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.
Young Members Group
The Young Members Group works to encourage and enable all young professional members to be actively involved in the efforts and endeavors of the Society at all levels (Professional Divisions, ANS Governance, Local Sections, etc.) as they transition from the role of a student to the role of a professional. It sponsors non-technical workshops and meetings that provide professional development and networking opportunities for young professionals, collaborates with other Divisions and Groups in developing technical and non-technical content for topical and national meetings, encourages its members to participate in the activities of the Groups and Divisions that are closely related to their professional interests as well as in their local sections, introduces young members to the rules and governance structure of the Society, and nominates young professionals for awards and leadership opportunities available to members.
2020 ANS Virtual Winter Meeting
November 16–19, 2020
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
Latest Journal Issues
Nuclear Science and Engineering
Fusion Science and Technology
Newest Russian icebreaker ready to hit the ice
The Russian nuclear-powered icebreaker Arktika. Photo: Rosatom
The Arktika, Russia’s latest nuclear-powered icebreaker, sailed from the Baltic Shipyard in St. Petersburg last week, bound for the Murmansk seaport. The voyage is scheduled to take approximately two weeks, during which time the vessel will be tested “in ice conditions,” according to Rosatom, Russia’s state-owned atomic energy corporation.
Daniel W. Hudson, Mohammad Modarres
Nuclear Technology | Volume 197 | Number 3 | March 2017 | Pages 227-247
Technical Paper | dx.doi.org/10.1080/00295450.2016.1273714
Articles are hosted by Taylor and Francis Online.
In 1986 the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (USNRC) implemented a safety goal policy in response to the 1979 Three Mile Island accident. This policy addresses the question, “How safe is safe enough?” by specifying quantitative health objectives (QHOs) for comparison with average individual early fatality and latent cancer fatality risk results computed from nuclear power plant (NPP) probabilistic risk assessments (PRAs). Comparisons of PRA results to the QHOs or other subsidiary numerical objectives are used to determine whether proposed regulatory actions should be rejected based on potential safety benefit relative to the level of residual risk to the public, before performing detailed cost-benefit analyses to determine whether they could be justified on their net value basis. Lessons learned from recent operational experience— including the 2011 Fukushima accident—indicate that concurrent accidents involving multiple units at a shared site can occur with non-negligible frequency. Yet, risk contributions from such scenarios are excluded by policy from safety goal evaluations for the nearly 60% of the U.S. NPP sites that include multiple units. The objectives of this paper are to (1) present an approach for estimating multiple unit risk metrics for comparison with the safety goal QHOs using accident scenarios from the State-of-the-Art Reactor Consequence Analyses (SOARCA) Project; and (2) using this approach, evaluate the effects of including risk contributions from concurrent multiunit accidents in safety goal evaluations. The approach is demonstrated using a two-unit case study involving two representative NPP sites that are each comprised of two co-located operating reactor units. This paper (1) summarizes results and insights obtained from the two-unit case study; (2) describes additional considerations for applying methods to sites comprised of two or more units, including other major radiological sources; and (3) identifies potential areas for further research.