Issue
Korean Journal of Chemical Engineering,
Vol.22, No.6, 865-872, 2005
Effect of Different Reduction Methods on the Efficiencies in the Chemical Decontamination Processes
Chemical decontamination is considered to be an effective method for reduction of radiation level by dissolution of radioactive corrosion products and metal oxidizing films existing in the primary system of a nuclear power plant. In this study, the process efficiencies of two chemical decontamination processes (Methods 1 and 2) having different reduction steps were investigated through the operation of a semi-pilot scale decontamination equipment as a continuous work. The reduction step for Method 1 employed an adsorbent with an oxygen source, while a reductant (oxalic acid) was used in the reduction step for Method 2. The dissolution and removal efficiencies of metal species and organic compounds in Method 2 were higher than those in Method 1, implying that oxalic acid in the reduction step increased the process efficiency, their complexes of metal species easily being removed in the decomposition/cleanup step. It was shown that the process employing chemical reduction showed higher dissolution and removal efficiencies rather than the process by the physical adsorption on the adsorbent surface through decontamination processes with different reduction step.
[References]
  1. Ayres JA, Decontamination of Nuclear Reactors and Equipment, Ronald Press, New York, 1970
  2. Choi W, Kim S, Cho S, Yoo HI, Kim MH, Korean J. Chem. Eng., 18(6), 898, 2001
  3. Dastgheib SA, Rockstraw DA, Carbon, 39, 1849, 2001
  4. Faur-Brasquet C, Kadiruvelu K, Le Chloirec P, Carbon, 40, 2387, 1996
  5. Frim JA, Rathman JF, Weavers LK, Water Res., 37, 3155, 2003
  6. Gregg SJ, Sing KSW, Adsorption, Surface Area and Porosity, Academic Press, London, 1982
  7. Juang RS, Wang YC, Water Res., 37, 845, 2003
  8. Kahlili NR, Campbell M, Sandi G, Golas J, Carbon, 38, 1905, 2000
  9. Kim HJ, Moon H, Park HC, Korean J. Chem. Eng., 2(2), 181, 1985
  10. Kim K, Lee HJ, Choi M, Kang DW, Inoue S, Nucl. Eng. Des., 229, 91, 2004
  11. Kim K, Lee HJ, Kang DW, Inoue S, Nucl. Eng. Des., 223, 329, 2003
  12. Kim MH, Lee EK, Jun JH, Han GY, Kong SJ, Lee BK, Lee TJ, Yoon KJ, Korean J. Chem. Eng., 20(5), 835, 2003
  13. Kim SJ, Shim WG, Kim TY, Moon H, Kim SJ, Cho SY, Korean J. Chem. Eng., 19(6), 967, 2002
  14. Kong SH, Kwon CI, Kim MH, Korean J. Chem. Eng., 20(2), 293, 2003
  15. Lee HJ, Kang DW, Chi J, Lee DH, Korean J. Chem. Eng., 20(3), 503, 2003
  16. Lee HJ, Kang DW, Lee YJ, Korean J. Chem. Eng., 21(4), 895, 2004
  17. Lucking F, Koser H, Jank M, Ritter A, Water Res., 32, 2607, 1998
  18. Moon JK, Byun KH, Park SY, Oh WZ, Korean J. Chem. Eng., 14(6), 521, 1997
  19. Nowack B, Sigg L, J. Colloid Interface Sci., 177(1), 106, 1996
  20. Nowack B, Lutzenkirchen J, Behra P, Sigg L, Environ. Sci. Technol., 30, 2397, 1996
  21. Ocken H, Decontamination Handbook, EPRI Report TR-112352, EPRI (Electric Power Research Institute), Palo Alto, 1999
  22. Ravikmar JX, Gurol MD, Environ. Sci. Technol., 28, 394, 1994
  23. Ridge AC, Sedlak DL, Water Res., 38, 921, 2004
  24. Seco A, Marzal P, Gabaldon C, J. Chem. Technol. Biotechnol., 68(1), 23, 1997
  25. Song JH, Yeon KH, Cho J, Moon SH, Korean J. Chem. Eng., 22(1), 108, 2005
  26. Toles CA, Marshall WE, Jones MM, Carbon, 35, 1407, 1997
  27. Varrin R, Jr., Characterization of PWR Steam Generator Deposits, EPRI Report TR-106048, EPRI, Palo Alto, 1996
  28. Varga K, Baradlai P, Hirschberg G, Nemeth Z, Oravetz D, Schunk J, Tilky P, Electrochim. Acta, 46(24-25), 3783, 2001
  29. Warhurst AM, Fowler GD, McConnachie GL, Pollard SJT, Carbon, 35, 1039, 1997
  30. Wood CJ, Spalaris CN, Sourcebook for Chemical Decontamination of Nuclear Power Plants, EPRI Special Report NP-6433, EPRI, Palo Alto, 1989
  31. Yim MS, Ocken H, Prog. Nucl. Energy, 39, 31, 2001