The Blue Ribbon Commission (BRC) on America’s Nuclear Future held its latest public meeting in Washington, D.C., on Oct. 20 to solicit comments on its draft recommendations for managing the nation’s nuclear waste. Over the past month, the BRC has held meetings at locations around the country to receive feedback on its draft report that it will give to the administration next year.

In a panel focused on advanced technology, the discussion focused on whether recycling nuclear fuel could provide a feasible option for the United States. David Jones, Senior V.P. at AREVA Inc. and Chairman of the U.S. Nuclear Infrastructure Council, pointed out that recycling nuclear fuel is a proven, economical and safe option for the United States to consider as a possibility for managing some of the nation’s used fuel.
read more…

Love Rod Adams’ recent post on how “Reduce, Reuse and Recycle” is a saying that is “good for Aluminum, good for Uranium.” As his posts often are, it’s a very well thought through and well written response to the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy’s recent stance against nuclear fuel recycling. It’s great and well worth the quick read.

By Jarret Adams

Amid the many benefits that America’s 104 nuclear power plants provide, increased energy security is rarely mentioned. It is perhaps obscured by the fact that nuclear energy is by far the nation’s largest source of low-carbon electricity. People often talk about the reliability of U.S. nuclear power plants with average capacity factor above 90 percent. And nuclear power produces low-cost electricity – building a new plant is a significant investment, but the cost of electricity from this plant over its 60-year lifespan is predictable and affordable.

But what often gets lost in the shuffle is how our investment in nuclear power makes our energy supply more secure. Nuclear plant fuel comes mostly from uranium, which is plentiful. Utilities sign long-term contracts for uranium supply. Most of the mined uranium in American reactors comes from Canada, perhaps our nation’s closest ally and trading partner. (However, it should be noted that about 50% of U.S. nuclear fuel comes from converted Soviet weapons material, but that is another story.)
read more…

In yesterday’s Charlotte Business Journal article, “Duke Energy CEO calls for reprocessing nuke fuel,” Jim Rogers acknowledges the need for interim used fuel storage during a South Carolina regulators hearing, but he also emphasizes that,

“… storage is not the ultimate solution. Reprocessing nuclear fuel for additional use in nuclear plants is the much more sustainable option …

“We believe, ultimately, we should recycle fuel.”

As Mr. Rogers indicates, used fuel is a valuable, cost-efficient energy resource that should not be discarded and wasted.
read more…

As part of the conversation on the ongoing situation in Japan, there have been some questions about MOX (Mixed Oxied) fuel. A brief released yesterday from the American Nuclear Society (ANS) specifically concludes that:

“Mixed Oxide (MOX) fuel has been used safely in nuclear power reactors for decades, and the presence of a limited number of MOX fuel assemblies at Fukushima Daiichi Unit 3 has not had a significant impact on the ability to cool the reactor or on any radioactive releases from the site due to damage from the earthquake and tsunami.”

A clear explanation of the situation can be found below in the summary of the brief prepared by the ANS Special Committee on Nuclear Nonproliferation below:

At the time of the magnitude 9.0 earthquake, Fukushima Daiichi Unit 3 was operating with 32 mixed oxide (MOX) fuel assemblies and 516 low enriched uranium (LEU) fuel assemblies in its reactor core. In other words, less than 6% of the fuel in the Unit 3 core was MOX fuel. There were no other MOX fuel assemblies (new, in operation or used) at the Fukushima Daiichi plant at the time of the accident.

MOX fuel assemblies were loaded into Fukushima Daiichi Unit 3 for the first time in the fall of 2010. The MOX fuel had been used for less than five months at the time of the accident. Differences in initial fuel composition between MOX and LEU fuel can lead to differences in consequences (prompt fatalities and latent cancers) following a core damage event with releases to the environment.

There are indications that Fukushima Daiichi Unit 3 suffered damage to some of its core. The core damage resulted from a loss of core cooling due to damage to plant systems from the tsunami that followed the earthquake. The damage was not related to the presence of MOX fuel.

There have been no prompt fatalities as a result of radiation exposure from Fukushima Daiichi. Prompt evacuation has minimized radiation exposure to the public, so long-term public health consequences from radiation exposure are expected to be small. Given the small number of MOX fuel assemblies at Fukushima Daiichi Unit 3 at the time of the event, coupled with the short time of irradiation of the MOX fuel, it can be concluded that MOX fuel has had and will have no perceptible impact on any consequences from the event.

Continue reading the rest of the document here for even further background information.

Nearly one year has passed since AREVA debuted the virtual tour of its La Hague recycling facility in the Normandy region of France. At the Waste Management conference in Phoenix yesterday, I had the opportunity to do “vitual” virtual tour for conference attendees, explaining the making of this extraordinary event.

The original event held in Washington, D.C., last March was meant to illustrate to those unable to visit Normandy in person AREVA’s experience with recycling nuclear fuel. As readers of this space already know, AREVA has decades of experience safely and effectively recycling used fuel for customers around the globe. And development of recycling technology in the United States remains a solid option that could enable us to make better use of natural resourses and make waste management simpler.

Click here to view to view the virtual tour.

Last week, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) issued its final Safety Evaluation Report for the MOX (mixed oxide) Fuel Fabrication Facility. Currently under construction on the Savannah River Site, the MOX Facility is a Department of Energy program to construct a facility that will convert former nuclear weapons material into nuclear fuel as part of an arms reduction agreement with Russia. This nuclear fuel will be used by commercial reactors and, in doing so, will make the materials unusable for weapons.
’
read more…

AREVA presented a virtual tour of our La Hague Recycling Facility providing a closer look at AREVA’s decades of experience in safely and economically recycling used nuclear fuel. If you did not get to see the video the first time, check it out here.

In the recent issue of the Edison Electric Institute’s (EEI) Electric Perspectives, Alan Hanson, AREVA’s executive vice-president for technologies and used fuel management, has an informative and noteworthy piece about one of the most well-known challenges to expanding nuclear energy; how best to manage used nuclear fuel:

The main problem is not a matter of onsite storage—NRC has affirmed that used fuel can be stored safely and securely onsite for many years. Nor is it a problem of the concept of a geological repository: The United States will need a repository regardless of its used-fuel strategy. In fact, most of the material awaiting disposal is not waste per se: Only 4 percent of used nuclear fuel is waste material; the remaining 96 percent can be recycled and reused. Recycling allows for reuse of this energy-rich material, conserves natural resources, and makes waste management easier. For a true nuclear renaissance to take place in the United States, used nuclear fuel recycling offers a more sustainable approach to waste management.

Indeed, the economics of recycling are comparable to the once-through approach. Many countries are recycling used fuel safely, efficiently, and with minimal environmental impact.

Areva, for example, has several customers in Europe and Japan using recycled mixed-oxide (MOX) fuel. Perhaps most important, the development of U.S. recycling capacity would reduce proliferation concerns by consuming fissionable plutonium and allow for a used-fuel recycling service to be offered to emerging nuclear countries.

Read the rest here on EEI’s site.

By Robert W. Gee, President, Gee Strategies Group LLC

A critical part of the used fuel recycling process is the ability to deploy plutonium to create mixed oxide (MOX) fuel for civilian nuclear reactors.  This visit was an opportunity to see how MOX fuel is manufactured and integrated into nuclear fuel assemblies.  Although this is a highly technical, automated process, a high degree of additional human interaction is relied upon, particularly for quality control.  Sophisticated instrumentation is combined with direct human visual examination in the production of nuclear fuel “pellets”, and fuel assembly. A big takeaway was that no matter how advanced or automated this type of production has become, this experience served as reminder of how essential live visual oversight remains.  Robots can accelerate the pace and volume of global manufacturing, but nothing can substitute for direct human decision making to ensure production integrity. I couldn’t resist the irony:  In many respects, we remain wedded to “low tech” observational means even as we push the envelope with this 21st Century technology.