WASTE MANAGEMENT | HANFORD’S TBI
waste management at Hanford
Industrialising
A test initiative has successfully demonstrated that some low-level radioactive waste from legacy tanks at the Hanford site can be sent for third-party disposal.
The DOE is responsible for managing nearly 56 million
gallons (212 million litres) of radioactive and chemical waste generated at the Hanford site during its national defence role during World War II and the Cold War. The waste, stored in underground tanks on the site, must be treated in accordance with federal and state disposal regulations. Historically, single-shell tanks were used for storing
radioactive liquid waste and they were originally designed to last only twenty years. Of the 177 tanks at Hanford, 149 had a single shell. However, under a DOE programme, waste is being transferred from single-shell tanks to safer double-shell tanks. Nevertheless, the waste will eventually be managed into a more permanent disposal state. The DOE previously decided to separate the low-activity
waste from other waste in the Hanford site tanks and vitrify some of the low-activity tank waste. The TBI is required because although this programme to treat tank waste is under way, via the Direct-Feed Low-Activity Waste (DFLAW) Programme at Hanford’s Waste Treatment Plant (WTP), the WTP will not treat all the site’s low-activity tank waste. So, in parallel with DFLAW preparations, the DOE worked with Washington State to consider additional options. The TBI is one result. The overall aims of the TBI are to:
● Provide information to better inform ongoing conversations between DOE and the state of Washington on a safe, viable path forward for Hanford tank waste
Above: Hanford workers move a 330 gallon (1250 litre) double-wall transport container of treated tank waste as part of the TBI demonstration
ON 2 MAY THIS YEAR THE US Department of Energy (DOE) announced that it has completed shipments of treated, low- activity tank waste from the Hanford site in Washington State to two radioactive waste sites in other states. The waste, shipped to Waste Control Specialists LLC in Andrews County, Texas, and EnergySolutions in Clive, Utah, will be solidified in grout and placed in permanent disposal. With a total volume of 2000 US gallons (7500 litres),
the waste was taken from underground Tank SY-101 in the so-called Test Bed Initiative (TBI) demonstration project. Hanford Deputy Manager Brian Harkins said: “This successfully executed demonstration will provide valuable information for options to accelerate environmental cleanup at the Hanford site.” The US Department of Energy’s Hanford site in
southeastern Washington state was created in 1943 to produce plutonium for the nation’s defence programme. The 580 square mile (150,000 Ha) site was left with large amounts of waste stored in tanks and now the DOE says treating the tank waste and cleanup are “Hanford’s primary missions”.
10 | July 2025 |
www.neimagazine.com
● Potentially show cost savings that could help accelerate other Hanford tank waste priorities
● Demonstrate the viability of shipping a waste form out of the state of Washington for safe disposal in licensed and permitted commercial facilities
● Add double-shell (full secondary containment) tank space.
● Address independent recommendations by the Government Accountability Office (GAO), Energy Communities Alliance and others to further study the potential cost, safety, and environmental performance of treatment and disposal alternatives.
Tank SY-101 was selected as the source for tank waste
for the proposed TBI Demonstration because, among other things, Tank SY-101 is not associated with DFLAW operations. In addition, the waste in Tank SY-101 consists of only two layers or phases: supernate and saltcake. The waste in most of the other Hanford tanks has three phases: supernate, saltcake and sludge.
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36
