Should High-Level Nuclear Waste be Disposed of at Geographically Dispersed Sites?

Consideration of the technical feasibility of Yucca Mountain in Nevada as the site for a high-level nuclear<br/>waste repository has led to an intense debate regarding the economic, social, and political impacts of the<br/>repository. Impediments to the siting process mean that the nuclear waste problem is being resolved by<br/>adhering to the status quo, in which nuclear waste is stored at scattered sites near major population centers.<br/>To assess the merits of alternative siting strategies --including both the permanent repository and the status quo--we consider the variables that would be included in a model designed to select (i) the optimal<br/>number of disposal facilities, (ii) the types of facilities (e.g. permanent repository or monitored retrievable facility), and (iii) the geographic location of storage sites. The objective function in the model is an all-inclusive measure of social cost. The intent of the exercise is not to demonstrate the superiority of any single disposal strategy; uncertainties preclude a conclusive proof of optimality for any of the disposal options. Instead, we want to assess the sensitivity of a variety of proposed solutions to variations in the physical, economic, political, and social variables that influence a siting strategy.