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
Conference on Nuclear Training and Education: A Biennial International Forum (CONTE 2025)
February 3–6, 2025
Amelia Island, FL|Omni Amelia Island Resort
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
Jan 2025
Jul 2024
Latest Journal Issues
Nuclear Science and Engineering
February 2025
Nuclear Technology
January 2025
Fusion Science and Technology
Latest News
Senate committee hears from energy secretary nominee Chris Wright
Wright
Chris Wright, president-elect Trump’s pick to lead the U.S. Department of Energy, spent hours today fielding questions from members of the U.S. Senate’s committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
During the hearing, Wright—who’s spent most of his career in fossil fuels—made comments in support of nuclear energy and efforts to expand domestic generation in the near future. Asked what actions he would take as energy secretary to improve the development and deployment of SMRs, Wright said: “It’s a big challenge, and I’m new to government, so I can’t list off the five levers I can pull. But (I’ve been in discussions) about how to make it easier to research, to invest, to build things. The DOE has land at some of its facilities that can be helpful in this regard.”
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.