Policy Perspective

Technical Perspective

Check Against Facts

Safety assurance

Is there any difference in the safety regulation costs?

Is there any difference in the level of risk? (What range of risks is to be considered? Is there any difference in the risk of accidents and the potential size of these accidents? (Is it possible to compare the risks associated with accidents or to compare lifecycle assessments from construction to dismantling?))

Is there any difference in the safety of disposal of radioactive materials (glass canisters, TRU, spent fuel)

What is the situation with regard to safety assurance for reprocessing facilities, pluthermal and interim disposal?

What is the situation with regard to safety assurance for direct disposal?

Resource conservation and stability of supply (energy security)

Can it be said that conservation of the uranium resource (and consequent contribution to stable supply) is significant?

Long-term world energy supply and demand forecasts and the huge increase in China's demand for uranium involve uncertainties. In the light of these uncertainties, what is the situation in regard to forecasts of world uranium supply and demand, uranium resources and predictions regarding the ability to supply?

Does reprocessing have any impact on uranium resource conservation, or on bargaining power in purchasing negotiations for uranium and fossil fuels?

Would it not be possible to substitute any supply stability that might result from reprocessing by stockpiling uranium?

Will there be a stable supply of oil in future?

Environmental compatibility

Does reprocessing technology produce benefits as a result of waste reduction and is it compatible with a society based on a closed ecological cycle? (Is a comparison with 'recycling' appropriate?)

Compared with 'recycling' in the sense used for industrial waste, is there any difference in the compatibility of 'reprocessing' with a society based on a closed ecological cycle? Doesn't the direct disposal of spent nuclear fuel, containing as it does uranium and plutonium, present greater problems than the direct disposal of regular industrial waste?

Measurement of the following quantities for each radioactive substance: volume, radioactivity, heating effect, radiation dose, comparison of size and quantity of disposal sites.

Comparison of lifecycle CO₂ emissions.

To what extent can a reduction in the burden of waste disposal be realized by transmutation using fast breeder reactors etc.?

Economic considerations

How should differences in economic merit be measured?

In regard to economic merit, from the point of view of the burden on households, how does this compare with recycling of such things as cars, electrical appliances and general industrial items?

What is the difference in the cost of the nuclear fuel cycle in terms of the cost of production of electricity.

Nuclear non-proliferation

Are some scenarios superior or inferior in regard to assuring peaceful use (clarifying the purpose of the use of the plutonium).

Comparison of suitability of security measures, protection of nuclear materials.

Technical viability

Can a system be created (necessary facilities by instituted in the necessary time frame)?

• Disposal facility to take the quantity of waste generated
• Storage or processing facility to deal with the quantity of spent fuel generated
• The issue of a second reprocessing facility
• The issue of recovered uranium and depleted uranium
• The issue of light water reactor MOX spent fuel
• Implementability of Fast Breeder Reactor

Are there any technical problems with regard to establishing a direct disposal facility in Japan? To what extent can technology associated with glass canister disposal be applied?

Technical perspective on the situation of cumulative storage for direct disposal facilities.

Social viability (social acceptability)

In the context of the liberalization of electric power supply, the economic environment facing electric power companies is becoming more challenging. What effect will this have on investment in reprocessing, considering the large economic burden associated with this?

Will it be possible to establish the necessary facilities (especially for interim storage and disposal) in time? Will it be possible to establish and maintain good relations with the local communities?

Considered as a choice in regard to how to maintain the public's standard of living, are there differences between the scenarios?

Are there any differences in regard to the public's sense of security?

Citizens understand (accept), do they not, that there will be a cost burden associated with reprocessing?

Would they accept the direct disposal of spent nuclear fuel along with the plutonium contained therein?

Assurance of choice (flexibility)

In the case where reprocessing is postponed, in order not to restrict future choices, will it be possible to maintain the necessary technology and human resources?

In the case where reprocessing is not proceeded with, what should we think about the loss associated with the abandonment of the accumulated technology and human resources? Even if we were to try to recommence reprocessing later, looked at from the point of view of technological, human resource and international factors, might this not prove to be impossible?

Will the option of choosing between alternatives in future be assured?

What are the possibilities for technological developments and breakthroughs, or for new technologies, or for becoming more economical or more environmentally friendly as a result of technological progress?

Is the scenario resistant to risk uncertainty? (Gradual approach and innovative approach.)

What is the significance of reprocessing technology for science and technology as a whole? What sort of spin-offs might be expected? If such spin-offs can be expected, should we not place great importance on their support and development?

Issues associated with policy change

Assessment of the effects of changing the nuclear fuel cycle policy:

• The possibility that the transport of spent fuel from nuclear power plants to the Rokkasho Reprocessing Facility will become impossible, so power plants may have to stop operating.
• The possibility that facilities related to radioactive waste at the Rokkasho site, including the interim storage facility for returning (from overseas) high level waste, might not be completed.
• Social and economic effects on local communities, which until now have cooperated in all sorts of ways with the government's policy.
• The effect on their trust and the problem of how to deal with them.How to deal with the investment to date of private companies in the nuclear fuel cycle.

How should we think about the consistency between the Energy Policy Basic Law and the Energy Basic Plan?

How much of the investment to date of private companies in the nuclear fuel cycle is unrecoverable?

Overseas trends

Comparison with the policies of other countries. (Under what circumstances and on what bases, what nuclear fuel cycle policies have they chosen and what are the results of those policies? What points should be reflected in the discussions in relation to this new plan?)