Skip to main content

Currently Skimming:

8 Responses to Questions in Statement of Task
Pages 141-149

The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.


From page 141...
... The committee did not address these questions explicitly in previous chapters of this report mainly because the questions do not match neatly with the various steps of the screening process. indeed, the questions are quite variable in technical scope, ranging from queries about individual screening criteria to questions about the entire screening process.
From page 142...
... Additionally, there should have been an exclusionary component to Criterion 2 seismic hazards. QUESTION 2 Was the commission's application of exclusionary criteria to volunteered and non-volunteered lands consistent with good scientific practice?
From page 143...
... The process established by the Siting Commission to select LLRW disposal sites, which is outlined in the Siting Plan, was problematical for several reasons. The committee believes that the Siting Commission's use of cutoff scores for preference criteria screening is not justified, because sensitivity analyses (Chapters ~ and 6)
From page 144...
... QUESTION 5 Were the decisions made by the commission in selecting or narrowing the range of sites for LLRW disposal based on sound technical considerations? Question 4 addresses the soundness of the screening process used by the Siting Commission to select a site for an LLRW disposal facility.
From page 145...
... · The selection of the five final potential sites was based on a poorly documented staff decision. · The Siting Commission's decision to include the Taylor North site as one of the five final sites was inconsistent with the commission's requirement that offered sites must be at least as good as other sites.
From page 146...
... The committee identified the following problems in the design or application of these criteria: · The application of Criteria 12 primary and principal aquifers~uring CAT screening should have accommodated contributed data on aquifer characteristics, well performance, and water usage at the scale of 1-mile-square cells used in CAI screening. · Data to apply Criteria 12, 13, and 18 buyers from water resources were not available during the stage of the screening process (CAI screening)
From page 147...
... As noted in the response to Question 4 above, two aspects of the screening process were not well designed to identify sites with geological characteristics adequate to contain radioactive waste: (1) performance and socioeconomic criteria were combined inappropriately for scoring purposes during CAI and PSI screening; consequently, a site could receive less favorable scores on performance criteria and still be selected if it scored highly on socioeconomic criteria; and (2)
From page 148...
... to evaluate the sites "in light of additional information gained through visual inspection." QUESTION 8 Did the commission seek and/or utilize information from aR available sources, including within identified areas? As described in Chapter 4, the initial stages of screening were based on readily available information (e.g., from published maps)
From page 149...
... The committee believes, however, that the Siting Commission's decision to defer consideration of these data, when viewed in hindsight, was not successful from a public relations point of view, primarily because it appeared to local governments that their offered information was being ignored. The Siting Commission did not communicate effectively to local governments and the public why it decided to defer using much of the information until later stages.


This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More information on Chapter Skim is available.