MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Nuclear Safety and Site Evaluation for the Darlington New Nuclear Project

2012· article· en· W2087862240 on OpenAlexaffabout
Jack Vecchiarelli, Paul Arthurs, John V. Marczak

Bibliographic record

VenueVolume 4: Codes, Standards, Licensing, and Regulatory Issues; Fuel Cycle, Radioactive Waste Management and Decommissioning; Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) and Coupled Codes; Instrumentation and Co · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicNuclear and radioactivity studies
Canadian institutionsOntario Power Generation
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNuclear powerShoreRadioactive wasteSite selectionEnvironmental scienceNuclear power plantEngineeringCivil engineeringWaste managementGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Darlington New Nuclear Project (DNNP) is a proposal by Ontario Power Generation for the site preparation, construction, and operation of up to four new nuclear reactor units for the production of up to 4800 MW of electrical generating capacity. The site was selected by the Ontario Government and is located at the existing Darlington Nuclear site, which is located on the north shore of Lake Ontario and about 70 km east of Toronto, Canada. The regulatory process for the project began in September 2006 and has included the completion of a comprehensive Environmental Assessment (EA), the submission of a Licence to Prepare Site Application, and a three-week public hearing from March 21 to April 8, 2011.This paper provides an overview of various site evaluation and safety studies that were performed in order to demonstrate that the DNNP site meets the Canadian regulatory requirements. The site evaluation studies are also consistent with the principles in the IAEA document NS-R-3, “Site Evaluation for Nuclear Installations” and its associated guides. Accordingly, the site evaluation studies considered the following hazards: extreme meteorological events, flooding hazards, seismic hazards, geotechnical hazards, external human-induced events, and potential dispersion of radioactive material with off-site dose consequences. These hazards were assessed in terms of risk to the new nuclear units and ultimately to the public and the environment.Since a reactor technology has not yet been selected for the DNNP, a multi-technology approach was followed for both the EA and site evaluation studies. This involved the use of a bounding Plant Parameters Envelope (PPE), similar to the US-based PPE approach, encompassing the following reactor designs: the US EPR (1580 MWe), the AP1000 (1037 MWe), the ACR-1000 (1085 MWe), and the Enhanced CANDU 6 (740 MWe).Additionally, to assess the impact of protective measures on the local population (e.g., in terms of temporary evacuation), bounding source terms were derived based on the regulatory safety goals for both Small Release Frequency and Large Release Frequency. These generic source terms are expected to bound the releases from any credible accidents, for any reactor designs considered licensable in Canada.In each of the hazard areas, the risk was determined to be acceptably low or could be reduced to an acceptable level through design mitigation. The overall conclusion is that the DNNP site is suitable for the new nuclear units.Copyright © 2012 by ASME

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.885
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.254 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueVolume 4: Codes, Standards, Licensing, and Regulatory Issues; Fuel Cycle, Radioactive Waste Management and Decommissioning; Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) and Coupled Codes; Instrumentation and CoSame topicNuclear and radioactivity studiesFrench-language works237,207