Initialising ...
Initialising ...
Initialising ...
Initialising ...
Initialising ...
Initialising ...
Initialising ...
Funasaka, Hideyuki; ;
JNC TN1200 2001-002, 209 Pages, 2001/01
JNC-TN1200-2001-002.pdf:7.84MB
no abstracts in English
Ono, Takahiro*; Higuchi, Takanao*; Kazama, T.*; Hashimoto, T.*; Seito, Y.*; Hattori, Tomomi*; Kanamori, Miwa*
JNC TJ1420 2000-005, 257 Pages, 2000/03
JNC-TJ1420-2000-005.pdf:9.53MB
None
Savage, D.*; Arthur, R. C,*; Sasamoto, Hiroshi; Shibata, Masahiro; Yui, Mikazu
JNC TN8400 2000-003, 56 Pages, 2000/01
JNC-TN8400-2000-003.pdf:1.96MB
Geochemical as well as socio-economic issues associated with the selection of potential sites to host a high-level nuclear waste repository have received considerable attention in repository programs in Europe (Belgium, Finland, France, Germany, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and the U.K.) and North America (Canada and the United States), The objective of the present study is to summarize this international experience with particular emphasis on geochemical properties that factor into the adopted site-selection strategies. Results indicate that the geochemical properties of a site play a subordinate role, at best, to other geotechnical properties in the international site-selection approaches. In countries where geochemical properties are acknowledged in the site-selection approach, requirements are stated qualitatively and tend to focus on associated impacts on the stability of the engineered barrier system and on radionuclide transport. Site geochemical properties that are likely to control the lomg-term stability of geochemical conditions and radionuclide migration behavior are unspecified, however. This non-prescriptive approach may be reasonable for purposes of screeing among potential sites, but a better understanding of site properties that are most important in controlling the long-term geochemical evolution of the site over a range of possible scenarios would enable the potential sites to be ranked in terms of their suitability to host a repository.
Nemoto, K.*; *; Higuchi, Takanao*; Endo, H.*; Ono, Takahiro*; *; *
PNC TJ1250 98-002, 321 Pages, 1998/02
None
*; Toida, Masaru*; Shiogama, Yukihiro*; *; Yasui, Shingo*; Fukazawa, E.*; Tanaka, M.*
PNC TJ1100 98-004, 88 Pages, 1998/02
None
*; Toida, Masaru*; Shiogama, Yukihiro*; *; Yasui, Shingo*; Fukazawa, E.*; Tanaka, M.*
PNC TJ1100 98-003, 204 Pages, 1998/02
None
Kobayashi, Takao
PNC TN1510 97-001, 56 Pages, 1997/05
no abstracts in English
Hibiya, Keisuke*; *; Shiogama, Yukihiro*; Masumoto, Kazuhiko*; Fukazawa, E.*; Taira, K.*; Tanaka, Toshiyuki*; Kondo, Y.*; Yamamoto, M.*; Okutsu, Kazuo*; et al.
PNC TJ1100 97-004, 69 Pages, 1997/02
None
*; Okubo, Hiroo*
PNC TJ9222 95-002, 111 Pages, 1995/03
There are two methods of handling the spent fuel generated from the light water reactor; they are (l)direct disposal and (2)reprocessing-plutonium recycling. At present, Japan is following the line of "Reprocessing-Plutonium Recycling," but in the rest of the world, the movement for reviewing the Plutonium recycling is spreading, and in the future, the world opinion and pressure from overseas countries will increase against this method. Under these circumstances, Japan must compare the two methods to clarify the meaning of plutonium recycling. In this investigation, an overseas document by which the spent fuel had directly examined disposal was investigated. And, the content of those documents was arranged. The case of which directly disposed in Japan was set and the basic specification and the cost were evaluated. As a result of the investigation, the disposal cost became 54,900,000 yen/tU in the case with our country. This evaluation value is about 25% higher than Sweden and Finland where the cost is the highest in an overseas case. In cost items, the ratio which the article expense occupies is high. Moreover, the cost of construction and the close of underground facilities occupies the entire half for our country. This investigation is an evaluation based on in the case of the evaluation the current. Therefore, I want you to note going as for a technical detailed examination. However, the guess of the cost when directly disposing in Japan pounded. Moreover, the nuclear material control of the spent fuel is not evaluated. I want you to note cannot the comparison for that with the disposal of the glass solidification body.
*; Okubo, Hiroo*
PNC TJ9222 94-003, 120 Pages, 1994/06
There are two methods of handling the spent fuel generated from the light water reactor; they are (1)direct disposal and (2)reprocessing-plutonium recycling. At present, Japan is following the line of "Reprocessing-Plutonium Recycling," but in the rest of the world, the movement for reviewing the plutonium recycling is spreading, and in the future, the world opinion and pressure from overseas countries will increase against this method. Under these circumstances, Japan must compare the two methods to clarify the meaning of plutonium recycling. For this reason, the present investigation first studied the concept and trend of spent fucl disposal in overseas countries to find out what factors were regarded as important in the spent fuel policies of various countries. Further, in the present investigation, comparative evaluations were made on the results of examinations in various countries regarding "direct disposal." Examinations have also been made as to whether there is a significant merit or demerit in direct disposal and plutonium recycling, and whether it is possible to generally apply the direct disposal method adopted in overseas countries to Japan. The investigation has revealed that there are factors such as techniques, energy, resources, economy, environment, institutions, safety, etc., which influence the spent fuel disposal policy. The five countries including the United States and Sweden, which have clearly taken up the direct disposal policy have so by laying importance on different factors according to the situations of the respective countries. Further, the comparative evaluation concerning the economy, safety, etc. has shown small difference between direct disposal and plutonium recycling and neither has any significant merit or demerit. Further, regarding the disposal concept, there are great differences according to the actual states of various countries; hence it is considered that Japan should carry out comparative evaluation of direct ...
Yamato, Aiji; Sasaki, Noriaki; ; Miyahara, Kaname
PNC TN1100 94-002, 85 Pages, 1993/11
Nuclear energy is the second largest source of electric power in the United States. Tdate, nuclear power plants produced over twenty percent of the nation's electricity. Aof August 1991, there were 112 nuclear power reactors in the United States, and two mo were being built. By the year 2000, approximately 40,000 metric tons of nuclear wasteill be in temporary storage at reactor sites throughout the coutry. That amount is twi the amount that currently exists. In order to handle such waste, as well as the addedolume to be produced after the year 2000, the U. S. Department of Energt (DOE) is in t process of developing the waste management system that was authorized by the U. S Coness in 1987. The authorized system is illustrated in Figure 1. To summarize, spent nucar fuel from commercial power reactors will be accepted by the DOE at the reactor siteand transported to a monitored retrievable storage (MRS) facility for temporary storagand preparation for permanent disposal in a gelogic rep
PNC TJ7552 92-002VOL2, 73 Pages, 1992/04
PNC-TJ7552-92-002VOL2.pdf:2.28MB
no abstracts in English