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
Nuclear Energy Conference & Expo (NECX)
September 8–11, 2025
Atlanta, GA|Atlanta Marriott Marquis
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
Jul 2025
Jan 2025
Latest Journal Issues
Nuclear Science and Engineering
September 2025
Nuclear Technology
August 2025
Fusion Science and Technology
Latest News
Remembering ANS member Gil Brown
Brown
The nuclear community is mourning the loss of Gilbert Brown, who passed away on July 11 at the age of 77 following a battle with cancer.
Brown, an American Nuclear Society Fellow and an ANS member for nearly 50 years, joined the faculty at Lowell Technological Institute—now the University of Massachusetts–Lowell—in 1973 and remained there for the rest of his career. He eventually became director of the UMass Lowell nuclear engineering program. After his retirement, he remained an emeritus professor at the university.
Sukesh Aghara, chair of the Nuclear Engineering Department Heads Organization, noted in an email to NEDHO members and others that “Gil was a relentless advocate for nuclear energy and a deeply respected member of our professional community. He was also a kind and generous friend—and one of the reasons I ended up at UMass Lowell. He served the university with great dedication. . . . Within NEDHO, Gil was a steady presence and served for many years as our treasurer. His contributions to nuclear engineering education and to this community will be dearly missed.”
M. Pellegrini, K. Dolganov, L. E. Herranz, H. Bonneville, D. Luxat, M. Sonnenkalb, J. Ishikawa, J. H. Song, R. O. Gauntt, L. Fernandez Moguel, F. Payot, Y. Nishi
Nuclear Technology | Volume 196 | Number 2 | November 2016 | Pages 198-210
Technical Paper | doi.org/10.13182/NT16-63
Articles are hosted by Taylor and Francis Online.
The Great East Japan earthquake occurred on March 11, 2011, at 14:46, and the subsequent tsunami led Tokyo Electric Power Company’s (TEPCO’s) Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station (NPS) beyond a design-basis accident. After the accident, the Japanese government and TEPCO compiled a roadmap toward an early resolution to the accident including, among the main activities, the employment and improvement of existing severe accident (SA) computer codes. In the member countries of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development/Nuclear Energy Agency (OECD/NEA), SA codes were developed after the accident at Three Mile Island Unit 2 and widely employed to assess NPS status in the postulated SA conditions. Therefore, working plans have been set up with the country members of the OECD/NEA to apply existing SA codes to analyze the accidents at the Fukushima Daiichi NPS Units 1, 2, and 3 and support the decommissioning, constituting an international program named Benchmark Study of the Accident at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station (BSAF).
The objectives of the BSAF project are to analyze the accident progression of Fukushima Daiichi NPS, to raise the understanding of SA phenomena, to contribute to the improvement of the methods and models of the SA codes, and to define the status of the distribution of debris in the reactor pressure vessels and primary containment vessels for decommissioning.
The present technical paper summarizes the achievements obtained through a comparison of the results, emphasizing the portions of the accident where all the participants reached a common consensus and identifying still open questions where future work should be directed. Consensus exists on the current condition of Unit 1, where a large fraction of the fuel is assumed to have relocated ex-vessel. On the other hand, larger uncertainties exist for Units 2 and 3, where in-vessel and ex-vessel scenarios produce a reasonable prediction of the accident progression.