This video take the stance that climate change and sustainability of the global human enterprise are two of the most critical issues of the 21st century. If we are to tackle these problems effectively, we need to make prudent, evidence-based choices about energy. This is the story told in this short animated video—the first to be featured in the ANS Nuclear Cafe “Friday Matinee” series.
For more information and to continue the discussion, visit BraveNewClimate.
Free industry webcast: Setting a new standard for quality in nuclear power
Date: March 29, 2012
Time: 8 AM PT/11 AM ET/4 PM GMT
Register now for this complimentary webcast.
Click Here >> Register Now
Learn how standards developing organizations are using lessons learned over the past 30 years to account for existing and next generation nuclear power plants and how standards management within nuclear facilities is imperative to nuclear operations.
With the recent vote by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission to give license approval for the nation’s first two new nuclear power plants in 30 years, the U.S. nuclear industry took a major step toward returning to expansion after a long period of stability and safe operations. In the wake of the March 2011 incident at Japan’s Fukushima plant, however, safety and quality assurance continues to be a paramount issue in the nuclear supply chain and facility operations.
Industry standards such as ASME NQA-1 and ANS-3.2 are continually being modified to improve support for next generation nuclear power plant operations. The existing generation of U.S. nuclear power plants has one standard for the design and construction of a nuclear facility and a separate standard for the operations of that facility. It became evident that this model would not apply to newer nuclear facilities.
Join the American Nuclear Society, the American Society of Mechanical Engineers and IHS as they give you an exclusive opportunity to view the current state of managerial, administrative and quality, assurance in the industry, and the critical role of standards in ensuring quality throughout nuclear operations. Don’t miss this opportunity to understand the history of nuclear standards for managerial, administrative, and quality assurance and the changes needed to support the next generation of nuclear power plant operations.
Register now for this complimentary webcast.
Click Here >> Register Now
Speakers
Marion Smith
Chair, ANS-3.2 Working Group – American Nuclear Society
Kevin Ennis
Director, Nuclear Codes and Standards – American Society of Mechanical Engineers
Chad Hawkinson
Vice President, Product Design Solutions – IHS, Inc.
Moderator
Dan Yurman – Idaho Samizdat
For more information, please contact:
Danielle Ulrich at
+1 303 858 6475 or Danielle.Ulrich@IHS.com
15 Inverness Way East, Englewood, CO 80112, USA
Toll free: +1800 525 7052
# # #
Posted in American Nuclear Society, News, standards
Loewen
ANS President Eric Loewen launched a four-day “March Madness” visit on March 27 to four American Nuclear Society student sections. The March Madness tour is part of a series of events building toward the 2012 ANS Student Conference, to be held April 12–15 in Las Vegas, Nev. The conference is the nation’s premier venue for student professional development in nuclear science and technology. Students working in these disciplines gather with industry professionals to share and exchange research and ideas that are critical to the growth of the industry.
The schedule for the March Madness tour includes the following:
Each student section visit will include a seminar presentation and meeting with faculty. The ANS Nuclear Cafe will use the March Madness tour as an opportunity to get caught up with each student section—stay tuned to this channel for more information and tour highlights!
_______________
Comments Off
Posted in American Nuclear Society, ANS Student Sections, college colleges university universities, Local Sections
The March “reference” issue of Nuclear News magazine is available in hard copy and electronically for American Nuclear Society members (must enter ANS user name and password in Member Center). This issue—the 14th annual nuclear reference guide—includes:
There is also a special section titled Fukushima one year later that contains the following articles:
Other news in the March issue: the Nuclear Regulatory Commission approves licenses for Vogtle-3 and -4; the Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future releases final report; government of Spain chooses site for spent fuel and high-level waste storage; Canadian government commits over $1 billion for Port Hope area cleanup; proposed revisions to low-level waste regulations put on hold while the NRC studies issues; Virginia governor postpones decision on uranium mining in the state; USEC’s contract with Tenex for supply of low-enriched uranium takes effect; Kazakhstan is world leader in uranium production; NRC study of power reactor accidents finds “essentially zero” fatalities; new seismic model developed for reactors in central, eastern United States; steam releases reported at Byron, San Onofre; Watts Bar-2 startup could be delayed until 2014; first fully coupled accelerator-driven system begins operation in Belgium; two bids submitted for Fennovoima project in Finland; Russia’s joint venture with Alstom receives first turbine order; Czech construction company joins Westinghouse for Temelin reactor bid; banks agree on financing for power reactor project in Belarus; the U.K.’s Oldbury plant ceases operation; report says dose limit of 20 mSv/yr is achievable in Japan; IAEA updating safeguards analytical services; and much more.
And, in case you missed it, the February and past issues of Nuclear News are available here. For example, the February issue contains the following feature stories:
__________________________
Comments Off
Posted in American Nuclear Society, News, Nuclear Regulatory Commission
By Elia Merzari
One of the missions of the American Nuclear Society’s Young Members Group is to promote participation of young members in the activities of the society. Boosting the involvement of young members in the technical programs of the society’s professional divisions is an important goal in this effort.
Every year since 2006, the Thermal Hydraulics Division (THD) and the Young Members Group (YMG) have organized the Thermal Hydraulics Young Professional Research Competition for ANS members with less than 5 years of professional experience after graduation or younger than 35 years old. The competition is also open to graduate students, but the first author of the summary is expected to present the work and be largely responsible for the research conducted.
Participants submit a summary to the ANS Winter Meeting, which undergoes the usual peer-review process. The accepted summaries and the corresponding presentations are then critiqued by a panel of judges organized by the THD at the winter meeting. The winner receives a plaque furnished by the THD.
The competition has enjoyed a growing success, in each of the last two years receiving 14 submissions or more. The majority of these summaries are from graduate students, but a growing number of papers comes from professionals working in national laboratories, research centers, and industry. The competition has proven to be an effective means for YMG members to become involved in THD activities—and vice versa. For example, I began my involvement in the YMG because of the competition, while, in turn, the THD also benefitted from the competition, with a significant increase in summary submissions observed in recent meetings, most of which are from young members.
Nathaniel Salpeter, the 2011 Winner, had this to say about the competition: “The Young Professional Thermal Hydraulics Competition was a constructive experience that provided a great platform not just for presenting my own research, but also for engaging with many extremely talented peers in a mutually beneficial setting where high quality research presentations, constructive peer review, and interaction with nuclear industry champions combine to form a model professional development competition.”
Overall, the Thermal Hydraulics Young Professional Research Competition is a remarkable success story of cooperation between the YMG and the technical divisions. Experience has shown that the dedication of some key people is essential. If you wish to volunteer to organize this competition or a similar one sponsored by a different division, please don’t hesitate to contact us. We are always looking to expand on this positive experience!
The next Thermal Hydraulics Young Professional Research Competition will be held in San Diego in conjunction with the ANS Winter Meeting in November. For more information, check the competition announcement or contact Wade Marcum. The submissions website for the ANS Winter Meeting opens on April 1.
____________________
Merzari
Elia Merzari is the current YMG secretary. He works as a nuclear engineer at Argonne National Laboratory, where his research interests include nuclear thermal-hydraulics, modeling and simulation of nuclear reactors, and accelerator driven systems.
Comments Off
Posted in American Nuclear Society, engineering, Professional Divisions, Young Members Group
A hearing titled “Lessons from Fukushima One Year Later: NRC’s Implementation of Recommendations for Enhancing Nuclear Reactor Safety in the 21st Century” will be held in the U.S. Senate on Thursday, March 15, at 10:00 AM EDT. The hearing will be a joint session of the Senate’s Committee on Environment and Public Works and the Subcommittee on Clean Air and Nuclear Safety.
NRC Commissioners Magwood, Svinicki, Chairman Jaczko, Apostolakis, Ostendorff
Featured testimony will come from NRC chairman Gregory Jaczko and fellow NRC commissioners Kristine Svinicki, George Apostolakis, William Magwood, and William Ostendorff. The hearing will be webcast at the website for the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works.
In the aftermath of the Great East Japan earthquake and tsunami, the NRC formed a task force to reevaluate the safety and security of the 104 nuclear power plants in the United States, and develop a series of recommendations based on the lessons learned from Japan. The March 15 hearing will concern the orders, rules, and other actions from the NRC intended to enhance reactor safety and protect public health based on those task force recommendations.
The hearing is a follow-up to the Senate committee’s hearing 0n December 15, 2011, titled “Review of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s Near-Term Task Force Recommendations for Enhancing Reactor Safety in the 21st Century,: which is archived here. The prepared opening statement of Chairman Barbara Boxer (D., Calif.) for that hearing is here. The prepared opening statement of Ranking Minority Member James Inhofe (R., Okla.) is here.
Jaczko and the other commissioners have not always been in agreement on regulatory decisions facing the NRC, notably including a recent 4-1 vote to grant a license to build and operate two reactors at the Vogtle nuclear facility in Georgia.
__________________
The American Nuclear Society Special Committee on Fukushima will issue its full report on March 8 at the National Press Club in Washington, DC, at 10AM EST. The press conference will be available for viewing via this link.
The event will also be live tweeted at the ANS twitter feed (@ans_org).
The release of the ANS Special Committee on Fukushima report offers the opportunity to hear an independent, scientifically, and technically informed view on the accident by world-class experts in nuclear science and technology. The leadership of the American Nuclear Society, a scientific and technical organization of 11,600 nuclear professionals, 
commissioned the Special Committee to provide a clear and concise explanation of what happened during the Fukushima Daiichi accident, and offer recommendations for the nuclear community, for citizens, and for policymakers based on lessons learned from their study of the event.
Special Committee members at the press conference will include:
Topics addressed in the press conference and in the report will include risk-informed regulation, hazards from extreme natural phenomena, multiple-unit site considerations, hardware design modifications, severe accident management guidelines, command and control during a reactor accident, emergency planning, health impacts, and societal risk comparison.
The full report will be available for download Thursday morning at the ANS Special Committee on Fukushima dedicated website.
In addition, ANS Special Committee on Fukushima members Professor Akira Tokuhiro and Professor Hisashi Ninokata will hold a press conference at 3:30 – 4:30 Japan Time on Friday, March 9, at the Foreign Correspondents Club in Tokyo, Japan, concerning the ANS Special Committee on Fukushima report release. More information is available at this link.
Visit this ANS Nuclear Cafe post for interviews with the Special Committee Co-Chairs Klein and Corradini concerning the release of the report.
ANS President Eric Loewen and Special Committee Co-Chairs Klein and Corradini discussed the goals of the report in interviews at the 2011 ANS Annual Meeting:
Comments Off
Posted in accident, American Nuclear Society, Earthquake, Education, Fukushima, knowledge transfer, lessons learned, Natural disasters, News, Nuclear events, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Publications, Radiation
by Rod Adams
We are within one week of the one year anniversary of the Great North East Japan Earthquake and Tsunami. That powerful punch from nature slowly destroyed four out of six of the nuclear units at Fukushima Daiichi while the world watched with rapt attention.
However, as many nuclear experts predicted at the time of the accident, the defense-in-depth strategy worked well. The end results have been far better than were predicted using some of the fantasy-inspired “worst case scenarios” propagated by antinuclear activists and by researchers working several decades ago – before much data had been gathered and digested.
The painstakingly-gathered empirical data from this unfortunate theory-to-practice exercise have validated the recently released State of the Art Reactor Consequences Analysis, which computed a one in a billion chance that an accident at typical licensed nuclear reactors would harm anyone in the general public.
The total quantity of long-lived radioactive isotopes released from all three of the melted cores was approximately 11 kilograms. None of the material stored in the spent fuel pools was released. There has not been, and never will be, any injuries more serious than a mild sunburn to two workers, from the radiation released into the environment from the melted nuclear fuel inside the plant pressure vessels and containment structures.
Despite the lack of any negative radiation health effects, there are people who relish in stimulating as much fear, uncertainty, doubt and stress about radiation and nuclear energy as they possibly can. They are working overtime to obscure any good news and to label the people who share truthful information as nuclear industry PR hacks, apologists, or even worse.
While participating in discussion threads associated with recent reports published in the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, Time magazine and Scientific American, I have seen nuclear supporters accused of killing babies, being mere industry shills, and of being completely insensitive to the continued suffering of the Japanese people.
Unlike people who have been trained in nuclear sciences and engineering, facts do not matter as much to antinuclear activists as repeatedly telling the tale they want people to hear. Greenpeace has released a report titled Lessons from Fukushima featuring a chapter by Arnie Gundersen that claims that the nuclear industry is a prime example of regulatory capture, despite being one of the most tightly regulated industries in the US, Europe and Japan.
Karl Grossman, a man who has been making a living on the antinuclear lecture and book circuit since the Three Mile Island accident, continues to claim that Fukushima will be worse than Chernobyl. He also claims that Chernobyl has already killed nearly a million people, instead of the less than 100 reported by the UN Scientific Committee on the Effect of Atomic Radiation report as having died in the 25 years since the accident.
Like Helen Caldicott, Grossman continues to spout the belief that Yablokov’s thoroughly discredited book titled Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment is the definitive work on the 1986 accident. In the imaginary world where Caldicott and Grossman spend their time, the thousands of other researchers who studied the accident and came to completely different conclusions were either misinformed, bought by the powerful nuclear industry, or just plain lying.
The antinuclear opposition also spreads fear by describing effects using unfamiliar, frightening units. Instead of saying that a total of 11 kilograms of material (out of approximately 60,000 kilograms of fuel per unit) escaped from the reactor pressure vessels, people who discourage the beneficial use of nuclear energy say that the plants “spewed” 36,000 terabecquerels of radioactivity. (A terabecquerel of Cs-137 has a mass of 3.2 grams.)
If that number does not scare people thoroughly enough, some nuclear opponents compare the cesium emissions from Fukushima to the cesium emissions from the bomb dropped on Hiroshima. The Hiroshima bomb produced its explosive power fissioning about 1 kilogram of U-235. The 6.3% fission yield for Cs-137 means that Little Boy, the Hiroshima bomb, produced a little less than 30 grams of Cs-137. (89 terabecquerels at 3.2 gms/terabecquerel).
In the eyes of people who hate nuclear energy, that means that the melted Fukushima reactors did not release a mass of radioactive cesium that is about half the weight of the backpack I routinely carry when I spend a weekend on the Appalachian Trail. Instead, those reactors released 400 times as much radioactive cesium as was released by The Bomb!
That is a great piece of propaganda. It sounds really bad while using very few words. Contradicting the scary statement with logical reasoning requires too detailed of an explanation to be useful to a newspaper or television show.
There is, however, reason to be hopeful that the end result of the Fukushima accident on nuclear energy will be less damaging to the ultimate success of the technology than the end result of the Three Mile Island and Chernobyl accidents.
Unlike the period following the Three Mile Island accident, the public conversation has broadened considerably. Discourse is no longer dominated by broadcast television networks or major printed newspapers. It is not dominated by the people who have been able to spend years working their way to the front of journalist contact lists by always being ready with pithy, if often false, quotes.
Instead, people who understand nuclear technology are supporting each other, using a wider variety of media access points and are participating in active public outreach campaigns.
On March 8 at 10AM EST, the American Nuclear Society, a professional society with 11,000 members, will be holding a news conference at the National Press Club to announce the release of its long awaited report on the lessons learned from the accident.
I am looking forward to reading that report and then cooperating with other nuclear professionals to ensure that its factual material is repeated as often as the tripe that emanates from the mouths and keyboards of Caldicott, Grossman, Wasserman, Gunter, Lovins, and so many other professional opponents of nuclear energy.
Like many of my colleagues, I feel a sense of personal responsibility to do something to alleviate the suffering of the victims who have a far greater probability of negative health effects from irrational radiation fears than they do from radiation itself. Spending some of my spare time to ease their fears, reduce their stress and enable their safe return to their ancestral homes is an investment worth making.
There has been one result from the accident that I never would have predicted. A year ago, I could not imagine that two countries (Germany and Japan) that were famous for their technological skills and rational decision making would have decided to shut down undamaged reactors in favor of spending a growing share of their national income to make the fossil fuel industry increasingly richer. If anyone can think of ways to influence the decision process in those two key countries, I am listening.
Adams
Rod Adams is a pro-nuclear advocate with extensive small nuclear plant operating experience. Adams is a former engineer officer, USS Von Steuben. He is the host and producer of The Atomic Show Podcast. Adams has been an ANS member since 2005. He writes about nuclear technology at his own blog, Atomic Insights.
The American Nuclear Society Special Committee on Fukushima has been conducting a comprehensive study of the events at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant following the Great East Japan earthquake of 2011. The special committee was tasked with providing a clear and concise explanation of what happened during the Fukushima Daiichi accident, and offer recommendations based on lessons learned. A report from the special committee will be released at a press conference on Thursday, March 8, at 10AM EST. The press conference will be webcast at http://www.visualwebcaster.com/event.asp?id=85244, and the report will be available for download at http://fukushima.ans.org/.
The report will include a detailed analysis and assessment of radiological health effects resulting from the accident.
The HPS Panel: Robert Emery, John Boice, Robert Gayle, Howard Dickson, Kathryn Higley, Richard Vetter
Meanwhile, the Health Physics Society (HPS) on March 1 held a press conference addressing Fukushima radiological health effects. Major online media coverage of the HPS conference included the New York Times Green Blog, Sizing Up Health Impacts a Year After Fukushima, and the Wall Street Journal Japan Realtime, Fukushima Health Impact: Minimal?
What have been the basic findings, so far, of the HPS radiation experts? As paraphrased in the New York Times article: “Health impacts from the radioactive materials released in the Fukushima Daiichi meltdowns will probably be too small to be easily measured… And the area cordoned off by the Japanese government as uninhabitable is probably far too large.”
Caracappa
Peter Caracappa, chief radiation officer at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, assisted the ANS Special Committee on Fukushima on radiological issues, and was interviewed in this very informative recent article in Scientific American: Japan’s Post-Fukushima Earthquake Health Woes Go Beyond Radiation Effects.
Radiation monitoring continues in Japan, and long-term studies are underway.
__________________
Webcast event available from National Press Club
The American Nuclear Society Special Committee on Fukushima will issue its full report next week on Thursday, March 8. A press conference will be held at 10 AM EST at the National Press Club, Washington, DC, and will be webcast at http://www.visualwebcaster.com/event.asp?id=85244.
The special committee’s co-chairs are Dale Klein, Ph.D., former chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and Michael Corradini, Ph.D., Wisconsin Distinguished Professor of nuclear engineering and engineering physics at the University of Wisconsin.
Klein
“To prepare this report, we gathered from our membership some of the world’s leading figures in the nuclear science and technology community,” said Klein. “The report will look at all aspects of the events at the Fukushima plant after the earthquake and tsunami, and will include recommendations for the nuclear community, for citizens, and for policymakers as a result of the lessons we learned.”
Corradini
Corradini added, “This report will also serve as an historical document for reference by those who wish to know what really happened, from a scientific and technically informed perspective. We thank all of our committee members for their dedication, time, and service creating this report to help us understand these events and better plan for our future.”
Topics addressed in the report will include risk-informed regulation, hazards from extreme natural phenomena, multiple-unit site considerations, hardware design modifications, severe accident management guidelines, command and control during a reactor accident, emergency planning, health physics, and societal risk comparison.
The full report will be available for download Thursday morning.
ANS President Eric Loewen, Ph.D., Klein, and Corradini discussed the goals of the report in interviews at the 2011 ANS Annual Meeting:
Part I: Space nuclear reactor safety
by Wesley Deason
Though humans have successfully traveled from the earth to the moon, our exploration of the remainder of the solar system has been limited to robotic space probes which, once set in their trajectory, were not designed to return to earth. The data returned from these probes has been of tremendous importance for our understanding of the solar system and regions beyond, but human exploration beyond earth’s orbit remains to be achieved. There are a number of concepts currently under study that would allow us to break out of earth’s gravity well. The most studied and discussed are nuclear electric propulsion and nuclear thermal propulsion. Before I jump into an explanation of those concepts and their respective differences, however, I want to address their similarity: Both are powered by a nuclear reactor.
The primary principle that drives the immense energy production of a nuclear reactor is the process of nuclear fission, in common terms the “splitting of atoms.” This process, induced in uranium through the absorption
of a neutron, releases very large amounts of energy when part of the mass of the original uranium atom is converted into energy as the atom splits apart (E=mc2). The fission process also releases additional neutrons that can be used to invoke fission in other uranium atoms. If enough uranium atoms are present, the chain of fissions can be maintained at a steady rate and this configuration of uranium is said to have reached “critical mass.” Extended over a long period of time, this process allows a nuclear reactor to produce large amounts of energy. Fission energy becomes particularly useful and indeed necessary when large amounts of energy are required while availability of fuels or other energy sources is low. With this amazing energy generation capability, however, questions about its safety can, and should, be asked.
Is it safe to launch nuclear reactors into space?
Space reactors must be able to endure specific circumstances that are unique to their transport to outer space. Most importantly, the reactor must remain ”subcritical” until required by the mission to commence operation. One classic design requirement for space reactors is that the reactor remain subcritical after a water submersion (a launch accident scenario). Water around a submerged reactor behaves as a neutron moderator, a material which slows fast-moving neutrons. In order to meet this important design criterion, reactors will often contain a material that will absorb moderated or slowed neutrons before they can cause fission in the uranium fuel.
If there were a highly unlikely launch accident in which reactor fuel escaped containment, the environmental effects would remain minimal. Uranium, the fuel that drives modern reactors, is a naturally occurring radioactive element that has a half-life of around 700 million years (for the uranium-235 isotope). This means that it releases energy through radioactive decay at a very slow rate. Also, uranium is an alpha emitter. As discussed in my previous post on plutonium-238, alpha radiation is generally not harmful to humans, provided its emitters are not inhaled or ingested. The more highly radioactive constituents that comprise spent nuclear fuel would not be present before reactor operation commences in space.
Are nuclear reactors dependable and controllable for power generation in space?
To address the controllability and dependability of nuclear reactors, we must consider the methods and physical processes that allow a reactor to be controlled. The main concepts are the effects of negative temperature feedback and the active removal of neutrons through the use of neutron absorbing materials and leakage control.
Negative feedback within a nuclear reactor can come from two main effects, both of which are related to the slowing of the fission chain reaction due to a temperature rise. First is the commonly-known material property of thermal expansion. As a reactor core heats up, it will expand in size, causing the uranium fuel within to spread farther apart and absorb fewer neutrons for fission. Second, due to the neutron absorption properties of nuclei, when the temperature of uranium rises, it is more likely to absorb a neutron but not cause fission. From a safety and control perspective, negative temperature feedback can aid in preventing a reactor from producing too much power and overheating.
There are also methods to actively control a nuclear reactor by removing neutrons from the reactor. These include control rods, drums, shutters, and windows. Control rods and drums use boron, an element with a large neutron absorption ability, to remove neutrons from the reactor before they can cause fission of the uranium atoms. Control rods insert boron directly into the central region of the reactor to adjust power or shut it down. Control drums are a more popular alternative for compact space reactors; the drums contain an absorber section that is rotated towards or away from the reactor to adjust power. Shutters and windows are largely unique to space reactors as they take advantage of the vacuum of space. When these shutters or windows open, they allow neutrons to leak out of the system, thus slowing the chain reaction. These features, along with others specific to a selected reactor design, allow well-designed space reactors to maintain containment of radioactive materials in case of accident.
Kiwi A Prime nuclear thermal rocket built and tested in the 1960s
Nuclear reactors, due to their ability to produce large amounts of energy at any location, will be the required energy source for future human space travel outside of earth’s orbit. Future installments in this series will focus on how nuclear reactors are applied in the two most-studied nuclear space propulsion technologies: nuclear electric and nuclear thermal propulsion.
_____________________
Deason
Wes Deason is a graduate student in nuclear engineering at Oregon State University working on the safety analysis of vented fuel systems for gas-cooled fast breeder reactors. He is a former summer fellow for the Center for Space Nuclear Research and the current student liaison for the Aerospace Nuclear Science and Technology Division of ANS.
Posted in NASA, Professional Divisions, Space Applications
The University of Nevada Las Vegas Student Section of the American Nuclear Society will host the 2012 ANS Student Conference on April 12-15, 2012, at the UNLV Student Union.
The conference is the nation’s premier venue for student professional development in nuclear science and technology. Students working in these disciplines gather with industry professionals to share and exchange research and ideas that are critical to the growth of the industry. The conference is an ideal occasion for students to interact with professionals, hear world-class speakers, network with recruiters, and gain real-world perspectives.
Conference participation by students and professionals has surged in recent years. The past two student conferences broke attendance records, with the 2010 conference hosting 665 attendees and the 2011 conference hosting 672. This increasing interest in the conferences provides unique opportunities for industry and academic collaboration and partnership. Integrating the successes of previous conferences with the unique history of Nevada, the conference’s officers hope to continue the trend.
A preview of the 2012 conference:
For more information, visit the ANS Student Conference Web site. Registration is open. Student abstracts are currently being accepted, but hurry as the deadline is fast approaching. We look forward to seeing you in April!
Here is what students had to say about last year’s ANS Student Conference:
The conference committee chairs:
Sherry Faye, General Conference co-chair, is a Ph.D. candidate in radiochemistry who became interested in the nuclear field during a fourth grade field trip to the Nine Mile Point nuclear plant near Oswego, NY. Her current studies involve optimization of a sequential extraction procedure to predict mobility and bioavailability of radionuclide contaminants in soils and sediments. Upon graduation, Sherry would like to continue research in environmental radiochemistry or nuclear forensics at a national laboratory or university.
Vanessa Sanders, General Conference co-chair, is currently a third year Ph.D. candidate in the radiochemistry program at the University of Nevada Las Vegas. Her current research involves the characterization and crystallization of Re/99Tc-complexes for radiopharmaceuticals. Her interest in radiochemistry began at her undergraduate institution; there she was a part of a group that initiated a bachelor’s degree program in radiochemistry at a Historically Black College and University (HBCU). Upon graduation, she would like to continue her research of radiopharmaceuticals at a national laboratory or university.
Audrey Roman, Hospitality chair and Section president, is currently in her third year of a Radiochemistry PhD. Her interest in nuclear science started with a summer internship during her undergraduate studies at Idaho National Laboratory studying the FPEX process. After graduation, Audrey would like to follow her interests into nuclear safeguards and reprocessing industry.
Daniel R. Lowe completed his B.S.E in Mechanical Engineering in 2005 from the University of Nevada Las Vegas with a topical specialty in nuclear engineering. He became interested in the nuclear field after his advisor, Dr. William Culbreth, hired him to work in the nuclear field as an undergraduate. From there, he completed his master’s degree in materials and nuclear engineering from UNLV a year later with a focus on radiation transport methods. Daniel plans on finishing his PhD in nuclear engineering from UNLV in May of 2012; his dissertation titled “Radioisotope Production from Linear Electron Accelerators” found alternative and cost-effective ways to produce desired isotopes such as 99mTc from uncommon target combinations. After graduation, Daniel plans to stay at UNLV for the next few years to help develop the UNLV accelerator program.
Keri Campbell, Finance Committee chair, became interested in the nuclear field while studying the history of Nevada. She is currently a 2nd year PhD student in radiochemistry. After graduation she plans on working for a national laboratory focusing on waste forms and reprocessing.
Janelle Droessler, Marketing chair, is in her second year of graduate study. Her interest in radiochemistry was sparked by an opportunity to conduct her undergraduate senior research in the UNLV radiochemistry labs under the mentorship of a current graduate student. Her research is focused on the direct dissolution of f-elements into room temperature ionic liquid and exploring the electrochemistry for deposition applications. After graduation she intends to pursue a post-doc position at another university or national laboratory.
Corey Keith, Activities chair, is currently in his last year for a M.S. in health physics. His interest in nuclear science was sparked when taking a radioactive waste management and fuel cycle class. After graduating with his M.S. degree, he plans to get his PhD in either nuclear engineering or radiochemistry.
Maryline Ferrier, Catering coordinator, is a 2nd year graduate student in the UNLV radiochemistry PhD program. Her interest for radiochemistry started when she attended classes on the nuclear fuel cycle and radiochemistry given by Dr. Rocca in college in France. Her passion and interest for this field was enhanced when she performed her internship in the reprocessing plant at Areva La Hague. She would like to work in the nuclear field, in a national laboratory to pursue some more research or in industry to work on the applied side of the nuclear fuel cycle.
Balazs Bene, Website coordinator, is a second year radiochemistry graduate student. He became interested in the nuclear field when he took the radiation and environmental protection class of Dr. Zagyvai and Dr. Patzay. Currently he works in Dr. Sudowe’s research group at UNLV. After graduation he would like to pursue a career at one of the national laboratories.
Comments Off
Posted in American Nuclear Society, ANS Student Sections
Steven A. Arndt, Ph.D., P.E., cited as best engineer in federal service
American Nuclear Society board member Steven A. Arndt, Ph.D., P.E., has been named the federal government’s Engineer of the Year by the National Society of Professional Engineers. “Steven is an extremely distinguished member of the Society with a long history of exceptional and diverse public service,” said ANS President Eric Loewen regarding the award. “We’re very fortunate to have him on our board of directors and we extend our heartfelt congratulations to him on this well-deserved recognition.”
Dr. Steven A. Arndt and Mr. David L. Skeen, Director of Japan Lessons-Learned Project Directorate, NRC
Christopher M. Stone, P.E., National Society of Professional Engineers (NSPE), Dr. Arndt, Mr. Skeen, Lawrence A. Jacobson, executive director NSPE
“Steven is a great example of the dedication and experience of ANS members,” said Loewen. “The country is fortunate to have him acting in a role of such responsibility and importance at the NRC, and we’re fortunate to have him among our membership.”
Christopher Stone, P.E. and Dr. Steven Arndt
For more information about the National Society of Professional Engineers’ awards, please visit the NSPE website.
_______________________
By Art Wharton
During the 2011 American Nuclear Society Winter Meeting in Washington, DC, a gathering of ANS members interested in social media and nuclear communications was held, with standing-room-only attendance. As the conversation went around the room, and people discussed their involvement in nuclear communications, a common thread held throughout: The participants felt a moral calling to advance nuclear science and technology through their work, and through their communications via social media. Most participants recounted an obligation that they felt to their community or their family, including the futures of their grandchildren.
Some of these people have been called ”industry shills” by those who oppose the continued use of nuclear science and technology for the benefit of society, implying that a pro-nuclear stance is somehow imposed upon someone by the big bad industry tycoons in charge of a vast nuclear conspiracy. The reality is, I have personally met many people who chose to work in the nuclear industry because they advocated nuclear technology, not the other way around. These are the people who are leaders, or will be the future leaders, in the nuclear field.
Speaking of industry leaders, they recently collaborated on the development of the Principles of Conduct for Nuclear Power Plant Exporters. In the preamble, they call out six principles for focus: “Safety, Security, Environmental Protection, Compensation for Nuclear Damage, Nonproliferation, and Ethics.” I’m personally proud to be part of an industry that operates with these core values, and with a sincere feeling of responsibility for their product.
Nuclear professionals live on the same earth as everyone else, so they have a personal stake in utilizing this fascinating technology for the benefit of society, along with strong core values of safety and environmental responsibility. If you’re looking for the moral high-ground in an energy debate, start with advocating the use of nuclear energy.
I originally decided to work in nuclear energy because it was “cool” to me. When I first learned that the energy density of a single fuel pellet equaled almost a ton of coal, I had to learn more. When I was a young boy camping with a Boy Scout troop, they advocated leaving the campground in better condition than we found had it, so the energy density and cleanliness of nuclear energy compared with other energy sources was compelling to me as a young adult. I followed the “cool” path, in my eyes, not realizing at the time that I was making a moral or ethical choice.
That changed in an unexpected way when I graduated college, and I took an oath called The Obligation of the Engineer. At an overwhelming time, in which the excitement of a new career, the largest paycheck of my life, and a cross-country move to a new region were looming, I had an “aha moment” when I took the oath. Many readers of this blog are engineers, and many are not, but I think the oath carries with it a tremendous message worth ruminating on for all nuclear science and technology professionals:
I am an engineer, in my profession I take deep pride.
To it I owe solemn obligations.
Since the Stone Age, human progress has been spurred by the engineering genius.
Engineers have made usable nature’s vast resources of material and energy for humanity’s benefit.
Engineers have vitalized and turned to practical use the principles of science and the means of technology.
Were it not for this heritage of accumulated experience, my efforts would be feeble.
As an engineer, I pledge to practice integrity and fair dealing, tolerance, and respect, and to uphold devotion to the standards and the dignity of my profession, conscious always that my skill carries with it the obligation to serve humanity by making the best use of Earth’s precious wealth.
As an engineer, I shall participate in none but honest enterprises.
When needed, my skill and knowledge shall be given without reservation for the public good.
In the performance of duty and in fidelity to my profession, I shall give the utmost.
- The Obligation of the Engineer
How can you tell if you’re talking to someone who’s taken that oath? Look at the pinky finger of their working hand, and they’ll have a modest, non-descript, stainless steel ring on it. I see many who embody this obligation as they uphold their devotion to safely implementing nuclear science and technology. I think that someone who reads this obligation slowly and deliberately can understand why emotions can run high in a time when nuclear science and technology comes under pressure. I won’t write any ad-hominem attacks on those who oppose nuclear science and technology, because I want today’s topic to be on the ethical and moral obligations we uphold in the nuclear science and technology field. I encourage engineers and non-engineers alike to renew their sense of moral focus on how their day jobs provide benefit to humanity, and to their own community.
Electrical power production provides life-saving opportunities. Refrigeration keeps food safe. Air conditioning saves many from heat stroke during the summer, and heating systems preserve life in the winter. The medical industry is dependent on electricity for many life-saving technologies. As you’re reading this paragraph, you’re probably listing out other things that electricity does to preserve and enhance life in ways that many people take for granted. Nuclear energy provides this life-saving electricity with the smallest footprint per unit of energy, and in my strong opinion, makes “the best use of Earth’s precious wealth.”
I have an obligation to give my knowledge, without reservation, for the public good. Sometimes, I don’t have all the answers. Organizations like the American Nuclear Society can be pivotal in our ability to bring knowledge together. I’ve grown as a person and as a professional from my association and participation in ANS events and governance. If you’re a member of the American Nuclear Society, as I suspect many of you are, you will find that ANS is consistent with this message of moral and ethical behavior as a society and as nuclear professionals. The ANS Code of Ethics gets specific, and the number one practice of professional conduct found in the ANS Code of Ethics is consistent with the rest of the industry:
We hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public and fellow workers, work to protect the environment, and strive to comply with the principles of sustainable development in the performance of our professional duties.
If you browse around the websites of nuclear industry companies, you’ll find that safety and environmental responsibility are consistently called out in their corporate core values. Safety is also the very core of the charter of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Maybe some people can read this and think that we just provide a lot of lip service, and that this is just good PR. Is it? Who pays attention to these things? Do news reporters sift through our corporate values, or Society ethics, or the Obligation of an Engineer before they report the news, or decide which “expert” interviewee to pay more attention to? If they did, I suspect that we’d see different words surrounding “Nuclear” in headlines.
Leaders pay attention to these things. They spend hours arguing over how they want to shape the words to affect the behaviors of the people they lead. They worry about whether they’ve communicated these values often enough, or well enough. If my CEO stopped me in the hallway today and asked me what the company core values were, I could recite them verbatim.
A breach of ethics represents the largest risk we face as we operate, execute projects, or form business deals. I encourage all of you to not only re-familiarize yourself with these values that your employers and your professional societies hold, but to take that confidence with you as you communicate about the benefits of nuclear science and technology. The facts are on your side, the moral high-ground is yours, and the highest standards of ethics and professional conduct will lead you. When in doubt, ask a friend; you have over 11,000 engineers, scientists, administrators, and educators representing more than 1,600 corporations, educational institutions, and government agencies at your disposal here at the American Nuclear Society.
______________________
Wharton
Art Wharton is a principal project engineer at Westinghouse Electric Company LLC in the Nuclear Power Plants product line. He is a member of the ANS Planning committee, the Operations and Power Division Program committee, the Operations and Power Division Executive Committee, is a Pittsburgh Local Section past chair, and is a guest contributor to the ANS Nuclear Cafe.
The views expressed here are my own and do not necessarily represent the positions, strategies or opinions of Westinghouse Electric Company LLC.
Posted in American Nuclear Society, engineering, Social Media
Eric Loewen, president of the American Nuclear Society, kept up his rapid pace last week as he visited the ANS local section in Aiken, S.C., on February 15, and the one in Charlotte, N.C., on February 16. Loewen, as the featured speaker at the meetings of the two sections, presented his personal talk titled “Plutonium: Promise or Peril”.
During the morning on the 15th, Loewen toured the MOX Fuel Fabrication Facility on the Savannah River Site, in South Carolina. The facility,which is being built by the Department of Energy’s National Nuclear Security Administration, will convert surplus nuclear weapon-grade plutonium into reactor fuel for use in commercial nuclear power plants starting in 2016. Under a 2000 agreement, the United States and Russia will dispose of 68 metric tons of surplus plutonium, enough material for many thousands of nuclear weapons (see Shaw Areva MOX Services for more info).
Later on the 15th, Loewen was hosted by Stephen Sheetz of the Savannah River National Laboratory for a tour of the lab and other facilities on the Savannah River Site.
At the MOX Fuel Fabrication Facility: Zachary Kosslow (ANS), Amanda Bryson (Shaw Areva MOX Services), Eric Loewen (ANS-president), and Kevin Hall (NNSA).
NNSA-MOX Federal Project Director Clay Ramsey illustrates with ANS's Loewen how a fuel pellet boat will be used in the MOX fuel fabrication process.
The dinner meeting that featured Loewen on the 15th was attended by about 160 people. The dinner was hosted by Citizens for Nuclear Technology Awareness, in cooperation with ANS. “Dr. Loewen’s presentation was very well received by all in attendance,” said Amanda Bryson, chair of the Savannah River ANS local section. “The event brought together professionals at all stages of their careers from all over the Central Savannah River Area, representing many facets of the nuclear industry in the area. This was one of the best-attended events for ANS–Savannah River in the past year, and provided the opportunity for lively and thought-provoking interaction among our membership and the membership of Citizens for Nuclear Technology Awareness. It was a pleasure and a privilege to have Dr. Loewen visit.”
The next day, in Charlotte, Loewen was interviewed on WFAE NPR Radio Charlotte. Click the “Listen” button at the WFAE webpage to tune in to the interview via the Comments page, or tune in to the interview directly.
Dr. Clint Wolfe (Exec. Dir. CNTA), Dr. Loewen, Karen Bonavita (CNTA)
“Dr. Loewen had over 100 attentive local section members as an audience,” said Thomas Doering, chair of the Piedmont-Carolinas ANS local section, regarding Loewen’s talk in Charlotte on the 16th. “The Peidmont-Carolinas section historically has drawn nearly 100 local members for over two years; the greater Charlotte area is considered the energy capital of the nation. Dr. Loewen’s talk focused on the misconceptions of plutonium and how other energy sources suffered from a similar beginning.”
When asked about his trip, Loewen said, “I’m just so impressed with the vibrancy and vitality of these sections. They really are greater than the sum of their parts, and their parts are pretty great.”
Carolinas Section Officers James Bakke, Thomas Doering - chair, ANS President Loewen, Myron Koblansky, Andrew Sowder.
ANS Nuclear Headlines ANS Nuclear Video Clips
