MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2195873274 · doi:10.12943/anr.2012.00015

Challenges of SMR Licensing Practices

2012· article· en· W2195873274 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueAECL Nuclear Review · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicNuclear and radioactivity studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsModularity (biology)Modular designStandardizationNuclear power plantProcess (computing)Software deploymentNuclear powerComputer scienceEngineeringSystems engineeringSoftware engineeringOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper aims to increase the understanding of high level Nuclear Power Plant (NPP) licensing processes in Finland, France, the UK, Canada and the USA. These countries have been selected for this study because of their different licensing processes and recent actions in new NPP construction. After discussing their similarities and differences, suitable features for Small Modular Reactor licensing can be emphasized and suggested. Some of the studied licensing processes have elements that are already quite well suited for application to SMRs, but all of these different national processes can benefit from studying and implementing lessons learned from SMR specific licensing needs. The main SMR features to take into account in licensing are standardization of the design, modularity, mass production and serial construction. Modularity can be divided into two different categories: the first category is simply a single unit facility constructed of independently engineered modules (e.g., construction process for Westinghouse AP-1000 NPP) and the second is a facility structure composed of many reactor modules where modules are manufactured in factories and installed into the facility as needed (e.g., NuScale Power SMR design). Short construction schedules will not be fully benefitted from if the long licensing process prolongs the commissioning and approach to full-power operation. The focus area of this study is to better understand the possibility of SMR deployment in small nuclear countries, such as Finland, which currently has four operating NPPs. The licensing process needs to be simple and clear to make SMR deployment feasible from an economical point of view. This paper uses public information and interviews with experts to establish the overview of the different licensing processes and their main steps. A high-level comparison of the licensing steps has been carried out. Certain aspects of the aviation industry licensing process have also been studied and certain practices have been investigated as possibly suitable for use in nuclear licensing. All of the current licensing processes were found to be quite heavy and time-consuming and further streamlining could be possible without compromising safety or the need for public participation in the licensing process. Some examples of the modification possibilities for SMR applications are discussed. A profound discussion on SMR-specific licensing models, and on ways to simplify and harmonize them, will be needed in the near future in Europe too. This would be a natural continuation to the harmonization efforts underway for existing and new large reactors.

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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.935
Threshold uncertainty score0.396

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.075
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.227 · 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