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
DNFSB spots possible bottleneck in Hanford’s waste vitrification
Workers change out spent 27,000-pound TSCR filter columns and place them on a nearby storage pad during a planned outage in 2023. (Photo: DOE)
While the Department of Energy recently celebrated the beginning of hot commissioning of the Hanford Site’s Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant (WTP), which has begun immobilizing the site’s radioactive tank waste in glass through vitrification, the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board has reported a possible bottleneck in waste processing. According to the DNFSB, unless current systems run efficiently, the issue could result in the interruption of operations at the WTP’s Low-Activity Waste Facility, where waste vitrification takes place.
During operations, the LAW Facility will process an average of 5,300 gallons of tank waste per day, according to Bechtel, the contractor leading design, construction, and commissioning of the WTP. That waste is piped to the facility after being treated by Hanford’s Tanks Side Cesium Removal (TSCR) system, which filters undissolved solid material and removes cesium from liquid waste.
According to a November 7 activity report by the DNFSB, the TSCR system may not be able to produce waste feed fast enough to keep up with the LAW Facility’s vitrification rate.
J. Sanz, R. Juárez, F. Ognissanto, J. M. Perlado
Fusion Science and Technology | Volume 60 | Number 2 | August 2011 | Pages 579-584
IFE Design & Technology | Proceedings of the Nineteenth Topical Meeting on the Technology of Fusion Energy (TOFE) (Part 2) | doi.org/10.13182/FST11-A12445
Articles are hosted by Taylor and Francis Online.
One of the critical decisions in the HiPER project is to select the most appropriate material for the reaction chamber. Within this framework, we investigate the performance of different steel alloys with respect to waste management. The capabilities of commercial steels, both austenitic and ferritic/martensitic, compared to reduced-activation ferritic/martensitic steels are evaluated as for different waste management strategies (near surface burial, clearance, hands-on and remote recycling). The examined materials are: SS304, SS316, mod.9Cr-1Mo and HT9 and EUROFER. Real impurities concentrations are taken into account, and their impact is analyzed. In the study, we have assumed the most exigent HiPER 4a irradiation scenario. Commercial steels revealed to be a suitable choice for the HiPER reaction chamber, as far as their waste management options do not differ significantly from those of the reduced activation ferritic steel case. We found that for mod.9Cr-1Mo and EUROFER hands-on recycling is already possible after a cooling time shorter than 50 years and that shallow-land burial is practicable for all the steel alloys studied. The impurities present in the real heats affects the cooling time for manual recycling but not significantly. Shallow-land burial feasibility is not perturbed by the presence of impurities in the real commercial heats. Moreover, the impact of activation cross section uncertainties on the waste management assessment of the irradiated steels has been analyzed, and it is found to be of no practical significance to determine eligibility of the considered steels for the HIPER 4a reaction chamber.
