OAK RIDGE NATIONAL LABORATORY operated by ~ {osimite Price s~ UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION m . Mic™glm Price $ L for the s . U.S. ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION Available fro . Office ofg®Echnical jces . | ' De ent of Commerce ORNL- TM~- 522 ington 25, D. C. : E A ashington ?fl&g}‘ s COPY NO. - 6‘5—‘ " DATE - October 10, 1962 DESIGN STUDIES AND COST ESTIMATES OF TWO FLUORIDE VOIATILITY PIANTS W. L. Carter, R. P. Milford, and W. G. Stockdale ABSTRACT Design studies and cost estimates were made for two on-site, fluoride vola- tility processing plants. Each plant was assumed to be processing continu- ously irradiated LiF-BeFs-ThF4-UF4 fuel from a one-region Molten Salt Con- verter Reactor (MSCR) capable of producing 1000 Mwe (ca. 2500 Mwt). One plant processed fuel at a rate of 1.2 fts/day, the second at 12 fta/day. The smaller plant was designed and cost estimated for two processing con- ditions: (1) retention of the waste salt for Pa-233 decay and recovery by a second fluorination, and (2) discard of all Pa-233 as waste after the -~ first fluorination. The larger plant was considered only for the case of Pa-233 decay and recovery. The following capital and direct operating charges were estimated: Capital Cost Operating Cost 1.2 £t3/day Plant with Pa-233 Recovery 12,556,000 1,103,000 12 :E"bs/de.y Plant with ' Pa-233 Recovery 25,750,000 2,241,000 1.2 £t3/3day Plant with Pa-233 Discard 10,188,000 The chemical processing scheme consisted of volatilizing uranium as UFg by treating the molten salt with elemental fluorine at about 550°C. The hexa- fluoride was then collected by absorption on NaF and condensation in cold traps, reduced to UF4 in a Ha-Fp flame, dissolved in make-up salt, and re- cycled to the reactor. Make-up fuel was supplied by purchasing fully en- riched J-235. The 1Li, Be and Th components of the fuel were discarded with fission product waste. NOTICE This document contains information of a preliminary nature and wos prepared primarily for internal use at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory. It is subject to revision or correction and therefore does not represent a final report, The information is not to be abstrocted, reprinted or otherwise given public dis- semination without the approval of the ORNL patent branch, Legei ond Iinfor- matian Control Department, E’* —— T = E‘ | 2 R = E . i o : \ ? i L‘EG_AL NOTICE This report was prepared as an mccount of Gonmment sponsond worl: Neither the Uniteé S!uus, nor the Commission, nor any person acting on behaolf of the Commission: A. Mokes sny warranty or representation, expressed or implied, with respect to the eccurecy,' eomplotoneu, or usefulness of the information contained in this report, or thot the use of ony information, epperotus, mofhnd ‘or process disclossd in thll ropofl may ot infringe privately owned rights; or ) _ B. Assumes any liabilities with respsct to fln vse of, or for damoges usolflng from |Iu use of any informotion, apparatus, method, or process disclosed in this repart. . As used in the above, “person acting on behalf of the Commission® Inelndcs any. cmployoe ot contractor of the Commission, or employes of such contractor, to the extent thot such amployee or controctor of the Commission, er- -employes of such contractor _prepares, disseminates, or’ _ ) ‘ provides access to, ony information pursuant 1o his employment or contract with the Commiufon, 7 7 7 - - or his employment with such contractor. = - ‘ ‘ P o * e g R S s e - e e e A Ao 1 o B S (' 0 A\ b it 1 ’ 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 CONTENTS ABSTRACT SUMMARY INTRODUCTION 2.1 2.2 Reactor Description Design Bases PROCESSING MOLTEN FILUCRIDE SALTS 3.1 3.2 33 3.1 3.5 3.6 Pre-Fluorination Storage Flucrination Waste Storage Na¥ Absorption Cold Trap Reduction and Fuel Make=-up PROCESSING PIANT DESIGN L.l h.2 k.3 bl 4.5 Decay Heat Removal Equipment Design Prefluorination Storage Tanks Fluorinator CRP Trap and Abscrbers Cold Traps Reduction Reactor Fuel Make-up Pa-233 Decay Storage System Interim Waste Storage Tanks Freeze Valves Line Heating Samplers Refrigeration Shielding Calculations Source Strength Geometry Process Equipment Layout Plant Layout Site locaticon o o OO0 W ® CONTENTS ~- contd 1.5 Over-all Plant layout 5.0 6.0 7.0 Processing Area Pa-233 Decay Storage Waste Storage Crane Maintenance Area Contaminated Equipment Storage Decontamination Cell Canyon Shop Railrocad Dock Control Room Sample Gallery Iaboratories Offices Service Areas CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE 5.1 Accounting Procedure 5.2 Bases of Estimates Process Equipnment Building 5.3 Process Equipment Capital Cost 5.4 Building Capital Cost 5.5 Total Capital Cost OPERATING COST ESTIMATE 6.1 Operating Manpower 6.2 Summary of Direct Operating Costs CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE OF MODIFIED 1.2 Fr3/DAY PIANT T.1 Modifications 7.2 Process Equipment T.3 Waste Storage 7.4 Process Building 7.5 Total Plant Cost 7.6 Economic Advantage 6L 6L 65 65 66 66 70 1.0 SUMMARY Capital cost and operating cost estimates have been prepared for two on-site fluoride volatility processing plants. The respective plants are designed to treat 1.2 and 12 £t3/day of an irradisted LiF-BeF,,~ThF) -UF,, fuel from a Molten Salt Converter Reactor (MSCR) which has a conversion ratio of about 0.8. The uranium-free fuel has the compcsition 68-23-9 mole % LiFmBngwThFh; approximately 0.66 mole % UF& is required for crit- icality in the equilibrium reactor. The assumed reacztor and chemical processing plant environment is a 1000 Mwe (ca. 2500 Mwt) central power station. This power is generated in a single reactor which is 15 ft in diameter by 15 ft high. The one- region system is 90 vol % graphite and 10 vol % fuel contained in an INOR-8 shell. Heat is removed by circulating the molten fuel salt through the core and external heat exchangers at an average temperature of approx- imately 1200°F. Spent fuel is removed semi-continuously every 3-5 days for reprocessing; make-up fuel (U-235 + Th) is added on the same schedule. Total fuel volume is 1780 fts, The chemical reprccessing plant utilizes fluoride volatility to re- cover decontaminated uranium. Neither thorium nor the carrier salt (1IiF + BeFe) is recovered; both are discarded as waste with the accom- ranying fission products. In one phase of this study the waste salt was retained 135-175 days to allow Pa-233 decay and recovery by a second fluosrination. In a second phase of this study protactinium was discarded with the waste salt immediately after fluorinstion. After fluorinationm, all of the recovered UFE is burned in a Hg”Fé flame for reduction to UF# which is dissolved in make-up IiF-BeF2=ThEu and returned to the reactor. Make-up uranium (U-235) is also added at this point. The accuracy and confidence level of any cost estimate depends upon the amount of design detail. In this study all of the process operations were considered in enough detail for preliminary designs of vessels and equipment; complex vessels were considered mcre carefully to permit more reliable cost estimation. The process building was laid out for conven- ience of process operations and maintenance and was patterned after de- signs of cother remctely operated plantsl that are the products of several years experience and study. Cognizance was taken of the fact that the reactor and chemical plant are an integral operation and can share cer- tain facilities. The treatment of protactinium in this study was made in the two ways mentioned above to determine if there were sufficient value in the protactinium to justify its recovery from the waste. The capital cost cf the 1.2 ft3/day plant was estimated for the cases of complete Pa-233 discard and for Pa retention until the undecayed Pa amounted to only 0.1% of the bred uranium. The economics favored complete Pa discard since considerable process equipment and building space were required for this "dead" storage. A more complete evaluation of the process might reveal that more favorable economics result from & nominal extension of the prefluorination storage period allowing more Pa-233 decay at this point. Increased process equipment, building and inventory charges would have to be compared with the value of additional Pa recovery. This lat- ter analysis was not made in this study. The estimated capital costs cf the two fluoride volatility plants are $12,556,000 and $25.750,000, respectively, for the 1.2 ft3/day and 12 ft3/day plants for the case in which the waste is retained for Pa-233 decay and recovery. For the case of complete Pa-233 discard, a capital cecst of $10.188,000 was estimated fer the 1.2 fts/flay plant. A summary ¢f the ccst data is given in Table 1.1, and these same data are plotted in Fig. 1.1, 1In drawing the curve, 1t is assumed that the cost data can be represented by a straight line on a log-log plot. The slope of this curve is 0,312 which may be compared with a value of 0.6 that is custom- arily associated with a capital cest vs capacity curve for a chemical plant. The lower value fcor the slope suggests that more favorable re- processing economics will be realized with large processing plants. irect cperating costs for each of the plants employing Pa recovery were calculated and are summarized in Table 1.2. The labor charges corre- spond te 104 employees for the 1.2 ft3/day plant and 133 for the 12 ft3/day plant. It is of interest to note the relationship between operating and capital costs for each of the plants. When the operating cost is divided by the corresponding capital investment; the operating charge rate be- comes 8.77%/year and 8.61%/year for the 1.2 and 12 ft3/day capacities, respectively. These charges may be compared to a value of 15%/year that has been found to be generally applicable in the chemical industry. In the analysis of the 1.2 fts/day plant employing Pa-233 discard, the on=-site, interim waste storage time was optimized. The optimization was carried cut by considering cn-site storage costs versus salt mine permanent storage ccsts as a function of the age of the waste salt. The lowest tctal storage cost appeared to cccur for an on-site holdup of about 1100 days hefcre shipping toe permanent storage. Table 1l.1. Total Installed Equipment and Building Cost General Construction Overhead (22% of Total Installed Equipment and Building Cost) Total Construction Cost Architect Engineering and Inspection (15% of Total Construction Cost) Subtotal Project Cost Contingency (20% of Subtotal Project Cost) Total Project Cost Summary of Capital Costs for On-Site, Fluoride Volatility Plants 1.2 ft3/Day Plant 12 ft3/bay Plant with Pa-233 with Pa-=233 Recovery Recovery 7,458,100 15,294,700 1,640,800 3,36k4,800 9,098,900 18,659,500 1,364,800 25,798,900 10,h33,700 21, ;400 2,092,300 _4,291,300 12,556,000 25,750,000 1.2 ft3/nay Plant with Pa-233 Discard 6,052,000 1,331,000 7,383,000 1,107,000 8,590,000 1,698,000 10,188,000 Table 1.2. Summary of Direct Operating Costs for Two Fluoride Volatility Plants Chemical Consumption Utilities Iabor Maintenance Materials Total Direct Operating Cost Ratio of Operating Cost: Capital Cost Cost ($/year) 1.2 £t5/da 12 £t /aay 10,340 68,950 34,930 185, 500 757,200 900,300 300,100 1,085,800 1,102,600 2,240,600 8.77 %/yr 8.61 %/yr UNCLASSIFIED ORNL-LR-DWG 74109 CAPITAL. COST, Million & 0.1 1.0 10.0 10t PLANT CAPACITY, Ft?® Sait/ Day Fig. 1.1 Fluoride Volatility Processing Plant Cost for an On-Site Facility to Process MSCR Fuel. .o\ 2.0 INTRODUCTION The utilization of thorium as a reactor fuel is being investigated in several reactor systems which show promise of having a breeding ratio greater than unity or at least a high conversion ratio, that is, a conpversion ratio greater than about 0.5. This report covers that portion of a study concerned with processirg spent molten fluoride salt from a one-region, converter reactor for recovery of decontaminated uranium, It is the purpose of this study to develop capital cost data for fluoride volatility processing plants capable of processing 1.2 and 12 ftB/day cf A nolten fluoride fuel, 2.1 Reactor Description The reactor for which the chemical plant has been designed is fueled with a molten salt mixture that is basically 68-23-9 mcle % LiF-BeF,-ThF) containing sufficient UFy, ca. 0.66 mole %, to maintain criticality. The reactor is a one-region assembly whose core has the approximate composition of 10 vol % fuel solution and 90 vol % graphite; the geometry is a right circular cylinder about 15 £t diameter by 15 ft high. Fission energy is removed by circulating the fuel solution through the core and an intermediate heat exchanger which is cooled by a barren. salt solution. The barren salt in turn dissipates the heat in a steam generator which produces 1000CF steam at 2000 psia. The average reactor temperature is 1200%F. The assumed enviromment for the reactor is that of a central, power-producing facility generating 1000 Mwe at a thermodynamic efficiency of approximately 42.3%. This load is committed to one reactor supplying steam to two turbo-generator sets. The calculated fuel volume for the station is 1780 ft3. The total uranium inventory, which includes all isotopes from U-233 to U~258, is about 4200 kg; of this total the fissionable component, U-233 + U-235, is in the range 2627 to 2815 kg depending upon the processing rate. In addition the system contains 52,000 kg Th and 90.7-96 kg Pa-233. For this study it was assumed that the system had a nowinal conversion ratio of 0.8, the remainder of the fuel being supplied by purchase of fully enriched U-235. 10 2.2 Design Bases In any study of this type the accuracy and confidence level of the results depends upon the amount of design detail. More or less arbitrary design bases were established to govern the extent of the study and to augment those design conditions which were more firmly established. In this respect the following rules were follcowed: l. The chemical processing plant and reactor power station would be an integrated facility; i.e., on-site processing. The design would be based as much as possible on existing tech- nology; extrapolation of technology would be done only when absolutely necessary. A cost estimate would be made for each of two plants~-one processing fuel at a rate corresponding to an estimated optimum reactor cycle time, and a second processing fuel at an estimated minimum reactor cycle time. These two estimates would then be uged to determine processing costs at other processing rates by interpolation or extrapolation. In doing this it would be assumed that the capital cost versus throughput data could be represented by a straight line on a log-log plot. For this study the processing rates were 1.2 and 12 f£t°/day of fuel containing respectively 2.83 and 28.3 kg U/day. The fluoride vaolatility process would be used to recover uranium which would be returned in tofo to the reac%or. No thorium or LiF-BeF2 carrier salt would be recovered but would be discarded as waste with the accompanying fission products. This was a necessary decision because no developed process exists for separating LiF-BeFp-ThF) salt from fission products. The waste salt, which contains Pa=-233, would be held for Pa decay and recovery until the undecayed Pa amounted to only about 0.1% of the bred U~233. rAfter the second fluorination, waste salt would be held 1000 days for fission product decéy before transport to permenent waste storage. (See Section 7.0 for a modification of this basis.) 9) ak “) +) 6. pThe.chemical'processingplant would share certaih facilities - with the reactor plant, Teley cooling water, potable water, stack, electrical services, steam, compressed air, storm and | sanitary sewers, railroad and barge docks, shipping and .receiving facilities, etc. These services were assumed avall- able from the reactor site. The chemical plent bore the cost of extending the services and, in the case of the stack, bore the cost of increasing the stack size. T. The extent of the design would be that which'completely defined the process to ‘the point of having & preliminary design on all -major process equipment. Building and auxiliary service space would be determined in the light of biologleal shield require- 'ments and accepted operating practices for a remotely maintained . radiochemical plant._ In this regard experience and studiesl’ on the Savannah River type plant were referred to for design of several areas of the building. 3.0 PROCESSINGMOL‘I‘EN_ FLUORIDE SALTS The fluoride volatility;plant:for processing the irradiated fuel '}is'assumed‘to be lcceted adjacent to the reector area so that fuel trensfer "cen be made by apprOpriately heated,pipe lines. Inside the chemical plant the process operations are carried out according to the flcwsheets of Figs. 3.1 and 3.2 for the 1.2 and 12 ft3/day plants, respectively. The "two flowsheets are quite similar and incorpcrate the same process steps. VVL There are slight differenoes, however, brought about by the quantity | f;{%of fuel handled and- size of process equipment, for example, in preflor- rffggination storage and. Pa-233 decay storage. The fuel solution is & rather camplex mixture cf mol ten fluoride ' f'ftsalts of fertile, fissionable, end fissicn product nuclides. The major :i-icqmponents are LiF, BeF2, ThFu, UFu, ‘and, Pth. —'r*",,.;p o 31 Prefluorination Storage - Extremely radioactive fuel solution, which will be only a few . minutes old, must be allowed to decay before fluorination to preclude - UNCLASSIFIED kg/d Uy = 0.537 . U, = fimiongble vranlum Th o 2,08 FISSION U: = totgl uronfum (includes fasionable and : - ORNL-LR-DWG £3505 non-fisslonabie 'P'c'.l) pm—— NGF = 5,2 ltg/d —II-—NOF w52 l(fl/d REACTOR kp/d ke/d _ SYSTEM U, = 1,898 U = 1904 d d P = 2500 Mwt u: = 2.831 : U: = 2,838 Y : EL v kg/d V = 1780 #3 Pa = 0,06113 PRE~FLUORINATION Po = 0,08458 Up = 1.904 NoF Up = 1,904 o BR = 0.8 Th = 35.05 ‘szoucs Th = 25.05 . FLUORINATION U, = 2.638 o] assotrmion Uy = 2.838 . COLe 3‘ . ig&g :: kp/d wr % 1203;“ kg/d wt % ~ 500°C UFg = 4.22 ko/d 100-400°C UFg = 4,22 kg/d -50%C -n: = 52,000 kg UF, = 375 3,4 UF, = 376 3.65 : & ¢+ ThFy =46.54 45,2 ThF, = 46.54 45.22 t ppts g UF. .62 3170 urd 3262 3170 Fp = 0.462 ko/d : BaFy = 1999 19.43 BeFy = 19.99 19,42 : - ‘ W~ W Up = 1.904 33.98 1/d . U = 2.838 v / Vv = 33.98 I/d s =422 Y] ) d ¥ Uy = 2.498 . kg/! U, = 343 FUEL Up = 1.957 _ Up = 1.957 CYLINDER Th = 37.11 MAKE UP Lo U, = 2,89 . REDUCTION _ U, = 2.89 COLLECTION kg/d wt % - UF, = 2.83 kg/d UFg —UFy | UF, = 4.30 kg/d L ~90%C kp/d % 1200°F 4 o/ 6 6 o/ 4 plo UF, = 0.71 0.0 _ é, =49.27 4802 A - UF= 3262 .7 kg/d . L...... BeF., = 19.99 19.48 W = ‘ Hy = 0.0248 ko/df 2 _ A = 054 . Yoze~ ™ =370 v = 23.98 I/d kg/d wt % UFg = 4548 427 Thiy = 49.27 4630 UF = 3262 20.65 Bef, = 19.99 1878 ™ ke/d : d : ke _ Po-223 Uy = 0,05252 vV =33,98 1/d - Pa = 0.05458 DECAY Pa = 0.002063 coLp . Th = 35,08 o stosace Th = 35,05 FLUORINATION o TRAP : Up = 0.05252 kg/d - k ~ : - , bl w% 130 DAYS k/d wt% 500°C -s0°C UF, = 0.0762 ko/d ThF, = 4654 44,60 1200°F UFy = 0.0696 0,067 LF= 32.42 3126 ThFy =48.54 44.57 kg/d BaFp = 19.99 19.16 LIF = 3262 3124 . WASTE NoF = 52 4,98 Befp =19.99 1914 I Pa = 0,002063 . STORAGE PERMANENT Ty - Nef = 52 498 Th = 35.05 IN CANAL » WASTE V = 35.84 1/d a2 kg/d wt% FP DECAY _ STORAGE b Vv = 35.84 i/d ) © T ThE, = 4654 44.60 1000 DAYS ' - : : Lf = 3262 312 200-500% ::? - 1999 19,18 = 52 498 £y = 0.00856 kg/d vorE V=248 I/d Fig. 3.1 Molten Salt -Convérter Reactor. Process Flowsheet fo;:' al.2 ':E't3 /day Fluoride Volatility Plant. FISSION UNCLASSIFIED ORNL-LR-DWG 65585 R1 Uf = fissionable uranium Uy = total uranium (includes fissionable and non-fissionable species) POWER NaF = 10 kg/d m———— —NaF = 16,38 kg/d REACTOR ko/d kg/d SYSTEM — Up = 17.71 Up = 18.035 v kg/d v kg/d P = 2500 Myt Uy = 28.635 U. = 16.035 U. = 18.035 Vo= 1780 fr PRE-FLUORINATION Pa = 0.322 §T £ BR = 0.8 STORAGE ™ 30 FLUGRINATION U, = 28.635 Aasg::n On Uy = 28,635 _| coLp map Up = 2627 kg 27.5 DAYS o - ~ 500° = > = . - -50°C o = 200 g e kg/d wt % 500°C UF, = 42.6 kg/d 100-400°C UF, = 42.6 ko/d Th = 52,000 kg 3.64 UF, = 37.97 3.69 Po = 96 kg ThF, = 465.4 45.23 ThF, = 465.4 45.21 t o= 189, LFS 3262 3170 LFS 3262 3169 Fa = 4.67 kg/d NaF - 6.38 kg/d BeFy = 199.9 19.43 BeF, = 199.9 19.42 1029.0 107%.47 U, = 18.035 kg/d V = 339.8 I/d v = 339,8 1/d U, = 28.635 kg/d WhsTE (UFg = 42.6 kg/d) STORAGE kg/d HF = 4,96 kg/d — k kg/d Up = 18.894 kg/d " 1_3935 X U, = 29,494 U; = 18.353 F= o CYLINDER t EL = Th = 352.6 M;fiE e Up = 28.953 REDUCTION Yy = 28,953 COLLECTION ke/d wt% 1200%F UF, = 38.36 kg/d UF g UF, UFg = 43.074 ko/d ~90°C UF, = 39.076 3.78 48 psia ThFy = 468.1 45,30 A A LifF = 3262 31.57 kg/d BeF, = l199.93 19.35 U = 0.541 H, = 0.248 kg/d v = 39 8 I/d Ih - 3524 B ) kg/d wt % UFg = 0716 0072 Thiy = 468.1 47.05 LiF = 3262 3279 BeF, = 1999 20.09 kg/d “2 9945 ke/d Pan233 Up = 0318 Pa = 0.322 a-~ Pa = 0.0039 FLUORINATION Th = 350.5 DECAY Th = 350.5 U = 0.318 ko/d COLD TRAP Up = 0.318 kg/d STORAGE > ka/d wt % 175 DAYS ka/d wh % ~ 500°C UFg = 0.474 ko/d -50°C UFg = 0.474 ko/d Thi, = 465.4 46.47 1200°F UF, = 0422 0.04 Lif'= 326.2 32,57 T%‘I‘ 4= 465.4 46,45 kg/d WASTE BeF, = 199.9 19,96 LiF = 3262 32.56 Pa = 0.0039 STORAGE MNoF = 10.0 1.00 BeFy = 199.9 19.95 I Th = 3:505 IN CANAL PERMANENT 10075 Naf = 100 1L0OO : 2 »l WASTE vV - 3434 1/ 10077 ka/d wt % FP DECAY STORAGE Vo= 3434 i/d , ThF, = 465.4 46,47 1000 DAYS - 0.052 kg/d LiF = 326.2 32.57 800° BeFy = 199.9 19,9 200-800°F Fig. 3.2 Molten Salt Converter Reactor. Process NoF = 10 1.00 10075 Flowsheet for a 12 ft3day Fluoride Volatility Plant. €T A extremely stringent design requirements on the fluorinator. Because of a rather high corrosion rate of about one mil per hour of fluorination time, it_is desirable to have the fluorinator designed as inexpensively as possible and accessible for quick replacement. If the fluorinator were required to dissipate excessive quantites of fission product decay heat plus heat from the exothermic fluorination reaction, the vessel would have to be constructed somewhat like an expensive heat exchanger;B* frequent replacement of such a vessel would create an intolerable expense. Conse- quently, a basis of design was that fuel would be held until the fission | product activity was low enough that the fluorinetor could dissipate its heat load by radiation and convection to the cell environmment. For the two plants the feollowing prefluorination conditions were egtablished: 1.2 ftB/Day Plant 12 ftB/Day Plant Batch size (ft5) 3,6 60 Withdraw batch from reactor every 3 days 5 days No. storage vessels 2 6 Average storage time (days) T 27.5 Average storage temperature (°F) 1200 1200 3.2 Fluorination After prefluorination cocoling the molten salt mixture is fluorin- ated hatchwise at about SOOOC te quantitatively remove uranium as < olatile UF6. Relatively few fission products form veolatile fluorides o the decontamination factor in fluorination is quite high. The 0 principal fission product fluorides that volatilize are those of Ru, Nb, Zr, Cs, Mo and Te. Fuel from the small plant (k.5-day cooling) would alsc contain some 8-day I-131 which would be exhausted with the product in fluorination. However, laboratory testsli have shown that icdine can be effectively separated from UF6 in the NaF absorption step. “Nete Figs. 4.3 and k.4 for examples of cooling equipment for radioactive molten salt solutions. Little, if any, protactinium is expected to volatilize during fluorination so that the barren waste salt contains potentially fissile material . The waste stream is retained to allow Pa-233 to decay to & tolerably low level; U-233 is then recovered in a second fluorination. 3.3 Waste Storage After the second fluorination, barren salt containing the bulk of the fission products is held in interim storage for about 1000 days to rermit fission product activity to decrease to a level that dces not complicate transportation to permanent waste storage. During this pericd containers of waste salt wouid be stored in thimbles in a canal for heat dissipation to the canal water. The chosen storage pericd is a more or less arbitrary figure and might be shortened appreciabtly by appropriate waste carrier design. After 1000 days cooling, it should be possible to transport the waste containers without auxiliary cocling facilities on the carrier. At this point it should be noted that all carrier salt plus thorium is discarded as waste. This is necessary since there is no developed process for removing fission products from the mixture. Lithium is the most valuable component since it is 99.995 at. % Li-T; however, the larger amount of thorium present makes it almost as important in terms of teotal caost. 3.4 NaF Absorption After leaving the fluorinator, UF6 and the accompanying volatile Tission products pass into a NaF abscorption system. This system basical- ly consists of two distincet zones defined according to function: Zone 1 is a high temperature (~ 400°C) zone (the so-called CRP or Complexible Radiocactive Products trap) for removal by complexing or filtration of Tission or corrosion product fluorides and entrained salt. Zone 2 is the UF6 absorpticn~desorption zone operated at lOOOC for absorption and at 400°C for desorption. Chromium is quite effectively removed in the CRP trap, ruthenium is distributed throughout the Nal beds with some passing into the F2 disposal system, and zirconium, niobium, cesium, strontium and rare earths are quite effectively removed in the CRP trap and the NaF absorption-desorption system. Uranium hexafluoride absorbs on sodium fluoride by formation of the UF6'5 NeF complex. However, the complex does not form at temperatures as high as hOOOC, SO UF6 passes through the CRP trap and is caught in the 100°C absorption zone. At the completion of the bateh fluorination, the 100°C absorption zone is heated to 400°C at which temperature UF6 is desorbed and moved from the bed with fluorine carrier gas. Fission product fluorides are not so easily desorbed and remain on the bed. Decontamination factors of the order of 1000 are observed in the absorption-desorption step. The CRP trap and absorption zone may be integrated into a single unit for convenience of disposing of spent NaF by discharge into the fluorinator and then to waste storage. This method of disposing of NaF has been employed in pilot plant operation where there is no protactinium in the salt. For these plants in which protactinium recovery is necessary it may not be pracfical to use this design. Instead it may be necessary to discharge NaF into the waste salt after the second flucrination. The design capacity of NaF for UF6 is 21 kg UF6 per cubic foot of NaeF. For large batch fluorinations, the CRP trap and UF6 absorber secztions may for convenience be separated. The second fiuorinatior after Pa-233 decay storage is not followed by NaF absorption (see Figs. 3.1 and 3.2) for two reasons. TFirst, at this pcint there are no volatile fission product flucrides to contaminate the product; second, the quantifty of UF6 is small and can be caught in a cold trap. 5.5 Cold Trap During the desorption cycle UF6 is moved from the absorber in a stream of fluorine intc a =old trap maintained at about -50°C. Uranium hexafluoride desublimes and is ccllected; fluorine is recovered for reuse or discarded. A convenient means of disposing of fluorine is by 17 reaction with charcoal. When a batch has been collected on the cold trap, temperature and pressure are raised to slightly above triple point conditions and UF6 is drained into a ccllection cylinder. 3.6 Reduction and Fuel Make-up The fuel cycie is completed by reducing UF6 1e) UF& and reconsti- tuting the tetrafluoride into molten salt reactor fuel., The hexafluoride is evaporated from the collection cylinder into a Héan flame in ths presence of excess hydrogen where reduction occurs. = T 2 A UF6 + H2 UF4 + 2HF By-product hydrogen fluoride may be recovered or sbsorbed in a caustic solution, Green salt (UFA) falls directly into a dissolver containing molten LiF-BeFE—ThFuuUFh make-up salt., Before entering the dissolver, make-up salt is given a pretreatment H2~HF sparge lasting about four days as a purification measure to remove oxides. Oxides are detrimental to molten fiuoride fuel stablility in that‘they causc precipitation of uranium oxide. After recycled UFH has dissclved, the fuel mixture is fed directly to the reactor fuel system. 4.0 PROCESSING PLANT DESIGN 4.1 Decay Heat Removal A major problem in the design of all process vessels which contain short-cooled, highly irradiated fuel is that 6f heat removal. Heat densities are so high that large cooling areas have to be designed into relatively-small volumes. In the case of the molten salt system the temperature of the heat source is considerablj greater than that of a conventional heat sink such as cooling water, a fact which introduces design problems in thermal stress and meximum allowable heat transfer rates. An alternate cooling system that can be considered is an intermediate heat fransfer medium éapable of convenient use up to molten fluoride salt temperatures, thereby considerably lessening the proklems 18 mentioned above. Such a cooling medium could be molten NaK alloy, sodium or barren salt. Since a considerable quantity of heat is associated with the decaying fuel (Note Tebles 4.1 and 4.2), it is pertinent to consider whether or ndt the heat should be rejected or recovered. The large plant has an average heat release rate of about 3,6 Mwt; the small plant, 1.8 Mwt. These rates represent 0.1l% and 0.07%, respectively, of the nominal 2500 Mwt power station output. The choice of the cooling system depends upon the decision to reject or recover heat, and, if recovered, to what ultimate use will the energy be put. A logical choice would be to use the heat in the reheat or superheat cycles in the power station or, perhaps,; as preheat for boiler feed water. In the first instance a high temperature coolant such as NaK would be required to transport the heat at an elevated temperature level. For heating feed water either cooling water or liquid metal transport of the heat should be satisfactory. In this design it was decided that all decay heat would be rejected and that cooling water would be used for transport around all vessels except the fluorinators which would be air cooled. It did not appear to be economic to design a liquid metal cooling and heat recovery system into the chemical plant - reactor plant complex in the case of either of the two plants in this study. Furthermore, this study indicates that a process- ing rate of 12 ft5/day is unecononic for a power station as small as 2500 Mwt; a chemical plant of this size would be built only in conjunc- tion with a much larger power-producing complex - perhaps 5 to 10O times as large. In such a multi-megawatt system, it is reasonable to think of this waste heat being recovered in one of the reactor stations. The complete cooling system for decay heat removal from both plants is shown schematically in Fig. 4#.1. For the most part heat is transferred across an air gap,for secondary containment of either leaking salt or water, into cooling water surrounding the secondary vessel or thimble. The principal heat transfer mechanism is radiation; convection accounts for perhaps 5 to 10 percent of the transfer. The flucrinators are cooled by air circulating through the cell. Only in the case of the initial catch tanks in prefluorination storage is it necessary to use a TABLE k4.1 DECAY HEAT IN MOLTEN SALT CONVERTER REACTOR FUEL WITHDRAWN FOR CHEMICAL PROCESSING 1.2 Ft°/Day Plant Iength of Time Fuel Has Been OQut of Tank Volume Maximum Heat Release Average Heat Release Tank No. Reactor (days) (£15) BTU/Tir T BTU/hr K Pre ~ Flucrination Storage 1 0-3 3.6 9.748 x 10° 286 2,000 x 10° 58.6 2 36 5.6 1552 x10° k5.5 1.356 x 10° 39.7 Total 7.2 11.300 x 10° 331.5 3.356 x 10° 97.3 Pa-233 Decay Storage 3= = 1 6=12 7.2 24,39 x 10 71.5 23.1% x 10 67.8 2 12-18 7.2 19.91 x 10lL 58.3 19.18 x 10“ 5.2 3 18-2k 7.2 17.21 x 10" 50.4 16.69 x 10" 58,9 4 230 7.2 15.29 x 10” L. 8 14,91 x 10LL 43,7 5 230-36 7.2 13.84 x 10h 40.6 13.55 x 10h 29,7 6 36-L2 7.2 12.71 x 101‘L 37.2 12,47 x 1oh 36,5 7 4218 7.2 1L.79 x 10h 34,5 11.59 x 10h 34,0 8 48-5k 7.2 11.03 x 10h 32.% 10.86 x 1oh 31.8 9 54-60 7.2 10.38 x 1ou 30.4 10.23 x 10h 30.0 10 60-66 ’ 7.2 .82 x 107 28.8 9.60 x 10% 284 11 656=T2 7.2 9.33 x 10lL 27.3 9.22 x 10l+ 27.0 12 72-78 7.2 8.90 x ::.ol‘L 26.1 8.80 x 10h 25.8 13 78-84 7.2 8.50 x 1ou 2h.g 8.41 x 10h 2,6 ik 84-90 7.2 8.1k x 10h 23.8 8.06 x 10h 23,0 15 90-96 7.2 7.82 x 10h 22.9 T.7h x 1ou 22,7 16 96-102 7.2 T.52 % 10lF 22,0 T 45 x 10h 21.8 17 102-108 7.2 7.24h x 10LL 21.2 7.18 x 10L|r 21.0 18 108-114% 7.2 6.99 x 101‘L 20.5 6.9% x 101‘L 20.3 19 114120 7.2 6.75 x 10J+ 19.8 6.69 x 10lL 19.5 61 TABLE 4.1 - contd length of Time Fuel Has Been Qut of Tank Volume Maximum Heat Release Average Heat Release Tank No. Reactor (days) (£t3) BIU/br k| BTO/hr ~ Kw 20 120-126 7.2 G.52 x 10l+ 19.1 6.47 x 10h 19.0 21 126-132 7.2 6.31 x 10" 18.5 6.26 x 10" 18.3 22 132-138 7.2 6.12 x 10" 17.9 6.07 x 10" 17.8 Total 158. 4 236 x 10i €93 232 x 103 678 Interim Waste Storage 1 138-146 9.6 7.861 % 10h 23.0 7.845 x th 23.0 13 23424 9.6 5.167 x 1olL 15.1 5.160 x th 15.1 25 330-338 9.6 3.809 x 10% 11.2 3.805 x 10% 11.1 38 h3h-Lh2 9.6 3.029 x 10% 8.9 3,027 x 10t 8.9 50 53%0-53%8 9.6 2.517 x 10h 7.4 2.515 % 10h 7.4 63 634-5h2 9.6 2.175 x 10t 6.4 2,175 x 10* 6.4 75 730-738 9.6 1.919 x 10br 5.6 1.917 x 10h 5.6 87 825-834 9.6 1.723 x 10l+ 5.0 1.723 x 10h 5.0 100 93%0-938 9.6 1.569 x 10h 4.6 1.569 x 10“ 4.6 112 102c-1034 9.6 1,443 x 10h . 2 1.5843 x 101‘L 4,2 125 1130-1138 9.6 1.339 x 10" 3.9 1.339 x 10" 3.9 Total 1200 351 x 10 1028 350 x 10 1025 0c Tank No. T WW o Total W1 v H =2 H E e W oE W MR O Length of Time Fuel Has Been Qut of Reactor (days) 0=5 5-10 10-15 1520 20-25 25-30 30-35 35-40 40-45 45-50 50-55 55-60 60-65 65-T0 TO-T5 75-80 80-85 85-90 90-95 95-100 TABLE 4.2 Tank Volume (£3) Pre - Fluorination Storage 2298 2122239 2888888 60 60 60 60 DECAY HEAT IN MOLTEN SALT CONVERTER REACTOR FUEL WITHDRAWN FOR CHEMICAIL PROCESSING 12 FtBZDay Plant Maximum Heat Release BTU/hr o 7.126 x 10 0.812 x 10 0.627 x 10 0.522 x 10 0.448 x 10 o O O Ow 9.535 x 10 Pa-2353 Decay Storage 3.935 x 10° 3,505 x 10° 3,166 x 10° 2.886 x 10° 2.655 x 10° 2.459 x 10° 2,290 x 107 2.144 x 107 2.016 x 10° 1.902 x 10° 1.800 % 105 1.707 x 10° 1.623 x 10° 1.547 x 10° 1.476 x 10 kv 2087 238 184 153 131 2795 115 103 92.8 8k.6 77.8 72.0 67.1 62.8 59.1 55.7 52.7 50,0 k7.6 45,3 3,2 Average Heat Release BTU/hr O 1.071 x 10 0.757 x 10 0.598 x 10 0.502 x 10 0.434k x 10 av Ov O O 3.362 x 10 3,720 x 107 3,336 x 107 5,026 x 10° 2.770 x 10° 2,557 x 107 2.37T4 x 107 2.217 x 10° 2.080 x 10° 1.959 x 107 1.851 x 10° 1.754 x 10° 1.665 x 10° 1.585 x 107 1.512 x 10° 1.4k x 107 kw 314 222 175 147 127 985 109 97.7 88.7 81.2 4.9 69.6 65.0 60.9 57. 4 54,2 51.4 48,8 4o, b 44,3 ko, 3 TC S Tank No. 16 17 18 19 21 22 25 24 a5 26 2238813 32 33 3h 35 50 100 150 250 350 450 500 " Total . 100=-105 105-110 110-115 115-120 120125 125-130 130=135 135-140 1h0-145 145-150 150-155 155-160 1604165 165-170 170-175 1754180 ~ 180-185 185-190 190-195 195.200 © 200-202 300302 koo-4o2 500-502 600-602 © 700-T02 800-802 900-902 1000-1002 1100-1102 1200-1202 Length of Time Fuel Haa Been Out of Reactor TABLE 4.2 - contd g | N = 8138288888838 88888888828 7 lume Maximum Heat Releape 1,12 x 10° 1.352 x 10° 1.296 x 10° 1.243 x 10° 1.19% x 10° 1,147 x J.o5 1.10k x 10° 1.063 x 10° 1,024 x 10° 0,988 x 10° 0,953 x 10° 0,920 x 10° 0,888 x 10° 0.858 x 10° 0.8%0 x 10° 0.802 x 105 0.776 x 10° 0.752 % 105 0.728 x 10° 0.706 x 107 55.1 x 10° _ Interim Waste Storage -0'.571_:: 10 ‘ Othl" x 1 = 2,757 x 10 1.584 x 10 1.0%0 x 10 0.749 x 10 = For e f- 2 0.577 x 10 0.321 x 10 0.278 x 10 0.246 x 10 0.202 x 10 355 x 10 vy + ¥ OF b 3.6 38.0 36.h 35.0 33.6 32.3 31.1 30.0 28.9 27.9 1.0 26.0 25.1 2k, 3 23.5 22,7 22,0 21.3 20.7 1615 8.02 k.64 3.05 2.19 1.67 1.33 1.10 . 0.9k 0.81 - 0.72 0.65 1040 0.7h7 x 10 Ave Heat Release §!§i§§ kv 1,382 x 10° 1.324 x 10° 1.270 x 10° 1.218 x 10° 1.170 x 10° 1.126 x 10° 1.08% x 10° 1.04h x 105 1.006 x 10° 0.971 x 10° 0.936 x 10° 0,905 x 10° 0.973 x 10° 0.829 x 105 0.816 x 10° 0.799 x 10° 0.764 x 10° 0.740 x 10° 0.717 x'10° 1 0.695 x 10° 53.5 x X = 2.720 x 10 1.576 x 10 1.036 x 10 = & K 0.570 x 10 0.h53 x 10 0.376 x 10 0.320 x 10 0.278 x 10 0.246 x 10 [ S N & 0.222 x 10 354 x 10 = k0.5 38.8 37.2 35.7 343 33.0 31.8 30,6 29.5 28,4 27.4 26.5 25.6 24,3 23.9 23.1 22.4 21.7 21.0 20.4 1568 T.97 462 3.0k 2,19 1.67 1,33 1.10 0.94 0.81 0.T2 0.65 1057 23 different design for removing heat. For these tanks a triple-walled bayonet arrangement is used to vaporize water in a large number of these bayonets immersed in the salt. L.2 Equipment Design Inasmuch as possible process equipment for this design study was patterned after previously designed and tested equipment for the ORNL volatility pilot plant as described by Milford and co~workers6 and Carr and co-workers,5 In other instances, equipment and design experience at ORGDP and ¥Y-12 were clcsely followed. Extrapolations in sizes were made in some cases for the large plant; however, it is believed that the limits of current technology aave nct been exceeded. Pertinent data on process equipment for both fluoride volatility plants are given in the Appendix on the equipment flowsheets, drawings E-46081 and E-46059. Pref'luorination Storage Tanks. Seven of these tanks are required for the 12 ftB/day plant and two for the 1.2 fta/day plant. Because of the large amount of fission product decay heat in “green" fuel which is only a few minutes old, these vessels are in effect heat exchangers. The proposed d.esign3 for the Molten Salt Reactor Experiment drain tanks has been adopted for the tanks which receive salt directly from the reactor. The MSRE design, shown in Fig., 4.2, was suitable in a scaled- down version for the 1.2 ft‘.i/day plant, but further modification was necessary for the 12 ftB/day plant as shown in Fig. 4.3 because of the exceptionally high heat release per unit volume of salt. Heat is dissipated by boiling water in the interior annuli of the bayonets which penetrate the vessel heads. The outer annulus of each bayonet contains an inert gas which is monitored for leak detection. Details of the bayonets are shown in Figs. 4.4 and 4.5. The bayonet in Fig, L.k corresponds to the vessel design of Fig. 4.2; the design of Fig. 4.5 corresponds to the vessel of Fig, 4.3. The 2 1/2 in. NPS, sch 10, sleeve surrounding each bayonet.in Fig. 4.5 is required to maintain a sufficiently thin salt layer around each bayonet. Irradiated Fuel From Reoctor Plus Fission Products UNCLASSIFIED ORNL-LR No. 66611-RI Cooling Water Cooling Water R i | J e 5ervoir Discharge To tock Discharge To River € mergency River Water Supply Condenser I ] T Air | p———=q. | R Mm4,JQW?____ r UFg To Product Recovery § | AT LiF -BeF,-ThF,-UF, Power | | | ! | —— e c—— —— PRE-FLUORINATION STORAGE FLUORINATION Pa DECAY STORAGE 1.2 12 1,2 12 1.2 12 ft¥day f1¥day ft¥doy ftIday 3oy 1300y No. Tanks 2 6 No. Tanks 2 2 No. Tanks 22 35 Volume Per Tonk (ft3) 3.6 60% vVolume Per Volume Per Tank (ft>) 7.2 60 Days Hoidup 3 25 Fluorination (f1>) 3.6 6 Days Hoidup 132 175 Maximum Heat Release (kw) 331.5 2793 Hours Holdup 5 5 Maxinum Heat Release {kw) 693 1616 Averoge Heat Release (kw) 973 985 Maximum Heat Averoge Heat Release (kw) 878 1568 Water Vaporized in Ist Tank (max gpm) 2 73 Release (kw) 455 575 Coolant Water Flow (mox gpm) 59 138 | Water Vaporized in Ist Tank {ovg gpm} 0.4 il Average Heat Coolant Water Flow (avg gpm) 58 133 Water Flow to Other Tanks (max gom) * % 602 Release { kw) 39.7 55 | 573 i e e s e e Water Flow to Other Tanks{ovg gpm) 3 ¥ Cooi(c.:':‘l"l;| T; i;low 700 885 Cooling Wter 3% ¥ Small plont contains only MSRE type x cim Intake From River bayonet coolers Coolant Air Flow ‘ ’ . {Avg cfm) 610 845 L ¥ Capacities of Tanks No. 1 &2= ] i Y. S "_ 30 f1lea. LiF - BeF, - ThF, + Fission Products o LRt e e e | | I ‘ | Water Discharge . — 1 To River | i ol | ! ! | INTERIM WASTE STORAGE 1.2 12 ft ¥day _ft Yoy No. Tanks 128 500 volume Per Tank (ft3) 9.6 24 Days Holdup 1600 1000 Maximum Heat Release (kw) 1028 1040 Average Heot Release (iw) 1025 1027 Coolant Woter Flow {mox gpm) 88 a8 Cootant Water Ftow (avg gpm) 87 as Fig. 4.1 Decay Heat Removal System for 1.2 ft3/day and 12 ft3/day'Fluoride Volatility Plant. U 25 UNCLASSIFIED ORNL-LR-DWG 61718 INSPECTION, SAMPLER, AND LEVEL PROBE ACGESS STEAM QUTLET STEAM DOME CONDENSATE RETURN WATER DOWNGOMER INLETS BAYONET SUPPORT PLATE CORRUGATED FLEXIBLE HOSE STEAM RISER STRIP WOUND FLEXIBLE BAYONET SUPPORT PLATE HCSE WATER DOWNGOMER HANGER CABLE GAS PRESSURIZATION AND VENT LINES INSTRUMENT THIMBLE FUEL SALT SYSTEM FiLL AND DRAIN LINE SUPPCRT RING FUEL SALT DRAIN TANK BAYONET HEAT EXCHANGER THIMBLES (32) TANK FILL LINE 3. FUEL SALT SYSTEM FILL AND DRAIN LINE TANK FILL LINE Fig. 4.2 Primary Drain and Fill Tank for MSRE 26 UNCLASSIFIED 5'-6" ORNL-LR Dwg. No. 66622 Salt Out 4 [ 0.25~ =—-|v i 0 Al N r. ! — l“ 7 —rpe— 25" NPS | Sch. 10 —¢ o ] L L 1 ‘\\\w I£" Sch. 40 y 24" NPS pipe cap Fig. 4.3 Pre-fluorination Storage Tank 12 ft3/day Plant. 27 UNCLASSIFIED ORNL-LR-DWG 60838A STEAM OUTLET FLEXIBLE HOSE BAYONET SUPPORT PLATE — L 3 z x _._._IL < = STEAM DOME LOWER HEAD DRAIN TANK HEAD ble. im Fig. 4.4 Bayonet Cooling Th 28 UNCLASSIFIED ORNL-LR Dwg. No. 66623 i .-~ STEAM OUTLET WATER INLET - _ STEAM DOME . —— FLEXIBLE HOSE LOWER HEAC e CRAIN TANK HEAL - 4 T T fiwm - SLEEVE 25" NPS Sch 10 ; ¢ : i ; 13" Sch 40 b wee 1" Sch 40 . e G £" oD x 0.042" WALL TR R A BT T R Fig. 4.5 Typical Cooling Bayonet 12 ft3/day Plant. 29 The 1.2 ftB/day plant contains two of the MSRE type tanks in the prefluorination storage system. The two tanks are used alternately. The 12 fti/day plant contains two bayonet-filled tanks of %0 ft5 capacity each and five other tanks of 60 ft5 capacity each, The five tanks are cooled by radiation and convection to water~jacketed thimbles as shown in Fig. 4.1. Four of the group of five tanks are for fission product decay storage and the fifth is a feed tank for the fluorinator. In cperation, fuel is held for five days in the two 5O-ft5 tanks and then transferred to one of the other storage tanks for the remaining 20 days storage. A prief description of the tanks required for prefluorination storage is given in Table 4.3 for both the 1.2 and 12 ftfifday plants, Teble 4,3, Prefluorination Storage Tank Requirements Nominal Size Days Storage No. Tanks Method of Cooling (£t) 1.2 £t°/Day Plant 0-3 > 49 bayonet tubes 1.94D x 1.94H" 12 ft5/pay Plant 05 p*¥ 295 bayonet tubes 5.5D x 5.5H" 5-15 2 water-jacketed thimble 3.2D x 7.6H 15«25 2 water-jacketed thimbie 3.2D x 7.6H Fluorinator feed 1 water-jacketed thimble 3.2D x 7.6H *Does not. include steam dome ¥ hese two tanks have 30 ft3 capacity. The large diameter is necessary to house the large nuwber of bayonet tubes in the inefficent salt storage arrangément required by the high heat release of the salt. 5 Fluorinator. The fluorinator design” is shown in Fig. 4.6; this is thé;vessel_that has been successfully operated in the ORNL fluoride volatility pilot plant. The vessel is shaped like a dumbbell having a Lower flucrination chamber and an upper de-entraimment section; the 30 UNCLASSIFIED ORNL-LR-DWG 392150 __~INSPECTION PORT LEAK DETECTION NOZZLE s —» PRODUCT OUTLET SOLIDS SETTLING CHAMBER VESSEL SUPPORT Ny SAMPLER NOZZLE l | __FLUORINATION CHAMBER (16-in.0D ) ! - FLUORINE INLET FURNAGE LINER \\‘é Ea l b DRAFT TUBE —xt __ WASTE SALT OUTLET\.E {7 ) 1 11 E*n-f’/ ‘ 1 QOOOGC N 0O 5 10 15_20 i —= ) INCHES " FURNACE Fig. 4.6 Fluorinator. lower assembly is enclosed in an electrically heated furnace, and the upper assembly is heated with electric strip heaters. Similar designs were used for these two studies; the large plant fluorinated 6-ft5 bateches, the small plant flucrinated 3,6-ft3 batches., The principal design criterion for the fluorinator is that the vessel be able to dissipate fission product decay heat and heat of reaction by radiatiorn and convection to the cell environment. Whereas, the vessel might be constructed like the prefluorination decay tanks with a large heat transfer capacit&g it is undesirable to do so because of the high corrosion rate during fluorination. It is advisable tp construct the vessel as simply and cheaply as pcssible since it must be rather frequently replaced. The vessel is made with thick, l/2~inch, walls with a corrosion rate allowance of one mil per hour of fluorination time. The preferred materials of construction for the fluorinator are either INOR-8 or Alloy 79-% (79% Ni, 4% Mc, 17% Fe). L-nickel has been used for fluorinator construction, but this material is quite susceptible to intergranular attack. CRP Trap and Absorbers. The CRP (Epmplexible radioactive Eyo&ucts) trap6 may he an integral part of the NaF absorber or the two units might be separated. In either case, operation of the units is a batch process, and the choice of an integral or separate installation depends upon the physical size of the units. In this case the 1.2 ftE/day plant could employ the integral unit; the 12 ftE/day plant required separate units. The CRP trap and absorber are filled with sodium fluoride pellets having a bulk specific gravity of C.9. The design absorption capacity of NaF is 21 kg UF6/ft5 NaF. The movable-bed absorber6 (Fig. 4.7) has been designed for the small plant to handle the quantity of UF6 from bateh fluorinations every three days. The bed operates semicontinuously by receiving fresh NaF pellets at the top and discharging fission-product saturated pellets at the bottom. It may not be feasible to discharge pellets into the fluorinator as shown in Fig. 4.7 in these plants because of contamination of Pa-233 still in 32 the waste salt. Important features of the unit are four separate electrically heated zones and an internal pipe for air cooling and thermocouples. The stationary-bed sbsorber (Fig. 4.8) as used in the 12 ft5/day plant contains just over one cubic foot of NaF; six absorbers are required for the 42.6 kg UF6/day rate. Each absorber is mounted in a lightweight, low-heat capacity electric furnace which is hinged for easy removal; the furnace permits operation between sorption (100°C) and desorption (MOOOC) temperatures. A 2.5-in. outside diameter tube extends down the center of the bed for admission of cooling aif; the tube also contains electric heaters. An interior cylindrical baffle causes gases to take U-shaped path through the bed. The governing design criteria for an absorber are the rate at which the bed can be temperature cycled and the bed thickness. The granular bed is a rather effective insulator and has to be made in thin sections to facilitate heating and cooling. Each absorber therefore has a large L/D ratio. When the bved becomes saturated with fission products, the absorber is removed, emptied and recharged remotely on a L4-5 day cyecle. Cold Traps. Cold traps for desublimaticn of UF6 being desorbed from the NaF beds are similar to those used in the ORNL volatility pilot plant. Two ftraps are mounted in series: The first, or primary trap, is operated at about -40°C; the second trap is a back-up trap operated a% about -60°C to catch any product that might have passed through the primary *rap. The two traps are shown in Figs. 4.9 and k.10, These two traps are identical to the ones required for the 1.2 ftj/day plant; the larger plant requires a longer primary frap, but the second trap is the same as for the small plant. The principal factor in design is the heat transfer rate. Adequate surface for UF6 collection must also be provided, Also the unit should have a low heat capacity to expedite temperature cycling between batch- wise zollections. During defrosting the cold traps are heated to about 90°C at a pressure of around 46 psia to allow melted UF, to drain to cellecticn cylinders. 33 UNCLASSIFIED ORNL-LR-DWG 50451 Y NaF CHARGING CHUTE 1Y5-in. NPS, SCHED-40 { AIR COOL- ING AND THERMOCOUPLES ) TO UFg TRAPS DESORPTION CYCLTEWT ABSORBER NO. 2 100 OR 400°C 5-in.NPS, SCHED-40 INCONEL TO CHEMICAL TRAP ’/ AND Fp DISPOSAL-=—p g | SORPTION CYCLE f ABSORBER NO.1 | 100 OR 400°C TRANSITION INCONEL-X 5-in. NPS, SCHED-80 INCONEL HYDRAULIC CYLINDER L ] Fig. 4.7 Movable Bed Temperature-Zoned Absorber. 3L UNCLASSIFIED ORNL-LR-DWG 39257 _—COOLING AIR INLET INLET [ pOUTLET 1/2-in. NPS —— SCHED 40 ELECTRICAL ROD- TYPE HEATERS, 4000-w TOTAL L—SIL-0-CEL INSULATING POWDER \\,__L I ) [ I o N y s T T i\ e R wrmmpmanil spay o e Ve x b P e /g x Vg —in. DIA - % 3 % 1 | NaF PELLETS— 6-in. NPS LI || MATERIAL: SCHED 40 ———— =k ’ INCONEL -y oy T > ¥ 4'/2-in. OD x [ Y/g-in. WALL——— - 24 in. 21/2—“'1. oD X | Yg-in. WALL————— 1§~ e R CrUsrre g pe : - A T ) TIII I I I I T . RS s Il g FRAL T - ( > AT TII I L LT . A7 1/4’ - l n . PL AT E‘/ \4\ [: T L THERMOCOUPLE WELLS< " Fig. 4.8 Sodium Fluoride Absorber for UFg4. - 12 " THERMOCOUPLE /37 ~ WELL —— 2 UNCLASSIFIED ORNL-L.R-DWG 19091 R-I| “~OUTLET END Fig. 4.9 Primary Cold Trap. HEATER N ~-——FILTER CARTRIDGES P Pl e e el T 12 = I 214' SCALE IN INCHES ¢t STRIP HEATER - 5ft 4in. 5ft Qin. I I 4 0O 4 8 INCHES 36 { “.\\ ‘\ 4 UNCLASSIFIED ORNL-LR-DWG 13088 R-I E 6-in. IPS SHELL (MONEL) T F X IT T T TN P TE » L L oF.d — ik __,gjj COPPER i BAFFLES . § ~THERMOCOUPLE - | | i i a4 i | Pig. 4.10 6-in. et WELL e ? f-r 2 in e WELL Cold Trap. 37 The rigorous design of a cold trap to prevent dusting or fogging of UF6 is difficult. However, considerasble design and operating experi~ 7 ence in both fields has been gained at ORGDP. The design shown in Fig. 4.9 was developed at ORGDP while that shown in Fig. 4.10 is an ORNL adaptation of ORGDP developments. Reduction Reactor. The UFé -—>-UF.LL reduction reactor for these plants is patterned after the one described by Mi,nlr'rr:a.y,:“'LL The reactor is a L-in. diameter by 10-ft high coluwmm having a capacity of 10-15 kg UFé/hr, Since even such & small reactor has a much greater capacity than required by either of these plants, the operation is batchwise, Uranium hexafluoride and fluorine are contacted with excess hydrogen in a nozzle at the top of the reactor. The hexafluoride is reduced to the tetrafluoride in the H2-F2 flame and is collected in a tank of molten carrier salt at the bottom of the column. Gaseous reaction products leave the reactor through a filter. Fuel Mske-up. Fuel make-up vessels are nothing more than heated, insulated vessels located partly in the radioactive processing area and partly in a cold make-up area. The cold make-up tanks are provided with lines for admission and removal of sparge gases, H2 + HF, needed in the purification procedure. Purification requires gas sparging for four days; the tanks are designed to operate on a five-day cycle. Pa-233 Decay Storage System. The design of & system for holding the waste stream for Pa-233 decay resolves into providing adequate heat dis- sipation from the several tanks. Batches have to be kept separated be- cause of the fixed decay storage requirement. In the 12 £t°/day plent, storage is carried out in 60-£t° batches equivalent to the quantity withdrawn every five days from the reactor. Fission product decay heat is removed by allowing the vessel to radiate to a water-jacketed thimble which surrounds the side and bottom of the tank. There are 36 tanks in the array; each tank has a nominal capacity of 60 ft3. Dimensicns are 4.5 £t diameter by 4.5 £t high. The jacketed thimble is about one foot larger in inside diameter than the storage tank. 38 The storage problem in the 1.2 ftB/day plant is similar to that of the larger plant, Heat is dissipated by radiation and convection from the vessel surface to a water-jacketed thimble. Twenty-four tanks are 5 needed, each having a nominal capacity of 7.2 ft7 and nominal dimensions of 1.66 ft diameter by 3.32 ft high. The jacketed thimble is about one foot larger in inside diameter than the storage tank. Interim Waste Storage Tanks. Interim waste storage tanks are sealed cylindrical containers made of stainless steel which can be used for permenent waste storage after the interim period. The tanks for the small plant are 16 in. diameter by 7 ft long and for the large plant, 2-ft diameter by 7.5 ft long. Thimbles in which the waste tanks rest while in the storage canal are made of stainless steel. Each plant has 15-ft long thimbles, but those in the small plant are 2-ft diameter while those in the large plant are 2.75-ft diameter. Freeze Valves. Conventional valves cannot be used on molten salt process lines. Instead, closures in lines are made by freezing a plug in the line using a Jjet of cooling air blowing across the area to be frozen. Conveniently located electric heaters are then used to thaw the line when flow is desired. A photograph of a proposed freeze valve installation for the MSRE is presented in Fig. W.1l. Line Heating. Whenever practical autoresistance heating will be used, Samplers. A rather complicated mechanism6 is required to remove analytical samples from a molten salt system as shown in Fig. 4.12. The pictured apparatus is being tested for use in the MSRE at ORNL. Essential features of the sampler are the hoist and capsule for removing the sample from the vessel; a lead shielded cubicle with manipulator, heating elements and service piping; and a transport cask for removing the sample from the process area., The sampling cubicle is mounted on the cell biological shield in an accessible area. Refrigeration. Low-temperature refrigeration is needed for the cold traps. One trap operates at -40°c and a second operates at -7500. L) 39 UNCLASSIFIED PHOTO 36743 PLUG —. EXHAUST HOOD— ORNL-LR-Dvg. 55206 Unclassified - TRANSPORY CASIC AREA 4 ¥ e TO VACUUM PUMP § % 0‘&.0:&’0&030””00 R R 0 e R T LA B. XKL < \ -’ZE'\LL‘ ;fLUM;,fiATOQ % ‘:::: (5 ‘ > XN > . DRSS X 4 AKX LR < D _ g.g?:‘o& A_.?:.’. B[R O'A.*?* \ VELDED eSS Ko Sove :&.’,:;:;'o:o,' e Oy XA ;‘, KA O TEWT O capsULE QO 0,00 0.0. 0, 39:19 1 £ peniscore 'Q%%ETSS &4 :0:0:0:0:0:0 lgEfE?_D fovacouM P m M ™ e ”‘:’:’:’:’: DL - AIEA T KR VAH'PULiiE;E-"LL e /’—CAPSULE ’:‘.”"’.” SIS SAMPLE TuANsPO-QT'fl i + D= g.:% S8 AREA % CONTAINER _ TO VACUUM ’00 0’0’ JIG —a, r SEAL PUMP .:030:0: CUUM PUMP =— =D = ik »00.00 (XX AREA 2¢ sty ::::':::.:::g DISCONNECT FFANGE A R S (M= : - SRS D <0 QQ’Q: OPERATIONAL VALVE DISCONNECT FLANGE~ \ 3% FLANGE FOR REMOVAL OF i > CONTAINMENT SHELL \ r ) | AREA 7b MAINEENANCE |"1 AREA Ib VALY = ° T3 |f388%’5 - i | i, A LA A e WA A A 8 A A e A S b . ','A‘ ! ks & 8 ADEA %0 SN / Toran S INDICATES BUFFER ZONE DISCONNEC T 2 o FLANGES TT e N 'A —EXPANSION | JOINT ; LATCH STOP /—CAPSULE GUIDE /—.DUMP BOWL J CONTAINMENT — | vesseL SHELL /—OUTER sTEeL sHELL Fig. 4.12 Schematic Layout of MSRE Sampler-Enricher System. 4.3 Shielding Calculations Shielding calculations were madé to compute biological shield re- guirements for processing areas. It was reccgnized that the extremely radicactive "green” fuel only a few minutes out of the reactor would re- guire thick shielding, significantly affecting building size and cost. The calculations were mede using a program @ for the IBM 7090 computer; the program is able tc treat cylindrical, volumetric sources which are applicable in these cases., The code emplcys such parameters as source strength, source geometry and dimensions, vessel material and location with respect to top and side shield to calculate either shield thickress or dose rate, Self-sbsorption by the source is alsc taken intc account. Shield material was ordinary concrete. Source Strength. The shielding program was written more specifi- cally for a solid-fueled reactor than for a circulating fuel reactor; and minor modifications had o be made in calculating the source strength. The activity of U-235 fission products as a function of irradiation time and cooling time has been reported by Blomeke and Todd9 for solid fuel normalized to one atom of original fissile feed. This implies a knowvledge of fuel burn-up, a quantity that is not so well defined for a circulating fael. For these calceulations the fraction burn-up was determined using terms defined in Fig. 4.13 Buri = BU = Recycle + PFeed ’ where quantities in the fraction are expressed in consistent uaits such as kg/day1 Feed includes both make-up fissile material and that part of fertile material that is converted to fissile material. The number of original atoms of fissile material present was then calculated from equl- librium reactor concentraiions. Equilibrium concentraticn U-233 -+ U-235 Original concentration U present = T, The data of Blomeke ard Todd were then used with this calculated original concentration to obtain source streangths in terms of disintegrations/sec. Lo It was assumed that the fuel had been irradiated for an infinite time at & thermal ‘neutron flux of 1007 neutrons/cm2 sec. The fuel in this system is predominately U~233%. However the data of Blomeke and Todd for U-235 fission products were used because no com- parable data for U-233 were available. Geometry. In all calculations shielding requirements were determined for top and side shields as shown in Fig. 4.14 using the criterion of 0.25 mrad/hr dose rate at the shield's external surface. When several process vessels were aligned along a wall as shown in Fig. 4.14b, the dose rate vas computed for several shield thicknesses, t,, ti; ti, -==, taking into account contributions from adjacent tanks. The data were plotted to de- termine the required shield thickness for a 0.25 mrad/hr dose rate. Compu- tations were made for arrays of 3 and 5 tanks, and it was observed that the dose contribution from the fourth and fifth tanks (extreme end tanks) could be ignored. | Summary of Shielding Requirements. Shielding requirements for process, storage and meintenance areas in the two plants are given in Table b, k., b3 UNCLASSIFIED ORNL-LR-DWG 65605 Chemical Reactor Recycle Processing Plant Burn=up {as fission products) Feed (thorium + uranium make-up) Fig. 4.13 Schematic Diagram for Computing Fraction Burn-Up. UNCLASSIFIED ORNL-LR-DWG 65606 Dose Point on Top Shield 1 E H + ~ SP<+—"5ide Shield Ly (@) Elevation e Dose Points for Several | Side Shield Thicknesses Inner Surface of Shield (b) Plan Fig. 4.14 Geometry Consideratlons in Calculating Shield Thickness. 45 Table 4.4 Shield Thicknesses for the lE-ftj/day and l.2—ft5/day Molten Salt Fluoride Volatility Processing Plants Prefluorination storage top shield Prefluorination storage side shield top shield side shield top shield lst fluoriration 1st fluorination 2nd fluorination end fluorination side shield Pa-233 decay storage top shield Pa-253 decay storage side shield Reduction and fuel make-up area top shield Reduction and fuel make-up area side shield Interim waste storage top shield Interim waste storage side shiéld Crane maintenance areé top shield Crane maintenance area side shield Storage area top shield Sterage area side shield Decontamination area top shield Decontamination area side shield Shop area top shield Shop area side shield Thickness of Ordinary Concrete (ft) 12 £t7/day plant 1.2 £t°/day plant 7.5 6.25 Ta5 T.5 7.5 6.25 Te5 7.5 4.0 6.25" 7.5 7.5 5.5 6.25" 5.5 6.5 L,0 4.0 4,0 k0 h.75 4.5 5.0 5.0 4.0 3.0 L.0 4,0 6.5 6.0 k.0 4.0 6.5 6.0 k.0 k.0 L.0 L.o L0 4.0 * # s Shield thickness determined by prefluorination shield requirements since all equipment is same area. 46 4.k Process Equipment Layout Process equipment has been laid out in areas according to the major process operations: prefluorination storage, first fluorination, Pa-233 decay storage, second fluorination, NaF absorption, cold traps and product collection, UF6—+UF4 reduction, and interim waste storage. Equipment is grouped in cells according to activity level and in an arrengement that minimizes distances for molten salt transfer between vessels. Filve trans- fers of molten salt are required in the processing sequence for the 1.2 ft3/day plant., First, the irradiated fuel is transferrgd from the reactor to prefluorination storage; second, to the first flfiorination; third, to Pa-255 decay storage; fourth, to the second fluorination;, and fifth, to waste storage. The operational sequence in the 12 ftB/day plant is the same with an additional transfer in prefluorination storage brought about by economic heat remcval considerations. Interim waste storage vessels can most conveniently be stored in an arca immediately adjacent to but not directly a part of the principal processing area., A rather large canal is required to contain the large number of waste tanks. After approximately 1000 days residence; the waste tanks are transferred to permanent storage. A very important consideration in equipment layout inside the cells is the remote maintenance aspect which has beenrn assumed for these proces=- sing operations. Vessels must be arranged so that all proéess and service ~onnections can be remotely broken and remade and all equipment must be accessible from above. Over-all building space is often dictated by remote maintenance considerations rather than by actual vessel size. It should be pointed out that there has been no actual experience in remote maintenance of a molten salt fluoride volatility plant and that the necessary space requirements for such a plant may not have been fully recognized in this study. Considerable development of both equipment and operating technique will be required to furnish adequate design information. 4.5 Plant Layout In order to establish uniformity in cost estimation of nuclear power plants, the Atomic Energy Commission ™ has specified sertain ground rules b7 covering site location, topography, meteorology, climatology, geology, availability of labor, accounting procedures, fixed charge rates, etc. These recommendations were followed in this study. A concurrent cost evaluation for a molten salt reactor plant by ORNL and Sargent and Lundy Engineersl2 used the same basic ground rules making the two plant evalu- gtions congruent. Site Location. The hypothetical site location is 35 miles north of Middletown, a city of 250,000 population. The plant is located on the North River, a stream that is navigable to boats having up to 6 £t draft. There is convenient highway and railroad access, The plant is located on level terrain in a grass-covered field. The earth overburden is 8 ft deep; below this depth is bedrock. Qver-all Plant Layout. A remote maintenance chemical plant is most conveniently laid out in a canyon-type arrangement, which is a long, heavily shielded series of in-line cells serviced by an over-head crane. The depth of the canyon is determined by location and size of installed equipment; the width is determined by vessel size and span limitations for the crane. The over=-all building length is more or less determined by the length of the canyon, Offices, control room, laboratories, sample gallery, ware- house, shop and other service areas are placed along a face of the canyon in a manner that is consistent with good design and functional facility. In this study advantage was taken of a design study and operating experience with a remotely maintained radioactive chemical plant by Farrowl to obtain over-all plant arrangements shown on drawings E-h6059, E-U6067, E-46079, E-L6068, E-46069, E-L6081, and E-46080 in the Appendix. Processing Area. Processing cells are located in the central section of the canyon and are the most heavily shielded parts of the plant. 1In the 12 ft3/day plant, four cells are employed; in the 1.2 ft3/day plant, three cells are used, Because of the lower total activity and fewer process vessels in the small plant, one of the shielding partitions could be eliminated. Prefluorination storage and first fluorination vessels are located near the center of the canyon and convenient to the reactor area. L8 Immediately adjoining (in the same cell for the small plant) is the cell containing the second fluorination and absorption equipment. This arrange- ment permits carrying out the most radioactive operations in a compact lay- out minimizing the amount of thick (7.5 ft) shielding. The remaining process aresa contains product collection and reduction equipment for carrying cut the UF6 d'UFh reaction. Althcugh the product at this point has been decontaminated by a facter of 10" c¢r greater, shield- ing is required to attenuate the gamma activity of U-237. Four feet of ordinary concrete suffices to shield this ares. This cell also contains the dissclver for blending recovered fuel with make-up fuel introduced from the outside, Fuel is recycled to the reactor from this tank. Pa-233 Decay Storage. The largest process area of the canyon is occupied by "dead" storage to segregate batches of waste salt while al- lowing Pa-233 to decay. For convenience the area is located adjacent to the first fluorinator. An area 27 ft wide by 92 £t long was provided for the large plant and one 23 £t wide by T4 £+ long for the small plant. Waste Storage. Wasie sthorage need not be located in the process canyon because there is negligible fissile material in the waste and no further process coperatlons are performed on the waste, Facilities are previded in a canal adjcining the canyon *o¢ store waste containers until eash can te *transported to permanent storage al some remcte location. The ares is rectangular with the width being the deperndent dimension. Since a crane mish be provided Lo service the area;, the width is governed hy crane span and cost considerations. In these plants over-all canal dimensions are 48 f+ wide bty 181.5 £t leong and 37 £t wide by 56 £ long fcr the large and small plants, respectively. Each canal contains water e a depth of 16.5 ft. Waste containers are transported from inside the canyon to the waste Lorage area via a cart on a track which runs fthrough the side shield. A k1) doulble door arrangement s used to maintain isclation of the two areas during transfer, Crane Maintenance Area. Since the cverhead c¢rane is the principal tocl for carrying coubt all mainterance operaticns In the canyon, facilities are necessary C keep i3 in good operating condition. An area at one end of the canyon is set aside for crane maintenance; this area is equipped with a small crane to service the larger crane. Decontamination pro- visions are made for this area to allow persomnnel access., Contaminated Equipmernt Storage. A relatively small cell is provided in the canyon for storage of contaminated eguipment during the interim vetween removal from sexvice and permanent disposition. For example, it might be necessary 4o hold equipment for fission product decay before re- noval from the canyon. - Decontamination Call., The use of this cell is for decontaminating equipment so it can be packaged and removed from the canyon. The cell is equipped with sprays azd located near the source of decomtaminating chem icals., Canyon Shop. This cell is a limited perscnnel access area for per- forming maintenance cn contaminated equipment. Before entering the shop, vessels and other eguipment would have been decontaminated sufficiently for contreolled contact work bub not sufficlently for removal to "ecold" shop. Railroad Dock. A raiircad dock is provided at one end of the canyon Hy or recelving into or removing from the canyon vessels and other equipment. The dock is in a nonradicactive area but can be served by the large bridge crane used over the caryon. Rolleup steel dcors separate the dock and crane bay over the process cells. Control Room. The control room is located adjacent to the biclogical shield at cell top level. The room extends along the shield face directly cprosite the cells iz which the principal process operations of fluorina- ticn, abscrption, product collection and reduction are carried out as well as salt transfers from one ares to another. From this area all process operations can be controlled and performed. Remote maintenance is also carried out from the control room with the aid of television. Sample Gallery. This space contains the heavily shielded sampling cubicles (see Fig. 4.i2) and transport equipment. The gallery is located over the control room ¢n the shield face near the fluorination and re- duction cells. It is anticipated that process control and accountability can be accomplished by sampling the fiuorinators and product dissolver. 50 Laboratories. Adequate analytical facilities are provided in the chemical plant to process all samples from the reactor plant as well as from the chemical plant. Analytical caves are prcvided for highly radice active analyses. The analytical area is a ccntrclled access area separabted from the nonrestricted areas by an air lcck. Offices. Office space is provided a* ground level near the cenfer of the ilding. Service Areas. The remainder of the building space is cccupied by service facilities necessary for an integrated chemical plant. These in- clude mechanical and instrument shops, first aid rocom, lunch room, change rocm; toilets, warehouse and receiving dock, elevators; cold chemical make- up space, electrical transformer and switch gear room, refrigeration equip- ment space, air conditioning equipment space, compressor space and pipe corridors. Most of these areas are located below grade alcong the face of the process canyon. 5.0 CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE The capital cost estimate was divided intc three principal categeries: building costs, process equipment costs, and auxiliary process equipment and services costs. The building costs included such items as site prepa- ration, shtructural materials and labcr, permanently installed equipment, and material and labor for service facilities. Process eguipment costs wvere calcuiated for *those tanks. vessels, furnaces and similar items whose primary furcticn is directly coancerned wikth preocess cperaticns. FProcess service facilities are items such as sampling facilities, process piping and process instrumentation which are intimately associated with process cperations . 5.1 Accountirg Procedure The accounting procedure set forth in the Guide to Nuclear Power Plant Cost Evaiuationll was used as a gulide in this estimate. This handbook was written as a gulde for ccst estimating reactor plants, and the accounting weakdown is noh specific for a chemical processing plant., Where necessary for clarifization and completeness, the accouting procedures of the hand- Tcck were angmented by established Chemical Technology Division methods. 5.2 Bases for Estimates Process Equipment. A large number of process vessels and auxiliary equipment in these plants is similar to equipment previously purchased by ORNL for the fluoride volatility pilot piant for which cost records wvere available., Extensive use was made of these records in computing material, fabrication and over-all eguipment costs. In some cases it was necessary to extrapolate the data to obtain costs for larger vessels; however, for some equipment in the small plant, the data were directly applicable. items that vere estimated in this manner were the fluorinators, furnaces, NaF absorbers and CRP traps. The cost of the UF6-to—UF4 reduction unit was based on a unit described by l%fiu.rra},re:’;“l‘L The unit had a larger capacity than was needed for these plants, but it was assumed that the required unit would have about the same over=-all cost. Refrigeration equipment and cold traps were estimated from cost data for ORGDPT and ORNL equipment. Some items of process equipment were of special design and signifi- cantly different from any vessels for which cost data were available. The prefiuorination storage tanks which receive irradiated fuel directly from the reactor are exampies. The cost of these vessels was calculated fron a previous cost estimate made by vhe Y-~12 machine shop on a similar vessel for the Molten Salt Reactor Experiment. For vessels and tanks of more conventional and familiar desigrn, the cost was computed from the cost of material (INCR-8 for most vessels) plus an estimated fabrication charge, both charges being based on the weight of the vessel. A summary of values used in estimating process vessels by weight is given below. For the shells of the prefluorination storage tanks, the high fabrication cost values shown were obtained by back calculating from a Y-12 shop estimate for a similar vessel. Stainiess Metal Cost $/1b INOR-8 Alloy 79-4 Steel 30k | 3,00 2,66 0.65 Fabrication Cost, $/1b Shell, prefluoriration storage, 1.2 £t3/day T7.00 Shell, preflucrination storage, 12 fté/day, tanks 1 and 2 8.35 52 Stainless Fabrication Cost, $/1b (contd) INOR-8 Alloy 79-4 Steel 304 Prefluorination storage, 12 £t3/day tanks 3~6 3.50 Fluorinators, 1.2 and 12 ft3/day 4,00 Pa-233 decay storage, 1.2 ft3/day 3.50 Waste_storage vessel, 1.2 and 12 £t3/day 2.50 Waste storage thimbles, ‘ 1.2 and 12 £t3/day 1.85 UF& dissolvers, 1.2 and 12" £t3/day 3.50 Pipe and tubing prices were based on the following schedule. Description _§{ft §Zlb 1/2 in. OD x 0.042 wall tube (INOR-8) 6,06 26 .40 1 in. NPS, Sch. 40 pipe (INOR-8) 30,05 16,04 1 1/2 in. NPS, Sch. 40 pipe (INOR-8) 41 .67 13.71 Auxiliary process items such as process piping, process electrical service, instrumentation, sampling connections and their installation were not considered in sufficient design detail to permit direct estimation. A value was assigned to these items which was based upon previous experience in design and cost estimation of radiochemical processing plants., In as=- signing these values cognizance was taken of the fact that the plant is remotely maintained. Building. The building estimate included the cost of land acquisition, site preparation, concrete, structural steel, painting, heating, ventilation, air conditioning, elevators, cranes, service piping, laboratory and hot cell equipment, etc. The individual costs were calculated using current data for materials and labor, and are based on the drawings shown in the Appendix. 5.3 Process Equipment Capital Cost Process equipment capital costs for the two fluoride volatility plants are presented in Table 5.1. These costs are the totals of material, Tabrication and installation charges. Pre-Fluorination Storage Storage tank Storage tank Furnace Heater Jacketed thimble Condensger Fluorination Fluorinator Furnace CRP trap Absorbers and Cold Traps NaF absorber and CRP trap Furnace Ccld trap Cold trap No. TABLE 5.1 ESTIMATED COST OF MAJOR PROCESS EQUIPMENT FQOR TWO FLUORIDE VOLATILITY PLANTS (values in Dollars) 1.2 Ft3/nay Plant Description Cost No. 12 Ft°/Day Plant 2 Tt Dx 2 ft H Lo vayonet 100,000 2 coolers; INOR-B; o0.3%75 in. shell; 0.5 in. head 5 2.7 ft Dx 3 £t H; 45.8 kw 7,000 2 5 LftDx 3 ftL; 19 £2 stainless 4es steel; admiralty tubes 107, 465 1.5 ft Dx 2.34 gt H {lover 12,000 2 section); 3.6 ft” salt; alloy 79-4; 0.5 in. shell; 0.5 in. head 2.33 £t D x 3.75 £t H; 49.4 kw 8,000 20,000 8 in. sch., 40 pipe; 1 ft 5,000 4 horizontal + 5 ft vertical; 12.66 kg UF, capacity; Inconel Included in absorber cost -40% unit; copper -TSOC unit; copper 6 8,700 3 3 Description Cost 5.5 £t D x 5.5 ft H; 295 bayonet 1,354,000 coolers; INOR-8; 0.5 in. shell; 0.625 in, head 3,17 £t D x 7.6l £t H; 0.5 in. shell; 57,500 0.5 in. head 6.25 £t ID x T ft H; 250 kw 50,000 4 £t D x 9.9 £t H; 225 kw; tubular 110,000 with stainless steel sheath L £t D x 9.4 £t H; INOR-8 58,125 14 in. D x 16 £t L; 470 ft2 stainless 8,200 steel; admiralty tubes 1,637,825 1.75 ft D x 9 £t H (lower section); 16,000 6 ££3 salt; alloy T9-4; 0.5 in. shell; 0.5 in. head 2,67 ft Dx 5 £t H; 75.5 kw 13,000 6 in., D x ¥ ft H; outside heaters; 10,000 air-operated piston 39,000 6 in. sch. 40 pipe x 6.33 £t H; 9,000 2l.1 kg UF6 capacity; Inconel 21,000 -40°C unit; copper 22,500 -7500 unit; copper 7,500 €4 NaF chem trap Vacuum pump Pa-233 Decay System Storage tank Jacketed thimble Heater Reduction and Fuel Make-up Reduction unit Dissolver Cold make-up and sparge tank Heater for dissolver Heatgr for make-up tank Waste Storage Waste tank Waste tank thimbles 1.2 Ft°/Day Plant No. 24 24 2h 128 128 Deseription Cost 6 in. sch., 40 pipe x 3.5 £t H; 800 heated; 12,66 kg UF, capacity; Inconel 40 cfm displacement; < 50 p Hg final 2,620 pressure 17,120 1.66 £t D x 3.32 £t H; 7.2 £t° 66,000 salt; INOR-8; 0.375 in. shell; 0.375 in. head Cooling unit for storage tank 3 ft D x 3.1 H; 52.5 kw 100,800 166,800 k in, sch, 40 pipe x 8 £t H; 66,150 10-15 kg UFG/hr capacity; Inconel 1.67 £t D x 3.3 £t H; 7.2 £t 2,250 salt; INOR-8; 0.5 in. shell; 0.5 in. head 1.3 ft D x 7.3 £% H; INOR-8; 6,500 10.2 £t3 capacity 2 £t D x 2.25 £t Hy 26 kw 2,000 2.3t Dx 4 ft H; 52 kw 8,400 85,300 1.33 £t D x 7 £t H; stainless 118,600 steel 304 L; 9.84 £t salt; 0.25 in. shell; 0.25 in. head 2 ft D x 15 £t H; stainless 175,360 steel 304 I; 0.1875 in. shell; 0.1875 in. head 293,960 12 Ft°/Dey Plant No. 36 36 510 510 Description Cost 6 in. sch. 40 pipe x 6 ft H; 1,800 heated; 21 kg UF6 capacity; Inconel 61,800 b5 £t D x 4.5 £t H; 60 £t° salt; 832,500 INOR~8 Cooling unit for storage tank Sectional units to surround tank 792,000 1,624,500 4 in. sch. 40 pipe x 8 £t H; 66,150 10-15 kg UFé/hr capacity; Inconel 2.7 ft D x 2.7 £t H; 12 ft5 salt; 5,500 INOR-8; 0.5 in. shell; 0.5 in, head 3.4 £t D x 6.7 ft H; INOR-8; 26,000 48 £ capacity 3.4 £t D x 3.7 £t H; T1 kv 6,000 1 £t D x 7.7 £t H; 178 kw 34,000 137,650 2 £t Dx 7.5 ft H; stainless steel 841,500 30k L; 24 £t salt; 0.25 in, shell; 0.25 in. head 2,75 £t D x 15 £t H; stainless steel 892,500 30k L; 0.1875 in, shell; 0.1875 in. 1,734,000 76 Miscellaneous Equipment Refrigeration unit Refrigeration unit Refrigeration unit Air chiller HF disposal unit F, supply system 2 Total Process Equipment Cost TABLE 5.1 - contd 1.2 Ft3/nay Plant HOH o H Description Cost 24,000 BTU/br at -40°c 3,500 4,000 B /hr at -75°C 3,200 9,000 BIU/hr at ~20°C 1,235 1ftx1ftx 4 rows finned 135 tube 2,8 ft Dx 5.3 £t H; monel 500 Tenk and trailer 6,770 15,340 705,985 12 Fta/Day Plant No. Description Cost 48,000 BIU/hr at -k0°%C 5,400 8,000 BTU/hr at -75°¢C 4,900 2.8 ft Dx 5.3 £t H; monel 500 Tank and trailer 13,500 2k, 300 2,259,075 GG 56 5.4 Building Capital Cost Building cost data for the two fluoride volatility plants are given in Teble 5.2. These costs are divided into five categories: processing cell, interim waste storage, operations and laboratories, outside utilities and land improvements. The tabulation presents both material and labor costs., 5.5 Total Capital Cost As mentioned above, process equipment and buildings were the only items considered in sufficient design detail to permit direct estimation. The remainder of the capital costs were estimated from previous knowledge and experience with radiochemical processing plants. The fact that the plant is remotely meintained was an important factor in estimating process instrumentation and electrical and sampling connections. These items be- come considerably more expensive because of counterbalancing, spacing and accessibility requirements. Construction overhead fees were taken as 22% of direct materials and labor for all buildings, installed process equipment, piping, instrumenta- tion, electrical and other direct charges. This rate is in agreement with current charges for this type of construction and estimate. Architect engineering and inspection fees were taken as 15% of all charges including construction overhead. This fee may be as large as 20% for some designs; however, for this plant the lower 15% value was used because of considera- ble repetition in the design of a large number of process vessels. TABLE 5.2 BUILDING COSTS FOR TWQ FLUQRIDE VOLATTILITY PLANTS FQR ON-S5ITE PROCESSING OF MOLTEN SALT CONVERTER REACTOR FUEL (values in Dollars) 1.2 Ft°/Day Plant 12 ¥t2/Day Plant Material Labor Total Material Labor Total Processing Cells Bxcavation and back fill 137,300 63,810 201,110 187,420 87,100 274,520 Concrete, forms, reinforeing, ete. 380,000 570,000 950,000 568,200 852,300 1, 420,500 Structural steel and miscellaneous metal 246,720 209,880 456,500 369,500 315,800 685,300 Crane area roofing 52,200 60,900 113,100 75,600 88,200 163,800 Doors, painting, crane bay doors, etc. 391,050 163,050 554,100 397,100 169,100 546,200 Services 213,950 138,680 352,630 329,700 207,580 537,280 Building movable equipment 852,500 2k9,250 1,101,750 862,500 253,250 1,115,750 Viewing windows L0, 000 2,000 42,000 ko, 000 2,000 k2 000 Sub total . 2,313,720 1,457,570 3,711,290 2,830,020 1,975,330 k4,805,350 Interim Waste Storage Excavation and back £ill 13,540 6,510 20,450 54,800 25,590 80,390 Concrete, forms, reinforcing, ete. 61,200 91,800 153,000 204,800 307,200 512,000 Structural steel and miscellaneous metel 71,500 68,720 140,220 245,000 243,700 488,700 Crane ares roofing 9,600 11,200 20,800 46,200 53,900 100,100 Painting 5,430 5,430 10,860 24,010 24,010 48,020 Services 109,100 37,310 146,410 35%,300 161,100 51%, k00 Building movable eguipment 220,000 28,000 248,000 225,000 30,000 255,000 Sub total 490,770 248,970 739,740 1,153,110 845,500 1,998,610 Operations and Laboratories Excavation and back fill 50,330 23,600 73,930 6h, 2ko 30,270 94,510 Concrete, forms, reinforcing, ete. 62,800 87,400 150,200 76,400 106,100 182,500 Structural steel and miscellanecus metal 129,130 29,910 159,0h0 172,650 58,910 211,5h0 Roofing 5,870 2,920 8,790 7,530 3,750 11,280 Superstructure 34,530 14,970 49,500 €2,490 22,920 85,410 Miscellaneous structural material 17,580 18,750 36,730 27,110 29,390 56,500 L& Services Miscellaneous cquipment Sub total Outside Utilities Water, electricity, drains, ete. Land ImErovements Total Grading, roads, sidewalks, etc. TABLE 5. 2 - contd 1.2 Ft°/Day Plant Material 238,510 272,800 811,950 80,500 89,600 3,786,540 Labor 178,510 34,900 390,960 29,500 28,600 2,155,600 Total 417,020 307,700 1,202,910 110,000 118,200 5’91'2111"0 12 th/Day Plant Material 315,270 292,800 1,018,470 252,000 100,540 5,354,140 Iabor 243,350 40,900 215,590 36,000 3€,500 3,408,920 Total 558,620 333,700 1,534,060 288,000 137,040 8,763,060 o]d Total capital cost data for the two plants are given in Table 5.3. Table 5.3. 'Summary of Capital Cost Estimate for Twe, On-Site Fluoride Volatility Processing Plants Process cells Interim waste storage Cperations area and laboratories Qutside utilities Land improvements Process equipment Process piping Process instrumentation Process electrical connections Sampling connections Total installed equipment and building cost General construction overhead (22% of total installed equipment and builde ing cost) Total construetion cost Architect engineering and inspection (15% of total construction cost) Subtotal project cost Contingency (20% of subtotal project cost) Tctal project cost Plant Capacity (Ft5 Sait/Day) 1.2 8 3,771,300 739,700 1,202,900 110,000 118,200 706,000 450,000 50C,000 50,000 1C,000 7,458,100 1,640,800 9,098,900 1,364,800 10,463,700 2,092, 300 812,556,000 12 e ¢ 4,805,400 680,000 500, 000 80,000 20,000 15,294,700 N \p AN O I o o [ < = o0 - O w1 O - R o < 2,798,900 21,458,400 4,291,300 325,750,000 60 6.0 OPERATING COST ESTIMATE Direct operating costs were calculated for both plants to cover man- power requirements, chemical consumption, utilities, and maintenance ma- terials, Current data on labor and materials costs were used in making the estimates. 6.1 Operating Manpower Operating manpower requirements for the 1.2 and 12 fts/day plants are estimated in Table 6.1. 6.2 Summary of Direct Operating Costs Direct operating costs and the bases upon which they were computed are given in Table 6.2. Labor costs were obtained from Table 6.1 but are presented in & slightly different manner to exhibit the charges associated with the major classifications of operations, laboratory, maintenance and supervision. The largest single direct costs are labor and maintenance materials. There is no direct way to calculate yearly costs for main- tenance materials; these charges must be estimated as certain percentages (%/year) of the corresponding capital investment. The rates that have been used are average rates which have been observed to apply to a large number of chemical reprocessing operations. 61 TABLE 6.1 OPERATING MANPOWER ESTIMATES FOR TWO, ON-SITE FLUORIDE VOLATTLITY PLANTS A 1.2 P Salt/Dav 12 Pt° Salt/Day Cozt Cost No. (g/year) No. (@/year) Management Manager i 18,000 1 18,00¢ Assistant manager 1 L5 000 1 15,000 Secretary 2 10,300 2 10,000 T EET0 = 53,000 Production | Superintendent 1 12,000 1 12,030 Shift supervisor L 3,000 b 3C,000 Operator 8 4L 000 12 66,000 Helper 5 B0, 000 12 60,000 Secretary 1 L 800 2 9,600 e e = _migg_ 22 17E,000 31 177,600 Maintenance Superintendent 1 10,000 i 10,000 Mechanical engineer L 8,000 2 16,000 Mechanic 8 e, EO 12 69,600 Machinist 2 22,000 3 18,000 Tnstrument man 6 Feb, 300 & 46, 400 Clerk 1 %,350 1 4,350 Storeroom keeper 1 &, 350 2 8,700 20 112,300 29 175,050 Laboratory Supervisor 1 8,000 1 8,000 Chemist L 26,007 6 39,000 Technician 8 43,600 10 52,000 Helper B 19,200 6 28,800 17 oL, B0 23 127,800 Health Physics Supervisor 1 &,000 1 8,000 Monitor L 20,800 b 20,800 Clerk 1 L, 500 1 4,000 Records keeper 1 3,600 1 3. 600 7 35,500 7 36,500 Accountability Engineer Clerk Engineering Mechanical engineer Chemical engineer Draftsman Secretary General Office Manager Accountant Payroll clerk Purchasing agent Secretary Miscellaneous Guard Fireman Receptionist Laundry worker Nurse Janitor Total 62 TABLE 6.1 - contd 1.2 Ft° Salt/Day Cost No. (@/year) 7,000 M- = 11,000 8,000 27,000 10,600 ~IOH PR - oW ',—J cdnahannhd;rco = » o o S 10k 631,000 4,000 12 Ft° salt/Day Ne. H c3h~\¢:¢rn3 o= - N D Eflu4r4w4h4¢rco 133 Cost (/year) 8,000 36600 32,000 16,000 4,000 10,800 4,800 10,800 78, %00 750,250 63 TABLE 6,2 SUMMARY OF DIRECT CPERATING COSTS FOR TWO, ON-SITE FLUORIDE VOLATILITY PLANTS 1.2 Ft° Salt/Dey 12 Ft° salt/Day /year) {#/year) Chemical Consumption Fluorine (at #2.00/1b) 4,800 48,000 KoH (at $0.10/1b) 1,600 8,500 Bydrogen (at $2.00/1b) 180 1,800 NaF (at $0.15/1b) 60 190 Nitrogen (at $0.05/ft7) 750 2,200 Inert gases {guess) 200 500 #F {at $0.20/1b) 700 3,300 Graphite (at $0.15/1b) 50 450 Miscellaneous 2,000 L, 000 lO,}Hfi 58,950 Utilities Electricity (at $0.01/kw hr) 28,000 174,000 Woter (at $0.015/1000 gal) 2,130 4,300 Heating (based on steem at $0.25/1000 1bs) 4,800 7,200 3%,930 185,500 Labor Operating (from Table 6.1) 357, 500 386, 450 Laboratory (from Table 6.1) 82,800 119,800 Maintenance (from Table 6.1) 109,900 163,000 Supervision (from Table 6.1) 81,000 81,000 Overhead (at 20% of above) 126,200 150,050 757,200 900,500 Maintenance Materials Site (guess) o 10,000 10,000 Cell structures end buildings (at 2%/yr of capital cost) 9k, 900 134,500 Services and utilities (at 4%/yr of capital cost) 36,600 6k, Loo Process equipment (at 15%/yr of capital cost)P 158, 600 876,900 300,100 1,085,800 Total Direct Operating Cost 1,102,600 2,2&0,600 aBuild.ing services excluded bIncludes process equipment, process instrumentation and sampling connections 6l 7.0 CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE OF MODIFIED 1.2 FI'3/DAY PIANT T.1 Modifications In examining the large amount of process equipment and cell space required for Pa=-233 decay storage, it becomes guestionable if there is an economic advantage in recovering the protactinium. Accordingly the 1.2 ft3/day plant was redesigned to remove Pa-233 decay storage and associated equipment, and relocate the interim waste storage cell area to a more eco- nomic location, the process building was thus reduced in size. These changes brought about corresponding savings in process electrical, in- strumentation and piping charges. In the modified plant the process operations now consist of seven principal steps: 1. Prefluorination holdup (4.5 days average) 2. Fluorination 3. Absorption -desorption of UF6 L. UFg collection on cold traps 5. Reduction UFB e-UFh 6. Fuel make-up 7 . Waste storage Eliminated from the operations were Pa-233 decay storage and a second fluorination as well as two transfers of molten salt. Only the 1.2 ft3/day plant was considered in making the revised cost estimate. The initial estimate discussed in Section 5.0 indicated that the large fluoride volatility plant (12 ft3/day) was not economic for processing only a 1000 Mwe reactor system, but rather would find its utility in a large, central processing location. It was beyond the scope of this study to include cost estimates of centrally located processing plants. In making the revised estimate it was not deemed necessary to re- design the process building. A revised building cost estimate was pre- pared from marked up drawings showing the areas that would not be needed. Likewise no new process equipment and layout drawings were prepared for the revised process equipment estimate. In this regard the drawings in the Appendix are not representative of the modified plant. 65 (.2 Process Equipment A study of the modified process indicated that the items listed in Table 7.1 would not be needed. The savings resulting therefrom were cal- culated by using the initial process equipment estimate of Table 5.1. A saving of $183,700 is indicated for the modified systen. 7.3 Waste Storage In the design bases of Section 2.2 an interim waste storage period of 1000 days after the second fluorination was chosen. This amounted to a total holdup of about 1138 days for the processed salt before it was shipped to permanent waste storage. The 1000-day figure was an arbitrary choice; the proper interim waste holdup should result from an economic com- parison of the on-site storage cost versus the permanent site storage cost using the age of the waste after reactor discharge as the independent var- iable. For the modified plant study, the data of Perona and Bradshawl5’16 on waste storage costs in salt mines were used to determine the optimum on-site storage period; on-site storage for 1100 days appeared to give the most economic total storage cost (Fig. 7.1). The required mine storage area is a function of the decay heat re- lease of fission products, and hence is inversely related to the age of the waste. On the other -hand, on-site building and process equipment costs increase with on-site waste holdup. For this optimization, building and equipment costs were estimated for four interim storage times, and the required cost of salt mine permanent storage space was estimated for the correspending periods. Salt mine space was charged at a rate of $500,000 per acre for each first year of use. This charge includes development of the mine site, mining the salt, hot cell facilities on. the surface and in the mine for handling the waste containers, motorized shielded carrier and drilling equipment in the mine. It is estimated that the optimized building cost should be about $570,500¢ This value includes savings resulting from a relocation of the wvaste storage area from the position shown on drawing E-46079 in the Ap- pendix to a new position at the end of the process canyon. In the new location the waste area can be served by the canyon crane thereby elimi- nating a second crane for use in the interim waste storage area. 66 Table 7.1. Capital Cost of Process Equipment for 1.2 FtS/Day On-Site, Fluoride Volatility Processing Plant. Values of Table 5.1 Revised to Exclude Pa-233 Storage and Associated Equipment Equipment Removed No. $ Pa decay storage tanks and thimbles 24 66,000 Heaters 2k 100,800 Fluorinator 1 6,000 Furnace 1 4,000 Waste storage tanks 3 2,800 Waste storage thimbles 3 4,100 183,700 Process equipment cost for plant with Pa-233 decay storage 706,000 Less removed equipment 183,700 Process equipment cost with no 522,300 Pa-233 decay storage 7.4 Process Building The revised cost estimate for the process building reflecting the removal of Pa-233 decay storage space is given in Table 7.2. The costs are classified according to the major divisions of processing cells, in- terim waste storage, operations and laboratories, outside utilities and land improvements. These costs reflect an allowance for facilities that are shared with the resctor station. 7.5 Total Plant Cost A summary of the total plant costs is given in Table 7.3. There were insignificant changes in the accounts of land improvements, outside utilities and sampling connections in the modified plant, so these ac~ counts retain the same charges as in the initial part of this study. Process piping and process instrumentation charges were appreciably re- duced reflecting the removal of a number of items of process equipment. Application of the same construction overhead, architect engineering and contingency fees as in the initial part of this study obtains a total plant cost of $10,188,000. 67 UNCLASSIFIED ORNL- LR-DWG 74lIC TOTAL COST SALT MINE COST FOR PERMANENT STORAGE COST ($/yr) frradiation =70,000 mwd/ tonne Th 10® 104 STORAGE TIME AT PROCESSING PLANT BEFORE SHIPPING TO PERMANENT STORAGE (days) Fig. 7.1 Determination of Minimum Total Cost for Handling 1.2 ft3/day Waste Salt from a Fluoride Volatility Plant and Optimum Storage Time at Processing Plant Before Shipping to Salt Mine. 68 Table 7.2. Building Costs for a 1.2 fts/Day Fluoride Volatility, On-Site Processing Plant. Values of Table 5.2 Revised to Exclude Pa-233 Decay Storage Space (Values in Dollars) Material labor Total Processing Cells Excavetion and back fill 101,570 47,200 148,770 Concrete, forms, reinforeing, etc. 288,000 432,000 720,000 Structural steel and niscellaneous metal 166,500 133,700 300,200 Crane ares roofing 38,400 44,800 83,200 Doors, painting, crane bay doors, ete. 384,490 156,490 540, 980 Services 168,380 111,250 279,630 Building movable equipment 852, 500 24g,250 1,101,750 Viewing windows 40,000 2,000 k2,000 Sub total 2,039,840 1,176,690 3,216,530 Interim Waste Storage Excavation and back fill 13,800 6,400 20,200 Concrete, forms, reinforcing, etc. 55,000 82,000 137,000 Structural steel and miscellaneous metal 95,600 91,800 187,400 Crane ares roofing 9,600 11,200 20,800 Painting 5,500 5,500 11,000 Services 115,000 39,100 154,100 Building movable equipment 30,000 10,000 40,000 Sub total 324, 500 246,000 570, 500 Operations and Laboratories Excavation and back fill 50,330 23,600 73,930 Concrete, forms, reinforcing, etc. 62,800 87,400 150,200 Structural steel and miscellaneous metal 129,130 29,910 159,040 Roofing 5,870 2,920 8,790 Superstructure 34,530 14,970 kg, 500 Miscellaneous structural material 17,980 18,750 36,730 Services 238,510 178, 510 417,020 Miscellsneous equipment 272,800 35,900 308, 700 Sub total 811,950 391, 960 1,203,910 Outside Utilities Water, electricity, drains, etc. 80,700 29,700 110,400 land rovements Grading, roads, sidewalks, etc. 73,000 45,200 118,200 Total (rounded) 3,399,000 1,821,000 5,220,000 69 Table 7.3. Summary of Capital Cost Estimate for a 1.2 ft3/day On-Site, Fluoride Volatility Plant. Values of Table 5.3 Revised to Exclude Cost of Retaining Waste Salt for Pa-233 Decay Irradiation = 70,000 Mwd/tonne Th Process cells Interim waste storage Operations area and laboratories Qutside utilities Land improvements Process equipment Process piping Process instrumentation Process electrical connections Sampling connections Total installed equipment and building cost (rounded) General construction overhead (22% of total installed equipment and building cost) Total construction cost Architect engineering and inspection (15% of total construction cost) Subtotal project cost Contingency (20% of subtotal project cost) Total project cost Cost ($) 3,216,530 570,200 1,203,910 110,400 118,200 522,300 180,000 100,000 20,000 10,000 6,052,000 1,331,000 7,383,000 1,107,000 8,490,000 1,698,000 10,188,000 70 7.6 Economic Advantage The economic advantage of eliminating Pa-233 decay storasge facilities from the 1.2 ft3/day fluoride volatility plant can be found by comparing the savings in capital cost with the value of protactinium that is dis- carded as waste. Subtracting the total plant cost of Table 7.3 from that of Table 5.3, there obtains $12,556,000 - 10,188,000 = $2,368,000, the estimated savings in capital investment. If this amount is amortized at 14 .46%/year, which is the charge applied to the capital investment, an annual gross economic advantage of $2,368,000 x 0.1446 = $342,400 per year is realized. There would be some savings on operating cost which should be added to this number; this saving was not estimated and is probably not a very significant amount because it does not cost much to operate a dead storage area. The process flowsheet (Fig. 3.1) shows that there are 54.6 g Pa-233/day entering the fluorinator. Valuing this material at $12/g for 292 days op- eration per year, there obtains 54 .6 x 292 x 12 = $191,300/year lost by discarding protactinium. The net economic advantage from eliminating Pa-233 decay storage from the 1.2 ft3/day fluoride volatility plant is about $l5l,100 per year. Although it was not considered in this study, there might be some economic advantage to a nominal increase in prefluorination holdup to allow more Pa-233 to decay. The value of the increased U-233 yield would have to be weighed against the additional process equipment and inventory charges for the longer storage. 71 APPENDDE #i ; W £ 1! MMovamta. Bid -ga CRP Trap i 9% i §§ Ponous Mitas., - furan Naé R OR HE. Cuamy | SO2 om Ag.KOM- Taam | SPRAY TowsR Bawawir *“} FuuonrinaTas, Aw sonnins Fimar Cvecn Proover Aun, Cuncam, FunmAcLMEY) 6 SaLhONEITH, Raceivens-Vaporizen, Frrown _ Lvrd el 0'1e 168'F Comraasson Serm Tuuwr Toma o 0 ODAOON" oo - Tl Kg.UFy [ SaLr Waren R | Bén. , . - ReoycTion XS Sen il | . : ‘ U1, Dissorumion O Tiwe My w Unry - Vacuum Ne . Pumme Cram 40 cr Disiaccrmar TRAS <00 Ak Hg, PusiVoant 5'0ms fiow, 40 #6301 Hew Caoputity » twr.? 0P, ELe Kg. UPg. 0 NoF vagnatoy, WaiTe Saur Proouer - vrnacLiEo) Ructivee Rucuivan, .Cr;::, : Duy lce— ' .'::wn.n'r ATH am.cnwuu RIFERRNOR DAY ™™ Muwm Tere SavT Comvarrin, = INTAIAIM WAt Srenaci 1$w34¢3510 Trimmies La. -~ A L6 Fr Dia, Wil Hiew Wan .Ml\mnam va‘Ln\ 1TE v Stonen in . 20-7.1‘?3 Tannt % Twmniae : : - B usicariy FREALL VALve QAR ISSE MATONAL, LASGRATORY Fan 1000 Davs . \ 73 - . ‘m‘_oo Rutinning WA w“w —2‘ i vuUou i . : g | b Y M//—"I.—" - ) i / , g B i1 40" s ol i g e T . & fa— TNy - WaaTe Siesinaw . ' “l"'-o Tumztc‘ '}4’ o -——"‘T e % 150" Hiow Su -G Cv _. b -9 , N i b | . t i ‘ | =iy i RG> | : T 5 Ty . | = » o . + . -l—fl- f i ; . Cero Tnaps , Swar - - - O T/ : wor X Sronanw R -y S c-4 i . ‘ S . . ‘ ‘ T Rasuay e . O : .t‘. _9 ) p“ Duneay %JQIAI-G 'o i‘ o , - N - e Tanns 48 e 28~ 200 Davws - CHMant MawmT. Saes C el o (& o & | ; o : ’ . . Preb Cornation _1 l : C ) o Vapanitin [ o ot Y - ) \» . ! + : H v '1 _{ " ¥ ) . : b ¥ o b BSamLe Galany {Ovem 1o ! 3 i . . Cowtnoi, Aoem) ELtivaton i ' . . . b i Contnan. Woowm . ) . ANALYTICAL AnAuy TieAL ANALYTIEN. Anany e A A TiEAL tuaTm, ; AvaLyTiemn LAw LAm e - : Ay LAS Suep. : Caw i S CinEnngas WikRiwouss T ) . : q . . Codminon ’ b 3 | . - \[‘"f\‘ A X R A : \éu ¢ i [ v | Y i = . . P Ak Lok _ o LoaDint . D-.m'- ‘ i Grncn Ofsicw Orpres Oerien . . \/ . Ann,‘:.m:ng AuA\:I:\cm.. Aun‘\:mc.l\s AMA\:.:':\:.M. Awstv:;cm- “ . ‘Mun Wewmuw . . Ewtnanas ' . . — | ] . ! Fe ‘C‘Q—l ) BuaiLEn 'J e ‘BGI.WG;.HAXUW.- ‘ / . a2 I8t'-0" . o, ‘st Fuoom Pual’ REFIRENCE DRAMNTS DR N0, Tremium Bassotn Rencyiom W [T Cramnaition MoLtan Savt Convimtem Reactom : ey Cuvawiimte | FLyomine VoapuTy CHemem, Puawy o R Yoy PLang Sueey | of 2 ' Lo o0 o sine ORC MOSE IATIOMAL LASORATORY by wreowee — o © RERmOW [ o | s | arrn + LUrnon CARBIDE Nmflflk COMPANY wwk farsed o T T o e bty =\ ~agiael AR e . bt S| - RPM Ras-eyf . L l = e T IR IE'4GOGT r! ™ Repomwue WAL Z- U] — e - (LT CHangt Wosmy CUuoc.ll. © Cmane Mam Amen) 1 CuRticAL WAREHOUSE S ———— X f/- Liawwe Dsiw i Pt @_{wm Camatrs - e —— - Erugeymicmn. B J w Yo ¢ e L2 L TRasty, Elsvaton yew Gean e.f V&R . & Switem BaAn o - fmepn Huymve v Luncia Resw B Fimay Mo eipaL Lt . v ° ‘ o < ! VauTueatien 1 e e e e e e e - s m i e o e ] e ' < - ei'-0" ’ Grours & Praw [ — ", N0, Tuomum Brusosm Musctem - [ aammonon [MeLTan SaAL] ConvIRTEIR Resciom Hoy Cumsn®o |FLuomioe VouaTiuigy Cutmican Puant 12 FeVoay Praws Suest 2 o 2 LANTY oy p—— SN OAK Bat NATIGNAL LABOREIGRY - r ] e . | o ]m]m]:'n " MOM.BIDEMEMOOW' wwr_ brect =1 —b S o et Eveninn RrRem_ e T [ Wk (a2 ot Yig" 210" [E%OGB F ‘;;;_,,‘ - — L Wi 5 1 Chant Mavw “3 Manomain. B Havy C'l"c.-p.-_J ?fitu. e D'.;I - I Srep - b-.uflm ' Ansa Trenrss G M s = Sk Thape b 277 ] GG v |-—tho’-—‘|$d"——- zoi-a‘——.-iiAi;o'io—yo'-c;l—-Il*u“[l-: ‘ L Samupid Cancany Capens Caugnon . o ) Rosm Eusegitieny , Rutmii B Camprreons + w | NEVISIONS oan wvo | vo - ™ TR Y ] L HWE _ Re3< : . E— - TR -y A o RLP. Misenn [2-14- 42 ] ] o T (] 1 DZTM ar cap. % Crang Pawgswisict Maga i 3 : i '9 A - W LL r Jll ¥ T Aras & ’ [ » I ' .9 o . ~ '0 - 0 . 3 o TEpuem > % ! Fiuom. l 8 Deiaxy s‘aw-nl | 3 | [ + - T - L o’—l<|cu" — PG —~p °,°[' 58"-G) ) R Stc.nnlu ”‘b-b' i ‘ '; 1 ) ] e : W | l _l.- L -0 ! 5%0" 1 g} SecTion “A-AT ETEERCE DS mn. Tuomium Brecosn Roaciom y 1ot Cunsupren MeLten SaLt Convamtes Ruactom Fuuomioe VouATiuity Cremical, Puany iz Fr Y Day - Seejions ||J--._—-- ummm . T UonCumme tisies oo +- S [ TR — [Eracocs [ o . g i, 0. 76 BTEAM TH CONDEMAER . \Tumlus Té 59 manwoL. 478" gacu I ( T L T T e e AT WASTE STORAGE CANAL SRS RS FLUORINE SuwPLY (N TANK TRAILERS) £OLD MAKE-UP TANKS ¢ FURNACES MOVABLE &R0 RIS 'G.:I-?‘F CRE TRAP § r ASSORBER [A . . r ety a‘'Nea stH j D) 48 mpg ’ | l—, » b [ . 1« -I ‘ - - LonDRNIAYE s 9 ,; . == o N l Ne ‘ § Y : N ' [A : : 1. [ LiF=DaFe Tuls Urg fi 2 ¢ ’ e , | PRI AT I 7 TTTT T (] X e 1] yr, A o 1 § . ; 1 4 - A . i i LIF-Ba¥e-TaF, ™ 1 V] 1% ruominaTion e ' : T ) , p“ - “ ; PRODUCT VAPORIZBR . . o a*nrn- s y 3 -1 i ‘ ‘ K3’ wiew 1 : A ] o SALT Puom '//' | v € ReacTon | % L ; -+ Fruom cume® ] - o HEFURMAZES Ko/ Pul:!n::s . iy e srn,rr " /] o'l 55- s, ® 48 T Thrtrn - - 4 : < '¢ yesd . . - f Y | E¥gy 1 mnugu(ao i 5 Jl 3§g.‘, = .U*“ Y l.fcl‘ / ,ibg : ] Y < = §§;E i) Iz . ! { Ha e !‘-’3 ': f @ : @ i 4 , } i Ne : l ‘4 Pa DECAY STORAGE TANKS : e 4 HEE X 332 Wt voL. 7.5 K et . ] * * REDUCTION LaLUMN ' 5 ' 1 R TR * e ‘\E E‘I’o‘;!:nflA;\?:‘L.; SN AT aoorE VACULWM :‘\:-'.M: wr A L PREsLOR o WAL hcinm BTN AT v ot I | ; o L ! L OAY_IS8; JOLVENT i |\ i NaF . i c:u:m- A%een Hy T DT (L rry ! I‘ vumm'nou ! J& cvCcLm & ! 3 HODU:T IG-IVI- 1 I tfl' 'EH& Wadillry "u— Il I {1 HE DISPOBAL . | ' 1'°5F" “Aq -"‘.fi;‘,’. tM: "'é-';".“-u"fi’-‘fo'&‘ A Yo CANAL 3TORAGE WASTE. S . AL D ‘—"—'—"—"—'*——’r——————-— 120 TANKS, i . I LYPR T e | [aal V04 v SPFER FROM R STAYION HYCROGEN SUPPLY SALT TO ABRACTOR CTReR R meran HF j_ RY \ Fovem. Cuan T : : o L 1 i'ql SEvt. Rxuavey G I’.tnnlfi_g ‘ ] _%_ é [ TR O st ssaanged] e G- Q" __._.——-l WPYADHCE DRAMIGS oW N0, Thoniuw Bazssun Rusatem — Moutem Bary Convamtem Ruactom Mot Coatuipin IFLuomne VeuAtikity Cuamicas Puany L FYY/Day =~ Secrone Uns o s smne oMt RiDas mm:m = ST T o . Ubion Caraine RUGLEAR CouPhy . Yoo 1o [E-4c080 " Voo, - “i 1 ul ' . v - s SN I (‘ i - 10. 1. - Evaluation (Dec. 31, 1961) 9 - REFERENCES W. H. Farrow, Jrey Radiochemical Separations Plant Study Part II ~ Design and Cost Estimates, DP-5606 (March 1061). - Personal communication R. P. Rfilford with W} H. Farrow, Jr. (Feb. 16 1962) R. B. Briggs, Molten Salt Reactor Program Progress Report for Period from March 1 to August 31, 961 ORNL-3215 (Jan. 12, 1962) G. I. Gathers, M. R. Bennet and R. L. Jolley, The Fused Salt Fluoride Volatility Process for Recovering Uranium, ORNL-260L1 \Apr. 1, 1959). W. H. Carr, S. Mann and E. C._Moncrief, "Uranium-Zirconium Alloy Fuel Processing in the ORNL Volatility Pilot Plant," Paper for Presentation at the AICh.E.. Symposium, "Volatility Reprocessing of Nuclear Reactor Fuels," New York, New York, Dec. 1961, ORNL CF 61-7-13 (July 10, 1961). R. P. Milford, S. Mann, J. B. Ruch end W. H. Carr, Jr., 'Recovering Urgnium Submerine Reector Fuels," Ind. Eng. Chen., 53, 357-362 (May 1961 S 'kmmucmWMmfims;aMummwuhsH.mnq(mwm Personal communication R. P. Milford and W. L. Carter with E. D. Arnold (Feb, 1962). J. 0. Blomeke end Mary F. Todd, Uranium Fission-Product Production as & Function of Thermal Neutron Flux, Irradiation Time, and Decay Time. 1, Atomic Concentrations and Gross Totals, 0RNL-2127, Part I, Vol., 2 {Dec, 15, 1958) : H. Etherington, ed., Nuclear Engineering Handbook, McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., New York (1958) Uhited States Atomic Energy Commission, Guide to Nuclear Power Cost Cost evaluation of molten salt reactor plant Joint effort of ORNL end 'Sargent and- Lnndy Engineers, Chicago, work in progress. F. L. Culler, Chemical Technology Division Annuel Progress Report for e;fe_the Period Ending May 31, 1962, ORNszgiu, in Public&tion,_, - b J. B Murray, et. al., "Economics of Unirradiated Processing Pheses of . Uranium Fuel Cycles,‘ Second International Conference on the Peaceful ‘Uses of Atomic Energy, Vol. 13, paper No. P/L39, Page 582, United 'Nations, New York, 1958. 80 'mmmc*ss - contd 15. ' J. J. Perona end R. I.. Bra.dshaw, Ozk Ridge Na.tional Ia‘boratory, personal communication, Aug. 2'7 s 1962. 16. R. E. ‘Blanco end E. G. Struxness, » Waste Treatment and Disposal - Progress Rgaort for Februarx—lviarch 1962, ORNL '.'I!M-252, p. 39, Septi 0’ -L 2 . ) i . 9 1 2 3 L, 5. 6. f 8 \O 10. - ll‘ 12. 13.° 1k, 15. 16. 7. 18. 19. - 20. 21. 22, 23, 2k, 25, 26, 27. 28. 29. MELWURDT GO wgfipwpmwbu*fio L. G. Alexander E. D. Arnold S. E. Beall M. Bender L. Bennett . S. Bettis . Blanco F. Blankenship L. Boch C. Bresee . Briggs .- Brown . Campbell Carlsmith . Carr Carter Cathers Craven . Culler . Ferguson . Fraas . Gift . Goeller . Guthrie . Horton - . Kasten Kerlin Lane . Lindauer = OoOww - WrEgitEmuvEr S HHm®m 60. 63-6h | 65f79._ 8L - Internal Distribution 30. R. N. Lyon 31. H. G. MacPherson 32. W. D. Manly 33. H. F. Mchuffie 3’4-- R. Pp Milford. 35. A, J. Miller 36. A. M. Perry 37. M. W. Rosenthal 38. H. W. Savage 39. A, W. Savolainen Lo. M. J. Skinner ~L41. I. Spiewak h2. W. G. Stockdale 43. J. A. Swartout 44. D. B. Trauger 45, J. W. Ullmann L6. W. E. Unger 47. R. Van Winkle 48. A. M. Weinberg kg, M., E. Whatley - 50-«51. :Central Research Library 52-54. Y.12 Document REference - Section 55-5%. Laboratory Records ~ Department (LRD) 58. Llaboratory Records Department (LRD-RC) 59. Reactor Division Library External Distribution _jR. E. Pahler (AEC, Washington) ¢ . 'F. P..8elf (AEC-ORO) . 2. Research and Development Division (AEC-ORO) ‘Reactor Division (AEC-ORO) ‘Division of Technical Information Extension (DTIE) -