Although waste management is a critically important issue when addressing the possibility of new nuclear build, it is often overlooked that the UK has been managing its nuclear wastes safely and effectively for over half a century. Over that period, many improvements have been introduced, both in the UK and elsewhere, and major progress has been made in many countries towards final disposal of the more radioactive types of waste. Disposal of lower activity types of waste is practised in almost every country with a nuclear programme (including the UK).

There has also been progress in the design and operation of nuclear reactors, such that the volumes of waste they generate are reduced. If a fleet of new-build nuclear plants were to be commissioned to replace the existing stations, the UK would be able to maintain its 20-25% share of nuclear-generated power. Furthermore, these new stations would only add around 10% to the UK's volume of existing higher activity nuclear waste over a 60-year operating lifetime and only about 3% to the existing lower activity waste inventory.

Additionally, the wastes and spent fuel generated by modern reactors are well defined and designed to be managed relatively easily. There are no new technical challenges involved in the management of waste from new stations.

In 2003 the UK Government set up a committee (the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management - CORWM) to consider what the approach should be for the management of higher activity wastes (lower activity wastes already have an agreed disposal route at a facility at Drigg in Cumbria). This committee considered all the options and approached the analysis with an open mind. Their work over three years involved extensive public and stakeholder consultation and engagement. In July 2006 CORWM recommended deep geological disposal as the most appropriate option(placing the waste deep underground in stable rock structures) and the government has accepted this proposal. The Nuclear Decommissioning Authority will be given the job of finding a suitable site but the local community will have the right of veto over its choice.

Other countries have already demonstrated that long-term management of nuclear wastes need not be a problem. In both Sweden and Finland for instance, strong public and parliamentary support has been generated for the approach adopted and both countries are expected to open deep underground repositories for waste within the next 10-15 years. Indeed in both countries the support is such that communities were competing with one another to host the waste repository.

As well as defining the practical solutions to waste management, many countries have established effective funding mechanisms that allow the costs of waste management to be set aside during the reactor's operating lifetime, and retained for use when needed later on.

As well as management of the wastes which arise during power generation, we must also consider what happens to the reactor itself. Reactor decommissioning is now an established procedure, with over 300 reactors worldwide decommissioned, or in the process of being decommissioned, even to the extent of allowing unrestricted agricultural use. As with wastes, the costs of decommissioning can be set aside during operation in a fund which is used to pay for the reactor to be decommissioned after it has reached the end of its operating lifetime.