Click for next page ( 69

The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement

Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 68
Appendix B: Evaluation of Predefined Frameworks The tables in this appendix compare methodological qualities and potential applications of existing predefined frameworks for assessing proliferation resistance as defined in the main text. The “Fundamentals” table outlines the development and intended purpose of each methodology, the “Methodology Characteristics” table shows the composition, capabilities, and actual output of each methodology, and the “Application of Methodology” tables shows which and how each methodology was applied by decision makers. These tables were informed by a review of the available literature and input from those developing, implementing and using the results of the analysis. The frameworks listed in the table are the six current frameworks detailed in Chapter 3 of this report:  TOPS (Technical Opportunities to Increase the Proliferation Resistance of Global Civilian Nuclear Power Systems) methodology (information sourced from: NERAC TOPS Task Force 2001; NERAC 2000a,b; Hassberger 2001; Ford 2010; Charleton 2012; Giannangeli 2007; Mendez et al. 2006; Zentner 2011);  JAEA (Japan Atomic Energy Agency) methodology (information sourced from: Takakai et al. 2005; Ford 2010; Charleton 2012; Giannangeli 2007; Mendez et al. 2006; Inoue et al. 2003);  SAPRA (Simplified Approach for Proliferation Resistance Assessment) methodology (information sourced from: Charleton 2012; Zentner 2011; Ford 2010; Giannangeli 2007; Mendez 2006; Greneche et al. 2007)  TAMU MAUA (information sourced from: Texas A&M University Multi- Attribute Utility Analysis) methodology (information sourced from: Pomeroy 2008; Ford 2010; Clarleton 2012; Giannangeli 2007; Mendez 2006; Takakai et al. 2005)  RIPA (Risk-Informed Proliferation Analysis) methodology (information sourced from: Rochau et al. 2002; Ford 2010; Charleton 2012; Giannangeli 2007; Mendez 2006)  GIF PR&PP (Generation IV International Forum Proliferation Resistance & Physical Protection) methodology (information sourced from: GENIV 2007; DOE 2008a; DOE 2008b;GENIV 2009; ; GENIV 2011a; GENIV 2011b; Bari et al. 2007; Bari et al. 2008a; Bari et al. 2008b; Bari et al. 2009; Bari 2012; Charleton 2012; Ford 2010; Giannangeli 2007; Mendez 2007) 68

OCR for page 68
APPENDIX B 69 For further background and evaluation of these predefined framework methodologies, see Chapter 3. The content of these tables was reviewed by experts to ensure accuracy in their representation and content. The reviewers were:  Robert Bari, Brookhaven National Laboratory  Joe Pilat, Los Alamos National Laboratory  Gary Rochau, Sandia National Laboratory  David Sweeney, Texas A&M University

OCR for page 68

OCR for page 68

OCR for page 68