Radioactive waste should be disposed of in a way that guarantees its isolation from the biosphere. The release of potentially harmful substances — radionuclides — must be prevented or limited to levels that do not harm human health or the environment (IAEA, 1994). In this context, the issue of a proper siting process gains importance, especially in terms of selecting a site that has geological, hydrological, seismic, morphological and other characteristics that would not contribute to the release of radioactivity from a repository and subsequent exposure of the population. The site selection process is therefore a critical step in the overall site acquisition process. Countries are seeking their own ways on how to achieve these goals. As regard Slovenia it may be seen as a successful example concerning low and intermediate level waste (LILW) disposal. However, a strategy for the management of spent nuclear fuel and high level waste (HLW) is still under consideration.

The benefits of strategic environmental considerations in the process of siting a repository for LILW are clearly presented in Dermol & Kontic, 2011. The benefits have been explored by analyzing differences between the two site selection processes. One is a so-called official site selection process, which was implemented by the Agency for radwaste management (ARAO); the other is an optimization process suggested by experts working in the area of environmental impact assessment (EIA) and land use (spatial) planning. The criteria on which comparison of the results of the two site selection processes has been based are spatial organization, environmental impact, safety in terms of potential exposure of the population to radioactivity released from the repository, and feasibility of the repository from the technical, financial/economic and social points of view (the latter relates to consent by the local community for siting the repository). The site selection processes have been compared with the support of the multi-objective decision expert system named DEX — Decision EXpert (Bohanec & Rajkovic, 1999). The results of the comparison indicate that the sites selected by ARAO meet fewer suitability criteria than those identified by applying strategic environmental considerations in the framework of the optimization process. This result stands when taking into account spatial, environmental, safety and technical feasibility points of view. Acceptability of a site by a local community could not have been tested, since the formal site selection process had not yet been concluded at that time. Now the consent has been granted and ARAO is about to start construction of the repository in 2012. This approach to siting and comparison of the two site selection processes may serve as an example of transparent and inclusive — the local partnership has been established — way of dealing with radioactive waste disposal.