Fort St. Vrain operations and future

Brey, H.L.

doi:10.1016/0360-5442(91)90086-2

Cited by 16 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For example, during a moisture intrusion event on June 22, 1984, after control room operators reduced reactor power manually to 30%, moisture ingress raised power to 40%, which contributed to a scram on high vessel pressure at 0029 hours on the June 23. Six control rod pairs failed to insert on this scram-and this was eventually traced to corrosion of the control rod drive mechanisms (Brey 1991).…”

Section: Fsv Plant Descriptionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…From 1981 to 1983, the plant operated at up to 100% power, with major shutdowns for the second refueling and a modification of the circulator auxiliary systems. The plant shut down at the end of 1983 for the third (and as it turned out, final) refueling (Brey 1991).…”

Section: Fsv Plant Descriptionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…FSV, the only commercial HTGR to operate in the United States, was built under the Atomic Energy Commission Reactor Demonstration Program (Brey 1991). Unlike pressurized water reactor and boiling water reactor plants, FSV generated steam at typical modern fossil plant single reheat temperatures and pressures: 2400 PSI main steam at 1000 F, with a single reheat to 1000 F, with six stages of regenerative feed-water heating (Benham et al 1973).…”

Section: Fsv Plant Descriptionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…FSV management decided to remove this method of heat removal from the final safety analysis report rather than modify the plant to provide adequate heat removal capability. For the economizer-evaporatorsuperheat module, it was determined that steam binding could occur above 83% of maximum decay heat; this led to an administrative limit on reactor power that continued to the end of plant operation (Brey 1991).…”

Section: Fsv Plant Descriptionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The FSV core featured 37 individually regulated flow regions with adjustable orifices at the inlet of each region. These were adjusted by control room operators to equalize outlet temperatures in the regions (Brey 1991).…”

Section: Fsv Plant Descriptionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

High Temperature Gas Reactors: Assessment of Applicable Codes and Standards

McDowell¹,

Nickolaus²,

Mitchell³

et al. 2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SummaryCurrent interest expressed by industry in HTGR plants, particularly modular plants with power up to about 600 MW(e) per unit, has prompted NRC to task PNNL with assessing the currently available literature related to codes and standards applicable to HTGR plants, the operating history of past and present HTGR plants, and with evaluating the proposed designs of RPV and associated piping for future plants.Considering these topics in the order they are arranged in the text, first the operational histories of five shut-down and two currently operating HTGR plants are reviewed, leading the authors to conclude that while small, simple prototype HTGR plants operated reliably, some of the larger plants, particularly Fort St. Vrain, had poor availability. Safety and radiological performance of these plants has been considerably better than LWR plants. Petroleum processing plants provide some applicable experience with materials similar to those proposed for HTGR piping and vessels.At least one currently operating plant -HTR-10 -has performed and documented a leak before break analysis that appears to be applicable to proposed future US HTGR designs.Current codes and standards cover some HTGR materials, but not all materials are covered to the high temperatures envisioned for HTGR use. Codes and standards, particularly ASME Codes, are under development for proposed future US HTGR designs. A -roadmap‖ document has been prepared for ASME Code development; a new subsection to section III of the ASME Code, ASME BPVC III-5, is scheduled to be published in October 2011.The question of terminology for the cross-duct structure between the RPV and power conversion vessel is discussed, considering the differences in regulatory requirements that apply depending on whether this structure is designated as a -vessel‖ or as a -pipe‖. We conclude that designing this component as a -pipe‖ is the more appropriate choice, but that the ASME BPVC allows the owner of the facility to select the preferred designation, and that either designation can be acceptable.v

show abstract

Section: Fsv Plant Descriptionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Fsv Plant Descriptionmentioning

confidence: 99%