23.04.2013 Views

Management of Commercially Generated Radioactive Waste - U.S. ...

Management of Commercially Generated Radioactive Waste - U.S. ...

Management of Commercially Generated Radioactive Waste - U.S. ...

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

Draft p. 3.1.75<br />

Issue<br />

288<br />

SOCIOECONOMIC/SOCIOPOLITICAL ISSUES<br />

One commenter felt that the discussion <strong>of</strong> uncertainty should address the point that the<br />

magnitude <strong>of</strong> uncertainties alone can not determine whether one can proceed with any techno-<br />

logical program. (40)<br />

Response<br />

This particular paragraph is under a discussion <strong>of</strong> "Non-technical Issues" and simply<br />

states some <strong>of</strong> the anomolies <strong>of</strong> the perception <strong>of</strong> many people towards uncertainty. There<br />

is no inference and certainly no statement in that paragraph which argues that because<br />

uncertainties are low one can proceed.<br />

Draft p. 3.1.126-132, 3.1.179-181, 3.1.184-186, 3.1.193-195, 3.1.200<br />

Issue<br />

GEIS is characterized as generic and not site specific (page 3.1.98). The document<br />

further states that the ability to identify socioeconomic impacts increases as one proceeds<br />

from a generic to a site-specific situation. However, a model was employed which provided<br />

and compared very specific social service demands anticipated for each <strong>of</strong> the reference<br />

sites. It is unclear why the analysis, which used actual site specific population, employ-<br />

ment, education and housing information to estimate service demands, did not relate the<br />

demands to existing capacities to indicate net impacts.<br />

The reference sites are compared and the comparison reveals a range <strong>of</strong> different con-<br />

ditions and anticipated social service demands. Are these reference sites being presented<br />

as being representative <strong>of</strong> sites to be found in the Southeast, Southwest and Midwest areas<br />

<strong>of</strong> the country? How much variability can one expect to find among sites within the geo-<br />

graphical boundaries <strong>of</strong> each <strong>of</strong> the above areas (Southeast, Southwest and Midwest)? If<br />

large differences are expected within each <strong>of</strong> the geographical areas, to what use is the<br />

reviewer to put comparative information presented in GEIS?<br />

While a considerable amount <strong>of</strong> useful information is presented in terms <strong>of</strong> manpower<br />

needs and expected social service demands for the three reference sites, the demands are<br />

not related to the infrastructure capacities <strong>of</strong> the expected impacted communities to ascer-<br />

tain net impacts. The subjects <strong>of</strong> compensation, payments in lieu <strong>of</strong> taxes, and mitigation-<br />

in general, need considerably more development. (208-NRC)<br />

Response<br />

Population distributions chosen for analysis are reasonably representative <strong>of</strong> the<br />

range <strong>of</strong> distributions likely for siting repositories and are not representative <strong>of</strong>

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!