Approaches to Disposal of Nuclear Waste Michael I. Ojovan

Table 7.
Nuclear waste disposal options. Reproduced with permission of the IAEA from [10]. 
Disposal Method 
Features 
Limitations 
Waste Subject to Disposal 
Landfill sites used for domestic 
and industrial wastes 
Simple and easy to construct 
and operate 
No institutional control for dis-
posed wastes 
Existing facilities can be used 
Poor containment and 
isolation 
Exempt waste 
VLLW 
Nea
r-
surfa
ce 
fa
ciliti
es
Simple 
near-sur-
face facili-
ties 
(trenches) 
Excavated trenches covered 
with a layer of soil 
Simple and inexpensive 
Used historically for short-lived 
LLW 
Activity concentration limits 
should be established 
Erosion, intrusion, and 
percolation of rainwater 
may affect the perfor-
mance 
Decay to negligible levels 
during institutional con-
trol period (e.g., 100–300 
years) is required 
Risk of fast migration of 
radionuclides to bio-
sphere 
Waste containing radionu-
clides with very short half-
lives (VSLW), e.g., those of-
ten used for research and 
medical purposes 
Engineered 
near-sur-
face facili-
ties 
Multi-barrier approach to en-
hance the safety of disposal 
Engineered vault repositories 
Long experience with operation 
Ease of waste emplacement and 
increased efficiency in the man-
agement and closure of the re-
pository 
Institutional control (e.g., 
100–300 years) is re-
quired 
Erosion, intrusion, and 
percolation of rainwater 
may affect the perfor-
mance 
LLW with short-lived radio-
nuclides at higher levels of 
activity concentration, and 
also long-lived radionu-
clides, but only at relatively 
low levels of activity con-
centration. 
Near-sur-
face bore-
hole or 
shaft facili-
ties 
Alternative or complementary 
to near-surface vaults. 
Economical option and also 
minimises the probability of 
human intrusion 
Size and quantity of 
waste packages is limited 
Institutional control for 
up to, e.g., 300 years is 
required 
DSRS 
1
Intermedia
te
-de
pth fa
cili
tie
s 
Intermedi-
ate-depth 
shafts or 
boreholes 
without 
EBS 
Attractive disposal option for 
small volumes of waste such as 
radioactive sources 
The depth is adequate to elimi-
nate the risk of erosion, intru-
sion, and percolation of rainwa-
ter 
Flexibility in design 
Possibility to use existing dis-
used cavities (e.g., mines) 
Limited or no contact be-
tween percolating water 
is required 
Applicable in very low 
permeability host rocks, 
with little or no advec-
tion of groundwater 
Good backfilling and 
sealing are required 
Extensive characterisa-
tion of the site required 
Disused sealed radiation 
sources such as 
90
Sr, 
137
Cs, 
238
Pu, and 
241
Am 

---

Energies
2022
,
 15
, 7804 
18 of 24 
Intermedi-
ate-depth 
shafts or 
boreholes 
with EBSs 
Attractive disposal option for 
small volumes of waste such as 
radioactive sources 
Significant water inflow 
or the geotechnical char-
acteristics of the geologi-
cal materials is allowed 
Waste containers and 
packages are important 
elements in the EBS 
Disused high-activity sealed 
sources 
Intermedi-
ate-depth 
repositories 
Massive concrete vaults or si-
los, with additional EBSs such 
as clay backfills and buffers 
High cost 
Extensive characterisa-
tion of the site required 
ILW—waste that will not 
decay sufficiently within the 
period of institutional con-
trol
Deep 
fa
ciliti
es
Deep bore-
holes with-
out EBSs 
Containment of radionuclides 
is provided by the geological 
barrier 
No requirement for supplemen-
tary EBSs 
Lower flow, more stable chem-
istry and longer potential re-
turn paths to the biosphere 
High cost 
Limited volumes of dis-
posed waste 
Disused high-activity and 
long-half-life radioactive 
sources 
Deep bore-
holes with 
EBSs 
Containment of radionuclides 
is provided by the geological 
barrier 
Use of higher flow environ-
ments encountered in more 
permeable geological for-
mations is possible. 
High cost 
Limited volumes of dis-
posed waste 
Disused high-activity and 
long-half-life radioactive 
sources 
Mined geo-
logical re-
positories 
May comprise caverns or tun-
nels with varying types of EBSs 
Containment of radionuclides 
is provided by the geological 
barrier 
Suitable for all waste categories 
Enhanced confinement 
No operational experi-
ence for HLW and SFW 
High capital cost 
Assurance of site integ-
rity for above 10,000 
years is required 
Extensive safety and per-
formance analyses re-
quired 
Suitable geological media 
required 
High-level vitrified waste 
and encapsulated spent fuel 
Long-lived LILW 
Disused sources of any ac-
tivity and half-life 
1
Disused sealed radioactive source.