This first-of-its-kind study fills a key cost-data gap in pre-disposal activities for low- and intermediate-level radioactive waste by delivering an economic analysis of spent, ion-exchange resin disposal. It benchmarks two management options: (i) direct cementation, which is the current common practice, and (ii) the integrated treatment and conditioning via the Italian patented iRE-SOLVE process, which decomposes the organic content and cuts the volume of waste to be disposed of. The comparison is conducted to investigate the benefits of pursuing approaches based on the treatment of waste. In fact, it is largely reported that the volume of the resulting waste form is the most impactful parameter in determining the cost of waste disposal strategies. To account for this, given the lack of data regarding the fee for the volumetric occupancy of low- and intermediate-level repositories, a sensitivity analysis was performed on this parameter. Furthermore, material, energy, and investment costs were considered, as well as the purchase of the steel drum hosting the final waste form and the disposal of secondary waste for the iRE-SOLVE process. As a result, it was highlighted that direct cementation is the most expensive strategy in all the scenarios analyzed in this study. • The costs of a new process for spent ion exchange resins disposal were analyzed. • The iRE-SOLVE process was compared with the reference direct cementation strategy. • Costs of investment, materials and secondary waste management were estimated. • A sensitivity analysis was conducted to cope with the uncertain disposal fee. • iRE-SOLVE is more advantageous than cementation in all the scenarios investigated.
Broglia et al. (Sun,) studied this question.