ABSTRACT
The site selection process of spent fuel waste disposal repository is a very complex decision-making process. The Analytical Hierarchy Process (Saaty, 2008) is a very useful tool, since it allows structuring hierarchically any complex problem, with multiple criteria and multiple makers. Pairwise comparisons require examinations of only two items at a time. Paired comparisons can be made by evaluating items relative to each other in a qualitative and quantitative evaluation. Either way, the experts comparisons are then quantified using a matrix algebraic approach. The algebraic approach use a reference scale and allows the subjective judgments about the relative importance of the various criteria be transformed into values (weights), to be incorporated into the decision-making process (Meyer and Booker, 2001) This method has the advantage of reducing the complexity of the analysis and the difficulty of trials to evaluate only two elements at a time. However, expert judgment has uncertainty, during its previous implementation (Martins, 2009) have been identified inconsistencies in the judgment of experts, primarily related to a lack of prior knowledge of the problem usually experts are consulted about their specialty and do not visualize the whole problem at hand, namely, experts are consulted specialists in aspects related to geological disposal and had no prior knowledge of the problem as a whole. Farther, other disadvantage in applying this technique in expert judgment problem is that usually expert judgment problems cannot be neatly formulated into a hierarchical structure (Meyer and Booker, 2001).The previous application (above mentioned) not take into account the spent fuel waste disposal repository safety analysis of nuclear power plants (Sánchez and López, 2003) and the design basis accident implications. For the authors, these considerations may improve the decision basis by quantifying the overall risk level associated with the decision alternatives. The contribution of this paper is the inclusion of an additional step, successfully adopted for evaluating preliminary hazards. A Preliminary Hazard Analyses can makes it possible a better administration of the uncertainty levels since uncertainties are dependent on the complexity and understanding of casual and/or logical relationships of quantities and/or events of the real world (Nilsen and Aven, 2003). In this away creates the conditions for the debate and consensus for making decisions.
