Waste Management in the Nuclear Fuel Cycle

(April 2007)

Nuclear power is the only energy-producing technology which takes full responsibility for all its wastes and fully costs this into the product.
The amount of radioactive wastes is very small relative to wastes produced by fossil fuel electricity generation.
Used nuclear fuel may be treated as a resource or simply as a waste.
The radioactivity of all nuclear wastes diminishes with time.
Safe methods for the final disposal of high-level waste are technically proven; the international consensus is that this should be deep geological disposal.

All parts of the nuclear fuel cycle produce some radioactive waste (radwaste) and the cost of managing and disposing of this is part of the electricity cost, ie it is internalised.

At each stage of the fuel cycle there are proven technologies to dispose of the radioactive wastes safely. In some cases, however, they are not implemented because of public concerns or because they are not presently needed.

The radioactivity of all nuclear waste decays with time. Each radionuclide contained in the waste has a half-life - the time taken for half of its atoms to decay and thus for it to lose half of its radioactivity. Radionuclides with long half-lives tend to be alpha and beta emitters - making their handling easier, while those with short half lives tend to emit the more penetrating gamma rays.

Eventually all radioactive wastes decay into non-radioactive elements. The more radioactive an isotope is, the faster it decays.

The main objective in managing and disposing of radioactive (or other) waste is to protect people and the environment. This means isolating or diluting the waste so that the rate or concentration of any radionuclides returned to the biosphere is harmless. To achieve this, practically all wastes are contained and managed - some clearly need deep and permanent burial. None is allowed to cause harmful pollution.

In the OECD some 300 million tonnes of toxic wastes are produced each year, but conditioned radioactive wastes amount to only 81,000 cubic metres per year. In countries with nuclear power, radioactive wastes comprise less than 1% of total industrial toxic wastes (the balance of which remains hazardous indefinitely).

Types of radioactive wastes

Exempt Waste & Very Low Level Wastes: Exempt waste and very low level waste (VLLW) is radioactive waste which contains radioactive materials at a level which is not considered harmful to people or the surrounding environment. It consists mainly of demolished material (such as concrete, plaster, bricks, metal, valves, piping etc) produced during rehabilitation or dismantling operations on nuclear industrial sites. Other industries, such as food processing, chemical, steel etc also produce VLLW as a result of the concentration of natural radioactivity present in certain minerals used in their manufacturing processes (see also paper on NORM). The waste is therefore disposed of with domestic refuse, although countries such as France are currently developing facilities to store VLLW in specifically designed VLLW disposal facilities.

Low-level Wastes (LLW) are generated from hospitals and industry, as well as the nuclear fuel cycle. It comprises paper, rags, tools, clothing, filters etc which contain small amounts of mostly short-lived radioactivity. It does not require shielding during handling and transport and is suitable for shallow land burial. To reduce its volume, it is often compacted or incinerated before disposal. It comprises some 90% of the volume but only 1% of the radioactivity of all radwaste.

Intermediate-level Wastes (ILW) contain higher amounts of radioactivity and some requires shielding. It typically comprises resins, chemical sludges and metal fuel cladding, as well as contaminated materials from reactor decommissioning. Smaller items and any non-solids may be solidified in concrete or bitumen for disposal. It makes up some 7% of the volume and has 4% of the radioactivity of all radwaste.

High-level Wastes (HLW) arise from the use of uranium fuel in a nuclear reactor. It contains the fission products and transuranic elements generated in the reactor core. It is highly radioactive and hot, so requires cooling and shielding. It can be considered as the "ash" from "burning" uranium. HLW accounts for over 95% of the total radioactivity produced in the process of electricity generation. There are two distinct kinds of HLW:
- used fuel itself in fuel rods, or
- reprocessing waste
as described below. HLW may also be categorised as long-lived or short-lived depending on the length of time it will take for the radioactivity of that particular waste to decrease to levels that are considered no longer hazardous for people and the surrounding environment.

Fuel Cycle Stages

Mining and milling

Traditional uranium mining generates fine sandy tailings, which contain virtually all the naturally occurring radioactive elements naturally found in uranium ore. These are collected in engineered tailings dams and finally covered with a layer of clay and rock to inhibit the leakage of radon gas and ensure long-term stability. In the short term, the tailings material is often covered with water. After a few months, the tailings material contains about 75% of the radioactivity of the original ore. Strictly speaking these are not classified as radioactive wastes.

Conversion, enrichment, making fuel

Uranium oxide concentrate from mining, essentially "yellowcake" (U₃O₈), is not significantly radioactive - barely more so than the granite used in buildings. It is refined then converted to uranium hexafluoride gas (UF₆). As a gas, it undergoes enrichment to increase the U-235 content from 0.7% to about 3.5%. It is then turned into a hard ceramic oxide (UO₂) for assembly as reactor fuel elements.

The main by-product of enrichment is depleted uranium (DU), principally the U-238 isotope, which is stored either as UF₆ or U₃O₈. About 1.2 million tonnes of DU is now stored. Some is used in applications where its extremely high density makes it valuable, such as the keels of yachts and military projectiles. It is also used (with recycled Pu) for making mixed oxide fuel and to dilute highly-enriched uranium from dismantled weapons which is now being used for reactor fuel.

Electricity Generation

High-level Waste (HLW) is the major source of waste in terms of activity, arising from the use of nuclear reactors to generate electricity. Highly radioactive fission products and also transuranic elements are produced from uranium and plutonium during reactor operations and are contained within the used fuel. Where countries have adopted a closed cycle and utilised reprocessing to recycle material from used fuel, the fission products and transuranic elements are separated from uranium and plutonium and treated as HLW (uranium and plutonium is then re-used as fuel in reactors). In countries where used fuel is not reprocessed, the used fuel itself is considered a waste and therefore classified as HLW.

Low and intermediate level waste is produced as a result of operations, such as the cleaning of reactor cooling systems and fuel storage ponds, the decontamination of equipment, filters and metal components that have become radioactive as a result of their use in or near the reactor.

A typical large (1000 MWe) light water reactor will generate 200 - 350 m³ low and intermediate level waste per year. It will also produce about 20m³ (27 tonnes) of used fuel per year, which corresponds to a 75m³ disposal volume following encapsulation if it is treated as waste. Where that used fuel is reprocessed, only 3m³ of vitrified waste (glass) is produced, which is equivalent to a 28m³ disposal volume following placement in a disposal canister.

Managing HLW from used fuel

Storage pond for used fuel at UK reprocessing plant

Used fuel gives rise to HLW which may be either:

the used fuel itself in fuel rods, or
the principal waste arising from reprocessing this (see next section).

In either case, the amount is modest - about 27 tonnes of spent fuel or three cubic metres per year of vitrified waste for a typical large nuclear reactor. Both can be effectively and economically isolated, and have been handled and stored safely since nuclear power began.

Storage is mostly in ponds at reactor sites, or occasionally at a central site. Some 90% of the world's used fuel is stored thus and some of it has been there for decades. The ponds are usually about seven metres deep, to allow three metres of water over the used fuel to fully shield it. The water also cools it. Some storage is in dry casks or vaults with air circulation and the fuel is surrounded by concrete.

If the used fuel is reprocessed, as is that from UK, French, Japanese and German reactors, HLW comprises highly-radioactive fission products and some transuranic elements with long-lived radioactivity. These are separated from the spent fuel, enabling the uranium and plutonium to be recycled. The remaining HLW generates a considerable amount of heat and requires cooling. It is vitrified into borosilicate (Pyrex) glass, encapsulated into heavy stainless steel cylinders about 1.3 metres high and stored for eventual disposal deep underground. This material has no conceivable future use and is unequivocally waste. The hulls and end-fittings of the reprocessed fuel assemblies are compacted, to reduce volume, and usually incorporated into cement prior to disposal as ILW.

But if used reactor fuel is not reprocessed, it will still contain all the highly radioactive isotopes, and then the entire fuel assembly is treated as HLW for direct disposal. It too generates a lot of heat and requires cooling. However, since it largely consists of uranium (with a little plutonium), it represents a potentially valuable resource. Hence there is an increasing reluctance to dispose of it irretrievably.

Either way, after 40-50 years the heat and radioactivity have fallen to one thousandth of the level at removal. This provides a technical incentive to delay further action with HLW until the radioactivity has reduced to about 0.1% of its original level.

After storage for about 40 years the used fuel assemblies are ready for encapsulation or loading into casks ready for indefinite storage or permanent disposal underground.

Direct disposal of used fuel has been chosen by the USA and Sweden among others, although evolving concepts lean towards making it recoverable if future generations see it as a resource. This means allowing for a period of management and oversight before a repository is closed.

Increasingly, reactors are using fuel enriched to over 4% U-235 and burning it longer, to end up with less than 0.5% U-235 in the spent fuel. This provides less incentive to reprocess. Used fuel from light water reactors contains approximately:

95.6% uranium (less than 1% of which is U-235)
2.9% stable fission products
0.9% plutonium (about two thirds fissile Pu-239 & Pu-241)
0.3% cesium & strontium (fission products)
0.1% iodine and technetium (fission products)
0.1% other long-lived fission products
0.1% minor actinides (americium, curium, neptunium)

Recycling used fuel

Any used fuel will still contain some of the original U-235 as well as various plutonium isotopes which have been formed inside the reactor core, and the U-238. In total these account for some 96% of the original uranium and over half of the original energy content (ignoring U-238). Reprocessing, undertaken in Europe and Russia, separates this uranium and plutonium from the wastes so that they can be recycled for re-use in a nuclear reactor as a mixed oxide (MOX) fuel. This is the "closed fuel cycle".

(This is very much what is to happen with the tiny quantities of spent fuel from the Australian research reactor at Lucas Heights near Sydney. Some of this spent fuel has been returned to Europe for reprocessing, and the small amount of separated waste will eventually be returned to Australia for disposal as intermediate-level waste.)

Plutonium arising from reprocessing comprises only about 1% of commercial spent fuel. It is recycled through a MOX fuel fabrication plant where it is mixed with depleted uranium oxide to make fresh fuel. European reactors currently use over 5 tonnes of plutonium a year in fresh MOX fuel, although all reactors routinely burn much of the plutonium which is continually formed in the core by neutron capture. The use of MOX simply means that some plutonium is incorporated into fresh fuel. (Plutonium arising from the civil nuclear fuel cycle is not suitable for bombs. It contains far too much of the Pu-240 isotope because of the length of time the fuel has spent in the reactor.)

Major commercial reprocessing plants operate in France, UK, and Russia with a capacity of some 5000 tonnes per year and cumulative civilian experience of 80,000 tonnes over 50 years. France and UK also undertake reprocessing for utilities in other countries, notably Japan, which has made over 140 shipments of used fuel to Europe since 1979. Until now most Japanese used fuel is reprocessed in Europe, with the vitrified waste and the recovered U and Pu (as MOX) being returned to Japan to be used in fresh fuel. Russia also reprocesses some spent fuel from Soviet-designed reactors in other countries.

A proposed development of this reprocessing and recycle is to separate plutonium with the minor actinides as one product. This however cannot be simply put into MOX fuel and recycled in conventional reactors, it requires fast neutron reactors which are as yet few and far between. However, it will make disposal of high-level wastes easier.

Costs of radioactive waste management

Financial provisions are made for managing all kinds of civilian radioactive waste. The cost of managing and disposing of nuclear power plant wastes represents about 5% of the total cost of the electricity generated.

Most nuclear utilities are required by governments to put aside a levy (eg 0.1 cents per kilowatt hour in the USA, 0.14 c/kWh in France) to provide for management and disposal of their wastes. So far some US$ 28 billion had been committed to the US waste fund by electricity consumers.

The actual arrangements for paying for waste management and decommissioning also vary. The key objective is however always the same: to ensure that sufficient funds are available when they are needed.

There are three main approaches:

Provisions on the Balance Sheet
Sums to cover the anticipated costs of waste management and decommissioning are included on the generating company's balance sheet as a liability. As waste management and decommissioning work proceeds, the company has to ensure that it has sufficient investments and cash flow to meet the required payments.

Internal Fund
Payments are made over the life of the nuclear facility into a special fund that is held and administered within the company. The rules for the management of the fund vary, but many countries allow the fund to be re-invested in the assets of the company, subject to adequate securities and investment returns.

External Fund
Payments are made into a fund that is held outside the company, often within Government or administered by a group of independent Trustees. Again, rules for the management of the fund vary. Some countries only allow the fund to be used for waste management and decommissioning purposes, others allow companies to borrow a percentage of the fund to reinvest in their business.

Further reading: NEA Report: The Economics of the Nuclear Fuel Cycle (external site)

Disposing of used fuel and other HLW

There is about 270,000 tonnes of spent fuel in storage, much of it at reactor sites. About 90% of this is in ponds, the balance in dry storage. Annual arisings of used fuel are about 12,000 tonnes, and 3000 tonnes of this goes for reprocessing. Final disposal is not urgent in any logistics sense.

To ensure that no significant environmental releases occur over tens of thousands of years, 'multiple barrier' disposal is planned. This immobilises the radioactive elements in HLW and some ILW and isolates them from the biosphere. The main barriers are:

Immobilise waste in an insoluble matrix such as borosilicate glass or synthetic rock (fuel pellets are already a very stable ceramic: UO₂);
Seal it inside a corrosion-resistant container, such as stainless steel;
Locate it deep underground in a stable rock structure; and
Surround containers with an impermeable backfill such as bentonite clay if the repository is wet.

HLW from reprocessing must be solidified. France has two commercial plants to vitrify HLW left over from reprocessing oxide fuel, and there are also significant plants in the UK and Belgium. The capacity of these western European plants is 2,500 canisters (1000 t) a year, and some have been operating for three decades.

Loading silos with canisters containing vitrified high-level waste in UK, each disc on the floor covers a silo holding ten canisters

The Australian Synroc (synthetic rock) system is a more sophisticated way to immobilise such waste, and this process may eventually come into commercial use for civil wastes.

To date there has been no practical need for final HLW repositories, as surface storage for 40-50 years is first required so that heat and radioactivity can decay to levels which make handling and storage easier.

The process of selecting appropriate deep geological repositories is now under way in several countries with the first expected to be commissioned some time after 2010. Finland and Sweden are well advanced with plans and site selection for direct disposal of used fuel, since their Parliaments decided to proceed on the basis that it was safe, using existing technology. The US has opted for a final repository in Nevada. There have also been proposals for international HLW repositories in optimum geology - Australia or Russia are possible locations.

An indepth statement with reference to particular countries' waste policies and actions was published by the International Nuclear Societies Council in 1999, Radioactive Waste Task Group.

A pending question is whether wastes should be emplaced so that they are readily retrievable from repositories. While there are sound reasons for keeping such options open, long-tern security is also vital. After being buried for about 1,000 years most of the radioactivity will have decayed. The amount of radioactivity then remaining would be similar to that of the naturally-occurring uranium ore from which it originated, though it would be more concentrated.

The appended table indicates the measures that various countries have in place or planned to store, reprocess and dispose of used fuel and wastes. It is not comprehensive.

Disposing of other radioactive wastes

Generally, short-lived intermediate-level wastes (mainly from decommissioning reactors - see next section) are buried, while long-lived intermediate-level wastes (from fuel reprocessing) will be disposed of deep underground. Low-level wastes are disposed of in shallow burial sites.

Some low-level liquid wastes from reprocessing plants are discharged to the sea. These include radionuclides which are distinctive, notably technetium-99 (sometimes used as a tracer in environmental studies), and this can be discerned many hundred kilometres away. However, such discharges are regulated and controlled, and the maximum radiation dose anyone receives from them is a small fraction of natural background.

Nuclear power stations and reprocessing plants release small quantities of radioactive gases (e.g, krypton-85 and xenon-133) and trace amounts of iodine-131 to the atmosphere. However, they have short half-lives, and the radioactivity in the emissions is diminished by delaying their release. Also the first two are chemically inert. The net effect is too small to warrant consideration in any life-cycle analysis.

It is noteworthy that coal burning produces some 280 million tonnes of ash per year, most of it containing low levels of natural radionuclides. Some of this could be classified as LLW. It is simply buried.

Wastes from decommissioning nuclear plants

In the case of nuclear reactors, about 99% of the radioactivity is associated with the fuel which is removed before moving to any of the three options. Apart from any surface contamination of plant, the remaining radioactivity comes from "activation products" such as steel components which have long been exposed to neutron irradiation. Their atoms are changed into different isotopes such as iron-55, cobalt-60, nickel-63 and carbon-14. The first two are highly radioactive, emitting gamma rays, but correspondingly with short half-life so that after 50 years from closedown their hazard is much diminished. Some caesium-137 may also be in decommissioning wastes.

Some scrap material from decommissioning may be recycled, but for uses outside the industry very low clearance levels are applied, so most is buried.

Natural precedents for geological disposal

Nature has already proven that geological isolation is possible through several natural examples (or "analogues"). The most significant case occurred almost 2 billion years ago at Oklo in what is now Gabon in West Africa, where six spontaneous nuclear reactors operated within a rich vein of uranium ore. (At that time the concentration of U-235 in all natural uranium was about 3%.) These natural nuclear reactors continued for about 500,000 years before dying away. They produced all the radionuclides found in HLW, including over 5 tonnes of fission products and 1.5 tonnes of plutonium, all of which remained at the site and eventually decayed into non-radioactive elements.

The study of such natural phenomena is important for any assessment of geologic repositories, and is the subject of several international research projects. However, it must be noted that the Oklo reactions proceeded because groundwater was present as a moderator in the "enriched" and permeable uranium ore.

Legacy Wastes

This paper mainly addresses the routine wastes arising from current nuclear power generation and its supporting activities.

In several countries which pioneered nuclear power and especially where power programs arose out of military programs, there are other radioactive wastes which require management and disposal. These are sometimes voluminous and difficult, and are referred to as 'legacy wastes'. They arose in the course of those countries getting to a position where nuclear technology is a commercial proposition for power generation, and they represent a liability which is not covered by current funding arrangements. In the UK, some £50 billion is estimated to be involved in addressing these - principally from Magnox and some early AGR developments, and about 30% of the total is attributable to military programs. In USA, Russia and France the liabilities are also considerable.

How much waste is produced? The volume of nuclear waste produced by the nuclear industry is very small compared with other wastes generated. In the OECD some 300 million tonnes of toxic wastes are produced each year, but conditioned radioactive wastes amount to only 81,000 m3 per year. In countries with nuclear power, radioactive wastes comprise less than 1% of total industrial toxic wastes. In the UK for example, ~120,000,000 m3 of waste is generated per year - the equivalent of just over 20 dustbins full for every man, woman and child. The amount of nuclear waste produced per member of the UK populations is 840 cm3 or a volume less than that of two video cassettes. Of this waste, 90% of the volume is only slightly radioactive and is categorised as low-level waste (has only 1% of the total radioactivity of all radioactive wastes). Intermediate level waste makes up 7% of the volume and has 4% of the radioactivity. The most radioactive form of waste is categorised as high-level waste and whilst accounting for only 3% of the volume of all the radioactive waste produced, it contains 95% of the radioactivity. Considering the amount of high-level waste produced from a typical large reactor (1000 MWe), light water type over a year: Where countries have adopted the reprocessing option, three cubic metres of vitrified waste (glass) are produced. Countries that consider used fuel as a waste typically produce 20m3 (30 tonnes) for the equivalent reactor type per year. This compares with an average 400,000 tonnes of ash produced from a coal-fired plant of he same size Today, volume reduction techniques and abatement technologies as well as continuing good practice within the work force all contribute to continuing minimisation of waste produced, a key principle of waste management policy in the nuclear industry. Whilst the volumes of nuclear wastes produced are very small, the most important issue for the nuclear industry is managing their toxic nature in a way that is environmentally sound and presents no hazard to both workers and the general public.

Regulation

The nuclear and radioactive waste management industries work to well-established safety standards for the management of radioactive waste. International and regional organisations such as the IAEA, OECD/NEA, EC and ICRP develop standards, guidelines and recommendations under a framework of co-operation to assist countries in establishing and maintaining national standards. National policies, legislation and regulations are all developed from these internationally agreed standards, guidelines and recommendations. Amongst others, these standards aim to ensure the protection of the public and the environment, both now and into the future.

International agreements in the form of Conventions have also been established such as the "Joint Convention on Nuclear Safety" and the "Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management". The latter was adopted in 1997 by a diplomatic conference convened by the International Atomic Energy Agency and came into force in June 2001 following the required number of ratifications.

Other International Conventions and Directives seek to provide for inter alia, the safe transportation of radioactive material, protection of the environment (including the marine environment) from radioactive waste and the control of imports and exports of radioactive waste and transboundary movements.

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is the international organisation that advises on the safe and peaceful uses of nuclear technology. It is an agency of the United Nations, based in Vienna, Austria founded in 1957 and it currently has 134 member states from countries with and without nuclear energy programs. The IAEA develops safety standards, guidelines and recommendations and inter alia provides technical guidance to member states on radioactive waste principles. Member states use the standards and guidelines in developing their own legislation, regulatory documents and guidelines. It also verifies through a safeguards inspection programme compliance with the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

The IAEA's Waste Safety Section works to develop internationally agreed standards on the safety of radioactive waste. The Radioactive Waste Safety Standards Programme (RADWASS) provides guidance to member states to produce their own policies and regulations for the safe management of radioactive waste, including disposal.

In addition, the IAEA helps member states by providing technical assistance with services, equipment and training and by conducting radiological assessments.

Further reading: IAEA Radiation, Transport and Waste Safety (external site)

The Nuclear Energy Agency of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD/NEA) is based in Paris, France. It has a variety of waste management programmes involving its 28 member states. The organisation aims to assist these states in developing safe waste disposal strategies and policies for spent nuclear fuel, HLW and waste from decommissioning nuclear facilities. It also works closely with the IAEA on nuclear safety standards and other technical activities.

Further reading: NEA/OECD Radiaoctive waste management (external site)

European Commission

The European Commission (EC) supports research and development projects, sponsors international symposia and provides training opportunities. It also works closely with the IAEA in radioactive waste management areas.

Under the Euratom Treaty, which established the European Atomic Energy Community, the EC proposes Directives and regulations covering the control of shipments of radioactive substances between member states and basic safety standards for the protection of health of workers and general public from ionising radiation.

The Commission is currently developing a "Nuclear Package". The package, which is in the form of two Directives and several Regulations (and is legally binding), is designed to produce common standards and monitoring mechanisms in the EU member states and ensure a common approach to nuclear safety and radioactive waste management. The package, inter alia, proposes a new Directive on the Management of Spent Fuel and also seeks to ensure that member states have adequate funds in place for decommissioning when required. The European Council is currently considering the two Directives.

ICRP

The International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) is an independent registered charity that issues recommendations for protection against all sources of radiation. The IAEA interprets these recommendations into international safety standards and guidelines for radiological protection. National regulators may also adopt the recommendations by the ICRP for their own radiation protection standards. The Commission is currently reviewing its current recommendations (ICRP 60) with a view to publishing new recommendations in 2005. Amongst others, the new recommendations will include for the first time a proposed framework for the assessment of the impact of ionising radiation in the environment.

See also: UNSCEAR - United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation.

Waste Management for Used Fuel from Nuclear Power Reactors

Country	Policy	Facilities and progress towards final repositories
Belgium	Reprocessing	Central waste storage at Dessel Underground laboratory established 1984 at Mol Construction of repository to begin about 2035
Canada	Direct Disposal	Nuclear Waste Management Organisation set up 2002 Deep geological repository confirmed as policy, retrievable Repository site search from 2009, planned for use 2025
China	Reprocessing	Central used fuel storage in LanZhou Repository site selection completed by 2020 Underground research laboratory from 2020, disposal from 2050
Finland	Direct Disposal	Program start 1983, two used fuel storages in operation Posiva Oy set up 1995 to implement deep geological disposal Repository under construction near Olkiluoto, open in 2020
France	Reprocessing	TUnderground rock laboratories in clay and granite Parliamentary confirmation in 2006 of deep geological disposal Bure is likely repository site to be licensed 2015, operating 2025
Germany	Reprocessing but moving to direct disposal	Repository planning started 1973 Used fuel storage at Ahaus and Gorleben salt dome Geological repository may be operational at Gorleben after 2025
India	Reprocessing	Research on deep geological disposal for HLW
Japan	Reprocessing	High-level waste storage facility at Rokkasho since 1995 High-level waste storage approved for Mutsu from 2010 NUMO set up 2000, site selection for deep geological repository under way to 2025, operation from 2035
Russia	Reprocessing	Sites for final repository under investigation on Kola peninsula Various storage facilities in operation
South Korea	Direct Disposal	Waste program confirmed 1998 Central interim storage planned from 2016
Spain	Direct Disposal	ENRESA established 1984, its plan accepted 1999 Central interim storage probably at Trillo from 2010 Research on deep geological disposal, decision after 20101
Sweden	Direct Disposal	Central used fuel storage facility - CLAB - in operation since 1985 Underground research laboratory at Aspo for HLW repository Site selection for repository in two volunteered locations
Switzerland	Reprocessing	Central interim storage for HLW at Zwilag since 2001 Central low & ILW storages operating since 1993 Underground research laboratory for high-level waste repository, with deep repository to be finished by 2020
United Kingdom	Reprocessing	Low-level waste repository in operation since 1959 HLW from reprocessing is vitrified and stored at Sellafield Repository location to be on basis of community agreement New NDA subsidiary to progress geological disposal
USA	Direct Disposal, but reconsidering	DoE responsible for used fuel from 1998, $28 billion waste fund Considerable research on repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada 2002 decision that geological repository be at Yucca Mountain

Sources:
OECD NEA, 1996, Radioacvtive waste Management in Perspective
IAEA ,1992, Radioactive Waste Management An IAEA Source Book, & IAEA Bulletin 40,1; 1998
OECD NEA 1999, Geological Disposal of Radioactive Waste - review of developments in the last decade.

Appendix

Environmental and ethical aspects of radioactive waste management

The first two statements were formulated and published in 1995 to confront the question of identifying the best and most appropriate means of managing and disposing of radioactive wastes from the civil nuclear fuel cycle. The third statement updates these to 1999.

International Atomic Energy Agency

Fundamental Principles Of Radioactive Waste Management

1. Protection of Human Health
Radioactive waste shall be managed in such a way as to secure an acceptable level of protection for human health.

2. Protection of the environment
Radioactive waste shall be managed in such a way as to provide an acceptable level of protection of the environment.

3. Protection beyond national borders
Radioactive waste shall be managed in such a way as to assure that possible effects on human health and the environment beyond national borders will be taken into account.

4. Protection of future generations
Radioactive waste shall be managed in such a way that predicted impacts on the health of future generations will not be greater than relevant levels of impact that are acceptable today.

5. Burdens on future generations
Radioactive waste shall be managed in such a way that will not impose undue burdens on future generations.

6. National legal framework
Radioactive waste shall be managed within an appropriate national legal framework including clear allocation of responsibilities and provision for independent regulatory functions.

7. Control of radioactive waste generation
Generation of radioactive waste shall be kept to the minimum practicable.

8. Radioactive waste generation and management interdependencies
Interdependencies among all steps in radioactive waste generation and management shall be appropriately taken into account.

9. Safety of facilities
The safety of facilities for radioactive waste management shall be appropriately assured during their lifetime.

IAEA 1995

OECD NEA Collective Opinion of the Radioactive Waste Management Committee

The Environmental and Ethical Basis of the Geological Disposal of Long-lived Radioactive Waste

After a careful review of the environmental and ethical issues, the members of the Radioactive Waste Management Committee of the OECD Nuclear Energy Agency:

consider that the ethical principles of intergenerational and intragenerational equity must be taken into account in assessing the acceptability of strategies for the long-term management of radioactive wastes;
consider that from an ethical standpoint, including long-term safety considerations, our responsibilities to future generations are better discharged by a strategy of final disposal than by reliance on stores which require surveillance, bequeath long-term responsibilities of care, and may in due course be neglected by future societies whose structural stability should not be presumed;
note that, after consideration of the options for achieving the required degree of isolation of such wastes from the biosphere, geological disposal is currently the most favoured strategy;
believe that the strategy of geological disposal of long-lived radioactive wastes:
- takes intergenerational equity issues into account, notably by applying the same standards of risk in the far future as it does to the present, and by limiting the liabilities bequeathed to future generations; and
- takes intragenerational equity issues into account, notably by proposing implementation through an incremental process over several decades, considering the results of scientific progress; this process will allow consultation with interested parties, including the public, at all stages;
note that the geological disposal concept does not require deliberate provision for retrieval of wastes from the repository, but that even after closure it would not be impossible to retrieve the wastes, albeit at a cost;
caution that, in pursuing the reduction of risk from a geological disposal strategy for radioactive wastes, current generations should keep in perspective the resource deployment in other areas where there is potential for greater reduction of risks to humans or the environment, and consider whether resources may be used more effectively elsewhere;

Keeping these considerations in mind, the Committee members:

confirm that the geological disposal strategy can be designed and implemented in a manner that is sensitive and responsive to fundamental ethical and environmental considerations;
conclude that it is justified, both environmentally and ethically, to continue development of geological repositories for those long-lived radioactive wastes which should be isolated from the biosphere for more than a few hundred years; and
conclude that stepwise implementation of plans for geological disposal leaves open the possibility of adaptation, in the light of scientific progress and social acceptability, over several decades, and does not exclude the possibility that other options could be developed at a later stage.

OECD NEA 1995

This opinion has been endorsed by the IAEA and the Commission of European Communities.

Geological Disposal of Radioactive Waste - review of developments in the last decade

In 1999 the Radioactive Waste Management Committee of the OECD NEA surveyed member countries as well as the European Commission and the IAEA to review the adequacy and continuing relevance of earlier collective opinions such as that quoted above. A very high level of consensus was found internationally among regulators and implementers.

Broad conclusions reached at the end of this review were that:

Deep geologic disposal concepts have made significant progress in the past ten years, most especially in the technical areas concerning the understanding, characterisation and quantitative modelling of the natural and engineered safety-barrier systems.
No radical changes in strategy or in applied methodologies have proven to be necessary. Although, refinements are still being made, deep geologic disposal is effectively a technology that is mature enough for deployment.
In many programmes, more emphasis is being placed upon the contribution of the engineered barriers, but the natural or geologic barriers in a deep repository continue to play a crucial role in determining the achievable long-term safety.
All national programmes continue to support deep geologic disposal as a necessary and a feasible technology, even though some countries wish to postpone implementation of repositories or to evaluate other options in parallel.
There is a general common trend towards advocacy of prudent, stepwise approaches at the implementational and regulatory level to allow smaller incremental steps in the societal decision making process. Discrete, easily overviewed steps facilitate the traceability of decisions, allow feedback from the public and/or their representatives, promote the strengthening of public and political confidence in the safety of a facility along with trust in the competence of the regulators and implementers of disposal projects.
Although one deep geologic repository, purpose-built for long-lived waste, is now operating, the timescales envisioned ten years ago for the development of deep geologic repositories were too optimistic. The delays that have occurred are partly due to operational causes, but mainly reflect institutional reasons, in large part associated with insufficient public confidence.
There is an acute awareness in the waste management community of this lack of public confidence; efforts are needed by both implementers and regulators to communicate effectively to decision makers and the public their consensus view that safe disposal can be achieved.
The implementers and regulators are more willing than ever to heed the wishes of the public in so far as these do not compromise the safety of disposal facilities. One common goal is to establish strategies and associated procedures that allow long-term monitoring, with the possibility of reversibility and retrievability. A number of programmes now consider these issues explicitly.
In spite of the delays, no nation has rescinded its decision to pursue geologic disposal and the consensus for pursuing geologic disposal as the only feasible route for assuring permanent isolation of long-lived wastes from the human environment is unaffected.

Alternative means of radioactive waste disposal have often appeared to have promise prior to consideration of all aspects of the proposal. Several exotic options were studied earlier, and no longer seriously considered. There are those who, for a variety of reasons, strongly advocate surface storage or partitioning and transmutation. The waste management community does however, regard extended or "indefinite" surface storage as a real alternative to geologic disposal; at best it offers a postponement of final disposal. Partitioning and transmutation is also not regarded as an alternative; at best it reduces the volume, or changes the isotope distribution, of wastes requiring disposal.

OECD NEA 1999

Appendices:

Appendix 1 - Treatment and Conditioning of Nuclear Wastes
Appendix 2 - Storage and Disposal Options
Appendix 3 - National Policies
Appendix 4 - National Funding