Table 2-16. Example of scoring the incineration technology for intermediate-activity job-control waste.a
| In-depth options analysis for reasonable options | ||||
| Waste category: Intermediate-activity job-control waste | Process being evaluated: Incineration | |||
| Criteria/Attribute | Weighting Factor | Score | Net Score | Discussion/Notes |
| Process Parameters | ||||
| Volume alteration | 3 | 3 | 9 | Assumed 8 to 1 reduction in initial waste volumes after stabilization of both treated and secondary wastes. |
| Secondary waste generation | 2 | 3 | 6 | Secondary waste easily treated using currently available technologies. |
| Decontamination and demobilization efficiency | 3 | 2 | 6 | No destruction or removal of contaminants. Decreased mobility due to stabilization of both treated and secondary wastes. |
| Engineering Parameters | ||||
| System implementability | 2 | 3 | 6 | Incineration of intermediate-activity job-control waste is a well demonstrated and proven technology. |
| Availability | 1 | 3 | 3 | Facility being built onsite. Commercially available incinerators exist offsite. |
| Maintainability | 1 | 1 | 1 | Assume 50 percent downtime for maintenance and batching of waste. |
| Environmental, Health, and Safety | ||||
| Risks to offsite population/environment | 3 | 1 | 3 | Increased potential for accidents. Inventory control minimizes impacts of a release due to an accident. Ranks in upper third of technologies evaluated. |
| Operational worker health and safety | 2 | 1.5 | 3 | More than 20 workers; increased handling and processing and increased system complexity. |
| Transportation risk | 1 | 2 | 2 | Onsite transportation required. |
| Public Acceptance | ||||
| Public acceptance | 3 | 1.5 | 4.5 | Concern because treatment is a high-temperature process, yielding emissions, though minimal. |
| Cost Considerations | ||||
| Costs developed according to draft site treatment plan | 4 | 2 | 8 | Cost of technology is in the middle third for technologies selected for this waste. |
| Total | 25 | . | 51.5 | . |
| Total Technical Weighted Score | ||||
| Actual score excluding cost | [43.5] x | |||
| Factor to adjust max score to 100 | [100] ÷ | |||
| Max possible score excluding cost | [213] = | 69.05 | . | . |
| Total Weighted Score | ||||
| Actual score | [51.5] x | |||
| Factor to adjust max score to 100 | [100] ÷ | |||
| Max possible score | [253] = | 68.67 | . | . |
a. Source: Hess (1994a).
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
