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
Education, Training & Workforce Development
The Education, Training & Workforce Development Division provides communication among the academic, industrial, and governmental communities through the exchange of views and information on matters related to education, training and workforce development in nuclear and radiological science, engineering, and technology. Industry leaders, education and training professionals, and interested students work together through Society-sponsored meetings and publications, to enrich their professional development, to educate the general public, and to advance nuclear and radiological science and engineering.
Meeting Spotlight
2024 ANS Annual Conference
June 16–19, 2024
Las Vegas, NV|Mandalay Bay Resort and Casino
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
May 2024
Jan 2024
Latest Journal Issues
Nuclear Science and Engineering
June 2024
Nuclear Technology
Fusion Science and Technology
Latest News
NRC Hanson's renomination clears Senate committee
Hanson
The U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee voted 18–1 yesterday to advance the renomination of Christopher T. Hanson as a member of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Hanson has been a commissioner since 2020, and was named chair by President Biden in January 2021. The full U.S. Senate will consider Hanson’s nomination later this month.
Voices of support: “Chair Hanson is a dedicated public [servant] who has thoughtfully and . . . skillfully led the [NRC] during his tenure as its chair. Throughout his time on the[NRC], he has demonstrated his commitment to ensuring the safety and the security of our nation’s use of nuclear energy,” said EPW committee chair Tom Carper (D., Del.) before the vote.
M. Guyot, P. Gubernatis, C. Suteau, R. Le Tellier, J. Lecerf
Nuclear Technology | Volume 185 | Number 1 | January 2014 | Pages 21-38
Technical Paper | Fission Reactors | doi.org/10.13182/NT12-123
Articles are hosted by Taylor and Francis Online.
To consolidate the safety assessment for liquid-metal fast breeder reactors (LMFBRs), hypothetical core disruptive accident (HCDA) sequences have been extensively studied over the past decades. Numerous analyses of the so-called initiating phase (or primary phase) of a HCDA have been made with the safety analysis system code SAS4A. The SAS4A accident analysis code requires that subassemblies or groups of subassemblies be represented together as independent channels. For simulating a severe accident sequence, a subassembly-to-channel assignment procedure has to be implemented to produce the consistent SAS4A input decks. Generally, one uses imposed criteria over relevant reactor parameters to determine the subassembly-to-channel arrangement. The multiple-assembly-per-channel approach introduces corewide coherency effects, which can affect the reactivity balance and therefore the overall accident development. In this paper, a subassembly-to-channel assignment procedure based on the subassembly power-to-flow ratio is presented and implemented to generate the SAS4A input decks over a range of parameter values. The corresponding SAS4A calculations have been performed on a large LMFBR. The purpose of the present series of calculations is to investigate the magnitude of errors encountered in the analysis of the initiating phase related to the subassembly-to-channel arrangement selection, by comparison with a one-subassembly-per-channel reference solution. It appears that a refinement in the channel arrangement substantially reduces corewide coherency effects. Analysis of the calculations also suggests that an accurate representation of the scenario requires the number of channels to be on approximately the same order of magnitude as the total number of subassemblies. Numerical results are examined to provide the reader with quantitative measurements of bias related to subassembly-to-channel arrangement.