Why nuclear waste disposal feels stuck despite advances in technology

PODCASTBy Rullion on 20 March 2026

Whenever the nuclear industry talks about introducing new reactor designs, new fuel technologies, expanding nuclear capacity, or accelerating deployment timelines, the conversation almost always returns to long-term nuclear waste disposal. For many outside the industry, it still remains the central hesitation point. 

Insights from Rullion’s Hot off the Grid series show that while engineering solutions have advanced significantly, regulatory frameworks and public understanding have moved more slowly.

Jump to:

 

How nuclear waste is managed in daily operations

Why don’t we shoot nuclear waste into the sun? Popular suggestions such as launching waste into space often surface in public debate yet carry far greater technical risk than geological containment on Earth. 

Across nuclear facilities, spent fuel is stored in dry cask systems designed for long-term nuclear waste storage containment. The dry cask facilities use thick steel and reinforced concrete containers designed to withstand long-term exposure including seismic events and extreme weather. These systems have been in continuous use across operating sites for many years, with performance monitored under routine plant conditions.

Rod Baltzer, whose career spans radioactive waste operations and now leadership as CEO at Deep Isolation, highlighted how close this infrastructure sits to everyday life. A large proportion of the U.S. population lives within roughly 50 miles of stored nuclear material, yet incidents linked to storage remain exceptionally rare.

The controls, monitoring regimes, and regulatory oversight surrounding these facilities are extensive. The industry does not treat waste casually and hasn’t for decades. 

Where misunderstanding persists is in how this material is imagined. The gap between industry practice and public perception is substantial. Popular culture still leans toward images of leaking barrels and glowing sludge, while the reality is closer to heavy-industry containment and continuous inspection.

This disconnect has shaped how the waste conversation unfolds in public and political spaces.


How regulatory structures slowed long-term nuclear waste disposal

Rani Franovich, Vice President of Regulatory Strategy at Deep Fission, experienced over thirty years inside the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission  provides context for why disposal infrastructure has progressed more slowly than reactor operations.

Much of today’s nuclear waste regulations were written around large repository concepts developed decades ago. In the late 1990s, regulatory oversight for operating plants shifted toward risk-informed performance measures. That approach improved how safety was assessed in real-world conditions. However, licensing frameworks for major infrastructure remained anchored to prescriptive rules developed around earlier repository concepts.

  • Regulatory processes remain heavily prescriptive

  • Approvals move at timescales disconnected from modern engineering cycles

  • Innovation must fit rule sets written for earlier repository concepts

Watch the full episode 8 of Hot off the Grid, where Rani Franovich talks about why nuclear regulation needs to change.

Advanced containment approaches now exist, yet must follow pathways designed for large, mined repositories conceived decades ago. This regulatory lag is often what sits behind public frustration around how we dispose of nuclear waste permanently, even as modern engineering solutions become available.

The result is extended approval timelines even where technical performance is well understood.

How nuclear engineering approaches to disposal have changed

Early nuclear disposal strategies focused on large underground repositories built through extensive excavation and permanent tunnel systems. Advances in nuclear waste technology, particularly in directional drilling and geological isolation, now allow nuclear material to be placed deep within stable geological formations using narrow boreholes that extend horizontally through selected rock layers. Within the nuclear industry, permanent nuclear waste disposal is now widely understood to centre on deep geological isolation, where material is emplaced far below groundwater systems in stable rock formations rather than large engineered underground facilities.

Watch the full episode with Rod Baltzer where he explains how companies such as Deep Isolation apply drilling methods originally developed in oil and gas to emplace spent fuel far below groundwater systems with significantly reduced surface infrastructure.

A similar geological logic underpins reactor concepts being developed by Deep Fission, which integrate reactor placement directly within deep boreholes to leverage natural containment and thermal properties of rock formations. 

Although applied to different parts of the nuclear lifecycle, both approaches reflect a broader industry shift toward precision underground engineering rather than cavern-scale construction.

In our episode with Deep Fission’s CEO, Liz Muller, she discussed how these methods also change the economic profile of disposal, reducing build timelines and capital intensity compared with legacy repository designs. 

Deep Fission has since gone public, raised $80M in financing to accelerate commercialisation, and announced Parsons, Kansas as the site for its Reactor Pilot Project, further signalling how quickly these concepts are moving toward real-world deployment.

From both a technical and financial standpoint, disposal strategies have moved into a new phase of feasibility.

 

Why the word “waste” keeps the debate locked in place 

Jenifer Avellaneda, a senior engineer at Westinghouse Electric Company, regularly fields questions online about nuclear safety and fuel management. Almost all of them pivot on the same assumption: that nuclear material becomes an unusable hazard the moment it leaves a reactor.

During our conversation with Jenifer, she mentioned she often begins by clarifying that much of what is referred to as waste is spent fuel that still contains usable energy and can be reprocessed in advanced fuel cycles. Beyond that technical point, she notes how language shapes perception. 

Once something is categorised as waste, people instinctively assume it must be removed immediately, isolated forever and treated as uniquely risky. That perception persists even though nuclear waste is not particularly hazardous or difficult to manage relative to other toxic industrial wastes, and safe methods for final disposal are technically proven through decades of experience in geological storage research. 

Avellaneda’s experience reflects a broader challenge within the sector. Technical explanations often lose ground to emotionally charged language that predates modern storage and disposal methods.

 

Where the nuclear industry now stands on disposal

In the UK, nuclear waste disposal policy centres on the development of a Geological Disposal Facility (GDF), overseen by the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority. The UK’s approach combines long-term nuclear waste storage at existing sites with a structured, consent-based siting process for permanent deep geological disposal. While deliberately paced under established nuclear waste regulations, UK nuclear waste disposal is progressing through defined regulatory, geological assessment and community engagement stages rather than standing still.

Across operational experiences, regulatory insight and engineering development, several consistent themes emerge: 

  • Current storage systems perform reliably and are closely monitored

  • Deep geological isolation methods are technically achievable using current drilling technology

  • Deployment speed and cost have improved markedly

  • Risk assessment methods are conservative and continuously refined 

From a technical standpoint, nuclear waste is not an unsolved problem. This frequently leads to the broader question of “is nuclear waste disposal still a problem for the industry?” Technically, containment and isolation are increasingly well understood. The remaining barriers are largely regulatory adaptation and public confidence. 

The friction lies in:

  • Infrastructure approval processes

  • Regulatory frameworks built for legacy designs

  • Public confidence shaped by outdated narratives

  • Education barriers

What this means for nuclear’s expansion

Long-term disposal now shapes nuclear projects from the earliest planning stages through to licensing and financing. While modern containment methods offer faster and more practical pathways, regulatory frameworks continue to reflect earlier repository designs.  

This disconnect increasingly determines how quickly new nuclear infrastructure can move forward. From an engineering standpoint, permanent isolation is now technically achievable. The industry has already moved beyond the disposal concepts of the last century. The question is no longer whether permanent isolation is technically possible. It is how efficiently regulatory, engineering and public systems can move together.

 

Hot off the Grid

Rullion’s Hot off the Grid series brings these perspectives from in-depth discussions with professionals working directly in nuclear operations, regulation, and technology development. 

Nuclear waste management is only one of the topics explored in these conversations. If you’d like to hear more from the people referenced in this article, along with other voices across the nuclear ecosystem, you can explore the full series on YouTube.

Share

Delivering nuclear projects takes more than technology

At Rullion, we support organisations across the UK nuclear sector with specialist workforce solutions aligned to licensing timelines and major infrastructure delivery.

If you're building capability for your next phase of growth, speak to our team.

More like this

NEWS
Rullion wins at 2026 Alstom Supplier CSR Awards

Rullion wins at 2026 Alstom Supplier CSR Awards

Rullion has been independently recognised by Alstom, one of the UK and Ireland’s largest rail organisations, for its work in protecting the health and wellbeing of people across safety-critical infrastructure. At Alstom's Supplier Corporate Social Responsibility Awards, held during its Supplier Day, Rullion won the Improve Health and Wellbeing Award for Large Companies. The awards recognise suppliers delivering meaningful social value across Alstom’s UK and Ireland supply chain, with entries judged by the customer teams who work closely with them. In its assessment, Alstom highlighted Rullion’s strong focus on preventing work-related ill health through robust risk management, as well as its understanding that wellbeing initiatives only make a lasting difference when they are supported by the wider culture. The feedback also described the breadth of evidence submitted by Rullion, including activity linked to an Alstom-hosted Inspire session. Wellbeing that supports real working lives At Rullion, supporting wellbeing is built into how we deliver workforce solutions rather than bolted on as a separate campaign. Our focus is on spotting pressure early, before it affects someone’s health and their safety on site, or the continuity of a client’s project. That means giving people consistent support, whether they are a permanent employee or a contractor working on a short-term assignment. Across the business, this is supported by trained specialists, practical manager guidance, and clear routes into help when someone needs it. This includes Mental Health First Aiders, I-ACT practitioners, our Wellbeing Warriors network, and partnerships with organisations such as Able Futures and Help@hand. In rail and other safety-critical environments, early support can make a real difference. Fatigue, stress, travel pressures, working patterns, and fitness-for-work concerns all need to be understood before they become a risk on site. This sits alongside the compliance frameworks rail employers already rely on, including RISQS and Sentinel, where workforce readiness and safety are closely connected. By staying close to people and giving managers the tools to respond, Rullion helps protect individual wellbeing while supporting safer, more reliable project delivery for clients. For clients, this joined-up approach helps protect individual wellbeing while supporting safer, more reliable project delivery. Supporting contractors in safety-critical environments Contractors are central to the UK rail workforce, often deployed on time-sensitive projects where compliance and site readiness leave little room for disruption. Rullion's role goes beyond placing people into roles. Our teams stay close to contractors across their assignments, so concerns surface early rather than at the point they affect a shift or a milestone. This means regular contractor engagement, proactive fatigue management, and direct conversations about travel, working patterns, medical compliance, and fitness for work. When we identify a risk, we work with the client to resolve it before it lands on site. Keeping contractors well and engaged is better for the individual, but it also supports the smooth running of large-scale programmes. A workforce that feels supported is more likely to remain prepared and able to work safely in demanding environments. A partnership shaped by shared standards This recognition is especially meaningful because it comes from a long-standing customer relationship. Alstom sees how Rullion operates day to day, and this award reflects the experience of the teams who work alongside us. It is also the second time Rullion has been recognised at Alstom’s Supplier CSR Awards, following our previous win in the Driving Equal Opportunity Award for Large Companies category. Being recognised twice, across two different areas, reflects Rullion’s wider role as a workforce partner committed to opening up access to opportunity and supporting the wellbeing of people across the rail supply chain and wider critical infrastructure programmes. Alistair Haigh, Executive Director at Rullion, said: “Being recognised by Alstom is a proud moment for us. Across critical infrastructure, supporting people well is fundamental to delivering complex projects safely and successfully. It is not a nice-to-have. This award reflects the care our teams show every day, supporting clients and contractors to create safer, healthier working environments. We're grateful to Alstom for the recognition and proud of the partnership we've built together.” Continuing to build healthier, safer workforces Workforce support has to hold up on-site, across depots, project sites and live safety-critical operations. Continuing to invest in wellbeing means helping people feel looked after while giving clients more stable, resilient, and engaged workforces. We sustain that by: Providing early support when concerns are identified Maintaining regular engagement with employees and contractors throughout their assignments Equipping managers with the guidance and tools to support their teams effectively Working closely with clients to promote safe, healthy, and sustainable working environments This is not only a rail story. It is part of Rullion’s wider role as a workforce solutions provider for critical infrastructure. In these settings, a well-supported workforce helps large-scale programmes move safely and reliably, with the people they need in place.

By Rullion on 28 July 2026

PODCAST
Why the ‘Nuclear Skills Gap’ Is the Wrong Conversation

Why the ‘Nuclear Skills Gap’ Is the Wrong Conversation

The nuclear skills gap is usually described as a shortage: not enough engineers, too few graduates, and a limited pool of people ready to support the next phase of UK nuclear delivery. But the nuclear skills gap may be the wrong starting point. The sector does need people urgently, but the bigger challenge is how we recognise and develop talent and connect them to the right opportunities. In that sense, the problem is not only a supply issue. It is also a hiring problem, a communication problem, and a workforce planning problem. Across the energy and nuclear sectors, the contradiction is hard to ignore. Employers say they cannot find the people they need, while early-career professionals and career changers are struggling to access roles they are capable of growing into. Demand is rising as the UK pushes ahead with nuclear new build, works towards net zero and plans for long-term infrastructure delivery. Yet the conversation is still often framed as a UK skills shortage, as though the only answer is to create more people with the right labels on their CV. That misses a more useful question. What if the talent already exists, but the sector is not always looking for it in the right way? Jump to: The skills gap narrative is too simplistic Careers aren’t linear, but hiring in nuclear still is Transferable talent is more prevalent than ever Why the future of work is reshaping what “job-ready” means in nuclear University isn’t the default route into nuclear careers How to close the skills gap in nuclear Adapting your workforce planning The skills gap narrative is too simplistic The phrase “skills gap” is useful because it creates urgency. It gives employers, educators, and policymakers a shared problem to rally around. But it can also flatten a much more complicated issue. When hiring teams talk about an employee skills gap, they often mean something specific: candidates are not arriving with the exact sector background or technical exposure listed on the job specification. In nuclear that caution is understandable. Safety, regulation, site knowledge, and procedural confidence all matter. However, when every vacancy is designed around a perfect match, the pool narrows before potential is even considered. Job descriptions can become filters rather than gateways. They reward people who already know how to describe themselves in nuclear language and discourage those whose expertise has been built elsewhere. That creates a disconnect between candidates and hiring managers. One side sees a role they cannot quite match. The other sees a CV that does not immediately translate. Miguel Trenkel-Lopez captured this neatly in his Hot Off The Grid conversation. Through Megawatt, Miguel has spoken to young people who say they have applied for roles and have been rejected despite having relevant skills. He has also spoken to companies who say they are trying to hire but cannot find people. His conclusion was blunt: “It’s not a skill shortage. It’s a communications failure.” This perspective changes the response the sector needs. If the problem is only a shortage, the answer is to keep pushing more people into the pipeline. If it is also a communication and translation problem, the sector needs to think beyond the skills gap and look at how talent is identified and developed. Careers aren’t linear, but hiring in nuclear still is Career paths have changed. People no longer move through one neat route from education to entry-level role and then specialist career. They build experience across different sectors. They move sideways and retrain. Or they discover an industry through advocacy, outreach, a graduate scheme, or a chance conversation. Hiring in nuclear has not always adapted at the same pace. Many nuclear roles are still assessed against linear criteria: a particular degree, a recognisable employer background, or a set number of years in a similar regulated environment. Those things may be relevant, but they are not the whole picture. When hiring models focus too heavily on direct experience, they risk missing candidates whose careers have given them the judgement, curiosity, discipline, and adaptability the sector needs. Yasmin Ali’s career is a useful example. She began in fossil fuel generation, including a coal-fired power station, before moving through gas, district heating, government, and clean energy. When she wanted to shift direction, recruiters tended to frame her by the role she had most recently done rather than the broader expertise she had built. She used her network to make the move, but not every candidate has access to that kind of informal bridge. That is one of the hidden weaknesses in current hiring models. They depend too heavily on candidates knowing how to translate themselves. In a complex sector like nuclear, that cannot be left to chance. Transferable talent is more prevalent than ever Between entry-level candidates and perfect-match hires sits a large group of overlooked people: transferable and adjacent talent. They may not describe themselves as nuclear candidates, but they often hold experience that could be highly relevant with the right assessment and development. Construction Large-scale infrastructure Manufacturing Energy & Utilities Defence Transport Major project delivery Compliance Safety Operations Regulated environments The barrier is rarely a total lack of ability. More often, it is that their experience is framed differently. A hiring manager may be looking for direct sector experience, while a candidate reads the same role and assumes they do not belong. If the search then relies too heavily on familiar keywords, people can be excluded before their potential is properly explored. This is particularly important for nuclear recruitment because the sector needs more than one kind of specialist. It needs engineers, but it also needs project managers, technicians, planners, safety professionals, commercial teams, supply chain expertise, communicators, and people who understand how large infrastructure programmes actually get delivered. The nuclear career opportunities are vast. The workforce required to build, operate, and maintain nuclear projects is wider than the public perception of the industry often suggests.A project planner from rail may already understand programme controls, stakeholder management, and how to work within complex regulatory frameworks. A safety professional from defence may have experience operating in highly controlled environments where compliance and risk management are critical. The underlying capabilities are often transferable, even when the sector terminology is different. Jens Christiansen’s route into nuclear shows how much difference exposure and connection can make. In Denmark, where nuclear power has long faced political barriers, he built his pathway through advocacy, university choices, networking, and an internship in Sweden. His story is not a neat linear funnel. It shows how interest becomes a career when people have access to the right guidance and opportunities. The lesson is clear. Talent may not always come from the expected source. The task for employers is to recognise talent earlier and create clearer routes into the nuclear sector. Why the future of work is reshaping what “job-ready” means in nuclear The expectation that candidates should arrive fully job-ready is becoming increasingly unrealistic. That is not unique to nuclear, but it is especially visible in a sector where the demand for specialised capability is increasing and experienced workers are retiring. There is a difference between 'job-ready' and 'development-ready' talent. A job-ready candidate can step into a role with minimal support. A development-ready candidate may not know every process on day one, but they have the underlying capability and adjacent experience to grow into the role with structured training and on-the-job exposure. Nuclear has always depended on learning in context. Site knowledge, safety culture, regulatory confidence, and procedural understanding do not develop through a CV alone. They are built over time alongside experienced teams, through real work. That means skills gap solutions cannot focus only on immediate vacancy fulfilment. They need to include long-term development routes, including train-to-deploy models, early careers support, mentoring, and clearer progression pathways. The sector cannot wait for fully formed talent to appear. It has to build the conditions for capable people to become nuclear-ready. University isn’t the default route into nuclear careers The previous conversation around nuclear education still matters. Universities play an important role in creating strong technical foundations, particularly for engineering and science roles. But they cannot be treated as the only answer. Young people are entering a much tougher employment landscape. Recent figures from the House of Commons Library put youth unemployment among 16 to 24-year-olds at 16.2%, at a time when infrastructure and energy employers are still talking about shortages. That should make the sector pause. If young people are struggling to access work while nuclear employers are struggling to hire, the issue is not only education. It is the bridge between education, awareness, and employment. Nuclear apprenticeships are part of that bridge. So are school outreach, early careers programmes, career-switcher pathways, and employer-led training. Daljeet’s story from the wider energy sector is a reminder that valuable careers do not always begin with university. She started as an apprentice, moved through customer operations and built a senior career in energy. As she put it, university is a good option for many people, but it is not the only option. That message matters for nuclear graduates too. The sector needs to make early career routes feel accessible and realistic. Not everyone will arrive already fluent in nuclear. The more important question is whether they have the potential to learn and contribute. How to close the skills gap in nuclear Closing the skills gap in nuclear starts with reframing the question. Instead of asking only, "Where are the people with this exact experience?" employers need to ask, "What expertise does this role truly require, and where else might that expertise exist?" That shift changes how roles are designed, how candidates are assessed, and how hiring teams think about risk. Job specifications need to focus more on outcomes than previous job titles. Transferable skills need to be mapped from adjacent sectors. Career pathways need to feel clearer for people who do not already know the industry. It also means treating nuclear workforce planning as a strategic activity and not a reactive response to vacancies. If employers know what expertise they will need in three, five or ten years, they can start building it now through apprenticeships, graduate programmes, train-to-deploy routes, redeployment, and cross-sector attraction. Adapting your workforce planning The nuclear workforce challenge is real, but it is not a simple absence of talent. It is a disconnect in how talent is defined and moved into opportunity. That is why the traditional model of matching people to jobs is increasingly misaligned with how nuclear careers actually develop. The industry needs a wider view of talent, one that recognises potential before it is packaged into familiar nuclear experience. For employers, the opportunity is significant. Better translation of skills means broader candidate pools, stronger retention and more resilient project delivery. For candidates, it means seeing a route into a sector they may previously have ruled out. The skills gap conversation is not wrong because skills do not matter. The skills gap is real. It becomes less useful when the conversation is limited to just the shortage. The better conversation starts with better routes into the sector. It also means recognising potential earlier and creating a workforce strategy that reflects how people are building their careers today. The UK’s and Europe’s nuclear ambitions will ultimately depend on people. And not just those already working in the sector. Those who could be, if given the right opportunity. To hear more conversations from across the nuclear and other critical infrastructure sectors, explore our Hot Off The Grid podcast series.

By Rullion on 01 July 2026