Deep geologic repositories are being widely studied as the most favored method of disposal of nuclear waste. Scientists search for repository sites in salt, basalt, tuff and granite that are geologically and hydrologically suitable. The systematic evaluation of the safety and reliability of deep geologic disposal centers around the concept of interacting multiple barriers. The simplest element to describe of the geologic barrier is the physical isolation of the waste in a remote region at some depth within the rock unit.

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has amended the policies under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 for evaluating the suitability of Yucca Mountain, Nevada, as a site for development of a nuclear waste repository. The final rule at Title 10, Part 963 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR Part 963) focuses on the criteria and methodology to be used for evaluating relevant geological and other related aspects of the Yucca Mountain site.

Over the past forty years, the development of the technology needed to isolate radioactive waste in underground rock systems has been found to be a formidable problem. This is especially the case in connection with high-level waste (HLW) after its removal from operations in nuclear power plants. There is also the additional problem of isolating low- and intermediate-level waste (LILW).

Isolation in a geologic setting has been the generally favored solution to the high-level radioactive waste (HLW) problem since a scientific basis for nuclear waste management began to be formulated over half a century ago. Although general features of suitable settings have been enumerated, quantitative measures of the safety of geologic isolation of HLW are challenging to devise and to implement.

Congress designated Yucca Mountain, NV, as the nation’s sole candidate site for a permanent high-level nuclear waste repository in 1987, following years of controversy over the site-selection process. Over the strenuous objections of the State of Nevada, the Department of Energy (DOE) submitted a license application for the proposed Yucca Mountain repository in June 2008 to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).

Fifty-four objectives were identified to guide the screening of the Nevada Research and Development Area of the Nevada Test Site for relatively favorable locations for the disposal of nuclear waste in a mined geologic repository. The objectives were organized as a hierarchy composed of 4 upper-level, 12 middle-level, and 38 lower-level objectives. The four upper-level objectives account for broad national goals to contain and isolate nuclear waste in an environmentally sound and economically acceptable manner.

Screening criteria and specifications are recommended to aid in the evaluation of sites proposed for nuclear waste disposal in basalt and domed salt. The recommended new criteria proposed in this report are intended to supplement existing repository-related criteria for nuclear waste disposal. The existing criteria are contained in 10 CFR 60 sections which define siting criteria of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), and ONWI 33(2) which defines siting criteria of the Office of Nuclear Waste Isolation (ONWI) for the Department of Energy.

This report summarizes the regional geologic and environmental characterizations that have been completed for the Permian region of study, and describes the procedure used to identify study areas for the next phase of investigation. The factors evaluated in the Permian region fall into three broad areas: health and safety, environmental and socioeconomic, and engineering and economic considerations.

The geology of the southeastern United States was studied to recommend areas that should be considered for field exploration in order to select a site for a radioactive waste repository. The region studied included the Piedmont Province, the Triassic Hasins, and the Atlantic Coastal Plain in Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia. This study was -entirely a review of literature and existing knowledge from a geotechnical point of view and was performed by subcontractors whose individual reports are listed in the bibliography. No field work was involved.