IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v19y1999i5p903-913.html

A Decision Theory Perspective on the Disposal of High‐Level Radioactive Waste

Author

Listed:
  • B. John Garrick
  • Stan Kaplan

Abstract

In this paper the problem of high‐level nuclear waste disposal is viewed as a five‐stage, cascaded decision problem. The first four of these decisions having essentially been made, the work of recent years has been focused on the fifth stage, which concerns specifics of the repository design. The probabilistic performance assessment (PPA) work is viewed as the outcome prediction for this stage, and the site characterization work as the information gathering option. This brief examination of the proposed Yucca Mountain repository through a decision analysis framework resulted in three conclusions: (1) A decision theory approach to the process of selecting and characterizing Yucca Mountain would enhance public understanding of the issues and solutions to high‐level waste management; (2) engineered systems are an attractive alternative to offset uncertainties in the containment capability of the natural setting and should receive greater emphasis in the design of the repository; and (3) a strategy of “waste management” should be adopted, as opposed to “waste disposal,” as it allows for incremental confirmation and confidence building of a permanent solution to the high‐level waste problem.

Suggested Citation

  • B. John Garrick & Stan Kaplan, 1999. "A Decision Theory Perspective on the Disposal of High‐Level Radioactive Waste," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(5), pages 903-913, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:19:y:1999:i:5:p:903-913
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.1999.tb00450.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1999.tb00450.x
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1999.tb00450.x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Stanley Kaplan & B. John Garrick, 1981. "On The Quantitative Definition of Risk," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 1(1), pages 11-27, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Patrick Ilg & Silke Gabbert & Hans‐Peter Weikard, 2017. "Nuclear Waste Management under Approaching Disaster: A Comparison of Decommissioning Strategies for the German Repository Asse II," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(7), pages 1213-1232, July.
    2. Michael Greenberg & Karen Lowrie, 2011. "Celebrating Three Decades of Public Policy‐Oriented Interdisciplinary Research," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(1), pages 7-11, January.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. S. Cucurachi & E. Borgonovo & R. Heijungs, 2016. "A Protocol for the Global Sensitivity Analysis of Impact Assessment Models in Life Cycle Assessment," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(2), pages 357-377, February.
    2. Ozgur Satici & Esra Satici, 2024. "Theoretical semi-quantitative risk assessment methodology for tunnel design and construction processes," International Journal of System Assurance Engineering and Management, Springer;The Society for Reliability, Engineering Quality and Operations Management (SREQOM),India, and Division of Operation and Maintenance, Lulea University of Technology, Sweden, vol. 15(7), pages 3385-3405, July.
    3. Chen, Fuzhong & Hsu, Chien-Lung & Lin, Arthur J. & Li, Haifeng, 2020. "Holding risky financial assets and subjective wellbeing: Empirical evidence from China," The North American Journal of Economics and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 54(C).
    4. Niël Almero Krüger & Natanya Meyer, 2021. "The Development of a Small and Medium-Sized Business Risk Management Intervention Tool," JRFM, MDPI, vol. 14(7), pages 1-14, July.
    5. Zhao, Yujia & McLellan, Benjamin Craig & Wang, Chaofan & Shuai, Jing & Xiang, Wanting & Shuai, Chuanmin, 2026. "Risk dynamics and strategies of China's solar PV industry chain under trade frictions: A review," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 208(C).
    6. Johnson, Caroline A. & Flage, Roger & Guikema, Seth D., 2021. "Feasibility study of PRA for critical infrastructure risk analysis," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 212(C).
    7. Kasai, Naoya & Matsuhashi, Shigemi & Sekine, Kazuyoshi, 2013. "Accident occurrence model for the risk analysis of industrialfacilities," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 71-74.
    8. J. C. Helton & F. J. Davis, 2002. "Illustration of Sampling‐Based Methods for Uncertainty and Sensitivity Analysis," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 22(3), pages 591-622, June.
    9. Michael Greenberg & Paul Lioy & Birnur Ozbas & Nancy Mantell & Sastry Isukapalli & Michael Lahr & Tayfur Altiok & Joseph Bober & Clifton Lacy & Karen Lowrie & Henry Mayer & Jennifer Rovito, 2013. "Passenger Rail Security, Planning, and Resilience: Application of Network, Plume, and Economic Simulation Models as Decision Support Tools," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(11), pages 1969-1986, November.
    10. Felipe Aguirre & Mohamed Sallak & Walter Schön & Fabien Belmonte, 2013. "Application of evidential networks in quantitative analysis of railway accidents," Journal of Risk and Reliability, , vol. 227(4), pages 368-384, August.
    11. Yacov Y. Haimes, 2012. "Systems‐Based Guiding Principles for Risk Modeling, Planning, Assessment, Management, and Communication," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(9), pages 1451-1467, September.
    12. Zio, E., 2018. "The future of risk assessment," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 177(C), pages 176-190.
    13. Julie E. Shortridge & Benjamin F. Zaitchik, 2018. "Characterizing climate change risks by linking robust decision frameworks and uncertain probabilistic projections," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 151(3), pages 525-539, December.
    14. Katherine Emma Lonergan & Salvatore Francesco Greco & Giovanni Sansavini, 2023. "Ensuring/insuring resilient energy system infrastructure," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 43(4), pages 625-638, December.
    15. Yacov Y. Haimes, 2006. "On the Definition of Vulnerabilities in Measuring Risks to Infrastructures," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(2), pages 293-296, April.
    16. Thi Thuy Dung Nguyen & Thanh Tung Ha & Minh Hieu Nguyen, 2025. "Why do Older Adults Adopt E-Bikes? Behavioural and Economic Insights from Vietnam’s Circular Economy Transition," SAGE Open, , vol. 15(4), pages 21582440251, October.
    17. Angelo Panno & Annalisa Theodorou & Giuseppe Alessio Carbone & Evelina De Longis & Chiara Massullo & Gianluca Cepale & Giuseppe Carrus & Claudio Imperatori & Giovanni Sanesi, 2021. "Go Greener, Less Risk: Access to Nature Is Associated with Lower Risk Taking in Different Domains during the COVID-19 Lockdown," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(19), pages 1-17, September.
    18. Peng Ye, 2022. "Remote Sensing Approaches for Meteorological Disaster Monitoring: Recent Achievements and New Challenges," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(6), pages 1-28, March.
    19. Denitsa Angelova & Andrea Bigano & Francesco Bosello & Shouro Dasgupta & Silvio Giove, 2023. "Assessing systemic climate change risk by country. Reflections from the use of composite indicators," Working Papers 2023: 28, Department of Economics, University of Venice "Ca' Foscari".
    20. Agnieszka A. Tubis & Emilia T. Skupień & Stefan Jankowski & Jacek Ryczyński, 2022. "Risk Assessment of Human Factors of Logistic Handling of Deliveries at an LNG Terminal," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(8), pages 1-24, April.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:19:y:1999:i:5:p:903-913. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1539-6924 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.