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
Materials Science & Technology
The objectives of MSTD are: promote the advancement of materials science in Nuclear Science Technology; support the multidisciplines which constitute it; encourage research by providing a forum for the presentation, exchange, and documentation of relevant information; promote the interaction and communication among its members; and recognize and reward its members for significant contributions to the field of materials science in nuclear technology.
Meeting Spotlight
2024 ANS Winter Conference and Expo
November 17–21, 2024
Orlando, FL|Renaissance Orlando at SeaWorld
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
Aug 2024
Jan 2024
Latest Journal Issues
Nuclear Science and Engineering
October 2024
Nuclear Technology
Fusion Science and Technology
August 2024
Latest News
New laws offer nuclear industry incentives for existing power plant uprates
This year, the U.S. nuclear industry received a much-needed economic boost that could help preserve operating nuclear power plants and incentivize upgrades that extend their lifespan and power output.
Signed into law in 2022, the Inflation Reduction Act offers production tax credits (PTCs) for existing nuclear power plants and either PTCs or investment tax credits (ITCs) for new carbon-free generation. These credits could make power uprates—increasing the maximum power level at which a commercial plant may operate—a much more appealing option for utilities.
John F. Carew, Kai Hu
Nuclear Science and Engineering | Volume 140 | Number 1 | January 2002 | Pages 70-85
Technical Paper | doi.org/10.13182/NSE02-A2245
Articles are hosted by Taylor and Francis Online.
Pressure vessel surveillance and benchmark dosimetry measurements are used to determine the effects of the plant-specific as-built core/internals/vessel materials and geometry on the vessel fluence. In several recent applications, uncertainties in these measurements and their interpretation have prevented the use of the dosimetry measurements in the benchmarking of the vessel fluence calculations. In this analysis, the uncertainties having a significant effect on the measurement-to-calculation comparisons used in the benchmarking are identified and evaluated, and the effect of these uncertainties on the >1-MeV vessel fluence derived from the measurements is determined.The vessel >1-MeV fluence is determined by a weighted sum of the response from a set of 63Cu, 46Ti, 58Ni, 54Fe, 238U, and 237Np fast neutron dosimeters located on the outer wall of the thermal shield, vessel inner wall and/or in the cavity outside the vessel. The uncertainty estimates assume a well-maintained and calibrated measurement system and the use of state-of-the-art methods for interpreting the measurements. In the case where the effects of the individual uncertainties on the fluence are correlated, the specific correlation is calculated and properly included in the fluence uncertainty estimate.The uncertainty in the >1-MeV fluence inferred from dosimeters located on the outer wall of the thermal shield or on the inner wall of the vessel ranges from 11 to 15% (1) depending on the specific type of fast neutron dosimeter. The uncertainty in the >1-MeV fluence inferred from dosimeters located in the cavity is significantly higher, due to the uncertainty in the iron cross section and the resulting uncertainty in the extrapolation to the vessel inner wall, and ranges from 19 to 23% depending on the type of dosimeter. These vessel fluence uncertainties are substantially larger than the uncertainty in the measured dosimeter reaction rates of 6 to 8% from which the fluence was derived.