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
Nuclear Installations Safety
Devoted specifically to the safety of nuclear installations and the health and safety of the public, this division seeks a better understanding of the role of safety in the design, construction and operation of nuclear installation facilities. The division also promotes engineering and scientific technology advancement associated with the safety of such facilities.
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.
Ulf Tveten
Nuclear Technology | Volume 105 | Number 3 | March 1994 | Pages 322-333
Technical Paper | Nuclear Reactor Safety | doi.org/10.13182/NT94-A34933
Articles are hosted by Taylor and Francis Online.
This paper describes a task performed for the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), consisting of using post-Chernobyl data from Norway to verify or find areas for possible improvement in the chronic exposure pathway models utilized in the NRC’s program for probabilistic risk analysis, level 3, of the MELCOR accident consequence code system (MACCS), developed at Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, New Mexico. Because of unfortunate combinations of weather conditions, the levels of Chernobyl fallout in parts of Norway were quite high, with large areas contaminated to more than 100 kBq/m2 of radioactive cesium. Approximately 6% of the total amount of radioactive cesium released from Chernobyl is deposited on Norwegian territory, according to a countrywide survey performed by the Norwegian National Institute for Radiation Hygiene. Accordingly, a very large monitoring effort was carried out in Norway, and some of the results of this effort have provided important new insights into the ways in which radioactive cesium behaves in the environment. In addition to collection and evaluation of post-Chernobyl monitoring results, some experiments were also performed as part of the task. Some experiments performed pre-Chernobyl were also relevant, and some conclusions could be drawn from these. All the long-term exposure pathways routinely treated by MACCS were considered. The Chernobyl accident brought no new insights to the cloudshine exposure pathway, but understanding of the groundshine, soil-grass-milk, soil-grass-beef, and the freshwater exposure pathways was considerably improved. Much new valuable information on exposure pathways not routinely included in MACCS has also been gathered, but this aspect is not discussed in this paper. In most connections, the data available show the models and data in MACCS to be appropriate. A few areas where the data indicate that the MACCS approach is inadequate are, however, also pointed out in the paper. This concerns in particular root uptake to grass from soil and the freshwater exposure pathways. Both of these areas ought to be revised. It is also pointed out that MACCS’ inability in the present version to distinguish between chemical forms of cesium with different bioavailability may lead to conservative results. The task is limited to radioactive cesium, which proved to be by far the most important post-Chernobyl radionuclide in the Norwegian area.
