capacity. Despite its use on several existing reactors, the technology for the ball screw mechanism, with its required separate scram latch was not as well developed in the U.S.A. as the roller nut type. In addition, the maintenance functions are net as straightforward with the existing ball screw type drive. The modifications required to improve the maintenance functions as well as to meet the FFTF space constraints would have resulted in an essentially new and untested design. Therefore, the roller nut drive mechanism was the logical choice, based on its operational capabilities and well developed technology.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract