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.
J. Haroon, E. Nichita
Nuclear Technology | Volume 208 | Number 2 | February 2022 | Pages 246-267
Technical Paper | doi.org/10.1080/00295450.2021.1929768
Articles are hosted by Taylor and Francis Online.
A new 37-element PHWR fuel bundle, designed for molybdenum-99 production, has been proposed previously. The new bundle has been shown to have lattice properties and reactivity feedback effects equivalent to the standard PHWR bundle. This study looks at the effect the use of molybdenum-99-producing bundles has on the reactivity worth of reactivity devices, through the prism of reactivity-device macroscopic-cross-section increments. The study utilizes three-dimensional supercell configurations and the neutron transport code DRAGON to calculate and compare the incremental macroscopic cross sections and supercell reactivity for adjuster absorbers, shutoff absorber rods and liquid zone controllers when surrounded by molybdenum-99-producing bundles and by regular bundles. Two geometrical representations of fuel bundles are used: a detailed, cluster, representation, whereby all fuel pins are modeled separately, and an annularized representation, whereby each ring of fuel pins and corresponding coolant is represented as a homogeneous annulus. The latter model is the one customarily used in production calculations for finding cross-section increments of reactivity devices.
The study finds that reactivity-device cross-section and supercell reactivity increments are very similar (< 2% difference in reactivity increments) for the case of the molybdenum-producing bundle and the regular bundle. The study also finds that the use of a detailed, cluster, geometrical representation of the fuel bundle produces slightly different cross-section increments and supercell reactivity increments than the use of an annularized geometrical representation. The supercell reactivity-increment difference between the two representations is found to be ~8.0% for adjuster absorbers and ~11.0% for shutoff absorber rods.