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

Abstract

A special thanks to Alex Nikolov and Darsh Wasan of the Illinois Institute of Technology for their expertise in foam and antifoamers, in helping us to develop the research program, to evaluate the results and to identify candidates for testing, and especially for introducing us to Kalman Koczo of Momentive Performance Materials who supplied us with the Momentive™ Y-17112. A special thanks to Gita Golcar for her identification of most of the antifoam candidates that we tested, including Evonik Surfynol ® MD20. We had great support from Meagan Kinard, Katherine Miles, Austin Coleman, and Daniel Jones in helping us to set up, develop R&D directions, perform the experiments, and so much more in finishing these tasks. Thanks to Mark Fowley and Andy Foreman for designing and installing the portable table that the RC1 equipment is assembled onto. Thanks to Christopher Verst for calculating radiation dose approximations and operating the J.L Shepherd Model 484 Co-60 gamma irradiator. Thanks to Mason Clark of DWPF Engineering for his support in the planning and execution of this testing. We had great support from our interns, Jackie Do from the University of Georgia and Maggie Hansen from Clemson University. Jackie and Maggie did a great job in helping prepare the equipment, procedures, R&D directions, and iControl software for the antifoam experiments.

A novel defoamer for processing nuclear waste: Testing and performance

“…Testing was completed to identify the best defoamer for controlling foam during high‐level radioactive waste processing 26 . The screening experiments included spreading of the superwetters, Teclis FoamScan® testing to demonstrate the defoamer effectiveness throughout the processing pH range (4–13), and boiling testing of physical and chemical waste simulants without noble metals and mercury.…”

“…Testing was completed to identify the best defoamer for controlling foam during high-level radioactive waste processing. 26 The screening experiments included spreading of the superwetters, Teclis additions were needed to control foam (875 mg/kg). The off-gas generated during the Antifoam 747 days-only experiment was analyzed using an FTIR spectrometer because it was expected that there would be significant HMDSO generation.…”

Sludge Batch 10 Flowsheet Testing with Non-radioactive Simulants

“…The MST/SS targeted combined compositions were designed to match those employed in previous testing. 10 However, given the necessity of adding MST as a separate slurry, a new composition of salt supernatant was designed such that the combined masses of 15% MST slurry and salt solution would yield the appropriate concentrations of components in the CPC. The targeted and measured composition of this salt supernatant phase is given in Table 2-2.…”

“…These absences are consistent with earlier findings that the nitric-glycolic flowsheet tends to produce less ammonium and that operation with antifoam Y-17112 produces less volatile organics. 10 Measured compositions of dewater collected during caustic boiling and MST/SS addition are given in Table 3-29. The drastic increase in nitrate concentrations in the ammonia scrubber relative to what was seen in other condensate streams is of particular interest here.…”

“…Final dewater was performed to achieve desired solids target Antifoam Y-17112 was added periodically throughout every experiment described in this report. Addition amounts and frequencies were consistent with the methodology outlined by Lambert 10. 2.4 Off-gas Analysis GC analysis was provided by an Inficon Fusion MicroGC equipped with a MolSieve 5A column (Ar carrier gas) and a PoraPlot Q column (He carrier gas).…”