Since the beginning of nuclear energy in the 1960s, the strategies for spent fuel management have varied significantly. This variation was mostly caused by proliferation concerns and public opinion of the nuclear industry but variations in uranium prices have also had a part. At the beginning it was believed that spent fuel would be mostly reprocessed and recycled as MOX fuel. The proliferation concerns, primarily, made the US abandon the idea of reprocessing while some other countries continued to pursue it (France, UK, Russia, Japan, China, India and Germany). Under public pressure some countries like Germany later abandoned or slowed down their reprocessing activities. The UK abandoned their reprocessing activities due to technical problems. In the meantime several countries have contracted and built nuclear power plants without any plans to build enrichment and reprocessing capability of their own. The situation in the nuclear technology-developing countries was reflected in the technology-receiving countries as they started considering the disposal of spent fuel. The US strategy with plans for disposal of spent fuel in Yucca Mountain was adopted by many smaller countries and several projects for nuclear fuel disposal were started. Nevertheless, public opposition to the disposal of fuel grew stronger, particularly in Europe, and many projects stalled or slowed down. The at-reactor spent fuel storage capacities were often built with reprocessing in mind and actions had to be taken to enhance the capacity for spent fuel storage. As a consequence, the understanding that spent fuel is a resource has changed into it being considered a liability as high-level radioactive waste. This situation has continued until the end of twentieth century. At the beginning of the second millennium, in the first decade, the recycling of fuel began to attract interest again. It became obvious that many spent fuel disposal projects will be delayed or stalled partly because of a new approach in nuclear projects, which requires engagement of the public in the licensing process. The public acceptance of nuclear energy is, in most democratic countries, often reflected in the politics of the day, which influences the continuity of the licensing process and related research into safety cases related to disposal. Many technology-receiving countries realized that long-term storage of spent fuel is becoming a necessity. Some international projects were started to investigate spent fuel performance during storage,5 which was later extended to long-term storage (50-100 years and there is even mention of a 300 year storage period). France, Russia and countries in Asia (China, India, Japan and Korea) continued their R&D work in advanced reactor technologies and novel fuel cycles in combination with fast reactors. This resulted in the adoption of the ‘wait and see strategy’ or decision postponement in many countries. This strategy involves the long-term storage of spent fuel with continued monitoring of the R&D developments of new nuclear reactors and advanced fuel cycles in technology developing countries. There are several international initiatives that stem from proliferation concerns and at the same time to ensure access to nuclear energy to all countries that have a need for it. Those initiatives (like GIF, INPRO, IFNEC, the Russian Initiative, etc.) are looking at development of generation IV of nuclear fuel cycle facilities as well as possibilities to establish nuclear technology centres for reprocessing fuel in countries that have the required technological basis. As some high-level waste disposal capability will be required regardless of the path chosen, there are also regional initiatives for regional disposal facilities for this type of waste.

In conclusion, spent fuel management strategies have varied from the perception of spent fuel as resource to the perception of it as a liability as radioactive waste. This division of perception continues until 2010 until the increased interest for future nuclear reactors and fuel recycling technology. This scenario involves the long-term storage of fuel in many countries and research effort into long-term fuel storage technologies, fuel integrity and related safety issues. The post Fukushima accident’s impact on spent fuel management strategies remains yet to be seen.