Table 2-19. System evaluation/optimization criteria.a
| Criteria | |||||||||
| Facility: | Status | . Flexibilityb | Construction costc | Volume alterationd | Destruction capability for organicse | Meets RCRA treatment requirementsf | Leach resistance of final waste formg | Cost to operatec | Waste disposal costsh |
| Soil sort | Planned/onsite | MWi soils
LLWk soils |
2
2 |
NAj
NA |
No
No |
No
NA |
No
No |
2
2 |
NA-treatment req. |
| Consolidated Incineration Facility | Under construction/ onsite | MW/HWl liquids
LLW liquids MW/HW soils MW/HW job-control LLW job-control Alpha job-control Mixed alpha job-control |
7
7 7 7 7 10 10 |
40:1
40:1 1:3 8:1 11:1 11:1 8:1 |
Yes
No Yes Yes No No Yes |
Yes
NA Yes Yes NA NA Yes |
Moderate (Cement)
Moderate (Cement) Moderate (Cement) Moderate (Cement) Moderate (Cement) Moderate (Cement) Moderate (Cement) |
6
6 8 8 8 10 10 |
5
3 7 5 3 7 7 |
| Supercompactor | Existing/offsite | LLW job-control
LLW bulk |
NA
NA |
8:1
8:1 |
No
No |
NA
NA |
Poor (Unstabilized)
Poor (Unstabilized) |
2
2 |
3
3 |
| Incineration/ supercompaction | Existing/offsite | LLW job-control | NA | 100:1 | No | NA | Poor (Unstabilized) | 8 | 3 |
| Size reduction/ repackaging | Existing/offsite | LLW job-control | NA | 1.4:1 | No | NA | Poor (Unstabilized) | 6 | 3 |
| Metal melt/ supercompaction | Existing/offsite | LLW job-control | NA | 20:1 | No | NA | Moderate | 8 | 3 |
| Smelter | Existing/offsite | LLW bulk | NA | 10:1 | No | NA | Moderate | 5 | 5 |
| Non-alpha vitrification | Planned/onsite | MW/HW soils LLW soils MW/HW liquids LLW liquids MW/HW job control LLW job control MW/HW bulk LLW bulk |
7
7 6 6 7 7 8 8 |
1.2:1
1.2:1 75:1 75:1 15:1 15:1 15:1 15:1 |
Yes
No Yes No Yes No Yes No |
Yes
NA Yes NA Yes NA Yes NA |
Best available
Best available Best available Best available Best available Best available Best available Best available |
8
8 7 7 8 8 9 9 |
5
1 3 1 3 1 3 1 |
| Transuranic waste characterization/ certification | Planned/onsite | TRUm (Pu-239)n job control
TRU (Pu-238)n job control Mixed alphap job control Alpha job control TRU (Pu-239) bulk TRU (Pu-238) bulk Mixed alpha bulk Alpha bulk |
8
10 8 8 9 10 8 8 |
1.4:1
1.4:1 1.4:1 1.4:1 1.4:1 1.4:1 1.4:1 1.4:1 |
No
No No No No No No No |
Meets WIPP/WACo
No Yes NA Meets WIPP/WACo No Yes NA |
Poor (Unstabilized)
NA-treatment Req. Poor (Unstabilized) Poor (Unstabilized) Poor (Unstabilized) NA-treatment req. Poor (Unstabilized) Poor (Unstabilized) |
8
10 8 8 8 10 8 8 |
10
NA-treatment req. 5 10 NA-treatment req. 5 |
| Containment building | Planned/onsite | MW/HW Bulk | 4 | 1:1.2 | No | Yes | Poor | 6 | 5 |
Table 2-19. (continued).
| Criteria | |||||||||
| Facility: | Status | Flexibilityb | Construction costc | Volume alterationd | Destruction capability for organicse | Meets RCRA treatment requirementsf | Leach resistance of final waste formg | Cost to operatec | Waste disposal costsh |
| Alpha vitrification | Planned/onsite | Mixed alpha liquids
Alpha liquids TRU liquids Mixed alpha job control Alpha job control TRU job control Mixed alpha bulk Alpha bulk TRU bulk |
8
8 8 9 9 9 10 10 10 |
75:1
75:1 75:1 15:1 15:1 15:1 15:1 15:1 15:1 |
Yes
No No Yes No No Yes No No |
Yes
NA Yes Yes NA Yes Yes NA Yes |
Best available
Best available Best available Best available Best available Best available Best available Best available Best available |
8
8 8 9 9 9 10 10 10 |
8
8 8 9 9 9 9 9 9 |
| Shallow land disposal | Existing/onsite | LLW | 2 | NA | No | No | NA | 3 | NA |
| Vault disposal | Existing/onsite | LLW
Alpha waste |
4
4 |
NA
NA |
No
No |
No
No |
NA
NA |
3
4 |
NA
NA |
| RCRA disposal | Existing/onsite | MW/HW
Mixed alpha waste |
5
5 |
NA
NA |
No
No |
No
No |
NA
NA |
3
4 |
NA
NA |
| WIPP disposal | Existing/offsite | TRU | NA | NA | No | No | NA | NA | NA |
a. Source: Hess (1994g, 1995d).
b. Denotes the waste types and matrices
that could be managed at the facility.
c. Cost scores are on a 1 to 10 scale
with 10 being the most expensive.
d. Denotes the ratio of the incoming waste
volume to the post-treatment waste volume.
e. Denotes whether the facility
provides a destruction and removal capability for organic hazardous constituents
that meets RCRA incineration standards (i.e., 99.99 percent).
f. Denotes
whether the facility provides treatment that meets RCRA land disposal
restriction standards.
g. Ranks the stability of the final waste form
provided by the technology(ies) used at each facility.
h. Scores the cost to
dispose of the treatment residuals and secondary wastes on a 1 to 10 scale with
10 being the most expensive.
i. Mixed waste.
j. Not applicable.
k.
Low-level waste.
l. Hazardous waste.
m. Transuranic waste.
n.
Plutonium-238, -239.
o. Waste Isolation Pilot Plant waste acceptance
criteria.
p. Waste containing between 10 and 100 nanocuries per gram of
transuranic radionuclides.
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
