Open Access
Issue
EPJ Nuclear Sci. Technol.
Volume 2, 2016
Article Number 6
Number of page(s) 8
DOI https://doi.org/10.1051/epjn/e2015-50039-x
Published online 10 February 2016
  1. F.M. Vichi, L.F. Mello, in Energy: its use and the environment 3rd edn. (Thomson Learning, São Paulo, 2003) Chap. 19
  2. L. Indriunas, HowStuffWorks: How it works controversy over the nuclear plants, 2008, http://ambiente.hsw.uol.com.br/polemica-sobreusinas-nucleares.htm
  3. G. Bertozzi et al., Safety assessment of radioactive disposal into geological formation (Commission of the European Community, Luxembourg, 1978)
  4. A. Pritzker, J. Gassmann, Application of simplified reliability methods for risk assessment of nuclear waste repository, Nucl. Technol. 48, 289 (1980) [CrossRef]
  5. S.H. Chang, W.J. Cho, Risk analysis of radioactive waste repository based on the time dependent hazard rate, Radioactive Waste Manage. Nucl. Fuel Cycle 5, 63 (1984)
  6. B.L. Cohen, A generic probabilistic risk assessment for low level waste burial grounds, Nucl. Chem. Waste Manage. 5, 39 (1984) [CrossRef]
  7. C.M. Malbrain, Risk assessment and the regulation of high level waste repository, D.Sc. dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, 1984
  8. P.O. Kim, W.J. Cho, S.H. Chang, Probabilistic safety assessment of low level wasted disposal system, Radioactive Waste Manage. Nucl. Fuel Cycle 10, 253 (1988)
  9. K.W.J. Han, C.H. Kang, C.H. Kim, Genetic safety assessment for LLW repository, in Anais do Joint International Waste Management Conference, 1991 (1991)
  10. T.W. Krishnamoorthy et al., Models for shallow land disposal of low and intermediate level radwastes, in Anais do Joint International Waste Management Conference, 1991 (1991), Vol. 1, p. 127
  11. J.B. Garrick, The use of risk assessment to evaluate waste disposal facilities in the United States of America, Saf. Sci. 40, 135 (2002) [CrossRef]
  12. R.H. Little, J.S.S. Penfold, Preliminary safety assessment of concepts for a permanent waste repository at the Western Waste Management Facility, Summary Report, March 2003
  13. D. Ene, Test case of the long-term preliminary performance assessment for the L&IL Radioactive Waste Repository Baita Bihor (ICRS, Madeira, Romania, 2004)
  14. V.B. Martins, A geographic information system and multicriteria analysis method for site selection of spent nuclear fuel disposal, PhD Thesis, COPPE/UFRJ, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brasil, 2009
  15. IAEA, Arms control & verification: safeguards in a changing world (International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna, 1997) Vol. 39, n. 5, pp. 4–11
  16. IAEA, Radioactive waste management glossary (International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna, 2003)
  17. IAEA, Qualitative acceptance criteria for radioactive wastes to be disposed of in deep geological formations (International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna, 1990)
  18. H.G. Costa, Support to Multicriteria Decision: AHP method (ABEPRO, Rio de Janeiro, 2006)
  19. F.A.E. Lozano, Selecting sites for tailings dams using hierarchical analysis method, Master's thesis, Polytechnic/USP, São Paulo, SP, Brasil, 2006
  20. T.L. Saaty, The analytic hierarchy process (McGraw-Hill, New York, 1980)
  21. J.R. Emshoff, T.L. Saaty, Applications of the analytic hierarchy process to long range planning processes, Eur. J. Oper. Res. 10, 131 (1982) [CrossRef]
  22. R. Armacost, J. Hosseini, Identification of determinant attributes using the analytic hierarchy process, J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 22, 383 (1994) [CrossRef]
  23. N. Bryson, Group decision-making and the analytic hierarchy process: exploring the consensus-relevant information content, Comput. Oper. Res. 23, 27 (1996) [CrossRef]
  24. S.R. Granemann, I.R. Gartner, Selection of financing for acquisition of aircraft: an application of the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), Mag. Transp. 6, 18 (1998)
  25. A. Figueiredo, I.R. Gartner, Planning for management actions for quality and productivity in urban transport, in Transportation in transformation II (Makron, São Paulo, 1999)
  26. I.R. Gartner, N. Casarotto Filho, B.H. Kopittke, A multi-criteria system to support the project analysis developing banks, Mag. Prod. Prod. CEREPBR 2, 75 (1998)
  27. A.T. Cruz Jr, M.M. Carvalho, Consumer voice obtaining: study of case on a Green Hotel, Production 13, 88 (2003) [CrossRef]
  28. E. Bischoff, Studies using genetic algorithms for selecting access networks, Master's thesis in Electrical Engineering, Department of Electrical engineering, University of Brasília, Brasília, DF, 2008, p. 142
  29. N.C. Dalkey, B. Brown, S. Cochran, The Delphi Method. III: Use of self rating to improve group estimates (The Rand Corporation, Santa Monica, 1969) http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_memoranda/2006/RM6115.pdf
  30. J.T.C. Wright, R.A. Giovinazzo, Delphi: a support tool to prospective planning, Notebooks Res. Management 1, 54 (2000)
  31. D.M. Georgoff, R.G. Murdick, Manager's guide to forecasting, Harv. Bus. Rev. 64, 110 (1986)
  32. J. Preble, Public sector use of the Delphi technique, Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 23, 75 (1983) [CrossRef]
  33. U. Gupta, R. Clarke, Theory and application of Delphi technique: A Bibliography (1975-1994), Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 53, 185 (1996) [CrossRef]
  34. S.C. Wheelwright, S. Makridakis, Forecasting methods for management 4th edn. (John Wiley, New York, 1985)
  35. H. Sackman, Delphi critique: expert opinion, forecasting, and group process (Lexington Book, Lexington, Massachusets, 1975)
  36. M.A. Linstone, M. Turoff, The Delphi method techniques and application (Wesley Publishing Company Inc, Addison, New York, 1975)
  37. A. Bacelo, K. Becker, A Support Tool and Discussion Deliberation Group, in Proceedings of the Third Workshop on Multimedia Systems and Hypermedia, São Carlos, 1997 (1997), pp. 119–130
  38. A. Chauvet, Management methods: the Guide (Instituto Piaget, Lisbon, 1995)
  39. A. Goicoechea, D.R. Hansen, L. Duckstein, The Nominal Group Technique, in Multiobjective decision analysis with engineering and business applications (John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1982) pp. 361–363
  40. B. Al-Kloub, T. Al-Shemmeri, A. Pearman, The role of weights in multi-criteria decision aid, and the ranking of water projects in Jordan, Eur. J. Oper. Res. 99, 278 (1997) [CrossRef]
  41. S.H.B. Cassiani, L.P. Rodrigues, The Delphi technique and The Nominal Technical Group as collection strategies data from nursing research, Acta Paul. Enf. 9, 81 (1996)
  42. L.M. Jessup, D.A. Tansik, Decision making in an automated environment: the effect of anonymity and proximity with a Group Decision Support System, Decis. Sci. 2, 266 (1991) [CrossRef]
  43. J.W. Wilkinson, Accounting and information systems (John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1991)
  44. R.S. Kaplan, A.A. Atkinson, in Advanced management accounting (Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, 1989) pp. 473–496
  45. R.S. Kaplan, A.A. Atkinson, in Advanced management accounting (Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, 1989) pp. 719–740
  46. IAEA, Selection factors for repositories of solid high-level and alpha-bearing wastes, International Atomic Energy Agency, Geological Formations, Technical Report Series, No. 177, Vienna, 1977
  47. IAEA, Concepts and examples of safety analyses for radioactive waste repositories, International Atomic Energy Agency, Continental Geological Formations, Safety Series, No. 58, Vienna, 1983
  48. IAEA, Safety principles and technical criteria for the underground disposal of high level radioactive wastes, International Atomic Energy Agency, Safety Series, No. 99, Vienna, 1989
  49. K.P. Yoon, C.L. Hwang, Multi attribute decision making: an introduction (Thousand Oaks, CA, 1995) [CrossRef]
  50. J. Malczewski, GIS and multicriteria decision analysis (John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1999)
  51. R.L. Keeney, H. Raiffa, R.F. Meyer, Decisions with multiple objectives: preferences and value tradeoffs (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 1993) [CrossRef]

Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.

Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.

Initial download of the metrics may take a while.