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
Jun 2026
Jan 2026
2026
Latest Journal Issues
Nuclear Science and Engineering
July 2026
Nuclear Technology
June 2026
Fusion Science and Technology
May 2026
Latest News
North American construction is back—smaller and faster—at OPG’s Darlington
“The nuclear renaissance is real here,” said Ontario Power Generation’s Subo Sinnathamby on May 8, one year to the day after OPG secured a final investment decision to build the first of four planned BWRX-300 reactors at its Darlington nuclear power plant, and shortly after the new reactor’s foundation was lifted into place. “We got our license to construct in April and our [final investment decision] in May, and we’ve been off to the races since.”
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.