1. Mid-Year Client Review November 30, 2010 Joseph Seegmiller Alan Chatterton Doug Smith Walter Taresh A pparatus for the R emoval of C admium 1

2. AGENDA BACKGROUND PROJECT GOAL SPECIFICATIONS REVIEW CLEANING PROCESS REVIEW MOCK-UP CADMIUM BUILD-UP SIMULATION MATERIAL REMOVAL METHODS 2

3. MARK IV ELECTROREFINER 3

4. BUILD-UP ON ANODE SHAFT 4

5. ELECTRO MECHANICAL MANIPULATOR 5

6. PROJECT GOAL Design of a semi-automated system capable of removing cadmium buildup from the electrode assembly shaft of the Mark IV Electrorefiner to prevent electrical shorting between the electrode and vessel. 6

7. SPECIFICATIONS REVIEW Incorporation without interference with existing operations Cleaning cycle time of 2 hours Apparatus life of 100 cleaning cycles Operate in high radiation environment Capture majority of removed cadmium Setup and operation with Master-Slave Manipulators (MSM) 15 Pound force limit for MSM No petroleum-based lubricants Vertical load limit 200 pounds Remote replacement defective parts/subassemblies Shaft capable of rotation and up and down motion 7

8. CLEANING PROCESS REVIEW Electrode assembly removed from chamber Assembly brought to handling station 8

9. Lower part of assembly removed Heat shield is removed, shaft is exposed 9

10. Cadmium removed using files, scrapers, etc. 10

11. EXPLODED DRAWING FOR MOCKUP 11

12. MOCKUP STATUS CURRENT STATE Mill Attachment Point Original Component Added Length Bearing Retaining Sleeve 12

13. MOCKUP STATUS STILL TO MACHINE 13 Drill and tap Machine part Choose material and machine

14. SHAFT MOUNTED IN MILL 14

15. CADMIUM BUILD-UP SIMULATION SURRAGATE MATERIALS Brass – soft, comparable to cadmium Aluminum – harder than cadmium, but still relatively soft Silver Solder – soft, though difficult to solder to SS Wax – much softer, though easy to work with Spray foam – hardens to solid, easy to use 15

16. SILVER SOLDER ON SS ROD 16 Benefits Similar to Cadmium Difficulties Will not lay down thick

17. MATERIAL REMOVAL METHODS FINE, COURSE AND MILLED TOOTH FILES Fine file - gummed easily, removed 0.006” from diameter in 2 minutes* Course file - did not gum as easily, removed 0.040” from diameter in 2 minutes Milled Tooth file - did not gum, removed 0.100” in 1-2 minutes *Amount of material for one file blade width (app. 1.25”) 17

18. FINE TOOTH FILE 18 Gummed easily, removed 0.006” from diameter in 2 minutes

19. COURSE DOUBLE-CUT FILE 19 Did not gum as easily, removed 0.040” from diameter in 2 minutes

20. MILLED TOOTH FILE 20 Did not gum, removed 0.100” from diameter in 1-2 minutes

21. SINGLE POINT TOOL BIT 21 More rugged than three point insert

22. THREE POINT INSERT TOOL BIT 22 Three separate cutting teeth for potential ease of tool replacement.

23. 23

24. WORK PLAN By December 17 th : Finish machining the mockup Provide mid-year report detailing current status Choose best material removal method Spring semester: January 12 th : Begin system-level design with best cutting method February 21 st : Interim report outlining system-level design April 4 th : Completion of prototype April 29 th : Demonstrate apparatus at Design Expo 24

25. QUESTIONS? 25