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…



This weekend, Watch List on PBS television in New York aired a segment that looked at the situation for nuclear waste in the United States. With over 100 reactors, the United States has accumulated over 60,000 tons of used fuel that is safely stored at reactor sites. However, the documentary points out that this is only a temporary solution, and that it is not a viable long term option for the United States.

Watch the full episode. See more Need To Know.

read more…

By Katherine Berezowskyj

Industry experts discussed the importance of the nuclear fuel life cycle today in the latest session of the ongoing series, The American Nuclear Energy Revival, hosted by the U.S. Energy Association, The Sept. 23 briefing examined the steps of nuclear fuel cycle from mining to uranium enrichment to used fuel recycling.

Discussing uranium mining, Grant Isaac of Cameco, explained the operations involved to obtain the natural resource – exploration, mining, milling, and conversion – and emphasized the important of sustainability and life cycle environmental impact. Isaac pointed out a common misconception regarding the scale that mining’s impact on the environment. Compared to other energy sources, uranium is quite small. Specifically, he pointed out that uranium mine covering one square mile, such as one Cameco operates in Canada, yields the same amount of energy as produced by 71 billion barrels of oil or 17 billion tons of coal.

From UX Consulting Company, Ruthanne Neely discussed the global enrichment market. While current capacity does not meet U.S. demand, Neely explained that AREVA and Urenco have two centrifuge enrichment facilities under various stages of development that will add domestic capacity to the U.S. market. She noted that this growth will be rivaled by the Russians and the Chinese as they expand their enrichment resources and build more nuclear reactors.

On the back end of the nuclear fuel cycle, AREVA’s Dr. Alan Hanson discussed that with Yucca Mountain off of the table, and with the growing nuclear revival, he recommended that the United States make a more sustainable decision for managing its used fuel. While dry-cask storage is a safe approach for the interim, he noted that recycling as part of integrated fuel management presents a solid option.

Hanson explained that the countries with large nuclear generation that have chosen to recycle used fuel have done so, because it enhances the security of supply. In effect, recycled nuclear fuel offers a domestic source of material for nations that are reliant on imports. The other benefits he listed include making final waste management easier, conserving natural resources, and supporting non-proliferation objectives.

More importantly, Hanson pointed out that finding a solution is a social responsibility, and these materials should not be left for the next generation. Americans recycle soda cans and newspapers even though it is not necessarily less expensive and no shortage of these resources exists.

Check out more information on these aspects of the nuclear fuel cycle and AREVA’s operations in each: mining, enrichment, and recycling.

By Jarret Adams

It is not common for a group of industry executives to agree on a single point. But, it is interesting that nearly every industry leader to appear before the Blue Ribbon Commission has concurred that management of America’s used nuclear fuel should be controlled by a federal corporation, or “Fed Corp,” in the mold of the Tennessee Valley Authority.

The Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future was formed “to conduct a comprehensive review of policies for managing the back end of the nuclear fuel cycle and to provide recommendations for developing a safe, long-term solution to managing the Nation’s used nuclear fuel and nuclear waste.” The panel’s latest public meetings were held Sept. 21-22.

Throughout the meetings, a range of industry executives have supported the idea that used fuel management should be moved from under the control of the Department of Energy to a “quasi-government waste management entity.”

“America’s used nuclear fuel program should be transferred to an entity with a management and financing structure that is able to function in the presence of the inevitable political and policy changes that will occur over the coming decades,” Marvin Fertel, president and CEO of the Nuclear Energy Institute, told the panel in May.

Today Henry “Brew” Barron, president and CEO of Constellation Nuclear Energy Group, echoed the sentiments of Mr. Fertel in support of creating a quasi-government entity or Fed Corp to manage used fuel.

Barron expressed support for legislation offered by Sen. George Voinovich (R-Ohio) and Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.) that would create the U.S. Nuclear Fuel Management Corporation, a concept that mirrors this approach. AREVA also strongly supports this bill.

Other industry leaders such as Jack Fuller, chairman of GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy; Kate Jackson, senior v.p. of Westinghouse; Alan Dobson, senior v.p. of EnergySolutions; and our own Alan Hanson, executive v.p. of AREVA, all voiced their support for the Fed Corp concept at an Aug. 30 meeting of a commission subcommittee.

During these meetings, the panel members posed a number of questions to the executives on how best to establish and structure such a Fed Corp.

At the August meeting, Dr. Hanson also laid out some of AREVA’s perspectives on used fuel management and the potential for recycling. Click here for a virtual tour of AREVA’s La Hague recycling facility in Normandy.

News out of Southern Ohio yesterday— AREVA announced the start-up of operations at a recently completed conversion facility at the U.S. Department of Energy’s Portsmouth Site. Constructed by Uranium Disposition Services LLC, a joint venture of AREVA, EnergySolutions and Burns and Roe, the facility will use a proprietary AREVA process to perform conversion. The UDS partnership is also working on a sister plant across the state border in Paducah, Ky., which should be ready in the coming months.

These two facilities will be used to perform an valuable function for the nuclear energy. They will convert depleted uranium hexafluoride, commonly known as DUF6, into uranium oxide. Expected operate until 2037; the Portsmouth facility will convert 13,500 metric tons of DUF6 per year.

The conversion process is detailed in this graphic from the UDS site below:



As a world leader in the design and operations of DUF6 conversion facilities, AREVA supplied proven process technology based on our nuclear fuel conversion facilities operating in Richland, Wash., and Lingen, Germany.

AREVA North America CEO Jacques Besnainou said that this is “an important recognition of AREVA’s expertise in the construction and operation of safe, efficient nuclear facilities.”

For more information on this new facility and its positive impact for the nuclear industry and economy for Southern Ohio, read the full press release http://us.areva.com/scripts/home/publigen/content/templates/Show.asp?P=913&L=EN.

In an opinion piece that appeared in the Washington Post today, Slate columnist, Nina Shen Rastogi asks “What are nuclear energy’s green credentials?”

And after discussing the issues, Rastogi concludes:


“The Lantern doesn’t find herself particularly freaked out by atomic energy. The long-term waste conundrum seems more pressing: After all, isn’t the notion that you don’t bequeath problems to your descendants a major tenet of environmentalism? At the same time, global warming is itself a dire legacy, and every energy technology has its pitfalls. So if nuclear power can play a role in cooling our planet, the Lantern thinks it deserves to stay on the table.”

Find more of Rastogi’s anaylsis here.

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.

By Jarret Adams

In an excellent cover story in this month’s Power magazine, writers James Hylko and Robert Peltier examine why the current U.S. policy for managing used nuclear fuel has put the country on a “road to nowhere.” They write:

The Nuclear Waste Policy Act and Amendments of 1982 and 1987 established a national policy and schedule for developing geologic repositories for the disposal of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive wastes. Those deadlines have come and gone; the cancellation of Yucca Mountain was only the latest failure of this policy to become reality. The task of finding a new storage location is now a political committee’s homework assignment. History tells us that committee members have been given an impossible task.

read more…

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.