By Robert W. Gee, President Gee Strategies, LLC

Our visit began with a tour of the used nuclear fuel recycling AVEVA facilities in La Hague in the Normandy Region of France, followed by a tour EDF Flamanville 3 site to see the construction of the third and newest EPR™ reactor slated for completion in a couple of years. The dominant themes in my mind were recollection, marvel, harmony, and consternation.
read more…

By Stephanie Jones, President, Stephanie Jones Strategies, LLC

Before October 2009, had someone told me that I would one day stand on top of nuclear waste, I would have been horrified!  And the scary picture that came to mind would have involved a hazmat suit and a terrified expression.

Yet, here I was, almost exactly a year to the day later, standing smack dab on top of 30 years worth of nuclear waste – with a big grin no less, and a newfound appreciation for nuclear energy.
read more…

By David Jones, Vice President, Used Fuel Management

Recycling used fuel from America’s nuclear power plants, using technology available in the near term, represents a solid option for the United States. As we have stated before, recycling nuclear fuel is a proven solution that makes waste management easier, conserves natural resources, is cost competitive and reduces proliferation concerns.

The Massachusetts Institute of Technology study issued a study yesterday on The Future of the Nuclear Fuel that included a number of sound recommendations, such as the creation of a quasi-government organization to implement a used fuel management strategy. However, its conclusion regarding near-term recycling merely kicks the tough decisions down the road and largely ignores the benefits it could provide.

The finding that near-term recycling is not necessary because there is no shortage of uranium resources misses the mark. It begs the question of why are we recycling glass or paper? Are we recycling glass because there is a shortage of natural resources for making new glass? No. Are we recycling paper because it is cheaper? No.

Additionally, the recommendations do not support a sustainable nuclear fuel cycle approach that supports nuclear growth scenarios. It recommends storage of used fuel for up to a century while R&D programs help answer the question “Is used fuel a waste or a resource?”—This is contrary to what is being done in nearly every other country where this question is addressed up front as a matter or policy.

The report also recommends the U.S. offer fuel leasing to other countries—but seems to fail to recognize the credibility issue of this concept. How can we expect to demonstrate leadership to the world on used fuel management when we cannot decide ourselves if used fuel is a waste or a resource?

The U.S. government already has contracts to take back commercial used fuel from U.S. electric utilities. The utilities and their customers that have contributed over $30 billion to the Nuclear Waste Fund for this service are suing the government over breach of these contracts. How can we build public acceptance for a fuel leasing arrangement with other countries when we cannot demonstrate the will to address our own inventories?

Because the conclusions of the MIT study are based on technical and economic bases, they cannot truly be considered “interdisciplinary” as the title suggests. The motivations of other nations, such as France, Japan and the United Kingdom, to recycle are not purely economic but also are informed by questions of energy security, resource conservation, public acceptance and others that reside in the social sciences.

We have confirmed that used fuel can be stored effectively at U.S. plant sites for decades, but recycling offers a safe, competitive and more sustainable alternative. That is why nearly every nation with a significant nuclear power sector, with the exception of the United States, has embraced recycling.

AREVA is the world leader in the nuclear fuel cycle and has decades of experience recycling used fuel for its customers around the world. Over the past 25 years, AREVA has safely and successfully recycled more than 24,000 metric tons of used fuel.

Click here for more on AREVA’s views on the potential for recycling in the U.S.

By Jarret Adams

About a dozen members of the Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future yesterday toured the Department of Energy’s Hanford site near Richland, Wash. This panel, which is charged with developing a recommendation on managing the nation’s nuclear waste, heard testimony from local government officials and American Indian tribes during the course of its third public meeting.

The message to the panel from the local speakers was that the government must develop a plan for moving waste from the Hanford site now that Yucca Mountain has been “off the table.” Others called for reviewing the decision to stop the Yucca Mountain project.

Washington Gov. Chris Gregoire echoed that sentiment in her testimony today and encouraged the panel “to base any recommendations on science and technology, not politics.”

Whether or not the government restarts the Yucca project, the nation ultimately will need a repository. However, if we recycle our nation’s used nuclear fuel we could divide by at least four the volume of waste bound for repository. We also would avoid the need to develop additional repositories, perhaps indefinitely. For more on the potential for recycling, click here.

AREVA is active in several projects related to the remediation of the Hanford site, employing its state-of-the-art technologies for chemical clean-up and vitrification of the radioactive waste.

In addition, we manufacture high-quality fuel for nuclear plants at our facility in Richland, adjacent to the site.

We would like to highlight the “Energy on Trial” project. This is a documentary that “tackles a subject as dear and essential to us as the air we breathe and the nourishment we require. Without energy, we are doomed. But the way much of it is produced is terminally damaging to our environment, and to our health.” We are going to highlight some interesting segments from the documentary over the next few days.
– from energyontrial.com

By Jarret Adams

In an effort to green up the debate on recycling nuclear fuel, several anti-nuclear activists have decided recycle some old misinformation about the topic. In fact, recycling nuclear fuel has some distinct advantages to the once-through approach proposed in the U.S. and deserves consideration as a solid option for our country.

AREVA's La Hague Recycling Facility

As AREVA Executive V.P. Alan Hanson wrote in an op-ed last year, “Recycling nuclear fuel is a proven solution that makes waste management easier, conserves natural resources, is cost competitive and reduces proliferation concerns.”

So let’s hit a few of the largest myths being spread about recycling:

Myth: The volume of waste to be disposed in a deep geological repository is increased by recycling.

Reality: False. The volume of high-level waste for disposal would decrease by a factor of at least four. The toxicity of this waste would decrease by a factor of 10.

Myth: Recycling nuclear fuel is uneconomical.

Reality: Management of used nuclear fuel – whether you recycle or not – represents only 1 – 2% of the retail price of electricity generated by nuclear energy.  In addition , recycling offers other benefits in much the same way as recycling paper or glass costs provide other benefits.

Myth: The use of recycling would eliminate the need for a repository.

Reality: True. AREVA does not claim that recycling would eliminate the need for a repository. One would be required regardless of the used fuel management approach. But with recycling, the U.S. would avoid having to build more than one, perhaps forever.

Myth: Recycling has not been made commercial after decades of research and development.

Reality: AREVA has decades of experience recycling nuclear fuel safely, efficiently and economically for customers around the globe. Today, MOX fuel manufactured by AREVA is in use in 38 reactors in Europe and Japan. AREVA’s Back End business group, which includes recycling, last year posted revenue of about $2.2 billion.

Click here to take a virtual tour of AREVA recycling facility.

By Jarret Adams

As a group of 16 utilities and the Nuclear Energy Institute filed suit to stop payment of Nuclear Waste Fund fees, questions and opportunities again are emerging as to how the U.S. manages used nuclear fuel. The companies argue that, after taking the Yucca Mountain repository off the table, the U.S. no longer has a viable plan according to an article in the New York Times.

The utilities, which filed the lawsuit in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, jointly pay about $750 million a year — amounting to a tenth of a cent per kilowatt hour — into the fund. It now stands at about $24 billion and earns about $1 billion annually in interest.

The money was supposed to pay for the development of the Yucca Mountain repository, about 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas, but the Energy Department said last month that it was formally seeking to withdraw its application with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to operate the site.

However, this reexamination of the fee collection for nuclear waste management also offers the opportunity to consider recycling as part of a comprehensive approach.

AREVA offered a presentation in late March of its proven recycling business along with a virtual tour of its La Hague recycling facility. This presentation coincided with the first meeting of a federal Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future to study options for managing the nation’s nuclear waste.

In addition, the NYT also published an article April 6 entitled “A Town Says ‘Yes, in Our Backyard’ to Nuclear Site,” which focuses on the strong public support in Osthammer, Sweden as a site for the nation’s proposed repository. This piece offers a compelling example for siting a similar U.S. facility in the future.

As an additional note: NEI’s latest public opinion survey shows a new record level of support for nuclear energy at 74 percent, which is excellent news. But this is not the most interesting part. The same survey found that 79 percent support the option of recycling nuclear fuel in the U.S. Definitely something to consider.

By Jarret Adams

AREVA announced today its contract to supply recycled mixed-oxide (MOX) fuel to the Japanese utility Hokkaido Electric Power Company for use at its Tomari 3 nuclear plant. According to the agreement, AREVA will manufacture MOX fuel assemblies using recycled material at its MELOX facility near Avignon, France.

This is the eighth Japanese utility to sign on for MOX fuel produced by AREVA.

Jean-Pierre Gros, Executive Vice President of AREVA’s Recycling business, said this contract “strengthens AREVA’s world leadership in MOX fuel fabrication and attests Japanese utilities’ confidence in our technology and know-how.”

Last week, AREVA hosted a virtual tour of its La Hague recycling facility in Normandy to show our decades of experience recycling used nuclear fuel. After the material is obtained at La Hague, it is sent to MELOX where AREVA manufactures MOX fuel.

Click here to learn more about AREVA’s recycling business.

Today, AREVA hosted live a virtual tour of the La Hague Recycling facility in Normandy, France. The tour provided a closer look at AREVA’s decades of experience in safely and economically recycling used nuclear fuel. The discussion described how nuclear fuel recycling simplifies nuclear waste management, conserves precious resources and increases energy security. In addition to showing the audience first-hand through the activities involved in recycling, the tour highlighted that recycling is a proven practical option as part of America’s strategy for managing used fuel.

AREVA Recycling Facility in La Hague

The entire tour is available for viewing in the link below. We encourage you to send us your questions on this topic as this tour is just a beginning for open dialogue and discussion on recycling as an option for the United States.

Access to the video available here, please note that you will be asked to register.