529IEEE Transactions on Power Apparatus and Systems, Vol. PAS-97, no. 2, March/April 1978

THE LMFBR - AN INTERNATIONAL EFFORT

Kenneth M. Horst, Manager, Design Engineering, Fast Breeder Reactor DepartmentGeneral Electric Company

Sunnyvale, California I (i

ABS'TRACT

Review of the operating experience and current status of thetwenty LMFBR projects around the world establishes that substantialprogress has been made in the development of the LMFBR as an Xalternative long-time energy source displaying high efficiency in theuse of natural resources.

INTRODUCTION

Major programs are underway in the industrialized nations todevelop the Liquid Metal Fast Breeder Reactor (LMFBR) for applica- jtion in their electric utility supply systems. In addition to the United jStates, these nations include France, the United Kingdom, the Federal 'Republic of Germany, Japan and the USSR. Belgium and The Nether- tlands have joined forces with Germany, and Italy is participating with '2France. Each of these nations has major laboratory facilities dedicatedto the development of supporting technologies. They also have beenbuilding a series of reactors to provide the essential steps leading towidescale application.

The motivation for this major undertaking is the quest to extendthe life of the nuclear option as an alternative to fossil energy supplies.Breeders offer the potential to utilize a much higher fraction of theuranium resources than thermal reactors. In the United States, des- NO

pite sizeable amounts of uranium, the uranium resources are pro-bjected to be committed within a few decades if the nuclear option issolely dependent on thermal reactors; whereas the breeder can extendthe energy obtainable from uranium by several centuries.1

In Western Europe and Japan the impetus for developing thebreeder is even more compelling.2 These nations lack significantdomestic sources of uranium and therefore are more highly moti-vated to develop a breeder which dramatically conserves the available ,uranium ore. N

The purpose of this paper is to review the international progresswhich has already been made in the development of the LMFBR andto identify selected technical features of similarity and contrast.Note will also be made on the operating experiences to date andprojections for the future.

SUMMARY

A review of the status of the international effort on the develop-ment of the LMFBR leads us to the following conclusions:

1) Considerable experience has already been acquired throughthe design, construction, operation and supporting R&D ofliquid metal fast breeder plants.

2) Twelve breeder reactors have been built and operated aroundthe world, not counting the earliest of breeder experiments.Breeders of particular note include the EBR-II located inIdaho, operating successfully for over twelve years; the

F 77 801-4. A paper recorrnded and approved bythe IEEE Power Generation Corruittee of the I;EE PcwerEngineering Society for presentation at the TEKE/ASME!ASCE Joint Pcwer Generation Conference, Los Angeles,CA, Septerrber 18-21, 1977. Manuscript submitted March14, 1977; made available for printi.ng July 12, 1977.

'_\k

Phenix in France, a 250 MWe plant operating for over threeyears; the BN-350, a 350 MWe plant in the USSR operatingfor over four years; and the United Kingdom's PFR, a 250MWe plant, operating over two years, and more recently, theJoyo test reactor in Japan.

3) Five major plants are being built. The Fast Flux Test Facility(FFTF) in the United States; the SNR-300 in Germany; theSoviet Union's 600 MWe BN-600, the 1200 MWe Super-phenix in France, and Italy's test reactor, PEC.

4) Four plants are in the design phase: United Kingdom's CFR,a 1300 MWe plant; the SNR-2, a 1300 MWe plant in Ger-many in conjunction with Belgium and The Netherlands;the 350 MWe Clinch River Breeder plant and the PrototypeLarge Breeder Reactor (PLBR) in the United States.

5) The stainless steel clad, ceramic, PuO2-UO2 fuel has beenchosen world-wide as the reference fuel for the introductionof the breeder. However, the United States is investigatingother fuel cycle combinations to determine if any are moreproliferation resistant. The testing and operating experiencewith this fuel has been good. Some work is in progress inmany of the nations to develop structural alloys with Im-proved irradiation resistant properties and alternative fuelmaterials, such as carbides and nitrides.

6) Both pool and loop concepts* have been built and operatedsuccessfully. Except for EBR-II, the experimental and testreactors have been loop-type reactors; however, for thedemonstration plants and beyond, France and the UnitedKingdom have selected pool-type reactors. The Soviet Unionhas operated a demonstration loop plant and is building apool-type for its next plant.

7) The steam generators have given the most difficulty amongthe components. The most consistent trouble has been withthe welded joints at the tube-to-tube-sheet interface andother joints in the tubes. Major efforts are underway in eachof the national programs to develop reliable units.

8) There is significant international exchange of liquid metalfast breeder technology through technical exchange agree-ments between the governments and international technicalconferences.

EXPERIMENTAL AND TEST BREEDERS

Some of the earliest work to harness the atom for electricalgenerating systems was carried out on the liquid metal fast breedersystem. The first nuclear plant in the United States and, to the best ofour knowledge in the world, to be tied to a turbine-generator andutility grid was the Experimental Breeder Reactor-I (EBR-I). Thisreactor, located at the Idaho Falls testing station, was put into opera-tion in 1951. Work on a breeder power plant was conducted in theUnited States even before the launching of the U.S.'s naval reactorprogram.3

Early work also began in the United Kingdom and the USSR,followed by France, West Germany, and more recently Japan and theother nations. Substantial experience has already been acquired throughnot only :echnical development in laboratories but also through theoperation of reactors. Table I lists the experimental and test breederreactor projects around the world. These projects have accumulatedover 65 reactor-years of operating experience. The earliest and smallestof breeder experiments have not been included.

*The pool concept consists of a large sodium filled vessel withreactor, heat exchangers and pumps located in the vessel. The loopconcept consists of a piped system connecting the reactor, heatexchangers and pumps (see later discussion).

0018-9510/78/0300-0529$00. 75 Ci 1978 IEEE

530

TABLE I

Experimental and Test Reactors

Inlet/OutletPower Operating

Nation/Reactor MWt/MWe Type Temp., °C Fuel Operationa

United StatesEBR-II 62/20 Pool 370/475 U-Alloy 1964-Fermi 200/60 Loop 290/430 U-Alloy 1955-1972SEFOR 20/- Loop 370/440 PUO2-UO2 1969-1972FFTF 400/- Loop 365/560 PUO2-UO2 1979

USSRBR-5 5/-b Loop 400/500 UC 1959-BOR-60 60/- Loop 340/520 U02, later 1969-

PuO2-UO2United Kingdom

Dounreay 60/15 Loop 230/350 U-Alloy 1963-1977France

Rapsodie, initial 20/- Loop 405/510 PuO2-UO2 1967-1970later 40/_c 1970-

West GermanyKNK 60/20 Loop 360/530 PUO2-UO2 1972-1977

JapanJoyo, initial 50/- Loop 370/435 PuO2-UO2 1977-1977

later 100/-Italy

PEC 118/- Loop 455/520 PUO2-UO2 1979

a Actual pr scheduledb Initially-2 MWt, later-5 MWt, finally-10 MWtc Sometimes called Fortissimo

In the United States, EBR-II is of particular note, having run forover twelve years with a good record of performance.4 SEFOR wasconstructed for the specific purpose of measuring the magnitude ofthe Doppler effect in a prototypic neutronic and temperature environ-ment. SEFOR performed well, starting operation in 1969, and beingdecommissioned in 1973 when the experimental program was success-fully completed on schedule. Fermi experienced difficulties with thesteam generators and with a molten fuel assembly resulting from theblockage of a flow passage. Programmatic difficulties led to the deci-sion to decommission Fermi in 1972. FFTF is under constructionand is expected to go into operation in 1979.5 FFTF will providethe U.S. with a major test facility for the development of improvedfuels and materials.

The Soviet Union began with BR-5. Initially this reactor wascalled BR-2 and operated at 2 MWt using mercury as the coolant. Itwas then modified to a sodium cooled 5 MWt reactor and later modifiedagain to operate at 10 MWt. Subsequently Russia built BOR-60. Bothof these facilities have been successful and have provided useful oper-ating experience. BOR-60 has also been used to test prototypic modelsof the steam generator to be employed in BN-600. Both reactors havebeen operated with failed fuel intentionally left in the reactor (up to1% of the core) for several months without significant detrimentaleffects. This is an important demonstration in the context of operatingand maintaining LMFBRs.

The United Kingdom began its fast breeder program with theDounreay Fast Reactor (DFR), a 60 MWt Nak cooled reactor whichhas been operating since 1963. DFR has provided U.K. with an impor-tant test facility for its breeder work. The UKAEA shut down thefacility in March, 1977, announcing that the mission of the facilityhad been successfully completed and that further work will be carriedout in PFR.

France's first breeder was Rapsodie, a 20MWt plant, later upgradedto 40 MWt and called Fortissimo. Rapsodie began operation in 1969and has been operating satisfactorily since then.

West Germany built KNK, a 60 MWt sodium cooled reactor. Thereactor has been operating since 1972. Initially it was fueled with athermal spectrum core of U02 moderated with zirconium hydride.This phase was called KNK-I. In parallel, a PuO2-UO2 fast spectrumcore was designed and fabricated. This core is expected to go intooperation in 1977 and is called KNK-II. KNK is being used as a testbed for fuels and materials development and to gain experience withLMFBR systems and components.

Japan is completing its JOYO facility, with operation at powerexpected in 1977.* This reactor will provide Japan with fuel andmaterial testing capability, initially at 50 MWt and later at 100 MWt.

Italy is also constructing a test reactor. The reactor, known asPEC, is designed for a power level of 118 MWt and is scheduled foroperation in 1979.

DEMONSTRATION PLANTSThe experience with experimental plants generally has been

succesful. The difficulties encountered with the early plants werethought to be understood, and thus there began a stage of buildingdemonstration plants. These plants are characterized by capacityin the range of 250 to 350 MWe.

There are six demonstration plants throughout the world indifferent stages of completion. These plants, along with pertinentcharacteristics are shown in Table II and III.

The Soviet reactor BN-350 was the first to go into operation.This reactor, located at Shevchenko on the Caspian Sea, has the equiva-lent of 350 MWe capacity-150 MWe of actual electrical generatingcapacity, plus the equivalent of 200 MWe as thermal energy for adesalinization plant.7'8 The reactor achieved criticality near the endof 1972 and reached about 30% of full power in July 1973. Thereactor was initially fueled with a U02 core but with plans to switchlater to PuO2-UO2. The BN-350 is a loop reactor; the reactor has beentroubled with steam generator failures.*Joyo achieved criticality in April, 1977.

531

TABLE II

Demonstration Power Plants

Nation Reactor Power Type Fuel Status

USSR BN-350 350a Loop UO2b Critical-1972France Phenix 250 Pool PuO2-U02 Critical-1973United Kingdom PFR 250 Pool PUO2-U02 Critical-1974West GermanyC SNR-300 310 Loop PU02-U°2 Under constructiondJapan Monju 300 Loop PuO2-U°2 Under designUnited States CRBRPe 350 Loop PUO2-U02 Under designf

a Equivalent 350 MWe-150 MWe actual electrical plus 200 equivalent as desalinization energyb Initial core-UO2; later core-PuO2-UO2c In participation with Belgium and the Netherlandsd Expect operation in 1980e Clinch River Breeder Reactor Plantf Following President Carter's announcements on April 20, 1977, the future plans for CRBRP have yet to be determined.

The second demonstration plant to go into operation was the pins irradiated as of December 1976. More than 5000 pins haveFrench Phenix. Phenix is located in Southern France at Marcoule exceeded the maximum design burnup of 50,000 MWd/t, with someon the Rhone River. Construction was begun in 1968; criticality was reaching a maximum allowable of 66,000 MWd/t. Phenix was shutachieved in August of 1973, and full power operation reported in down temporarily in the latter half of 1976 to make modifications toMarch 1974. Phenix produces 250 MWe, and is a pool reactor.9 The the intermediate heat exchanger, of which two units have experiencedFrench point with pride to the fact that the reactor achieved criticality difficulties with non-radioactive secondary sodium ducts leaking withinin 1973 only five months behind the schedule set up in 1968 at the the heat exchanger. The failures appear to have been caused by struc-start of construction. The reactor was also built for a cost essentially tural deformation of the surrounding irradiation steel shielding whichas estimated in 1968-approximately 10o over the estimate, excluding deformed from thermal expansion.10the effects of inflation. The United Kingdom began construction on the Prototype Fast

Phenix has operated quite successfully since 1974 with an average Reactor (PFR) in 1967. The reactor has capacity for 250 MWe and isavailability of 74% and a load factor over 69% during the first two located at Dounreay in Northern Scotland. The reactor is a pool-type.years of operation.10 No cladding failures have occurred in the 20,000 Criticality was achieved in March 1974, and has been operated at

TABLE III

Pertinent Design and Operating Conditions for Demonstration Plants

Nation USSR France United Kingdom West Germany Japan United States

Plant

PrimarySodium Temp., °CHot Leg/Cold LegSteam Conditions,Pressure, MPaTemperature, °CNo. of CoolantLoops,Primary/SecondaryPump LocationSteam Generatorsper Loop

Evaporator-Superheater-Reheater-

Fuel Burnup,Maximum,MWd/tonAverage,MWd/ton

Breeding RatioFuel Linear

Power, kw/mMaximumAverage

BN-350

500/300

4.9435

Phenix

550/385

16.3510

6/6 3/3Cold Leg Cold Leg

22

-45,000(5 atom %)

1.4

4421

121212

PFR

550/395

12.8515

3/3Cold Leg

111

50,000

75,000

1.2

4326

1.2

4827

SNR-300

545/375

16.0495

3/3Hot Leg

331

87,000

57,000

1.0

38-4923-30

Monju

530/395

12.5485

3/3Cold Leg

111

110,000

80,000

1.2

3721

Clinch River BreederReactor Project

535/390

10.0460

3/3Hot Leg

21

80,000

50,000

1.2

48-5223

532

relatively low powers off ayproblems, mostly caused by

In the Federal Republi(for the demonstration plancapacity and is located onproject is a joint effort withRepublic of Germany isNetherlands 15%. The organutilities, reactor manufacturThe reactor is scheduled for (

This date has slipped aboutattributed primarily to th4thetical and very low probamodated in the design. Thengineering process and afte

Participation in the

Governments

Owner Operator-SBKb

Manufacturer-INBd

Research Centers

w

I

a DEBENELUX countriesBelgium, Holland and Lux

b SBK-Schnellbriuter-Kernc Contributing Utilities plusdINB-Internationale NatriLe Participating reactor manu

The Japanese have becalled Monju.13 Monju is (

and is a loop-type reactor. CIn the United States,

a loop-type reactor designeuled for operation in 198Carter on April 20, 1977,being re-examined. The pricenters around the issue of

nd on since then because of a sequence of faction with the loop concept of BN-350. The reactor is scheduledsteam generator failures.11 for completion in 1978; however, those who have recently visited the

c of Germany, the loop concept was chosen plant question whether it can be ready by that time. It appears to bet, SNR-300. The plant will have 300 MWe taking longer to build BN-600 than BN-350. The reasons for this arethe lower Rhine River near Kalkar. The not known.Belgium and the Netherlands. The Federal The French have begun construction of Superphenix, which willcontributing 70%, Belgium 15% and the have a capacity of 1200 MWe, and is a pool reactor similar to Phenixtizational relationships involve governments except for the steam generators.15'16 The Superphenix project will*ers and laboratories as shown on Table IV. be a multinational project involving the French, German, Dutch,criticality in 1980 and full power in 1981.12 Belgian and Italian governments and utilities and manufacturers with18 months from the original date, and is some participation of the U.K.'s utility, CEGB. The French estimate

e late licensing requirement that a hypo- that Superphenix will be in operation by 1981. The plant will beibility core disassembly accident be accom- located in France near Creys-Malville on the Rhone River near Lyon.is required substantial changes late in the The United Kingdom has engineering work in progress on ther construction had already begun. Commercial Fast Reactor (CFR). This plant, like the French Super-

phenix, is being designed for approximately 1300 MWe and is a poolTABLE IV reactor. The U.K. has no firm plans to begin construction.

The Germans, with their partners from Belgium and The Nether-DEBENELUXU SNR-300 Project lands, are engineering a 1300 MWe plant. This plant has been designated

SNR-2 and was initially studied as a 2000 MWe plant.17 It is expectedGermany Netherlands Belgium that the plant will be a loop-type. The plans are to start construction

approximately 1 year after startup of SNR-300, which would be inRWE SEP Synatom 1981, if the current SNR-300 schedule holds firm. The construction(68%)c (14.5%)c (14.5%)c phase is expected to be supported by the international utility associa-

ImBelgo-Nucleaire tion of the Belgian-Dutch-German utility company SBK, the Italiant e (15%)e (r5%)e utility ENEL and the French utility EdF.

Japan has initiated preliminary engineering studies on a plant.18GFK RCN/TNO CEN/SCK The studies centered on a 1500 MWe plant, considering both pool and

loop options, as well as hot cell and under-the-plug refueling.

include Federal Republic of Germany, In the United States, ERDA and EPRI jointly sponsored engi-emburg neering projects with three teams for the design of the Prototypekraftwerksgesellschaft, independent utility Large Breeder Reactor Project (PLBR). This project was started ink3%from the UK'slcEGB the latter part of 1975 and was scheduled for completion in theum-Brutreaktor-Baugesellschaft summer of 1978. The project was proceeding on the basis of a loop-facturers type plant with a net power of approximately 900 MWe. However,

as part of President Carter's announcements on the energy programaen engineering their demonstration plant on April 20, 1977, ERDA has announced its withdrawal from thisexpected to have a capacity of 300 MWe project, effective June, 1977. EPRI plans to continue to work butonstruction plans are not yet firm. with some modification to the plan. Among the changes, EPRI plansthe Clinch River demonstration plant is to re-examine the selection of the loop concept, and is expected

d for 350 MWe.14 The reactor was sched- to initiate design work on the pool concept to provide the basis for34. However, as announced by President further evaluation of these two approaches.the plans for the Clinch River project are These efforts indicate the seriousness with which the breederimary concern expressed by the President program is being taken internationally, with plans to push aheadproliferation of plutonium-based weapons. toward plants of interest to utilities.

FUTURE PLANTS DESIGN FEATURES

The future plants are shown in Table V. In the Soviet Union,construction of BN-600 has been underway since 1968. The plantwill have a capacity of 600 MWe. The Soviets picked a pool reactorfor this plant. It is understood that this choice stems from a plan toexplore both loop and pool options and not necessarily from dissatis-

A. Choice of Fuel

Early on, all nations selected the same fuel concept for launchingthe breeder as an energy producer-namely the use of the oxidePuO2-U02. The early breeders in the U.S. (EBR-II, Fermi) and U.K.

TABLE V

Future Power Plant

Nations Reactor Power Type Fuel Status

USSRUnited KingdomFranceW. GermanyJapan

BN-600CRF

SuperphenixSNR-2

6001300120013001500

PoolPoolPool

LoopLoop orPool

PuO2-Uo2PU02-Uo2PU02-Uo2PU02-Uo2PU02-Uo2

ConstructionEngineeringConstructionEngineeringEngineering

United States PLBR PU02-UO2 Engineering900 Loop

(DFR) used metallic fuel alloys, however, it was recognized early inthe breeder program that the ceramic oxide would provide the betterpotential for obtaining the desired fuel performance. Some work is inprogress in most countries on improved irradiation resistant structuralalloys and other ceramic fuel forms (i.e., carbides and nitrides); how-ever, these are being considered as longer-term potential improvementsand not as necessary for introducing the breeder into the electricalgenerating system.

However, in the United States, ERDA has decided, as part ofPresident Carter's Energy plan, to investigate alternate fuel cyclesinvolving fissile-fertile combinations other than Pu-U to determineif alternatives can be developed which are potentially more prolifer-ation resistant. It remains to be seen whether other nations followa similar course.

In the meantime, good experience has been obtained with thePlutonium-uranium oxide fuel. Perhaps the most significant experiencehas been generated in the Phenix plant where maximum burnups of66,000 MWd/te have been obtained with reported good success

(design was based on 50,000 MWd/te). Some 20,000 pins have beenirradiated without failure. The SEFOR used PuO2-UO2 fuel and per-formed without fuel failures, despite the severe transients which were

intentionally conducted as a part of the Doppler measurement program.

Generally, the austenitic stainless steels have been selected forthe fuel cladding. Some have chosen wire wrapping for spacing thepins; others, grid spacers. Some have chosen a plenum for accumulatingfission gases to be located at the bottom of the pin while others havechosen the location at the top.

B. Choice of Coolant

All nations have selected sodium as the liquid metal. Some of thevery first reactors used NaK. Sodium has better heat transfer character-istics and a higher boiling point, thereby providing substantial tem-perature margins during transient conditions.

C. Choice of Reactor Coolant System

There are two major coolant system concepts which have beendeveloped-the Loop and the Pool. As noted earlier, the pool conceptcontains the equivalent of the primary circuit in a large tank of sodium,whereas in the loop concept the components are connected by piping.There are of course advantages and disadvantages to each concept. Itis not clear at this stage of development which is better, if indeedthere is a preferred approach.

The U.K. and France have chosen the pool approach. The U.S.built EBR-II as a pool, but has switched to the loop concept for itssubsequent plants. The Soviets chose the loop for their first plantsbut have built a pool for their most recent reactor, BN-600. Japan andGermany are building loop-type plants.

The primary piping systems in France's Rapsodie, Japan's Joyoand the USSR's BOR-60 and BN-350 use double-wall piping to protectagainst the problem of pipe leakage, whereas the piping systems in theother loop reactors protect against this problem by the use of guardtanks surrounding the reactor vessel, pump and intermediate heatexchanger.

An interesting feature of the German KNK test reactor is the use

of ferritic steel for the fabrication of the reactor vessel, sodium pipingsystems and intermediate heat exchangers. Generally, these compo-nents have been fabricated of the austenitic steels. The specific ferriticalloy used was 2-1/4 Cr-lMo-Ni-Nb steel.6

D. Steam Generators

The steam generator designs have been varied and the experienceshave also been different. The steam generator is a key component inthe development of the LMFBR because it must transfer heat fromthe sodium coolant to the water-steam system required by the turbine.Even small leaks between sodium and water can cause severe problemsbecause of the reactive nature of sodium and water. For this reason

the steam generator must be highly reliable. Table VI summarizesthe essential features of some designs.

533

The U.S. has had excellent success with the double-wall, straighttube units in EBR-II. The double wall concept was used to assure thatany leaks in either wall would not allow sodium and water to com-municate with each other. These units have operated without failurefor over twelve years. They are made of unstabilized 2-1/4 Cr-lMo inrelatively small size m,odules.

The Fermi steam generators, a once-through design with helicalcoil and single wall tubes, experienced failures. On the other hand, thesingle wall, hockey stick concept selected for Clinch River has per-formed well in a 30 MW module test.

The Soviets experienced difficulty with the bayonnet tube unitsin BN-350. The failures have been attributed to faulty welds in thebottom cap. Different designs for BN-600 have been developed andtested in BOR-60, apparently with good success.

The single-wall steam generators in the U.K.'s PFR have giventrouble-porous welds seem to be a major contributor. A major re-design is under way for replacement units and for the CFR application.

The French have good experience thus far with the Phenix single-wall steam generators. The Phenix units are highly modularized andbecause of the relatively high cost of this design, the French have goneto a completely different design for Superphenix, which has beensuccessfully tested with 50 MW models.

The German KNK steam generators developed a small leak in atube at the weld of a spacer fin attachment. The unit was repaired inapproximately six weeks. The caustic reaction products from the leakrequired cleaning of both the water and secondary sodium systems.50 MW models of new designs have been successfully tested for use inSNR-300.

The Japanese have successfully tested 50 MW models of thedesign for Monju.

Some general observations can be made from these experiences.Essentially all countries are using the ferritic steel, 2-1/4 Cr-lMo withminor alloying additions in some cases to achieve a stabilized grade ofsteel, for the evaporators. This material has been shown to be highlycorrosion resistant. For the superheaters, some nations have chosenaustenitic steels because of the improved strength at the higher tem-peratures of the superheat conditions, while others have used ferriticsteels. The austenitic steels are much more susceptible to stress cor-rosion cracking.

Virtually all steam generator designs have used the single-walltube, with the notable exception of EBR-II's double-wall design.There is much variation at this stage of development in the choice oftube configurations, tube-to-tube sheet joints, water recirculatingconditions, and size of modules. Steam generator sodium-water leaksaffect not only the component and its repair, but also the adjacentsodium and water piping systems which need to be thoroughly cleanedof the caustic reaction products to minimize deterioration of thesesystems.

Much work is being conducted in all countries to develop reliableunits and there is a good exchange of technical information among thenations.

E. Operating Temperature

The design and operation of the LMFBR is sensitive both to thereactor outlet temperature and the temperature rise across the reactor(outlet temperature minus inlet temperature). These temperaturesinfluence in a large measure the consequences of system thermal tran-sients on structural components.

In Table VII, a temperature comparison is made of the reactors.The later plants seem to have centered around a reactor outlet tem-perature of 530-5500C, with a temperature rise ranging from 130 to170°C. An exception seems to be BN-350 with a relative large ATof 2000C.

FUEL PROCESSING

The U.K., recognizing the importance of demonstrating not onlyreactor performance but also the fuel cycle, is completing reconstruc-tion of a fuel reprocessing facility at Dounreay, to process the fueldischarge from PFR. The facility is expected to be ready near the end

534TABLE VI

Steam Generator

Country/Reactor Material Type Comments

2-1/4 Cr-lMo

2-1/4 Cr-lMo

2-1/4 Cr-lMo

lCr-2Mo

Evap.-lCr-lMoSupht.-18Cr-9Ni

Evap.-2-1/4 Cr-lMoSupht.-321 S.S.

Incoloy

Double wall tubesStraight tube,RecirculatingSingle wall, tubesU-tube,Once-throughSingle wall, tubesHockey stickRecirculating

Single wall tubesBayonnet tubeRecirculatingSingle wall tubesStraight tubesOnce-through

Single wall tubesSerpentineOnce-throughSingle wall tubeHelical coilOnce-through

Operating over 12 yearswithout failure

Failures

Successful test of30 MW model

Failures

Successful testsin BOR-60

Successful operation

Successful testswith 50 MW Models

United KingdomPFR Evap.-2-1/4 Cr-1Mo

Nb stabilizedSupht.-316 S.S.

Single wall tubesU-tubeRecirculation

2-1/4 Cr-lMoNb stabilized

Evap.-2-1/4 Cr-lMoSupht.-304 S.S.

Single wall tubes2 units-Straight tube1 unit-Helical coilOnce-through

Single wall tubes,Helical coil,Once-through

Successful testswith 50 MW models

Successful testswith 50 MW models

of 1977. This plant was initially built to process metallic fuel fromDFR and is being rebuilt to handle the PFR oxide fuels.

INTERNATIONAL EXCHANGE OF TECHNOLOGY

There is substantial international exchange of breeder technology.The United States government has protocols established with the USSR,United Kingdom, Federal Republic of Germany, Japan and France toexchange LMFBR technology. There is a flow of information carriedout via formal exchange meetings, joint development and opportunityfor informal dialogue. Similar technical exchange agreements existbetween many other nations.

As noted earlier, international partnerships have been formed inEurope to engineer and construct breeder reactors. The Germans,Dutch and Belgians on SNR-300 and French, Germans, Italians,Dutch, Belgians and U.K. participating in varying degrees on theSuperphenix project and subsequently on the SNR-2 project.

CONCLUSION

Considerable experience has already been acquired internationallythrough the design, construction, operation and supporting R&D ofliquid metal breeder plants.

Twelve breeder plants have been built and operated around theworld, not counting the earliest of breeder experiments. Five plantsare under construction and four plants are being designed.

While there have been some problems with first-of-kind equipment,nonetheless the overall experience has been good and indicates thetechnical feasibility of designing and operating reliable liquid metalfast breeder systems as energy producers for utility grids.

Assuming that the favorable experience of the past continuesand the remaining problems are successfully resolved, the breederoffers the promise of a long-term economical energy supply, basedupon presently known uranium reserves. Realization of this promisecan go a long way towards relieving present fuel and energy shortagesthroughout the world.

United StatesEBR-II

Fermi

Clinch River

USSRBN-350

BN-600

FrancePhenix

Superphenix

West GermanySNR-300

Failures

JapanMonju

Table VII

Sodium Temperatures19

Nation/Reactor Hot Leg Cold Leg Temp. DifferenceOC OC OC

United StatesEBR-IIFermiFFTFClinch River

USSRBOR-60BN-350BN-600

FranceRapsodiePhenixSuperphenix

United KingdomDFRPFRCFR

West GermanyKNKSNR-300SNR-2

JapanJoyoMonju

ItalyPEC

475425555535

520500550

510550545

370290360390

340300380

405385380

350 230550 395540 370

525 360545 375550 380

435 370530 395

520 450

105135195145

180200170

105165165

130155170

165170170

65135

70

REFERENCES

[1] K. M. Horst, P. M. Murphy, and R. S. Palmer, "The Eco-nomic Outlook for Commercial LMFBR's." AdvancedReactors: Physics, Design and Economics. Edited by J. M.Kallfetlz and R. A. Karam, Pergamon Press-Oxford. NewYork. Toronto. Sydney. Paris. Braunschweig-1975, pp.

105-120.

[2] V. Daunert, R. Lamarche, and H. K. Mani, "The German-Belgian-Dutch Fast Breeder Collaboration: Its Aims andOrganization." Nuclear Engineering International, July1976, Vol. 21, pp. 39-40.

[3] R. G. Hewlett and F. Duncan, Nuclear Navy, 1946-1962.University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1974.

[4] W. H. Perry, et. al., "Operating Experience with ExperimentalBreeder Reactor-II." Proceedings of 1976 ASME-ANSInternational Conference on Advanced Nuclear Energy Sys-tems, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, March 14-17,1976, pp. 29-54.

[5] R. C. Mairson, et. al., "Fast Flux Test Facility Major Com-ponent Testing Experience and Plant Construction Expe-rience." Proceedings of 1976 ASME-ANS InternationalConference on Advanced Nuclear Energy Systems, Pitts-burgh, Pennsylvania, March 14-17, 1976, pp. 55-88.

535

[6] W. Marth, "KNK Power Plant-Achievements and FuturePrograms." Proceedings of the 1976 ASME-ANS Interna-tional Conference on Advanced Energy Systems, Pittsburgh,Pennsylvania, March 14-17, 1976, pp. 89-95.

[ 7] F. M. Mitenkov, et. al., "Results of Research and Experienceof Nuclear Power Station Startup with the BN-350 Reactor."Proceedings ofBNES International Conference, Fast ReactorPower Stations, London, March 11-14, 1974, pp. 27-32.

[8] "Soviet Power Reactors," 1970, Report of the UnitedStates of America Nuclear Power Reactor Delegation Visitto the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, June 15-July 1,1970, WASH-1175.

[9] J. M. Megy, et. al., "Phenix Construction and OperatingExperience", Proceedings of 1976 ASME-ANS InternationalConference on Advanced Energy Systems, Pittsburgh, Penn-sylvania, March 14-17, 1976, pp. 3-12.

[10] G. Vendryes, "International Cooperation Will Benefit theDevelopment of Advanced Reactors," Nuclear EngineeringInternational, December 1976, pp. 60-64.

[11] R. Carle and A. D. Evans, "Operating Experience of Phenixand the Dounreay Prototype Fast Reactor," Nuclear EnergyMaturity Proceedings of the European Nuclear Conference,Paris, April 21-25, 1975, P. Zaleski, Ed., Pergamon Press,Oxford. New York. Toronto. Sydney. Paris. Braunschweig,pp. 250-261.

[12] A. Brandstetter, E. A. Guthmann, and K. Stohr, "SNR Con-struction Experience," Proceedings of 1976 ASME-ANSInternational Conference on Advanced Reactor Systems,Pittsburgh, March 14-17, 1976, pp. 97-103.

[13] R. Miki, et. al., "Brief Description of Planned PrototypeFBR Monju of Japan." Proceedings of BNES InternationalConference, Fast Reactor Power Stations, London, March11-14, 1974, pp. 15-18.

[14] W. M. Jacobi, "The Clinch River Breeder Reactor ProjectNuclear Steam Supply System," Nuclear Engineering Inter-national, October 1974, pp. 846-850.

[15] R. J. Carle, "Super Phenix: First Commercial Plant of theFast Breeder Line." Journal of British Nuclear EnergySociety, July 1975, 14, pp. 183-190.

[16] Casini, et. al., "Superphenix: Status of the Creys-MalvillePlant," Proceedings of the 1976 ASME-ANS InternationalConference on Advanced Reactor Systems, Pittsburgh,March 14-17, 1976, pp. 547-562.

[17] E. A. Guthmann, "Status of Preliminary Design of SNR-2."Proceedings of 1976 ASME-ANS International Conferenceon Advanced Reactor Systems, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania,March 14-17, 1976, pp. 563-569.

[18] N. Tanaka and T. Kojima, "A Study of the CommercialFast Breeder Reactors in Japan." Proceedings of the 1976ASME-ANS International Conference on Advanced ReactorSystems, Pittsburgh, March 14-17, 1976, pp. 571-581.

[19] LMFBR Plant Parameters, Compiled by InternationalWorking Group on Fast Reactors, International AtomicEnergy Agency, IWGFR/14, December, 1976.