ENGINEERING AND ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY STUDY OF FISSION PRODUCT PACKAGING J* G. Lewis H. A. Ohlgren M. E. Weech R. R. White March, 1957 IP-209

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT This paper is a report of research conducted by the Engineering Research Institute, the University of Michigan, under contract with The Dow Chemical Company. The Industry Program of the College of Engineering wishes to express its appreciation to The Dow Chemical Company for permission to distribute this report under the Industry Program cover.

PREFACE This report is a summary of some technical and economic studies of various methods of separating and packaging fission products resulting from the operation of nuclear reactors. These studies are based on information which has been collected, analyzed, evaluated, and projected to the scale of operations required for The Dow Chemical Company's fields of interest in packaging fission products as industrial sources of radiation. Much of the information used was obtained from laboratories supported by the U. S. Atomic Energy Commission chiefly at Oak Ridge National Laboratoryy Argonne National Laboratories, the National Reactor Testing Station, the Hanford Works, and Brookhaven National Laboratory. The workers in these laboratories and elsewhere have discussed the data available, and have given freely of their time in contributing information and ideas which have made possible this projection of the technical and economic feasibility of fission product packaging. The work described in this report has been made possible by contractual arrangements between The Dow Chemical Company of Midland, Michigan, and the University of Michigan under contract number 2378 of the Engineering Research Institute. ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page II. NSTAODCTU............ 2 II. 7'IODUCT!ON.......5..... III X I1ILOSOPT-Y OiF ENGI'TIIERITNG DESIGNI t....... o 9 IV. DISCUSSION O' PROCESSES...... 1.5 V. PLANNING ANID SCIDULINIG...... VI. ESTIMAYTrES AND PROJECTISONS OF CAPITAL IvltESTI\ ET' ANIiD EXPENeITURES......... 48 VII. COSTS OF PACAGING- FISION PRFiCl!TS AND ECON(4OMIC FOR.ECASTS..... o VIII. CONSIDE, RTDION OE-FI DEiE V LOPMEEtT PRiG>S..,.AMS 1i-44 iX, CONC"USTIONJS A\D SU3iMrfYe.. e o,'"ljlt,:iiiSn~lD~ J~ )~~b~0 t

:::.:.......~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~:.::: 0:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~:;; iitI&I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~i:.~!.i;~. I: D 0 -, t f~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-:::,;f: 1::, ~.: I S::X::: 1~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~:::..-::;00: f:f:-:::C: tj:;L:i i:::.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~1'~ ~~ ~~~ -:.X ~".... ~....' -90;: 0 t0000:: -. GENERAL VIE W~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~"~~~~~i ~'''..i-; —~ —-::: -i.:;:'::::::~:il.. ~: ~ ~: ~ - ~i:~~ ~ ~i.. ~. ~ -. |0000:::.:. t4::ri~j:~-::::::-:jr:~:ij;:-i:::::: 1~~ -,:::::: ~: FO:R, - -0' i; 0 F S P::: -i0 i- c__-h v=' _ _li:::-:.. i.'.i?~'~-"....' ~ i' ij~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~,........ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~:: j:::~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~?.~~~..~.i!.i1!.''~ i''!:: jr-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~''11ii~.L..~,.........;...................~,~ i ~!ii' h i:.I ".... ~....? ~.i' i.r'i'.I ~'. i 11'" ~.........?'' ~ -r B~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~'".... i'.~ ~... ~i.....~..~..~,.,~..~i~...................... kl,..... d...............~.... ~~ ~.............,~...~~......... i ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.................~...................~....................!iiii!111~i!~11i!!!! ~,~ ~ ~?,,~,~,~,~,~,~,~i,~ ~ ~,~,~,,~~,,~, ~,.............~..............~..............~............~.......................~~,?~~.. ~,,*~~~~~~~~~~~~ C ~~~~ d~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~!!' i:.................... <'}..............................,.....-~,~?~-....~, -~~Fgr i:: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~..~.~._ I:.............,..................R 1~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~: ~ FI.~'i~ P!i~?.,~i;.,\AIO Aii~ PAKGN

I. ABSTRACT Fission products from the operation of nuclear reactors have value as sources of beta and gamma radiation for industrial, medical, and research uses. In this report, costs of separating cesium and strontium from the gross fission products and also of packaging the gross fission products have been estimated and reported. Three main objectives were pursued in the present study. These were: 1. To compare with one another six methods of separatirng and packaging fission products and to make recommendations regarding the most desirable methodto pursue further. 2. To reduce volumes of undesired fission product wastes in order to permit more economical storage methods. 3. To remove from the fission products not packages those longlived nuclides which are biologically hazardous, to sufficient degrees to permit discarding of the remaining fission products. The technical aspects of the alternative methods of separation were examined and. certain projections were made in technology based on assumed development. Operating costs were estimated for each of these alternative processes. Unit operating costs in terms of dollars per curie of radiation produced were then computed. An arbitrary production rate of ten million;nma curies per year of cesium was assumed at full design capacity for each plant. This rate of cesium processing corresponds to approximately frour times the anticipated rate of fission product cesium production from all of the power reactors of the U. S. Atomic Energy Commission's fiveyear program of civili.an power -reactor development wT7,hic'h should be in operation by 196o. The following were six alternate methods studies for fractionatingr the gross fission product mixture into strontium, cesitmn, and inrto a third category consi.sting of the remaini.ng fission products: 1. Co-precipitation for selective removal of cesillm, possibly other alkali ions, and strontium. 2. Ion exchange for -removal of cesium and probably other l.kali metal ions from the alkali dissolution of aluminum fuel elements. 3 Procedures of fractional precipitation and crystallization with the ultimate separation of strontium and of cesium. Cesium would be removed in the final step by co-crystallization in,ammonium alum. 2

Complexing and solvent extraction for the selective removal of alkali and alkaline earth ions present in the gross fission products. 5. Evaporation of aqueous and acid solvents from solutions of gross fission products. 6. The leaching of soluble oxides, such as cesium oxides, from a dried mass of oxides of the fission products resulting from the evaporation of a solution of gross fission products. Based on a maximum production rate of 107 gamma curies of cesium per year, operating costs for all six of the processes mentioned above are roughly comparable. Total operating costs vary from a minimum of $717,530 per year at 25 percent of capacity up to $1,068,160 per yJear at 100) percent of design operating capacity for the gross fission product packaging process. This process represents the minimum operating costs of all processes, although it does not achieve separation of individual fission products. Total operating costs range from $923,570 per year at 25 percent, and $1,363,850 per year at 100 percent of design operating capacity for the solvent extraction process. Corresponding costs are $885,450 per year at 25 per cent and $1,286,000 per year at 100 percent of design capacity for the co-crystallization process. The solvent extraction or co-crystallization process. The solvent extraction or co-crystallization processes are the only ones which achieve the separation of gross fission products into a number of relatively pure fractions. At full production rate in each process, the unit costs obtained on assessing all operations against cesium are $0.11 per gmm;a curie of cesium in the gross fission product packaging process; are $0.4ll per gamma curie of cesium in the solvent extraction process; and are $0.13 per gamma curie of cesium in the co-crystallization process. Unit costs at full production per beta curie of stronti'um are $0.09 for solvent extraction and $0.09 for co-crystallization. The unit operating costs depend heavily upon the rate of processing in a given plant, since relatively large fixed investments neare necessary for shielding and remote handling procedures. Several of the processes studied are, within imits, of comparable operating costs. Further review of these processes should be considered on the technical merits and possible costs and timetables of development of the processes, as much as upon this preliminary economic analysis of operating costs. The philosophy and ground rules of engineering design employed are described at length, since such considerations influence heavily the costs figures presented. The packaging plant was assumed to be located in a remote area and to be sufficiently near to an existing fuel separations plant to be able to use capital facilities for general services already in existence for the fuel processing plant.

The supply of gross fission products was assumed to cost nothing, and no credit was taken for the storage in dry form of waste products from packaging operations. No credit was taken for nitric acid recovered from gross fission product solutions during packaging operations. A brief discussion is presented of factors likely to affect sales of fission products as sources of radiation.

II. INTRODUCTION A study has been made to evaluate the separation of radioactive cesium and strontium from gross fission pro.cucts from irradiated nuclear reactor fuels. Provisions are made in nthis study for fractionatin n od packaging of fission products resulting from the aqueous processing of irradiated nuclear fuels. However, it is believed that only minor modifications would permit the treatment of fission products from alternative means of processing fuels. The general scope of work described in t;hi-s report is a preliminary technical and economic feasibility study of the separation and packaging of cesium, strontium, and the remaining gross fiss.ion products in dry form in metallic containers for use as sources of radiation or for storage. Most of the results and conclusions reported are based upon the chemical and engineering practices which have been developed, or are now under development, at various facilities of the U. S. Atomic Energy Commission. In addition to these practices, some of the study is based upon adaptations or extensions of present methods which may require some development. Some specific objectives of this feasibility study are summarized as follows: A. To produce a package of a desired fission product suitable for use in radiation procedures. B. To reduce the storage cost of fission products remaining after the desired materials have been extracted. C. To remove long-lived fission products from the aqueous waste to a degree which would permit accelerated disposal of the remaining waste to the environment. The general approach has been to assume that the object-1xives (A), (:B), and. (C) can be achieved simultaneously if cesiium anid strontium are both removed from the gross fission products, eanad are a aci:;aed separately, or in combYTnation with the other products in the Sros fission product packaging procedure. When cesium and Strontium have been removed, the remaining other fission product;s ma.y>, be disposed of to the earth after relatively few years of storage in aqueous solution. As an alternative, if the remaining fission products are stored in dry form, their cost of continued storage is greatly reduced below that of aqueous methods, even though cesium and stronrtium are not completely removed. 5

The studies upon which this progress report is based have consisted of examination of the following alternative or supplementary methods of preparing fission products in the form of packages of solid salts: 1. A co-precipitation process in which cesium and strontium are simultaneously carried down from a solution of gross fission products by means of a ferrocyanide precipitate. The precipitate is destroyed and the desired materials recovered from the residue. 2. A co-crystallization process in which cesium is removed from the fission product solution by co-crystallization with alum, after strontium and some other fission products have been removed by various precipitation and crystallization procedures. 3. An ion exchange process for the removal of cesiua from the caustic liquors resulting from dissolution of aluminun fuel elements in sodium hydroxide solution. 4. A solvent extraction process in which the various fission product elements are selectively removed from a solution of gross fission products by means of pH adjustments, followed by chelation with thenoyltrifluoroacetone dissolved in methyl isobutyl ketone. The ketone extracts the chelates selectively from aqueous fission product solutions, and the chelates may then be removed from the ketone into an aqueous solution by a further contacting procedure by aqueous solutions with adjustmren-ts of pH. 5. A gross fission product packaging process consisting in dehydrating and denitrating solutions of aqueous waste fission products from the aqueous solvent extraction of fuels and packaging the resulting dry powders. 6. 1An oxide leaching process based upon the gross flssioni product packaging process. In the leaching process, the gross fission product oxides are leached with water for the removal! o.f cesium hydroxide, and possibly further treated for the re.moval of strontium hydroxide, and the cesium and stronti.-um are then packaged. The oxides of the remaining fission products are converted to dry powders and stored as vwastes. The processing capacity of the fission product sepa-7:ation plants t`udi ed has been based upon published accounts (12) of the probable nuclear power generating canacity to be installed in this coutntry by thle year 1960. The operation of these reactors would yield approximately two and one-half million gurmna curies per year of cesium-137 in the cross fission products, and the desirgn capacity of thle plants studied. has been set at four times this figure, or ten million garena cuLries per year of cesium. A fissio-n product processi.ng plant might either be centrally l.ocated. with respect to the pronosed nuclear power gereratinsg system dezeribed above, or might be located near one of the U. S. Atomic Enesgy Comrnission fuels separati.on plants em loying, simplified. aueous solvzent extraction methods of fuel separation, such -as a Pure<-t;e process. 6

The treatment of Purex-type wastes was studies in this report. These wastes are asmong the least complicated available, since they contain essentially fission products, water, nitric acid, small amounts of sodium, and small amounts of other impurities. (See (7). Variables affecting the choice of an optilmum source of fission products are thought to be the following: 1. Concentration of the gross fission products in the wraste solutions. 2. Percentage abundance of cesium and strontium in the gross fission products as affected by the length of reactor operation and cooling period. 3. The total quantities of fission products available. 4. Probable ease of removing fission products from the solutions of waste fission products. 5. Possibilities of agreements being reached with the U. S. Atomic Energy Conmission or civilian nuclear power operators regarding supplies of fission products and disposal of wastes. 6. Costs of fission product separation and packaging by required methods. 7. Costs and schedules of development required for possible methods of separating and packaging fission products. OUTLINES OF DEVELOPIENT WORK It is intended that the designs of the fission }product separation facilities presented il this report would be sulitable for operation as producing units. These units would permit considerable variation in productive capacity and in tlhe composition of the gross fission products. A prime objective in the preparation of' this work. was;to provide designs which would permit the lowest capital and opexrating costs likely to be achieved. Tn order to realize the foregoing objectives, it was necessary to outline progratms of devwlopmsent which can be achievred. in accordance with ther predeterrinied plan and Schedule for an over-all facility. Problems must be solved, such as transfer of fission product solutions, removal of interferingl, ions such as iron, aluminum, and sodium, the kinetics of extraction, precipitation, and crystallization processes, optimum HTU values for extractions, concentration of gross fission products, and radia.tion dtalge. It should be understood that the results portrayed in this r:port are subject to the qualifications of successful achievement of such die-velopment programs. In certain cases, it has been necessary to make assumptions of optimum designs subject to achevement of adequate date and. infornation.

The work of design and development which is described and summarized in this report is termed Phase I - Feasibility Studies. This work has consisted essentially of projecting available technology available on aqueous processing methods for gross fission products of compositions presently available. Endeavors have been made to incorporate sufficient flexibility in the designs of the processes so that a single plant can accommodate a wide range of chemical processing methods for fission products of different compositions. In general, the engineering studies which have been possible in this initial endeavor have portrayed systems and process designs which would permit conducting several different chemical processing steps alternatively in some of the equipment. The only limiting conditions which are imposed upon the achievement of such alternative chemical methods of fission product separation are the life and corrosion resistance of the process equipment and machinery. Industrial practices have been assumed where possible in the study described. Special consideration was given to equipment for which radiochemical and metallurgical problems necessitate special design consideration. It is hoped that the studies which have been completed and summarized in this report will serve as justification for instituting development and engineering activities with sufficient emphasis to permit the technological progress in fission product processing to be applicable either to the packaging of fission products as commercial sources of radiation or as offering attractive contributions to the technology and economics of fuels processing paralleling the efforts and achievements required in the reactor fuels development program. The designs which are presented in this feasibility study possess flexibility of layout requirements. Essentially the same requirements for land and buildings and the same cell and handling layouts in operating areas, offices, and laboratories, etc., are required. for all of the processes with the possible exception of the solvent extraction process. The solvent extraction process differs only in that it requires one separate cell for high temperature furnacing operations for the evaporation of fission products, in order to avoid explosion hazards inherent in operation of high temperature equipment near solvents. Consequently, any one of the five processes studied, with the exception of solvent extraction, could, be placed in the same set of structures. If it is desired to produce fission product sources rapidly, initially one might start with the gross fission product packaging plant and by additions or alternations of equipment as developmental technology became available, add the facili-iles for separation and packaging of desired separate radioisotopes. 8

III. PHILOSOPHY OF ENCGIE ERING DESIGN A. General The philosophy of design established for fission product separations plants plays a significant role in the economic feasibility of such plants. Much of such philosophy is based upon judgment and experience with requirements of health and public safety, public relations, legal requirements, insurance regulations, and specific company policies. It is considered necessary to adopt engineering practices consistent with present industrial philosophies in order to achieve costs of capital and operations such that industry can afford to invest in such facilities. Many of the basic assumptions ma~de in this study will require critical re-evaluations as the progress of future work unfolds. It is hoped that the data and information contained in this report will serve as a basis from which additional evaluations, extrapolations, and modified approaches or alternatives can be considered. However, in order to validate the capital and operating costs portrayed in this study, it is essential that the basic criteria of design and operation be stated rather specifically. It is suggested that when reviewing estimates of the cot of plant and the cost of operation, that the scheduling of operations and considerations of safety and layout be reviewed carefully in detail before making extrapolations from the figures presented in this report. The processing plants described in this report have been evaluated for a specific composition of waste fission products consisting of essentially the evaporated waste from a Purex-ty5e of a queous fuel separation process. The rate of production of packaned. frission products has been based on feed containirng ten ri llion imro curric per year of cesium, which is an arbitrary figLCure representing roughly lur times the anticipated productive capacity oP th crivilian power reactors projected for operation in thi he,..'... 1C.... The fission product packaging plant is assuamed to be!3Catdi adjacent to a fuel processing plant which produces the fi-sion product wastes. The coordination of location of activities of these facilities heavily influences the costs portrayed. in this study. No allowance has been made in this study for the provision of general services such as steam and power generating equipment, potable and service water pumping facilities, utilities networks external to the processing plant, ultimate disposal of active wastes, sanitary sewage disposal, roads, railroads, the preparation of the site, perimeter fences, security guards, oeneral administration, and fiscal matters related to the particular company policy. Several alternative methods of fission product 9

packaging and separation of aqueous fission product solutions from processing plants were selected for study as possible methods of supplying industrial sources of radiation. Complete information regarding the kinetics and conditions of e-uilibriim for the various chemical steps portrayed in these processes are not now available. However, work is continui.ng in USt. Atomic Energy Conmission national laboratories in addition to promising results which have already been obtained, many in the pilot pl.ant scale. It is hoped that further general information on this subject may be available under the general program of development of the U. S. Atomic Energy Commission. The following are statements of design criteria which have been assumed and upon which costs and economics have been projected. B. Reouirements of Plant Design Alternative methods of fission product packaging which have been studied under this program of wtork are specifically related to the aqueous acid solution of fission products result-ing from thhe Purex-type of fuel... leme:_nt seoaration, Sources of flisssion Oro — ducts from other methods of fuel element separati.o could:1rob-.ably be handled wi.th r:elatively minor modificationE. ofC th p1a..n.ts studied in this scone of work. As further inforrilation is c.eveloped about these systems, and possibly uporn the baisis of further studies which might be conducted at this tifme, lIta~: a;-, methods of separating fissi on products might be avai, bc- for c; tr- si ration from pyrometallurgica'l slags, or from fluoride,o at? ility fission product fract5ions. S3,omu. of the special coini ei, 1t-o n inherent in the design philo..sophy emr. loyed in this S_,t'w,$,t r 1_- i-1: folloxwing: 1. PrQocessing P..t;es The total s,iUply of f'i ssi on product, rt. te-l.e,s:aIi " rQ:.ei. exerts a limiti;n,. influence upon the conromic' of th studies, and. thi'e cot.-of structure.'s an,,,L....oni, f.' -- cilities for a given plant e:;errts a mulch xgr- -ur.-f l:,-Ce upon capital cost than would relatively seen.ary ad.justments in sizes end costs of equipment reCe.r1de for la ergr throughputs. In ad diti.on, reouirements of' om...i... - personnel would. pirobtably not increase for g'.retlv increase throughputs in such a plant. 10

Present considerations have based the separation of fission products upon those waste products available from the projected five-year plan of civilian power reactor operation of the U. S. Atomic Energy Commission and the interested utility concerns in the field. A figure of ten million gammna curies per year of cesium has been selected as representing design capacity of the plants studied. This rate of production of fission products is about four times that anticipated from all of the civilian power reactors to be developed within this five-year period. It is probable that the rate of fission product production will increase rapidly with increasing use of nuclear power in American industry. 2. Product Specifications Throughout these studies, provisions nave been made to insure a pure fraction of strontium-90 for packaging as a beta source in order that contaminating gamma emitters would not require heavy shielding for the use of such beta sources. Similar standards of purity have been applied to the cesiun separations in order to maintain the specific activity of the cesium sources at maximum values by eliminating all possible impurities. In the case of packaging of oxides of gross fission products, of course a wide spectrum of gamma and beta energies will be encountered, and such purity specifications are meaningless. However, such sources of radiation would probably have a much greater total radiation power than isolated fractions of specific long-life fission products, especially for short-cooled materials. 3. Supply of Raw Material Fission Products It has been asstuned in these studies than an aequeous acid solution of fission prod.ucts would be sunp plied to the processing plant without charge by the fuels separat-ion plant operator. No provisions are made for casks, car riers, or other elaborate provisions for the tran sport of sulch solutions, it being ass&Umed that the solutions would be moved in underground shi'elded pipes from the fuel processing plant to the fission product packaging plant. 4. Disposal of waste?[1aterials The active waste mateFrials are assured to be evaporated to the dry state and. stored in containers either for u.se- as lower level sources of radiation, sources with ra nd decay characteristics, or as containers which might be stored underground in a dry state for perzmanent storage for reduced periods because of the removal of long-life fission products and at greatly reduced cost because of the reduced volumes of storage required. 11

5. Simplified C:,._J.11 Structu/rs, For the kind ofl facility discussed in this repori:lt, it is thought tha't tthe simplest, cheap-est, and generally optimum design for a struct-ure to house equipment for radioactive chemical o-pe:reatio-onsD consists in containing ingsofar as possible the entire set of fission product separations facilities In one cell. andz trhe storage of packaged,. roduct materials or dried waste materials in anothe:r cell. 1he only exception to this situation has been in t!he case of' the solvent extlraction plsnt, wThere a third cell wEas inSserted for the h-i.h tee,.t. ature operationrs of dehydrating and. denitrating fission product salts in order to prevent the fire hazard associated with condu.ct.~ng these oneration i.n equipment im.- ecd. iately adj-aceenr to solvent extraction orerations. The use of a iln:im, number of cells is prredicated upon a nv-urmber o-f b'asic considerations. These are as:foiows: a. Preplanned an.ntd Scheduled Malaintenance The fission product packaging pllants are essentially noinventory plants and do not provide meatns by which certain operations can be continued while others are s:hutdown. Conse quen-tly, it is retcuisi.t, that on a progr rte of scheduledJ3 m.aiintenance for major repair s, an entire unit Tim st be -u'tdon and:l.elntlamin.ted. b. ER91ipneri;,ife It is belie.ve.d. that throurh r vi.orous... ciOmt and mechanical te.st ng, the life of equ'J rlment wh9ich. is contained in a (gven celi can be predi lted. with suffiei e nt accuracy to ne-mrnit the ched.utl-i,g of sd c. Decont.,.min- ti o.o The remote operati onc,,oin to!e1 vl::. of'radcnio-.c'.et;ivity associa.t,-ed.`t -!:h tlte. ie-ro!ensing opsrations, rc -vLire that desicm h- e' ievOd toe t; + o'proces1 s i g i;t 1f sny prvt of ti-,htie ( o:,*'tic':'^-' iLPCs;attent Air!. d. Stkr-uct LUatr(~., Lecause o3f'., la oion of cap -iita.1 cost inr'-er^sted in structun-.::: a' prroess' i:. plant contained in ma, inci. a1 number of:.I%.ructuL1r- lel;il m inriize c a..ital, -a! nd. operatirv —:,-"enui reel 12

e. Commncn Remote Handling Common remote handling of packaged fission product materials and dry packaged waste materials can be realized most economically through a common remote handling area such as that portrayed in this study. Mechanical equipment for remote handling is extremely expensive. Consequently, the reduction of remote handling facilities permits a decided economic advantage. f. Multiple Use of Structures In each plant studied, one cell is for the storage of packaged fission products -and dry waste materials. The contents of this cell might be removed and replaced with other processing equipment while the original process is in operation, if it is desired to change, alter, or add to the processing facilities originally provided for in a plant. go Layout Simplification The location of all equipment in a few cells eliminates the necessity of providing hot and cold pipe trenches and a labyrinth of inserts ald intercell connections. A combination of remote and direct maintenance has been employed in these plants. VThere equipment life can be predicted for long periods of time, provisions are mrade that such facilities be decontaminated and maintaired by direct means* In remaining cases, where the equipment life cannot be predicted and yet regular maintenance is required, such equipment will be isolated and provxisions made for remote-direct; maintenance or for removal of suach eqjaipment in its entirety in coffin,-s ad replacem ent by remote means. 5. Plant Safety It will be necessary to provide facilitites which 1ri'l permit the safe conduct of the operations just described. High levels of radioactivity must be dealt with in fissidon p'roduct nackag.ing operations. In addition, the disposal of off-gases which may contain fission products and disposal of liquid and solid wastes containing both chemical and radioactive irateriaIs constitutes a major problem. Proper ha.l3.ing of solvents, acids, caustic soda, and other hazardous materials must be dealt with as in conventional chemical processing urnits. 7. Objectives of Analytical Laboratories Analytical laborat-ories are considexred to be acdquate for establishmenlt of opesatirmg controls on product qtulity and plant inventory balance and methods of plart nni cintenance?, 13

The primary responsibility for continuous operating control would be placed upon the design instrumentation of the plant and upon the observations sand proper execution of operating procedures by the plant personnel. Consequently, the analytical laboratories contain no provisions for the securing of data of a research or development nature. C. Considerations of Development Work The first objecti.ve in the preparation of this Tork was to provide a design which would permit the lowest capital and operating costs likely to be achieved. In order to realize optimized costs, it was necessary to assume the possibility of conducting certain operations which have not been demonstrated in their entirety, either in the laboratory or plant scale. Problems such as the continuous fluidized bed dehydration and denitration of highly active fission product solutions, the solvent extraction of highlly active fission products, the evaluation of radiation damage, and remote handling and packaging of fission product dry solids, are all problems which must be solved. A program of development will probably be required in order to achieve a successful operating plant employing any of the alternative processes of fission product packaging portrayed in this report. 14

IV. DISCUSSION OF PROCESSES A. General AspectLs of Fission Prod.uct Separation and Packaaging The chemical processing plants for the separation and packaging of fission products from irradiated nuclear fuels covered in this study are based primarily upon the following steps. Aqueous chemical operations are employed for the separation of cesium and of strontium from an acid-aqueous strecam of gross fission product wastes in most of the processes. Exceptions are those involvingr thle packagi~n of gross fission products without further separations. Complbe~rte data and descriptions of equipment and technologies employed are not available from goverrnment-owned laboratories for any of these processes. The only process projected for commercial operation is that being employed in the fission product pilot plant at the Oak Ridge National Laboratories employing a series of aqueous steps involving precipitation, filtering, crystallization operations, largely on a batch bases. Some departures are employed in the processes described in this study from practices currently employed in government-owned plants. Some of the depaftures employed will require programs of development in order to achieve plant designs projected in this engineering study. Certain developmental programs presently being conducted in the U.S. Atomic Energy Comrmtssiort sites will provide basic data which will be useful ir arriving at the detailed designs visualized for this type of fac r4L. tyr The general categories of procezsing whicqh are pecudliar to this plant are outlined in detail under Section ITI entitled "Philosophy of Engineering Design, and itder Section VEII entitl; d "Cons i-a tions of Development ProgramBs" An aqueous solution containing nitric acid, fission products, certain residual traces of source and fissionable material, some sodium ions added in processingf and some iron and other materials of construction dissolved from processing equipment makes up the feed material to all of these processes. Other alternative sources of feed materials such as those from fluoride volatility or pyrometallurgical processes might be employed in these plants by appropriate adjustments of composition to put them in an aqueous phase, or other methods of separation peculiarly applicable to these types of wastes might be employed, Generally, excess nitric acid is evaporated before conencement of processing, although this step is not specifically? noted on all flowsheets. 15

B. Description of the Co-Precipitation of Cesitum and Strontium from Fuel Processing Solutions -'CP Process" See Figure 2 for a block flowsheet of the "'CP Process". The aqueous solution of fission products is passed through an evaporation system where most of the nitric acid is boiled off, together with some water The solution is then re-diluted. This step removes most of the requirement for base in adjusting pH. Then sufficient sodium ferrocyanide is added to the solution to give a solution equlivalent to one hundredth molar in nickel ferrocyanide, which will. be formed later upon the addition of nickel salt. Then a twenty-fold excess of nickel sulfate is added, and the resulting precipitate of nickel ferrocyanide, if in solution, would constitute a.03. molar solution. Calciumn nitrate is also added before the nickel sulfate in order to carry down strontium during this operation. It was fournd in some work that nickel compounds should. be present in the concentration of.005 molar for a cesium content of.03 grams per liter. During this precipitation reaction, the temperature must be kelpt bel.ow 700 C. It is reported that more than 99 percent of the cesium is carried down with the precipitate in this operation. Precipitate is centrifuged from the supernatant liquor, and the resulting sludge is calcined at 6000 C. in a fluidized bed evaporator. Tsle calcining operation breaks down the comolex cesium-sodium ferrocyanide, and strontium ferrocyani'sdes so that strontium ancd. cesiui arre a-Vailable in ionic form. The nickel and iron appear as oxides after the calcination. The calcined sludge is then leached with water, and possibly with other solvents, and cesium and strontiui taken into solution again. The separate solutions resulting from these leaching operations are then centrifuged to remove residualr i nsrol uble materials, and are then concentrated, transferred to small containers and transferred again to the finishing and packagling ara. Decontemination:factors of other alkali ions conmo.... red 1 with cesitim as a result of the precipitation process arel: odiu3i, 1 o03; potassium, 400; and rubidium, 10. The superiot r d3c rt a;,.l-.t n.ionr factor to be achieved with sodium has reisulted7.n t1 ri o- i;n t'.ni. of the u.se of the sodium salt, ather thanr th-e mIx r jl Sa -t n t'he ferrocyanide addition. Recovery of cesiumw:florn tWl-e co'r-igti.I. tr.stc stream with this process is greater than 90 nFi, ~-~:~fnt t.h... individual steps indicate higher recoveries than tbhils. Thi-s p rocess was developed. at the Hanford wI;orks (7), an i.s being si r,i at1 t the National Reactor Testing Station (10). Additional workt, still. in the laboratory stage, at the National Reactor Testingr, St~a'tion is being conducted upon alternative means, other than caelcinaition, of separating the cesium and strontium frorm t+he sludge. 16

C. Descripti on of the Ion Exchange Mi.ethod for the Removal of Cesium f I _r"~r T'~ T from Alkaline Fu}el Processing Solutions - "IX. Pr.oc??-"So Laboratory and preliminary pilot plant studies hLave been cond.ucted. at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory (9) on the recovr-ry of cesium from the solutions resulting from alkaline dissolutltion of Cal.uminumbearing fuel elements. It should be said at this point that further work on this process has been dropped brcause the VurenirM from the fuel element dissolution by caustic appeared as fine particles of oxid.e which could not be recovererd sufficiently completely from the fuel element solutions to permit; greneraal adoption of this process. In addition, methods for the recovery of ions other than cesium have not been worked out. However, the general aspects of this process were surveyed from. an economic point of view to see what attraction it might have if the various problems could. be resolved. Accordingly, a description of this process follows. In the flowsheet used., (see Fiiure 4), the irradiated fuel elements, NfP or MTR, are dissolved in sodium hydroxide, and. the resulting solution contains sodium alLminate, cesium, rubidilm, a-nd some barium. The fuel element solution is then centrifugyedf to remove uraniuzm oxide particles. The centrifuged solution is fed to a counterculrrent ion exchange column i.n which the cesium is absorbed _and tihen eluted selectively. It has been claimed that the continuous ion exchange equipment which has been developed X solves the p-r1oblem of rcdiati.on damage to the resin, in that resin may be continuouslry se to~, arnd removed from, the cou.mn during operatl on.'ie ii et cl c..umn consists of two parallel vert:ical columns, rIn one o-f the- conurns the absorption and elution is carried out. The other col mrnm SaeiXsers as a mechanical transfer 3.leg for the recyroli- n2 c.;' rs.e —- JK i.S u c;pd-. from the top of the active section. This di schar.id rra c. rri..d dowrn th'e transfer columr hydraulicC.ally and ijs rtc( — nt i; l' od c, i Cotinus i rl into the bottom of the ab;sorption.and elution cou7~. ib rsn Si s thus transferred hydvre autllically in a path: countor;ni^ r;\ t-' I i cms o flows. Stresans of all. chemicals are mnetere-d into t;-e r-C r on.'l~ LIln col0. m leg for periods apprkox imating one minute. At th c g cIU t'h. }' working time, a set of plug valves in the col rrom anL as::oczUe 1 - draul ic transfer equime-nt opens and. closeS an aa.e rori>7te'+; Ctu.t:Cl)c, and a hydraulic cylinder pulses the resi:n frPom Inc logi in ~vo t;hc ohzer leg. The streams flowing to and from the co1u1mnL and t1x pulse Imechtanism are connected through a timerj in SUch a way that t;he ur) nit 7oeates automatically. The operation of the ion ex2change column is as sheown n.T -thhe accompan:ying Figures 8 and 9. Here the resin is shovm entering the left-hand or absorption column at the bottom. In this colzmn the alkaline 17

solution of sodium aluminate and cesium ion is fed at a point about half way up the column. The cesium in the feed is absorbed by the resin which is continually moved bodily up the column, while the waste stream goes out the bottom of the column. The cesium is continuously eluted from the resin by means of ana~monium 2arbonate solution, and the cesium is carried off in a solution containing excess ammonium carbonate, from which it may be recovered as described later. After the elution operation, the resin is in the ammonium form. The resin must be converted to the sodium form from which the cesium then displaces sodium on the next cycle, and from which the cesium is in turn displaced by the ammonium ion. Streams of water are shown entering the column at various locations in order to preserve the hydraulic balance and to cause the various streams to flow in the desired directions. In addition, a stream of sodium hydroxide is added to the column directly above thie feed entrance point in order to wash the aluminum solutions down the column and prevent hrydrolysis of the aluminate. The cesium-bearing ammonium carbonate solution is passed to a chemical recovery section, where the solution is boiled, and the ammonia and carbon dioxide released are re-combined in a scrubbing tower. Provision is made to make up any imbalance due to differential losses of these materials by the addition of more ammonia, carbon dioxide or ammonium carbonate. The remaining cesium solution is then concentrated and sent to the finishing and packaging operations, which are described in Section IVH, In this case the cesium product from the separations operations is in the form of cesium hydroxide. Cesium recovery of 99*99 percent is claimed in this unit. A topical report on this process has not yet been written by Oak Ridge National Laboratories. Some cognate data can be found in work by B3lanco, et al., (9) and Higgins, et al., (14). D, Descri=tion of the Co-Crystallization of Cesium and the Precip.ltation of Strontium from Fuel Processing Solutions - "CX Process" The so-called co-crystallization process is one w0rhich has been developed at Oak Ridge National Laboratories, and is presently being placed in pilot plant operation by Rupp and co-workers, who have flurther described this process (19). The process actually consists of a means of separatirng a fission product waste solution rather competely into its various chemical components, and is suitable for recovery of many fission products in addition to cesium. Emphasis has been placed here on recovery of cesium and strontium. This process may operate upon feed from the caustic dissolution of fuel elements, or from the dissolution of fuel elements in acid, provided an acidity adjustment is made. If cesiua only is required. the pH-adljusted solution may be treated with an ammonium alum. Cesium replaces the armonium ion in the alum, and. the 18

cesium-ammonium alum can be crystallized out of the solution. Rubidium may may be separated from cesium by fractional crystallization of the alum. The crystals are separated from the mother liquor in the crystallizer by jetting the mother liquor from the crystals. Cesium recovery from gross fission products is on the order of 85 to 90 percent. Although the process described anbove will work on fiss-ion pr.oduct feed, provided that cesium is the only desired operation, the process described in this study dealt with the more nearly complete flowsheet described by Rupp (19) for the separation of other radiochemicals from the gross fission products. The total flowsheet is rather elaborate and employs many techniques rtwhich have been developed for complex inorganic separation problems. The co-crystallization process appears in block flowsheet form in Figure 3. The first step is that of evaporation of the feed solution since, in this case, acid feed was assumed and re-dilution, if necessary, to the required concentration. This step avoids loading the solution with sodium ions by direct neutralization. The next step is that of precipitation of iron, which is said to be one of the major components of such a soleution because of corroslion from process equipment. Iron concentration may approach one gram per liter concentration, while that of the fission prodtucts is much lower. Urea is used to raise the pH to a final value co about 2.5, at which granular iron hydroxide is precipitated.. 1re iron hy - droxide is filtered after this precipitation. The filter is then backwashed with acid for the removal of iron, wrhich m ay be reduced to the solid form by fluidized bed evaporation for ditsnosal as a waste. The iron precipitate also carries down tmuckh of the.ruthenium, technetiurm, and some other mraterials which are uherv': treated as wastes. The precipitate may be further treated wTil;:h nitric acid and the filtrate from this step treated with pe'rmaganat>,a:, rhich distills off the rutheniulm tetroxide, so that rut+hteni, recovery is possible. This step is indicatedc although it is not -an 2ssential part of this process. The filtrate from the iron precipitatioon containing the fission product forms of rare ear.tths, sTcro-ntiJm and cesium, is subjected to a hydro-,tide-carbon)ate pecipilation wth 0.2 molar sodiirm carbonate. The preciypiate contal!s.c.omne iron, some rare earths, calcium, and strontizmn The rare coa -eths Ce.nd strontium are separated by hydroxide precipitation orfa - the rare earths. The rare earth precipitate may be further elaboorated. for recovery of rare ear-ths. The strontium h —ro:i.de, barLr h.ydroide, and calcium hydroxide in the filtrate mayr be separatee3 by acid.iication, carbonate poreclpitati on of the alkaline -eaths,.! The pr cipitate of alkaline earths is treated with fzming nitrie acid. The calcium salt is filteredl off, leaving s sthetrontium- rnd j'r3iuJc* sal4fits 19

behirnd. The mixture of strontium and barium salts is treated with 9.0 molar hydrochloric acid to precipitate barium chloride from strontium chloride. The inactive fission product barium chloride is then stored as a waste and the strontium chloride product is packaged. The recovery of strontium is about 90 percent. The filtrate from the hydrmxide-carbonate precipitation is then further treated with another hydroxide-carbonate precipitation, removing more iron, calcium, some ruthenium, strontim, cand rare earths. This precipitate is then recycled back to the main stream. The filtrate from the hydroxide-carbonate purificat+ion step is sent to the ammonium alum crystallization operation for the separation of cesium. Here anmonium aluminum sulfate crystals a-re placed in a tank and the solution containing cesium is passed over these crystals. The mixture is heated and cooled again. In this operation the cesium replaces some of the ammoniljm on in the s mnonium alum and produces a cesium-aluminum sulfate. This operation is conducted several times, using the same batch of alum crystals, and different successive charges of cesium solution. As successive batches of cesium-bearing liquor are crystallized with the same alum crystals, the concentration of cesium in the residual liquor builds up, and this liquor is thenr passed on to additional crystallization operations with fresher alum crystals in other tanks until the desired recovery of cesium has been established. Consequently, a series of crystallization tanks, considered to be four in t4his study, are operated on a modified batch-countercurrent basis. This system permits the simultaneous recovery of cesium to design limits from the feed material. The subsequent elaboration of the cesitur-bearing crystals remaining is described below. Once the cesium concentration in the alum crystals has reached a proper value, a series of re-crystallizations with wat;er is undertaken, In these operations, the pH is somewhat different from that of the crystallizateion operation. Cesium is removed se1 ictively by the re-crystallization process and,-ppec-rs in the rrothexr liquorT rather than in the aluml. The mother liquor is then conce:ntratd;!-;~ ~. Fractional crystallization resulting in thhe sep alation of rubidi.um and cesium alums may be undertaken. Such re..'crystal!!iatio o was not contemplated in this process, although it mal. it be bconiuctetd in t;he equipment shown. Once the re-crystallized cesium alum is obtai.ned, it is is.odd in hot water, and the aluminum precipitated in th e forn of aluminum hydroxide by means of ammonia gas. The aluminum hydroxide precipitate may be re-dissolved in nitric acid and recycled for cecium recovery, as it contains about 1 percent of the cesiu-m. The sr-upe -rnatant liquor resulting from aluminum precipitation he.s a pHI of about 6-5 to 7, and consists of cesium sulfate and ammonium sulfate. This liquor is then sent to an anion exchanger, and comes out as cesivum hydroxide 20

and amnonium hydroxide. The subsequent operations are then conducted in the finishing and packaging steps, but are described here for their unique aspects in addition to the other packaging and finishing steps described in Section IV.H. The solution of cesium and anmoniwu hydroxides is evaporated to remove amnonivu hydroxide, and is then treated with ftning nitric acid to drive out the remainder of the anonium salts. Hydrochloric acid is then added and the solution again heated to drive off the nitric acid, resulting in a solution of cesium chloride which is evaporated to dryness, compressed into pellet's, and packaged. By the use of all recycle techniques mentioned and. assuming the best performance of the process, probably 99 percent recovery of the cesium from the ortiginal cesium in the fissiom products can be realized. E. Description of the Comnlexing and Solvent Extraction of Fission Products from Fuel Processing Solutions "'SX Process" A complexing and solvent extraction process was studies.which has as its objective the removal of relatively pure chemical species from a stream of gross fission products in aqueous solution. iIs method has as its basis the use of a complexing agjPent or agents at selected values of pH. The complex.ng agents wlill comobine. with assorted chemical agents, and the resultin[g compl.exres marJ;y bhe separated from the remainder of the aqueous solution by solvent et.traction, using an organic solvent. Some general infotreae+tion on such processes is given by Martell and. Calvin (17). It was desired in this study to isolate selected alkaline earth alnd alkali metal ions in pure form, so that compounds of th ese materials might be packaged in the dry state. Some work of this nature has beenl cone on rare earth compounds by Topp and jeiaver (22). A projec-tion of the c.hem.cal methods stud.ied- to.c.e in tihe t;.errn of a cornercial fission nuroduct separati.onl eincp:ac i:i Tin.,va,, ais been analyzed in this scope of wrork, and as l dese ripti.oc r i cot1empl at;ed processinrgr arranrlement followscn This solvent. etractio.n. roc.s appears in bloclk flowsheet form in Figure 5 Methyl isobutyl ketone (MIBK) with thenoylvt',r i.fluor;oace *tone (TTA-) dissolved in it is used as a solvent and chelatingr ag-ent corbin.atioton for all projected steps in this operation. The- TTA will chelate most of the metal ions encountered in a waste fission product soliution, and with appropriate adjustments of pHI, concentratilons, arnd. other process variables, separations of the metal ions can be na,rde, firom aqueo-us solutions. The metal ions may be removwed from the organlic phase, by stripping the organic phase with water. 21

Waste fission product solutions in acid are received in the plant, most of the acid is evaporated, and then the solution is re-diluted to the appropriate concentration. This procedure avoids loading the solution with sodium ions by direct neutralization. The solution of fission products goes next to a pH adjustment step, in which sodium hydroxide is added to give the proper pH for the first complexirng step desired. Following the pH adjustment, the first comxlexi;ng ste? is conducted, in which the MIBK-TTA solution is contacted coumtercurrently with the adjusted feed in a pulse plate column, with the uce of a scru b solution of adjusted pH for removal of residual metal ions. The first extraction i.s conducted with a relatively low pH, so that only the iron, aluminumn, and other structural and residual mater'ials likely to be present in the waste solution will be removed in the organic phase, leaving behind the alkali and alkaline earth elemets. The organic phase is then stripped free of metal ions, which are sent to waste treatment. This extraction should remove a great deal of the gross contemination in the solutions due to structural materials in the fuel elements or corrosion of process equipment from fuel element separation operations. The aqueous bottoms from the first extraction col'm-n a;re- thzen passed to another pH adjustment, the p11 is increased, and a second fraction of fission products is extracted in another pulse plate colulmn. This fract-ion will be mostly the rare earths, which a-re more easily chelated. than the alkalies and alkaline earths. Scrub solution is also fed to this extraction column. In a subsequent columan, a stripping solution consisting of water or pH-adjusted water will be fed to remove the rare earths from the organic phase. The rare earths riay oeit1her be recovered or sent to radiochemical. waste disposal. The aqueous effluent from the second eEx.-'ractJion step SJt:.'rea.sed in p1I in an adjustment step and- sent to a thirOd. extracl:ion c-ycle theo-re. it is again contacted with the TBK and. TTA and a scrto4 s1o l tion. The alkaline earths here are extracted -Ifrom the a1kai c lern~a nts-. The alkaline earths are then stripped from the org anic pha;f bt.1ra'-t of a strip soClut'on of appropriate pH, and t;)l.e aqueosCoU t sSti-&>. sC1Olution sent to evaporation. After evaporatiion, th seoltion is n to another step, where the pH-I is inc eased It i ass:rined tha t -t he strontiumn and barum, constituting;the chief alkaline earth lons, would be separable in a concentrated solutior, or by meae-ns of saene step approximating in capital r-equireiient,s the concent.ration step, Accordingly, the strontium and barium are separated from each other in exrtraction-stripping cycle, using thle fIBK and!,tA suolution. The barium is more easily chelated and goes into the organi.c plihate~ The barium is then removed from the organic nlhnse by the strip solution, and is sent as an aqueous solution to the finlishing and rackaging step. The strontiumf goes out the bottom of the extractioon colunu in aqueous solution, is concentrated, and is then sent, to the packaging and finishing operations described in Section IV.H1. 22

The alkali ions are carried out in the aqueous bottoms from the alkaline earth extraction step previously described, and are fed to another pH adjustment'tank where the pH is increased again. Another cycle of extraction and stripping is conducted. An aqueous solution of cesium is extracted and is removed from the organic phase by stripping. The aqueous cesium solution is then concentrated and sent to finishing and packaging. F. Description of the Packaging of Gross Fission Products from Fuel Processing Solutions - "GP Process" The objective of the gross fission product packaging process is simply to take an acid solution of gross fiss1ion products and to drive off all moisture and acid and to convert the resulting residual salts to the form of oxides. These oxides are then compacted and the gross fission product oxides are packaged in the dry state. This is a very straightforward process in concept and is attractive because of the probable minimum amount of development work required to realize an operating process. The "GP Process" appears in block flowsheet form in Figure 6. Aqueous acid waste fission product solution is first concentrated to a value suitable for feed to the fluidized, bed evaporator. The evaporator consists of a fluidized bed unit, possibly charged in.itially with sand or other refractory material to form an initial bed for fluidization operations. Temperatures approaching 6000 C. are available in unmits such as this currently being investigated, and at these temperatures it is believed that the nitrates of the elements present in the fission product and structural materials will be decomposed to the oxides with the resultalt release of moisture and nitric acid. The solids resulting from the operation may be dropped nto packages through appropriate seals and then conveyed to finishing and packaging operations essentiall.y the same as those described in Section IV.I. QOumantitJies of' nitric acid will be release.d from this operation and contrninlted acid storage is provided. The contaminated tacsid mnight be retv<ed to the fuel processing plant if suitable shielded;.Ae-up f<acilities were available, but might have to be disposed of after farther purification, if this cannot be done. One of the serious problems encountered in the past in producing packages of dry gross fission products has been that of removing water and other volatile materials from gross fission products. The usual types of evaporators may plug in evaporating solutions to dryness. If solid deposits of fission products are plated out on the evaporator parts, these materials will emit heat at such rates as to blurn themselves into the reactor walls and oth;erwise cause undesirable or dangerous situations. TBoe fluidized bed evaporator which has been dereloped at Alrgonne NIitional taboratories 23

(1) and further described by Jonke, et al. (2), appears to offer a promising method of solution of this difficulty. The fluidized bed employed at Argonne is shown in Figure 11, and that which has been recently constructed at the National Reactor Testing Station is shown in Figure 10. These are both very similar, beiln aboutI six inches in diameter and constructed of stainless steel. Heated air is blown through a diffusion plate at the bottom of the equipment, An aqueous solution of the material to be dried is fed at a point part way up the fluidized bed, through special spray nozzles employing air for the spraying operation. Particles are removed from the exit gas stream at the top of the equipmentt by mmeans of sintered stainless steel filters which ma.y be blo.rn back iperiodlcally with air during the operation of equipmoent to frec the filters from particles of solids. A possible alternative method for production of gross fission pro duct oxides would be dehydrat;.ion and denitration of solutions of fused fission product nitrates. This method was not furt-ther developed in detail in this series of studlies. G. Description of the Water Leaching of the Oxides of the G'ros2s Fission Products from Futiel Processing Solutions - _'OL Pro0c.sts"t Once gross fission products have been reduced tGo tChe ftornr of oa solid bed of oxides by means such as the gross fission product eva-aporation technique described above, (Section F), ftwther sepaa.ation of the fission product chemical species might be obtained by a series of leaching operations conducted upon the oxid. es. A parc-ticu laryly -attractive possbility would be that of leaching the. cesiuimr o fi.aes frtom t.he oxide beds, since the cesium would be highly water-solubie. S.zom strontium hyrdroxide could probably also be lea.ched, and it is a cwsumed that -suitable recoveries of both cesiuru and st on n-miurun cotid be attfAlined in this process. The first strep.in the oxide lenaching proce!: ss. o t5-i;f'e t chz,-cid feed solution. The concez2ntrated fee-d is Th dr in a+h in i... bed evaporatois, -resul.ting; in theJ dehlydr atiisn o nd r&e7Cnitrat-ion of'- SSioS product nitrates. This s nme fluidized bed e-rSvora-ator is t;he-n ulsed as leaching equiplment in which first water, ani then ptosihy o+.- materi.als such as sdele-ted acids, mightSe a' -..ed to le-ach out first the cesium and then the strontium, and possibl.y botih t+,oet;hcr.Te leached solutions are then centrifuged to remove particulates ca.rried over from the leaching operation. The hydroxide solutions are concentrated and sent to finishing and packaging operations simil.ar to those described in Section IV.H. This process appears in block flcworshot form in Figure 7. 24

H. Finish'ing and Packaging The finishing and packaging operation has msny co..n.on rscIts o.each of the processes discussed above. Consequenftly, the discussion of finishing and packlaging is conducted. in this section. The commnon aspe-cts of trhe fini shing-packgi.ng oi-at'*o result partly from the fact that the total quantities in te,-rmsn of TwTeight and volume of the separated solutions of the various fission products reaching the finish.ng-packaging stage are relat,tvel r small, being of the order of a few liters per day. S-nce t-he val-ae of the concentrated materials is high in terms of the effort eencod in their obtaining, andc since the quantities are so small, it is concluded that the batch-tl;ye of separaetion irnvolving dir'e; mac i inulatiorn in the chemical hood would be the most practic.al approach. Consequently, the finishing and packa-ging opcr-ations are con'i:ermnpated as being placed. in the remote handling room subject to dici: v'ierwing and direct operation by master-slave manipulators, and subject to a variety of chemical steps. Generally the cesium and strontium will. reach the finishing stage as solutuions of the,ri-o-ird-i( or ni t- at- t. These solutions may then be treated with hytrdrochloric acid anrd boiLed to remove any nitric acid, anld then concntrated diown to the dry state as the cesilmi chloride or strontium chloride. The dri.,ed rmaterials may then be scraped out into suitatle pel.leting or packaging equipment which w.l compact the dried. marrteral into pacfk-rwin containers. A packaging container for the finisheod -roducts appears in Figure 12. These containers are quite similar to (those contemplated for the packaging of cesium chloride by Oak Rw-idg-.e. at, onal Laboratory. Remote welding machines are placede in the packai, inm area. The containers are evacuated and thle iLnternio-s a-re m with argon. The tops of the containers are sealed by, ibny 11teal Lng welding cans on the containers using helicare tJ5 d eci e.q tJi. nes The closed containers are then collectted ndJ stoied i: te stor-re cell unltil required, or may be losded irnectly intoeo cr-inrL:- casks which may be passed into the remote hani.lng arer tbarondl en.git alre radiation locks, loared with thn)eir piroduct co(-ntninr'. ne.d —r out; again for eshimlent after health physics c]-!e'C';. More vroluminous qiuranti.ties of meatexiCl w-il m ttca;v..- A,-<.1 ~ to the dryi.ng of waste solutions containing e re'' c r...r... +2. istate from processing o-perations. rTiesj crontamln.-Le rs,,. proIbeblybW be much la.ger pieces of pi.ie, on _the orr Sf':lr - J, n di.'meter. Sub ject to fnrtber" revie'Tew of hNe.:,+t r d,.J.la-n - teV.' may be sustained w.ithout, overheating of c: tent i, TheI 9se1. -rg~rr containers may then be stored in thl r,?ati.ona nL t erIel]s sLorne e cell directly below the r.emote handling room for S.-Uit.able e eri-od9 of (irne until other disposal arrangements are madce. 25

I. Plant Layouts and Arrangements Preliminary engineering studies have been conducted concurrently writh the development of process designs in order to establish nitila0al prilnciples regarding layout and arrangement of buildings, yard, tank farma, storage, hot cell operation, laboratories, and general office and service facilities for the several chemical processing plants studied. These detailed layouts are available in pencilled form, but are not reproduced here because of limitations of the scope of project. However, Figure 1 shows a perspective of the process building selected for the solvent extraction process. The other processes di-ffer from this arrangement by the omission of the center cell and a slight reduction in building size and remote handling area size. It is believed that layout engineering has been conducted on each alternative process sufficiently well to permit obtaining a reasonable order of magnitude estimate of structures, equipment supports, functional locations of equipment as presently conveived, general requirements of shielding, and the establishment of plant operating control centers. Since costs of structures installed for radiochemical plants contribute a major portion of the capital cost requirements, it is considered essential that plant layouts be studied to assure opti.mrrm space requirements and equipment locations commensurate with good design. As progress is achieved in the field of industrial radiochemical processing, it is important to perform layout engineering studies in specific detail with parallel investigations and evaluations of optimum designs at lowest cost. It is believed that the layout engineering which has been conducted to date is an approach in this direction. Howerer, the time and schedules do not permit conducting studtes in extensive dretail, but the effort has been to establish over-all space requ-irements that may be required for a workable plant. For each of the six processes studied, the following dra.wings he-avre been lmade in pencilled form and. are referred to briefly below with respect to their general application to each of the processes. The2 following drawings blriefly describe the concepte:, of Iayrcut cw~iineing used in this fresibility study, althoulgh the drawintg,.' are nat included in this report. 1. Plot Plan Preliminary plot plans have been prepared. to indicate,- the relative locations of buildings and facilities considered essential to a radiochemical processing plant em-rloying the aqueous technologies studied in this scope of work. No detailed location of the radiochemical packalging plan4- was specified with respect to the fuel processing ].pant which would serve as the source of waste fission products. However, it is assumed that the fuel processing plant would be located sufficiently closely to the fission product packaging plant that the general facilities of the fuel processing plant could be used, in that active materials cou.ld be transferred to the packaging plant by shielded underground pipeline.

A wing is provided in the fission product packaging building containing a cell for equipment to treat vessel off-gases from radioactive vents. Some distance away, and in accordance with industrial practices, a tank farm with transfer pumphouse is located for the unloading and storage of railroad shipments of tank car quantities of solvents, acids, and other chemicals. Adjacent to the tank farm there is located the plant waste disposal facilities and provisions for burning waste solvents after decontamination. Provision is allowed for the use of a railroad loop system for the entire plant, to which spurs and switches from the loop to the tank farm areas, as well as the processing building, could be provided. 2. Tank Farm Plan Tank farm layouts have been prepared which indicate the relative locations of the following equipment: waste disposal basin, control house, and storage tanks, combustion stack facilities for spent solvent in the solvent extraction process, the transfer pump house for unloading and storage of chemicals, and a tank farm area which is dyked for the storage of different types of solvents, acids, and caustic. Solvents are contained in an independent dyked area, and provisions are indicated for fire control by means of foam generating equipment and a fire pump located in the transfer pump house. Other materials such as acids and caustic are stored in a separate dyked area if solvent is used in a given process. Dyking has been provided primarily for containing the contents of tanks in case of leakage. Earthen dykes have been assumed as the most practical type of dyke walls. Provisions are allowed for fire hydrants and hose houses at different locations surrounding the tank farm area where flammable solvents are used in the process. A third dyked area, in the event solvents are used, is provided in a separate location for collecting solvent which is rejected from the solvent purification system in the main building. These facilities for solvents, where used, have been located in a separate area because they may contain traces of mild activity and require monitoring and decontamination before access. 3. Main Processing Building Cell Plan Drawings have been made of the plan of the hot cells and main processing units of the separations plant. These cells are roughly twenty feet wide and thirty feet long, and are thirty feet in inside height. In the solvent extraction process, three cells have been provided: One cell contains the 27

aqueous separations equipment; the second cell contains essentially a radiochemical disposal and drying system, in which high temperature fluidized bed equipment is employed for evaporating certain solutions to dryness. The waste disposal equipment is located in a separate cell in order to prevent contact of inflammable vapors with high temperature equipment. In the solvent extraction system a third cell is provided for the storage of finishedpackaged separated fission products or for the packaged dried waste materials. In the co-precipitation process, the co-crystallization process, the ion exchange process, gross fission product packaging, and oxide leaching processes, only two cells are provided since no solvents are used, and high temperature equipment may be located in the same cell with the aqueous separation equipment. The second cell is employed for the storage of the finished materials and packaged waste materials in the dry state. All mechanical equipment, such as pulse generators where used, transfer pumps, controls, and electrical drives are located in trenches beneath the operating floor so that individual access for replacement or repair can be attained without shutdown. The cell walls adjacent to the earth were set at two feet in thickness of ordinary concrete primarily for strength, advantage being taken of the- shielding properties of the earth surrounding the underground cells. Thus a saving of four feet in concrete thickness of all exterior cell walls underground is realized, compared with the alternative of providing underground walls six feet thick for full radiation shielding by means of concrete alone. Preliminary shielding calculations have been made to provide shielding in the cell deck covering all of the cells and in the walls separating the cells from each other. These calculations indicate that the shields, when employing normal concrete for the cell walls and cell deck, should be about six feet thick. The over-all dimensions of the cell plan for the solvent extraction process are 34 feet in width by 70 feet in length. The over-all dimensions of cell plan for the other five processes studied are 34 feet in width by 50 feet in length. The vessel off-gas cell should be added to these general dimensions as wings to the main cell block. 4. Main Processing Plant Cell Elevations One elevation of the cells showing elevation of all cells through the short dimension which is the long dimension of the building has been prepared for each type of building and cell arrangement. These elevations indicate the functional location of equipment to permit maximum utilization of gravity flows. In future work, it will be essential to prepare detailed calculations of hydraulics of equipment spacing, equipment 28

supports, and further details in control lines. However, the elevation studies which have been made to date are considered representative for adequate capital cost and operating cost studies conducted to date. 5. Main Processing Plant - Processing and Service Area Floor Plan Functional engineering layout studies have indicated for each of the six processes the rough relationship of plant operating areas, chemical make-up, laboratory and sample dilution facilities, radiation source dose rate checks, physical analyses facilities, utilities, lockers, showers, change rooms, shipping and receiving areas, and general plant offices. Areas are also indicated for storage, receiving, and transfer of materials. Raw materials and maintenance materials for the operation of the plants will be handled in these areas. Also studied in these layouts are the remote handling areas which are intended for the transfer of packaged fission products and waste materials from the processing cells into the storage areas, and for the transfer of finished products and radioactive materials from the plant to shipping casks for shipment. Remote handling areas are enclosed in a barytes concrete shield. Remote handling equipment consists of bridge crane hoists with manipulators for attaching the hooks for the removal of material from ths cell bottoms, and of a general purpose manipulator carried on a bridge crane for medium duty work. This mechanism would be operated by means of a console located in the control room area, and therefore outside of the remote handdling room. Inspection windows, probably of a combination zinc bromide and stabilized glass, have been assumed for observing operations in the remote mechanical operating area. Fi nishing operations requiring the handling of small amounts of materials in a number of chemical steps will be conducted by means of sets of master slave manipulators. Remote packaging and welding operations will be conducted by means of special jigs and fiJ._tures in conjunction with remote welding machines. Docks circumscribing portions of the building are provided for the shipment of casks and for the receiving of chemicals, either by truck of by rail. Hot and cold analytical laboratory work is conducted in one central plant laboratory which is provided with hoods, filters, and exhaust fans. Laboratory tables of a conventional type are provided. Centralized. sampling in a sample dilution area is provided wherein samples from any required sampling point of the process can be obtained at a single point in the plant operating area. Behind barriers and hoods in this area, it is expected that samples can be diluted to permit conducting analyses of the required type. 29

6. Vessel Off-Gas Plan and Elevation Process equipment for treating gas which is discharged from vessels and operations, such as hot laboratory samplers and supports, is located in a shielded cell. This cell is located as a wing attached to the cell wall of the main processing building. The structures in this cell provide areas for locating filters, off-gas fans, and circulating pumps so that such equipment can be replaced and repaired through roof hatches by using hoisting equipment. The scrubbing tower is located in a shielded high bay. Provisions are made for access to the towers and roof. Concrete work will have smooth interior finishes coated with radiationresistant surfacing. Steel structural framing is provided over the fan and filter area with adequate structural design for live loads equivalent to five tons. Monorail hoists are provided for removal of roof hatches for replacement and general utility. 7. Plant Perspective A perspective drawing, Figure 1, constitutes a drawing of the main processing building for a solvent extraction process. The building is similar to those for the other processes. Cutaways are shown of relative locations of equipment within the processing building, with certain conceptions of the flow of raw materials, maintenance materials, and finished product shipping casks to and from the processing building. This drawing is presented in order to provide general information and ideas as to how the fission product separa~tion and packaging plant might appear from the over-all view and general facilities required in connection with it. It is to be noted that the perspective is not an accurately dimensioned drawing, and can show only portions of the processing units. J. Plant and Public Safety In undertaking the engineering, economic, axnd operationi;al studies for the fission product packaging plant, the underlying principles of safety have been practiced throughout the stud'ies covered in this scope of work. The fission product packaging plamt may be considered as one of the more hazardous kinds of chemical processing operations. Careful consideration must be given to precautionary measures and safety practices for hazardous chemicals, radioact,-vity and principles of good housekeeping. These considerations must be zvienwefor all stages of development, engineering, procuremnent, construction, inspection, and plant operation. The practice of safety must achieve the protection of personnel engaged in plant operations, as well as of the general public. Safety considerations which have been studied involve evaluations of chemical hazards, radiation hazards, radiological hazards, and waste disposal hazards. 3o

1. Chemical Hazards The chemical hazards of the fission product packaging plant employing aqueous tecbhnology can be likened to the hazards encountered in some chemical plants. The handling of solvents, acid, caustic, and bottled gases unde:r high pressvure -ollow closely the precautions required in conventional chemical practice. In general, it has been considered essential to adhere closely to insurance regulations such as those published by "The Associate(d Factory Muitual" and. "The National Bureau of Fire Underwriters", andc to state, local, and federal codes, as well as to specific safety practices employed by the chemical industries. 2. Radiation iiazartds Superimposed upon normal safety practices are the practices necessary for the handling and processing of radioactive materials. In arriving at the engineering designs and process considerations presented here, every effort has been made to adhere to the tyrpe of safetyr princi:'-ples which have -presently been accepted andr used i~n several of the government -owned production faci.l ities for t-he handl-ing of r2dioactive ma-terials. These principles comprise health physics practices, monitoring devices, decontamination pr'ocedures;, remote maintenance where requiired, and limi-tations regarding workilng time in areas, so th~at erxcessive dosge is not obtained. The safety of a fission product packaging plant is con't.ingent, of course, tu-on good housekeeping practi ces,.id & iscl ire regarding sr^-,f-tv aeid access, practice of priniciples oP tea lth physics and hIal'th med.icine, and accu-taate progr!'::s for opsy' planned and'! preventive rtinte, nance. It is aCssul4me. hC4at operating e-srl in te area wil e provi with proper safety clothins,.i....ety shoes, S.ks 0ggl e, etc,..n. required to work in e-s nof lmi.ted..os t belied that adecuvate ventiati on, sc...iflter.:fi.e wer y. steS fire fig ht-in g n u e-i J sa 1,and. g enerall — sa.fe fq lit. nt ar-r,fangements harve ben an. cicpa~t d. It.s Sur,";.ft` ho,,.eLise- sa-fety principles be carefull exanined as d.vel.orpment arad designs proceed so that.-adicaL 4 -ng, anl i atr-sr ion,.r: 1 be unnecessary i.L and when phyJsical construction an- oper-a.ion become a reality. 31

CP PROCESS WASTE FISSION PRODUCT SOLN. Na4 Fe(CN)6 Ni SO4 PRE CIPITATION Na OH CENTRIFUGE LIQUID TO RADIOCHEMICAL WASTE PROCESSING SOLI DS RE —SLURRY IN DE-IONIZED WATER CONDENSATE TO RADIOCHEMICAL FLUIDIZED BED WASTE PROCESSING ACID WASH SOLUTION TO EVAPORATOR LEACH WITH WATER RADIOCHEMICAL WASTE " DRY a LEACH CLEAN OUT SOLIDS WITH ACID PROCESSING CsOH SOLN. CENTRIFUGE = SOLIDS TO WASTE PACKAGING AND STORAGE CsOH SOLN. EVAPORATOR CsOH SOLN. HCI PRODUCT FINISHING AND PACKAGING PACKAGED CsCI SHIPPING Figure 2 32

CX PROCESS WASTE FISSION PRODUCT CRYSTALLLZING UREA - PRE-TREATMENT I TANK I ACID - FILTER Fe,Nb,Ru EVAPORATOR CRYSTALLI ZING KM nO4 - - PRE-TREATMENT 2:WASTE SOLN. TANKS 2,3, a4 (Cs)2S04. AI2,(SO4)3 FI LT E R NH3 REACTION TANK NaCo32 C 0PRE-TREATMENT3 CENTRIFUGE Al (OH)3 NaOH (Cs)2 SO4 (NH4)2 SO4 I0 N EXCHANGE CENTRIFUGE -Ba, Sr (NH4)01::~ (N H4)2S04 RARE COLUMNS EARTHS CsO H N H40H Na2C 03 Na OH PRE-TREATMENT 4 EVAPORATOR Cs OH NH4OH NH4N PRODUCT FINISHING CENTRIFUGE | RECYCLE H N 03 PPT HCI AND PACKAGING PACKAGED CsCI, SrC12 SHIPPING Figgure 3 33

I X PROCESS ALUMINUM-URANIUM FUEL ELEMENTS NaOH PRE-TREATMENT REACTOR CENTRIFUGE -SLUDGE TO URANIUM RECOVERY PROCESS SO LUTIO N RES IN NaOH -TO RADIOCHEMICAL WASTE Na2C03 RECOVERY PROCESS (NH4)ZC03| I ON- EXCHANGE COLUMN RECOVERY PROCESS DE-IONIZED WATER -TO PROCESS CHEMICALS RECOVERY UNIT Cs2CO3 SOLN. EVAPORATO R ~ CO, NH3 CsOH HCI, PROD UCT FINISHING AND PACKAGING PACKAGED CsCI SHIPPING Figure 4 34

SX PROCESS WASTE FISSION PRODUCT SOLUTION NaOH so — 1 pH ADJUSTMENT TANK SCRUB SOLN. STRIP SOLN. PRE-TREATMENT ORGANIC SOLVENT PULSE COLUMNS 182 Fe,AI, ETC. TO RADIOCHEMICAL +CHELATING AGENT PULSE COLUMNTHAN ALKALIS ALKALINE EARTHS TO +lCHELATING AGENT W W ASTE P ROCESSING NaOH 0 pH ADJUSTMENT TANK SCRUB SOLN. STRIP SOLN. PRE —C i T ORGANIC SOLVENT FISSION PRODUCTS MORE EASILY CHELATED +CHELATING AGENT +CTHAN ALKALI ELEMENTS ALKALINE EARTHS TO RADIOCHEMICAL WASTE PROCESSING NaOH *| pH ADJUSTMENT TANK ORGANIC SOLVENT PULSE COLUMNS 8 AQUEOUS SOLN. OF Ba +CHELATING AGENT SCRUB SOLN. STRIP SOLN. ORGANIC SOLVENT PULSE COLUMNS 98 TO PROCESS CONC. ALKA LI ELEMENTS ALKALINE EARTHS +CHELATING AGENT WASTE PROCESS NG ICONC. SOLN. NoOH _ pH ADJUSTMENT TANK SCRUB SOLN. | ORGANIC SOLVENTPACKAGING AQUEOUS SOLN. OF SrCI B WADSTME TA N K HC T O PRODUCET FINISHING SHIPPING Figure 5

GP PROCESS WASTE FISSION PRODUCT ACID SOLUTION __I_ EVAPORATOR -CONDENSATE TO RADIOCHEMICAL WASTE PROCESSING CONC. SOL N. FLUIDIZED BED -CONDENSATE TO EVAPO RATOR RADIOCHEMICAL WASTE PROCESSING SOLIDS PRODUCT FINISHING AND PACKAGI NG PACKAGED PRODUCT SHIPPING Figure 6 36

OL PROCESS WASTE FISSION PRODUCT ACID SOLUTION EVAPORATOR _CONDENSATE TO RADIOCHEMICAL WASTE PROCESSING CONC. SOLN. CONDENSATE TO RADIOCHEMICAL FLUIDIZED BED I- WAWA STE PROCESSING ACID SOLUTION TO EVAPORATOR LEACH WITH WATER RADIOCHEMICAL WASTE "DR Y a LEACH" CLEAN OUT SOLDS WITH ACID PROCESSING CsOH SOLN. CENTRIFUGE -SOLIDS TO WASTE PACKAGING AND STORAGE CsOH SOLN. EVAPORATOR -CONDENSATE TO RADIOCHEMICAL WASTE PROCESSING CONC. CsOH SOLN. HCI - PRODUCT FINISHING AND PACKAG ING PACKAGED CsCI SHIPPING Figure 7 37

RESIN WATER,2M No2COs 2NH 4)CO3 N02CO$ WATE R 2 M or 2.5 M (NH4)2C03 STOICH. with No-Re CS ION EXCHANGE NH4R~, (NH4)2CO3 COLUMN cs Ne2CO3 TRACE_ NoRo, WATER CS I M NoOH 3 M NoOH 3 M NO Al 2 WASTE (CAN RUN WASTE THRU ANION BED a TAKE Ru, Zr, Nb OUT.). ION EXCHANGE COLUMN FOR CESIUM REMOVAL FROM ALKALINE SOLUTIONS Figure 8 38

SCHEMATIC DIAGRAMS OF MOVING BED ION EXCHANGE COLUMNS GEAR PUMP SCHEME WITH 2 SEPARATE VALVES STEP I- RUN I) CLOSED 2) CLOSED 3) NOT RUNNING STEPZIT- MOVE BED I) CLOSED 0o~~ d~~~2)OPEN 3) DOWN RESIN STEP S m- RESIN SETTLING I) OPEN 2 CLOSED 0 3) OFF GEAR PUMP SCHEME WITH A 3-WAYVALVE STEP I- RUN I) OPEN 2)CLOSED 3)OPEN STEP It- MOVE BED I) OPEN 2) OPEN 3) CLOSED OPTIONAL HYDRAULIC CLASSIFFIER k~ ~....) ~Figure 9 39

3 GROUPS OF 6 HEATERS EACH IN PARALLEL TO 3 ATO TRANSFORMEtS AIR COMPRESSED AIR _ > a i ~~~~............. ~MCRO METALLIC TYPE D HEATERj~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ITRED 347 63 Dis ".;11CHARGNEG OTPE NINGTR 4!-' 2'PS 347 SS 12' I.S 347 SS —-\ 6, PS 347 SS SIGHTe Box ~thick NPOWDER 4 YCRO METALLUC VE AL EXII ~~~~~~~PYREX TYPE G SINTERED 347 S BAYOKT TYPE FILTERS t- Ff OER GLASS L Z. SN --— 1 NA TEEL FLAGE ALL OVER AM TfO OFF G AS HEATER DETAIL 1'.We xi' tmc OZZLE SEAT DETAI NICHROME- SHEATHED STRIP HEATER- I KW EACHSY#TRON OR EQUIVALENT Figure 10

I HEUllU liitg ll.1w3 llOO I Ai n RE rR!ll l mL Ioqwr TO.L, WIEA1LSO %LWIC COOLM I~j PORIE S.Z E P WUS TM ==,S It3REiTES -lLW.-hairE,gm Lgo f PUREE OORE SZ 1 ~~DLCJ~WL'~:.LX~PTAP Is _' I 7 3'1i ~ — rcDPUR N &JE / lorporrr ~ar / wF ToL IS -PIOUCT PRODUC Is'll.aldw PYREX 3 WAY PUM WCVEAIR, FE E IMUIB FmE OC M sYS1Fme CO. w ar s Ou~l F Sm,~ X'gure 1

1/8" STAINLESS tUBING HELIARC WELDS 20 go. AISI 347 d CESIUM SOURCE Fi gure 12 TYPICAL CONTAINER FOR RAD I O- CESI $ UM SCALE: HALF SIZE 42

FISSIONS /SEC. 10rr Figure 13 FUEL NOMOGRAPI FuHR DETERMINATION SAMPLE: j U-3 RAMPLEACGRAMS/DAY OF REACTOR FUEL REQUIREMENTS U-233 REACTOR \ OPERATING AT 4.0 MEGAWATTS BURNS 4.6 GRAMS OF U-233 /DAY 7 -lo7 10ie 10.10 - FUEL ISOTOPE MASS NUMBER 10 \ ENERGY RELEASED -~ I C 4 \ \PER FISSION U) - - 150 100 1, t Z=O MEV HI kg i,00MEGAWATTS (.619-(FISSIONS/SE.)- ( FISSION)200 lo 10 9 10kg150 10,000 102520 o2~

Figure 14 MASS NO. A HALF UFE CURIES / GRAM WATTS /GRAM NOMOGRAPH FOR CALCULATION b a b c OF ENERGY AVAILABLE O a b c FROM RADIOACTIVE 10i1~~~1)~0910 1 0 le 10 3 - Eav Io b c l | 4 l lENERGY day s 1 ho u15 MEV 6 103 10 7110 - 1 | | | 74 q | IN USING THIS NOMOGRAPH, CARE MUST 104 o6- 10o 8S WATTS/GRAM a BE TAKEN TO BE CONSISTENT IN USING 9 -35.92x IO3 )(cur/grom) THE SANE SET OF SCALES (a,b, or c) | 10 12 6 = 5 THROUGOUT A GIVEN CALCULATION. FOR I| |t 10~ x Eav (MEV) EXAMPLE, THE HALF LIFE OF Sr IS 53 DAYS, ENTER COLUMN b AND USE -F=-t~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~COLUMN b IN READING CURIES/GRAM AND WATTS/GRAM. 10 years I I o | CUIES/GRAM 3.13X10 l 1.o 10hours20 CURIES/GRAM o A TI/ibi.) 30 I Ii - W A T T S / GRAM = BETAKEN O BE CONSISTENT INUSI 1 0G EXAMPLE: T 40 100 BETA DECAYOF Sr9 I~ 3 CRE/RM0.1 60 10 10 2 4 | | | | - 70 Eav MAY BE COMPUTED AS FOLLOWS: _ 10 2-l104- -0 lo0 ALPHA DECAY USE THE TABULATED ALPHA PARTICLE ENERGIES PLUS THE ]i |901 1I SUM OFTHE ENERGIES OF ANY GAMMA RAYS EMITTED IN COINCIDENCE. 100 10 I 10 BETA DECAY USE ONE THIRD OF THE TABULATED DATA DECAY ENERGIES SUCH AS GIVEN IN TABLEX. ADD THE SUM OF THE ENERGIES OFANY GAMMA RAYS EMITTED IN COINCIDENCE. GAMMA DECAY USE THE SUM OF ENERGIES OF THE GAMMA RAYS WHICH ARE 150 so EMITTED IN COINCIDENCE IN A CASCADE. 100 years 10 01 days 1 0 250 10- v 105 250

V. PLANNING AID SCHEDULING A. General For the six alternative fission product separation and packaging processes studied, plans and schedules have been drawni up for development, process engineering, detailed engineering designs, procurement and construction, inspection, plant start-up, and for initial hot-running of thle chem:-cal processing facility. These planning studies have indicated that the most economical method of project execution within a reasonable period of time consists of performing various functions pertaining to and necessary to a successf.ul operating plant in an orderly manner. If plans and schedules are accelerated to the point of a "crash" program, it is anticipated that capital costs will be considerably higher, optimum designs will probably not be achieved, and longer periods will be required for plant start-up and to achieve normal operations. On the other hand, if a schedule is extended so that much time elapses between successive phases of effort, then the transmittal of information from one group to another will probably become inefficien t, changes in technology will delay freezing of designs, overhead and administrative charges continue, and much time will be expended,upon indecisions regarding optimum designs. For the purpose of these feasibility studies then, a middle course has been adopted in order to reflect an orderly program of work and to provide some basis from which capital and opersat-ing ctosts can be adjudged. It should be emphasized that the capital and operating costs portrayed in these estimates are dependent heavily upon the adherence in principle to a schedule such as that portrayed in Figure 15. The development jprograns required to achieve optimLum designs for chemical fission product separaiion and packaging facilities employing aqueous separation techniques hlave been reviewed. If it is possible to make -early decisions regarding the type of fission product packeagin process to employ, anrld if, in addition,r aqueous technology is selected as a means of processing:, about twelve to eighteen months of engineering development are needed. The purpose of such a program would be to develop those data ta deq uate for production design for -ithe separation and packaging plant. In addition to the period of development, it is expected that afbout six months of effort will be reqauired to test mechanically equipment components and instruments. This testing program would enable a prediction of life of equipment and institution of a preplanned and preventive maintenance program for the ultimate production facility. 145

B. Planning and Scheduling of Engrineering Engineering planning can be divi.ded into essentially two categories; process engineering and detailed design engineering. 1. Process Engineering Chemical process engineering studies will be required to establish heat, energy, and material balances, equipment design calculations, engineerilg flowrsheets, layouts, plot plans, aend fT.nacl re.qiremernts of utilities, as well as to prepare design information needed to permit detailed designs to proceed in ani ninterrupted manner. Consequently, it appear: desire.ble- to htave the process engineering functions parallel cer-tain phases of engineering development and mechlanical. testing. During the course of such process engineering, it would appear desirable to permit key personnel ultimately responsible for plant operations to undertake -the preparation of operating manuals for normal o erations, maintenance, laboratories, warehousing, store keeping, preplanned schedules of maintenance, corrosion testing, etc. It would appear that about six months of process engineering would be required in order to establis h de-signs to the point that detailed engineering could begin. A1-nother six months of rather intensive endea-vor wvould be reirledo to estaiblsh necessary manual.s ito pcr -e engineered p.ant start-up calibrations, cold r1ins, tracer rns, and ultimat ely hot runs. 2. Detailed Design l.rine-.r.n Detailed. design engineering comprise-s crchitectutre and engineerzing:for butildings, and s,:tru..tu-zre.. mechanical designs for:,o-reotes e 1;. Ie', me Tir}g.r ic-. ea.uipme.nt, in-. sterumentIo.. n;ing&-t]:e t..., o f.. rlectrical power ins tallat ionS, IL;7 e iaert vci-ion fcxor'ui 1 di' g f r;nis rlin.gss requisilUionL.ng oF' spare a.ltpant, t8 -tsbi sb-nt- o)f proed e'es for wel.ding, - e-ualfli:mnent of' priocedures for inspection and testing, Lile scheduler- arti.r ei at in'this study are premised upr7, n:-.. —;cra.!t~e..enT.; 3 n -ta i ring c-onst;ruction firm to perfo-:':!:'!::;,rok or: J r r'T;sucl U maneTr 1i:hat mate-rialn1s and major euri~..en ipte tms ca.J b'- ~x cuiitioned and purchased during, he cou se of de dtai ld engi-,ering. It appears that a logical scAhedle of abowt +welve to thirteen months of effo.r-t;.wrouMd'e rrquir:bd -to achieve the necessary fabrication C-ni mtdruc.t... -t n d Frc"r' during w.,hi ch time the peak manpeowe- re niPrr. ~, nt.:r..... ern-i n-crr and draftsmen may approach a total of o ne hrJ;:red for a short time period. The studies,thliLch have been made for equipmen t deliveries and major equitpmlent components are base upn _resent-day mill deliveries, lead times~, 6.C shop fabrication times for general alloy type of fabricated equipment, materials, and supplies. 46

C. Plans and Schedules for Construction It is premised that construction activity would not start in the field mntil such time as adequate stocks of equipment, materials, and supplies would have been warehoused to permitconstruction activities to proceed on an uninterrupted basis. Under these conditions, it appears that the construction time would be about twelve months in the field. Th~s twelvemonth period, of- course, wouldl include the time necessary for inspection, dry running, calibration of equipment, and general plant c ean-up. D. Planning and Scheduling for Plant Start-uP Since one of t;he most difficult types of planning and scheduling consists in that required for plant start-up, it is believed advisable to give serious consideration to selection of key personnel in the early stages of development so that these people can ultimately assume supervisory responsibilities for plant operations. Thus it is believed that an operator training program of about six months duration would be adequate to qualify siutervisory perscrnel in laboratories, plant operations, plant maintenance, and general administration in such a way as to minimize plant start-up time. If this can be done, and if inspection, dry running; and calibrations can be done during various completion stages of the construction program, it appears that with a cold. running time of about three months, the latter montih of which tcan be conducted at the tracer levels, a plant could be operated at the scheduled production rates within a period of four months after construction completion and acceptance. The proposed schedule of work for phases of development, process engineering,, detailed design, procutrement, construction, inspecti on, and plant start.-tup is indicated in bar graph fo=rm In ti r.r Capi..-ta ect tes Thicl htave2 been made for the i nstatlled cos3 ts of plant, plnt stcart up, a.nd expendable charges for development are premised upon schedules portrayed herein. A conservative estimate of the over-all time from that at which developnent is initiated until that at which the,l.a,nt is in full olper"-J3.on ijs:cted to be about thirty-eight to forty months. 47

FISSION PRODUCT PACKAGING PLANT WSRPI LEGEND:.DEVELOPMENTI'/ DESIGN DATA SENGiERi CURENT OPERATOR TRAINING INSPECTION DESCRIPTION OF WORK MECH.TESTS MANUALS DE GINEERICONSTRUTION INREET AL OPERATION. Wrr 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 11 1213 14 1S 16 17 IS 19 2021 22 23124 25 26 27 28 29 530 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 ENGINEERING DEVELOPMENT..... PROCESS ENGINEERING Z' YARDWORK BUILDINGS a STRUCTURES TANK FARM B TR. PUMP HSE. CELL STRUCTURES REMOTE HANDLING SUPERSTRUCTURES PROCESS VESSELS MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT INSTRUMENTATION PIPING ELECTRICAL I. I BUILDING FURNISHINGS GENERAL-PAINT, INSUL. ETC INSPECTION a TESTING DRY RUNS a CALIBRATIONS OPERATOR TRAINING.. COLD RUNS STARTUP N W I O NORMAL OPERATION P 2 z O NOTE: CAPITAL COSTS PROJECTED PREMISED UPON ABOVE TIME TABLE. PROPOSED SCHEDULE OF WORK Figure 15

VI. ESTIMATES AND PROJECTIONS OF CAPITAL INJVESTMENTS AnD EXPENDITURES A. Basis of Estimates The accuracy of determination of capital requirements for plant facilities is largely dependent upon the accuracy and degree of completion of engineering designs and establishment of engineering philosophy, subject to schedules of work and contingent upon a successful execution of development programs. Estimates are presented of the capital investments and expenditures for fission product separation and packaging plants to convert Purex-type wastes from a fuel processing plant into dry packaged fission products and dry packaged waste materials. The estimates for capital requirements have been premised upon process designs, flowsheets, layouts, preliminary specifications, materials, and equipment, which are available in draft form for inspection and are not reported in detail here. In general, the capital requirements which are portrayed cover the following categories: 1. Installed equipment and machinery 2. Buildings and structures 3. Electrical power and lighting 4- Spare parts 5. Plant start-up Expenditures which may be required for development programs or certain por-tions of operator training are being considered as expendable costs. The estimates for capital have been prepared from a rather detailed take-off of materials, equipment, structual components, and a general review of construction practices. For the purposes of this feasibility study, an effort has been made to cover all.. categories of engineering, pr'ocurement,; construction, inspection, and plant start-up. In order to peamit utilization of the cost information calculated and to evaluate alternative methods of plant L lstallationsK as changes in design concepts and development data dictate, the estimlte is sulnmarized in a series of tables which will permit the evaluation of the costs in terms of operating centers of the plant, as well as categories of equipment and machinery installations. The operating areas of the processing plant have been divided arbitrarily into the following categories, which may differ somewhat from process to process as detailed on the accompanying analysis of capital requirements: 1. Tank farm 2. Chemical make-up areas 3. Separations 4. Radiochemical waste disposal 5. Solvent purification practices (if required) o. General plant services 48

The indivridual operating areas have been subdivided into classifications as follows: 1. Vessels 2. Mechanical equipment 3. Instruments 4. Piping 5. Structures 6. Electrical Allocations of such costs as engineering, field and direct charges, and contingencies have been made with respect to categories on a percentage basis. These same costs have allocated to the operating areas of the process plant in order to indicate totals of allocated erection costs. Estimates for plant start-up and partial operetor training programs have been added. to the erection costs of facility for total capital costs, and some of the accompanying tables do not include these costs, but only the costs of the erected plant ready to start up. These estimates are based upon the planning and scheduling presented earlier in this report. Estimates for plant startuLp are based upon specific plans for utilizing personnel who will eventually assume the responsibility for supervising plant operations and tasks of preparation of operating manuals, inspection in the shop, field inspection, calibration and testing, cold running and plant start-up. General contingencies for error of omission have been assumed at ten percent of total erection costs. Estimates for engineering of the plant and plant components are based upon engineers well qualified in radiochemical technology, utilizing established standards of industrial engineering practice. No allowance has been made for the training of engineers to the design principles necessary for radiochemical processing plants. For proper evaluation of the capital costs portrayed in this study, it is essential to have a comprehensive understandaing of the basic philosophy of plant designs and plant operations. As such an engineering philosophy becomes modified and, its policies become more firmly established, it will be necessary to re-evaluate capital requirements continuously. B. Estimate Surmaries In the following pages, there appear a series of tables in which are presented summaries of estimates of capital costs in such a way as to providae breakdowns of these costs in several alternative manners.

Tables No. 1 through 6 are summaries of estimated capital cost requirements for the several alternative fission product packaging plants, including all charges for all areas which the facility comprises. These tables include total installation costs of plant start-up charges which have been estimated. It is to be noted that the total capital cost estimates provided are as follows: 1. Co-Precipitation Process $4,584,593 2. Co-Crystallization Process 5,125,444 3. Ion Exchange Process 4,780,596 4. Solvent Extraction Process 5,849,137 5. Gross Fission Product Packaging Process 4,334,303 6. Oxide Leaching Process 4,564,016 Tables No. 7 through 12 are estimates of capital costs in terms of process, process auxiliaries, and general plant services. These tables have been prepared so that the effects of the elimination of process cycles and the substitution of others may be estimated for order of magnitude comparisons. It is to be noted that process cycle costs vary from a minimum of 26.92 percent of the total installed cost for the gross fission product process to a maximum of 40.88 percent of the total installed cost for the co-crystallization process. Tables No. 13 through 18 present simmaries of capital costs by functional operating areas as described above. These areas are detailed further on the individual estimates since the process areas differ from plant to plant. The tables indicate total installed costs exclusive of development and plant start-up. Percentages due to the individual processing steps have been calculated, and allocations have been made to installed costs for working inventory, processing units, process auxiliaries, and general plant facilities. Tables No. 19 through 24 present capital estimate sunmnaries by equipment categories for all portions of the several alternative fission product packaging plants. These plants contain reallocated field and indirect charges, engineering costs, and purchase of spare parts. These costs are allocated into categories of vessels and mechanical equipment, instruments, piping, structures, and electrical. It can be observed here that the costs of structures make up a significently large proportion of the total cost, varying from a minimum proportion of 55.64 per cent for the co-crystallization process to a maximum of 65.55 percent for the gross fission product process. 50

Itemized estimates of the various categories of cost discussed above, as applied to the individual processing steps for each of the plants, are available in draft form for review if desired, but are not included here. Tables No. 25 through 30 present summary estimates of the cost of electrical lighting and power wiring. Costs for a central substation and switch gear have not been included in these costs. The estimates do include, however, provisions for the necessary transformers for lighting circuits and controls, and are based on take-offs from flowsheets and layouts. Tables No. 31 through 36 present summaries of estimates for engineering costs. These estimates include costs for process engineering, costs for control engineering, project engineering, detailed design engineering, piping, structures, and electrical. Allowance has been made in these estimates for engineering overhead based upon normal charges of design engineering firms. These estimates are based upon establishing process designs which are frozen prior to detailed design engineering efforts. Required engineering varies from minimum of $340,100 for the gross fission product process, up to a maximum of $571,600 for the solvent extraction process. Tables No. 37 through 42 consist of estimates for field supervision and indirect costs for construction. These costs are contingent mostly upon the method of negotiating construction contracts. In the event that multiple construction contractors are employed for erection of facilities, reconsideration of field supervision and indirect costs of construction must be made. 51

TABLE NO. 1 ESTIMATE SUMMARY CAPITAL COST REQUIREMENTS FOR* CO-PRECIPITATION PROCESS FISSION PRODUCT PACKAGING PLANT CATEGORY SUB-TOTAL PROCESS TOTAL Process Installations Vessels $ 193,315 $ Mechanical Equipment 342,120 Instruments 63,565 Piping 324,125 Spare Parts 268,880 1,192,005 Buildings and Structures 1,662,855 Electrical Power and Lighting 102.820 1.765,675 Field Indirect Costs 440,700 Engineering 433,oo Contingencies 383,138 1,256,838 Total Installation 4,214, 518 Plant Start-up 370,075 Total Capital Estimate 4,584,593 Costs of development excluded. 52

TABLE NO. 2 ESTIMATE SUMMARY CAPITAL COST REQUIREMENTS FOR* CO-CRYSTALLIZATION PROCESS FISSION PRODUCT PACKAGING PLANT CATEGORY SUB-TOTAL PROCESS TOTAL Process Installation Vessels $ 323,325 Mechanical Equipment 376,070 Instruments 81,875 Piping 440,195 Spare Parts 298,837 1,520,302 Buildings and Structures 1,662,855 Electrical Power and Lighting 104,050 1,766,905 Field Indirect Costs 489,.500 Engineering 518, 000 Contingencies 429,471 1,436,971 Total Installation $4,724,178 Plant Start-up 401,266 Total Capital Estimate $5,125,444 * Costs of development excluded. 53

ESTII'1%TE SUI[fltARY CA-PITAL COST HEOUIREIvENTS FORi* T ON-EXCNJ0GE PROCESS FISSION PRODUCT PACKAGING PLYANIT CATE GORY SUB-TOTAL PROCESS TOTAL Process Installations Vessels $ 193,315 $ Mtechanicall Equipment 322,355 instruments 68, 465 Piping 360,540 Spare Parts 270,098 214.,773 mua ldings and Structures 1,5662, 855 Electrical Power and Lighting 93,450 1,75356,305 Field Indirect Costs 444,g90 Engineerl:ing 444,0q C ontigInnc - le s 385,998 1,t274, 898 Total Installation 4,2453 976 Plant Sta-rt -uip 5341)620 Total'tl. Estit $ 4m. 7; *Costs of development excluded. 54

TA;1LE NO. 4 ESTIMAT.LE SUIVARY CAPITAL COST REOUITREPENTS FOR)'' SOLVPENT EXTRA.CTION P1ROCESS FISSION P-RODUCT PACKAGING PLANT CATE.GORY SUB -TOTAL PIROCESS TO.'TAi Pro.css Ins.tallations Vessels $ 331,580 $ Mechanical rEquipment 472, 545 In.struments 106, 705 Piping 392,665 Spare Parts 345,576 1,g i9,071 BuiTLl.n{.s and Structures 2,043,490 lectri catjl Pouer aln Lighting 124,150 2,167,640 Field Indirect Costs 555,500 Eng;ineeri ng 571. *,{6o00 Contingencies 494,381 " ~ 21 y 481 Total Installation 5 438 192 Pla nt Start-up lt4 Q945 Cpit. stimate................. *Costs of' developmentu ecl udc a -~~~~~~~~T

TABLE NO. 5 ESTTIA~TE SUII4ARY CAPITAL COST REOUIREvENTS FOR GROSS FISSION PRODUCT PROCESS FISSION PRODUCT PACKYAGING PL.aNdT CATEGORY SUB-TOTAL PROCESS TOTAL Process installa.ti ons Vessels $ 150,785 $ Mechani cal Equilpment 290,290 Instruments 39,725 -I, 17, i n- v 304 5 7; Spare Parts 255,770 i,041,145. ins ai Stouctures 1,676, 605 Electrical PEower and Lighting 95,720 1,772,325 Field Indirecti; Costs 419,800 Contingencies 362,337 1,172,2 37 Total Installation 3 985 707 Planet Start-'up 348, 59 Total'Cap-i- tal Estimate:,334, 03 *Costs of d.cveloeme nt cexclcuded. 56

TL ABLE, TDO. 6 C,J,?1..T/J4 COST fTP -JT<I' T'=" O.XJIDES. LIEACHING PROCESS FISGION PRONO>DUCT PK,,CA.K&GINGn-' PLAI:,T CA~ r. OR..~Y SUB-TOTAL P. -.CESS TOTAL Process Insta;.1-!ati Ons Vessels $ 205,780 $ Mie:chani cal E" n —uiment 338,120 Tnstrunment s 49,3 15 Pip ng 318,575 S- )ar e iP.-ts 29 2-,OL 1,180,802 -I~di~ngs ard, ~truet. iv es I r,66,6'i.'.,.u1i'] d 6X' -— 7'="i'"'3!s "i..2 J<7Z @i'" 0 ) O7o 605 Electrical Pomwe-r and Lighting 101,720 1,778,325 i-.e:.. Tnh.irct ote 43 9, n Eng ineerin, 4 28 400 Contingencies 382,733 1,250,933 Total. Ins talliati on,1 210.1).6O Plant St~.-'t —rup 3B 395i5 Total Cai;tal Estimate $ 4,5 64; J016 *Costs of develomient excluded.. 57

T... x11. 7 ITO 7 Ci TIT -''L COSrT ITT 1jr- 117: 1; ESi FD,...rrE....:,F:AL CPhLAN T._cvTrIC S ) C.- I' C AT0! ON T n 0C.!..T.. TLJ- Ji. 2..r-r 195 *7:$0 Cii73i7T C;TI. 011 UXB>a ( DO L 5,,_....C.. Ta 7,: —:m.shin:.c a! Iv P.e-ka,.ng 80~....2 Ch i. c.. " 2....287 l.ta, (t5.a2l ]?.ocel'i -s C2e t. f0-:'-' i11 srosc S El` 8,8 ~:';, I~" (30K8) Vessl..T..3 78 0 r.,-o.......~.~i ~eo~,3 8! fL~t>-1 (1.n5;.?) $ 5..... n':-WH q D,':7,.L1 4.. (31.79. ( ) 4,134, 5.8,3....K.c~ud~i::::.:; co-ts of,o-pmor'nt. _-......... m

l A m -TIO' ) O (m 1N I4RMS OI PPOCESS, P`OCESS I-UN II ES1T ND rENEma PL PLA;T SEVRICES) CO C 9YS TAI.L~LI ATI ONs PF:OC CSS FISSIONI PR ODUCT PACKiAGSIN PLA&NT C L!S S I ICA AiTION SUT -U- TOTAL TO TA Faci]'iltl es -or C"".. I em.cal s RI nd I H Materials Tank Farm $ 212, 3n $ Chemraic.l Mkce?-Up. 1~ )409, 272 Chemical IMIake-Up r 2 16,97 790 548 % of Total. (16.83) P'-ocs s,cle Pre -trea-tment 416i9,7 3 Produc t:emoival 40 4,o38 Salt Removal] 372, 362 FPa ishni - and Packas'ing 67-4.,4-55 1.9 19968 t of Totalc (40.88) Process Au:r. i!iaries,-l7adi; oceml ca!l:.asto- Disposal. 313,52 Vessel Off-Ga.s 3n39,818,:aste Dispos.al 317,277 L7J1,47 of Totnal (18. 2).Pl..ant Utietlit es 581.,5 BzHeatii anind: Ventl-atin.ang.3k,5 O 3,. 1,].1565 % of Total. (23.77) Total (t00%) $ 4,697,178 Emxclruding costs of develonprentn and plant start-up. 59

J.i-. ENO. 9 CAtPIT CO' SrJ.rl T ESTITrr,,,"3J SU~L'~,'hRY* (Icc TEUoiS OF PROCESS, PROCESS,,;UILITAL.IE S A.D GETNERAL PLANT SE.EVICES) ION-EXC HANGE PROCESS FISSION PRODUCT PAfC'KA-AICNI;\i PLA —,J,!NT CLASSIoFI i CATION SUB- TOTAL TOTAL Fac-.l.itGies forx Chemicals and Raw Mlaterials Tank Farmi $ 167, 80 $ Chemical Make sup o —p 1 252,- 6n Cheim:i.cal.,ra-up 2 305, S56 725 437 % of0 Total (.7.0) Process Cycle Separati ons 254., 320 Chemical Recovery 251,71.4 Finishing and 78P, )cio L, 292,,445 % of Total (30. 4) Process Atu.ili "ar ies Rad.-iochemi- ca;l?;,aste Disposal 373 274 Vessel Oi.f-Gas 238, 4t8i. Taste Di.sposal 315 509 -.,.:T:o1 a~ (21. 84) Gen..eeral. P J:lant acillies Plan.nt, Ultil-i ties 679,1 59.:eating andJL Ventilating 21.;... 1,300, 830 % of Total (30 o3) Total (100%) $ 4,245,975 Excl. 3Iing costs of development and. plant start-up. 60

TA.LLE NO.1 n CAPITAL COST'ESTIMATE S'r"r')r ( ITN %Ea4S OF PROCESS, PO0CESS?J.fIL-..ITIESn ANTD GEIT'ERAL PLAtIT SERVICES) SOLVzENT EXTRACTION PROCESS FISSION PRODUCT PP!-?C,'lAR.-T, T. PLAN-JT CLA;SSI FI C=ATI OhT SUB-TOTAL TOTAL Tank Farm $ 2 9,278 Chemical Make-up:/, 1 215,414 Chemical Make-up - 2 2.69 o,96 t.694,388 % of Total (12.77) ProceSsCy! c Separations - 1 495,924 S.c;..ar.ti.ons-. 2 531",722.::inishinE and- Packaging 7-9,692 1, {777,338 $o of Total (32. 8) Process Auxiliaries Solvent Ptrif cation 571,.07 R-aado chemical ar;'ste Disposal 350,98331 Vessel Of:\"_'~ 237,093 WKaste Disposal 459,708 1,71.8,889 % of Total (3.51) General Plant Facd1ities Plant Utilitins 64761 5 ITat-ing and Ventia- t.l ing 59995,2 1 24-7,577 * of Total (22. 4) Total (.O)oo ) $ 5,438,192 Eccluding costs of developrent anE. planto start-up.

TAI3LE NO. tI CAPIT.ZAL COST ESTIT.TAE= SUIAARY* (INI'iE7MiS OF PFROCESS, PROCESS rAUX.ILTzI2IES, JTD GETJIiAL PLN2,T SERVICES) GROSS FISSION1 PRODUCT PROCESS FISSION PRODUCT PACIKAGING PLLANT CLASSIIFI CATi SU13- TOTAL TOTAL Fac:ilities for ChZemicals and Raw Mater.als Tank Farm $ 2144,609 $ Chemi cal Make-u-p 259,182 503,791 % of Total (12. 64) Process Cycle Sepa:r-at+ions 327,783 Finishing and Packaging 749,997 1,0 72,780 % of Total (25.92) Process Au, liaries.adiochemical WIaste Disnosal 3.6,251 Vessel Off —Gas 236,356 Waste Disposal 312,685 865,292 % of Total (21.71) CGeneral Plant Facilities Plant Utilities 8088 1,22 eatni+g and. Ventilating 735 722 51,543,844 % of Total (38.73) Total (o100) $ 3,985,707 Exclud.ing costs of development and plant start-up. 62

CAPITAL COST ESTIMA"17 SITIrIV2 PI* (I. TT. JS OF P.-.OCESS, PROCESS A.T-UXIL.IAFRIES, D CGENEUAL PLAJITT SERVICES ) OXIDE LEACHINGf PROCESS FISNSIO0NT PIRODUCT PACKIAGINGr PLt.,NT CLrA SS T C'.TT ON\ SUB- TO9TAi TOTALi Pacilitic es for Chemicals and caw,t.M.ter.lls Tank Fa.,m $ 245,825 $ Chemical Makc-up 234, 575 480, 0oo % of Total (l. 41-) Process Cycl.e Separati ons 4-67,788 Finishin, anid Packagingc 827,12 1, 295,400 % o0 Total (30.77) P:rocess Ali-:i!iaries >c~liochemical.?aste D!i.sposal g- 1 3 4 _,2.90 a. diQoc h-m. ca. cI ti'. astDc _doD sal P,- 2 18, 350 Vessel. Off-Gas 23 —7, 37.Jaste Disposal 3141.,028 1,066,038 % of Total (25.32) C.eneral PlaCnt LFac -il.ities Plan t Uti li es 714, 71T Heating, a.nd Vent-is.ating 53, 508 1. 368 222 of rTo-tal (32 50) r-Pt,.1 (_nlo%) $ b-,21 e>., o,6o *Excluldinlg costs of development an lantd start — o. 63

TA/LE NO. 13 CfPITAL ESTIMATE SUIvMJ\RY BY.:!UNCTI ONAL OPE.'ATINGI APREA CO-P ECIPITATION PROCESS FISSION PRODUCT PACKAtCGING PLANT TOTAL COST P EJ-T N'O. DESCP-IP. IOlN OF A.iEA ESTIMtA&TE OF WMHOLE 1 Tank Farm A 195,506 4.64 2 Chemical. M,1ake-up % 1 2!1,235 5.01 3 Chemical Make-upun 2 238,979 5.67 4 Separations 438,857 11.48 5 Radiochemica l W4as-e Disnosal 383, 11-3 9.10 6:Finishing and Packaging 8099,320 19.20 7 Plant Utilities 700,470 16.62 8 HIea'tintg and Ventilati.ng 639,374 15.17 9 Vessel Off -Gas 237,780 5.64 10 Waste Disposal 314,584 7.46 Total, $ 4, 214, 58 O100.00 ~Excluding costs of plant start-sup. 64

TABLE NO. 14 CAPITAL~ ES-'TMA.....Pu SUI}IKYr BY %.'tIAPITIAJI EST-114ATE" SWO4U B@ IUNCTIOJiAL OPERiATING 2.&EIA COC —CRYSTALLIZ A7,TION PB-{OCESS FISSIONI P.ODUCT PACtICrGING PLANT TOOTAL COST PERCENT NO. DllSCtEIPTI O OF ESrI'I-TE, OF 1'~-OLE 1 Tank Faa-m $ 212,301 4.49 2 Chemical IiaLpke -up L 1 4o09,272 8. 66 3 Chemical Make.-um] ~p 2 168,975 3 58 4'Pre-treatment 4I9 6,13 10 50 5 Product Removal 40o4,o38 8.55 6 Salt Removal 372,362 7.88 7 aRdiochemical TWasto Disnosal 313,052 o 63 8 Finishing anld Packlaging 67n4,545 141.28 9 Plant Utilities 581, 566 12.31 1(0 Ieating and Ventilating 53ad 1.1.32 1i Vessel Off-Gas 239,818,o. 12 f.aste Disnosal 317, 277 6. 72 -Ttal $ 41772i".sl78 100.00 Exclud.-ing costs of pl.ant, start.-up. 65

T E,_: NO. 15 CA;-PITAr1tPL ESTIIPiLTE SUIMvLAMY BY.FJNCTIONiALJ OPERA-A TING AREA ION EXCHA7,NGE PR OCES) FISSION PRODUCT PACI-.,GITG PLANT ~AFA.. TOTAL COST PE'RC:ENT NO. DESCRIPTION OF REHA ESTIl4AT OI 0 WHOLE! Tank Farm $ 167,180 3.94 2 Chemical Make-rp 1 252,601 5.95 3 Chemical Mialke-rup 71 2 305,656 7.20 4 Separations 25t4,320 5.99 5 Radiochemical aste DDisposal 373, 274 8.79 C hemical Recovery 251,71 4 5.93 7 Finish;ing and Packagcing 7861,411 18.39 8 Plant Utilities 679,159 16.0o 9 -Ieating rl ndz Vent lating 621,7 174.6)4 io Vessel O:rf tl->S 238,48.1 5 62!I Wa ste DisptoTsa al 315, 50c9 7,.43 Total $ 24, 125, (76) 10.o00 Excluding costs of plant start-up. 66

TArBLE NO. i.6 * C MIT.L " ES~TIMITET SUIM4ARY BY FUIJICTIONAL OPE) RATTINCIG AEAA SOLVENT EIT''ACTTION P'ROCESS FISSION PRODUCT PACTLG'IN-C PLANTIT AREIEA TOTAL COST PERCENT NO. DESCRIPTION OF APdA ESTIMATE OF WHOLE 1 Tank Farm $ 209,278 385 2 Chemical Malke-up- / 1 215,414 3.96 3 Chemical Make-up - 2 2 29,696 4.96 4 Separationms 1 451495,924 9.12 5 Separations /- 2 531j,722 9.78.6 Solvent Purification 671,107 12.34 7 RadCiochemiDcal Waste Disposal 350,981 6.45 8.Finishing and Packaging 749,692 13.79 9 Pl.ant Utilities 647,61.5 11.91 10 Heating and. Ventilating 599,962 11.03 11 Vessel Off — CGas 237,093 4. 3 12 Wraste Disposal 459,708 8.45 Tota $ 5,438,132 100.0r Excludingr costs of plant start-up. 67

TALDE NO. 17 CAPITAL ES3TI\TE SU'l/Lf-IY BY FUNCTIONAL OPERATIG AT-REEA CROSS FISSION PRODUCT PROCESS FISSION PRODUCT PACKAI.GING PLAINT TOTAL, COST PERCCENT NO. DESCRIPTION OF1' AREfiEA ESTINATE OF WHIOLE 1 Tank Farm $ 244, 609 6.14 2 Ch-ruhemicl IMake -up 259,182.650 3 ~S2oCtinOs-, 32 C 2 783 8.22 4 Radi.,ochemica! WrLaste Disposal. 316,251 7.94 5 Finishing and Packaging 744,997 18.69 6 Plant Utilities 808,122 20.28 7 Heatinr anJ Ventilating 735,722 18.46 8 Vessel Off-Gas 236,355 5.93 9 Taste Dis-osaI 312,685 7.84 Total $ 3s985,707 7!00.00 Excluding costs of plant start-up. 68

TALE NO. 18 CAPdDITIAL ES TII IivATE bV1'TARYi _3 FUNCTIONAL OPEPATINGC AREA OXIDE LEACI.IING PROCESS FISSION PRODUCT PACKAiGING PLANT AiE.A TOTAL COST PERCEiNT NO. DESCRIPTION OF AREEA ESTILATE OF WHOLE 1 Tank Farm $ 245,825 5. 84 2 Chemical Make-ui 234,575 5.57 3 Separations 467,788 11.11 4 RadiochemincaJl Waste Disnosal #1 1 346,290 8. 23 5 Rad-iochemical Waste Disposal A 2 168,350 4.00 6 Finishing and Packltaging, 827,612 19.66 7 Plant Utilities 714,714 16.98 8 Heaeting aend Venti1ating 653,508 15.52 9 Vessel Off -Gas 237,370 5.64 1o WIaste Disposal 314,028 7.46 Total $ 4, 21..o6o0 100. O0 Excluding costs of plant start-up. 69

TALZ3LE NO. 19 CAPITAL ESTIMATE SUIAIAARY BY ECUIPmIENT CATEGORIES INDIRIECT CONSTRUCTION COSTS A2LLOCATED (AiLL AREAS) CO,-PPECIPITATION PROCESS FISSION PRODUCT PACKAGING PLANT ALLOCATED CODE CLASSIFICAT ION^ DIRTECT INDIRECT TOTALS 100,200 300,500 Vessels $ 193,31-5 $ 109,694 $ 303,009 7.19 40o0 Mechanical. Equipment 342,120 194,131 536,251 12.72 600 Instrunents 63,565 36,059 99,634 2. 3 700 Piping 324,125 183,919 508,o44 12.05 800 Structures 8 1,62,855 943,562 2,606,417 61.84 900 Electrical 102,820 58. 344 161,164 3.82 Totals $2, 68800o 1',525, 71e $4 214 51X8 10.00 7o

TABL NO. 20 CnA.pImTL ESTIMAIdTE SU2\10t;XRY IBY E@UIPI}IiNT CAEteGORiOES INDIRECT CONSTRUCTION COSTS ALLOCATED (.LL AEIAS) CO-CRYSTAfLLIZATION PROCESS FiSSION PRL?,ODUCT PACK/LG.IN=G PI.BJT ALLOCATED CODE CULSSIFICATION DIPCT INDIEWCT TOTALS..!00,200 300,T500 Vessls $ 323,325 $ I878$o5 $ 511, 30 10o.82 /-D400 Mechanical Eouaipment 37G,-70.. 218,442 594S 512 12.58 600 instrume-nts 81,875 47,557 129, 432 2.74 70r Piping 44,195 255,:89 l, 884 14,73 8oo Struc't re,, t I, 85 5 965 877 2, 628, 732 5 64 0 El ctri cal 1n04 050 60 438 164,488 3.48 TotalCs $ 2,988,30 $ 1,735,808 $4,n724,178 00.00 71

TAI3IBT NO. 23 CAPITAL ESTIMATE SUMIVJAY BY E@UIPMENT CATEGORIES ITDIRECT CONSTRUCTION COSTS ALLOCATED (ALL AREAS) ION EXCHANGE PROCESS FISSION PRODUCT PACKAGING PLANT ALLOCATED CODE CLASSIFICATION DIREECT INDIRECT TOTALS 100,200 300,500 Vessels $ 193,315 $ 110,577 $ 303,892 7.16 400oo Mechanical Equipment 322,355 184,391 506,746 11.93 600 Instrulments 68,455 39,163 107,628 2.53 700 Piping 360,540 206,234 566;,774 13.35 800 Structures 1,662,855 951,176 2,614 031 61.56 900 Electrical 93,L5(0 53,455 146,905 3.46 Totals $ 2 700 980 $1 544 996 $ 4.245, 966!10000 72

~...'. PT, 22, CAZP.2cil LSTTPWEiI STUi5Vs.RY __. -- r B,. T P1 2YT.. A.... I1>JIE.'C CT CuONSTR.UCTION COST'S ALLOC1AID (_A,1im,,PAS) SOIT~LVENT E/T..:'ACT.1T N. P_0OCESS?T;SCTO'T PROiDUJCT PACAfGHl2r' PI_.LJN4T FST'f O, A F I I C O:, CLA..SST T, IC C-AT..L O. D0IR,,I CrT ZOOr~'200 3m ",5n' vczs;t?1.:i 331Se,..!) t 10, 8s, 5o-3yl 95 rn6f-7!?L:c ~ ~: - r:;,,,,-,D 125 -'i 1-'.: 1. 3 07 7,.,r! P3ri.'n' 3n, —,5 sQ ZTl: 15,184 1t1.31 Soo Ot' CLU'$,,01Ks 1iKO Lt1)%O( 1n5 3 2'01.,515 58. 87 300.2ci;-icat ric^4 1.n50;1 5T 3.58 1I tlnf sf 7 $ 3, n2vef5 $ 5'73 i o 9 t 73.

CAIByT~AL ESTIAEIIvA'. UI ARY rY, E~.UTP0MENT; CATEL~GoL.-ES I:NIRECT CONSTeUCTIOIT COSTS ALLOCATED (ALL, AREAS).CR-.O.SS FISSI ON PR.ODUTCT PROCESS FiS.Si;lORT'onm'.r,', P_~.Xt *,,'-,' r-'T,a pEL mT AriKLLfOC;AlgiZB'mO,,O.zIF I CL TCATi'C -TO 7?.T.T.. C- OS __C_ OT I 00,200 30,50 Vese.s $ 5 84,.186 $ 234.97i 5.90 %-' (A Ar Me(-t''..-~ c-m:l2;m niu.'-ivexl7;'0~c S52 g 31$2;l o 35I,<E- ]^O. 1.tr_-iets 31 s )~5 Sl.,,r1 YT 1 * 55 8nn Sc.-rurtil<es T, 7/Ij.n<05 932,0[7 2 o-,1i2>r82 5.55 900,............ 3.7... Tg!s.s $:5 (, xr(0 $1 428,0 07 $3;.... - 100..-, 0 74

TABLEt NO. 24 CAPITAIL STIAT SUMMA0 l AfRY BY EQUIPMENT CAtEGORIES I.TNDIR-ECT CONSTRUCTION COSTS ALLOCATIEiD (.ALL PAEAS) OXIDE LEACHINNG PPOCESS FISSION PR-0.DUCT PACKA'CITN PLANT ARLLOCAT.ED CODE CLASSIFI"CATION.DTIRECT CT TOTALS rT 3:0500 V5esl: 205,70 116,268 $ 322,04.8 7.65 4005 Mrechea-nica1'-nui-:r>nent 3383,120 19 L,04 529,162 12.57 0oo Ins''ru nen. 4,315 27, 865 77,178 1. 83 700 Pipi 3p 575 1 79,998 498,573 11.84 c80o Structures 1,576,605 947,301 2,623,906 62.33 900 E lectrical 101,720 57,473 159,193 3.78 Totals 2,690,115 $ 51291945 4 4,2 06.... 1.00 75

TAr-TLE 0-,1 25.S.TTA-7.. OF ELEC,-'T.C POE..RA,,N,.".j.D W CI'Ri C'TS FOR, CO-PPECIPI TIATI ON,' PROCESS FISSION PRODUCT PACKACGI.-!TNIT PLAINTT tAREA DESC-RIPTION IL LABOR TOTAL 92 —1 Tank Farm 3,' 800 $ 2)250 56, 050 O2- -2 ernhic;m Mct.'-,r,:- [1 3 500 2, 50 6 350 (>)9^;3....lem. -aL M -un -2 4O1500 3,100 7r1"00 92-4 S;.o.rt.ons &$, 4-L00r 4,4o50 12,850 92-5 R0ar'd-' ochemi..j cal-'.,s-tc D:i sosas 8so 3,600. 11, 00 92 —6 P:inishng asn Packaging 5O 5 5,/ 750 2,250 92-7 Pl.nt Utilities 6,550 5 270 11,820 92-8,,atin'; nl. Vent'latiing 0800 6 a,n 50. 17,3 O2-7 V~essel Oif'f- s -)4,3(00s 3, 00 )O 7,300 02-10;a3stc Disosa! 6,300 3900 i0,200 76 0 2,i i7 820 ~~~~~~760?B olf)

TABLE NlO. 26 ESI -TI IEIJK OP LCTLIEC BOW? AND VIRILJC 0032 CO- CRYSTALZLIAI ON rR'OCESS 131SS0ON PR0DUC PRACKAN IN10 PL-N/,TP 721 DESOPIPTiTON KTDIILLXIO TOUTAL 0.1 ThA Pcsm 4kvoo 2,7fK:7Iq' I P AD [klu, b.6...... 3 R' ai r,~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.4 ~~~~~~~~~~~~,y 2- 2D QQ 00 u..,Rrnoval C2" 3i t" 2,~~~.~4-r3?T~rtq71Z LT-I Z~r~ -7 50, no "Chei 7 ca. 1 molakte. U: Disposal5 )300. 32 8... Plant Utilil] Wci 6,3o 5, 270 I) P'm 1 f Ie t n V a 1 0,803 0 ( 1 "V' no I Vc sse 0OTnO )j n ", ~ 0",q, o *-~~~~ o U J.......... Wo' 6''1' e'"'~' 1/,":'' r,~~~~~7 o ~ I~I.:.~ it ~~Pril~lC~ Cav.....uranrr "IYJI~- 4 60n"" 8qOI~U 7 ri;~ c, ~vl3,r n 67 ~ ~ ~,lceii),:U 3, PS".;~.....0].'es%!lenu ~............ ~ ~,. o-, ~ ~.....d-, a t R e m o v a l. ~ o,~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ C3 j i~Sault'Removall ~- 2~ 750 ]..,*J 9n, I.C*r-Y,............, p. — ~~~~~'brr)~~5 300 3 1. o 0 8;:4 lIj..~o h m t'~poa 750 c'~~~~~~~2'T ~I Ca 1 Ip-, %,1300 3,3. Li~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.. o;~,3...n ~ i3Z.Inrr~ r~i I~ "'7n ]r ~ 1 8.0,.;o~2_rI ]~'1 Ve~-:,.-.q'-.e! O:?..as'no LI,~T, 3nn 7,30 J, 1~2.3?r >.....-...~...,s i po..'5...,........... m.,-....:'.','2'50! V~~~~~~~~~~~: ~., ~.............'.., 4.. 77

T.iALE NO. 27 ESTILAMi'I OF ELECTRIC POIW3ER AND WI;RINGi COOST FOR ION EXCHANCE PROCESS FISSION PRODUCT PACKAGING PLANT AREA DESCRIPTION MATERIAL LABOR. TOTAL 92-1 Tank Farm 3,40oO 2,250 $ 5,650 92-2 Chemical Make-up./1 4,oo00 3,100 7,100 92-3 Chemnical Make-up:/2 3,200 1,800 5,000 92-4 Separations 2,800 2,400 5,200 92-5 Radiochemical Waste Disposal 5,300 3,180 8,480 92-6 Chemical Recovery 1,700 1,450 3,150 92-7 Finishing and Packaging 6,500 5,750 12,250 92-8 Plant Utilities 6,550 5,270 11,820 92-9 Heating and Ventilating 10,800 6,500 17,300 92-10 Vessel Off-Gas 4,300 3,000 7,300 92-11 Waste Disposal 6,300 3,900 10,200 Total $ 54,850 $ 38,600 $ 93,450 78

TA3L'J NIO. 28 ESTIMAGE OF ELCTRIC POST TER ANFD'.ORTNICC- COSITS SOLVENT ERATfCTION PROCESS FISSION PRODUCT PACKACGINJ PLAiNT.?LE A DIESCRI TION $iTERT L LiOr r0., TOTA)L 92-1 Tank Farm $:,4;o' 2,750 7,?50 92-2 Chemical Make-up <-. 3, 50 2 850 6 35 92-3 ChemiCcal Make-up c-,.2 3,300 l,700 5,00o 92 — Separa tions i 7,8o 6,100 1 3,900 92-5 Separations 72 6,9o 0,750 l,50 92-6 Solvo4niJ PRu l;-.- cati on 4,250 2r J,5o 92 —7 1`v:._och'emic? a.raste- Disposal 5,300 3,180 8,480 02-8. insn:,h>n,.ing anrin Packaging 5<500 5,750 12,250 92-9 Plant Utiliti es,550 5,270 11,820 9241 -0 Hieating and Ventilating 12,500 8, io 2, 6Qo 92-1.1 Vessel Off-Gas 4,300 3,000 300 92-12 Waste Disposal 8,200 4, ()0 12,8n. Total 7 3,500 50,650 $ L]2415o 79

Tk3TIE NO. 2s ESTTIA1,:E OF E LECT!RIC POS;R. AI)D? _rV I -ITir COSTS FOR CROSS FISSION r'.:",ODUC. P OC.SS I SS.IO.' PRODUCT PACK —ITTC PLAT:,,, A,..~.,:,,;DESCR,.I PT IO I ATLERIAL LABO, TOTAL 92-1 Tank h arm 1,40 4$O 2,750 $ 7,150 92-2 Chemica1 Make-tup 4,Oo 0 3,100 7,100 92-3 S 7o^t,.io-n; 9, 30o 3,600 12,9( 92-4i -. adi och'1ernica1,,Trt, Disposal 6,5o. 3 200;, O 9o2-5 n1'n:!..~hing annd Packla.ginng c6,500 5 75 0 12,250 92 6 Plant Ut:i.l:.ties 6, 550 5,27! 1,820 92- 7 Heati n. and Vent4iating 10,8DO 6.500; 7;,300 92-8 Vessel Off:-Gas 4,300 3,00 0 7,300 S V WIJaste "Di5rSO5A r 3.. 309 10,2 00 Total, 5,650 37,76 70 95, 720 80

TASLE NO. 30 ESTIMTEAl O ELZFECLIC POTER R',D -'"-R: CWOST S FOR OXIDE LEAC:rrIN P -CoESSo FISSION PRODUCT PACKt&AGING PLAINIT:REA DESC-I,IPTON 0iTE LOR TOTAL 92-1 lTankl; Favr 4-,400 2,750 a 7,150 92-2 Chemical Make -up 4,(0oo 300 7,1Q0 92^-3 Sen arations 9,3~0 3,600 712 00 92-b Rac:diochcmical_ T;caste Dis posa17,!ll. 9, 8 Pi 4,700 14,5oe 92-5 R-diochemical Wraste Disposa:3 98 4700 1,200 2~. Flu'nishi a'nd Packagrn; 500 5,750 12,250 92-7 P.an-t Utilities 655 5, 270 1, 82 02.-H8 eat'ing and Ventilating 10,800 6,500 17, 300 92-9 Vessel Off-Gas 4,3 3,000 7300 91 Wa ste al 5,3 3,00 n 10,2) 00 Total "' 62,750. 38,-97(n 81

TPBLE IT O. 31 SUITh.B.rY T.2..E O'F,J.STA, MP11. OF ENGII,T, E,IiEIGT COSTS FOR CO -P' CIPITATION T PROCES S FISSION PRODUCkT PRODUCT ACItAGINTI PL~NTi CL-ASSiFiX 2' CATIO A ) SiUB TOTAL TOTAL Process.Enrineerin: 76, n Costs and Con+.trol Enngineer. n 2)4 508 Project En-:2 ncering 54,500:1etai..ed nR2:i; eer'.Mn V-essels or0,000 Me chani cal. c-qipment 53, 0... Inst ruvments 26 50,0 Piping 58,O( nO ildli a:ngs and. Str.uctulf- 73 0.... iE'lectzr-ic Pow.reTr?nd. Li-hting 27 50"0 To.tal Detailed Engineering 278,000.To-otal,_1 Engi.neer'-`ing Costs. 33o Allowance mad.e for e.ngCi.neering o2 erea C, Estimattlde is busd ed on cun lified engineerzn Cg concern e-t:nSr.sencea i n remote \TTo allowance m de fot ove;r-time prenmium. Est im;te based. on a "f'iS"ozen. P-nrocef.ss'tv-'o1 onment cost s not iincf.,-':ed. in this table. 82

TABLE NO. 32 SUIThNILfY" TAi'B'lBE OF ESTIM'4.!IEfES OF ELIJ'- IEW I""TW CO STI; FOur CO-CRYST'ALLIZATI ON P.ROCESS tSISSION PR'ODUCrT PACKAGING PLINT C LAS SIFI CTSI ON SUB- TOTAL TOTAL Process En,gineeri ng $ 91,200 Costs and Control Enginme.in 27,300 Project EnCgn.erin7), 0,20 Detailed Endineerin,' Ve S sels! j...o. echanical Equipmemnt 58,300 Instruxments 34., 1.00 Piping 78,8i0 BuIl dings -Cand Stjructu-re s 73,000 Electrical Powe:r and Lightin, 27,800 Total Detailed Engn eering 338,900.r.OJl,'In:,,ine.ering Costs 18,0r0 Alloawpance ma-'de Enfor: r ovnerhe.ad. Estirmate is based onl qual-..fied engineerin,, concern experienced in emi ote operationsr No allowance mad.e for overtime permizm. Etirnate based on a TioCeu.Ooc p eoss. Develo-ment costs no't included in this table. 83

TABLE NO. 33 SUMMARY TABLE OF ESTINMAi.7S OF ENGINEERING COSTS FOR ION EXCHANGE PROCESS FISSION PRODUCT PACKAGING PLANT CLASSIFICATION SUB-TOTAL TOTAL Process Engineering $ $ 83,600 Costs and Control Engineering 24,6o00 Project Engineering 54.,800 Detailed Engineering Vessels 40,000 Mechanical Equipment 50,000 Instruments 28,500 Piping 64,500 Buildings and Structures 73,000 Electrical Power and Lighting 25,000 Total Detailed Engineering 281,000 Total Engineering Costs $ 444,00ooo Allowance made for engineering overhead Estimate is based on qualified engineering concern experienced in remote operations. No allowance made for overtime premium. Estimate based on a "frozen" process. Development costs not included in this table. 84

TA~.P NO. 31' SU'DLARYY TABLE OF ESTI1VDATB'S OF ENTCINE'.IF.INOC,' COSTS FOR SOLVENT EXT'ACTION PROCNESS FISSION PRODUCT PACIKr~AC-G:INGT, PLJNT CLASSIFI CATI ON SU T - TCOT'iL TOTAL Process Engi neeoringr 1 20 Costs and Control En,,-lneering 31,50n Project Enginee rinng'70, n!h e nu: n..e. i n.s Vessels 8,:SO0 Mechanilca~l 7!i;Lmn3 t2nC) Tin,t;rumeont,; 411. 5-n Pi1-o-Tn 70Pi ", 3 di Lrngs and Stu...c-tre. 80i,0W El'ct'-riecal Power and Li-.htirgtn 33,2':.0' Total Detail]ed Engs..ne.er'ng.78,8W. Total- T n.riner i AAllowancel made for eni.ne ri.ng overhead. E-.-tima=te.s bEi ba-cd on i e@nri.ng concrn exuer-;i:cQl. i.n rei:- ot oe ra tio s. No al- lowaurnco.e f "or oveertim'ne,r: "tli.s.t.J...i — sed on?', t -frozen" p rocess Developinent costs not included i this tsbole. 85

T-PJBLAE NO. 35 * SUJL4ARY TABLE OF ESTIMTAThS OF ENGINEERINI'G COSTS FOR GROSS FISSION PRODUCT PROCESS fISSIQNtT PRODUCT PA.C:AfGIN. PLKTT CLA-SSTS FICATION SUB -T- TOTAL TO.:L Process Engineering 6 8,ho, Costs and. Control Engi neerin 23, 300O P~ro ject rrEngineen 1rin.,0c Detailed Engi-neering? Vessels 31,200 ie -chanica]~ cal'- ipm E men. I5c, T ns t-'umen' s..n, 1.;O n,,-,, pi~~~~g ~54, 50.' J....... -.nd St.':ucture s 73"C El,.ct,:'il.c:: Power and Lightinrg2,0 oi0,0).1 DetalIed Engineirer I'ng' Iotal L<" ai Cost Allowanc e iade for ei rnneering overh.ad. s _t iate is b aser on.,. li..od. engindeering concnrrn e:'.rienc 2'n ir.o.. ope ti ones. No all.owance maden for overtlime Premei~..st-ima'te based. on a:frpooeni process. Development corLs n.ot incl.ud'ed. in tfhis table. 86

TABILE NO. 3( SUII4;AJRY TABLE O1 F OFSTThAS OF ENGINEERITING COSTS FOR OXIDE LEEACIZNC PROCESS FISSION PRODUCT PACEtKGIIIThC- PLANTT CLASSIPFICATI ON SUB- TOTAL TOTAL Process Engineering}. 7r,00 Costs and. Control Engineering 24,50O Project Engineering 54,500 Ieta-iled.l Enw4nineerinr; Vessels e 42, 0 4Mecha.nicail. Equipnrrient. 52, 4)00 Ins trr melnt s 20,600 Pipin6 u-lin...nl: a-nd. Stlulct.ures r737.rS El..ect.i cal Power an"d Lighting r27o,200 r~..1 Detilegh Eting7.cridn. 273,-i... Tot l.!! m,T:ni.:e.rin. Cos t-s..-.8... Allowanc- mad:'.-fo engineeing overhead E-s tirr~atile 7.is based on onaLified engineerinrt concern ne reincedo in reriaote operations. o al1lowance made for overtime prem1iu. Estimate based on a "frozen" orocess. Dev~lel. ment costs not cled i th'.is tabl.e. 87

TAMLE NO. 37 SUIMARY TABLE OF ESTIMATES OF FIELD SUPERVISION AN' CONSTRUCTION INDIRECT COSTS FOR CO-PRECIPITATI O PROCESS FISSION PRODUCT PACKAGING PLANT CATE:GORY TOTAL Temporary Buildings $ 27,000 Temporary Utilities and. Fencing 7,800 Tools and Equipment 125,000 Construction Supplies 18, 000 Rental of Construction Equipment 14,500) Maintenance and Repair of Construction Equipment 9,500 Payroll Taxes 95,000 Local Taxes and Permits 52,0()00 B3onds and Insurance 2,900 Field Office Supervision and Engineering 7,500 Telephone and Telegraph 5,100 Travel and Living Expenses 35,500 Inspection and Testing 14,400 Field Engineering 26,000 Total $ 440,700 88

TABLE NO. 38 SUNMARY TABLE OF ESTIMAES OF FIELD SUPERVISION AND CONSTRUCTION INDIRECT COSTS FOR CO-CRYSTALLIZATION PROCESS FISSION PRODUCT PACKAGING PLANT CATEGORY TOTAL Temporary Buildings $ 27,000 Temporary Utilities and Fencing 7,800 Tools and Equipment 139,000 Construction Supplies 20, 600 Rental of Construction Equipment 16,100 Maintenance and Repair of Construction Equipment 10,6oo Payroll Taxes 103,200 Local Taxes and Permits 57,800 Bonds and Insurance 3,200 Field Office Supervision and Engineering 8,400 Telephone and Telegraph 5,100 Travel and Living Expenses 42,700 Inspection and Testing 19,100 Field Engineering 28,900 Total $ 489.500 89

TABLE NO. 39 SUWMMARY TABLE OF ESTIMATES OF FIELD SUPERVISION AND CONSTRUCTION INDIRECT COSTS FOR ION-EXCHANGE PROCESS FISSION PRODUCT PACKAGING PLANT CATECrORY TOTAL Temporary Buildings $ 27,000 Temporary Utilities and Fencing 7,800 Tools and Equipment 125,600 Construction Supplies 18,6oo00 Rental of Construction Equipment 14,600 Maintenance and Repair of Construction Equipment 9,600 Payroll Taxes 96,700 Local Taxes and Permits 52,200 Bonds and Insurance 2,900 Field Office Supervision and Engineering 7,600 Telephone and Telegraph 5,100 Travel and Living Expenses 36,400 Inspection and Testing 14,700 Field Engineering 26,100 Total $ 444,900 90

TABLE NO. 40 SUTV24IARY TABLE OF ESTIMATES OF FIELD SUPERVISION AND CONSTRUCTION INDIRECT COSTS FOR SOLVENT EXTRACTION PROCESS FISSION PRODUCT PACKAGING PLANT CATEGORY TOTAL Temporary Buildings $ 27,000 Temporary Utilities and Fencing 7,800 Tools and Equipment 160,700 Construction Supplies 23,800 Rental of Construction Equipment 18,600 Maintenance and Repair of Construction Equipment 12,200 Payroll Taxes 119,500 Local Taxes and Permits 66,800 Bonds and Insurance 3,700 Field Office Supervision and Engineering 9,700 Telephone and Telegraph 5,100 Travel and Living Expenses 46,goo Inspection and Testing 20,300 Field Engineering 33,400 Total $ 555,500 91

TABLE NO. 41 SUMMARY TABLE OF ESTIMATES OF FIELD SUPERVISION AND CONSTRUCTION INDIRECT COSTS FOR GROSS FISSION PRODUCT PROCESS FISSION PRODUCT PACKAGING PLANT CATEGORY TOTAL Temporary Buildings $ 27,000 Temporary Utilities and Fencing 7, 8oo Tools and Equipment 119,000 Construction Supplies 17,600 Rental of Construction Equipment 13,800 Maintenance and Repair of Construction Equipment 9,100 Payroll Taxes 92,000 Local Taxes and Permits 49,500 Bonds and Insurance 2,800 Field Office Supervision and Engineering 7,100 Telephone and Telegraph 5,100 Travel and Living Expenses 32,000 Inspection and Testing 12,300 Field Engineering 24,700 Total $ 419,800 92

TABLE NO 11.2 SUMMARY TABLE OF ESTIMATES OF FIELD SUPERVISION AND CONSTRUCTION INDIRECT COSTS FOR OXIDE LEACHING PROCESS FISSION PRODUCT PACKAGING PLANT CATEGORY TOTAL Temporary Buildings $ 27,000 Temporary Utilities and Fencing 7,80oo Tools and Equipment 125,000 Construction Supplies 18,500 Rental of Construction Equipment 14,500 Maintenance and Repair of Construction Equipment 9,500 Payroll Taxes 94,700 Local Taxes and Permits 52,000 Bonds and Insurance 2,900 Field Office Supervision and Engineering 7,500 Telephone and Telegraph 5,100 Travel and Living Expenses 35,100 Inspection and Testing 14,200 Field Engineering 26,000 Total $ 439,800 93

VII. COSTS OF PACKAGING FISSION PRODUCTS AND ECONOMIC FORECASTS Consideration has been given to variable operating costs as well as to partial fixed costs which might be expected in chemical processing plants separating gross fission products from the various required components, and packaging these as well as waste materials in the dried form. Processing facilities described are intended to separate packaged fission products. It is not possible to treat all of the economic aspects of the chemical processing being conducted without giving consideration to the provisions for obtaining the solution of waste fission products, to the provisions for disposal of the undesired fractions of the fission products, to the operation of power generating-f-aelities, and to the general business cost for the management and administration of the business enterprise. The discussions which are presented herein therefore are confined to the specific costs and charges which can be calculated as attributable to the chemical processing facilities. A. Alternative Requirements Affecting Designs and Estimates In the present stages of development, there are uncertainties in the chemical processing facilities presented, as well as in arrexgements to be made for the procurement of the raw materials and disposal of the waste products. Continued considerations should probably be given to possible alternatives of fission product separation and packaging, so that ultimate achievement of optimum designs and operations at minimum cost may be achieved. Some of the alternatives and variables which can influence unit costs of fuel processing may be summarized as follows: 1. Fixed Charges Fixed charges have been estimated for presentation in this study in the form of amortization of the capital facilities required. The costs presented for this category are intended to provide for the retirement of the process, considering the life of equipment and structures, replacements of entire components because of corrosion and general obsolescence due to process improvements development, and alternative schemes for fission product packaging. The following fixed charges have not been included: those attributable to the interest on money, inventories estimates, local and federal taxes, insurance, and other charges for money and *over-all business management. It has been assumed that assessments of this nature can be calculated on a fractional basis and that such allocations can be added to the costs whichl are presented. 94

2. Direct Costs of Operations Approximate ranges of estimated annual operating costs for materials, purchases, payroll costs, maintenance, plant utilities requilrements, and the above-described fixed chrgfes have been made. The costs presented in Figures ]_6 through 21, and in Tables 43 through 48, for the several alternative processes show that the annual costs for production, including amortization, range from p500,651 per year when the plant is idle and in standby condition to $1,068,,1.O. per year operating at design capacity for the least costly process, that is the "GP" process, and range Prom $775,812 per year at standby condition to!1l,363,848 per year at full production for tile most costly plant, that is the "SX" process. The design capacity employed in this feasibility studiy is about four times the processing rate anticipated for the civilian power reactors scheduled to be in operation by 1960. B. Estimated Annual Production Costs for Packaging Fission Products The design capacity for processing fission products through the aqueous plants portrayed in this feasibility study is equivalent to about ten million gsmma curies per year of cesium, corresponding to 174,800 greams of fission product cessimn; chloride, for a total of 4,370,000 grams of fission product nuclides in the solid state. In addition to thi.s design capacity, it appears to be possible to process fission products of a variety of compositions from volatility or pyrometallurgical separation techniques. However, the processing of fission products of different compositions would require some modifications of the chemical methods employed, and might require some chemical development to achieve these modifi cati.ons. Some factors which influence the possible production schedules obtainable are concentrations of fission products in aqueous solution, concentrations of other components in aqueous solutions, limits of activity levels of specific concentrates, solvent damage, and storage of fission products in concentrated form. 1. Unit Costs Per Curie of Cesium and Strontium Processed at Various Plant; Throughputs Figure 22 anzd Table 79 show the costs in dollars per curie of packaged. cesium and strontium as the dry chlorides in containers:-eady for use as radiation sources, at selected values of the production index defined above. At full productive capacity of ten million gemma curies of cesium per year, the unit costs for the processes vary from $0.ll to $0.15 per gamnma curie of cesium if all production costs 95

were allocated aginst cesium. Unit costs for the process vary from $0.07 to $0 09 per beta curie of strontium if all production costs were allocated against strongtium. It should be noted that the high fixed cost of the plant due to the capital investment decreases the unit costs per curie of packaged fission products as the amount of throughput through the chemical process increases. Therefore, costs of processing and packaging fission products and resultant economic forecasts of operating cost are contingent to a large degree upon rates and throughputs of materials processed. 2. Cost Per Equivalent Curie of Gross Fission Products as a Function of Time and Production Rates In the case of the gross fission product packaging plant, the gamma activity, as well as lata activity, will drop off rapidly with time after the fission products are packaged. Approximations have been made of this rate of decay by means of the Way-Wigner formula (23), and the corresponding costs in dollars per equivalent gamma curie are as follows: It was assumed that a nuclear reactor would operate on a 42-day loading cycle. Upon unloading, the fuel would be allowed to cool for ninety days. Then the fuel would be separated and the fission products packaged within a negligibly short time interval. The activity upon packaging of the gross fission products containing one-twelfth (corresponding to one month's operation) of 10,000,000 gazmma curies of cesium, would be about 90,000,000 to 100,000,000 equivalent gamma curies. One year after packing, these same fission poroducts would have about 15,000,000 to 20,000,000 equivalent gamma curies. If all costs of packaging are charged against this gross fission product package, the corresponding unit costs would be about $.0009 per equivalent gamma curie at packaging and about $0.005 per equivalent gamma curie at one year after packaging. The change in unit costs is due entirely to estimated reduction in activity. An equivalent gamnma curie is considered to be the number of curies of a.75 Mev mono-energetic decaying nuclide which, if it emitted two gamma rays per disintegration, would produce the same total gamma energy output as the fission product source actually under consideration. 96

3. Estimate of Annual Production Costs Tfhen ther Plant is Idle The costs of maintaining a radiochemical plant in an idle or standby condition are relatively high compared with the standard industrial practice. These costs are indicated graphically in Figures 16 through 21 as the intercept on the cost axis of total operating cost at zero production index. 4. Estimate of Schedul.e for Plant Amortization Tables 49 through 54 are presented to show the basis for estimating plant amortization. They have been used in this feasibility study with respect to equipment, machinery, structures, and plant start-up costs. Development costs have not been included as an amortization item in this study. Allowances in dollars per year have been made for each process as a function of the calculated capital invested charges for vessels, mechanical equipment, instruments, piping, structures, and electrical facilities. Direct charges only were amortized. If amortization of allocated indirect charges is desired, iunit operating costs would be increased above those values given in this report by factors ranging from about 30 percent at 25 percent production index down to about 15 percent at full production. It is to be noted that for each process studied, the allowance made for plant amortization in dollars per year is equivalent to about 10 percent of the total capital cost estimate presented. It is believed possible to design structures in such a manner so that they will not require an evaluation of obsolescence. It is believed that the layout studies which have been achieved to date indicate the possibility of replacing completely the chemical processing facilities by new processes in such a way as not to require serious modif:lications -to the structural components. Furthermore, it is believed that the greatest proportion of instrumentation and control, as well as mechanical equipment and electrical power and wiring, will have considerable utility in any,ubstitiu'te processes which m>y be achieved as potential replacements to any of the processtes evaluated. in this scope of work. 5. Materials for 1Frocessing The initial procurement of materials for plant start-up and for inventory of chemicals and supplies is considered to be a capital item under the capital cost estimates. Materials for processing are determined as requirements consumrned during the course of separating and packaging fission -prod ucts. The 97

annual requirements of chemicals have been extracted from calculations for material balances, in accordance with the chemical flowsheets prepared for the separating and packaging operations. Cost for such materials and chemicals consumed in the nprcessing are summ-arized in Tables 73 through 78 for the various processes considered. At the presently scheduled rate of fission product processing, it is seen that the process chemicals vary from a minirnum of $247,497 per year at productive capacity for the "GPt'and "OL" processes, to a maximum of $684,078 per year at productive capacity for the "IX" process. The requirements for decontamination chemicals are cons-idered to be constant for all processes as functions chiefly of the frequency of shutdown and of the detailed design of the plant. These costs are estimated at $49,800 per year. 6. Estimate of Payroll Costs Manning tables have been prepared for each of the alternative processes studied, and assumed salary scales have been employed in arriving at estimates of payroll costs for the several alternative fission product packaginc plants studied. These schedules and wages may be considered as arbitrary, and appropriate corrections can be made from the detailed breakdowns presented here. Direct salaries and wages have been calculated for those personnel who will be directly associated with the separations plant. Direct payroll costs were calculated to be 29,500 per year at operating production capacity for all processes except the "CX" process, and $338,500 per year at operatingf productive capacity for the "(CX" process. Percentage allocations and additions have- been mrtde to the direct charges for social security, wor-kmenls compensation, and insurance in order to reflect total costs of direct payroll chargeable to the plant. No add tiional charges have been superimposed upon the direct payroll costs for other administr+tive overhead not included in these schedules Thus the totCal payroll estimate innluding -indirect charges, is calculated to be $326,220 per year at productive capacity for all processes except the "CX" process, and $372,390 per year at productive capacity for the "CX" process. These manning requirements involve respectively fiftJ y-two persons for all processes except the "CX[" process, and sixty persons for the "CX" process at productive capacities. The average payroll cost is $6,273 per person per year for all processes except the "CX" process, and $6,20O7 per person per year for the "GCX" process, all processes at design capacity. 98

The estimated direct payroll costs and summary estimates of payroll are given in Tables No. 61 through 72. 7. Estimates for Ann-ual Cost of Utilities In this series of studies, it has been assumed that the process cooling water, treated water, steam and electrical power and lighting, as well as plant air, would be available on a unit cost basis from capital facilities owned and operated by others, based upon the arbitrary unit costs which are presented in their respective tables and upon calculations which have been made for utility requirements. Tables No. 55 through 650 summarize the estimates of annual costs of utilities for the several processes. These calculations indicate that $40,997 per year at productive capacity for the "CGP" process and $62,669 per year at productive capacity for the "SX" process, indicated the minimum and maximum values, respectively, of utilities costs to be anticipated. 8. Estimates of Maintenance Materials and Supplies Estimates of maintenance materials and supplies based on capital investment have been made for each of the operating areas of the processing plant, and totals for these items appear in Tables No. 43 through 48, portraying estimates of total annual operating costs. Allowances for maintenance materials and supplies have been set equal to five percent of the yearly allocated process capital requirements, and to about two and one-half percent per year of marterials and supplies of a structural nature. Premised upon these assumptions, the.alctulat.ons indi cate that the maintenance materials and supplies cost per year is:l66,oo25l per year faor the "G1P't process ard $225,6224 per year for the,,X", process, which represent minimrr=n and maximum values, respectively, both plants operating at productive c-acity. Tse factors h-ve been applied to the base nvrbers, and indXicate d-ifferentials be2treern 5 percent of capacity operation and design" ap cityi operat'ion in those areas of plant operation where corrosion, decrontaminlation, or replacement of equipment influenced the cost. 99

TABLE NO. L43 ESTIMATE OF ANNUJAL OPERATING COSTS CO-PRECIPITATION PROCESS cat, 125'S at 1025)% 1. Amortization $ 279,193 $ 311,497 2. Utilities 28,216 47,027 3. Maintenance Materials and Supplies 134,440 174,772 4. Payroll Costs 232,560 3265,220 5. Materials Costs 85,403 290,315 $ 759,812 $1,149,831 100

ESTIMAITE OF A1ITUAL OPERATING COSTS CiO- CRYSTALLIZAI ON PROCESS at 2T5L0 at 100% 1. Amortization $ 339,380 $ 372,299 2. Utilities 31,237 52,062 3. Maintenance Materials and Supplies 149,419 ].94,244 4. Payroll Costs 278,82n 372,390 5. Materials Costs 86,590 295,065 $ 885,446 $ 1,286,060 101

TAB-fE NO. 45 ESTIMAT'E7 OF ANSNTUAL OPERATING COSTS ION EXCHIJt.CE PROCESS at ~2O at 100R' 1. Plant Amortization 292,384 $ 349,5 2. Utilities 28,886 48,144 3. Maintenance Materials and Supplies 135,049 175,564 4. Payroll Costs 232,560 325,220 5. Materials Costs 1.84,619 684,o78 $ 873,498 l,5 83,271 102

TABIE] NO. 46 ESTIMATE OF AfM\TUAL OPERATINGi COSTS SOLVENT-EXTRACTI ON PROCESS at 25C at 100, 1, Plant Amortization t 354,282 $ 399,493 2. Utilities 37,600 62,668 3. Maintenance Materials and Supplies 173,536 225,624 4. Payroll Costs 246,200 319,550 5. Materials Costs 101,953 356,513 $ 923,571 $1,363,848 103

TABLE N0. 4'7 ESTIIATET OF ATNUMAL OPERATING COSTS CROSS FISSION PRODUCT PROCESS at 25 at 100LO 1. Plant Amortization $ 257,786 $ 287,195 2. Utilities 24,598 4(,3997 3. Maintenance Materials and Supplies 127,885 166,251 4. Payroll Costs 232,560 326,220 5. Materials Costs 74,699 247,497 $ 717,528 $1,0o8,16o 104

TABLE riO. 48 ESTIMATE OF ANNUAL OPERATING COSTS OXIDE LEACHINC- PROCESS at a2 at ] c.. 1. Plant Amortization $ 278,643 $ 308,408 2. Utilities 32,296 53,827 3. Maintenance Materials and Supplies 134,506 1-74,857 4. Payroll Costs 232,5(T0 326,220 5. Materials Costs 74,699 247,497 $ 752,704 T t*l, l-0, 809 105

TAB\TE NrO. 49 ESTIMIATE OF SCHEDbULE FOR PLfJNT A.O/10RTIZATION CO-PRECIPITATION PROCESS Life Capital in Cost Allowance Classification Years Estimate Per Year Vessels 5 $ 193,31-5 $ 38,663 Mechanical Equipment 10 342,1.20 34,212 Instruments 10 63,p55 6,357 Piping 5 324,125 4,825 Structures 20,1,62,85> 83,143 Electrical 10 102,820 10,232 Initial Plant Start-up 5 370,75 74,015 Total $ 3,058,875 $ 311,497 Average Percent....... 10;io 106

TABtLE ITO. 50 ESTIMATE OF SCHEDULE FOR PLIANT AMORTIZALTION CO-CRYSTALLIZATION PROCESS Life' auital in Cost Allowance Classification Years Estimate Per Year Vessels 5 M 323,325 Mechanical Equipment 10 37.,070 37,$o7 Instruments 10 81,875 8,187 Piping 54,395 88, 39 Structures 20. I, -3,13 Electri cal 10 t~4 o,0 l r405( Initial Plant Start-up 5 401,o,? r,_-53 Total e 3,389.i 372,289;- 3,3-{ 372. -,.n, — Average Percent.... ),j.c107

TArLL TNO. 51 ESTIMATE OF SCHEDULEJ FOR PL'TT AMORTIZIATI ON1 ION EXC1ATTE PROCESS Life Capital in Cost Allowance Classification Years Estimate Pco: Year Vessels 5 a 1 93315 a 38,;63 Mechanical Equipment 10 322,355 32,236 Instruments 10 8, 4645 6 846 Piping 5 360,540 72,108 Structures 20 1,8 2,855 83,143 Electrical 10 93,1450 9, 345 Initial Plant Start-up 5 534,620 106,924 Total $3,235,6 $ 349, 25 Average Percent....... 1.. 79.o o108

TFCATLF NO. 5 ESTiMY'flE OF SCIheDULE FOR PLANT AMGOT.TI2;rTION SOLVENT EXTrRACTION PROCESS Li. fe apits.l in Cost Allowance Classification Years Estiman t e Per Year Vessels. 331,>:) 5 6-,316 Mechanical Equipment 10 472,545 47,254 Instruments 10 106,705 o10,670 Piping 5 392, 75 78, 53 Structures 20 2,4+3,490 102,174 Electrical 10 124,150 12,415 Initial Plant Start-up 5 4n10,945 82 129 Total $388),0.;: 399,493 Average Percent...... 10.29% 109

TA BTLE lO 50 3 ESTITMAiTE OF' SCHEDULUI FOR PLANJT AI-ICTi ZA:.'?TICi'? GROSS FISSION PRODUCT PROC.E'SS Lf:. fe Capi: t ral. in Cost Allowance Classification Years Estim.ate Per Year Vessels 5 jT 150, 785 30,157 Mechanical Equipment 10 290,29(0 29,029 Instruments 10 39,725 3,973 Piping 5 304,575 o0,915 structures 20 1,676,605 83,830 Electrical 10 95,720 9,572 Initial Plant Start-un 5 348,595 69,719 Total $ 2,906,296 $ 287,195 Average Percent....... 9.88% 110

TABLE NO. 5 4 ESTIMATE OF SCIHEDbLE FOR PLANT AMORTIZATION OXIDE LEACHINGC PROCESS Life Capital in Cost Allowance Classification Years Estimate Per Year Vessels 5 $ 205,780 $ 41,156 Mechanical Equipment 10 338,120 33,812 Instruments 10 49,315 4,932 Piping 5 318,575 63,715 Structures 20 1,676, 605 83,830 Electrical 10 101,720 10,!172 Initial Plant Start-up 5 353,956 70,791 Total $ 3,044,071 $ 308,408 Average Percent....... 10.13% lll.

TABLE "O0. 55 SULTZSTAY OF ESTIMATED Al'U.AL COSTS OF UTILITIES CO-PRECIPITATION PROCESS FOR OPERA.TION AT 25? of Design 10~i~o of Design Capacity Capacity Type of Service Dollars/Year Dollars/Year Process Cooling Water at 12 cents/M.C.F. $ 2,352 Treated Water at 12 cents/M. gal 435 Steam at 60 cents/M. lb 18,909 Power and Lighting at 1 cent/kwh 23,681 Plant Air at $1/M.C.F. 1.,650 $ 28,216 $ 417,27 112

TAABLE NO. 55 SUmA1rY OF ESTIMALTED ANTGUAL COSTS OF UTILITIES CO-CRYSTALLIZATION PROCESS FOR OPERATION AT 25% of Design 100% of Design Capacity Capacity Type of Serrvice Dollars/Year Dollars/Year Process Cooling Water at 12 cents/M.C.F. $ 2,358 Treated Water at 12 cents/M. gal 435 Steam at 60 cents/M. lb 20,335 Power and Lighting at 1 cent/kwh 25,2914 Plant air at $1/M.C.F. 2____ TOTAL ESTIMATE FOR UTILITIES $ 31,237 $ 52,0362 113

TALE~ NO. 57 SUJ1LY OF ESTIMAT1rD ITru,.UAL COSTS OF' UTILIIIZIES ION EXCHILNGE PROCESS FOR OPERA7ION AT 25i, of Design 103j of Design Capacity Capacity Type of Service Dollars/Year _'ollars/Year_ Process Cooling Water at 12 cents/M.C.F. 4 2,270 Treated Water at 12 cents/M. gal 435 Steam at 60 cents/M. lb 19,527 Power and Lighting at 1 cent/kwh 24,592 Plant Air at $1/M.C.F. 1,320 TOTAL ESTIMATE FOR UTILITIES $ 28,886 $ 48,144 114

TALN., 1 TO'. 58 SUN0IARY OF ESTIMAED diTrUAL COSTS OF U'ILITrTES SOLVENT EXTPACfTON PROCESS FOR OPERATOION AT 25% of Design!DO~ of Design Capacity Capacity Type of Service Doll ars/Year....a ~s/YCear Process Cooling Water at 12 cents/M.C.F.., 7,657 Treated Watter at 12 cents/M. ga]. 285 Steam at 60 cents/M. lb 24,132 Power and Lighting at 1 cent/klwh 33,955 Plant Air at $1/M.C.F.,'40 TOTJAL ESTIMATE FOR UTILITIES $ 37,601 1 2,669 115

TABLE NO. 59 SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED ANNUAL COSTS OF UTILITIES GROSS FISSION PRODUCTS PROCESS FOR OPERATION AT 25% of Design 100% of Design Capacity Capacity Type of Service Dollars/Year Dollars/Year Process Cooling Water at 12 cents/M.C.F. $ $ 2 345 Treated Water at 12 cents/M. gal 435 Steam at 60 cents/M. lb 20,806 Power and Lighting at 1 cent/kwh 15,761 Plant Air at $1/M.C.F. 1,650 TOTAL ESTIMATE FOR UTILITIES $ 24,598 $ 40,997 116

TAKIL3LE NO. 6O SUvi,2iRY OF ESTIMT.rTED:ANITJU1A COSTS OF UTILITTIEO OXIDE LEACHING PROCESS FOR OPER~sATION AT 25~'~ of Desigrn l?) of Design Capacity Capacity Type of Service ollars Yer Do Ye Process Cooling Water at 12 cents/M.C.F. 2!: 2,345 Treated. Wrter at 12 cents/M. Gal 435 Steam at 6O cents/M. lb 24, 07 Power and Li-ghting at 1 cent/1nh 24,790 Plant Air at $l/M.C.F. 1,350 mOThL ESTIlVLAE F03 UTILITIES, 32,2 6 53,827 117

TABLE NO. 61 ESTIMATE OF PAYROLL COSTS CO-PRECIPITATI ON PROCBS SALARY AT 25%. AT 100oo OR DESICN DESIGN.W'VAGE JOB CLASSIFICATION NO. CAPACITY NO. CAPACITY Plant Office $15o000 Plant Manager 1 $ 15,000 1 15000 12,000 Assistant Manager 1 12,000 1 12,000 4 o000 Secretary 1 4,000 1 4,000 3,500 File Clerk - - 3,500 Total Plant Office 31,000 34, 500 Technical Staff 8, 5 Plant Engineer 1 8, 500 1 8,500 5,500 Health Physicist 1 5,500 1 5,500 5, 50 Statisticiaon - - 5,500 3, 500 Stenographer - 3,5 4, 500 Shipping Clerk 1 4,500 1 4,5(O Total Technical Staff 18,500 27,500 Laboratoratories 8,500 Chief Chem st 1 8,o50o0 1 8500 6,ooo Assis tan't Chief Chemist - - 6,ooo 7,,000 Radiation Source Physicist 1 7,000 1 7,O000 5,500 Shift Chemists 4 22,000 4 22,000 4,0oo Clerical - -1 4,000 Total Laboratories 37,500 47,500 Operation 8,500 Superintendent I 8,500 1 8,50o( 7,000 Shift Supervisors 4 28,000 4 28,000 6,000 Operators 5 30,000 9 54,000 4,500 Helpers 5 22,500 9 40,500 Total Operations 89,000 131,000 Maintenance 6,500 Instrument Suservisor, 5,50 1., 500 5,500 Mechanical Supervisor 1 6,500 1 6,500 4,500 Instrument Technmicians 2 9,000 2 9,000 4,500 Mechanics 2 9,003 2 9, 00 4,00o) Mechanic Helpers - -2 8, 00 4,500 Pipe Fitters 1 4,500 2 9,000 4,o00 Pipe Fitter Helpers - 2 8,oo000 Total IMalntenance 35,500 56 )oo TOTALS FOR PROCESSING_ PLANT 34 $211,500 52 $296,500 118

TABLE NO. )2 ESTIMWATE OF PAYROLL COSTS CO-CRYSTALLI.I.ATION PROCESS SALARY.T AT -00L OR DESICGN DESIiGN WAGCE JO.B CIASSIFTCAT!ON wNO. CAP0ACIT NTO. CAPACT'J Plant Office 5,000o Pla —-t M —anager. $ 5,OO 00. 12,000 Assistant Manager 1 12, 000 12,)000 4, 000 S cr et ar 1. 4,000 4 00 3,500 File Clerk -1 3,00 Total Plant Office 31,000 34,500 Technical Staff 8,S0 Pla.t Engineer 8, 500 1 8, 500 5,50.0 H.ealth Physicist 1 5500 1 5,500 5, 50 Statistician - 5 50 3 500 tenogr r apher -1 3500 4,50(0 Shihplng C..er' k 1 4,, 4,500,500 Totale 1l -chnical STaff- 1.8 50 27,500 Laih ort'atori e s s8,(53 C i ef C' emist 1 8,-or 3.. 8,500 6,n00 Assistant Chie:f Chemist - 1 6SO0 7,000 Ra.,diatiron Source Physicist 1 7,000:1 7,0..0 5,500 Shift Chemrsts 4 22,000 4 22, 000 4,oo0 Cl.erical - - 4,o00' Totcial Laho. Jr 2tories 37,500!4-7,500 Ope0ration 8, 500) S-uperintenennt i 3,5o5,! 8,500,,.... Si'ii..:v s 5 o s- = 28 nn 4 28,00. _~;li.!'~'-:C;~:~;3C1'~Y'li..O2 4 28~ 0()0 Oeeratiors 9 5 1,000 1!3 78,noo 475'o IHI Helpers 9 4n,5O q3 5t8 5o00 Total Onerations 131,000 173 ()0 Maintenance 6,500 Instrument Sup,.ervisor 1 6,500 or 6. Sn:,Mechan ical Supervisor 1 550 1 6.,50 4,500 Instruaent Tecnuli cians 9,0a0 2 9,0a s4, 5 0 Me ch.la nics C s 2 9, 00 2 9,00 4, 2500 Mechanic TIelon. ers - 2 8000 4,5on5 Pipne Fitters 1 4,5fo 2 9,000 4,.OO Pi F.itte elper.s - n 2 53,; Total M-'intenanc 35, 50 5, 000) TOTALS FOR PROCESStIG PiJANT 4n2 n2535. o 4338,500 119

TABLE NO. 63 ESTIMATE OF PAYROLL COSTS ION EXCHANGE PROCESS SALTRY AT 25% AT 100% OR DESIGN DESIGN WJAGE JOB CLASSIFICATION NO. CAPACITY NO. CAPACITY Plant Office $15,000( Plant Manager 11 tl15,000 I $15,000 12,000 Assistant Manager 1 1,10O 1 12,000 4,000 Secretary 1 4,000 4,000 3,500 File Clerk - 3,500 Total Plant Office 31,000 34,500 Technical Staff 8,500 -Plant Engineer 1 8, 500 1 8, 500 5, 500 Health Physicist 1 5,500 1 5,500 5,500 Statistician - 1 5,500 3,500 Stenographer - 35o00 4,500 Shipping Clerk I 4, 50 1 4,500 Total Technical Staff 18,500 27,500 Laboratories 8,500 Chief Chief Chemist 1 8,500 1 8,500 6,000 Assistant Chief Chemist - - 6,oo000 7,000 Radiation Source Physicist 1 7,000 1 7,000 5,500 Shift Chemists 4 22,000 4 22,000 4,ooo Clerical - - 4,000 Total Labooratornies 37, 50o 47,500 Operation 8,50o0 Superintend-ent 1 8, 500 1 8, 500 7j,000 Shift Supervisors 4 28,0( 00 28,000 6,n00 Operations 5 30,000 9 54, oo 4,500 Helpers 5 22,500 9 4o,500 Total Operations 89, 000C 131,000 Maintenance 6,500 Instrument Supervisor 1 5,500 1 6,500 6,500 Mechani cal Supervisor 1 6,500 1 6,500 4,500 Instrument Technicians 2 9,000 2 9,000 4,500 Mechanics 2 9,000 9,000 4,eoo Mechanic -Helpers 2 8,o00 4,500 Pipe Fitters 1 4,500 2 9,000 4,000 Pipe Fitter Helpers - 2 8,Goo Total Maintenance 35,500 56,000ooo TOTALS FOR PROCESSING PLANT 34 $211,500 52 $296, 500 120

TABLE NO. 64 ESTIMATE OF PAYROLL COSTS SOLVENT EXTRACTION PROCESS SALPaY AT 25% AT 100o OR DESIGN DESIGN WAGE JOB CLASSIFICATION NO. CAPACITY NO. CAPACITY Plant Office $15,000 Plant Manager 1 $15,000 1 $15,000 12,000 Assistant Manager 1 12,000 1 12,000 4,oo000 Secretary 1 4,000 1 4,00ooo 3,500 File Clerk - 1 3,500 Total Plant Office 31,000 34,500 Technical Staff 8,500 Plant Engineer 1 8,500 1 8,500 5,500 Health Physicist 1 5,500 1 5,500 5,500 Statistician - 1 5,500 3, 500 Stenographer - 1 3,500 4,500 Shipping Clerk 1 4,500 1 4,s500 Total Technical Staff 18,500 27,500 Laboratories 8,500 - Chief Chamist 1 8,500 I 8,500 6,ooo Assistant Chief Chemist - 1 6,ooo000 7,000 Radiation Source Physicist 1 7,000 1 7,000 5,500 Shift Chemists 4 22,000 4 22,000 4,000 Clerical - 1 4,oo000 Total Laboratories 37,500 47,500 Operation 8,500 Superintenent 1 8, oo I 8, 500 7,000 Shift Supervisors 4 28,000 4 28,000 6,oo000 Operators 5 30,000 9 54,000 4,500 Helpers 5 22,500 9 40,500 Total Operators 89,000 131,000 Maintenance 6, 500 Instrument Supervisor I 6,5oo I 6,500 6,500 Mechanical Supervisor 1 6,500 i 550oo 4,500 Instrument Technicians 2 9,00 2 92000 4,500 Mechanics 2 9,000 2 9,000 4,o00 Mechanic Helpers - 2 8oo0Qo 4,500 Pipe Fitters 1 4,500 2 9,000 4,oo00 Pipe Fitter Helpers -2 8000 Total Maintenance 35,500 56o000 TOTALS FOR PROCESSING PLANT 34 $211,500 52 $296, 500 121

TABLE NO. 65 ESTIMATE OF PAYROLL COSTS GROSS FISSION PRODUCT PROCESS SALARY AT 25% AT 100% OR DESIGN DESIGN -WAGE JOB CLASSIFICATION NO. CAPACITY NO * CAPACITY Plant Office $15,000 Plant Manager 1 $15,000 1 $15,000 12,000 Assistant Manager 1 12,000 1 12,000 4,000 Secretary 1 4,000 1 4,000 3,500 File Clerk -- 3,500 Total Plant Office 31,000 34,500 Technical Staff 8,500 Plant Engineer 1 8,500 1 8,500 5,500 Health Physicist 1 5,500 1 5,500 5,500 Statistician - 1 5,500 3,500 Stenographer - - 1 3,500 4,500 Shipping Clerk 1 4,500 1 4,500 Total Technical Staff 18,500 27,500 Laboratories 8, 500 Chief Chemist 1 8,500 1 8,500 6,ooo Assistant Chief Chemist - -1 6,ooo 7,000 Radiation Source Physicist 1 7,000 1 7,000 5,500 Shift Chemists 4 22,000 4 22,000 4,000 Clerical - - 4,000 Total Laboratories 37,500 47,500 Operation 8,500 Superintendent 1 8,500 1 8,500 7,000 Shift Supervisors 4 28,000 4 28,000 6,000o Operators 5 30,000 9 54,000ooo 4,500 Helpers 5 22,500 9 40,500 Total Operations 89,000 131,000 Maintenance 6,500 Instrument Supervisor 1 6,500 1 6,500 6,500 Mechanical Supervisor 1 6,500 1 6,500 4,500 Instrument Technicians 2 9,000 2 9,000 4,500 Mechanics 2 9,000 2 9,000 4,00oo Mechanic Helpers - 2 8,ooo 4,500 Pipe Fitters 1 4,500oo 2 9,000 4oo000 Pipe Fitter Helpers - 2 8,000 Total Maintenance 35,500 56,ooo000 TOTALS FOR PROCESSING PLANT 34 $211,500 52 $296,500 122

TABLE NO. 66 ESTIMATE OF PAYROLL COSTS OXIDE LEACHINC- PROCESS SAULARY AT 25% AT 100o OR DESIGN DESIGN WAGE JOB CLASSIFICATION NO. CAPACITY NO. CAPACITY Plant Office $15,000 Plant Manager 1 $15,000 I $15,000 12,000 Assistant Manager 1 12,000 1 12,000 4,000 Secretary 1 4,000 1 4,000 3,500 File Clerk 1 3,500 Total Plant Office 31,000 34,500 Technical Staff 8,500 Plant Engineer 1 8,500 1 8,500 5,500 Health Physicist 1 5,500 1 5,500 5,500 Statistician - - 1 5,500 3,500 Stenographer - 1 3,500 4,500 Shipping Clerk 1 4,500 1 4,500 Total Technical Staff 18,500 27,500 Laboratories 8,500 Chief Chemist 1 8,500 1 8,500 6,00o Assistant Chief Chemist - 1 6,000 7,000 Radiation Source Physicist 1 7,000 1 7,000 5,500 Shift Chemists 4 22,000 4 22,000 4,oo000 Clerical - - 1 4,000 Total Laboratories 37,500 417,500 Operation 8,500 Superintendent 1 8,500o 8,500 7,000 Shift Supervisors 4 28,000 4 28,000 6,000 Operators 5 30,000 9 54,000 4,500 Helpers 5 22,500 9 40,500 Total Operations 89,00oo 131,000 Maintenance 6,500 Instrumnent Supervisor 1 6,500 1 6,500 6,500 Mechanical Supervisor 1 6,500 1 6,500 4,500 Instrument Technicians 2 9,000 2 9,000 4,500 Mechanics 2 9,000 2 9,000 4,000 Mechanic Helpers - 2 8,00o 4,500 Pipe Fitters 1 4,5oo 2 9,000 4,000 Pipe Fitter Helpers - 8,000 Total Maintenance 35,500 56,oo000 TOTALS FOR PROCESSING PLANT 34 $211,500 52 $296,500 123

TABLE NO. 67 SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED PERSONNEL COSTS-CO-PRECIPITATION PROCESS OPERATION AT OPERATION AT 25% NORMAL DESIGN CAPACITY PROCESSING PLANT CAPACITY OF PLANT Department No. of No. of Persons $/Year Persons $/Year Plant Office 3 31,000 4 34,500 Technical Staff 3 16,500 5 27,500 Laboratories 6 37,500 8 47,500 Operations 15 89,000 23 131,000 Maintenance Personnel 7 35,500 12 56,ooo Total Direct 211,500 296,500 Allowance for Social Security 5 250 7,430 Workmen's Compensation 5,250 7,430 Insurance 4,230 5,940 Other Indirect Costs 6,330 8,920 Total Payroll Estimate 34 232,560 52 326,220 Average Per Person 6,840 6,273 Difference Between Operation at 25% and 100% Capacity 18 93,660 124

TABLE NO. 68 SUMVARY OF ESTIMATED PERSONThEL COSTS CO-CRYSTALLIZATION PROCESS OPERATION AT OPERATION AT 25, NORMAL DESIGN CAPACITY PROCESSING PLANT CAPACITY OF PLANT No. of No. of Department Persons $/Year Persons $/Year Plant Office 3 31,000 4 34,500 Technical Staff 3 18,500 5 27,500 Laboratories 6 37,500 8 47,500 Operations 23 l31,000 31 173,000 Maintenance Personnel 7 35, 500 12 56,oo000 Total Direct 253,500 338,500 Allowance for Social Security 6,330 8,460 Workmen' s Compensation 6 330 86460 Insurance 5 0o50 6,770 Other Indirect Costs 7,600 10,200 Total Payroll Estimate 42 278,820 60 372,390 Average Per Person 6,(39 6,207 Difference Between Operation at 25% and 100% Capacity 18 93,570 125

TABLE NO. 69 SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED PERSONNEL COSTS-ION EXCHANGE PROCESS OPERATION AT OPERATION AT 25% NORMAL DESIGN CAPACITY PROCESSING PLANT CAPACITY OF PLANT No. of No. of Department Persons $/Year Persons $/Year Plant Office 3 31,000 4 34,500 Technical Staff 3 18,500 5 27,500 Laboratories 6 37,500 8 47,500 Operations 15 89,000 23 131,000 Maintenance Personnel 7 35,500 12 56,000 Total Direct 211,500 296.500 Allowance for Social Security 5,250 71,430 WTorkmen's Compensation 5 250 7,1430 Insurance 4,230 5,940 Other Indirect Costs 6,330 8,920 Total Payroll Estimate 34 232,560 52 326,220 Average Per Person 6,840 6,273 Difference Between Operation at 25% and 100% Capacity 18 93,660 126

TABLE NO. 70 SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED PERSONITEL COSTS-SOLVENT EXTRACTI ON PROCESS OPERATION AT OPERATI ON AT 25% NORMAL DESIGN CAPACITY PROCESSING PLANT CAPACITY OF PLANT No. of No. of Department Persons $/Year Persons $/Year Plant Office 3 31,000 4 34,500 Technical Staff 3 18,500 5 27,500 Laboratories 6 37,500 8 47,500 Operations 15 89,000 23 131,000 Maintenance Personnel 7 35,500 12 56,oo000 Total Direct 211,500 296,500 Allowance for Social Security 5,250 7,430 Workmen's Compensation 5,250 7,430 Insurance 4,230 5,940 Other Indirect Costs 6,330 8,920 Total Payroll Estimate 34 232,560 52 326,220 Average Per Person 6,840 6,273 Difference Between Operation 18 93,660 at 25% and 100% Capacity 127

TATLE NO. 71 SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED PERSONNEL COSTS-GROSS FISSION PRODUCT PROCESS OPERATION AT OPERATION AT 25% NORMAL DESIGN CAPACITY PROCESSING PLANT CAPACITY OF PLANT No. of No. of Department Persons S/Year Persons S/Year Plant Office 3 31,000 4 34,500 Technical Staff 3 18,500 5 27,500 Laboratories 6 37,500 8 47,500 Operations 15 89,oo000 23 131,000 Maintenance Personnel 7 35,500 12 56,000 Total Direct 211,500 2965500 Allowance for Social Security 5,250 7,430 Workmen's Compensation 5,250 7,430 Insurance 4,230 5,940 Other Indirect Costs 6,330 8,920 Total Payroll Estimate 34 232,560 52 326,220 Average Per Person 6,84o 6,273 Difference Between Operation 18 93,660 at 25% and 100% Capacity 128

TABLE NO. 72 SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED PERSONNEL COSTS-OXIDE LEACHING- PROCESS OPERATIONS AT OPERATIONS AT 25% NORMAL DESIGN CAPACITY PROCESSING PLANT CAPACITY OF PLANT No. of No. of Department Persons Year Persons $/Year Plant Office 3 31,000 4 34,500 Technical Staff 3 18,500 5 27,500 Laboratories 6 37,500 8 47,500 Operations 15 89,000 23 131,000 Maintenance Personnel 7 35,500 12 56,000 Total Direct 211,500 296,500 Allowance for Social Security 5,250 7,430 Workmen' s Compensation 5,250 7,430 Insurance 4,230 5,940 Other Indirect Costs 6,330 8,920 Total Payroll Estimate 34 232,560 52 326,220 Average Per Person 6,840 6,273 Difference Between Operation at 25% and 100% Capacity 18 93,660 129

TABLE NO. 73 CO-PRECIPITATION PROCESS MATERIALS FOR PROCESSING ANNUAL CONSUMPTI ON MATERIAL AT 25fo DESIGN CAPACITY AT loo0 DESIC.N CAPACITY lb. Dollars lb. Dollar Dollars Process Use Nitric Acid 625 $ 481 2,500 $ 1,925 Sodium Hydroxide 193,750 10,462 775,000 41,850 Argon 5,800 SCF 522 23,200 SCF 2,088 Sand 500 500 50000 Product Containers 13,000 26,000 52,000 104,000 Waste Containers 16,500 16,500 66,ooo 66,ooo Resin 650 1,950 2,600 7a800 Sodium Chloride 900 45 360 180 Hydrochloric Acid 625 450 2,500 1,800 Welding Rod 930 2,325 3,720 9,300 Sodium Ferrocyanide 1,275 306 5,100 1,224 Nickel Sulfate 2,600 962 10,400 3,848 Subtotals for Process Use 60,503 240,515 Decontamination Use Nitric Acid 50,000 7,500 100,9000 15,000 Citric Acid 415,000 14,400 90,000 28,000 Detergents 10,000 3,000 20,000 6,ooo Subtotals for Decontaminatf.on Use 24,900 49,800 Totals $ 85,403 $ 290,315 130

TABLE NO. 74 CO-CRYSTALLIZATION PROCESS MATERI.ALS FOR PROCESSING ANNUAL CONSUMPTION MATERIAL AT 25% DESIGN CAPACITY AT 100% DESIGN CAPACITY lb. Dollars lb. Dollars Process Use Nitric Acid 900 $ 693 3,600 $ 2,772 Sulfuric Acid 5,800 145 23,200 580 Sodium Hydroxide 193,750 10,462.50 775,000 41,850 Argon 5,800 SCF 522 23,200 SCF 2,088 Sand 500 500 500 500 Product Containers 13,000 26,000 52,000 104,000 Waste Containers 16,500 16,500 66,ooo 66,ooo Resin 650 1,950 2,600 7,800 Sodi um Chloride 150 7.50 6oo 30 Amnonia 2,025 911 8,100 3,645 Hydrochloric Acid 900 648 3,600 2,592 Sodium Carbonate 4,500 90 18,000 360 Aluminum Sulfate 6,250 937 25,000 3,748 Welding Rod 930 2,325 3,720 9, 300 Subtotals for Process Use 61,690 245,265 Decontamination Use Nitric Acid 50,000 7,500 100,000 15,000 Citric Acid 45,000 14,400 90,000 28, 800 Detergents 10,000 3,000 20,000 6,000 Subtotals for Decontamination Use 24,900 49,800 Totals $ 86,590 $ 295,065 131

TABLE NO. 75 CO - CRYSTALLIZATION PROCESS MATERIALS FOR PROCESSTINGJ ANNUAL CONSUMPTION MATERIAL AT 25o% DESIGN CAPACITY AT 100o DESIGN CAPACITY lb. Dollars lb. Dollars Process Use Nitric Acid 40,750 $ 6,112 163,000 $ 24,450 Sodium Hydroxide 1,912,500 103,275 7,650,000o 413,000 Argon 5,800 SCF 522 23,200 SCF 2,088 Sand 500 500 500 500 Product Containers 13,000 26,000 52,000 104,000 Waste Containers 16,500 16,500 66,o000 66,00ooo Resin 1,000 3,000 3,000 9,000 Sodium Chloride 900 45 3,600 180 Ammonia 200 9 800 36 Hydrochloric Acid 625 450 2,500 1,800 Sodium Carbonate 39,750 795 158,o00 3,180 Welding Rod 930 2,325 3,720 9,300 Anmmonium Carbonate 3,000) 48 12,000 192 Carbon Dioxide 600 138 2,400 552 Subtotals for Process Use 159,719 534,278 Decontamination Use Nitric Acid 50,000 7,500 100,000 15,000 Citric Acid 45,000 14,400 90,000 28,800 Detergents 10,000 3,000 20,000 6,ooo Subtotals for Decontamination Use 24,900 49,800 Totals $184,619 $ 684,078 Could store in hot cell for two months before exhausting capacity. 132

TABLE NO. 76 SOLVENT EXTRACTION PROCESS MATERIALS FOR PROCESSING ANNUAL CONSUMPTION MATERIAL AT 25% DESIGN CAPACITY AT 1OOt DESIGN CAPACITY lb. Dollars lb. Dollars Process Use Nitric Acid, Tech. 15,500 $ 2,325 62,000 $ 9,300 Nitric Acid, ACS 625 481.25 2,500 1,925 Methylisobutylketone 79,125 12,660 316,500 50,640 Thenoyltrifluoroacetone 82 2.870 328 11,480 Sodium Hydroxide 193,750 10,462.50 775,000 41,850 Argon 5,800 SCF 23,200 SCF 2,088 Sand 500 500 500 500 Product Containers 13,000 26,000 52,000 104,000 Waste Containers 16,500 16,500 66,ooo 66,oo000 Resin 650 1,950 2,600 7,800 Sodium Chloride 150 7.50 600 30 Hydrochloric Acid ACS 625 450 2,500 1,800 Welding Rod 930 2,325 3,720 9,300 Subtotals for Process Use 77,053.25 306,713 Decontamination Use. Nitric Acid 50),000 7, 500 100,.,000 15,000 Citric Acid 45,000 i4,4oo00 90,000 28,800 Detergents 1n,000o 3,no 20, nO 6,ooo Subtotals for Decontamination Use 24,go 900'',0oo Totals $ 101,953 $ 356,513 133

TABLE NO. 77 GROSS FISSION PRODUCT PROCESS MATERIALS FOR PROCESSING ANNUAL CONSUMPTION MATERIAL AT ~5_ DESIGN CAPACITY AT 10..!O DESIGN CAPACITY lb. Dollars lb. Dollars Process Use Nitric Acid 625 $ 481 2,500 $ 1,925 Sodium Hydroxide 1.9,0 00 1,026 76,000 4,104 Argon 5,800 SCF 522 23,200 SCF 2,088 Sand 500 500 500 500 Product Containers 13,000 26,000 52,000 104,000 Waste Containers 16,500 16,50000 66,0ooo Resin 650 1,950 2,600 7,800 Sodium Chloride 900 45 3,5O0 180 Hydrochloric Acid 625 450 2,500 1,800 Welding Rod 930 2,325 3,720 9,300 Subtotals for Process Use 49,799 197,697 Decontamination Use. Nitric Acid 50,000 7,500 100,000 15,000 Citric Acid 45,00O 14,400 90,000 28,800 Detergents 10,000 3o000 20,0' 65,000 Subtotals for Decontamination Use 24,900o 49,&0o Totals $ 74,699 $ 247,497 134

TABLE NO. 78 OXIDE LEACHINCT PROCESS MATERIALS FOR PROCESSING AtNUAL CONSUNPTI ONT MATERIAL AT 25% DESIGN CAPACITY AT 10n% DESIGN CAPACITY lb. Dollars bo. Dollars Process Use Nitric Acid, ACS 625 481 2,50n $ 1,925 Sodium Hydroxide 19,000 1,026 76,000 4,104 Argon 5800o SCF 522 23,200 SCF 2,088 Sand 500 500 500 500 Product Containers 13,000 26,000 52,000 104,,000 Waste Containers 16,500 16,500 66, 000 66,000 Resin 650 1,950 2,600 7,800 Sodium Chloride 900 45 3,600 180 Hydrochloric Acid, ACS 625 450 2,500 1,8C00 Welding Rod 930 2,325 3,720 9,300 Subtotals for Process Use 49,799 197,697 Decontamination Use Nitric Acid 50,000 7,500 100,000 15,000 Citric Acid 45,000 14,400 90,0o0 28,800 Detergents 10,000 3,00 20,0n O 6, oo Subtotals for Decontamination Use 24,900 49.,800 Totals $ 74,699 $ 2"71497 135

TABLE N1O0. 79 SUMMARY TABLE OF ESTIMATED UNIT OPERATING COSTS FOR ALL PROCESSES UNIT COSTS - CESIULM-137 P R O DU C T I O N I ND E X 25 50 7 5 100 $/gamma $/gamrna $/garzma g/gamma PROCESS curie curie curie curie Co-Precipitation Process 0.30 o.18 o.14 0.12 Co-Crystallization Process 0.35 0.20 0.15 0.13 Ion Exchange Process 0.35 0.22 o.18 0.15 Solvent Extraction Process 0.37 0.21 0.1r O.14 Gross Fission Product Process 0.29 0.17 0.13 0.12 Oxide Leaching Process 0.30 0.17 0.13 0.11 UNI'T COSTS - STRONTILUM-9n Co-Precipitation Process 0.20 0.12 O.09 0. o8 Co-Crystallization Process 0.24 0.14 0.10 0.09 Solvent Extraction Process 0.25 0o14 0.11 0.09 Oxide Leaching 0.20 0.12 0.09 0.07 Production Index 100 equals 10,000,000 gamma curies per year of cesium. X*roduction Index 100 equals 15,200,000 beta curies Strolitium-90 per year. 136

>- 0 F-H C) N C _ c5\& (j1C~~~~~~r)- -<- _ 0Pt~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~- 0 o o 0....0 i ~~~~LU) z ro. 0 L (3 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~OE3o ------- w. -- 0 z Z ~~~~~~~~~~~~o Q~ Ciaa;~ito z ~~~~~oa ~~.~~ ~~~~ on oo, a::~ alw iT' LL0a 0 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~............N (J)O n — a_ ~~~~~0 C.) 4I'' z 4~~~~~~~~~ o o r- o 7T SO iO JO SONfH NI SIOZ 1VlN 157 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.....................0 _'~ o —-— ~ — o'::3 o o o o o o o~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~................. Z ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~......... ~_~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~..... ~ _ o 00d,Z~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~...............c SW~-IqOQ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~...........N..nOH.. NISLOO nN

O 1, LO 0 jci)~_ a3 (,0 03(, ~~ cU In cu ~'cu b- 03 r0 — \ NI L) N NO cm) a)) P~ f ftR (fJt ( / ft (f (ft 0 a~~~~~~~~-.oo.......................................c......... z~~~~~~ 0(/,~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~L. (fl~~~~~~~~~~~~~io o- o0: z! LL 0~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~0 OL i.~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~iJ Or)~~~~6 o -- 0 o I- ~ ~ ~ 0~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~__.mN,~ <~ C 4x. Lam r: ~~~~cl ~I;~::::::.~:::.:::I:kl: ~~~~~00 (no~~~~~~~~ }~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.._.............. ~~~~~~0O-—;3 If) - - - o,.,..::.:::::~::::::::~::::::::::::::::::::::::::I-:~...............~~~~~~~~~~~~~............................................... < _;~,~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.................................. 0 0 0 0 0 0'000 Z _ N ~~ ~~~ ~~0 "0'0 z~~~~~~~~~ t6~~ d`=/x.... o - Of) ~~~~~~~5~w15i o' 4~~~~~~~~~ 0(dTO i0 SQNnfOH NISSO VlN:31 0 0 0 0 0. 0.0 Z\1 eu __ o 00~:~:~:~:~~~~~:~:~~~~:~,~~.~.~.....-.c. ~~5~ ~~i~~~~(i~~:............... cn,):,::.............:...............:. f~~~ijtz ~~~~~ k!'i. ~ ~ ~ ~.......................................:.'. ~~~~~~~ Z rii~ci~ 11 U.......0SNSNOH/ N.LSO0... N N V -----------— 5C/) -- --- -.............. ~:.~ "....................':'.::'..'.'i...',......:::~::.::........:::.:..........::::::':':::::.'.:....1......::::::'.........:'.:...........::.:'.:::' I;~ ~ ~ ~..:::.L.:.. ~.........:::::-::::.............. ~.^l...~~..:.............................................. r ~ L:.'.'~:'.:':::::'::.............:::O............................................ ~ i.Y,~ ~ ~S~~~il ~.~.........................................................::'::.:::::'~ x........................ 0~~:~:~: ii~~c;~:':.T:::.:::::':::.......................I............................:~:~~:~ ~~ ~ j~,~,~i~~~i~~~;~~~~,'.........................................~:::....................:.::':::::':1: ~~c~:~~J~~: ~ S~Y.......................................... r= 4..............................~;::.:....................................::..................................... CU 00 (D C~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~................... str~~~~~~~loa ~~~~~~o sar~~~~~~r~~~snoH~~~~~~ NI s~~~~~~so~~~~ ~........... 1j8~~~~~~~~....................

'1 j O N- N It;< c 00 Nc LO I- (0 ) — o qt co Auj F:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Cl) ~~~~~~~~~ ~) l Li.. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~ NJ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ z Lii~~~~~~.............. CD~~ ~ C D 0CLL) oJ~ H Wo 0~~~~~~~~~~~0 0 -J~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~c Z (0) xJ N 0 00 (0 J z~~~~~~~~~~ (3Ld I, o -~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~............... = —~ —. I — O4I o S~~~~IV11OG.10 SGNV~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~flOHL NI SISOO~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~...1VflNNV....... ~o<~~~~~~~~~~~~~.i......... LL~~~~~ o O~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~- z ~~~~~~~~n I I I I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~II.......... ---.....................................................'~ o~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ —---- ------—. —--— o —---- Z co ~- oco~ c -c~ 1)~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~U S~Jqq~O0 J0 SONVlSnOH1. NI SISOO qV~NN~ j <

r~) r~ 0 00 (fl (0 (Q 0~~- CDC\ < LO C03 (D C) r) C) 0) N ( o~~~tf\ 0.. 0~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~......... i~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~.... ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~- -............ a.......... ( L iiI W~ -- OJ (~,{:)~, ~ ~1, 1..C) 0 o H:O 4b..~~~~~~~~~~............................. ( / ). <.N N z~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~................. EI~~~~~~~~~~ 0:::::::~~~~~~~~:::~~ I0 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~i~ii a. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 L ~~~~~~~~~~j~~~~~~~~~swc; ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~LLI ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~LI W 0 0 0 0 0 0 N 0 o S~~ilOG ~ I.10 SGNV:OHL NI SISO...V..NNV LI.~T~i%~rI~Z~j~i o140 ---—'....L. i3....... Z::. iiiii!iiiii!!:::!'.::.'.......!iiiii~i:i!............~~! ~.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~..........!) I~ —- o. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.....................-.'..0~.:. i iii ii:iill!'"'~:'"~-~.................. o — ~~rc iw::i:, <~~~~ <:u U) LII 0 ~S.'. - I.- 0,)r~:~L?' i% ~:i:ii::iiiiiiiii~':ii::iiii:::j::::jjjj~i: Fl............o ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~"'. ]Hill] Co -.O......................................................... Z o o o o o o o o~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~r~Iri~iVV LI tS~'-10(3 _,mo SON~SNOH.~~~~~ L NI SLO lNN 1~0t~lt..... ~~~~~it; Q,~~~~.................... ~ ~~~ ~~~~~~~i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~............................... ~.~:: ~~. ~:I~ii ~::~:~:~:~:~:~: i~:~.............................~.~:...............~~: ~~Q-~a~:: ~~~~:~:~:~ jK ~~~~l~~~~~~~rl.i ~ ~ ~...........;i::Iill,:::::::::j:::~~~~~~:::::jjjjj................... r=............................... jj jj V) tz~~~~~t-i~~~i.:::::::::::::~~~~~~~~~~~i::::::i~~~~~~j::::j~~~~~~................. w "i'llb %,"I'll,.~~~~~I, ~fi;.;Il~j5:ii ~ ivnr.....................:~::~::~:?......... ~''~'........::::I~~zi~ ~uiiiI u~~~:: —---..............:.:::: W,4; I 17111.......'.........'':'::::'...':':: I FTA'.::.::::'::=::.:' - -- -....... C z:~~~1'~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~: ~~~~~~~~:~~:.................... w 71..................................~ ~ ~~:~~~~~~~.................::::':::::.a:~:~1'~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~:~:~~:~: ~~~~............7~7 Cf) LLI~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~..I:::::-::.:::::. ~~~~;~,.-n ili~~tii( I;:~:~): ~~:~~................................ -------..........~~~~:~:~~:: ~ N`.t~~...........::::.::::.:.:...................:'.'::.:::........ ~Jl~i'%~'$ i:1'~:::::'~''~:'~':~':.'.............. r~ c~ziy~~,,ir~i~ i'LS~I~r~ l~ ~~' I ~~ — - - - - -..........................................................::: -----................................... C CU 00 (D C~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~....... stJ~~lloa Jo saN~~sno H~~L NI s~gol liff)RN flin V

z CLC 0Cq 0L~1 I~ ~ F- 0) 0) -Jo-, l~~o 0 N;N ) 0 0~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~0 Icmn X 0 0........... Z~~~~~~~~( z (.3 - - - -- o Uo -0 0Z' OH~~~~~~~~ O~~~~~ 0 n- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ E Lo// 0 Q.....................o H Om —-. 00. 0 ]~ E Q. X"'~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~..................... ~~~~~~0n 0 tr~,lloa.~, 0n-trsno H~, NI s~soo ~'..... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Z0 _0 0 0 0 (0 N SWIV11OQ iO SO]NVSf.OH..L NI SlSO0 1VflNNV f i l.............1L

>-w co 0 p..- p*0 N l.l Cl) ~~~~~~~~~~~ZlrNCO 1000 O0 LO ~. o 0~~~~~~~~~~~~~~3 n 0{ e~~~ W ~~~V Zi 0~~~~~~~~( o 4 w ( bJ ci 4 O/3 o0 Co LL~~~~~~~~0 z8 o ~1.~i -' 0o -- I~ o ii ) 00 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~n-J L0 0 Z _ N 0 CO (0N1 z~~~~~~~~~ s~~~~iviioa dO SONV~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~flOHL NI SISO3 1VflNNV~~~~::~~:::~~:~:ii~~'~::~~:: Pi2I c) o O~~~ c 3r~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~' (.3 13..~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~............... ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~............... sr~oa o srrno~ oI so~ ot~Nt... o 0~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~........... 0::........... ~i~~~~~~~~~~u 0 00 (~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~....................... ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~................... Z~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~........................ S~Vq300 ~0 SQNVS~OHI NI S~SO9 3VRNNV~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~........................................

OPERATING COSTS PER CURIE OF CESIUM OR STRONTIUM.40 SX SOLVENT EXTRACTION SX IX ION EXCHANGE.35 - CX CO -CRYSTALLIZATION CX, IX CP CO- PRECIPITATION GP GROSS FISSION PRODUCTS CP,.0 cOrL OL OXIDE LEACHING.30 CP, OL 03 - GP CESIUM COSTS IF Cs BEARS ALL OPERATING COSTS..25 - - SX STRONTIUM COSTS IF Sr BEARS LJ -- CX ALL OPERATING COSTS. IX.20 -CP, OL CX < CP IX GP, OL SX r 0D. I CWSX.15 CX IX 0 - CX,SX CP SX CPOLo~ GP, OL CX PRODCTIO IN C1P, OL CP I SX GP, OL z.10 — I CX CXSX Fig' CPOL CXSX CP --- OL U) 0.00 75 25 50 75 I00 PRODUCTION INDEX PRODUCTION INDEX 100 = 10,000,000 T CURIES CS PER YEAR PRODUCTION INDEX 100 = 1.52 x 10 CURIES Sr90 PER YEAR Figure 22

VIII. CONSIDERATION OF DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS A. General It has been assnmed in preparing the accompanyingr e timates of cost of the construction and operation of the several alternative fission product plants that a parallel program of chemical and engineering development and mechanical testing would be carried on in order to provide the detailed data required for production designs and economical operation. For the purpose of the estimnates presented in this report, existing chemical processes arld engineering m3thods of design have been employed where applicable. However, the processes to be conducted in the plant studied are not duplicated, apparently, in any existing facilities. The approach to this problem has been to use existing chemical processes where possible, and to adapt equipment currently being used to the extent required for the remote operation on a continuous basis. A part of the estimated costs of this chemical processing plant which is not included in the estimates heretofore presented is an expendlture for a development program required to achieve the objectives set forth. Development cannot be placed on a rigid time schedule, and no detailed development costs have been estimated as a part of this report. It is expected that some developmental work can be carried on in national laboratories as required. The amolunt, of integrated effort and adequacy of data for industrial production design concepts, however, would be limited through requiring an effor't of considerable magnitude by the concern contemplatilg an economiical conmpetitive processing unit. There is visualized a need for coordinated effort which is conducted in a single facility unee-^ the operation and control of the owner in the processing plant. Such an arrangement would not only permit the achievement of a given schedule of effort, but would permit closer coord'inatclon. of wor...i.n.various phases of development, with considerabl.e sLavings in Li Edaison and in possible duplication or omissions of effort. The construction of a single coordinated facility for develop ment purpose'd would have the additional advantage of conducting training of oper-ators and supervisory personnel at a time well in advtance of tihat in which the main facilities were to be constructed, inet dev.rloonAent facility might be operated for a period of several months after development work has been completed in order to provid.e adrditional opportunities for the training of suqpervisory and operatiLonal personnel with a consequent saving in inspection cand testi;ng and various aspects of initial operation of work to be undertaken before the completion of construction of a separation plant. S<3v'o an arrangement should provide a considerable savting in steart-up.ime aind avo1idance of duplication of expense between development and training programs. 144

Of the six processes selected for evaluation, evaporation of gross fission product solutions to a dry oxide powder gives greatest immediate promise. Development problems in this process are largely in equipment. This would include a reliable drying furnace suitable for remote operations with very low or zero maintenance requirements and equipment for handling and packaging the dried oxide powder. Of the remaining processes, fractional precipitation-crystallization and chelation-solvent extraction are the only processes offering relatively pure products and a complete removal of long-lived activity from the gross fission products. For these reasons these processes deserve some preference. In the fractional precipitationcrystallization process, development should be devoted toward remote equipment to make solids-liquid separations that operate for long periods with minimum maintenance. In addition to this, the chemical flowsheet should be piloted to get better data on percent recovery and purity of product. The chelation-solvent extraction fortunately has a large background of operating experience on remotely operated solvent extraction equipment to fall back on. However, the process itself loses appreciable quantities of chelating agent due to hydrolysis if pH's are maintained higher than 7.5. Development work should be done in finding a more stable chelating agent. Distribution ratios of strontium, barium, cesium and rubidium should be measured under more widely varying conditions. Such data would indicate how two closely chemically allied elements could be split into pure fractions by solvent extraction techniques. The process could be further "firmedup" by additional measurements of distribution ratios of other elements present in gross fission products as well as those of the corrosion products likely to be present. 145

IX. CONCLUSIONS AND SUMMARY A. General The conclusions presented should be qualified to the extent that they are based upon the cost estimates presented, and upon certain assumptions of availability of fission products from existing processing plants which might be placed on a national defense site rather than drawing upon anticipated civilian power and fission products. The costs presented reflect the assumptions that most of the general facilities for plant operation will be provided by others and available to the separations plant on a unit cost basis 1. It is concluded from these studies that the cost of the plant, particularly in structures and general facilities required for the separation and packaging of fission products produced from fuels separations by others, is quite comparable in magnitude to the probable cost required for the construction of an entire fuels separation plant to treat irradiated fuel elements by an aqueous method. Under these conditions, the serious question has arisen as to the value of proceeding with the plans for a separate fission product packaging facility, although programs of development for fission product packaging appear to be promising as necessary adJuncts to civilian fuel processing plants and as sources of by-product revenue. It is believed that consideration should be given to the conduct of fuels separation operations so that several sources of revenue might be obtained from such a plant for a capital investment comparable with that required for a fission products separation plant. Sources of revenue from fuel processing would be those from the recovery of source and fissionable materials, thus permitting joint or by-product costing for the fission product operation. 2. The use of reactors for radiation sources would probably result in the lowest possible cost per equivalent curie of galma radiation power. The construction of a reactor for this purpose is an open consideration and no recommendations are provided in this report. B, Process Discussion Six processes were considered for treatment of gross fission products, only two of these showing an ultimate capability of completely removing cesium and strontium from gross fission products in a highly pure state. These two processes are fractional precipitation-crystallization (here designated as the co-crystallization process) and chelation-solvent extraction. 146

Co-precipitation gives incomplete removal of strontium and cesium, while many other ions are carried down with the precipitate, resulting in an impure product, Ion exchange processes are subject to radiation damage of the resin and problems in removal and disposal of the damaged resin by remote means. Some difficulties have been experienced in the past in eluting molybdenum and ruthenium from the resin. No runs have been made using ion exchange processes of gross fission products. In these studies, cesium was assumed to be the only product of the ion exchange process. Evaporation of water and acids from gross fission product solutions has promise if immediate results are desired and the desired product is a mixture of gross fission products. Leaching of soluble oxides from a dried mass of fission product oxides gives a solution mixture of cesium, strontium, bariurl, and other alkali metals present. Such solutions, having been freed of the great bulk of structural materials and other fission prcaucts, could be separated on a small scale, using other techniques. There is some question that leaching will give complete removal of cesium and strontium from the gross fission product oxides. C. Unit Costs of Fission Products Processes are considered in which cesium and strontium are to be separated individually from the remainder of the fission products and packaged as sources of radiation, The lowest costs of these materials to be anticipated, corresponding to capacity rates of operation of each plant studied, vary from $)0.11 to 0.15 per gamma curie for cesium, and $0.07 to 0.09 per beta curie for strontium. All costs are charged againrost one or the other of these materials. The variation ian costs mentioned here would be dxue to the selection of the least costly or most costly of the processes staudcied for the complete separation of either of these materialEs7o The unit cost estimates mentioned are for strontium and cesium. If gross fission products are packaged relatively soon, say ninety days after pile discharge of a reactor operating on a 42 day cycle, then the cost per gammna curie of the gross fission products would be much lower, say $.0009 per equivalent gamma curie based on activity at the end of processing. Gross fission products one year after such packaging would reflect the same costs of operation in higher per curie costs of about $O-005 per equivalent gamma curie because of radioactive decay. Thus the cost, per gamma curie, would be lower for the gross fission product packaging than for the production of the separated individual cesium and strontium materials. However, the gross fission sources are quite variable in activity with time. The gross fission product process is probably the simplest to develop 147

and get into operation at an early date and the plant requirements for this process are probably quite similar to those required for modification to a more refined process, if this is desired at a later date. D. Demand for Fission Product Sources of Radiation Considerations for the pricing of the packaged gross fission products might take into account the possible costs of production of radiation by the separation of fission products produced by others. Given a decision as to which of these alternative methods might be pursued, consideration should probably be given to the competition from alternative sources of radiation, such as radium, cobalt-60, particle accelerator machines, and nuclear reactor operations available for civilian use. The sale of fission product sources of radiation would probably be free of much of this competition if the seller of such sources were able to provide megacurie or multi-megacurie sources in readily transportable form for use in development or pilot production studies in the industrial utilization of fission product radiation. If smaller scale operations were considered, then the competition from the above alternative sources of radiation wolld probably have to be taken into accouvnt in relative pricing policies. Favorable freight rate rulings on the transportation of shielded casks are required before the economical transportation for long distances of small quantities of highly active fission products can become an economically attractive proposition. If it were possible to obtain rulings such that the carriers would pay for the major share of the carrying of the dead weight of the cask itself, then such shipping restrictions might be minimized. E. Savings in Storage Each of the unit costs of the fission products summarized in Section C are assumed to carry the whole burden of cost of' operation of the plant and this operation is further assumed to provide for the packaging of the undesired fission products and waste materials in dry form. Consequently, these waste materials are obtained in dry form, suitable for permanent storage for time schedules which would permit their ultimate disposal under simplified procedures. Investigations appear to be in order of the possible charge to the fission product processor for his raw material fission products and of the possible credits for his disposal of the weaste fission products. F. Timetables of Availabiljty It appears that if development work were instituted now, that the first production of fission products might be achieved by approximately thirty-eight months, assuming availability of gross fission products and suitable arrangements for land and other required facilities. 148

BI3BLIOGRAPHY 1. ANL-5213 (Classified). 2. ANL-5363 (Classified). 3. HAO-59 (Classified). 4. HAO-60 (Classified). 5. HW-30503 (Classified). 6. HW-31442 (Classified). 7. HW-31444 (Classified). 8. IDO-15065 (Classified). 9. ORNL-301 (Classified). 10. PPC-66 (Classified). 11. Arthur D. Little, Inc., "Investigation of Stack Gas Filtering Requirements and Development of Suitable Filters," NYO-1575. June 30, 1951. 12. Bello, F., "Year One of the Peacetime Atomn, Fortune, LII, No. 2, 113, August, 1955. 13. Bronough, H. J. and Suttle, J. F., "Chelation of the Rare Earth Elements as a Function of pH using Thenoyltrifluoroacetone, LA-1561, June, 1953. 14. Higgins, I. R., and Roberts, J. T., "A Countercurrent- Solid-Liquid Contactor for Continuous Ion Exchange, C.E.P. Symp. Ser. 50, 87 (1954). 15. Lewis, J. G., Weech, M. E., Ohlgren, H. A., and WJThite, R. R., "Progress Report No. 1... Treatment and Handling of Fission Products..." University of Michigan, July, 1955. 16. Locke, F. A., "Treatment of Disassembly Basin Water," DP-81, October, 1954. 17. Martell, A. E., and Calvin, M., "Chemistry of the Metal Chelate Compounds," Prentice-Hall, New York, (1952). 149

18. Rupp, A. F.., "Radioisotope Production and Process Development, Annual Report for 1954" ORNL-1861, May 19, 1955. 19. Rupp, A. F., "Large Scale Production of Radioisotopes," Paper 560A, Geneva Conf. (1955). 20. Rupp, A. F., "Methods of Handling Multikilocurie Quantities of Radioactive Materials," Paper 583A, Geneva Conf. (1955). 21. Simon, R. H., "Disposal of Radioactive Liquid and Solid Wastes, AECU1837, December 28, 1951. 22. Topp, A. C., and Weaver, B., Oak Ridge National Laboratory, "Distribution of Rare Earth Nitrates between Tributyl Phosphate and Nitric Acid," ORL-1811. 23. Way, K., and Wigner, E. P., Phys. Rev. 73, 1318 (1948). 24. Wolman, A., and Gorman, A.E., "Waste Materials in the United States Atomic Energy Program," Wash. -8, January 12, 1950. 25. Zebroski, E. Lo, "Chelate Chemistry Thenoyltrifluoroacetone and Acetylacetone and Hydrolysis Phenomena of Thenoyltrifluoroacetone," University of California Library, at Berkeley, Index No. BC-63, July 1, 1947. 150