Impacts on Climate Due to Nuclear Waste
Mohammad Shabaz1, Ishant Singhal1
1
Department of Civil Engineering,
Dayalbagh Educational Institute, Agra, India
Abstract – This paper delves into the pressing issue of the impact of nuclear waste on climate change. It addresses the challenges
associated with radioactive waste management, reactor safety, economics, and climate effects, especially in the context of the growing
demand for nuclear power in World. The unique characteristics of radioactive waste, such as its instability and potential for environmental
contamination, are explored. The study emphasizes the need for comprehensive solutions that consider both technical aspects and societal
concerns to mitigate the climate impact of nuclear waste.
Keywords
Nuclear power, Radioactive waste, Climate change, Waste
management, Reactor safety.
I INTRODUCTION
In a rapidly growing demand for more electricity, especially in
Asia, concerns over energy resource availability, climate change,
air quality, and energy security suggest a larger and more important
role for nuclear power in the future. However, it is unlikely the
public will accept the growth of nuclear power until issues
associated with nuclear waste management, reactor safety,
economics, and climate effects are addressed by both the nuclear
industry and government.[1]
Among all wastes either generated by nature or man-made from
various sources, radioactive nuclear waste is the most complex and
most dangerous to human health because of its instability and the
decay process. It is not only a hazardous/toxic substance by itself,
but it can also easily contaminate surrounding areas, including the
soil-water-air system in the environment.[8]
Radioactive waste, like other wastes, may be composed of materials
varying in origin, chemical composition, and physical state.
However, what differentiates radioactive waste from other waste
forms is that it contains components that are unstable due to
radioactive decay. Managing radioactive waste requires different
approaches to ensure the protection of both humans and the
environment from the radiation.[1]
The current phase of the nuclear industry involves power production
through nuclear fission. The full fuel cycle includes uranium
mining, fuel fabrication, reactor operation, and fuel reprocessing,
generating both radioactive and nonradioactive waste. Radioactive
consist of fission fragments, actinide products, and neutron-induced
materials. While careful reactor material selection can reduce
neutron-induced radioactive waste, fission fragments and actinide
products are inevitable during fissile fuel burning. In the entire fuel
cycle, including reprocessing, these two radioactive waste
significantly impact the environment, considering their quantity,
type, and the limits of environmental assimilation.[2]
1.1. What is special about Radioactive Waste
Radioactive wastes differ from ordinary wastes owing to their
radioactivity. There are two properties of radioactivity which lead to
general precautions and basic methods of radioactive waste
management. Firstly, radioactivity is completely independent of the
physical state and will distribute throughout all stages at the point of
production. This requires complete isolation of the processing
equipment from the environment. That is, all the off-gas and liquid
discharge facilities should be carefully monitored and designed.
Secondly, the hazard produced by the radioactivity is a function of
time. There are, therefore, two methods of management: either
'release' the radioactive waste to the environment after careful study
indicates that there is no possible hazard at that concentration, or
'store' it until the radioactive waste decays to an innocuous level.
Here the words 'release' and 'storage' are used as special terms.[2]
There are approximately 128 varieties of unstable radioactive
elements in existence, with only about 68 controllable so far.
The Federal Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 and the Department
of Energy ~DOE!, in 1983, gave general guidelines for the
location of an underground site to serve as the nation’s first
permanent storage facility for high-level nuclear waste.[8]
II. TECHNICAL BACKGROUND
Characteristics of Radioactive Material and Nuclear Wastes
Radioactivity as a phenomenon is a natural process in which energy
is released by certain substances in the form of invisible radiation.
Certain nuclei are unstable and undergo radioactive decay into a
more stable form. The energy released in a radioactive
transformation must satisfy the law of energy conservation. During
the decay process, the radioactive nuclei remains decrease as time
elapses. Each type of radioactive nuclei is characterized by a
quantity called half-life. There are five general types of radioactive
decay—namely, alpha ~a! decay, beta ~b! decay, gamma ~g! decay,
electron capture, and position emission. Among these five decay
processes, the alpha decay, beta decay, and gamma decay are closely
related to engineering problems.[8]
Radioactive waste includes any material that is either intrinsically
radioactive, or has been contaminated by radioactivity, and that is
deemed to have no further use. Government policy dictates whether
certain materials – such as used nuclear fuel and plutonium – are
categorized as waste. Every radionuclide 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 waste decays into non-radioactive
elements. The more radioactive an isotope is, the faster it decays.
Nuclear energy on fossil fuel substitution
A recent study for Mexico (Santoyo-Castelazo et al., 2014)
determined that switching from the current fossil fuel mix of the
country to a higher contribution of renewable energy sources
(55–86%) and nuclear power (up to 30%) would result in 80%
carbon emission reductions and would reduce significantly the
impacts of GCC on the quality of life of the citizens.[3]
Classification of Radioactive Wastes
Radioactive waste is typically classified as either low-level (LLW),
intermediate-level (ILW), or high-level (HLW), dependent,
primarily, on its level of radioactivity.
High-Level Waste
High-level waste (HLW) is sufficiently radioactive for its decay heat
(>2kW/m3) to increase its temperature, and the temperature of its
surroundings, significantly. HLW accounts for just 3% of the
volume, but 95% of the total radioactivity of produced waste.
The highly radioactive material resulting from the reprocessing of
spent nuclear fuel, including liquid waste produced directly in
reprocessing and any solid material derived from such liquid waste
that contains fission products in sufficient concentrations; and [1]
Intermediate-level waste
Intermediate-level waste (ILW) is more radioactive than LLW, but
the heat it generates (<2 kW/m3) is not sufficient to be taken into
account in the design or selection of storage and disposal facilities.
It makes up some 7% of the volume and has 4% of the radioactivity
of all radioactive waste.[1]
Low-Level Waste
Low-level waste (LLW) has a radioactive content not exceeding
four giga-becquerels per tonne (GBq/t) of alpha activity or 12 GBq/t
beta-gamma activity. LLW does not require shielding during
handling and transport, and is suitable for disposal in near surface
facilities.LLW is 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. To reduce its volume, LLW is often compacted or
incinerated before disposal. LLW comprises some 90% of the
volume but only 1% of the radioactivity of all radioactive waste.[1]
Figure 1: From the IAEA publication: Classification of Radioactive
Waste, A Safety Guide, Safety Series No 111-G1.1 (1994).
Where and when is waste produced?
Radioactive waste is produced at all stages of the nuclear fuel cycle
– the process of producing electricity from nuclear materials. The
fuel cycle involves the mining and milling of uranium ore, its
processing and fabrication into nuclear fuel, its use in the reactor, its
reprocessing (if conducted), the treatment of the used fuel taken
from the reactor, and finally, disposal of the waste. Whilst waste is
produced during mining and milling and fuel fabrication, the
majority (in terms of radioactivity) comes from the actual 'burning'
of uranium to produce electricity. Where the used fuel is
reprocessed, the amount of waste is reduced materially.
THE SOCIAL AND THE TECHNICAL
Public concern about proposals for nuclear waste disposal is often
dismissed by members of the nuclear establishment as not being
based on scientific or technical facts [for example, (Peterson,
2017)]. The underlying implication is that “technical” assessment of
risk is rational and objective while “social” perception of risk is
driven by subjective factors. However, there are sound reasons for
doubting the validity of the technical assessments for “social”
reasons, both because of the historical experience of how technical
assessments err far more often on the side of underestimating rather
than overestimating purely “technical” risk factors, and because of
the biases inherent in the institutions that generate the technical
assessments of risk.
The related problem is that the kinds of technical or scientific
analyses that are carried out, and how problems are framed in the
first place, do not start from public concerns. As a group of social
scientists arguing for the intake of “social science input into
acceptable solutions” articulated it, “Although scientific and
technical analyses are essential, they will not, and arguably should
not, carry the day unless they address, both substantively and
procedurally, the issues that concern the public” (Rosa et al., 2010,
p. 762). Further, what constitutes an adequate level of safety cannot
be a technical issue but is necessarily a social and political
decision.[4]
Management
In general, three options exist for managing radioactive waste:
(1) concentrate and contain (concentrate and isolate the wastes in an
appropriate environment)
(2) dilute and disperse (dilute to regulatory-acceptable levels and
then discharge to the environment).
(3) delay to decay (allow the radioactive constituents to decay to an
acceptable or background level).
The first two options are common to managing non radioactive
waste but the third is unique to radioactive waste. Eventually all
radioactive wastes become benign because they decay to stable
elements while non-radioactive, hazardous waste remains hazardous
forever or until their chemical speciation is changed.[1]
Management and disposal options for spent radiation sources
include more scenarios (e.g., the return to the manufacturer or
borehole disposal)[6]
Storage and Disposal of Radioactive Waste
Most low-level radioactive waste (LLW) is typically sent to
land-based disposal immediately following its packaging for
long-term management. This means that for the majority (~90% by
volume) of all of the waste types produced by nuclear technologies,
a satisfactory disposal means has been developed and is being
implemented around the world For used fuel designated as
high-level radioactive waste (HLW), the first step is storage to allow
decay of radioactivity and heat, making handling much safer.
Storage of used fuel may be in ponds or dry casks, either at reactor
sites or centrally. Intermediate-level radioactive waste (ILW) that
contains long-lived radioisotopes is also stored pending disposal in
a geological repository.
Some countries are at the preliminary stages of their consideration
of disposal for ILW and HLW, whilst others, in particular Finland,
have made good progress. Finland's Onkalo repository is expected
to start operating in 2024..
Coprecipitation is cheap but has a low decontamination factor
(usually of the order of 10). It is advantageous when suspended
particles are expected in the waste. The main problem is handling
the radioactive sludge which may contain as much as 85% water. In
the past, special procedures such as freeze-thaw have been designed
for water separation. More recently, bituminization has been
proposed. Evaporation is expensive but has the highest
decontamination factor[2]
Near-surface disposal
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) definition of this
option is the disposal of waste, with or without engineered barriers,
Near-surface disposal facilities at ground level. These facilities are
on or below the surface where the protective covering is of the order
of a few meters thick. Waste containers are placed in constructed
vaults and when full the vaults are backfilled. Eventually they will
be covered and capped with an impermeable membrane and topsoil.
These facilities may incorporate some form of drainage and
possibly a gas venting system.
This type of facility is therefore typically used for LLW and
short-lived ILW with half-lives of up to 30 years.
Deep geological disposal
The long timescales over which some waste remains radioactive has
led to the idea of deep disposal in underground repositories in stable
geological formations. Isolation is provided by a combination of
engineered and natural barriers (rock, salt, clay) and no obligation to
actively maintain the facility is passed on to future generations. This
is often termed a 'multi-barrier' concept, with the waste packaging,
the engineered repository, and the geology all providing barriers to
prevent the radionuclides from reaching humans and the
environment. In addition, deep groundwater is generally devoid of
oxygen, minimizing the possibility of chemical mobilization of
waste. Table 1. Comparison of General Characteristics between
Mined repositories Radioactive Nuclear Waste and Common Landfill Municipal Solid
The most widely proposed deep geological disposal concept is for a Waste (MSW)
mined repository comprising tunnels or caverns into which
packaged waste would be placed. In some cases (e.g. wet rock) the Radioactively contaminated sites and other environmental
waste containers are then surrounded by a material such as cement impacts from nuclear and radioactive installations
or clay (usually bentonite) to provide another barrier (called buffer As of May 2023, there were 436 nuclear reactors in operation in 32
and/or backfill countries around the world. Despite being a low-pollution energy
source, commercial nuclear power plants (NPPs) can release
From a purely geological point of view, the problem of managing radioactivity, with recent incidents prompting increased monitoring.
high- level radioactive waste seems well in hand. There are many Fission products, neutron activation products, and tritium are the
places where waste could be buried, and for at least brief geologic main by-products during reactor operation, released as gaseous or
times there is reason- able assurance that no geologic processes liquid effluents and solid waste. NPPs have waste-processing
would make it a hazard to the environment. But how much facilities for proper treatment, and when radioactivity diminishes,
assurance is needed, and how the assurance can be made waste is released into the environment. Annual doses for the general
meaningful to voters who must ultimately decide the issues, are population from NPPs are generally low, and epidemiological
questions a geologist is not equipped to answer.[5] studies haven't conclusively linked cancer risk to radiation exposure
near these facilities.[6]
Environmental impact of nuclear power
Radiological accidents and failures
Nuclear power has various environmental impacts, both positive
IAEA uses the International Nuclear and Radiological Event Scale
and negative, including the construction and operation of the plant,
(INES) to assess the severity of nuclear accidents according to their
the nuclear fuel cycle, and the effects of nuclear accidents. Nuclear
impacts. This scale was introduced to enable prompt
power plants do not burn fossil fuels and so do not directly emit
communication of safety-related information in case of nuclear
carbon dioxide. The carbon dioxide emitted during mining,
accidents. The scale is logarithmic, and each increasing level
enrichment, fabrication and transport of fuel is small when
represents an accident some 10 times more severe than the previous
compared with the carbon dioxide emitted by fossil fuels of similar
level. For the purposes of this chapter, only level 5, 6, and 7 are
energy yield, however, these plants still produce other
considered, as events of a lower category can hardly cause any
environmentally damaging wastes. Nuclear energy and renewable
serious environmental impacts off-site.[6]
energy have reduced environmental costs by decreasing CO2
emissions resulting from energy consumption.
There is a catastrophic risk potential if containment fails, which in
nuclear reactors can be brought about by overheated fuels melting
and releasing large quantities of fission products into the
environment. In normal operation, nuclear power plants release less
radioactive material than coal power plants whose fly ash contains
significant amounts of thorium, uranium and their daughter
nuclides.
The parent material of all radioactive substances is derived from
uranium, which exists originally in igneous rocks such as granite,
basalt, gabbro, and diorite. During the long period of time required
for uranium’s change into radium and for the radium change into
radon, many possibilities can happen—hydraulic action, earth
movement, earthquake, etc.—moving some of the uranium or
radium from one place to another.[8]
Table 1 presents the comparison of general characteristics between
radioactive and common landfill municipal solid waste.
One could go further. Because of the possibility of “unknown
unknowns”, it is simply impossible to predict all potential failures.
Further, if such failures have already been observed within such a
short period, how can one be confident about safety claims, that no
such failures would not occur during the many decades it would
take to construct and load hundreds of tons of highly radioactive
waste into a geological repository?[4]

Conclusion
Addressing the increasing demand for nuclear power in the World
requires a comprehensive approach to manage challenges associated
with radioactive waste, climate impact, and safety. The unique
characteristics of radioactive waste, marked by instability and
environmental risks, necessitate strategic waste management
solutions. The focus on climate change highlights the urgency of
adopting sustainable practices in nuclear power production. The
interplay between technical considerations, waste disposal methods,
and societal concerns, exemplified by initiatives like the Onkalo
repository, underscores the importance of integrating expertise and
public trust for a resilient and environmentally responsible nuclear
energy future.

References
[1] Baisden, P. A., & Choppin, G. R. (n.d.). NUCLEAR
WASTE MANAGEMENT AND THE NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE.
In RADIOCHEMISTRY AND NUCLEAR CHEMISTRY.

[2] Phillips, C. R., & Pai, H. L. (1977). E N V I R O N M E N

T A L I M P A C T OF R A D I O A C T I V E W A S T E M A N
A G E M E N T IN THE N U C L E A R I N D U S T R Y.

[3] Michaelides, E. E., & Michaelides, D. N. (2020). Impact of

nuclear energy on fossil fuel substitution. Nuclear Engineering and
Design, 366. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nucengdes.2020.110742

[4] Ramana, M. v. (2018). Technical and social problems of

nuclear waste. In Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Energy and
Environment (Vol. 7, Issue 4). John Wiley and Sons Ltd.
https://doi.org/10.1002/wene.289

[5] 5. (n.d.).

[6] Laraia, M. (2015). Radioactive contamination and other

environmental impacts of waste from nuclear and conventional
power plants, medical and other industrial sources. In
Environmental Remediation and Restoration of Contaminated
Nuclear and Norm Sites (pp. 35–56). Elsevier Inc.
https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-1-78242-231-0.00002-8

[7] Johnson, B. L. (n.d.). HAZARDOUS WASTE: HUMAN

HEALTH EFFECTS.

[8] Fang, H.-Y., & Asce, M. (n.d.). Radioactive Nuclear Waste.

https://doi.org/10.1061/ASCE1090-025X20026