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
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.”
Marcus H. Voth, Warren F. Witzig
Nuclear Technology | Volume 78 | Number 3 | September 1987 | Pages 312-319
Nuclear Power Plant Kalkar (SNR-300) | Radioactive Waste Management | doi.org/10.13182/NT87-A15997
Articles are hosted by Taylor and Francis Online.
A methodology is developed and demonstrated to determine a numerical figure of merit (FOM) by which alternative low-level radioactive waste (LLRW) disposal sites and disposal technologies can be evaluated. The FOM is an arbitrarily selected nominal value, representative of the societal value of products associated with the LLRW, modified by the positive and negative impacts of waste disposal. Impacts considered include radiological health effects, transportation accidents, disposal and transportation economics, and user-specified socioeconomic factors. All impacts are converted to an economic basis via a user-specified value of life to allow a common basis of comparison. A demonstration of the methodology evaluates the 1984 Pennsylvania LLR W source term in 24 cases, 2 general locations, 3 soil types, and 4 disposal technologies (Part 61 trench, above-ground vault, below-ground vault, and grouted trench or engineered container). Costs derived for each case in 1984 dollars range from $990 to 1090/m1 ($28 to 31/ft3). Uniform criteria applied to each case assume a linear loss of containment and structural stability for LLRW in a waste cell. Radiological pathways are primarily a function of the site and generally show little or no dependence on the disposal technology. For a $300 000 value of life, the influence of economic factors dominates the FOM. For a $300 million value of life, a spread in FOMs results from transportation and radiological impact pathways. For the 24 cases considered, using a $300 million value of life, the methodology determines the optimum choice to be any of the four disposal technologies at the low permeability site nearest the waste generators (FOMs 939 to 943) and the poorest choice to be the site with unsuitable hydrology farthest from the waste generators (727 to 730). For the optimum site the major FOM impacts are economic (28 nominal incremental FOM units for disposal plus 2 for transportation), transportation fatalities (18 units), and radiation exposure due to transportation (8 units). Such data provide a valuable resource to decision makers charged with making a disposal site and disposal technology selection.
