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
Latest Magazine Issues
Jan 2026
Jul 2025
Latest Journal Issues
Nuclear Science and Engineering
February 2026
Nuclear Technology
January 2026
Fusion Science and Technology
November 2025
Latest News
ORNL to partner with Type One, UTK on fusion facility
Yesterday, Oak Ridge National Laboratory announced that it is in the process of partnering with Type One Energy and the University of Tennessee–Knoxville. That partnership will have one primary goal: to establish a high-heat flux facility (HHF) at the Tennessee Valley Authority’s Bull Run Energy Complex in Clinton, Tenn.
Steven L. Krahn, Allen G. Croff, Bethany L. Smith, James H. Clarke, Andrew G. Sowder, Albert J. Machiels
Nuclear Technology | Volume 185 | Number 2 | February 2014 | Pages 192-207
Technical Paper | Fuel Cycle and Management | doi.org/10.13182/NT13-64
Articles are hosted by Taylor and Francis Online.
The Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) is sponsoring the development of tools to support long-term strategic planning for research, development, and demonstration and for evaluation of advanced nuclear fuel cycles (NFCs). The EPRI-sponsored work under way at Vanderbilt University (VU) is developing a new, comparative risk assessment tool for NFCs. In the course of conducting a demonstration application of the assessment tool, it was observed that the relative contribution of NFC operations to radiological worker impacts estimated by the assessment tool was substantially different from widely used historical data and conventional wisdom. This paper analyzes these differences by first describing the NFC and the nature of radiological worker impacts. Then, the assessment tool developed by VU is described, along with assessment results; historical data relevant to radiological worker impacts are then summarized, and key differences between assessment results and previously reported impacts are identified. This comparison is followed by an analysis of the major factors causing the differences and an assessment of their validity. Finally, several implications of the differences are discussed.