High Level Waste Repository Selection
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).
KeywordsNuclear Waste Salt Dome Nuclear Waste Repository Radioactive Waste Management Multiattribute Utility
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Ginsburg, S. Nuclear Waste Disposal: Gambling on Yucca Mountain, Aegean Park Press, 1994.Google Scholar
- Keeney, R.L. & Raiffa, H., Decisions with Multiple Objectives, Wiley, New York, 1976.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- U.S. Department of Energy, A Multiattribute Utility Analysis of Sites Nominated for Characterization for the First Radioactive-Waste Depository — A Decision-Aiding Methodology, DOE/RW-0074, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, Washington, 1986.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- Wald, M.L. U.S. will start over on planning for Nevada nuclear waste dump. New York Times, November 29, 1989.Google Scholar