Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Chemical Processing Cell”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 19 records
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2021

Defense Waste Processing Facility Nitric-Glycolic Flowsheet Chemical Process Cell Chemistry: Part 2

The conversions of nitrite to nitrate, the destruction of glycolate, and the conversion of glycolate to formate and oxalate were modeled for the Nitric-Glycolic flowsheet using data from Chemical Process Cell (CPC) simulant runs conducted by Savannah River National Laboratory (SRNL) from 2011 to 2016. The goal of this work was to develop empirical correlation models to predict these values from measurable variables from the chemical process so that these quantities could be predicted a-priori from the sludge or simulant composition and measurable processing variables. The need for these predictions arises from the need to predict the REDuction/OXidation (REDOX) state of the glass from the Defense Waste Processing Facility (DWPF) melter. This report summarizes the work on these correlations based on the aforementioned data. Previous work on these correlations was documented in a technical report covering data from 2011-2015. This current report supersedes this previous report. Further refinement of the models as additional data are collected is recommended. The glass REDOX depends on the concentrations of nitrate and manganese (oxidants), and of glycolate, formate, oxalate, carbon, and antifoam (reductants) in the melter feed. The waste sludge contains nitrite, nitrate, manganese (Mn), and oxalate. Virtually all of the nitrite is converted to nitrate or NO+NO 2 +N 2 O gases in the CPC. The portion of the nitrite converted to nitrate increases the amount of nitrate in the sludge. The amount of glycolate in the final melter feed depends on the amount of the glycolic acid feed that is destroyed. Similarly, the amounts of formate and oxalate formed during the decomposition of glycolic acid are required. The material balance on carbon was found to not close in most cases. Generally, there was less carbon at the end of testing compared to the inputs. The most uncertain product variable was glycolate, so material balances were performed where the glycolate concentration was adjusted, usually upward, to close the balance. Correlation versus the original, as-measured, data was generally poor, but correlation against the material balance adjusted values was greatly improved. It was also shown that the correlation of the measured REDOX versus the predicted REDOX was much better when the material balance adjusted glycolate values were used. Three data series were primarily used during the regressions of the data; these series were 1) Sludge Batch 9 NG flowsheet simulant runs NG51-62 (SB9-NG); 2) Scaled Runs + Bounding Hydrogen Runs (SR+BH); and 3) Runs GN43-50 and 57 (43-50,57). The glycolate destruction was found to correlate with acid stoichiometry (AS), percent reducing acid (PRA), and for some data series, headspace to simulant volume ratio (HSV), mercury (Hg), and nitrate. Although glycolate destruction for pairs of data series (e.g., [SB9-NG] and [SR+BH]) were found to depend on HSV, the combination of all three data series was not found to have significant dependence on this variable. The best model for glycolate destruction depended on AS, nitrate, and Hg. This model predicted the product glycolate compositions of the data to within 92-106%. The conversion of glycolate to formate was high when noble metals and Hg were not present, with values up to 100%. When noble metals and Hg were present, this conversion ranged from zero to 7%, and was dependent on AS. Lower AS gave higher conversions to formate. The conversion to oxalate was found to depend on the AS and the initial concentration of nitrite. An alternative fit versus AS and the form of ruthenium (Ru) used is a possible alternative. This fit was somewhat less statistically significant. This second model predicts that more oxalate is formed when Ru-nitrosyl nitrate is used rather than Ru chloride. The conversion of glycolate to oxalate ranged from zero to 6%. The conversion of nitrite to nitrate depended primarily on AS and PRA, with HSV and Hg being significant when these variables were varied. For multiple series of data, nitrite was also needed to SRNL-STI-2017-00172 5HYLVLRQ viL distinguish between data series, and the effect of HSV became insignificant. The best model for nitrite to nitrate conversion depended on AS, PRA, nitrite, and Hg. The 95% confidence intervals on the predicted values of glycolate destruction, glycolate to oxalate conversion, and nitrite to nitrate conversion were used to determine the uncertainty in the predicted REDOX when starting with only the composition of the sludge, AS, and PRA. Using the 95% confidences on an individual value (that is the confidence in getting a particular value for one single test as opposed to what the mean would be for multiple tests), the uncertainty in the predicted REDOX was calculated. The uncertainty in the actual product composition glycolate, oxalate, formate, and nitrate concentrations translated to an uncertainty in the REDOX value of ±0.1,which is approximately the uncertainty claimed in the REDOX model itself.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2020

Simulation of DWPF Chemical Process Cell Using a Reaction Calorimeter

The Defense Waste Processing Facility (DWPF) converts liquid radioactive waste into glass using a Sludge Receipt Adjustment Tank (SRAT) and Slurry Mix Evaporator (SME) in addition to other processes. The SRAT and SME processes can be simulated on a small-scale using the Mettler-Toledo Reaction Calorimeter (RC1). This equipment is able to automate the execution and monitoring of experiments involving nonradioactive chemical simulants. During the chemical processing of sludge in the SRAT process, foam begins to form and can foam over the reaction vessel. The current antifoam used at DWPF creates a risk of increased flammability and has a limited pH range. Usually, mercury is circulated back into the reaction vessel during the SRAT process, making it difficult to remove. To combat foam over, novel antifoams will be tested during the boil-up process using the RC1. To improve mercury extraction, 3D-printed coalescer columns will be tested within the Mercury Water Wash Tank (MWWT) of the RC1. Testing of Simulant Sludge Batch 6 (SB6) was performed to ensure: the sludge would form a stable foam at boiling during full SRAT/SME runs; the antifoam would reduce the amount of foam within the vessel The sludge and a Precipitate Reactor Feed Tank (PRFT) simulant with monosodium titanate (MST) were mixed separately, combined, and then heated to boiling. As shown below, the antifoam used was able to eliminate the foam within the vessel, as expected. The FormLabs Form2 3D Printer can be used to create roughly 3-inch tall and 1-inch diameter columns from clear and ceramic resins. The columns will utilize chemical and physical forces to draw the mercury out of a condensed offgas stream leaving the RC1 reaction vessel. These columns will be tested during full SRAT/SME runs on the basis of how well they are able to collect elemental mercury. In preparation for full-scale runs, the RC1 equipment was assembled onto a custom table and tested with water runs. The software used to control automation, iControl, has a user-friendly interface that allows the experiment to be altered as needed. An example of the data recorded during an experimental run is represented in Figure 1 below. Water runs were utilized as a way to prove if the RC1 system was functioning in the following areas: Boil-up rates, Chemical additions using pumps, Temperature readings, Balance readings, Probe readings, Offgas system, Agitation. Future Plans: Five novel antifoams will be tested during full SRAT/SME runs. The most effective antifoam will be utilized in DWPF's Chemical Process Cell. The design of the Mercury Extraction Coalescer can be further manipulated to increase the extraction of not only elemental mercury, but other heavy metals in environmental remediation processes as well.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2020

Novel Foaming Solutions for High Level Waste (HLW) Processing - 20195

Foaming occurs during treatment of high level waste (HLW) at Savannah River Site's Defense Waste Processing Facility (DWPF) in the Chemical Process Cell (CPC) due to high gas generation from process steam and chemical offgas products [1]. The presence of amphiphilic particles in the waste slurry stabilizes the foam [2], [3]. Efficient processing of HLW requires foam control, as foam-overs lead to lower productivity and potential radioactive contamination of condensate streams. DWPF currently employs Siovation Antifoam 747, a surfactant produced by Momentive Performance Materials, as an antifoaming agent during waste treatment. Despite its ability to control foam generation, processing issues have arisen from its use [4]. During DWPF chemical processing, a chemical antifoam agent must be effective at temperatures up to 103 deg. C between pH 3-13. Antifoam 747 is effective at pH 7 but degrades as pH deviates [5]. Antifoam 747 is 90% by weight Momentive{sup TM} L77 and 10% by weight Momentive{sup TM} Y-17580. These ingredients are trisiloxane products, which are especially vulnerable to attack in acidic and caustic environments. Since Antifoam 747 readily degrades, periodic addition is required. Several processing concerns related to Antifoam 747 have affected DWPF operation. Its overuse warranted concern of potential flammable melter offgas under upset conditions due to the generation of carbon dioxide and hydrogen. As a result, a Potential Inadequacy in the Safety Analysis (PISA) was declared [6]. Antifoam contribution has been included in the melter offgas flammability strategy and the quantity of antifoam is monitored to ensure limits are not exceeded. Testing at Savannah River National Laboratory (SRNL) determined that propanal, tri-methylsilanol, and hexamethyldisiloxane are generated as Antifoam 747 degrades, leading to a second PISA [7]. The formation of these byproducts poses additional flammability risks. Furthermore, the methyl and ethyl groups of these compounds may be responsible for the formation of the methyl and ethyl mercury discovered in DWPF [8], [9]. The formation of organomercury has specifically been called out by DOE as a need for increased research. The effectiveness of non-chemical methods for foam control and the efficiency of alternative antifoam agents were evaluated as part of an effort to improve HLW treatment operations at DWPF and to reduce, or eliminate, the flammability hazards associated with Antifoam 747 currently in use. Foaming of high-level waste (HLW) slurries is an issue at the Defense Waste Processing Facility (DWPF) Chemical Process Cell (CPC) which is currently mitigated with a chemical antifoam agent. The effectiveness of non-chemical methods for foam control and the efficiency of alternative antifoams were examined to improve HLW treatment at DWPF and to eliminate the flammability hazards associated with Siovation Antifoam 747 currently in use. Non-chemical foam control methods were deemed unviable for chemical processing at DWPF, as the spray/mist technique requires too much water and space limitations make installation and implementation of headspace agitators unfeasible. The use of ultrasonic energy thickened and further stabilized the foam. Two suitable alternative defoaming agents, Momentive{sup TM} Y- 17112 and Evonik Surfynol{sup R} MD-20, were identified. Both defoamers control foam over a pH range of 4- 13 at boiling, with no flammable degradation products, and only minimal quantities (100-200 mg/kg) are required under glycolic acid conditions. In order to validate the effectiveness of these defoaming agents, SRNL recommends irradiation testing and laboratory scale SRAT/SME experiments with actual radioactive waste. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
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↗
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 (i.e., 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.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2021

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 (i.e., 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.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2021

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 (i.e., 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.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2023

Modeling of Chemical Slurry Rheology in DWPF Sludge Batch (SB) 10 Simulants

The Defense Waste Processing Facility (DWPF) treats high-activity radionuclides from sludge through a process called vitrification. This process converts radioactive liquid waste currently stored in tank farms into a solid glass form that is suitable for long-term storage and disposal. Due to the complexities involved in vitrifying this waste within each operation of the Chemical Processing Cell (CPC), waste rheology is studied to characterize the fluid-mechanical properties as it passes through the CPC and into the Melter. To better understand the waste and validate flow behavior, slurry rheology of simulants that represents the waste was studied at various acid stoichiometry percentages and solids concentrations to determine the simulant’s yield stress and viscosity. This research work has been supported by the DOE-FIU Science & Technology Workforce Development Initiative, an innovative program developed by the U.S. Department of Energy’s Office of Environmental Management (DOE-EM) and Florida International University’s Applied Research Center (FIU-ARC). During the spring of 2022, a DOE Fellow intern, Brendon Cintas, spent 10 weeks doing a summer internship at Savannah River National Laboratory (SRS) under the supervision and guidance of Dan Lambert, Chemical Flowsheet Development. The intern’s project was initiated on June 6, 2022, and continued through August 11, 2022 with the objective of assisting scientists at SRNL’s Rheology and Grout Laboratory at Aiken Country Technology Lab (ACTL) better understand the sludge composition on the rheology of a simulant slurry using a HAAKE RheoStress 6000 rheometer and extrapolate the results to the real-waste data.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2022

Analysis of DWPF Sludge Batch 6 (Macrobatch 7): Pour Stream Glass Samples

The Defense Waste Processing Facility (DWPF) began processing Sludge Batch 6 (SB6), also referred to as Macrobatch 7 (MB7), in June 2010. SB6 is a blend of the heel of Tank 40 from Sludge Batch 5 (SB5), H-Canyon Np transfers and SB6 that was transferred to Tank 40 from Tank 51.1 SB6 was processed using Frit 418. Sludge is received into the DWPF Chemical Processing Cell (CPC) and is processed through the Sludge Receipt and Adjustment Tank (SRAT) and Slurry Mix Evaporator Tank (SME). The treated sludge slurry is then transferred to the Melter Feed Tank (MFT) and fed to the melter. During processing of each sludge batch, the DWPF is required to take at least one glass sample to meet the objectives of the Glass Product Control Program (GPCP) and to complete the necessary Production Records so that the final glass product may be disposed of at a Federal Repository. The DWPF requested various analyses of radioactive glass samples obtained from the melter pour stream during processing of SB6 as well as reduction/oxidation (REDOX) analysis of MFT samples to determine the impact of Argon bubbling. Sample analysis followed the Task Technical and Quality Assurance Plan (TTQAP) and an Analytical Study Plan (ASP). Four Pour Stream (PS) glass samples and two MFT slurry samples were delivered to the Savannah River National Laboratory (SRNL) from the DWPF. Table 1-1 lists the sample information for each pour stream glass sample. SB6 PS3 (S03472) was selected as the official pour stream sample for SB6 and full analysis was requested. This report details the visual observations of the as-received SB6 PS No.3 glass sample as well as results for the chemical composition, Product Consistency Test (PCT), radionuclide content, noble metals, and glass density. REDOX results will be provided for all four pour stream samples and vitrified samples of MFT-558 and MFT-568A. Where appropriate, data from other pour stream samples will be provided.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2021

Proton Nuclear Magnetic Resonance (H NMR) of Glycolate in Real Waste: Developing and Testing Analytical Methods for the Savannah River Site Liquid Waste System

In preparation for implementing the NG acid flowsheet for the SRS LWS, analytical methods for determining glycolate at low concentration are desired to support system management and safety. Previous work documented that the IC method performed well for samples with low to moderate ionic strength. That work also included a scoping effort to determine if an alternate analytical strategy using H NMR would complement and extend the capabilities of the IC method. The H NMR scoping results indicated that the method had the potential to expand glycolate analysis in LWS samples to higher ionic strength tanks/solutions. The scope of this work is to develop innovative proton NMR techniques, including demonstrating ion exchange decontamination protocols needed for application of the technique to real waste samples. Part of radioactive waste processing at SRS uses formic acid to reduce oxidized (Hg 2+ ) to more volatile elemental Hg for steam striping, collecting, and disposal. Under acidic conditions found in the Chemical Processing Cell (CPC) at the Defense Waste Processing Facility (DWPF), formic acid has a much higher hydrogen generation rate than an alternative reductant, glycolic acid. Thus, an NG acid flowsheet has been developed utilizing glycolic acid with the benefit of easing the need for headspace monitoring requirements for hydrogen and ammonia at DWPF. Low concentrations of glycolate are conservatively assumed to be in the recycle stream, which will collect in the Recycle Collection Tank (RCT). The DWPF recycle stream collected in the RCT has a distinct pathway to the LWS waste tanks that feed the 2H and 3H Evaporator. This route involves transfer of the DWPF recycle to Tank 22 in the Concentration, Storage, and Transfer Facilities (CSTF) followed by transfer to the LWS tank farm/evaporators.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2021

Sludge Batch 10 Flowsheet Testing with Non-radioactive Simulants

Fourteen Chemical Processing Cell (CPC) simulations were performed with nonradioactive sludge simulants at the Aiken County Technology Laboratory in Aiken, SC. Four of these experiments were performed with Tank 51 sludge simulant. The remaining ten were performed with Tank 40 sludge simulant. The purpose of these experiments was to elucidate the chemistry and characteristics of Sludge Batch (SB) 10 as anticipated in the Defense Waste Processing Facility (DWPF). Experiments were performed at acid stoichiometries between 76% and 138% of the Koopman Minimum Acid requirement (85% - 144% of the Hsu acid requirement) and at REDuction/OXidation (REDOX) targets between 0.1 and 0.3. Testing examined the impact of coupled operations and sludge-only operations during Sludge Receipt and Adjustment Tank (SRAT) and Slurry Mix Evaporator (SME) processing at both design basis and nominal boilup rates. This report shares conclusions made as a result of this testing.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2022

Evaluation of Sludge Solids Returns Impacts on Sludge Batch 10 Flammability, Glass Quality, and Glass Processability

The Savannah River National Laboratory (SRNL) is currently preparing to return ≤ 20 kgs of sludge solids collected over time from Tank Farm characterization activities and demonstrations of the Defense Waste Processing Facility (DWPF) flowsheets (nitric-formic and nitric-glycolic). These sludge solids will be transported and added to Tank 51 which is currently preparing Sludge Batch (SB) 10. DWPF plans to operate the under the nitric-glycolic flowsheet for the processing of SB10. The hydrogen generation rate for the nitric-glycolic flowsheet is 0.024 lb h -1 . The addition of ≤20 kg of sludge solids returns to SB 10 does not have an impact on flammability in the DWPF Chemical Process Cell (CPC) or glass quality and processability. The relatively low mass of the addition (≤20 kg) is insufficient to detect a significant analytical change to the expected SB 10 compositions.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2022

SRNL Sludge Batch 10 Qualification SRAT and SME Off-Gas Results

Savannah River National Laboratory (SRNL) completed a small-scale demonstration of the Defense Waste Processing Facility (DWPF) Chemical Process Cell (CPC) utilizing the nitric-glycolic acid (NGA) flowsheet to support Sludge Batch 10 (SB10) qualification. The demonstration utilized a Tank 51 slurry sample washed by SRNL (with added H-canyon material). The purpose of this document is to report the observed off-gas results from the demonstration. With the NGA flowsheet, DWPF has a CPC hydrogen generation limit of 2.4×10 -2 lb/h. The peak observed rate was nearly 90 times less than that limit during SRNL testing.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2023

Technical Evaluation of Accelerated Basin De-Inventory Material Addition to Sludge Batch 11 (Rev. 1)

The Accelerated Basin De-inventory (ABD) program involves discarding spent nuclear fuel that is currently stored in L-Basin to the Defense Waste Processing Facility (DWPF) for vitrification. The first ABD discards will occur during the preparation of Sludge Batch (SB) 11. Savannah River Mission Completion has requested that the Savannah River National Laboratory assess the technical gaps related to the increased gadolinium poisoning requirement and the impacts of performing the Low Temperature Aluminum Dissolution (LTAD) process in Tank 51 with H-Canyon discards present. The following summarizes the evaluation of the impacts of increasing the quantity of gadolinium (and related topics) from what was previously evaluated in the SRNL studies of gadolinium-poisoned ABD material solubility, the overall ABD flowsheet review, and increasing the fissile mass loading in glass: 1) Based on literature surveys, there is no indication that organic interactions with gadolinium will be significant at the high pH (typically >13) conditions of the Concentration, Storage, and Transfer Facilities. Any interactions of gadolinium with organics in DWPF are not expected to adversely impact DWPF or downstream facilities. Thus, there is little-to-no residual risk from organic interactions with gadolinium [Gap closed]; 2) Adding depleted uranium to ABD material, targeting 235 U enrichment of 4.90% within each transfer window, will mitigate potential impacts from an increase in soluble 235 U enrichment during sludge washing and LTAD. The plan to take advantage of previous transfers and allow 235 U enrichment of >5% during the final transfer window carries a risk that Tank 51 supernate will have a 235 U enrichment of >5%, which should be evaluated for acceptance; 3) Increasing the gadolinium mass ratio to 3.0:1 Gd: 235 U(eq SLU ) should lead to the same or higher partitioning of gadolinium into the solid phase within the DWPF Chemical Process Cell, resulting in both liquid and solid phases with expected partitioning of Gd consistent with the prior solubility study [Gap closed for SB11]; 4) There are no expected impacts on DWPF melt temperature and melter operations due to the minimal ~0.2 weight percent (wt%) increase in Gd concentration relative to previous sludge batches [Gap closed for SB11]; 5) As observed previously, Gd is expected to enter the off-gas system via physical entrainment, but at a slightly higher concentration than what was observed for SB9 melter off-gas pluggage deposits (0.07 wt%) [Gap closed for SB11] ; 6) There are no expected impacts on DWPF recycle or the Recycle Collection Tank glycolate destruction process. [Gap closed for SB11]; 7) Gd is projected to be a trace component in the SB11 glass (<0.5 wt%) and can be ignored for process control. Trace components do not significantly impact glass durability, thus the conclusions of the previous Product Consistency Test evaluation at a fissile mass loading of 2,500 g fissile/m3 glass still applies to SB11. The ~0.1 wt% increase in Gd2O3 concentration relative to the previous study will not impact the predictability of SB11 glass with the DWPF Product Composition Control System (PCCS) models for durability or the acceptability of glass according to the Waste Acceptance Product Specifications (WAPS) criterion for product consistency [Gap closed for SB11]; 8) No additional Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure testing is necessary for SB11 and the hazardous waste specification of the SB11 DWPF waste form is unchanged after the addition of the ABD stream [Gap closed for SB11]. The following summarizes the evaluation of the impacts of adding two-thirds of the ABD material to Tank 51 prior to LTAD: 1) The addition of two-thirds of the ABD increases overall aluminum mass from 1.39×10 4 kg to 1.64×10 4 kg (15.5% ABD Al). The form of the insoluble portion of the Al resulting from ABD addition should be the more readily dissolved Al(OH) 3 and amorphous forms. The portion of the ABD aluminum that is processed by LTAD is expected to be completely soluble, thus requiring that less of the boehmite in the sludge be dissolved to reach the same Al target in the SB. [Gap closed for SB11]; The expected LTAD impact on other components, as related primarily to the components in ABD, are discussed. Gd is expected to remain insoluble during LTAD and not impact the solubility of other components. [Gap closed for SB11]; The addition of two-thirds of the ABD increases overall projected SB11 uranium mass from 4,740 kg to 13,100 kg (63% ABD U) and the projected plutonium mass from 86.0 kg to 89.5 kg (3.9% ABD Pu). The addition of all of the ABD increases overall projected SB11 uranium mass from 4,740 kg to 16,100 kg (70% ABD U) and the projected plutonium mass from 86.0 kg to 90.4 kg (5.3% ABD Pu). The 235 U enrichment will be ≤5%. The fissile uranium will be adequately poisoned by Gd and the fissile Pu will be adequately poisoned by Fe from the sludge. [Gap closed for SB11]; There is a low risk that ABD addition will impact the rheology or pumpability of the slurry. There is a low but higher risk of ABD addition prior to LTAD impacting the settling rate; Based on the evaluation of adding two-thirds of the ABD material and all of the ABD material prior to the LTAD process, there is no volume or mass limit that would need to be imposed on ABD additions prior to LTAD. [Gap closed for SB11]. Revision 1 of this report addresses a variation on the ABD additions and LTAD strategy where sodium hydroxide additions for LTAD may be performed intermittently or concurrently with an ABD addition window. The proposed change does not alter the conclusions of this evaluation.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2020

Monitoring the Caustic Dissolution of Aluminum Alloy in a Radiochemical Hot Cell Using Raman Spectroscopy

Chemical processing of highly radioactive materials commonly takes place in heavily shielded hot cells. The remote, real-time monitoring of chemical processing streams via optical spectroscopic techniques in hot cells may be particularly useful. Here in this paper, we describe the implementation of Raman spectroscopy and chemometric analysis to monitor the dissolution of aluminum-clad targets containing irradiated aluminum–neptunium oxide cermet pellets in caustic solutions in a hot cell environment. Partial least squares regression analysis was used to generate calibration models to quantify the concentration of dissolved aluminum, nitrate, and hydroxide in solutions within the radiochemical hot cell. This work explored a systematic approach to optimize a matrix of calibration standards using a D-optimal experimental design. The Design of Experiments-based regression model, in comparison to more traditional analytical approaches, was found to be the more practical method for building calibration models, with fewer samples, to obtain informative analytical data from Raman spectra.

36 MATERIALS SCIENCE↗
DOE OSTI2024

Strategies to overcome electron-beam issues in liquid phase TEM: Study of chemical processes

Abstract Liquid phase (or liquid cell) transmission electron microscopy (TEM) has become a powerful platform for in situ investigation of various chemical processes at the nanometer or atomic level. The electron beam for imaging can also induce perturbation to the chemical processes. Thus, it has been a concern that the observed phenomena in a liquid cell could deviate from the real-world processes. Strategies have been developed to overcome the electron-beam-induced issues. This article provides an overview of the electron-beam effects, and discusses various strategies in liquid cell TEM study of nucleation, growth, and self-assembly of nanoscale materials, where an electron beam is often used to initiate the reactions, and highly electron-beam-sensitive electrochemical reactions. Graphical abstract

Zheng, Wenjing↗