본문 바로가기
KERD
논문KCI 등재

KBS-3 방식 고준위방폐물 심층처분장 FEP 분석을 통한 국내 사용후핵연료심층처분시설 방사선학적 안전성 평가용 지권영역 주요 프로세스 항목 및상대적 중요도 도출

Draft List and Relative Importance of Principal Processes in the Geosphere to be Considered for the Radiological Safety Assessment of the Domestic Geological Disposal Facility through Analyzing FEPs for KBS-3 Type Disposal Repository of High-level Radioactive Waste (HLW)

1

조회

0

다운로드

0

인용

0

참고문헌

키워드

초록

The deep geological repository of high-level radioactive waste shall be designed to meetthe safety objective set in the form of radiation dose or corresponding risk to protect human and theenvironment from radiation exposure. Engineering feasibility and conformity with the safety objectiveof the facility conceptual design can be demonstrated by comparing the assessment result using thecomputational model for scenario(s) describing the radionuclide release and transport from repositoryto biosphere system. In this study, as the preliminary study for developing the high-level radioactivewaste disposal facility in Korea, we reviewed and analyzed the entire list of FEPs and how to handleeach FEP from a general point of view, which are selected for the geosphere region in the radiologicalsafety assessment performed for the license application of the KBS-3 type deep geological repository inFinland and Sweden. In Finland, five FEPs (i.e., stress redistribution, creep, stress redistribution, erosionand sedimentation in fractures, methane hydrate formation, and salt exclusion) were excluded or ignoredin the radionuclide release and transport assessment. And, in Sweden, six FEPs (i.e., creep, surfaceweathering and erosion, erosion/sedimentation in fractures, methane hydrate formation, radiationeffects (rock and grout), and earth current) were not considered for all time frames and earthquake outof a total of 25 FEPs for the geosphere. Based on these results, an FEP list (draft) for the geosphere wasderived, and the relative importance of each item was evaluated for conducting the radiological safetyassessment of the domestic deep geological disposal facility. Since most of information on the disposalfacility in Korea has not been determined as of now, it is judged that all FEP items presented in Table 3should be considered for the radiological safety assessment, and the relative importance derived fromthis study can be used in determining whether to apply each item in the future.

Abstract

The deep geological repository of high-level radioactive waste shall be designed to meetthe safety objective set in the form of radiation dose or corresponding risk to protect human and theenvironment from radiation exposure. Engineering feasibility and conformity with the safety objectiveof the facility conceptual design can be demonstrated by comparing the assessment result using thecomputational model for scenario(s) describing the radionuclide release and transport from repositoryto biosphere system. In this study, as the preliminary study for developing the high-level radioactivewaste disposal facility in Korea, we reviewed and analyzed the entire list of FEPs and how to handleeach FEP from a general point of view, which are selected for the geosphere region in the radiologicalsafety assessment performed for the license application of the KBS-3 type deep geological repository inFinland and Sweden. In Finland, five FEPs (i.e., stress redistribution, creep, stress redistribution, erosionand sedimentation in fractures, methane hydrate formation, and salt exclusion) were excluded or ignoredin the radionuclide release and transport assessment. And, in Sweden, six FEPs (i.e., creep, surfaceweathering and erosion, erosion/sedimentation in fractures, methane hydrate formation, radiationeffects (rock and grout), and earth current) were not considered for all time frames and earthquake outof a total of 25 FEPs for the geosphere. Based on these results, an FEP list (draft) for the geosphere wasderived, and the relative importance of each item was evaluated for conducting the radiological safetyassessment of the domestic deep geological disposal facility. Since most of information on the disposalfacility in Korea has not been determined as of now, it is judged that all FEP items presented in Table 3should be considered for the radiological safety assessment, and the relative importance derived fromthis study can be used in determining whether to apply each item in the future.

참고문헌 (13)

  1. Nuclear Safety and Security Commission, "Enforcement Decree of the Nuclear Safety Act", Presidential Decree No. 31824, ~ (2021)
  2. Nuclear Safety and Security Commission, "Standards for Radiation Protection, and etc. Notice No. 2019-10", ~ (2019)
  3. Master Plan for Management of High-level Radioactive Waste(Draft), "Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy", ~ (2016)
  4. Nuclear Safety and Security Commission, "General Standards for the Deep Geological Disposal Facility of High-level Radioactive Waste", Notice No. 2021-21, ~ (2021)
  5. Safely in the ancient bedrock(First in the World–Final Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel to Begin in Finland), "Finnish Energy.", ~ (2021)
  6. Hwang YS, "Introduction to Disposal Technology for Spent Nuclear Fuel" (2020), Han’s House
  7. STUK(Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority)., "Disposal of Nuclear Waste", GUIDE YVL D.5, ~ (2018)
  8. Posiva Oy., "Safety Case for the Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel at Olkiluoto – Synthesis 2012", POSIVA 2012-12, ~ (2013)
  9. The Swedish Radiation Safety Authority’s Regulations and General Advice Concerning Safety in Connection with the Disposal of Nuclear Material and Nuclear Waste, "SSM(Swedish Radiation Safety Authority)", SSMFS, 21~ (2008)
  10. The Swedish Radiation Safety Authority’s Regulations and General Advice Concerning the Protection of Human Health and the Environment in Connection with the Final Management of Spent Nuclear Fuel and Nuclear Waste, "SSM(Swedish Radiation Safety Authority)", SSMFS, 37~ (2008)
  11. FEP Report for the Safety Assessment SR-Site, "SKB(Svensk Kärnbränslehantering AB)", SKB, ~, pp.SKB TR-10-45 (2010)
  12. Safety Case for the Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel at Olkiluoto-Models and Data for the Repository System 2012, "Posiva Oy.", POSIVA, ~, pp.POSIVA 2013-01 (2013)
  13. Geosphere Process Report for the Safety Assessment SR-Site, "SKB", SKB, ~, pp.SKB TR-10-48 (2010)

관련 논문AI추천

국내 KBS-3 방식 고준위방사성폐기물 심층처분시설 방사선학적 안전성 평가대상 방사성핵종 목록 선정개념(안) 제언김석훈, 박동극, 이동현(사)한국방사선산업학회 · 방사선산업학회지2023 · 제17권 제1호A review of the features, events, and processes and scenario development for Korean risk assessment of a deep geological repository for high-level radioactive waste김형대, 손기범, 양재현, 장근옥, 정해람, 최가령, 허균영한국원자력학회 · Nuclear Engineering and Technology2023 · 제55권 제11호불확실성 관리를 이용한 방사성폐기물 처분시설의 폐쇄 후 안전성평가시나리오 개발 방법론 소개김수진, 서명환, 정강일, 정미선, 정재열, 조서연(사)한국방사선산업학회 · 방사선산업학회지2022 · 제16권 제4호국내 HLW 심층처분 후보부지 선정을 위한 단계별 지질환경 평가요소 제안고경태, 김유홍, 김은경, 김형찬, 남욱현, 석희준, 전정수, 진광민, 천대성, 최승범, 현성필한국자원공학회 · 한국자원공학회지2020 · 제57권 제2호고준위방사성폐기물 심층처분을 위한 열-수리-역학적-화학적 복합거동 연구 고찰권상기, 김민주, 안우성, 이지원한국자원공학회 · 한국자원공학회지2024 · 제61권 제5호고준위 방사성폐기물 처분 연구권상기한국자원공학회 · 한국자원공학회지2002 · 제39권 제5호

이 간행물의 다른 논문 (12건)