for Japanese


9 March, 2016

Committee Compares Personnel at FBR Monju and ATR Fugen, Pointing Out Differences in Years of Experience

On March 4, the fourth meeting was held of a study committee under Japan’s Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT) that is considering the state and future of the prototype fast breeder reactor (FBR) Monju, owned and operated by the Japan Atomic Energy Agency (JAEA). There, they primarily discussed differences in the treatment of personnel at Monju with those of the advanced thermal reactor (ATR) Fugen, also developed and operated by the same agency.

ATR Fugen

The advantage of an ATR is its ability to use diverse types of fuel assemblies. For example, not only can it burn enriched uranium, as do ordinary light water reactors (LWRs), but can also burn natural uranium as well. In that sense, although the structure of the prototype test reactor Fugen is similar to that of boiling water reactors (BWRs), it is characterized by the use of heavy water as the moderator to create conditions for nuclear fission by natural uranium.

Since it began generating electricity in 1978 until the end of its service in 2003, Fugen produced a total of 21.924TWh of electricity. It burned 772 uranium-plutonium mixed oxide (MOX) fuel assemblies in that process—the most in the world—and contributed significantly to establishing technology for the use of plutonium. Fugen served without any serious problems.

According to an explanation made by JAEA representatives at the March 4 meeting, the organization cooperated with the respective manufacturers of Monju and Fugen in similar ways, but there was also an important difference. Namely, at Fugen, proper full-time employees hired before the commissioning remained engaged in operations until the end.

That is, many staff members with valuable on-site experience were always working at the site at Fugen, especially those in the maintenance sector. When Fugen ceased operating in FY02, about 75% of workers there had more than 20 years of experience. In contrast, the current percentage of such personnel at Monju is only about 20%.

Following the explanation, committee members raised various personnel-related questions. Chairman Akio Takahashi of the Japan Atomic Industrial Forum (JAIF), for instance, asked about career paths for managers at Monju.

At future meetings with JAEA, the study committee is expected to inquire about component ratios of managerial and technical staff, as well as such matters as the knowledge required of full-time employees.


This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

SNS facebooktwitter

NPPs Map


“The current situation at Fukushima Daiichi NPS” -From 3.11 toward the future- (ver, July 2019)

8 July, 2019
“The current situation at Fukushima Daiichi NPS” -From 3.11 toward the future- (ver, July 2019)09:17

Recent News

23 January, 2020
Finishing Mission in Japan, IAEA’s IRRS Points Out Importance of NRA’s Communicating with Nuclear Industry
21 January, 2020
Evacuation Orders for Futaba, Okuma, Tomioka Towns to Be Partially Lifted in March, with JR Joban Line to Be Completely Reopened for Service
16 January, 2020
Japan’s Nuclear Power Plant Capacity Factor Stood at Just 21.4 Percent Last Year
26 December, 2019
IEEJ’s Supply-Demand Outlook for FY2020 Looks at Effect of Specific Safety Facility Installation Deadlines
25 December, 2019
ANRE Committee Clarifies Options for Treated Contaminated Water at Fukushima Daiichi NPPs, Viewing Both Offshore and Vapor Release Favorably
24 December, 2019
Fuel Removal from Fukushima Daiichi-1 NPP: Large Cover to be Installed First
18 December, 2019
JAEC Begins Hearing from University Personnel on Human Resource Development, Starting with Nagoya and Osaka Universities
13 December, 2019
NRA Approves Decommissioning Plans for Kansai EP’s Ohi-1 and-2
12 December, 2019
JAEA Holds International Forum on Peaceful Use of Nuclear Energy, Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Nuclear Security
29 November, 2019
NRA Issues Draft Review Report: Onagawa-2 Meets New Regulatory Standards