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 Nuclear Energy Conference & Expo (NECX)
August 24–27, 2026
Dallas, TX|Hilton Anatole
Latest Magazine Issues
Aug 2026
Jan 2026
2026
Latest Journal Issues
Nuclear Science and Engineering
October 2026
Nuclear Technology
September 2026
Fusion Science and Technology
August 2026
Latest News
A closer look at the initial NLIC selections—Part 2
In January, the Department of Energy announced its new Nuclear Lifecycle Innovation Campus (NLIC) program, inviting states via a request for information to express their interest in hosting a facility supporting work from the front to the back end of the nuclear fuel cycle.
By April, 26 states had expressed interest in hosting such a facility. At the end of July, the DOE signed memorandums of understanding with five states—Idaho, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and Utah—to more closely explore the possibilities of state-federal partnerships. These MOUs are not firm commitments from either the federal or state governments. Time will tell which—if any—of the five states develop projects through the program. In the meantime, today, we are taking a close look at what Utah, Idaho, Tennessee can offer in terms of a preexisting nuclear sector that could support new fuel cycle developments.
Alex Shaw, Farzad Rahnema, Andrew Holcomb, Doug Bowen
Nuclear Science and Engineering | Volume 196 | Number 9 | September 2022 | Pages 1073-1090
Technical Paper | doi.org/10.1080/00295639.2022.2049993
Articles are hosted by Taylor and Francis Online.
As part of the nuclear data evaluation and validation cycle, the ENDF/B-VIII.0 cross-section library released in 2018 requires testing to determine areas of improvement and deterioration. Previous work by the authors investigated the performance of 16O, 56Fe, and 63,65Cu cross sections, with this study acting as an extension of the prior work. In addition to the isotopes and nuclear criticality safety benchmarks of interest to the prior work, benchmarks from the International Criticality Safety Benchmark Evaluation Project Handbook were selected for their keff sensitivity to 1H, C, 58,60Ni, 182,183,184,186W, 235,238U, or 239Pu cross sections and were modeled in the SCALE code system maintained by Oak Ridge National Laboratory. In total, 253 benchmark configurations were selected for their sensitivities and modeled using SCALE 6.2.4 Criticality Safety Analysis Sequences (CSAS) continuous-energy Monte Carlo keff calculations. This collection includes and expands upon the 99 benchmarks in the prior work. The AMPX-processed ENDF/B-VIII.0 library was decomposed into individual ENDF/B-VIII.0 datum libraries for each isotope of interest. Doing so allowed for the individual substitution of an ENDF/B-VIII.0 cross section in the place of ENDF/B-VII.1, determining isotope-specific effects of ENDF/B-VIII.0 relative to ENDF/B-VII.1. Full library calculations with entirely ENDF/B-VII.1 data or entirely ENDF/B-VIII.0 data were also executed. As a measure of performance, the average relative deviation was determined as the ratio of the deviation between calculated and experimental keff to the propagated calculational and experimental uncertainty. With calculated full library and isotope-specific ENDF/B-VIII.0 keff’s, an optimized combination of data libraries was estimated and confirmed with SCALE calculations. This showed that reverting 239Pu, 58Ni, 16O, and 65Cu cross sections to ENDF/B-VII.1 resulted in improved performance relative to the full ENDF/B-VIII.0 library. Across all 253 benchmarks, the average relative deviation was 1.29σ for the full ENDF/B-VII.1 library, 1.17σ for the full ENDF/B-VIII.0 library, and 0.97σ for the optimized combination. The reversion of 239Pu, 58Ni, 16O, and 65Cu cross sections to ENDF/B-VII.1 in the 99 benchmarks of the prior work resulted in further improved experimental agreement compared to the previously reported improvement from 16O and 65Cu alone. Therefore, it is suggested that applications with significant sensitivities to 239Pu, 58Ni, 16O, and 65Cu consider their choice of nuclear data library.