26
NuclearPlantJournal.com Nuclear Plant Journal, May-June 2014
Sustainable, Safe...
Leading the...
fuel a year that AREVA transports. It’s a
very reliable and robust system with very
safe containers. The United States needs to
start developing that robust transportation
infrastructure now because regardless of the
eventual solution for used fuel management,
we will eventually need to safely transport
used fuel. Transportation is one of the most
secure parts of the fuel cycle and we need to
effectively communicate about this process
to the public in order to increase public
acceptance.
5.
What is holding U.S. policymakers
back from the recycling option?
When the United States decided
not to pursue recycling in the late
1970s, the country was concerned about
nonproliferation. Policymakers believed
that if we didn’t recycle, nobody else
would. Further, they did not believe that this
decision would have a significant negative
impact on the U.S. nuclear industry.
Now, nearly 40 years later, it’s time to
revisit this decision and the logic behind it.
No other countries followed our example
and stopped recycling their nuclear fuel.
While Germany did shut down its domestic
recycling plant, it sent its used nuclear fuel
to France to be recycled.
In terms of non-proliferation, there
are now more declared nuclear weapons
states in the world today than when the
U.S. announced its ban on recycling.
Notably, none of these countries obtained
weapons material by recycling commercial
light water reactor fuel. Finally, the lack
of a permanent solution for used fuel has
had a huge negative impact on the U.S.
nuclear industry with more than $10 billion
of ratepayer money wasted and waste
confidence rulemaking vacated by the
U.S. Court of Appeals. The policy hasn’t
changed because policymakers appear to
assume that the world hasn’t changed in
40 years, but it has. If people had the same
attitude about technology, everyone would
still be using computers that cost millions
of dollars and fill up an entire room instead
of carrying them in their hands.
We must challenge the conventional
wisdom about recycling and prevalent
misinformation has prevented us from
taking a serious look at that option.
6.
Which countries are recycling, in
addition to France?
The UK, France, Japan, Russia and
India all recycle. China has also chosen to
recycle, but its program is still relatively
young. They haven’t built a commercial fa-
cility yet, but they are committed to a closed
fuel cycle. Every country with a large on-
going nuclear program, except the United
States, has opted for a closed fuel cycle.
The few countries that have
implemented a direct disposal solution,
such as Finland and Sweden, have relatively
small nuclear programs. For a small nuclear
program, an open fuel cycle can work.
Finland has only four reactors and they’ve
got a lot of territory relative to the size of
their population. Sweden has about 10
reactors. However, for countries with large
fleets operating over a long period, the issue
of directly disposing of used nuclear fuel
can be more challenging.
We still need a geological repository
with recycling, but the volume of waste
in the repository would be much smaller.
Further, the waste is vitrified and there is
research showing that glass is incredibly
durable. It will remain intact for longer than
it will take for the nuclear waste to decay to
the level of the uranium that was originally
taken out of the ground. This is a very safe
and sustainable system, but unfortunately,
recycling of safe used nuclear fuel just
hasn’t gotten traction in this country.
7.
Do you have any concluding
comments?
Safe, sustainable and responsible
management of the fuel cycle demonstrates
that nuclear power is a sustainable energy.
We need to innovate new technology
and find a long-term solution for used
nuclear fuel, which will help pave the way
to build more new plants and increase
public acceptance that nuclear energy is a
sustainable energy source for the future.
As a result, the effective management of
the back-end of the fuel cycle should be
a priority for the future of safe, reliable,
affordable, low-carbon nuclear energy.
Contact: Mary Beth Ginder, AREVA
Inc., 7207 IBM Drive, Charlotte, North
Carolina 28262; telephone: (301) 841-
other industries, enabling us to become
more efficient at what we do and at the
same time, helping us to provide higher-
quality solutions.
10.
I’m looking forward to the day
construction starts on an EPR™ in the
United States. How is the lead plant doing
in terms of US NRC design certification?
We’re building four EPRs around the
world right now and hopefully Hinkley
Point in the U.K. will go forward, so that
will be six. Here in the U.S., our design
certification is well underway. We have a
work schedule laid out with the NRC and
we’re into the final portion around how
to close chapters. And with that, we’re
working through the final issues with
comments on how our instrumentation and
control system is applied in the EPR, but we
feel very confident with the design.
11.
Which utility is the lead on the
combined operating license application?
It’s UniStar and PPL. UniStar is the
lead and PPL is right there with them.
It’s PPL on Bell Bend in Pennsylvania
and UniStar on Calvert Cliffs Unit 3 in
Maryland.
12.
Anything you’d like to add?
In the vein of technology that we talked
about earlier, I think AREVA is embarking
on quite an innovative approach to the
industry worldwide. You’ll see the advent
or the implementation of the advanced
technologies and systems we talked about
today, not only to take the near-term plants
to the next level, but also to extend operation
not just to 60 years, but to 80 years. And
you’ll see these technologies in the newer
plants evolve to even safer designs. We’re
very excited about the types of forward-
looking work AREVA is doing in this area.
Contact: Mary Beth Ginder, AREVA
Inc., 7207 IBM Drive, Charlotte, North
Carolina 28262; telephone: (301) 841-
