Optioneering in nuclear ion exchange resin disposal

IF 3.3 3区工程技术 Q1 NUCLEAR SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY

Progress in Nuclear Energy Pub Date : 2025-03-17 DOI:10.1016/j.pnucene.2025.105719

C.M. Atkinson , T.J. Robshaw , G.D. Walker , M.J.D. Rushton , S.C. Middleburgh , W.E. Lee , M.D. Ogden

{"title":"Optioneering in nuclear ion exchange resin disposal","authors":"C.M. Atkinson , T.J. Robshaw , G.D. Walker , M.J.D. Rushton , S.C. Middleburgh , W.E. Lee , M.D. Ogden","doi":"10.1016/j.pnucene.2025.105719","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Spent ion exchange resins from nuclear facilities make up 4 % of all solid waste from that industry, and with no current disposal pathway, represent an orphan waste stream. Currently spent ion exchange resins are stored in vaults where they slowly degrade, producing dangerous secondary waste that is harder to dispose of.</div><div>In this work the most viable disposal options have been assessed using Multi Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA). Several methodologies were appraised, and a modified version of the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) was chosen. Disposal options identified were shortlisted by the application of threshold criteria. Using AHP, eight Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) were defined and grouped into three overarching criteria: Engineering, Economics and Environmental. The KPIs and criteria were subjected to a ‘pairwise rating process’ to assess their relative importance, which was then used to calculate weightings. These weightings were used to prioritise the raw scores each disposal route had received for the KPIs giving rankings for each disposal option. These were analysed using an uncertainty assessment, employing additional indicators to give an uncertainty percentage. A sensitivity analysis was conducted which changed the weightings to assess the impact this could have on the final rankings.</div><div>Vitrification was found to be the most viable option, achieving good scores in all categories. Cementation and Plastic Solidification were also found to be promising, offering a more cost-effective option. A control disposal option, designed to emulate the current UK strategy of storage pending treatment, was included in the analysis. As expected, this disposal option scored poorly, ranking 11th out of 14 demonstrating that the current approach is unsustainable. Several viable alternatives are suggested with further laboratory and economic studies that would allow for deployment of the chosen disposal options.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":20617,"journal":{"name":"Progress in Nuclear Energy","volume":"185 ","pages":"Article 105719"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Progress in Nuclear Energy","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149197025001179","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"NUCLEAR SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Spent ion exchange resins from nuclear facilities make up 4 % of all solid waste from that industry, and with no current disposal pathway, represent an orphan waste stream. Currently spent ion exchange resins are stored in vaults where they slowly degrade, producing dangerous secondary waste that is harder to dispose of.

In this work the most viable disposal options have been assessed using Multi Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA). Several methodologies were appraised, and a modified version of the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) was chosen. Disposal options identified were shortlisted by the application of threshold criteria. Using AHP, eight Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) were defined and grouped into three overarching criteria: Engineering, Economics and Environmental. The KPIs and criteria were subjected to a ‘pairwise rating process’ to assess their relative importance, which was then used to calculate weightings. These weightings were used to prioritise the raw scores each disposal route had received for the KPIs giving rankings for each disposal option. These were analysed using an uncertainty assessment, employing additional indicators to give an uncertainty percentage. A sensitivity analysis was conducted which changed the weightings to assess the impact this could have on the final rankings.

Vitrification was found to be the most viable option, achieving good scores in all categories. Cementation and Plastic Solidification were also found to be promising, offering a more cost-effective option. A control disposal option, designed to emulate the current UK strategy of storage pending treatment, was included in the analysis. As expected, this disposal option scored poorly, ranking 11th out of 14 demonstrating that the current approach is unsustainable. Several viable alternatives are suggested with further laboratory and economic studies that would allow for deployment of the chosen disposal options.

Abstract Image

查看原文本刊更多论文

核离子交换树脂处理的选择

来自核设施的废离子交换树脂占该行业所有固体废物的4%，由于目前没有处理途径，这是一种孤立的废物流。目前，用过的离子交换树脂被储存在仓库中，在那里它们会慢慢降解，产生更难以处理的危险的二次废物。在这项工作中，使用多标准决策分析（MCDA）评估了最可行的处置方案。对几种方法进行了评价，并选择了一种改进的层次分析法（AHP）。确定的处置方案通过应用阈值标准入围。使用AHP，定义了八个关键绩效指标（kpi），并将其分为三个总体标准：工程、经济和环境。kpi和标准受到“两两评级过程”来评估它们的相对重要性，然后用于计算权重。这些权重用于对每个处理路径收到的kpi原始分数进行优先排序，并给出每个处理选项的排名。使用不确定性评估对这些进行了分析，并采用附加指标给出了不确定性百分比。进行了敏感性分析，改变了权重，以评估这可能对最终排名产生的影响。玻璃化被认为是最可行的选择，在所有类别中获得良好的分数。胶结和塑性固化也很有前途，提供了一种更具成本效益的选择。分析中包括了一种控制处置方案，旨在模仿英国目前的储存待处理策略。不出所料，这一处置方案得分很低，在14个选项中排名第11位，表明目前的方法是不可持续的。提出了几种可行的替代办法，并进行了进一步的实验室和经济研究，以便能够部署选定的处置办法。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Progress in Nuclear Energy 工程技术-核科学技术

CiteScore

5.30

自引率

14.80%

发文量

331

审稿时长

3.5 months

期刊介绍： Progress in Nuclear Energy is an international review journal covering all aspects of nuclear science and engineering. In keeping with the maturity of nuclear power, articles on safety, siting and environmental problems are encouraged, as are those associated with economics and fuel management. However, basic physics and engineering will remain an important aspect of the editorial policy. Articles published are either of a review nature or present new material in more depth. They are aimed at researchers and technically-oriented managers working in the nuclear energy field. Please note the following: 1) PNE seeks high quality research papers which are medium to long in length. Short research papers should be submitted to the journal Annals in Nuclear Energy. 2) PNE reserves the right to reject papers which are based solely on routine application of computer codes used to produce reactor designs or explain existing reactor phenomena. Such papers, although worthy, are best left as laboratory reports whereas Progress in Nuclear Energy seeks papers of originality, which are archival in nature, in the fields of mathematical and experimental nuclear technology, including fission, fusion (blanket physics, radiation damage), safety, materials aspects, economics, etc. 3) Review papers, which may occasionally be invited, are particularly sought by the journal in these fields.