Risk Evaluation of Radioactive Concrete Structure Decommissioning in Nuclear Power Plants Using Fuzzy-AHP
Abstract
1. Introduction
2. Literature Review
3. Research Methodology
3.1. Risk Assessment Model Framework
3.2. Identifying Risk Factors in NPP Decommissioning
3.3. Developing RBS
3.4. Fuzzy-AHP Based Risk Assessment
- Structure the problem: breaking down the decommissioning process into a structured hierarchy.
- Establish fuzzy pairwise comparison matrix: quantify the relative importance of criteria and alternatives using fuzzy sets. In another words, compare the importance of tasks (k) with respect to worker risk level (H) using pairwise comparisons in Formula (1).
- H = worker risk level.
- Expected number of days of worker disability due to accidents during demolition work.
- fjk = the frequency or probability of the occurrence of risk j for task k.
- Ijk = the severity of risk j for event (task) k.
- hk = the weight of event (task) k, WBS Level 3 and 4 shown in Figure 2, fuzzy-AHP.
- Synthesize the judgements: assess the frequency and severity of risks (fjk and Ijk) associated with each task (k).
- Calculate the fuzzy weights of the criteria: aggregating the fuzzy sets in the pairwise comparison matrix to derive overall weights for each criterion. Determine the weights (hk) in Formula (1) of each event (or task) based on the AHP judgments and fuzzy logic methodology.
- Defuzzify the fuzzy weights: defuzzification is necessary to map fuzzy sets (representing the relative importance of criteria) to crisp values for comparison. This step enables us to rank criteria based on their overall importance in the decommissioning process. Convert assessed frequency evaluated by a fuzzy number into a single value using the defuzzification Formula (2).
- Fuzzy number = (I, m, U).
- I (infimum): the lower bound or minimum value of the fuzzy number. It represents the smallest possible value within the fuzzy set.
- M (modal value): the value of the fuzzy number at which its membership function reaches its maximum value. In other words, it is the peak or center of the fuzzy set.
- U (supremum): the upper bound or maximum value of the fuzzy number. It represents the largest possible fuzziness.
- Check the consistency: finally, consistency checks ensure the reliability of judgments and the coherence of pairwise comparisons.
4. Results and Discussion
5. Conclusions
- Key findings and analysis:
- o
- Both physical risks (e.g., falling objects, machinery malfunctions) and risks to personnel (e.g., injuries, radiation exposure) must be considered throughout the decommissioning process.
- o
- Specific tasks such as moving wire saws, installing saws, creating holes for lifting concrete blocks, cutting concrete, and removing cut concrete present unique dangers.
- o
- Attention must be paid to potential hazards such as jamming, overheating, collapses, release of harmful particles, and collisions during these tasks.
- Recommendations for further work:
- o
- Further testing of safety measures in real-world scenarios is necessary.
- o
- Continued collaboration with experts is essential to refine safety protocols.
- o
- The creation of clear safety guidelines tailored to the challenges of decommissioning sites is crucial.
Author Contributions
Funding
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A
Comparison Items | Very Important | Equal | Very Important | Comparison Item | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Wire saw cutting | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | Wire saw installation |
Wire saw cutting | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | Perforation for hoisting concrete blocks |
Wire saw cutting | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | Cutting using a wire saw |
Wire saw cutting | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | Removing cut concrete |
Wire saw installation | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | Perforation for hoisting concrete blocks |
Wire saw installation | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | Cutting using a wire saw |
Wire saw installation | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | Cutting and removing concrete |
Concrete perforation for hoisting | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | Cutting using a wire saw |
Concrete perforation for hoisting | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | Cutting and removing concrete |
Cutting using a Wire saw | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | Cutting and removing concrete |
Risk | Description |
---|---|
Falling | This risk pertains to the potential of workers or equipment falling during the transportation or introduction of wire saw equipment. It could result from improper handling or unstable conditions. |
Collision | The risk of collisions occurring during transportation, which could lead to damage to equipment or injury to workers. |
Conduction | Concerns related to electrical conduction, which could pose a risk of electric shock during transportation. |
Drop/Falling | This risk involves the possibility of equipment or materials being dropped or falling during transportation. |
Cutting | Risks associated with the cutting process itself, which could lead to injuries or accidents. |
Constriction | Risks related to tight or confined spaces during positioning. |
Jamming | The risk of pinch points occurring during transportation, which could lead to injuries to workers or damage to equipment. |
Electric shock | Potential for workers to suffer electric shock due to power-related hazards such as power failure or equipment malfunction during decommissioning activities. |
Fracture | Possibility of workers sustaining bone fractures or breaks from falls, being struck by falling objects, or accidents involving heavy machinery. |
Collapsing | Danger of structures or components unexpectedly collapsing during decommissioning, posing hazards such as crushing or trapping workers. |
Respiratory protection | Risk of respiratory system harm from exposure to hazardous airborne contaminants generated during concrete demolition, necessitating the use of appropriate respiratory protective equipment. |
References
- Heo, Y.; Lee, C.; Kim, H.R.; Lee, S.J. Framework for the development of guidelines for nuclear power plant decommissioning workers based on risk information. Nucl. Eng. Des. 2022, 387, 111624. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fthenakis, V.; Kim, H.C. Land use and electricity generation: A life-cycle analysis. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2009, 13, 1465–1474. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ahmad, A.; Covatariu, A.; Ramana, M. A stormy future? Financial impact of climate change-related disruptions on nuclear power plant owners. Util. Policy 2023, 81, 101484. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yamamoto, D.; Greco, A. Cursed forever? Exploring socio-economic effects of nuclear power plant closures across nine communities in the United States. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2022, 92, 102766. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Glenn, J.C.; Gordon, T.J. The Millennium Project: Challenges We Face at the Millennium. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 2001, 66, 129–312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Laraia, M. Chapter 5—Stakeholder case studies. In Nuclear Decommissioning Case Studies; Laraia, M., Ed.; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2022; pp. 21–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Choi, J.; Kim, C.; Cho, Y.; Kwon, H.; Song, K. Utilization of EPRI ChemWorks tools for PWR shutdown chemistry evolution modeling. Nucl. Eng. Technol. 2023, 55, 3543–3548. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mariani, C.; Mancini, M. Selection of projects’ primary and secondary mitigation actions through optimization methods in nuclear decommissioning projects. Nucl. Eng. Des. 2023, 407, 112284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Awodi, N.J.; Liu, Y.; Ayo-Imoru, R.M.; Ayodeji, A. Fuzzy TOPSIS-based risk assessment model for effective nuclear decommissioning risk management. Prog. Nucl. Energy 2023, 155, 104524. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, G.L.; Kim, H.; Seo, H.W.; Yu, J.H.; Son, J.W. Classification and consideration for the risk management in the planning phase of NPP decommissioning project. Nucl. Eng. Technol. 2022, 54, 4809–4818. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vitázková, J.; Cazzoli, E. Common Risk Target for severe accidents of nuclear power plants based on IAEA INES scale. Nucl. Eng. Des. 2013, 262, 106–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, H.; Lee, D.; Lee, C.W.; Kim, H.R.; Lee, S.J. Safety Assessment Framework for Nuclear Power Plant Decommissioning Workers. IEEE Access 2019, 7, 76305–76316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ok, C.I.L.; Kim, C.L.; Moon, S.R.; Koo, H.S.; Yun, K.H.; Lee, S.K. Prioritization of radiological accident scenarios during decommissioning of nuclear power plants by risk matrix and AHP method. Ann. Nucl. Energy 2022, 175, 109239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hale, A.R.; Ale BJ, M.; Goossens, L.H.J.; Heijer, T.; Bellamy, L.J.; Mud, M.L.; Roelen, A.; Baksteen, H.; Post, J.; Papazoglou, I.A.; et al. Modeling accidents for prioritizing prevention. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 2007, 92, 1701–1715. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moon, H.; Kim, B.; Lee, J.; Cho, H.; Hwang, S.; Ahn, Y. Developing risk breakdown structure for nuclear power plant decommissioning projects in Korea focusing on radioactive concrete dismantle. Int. J. Sustain. Build. Technol. Urban Dev. 2020, 11, 269–280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Awodi, N.J.; Liu, Y.K.; Ayodeji, A.; Adibeli, J.O. Expert judgement-based risk factor identification and analysis for an effective nuclear decommissioning risk assessment modeling. Prog. Nucl. Energy 2021, 136, 103733. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kudo, S.; Sugihara, T. Basic concept of safety evaluation method for decommissioning of nuclear power plants by applying a graded approach. Nucl. Eng. Des. 2021, 379, 111212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hyun, D.; Kim, I.; Joo, S.; Ha, J.; Lee, J. Remote dismantling system using a digital manufacturing system and workpiece localization for nuclear facility decommissioning. Ann. Nucl. Energy 2024, 195, 110182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, M.-K.; Liu, Y.-K.; Peng, M.-J.; Xie, C.-L.; Yang, L.-Q. The digital simulation and fuzzy evaluation to reduce the likelihood of unsafe behavior in nuclear decommissioning. Ann. Nucl. Energy 2018, 119, 331–341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- van de Walle, B.; de Baets, B.; Kerre, E.E. Fuzzy multi-criteria analysis of cutting techniques in a nuclear reactor dismantling project. Fuzzy Sets Syst. 1995, 74, 115–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sun, H.; Qu, J.; Wang, P.; Kang, J. Application of the Analytic Hierarchy Process in the Selection of Nuclear Power Plant Decommissioning Strategy. In Proceedings of the 2016 24th International Conference on Nuclear Engineering, Charlotte, NC, USA, 26–30 June 2016; Volume 5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Torkanfar, N.; Rezazadeh Azar, E. Quantitative similarity assessment of construction projects using WBS-based metrics. Adv. Eng. Inform. 2020, 46, 101179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Oh, M.; Jeon, M.K.; Lee, K.; Foster, R.I.; Lee, C.H. Assessment of chlorination technique for decontamination of radioactive concrete waste using simulated concrete waste. Prog. Nucl. Energy 2022, 154, 104458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sow, M.; Leblois, Y.; Bodiot, C.; Motzkus, C.; Ritoux, S.; Gensdarmes, F. Aerosol release fraction by concrete scarifying operations and its implications on the dismantling of nuclear facilities. J. Hazard. Mater. 2020, 400, 123077. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Amgarou, K.; Aspe, F.; Idoeta, R.; Herranz, M. Recommendations for the selection of in situ measurement techniques for radiological characterization in nuclear/radiological installations under decommissioning and dismantling processes. Prog. Nucl. Energy 2021, 137, 103761. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Polo López, C.S.; Lucchi, E.; Leonardi, E.; Durante, A.; Schmidt, A.; Curtis, R. Risk-Benefit Assessment Scheme for Renewable Solar Solutions in Traditional and Historic Buildings. Sustainability 2021, 13, 5246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nascimento, J.M.R.e.S.; Bispo, L.G.M.; Silva, J.M.N.d. Risk factors for work-related musculoskeletal disorders among workers in Brazil: A structural equation model approach. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 2024, 99, 103551. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- International Atomic Energy Agency. Decommissioning of Nuclear Power Plants, Research Reactor Facilities and Other Nuclear Fuel Cycle Facilities: A Compendium of Guidance. Vienna, Austria: Author. 2021. Available online: https://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/Publications/PDF/PUB2023_web.pdf (accessed on 17 April 2024).
- Consolidated Decommissioning Guidance: Decommissioning Process For Materials Licensees (NUREG-1757, Volume 1, Revision 2) | NRC.gov. (n.d.). Available online: https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr1757/v1/index.html (accessed on 15 March 2024).
- Consolidated Decommissioning Guidance: Characterization, Survey, And Determination of Radiological Criteria Consolidated Decommissioning Guidance: Characterization, Survey, And Determination of Radiological Criteria—Final Report (NUREG-1757, Volume 2, Revision 2) | NRC.gov. (n.d.). Available online: https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr1757/v2/index.html (accessed on 15 March 2024).
- Consolidated NMSS Decommissioning Guidance—Financial Assurance, Recordkeeping, And Timeliness (NUREG-1757, Volume 3, Revision 1) | NRC.gov. (n.d.). Available online: https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr1757/v3/index.html (accessed on 15 March 2024).
- Tennakoon, S.; Apan, A.; Maraseni, T.; Altarez, R.D.D. Decoding the impacts of space and time on honey bees: GIS based fuzzy AHP and fuzzy overlay to assess land suitability for apiary sites in Queensland, Australia. Appl. Geogr. 2023, 155, 102951. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, Y.; Eckert, C.M.; Earl, C. A review of fuzzy AHP methods for decision-making with subjective judgements. Expert Syst. Appl. 2020, 161, 113738. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wątróbski, J.; Bączkiewicz, A.; Rudawska, I. A Strong Sustainability Paradigm based Analytical Hierarchy Process (SSP-AHP) method to evaluate sustainable healthcare systems. Ecol. Indic. 2023, 154, 110493. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jorge-García, D.; Estruch-Guitart, V. Comparative analysis between AHP and ANP in prioritization of ecosystem services—A case study in a rice field area raised in the Guadalquivir marshes (Spain). Ecol. Inform. 2022, 70, 101739. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nahyun, K.; Jongwoo, C.; Lee Hyun-Soo Inseok, Y.; Moonseo, P. Compensation Cost Estimation Model for Construction Noise Claims Using Case-Based Reasoning. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2019, 145, 04019047. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Byun, H.; Park, J.D.; An, S.; Kim, J.; Kim, J.; Lee, D.Y.; Lee, B. Intelligent nuclear decommissioning solution: Code for site characterization and management of overall surveys. Ann. Nucl. Energy 2024, 196, 110212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Palanci, M. Fuzzy rule based seismic risk assessment of one-story precast industrial buildings. Earthq. Eng. Eng. Vib. 2019, 18, 631–648. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kaya, T.; Kahraman, C. Multicriteria renewable energy planning using an integrated fuzzy VIKOR & AHP methodology: The case of Istanbul. Energy 2010, 35, 2517–2527. [Google Scholar]
- Seier, M.; Zimmermann, T. Environmental impacts of decommissioning nuclear power plants: Methodical challenges, case study, and implications. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2014, 19, 1919–1932. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, J.; Cho, Y. Economic value of the development of nuclear power plant decommissioning technology in South Korea. Energy Policy 2023, 181, 113695. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Authors | Objective | Scope | Factors | Research Method | Result | Limitation of the Study |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Heo et al. (2022) [1] | Proposing a framework for quantitative risk assessment methodology for radiation safety of workers | Context-specific guidelines, emerging concerns in radiation safety, broader applicability across contexts | Radiation safety, worker exposure | Quantitative risk assessment methodology | Practical guidelines for radiation safety, need for broader applicability research | Need for further research in broader applicability across different decommissioning contexts |
Kim et al. (2020) [2] | Fuzzy-based risk assessment methodology to address uncertainties, offering safety behavior rules | Uncertainties in expert judgments, fuzzy analysis for approximate opinions | Uncertainties, safety behavior rules | Fuzzy-based risk assessment methodology | Offered safety behavior rules based on relative risk changes, addressed uncertainties in expert judgments | Uncertain effectiveness of their model due to input and data quality, and reliance on subjective judgments |
Awodi et al. (2023) [9] | Evaluating and ranking risk factors in nuclear decommissioning projects | Nuclear decommissioning risk analysis projects | 18 risk factors affecting project | Fuzzy-based TOPSIS | Identified structural condition as high-ranked factor | Lack of data, applicability to different projects, and the complexity of putting the method into practice |
Ok et al. (2022) [13] | Prioritizing accident scenarios, evaluating risks through risk matrix and AHP | Focusing on accident scenarios, high-risk situations | Radiological accidents, economical risks, hazardous risks, delays | Risk matrix, AHP | Identified high-risk situations, emphasized need for more data and experience for refining risk assessments | |
Moon et al. (2020) [15] | Developing RBS model for NPP decommissioning work for structural and job risk | Structural, job risk analysis, and management for NPP decommissioning | Structural and personnel risks | Tailoring risk factors using WBS, introducing RBS | Developed WBS and RBS model, chart combining various risk factors | Does not consider the entire work process for NPP decommissioning |
Awodi et al. (2021) [16] | Identifying and evaluating risk factors for nuclear decommissioning projects | Identification and evaluation of risk factors for nuclear decommissioning projects | Finance, safety, legal framework, strategy, technology | Literature search, expert judgment approach | Identified and evaluated 105 important risk factors, grouped into 9 families, highest-ranking risk families identified | Limited scope of expertise, uncertainty in risk assessment, lack of choosing the type of facility and generalizability |
Need for more extensive data and experience to refine risk assessments | ||||||
Kudo, Sugihara (2021) [17] | Developing safety evaluation method using graded approach, focusing on safety measures and risk criteria | Safety measures proportional to risks, criteria for classifying magnitude of effects for risks | Safety measures, risk criteria | Graded approach for safety evaluation | Identified safety measures, criteria for radiation exposure risks | The need for further development of a comprehensive system and criteria for assessing severity based on accident type |
Hyun et al. (2024) [18] | Developing remote dismantling system, presenting a semi-automated robotic system for enhanced efficiency and protection of workers in nuclear facility decommissioning | Developing remote dismantling system, process monitoring technologies for automated operations | Cutting methodologies, worker’s workload, real-time operational challenges | Development of remote dismantling system | Successful achievement of a semi-automated remote dismantling system through control framework development, digital model building | Current technological tools may not be entirely suitable for challenging conditions during decommissioning |
Li et al. (2018) [19] | Analyzing and categorizing unsafe behaviors, proposing virtual training methods | Evaluation of workers’ behavior in nuclear decommissioning, virtual training methods, lack of focus on equipment safety | Worker safety, personnel training, safety awareness, virtual simulation, fuzzy evaluation | AHP model, fuzzy evaluation method, virtual simulation, software development | Established evaluation system and fuzzy evaluation model, proposed virtual training method | Lack of focus on equipment safety |
Van de Walle et al. 1995 [20] | Analyzing three cutting techniques for dismantling the thermal shield of the Belgian BR3 nuclear reactor | Analysis of cutting techniques within the framework of classical multi-criteria utility theory | Environmental impact, difficulty in quantifying factors in monetary terms | MCDA, AHP | Enhanced understanding of role of alternatives and criteria, accommodated uncertainty and incomparability | Acknowledged challenge of linear ordering alternatives, addressed through fuzzy-AHP technique |
Sun et al. (2016) [21] | Analyzing and discussing factors influencing decommissioning strategy | Decommissioning strategy analysis | Source survey, waste management, decommissioning step, decommissioning cost, decommissioning technology, public acceptance | Analytic hierarchy process (AHP) | Provided an AHP-based framework for selecting decommissioning strategy, identified factors and their relative importance | Subjective criteria weighting, assumption of independence, limited factor scope |
Risk | Explanation |
---|---|
Collision | Collisions caused by equipment collisions or collisions in confined spaces |
Structural collapse | Collapse due to separation from the main body of the structure |
Destruction and Collapse | Destruction and collapse of collapsing buildings and structures |
Electric shock | Electrocution due to power failure, power overload, short circuit, and shortsighted connections |
Falling | Falling from a high place (person) |
Fire and explosion | Damage caused by fire and explosions during construction |
Cutting | Cutting of body parts of a cutting worker due to drills or cutting tools |
Falling objects | Falling of structural elements or construction equipment |
Entrapment | Workers getting stuck between equipment or in narrow spaces and gaps |
Fragmentation | Injuries caused by fragments during installation and cutting, such as wire saw installation |
Respiratory | Respiratory injuries caused by dust generated during drilling or cutting |
Category | Hazard Factor | Index |
---|---|---|
Radioactive hazard | Direct radiation source | A01 |
Improper shielding removal | A02 | |
Radioactive material (solid, liquid, gas) | A03 | |
Lethal elements | A04 | |
Contaminated liquid or substance | A05 | |
Other radioactive sources (smoke detectors, lighting rods) | A06 | |
Fire and explosion hazard | Oxygen | B01 |
Sodium | B02 | |
Explosives | B03 | |
Flammable gasses (e.g., acetylene, propane), liquids, dust | B04 | |
Combustible/flammable materials | B05 | |
Compressed gasses | B06 | |
Hydrogen | B07 | |
Overheating and fire due to overloading circuits, portable heaters, cutting techniques | B08 | |
Electric shock hazard | High voltage | C01 |
Power overload and malfunction | C02 | |
Improper circuit disconnection/prevention of negative connections | C03 | |
Physical hazard | Kinetic energy | D01 |
Potential energy (energy of springs, weighing energy of graphite) | D02 | |
Deterioration of components, structure, and system performance | D03 | |
Steam | D04 | |
Extreme temperatures (high temperatures, hot surfaces, low-temperature phenomena) | D05 | |
High pressure (compression systems, compressed air) | D06 | |
Hazard factors within the working environment | Working at heights (e.g., ladders, platforms, bosun’s chair) | E01 |
Formation of underground caverns (precipitation) due to excavation, rain, waste erosion | E02 | |
Vehicle traffic | E03 | |
Heavy lifting, material handling, heavy equipment, manual lifting, overhead risks, falling objects, crane risks | E04 | |
Improper lighting | E05 | |
Inadequate ventilation | E06 | |
Noise (high noise areas and equipment) | E07 | |
Dust | E08 | |
Hazard factors related to pinch points and sharp objects | Pinch points, sharp objects | E09 |
Confined spaces | E10 | |
Power tools, compressed gas cylinders, welding and cutting, water jet cutting/abrasion, abrasive cutting techniques, abrasives, sawing | E11 | |
Remote working areas | E12 | |
Obstruction of exits or passageways | E13 | |
Personnel/organizational hazard factors | Personal constraints | F01 |
Aspects of safety culture | F02 | |
Inadequate training for work phases | F03 | |
Inadequate protective measures for work phases | F04 |
Level 3 | Level 4 | Risk Factor | Risk Factor Matching with IAEA Hazard |
---|---|---|---|
Wire saw transportation [1] | Wire saw entry | Obstacle passage, structure interference, equipment falling | E03, E04, E05, E10, E13, F01 |
Wire saw equipment proper positioning | Interference during movement in different tasks, location selection, radiation contaminated area | A05, E05, E10, E13, F01 | |
Wire saw Transportation of attachments | Attachment device twisting, high altitude work, potential obstacle interference | E01, E01, E04, E05, E10, E13, F01 | |
Wire saw installation [2] | Wire saw installation preparation | Attachment device detachment, worker proximity to detached equipment | E10, E11, F01 |
Wire saw installation | Detachment during connection | D01, E11, F01, F04 | |
Preparation, commissioning | Errors during commissioning and equipment installation | C03, E11, F01 | |
Concrete block hoisting hole [3] | Drill rig securing | Risk of falling, electric shock, equipment entrapment during anchor installation, risk of heavy object falling during drill rig fixation | C01, C02, E04, E05, E10, E13, F01, F03 |
Drilling | Equipment conduction, electric shock during drilling | C01, C02, E04, E05, E10, E13, F01, F03 | |
Wire insertion for hoisting and crane fixation | Possibility of falling during wire insertion | E05, E10, E13, F01, F03 | |
Cutting using wire saw [4] | Wire saw | Arrangement of objects and equipment, risk between equipment and cutting surface, concerns about passage within the working radius | E05, E10, E13, F01, F03 |
Wire saw chain installation | Tension, twisting, and risks during installation of wire in the wire saw body and cutting area grooves | D01, E05, F01, F03 | |
Cutting | Dust generation, ripping, detachment, worker access within the range, detachment during wire saw operation, short circuit and leakage due to electrical usage, fire occurrence | B08, C02, D01, E01, E07, E08, E10, E11, F01, F04 | |
Removal of cut concrete [5] | Wire saw disassembly | Moving the worksite, moving heavy objects, material removal, exposing the cutting surface | E01, E03, E04, E10, E13, F01, F03 |
Crane hoisting | Moving heavy objects, equipment fixation failure | E04, E11, F01, F03, F04 | |
Placing on the floor | Moving heavy objects, equipment fixation failure | E04, E11, F01, F03, F04 |
Level 4 | Risk Factor Index | Structural Risk | Human Risk | ||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Collapse | Collision | Conduction | Electricity | Fall | Fire | Collision | Cutting | Electric Shock | Fall | Constriction | Task Risk | Exposure | Respiratory System | ||
[1] Wire saw import | E03, E04, E05, E10, E13, F01 | ⚫ | ⚫ | ⚫ | ⚫ | ⚫ | ⚫ | ⚫ | |||||||
[1] Wire saw equipment proper positioning | A05, E05, E10, E13, F01 | ⚫ | ⚫ | ⚫ | ⚫ | ⚫ | ⚫ | ⚫ | ⚫ | ||||||
[1] Transporting wire saw attachments | E01, E03, E04, E05, E10, E13, F01 | ⚫ | ⚫ | ⚫ | ⚫ | ⚫ | ⚫ | ⚫ | |||||||
[2] Wire saw installation preparation | E10, E11, F01 | ⚫ | ⚫ | ⚫ | ⚫ | ⚫ | ⚫ | ⚫ | |||||||
[2] Wire saw installation | D01, E11, F01, F04 | ⚫ | ⚫ | ⚫ | ⚫ | ⚫ | ⚫ | ⚫ | ⚫ | ||||||
[2] Preparation, test run | C03, E11, F01 | ⚫ | ⚫ | ⚫ | ⚫ | ⚫ | ⚫ | ⚫ | ⚫ | ||||||
[3] Fixing the drill rig | C01, C02, E04, E05, E10, E13, F01, F03 | ⚫ | ⚫ | ⚫ | ⚫ | ⚫ | ⚫ | ||||||||
[3] Drilling | C01, C02, E04, E05, E10, E13, F01, F03 | ⚫ | ⚫ | ⚫ | ⚫ | ⚫ | ⚫ | ||||||||
[3] Hoisting wire insertion and crane fixation | E05, E10, E13, F01, F03 | ⚫ | ⚫ | ⚫ | ⚫ | ||||||||||
[4] Wire saw installation | E05, E10, E13, F01, F03 | ⚫ | ⚫ | ⚫ | ⚫ | ⚫ | ⚫ | ||||||||
[4] Wire saw chain installation | D01, E05, F01, F03 | ⚫ | ⚫ | ⚫ | ⚫ | ⚫ | ⚫ | ||||||||
[4] Cutting | B08, C02, D01, E01, E07, E08, E10, E11, F01, F03 | ⚫ | ⚫ | ⚫ | ⚫ | ⚫ | ⚫ | ⚫ | ⚫ | ||||||
[5] Wire saw disassembly | E01, E03, E04, E10, E13, F01, F03 | ⚫ | ⚫ | ⚫ | ⚫ | ⚫ | |||||||||
[5] Crane hoisting | E04, E11, F01, F03, F04 | ⚫ | ⚫ | ⚫ | ⚫ | ⚫ | ⚫ | ||||||||
[5] Placing on the floor | E04, E11, F01, F03, F04 | ⚫ | ⚫ | ⚫ | ⚫ | ⚫ | ⚫ |
Experience (Years) | 10–14 | 15–19 | 20–24 | 25–29 | 30+ | Total |
Number of people | 6 | 9 | 7 | 3 | 2 | 27 |
Linguistic Terms | Score |
---|---|
Absolute Strong (As) | (2, 2.5, 3) |
Very Strong (VS) | (1.5, 2, 2.5) |
Fairly Strong (FS) | (1, 15, 2) |
Slightly Strong (SS) | (1, 1, 15) |
Equal | (1, 1, 1) |
Slightly Weak (SW) | (0.66, 1, 1) |
Fairly Weak (FW) | (0.5, 0.66, 1) |
Very Weak (VW) | (0.4, 0.5, 0.66) |
Absolutely Weak (AW) | (0.33, 0.4, 0.5) |
Construction Type | Detailed Subtype | Risk |
---|---|---|
Wire saw transport | Wire saw transportation | Fall, collision, conduction, pinch point, drop, cutting |
Saw positioning | Fall, collision, conduction, constriction, drop, cutting | |
Saw accessory equipment transport | Fall, collision, conduction, constriction, drop, cutting | |
Saw installation | Saw installation preparation | Fall, collision, conduction, constriction, drop, cutting |
Saw installation | Fall, collision, conduction, constriction, drop | |
Preparation and test run | Fall, collision, conduction, constriction, drop | |
Concrete block hoisting hole | Hole drilling machine positioning | Fall, collision, electric shock, constriction, drop |
Drilling | Fall, collision, electric shock, jamming | |
Inserting hoisting wire and fixing crane | Fall, collision, jamming | |
Cutting | Saw alignment | Fall, collision, jamming, cutting |
Chain installation | Fall, collision, jamming, cutting | |
Cutting | Collision, electric shock, respiratory protection, collapse, debris | |
Removing concrete cut piece | Dismantling saw | Fall, collision, jamming, electric shock |
Crane hoisting | Fall, collision, jamming, electric shock | |
Lowering to the ground | Fall, collision, jamming, electric shock |
Taks | Risks | ||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Main Category | Subtype | Falling | Collision | Conduction | Jamming | Dropping | Cutting | Electric Shock | Respiratory | Fracture | Collapsing |
Wire saw transportation | Importing the wire saw | 0.181 | 0.148 | 0.144 | 0.277 | 0.167 | 0.083 | - | - | - | - |
Proper positioning | 0.135 | 0.144 | 0.203 | 0.201 | 0.173 | 0.145 | - | - | - | - | |
Accessory transport | 0.170 | 0.179 | 0.165 | 0.192 | 0.196 | 0.098 | - | - | - | - | |
Wire saw installation | Installation preparation | 0.214 | 0.203 | 0.217 | 0.215 | 0.149 | - | - | - | - | - |
Installation | 0.204 | 0.205 | 0.214 | 0.186 | 0.127 | - | - | - | - | - | |
Preparation and test run | 0.130 | 0.143 | 0.170 | 0.143 | 0.156 | 0.201 | - | - | - | - | |
Hoisting hole preparation | Fixing the drill | 0.203 | 0.213 | 0.165 | 0.152 | - | - | 0.166 | - | - | - |
Drilling | 0.383 | 0.200 | 0.169 | - | - | 0.260 | - | - | - | ||
Inserting hoisting wire and crane fixation | 0.552 | 0.254 | - | 0.194 | - | - | - | - | - | - | |
Wire saw operation | Alignment | 0.272 | 0.241 | - | 0.282 | - | 0.205 | - | - | - | - |
Chain installation | 0.284 | 0.186 | - | 0.234 | - | 0.296 | - | - | - | - | |
cutting | 0.092 | - | - | - | - | 0.176 | 0.246 | 0.249 | 0.237 | ||
Dismantling and crane lowering | Dismantling wire saw | 0.317 | 0.234 | - | 0.232 | - | - | 0.217 | - | - | - |
Crane hoisting | 0.280 | 0.315 | - | 0.297 | - | - | 0.109 | - | - | - | |
Lowering | 0.212 | 0.342 | - | 0.322 | - | - | 0.125 | - | - | - |
Main Cutting Task | Subcategory | Risk Priority |
---|---|---|
Wire saw transportation | Importing the wire saw | Jamming > Falling > Dropping |
Proper positioning | Conduction > Jamming > Falling | |
Accessory transport | Jamming > Falling > Dropping | |
Wire saw installation | Installation preparation | Conduction > Falling > Jamming |
Installation | Conduction > Collision > Falling | |
Preparation and test run | Cutting > Equipment Conduction > Falling | |
Hoisting hole preparation | Fixing the drill | Collision > Falling > Electrocution |
Drilling | Falling > Electrocution > Collision | |
Inserting hoisting wire and crane fixation | Falling > Collision > Jamming | |
Wire saw operation | Alignment | Jamming > Falling > Collision |
Chain installation | Cutting > Falling > Jamming | |
cutting | Collapse > Respiratory System > Electrocution | |
Dismantling and crane lowering | Dismantling wire saw | Falling > Collision > Jamming |
Crane hoisting | Collision > Jamming > Falling | |
Lowering | Collision > Jamming > Falling |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Moon, H.; Mirmotalebi, S.; Jang, Y.; Ahn, Y.; Kwon, N. Risk Evaluation of Radioactive Concrete Structure Decommissioning in Nuclear Power Plants Using Fuzzy-AHP. Buildings 2024, 14, 1536. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings14061536
Moon H, Mirmotalebi S, Jang Y, Ahn Y, Kwon N. Risk Evaluation of Radioactive Concrete Structure Decommissioning in Nuclear Power Plants Using Fuzzy-AHP. Buildings. 2024; 14(6):1536. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings14061536
Chicago/Turabian StyleMoon, Hyosoo, Seyedali Mirmotalebi, Youjin Jang, Yonghan Ahn, and Nahyun Kwon. 2024. "Risk Evaluation of Radioactive Concrete Structure Decommissioning in Nuclear Power Plants Using Fuzzy-AHP" Buildings 14, no. 6: 1536. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings14061536
APA StyleMoon, H., Mirmotalebi, S., Jang, Y., Ahn, Y., & Kwon, N. (2024). Risk Evaluation of Radioactive Concrete Structure Decommissioning in Nuclear Power Plants Using Fuzzy-AHP. Buildings, 14(6), 1536. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings14061536