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.
Division Spotlight
Nuclear Nonproliferation Policy
The mission of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Policy Division (NNPD) is to promote the peaceful use of nuclear technology while simultaneously preventing the diversion and misuse of nuclear material and technology through appropriate safeguards and security, and promotion of nuclear nonproliferation policies. To achieve this mission, the objectives of the NNPD are to: Promote policy that discourages the proliferation of nuclear technology and material to inappropriate entities. Provide information to ANS members, the technical community at large, opinion leaders, and decision makers to improve their understanding of nuclear nonproliferation issues. Become a recognized technical resource on nuclear nonproliferation, safeguards, and security issues. Serve as the integration and coordination body for nuclear nonproliferation activities for the ANS. Work cooperatively with other ANS divisions to achieve these objective nonproliferation policies.
Meeting Spotlight
Nuclear Energy Conference & Expo (NECX)
September 8–11, 2025
Atlanta, GA|Atlanta Marriott Marquis
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
Jun 2025
Jan 2025
Latest Journal Issues
Nuclear Science and Engineering
August 2025
Nuclear Technology
July 2025
Fusion Science and Technology
Latest News
Take steps on SNF and HLW disposal
Matt Bowen
With a new administration and Congress, it is time once again to ponder what will happen—if anything—on U.S. spent nuclear fuel and high-level waste management policy over the next few years. One element of the forthcoming discussion seems clear: The executive and legislative branches are eager to talk about recycling commercial SNF. Whatever the merits of doing so, it does not obviate the need for one or more facilities for disposal of remaining long-lived radionuclides. For that reason, making progress on U.S. disposal capabilities remains urgent, lest the associated radionuclide inventories simply be left for future generations to deal with.
In March, Rick Perry, who was secretary of energy during President Trump’s first administration, observed that during his tenure at the Department of Energy it became clear to him that any plan to move SNF “required some practical consent of the receiving state and local community.”1
H. Kaikkonen, J.-P. Salo, P. Silvennoinen
Nuclear Technology | Volume 38 | Number 2 | April 1978 | Pages 312-320
Technical Paper | Low-Temperature Nuclear Heat / Reactor | doi.org/10.13182/NT78-A32029
Articles are hosted by Taylor and Francis Online.
Optimization of the back-end services of the fuel cycle is solved by linear programming. A mathematical model governs the flow of fissile material from the reactor to spent fuel storages, to reprocessing and/or ultimate disposal, and to the fabrication of mixed-oxide fuel. The computer program developed is amenable to the optimization of the overall material flow together with recycle schedules and capacities under the prevailing market conditions and their trends. The income tax consideration is not included in the analysis, and therefore the results are applicable mainly to government-owned power production. Using the nuclear program of Finland, calculations are made to study the break-even reprocessing costs with regard to the throwaway costs. According to our conservative price estimates, the recycle benefit amounts to some 6.4 to 6.9% as calculated from the total discounted fuel cost over the years from 1977 to 2004. Over the time period of a few years at the beginning of the plutonium recycle, the levelized costs would be lower in the throwaway case, which is contrary to the overall result.
