The deep geological repository (DGR) is generally considered as the reference solution for the definitive management of spent nuclear fuel/high-level waste (SNF/HLW). Nevertheless, countries having a small waste volume for disposal (e.g. Netherlands) often adopted the “wait and see” strategy in the hope of finding a common solution for many small nuclear industries (benefitting of the economies of scale). Others with a greater waste volume made two different choices: storage and postponed-decision, or “immediate” DGR implementation. We raise the question of the economic ground of such decisions by proposing a utility function which aggregates various costs and benefits procured by the disposal implementation decision.

The simple economic comparison of storage and disposal costs showed that it appears more favorable to extend the interim storage than to dispose of the waste rapidly. The long-timing storage for the spent nuclear fuel has been proposed by the DOEa in the US because of social and technical feasibility difficulties of the Yucca Mountain project. The same decision with a long-term storage has also been chosen in the Netherlands. By contrast, France decided a quick disposal. This decision is based rather on political/social than economic criteria to avoid over-burdening future generations. Furthermore, a quick DGR implementation would facilitate the nuclear renewal decision in France.

This analysis may help decision-makers in managing the DGR construction and commissioning schedules. It also appears a powerful mean for clarifying the differences in scheduling decisions in different countries.