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.
Division Spotlight
Materials Science & Technology
The objectives of MSTD are: promote the advancement of materials science in Nuclear Science Technology; support the multidisciplines which constitute it; encourage research by providing a forum for the presentation, exchange, and documentation of relevant information; promote the interaction and communication among its members; and recognize and reward its members for significant contributions to the field of materials science in nuclear technology.
Meeting Spotlight
2025 ANS Annual Conference
June 15–18, 2025
Chicago, IL|Chicago Marriott Downtown
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
May 2025
Jan 2025
Latest Journal Issues
Nuclear Science and Engineering
July 2025
Nuclear Technology
June 2025
Fusion Science and Technology
Latest News
NEI chief executive highlights “unlimited potential” for nuclear in state of the industry address
Korsnick
In the Nuclear Energy Institute’s annual State of the Nuclear Energy Industry report, NEI president and CEO and Maria Korsnick expressed optimism about the nuclear industry and she issued a call to action.
Her address was part of NEI’s Nuclear Energy Policy forum. The forum, being held in Washington, D.C., on May 20 and May 21, brings together industry leaders, policy stakeholders, and clean energy experts to discuss nuclear advocacy. Korsnick’s remarks focused on the private capital flowing into the industry, progress on regulatory reform and new nuclear technology, and how the U.S. is trying to take the lead on the global nuclear stage.
“We are here at an unprecedented time in our industry history,” Korsnick said. “I’m proud to say that the nuclear industry has a future of unlimited potential.”
Kevin R. O’Kula, David C. Thoman, Selina K. Guardiano, Eric P. Hope
Fusion Science and Technology | Volume 71 | Number 3 | April 2017 | Pages 381-390
Technical Paper | doi.org/10.1080/15361055.2017.1288437
Articles are hosted by Taylor and Francis Online.
A comparison of three United States (U.S.) Department of Energy (DOE) Standard DOE-STD-3009–2014 dispersion modeling protocol options has been performed assuming a ground-level release of tritium oxide source term. The options are characterized by differing sets of assumptions and inputs that allow incorporating greater user flexibility and realism into the modeling and subsequent analysis. The three options used to evaluate atmospheric dispersion include: (1) Use of U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Regulatory Guide 1.145; (2) Application of a DOE-approved toolbox code and application of conservative input parameters; and (3) Use of site-specific methods and parameters as defined in a site/facility specific DOE-approved modeling protocol.
Option 1 dose results are the lowest of the three sets of results at close-in distances, but are the highest for distances beyond approximately 3,000 m, reflecting the distance-dependent NRC plume meander model. Option 1 doses also reflect a lower minimum wind speed and consideration of G stability. Option 3 dose results are consistently lower than the Option 2 results by a factor of 2.2 reflecting the higher vertical dispersion values calculated from the crediting site-specific surface roughness. Option 2 and 3 results are obtained with DOE Central Registry computer software reflect default parameters in Option 2, and more site-specific input with Option 3. An averaging time of two hours leads to dose results that are lower than those obtained with an averaging time of three minutes by a factor of 2.5 due to the higher crosswind dispersion parameter values. This effect is due to the larger crosswind dimension of the plume with increasing averaging time using the Gifford meander model. A sensitivity case study indicates appreciable differences are observed between results obtained with the NRC Regulatory Guide 1.145 temperature difference (ΔT) method and those with U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) EPA-454/R-99–005 methodology for stability class categorization. A second sensitivity case suggests that crediting deposition, hold-up or other retention of tritium may be difficult to defend from a regulatory perspective, recognizing region of transport characteristics and accounting for reemission phenomenon. In terms of recommending one of the three options for modeling tritium releases in Documented Safety Analysis (DSA) applications, the Option 2 approach (Application of a DOE-approved toolbox code and conservative input parameters – without crediting tritium deposition) is the simplest model for source to receptor distances of 500 m or greater. Option 3 requires additional resource commitment and DOE authority approval, but may provide regulatory relief for certain accident scenarios. These recommendations apply to deterministic DSA dispersion analysis but are not extended to best estimate, realistic analyses such as those supporting probabilistic safety analyses.
