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
Accelerator Applications
The division was organized to promote the advancement of knowledge of the use of particle accelerator technologies for nuclear and other applications. It focuses on production of neutrons and other particles, utilization of these particles for scientific or industrial purposes, such as the production or destruction of radionuclides significant to energy, medicine, defense or other endeavors, as well as imaging and diagnostics.
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.”
Blair P. Bromley
Nuclear Technology | Volume 194 | Number 2 | May 2016 | Pages 192-203
Technical Paper | doi.org/10.13182/NT14-101
Articles are hosted by Taylor and Francis Online.
Pressure-tube heavy water reactors (PT-HWRs) are highly advantageous for implementing plutonium-thorium (Pu-Th) fuels because of their high neutron economy and online refueling capability. The use of annular heterogeneous seed-blanket core concepts in a PT-HWR where higher-fissile-content seed fuel bundles are physically separate from lower-fissile-content blanket bundles allows more flexibility and control in fuel management. The lattice concept modeled was a 35-element bundle made with a homogeneous mixture of reactor-grade PuO2 (67 wt% fissile) and ThO2, with a central zirconia rod to reduce coolant void reactivity. Eight annular heterogeneous seed-blanket core concepts with plutonium-thorium–based fuels in a 700-MW(electric)–class PT HWR were analyzed, using a once-through-thorium cycle. Blanket region(s) represented 50% to 75% of the total fuel volume. There were 1, 2, and 3 different blanket regions and 1, 2, and 3 different seed regions. The seed fuel tested was 3 wt% or 4 wt% PuO2, while the blanket fuel tested was 1 wt% PuO2, mixed with ThO2. The impact of different fuel combinations on the core-average burnup, fissile utilization (FU), power distributions, and other performance parameters were evaluated. WIMS-AECL 3.1 was used to perform lattice physics calculations using two-dimensional, 89-group integral neutron transport theory, while RFSP 3.5.1 was used to perform the core physics and fuel management calculations using three-dimensional two-group diffusion theory. Among the different core concepts investigated, there were cores where the FU was up to 25% higher than is achieved in a PT-HWR using natural uranium fuel bundles. There were cores where up to 60% of the Pu was consumed, cores where up to 41% of the energy was produced from 233U, and cores where up to 236 kg/yr of fissile uranium (mainly 233U) was produced in the discharged fuel. This study is an extension of previous work that involved the analysis of homogeneous cores, two-region (one seed, one blanket) and eight-region (four seeds, four blankets) annular, and checkerboard-type heterogeneous seed-blanket cores.
