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.
Explore membership for yourself or for your organization.
Conference Spotlight
2026 ANS Annual Conference
May 31–June 3, 2026
Denver, CO|Sheraton Denver
Latest Magazine Issues
Mar 2026
Jan 2026
Latest Journal Issues
Nuclear Science and Engineering
March 2026
Nuclear Technology
February 2026
Fusion Science and Technology
April 2026
Latest News
DOE nuclear cleanup costs, schedule delays continue to rise, GAO says
The Department of Energy’s Office of Environmental Management faces significant cost increases, schedule delays, and data management issues in completing nuclear waste cleanup projects, according to a new report from the U.S. Government Accountability Office.
Richard Simms, Robert K. LO, William F. Murphy, Alan B. Rothman, George S. Stanford
Nuclear Technology | Volume 50 | Number 3 | October 1980 | Pages 225-241
Technical Paper | Reactor Siting | doi.org/10.13182/NT80-A32526
Articles are hosted by Taylor and Francis Online.
In a transient overpower (TOP) accident, the fuel element failure threshold is a function of the rate of reactivity increase and the fuel microstructure. Test E8 simulated a hypothetical $3/s TOP accident in a liquid-metal fast breeder reactor using seven (Pu,U)O2 fuel elements of the fast test reactor (FTR) type. The test elements were pre-irradiated at 30 kW/m in the Experimental Breeder Reactor II to 5 at.% burnup, leading to a low-to-moderate power micro structure typical of FTR fuel Data from test vehicle sensors, hodoscope, and post-test examinations were used to deduce the sequence of events occurring within the test zone. The initial fuel failure event occurred abruptly at ∼29 times the nominal power level at an estimated average enthalpy of ∼925 kJ/kg relative to 20°C, with 50% of the fuel cross-sectional area above the solidus at the suspected failure site. After the initial failure, ∼2% of the fuel was ejected above the top of the active fuel region. Sodium voiding occurred rapidly. An upper blockage was formed that apparently prevented further fuel dispersal. Inherent test vehicle limitations, loss of flow tube geometry, and nontypical power generation after fuel element failure may have caused a departure from the fuel motion predicted for the FTR conditions. No violent fuel-coolant interactions were observed in the test.