Engineering topics

Lambert, Dan P.

Publications and source records attributed to Lambert, Dan P..

4 records

DOE OSTI2023

Real-time infrared spectroscopy coupled with blind source separation for nuclear waste process monitoring

On-line infrared absorbance spectroscopy enables rapid measurement of solution-phase molecular species. Many spectra-to-concentration models exist for spectral data, with some models able to handle overlapping spectral bands and nonlinearities. However, model accuracy is limited by the quality of training data used in model fitting. The process spectra of nuclear waste simulants at the Savannah River Site display incongruity between training and process spectra; the glycolate spectral signature in the training data does not match the glycolate signature in Savannah River National Laboratory process data. A novel blind source separation algorithm is proposed that preprocesses spectral data so that process spectra more closely resemble training spectra, thereby improving model quantification accuracy when unexpected sources of variation appear in process spectra. The novel blind source separation preprocessing algorithm is shown to improve nitrate quantification from an R 2 of 0.934 to 0.988 and from 0.267 to 0.978 in two instances analyzing nuclear waste simulants from the Slurry Receipt Adjustment Tank and Slurry Mix Evaporator cycle at the Savannah River Site.

Crouse, Steven H.↗

DOE OSTI2023

Technical Evaluation of Accelerated Basin De-Inventory Material Addition to Sludge Batch 11

Savannah River Nuclear Solutions has a need to discard spent nuclear fuel (SNF), currently stored in L Basin, to the Defense Waste Processing Facility (DWPF) for vitrification. The Department of Energy (DOE) has approved the Accelerated Basin De-inventory (ABD) Program for discarding SNF via transfers from H-Canyon to the Savannah River Site (SRS) Liquid Waste (LW) system. The first ABD discards will occur during the preparation of Sludge Batch (SB) 11. An initial impact evaluation of the LW flowsheet was performed by the Savannah River National Laboratory (SRNL) prior to the approval of the ABD Program. This evaluation addressed the LW downstream facilities based on the current H-Canyon flowsheet sequence for the average ABD discard. The flowsheet evaluation only included aluminum-clad SNF, specifically Materials Test Reactor (MTR) fuel and High Flux Isotope Reactor (HFIR) fuel similar to the planned SB11 discard. Following this evaluation, the flowsheet has been slightly altered to address (i) new nuclear criticality safety controls for DWPF that credit a higher amount of gadolinium as a neutron poison for all of the enriched uranium contained in a SB and (ii) potential additions of the H-Canyon neutralized fuel stream prior to the Low Temperature Aluminum Dissolution (LTAD) process in Tank 51. The early introduction of ABD material into the SB assembly process is being investigated to provide flexibility regarding transfer opportunities for H-Canyon to Tank 51 for SB11 and future sludge batches.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

DOE OSTI2021

A novel defoamer for processing nuclear waste: Testing and performance

Abstract Legacy radioactive waste from nuclear weapons material processing is the biggest environmental challenge in the state of South Carolina, and one of the biggest in the United States. Although substantial progress has been made in processing and vitrifying high‐level radioactive waste at the Savannah River site, approximately 35 million gallons remains to be treated and dispositioned. In this article, we show the development of a new defoamer for use in the processing of high‐level radioactive waste. The application of the new defoamer is not only more effective at controlling foam but will shorten the batch processing time leading to safer and more efficient processing. This has the potential to help shorten the overall site mission lifetime, saving the federal government hundreds of millions of dollars. The novel aspect of the new defoamer is its effectiveness and stability in the harsh conditions needed for processing high‐level radioactive waste: high temperatures, pH 4–13, strong oxidizing and reducing agents, and numerous metal catalysts. The defoamer will replace an existing antifoam agent that decomposes to form multiple flammable gases. Because the existing antifoam agent decomposes quickly, processing changes increased processing time. Statement of novelty We demonstrate that a new defoamer has been developed for use in processing high‐level radioactive waste. This novel defoamer is effective and stable in the harsh processing conditions with no detectable flammable by‐products. Because the existing antifoam agent decomposes quickly, processing changes, including lowering acid addition rates and evaporation rates, increased processing time. The new defoamer is not only more effective at controlling foam but will shorten the batch processing time and lead to safer and more efficient processing by eliminating the production of flammable gases. Statement of industrial relevance Foaming is of great concern in many industrial processes involving three‐phase gas/liquid/fine‐solids systems, like in water evaporation, mineral floatation, air sparging in situ remediation techniques, and in those found in the paper industry.

Lambert, Dan P.↗

DOE OSTI2020

Antifoam Development for Eliminating Flammability Hazards and Decreasing Cycle Time in the Defense Waste Processing Facility

The Savannah River National Laboratory (SRNL) was requested to develop a new antifoam control method for the Defense Waste Processing Facility’s (DWPF) Chemical Process Cell (CPC). SRNL completed testing of both chemical and nonchemical foam controls. The nonchemical foam controls were either ineffective (or worse, created more foam) or impractical (a water spray can control foam, but excessive water is needed). As a result, the focus of this study was on finding a superwetter or commercial antifoam for controlling foam. Thirty potential antifoams were tested as part of this study. A series of tests were developed to help screen out ineffective alternatives including: 1. Spreading testing of superspreaders, 2. Foam column testing with physical simulants, 3. Boiling testing with physical and chemical simulants, 4. Days-only Sludge Receipt and Adjustment Tank (SRAT) process simulations with sludge (containing noble metals and mercury), Precipitate Reactor Feed Tank (PRFT), and Slurry Mix Evaporator Feed Tank (SEFT) simulants in the RC1 Reaction Calorimeter (purchased for antifoam testing), and 5. Around-the-clock SRAT and Slurry Mix Evaporator (SME) process simulations with sludge(containing noble metals and mercury), PRFT, and SEFT simulants in the RC1 Reaction Calorimeter. Evonik Surfynol® MD20, a commercially available defoamer, was relatively effective in controlling foam, while remaining chemically stable in SRAT and SME processing across the pH range of 4 to 13. No degradation products were detected in the offgas, in the condensate or in the SRAT and SME products. In nitric-glycolic acid flowsheet testing, 250 mg/kg Evonik Surfynol® MD20 was needed for foam control compared to 1,625 mg/kg for Antifoam 747, DWPF’s current antifoam. In nitric-formic acid flowsheet testing, 1,125 mg/kg of Evonik Surfynol® MD20 was needed to control foam throughout the SRAT and SME cycles. The commercially available superspreader Momentive™ Y-17112 was even more effective than Evonik Surfynol® MD20 as both a defoamer and an antifoam. Not only was the foam destroyed upon addition but also was less persistent between additions. It was the most effective antifoam in testing using both the nitric-glycolic acid flowsheet and the nitric-formic acid flowsheet. In nitric-glycolic acid flowsheet testing, only 100 mg/kg Momentive™ Y-17112 was needed to control foam throughout the SRAT and SME cycles. In nitric-formic acid flowsheet testing, 300 mg/kg Momentive™ Y-17112 was needed to control foam throughout the SRAT and SME cycles. Momentive™ Y-17112 is also resistant to hydrolysis as demonstrated by its chemical stability in SRAT and SME processing across the pH range of 4 to 13 and lack of degradation products in offgas or condensate. Both candidates were effective as potential replacements for Antifoam 747, with Y-17112 demonstrating superior foam control. During nitric-glycolic flowsheet testing 50% less antifoam was needed when using Momentive™ Y-17112 compared to MD20. During nitric-formic flowsheet testing 75% less antifoam was needed when using Momentive™ Y-17112 compared to MD20. Foam remediated with Momentive™ Y-17112 was less persistent throughout testing. In addition, no degradation products were detected in the offgas, in the condensate or in the SRAT and SME products. Based on this testing, Momentive™ Y-17112 is clearly superior to Evonik Surfynol® MD20 and Antifoam 747, especially for the nitric-formic acid flowsheet processing; it is recommended that Momentive™ Y-17112 replace Antifoam 747 in DWPF. An antifoam addition strategy is recommended for both the nitric-glycolic acid flowsheet and the nitric-formic acid flowsheet. Implementation of Momentive™ Y-17112 is expected to decrease SRAT and SME boiling times by up to 50%, eliminate the issues resulting from Antifoam 747 degradation products, and minimize foamovers. To validate the effectiveness of these defoaming agents, SRNL recommends irradiation of a SRAT or SME product simulant containing fresh antifoam. The goal of this testing is to determine whether the irradiation causes decomposition of the antifoam that would make it less effective or produce new species in the offgas or slurry. This testing began in April 2020. An evaluation should be completed to determine the thermolytic hydrogen and methane generation rate in downstream equipment, including the High-Level Waste evaporators.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗