English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Zendy Plus

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Zendy Tools

Zendy Open

Phase III simulant flowsheet testing was completed using the latest composition estimates for SB6/Tank 40 feed to DWPF. The goals of the testing were to determine reasonable operating conditions and assumptions for the startup of SB6 processing in the DWPF. Testing covered the region from 102-159% of the current DWPF stoichiometric acid equation. Nitrite ion concentration was reduced to 90 mg/kg in the SRAT product of the lowest acid run. The 159% acid run reached 60% of the DWPF Sludge Receipt and Adjustment Tank (SRAT) limit of 0.65 lb H2/hr, and then sporadically exceeded the DWPF Slurry Mix Evaporator (SME) limit of 0.223 lb H2/hr. Hydrogen generation rates peaked at 112% of the SME limit, but higher than targeted wt% total solids levels may have been partially responsible for rates seen. A stoichiometric factor of 120% met both objectives. A processing window for SB6 exists from 102% to something close to 159% based on the simulant results. An initial recommendation for SB6 processing is at 115-120% of the current DWPF stoichiometric acid equation. The addition of simulated Actinide Removal Process (ARP) and Modular Caustic Side Solvent Extraction Unit (MCU) streams to the SRAT cycle had no apparent impact on the preferred stoichiometric factor. Hydrogen generation occurred continuously after acid addition in three of the four tests. The three runs at 120%, 118.4% with ARP/MCU, and 159% stoichiometry were all still producing around 0.1 lb hydrogen/hr at DWPF scale after 36 hours of boiling in the SRAT. The 120% acid run reached 23% of the SRAT limit and 37% of the SME limit. Conversely, nitrous oxide generation was subdued compared to previous sludge batches, staying below 29 lb/hr in all four tests or about a fourth as much as in comparable SB4 testing. Two processing issues, identified during SB6 Phase II flowsheet testing and qualification simulant testing, were monitored during Phase III. Mercury material balance closure was impacted by acid stoichiometry, and significant mercury was not accounted for in the highest acid run. Coalescence of elemental mercury droplets in the mercury water wash tank (MWWT) appeared to degrade with increasing stoichiometry. Observations were made of mercury scale formation in the SRAT condenser and MWWT. A tacky mercury amalgam with Rh, Pd, and Cu, plus some Ru and Ca formed on the impeller at 159% acid. It contained a significant fraction of the available Pd, Cu, and Rh as well as about 25% of the total mercury charged. Free (elemental) mercury was found in all of the SME products. Ammonia scrubbers were used during the tests to capture off-gas ammonia for material balance purposes. Significant ammonium ion formation was again observed during the SRAT cycle, and ammonia gas entered the off-gas as the pH rose during boiling. Ammonium ion production was lower than in the SB6 Phase II and the qualification simulant testing. Similar ammonium ion formation was seen in the ARP/MCU simulation as in the 120% flowsheet run. A slightly higher pH caused most of the ammonium to vaporize and collect in the ammonia scrubber reflux solution. Two periods of foaminess were noted. Neither required additional antifoam to control the foam growth. A steady foam layer formed during reflux in the 120% acid run. It was about an inch thick, but was 2-3 times more volume of bubbles than is typically seen during reflux. A similar foam layer also was seen during caustic boiling of the simulant during the ARP addition. While frequently seen with the radioactive sludge, foaminess during caustic boiling with simulants has been relatively rare. Two further flowsheet tests were performed and will be documented separately. One test was to evaluate the impact of process conditions that match current DWPF operation (lower rates). The second test was to evaluate the impact of SRAT/SME processing on the rheology of a modified Phase III simulant that had been made five times more viscous using ultrasonication

SLUDGE BATCH 6/TANK 40 SIMULANT CHEMICAL PROCESS CELL SIMULATIONS