Selection of candidate sites for a LLRW disposal facility in Connecticut

Connecticut, one of the two members of the Northeast Interstate Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management Compact, has been directed by the Compact Commission to site a facility to manage the low-level radioactive waste (LLRW) generated in Connecticut. The Connecticut Hazardous Waste Management Service (CHWMS) has been given the responsibility to identify a site in the state for a LLRW disposal facility. The CHWMS has decided to plan for a site with an operating life of 50 years. A site of at least 160 acres will be needed to accommodate (he expected volume of LLRW and meet state and federal site requirements. A Site Selection Plan establishing the process and criteria to be used in siting a facility was adopted by the CHWMS in November 1990. The Plan calls for a stepwise screening of the state using published data to identify three candidate sites. A preferred site will be selected from among the candidate sites using onsite testing. The site selection criteria, which closely follow state and federal statutory and regulatory requirements, are divided into three types: exclusionary, avoidance and preference. Battelle Memorial Institute was selected as the contractor to assist the CHWMS in site screening. With guidance from the CHWMS, Battelle undertook screening of the state by applying the exclusionary, avoidance and preference criteria in three steps to identify from eight to twelve potential sites. The CHWMS Board of Directors bad decided that it wanted to be closely involved in the selection of the three candidate sites and to do so in a way that precluded the political and parochial pressures that are inevitably associated with a siting process. To meet these two goals a geographically neutral approach was devised for candidate site selection. In June, 1991 the CHWMS, with assistance from Battelle, conducted a three day workshop, open to the public, in which eight sites were presented to the Board. Data on the sites were presented in a way that did not disclose the geographic location of the sites. Three candidate sites were selected by the Board after which the location of the sites was revealed to the Board and, simultaneously, to the local elected officials and the public. (author)