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
Fuel Cycle & Waste Management
Devoted to all aspects of the nuclear fuel cycle including waste management, worldwide. Division specific areas of interest and involvement include uranium conversion and enrichment; fuel fabrication, management (in-core and ex-core) and recycle; transportation; safeguards; high-level, low-level and mixed waste management and disposal; public policy and program management; decontamination and decommissioning environmental restoration; and excess weapons materials disposition.
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.
Yan Wang, Zhijian Zhang, Anqi Xu, Huazhi Zhang
Nuclear Technology | Volume 198 | Number 3 | June 2017 | Pages 327-341
Technical Paper | doi.org/10.1080/00295450.2017.1297174
Articles are hosted by Taylor and Francis Online.
Quantitative risk values for nuclear power plants (NPPs) can be obtained by conducting a probabilistic safety assessment (PSA). However, people cannot judge the risk level without comparing the risk values from PSA with the standards of acceptable risk in society. Acceptable risk standards are affected by many factors, and those factors are preferentially considered in specified applications. There are many methods used to establish acceptable risk, and a comparative method is easily understood and accepted by the public. In the United States, both qualitative safety goals and quantitative health objectives (QHOs) for the current generation of light water reactors are established by a comparative method and are described in the Safety Goals Policy Statement published by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The evaluations of Level 1 PSA or Level 2 PSA are enough for most regulatory decisions and engineering practices.
In order to use PSA as a useful tool for regulation, establishing surrogate safety goals based on QHOs is necessary. But, there is no clear derivation process. First, this paper introduces the process of how to derive QHOs from qualitative safety goals and a model of quantitative health risk. Then, models using core damage frequency (CDF) and large early release frequency (LERF) based on the QHOs are introduced. The situations of nuclear power for each country—the number of plants, the types of reactors, the weather conditions, the population distribution, and the off-site emergency response plan—are different for each country. This paper considers two representative situations. The first situation is that a society has only a single NPP. The maximum consequence method is used to determine the surrogate safety goals for this situation. The second situation is that a society has multiple types of NPPs and the off-site environments of the plants are different from each other. The statistical tolerance intervals method is used to determine the surrogate safety goals for this situation. Data of individual early fatality and cancer fatality risk in China from 2004 to 2013 are collected and analyzed, and then, Chinese, U.S., Korean, and Japanese QHOs are compared. Chinese QHOs and some data from the reference are used to establish surrogate safety goals for the two situations, which are compared with existing surrogate safety goals CDF = 1E-04 per reactor and LERF = 1E-05/reactor-year.