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.
Inki Oh, Robert E. Rothe
Nuclear Technology | Volume 41 | Number 2 | December 1978 | Pages 226-243
Technical Paper | Extraction of Energy From Nuclear Fuels Without Reprocessing to Separate Plutonium / Fuel Cycle | doi.org/10.13182/NT78-A32107
Articles are hosted by Taylor and Francis Online.
Criticality calculations on minimally reflected, concrete-reflected, and plastic-reflected single tanks and on arrays of cylinders reflected by concrete and plastic have been performed using the KENO-IV code with 16-group Hansen-Roach neutron cross sections. The fissile material was high-enriched (93.17% 235U) uranyl nitrate [UO2(NO3)2] solution. Calculated results are compared with those from a benchmark critical experiments program to provide the best possible verification of the calculational technique. The calculated keff’s underestimate the critical condition by an average of 1.28% for the minimally reflected single tanks, 1.09% for the concrete-re-flected single tanks, 0.60% for the plastic-reflected single tanks, 0.75% for the concrete-reflected arrays of cylinders, and 0.51% for the plastic-reflected arrays of cylinders. More than half of the present comparisons were within 1% of the experimental values, and the worst calculational and experimental discrepancy was 2.3% in keff for the KENO calculations.