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 Annual Conference
May 31–June 3, 2026
Denver, CO|Sheraton Denver
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
Dec 2025
Jul 2025
Latest Journal Issues
Nuclear Science and Engineering
January 2026
Nuclear Technology
December 2025
Fusion Science and Technology
November 2025
Latest News
What’s the most difficult question you’ve been asked as a maintenance instructor?
Blye Widmar
"Where are the prints?!"
This was the final question in an onslaught of verbal feedback, comments, and critiques I received from my students back in 2019. I had two years of instructor experience and was teaching a class that had been meticulously rehearsed in preparation for an accreditation visit. I knew the training material well and transferred that knowledge effectively enough for all the students to pass the class. As we wrapped up, I asked the students how they felt about my first big system-level class, and they did not hold back.
“Why was the exam from memory when we don’t work from memory in the plant?” “Why didn’t we refer to the vendor documents?” “Why didn’t we practice more on the mock-up?” And so on.
Kenneth L. Schwartz, Carl A. Beard
Nuclear Technology | Volume 129 | Number 2 | February 2000 | Pages 152-174
Technical Paper | Fuel Cycle and Management | doi.org/10.13182/NT00-A3054
Articles are hosted by Taylor and Francis Online.
In an effort to reduce the global stockpile of nuclear explosive devices, ~50 tonnes of weapons-grade plutonium have been declared surplus to national security needs by the United States. This surplus, located at six sites within the U.S. Department of Energy complex (the Hanford Site, Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory, Los Alamos National Laboratory, the Pantex Plant, the Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site, and the Savannah River Site) must now be rendered unattractive for use in nuclear weapons. The goal is that this drive will be concurrent with similar activities in Russia. One method currently under investigation is the conversion of the plutonium metal into mixed-oxide (MOX) reactor fuel. Approximately 35 tonnes of the surplus plutonium is in a form suitable for fabrication into MOX fuel. This fuel would be used in currently operating reactors for power production.Two processes are currently under consideration for the disposition of the 35 tonnes of surplus plutonium through its conversion into fuel for power production. These processes are the Advanced Recovery and Integrated Extraction System (ARIES) process, by which plutonium metal is converted into a powdered oxide form, and MOX fuel fabrication, where the oxide powder is combined with uranium oxide powder to form ceramic fuel. Because it is envisioned that plutonium disposition will occur concurrently in the United States and Russia, the timely disposition of the plutonium is deemed important to national security. However, the need for quick disposition must be tempered by cost considerations and constraints on the reactors that will ultimately use the fuel. This study was undertaken to determine the optimal size for both the pit conversion and MOX fabrication facilities, whereby the 35 tonnes of plutonium metal will be converted into fuel and burned for power. Proper sizing of the facilities will help avoid unnecessary delays and excessive costs and thus is important in the success of the disposition mission.The bounding conditions used were a plutonium concentration of 3 to 7%, a burnup of 20,000 to 40,000 MWd/tonnes HM, a core fraction of 0.1 to 0.4, and the number of reactors ranging from 2 to 6. Using these boundary conditions, the optimal plutonium concentration was found to be 7%. This resulted in an optimal throughput ranging from 2000 to 5000 kg/yr of plutonium. The data showed minimal costs (based solely on facility size and required manpower) resulting from throughputs in this range, at 3840, 2779, and 3497 kg/yr of plutonium, which resulted in a facility lifetime of 9.1, 12.6, and 10.0 yr, respectively.