A public interest information project about nuclear waste burial in Canada.
Know Nuclear Waste
There is no deep geological repository for high level nuclear fuel waste operating anywhere in the world. .
Alternatives to Deep Geological Repositories
Extended On-Site Storage, Northwatch, 2017
Improving Spent-Fuel Storage at Nuclear Reactors, Alvaraz, 2012
Hardened On Site Storage, Nuclear Information Resource Services
Robust Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel: A Neglected Issue of Homeland Security, Institute for Resource and Security Studies, January 2003
Related Archived Webinars
Getting the Shaft: Nuclear Waste Repository Design
Burying Trouble: Deep Geological Repositories for Nuclear Waste(2013)
Judging Geological Repositories: How Different Countries Evaluate Nuclear Waste Burial Proposals
Recommended Books
Nuclear Waste Management in Canada: Critical Issues, Critical Perspectives
Darrin Durant, Genevieve Fuji Johnson 2010
Nuclear Waste Management in Canada provides a critical antidote to the favourable position of government and industry. The contributors build their case by exploring key issues and developments. What do frequently used terms such as safety, risk, and acceptability really mean? How and why did the public consultation process in Canada fail to address ethical and social issues? What is the significance and potential of a public consultation process that involves diverse interests, epistemologies, and actors, including Aboriginal peoples? And how do we ensure that our frameworks for discussion are inclusive and ethical?
Uncertainty Underground: Yucca Mountain and the Nation's High-Level Nuclear Waste
Allison MacFarlane (Editor), Rodney Ewing (Editor) 2006
Uncertainty Underground is the first effort to review the uncertainties in the analysis of the long-term performance of the proposed repository at Yucca Mountain. The book provides reliable science-based information to support open debate and inquiry into its safety.Experts from the geosciences, industry, and government review different aspects of the repository system, focusing on the uncertainties inherent in each. Uncertainty Underground succeeds in making these important technical issues understandable to a wide audience, including policymakers and the general public.
Reports and Studies on Geological Repositories
Rock solid? A scientific review of geological disposal of high-level radioactive waste
Written by Dr Helen Wallace for Greenpeace Switzerland
Rock Solid 2.0 is a 2025 update of the invaluable 2010 Rock Solid report, in which Dr. Helen Wallace delivers a comprehensive review of the scientific literature, showing deep geological disposal of radioactive waste is still no safe solution. The report is HERE.
Effective Arrangements for Waste from New Reactors Do Not Exist
Memorandum from Nuclear Waste Advisory Associates to the House of Commons Energy and Climate Change Committee Inquiry into the Energy National Policy Statements. U.K. 2010
Rock Solid? A Scientific Review of Geological Disposal of High Level Nuclear Waste
Based on a literature review of papers in scientific journals, the present report provides an overview of the status of research and scientific evidence regarding the long-term underground disposal of highly radioactive wastes. U.K. 2010
Recommended Reading
WASTE ISOLATION PILOT PROJECT and INTERNATIONAL EXPERIENCE with DEEP GEOLOGIC REPOSITORIES
Don Hanock, Southwest Research Information Centre, September 2013
The Washington D.C. based Institute for Policy Studies has released a paper about on-site storage of nuclear fuel waste. Authored by Senior Scholar Robert Alvaraz, "Improving Spent-Fuel Storage at Nuclear Reactors". In Canada, 75% of the fuel waste is in water-filled pools at the reactor station, and 25% is dry storage containers on-site.
NWMO Geological Repository for nuclear fuel waste, recommended "Adaptive Phased Management", 2005
Generic geological repository
The Nuclear Waste Management Organization has selected the Revell site in the headwaters of the Wabigoon and Turtle-Rainy River watersheds as their proposed location to construct an underground repository for nuclear fuel waste.
Calling it "Adaptive Phased Management", the NWMO plan is to place all of Canada's highly radioactive nuclear fuel waste in a series of caverns approximately 500 metres below the surface.
The proposed underground repository and its surface facilities will occupy approximately 100 hectares (250 acres), with "possible" limits on activities that can occur in the surrounding area. The repository itself is envisaged to occupy a "suitable" rock formation of approximately 2.5 kilometres by 1.5 kilometres (375 hectares/930 acres).
Many countries are studying the idea or burying nuclear waste, and have been doing so for more than 40 years. But no one has done it. The NWMO says that their proposal is similar to that of many other countries, but in no other country has a deep geological repository project that has been approved and begun to be used for he storage or "disposal" of high level nuclear fuel waste. In addition, the government of Ontario is now considering constructing additional reactors, using a new reactor design. Independent experts have concluded that effective arrangements for waste from new reactors do not exist, citing higher "burn up" rate as a key technical difference between earlier reactors and new designs.
The concept of burying nuclear waste failed an environmental assessment review in Canada. The NWMO's "Adaptive Phased Management" is based on Atomic Energy of Canada Limited's 1988 "concept" of burying nuclear waste in the Canadian Shield. After a ten year review - which included 13 months of public hearings - the review panel concluded in 1998 that the AECL concept had not been demonstrated to be safe and acceptable.
Given the scientific uncertainties and the many outstanding technical questions about the long term ability of geological repositories to effectively contain the radioactive wastes, and in light of the vulnerability of the wastes when left in water pools at the reactor stations, the best option is to increase research and investment in extended on-site storage at the reactor station. This is not a do-nothing approach. Currently, over 40% of the high level wastes remain in the cooling pools in the reactor station with 60% now moved into dry storage as industry slowly catches up on its target of moving the waste out of the pools after 8-10 years (less than 25% of the fuel is younger than 10 years).
The lesson of Fukushima is that the high level waste is in its most vulnerable state while still in the cooling pool. To improve security and reduce the risks of natural disasters, human error or terrorist attacks, the wastes should be moved into "hardened" on-site storage.
Geological Respositories