the siting decision to these criteria.

Suggested Citation:"6 Potential Sites Identification." National Research Council. 1996. Review of New York State Low-Level Radioactive Waste Siting Process. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5325.
×

The committee performed its own sensitivity analysis using groups of preference criteria applied in PSI screening (see Tables 6.4 and 6.5). This analysis is similar in design to that presented in Chapter 5, except that the full set of preference criteria are used. The preference criteria used in the sensitivity analysis are divided into three groups:

  1. Preference criteria based on known quantities—readily available data having relatively uniform quality across the state. Most of these criteria address nonperformance factors, that is, factors that are not critical in determining the capability of a site to function as an LLRW repository.
  2. Preference criteria based on uncertain quantities—data of unknown or uneven accuracy or completeness. Most of these preference criteria address the likely performance of the site, as noted in Chapter 5 (see particularly footnote 7 in Chapter 5). In the scoring system used by the Siting Commission (Chapter 3), these criteria tend to give high scores in regions that lack data. Scoring can thus be viewed from two perspectives. If complete information is available, these criteria represent critical qualities for a potential disposal site, and sites should not be able to qualify without favorable scores on them. Alternatively, for the case of incomplete information, the committee's analysis illustrates the scores that would be given to poorly characterized sites.
  3. Preference criteria based on population quantities—in this case, demographic information. These quantities can be readily measured, but they are sensitive to the details of averaging as noted in Chapter 5.

The results of two sensitivity analyses performed by the committee are presented in Tables 6.4 and 6.5. Table 6.4 shows the sensitivity analysis for the criteria employed in GIS Screening. As noted earlier in this chapter, GIS Screening used a cutoff score of 3,900 points. Table 6.5 utilizes the entire set of preference criteria employed at the final stage of PSI screening. The Siting Commission did not use a cutoff score for this screening step.

As shown in Table 6.4, the weights of the three categories of preference criteria—known, unknown, and population quantities—are

Suggested Citation:"6 Potential Sites Identification." National Research Council. 1996. Review of New York State Low-Level Radioactive Waste Siting Process. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5325.
×

TABLE 6.4

GIS Screening Sensitivity Analysis (cutoff score = 3,900 points)

 

Criterion

Scaling Factor for Scenarioa

Category (Criterion Number)

Weighta

#1

#2

#3

#4

#5

#6

#7

#8

Known Quantities

Distance from mines (7)

20

1

1

5

1

1

5

1

5

Surface water features (13)

40

1

1

5

1

1

5

5

5

Distance from wetlands (18)

30

1

1

1

1

1

1

5

5

Annual precipitation (23)

20

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

5

Chronic severe weather (24)

15

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

5

Severe weather frequency (25)

20

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

5

Other radionuclide sources (30)

20

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

5

Distance from federal lands (37)

10

1

1

5

1

1

5

5

5

Distance from state lands (39)

10

1

1

5

1

1

5

5

5

Distance from Indian lands (42)

10

1

1

5

1

1

5

5

5

Transportation access (47)

10

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

5

Multimode access (50)

5

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

5

Proximity to waste generator (51)

20

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

5

Subtotal

230

240

240

600

240

240

600

640

1,150

Uncertain Quantities

Geologic complexity (1)

45

1

1

1

5

5

5

5

5

Seismic hazards (2)

20

1

1

1

1

1

5

5

5

Subsurface dissolution (3)

35

1

1

1

5

5

5

5

1

Suggested Citation:"6 Potential Sites Identification." National Research Council. 1996. Review of New York State Low-Level Radioactive Waste Siting Process. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5325.
×

 

Criterion

Scaling Factor for Scenarioa

Category (Criterion Number)

Weighta

#1

#2

#3

#4

#5

#6

#7

#8

Geologic units (5)

35

1

1

1

5

5

5

5

3

Mineral resource potential (8)

20

1

1

1

5

5

5

1

5

Distance from oil and gas fields (10)

20

1

1

1

5

5

5

1

5

Primary and principal aquifers (12)

55

1

1

1

5

5

5

5

1

Unconsolidated stratigraphic units (14)

40

1

1

1

5

5

5

5

1

Best usage of surface waters (22)

30

1

1

1

5

5

5

5

1

Ecology (29)

55

1

1

1

5

5

5

5

5

Distance from historical/cultural resources (59)

20

1

1

1

5

5

5

1

5

Subtotal

375

375

375

375

1,795

1,795

1,875

1,635

1,165

Population Quantities

Low population densities (33)

45

1

5

5

1

5

1

5

5

Highly populated places (34)

45

1

5

5

1

5

1

5

5

Routes through incorporated places (53)

10

1

5

5

1

5

1

1

5

Subtotal

100

100

500

500

100

500

100

460

500

Total Score

705

715

1,115

1,475

2,135

2,535

2,575

2,735

2,815

Normalized Scoreb

1,001c

1,015

1,583

2,095

3,032

3,600

3,657

3,884

3,997

a See Chapter 3 for an explanation of these quantities.

b Normalized scores were determined by multiplying by a factor of 1.42. This factor represents the ratio of the maximum score using this subset of criteria (maximum score = 3,525 when siting factor = 5 for all criteria) to the maximum score using the complete set of preference criteria (maximum score = 5,000 when siting factor = 5 for all criteria), as documented in the ROPSI (p. 4-45) In CAI Initial Preference Screening, weights were renormalized to 1,000 points before scores were determined.

c This score was reported as 1,000 in the ROPSI.

Suggested Citation:"6 Potential Sites Identification." National Research Council. 1996. Review of New York State Low-Level Radioactive Waste Siting Process. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5325.
×

TABLE 6.5

Potential Sites Rescreening Sensitivity Analysis

 

Criterion

Scaling Factor for Scenarioa

Category (Criterion Number)

Weighta

#1

#2

#3

#4

#5

#6

#7

#8

Known Quantities

Distance from mines (7)

20

1

1

5

1

1

5

5

5

Surface water features (13)

40

1

1

5

1

1

5

5

5

Distance from wetlands (18)

30

1

1

1

1

1

1

5

1

Drainage (19)

30

1

1

1

1

1

1

5

1

Flooding (21)

25

1

1

1

1

1

1

5

1

Annual precipitation (23)

20

1

1

1

1

1

1

5

1

Chronic severe weather (24)

15

1

1

1

1

1

1

5

1

Severe weather frequency (25)

20

1

1

1

1

1

1

5

1

Other radionuclide sources (30)

20

1

1

1

1

1

1

5

1

Distance from federal lands (37)

10

1

1

5

1

1

5

5

5

Distance from state lands (39)

10

1

1

5

1

1

5

5

5

Distance from Indian lands (42)

10

1

1

5

1

1

5

5

5

Government-owned lands (43)

20

1

1

5

1

1

5

5

5

Transportation access (47)

10

1

1

1

1

1

1

5

1

Existing transportation (49)

5

1

1

1

1

1

1

5

1

Multimode access (50)

5

3

3

3

3

3

3

5

3

Proximity to waste generators (51)

20

1

1

1

1

1

1

5

1

Labor force (54)

10

1

1

1

1

1

1

5

1

Housing stock (55)

10

1

1

1

1

1

1

5

1

Municipal services (56)

15

1

1

1

1

1

1

5

1

Viewshed (60)

15

1

1

1

1

1

1

5

1

Subtotal

360

370

370

810

370

370

810

1,800

810

Uncertain Quantities

Geologic complexity (1)

45

1

1

1

5

5

5

1

5

Seismic hazards (2)

20

1

1

1

1

1

1

5

1

Subsurface dissolution (3)

35

1

1

1

5

5

5

1

5

Suggested Citation:"6 Potential Sites Identification." National Research Council. 1996. Review of New York State Low-Level Radioactive Waste Siting Process. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5325.
×

 

Criterion

Scaling Factor for Scenarioa

Category (Criterion Number)

Weighta

#1

#2

#3

#4

#5

#6

#7

#8

Geologic units (5)

35

1

1

1

5

5

5

1

5

Mineral resource potential (8)

20

1

1

1

5

5

5

5

5

Distance from oil and gas fields (10)

20

1

1

1

5

5

5

5

5

Primary and principal aquifers (12)

55

1

1

1

5

5

5

1

5

Unconsolidated stratigraphic units (14)

40

1

1

1

5

5

5

1

5

Erosion (20)

35

1

1

1

5

5

5

1

5

Best usage of Surface waters (22)

30

1

1

1

5

5

5

1

5

Ecology (29)

55

1

1

1

5

5

5

1

5

Distance from historical/cultural resources (59)

20

1

1

1

5

5

5

1

5

Subtotal

410

410

410

410

1,970

1,970

1,970

650

1,970

Population Quantities

PSD increment (27)

30

1

5

5

1

5

1

5

5

Proximity to incompatible activities (31)

20

1

5

5

1

5

1

5

5

Low population densities (33)

45

1

5

5

1

5

1

5

5

Highly populated places (34)

45

1

5

5

1

5

1

5

5

Nonresident populations (35)

25

1

5

5

1

5

1

5

5

Development/population growth (45)

20

1

5

5

1

5

1

5

5

Traffic congestion (48)

10

1

5

5

1

5

1

5

5

Transportation safety (52)

15

2

4

4

2

4

2

4

4

Routes through incorporated places (53)

10

1

5

5

1

5

1

5

5

Noise sensitivity (61)

10

1

5

5

1

5

1

5

5

Subtotal

230

245

1,135

1,135

245

1,135

245

1,135

1,135

Total Score

1,000

1,025

1,915

2,355

2,585

3,475

3,025

3,585

3,915

NOTE: PSD = Prevention of Significant Deterioration.

a See Chapter 3 for an explanation of these quantities.

Suggested Citation:"6 Potential Sites Identification." National Research Council. 1996. Review of New York State Low-Level Radioactive Waste Siting Process. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5325.
×

230, 375, and 100, respectively. The relative differences in these weights are similar to those in the CAI Initial Preference Screening (see Table 5.5), which were 347, 533, and 120. Consequently, many of the conclusions of the sensitivity analysis for CAI Initial Preference Screening also apply here. Most notably, preference criteria scored using ''uncertain quantities'' continue to play a significant role in PSI screening, indicating that there may be a weak correlation between the final score and the suitability of a site for an LLRW disposal facility.

The use of a lower cutoff score for GIS Screening in PSI (3,900 points) than for Initial Preference Screening in CAI (4,400 points) allowed sites to exceed the cutoff with less favorable overall ratings. Most significantly, sites could receive less favorable or even unfavorable scores on important performance-related criteria and still exceed the cutoff. This situation is illustrated in Scenario 8 in Table 6.4. Many of the critical performance criteria are ranked as unfavorable [scaling factor (sf) = 1], yet the total score (3,997 points) still exceeds the cutoff. In contrast, these critical performance criteria are scaled as most favorable (sf = 5) in Scenarios 6 and 7, yet the total scores (3,884 and 3,657 points) fall below the cutoff because of unfavorable ratings on other criteria. The score in Scenario 7 can be boosted above the cutoff by an inconsequential change in a preference criterion such as annual precipitation.

GIS Screening had a modest bias toward rural areas. The DEC regulations also had a bias toward rural areas, but it is not clear that the Siting Commission fully recognized the additional degree of bias it introduced through the use of multiple criteria. The total weight of population-related criteria was 100 out of 750 points. The other criteria used in this step of screening correlated only weakly with population criteria.

Table 6.5 shows the sensitivity in scores to the full range of preference criteria that were used in the Rescreening step of PSI. The weights of the three categories of preference criteria (i.e., known, unknown, and population quantities) are 360, 410, and 230. Population and associated socioeconomic criteria take on a much greater

Suggested Citation:"6 Potential Sites Identification." National Research Council. 1996. Review of New York State Low-Level Radioactive Waste Siting Process. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5325.
×

significance in this screening step; that is, they account for more of the total weight. The significance of these criteria is even greater than that indicated by the increase in weight, however, because many of these criteria are correlated, as explained below.

In general, the population criteria give high scores to rural areas with low populations, with the possible exception of the Criterion 35, concerning the presence of nonresident populations. For this reason, the committee concludes that scoring at this stage of screening is biased toward rural areas. It should again be noted that part of this bias is derived from a bias toward rural areas inherent in DEC regulations, but that it is not clear whether the Siting Commission fully appreciated the degree of bias that was present due to the combined effects of the full set of factors.

Preference criteria scored with "known quantities" are linked strongly to population. These criteria include existing transportation (Criterion 49), labor force (54), housing stock (55), and municipal services (56). In general, the scores for these criteria are inversely proportional to those for the population quantities: highly populated areas will tend to score highly on these factors. There are also a number of transportation criteria that are highly correlated. Thus, they will receive similar scores because they largely describe the same siting factors. These include transportation access (47), existing transportation (49), multimode access (50), traffic congestion (48), transportation safety (52), and routes through incorporated places (53). Together, these 6 criteria have a weighting of 55 points, comparable to or greater than the weights of many of the individual performance-related criteria.

Rescreening with the full set of preference criteria addressed a large number of socioeconomic issues. Socioeconomic criteria included Criteria 27, 31, 33, 34, 35, 45, 48, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 59, 60, and 61 (see Table 1.2). These criteria, which addressed issues such as the available labor force, access to highways, and population density, account for 30 percent of the total weight (300 out of 1,000). The committee recognizes that socioeconomic issues are critical concerns in siting an LLRW

Suggested Citation:"6 Potential Sites Identification." National Research Council. 1996. Review of New York State Low-Level Radioactive Waste Siting Process. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5325.
×

disposal facility, but there are two problems with the way in which these issues were handled by the Siting Commission. First, the specific criteria applied in screening mainly addressed demands for local facilities and services when large numbers of workers move into a rural area—which would have been quite modest for any of the facilities being envisioned even in the most rural areas of New York State—as opposed to focusing on the specific socioeconomic concerns that had been identified as most important by the scientific literature of the day. The more relevant concerns, as well known even by the early 1980s, are those having to do with equity, local control, and susceptibility to what were called "special" impacts (see Chapter 7). Second, a site could receive unfavorable ratings for critical performance factors and yet still be selected if it scored highly on socioeconomic and other factors that were not so directly related to facility performance, as in the case of the rainfall example noted earlier.

Although a cutoff score was not used at this stage, the five selected potential sites had scores in the range of 3,585 to 4,125 points. As shown by Scenario 7 in Table 6.5, it would be possible to attain a score of 3,585 and still receive unfavorable scores on most of the performance-related criteria. The analysis in Table 6.5 also shows that a rural site with little baseline information could also score above this cutoff. This is illustrated by Scenario 8, which received favorable ratings (sf = 5) on all but two of the uncertain and population quantities and was located away from ground water discharge zones and federal, state, and Indian lands.

In the committee's judgment, site selection should be optimized for both performance-related criteria and socioeconomic criteria, but to the extent feasible and reasonable, the performance-related criteria should be applied first: that is, screening based on performance criteria should be carried out before screening based on socioeconomic or other criteria not directly related to facility performance. The committee recognizes that such a division will often prove more challenging than is first apparent because even the most precise screening using "performance-related" criteria involve an inescapable element of human

Suggested Citation:"6 Potential Sites Identification." National Research Council. 1996. Review of New York State Low-Level Radioactive Waste Siting Process. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5325.
×

judgment, particularly when it is necessary to consider those criteria in combination with one another. A 1981 assessment (reprinted in U.S. Office of Technology Assessment, 1985, p. 218) recognized that

judgments about acceptability [of nuclear waste facilities] are fundamentally matters of preference. Scientific and technical findings can inform those judgments by clarifying what the levels of safety associated with particular system design or repository siting decisions are likely to be. Even if those findings should be consensually accepted as being empirically accurate (no small task in itself), it still remains for the individual or society as a whole to determine, based on a set of values, whether those levels of safety are satisfactory or not.

Although the Siting Commission combined performance-related and nonperformance-related criteria in ways that ultimately proved to be problematic, the problem is not simply that socioeconomic criteria were explicitly included in the calculations. Rather, most of the attention to socioeconomic criteria was focused on matters of relatively minor concern. In addition, the Siting Commission did not do the kinds of sensitivity analyses that would have identified the degree to which its actual choice of sites was shaped by factors having little to do with the probable safety or performance of the site.

Summary

The purpose of the PSI process was to screen the 10 candidate areas in 4 discrete steps in order to identify a limited number of potential sites for an LLRW disposal facility.

Suggested Citation:"6 Potential Sites Identification." National Research Council. 1996. Review of New York State Low-Level Radioactive Waste Siting Process. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5325.
×

The committee analyzed the exclusionary and preference criteria used in PSI, and it also analyzed the PSI screening process itself. The committee's findings are summarized in the following sections.

Screening Criteria

All 17 exclusionary and 43 preference criteria were applied during PSI screening. The committee identified problems with several of these criteria, some of which are discussed in Chapter 5. The remainder are summarized below.

  • The assumption underlying the design of Criterion 1—geologic complexity—namely, that uniform geology provides simple or predictable subsurface flow pathways, is overly simplistic. The application of this criterion at this stage of screening was inappropriate without more detailed, site-specific data.
  • Criterion 3—subsurface dissolution—should have been applied as an exclusionary condition because of the significant performance implications of dissolution. Subsurface dissolution can produce large subsurface voids, leading to subsidence or collapse.
  • Criterion 20—erosion—should have been applied as an exclusionary condition. In the judgment of the committee, LLRW disposal facility should not be located in areas with a high potential for surface erosion.
  • The methodology used to apply Criterion 44—mineral soil groups—during screening was inappropriate, because it failed to exclude all areas under active agriculture containing these soils. At this point in the process, the Siting Commission deviated from its previous practices of removing cells that contained any part of an exclusionary feature.
  • The design of drainage criteria, particularly Criterion 14—unconsolidated stratigraphic units—was unnecessarily restrictive and may have eliminated many otherwise suitable areas of the state from consideration.
Suggested Citation:"6 Potential Sites Identification." National Research Council. 1996. Review of New York State Low-Level Radioactive Waste Siting Process. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5325.
×

Screening

PSI screening comprised four discrete steps: (1) GIS Screening, (2) Qualitative Map Assessments, (3) Field Surveys, and (4) Rescreening Using All Criteria. The committee's findings with respect to these screening steps are summarized below.

  • GIS Screening. As with CAI Initial Preference Screening, in GIS Screening there may be only a weak correlation between scoring and the likely performance of the site.
  • Qualitative Map Assessments. The Qualitative Map Assessments step was not discussed in the Siting Plan but was added at a later time by the Siting Commission. The primary technical problem with this screening step is that it treated preference criteria as exclusionary conditions in that a single unfavorable mark on any one of five preference criteria was sufficient to eliminate a site from consideration. Additionally, there appeared to be little attempt by the Siting Commission in selecting sites for further screening to assess whether each site's limitations outweighed its positive attributes, as determined by using the preference criteria.
  • Field Surveys. The plan, staff training, and criteria applied in the Field Surveys step appear to the committee to be conceptually sound. There was not enough information provided to the committee, however, for it to determine how the information collected in these surveys was actually used in site selection. There are some indications that data from these surveys were not used appropriately in at least some cases. For example, field survey data collected for the Taylor sites (which were among the five final sites; Table 6.3; Figure 6.1) indicate that they should have been excluded because of the presence of incompatible structures.
  • Rescreening Using All Criteria. The selection of five potential sites was based on an undocumented staff decision, a decision that was not adequately described in the ROPSI. The design of scaling factors is not documented adequately in any of the Siting Commission's reports.
Suggested Citation:"6 Potential Sites Identification." National Research Council. 1996. Review of New York State Low-Level Radioactive Waste Siting Process. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5325.
×

Although the committee recognizes that, at best, scaling factors are subjective, it questions whether many of the scaling factors are based on reasonable technical considerations.

  • Volunteer and Offered Sites. The Siting Commission's decision to include the Taylor North site in the final list of potential sites (Table 6.3; Figure 6.1) is inconsistent with the commission's requirement that offered sites must be at least as good as other sites. The Taylor North site did not meet the minimum cutoff score applied to other sites at the same stage of screening. Furthermore, the site contained soils in mineral soil groups 1 through 4 and was under active agriculture (see footnote 13), which should have disqualified it from further consideration.
  • Contributed Information. In the committee's judgment, the Siting Commission made a sincere effort to obtain, review, and use contributed information supplied to it by local governments, but the commission did not effectively communicate why it decided to defer using much of the information until later stages. The committee compared some of this contributed information with data in Siting Commission databases and found no inconsistencies.
  • Sensitivity Analyses. The sensitivity analysis undertaken by the Siting Commission was of limited value because it was directed largely at criteria that were specified by law or regulation. The Siting Commission had considerable flexibility in the implementation of preference criteria at this stage of screening. Consequently, it should have performed a detailed sensitivity analysis to address the effects of its scoring system on siting decisions.

The committee performed its own sensitivity analysis for two steps of PSI screening (GIS Screening and Rescreening) in order to examine the effects of the weighting and scaling factors on scoring. Its conclusions are summarized below:

  1. Preference criteria scored using uncertain quantities (i.e., data of unknown or uneven accuracy and completeness) had a significant effect on scoring during both GIS Screening and Rescreening.
Suggested Citation:"6 Potential Sites Identification." National Research Council. 1996. Review of New York State Low-Level Radioactive Waste Siting Process. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5325.
×
  1. Consequently, there may be a weak correlation between the final score for a site and its suitability as an LLRW repository.
  2. As with CAI Initial Preference Screening, sites could receive unfavorable scores on performance-oriented criteria and still exceed the cutoff if they scored well on socioeconomic criteria. Sites with scores near the cutoff could be pushed across the cutoff threshold by inconsequential changes in certain criteria (see also point 4 below).
  3. The GIS Screening and the Rescreening steps had a bias toward rural areas, which is partly reflective of a bias in the DEC regulations.
  4. In the committee's judgment, scoring for the Rescreening step inappropriately combined performance and socioeconomic criteria. Thus, a site could receive less favorable or unfavorable ratings for important performance criteria yet still score above the cutoff if it received favorable scores on a large number of socioeconomic factors. The committee believes that site selection should have been based on a sequential screening using both performance-related and socioeconomic criteria after the exclusion of lands specified by regulations. The next screening step would apply performance. criteria that are related most strongly to licensing and site performance, using a cutoff score selected to meet the desired area goal. Subsequent screening steps would apply those socioeconomic factors that are less strongly related to site performance in some logical and defensible order.
Suggested Citation:"6 Potential Sites Identification." National Research Council. 1996. Review of New York State Low-Level Radioactive Waste Siting Process. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5325.
×
Page 87
Suggested Citation:"6 Potential Sites Identification." National Research Council. 1996. Review of New York State Low-Level Radioactive Waste Siting Process. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5325.
×
Page 88
Suggested Citation:"6 Potential Sites Identification." National Research Council. 1996. Review of New York State Low-Level Radioactive Waste Siting Process. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5325.
×
Page 89
Suggested Citation:"6 Potential Sites Identification." National Research Council. 1996. Review of New York State Low-Level Radioactive Waste Siting Process. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5325.
×
Page 90
Suggested Citation:"6 Potential Sites Identification." National Research Council. 1996. Review of New York State Low-Level Radioactive Waste Siting Process. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5325.
×
Page 91
Suggested Citation:"6 Potential Sites Identification." National Research Council. 1996. Review of New York State Low-Level Radioactive Waste Siting Process. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5325.
×
Page 92
Suggested Citation:"6 Potential Sites Identification." National Research Council. 1996. Review of New York State Low-Level Radioactive Waste Siting Process. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5325.
×
Page 93
Suggested Citation:"6 Potential Sites Identification." National Research Council. 1996. Review of New York State Low-Level Radioactive Waste Siting Process. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5325.
×
Page 94
Suggested Citation:"6 Potential Sites Identification." National Research Council. 1996. Review of New York State Low-Level Radioactive Waste Siting Process. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5325.
×
Page 95
Suggested Citation:"6 Potential Sites Identification." National Research Council. 1996. Review of New York State Low-Level Radioactive Waste Siting Process. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5325.
×
Page 96
Suggested Citation:"6 Potential Sites Identification." National Research Council. 1996. Review of New York State Low-Level Radioactive Waste Siting Process. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5325.
×
Page 97
Suggested Citation:"6 Potential Sites Identification." National Research Council. 1996. Review of New York State Low-Level Radioactive Waste Siting Process. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5325.
×
Page 98
Suggested Citation:"6 Potential Sites Identification." National Research Council. 1996. Review of New York State Low-Level Radioactive Waste Siting Process. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5325.
×
Page 99
Suggested Citation:"6 Potential Sites Identification." National Research Council. 1996. Review of New York State Low-Level Radioactive Waste Siting Process. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5325.
×
Page 100
Suggested Citation:"6 Potential Sites Identification." National Research Council. 1996. Review of New York State Low-Level Radioactive Waste Siting Process. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5325.
×
Page 101
Suggested Citation:"6 Potential Sites Identification." National Research Council. 1996. Review of New York State Low-Level Radioactive Waste Siting Process. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5325.
×
Page 102
Suggested Citation:"6 Potential Sites Identification." National Research Council. 1996. Review of New York State Low-Level Radioactive Waste Siting Process. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5325.
×
Page 103
Suggested Citation:"6 Potential Sites Identification." National Research Council. 1996. Review of New York State Low-Level Radioactive Waste Siting Process. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5325.
×
Page 104
Suggested Citation:"6 Potential Sites Identification." National Research Council. 1996. Review of New York State Low-Level Radioactive Waste Siting Process. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5325.
×
Page 105
Suggested Citation:"6 Potential Sites Identification." National Research Council. 1996. Review of New York State Low-Level Radioactive Waste Siting Process. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5325.
×
Page 106
Suggested Citation:"6 Potential Sites Identification." National Research Council. 1996. Review of New York State Low-Level Radioactive Waste Siting Process. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5325.
×
Page 107
Suggested Citation:"6 Potential Sites Identification." National Research Council. 1996. Review of New York State Low-Level Radioactive Waste Siting Process. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5325.
×
Page 108
Suggested Citation:"6 Potential Sites Identification." National Research Council. 1996. Review of New York State Low-Level Radioactive Waste Siting Process. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5325.
×
Page 109
Suggested Citation:"6 Potential Sites Identification." National Research Council. 1996. Review of New York State Low-Level Radioactive Waste Siting Process. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5325.
×
Page 110
Suggested Citation:"6 Potential Sites Identification." National Research Council. 1996. Review of New York State Low-Level Radioactive Waste Siting Process. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5325.
×
Page 111
Suggested Citation:"6 Potential Sites Identification." National Research Council. 1996. Review of New York State Low-Level Radioactive Waste Siting Process. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5325.
×
Page 112
Suggested Citation:"6 Potential Sites Identification." National Research Council. 1996. Review of New York State Low-Level Radioactive Waste Siting Process. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5325.
×
Page 113
Suggested Citation:"6 Potential Sites Identification." National Research Council. 1996. Review of New York State Low-Level Radioactive Waste Siting Process. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5325.
×
Page 114
Suggested Citation:"6 Potential Sites Identification." National Research Council. 1996. Review of New York State Low-Level Radioactive Waste Siting Process. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5325.
×
Page 115
Suggested Citation:"6 Potential Sites Identification." National Research Council. 1996. Review of New York State Low-Level Radioactive Waste Siting Process. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5325.
×
Page 116
Suggested Citation:"6 Potential Sites Identification." National Research Council. 1996. Review of New York State Low-Level Radioactive Waste Siting Process. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5325.
×
Page 117
Suggested Citation:"6 Potential Sites Identification." National Research Council. 1996. Review of New York State Low-Level Radioactive Waste Siting Process. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5325.
×
Page 118
Suggested Citation:"6 Potential Sites Identification." National Research Council. 1996. Review of New York State Low-Level Radioactive Waste Siting Process. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5325.
×
Page 119
Suggested Citation:"6 Potential Sites Identification." National Research Council. 1996. Review of New York State Low-Level Radioactive Waste Siting Process. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5325.
×
Page 120
Suggested Citation:"6 Potential Sites Identification." National Research Council. 1996. Review of New York State Low-Level Radioactive Waste Siting Process. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5325.
×
Page 121
Suggested Citation:"6 Potential Sites Identification." National Research Council. 1996. Review of New York State Low-Level Radioactive Waste Siting Process. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5325.
×
Page 122
Suggested Citation:"6 Potential Sites Identification." National Research Council. 1996. Review of New York State Low-Level Radioactive Waste Siting Process. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5325.
×
Page 123
Suggested Citation:"6 Potential Sites Identification." National Research Council. 1996. Review of New York State Low-Level Radioactive Waste Siting Process. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5325.
×
Page 124
Suggested Citation:"6 Potential Sites Identification." National Research Council. 1996. Review of New York State Low-Level Radioactive Waste Siting Process. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5325.
×
Page 125
Next: 7 Discussion and Conclusions »
Review of New York State Low-Level Radioactive Waste Siting Process Get This Book
×
Buy Paperback | $65.00 Buy Ebook | $54.99
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

This book reviews the efforts of New York state to site a low-level radioactive waste disposal facility. It evaluates the nature, sources, and quality of the data, analyses, and procedures used by the New York State Siting Commission in its decisionmaking process, which identified five potential sites for low-level waste disposal. Finally, the committee offers a chapter highlighting the lessons in siting low-level radioactive waste facilities that can be learned from New York State's experience.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    Switch between the Original Pages, where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  9. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!