• Military

• WMD Menu                           

• Introduction
• Systems
• Facilities
• Agencies
• Operations
• Countries
• Hot Documents
• News
• Reports
• Policy
• Budget
• Congress
• Links

• Intelligence
• Homeland Security
• Space

3.9 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT DISMISSED

The evaluation of alternatives to dispose of tank waste has been an ongoing effort since recognizing that waste storage in underground tanks is a temporary solution to a long-term problem. One of the most recent and comprehensive analyses of the options available for tank waste disposal is the Tank Waste Technical Options Report (Boomer et al. 1993).

Table 3.8 .2 Comparison of Capsule Alternatives

The public scoping process resulted in identifying several technologies and alternatives for consideration. Several technologies and alternatives were included in the alternatives presented in this section. Others were addressed in the EIS as technologies available for consideration by decision makers (Volume Two, Appendix B).

Other technologies and alternatives were dismissed from detailed consideration. These are presented in Volume Two, Appendix C along with the reasoning behind dismissal of the technology.

The criteria used to evaluate alternatives for consideration in the EIS involved asking the following questions.

• Is the alternative within the scope of the EIS?
• Is the alternative technically viable and practicable?
• Can the alternative be designed to be protective of human health and the environment with reasonable mitigative measures?
• Is the technology sufficiently mature to allow detailed evaluation?

The dismissed specialized alternatives, or alternatives that proposed exceptional treatment or disposal components, included the following:

• Seabed disposal, space disposal, deep hole disposal, ice sheet disposal, and island disposal;
• Geologic disposal of tank contents, tanks, equipment and contaminated soil;
• Rock melting or injecting the waste into a deep mined cavity; and
• Transmutation.

Alternatives identified during the public scoping process for this EIS but dismissed from further consideration included the following:

• Grouting the retired canyon facilities with hot grout;
• Launching to the sun, seabed subduction, deep hole disposal; and
• Disposing of glass logs in grout vaults and allowing solids in tanks to decay.

Specific technologies identified in the public scoping process for this EIS but dismissed from further consideration include the following:

• Using contaminated lead or steel from onsite for HLW containers;
• Building an unenclosed furnace in the ground;
• Using clinkers or marbles, not ingots, for vitrified waste;
• Placing marbles or clinkers into casks of currently contaminated steel and concrete;
• Filling the interstitial space around clinkers or marbles with lead or graphite from material onsite; and
• Burning the waste in a breeder reactor or at a Washington Public Power Supply System reactor.

Numerous technologies were examined for the retrieval, transfer, separations, and immobilization of the tank waste. Those technologies examined and dismissed are discussed in Volume Two, Appendix C.