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
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.
Kevin R. O’Kula, David C. Thoman, Selina K. Guardiano, Eric P. Hope
Fusion Science and Technology | Volume 71 | Number 3 | April 2017 | Pages 381-390
Technical Paper | doi.org/10.1080/15361055.2017.1288437
Articles are hosted by Taylor and Francis Online.
A comparison of three United States (U.S.) Department of Energy (DOE) Standard DOE-STD-3009–2014 dispersion modeling protocol options has been performed assuming a ground-level release of tritium oxide source term. The options are characterized by differing sets of assumptions and inputs that allow incorporating greater user flexibility and realism into the modeling and subsequent analysis. The three options used to evaluate atmospheric dispersion include: (1) Use of U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Regulatory Guide 1.145; (2) Application of a DOE-approved toolbox code and application of conservative input parameters; and (3) Use of site-specific methods and parameters as defined in a site/facility specific DOE-approved modeling protocol.
Option 1 dose results are the lowest of the three sets of results at close-in distances, but are the highest for distances beyond approximately 3,000 m, reflecting the distance-dependent NRC plume meander model. Option 1 doses also reflect a lower minimum wind speed and consideration of G stability. Option 3 dose results are consistently lower than the Option 2 results by a factor of 2.2 reflecting the higher vertical dispersion values calculated from the crediting site-specific surface roughness. Option 2 and 3 results are obtained with DOE Central Registry computer software reflect default parameters in Option 2, and more site-specific input with Option 3. An averaging time of two hours leads to dose results that are lower than those obtained with an averaging time of three minutes by a factor of 2.5 due to the higher crosswind dispersion parameter values. This effect is due to the larger crosswind dimension of the plume with increasing averaging time using the Gifford meander model. A sensitivity case study indicates appreciable differences are observed between results obtained with the NRC Regulatory Guide 1.145 temperature difference (ΔT) method and those with U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) EPA-454/R-99–005 methodology for stability class categorization. A second sensitivity case suggests that crediting deposition, hold-up or other retention of tritium may be difficult to defend from a regulatory perspective, recognizing region of transport characteristics and accounting for reemission phenomenon. In terms of recommending one of the three options for modeling tritium releases in Documented Safety Analysis (DSA) applications, the Option 2 approach (Application of a DOE-approved toolbox code and conservative input parameters – without crediting tritium deposition) is the simplest model for source to receptor distances of 500 m or greater. Option 3 requires additional resource commitment and DOE authority approval, but may provide regulatory relief for certain accident scenarios. These recommendations apply to deterministic DSA dispersion analysis but are not extended to best estimate, realistic analyses such as those supporting probabilistic safety analyses.
