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
Nuclear Nonproliferation Policy
The mission of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Policy Division (NNPD) is to promote the peaceful use of nuclear technology while simultaneously preventing the diversion and misuse of nuclear material and technology through appropriate safeguards and security, and promotion of nuclear nonproliferation policies. To achieve this mission, the objectives of the NNPD are to: Promote policy that discourages the proliferation of nuclear technology and material to inappropriate entities. Provide information to ANS members, the technical community at large, opinion leaders, and decision makers to improve their understanding of nuclear nonproliferation issues. Become a recognized technical resource on nuclear nonproliferation, safeguards, and security issues. Serve as the integration and coordination body for nuclear nonproliferation activities for the ANS. Work cooperatively with other ANS divisions to achieve these objective nonproliferation policies.
Meeting Spotlight
Utility Working Conference and Vendor Technology Expo (UWC 2024)
August 4–7, 2024
Marco Island, FL|JW Marriott Marco Island
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
Jul 2024
Jan 2024
Latest Journal Issues
Nuclear Science and Engineering
August 2024
Nuclear Technology
Fusion Science and Technology
Latest News
Vogtle-3 shuts down for valve issue
One of the new Vogtle units in Georgia was shut down unexpectedly on Monday last week for a valve issue that has since been investigated and repaired. According to multiple local news outlets, Georgia Power reported on July 17 that Unit 3 was back in service.
Southern Company spokesperson Jacob Hawkins confirmed that Vogtle-3 went off line at 9:25 p.m. local time on July 8 “due to lowering water levels in the steam generators caused by a valve issue on one of the three main feedwater pumps.”
L. Bosland, L. Cantrel, N. Girault, B. Clement
Nuclear Technology | Volume 171 | Number 1 | July 2010 | Pages 88-107
Technical Paper | Radioisotopes | doi.org/10.13182/NT10-A10774
Articles are hosted by Taylor and Francis Online.
In the case of a hypothetical severe accident in a nuclear power plant, iodine is one of the fission products of major importance. It may be present in various gaseous forms that could be released to the environment, impacting population health. In such a case, the amount released (the so-called "source term") has to be estimated in order to help the safety authorities protect the population from radiological consequences. This estimation is one of the main objectives of the Accident Source Term Evaluation Code (ASTEC) that is developed jointly by the French Institut de Radioprotection et de Sûreté Nucléaire (IRSN) and the German institute Gesellschaft für Anlagen- und Reaktorsicherheit. ASTEC is composed of various modules able to model the nuclear reactor behavior during an accident. One of these modules, named IODE, predicts iodine behavior in the reactor containment. It is able to model the kinetics of about 35 chemical reactions and mass transfer processes. IODE is validated against separate effect tests, semi-integral experiments, and integral experiments. This paper presents the experimental phenomena that would take place in reactor containment in the case of a severe accident. Then, IODE is used to model the experimental gaseous concentration of organic and inorganic iodine in the PHEBUS FPT-2 test carried out by IRSN. The comparison of experimental data and the modeling show a general good agreement for inorganic iodine even if some differences are evidenced. For organic iodides the modeling is not satisfying. These differences might be explained by the deficiencies of some models and by some assumptions that still have to be validated by dedicated experiments.