A comparison of ceramic and carbon‐based reductants for vitrification of low‐activity waste
Source abstract
Abstract
Abstract Sucrose is the current baseline additive at the Hanford Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant in Washington to control foaming during waste feed to glass transitions and the redox state of the glass melt. Alternative reductants are being investigated to alleviate strain on effluent treatment from toxic acetonitrile production from incomplete combustion of sucrose. This study evaluates ceramic additive options including B 4 C, B 6 Si, SiC, and VB 2 in simulated low‐activity waste feed, as well as coke dust, probing the feed volume expansion during melting as well as the gas evolution. All alternative reductant options examined significantly reduced acetonitrile production; however, there was variability in their effectiveness as foam‐reducing agents. VB 2 and coke matched the performance of sucrose in controlling foam volume and glass redox state, but with notably less acetonitrile production. B 4 C, B 6 Si, and SiC demonstrated improved foam control and very little acetonitrile production; however, the final glasses were over‐reduced, that is, Fe 2+ /Fe T ≥ 0.5. These alternative reductant studies provide operational flexibility to the operation of the vitrification plant, as well as options for alternative raw materials in industrial glass melting.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Recycling and utilization of industrial and municipal waste in materials production · Graphite, nuclear technology, radiation studies · Radiation Shielding Materials Analysis
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory Richland Washington USA
Materials and Engineering Research Institute College of Business Technology and Engineering Sheffield Hallam University Sheffield UK
U.S. Department of Energy Hanford Field Office Richland Washington USA
References (59)
Show source-provided references
1. 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2023.13243710.1016/j.jhazmat.2023.132437 ↗
2. 10.1021/acs.est.7b0407710.1021/acs.est.7b04077 ↗
3. 10.1002/ep.1356710.1002/ep.13567 ↗
4. MatlackKS MullerIS PeggIL.Low activity waste tuning feed material testing final report VSL‐18R4350‐1. The Catholic University of America Vitreous State Laboratory Washington DC;2018.https://doi.org/10.2172/197446010.2172/1974460 ↗
5. WestesenAM CarneyAM AlvarezC TurnerJE Trang‐LeTT PetersonRA.Cesium removal from AP‐106 tank waste using crystalline silicotitanate. PNNL‐35919 Rev. 0. Pacific Northwest National Laboratory Washington;2024.https://doi.org/10.2172/247498410.2172/2474984 ↗
6. 10.1016/j.nocx.2019.10003310.1016/j.nocx.2019.100033 ↗
7. 10.1016/j.jnoncrysol.2008.10.00910.1016/j.jnoncrysol.2008.10.009 ↗
8. Foaming behavior in glass melts
9. Laboratory techniques for studying foam formation and stability in glass melting
10. 10.1111/ijag.1238510.1111/ijag.12385 ↗
11. 10.1016/j.jnoncrysol.2010.04.04110.1016/j.jnoncrysol.2010.04.041 ↗
12. 10.1016/j.jnucmat.2012.06.02010.1016/j.jnucmat.2012.06.020 ↗
13. 10.1111/ijag.1580310.1111/ijag.15803 ↗
14. 10.1111/jace.1377510.1111/jace.13775 ↗
15. 10.1016/j.jnucmat.2013.11.00910.1016/j.jnucmat.2013.11.009 ↗
16. 10.1111/ijag.1586310.1111/ijag.15863 ↗
17. 10.1016/j.jnoncrysol.2023.12224010.1016/j.jnoncrysol.2023.122240 ↗
18. Taylor‐PashowKChoiAS McClaneDL McCabeDJ.Iodine distribution during evaporation of Hanford waste treatment plant direct feed low activity waste effluent management facility simulant. Savannah River National Laboratory. South Carolina;2019.https://doi.org/10.2172/156963810.2172/1569638 ↗
19. Effect of glass‐batch makeup on the melting process
20. BagwellCE AsmussenRM.Biotic degradation of acetonitrile limitations controls and conversion rates (PNNL‐29786). Pacific Northwest National Laboratory Washington;2020.https://doi.org/10.2172/166119410.2172/1661194 ↗
21. MatlackK PeggI.Estimates of acetonitrile generation from scale melter testing of LAW simulants (VSL‐19S4573‐1 Rev A) (ORP‐67600‐00/VSL‐19S4573‐1). Vitreous State Laboratory The Catholic University of America Washington DC;2019.https://doi.org/10.2172/184498110.2172/1844981 ↗
22. RyanJL.Redox reactions and foaming in nuclear waste glass melting (PNL‐10510). Pacific Northwest National Laboratory Washington;1995.https://doi.org/10.2172/10818110.2172/108181 ↗
23. ChoiAS.Melter off‐gas flammability assessment for DWPF alternate reductant flowsheet options (SRNL‐STI‐2011‐00321; p. SRNL‐STI‐2011‐00321 1019027). Savannah River National Laboratory South Carolina;2011.https://doi.org/10.2172/101902710.2172/1019027 ↗
24. ChoiA.DWPF melter off‐gas flammability model for the nitric‐glycolic acid flowsheet (SRNL‐STI‐2014‐00355). Savannah River National Laboratory South Carolina;2014.https://doi.org/10.2172/115471710.2172/1154717 ↗
25. 10.1111/jace.2019210.1111/jace.20192 ↗
26. 10.1016/j.jnoncrysol.2015.02.02010.1016/j.jnoncrysol.2015.02.020 ↗
27. Hubert M · 2017 · 113
28. 10.1007/s10717‐012‐9370‐z10.1007/s10717‐012‐9370‐z ↗
29. 10.1016/S0022‐3093(02)01376‐510.1016/S0022‐3093(02)01376‐5 ↗
30. 10.3390/resources202005810.3390/resources2020058 ↗
31. 10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.12176510.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121765 ↗
32. 10.3390/pr809105210.3390/pr8091052 ↗
33. 10.1021/acs.cgd.8b0023410.1021/acs.cgd.8b00234 ↗
34. 10.1016/j.carres.2006.07.00410.1016/j.carres.2006.07.004 ↗
35. 10.1021/jp984682c10.1021/jp984682c ↗
36. GraystarGNP.(n.d.). Thermal properties of ceramics.https://gnpgraystar.com/wp‐content/uploads/2020/05/ThermalPropertiesofCeramicsPrintable.pdf. Accessed 1 Apr 2025.
37. 10.1103/PhysRevB.96.17410210.1103/PhysRevB.96.174102 ↗
38. Crouch IG · 2017
39. 10.48550/arXiv.2008.0273910.48550/arXiv.2008.02739 ↗
40. 10.1016/j.physleta.2019.12607510.1016/j.physleta.2019.126075 ↗
41. 10.1021/acs.inorgchem.7b0255010.1021/acs.inorgchem.7b02550 ↗
42. 10.1016/S0016-2361(02)00363-010.1016/S0016-2361(02)00363-0 ↗
43. 10.1016/j.fuproc.2021.10695710.1016/j.fuproc.2021.106957 ↗
44. 10.1016/j.jnucmat.2008.07.02010.1016/j.jnucmat.2008.07.020 ↗
45. Wagnon T · 2020
46. DixonDR StewartCM VenarskyJJ PetersonJA HallGB LevitskaiaTG et al.Vitrification of Hanford tank waste 241‐AP‐107 in a continuous laboratory‐scale melter. Pacific Northwest National Laboratory Washington;2019.https://www.osti.gov/biblio/150562910.2172/1505629 ↗
47. DixonDR WestesenAM HallMA StewartCM LangJB CutforthDA et al.Vitrification of Hanford tank 241‐AP‐107 with recycled condensate. Pacific Northwest National Laboratory Washington;2020.https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/176681310.2172/1766813 ↗
48. 10.1016/j.ceramint.2021.11.34410.1016/j.ceramint.2021.11.344 ↗
49. 10.1016/j.jnoncrysol.2021.12136310.1016/j.jnoncrysol.2021.121363 ↗
50. Post‐GuillenD.Bubbling behavior in a waste glass melter. 8th International Conference on Computational and Experimental Methods in Multiphase Flow Valencia Spain;2015.https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/1360628
51. Mathematical modeling of cold cap: effect of bubbling on melting rate
52. 10.1111/jace.1391910.1111/jace.13919 ↗
53. MatlackKS Perez‐CardenasF PeggIL MacedoPB BuecheleAC HojajiH et al.Melter tests with LAW envelope A and C simulants to support enhanced sulfate incorporation (ORP‐63503/VSL‐01R3501‐2). Vitreous State Laboratory The Catholic University of America Washington DC;2001.10.2172/1528779 ↗
54. Redox and sulphur reactions in glass melting processes
55. A review of Mössbauer data on inorganic glasses: the effects of composition on iron valency and coordination
56. 10.1023/A:101107630850110.1023/A:1011076308501 ↗
57. JantzenC JohnsonF.Impacts of antifoam additions and argon bubbling on defense waste processing facility reduction/oxidation. Savannah River National Laboratory South Carolina.2012.https://doi.org/10.2172/104561610.2172/1045616 ↗
58. 10.1111/j.1151‐2916.1987.tb05712.x10.1111/j.1151‐2916.1987.tb05712.x ↗
59. 10.1557/PROC‐176‐41910.1557/PROC‐176‐419 ↗