Review of New York State Low-Level Radioactive Waste Siting Process (1996) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
5 Candidate Area Identification
5 Candidate Area Identification
Pages 58-86
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 58... ...
that together constituted some 2 percent of the area of the state. The Siting Commission's objectives in this step of the screening process were to · apply exclusionary criteria that required some qualification or interpretation of regulatory requirements; · apply exclusionary and preference criteria for conditions without strict regulatory or legal definitions of boundaries; · apply criteria for which data were available for all areas under consideration; and · identify those areas of the state having the greatest potential for sites for low-level radioactive waste (BERM)
|
From page 59... ...
2. Initial Preference Screening The remaining lands were scored using 14 preference criteria.
|
From page 60... ...
INITIAL PREFERENCE SCREENING The remaining lands of the state were subjected to Initial Preference Screening in order to identify 30 potential candidate areas. The Siting Commission used the GIS to screen the nonexcluded areas of the state using the 1-square-mile grid cells employed in the Exclusionary Screening step of CAl.
|
From page 61... ...
CThe 1986 State Act specifically excluded West Valley from consideration as an LLRW disposal facility. Total is less than the sum because of mutually exclusive conditions.
|
From page 62... ...
62 REVIEW OF NYS SITING PROCESS Map showing excluded feature Digitized map with grid overlay Cell assignment Assignment of scaling factors. 0 = Excluded 1 = Least favorable 3 = Favorable 5 = Most favorable Scores Weighting factor = 40 ; ~'.~0 ~ ~ ~ 0 ~:~ ~ 1 .
|
From page 63... ...
Only areas containing towns with a large number of composite scores exceeding the cutoff score of 4,400 points (out of a possible 5,000 points) were considered for selection as a potential candidate area.
|
From page 64... ...
5 4.5 4 o ,_ In O Y lo_ 3 1.5 Z 3.5 3 2.5 2 1 0.5 O 2,000 2,400 2,800 3,200 3,600 4,000 4,400 4,800 Composite Score FIGURE 5.3 Distribution of composite scores for Initial Preference Screening across the area of New York State. The cutoff score was 4,400 out of a total of 5,000 points.
|
From page 65... ...
In applying these criteria at this earlier point in the screening process, the Siting Commission noted (CAIR, pp. 7-1, 7-2~: Because additional criteria will be introduced in the next step of the site selection process, the Commission deemed it appropriate to seek a preview of the conditions likely to exist in the potential candidate areas for some of these additional criteria....
|
From page 66... ...
66 REVIEW OF NYS SITING PROCESS TABLE 5.3 Criteria Applied During Comparative Preference Analysis Screening Criterion Description Geologic complexity Subsurface dissolution 4~b 5b 6a 12 1 7a~c 18c 19 20 21 22 30 34 44a 47 lad 59d Existing mine exclusion Geologic units Reforestation areas Primary and principal aquifers Wetlands exclusion Distance from wetlands Drainage Erosion Flooding Best usage of surface waters Other radionuclide sources Highly populated places Mineral soil groups Transportation access Historic places Distance from historical/cultural resources Exclusionary criterion. bApplied for new and existing mine disposal only.
|
From page 67... ...
The consistency of results from the sensitivity studies provides assurance of the reasonableness of the weighting factors used by the Commission in identifying the potential candidate areas. Notably, 3 of the areas that fell below the cutoff in this sensitivity analysis were among the 10 candidate areas, and sites from 2 of these areas were selected in the next step of the screening process (Chapter 61.
|
From page 68... ...
68 I've.> 8 i s~ __ ~ fit ~ i ' 1' t ~ ,' I..'' ~' ~ -- .
|
From page 69... ...
Double the weight for the low population densities criterion (33) Increase the weights of the water resources criteria by 50% (12, 13, 22)
|
From page 70... ...
Comments from the counties focused on perceptions that the process was unfair and unscientific, that it was based on inadequate or inaccurate information, and that it involved subjective judgments. The sentiment of Oswego County in its response to a Siting Commission request for technical information reflected the perceptions of some that the screening process was designed to identify the "best" site for an LLRW disposal facility: "We do not accept that we are one of the ten best sites in the state." In early 1989 the New York State Department of Health conducted workshops on the siting process for local health officials from the 10 candidate areas.
|
From page 71... ...
The comments below address only those criteria used in Exclusionary Screening and Initial Preference Screening. Comments on criteria used in Comparative Preference Analysis screening are deferred to Chapter 6.
|
From page 72... ...
) The Siting Plan justifies the omission of an exclusionary criterion for seismic hazards with the statement, "No separate criterion is presented for Quaternary (active)
|
From page 73... ...
In siting a mine disposal facility, the criterion excludes (1) existing mines that are less than 30 meters below grounds and (2)
|
From page 74... ...
With a cutoff score of 4,400 points, there were 25 existing mines under consideration, most of which were located outside the ~ O candidate areas. The Siting Commission implemented the second exclusion during the Comparative Preference Analysis stage of CAT as part of the evaluation of candidate areas for new mines.
|
From page 75... ...
in general, these problems can be traced to the fact that abandoned and existing mines are designed primarily for resource extraction and secondarily for structural stability and hydrologic isolation. Criteria 11 and 12 Protection of Ground Water Resources Criterion 11 excludes both primary and principal aquifers designated by the DEC, specifically: Exclude aR areas above the Long Island Aquifer, any primary water supply aquifer, or principal aquifer clesignated by the DEC.
|
From page 76... ...
During CAI screening, many of the counties hosting candidate areas provided evidence to the Siting Commission that their ground water resources were comparable to other principal aquifers in New York State. There were no provisions in the Siting Plan for the Siting Commission to examine these data at this stage of screening.
|
From page 77... ...
Cased on public comments on the draft Siting Plan, the Siting Commission reviewed data on other aquifers and classified the aquifers at Tug Hill and Cattaraugas Creek as equivalent to principal aquifers.
|
From page 78... ...
The Siting Plan notes that development of a facility in an air quality nonattainment area could preclude the future use of on-site incineration as a waste processing method. While the ability to locate an incinerator at the disposal site would provide flexibility in the waste management system, in the committee's judgment it is not a necessary condition for an LLRW disposal facility.
|
From page 79... ...
In the committee's judgment, there are two problems with the Siting Commission's use of arbitrary cutoff scores to select a small number of sites from a relatively large area of the state. First, as will be shown by the following sensitivity analysis, there is not a good correlation between the numerical score and the likely performances of a site as an LLRW repository, owing to the way in which exclusionary and preference criteria were applied in the screening process.
|
From page 80... ...
Table 5.5 divides the 14 preference criteria used in Initial Preference Screening into three groups: Preference criteria based on known quantities readily available data having relatively uniform quality across the state. Such data include average annual precipitation; locations of federal, state, and Indian lands; proximity to waste generators; and distance from surface water features.
|
From page 81... ...
This is a positive attribute of the screening process because it indicates that favorable scores for a large number of criteria are required to qualify a site. The high scores shown in Table S.5 for Scenarios 4, 5, 6, and 7 indicate that the preference criteria analyzed using uncertain data exert a strong control on scoring.
|
From page 82... ...
82 Cal ._ Cal C!
|
From page 83... ...
83 At - ~ on of _ _ _ o.
|
From page 84... ...
, that together constituted about 2 percent of the area of the state. The committee analyzed the exclusionary and preference criteria used in Exclusionary Screening and Initial Preference Screening (Tables 5.l, 5.2)
|
From page 85... ...
· The scope of Criterion 4 existing mine exclusion" was essentially broadened by the Siting Commission to exclude all existing mines, regardless of their depth below the surface. Although there are sound technical reasons to exclude existing mines, due to their inadequate design for an LLRW disposal facility, the Siting Commission's justification geologic complexity-could not be properly evaluated using data available during CAI screening.
|
From page 86... ...
The committee performed its own sensitivity analysis of the 14 preference criteria used in initial Preference Screening. Based on this analysis, the committee made the following observations: 1.
|
Key Terms
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.