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.
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.