Nitric-glycolic flowsheet reduction/oxidation (redox) model for the defense waste processing facility (DWPF)

Siegfried

2021

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. Revision viii

Section: Redoxmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sludge Batch 10 Flowsheet Testing with Non-radioactive Simulants

Siegfried

2021

“…The REDOX equation includes a term for Antifoam 747. 24 The antifoam term is not important even if the Antifoam 747 exceeds 3,000 mg/kg in a CPC batch (prediction of a REDOX increase of 0.0015). From a REDOX standpoint, the weight percent of carbon and hydrogen are similar (51.3% C in Antifoam 747, 55.6% C in Momentive Y-17112™, 9.7% H in Antifoam 747, 10.2% H in Momentive Y-17112™ so the impact of Momentive Y-17112™ on REDOX should be similar.…”

Section: Redox Equation Revision Needed?mentioning

confidence: 99%

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

HUNTER

et al. 2021

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.

“…The REDOX equation includes a term for Antifoam 747. 20 The antifoam term is not important even if the Antifoam 747 exceeds 3,000 mg/kg in a CPC batch (prediction of a REDOX increase of 0.0015). From a REDOX standpoint, the weight percent of carbon and hydrogen are similar (51.3% C in Antifoam 747, 55.6% C in Momentive Y-17112™, 9.7% H in Antifoam 747, 10.2% H in Momentive Y-17112™ so the impact of Momentive Y-17112™ on REDOX should be similar.…”

Section: Redox Equation Revision Needed?mentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Williams

2020

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.