ANS is committed to advancing, fostering, and promoting the development and application of nuclear sciences and technologies to benefit society.
Explore the many uses for nuclear science and its impact on energy, the environment, healthcare, food, and more.
Explore membership for yourself or for your organization.
Conference Spotlight
2026 ANS Annual Conference
May 31–June 3, 2026
Denver, CO|Sheraton Denver
Standards Program
The Standards Committee is responsible for the development and maintenance of voluntary consensus standards that address the design, analysis, and operation of components, systems, and facilities related to the application of nuclear science and technology. Find out What’s New, check out the Standards Store, or Get Involved today!
Latest Magazine Issues
Jan 2026
Jul 2025
Latest Journal Issues
Nuclear Science and Engineering
January 2026
Nuclear Technology
December 2025
Fusion Science and Technology
November 2025
Latest News
New York takes two more steps toward nuclear
In 2025, New York Gov. Kathy Hochul was a vocal supporter of new nuclear development in the state. In October, she called on the New York Power Authority (NYPA)—the state’s public electric utility—to add 1 GW of new nuclear.
At the tail end of December, New York made more nuclear progress on three fronts. Hochul signed an agreement with Ontario Premier Doug Ford to collaborate on new nuclear development, Ontario Power Generation (OPG) signed a memorandum of understanding with the NYPA, and New York finalized its 2025 energy plan.
K. Macku, F. Jatuff, M. Murphy, M. Plaschy, P. Grimm, O. P. Joneja, R. Chawla
Nuclear Science and Engineering | Volume 155 | Number 1 | January 2007 | Pages 96-101
Technical Paper | doi.org/10.13182/NSE07-A2647
Articles are hosted by Taylor and Francis Online.
In the context of the LWR-PROTEUS program, radial and azimuthal 235U fission (F5) and 238U capture (C8) rate distributions have been calculated for zero-burnup pins of a Westinghouse SVEA-96 Optima2 boiling water reactor fuel assembly using the stochastic MCNP4C and the deterministic CASMO-4 codes. The within-pin F5 distributions predicted by the two codes are in very good agreement; the C8 distributions are more pronounced, and there are significant discrepancies between the codes, both azimuthally and radially. The calculations have been compared with experimental results obtained from activation foil measurements in two pins of the assembly irradiated in the center of the PROTEUS test zone. The measurements confirm that the two codes can accurately predict the radial and azimuthal F5 distributions but that MCNP4C within-pin C8 distributions are much more accurate than those of CASMO-4.
