Application of Criteria Categories

(1) General. There are three criteria categories under which a site characteristic may be evaluated: exclusion, conditional consideration and preference. A site characteristic may be included under more than one category in which case it is evaluated based upon the standards of review set forth at 310 CMR 43.40(2) through (4). (2) Exclusion. An exclusion characteristic eliminates a site from further consideration. A superior site may not exhibit an exclusion characteristic. (3) Conditional Consideration. A conditional consideration characteristic does not necessarily eliminate a sitefromconsideration. Asuperior site may exhibit a conditional consideration characteristic where the site meets the conditions applicable to the criterion as follows: (a) The standards and/or modification required as a pre-condition for consideration of the site either are able to be satisfied at the time of site selection or are determined at the time of site selection to be reasonably likely to be able to be satisfied before facility construction commences; or (b) A site specific analysis demonstrates that the potential adverse effect of off-site migration or of pubic exposure to radioactivity which the criterion was intended to protect against will not reasonably affect the ability of the site to meet DPH performance objectives or that the criterion is inapplicable to the waste isolation capability of the site or the facility. (4) Preference. A site exhibiting a preference characteristic is advantageous in that aspect as compared to a site which does not exhibit the preferred aspect. A site exhibiting a greater degree of a preferred characteristic is more advantageous in that aspect as compared to a site exhibiting less of the characteristic. (5) Additional Preference Criteria. The listing of the preference criteria in 310 CMR 43.10 through 43.39 is not intended to prohibit the Board from applying additional preference criteria inaccordance with the provisions of M.G.L. c. 111H provided that such criteria do not contravene the criteria contained in 310 CMR 43.00. (5) Scaling Preference Criteria and Objectives. Inorderto assistin evaluating and comparing potential sites the Board may develop scaling methods that rank or weight preference criteria by, for example, assigning numerical or other quantitative or qualitative values to measure the relative degrees of importance among the different criteria and to measure the extent to which a particular site satisfies a specific criterion. If the Board determines to apply any method to compare among preference criteria the Board shall adopt said method prior to the issuance of the draft candidate site report and in accordance with the provisions in M.G.L. c. 111H. Nothing herein shall require the Board to base a site selection decision on a comparison of the relative advantages or disadvantages of preference criteria exhibited among technically superior sites.