Internationale Fachmesse Foire internationale International für die kerntechnische des industries Nuclear Industrie nucléaires Industries Fair .c S g> nuclex 72 16-21 October 1972 >. c. o CH-4021 Basel/Schweiz Basel/Switzerland cj Telephon 061-32 38 50 Telex 62 685 fairs basel
Technical Meeting No. 7/2
LMFBR: State of Development and Economic Outlook
J.J. Taylor Westinghouse Electric Corporation R.G. Hobson WENESE 1
LMFBR: STATE OF DEVELOPMENT AND ECONOMIC OUTLOOK
The status of the liquid metal fast breeder reactor development in the United States is reviewed by examining the progress in design and con- struction of the Fast Flux Test Facility and the breeder demonstration power plant, by reviewing overall progress in the supporting technological development, particularly in fuel and sodium technology, by examining the status of development and testing of steam generator concepts, and finally, in examining the progress achieved to date in meeting the economic goals for breeder power plant performance.
LMFBR: ENTWICKLUNGSSTAND UND WIRTSCHAFTLICHKEIT
Der Stand der Entwicklungsarbeiten am flüssigmetallgekühlten, schnellen Brütter in den Vereinigten Staaten wird erläutert durch Überprüfen der Fortschritte in Auslegung und Bau der "Fast Flux Test Facility" (FFTF) und des Brüter-Demonstration kraftwerks, durch einen Uberblick über Fortschritte in der unterstützenden technologischer Forschung — insbesondere Brennstroffentwicklung und Natriumtechnologie, durch Untersuchung des Standes in Entwicklung und Testen von Dampferzengerkonzepten, und schliesslich an Hand der bis haute gemachten Fortschritte, die wirtschaftlichen Ziele des Schnellen-Brüterkraftwerks zu erreichen.
LMFBR: ETAT DE DEVELOPPEMENT ET PERSPECTIVE ECONOMIQUE
L'état de développement du reacteur rapide surg/nerateur refroidi par metal liquide aux etats-unis est examine sur les points suivants:
Progrès accomplis dans le design et la construction du East Flux Test Facility et du prototype surgenerateur de puissance.
Développement de la technologie de base, en particulier, technologie du sodium et, du combustible. Développement et essai des generateur/ / s de vapeurs ^Bfrfrnr
Progrès réalisés à ce jour du point de vue performances économiques des reacteurs surgenerateurs de puissance. 2
LMFBR: STATE OF DEVELOPMENT AND ECONOMIC OUTLOOK
J. J. Taylor R. G. Hobson
The U.S. LMFBR Development Program
The U.S. program for the development of the liquid metal-cooled fast breeder reactor (LMFBR) reached a milestone this year with the decision to proceed with the design and construction of a demonstration power plant.
Two of the largest utilities in the United States, Commonwealth Edison
Company and the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), have joined together to manage the design and construction of the plant, and TVA will operate the plant which will be located on the TVA network.
This step is the culmination of a long preparation for the first U.S. LMFBR power plant through a broad national program of research and development and extensive test facility support. Although I speak from the perspec-
tive of Westinghouse, one of the many participants in this national program, we have sufficient responsibility in the program that I would like to summarize its objectives and describe its overall status.
The U.S. program on the LMFBR has been brought into sharp focus in the
last couple of years, not only because of the decision to proceed with the demonstration power plant, but also because President Nixon has desig- nated the development to have the highest priority of any energy develop-
ment in the U.ST at this time and because there has been a major improve- ment in the effective integration of the many organizations and many
elements of the program going on throughout the country. This improvement
has been stimulated by the Fast Flux Test Facility (FFTF), a large LMFBR
test reactor being built at Hanford, Washington, to provide extensive
irradiation testing capability for LMFBR fuel. The F FT F has entered into
detailed design, reactor component manufacture, and plant construction.
The specific needs to support this fabrication and construction effort have
required the many supporting technical organizations to focus their efforts
and correlate them to the major needs of the LMFBR because, with the 3
exception of the steam generator, the FFTF incorporates all of the develop- ment problems and goals of the power plant itself.
It has been gratifying to realize how important the role of the Fast Flux
Test Facility has proven to be in meeting these ancillary objectives, i.e., those objectives secondary to its prime role of providing an irradiation test facility fully capable of completing the development of the LMFBR
fuel cycle. These ancillary objectives are to pave the way for the LMFBR
power plant by developing industrial capability in design and manufacture,
establishing standards governing design, fabrication, construction and
operation, establishing the licensing viability of the LMFBR, and provid-
ing design and operational experience with an LMFBR reactor plant.
Except for the latter objective, which can only come when the plant is
completed, major progress has been made on the others. Industrial capa-
bility is now being developed with a large number of U.S. firms participa-
ting in design and construction. Standards which have emphasized
supplementing and improving on existing nuclear standards to meet the
new needs of this higher temperature sodium-cooled system have been
largely defined and are being applied in design, fabrication and construc-
tion. Continuing improvement is being effected on these standards
through the experience being gained in their practical application. A
year and a half of regulatory reviews have been carried out with the
U.S. Atomic Energy Commission regulatory aUmorities to obtain qualified
approval to proceed with construction.
Progress in Design and Construction of FFTF
I would like now to describe briefly the status of design and construction
of the Fast Flux Test Facility. First, as a reminder, this facility, shown
in Figure 1, is a 400 MWt sodium-cooled, oxide fueled, three-loop
reactor plant with a primary and secondary sodium loop in which the heat
from the secondary sodium coolant system is dumped into the air through
sodium-to-air heat exchangers. Thé.primary plant is a piped configuration
with each loop and its major components placed in separate, shielded 4
compartments. The primary loop piping arrangement is shown in Figure 2.
Refueling is carried out through transfer of assemblies through rotating plugs in the reactor vessel head. The design characteristics are tabulated in Table I. Reference 1 describes the FFTF in more detail.
The reactor core is comprised of stainless steel clad fuel elements with mixed uranium-plutonium oxide pellets. The outer diameter of each fuel element is 0.23", each of which is wire wrapped. Two hundred seventeen elements are assembled in a hexagonal stainless steel duct, 91 of these making up the core. This fuel system is prototypical of LMFBR fuel assem- blies except for size, and thus the FFTF core will represent a major step in proving out the capability of the LMFBR fuel system. Closed loops, as shown in Figure 3, will be installed
in the Fast Flux Test Facility to carry out experiments which will assess the ultimate capability of the fuel system, examining limits of performance and failure mechanisms.
All of the long lead reactor components are now in varying stages of con- struction. In the next several slides you will see pictures of some of these components in fabrication in factories throughout the U.S. Figure 4 shows the upper assembly of the reactor vessel. Figure 5 shows the reactor vessel head with its large porté for the refueling plugs and handling machines and the instrument trees. Figure 6 shows the upper assembly of the reactor vessel guard vessel. Figure 7 is a picture of the core support structure lower casting. Figure 8 shows the final shell assembly welding operation of the intermediate heat exchangers. Figure 9 portrays the impeller cas ting "of the main sodium pump in manufacture. The secondary coolant pumps, control rod drive mechanisms, fuel handling machines, instrument trees, valves, and fuel elements are all also in varying stages of fabrication. The firms building the components pictured or mentioned are: Combustion Engineering, Newport News Shipbuilding and Dry Dock,
Foster Wheeler, Atomics International, Babcock & Wilcox, Kerr McGee and
Westinghouse. Many other firms are engaged in supplying other components of FFTF. Westinghouse is responsible for FFTF program management and the reactor plant design. Bechtel is the FFTF architect-engineer. 5
Substantial progress has been made at the construction site with the con- tainment completed and work well underway on the primary loop compart-
ments. Figure 10 is a picture taken last spring at the construction site
showing the last stages of the containment shell installation. With all this activity, as one might expect, a large number of detailed problems have arisen in design, fabrication, quality assurance and construction.
Although it has taken time and effort to solve these problems as they have arisen, we see no major obstacles to successful completion of the plant to meet the objectives which have been set for it.
As the FFTF is completed, the focusing and integrating role which it has
been carrying thus far will tend to shift to the demonstration power plant.
It is the present intent of the program that there be maximum continuity
between the FFTF technology and experience and the implementation of the
demonstration power plant. Such continuity will assure that the demon-
stration power plant will be built with a maximum assurance of reliable,
effective operation, meeting its schedule of construction and its cost
goals, because the lessons learned from the FFTF will be appli.ed.
Status of LMFBR Demonstration Power Plant
The overall status of the demonstration power plant program is as follows:
Financial support for the program is being provided by a large number of
private and public utilities throughout the U.S., by the U.S. Atomic
Energy Commission, and by manufacturers engaged in the program. A total
of approximately $500 million in cash and services has been pledged for
this financial support. The $250 million pledged by the public and private
utilities is unprecedented in magnitude for a single development project
and attests to the conviction of the utility industry of the importance both
of energy development R&D as well as the LMFBR concept itself.
Two special corporations have been formed to manage the demonstration
plant program in a way that will represent the interests of these many
supporting organizations. One, the Project Management Corporation,
staffed by Commonwealth Edison and TVA personnel, is the overall program 6
manager of the demonstration power plant. The second corporation, the
Breeder Reactor Corporation, will receive utility funds and disburse them to the Project Management Corporation for execution of the job. A steering committee consisting of a senior executive each from the AEC, Common- » wealth Edison and TVA will oversee the management of the Project Manage- ment Corporation assuring that the interests of both government and industrial contributors are served and that the demonstration plant program is properly integrated with the FFTF and the ongoing AEC development program.
The major features of the demonstration power plant have been defined in the design guidelines issued by the Project Management Corporation in its request for proposal on the demonstration power plant nuclear steam supply system. These design guidelines emphasize the following major characteristics:
(1) The piped type primary plant configuration
(2) Fuel and reactor plant systems that are patterned after FFTF
experience and will be proven out from FFTF testing
(3) Conservative temperature ranges for the primary coolant fuel system
and major reactor components
(4) Major emphasis on design features and design, fabrication, and
operating methods which will assure plant safety
(5) Natural circulation capability which will assure core cooling under
plant accident conditions
(6) Strong emphasis on design features which will assure reliability,
high plant availability and maintainability.
The design developed by Westinghouse fully meets these design guidelines and other more detailed ones there is not time to cover.
Figure 11 is a schematic of the Westinghouse Project Definition Phase-
(PDP) plant design, the parameters of which are shown in Table II. The details of the design characteristics are reviewed in Reference 2 so I'd
like to summarize for you certain key features of the system which we believe are essential to the success of the LMFBR. 7
First, major emphasis has been placed in utilizing the design experience and design features defined through the FFTF. This experience is repre- sented throughout the design of the reactor plant and containment. A specific example of this is in the fuel assembly which has the same duct cross-section, fuel element diameter, and number of fuel elements per assembly as the .FFTF, assuring accurate prediction of performance and reliability based on the FFTF operational experience which will precede the demonstration power plant.
Another example is the primary plant configuration. This configuration is of the piped type, shown in Figure 12. It is Similar in concept to the FFTF and chosen because of the major emphasis which has been placed in the design on maintainability so as to assure high plant availability. This configuration which places the major components in each loop in separate shielded compartments will permit a variety of maintenance and repair actions on one loop while the plant is operating on the other two loops.
Where certain major repairs do not permit the plant to remain in operation, it is not required that the loops not under repair be drained to permit the repair to proceed. These features minimize the plant down time associated with maintenance and repair.
A third example of major importance is the refueling capability of the demonstration plant. Refueling capability will make a major contribution to the overall power costs because of its major potential effect on plant availability and on the inventory costs of fuel. Two major conceptual approaches to refueling have been followed in all the LMFBR programs, and Westinghouse has developed designs of each approach which are % being offered for use on the demonstration power plant. One approach is the open vessel refueling system, shown in Figure 13, in which a hot cell is provided above the reactor vessel permitting the reactor vessel head to be removed and the refueling to be carried out within the inerted atmosphere of the hot cell. The second approach is the more conventional one which has been utilized in all LMFBR's except the SEFOR reactor, the under-the-plug system shown in Figure 14. In this system rotating plugs 8
are provided in the reactor vessel head and fuel transfer machinery is
installed within the vessel to move fuel through ports in the head into transfer casks without exposing the sodium to the environment.
LMFBR Steam Generator Concept
A fourth feature of the design, and one which is critical to the success of
the LMFBR, is the steam generator. Design and testing work, coupled
with early experience on steam generator performance in such systems as
Fermi and the Sodium Reactor Experiment (SRE) have caused Westinghouse
to concentrate its present efforts on vertically oriented steam generator
arrangements, utilizing single walled tubes. Additional factors affecting
concept selection are whether sodium or steam reheat cycles will be used,
what the sodium and steam/water temperatures will be in evaporating and
superheating portions of the steam generators, whether once-through or
recirculating units will be used, and what materials provide acceptable
characteristics. This involves integrated reactor and steam system
studies, alternate steam generator design studies and material evaluations.
Westinghouse has recently completed a comprehensive evaluation and has
adopted a modular, once-through design capable of accommodating sodium
reheat, steam reheat, or non-reheat steam cycles. The Westinghouse "J"
modular steam generator is shown in Figure 15. In this modular once-
through design, Incoloy 800 is used as the tube material in the evaporator
and the superheater. The shell is 304 stainless steel. Incoloy 800 has
been selected for the tubing because of its excellent high temperature
properties, high resistance to corrosion-erosion in sodium-water reactions,
acceptable corrosion characteristics in sodium and water/steam environ-
ments and good weldability.
This steam generator is comprised of separate evaporator and superheater
units. Each unit contains a number of "J" modules which can be indi-
vidually replaced or repaired thus minimizing plant down time in the event
of tube leaks. For the Westinghouse Project Definition Phase LMFBR
demonstration plant, the design is used in a non-reheat cycle. Typical
design data is shown in Table III. 9
Considerable design, fabrication development and testing has been carried out in support of the Westinghouse steam generator design under
Westinghouse programs and U.S. AEC programs. Two thermal shock test models (TST-1 and TST-2) have been tested to demonstrate the capability of Inconel 600 tube-to-tube sheet fillet welds made on the water side
(TST-1) and Incoloy 800 tubes buttwelded to the sodium side of the tube sheet (TST-2) to withstand typical steam generator operating transients, as described in Reference 3. A once-through 1 MWt heat transfer model constructed with Incoloy 800 tubes buttwelded to the sodium side of the tube sheet has been tested for 4176 hours without failure. Shell side and tube side heat transfer data and stability criteria under various sodium and water/steam conditions have been determined. Extensive investiga- tions have been carried out for buttwelding of Incoloy 800 tubing and welding parameters have been developed for both 1/2" and 5/8" OD tubing.
During the past year and a half, development work has been proceeding to complete the investigation of remaining problem areas in steam generator design and testing. Significant progress has been made, but work is in progress in the following areas: Design development of the "J" module concept directed at optimization of unit and plenum size; detailed design of closures and tube sheets; resolution of thermal shielding requirements; resolution of thermal and stress response of inter-connecting piping systems; and demonstration of stable operation of sodium circuits of modules operating in parallel and series. Thermal hydraulic development directed towards better understanding of internal stability of individual units and stability in overall plant control. High temperature design criterial and analytical techniques to accurately predict lifetime behavior of a high temperature structure to cyclic load. Sodium-water reaction effects including detection instrumentation and development of analytical tools to determine time pressure histories and mechanical response.
Behavior of materials under long-term high temperature operation in sodium environments. 10
In summary, sodium heated steam generator design and development has reached the point where there is confidence in application to LMFBR plants. Substantial work remains, but the reactor plant designers and the
U.S. AEC have, placed high priority on development of reliable steam generator systems ,
Economic Competitiveness
/ To close this review, I would like to briefly discuss the culminating development goal for the LMFBR: its economic competitiveness. Because of the progress made on the FFTF and the design work on the demonstration power plant, and because of observation of progress being made in the national programs throughout the world, we have high confidence that the technical development of the LMFBR will be successfully completed, leading to the high reliability so important to a utility in operating its power generation facilities. By nature of the state of progress, that experience cannot yet give assurance of the economic competitiveness of the LMFBR. In the long pull, there is no question that the LMFBR will be economically competitive simply because a repetition of the fossil fuel resource squeeze will eventually occur with resulting increase in uranium prices which will force the LMFBR to be economically competitive. How- ever, the goals of the present development program are to introduce the
LMFBR before this process sets in for two major reasons:
First, economic potential of the LMFBR indicates that it can be economically competitive at present uranium prices and will represent a major boon in reduced power costs to the electrical consumer and the utility industry.
Secondly, introduction of this power generator in a measured way prior to the appearance of an actual resource crisis is highly desirable from the standpoint of both the industry and the consumer so that economic penalties and power capability restrictions associated with the inevitable dislocations caused by a crisis can be avoided.
To achieve this economic competitiveness, emphasis must be placed on achieving the fuel cycle costs which the system has the potential for, 11
assuring that the plant capital costs at the same time do not neutralize or outweigh the benefits of the fuel cycle costs. In addition, the reliability and maintainability of the systems must be at extremely high levels.
Otherwise the intrinsic benefits of the fuel cycle economics and plant economics can be wiped out by excessive plant down time. I am sure the magnitude of this problem is apparent to all when it is realized that a
1000 MWe power plant costs a minimum of $100,000 a day for every day of unanticipated down time, and the eventual commercial breeder unit output is estimated in the range of 2000 MWe. The licensability and safety of the system must also be fully proven simply because the utility industry will not undertake to build a system with significant licensing or safety uncertainties when they can depend on existing forms of nuclear power.
Thus, until a crisis sets in, the industry will iise conventional nuclear power unless they can be assured that a license can be obtained in accordance with a predefined schedule for power operation.
What is required to successfully achieve each of these three economic goals? It is our judgment that we do not need technical breakthroughs but rather detailed development in design and fabrication and an accumulation of experience in construction, operation and production.
These detailed needs cannot be covered in a summary paper but by taking a contributing example to each of these three economic goals I can indi- cate what is required.
Approximately half of the LMFBR fuel cycle costs are attributable to the
fabrication costs of the fuel elements, a much higher fraction than is the
case in today's present nuclear fuel. Present fabrication costs of
plutonium-enriched breeder fuel are high, as would be expected at this
early stage before mass production and automated techniques can effec-
tively be applied. Achieving this cost reduction requires application and
automation of detailed, optimized, fabrication techniques learned in the
process of fabricating the initial assemblies for the test reactors and
demonstration plants. General industrial experience with learning curves
gives confidence that this manufacturing experience will produce the cost 12
reductions needed. To assure that this will happen there must be close
continuity between the fuel assemblies being fabricatèd for the test reac- tors and the successive demonstration plants. The U.S. program is being
formulated to assure this continuity.
In the case of high plant availability which can only be attained through
high reliability and effective maintainability of the LMFBR, one example
has already been cited of key importance; namely, the refueling method.
An optimum method can be identified only by carrying out such refueling
methods in actual practice since, much like the fuel element fabrication
problem, major gains must be made through direct experience. Another
example has also been discussed in this paper, namely, the modularization
of the steam generator. This modularization will assure effective main-
tenance of this critical component. The higher capital costs associated
with modularization will be more than compensated for by the improved
plant availability. Needless to say, however, substantial additional
detailed work is required to implement the actual maintenance and replace-
ment procedures for these modular units and substantial additional effort
Will also be required to take advantage of the similar nature of each module
to obtain reduced fabrication costs through repetitive automated manufactur-
ing techniques.
In the safety and licensing area, success requires the pursuit of a large
number of detailed experiments and supporting analyses accompanied with
appropriate design and fabrication standards and quality assurance pro-
cedures which will demonstrate plant safety in design and operation. Close
coordination is effected in the U.S. program between the design activities,
who are engaged directly in the licensing reviews, and the experimental
groups whose data is needed to substantiate the safety evaluation. Through
such coordination on the FFTF program, substantial progress has been made
in characterizing accident phenomena and guiding the design so as to reduce
the potential magnitude of such accidents.
Thus, this final goal of economic competitiveness, which lam confident
we can achieve, will require a great amount of perseverance and hard work over a wide spectrum of technical skills and industrial capability.
It will take a substantial expenditure and involve thousands of people and many years. The benefits are well worth this tremendous task, and we are quite encouraged at the progress which has been made to date. REFERENCES
(1) Nuclear Engineering International, August 1972.
(2) Petrick, N. A., "Westinghouse Liquid Metal Fast Breeder Reactor
Demonstration Plant, " April, 1972.
(3) IAEA/SM-130/63, LMFBR Steam Generator Development and Testing,
Hobson, R. G., Westinghouse Advanced Reactors Division;
Eilbeck, E., Westinghouse Tampa Division; IAEA Symposium on
Progress in Sodium Cooled Fast Reactor Engineering, Monaco,
March 23-27, 1970. 15
TABLE I
FFTF BASIC FACILITY DESIGN CHARACTERISTICS
Core Arrangement Vertical, 91 Hexagonal Lattice Posi- tions, 75 Driver Fuel Subassemblies
Sub-Assembly Length 12 ft overall, 3 ft fuel, 4 ft maximum Gas Plenum (Advanced Cores)
Fuel Composition 20-30 Weight % Pu02 , 80-90%
Weight U02 Fuel Target Burnup 45,000 MWD/Tavg, 80,000 MWD/T peak
Peak Flux Initial Flux 0.7 x 1016 n/cm^-sec Future Flux 1.3 x 1016 n/cm -sec
Closed Test Loops Initial Number 4 - General Purpose, 2 MWt each Ultimate Number 6-4 General Purpose (4 MW) 2 Special Purpose (4 MW each) Outlet Temperature 1400°F (bypass flow permitted) Number of Cells Provided 4 initial with space for 2 more later
Open Test Loops Initial Number 4 - One w/ proximity instrumentation Future Number 3 - One w/ proximity instrumentation
Heat Transport System Initial Maximum (Three Primary Loops) Capability Capability Reactor Power 400 MW 400 MW Reactor Outlet Temperature 860°F 1050°F Core Outlet Temperature 900°F 1100°F AT - Core 300°F 400°F AP - System Intermediate Heat Exchangers, 500 ft of Na 500 ft of Na Log Mean Temp. Difference Dump Heat Exchanger Modules 85°F 100°F Total Coolant Flow 12 @ 33 MW 12 @ 33 MW Sodium Sys. Cover Gas (argon) 43,500 gpm 43,500 gpm
Containment Vessel Vessel Material ASTM-A-516 Low Carbon Construction Welded construction, ASME Code Size and Shape 135 ft diam. x 179 ft. high, elliptical heads
Reactor Vessel Vessel Material Type 304 Stainless Steel Cons truction Welded construction, ASME Code Size 20 ft. diam. x 46 ft. high, 2-in. wall TABLE II
REACTOR PRINCIPAL PARAMETERS - LMFBR PDP REFERENCE DESIGN
Reactor vessel overall length 57 5 in.
Reactor vessel internal diameter 140 in.
Reactor vessel wall thickness 2.00 in.
Total reactor power 790 MWt
Total reactor flow rate 32,436,000 lb/hr
Reactor inlet temperature 750°F
Reactor outlet temperature 1025°F
Nozzle-to-nozzle pressure drop 150 psi
Fuel assembly holddown Top support plate
Capacity factor first core loading 40%
Capacity factor equilibrium core 75%
Specific power 0.81 MWt/kg fissile Pu Average discharge burnup 75,000 MWD/T
Maximum burnup 103,000 MWD/T
Cover gas Helium
Cover gas pressure 25 psi
Number of loops 3 Allowable short-term overpower 12% Maximum allowable fuel temperature 4840°F
Maximum allowable cladding midwall temp. 1225°F
Maximum allowable pressure drop (primary 200 psi loop and reactor)
Fuel (driver region) (U, Pu)Q-| gp
Fuel (blanket region) Depleted U02 Cladding material 20% CW Type 316 SS TABLE III
LMFBR DEMONSTRATION PLANT PROJECT DEFINITION PHASE DESIGN
STEAM GENERATOR DATA
Unit Module Shell Side Data Tube Side Data Rating Rating Na Temp °F Water/Steam Temp.°F MW + MW + Design Design Design Design In Out Temp°F Press psi In Out Temp°F Press psi
Evaporator 197.1 65.7 907.7 623.8 950 200 500 722.1 800 2800
Superheater 63.7 31.2 1000.0 907.0 1100 200 721 950.0 1050 2800 CLOSED LOOP EX-VESSEL HANDLING MACHINE BOTTOM LOADING (CLEM) HEAD ACCESS TRANSFER CASK COMPARTMENT (BLTCj
SECONDARY PUMP
LMFBR CASK
DUMP HEAT EXCHANGER
INTERMEDIATE HEAT EXCHANGER PRIMARY PUMP REACTOR MAINTENANCE CASK INTERIM DECAY LMFBR CASK LOADING STATION STORAGE (IDS)
Figure I. FFTF Plant Arrangement BELLOWS SEAL .
COLD LEG V-DELAY NEUTRON ISOLATION MONITOR VALVE (16")
HOT LEG PIPING (28")
HOT LEG PIPING (16")
MAGNETIC FLOWMETER
COLD LEG PIPING (16") OJ VJ1 I ro Figure 2. Primary Loop Piping Arrangement (Isometric View) HEAT EXCHANGER (DHX) CLOSED LOOP DUMP
CLOSED LOOP PRIMARY SYSTEM MODULE
CLOSED LOOP IN-REACTOR ASSEMBLY (CLIRA)
CLOSED LOOP SECONDARY VjO VJ1 ELECTROMAGNETIC PUMP AJ1 VJ1 I
Figure 3. Closed Loop System for Testing of Fast Reactor FhpU and Materials in FFTF •o (00> ffi i—f fl> (Q tft >(U
o 10 «< D
lO G> 1-4 o> Ö
•aS5«p T-j »
Figure 4 Upper Assembly of the FFTF Reactor Vessel Figure 6 Upper Assembly of FFTF Reactor Vessel Guard Vessel
Figure 7 FFTF Core Support Structure Lower Casting Figure 8 FFTF Intermediate Heat Exchanger Shell Assembly
Figure 9 Impeller Casting of FFTF Main Sodium Pump Figure 11 Westinghouse LMFBR Demonstration Po.-er Plant ... - ,vgJ tMFBR DEMO PLANT
^ r "
Figure 12 Primary Plant Configuration - Piped Type
2 > z •n C
o
M- IQ Tc ^J I™ •o n> a ni"! < CroO w ca h- w (HÜi c o I—1 V>0 s XJ < m emn > cr> «nH rn- o » Sir?!?./., «Si. w>- - 5 m&m^V' " - . < ' ' Ht'ri-, . li'^r,^ >T • * ELEVATION UNDER-THE-PLUG SYSTEM Manipulator Fuel Transfer Machine Hot Cell j ** <.• Figure 14 Under-the-Plug Refueling System Figure 15 Westinghouse LMI BR "J" Modular Steam Generator