DWPF SIMULANT CPC STUDIES FOR SB7B

Lab-scale DWPF simulations of Sludge Batch 7b (SB7b) processing were performed. Testing was performed at the Savannah River National Laboratory - Aiken County Technology Laboratory (SRNL-ACTL). The primary goal of the simulations was to define a likely operating window for acid stoichiometry for the DWPF Sludge Receipt and Adjustment Tank (SRAT). In addition, the testing established conditions for the SRNL Shielded Cells qualification simulation of SB7b-Tank 40 blend, supported validation of the current glass redox model, and validated the coupled process flowsheet at the nominal acid stoichiometry. An acid window of 105-140% by the Koopman minimum acid (KMA) equation (107-142% DWPF Hsu equation) worked for the sludge-only flowsheet. Nitrite was present in the SRAT product for the 105% KMA run at 366 mg/kg, while SME cycle hydrogen reached 94% of the DWPF Slurry Mix Evaporator (SME) cycle limit in the 140% KMA run. The window was determined for sludge with added caustic (0.28M additional base, or roughly 12,000 gallons 50% NaOH to 820,000 gallons waste slurry). A suitable processing window appears to be 107-130% DWPF acid equation for sludge-only processing allowing some conservatism for the mapping of lab-scale simulant data to full-scale real waste processing including potentially non-conservative noble metal and mercury concentrations. This window should be usable with or without the addition of up to 7,000 gallons of caustic to the batch. The window could potentially be wider if caustic is not added to SB7b. It is recommended that DWPF begin processing SB7b at 115% stoichiometry using the current DWPF equation. The factor could be increased if necessary, but changes should be made with caution and in small increments. DWPF should not concentrate past 48 wt.% total solids in the SME cycle if moderate hydrogen generation is occurring simultaneously. The coupled flowsheet simulation made more hydrogen in the SRAT and SME cycles than the sludge-only run with the same acid stoichiometric factor. The slow acid addition in MCU seemed to alter the reactions that consumed the small excess acid present such that hydrogen generation was promoted relative to sludge-only processing. The coupled test reached higher wt.% total solids, and this likely contributed to the SME cycle hydrogen limit being exceeded at 110% KMA. It is clear from the trends in the SME processing GC data, however, that the frit slurry formic acid contributed to driving the hydrogen generation rate above the SME cycle limit. Hydrogen generation rates after the second frit addition generally exceeded those after the first frit addition. SRAT formate loss increased with increasing acid stoichiometry (15% to 35%). A substantial nitrate gain which was observed to have occurred after acid addition (and nitrite destruction) was reversed to a net nitrate loss in runs with higher acid stoichiometry (nitrate in SRAT product less than sum of sludge nitrate and added nitric acid). Increased ammonium ion formation was also indicated in the runs with nitrate loss. Oxalate loss on the order 20% was indicated in three of the four acid stoichiometry runs and in the coupled flowsheet run. The minimum acid stoichiometry run had no indicated loss. The losses were of the same order as the official analytical uncertainty of the oxalate concentration measurement, but were not randomly distributed about zero loss, so some actual loss was likely occurring. Based on the entire set of SB7b test data, it is recommended that DWPF avoid concentrating additional sludge solids in single SRAT batches to limit the concentrations of noble metals to SB7a processing levels (on a grams noble metal per SRAT batch basis). It is also recommended that DWPF drop the formic acid addition that accompanies the process frit 418 additions, since SME cycle data showed considerable catalytic activity for hydrogen generation from this additional acid (about 5% increase in stoichiometry occurred from the frit formic acid). Frit 418 also does not appear to need formic acid addition to prevent gel formation in the frit slurry. Simulant processing was successful using 100 ppm of 747 antifoam added prior to nitric acid instead of 200 ppm. This is a potential area for DWPF to cut antifoam usage in any future test program. An additional 100 ppm was added before formic acid addition. Foaming during formic acid addition was not observed. No build-up of oily or waxy material was observed in the off-gas equipment. Lab-scale mercury stripping behavior was similar to SB6 and SB7a. More mercury was unaccounted for as the acid stoichiometry increased