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
Fusion Energy
This division promotes the development and timely introduction of fusion energy as a sustainable energy source with favorable economic, environmental, and safety attributes. The division cooperates with other organizations on common issues of multidisciplinary fusion science and technology, conducts professional meetings, and disseminates technical information in support of these goals. Members focus on the assessment and resolution of critical developmental issues for practical fusion energy applications.
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
Feb 2025
Jul 2024
Latest Journal Issues
Nuclear Science and Engineering
March 2025
Nuclear Technology
Fusion Science and Technology
February 2025
Latest News
Colin Judge: Testing structural materials in Idaho’s newest hot cell facility
Idaho National Laboratory’s newest facility—the Sample Preparation Laboratory (SPL)—sits across the road from the Hot Fuel Examination Facility (HFEF), which started operating in 1975. SPL will host the first new hot cells at INL’s Materials and Fuels Complex (MFC) in 50 years, giving INL researchers and partners new flexibility to test the structural properties of irradiated materials fresh from the Advanced Test Reactor (ATR) or from a partner’s facility.
Materials meant to withstand extreme conditions in fission or fusion power plants must be tested under similar conditions and pushed past their breaking points so performance and limitations can be understood and improved. Once irradiated, materials samples can be cut down to size in SPL and packaged for testing in other facilities at INL or other national laboratories, commercial labs, or universities. But they can also be subjected to extreme thermal or corrosive conditions and mechanical testing right in SPL, explains Colin Judge, who, as INL’s division director for nuclear materials performance, oversees SPL and other facilities at the MFC.
SPL won’t go “hot” until January 2026, but Judge spoke with NN staff writer Susan Gallier about its capabilities as his team was moving instruments into the new facility.
John P. Holdren, Steve Fetter
Fusion Science and Technology | Volume 4 | Number 3 | November 1983 | Pages 599-619
Special Section Contents | Radioactivation of Fusion Structures | doi.org/10.13182/FST83-A22810
Articles are hosted by Taylor and Francis Online.
Comparison of accident-hazard potentials associated with neutron-activation products in fusion reactors of various designs and structural materials suffers from a number of shortcomings in the readily available hazard-index data. Neither inventories of curies nor biological hazard potentials (BHPs) are satisfactory indices of hazard even if consistently computed, and between-study inconsistencies in neutronics packages and BHP calculations further obscure the meaning of comparisons based on these measures. We present here the results of internally consistent calculations of radioactive inventories, BHPs, and off-site dose potentials associated with the first walls of nine reactor-design/first-wall-material combinations. A recent mirror-reactor design reduces off-site dose potentials by a factor of 2 compared to a muchstudied early tokamak, for a given first-wall material. Holding design fixed, HT-9 ferritic steel offers a factor of 2 reduction in dose potential compared to Type 316 stainless steel. By the dose-potential measure, molybdenum is the worst of the materials investigated and silicon carbide is by jar the best. Hazards in realizable accidents depend not only on the hypothetical dose potentials, as calculated here, but also on the actual release fractions of first-wall (or other activated) material. Review of the theoretical and experimental evidence bearing on release fractions suggests that, for most candidate materials, high release fractions from designs containing liquid lithium cannot yet be convincingly ruled out.