High Level Waste Repository Selection

  • Oleg I. Larichev
  • David L. Olson
Chapter

Abstract

Of the many multiple criteria studies, probably the most well-known is the study conducted by Woodward-Clyde Consultants concerning the location of a permanent storage facility for nuclear waste. Nuclear waste from power plants in the US is a major problem. In 1982, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act was passed by the US Congress, specifying a schedule for selecting repository sites. In November, 1984 the Department of Energy established general guidelines for evaluation of possible repository sites, specifying system guidelines for public health and safety, the environment, socioeconomics, and the ease and cost of repository development, as well as technical guidelines including conditions required in such a site. The repository was designed to be a system of tunnels and rooms excavated in stable rock at least 1000 feet underground. The plan was for nuclear waste to be shipped from power plants to the repository and permanently stored there. When full, the repository is to be sealed to minimize radiological leakage. (Keeney, 1987, p. 196). In December, 1984 the Department of Energy published initial environmental assessments of five sites nominated by the Secretary of Energy (DOE, 1984a). These sites were Davis Canyon, Utah (bedded salt); Deaf Smith, Texas (bedded salt); Richton Dome, Mississippi (salt dome); Hanford, Washington (basalt); and Yucca Mountain, Nevada (volcanic tuff).

Keywords

Nuclear Waste Salt Dome Nuclear Waste Repository Radioactive Waste Management Multiattribute Utility 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. DeWispelare, A.R., Herren, L.T. & Clemen, R.T. “The Use of Probability Elicitation in the High-Level Nuclear Waste Regulation Program,” Internationaljournal of Forecasting, vol. 11, no. LI, 1995, 5–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ginsburg, S. Nuclear Waste Disposal: Gambling on Yucca Mountain, Aegean Park Press, 1994.Google Scholar
  3. Gregory, R. & Lichtenstein, S. “A Review of the High-Level Nuclear Waste Repository Siting Analysis,” Risk Analysis 7:2, 1987, 219–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Keeney, R.L. “An Analysis of the Portfolio of Sites to Characterize for Selecting a Nuclear Repository,” Risk Analysis 7:2, 1987, 195–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Keeney, R.L. “Structuring Objectives for Problems of Public Interest,” Operations Research, vol. 36, no. 3, 1988, 396–405CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Keeney, R.L. “Using Values in Operations Research,” Operations Research, vol. 42, no. 5, 1994, 793–813CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Keeney, R.L. & Raiffa, H., Decisions with Multiple Objectives, Wiley, New York, 1976.Google Scholar
  8. Keeney, R.L. & von Winterfeldt, D. “Managing Nuclear Waste from Power Plants,” Risk Analysis 14, 1994, 107–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Kunreuther, H. and Easterling, D. Are risk-benefit tradeoffs possible in siting hazardous facilities? The American Economic Review, vol. 80, no. 2, Papers and Proceedings of the Hundred and Second Annual Meeting of the American Economic Association (May, 1990), 1990, 252–256.Google Scholar
  10. Merkhofer, M.W. & Keeney, R.L. “A Multiattribute Utility Analysis of Alternative Sites for the Disposal of Nuclear Waste,” Risk Analysis, vol. 7, no. 2,1987, 173–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Rautman, CR., Reid, R.A. & Ryder, E.E. “Scheduling the Disposal of Nuclear Waste Material in a Geologic Repository Using the Transportation Model,” Operations Research, vol. 41, no. 3, 1993, 459–469Google Scholar
  12. U.S. Department of Energy, A Multiattribute Utility Analysis of Sites Nominated for Characterization for the First Radioactive-Waste DepositoryA Decision-Aiding Methodology, DOE/RW-0074, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, Washington, 1986.Google Scholar
  13. U.S. Department of Energy, General Guidelines for the Recommendation of Sites for the Nuclear Waste Repositories, 10 CFR Part 960, Federal Register 49, No. 286, pp. 47714–47770, 1984.Google Scholar
  14. U.S. Department of Energy, Recommendation by the Secretary of Energy of Candidate Sites for Site Characterization for the First Radioactive-Waste Repository, DOE/S-0048, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, Washington, D.C., 1984.Google Scholar
  15. Wald, M.L. U.S. will start over on planning for Nevada nuclear waste dump. New York Times, November 29, 1989.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Oleg I. Larichev
    • 1
  • David L. Olson
    • 2
  1. 1.Russian Academy of SciencesMoscowRussia
  2. 2.Texas A&M UniversityUSA

Personalised recommendations