Help | Contact Us
NukeWorker.com
NukeWorker Menu Combustion Engineering Reactors

Author Topic: Combustion Engineering Reactors  (Read 44577 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Fermi2

  • Guest
Combustion Engineering Reactors
« on: Mar 10, 2006, 08:44 »
Ok I know there are something like 7 or 8 CE Reactors in the country, Waterford, one of the ANO Units, St Lucie, Palisades, one of the Millstones and Palo Verde.

NOw if I recall corectly CE plants are somewhat similar to BW plants in that they use 2 Loops with one hot leg, one SG, and two cold legs with one RCP per cold leg. And the difference is CE plants use U Tube SGs vice OTSGS, and they use the Westnghouse philosophy of programming Tave.

NOW my question... Most of the CE plants have about the same Thermal Rating, but the Palo Verde plants are quite a lot larger. What physically is different at Palo Verde? Westinghouse added more loops when they uprated the power for their family of reactors. Do the Palo Verde plants have larger cores and more loops?

Mike
« Last Edit: Mar 10, 2006, 08:46 by Broadzilla »

JnyMac

  • Guest
Re: Combustion Engineering Reactors
« Reply #1 on: Mar 11, 2006, 01:34 »
Mike

Palo Verde is a 4 loop plant just like you descibed.  1 h/l and 2 c/l  2 S/gs.  We have a huge core.  241 bundles.  We also have replaced our S/Gs in 2 out of the 3 units.  10% larger with a new turbine.  We are a system 80.  I believe the Koreans have built the same plant system 80 plus.

Fermi2

  • Guest
Re: Combustion Engineering Reactors
« Reply #2 on: Mar 11, 2006, 01:49 »
Cool, so basically it's the same plant as the start up sources with a bigger core and bigger loops right?

I think thermally Palo Verde is even bigger than Sequoyah. Sequoyah is  the most thermally efficent reactor I've ever worked at.

Mike

JnyMac

  • Guest
Re: Combustion Engineering Reactors
« Reply #3 on: Mar 11, 2006, 01:58 »
Right our Hot Legs are 42" and our cold legs are 36".

illegalsmile

  • Guest
Re: Combustion Engineering Reactors
« Reply #4 on: Mar 11, 2006, 07:43 »
isn't Calvert Cliffs a CE plant?

LaFeet

  • Guest
Re: Combustion Engineering Reactors
« Reply #5 on: Mar 11, 2006, 09:54 »
Yup  Calvert I s a Combine Engine plant..... and we are having some fun with unit 2' outage right now.... >:(

Offline HydroDave63

  • Retired
  • *
  • Posts: 6295
  • Karma: 6629
Re: Combustion Engineering Reactors
« Reply #6 on: Mar 11, 2006, 11:16 »
you might possibly find some System 80 plants further west as well....

Offline tr

  • Moderate User
  • ***
  • Posts: 179
  • Karma: 218
  • Tell Recruiters to use NukeWorker.com
Re: Combustion Engineering Reactors
« Reply #7 on: Feb 19, 2007, 10:27 »
Basically, the CE plants just have HUGE steam generators.  SONGS (another CE plant) gets just under 600 MWe out of each SG, while a comparible 1200 MWe Westinghouse 4 loop plant gets 300 MWe out of each SG.

M1Ark

  • Guest
Re: Combustion Engineering Reactors
« Reply #8 on: Feb 19, 2007, 11:21 »
Ok I know there are something like 7 or 8 CE Reactors in the country, Waterford, one of the ANO Units, St Lucie, Palisades, one of the Millstones and Palo Verde.

NOw if I recall corectly CE plants are somewhat similar to BW plants in that they use 2 Loops with one hot leg, one SG, and two cold legs with one RCP per cold leg. And the difference is CE plants use U Tube SGs vice OTSGS, and they use the Westnghouse philosophy of programming Tave.


It seems Westinghouse defines loops by the number of S/G's.  CE defines loop designators by the number of RCP's.

CE = Combustion Engineering = Close Enough

wlrun3@aol.com

  • Guest
Re: Combustion Engineering Reactors
« Reply #9 on: Feb 20, 2007, 10:07 »

   ...as i recall, the uniqueness of Palo Verde, even among other CE plants, includes piston driven double fuel transfer upenders, a reactor head stud tensioning ring and a seal table on the cavity floor...

   ...no other CE plant has a seal table...other than Palo Verde, the incore detectors are fixed in place during power...

   ...am i right...

Offline fueldryer

  • Heavy User
  • ****
  • Posts: 270
  • Karma: 981
  • Gender: Male
  • Call Before You Dig !
Re: Combustion Engineering Reactors
« Reply #10 on: Feb 20, 2007, 05:23 »
Fort Calhoun is also a CE design plant with the unique aspect that you uncouple CEA extension shafts through the top of the Rx head(tool access flanges) versus after the head is off,like most CE plants.
Call Before You Dig!

Offline Benwah033

  • Light User
  • **
  • Posts: 37
  • Karma: 50
Re: Combustion Engineering Reactors
« Reply #11 on: Mar 17, 2009, 06:34 »
I know this is a very old thread but I work for the CE portion of Westinghouse, and I am very familiar with the differences between Palo Verde (System 80) and the prior CE fleet and Westinghouse fleet of plants.

Palo Verde has 241 fuel assemblies which is the source of the higher power level (besides the difference in safety system programming - which i admit that I do not know that much about).  Most CE plants have 217 fuel assemblies with ANO-2 have 177 to match the B&W design of unit 1 there. Also, the following differences apply:

CE Plants:

-Palisades
-Fort Calhoun
-Calvert Cliffs 1 & 2
-Millstone 2
-Maine Yankee
-St. Lucie 1&2
-ANO-2
-Waterford 3
-SONGS 2 & 3
-Palo Verde 1,2 &3

First of all System80 is synonomous with Palo Verde.  Other plants, including WPPS and Yellow River (TVA) were going to be built based on the System80 standardized design, but were cancelled after TMI.  Palo Verde (PV) is a very unique NSSS (nuclear steam supply system) for CE based on several design features -  and are the only 3 true system 80 units in the world, and the only ones remotely close in the US:

1) The in-core instrumentation (ICI) comes from undervessel - bottom mounted instrumentaton (BMI) - which makes it the only CE plant with a seal table and instrumentation similar to westinghouse fleet plants.  All other CE plants have top mounted instrumentation simular to the new Westinghouse fleet of proposed PWRS (AP1000).

2) Palo Verde (S80) has a "tube-sheet" region of the reactor vessel internals where each CEA (individual control rod) has its own tube that protects it from cross flow.  Because of this PV performs "rodless refueling" where CEA's (Westinghouse - RCCA's) do not move to the spent fuel pool with fuel assememblies - rather they remain with the upper guide structure (Westinghouse - upper internals) lift rig inside containment during refueling.

3) Sys80 plants have 2 steam generators and 4 RCP's (2 per S/G) which is the same as all CE plants - except Maine Yankee.  This is also the same configuration as the new Westinghouse AP1000 plant, which uses the same S/G's as the Waterford/SONGS CE plants.

4) Palo Verde has much larger steam generators than any Westinghouse plant, 2-loop through 4-loop, because of the energy that must be transfered.  This is the technology transfered to Korea for the KSNP (Korean Standard Nuclear Plant) and KNGR (Korean Next Generation Reaction) programs.  Currently at the Westinghouse facility in Newington NH they are building a KNGR (Shin Kori Unit 3) reactor internals set which is set to be shipped within the next year.

I would be glad too answer any other Palo Verde vs CE plant questions as well as any Westinghouse vs CE fleet vs B&W fleet plant questions that may come up

Brian
 

AlanD

  • Guest
Re: Combustion Engineering Reactors
« Reply #12 on: Aug 31, 2009, 09:35 »
Very interesting Ben,

I hadn't realized how close the System 80 and the AP1000 actually were.
What is said about CE reactors' fuel consumption is quite interesting (read that thy benefited from advanced core management software), is it that much better than for "standard" 3/4-loops PWRs ?

If so, guess the Koreans are enjoying this right now as U price has finally gone up (compared to the 90's...).

Offline Benwah033

  • Light User
  • **
  • Posts: 37
  • Karma: 50
Re: Combustion Engineering Reactors
« Reply #13 on: Sep 09, 2009, 11:41 »
Very interesting Ben,

I hadn't realized how close the System 80 and the AP1000 actually were.
What is said about CE reactors' fuel consumption is quite interesting (read that thy benefited from advanced core management software), is it that much better than for "standard" 3/4-loops PWRs ?

If so, guess the Koreans are enjoying this right now as U price has finally gone up (compared to the 90's...).

Alan,

The RCS arrangement for System80 and AP1000 are very similar, but as far as reactor internals design, they couldn't be more different.  System80 RVI are unique except for the Korean plants which are based on that design.  AP1000 RVI are modeled after the STP upper internals package, and include a lower internals package that combines the lower support plate and lower core plate into one ridiculously thick plate.  Also, instead of a bolted baffle-former region, it has a CE-style welded core shroud. 

My area of focus is RVI design, analysis, and repair work.  I dont know anything more than what I have read about fuel consumption and safety system differences between (W) and CE reactors.  If anyone else here knows more about them I would love to read about them.

Offline MeterSwangin

  • Moderate User
  • ***
  • Posts: 152
  • Karma: -77
  • Gender: Male
  • Somebody get decon!
Re: Combustion Engineering Reactors
« Reply #14 on: Sep 09, 2009, 11:52 »
Other feature one admires about PV:  no radiation.  So very cool how ALARA those units are. 

Offline tr

  • Moderate User
  • ***
  • Posts: 179
  • Karma: 218
  • Tell Recruiters to use NukeWorker.com
Re: Combustion Engineering Reactors
« Reply #15 on: Sep 11, 2009, 11:04 »
Fuel consumption (amount of energy per gram of U235) is not much different between the W and CE designs. 

One big safety system difference is that many (but not all) CE plants have a high pressure safety system that cannot inject into the RCS at rated pressure.  This is a major difference from W, as things like pressurizer overfill are much less of a concern at a CE plant.  These CE plants basically credited the depressurization that occurs during a loss of coolant accident in the design of the high pressure safety injection system. 

Most CE plants also use positive displacement charging pumps, instead of centrifigual charging pumps (basically the same positive displacement pumps used in BWR standby liquid control systems).  The lower capacity positive displacement pumps also tend to reduce pressurizer overfill concerns.

Fermi2

  • Guest
Re: Combustion Engineering Reactors
« Reply #16 on: Sep 11, 2009, 01:58 »
Wanna bet they credit their charging pumps and Pzr Overfill is just as big a concern as it is in a Westinghouse Plant?

Offline tr

  • Moderate User
  • ***
  • Posts: 179
  • Karma: 218
  • Tell Recruiters to use NukeWorker.com
Re: Combustion Engineering Reactors
« Reply #17 on: Sep 12, 2009, 01:43 »
I'm 100% sure some CE plants don't credit charging as ECCS (I supervise the safety analysis group at a CE plant).  Pzr overfill is essentially not a concern in our FSAR chapter 15 analyses.  Based on discussions at the PWR Owners Group Analysis subcommittee CE plants have it much easier than W plants for overfill (on the other hand, a steam line break in a CE plant is way worse given the huge 40 inch steam lines).

Fermi2

  • Guest
Re: Combustion Engineering Reactors
« Reply #18 on: Sep 12, 2009, 06:40 »
What do they credit for ECCS for a SBLOCA?

Offline tr

  • Moderate User
  • ***
  • Posts: 179
  • Karma: 218
  • Tell Recruiters to use NukeWorker.com
Re: Combustion Engineering Reactors
« Reply #19 on: Sep 12, 2009, 09:09 »
Literally, they credit the break.  The depressurization from the LOCA itself drops the RCS pressure from the normal 2250 psia to the HPSI shutoff head of around 1300 psia.  For some small breaks, RCS pressure goes low enough that the safety injection tanks inject (around 600 psia).  Post-LOCA long term cooling for SBLOCA is done by using the SGs to cool down to shutdown cooling entry conditions.

Fermi2

  • Guest
Re: Combustion Engineering Reactors
« Reply #20 on: Sep 13, 2009, 12:08 »
How can they do that when TMI proved that's not always a feasible SBLOCA?

M1Ark

  • Guest
Re: Combustion Engineering Reactors
« Reply #21 on: Sep 14, 2009, 01:50 »
What do they credit for ECCS for a SBLOCA?

I think I am able to answer this one.  I have had an SRO license at CE plants designed in the 60's, 70's and 80's (System 80).  All three designs have two S/Gs, four RCPs, two 42" hot legs and four 36" cold legs.  The oldest two designs I worked at had 2700 MWth core with the System 80 at 3990 MWth.  The older designs had around 66500 gallons for RCS volume while the System 80 is about 80,000 gallons for volume.

As far as SBLOCA....

The older plants were 2250 psi NOP and had 1250 psi shutoff head pumps HPSI pumps but had three 44 gpm charging pumps that received a SI signal @1736 psi.

System 80 are also 2250 psi NOP and has 1850 psi shutoff head HPSI pumps and have three 44 gpm charging pumps that DO NOT receive a SI signal.  SI signal also comes sooner at 1836 psi.

Older CE credits their charging pumps for SBLOCA and newer CE do not but have HPSI pumps capable of injecting when a LOCA signal is received.

I can answer any specific question anyone has.

M1Ark

  • Guest
Re: Combustion Engineering Reactors
« Reply #22 on: Sep 14, 2009, 01:55 »
Literally, they credit the break.  The depressurization from the LOCA itself drops the RCS pressure from the normal 2250 psia to the HPSI shutoff head of around 1300 psia.  For some small breaks, RCS pressure goes low enough that the safety injection tanks inject (around 600 psia).  Post-LOCA long term cooling for SBLOCA is done by using the SGs to cool down to shutdown cooling entry conditions.

Not exactly true.  Plateau pressure is reached around 1100 to 1200 psi and that is why on the older plants the HPSI shutoff head is at 1250 psi.  When RCS pressure goes lower than approximately 900 psi you are no longer in SBLOCA space.  Anytime SITs inject = LBLOCA.  If three charging pumps and two HPSI pumps can't keep you pressurized then you're leak size is greater than the limit for SBLOCA.

Fermi2

  • Guest
Re: Combustion Engineering Reactors
« Reply #23 on: Sep 14, 2009, 02:38 »
So Chuck, you credit your charging pumps? Do they start on an SI Signal?

M1Ark

  • Guest
Re: Combustion Engineering Reactors
« Reply #24 on: Sep 14, 2009, 04:18 »
So Chuck, you credit your charging pumps? Do they start on an SI Signal?

Older CE with 1250 psi HPSI yes.

System 80 CE with 1850 psi HPSI no.

 


NukeWorker ™ is a registered trademark of NukeWorker.com ™, LLC © 1996-2024 All rights reserved.
All material on this Web Site, including text, photographs, graphics, code and/or software, are protected by international copyright/trademark laws and treaties. Unauthorized use is not permitted. You may not modify, copy, reproduce, republish, upload, post, transmit or distribute, in any manner, the material on this web site or any portion of it. Doing so will result in severe civil and criminal penalties, and will be prosecuted to the maximum extent possible under the law.
Privacy Statement | Terms of Use | Code of Conduct | Spam Policy | Advertising Info | Contact Us | Forum Rules | Password Problem?