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 Nuclear Energy Conference & Expo (NECX)
August 24–27, 2026
Dallas, TX|Hilton Anatole
Latest Magazine Issues
Aug 2026
Jan 2026
2026
Latest Journal Issues
Nuclear Science and Engineering
October 2026
Nuclear Technology
September 2026
Fusion Science and Technology
August 2026
Latest News
A closer look at the initial NLIC selections—Part 2
In January, the Department of Energy announced its new Nuclear Lifecycle Innovation Campus (NLIC) program, inviting states via a request for information to express their interest in hosting a facility supporting work from the front to the back end of the nuclear fuel cycle.
By April, 26 states had expressed interest in hosting such a facility. At the end of July, the DOE signed memorandums of understanding with five states—Idaho, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and Utah—to more closely explore the possibilities of state-federal partnerships. These MOUs are not firm commitments from either the federal or state governments. Time will tell which—if any—of the five states develop projects through the program. In the meantime, today, we are taking a close look at what Utah, Idaho, Tennessee can offer in terms of a preexisting nuclear sector that could support new fuel cycle developments.
James J. Dahl, Shivi Singh, Marvin G. Zimmerman
Nuclear Technology | Volume 180 | Number 1 | October 2012 | Pages 1-17
Technical Paper | Fission Reactors | doi.org/10.13182/NT12-A14515
Articles are hosted by Taylor and Francis Online.
This paper investigates the potential impacts of the transition to the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Order 420.1B requirements and the criteria promulgated by the new DOE-STD-1189 on the current practice for seismic design of structures, systems, and components (SSCs). Addressed in the review is the modification of the prescribed methodology provided in ANSI/ANS-2.6-2004 by the new DOE standard. The new ANSI/ANS standards provide criteria and guidance in selecting the seismic design category (SDC) and the limit state (LS) for the SSCs that are important to safety. An unmitigated consequence analysis considering the uncertainties in estimating failure and the safety consequences of the failure may be performed to determine the SDC and the LS, which then are used to establish the level of peak ground acceleration and design response spectra. The new DOE-STD-1189 modifies the prescribed methodology provided in ANSI/ANS-2.6-2004 for calculation of unmitigated radiological dose consequence. Unmitigated consequence analysis is a procedure that has been used by the DOE for the purpose of incorporating safety in the design and operation of its nuclear facilities and is also used in 10 CFR 70, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission regulation applicable to fuel cycle facilities, and the associated Standard Review Plan (NUREG-1520). This paper identifies the iterative DOE double-pronged approach to seismic design, and a simplified example demonstrates the unmitigated seismic hazard consequence analysis.