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 ,&nbsp;T.J. Robshaw ,&nbsp;G.D. Walker ,&nbsp;M.J.D. Rushton ,&nbsp;S.C. Middleburgh ,&nbsp;W.E. Lee ,&nbsp;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
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Progress in Nuclear Energy
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.
期刊最新文献
Numerical study on the thermal hydraulic effect of flow blockage in liquid metal cooled reactor core rod bundles Experimental analysis of gas dynamics in the reactor cavity section of a High-Temperature Gas-Cooled Reactor during an accident scenario Non-destructive evaluation and machine learning methods for inspection of spent nuclear fuel canisters: A state-of-the-art review Study on thermal-hydraulic performance of airfoil fin PCHE using vortex generators with different arrangement parameters for SCO2 Brayton cycle Optioneering in nuclear ion exchange resin disposal
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1