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
April 2026
Nuclear Technology
February 2026
Fusion Science and Technology
Latest News
NRC looks to leverage previous approvals for large LWRs
During this time of resurging interest in nuclear power, many conversations have centered on one fundamental problem: Electricity is needed now, but nuclear projects (in recent decades) have taken many years to get permitted and built.
In the past few years, a bevy of new strategies have been pursued to fix this problem. Workforce programs that seek to laterally transition skilled people from other industries, plans to reuse the transmission infrastructure at shuttered coal sites, efforts to restart plants like Palisades or Duane Arnold, new reactor designs that build on the legacy of research done in the early days of atomic power—all of these plans share a common throughline: leveraging work already done instead of starting over from square one to get new plants designed and built.
A. D. Krumbein, J. H. Ray
Nuclear Science and Engineering | Volume 13 | Number 2 | June 1962 | Pages 166-170
Technical Paper | doi.org/10.13182/NSE62-A26145
Articles are hosted by Taylor and Francis Online.
The effect of control rod movement in a fast reactor has been calculated directly by solving a series of two-dimensional multigroup problems and indirectly by using a set of danger coefficients derived from one-dimensional calculations. The values of reactivity insertion calculated by the two methods for complete safety rod withdrawal agree within three percent. The shape of a curve of relative reactivity insertion vs. rod withdrawal distance is also predicted, with good agreement between the two methods. Differences between the two predictions are within three percent of the maximum value. Comparison of these predictions with a set of normalized experimental values shows agreement within four percent of the maximum value.