{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.017054263565891473, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0005167958656330749, 'mean_word_length': 5.3894389438943895, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Main safety issues at the transition from ITER to fusion power plants

In parallel to the ITER design process and in close cooperation with the designers a fusion-specific safety approach was developed and implemented. Detailed safety assessments have been performed and documented in the ITER Generic Site Safety Report (GSSR). Following the decision on ITER construction in France, results from the GSSR and from on-going safety-related activities tailored to the Cadarache site and the French licensing process are now being used to write the ITER Preliminary Safety Analysis Report. In the most recent European fusion power plant conceptual study (PPCS) inherent fusion favourable features have been exploited, by appropriate design and choice of materials, to provide major safety and environmental advantages. The study focused on five power plant models, which are illustrative of a wider spectrum of possibilities. These span a range from relatively near-term concepts, based on limited technology and plasma physics extrapolations, to a more advanced conception. All five PPCS plant models differ substantially in their plasma physics, blanket and divertor technology, size, fusion power and materials compositions, and these differences lead to differences in economic performance and in the details of safety and environmental impacts. This paper uses the quite detailed information available from ITER safety documents and highlights the differences between ITER and future fusion power plants. The main areas investigated are releases and doses during normal operation and under accidental conditions, occupational radiation exposure and optimization and waste management, including recycling and/or final disposal in repositories. Due to an error, an incorrect version of this paper was published in issue 7. For the convenience of the reader we have included the correct full article below rather than a list of changes.