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.

“A sustainable fuel cycle is a critical building block for new nuclear energy in the United States, requiring an all-of-the-above approach to back-end implementation, not an either/or strategy. We favor more options not less,” Jones said. “Both the Council and AREVA strongly support a Federally-chartered corporation with broad authority for the management of used-fuel.”

He added that such a federal corporation, or FedCorp, would be well placed to develop interim storage facilities, but these are only part of the solution. “At AREVA, we support an evolutionary ‘pilot project’ approach that deploys current state-of-the-art recycling technology with the ability to implement advanced technologies as they are developed,” Jones said.

In a statement to the panel, Bob Gee, President of Gee Strategies Group, supported the notion that the U.S. should not wait for an ideal solution before moving ahead with those available now. He noted:

The Commission should not allow the perfect to be the enemy of the good. I join in the recommendation being made by others that the Commission endorse a phased approach to closing the fuel cycle, which contemplates a pilot recycling facility that utilizes best available technology. With this approach, RD & D can continue to build incrementally on today’s technology, yield improved plant operating performance, and provide a platform for further progress on an advanced fuel cycle designed to meet U.S. specifications.

Other speakers at the meeting agreed that recycling should at least be available as an option for managing used fuel in the United States.

“The National Association of Neighborhoods (NAN) agrees with the BRC recommendation that we need to move forward with consolidated interim storage capacity. However, we strongly disagree with BRC that there is a need to wait for ‘new technologies to materialize’ before making a decision about reprocessing spent nuclear fuel,” said Ricardo Byrd, Executive Director of NAN.

Mervin Tano, President of the International Institute for Indigenous Resource Management, also noted his organization’s support for recycling of used nuclear fuel. “However, how the Institute comes to that view may be quite different from the logic of other proponents of reprocessing,” Tano said.

“We view the once-through paradigm as immoral and intergenerationally unjust. We think the once-through paradigm is unjust to past generations,” because it places most of the burden on communities that host uranium mines and “waste facilities.” He added that recycling is the more sustainable solution because it reduces by 25% the amount of mining required.

Other proponents focused on the positive effect that a recycling facility would have on the economy of its host community.

“A recycling facility would represent a significant investment (billions of dollars) in our future energy infrastructure, providing over 15,000 construction jobs, over 5,000 permanent jobs and thousands more indirect jobs in the surrounding communities,” said Brent Wilkes, Executive Director of the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), in a written statement submitted to the Blue Ribbon Commission.

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.)

Fuel costs are only a small portion of the cost of nuclear generation, whereas it is the largest portion of the cost of generating electricity from fossil fuel-fired power plants. With natural gas plants, fuel represents about 70% of generating costs. When the cost of natural gas fluctuates (as it often does) the cost of generation fluctuates too. Adding nuclear energy to the mix adds diversity in supply and provides a hedge against these fluctuations in prices.

Energy security has been a major factor in the decision for most countries that have developed a significant nuclear sector. It was the oil crisis of the early 1970s that caused France to commit to nuclear energy in a big way. Today nearly 80% of France’s electricity comes from nuclear power, and it has the lowest electricity prices in Europe and among the lowest emissions per capita.

Recycling nuclear fuel offers additional benefits in terms of energy security. When you recycle used fuel, you reduce the need for fresh uranium by 25% and create a domestic energy source consisting of recycled uranium and mixed-oxide (MOX) fuel. The recycled fuel can be used again in standard nuclear plants. If the United States were to recycle the used fuel now stored at plant sites, it would power our 104 reactors for more than six years.

Today America’s nuclear plants produce about 20% of our electricity and also promote our energy security. However, we will need to invest in new plants to replace the reactors nearing the end of their operational lives. It is estimated we will need to build dozens of new plants over the next decades to maintain nuclear energy’s contribution.

In closing, here is a very interesting op-ed by Steve Kidd, deputy director of the World Nuclear Association, in Nuclear Engineering International that discusses how nuclear power supports a nation’s energy security.

“… 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.

A unique aspect of used nuclear fuel is that 96% of its energy can be recycled and used again. In addition, during the recycling process, the volume of high-level waste is reduced by 75%, leaving much less for permanent disposal.

The United States is currently storing more than 60,000 metric tons of used nuclear fuel. If recycled, this latent energy resource could power all 104 U.S. reactors for nearly seven years. It’s a resource we should use.

AREVA has 40 years of experience successfully and safely recycling used fuel in other countries; we know it can be done here, too. For details on implementing this idea in the U.S., read the used fuel recycling white paper we published last week.

But recycling is the second part of the solution.

Right now, we must continue placing in safe storage the 2,000 metric tons of used nuclear fuel annually generated by U.S. reactors. We’re also working on this solution.

More than 50% of U.S. used nuclear fuel is maintained in storage systems designed by AREVA’s subsidiary, Transnuclear Inc. With more than 40 years experience in providing used fuel storage systems in the U.S., we’re meeting the country’s interim storage need with a secure, stable, robust solution.

The one-two combination of interim storage and long-term used fuel recycling is a safe, effective approach requiring the progression from one to the other.

Duke Energy has the right perspective: Breaking the nuclear fuel cycle at storage is not a long-term solution.

“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.

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.

“the mixed oxide fuel facility’s ability to protect nuclear materials from theft; the adequacy of environmental studies; and safety features to prevent any criticality within the plant’s many processes.


Dozens of accident scenarios were evaluated, according to the report, from which portions were edited for security or proprietary technology reasons. Those analyses included fires, leaks, explosions, acid spills, tornadoes and earthquakes. Radiation hazards from explosions were calculated out more than six miles to the Savannah River Site boundaries.

This is just one milestone for the nuclear facility construction project that has been making major progress in South Carolina. As part of the Shaw AREVA MOX Services team commissioned to construct the facility, AREVA has been dedicated to the successful construction of this facility which will be an achievement for both technology and non-proliferation goals.

For more information on the MOX Fuel Fabrication Facility, and to see the construction progress, be sure to check out an episode of MOXtv here.

The NRC documents can be found here by searching for accession number ML103430615. More information about the MOX review is available here.

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.