DOE OSTI2020
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↗