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
Reactor Physics
The division's objectives are to promote the advancement of knowledge and understanding of the fundamental physical phenomena characterizing nuclear reactors and other nuclear systems. The division encourages research and disseminates information through meetings and publications. Areas of technical interest include nuclear data, particle interactions and transport, reactor and nuclear systems analysis, methods, design, validation and operating experience and standards. The Wigner Award heads the awards program.
Meeting Spotlight
ANS Student Conference 2025
April 3–5, 2025
Albuquerque, NM|The University of New Mexico
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
Apr 2025
Jan 2025
Latest Journal Issues
Nuclear Science and Engineering
May 2025
Nuclear Technology
April 2025
Fusion Science and Technology
Latest News
General Kenneth Nichols and the Manhattan Project
Nichols
The Oak Ridger has published the latest in a series of articles about General Kenneth D. Nichols, the Manhattan Project, and the 1954 Atomic Energy Act. The series has been produced by Nichols’ grandniece Barbara Rogers Scollin and Oak Ridge (Tenn.) city historian David Ray Smith. Gen. Nichols (1907–2000) was the district engineer for the Manhattan Engineer District during the Manhattan Project.
As Smith and Scollin explain, Nichols “had supervision of the research and development connected with, and the design, construction, and operation of, all plants required to produce plutonium-239 and uranium-235, including the construction of the towns of Oak Ridge, Tennessee, and Richland, Washington. The responsibility of his position was massive as he oversaw a workforce of both military and civilian personnel of approximately 125,000; his Oak Ridge office became the center of the wartime atomic energy’s activities.”
Christopher Hunter, Ching Ng, Mehdi Reisi Fard, Zhegang Ma, Sai Zhang
Nuclear Technology | Volume 209 | Number 11 | November 2023 | Pages 1680-1687
PSA 2021 Paper | doi.org/10.1080/00295450.2023.2234714
Articles are hosted by Taylor and Francis Online.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and the nuclear power industry have evaluated and discussed various assumptions and methods for the treatment of potential common-cause failures (CCFs) in event and condition assessments (ECAs), specifically risk assessments performed as part of the NRC’s Significance Determination Process (SDP) in recent years. The basis for how a potential CCF is treated in SDP risk assessments is provided in NUREG-2225, “Basis for the Treatment of Potential Common-Cause Failure in the Significance Determination Process.” In light of new information and advancements in probabilistic risk assessment technology, the NRC and Idaho National Laboratory (INL) have continued the development of the causal alpha factor method (CAFM) for potential use in ECAs. The NRC and INL evaluated the suitability of using CAFM in SDP evaluations and reviewed the methodology to identify any potential data gaps.
Furthermore, an investigation was performed on the practice of common-cause component groups to determine if changes are needed to ensure that CCF is appropriately accounted for in the Standardized Plant Analysis Risk models. In addition, a focused review of the existing method that estimates CCF parameters was performed to determine if the assumptions used in the existing process result in CCF parameters that are representative of current industry performance. It was also desired to gather a better understanding of the aspects of the alpha factor method and data calculation process that either have significant effects on the CCF parameters and/or increase the uncertainties associated with these parameters. This paper provides a summary of recently completed work, including insights, conclusions, and recommendations from this effort.