Extractive Mettallurgy Division - Preparation of Uranium Metals by Fused Salt Electrolysis.

Uranium metal with a purity of about 99.9 pct was produced on a large scale by fused salt electrolysis with a material efficiency of about 90 pct. The material efficiency depends mainly on bath composition, electrolysis temperature, electrode smothering, and elutriation during washing of the powder. RESEARCH and development work on fused salt electrolysis carried on by the Westinghouse Lamp Div. Bloomfield, N. J., was done under the Manhattan District Corps of Engineers and later under the Atomic Energy Commission for the commercialization of uranium production for the first atomic pile at the University of Chicago in 1942. From the conception of the atomic bomb project it was recognized that metals with impurity levels having little metallurgical significance would be required. Permissible impurity levels were based on neutron absorption. Of particular significance was boron, which could not be present in amounts exceeding 1 ppm. The electrolytic method as developed in 1930 by Driggs and Lilliendahl,1,2 and later improved, yielded uranium of very low boron and other deleterious impurity content. No other method was capable at that time of producing uranium metal of the required purity.' The low boron content of uranium produced by the electrolytic process resulted from the availability of the reactants which were low in boron content, and from the inherent elimination of boron in the fused salt bath. Since the heart of any electrolytic process is the electrolysis cell, this paper will deal with the development of the original bath composition for the efficient production of uranium from a batch process to one of continuous operation. Emphasis also will be placed on other factors which will affect the material efficiency of the process. With the laboratory cell the material efficiency of uranium powder recovery in the early electrolysis was relatively low, about 35 pct based on the ratio of uranium recovered to uranium added. This early process also had other defects. The electro- lytic bath could not be used continuously. After three runs from a freshly charged crucible, the deposit showed a tendency to slip off the electrode as it was raised from the bath. This condition necessitated pouring the charge every fourth run and preparing a new bath. It was assumed at that time that this condition was caused by the increasing fluoride concentration with each addition of uranium salt, which adected the mobility of the uranium ions. Experimental The electrolysis cells differed in size only. They were of the floating cathode type. The laboratory cells were 21/2 in. ID and 6 in. deep and operated at 30 amp and 5 volts. Production was about 150 g metal powder per 8 hr. The plant cells (5 units) were 9 in. ID x 21 in. deep and operated at 1800 amp at 12 volts. The total production unit was designed to produce 250 lb of uranium powder per 8 hr day. Because of the tendency of uranium fines toward spontaneous combustion, material efficiencies were based only on the recovery of useful coarser metal which could be safely handled. The reported efficiencies are of particular significance only as related to the same group of experimental procedures. At the start of the project no changes were contemplated until previous data could be definitely confirmed. Therefore, the first experiments were with the 50 pct CaCl2-50 pct NaCl mixture. The material efficiency of uranium deposition as a function of the number of electrolyses is shown in Table I. In Table I, the decrease in efficiency at 800°C with number of runs is apparent and confirmed the earlier data. Operating at 900°C enabled the number of runs to be doubled, but before pouring the charge the efficiency of recovery became poor. This test indicated that the improved efficiency might have been caused by an increase in the fluidity of the bath.