ML14363A399
Text
B/B-UFSAR 1.0-i REVISION 5 - DECEMBER 1994 CHAPTER 1.0 - INTRODUCTION AND GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF PLANT TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
1.0 INTRODUCTION
AND GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF PLANT 1.1-1
1.1 INTRODUCTION
1.1-1 1.2 GENERAL PLANT DESCRIPTION 1.2-1 1.2.1 Site and Environment 1.2-1 1.2.2 Nuclear Steam Supply System 1.2-1 1.2.3 Engineered Safety Features 1.2-2 1.2.4 Emergency Core Cooling System 1.2-3 1.2.5 Control and Instrumentation 1.2-3 1.2.6 Electrical System 1.2-4 1.2.7 Turbine and Auxiliaries 1.2-4 1.2.8 Fuel Handling System 1.2-5 1.2.9 Radioactive Waste Management System 1.2-5 1.2.10 Features of Special Interest 1.2-5 1.2.11 Structures 1.2-6
1.3 COMPARISON TABLES 1.3-1 1.3.1 Comparisons with Similar Facility Designs 1.3-1 1.3.2 Comparison of Final and Preliminary Information 1.3-2 1.3.3 References 1.3-2
1.4 IDENTIFICATION OF AGENTS AND CONTRACTORS 1.4-1 1.4.1 Licensee 1.4-1 1.4.2 Architect-Engineer 1.4-1 1.4.3 Reactor Designer 1.4-1 1.4.4 Constructor 1.4-2 1.4.5 Consultants and Service Organization 1.4-2 1.4.5.1 Security Systems - ETA 1.4-2 1.4.5.2 Dames & Moore 1.4-3 1.4.5.3 HARZA Engineering 1.4-3 1.4.5.4 Murray and Trettel, Inc. 1.4-3 1.4.5.5 Shirmer Engineering Corporation 1.4-3 1.4.5.6 Hyla S. Napadensky 1.4-4 1.4.5.7 NALCO Chemical Company 1.4-4 1.4.5.8 Westinghouse Environmental Systems Department (WESD) 1.4-4 1.4.5.9 Illinois Natural History Survey (INHS) 1.4-5 1.4.5.10 NUS Corporation 1.4-5 1.4.5.11 Eberline Instrument Corporation (EIC) 1.4-5
B/B-UFSAR 1.0-ii REVISION 9 - DECEMBER 2002 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont'd)
PAGE 1.4.5.12 Meteorology Research, Inc. (MRI) 1.4-5 1.4.5.13 Illinois State Museum (ISM) 1.4-6 1.4.5.14 Equitable Environmental Health, Inc. (EEH) 1.4-6 1.4.5.15 Espey, Huston & Associates, Inc. (EH & A) 1.4-6 1.4.5.16 University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee (UWM) 1.4-7 1.4.5.17 Aero-Metric Engineering, Inc. (AME) 1.4-7 1.4.5.18 Iowa Institute of Hydraulic Research 1.4-7 1.4.5.19 Babcock and Wilcox International (B&W) 1.4-8 1.4.5.20 Framatome Technologies, Incorporated (FTI) 1.4-8 1.4.5.21 Stone & Webster Engineers and Constructors, Inc, (S&W) 1.4-8 1.5 REQUIREMENTS FOR FURTHER TECHNICAL INFORMATION 1.5-1 1.5.1 Programs Required For Plant Operation 1.5-1 1.5.1.1 Core Stability Evaluation 1.5-1 1.5.2 Other Programs Not Required For Plant Operation 1.5-1 1.5.2.1 Fuel Development Program For Operation at High Power Densities 1.5-2 1.5.2.2 Blowdown Forces Program 1.5-2 1.5.2.3 Blowdown Heat Transfer Testing 1.5-2 1.5.3 References 1.5-4
1.6 MATERIAL INCORPORATED BY REFERENCES 1.6-1 1.7 DRAWINGS 1.7-1 1.7.1 Electrical, Instrumentation, and Control Drawings 1.7-1 1.7.2 Drawings for Independent Structural Review 1.7-1
B/B-UFSAR 1.0-iii REVISION 9 - DECEMBER 2002 CHAPTER 1.0 - INTRODUCTION AND GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF PLANT LIST OF TABLES
NUMBER TITLE PAGE 1.3-1 Plants Using Three-Buttress Containment Design 1.3-3 1.4-1 Exelon Generation Company's Nuclear Power Plants in Service or Under Construction 1.4-9 1.4-2 Nuclear Power Plants Completed or Currently Under Design by Sargent & Lundy 1.4-10 1.4-3 Westinghouse Pressurized Water Reactor Nuclear Power Plants 1.4-11 1.5-1 Blowdown Heat Transfer Phase I Test Parameters 1.5-5 1.5-2 Blowdown Heat Transfer Phase II Test Parameters 1.5-6 1.6-1 Topical Reports Incorporated by Reference 1.6-2 1.7-1 Deleted 1.7-2
B/B-UFSAR 1.0-iv REVISION 9 - DECEMBER 2002 CHAPTER 1.0 - INTRODUCTION AND GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF PLANT DRAWINGS CITED IN THIS CHAPTER*
- The listed drawings are included as "General References" only; i.e., refer to the drawings to obtain additional detail or to obtain background information. These drawings are not part of the UFSAR. They are controlled by the Controlled Documents Program.
DRAWINGS* SUBJECT M-1 General Site Plan Units 1 & 2 M-2 Property Development Units 1 & 2 M-5 General Arrangement Roof Plan Units 1 & 2 M-6 General Arrangement Main Floor At El. 451'-0" Units 1 & 2 M-7 General Arrangement Mezzanine Floor At El. 426'-0" Units 1 & 2 M-8 General Arrangement Grade Floor At El. 401'-0" Units 1 & 2 M-9 General Arrangement Floor Plan At El. 383'-0" Units 1 & 2 M-10 General Arrangement Basement Floor At El. 364'-0" Units 1 & 2 M-11 General Arrangement Floor Plan At El. 346'-0" Units 1 & 2 M-12 General Arrangement Radwaste/Service Building Units 1 & 2 M-13 General Arrangement Fuel Handling Building Units 1 & 2 M-14 General Arrangement Section "A-A" Units 1 & 2 M-15 General Arrangement Section "B-B" Units 1 & 2 M-16 General Arrangement Section "C-C" and "D-D" Units 1 & 2 M-17 General Arrangement Section "E-E" Units 1 & 2 M-18 General Arrangement Section "F-F" Units 1 & 2 M-19 General Arrangement Lake Screen House Units 1 & 2 (Braidwood) M-20 General Arrangement River Screen House Units 1 & 2 M-22 General Arrangement Miscellaneous Plans Units 1 & 2 M-34 P&ID Index and Symbols Units 1 & 2
B/B-UFSAR 1.3-1 REVISION 8 - DECEMBER 2000 1.3 COMPARISON TABLES 1.3.1 Comparisons with Similar Facility Designs The design is conceptually similar to Exelon Generation Company's Zion Station. Differences in the design of the two plants have been allowed only (1) when dictated by the site characteristics, (2) when the change would result in significant safety improvement, simplification of construction or operation procedures, or cost savings; or (3) as required to comply with appropriate codes and standards, NRC criteria, regulatory guides, and regulations.
The nuclear steam supply system is similar to that of the Zion Station but has a slightly higher power rating. The reactor containments are of the same materials and size as those at the Zion Station, but each has only three buttresses, rather than six as used at Zion. The number of post-tensioning tendons is reduced, and the number of wires per tendon increased, from that used at Zion. The reduced number of buttresses allows for greater separation of penetration areas for redundant safety-related systems. Several plants on which this buttress design has been used are listed in Table 1.3-1. The polar cranes in the reactor containment are mounted on the containment wall, rather than on the missile barrier as at Zion. This allows use of a greater area for component laydown in the containment.
Two 100%-capacity containment spray systems are used, rather than the three systems used at Zion. Four containment fan coolers are used, rather than the five used at Zion. The emergency diesel-generator systems for each unit are entirely independent and use two 5500-kW diesel generators per unit. The arrangement of equipment in the common auxiliary building allows greater physical separation of redundant systems and their piping and cables than was possible at Zion. The Byron Station uses natural draft cooling towers for heat rejection. Zion utilizes once-through cooling. Mechanical draft cooling towers are provided for essential service cooling at Byron.
The Braidwood Station uses a large man-made cooling pond for heat rejection. An auxiliary cooling pond, integral with the main pond, is provided for essential service cooling.
Table 1.3-2 of the FSAR provided the design comparison of the Byron/Braidwood nuclear steam supply system with Comanche Peak, Indian Point 2, South Texas, Sun Desert, W. B. McGuire Nuclear Station, Trojan Nuclear Power Plant, SNUPPS, and the Watts Bar Application. This information was current at the time the Byron Unit 1 operating license was granted and has not been included in the UFSAR.
B/B-UFSAR 1.3-2 REVISION 8 - DECEMBER 2000 1.3.2 Comparison of Final and Preliminary Information The Byron/Braidwood Power Plant design was subject to continuing review throughout the construction of the stations. The experience gained at Zion Station and other PWRs was used to enhance equipment reliability and performance. Current design technology was used to upgrade earlier plant design methods. No significant design changes have been made to the Byron Station or the Braidwood Station which have not been previously reported by amendment to the PSAR, except for the inclusion of 17 x 17 optimized fuel. Table 1.3-3 of the FSAR listed those significant changes reported since the issuance of the Byron and Braidwood Stations Construction Permits. This information was current at the time the Byron Unit 1 operating license was granted and has not been included in the UFSAR.
Other changes included the removal of the part length control rods (they are not needed to control Xenon induced axial instabilities), the enlargement of spent fuel capacity, the use of more corrosion-resistant materials in the steam generators and moisture steam separators, improved equipment packaging to do a reactor refueling in a shorter time period, an upgraded design for the reactor coolant pump seals, and replacement steam generators for Unit 1. These concepts are described in later chapters.
1.3.3 References 1. Exelon Generation Company, "Byron/Braidwood Stations Fire Protection Report in Response to Appendix A of BTP APCSB 9.5-1," (current amendment).
B/B-UFSAR 1.3-3 TABLE 1.3-1 PLANTS USING THREE-BUTTRESS CONTAINMENT DESIGN PLANT/UTILITY DATE OF OPERATION Arkansas Nuclear One Arkansas Power & Light Co. 5-21-74 Millstone-2 Northeast Utilities 8-1-75 Rancho Seco Sacramento Municipal Utility District 8-16-74 Trojan Portland General Electric Co. 11-21-75 J.M. Farley-1 Alabama Power Co. 6-25-77 B/B-UFSAR 1.4-1 REVISION 8 - DECEMBER 2000 1.4 IDENTIFICATION OF AGENTS AND CONTRACTORS 1.4.1 Licensee Exelon Generation Company is the Licensee for the Byron Station, Units 1 and 2, which is located in Rockvale Township, Ogle County, approximately 4 miles south of Byron, Illinois, and for Units 1 and 2 of the Braidwood Station, which is located in Reed Township, Will County, approximately 6 miles southwest of Wilmington, Illinois. The Licensee is responsible for the design, construction, and operation of the nuclear power plants.
Commonwealth Edison supplies electrical service to an area of 13,000 square miles with a population of approximately 8 million persons, located primarily in the northern third of Illinois.
Dresden 1, Commonwealth Edison's first nuclear generating station, went into commercial service during August 1960, and has produced more than 10 billion kWh. Additional nuclear units in service or under construction are listed in Table 1.4-1.
1.4.2 Architect-Enqineer For the work covered by this application, Sargent & Lundy (S&L) has been retained as the design consultants. The Licensee has employed Sargent & Lundy for power plant design work for over 80 years. Sargent & Lundy is an independent consulting engineering organization founded in Chicago, in 1891. For over three-quarters of a century, the firm has specialized exclusively in the design of generation, transmission, distribution, and utilization of steam and electric power and related facilities. The firm has provided the complete engineering services for more than 600 turbine-generator units with a total capacity of 53,000,000 kW. Of this total, some 9,800,000 kW is in nuclear generating capacity. Table 1.4-2 lists the nuclear plants completed by or currently under design by Sargent & Lundy. 1.4.3 Reactor Designer Westinghouse has designed, developed, and manufactured nuclear power facilities since the 1950s, beginning with the world's first large central station nuclear power plant (Shippingport), which started producing power in 1957. Completed or contracted B/B-UFSAR 1.4-2 REVISION 5 - DECEMBER 1994 commercial nuclear capacity totals were in excess of 98,000 MWe. Westinghouse pioneered new nuclear design concepts, such as chemical shim control of reactivity and the rod cluster control concept, throughout the last two decades. Westinghouse manufacturing facilities include the largest commercial nuclear fuel fabrication facility in the world and the world's most modern heat transfer equipment production facility, as well as other facilities producing nuclear steam supply system (NSSS) components. Table 1.4-3 lists all Westinghouse pressurized water reactor (PWR) plants to date, including those plants under construction or on order at the time of the Byron/Braidwood application. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and the Electric Power Research Institute have contracted with Westinghouse for research into NSSS-related activities. Westinghouse experience was also utilized by the NRC and Metropolitan Edison immediately following the Three Mile Island Unit 2 accident and the corporation continues to participate with the Westinghouse Owner's Group of utilities in addressing the NRC action plan and other operations improvements.
1.4.4 Constructor Construction coordination of all activities at the site was under the supervision of the Commonwealth Edison's Station Construction Department. The department exercises site managerial functions as discussed in Chapter 17.0 of the UFSAR. The Station Construction Department was the constructor for Zion Station. This department has coordinated the construction activities for almost all of Commonwealth Edison's existing power plants. It was also the construction coordinator for La Salle County Station.
1.4.5 Consultants and Service Organization 1.4.5.1 Security System - ETA The design of the physical security system and the administrative controls was performed by ETA, Inc. ETA personnel have had varied and in-depth experience in the design, safety analysis, and environmental review of nuclear power plants and related facilities as well as in the management and organization of security systems. They are very familiar with the details of the current generation of light water reactors and, in particular, those critical areas and components of the plants which might be the most vulnerable to sabotage. They are also familiar with the current regulations and guidelines of the NRC that define the required performance and objectives of a security system for licensed activities.
B/B-UFSAR 1.4-3 1.4.5.2 Dames & Moore The independent consulting firm of Dames & Moore was employed to conduct studies relating to the geology, seismology, and groundwater hydrology at both sites. The firm also conducted preconstruction baseline studies, including wildlife surveys as well as soil and vegetation analyses. Having performed environmental studies for approximately 30 nuclear power plant sites, Dames & Moore is a recognized authority in the field of environmental engineering of nuclear power plants. 1.4.5.3 HARZA Engineering HARZA was employed in the design of the water treatment facilities at both stations. HARZA has been involved with a variety of technical studies for at least ten nuclear power stations. Among these studies have been facility design, review of design and structure, hydrology, and groundwater. In addition, HARZA Engineering has designed some of the largest hydroelectric projects in the world, including major concrete structures and earthfilled dams. 1.4.5.4 Murray and Trettel, Inc.
Murray and Trettel (M&T) is an environmental consulting firm which, since 1960, has provided significant meteorological input to both preoperational and operational phases of meteorological programs for nuclear power stations. M&T has also provided meteorological input to a wide variety of air pollution and environmental problems as well as allied control technique programs.
Murray & Trettel provided meteorological data for both stations by implementation of an onsite measurement program incorporating a tower for elevation measurements. 1.4.5.5 Shirmer Engineering Corporation Shirmer Engineering is a firm of consulting fire protection engineers. The firm has done work on 17 Department of Energy nuclear fuel production and laboratory facilities, as well as for numerous nuclear power stations for Sargent & Lundy. Shirmer Engineering has also performed services for many fossil units. Shirmer Engineering provided evaluation of the fire protection systems at both stations and assisted in the preparation of the Byron/Braidwood Fire Protection Report.
B/B-UFSAR 1.4-4 1.4.5.6 Hyla S. Napadensky Ms. Napadensky was retained to help evaluate the probability of an accidental explosion occurring on a train carrying explosives in the vicinity of the Braidwood Station. Ms. Napadensky is the Manager of Fire Safety Research at the IIT Research Institute of the Illinois Institute of Technology. Ms. Napadensky has directed analytical and experimental research in the areas of explosion effects, hazards and risk analysis, safety of chemical systems, explosives and propellant sensitivity, and initiation mechanisms during her 17 years with IIT Research Institute.
1.4.5.7 NALCO Chemical Company The NALCO Chemical Company (formerly Industrial Bio-Test, Inc.) consisted of two divisions, Industrial Bio-Test Laboratories, and NALCO Environmental Sciences, which conduct studies relating to toxicology and ecological sciences, respectively. The Environmental Science Division includes seven subdivisions: (1) aquatic biology, (2) fisheries and field operations, (3) water and wastewater chemistry, (4) radiochemistry, (5) air sciences and data processing, (6) land and plant sciences, and (7) environmental physiology. As a technical consultant on the Braidwood project, the NALCO Chemical Company provided a clam bed mapping survey in the area of the station's intake and discharge structures located on the Kankakee River. 1.4.5.8 Westinghouse Environmental Systems Department (WESD)
WESD, established as a department of the Westinghouse Power Systems Company in 1969, consisted of environmental scientists and engineers experienced in the areas of aquatic and terrestrial biology and ecology; geology; limnology; environmental chemistry and physics; physical oceanography, meteorology and climatology, radiology, public health aspects of pollutant emissions, and systems engineering and integration.
WESD conducts broad environmental surveys, environmental program planning and data interpretation, and provides recommended action programs for meeting federal, state, and local environmental quality regulations. As a technical consultant on the Braidwood project, WESD staff biologists conducted a 2-year baseline study of the Braidwood Station site. Distributions of phytoplankton, zooplankton, periphyton, benthos, fish, fish eggs and larvae, and water chemistry in the Kankakee River in the vicinity of the site were determined, and quantitative data on terrestrial flora and fauna were collected. The impacts of plant construction and operation in the biotic communities of the site were predicted.
B/B-UFSAR 1.4-5 1.4.5.9 Illinois Natural History Survey (INHS) The Illinois Natural History Survey (INHS), which has its beginnings almost 120 years ago, is a division of the State Department of Registration and Education and provides services to farmers, homeowners, sportsmen, and all other citizens of Illinois as well as to industries. INHS cooperates in biological research with the Illinois Department of Agriculture, Conservation, and Public Health; the University of Illinois, Southern Illinois University, and other educational institutions; various research branches of the federal government; and other agricultural, conservation, municipal, and business organizations throughout the state. INHS aquatic biologists were involved in a 4-year study of the Kankakee River and Horse Creek near Custer Park, Illinois. The purpose of the study is to obtain biological, physical, and chemical data which will be used to evaluate any effects of the construction and operation of the Braidwood Station and its associated cooling lake on the biota and water quality of the Kankakee River and Horse Creek. The station's cooling pond will use the Kankakee River as a source of water for both intake and discharge purposes.
1.4.5.10 NUS Corporation NUS Corporation is a consulting engineering, research, and testing firm specializing in environmental and energy systems engineering, systems analysis, design engineering, management consulting, and training programs related to these areas. NUS has provided advice and professional guidance to utility, industrial, and government clients throughout the United States and in a number of foreign countries.
As a technical consultant on the Braidwood project, NUS was involved in a study to determine the adequacy of the station's ultimate heat sink.
1.4.5.11 Eberline Instrument Corporation (EIC)
Eberline Instrument Corporation (EIC) has provided radiation measurement equipment, comprehensive radiation protection services, and analytical laboratory services to the nuclear industry since 1953. As a technical consultant on the Byron/Braidwood projects EIC performed preoperational environmental radiological baseline studies on and around the site. 1.4.5.12 Meteorology Research, Inc. (MRI) Meteorology Research, Inc. (MRI) is an environmental consulting firm which, since 1951, has provided meteorological and air B/B-UFSAR 1.4-6 REVISION 1 - DECEMBER 1989 quality instruments and services to all aspects of industry in the solution of weather-related problems. These range from environmental impact assessments of existing or proposed airports and other major developments to problems of warehousing and marketing seasonal consumer goods. Of particular interest is the influence the local topography has on temperatures and winds. MRI provided meteorological data from 1973 through mid-1975 for Byron and Braidwood Stations by implementation of an onsite meteorological measurement program. 1.4.5.13 Illinois State Museum (ISM)
The Illinois State Museum conducts archaeological investigations throughout the state of Illinois. As a member of the Illinois Archaeological Survey, they have the expertise and services to perform contract archaeological work. Their studies included a pedestrian reconnaissance survey, subsurface testing and excavating, and laboratory analyses of datifacts, pollen, and soils.
As a technical consultant on the Braidwood project, ISM identified and made recommendations which Commonwealth Edison acted upon to aid in preserving the archaeological sites on Braidwood Station and pipeline corridor property.
1.4.5.14 Equitable Environmental Health, Inc. (EEH)
Equitable Environmental Health, Inc. (EEH), successor to Environmental Analysts, Inc./Tabershaw-Cooper Associated, Inc., is a multidisciplinary firm that offers the consulting services of medical professionals, scientists, engineers, economists, and technical support personnel in all areas of environmental health and economics.
EEH staff biologists conducted a 2-year baseline study of the Byron Station site. Distributions of phytoplankton, zooplankton, periphyton, benthos, fish, fish eggs and larvae, and water chemistry in the Rock River in the vicinity of the site were determined and quantitative data on terrestrial flora and fauna were collected. The impacts of plant construction and operation on the biotic communities of the site were predicted, and data were provided for a benefit-cost analysis of the project. 1.4.5.15 Espey, Huston & Associates, Inc. (EH & A)
Espey, Huston & Associates, Inc. (EH & A) is a consulting firm addressing the environmental problems associated with industrial and urban development. EH & A professionals cover a broad range of expertise including civil engineering, environmental engineering, mathematics and computer science, and all phases of aquatic, estuarine, and terrestrial ecology.
B/B-UFSAR 1.4-7 REVISION 1 - DECEMBER 1989 As a technical consultant on the Byron project, EH & A conducted the construction phase terrestrial and aquatic monitoring programs. 1.4.5.16 University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee (UWM) The University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee under Dr. Elizabeth Benchley of the Dept. of Anthropology, conducts archaeological investigations throughout Wisconsin and northern Illinois. As a member of the Illinois Archaeological Survey, they have the expertise and services to perform contract archaeological work. Their studies included a pedestrian reconnaissance survey, subsurface testing, and lab analysis of datifacts, pollen, and soils. As a technical consultant on the Byron project, UWM identified and made recommendations which Commonwealth Edison acted upon to aid in preserving the archaeological sites on Byron Station and pipeline corridor property. Also, UWM conducted archaeological investigations on the Byron transmission line right-of-ways. 1.4.5.17 Aero-Metric Engineering, Inc. (AME) Aero-Metric Engineering, Inc., founded in 1969, is based in Sheboygan, Wisconsin. The staff was made up of over 50 technical photogrammetric personnel, many having professional engineer and/or survey registration. AME's capabilities allow for a complete range of precision photogrammetric services, including aerial photography, mapping, and multiple survey skills.
As a technical consultant on the Byron project, AME will be providing annual aerial infra-red photographs. 1.4.5.18 Iowa Institute of Hydraulic Research The Iowa Institute of Hydraulic Research, formally organized in 1931, is a Division of the University of Iowa's College of Engineering. The Institute staff exceeded 80 in number and was comprised of a professional staff with Ph.Ds in the areas of Civil Engineering, Mechanical Engineering, Physics, Mechanics and Hydraulics, and Aeronautical Engineering, with most of these personnel holding joint academic appointments in the College of Engineering's Division of Energy Engineering. The Institute of Hydraulic Research conducts programs of fundamental research and advanced design and analysis in the areas of environmental pollution, bioengineering, naval hydrodynamics, river mechanics, ice hydraulics, hydrology, water resources, hydraulic structures, fluid mechanics, advanced instrumentation and data-handling techniques for fluids research, and mathematical modeling of watersheds and hydrology.
B/B-UFSAR 1.4-8 REVISION 9 - DECEMBER 2002 As a technical consultant on the Braidwood project, the Institute conducted a thermal evaluation to determine the adequacy of the ultimate heat sink. 1.4.5.19 Babcock and Wilcox International (B&W) B&W is located in Cambridge, Ontario, Canada. B&W has fabricated fossil-fueled boiler components for over 100 years and has fabricated nuclear system components since the late 1950's. B&W has supplied replacement steam generators for Byron Unit 1 and Braidwood Unit 1.
1.4.5.20 Framatome Technologies, Incorporated (FTI)
FTI is located in Lynchburg, Virginia and has been providing services to the electric power industry for over four decades. FTI engineering services include the necessary expertise, experience, and NRC-approved computer codes and methodologies to support the transient analysis of the Unit steam generators. 1.4.5.21 Stone & Webster Engineers and Constructors, Inc. (S&W) S&W is located in Boston, Massachusetts and has been providing services to the electric power industry for over 100 years. S&W has provided balance-of-plant design-engineering support services in support of the power uprate of the Byron and Braidwood units.
B/B-UFSAR 1.4-9 REVISION 8 - DECEMBER 2000 TABLE 1.4-1 EXELON GENERATION COMPANY'S NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS IN SERVICE OR UNDER CONSTRUCTION UNIT NOMINAL GROSS1 RATING (MWe) SCHEDULED COMMERCIAL SERVICE DATE Dresden 1 210 1960 Dresden 2 850 1972 Dresden 3 850 1972 Quad-Cities 1 850 1972 Quad-Cities 2 850 1972 Zion 1 1085 1973 Zion 2 1085 1973 La Salle 1 1122 1978 La Salle 2 1122 1979 Byron 1 1175 1985 Byron 2 1175 1987 Braidwood 1 1175 1988 Braidwood 2 1175 1988 1Note that this is a gross rating, not a net rating.
B/B-UFSAR 1.4-10 REVISION 1 - DECEMBER 1989 TABLE 1.4-2 NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS COMPLETED OR CURRENTLY UNDER DESIGN BY SARGENT & LUNDY UNIT NOMINAL GROSS2 RATING (MWe) YEAR OF POWER OPERATION EBWR 5 1956 Elk River 22 1962 La Crosse 60 1967 SEFOR 20 (MWt) 1969 Dresden 2 850 1969 Dresden 3 850 1971 Quad-Cities 1 850 1971 Quad-Cities 2 850 1972 Zion 1 1085 1973 Zion 2 1085 1973 Fort St. Vrain, Unit 1 330 1973 Enrico Fermi, Unit 2 1200 1988 La Salle County Station, Unit 1 1122 1979 La Salle County Station, Unit 2 1122 1980 Byron Station, Unit 1 1175 1985 Byron Station, Unit 2 1175 1987 Braidwood Station, Unit 1 1175 1988 Braidwood Station, Unit 2 1175 1988 Clinton Power Station, Unit 1 992 1981 Kaiseraugst 992 1982 2Note that this is a gross rating, not a net rating.
B/B-UFSAR 1.4-11 TABLE 1.4-3 WESTINGHOUSE PRESSURIZED WATER REACTOR NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS PLANT OWNER UTILITY LOCATION SCHEDULED COMMERCIAL OPERATION MWe NET NUMBER OF LOOPS Shippingport Duquesne Light Company; Energy Research & Development Administration Pennsylvania 1957 90 4 Yankee-Rowe Yankee Atomic Electric Company Massachusetts 1961 175 4 Trio Vercellese (Enrico Fermi) Ente Nazionale per L'Energia Elettrica (ENEL) Italy 1965 260 4 Chooz (Ardennes) Societe d'Energie Nucleaire Franco-Belge des Ardennes (SENA) France 1967 305 4 San Onofre Unit 1 Southern California Edison Co.; San Diego Gas and Electric Co. California 1968 450 3 Haddam Neck (Connecticut Yankee) Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company Connecticut 1968 575 4 Jose Cabrera-Zorita Union Electrica, S.A. Spain 1969 153 1 Beznau Unit 1 Nordostschweizerische Krafwerke AG (NOK) Switzerland 1969 350 2 Robert Emmett Ginna Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation New York 1970 490 2 Mihama Unit 1 The Kansai Electric Power Company, Inc. Japan 1970 320 2 Point Beach Unit 1 Wisconsin Electric Power Co.; Wisconsin Michigan Power Co. Wisconsin 1970 497 2 H. B. Robinson Unit 2 Carolina Power and Light Co. South Carolina 1971 707 3 B/B-UFSAR 1.4-12 REVISION 8 - DECEMBER 2000 TABLE 1.4-3 (Cont'd) PLANT OWNER UTILITY LOCATION SCHEDULED COMMERCIAL OPERATION MWe NET NUMBER OF LOOPS Beznau Unit 2 Nordostschweizerische Kraftwerke AG (NOK) Switzerland 1972 350 2 Point Beach Unit 2 Wisconsin Electric Power Co.; Wisconsin Michigan Power Co. Wisconsin 1972 497 2 Surry Unit 1 Virginia Electric and Power Co. Virginia 1972 822 3 Turkey Point Unit 3 Florida Power and Light Co. Florida 1972 745 3 Indian Point Unit 2 Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. New York 1973 873 4 Prairie Island Unit 1 Northern States Power Company Minnesota 1973 530 2 Turkey Point Unit 4 Florida Power and Light Co. Florida 1973 745 3 Surry Unit 2 Virginia Electric and Power Co. Virginia 1973 822 3 Zion Unit 1 Exelon Generation Company Illinois 1973 1050 4 Kewaunee Wisconsin Public Service Corp.; Wisconsin Power and Light Co.;
Madison Gas and Electric Co. Wisconsin 1974 560 2 Prairie Island Unit 2 Northern States Power Company Minnesota 1974 530 2 Takahama Unit 1 The Kansai Electric Power Company, Inc. Japan 1974 781 3 Zion Unit 2 Exelon Generation Company Illinois 1974 1050 4 B/B-UFSAR 1.4-13 REVISION 8 - DECEMBER 2000 TABLE 1.4-3 (Cont'd) PLANT OWNER UTILITY LOCATION SCHEDULED COMMERCIAL OPERATION MWe NET NUMBEROF LOOPS Doel Unit 1 Indivision Doel Belgium 1975 390 2 Doel Unit 2 Indivision Doel Belgium 1975 390 2 Donald C. Cook Unit 1 Indiana and Michigan Electric Company (AEP) Michigan 1975 1060 4 Ringhals Unit 2 Statens Vattenfallsverk (SSPB) Sweden 1975 822 3 Almaraz Unit 1 Unit Electrica, S.A.; Compania Sevillana de Electricidad, S.A.;
Hidroelectrica Espanola, S.A. Spain 1976 902 3 Beaver Valley Unit 1 Duquesne Light Company; Ohio Edison Company; Pennsylvania Power Company Pennsylvania 1976 852 3 Diablo Canyon Unit 1 Pacific Gas and Electric Co. California 1976 1084 4 Indian Point Unit 3 Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. New York 1976 965 4 Lemoniz Unit 1 Iberduero, S.A. Spain 1976 902 3 Salem Unit 1 Public Service Electric and Gas Company; Exelon Generation Company; Atlantic City Electric Co.;
Delmarva Power and Light Co. New Jersey 1976 1090 4 B/B-UFSAR 1.4-14 TABLE 1.4-3 (Cont'd) PLANT OWNER UTILITY LOCATION SCHEDULED COMMERCIAL OPERATION MWe NET NUMBEROF LOOPS Trojan Portland General Electric Co.; Eugene Water and Electric Board; Pacific Power and Light Company Oregon 1976 1130 4 Almaraz Unit 2 Union Electrica, S.A.; Compania Sevillana de Electricidad, S.A.;
Hidroelectrica Espanola, S.A. Spain 1977 902 3 Asco Unit 1 Fuerzas Electricas de Cataluna, S.A. (FESCA) Spain 1977 902 3 Diablo Canyon Unit 2 Pacific Gas and Electric Co. California 1977 1106 4 Joseph M. Farley Unit 1 Alabama Power Company Alabama 1977 829 3 Ko-Ri Unit 1 Korea Electric Power Co., Ltd. Korea 1977 564 2 North Anna Unit 1 Virginia Electric and Power Co. Virginia 1977 898 3 North Anna Unit 2 Virginia Electric and Power Co. Virginia 1977 898 3 Ohi Unit 1 The Kansai Electric Power Co., Inc. Japan 1977 1122 4 Ohi Unit 2 The Kansai Electric Power Co., Inc. Japan 1977 1122 4 Ringhals Unit 3 Statens Vattenfallsvert (SSPB) Sweden 1977 900 3 Sequoyah Unit 1 Tennessee Valley Authority Tennessee 1977 1148 4 Angra dos Reis Unit 1 Furnas-Centrais Electricas, S.A. Brazil 1978 626 2 B/B-UFSAR 1.4-15 TABLE 1.4-3 (Cont'd) PLANT OWNER UTILITY LOCATION SCHEDULED COMMERCIAL OPERATION MWe NET NUMBEROF LOOPS Asco Unit 2 Fuerzas Electricas de Cataluna, S.A. (FESCA);
Empresa Nacional Hidroelectrica del Ribagorzana, S.A. (ENHER); Fuerzas Hidroelectricas del Segre, S.A.;
Hidroelectrica de Cataluna, S.A. Spain 1978 902 3 Donald C. Cook Unit 2 Indiana and Michigan Electric Company (AEP) Michigan 1978 1060 4 Lemoniz Unit 2 Iberduero, S.A. Spain 1978 902 3 Sequoyah Unit 2 Tennessee Valley Authority Tennessee 1978 1148 4 Watts Bar Unit 1 Tennessee Valley Authority Tennessee 1978 1177 4 William B. McGuire Unit 1 Duke Power Company North Carolina 1978 1180 4 Joseph M. Farley Unit 2 Alabama Power Company Alabama 1979 829 3 Krsko Savske Elektrarne, Ljubljana, Slovenia, Elektroprivreda, Zagreb, Croatia Yugoslavia 1979 615 2 Ringhals Unit 4 Statens Vattenfallsvert (SSPD) Sweden 1979 900 3 B/B-UFSAR 1.4-16 REVISION 8 - DECEMBER 2000 TABLE 1.4-3 (Cont'd) PLANT OWNER UTILITY LOCATION SCHEDULED COMMERCIAL OPERATION MWe NET NUMBEROF LOOPS Salem Unit 2 Public Service Electric and Gas Company; Exelon Generation Company Atlantic City Electric Co.; Delmarva Power and Light Co. New Jersey 1979 1115 4 Virgil C. Summer South Carolina Electric and Gas Company South Carolina 1979 900 3 Watts Bar Unit 2 Tennessee Valley Authority Tennessee 1979 1177 4 William B. McGuire Unit 2 Duke Power Company North Carolina 1979 1180 4 Byron Unit 1 Exelon Generation Company Illinois 1981 1120 4 Comanche Peak Unit 1 Texas Utilities Generating Co. Texas 1980 1150 4 Seabrook Unit 1 Public Service Company of New Hampshire; United Illuminating Company New Hampshire 1980 1200 4 South Texas Project Unit 1 Houston Lighting and Power Co.;
Central Power and Light Co.;
City Public Service of San Antonio; City of Austin, Texas Texas 1980 1250 4 B/B-UFSAR 1.4-17 REVISION 8 - DECEMBER 2000 TABLE 1.4-3 (Cont'd) PLANT OWNER UTILITY LOCATION SCHEDULED COMMERCIAL OPERATION MWe NET NUMBEROF LOOPS Beaver Valley Unit 2 Duquesne Light Company; Ohio Edison Company; Pennsylvania Power Co.;
Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company; Toledo Edison Company Pennsylvania 1981 852 3 Braidwood Unit 1 Exelon Generation Company Illinois 1981 1120 4 Callaway Unit 1 SNUPPS - Union Electric Co. Missouri 1981 1150 4 Catawba Unit 1 Duke Power Company South Carolina 1981 1153 4 Jamesport Unit 1 Long Island Lighting Company New York 1981 1150 4 Ko-Ri Unit 2 Korea Electric Power Co., Ltd. Korea 1981 605 2 NORCO Puerto Rico Water Resources Authority Puerto Rico - 583 2 Braidwood Unit 2 Exelon Generation Company Illinois 1982 1120 4 Byron Unit 2 Exelon Generation Company Illinois 1982 1120 4 Catawba Unit 2 Duke Power Company South Carolina 1982 1153 4 Comanche Peak Unit 2 Texas Utilities Generating Co. Texas 1982 1150 4 Marble Hill Unit 1 Public Service Company of Indiana, Inc.;
Northern Indiana Public Service Company Indiana 1982 1150 4 B/B-UFSAR 1.4-18 TABLE 1.4-3 (Cont'd) PLANT OWNER UTILITY LOCATION SCHEDULED COMMERCIAL OPERATION MWe NET NUMBEROF LOOPS Millstone Unit 3 Northeast Nuclear Energy Co. Connecticut 1982 1156 4 Seabrook Unit 3 Public Service Company of New Hampshire; United Illuminating Company New Hampshire 1982 1200 4 South Texas Project Unit 2 Houston Lighting and Power Co.; Central Power and Light Co.; City Public Service of San Antonio; City of Austin, Texas Texas 1982 1250 4 Taiwan Unit 5 Taiwan Power Company Taiwan 1982 950 3 Wolf Creek Unit 1 SNUPPS - Kansas Gas and Electric Company; Kansas City Power and Light Company Kansas 1982 1150 4 Alvin W. Vogtle Unit 1 Georgia Power Company Georgia 1983 1113 4 Callaway Unit 2 SNUPPS - Union Electric Company Missouri 1983 1150 4 NEP-1 New England Power Company - 1983 1150 4 Fort Calhoun Unit 2 Omaha Public Power District; Nebraska Public Power District Nebraska 1983 1150 4 Jamesport Unit 2 Long Island Lighting Company New York 1983 1150 4 Sears Island Central Maine Power Company Maine - 1200 4 B/B-UFSAR 1.4-19 TABLE 1.4-3 (Cont'd) PLANT OWNER UTILITY LOCATION SCHEDULED COMMERCIAL OPERATION MWe NET NUMBEROF LOOPS Taiwan Unit 6 Taiwan Power Company Taiwan 1983 950 3 Alvin W. Vogtle Unit 2 Georgia Power Company Georgia 1984 1113 4 Marble Hill Unit 2 Public Service Company of Indiana, Inc.;
Northern Indiana Public Service Company Indiana 1984 1150 4 Shearon Harris Unit 1 Carolina Power and Light Co. North Carolina 1984 900 3 Sterling SNUPPS - Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation; Central Hudson Gas and Electric Corporation; Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation; Orange and Rockland Utilities, Inc. New York 1984 1150 4 Atlantic Unit 1 (O.P.S.) Public Service Electric and Gas Company; Atlantic City Electric Co.;
Jersey Central Power and Light Company New Jersey 1985 1150 4 NEP-2 New England Power Company - 1985 1150 4 South Dade Unit 1 Florida Power and Light Co. Florida 1985 1150 4 Sundesert Unit 1 San Diego Gas and Electric Co. California 1985 950 3 B/B-UFSAR 1.4-20 TABLE 1.4-3 (Cont'd) PLANT OWNER UTILITY LOCATION SCHEDULED COMMERCIAL OPERATION MWe NET NUMBEROF LOOPS Tyrone Unit 1 SNUPPS - Northern States Power Company Wisconsin 1985 1150 4 Shearon Harris Unit 2 Carolina Power and Light Co. North Carolina 1986 900 3 South Dade Unit 2 Florida Power and Light Co. Florida 1986 1150 4 Atlantic No. (O.P.S.) Public Service Electric and Gas Company; Atlantic City Electric Co.;
Jersey Central Power and Light Company New Jersey 1987 1150 4 Shearon Harris Unit 4 Carolina Power and Light Co. North Carolina 1988 900 3 Sundesert Unit 2 San Diego Gas and Electric Co. California 1988 950 3 Sayago Unit 1 Iberduero, S.A. Spain 1980's 1000 3 Sayago Unit 4 Iberduero, S.A. Spain 1980's 1000 3 Shearon Harris Unit 3 Carolina Power and Light Co. North Carolina 1990 900 3 Unassigned Unit 1 (O.P.S.) Public Service Electric and Gas Company; Atlantic City Electric Company New Jersey 1990 1150 4 Unassigned Unit 2 (O.P.S.) Public Service Electric and Gas Company; Atlantic City Electric Company New Jersey 1992 1150 4 B/B-UFSAR 1.5-1 1.5 REQUIREMENTS FOR FURTHER TECHNICAL INFORMATION The design of the Byron/Braidwood units is based upon proven concepts which have been developed and successfully applied to the design of pressurized water reactor systems. There are currently no areas of research and development which are required for operation of this plant. At the time of issuance of construction permits for the Byron/ Braidwood units, the Preliminary Safety Analysis Report (PSAR) and the standard design report which it referenced, RESAR-3, identified certain research and development programs which were incomplete. These programs, which have been successfully completed, have provided technical information which has been used either to demonstrate the safety of design, more sharply define margins of conservatism, or lead to design improvements. Reference 1 presents descriptions of those safety-related research and development programs which have been carried out for, by, or in conjunction with Westinghouse Nuclear Energy Systems, and which are applicable to Westinghouse pressurized water reactors. The discussion which follows documents the completion of the construction permit stage research programs. 1.5.1 Programs Required for Plant Operation Two programs were identified as required for plant design and operation in the PSAR:
- a. core stability evaluation and
- b. fuel rod burst program.
Both programs are complete. The fuel rod burst program was completed at the time of the PSAR. The core stability evaluation program was not. A discussion of the core stability evaluation program follows. 1.5.1.1 Core Stability Evaluation The program to establish means for the detection and control of potential xenon oscillations and for the shaping of the axial power distribution for improved core performance has been satisfactorily completed. See item 1, Reference 2, for a further discussion of the tests and results. 1.5.2 Other Programs Not Required for Plant Operation The following programs were not complete at the time of the PSAR but are now satisfactorily complete.
B/B-UFSAR 1.5-2 1.5.2.1 Fuel Development Program for Operation at High Power Densities The program to demonstrate the satisfactory operation of fuel at high burnup and power densities has been satisfactorily completed. See item 8, Reference 2, for a further discussion of the program and its results.
1.5.2.2 Blowdown Forces Program Westinghouse has completed BLODWN-2, an improved digital computer program for the calculation of local fluid pressures, flows and density transients in the primary coolant systems during a LOCA.
BLODWN-2 is used to evaluate the effects of blowdown forces in this application. Refer to item 15 in Reference 4 for a further discussion of the tests and results. 1.5.2.3 Blowdown Heat Transfer Testing (Formerly Titled Delayed Departure From Nucleate Boiling) The NRC Acceptance Criteria for Emergency Core Cooling Systems for Light-Water Power Reactors was issued in Section 50.46 of 10 CFR 50 on December 28, 1973. It defines the basis and conservative assumptions to be used in the evaluation of the performance of emergency core cooling systems (ECCS). Westinghouse believes that some of the conservatism of the criteria is associated with the manner in which transient DNB phenomena are treated in the evaluation models. Transient critical heat flux data presented at the 1972 specialists meeting of the Committee on Reactor Safety Technology (CREST) indicated that the time to DNB can be delayed under transient conditions. To demonstrate the conservatism of the ECCS evaluation models, Westinghouse initiated a program to experimentally simulate the blowdown phase of a LOCA. This testing is part of the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) sponsored Blowdown Heat Transfer Program, which was started early in 1976. Testing was completed in 1979. A DNB correlation developed by Westinghouse from these test results is used in the ECCS analyses for Byron/Braidwood. Objective The objective of the blowdown heat transfer test was to determine the time that DNB occurs under LOCA conditions. This information was used to confirm a new Westinghouse transient DNB correlation. The steady-state DNB data obtained from 15x15 and 17x17 test programs was used to assure that the geometrical differences between the two fuel arrays is correctly treated in the transient correlations.
B/B-UFSAR 1.5-3 Program The program was divided into two phases. The Phase I tests started from steady-state conditions, with sufficient power to maintain nucleate boiling throughout the bundle, and progressed through controlled ramps of decreasing test section pressure or flow initiated DNB. By applying a series of controlled conditions, investigation of the DNB was studied over a range of qualities and flows, and at pressures relevant to a PWR blowdown.
Phase I provided separate-effects data for heat transfer correlation development.
Typical parameters used for Phase I testing are shown in Table 1.5-1.
Phase II simulated PWR behavior during a LOCA to permit definition of the time delay associated with onset of DNB. Tests in this phase covered the large double-ended guillotine cold leg break. All tests in Phase II were also started after establishment of typical steady-state operating conditions. The fluid transient was then initiated, and the rod power decay was programmed in such a manner as to simulate the actual heat input of fuel rods. The test was terminated when the heater rod temperatures reached a predetermined limit.
Typical parameters used for Phase II testing are shown in Table 1.5-2.
Test Description The experimental program was conducted in the J-Loop at the Westinghouse Forest Hills Facility with a full length 5x5 rod bundle simulating a section of a 15x15 fuel assembly to determine DNB occurrence under LOCA conditions.
The heater rod bundles used in this program were internally-heated rods, capable of a maximum linear power of 18.8 kW/ft, with a total power of 135 kW (for extended periods) over the 12-foot heated length of the rod. Heat was generated internally by means of a varying cross-sectional resistor which approximates a chopped cosine power distribution. Each rod was adequately instrumented with a total of 12 clad thermocouples. Results The experiments in the DNB facility resulted in cladding temperature and fluid properties measured as a function of time throughout the blowdown range from 0 to 20 seconds. Facility modifications and installation of the initial test bundle were completed. A series of shakedown tests in the B/B-UFSAR 1.5-4 REVISION 1 - DECEMBER 1989 J-Loop were performed. These tests provided data for instrumentation calibration and check-out, and provided information regarding facility control and performance. Initial program tests were performed during the first half of 1975. Under the sponsorship of EPRI, testing was reinitiated during 1976 on the same test bundle. The testing was terminated in November 1976 and plans were made for a new test bundle and further testing during 1978-1979. These tests were completed in December of 1979.
1.5.3 References
- 1. F. T. Eggleston, "Safety-Related Research and Development for Westinghouse Pressurized Water Reactors, Program Summaries," WCAP-8768, October 1978.
- 2. F. T. Eggleston, "Safety-Related Research and Development for Westinghouse PWRs Program Summaries," WCAP-8768. Spring 1976 Edition.
- 3. "Safety-Related Research and Development for Westinghouse PWRs Program Summaries," WCAP-8458. Fall 1977 Edition. 4. "Safety-Related Research and Development for Westinghouse PWRs Program Summaries," WCAP-8004. Fall 1972 Edition.
B/B-UFSAR 1.5-5 TABLE 1.5-1 BLOWDOWN HEAT TRANSFER PHASE I TEST PARAMETERS PARAMETERS NOMINAL VALUE INITIAL STEADY-STATE CONDITIONS Pressure 1250 to 2250 psia Test section mass velocity 1.12 to 2.5x106 lb/hr-ft2 Core inlet temperature 550° F to 600° F Maximum heat flux 306,000 to 531,000 Btu/hr-ft2
TRANSIENT RAMP CONDITIONS Pressure decrease 0 to 350 psia/sec and subcooled depressurization from 2250 psia Flow decrease 0 to 100%/sec Inlet enthalpy constant B/B-UFSAR 1.5-6 TABLE 1.5-2 BLOWDOWN HEAT TRANSFER PHASE II TEST PARAMETERS PARAMETERS NOMINAL VALUE INITIAL STEADY-STATE CONDITIONS Pressure 2250 psia Test section mass velocity 2.5x106 lb/hr-ft2 Inlet coolant temperature 545° F Maximum heat flux 531,000 Btu/hr-ft2
TRANSIENT CONDITIONS Simulated break Double-ended cold leg guillotine breaks B/B-UFSAR 1.6-1 1.6 MATERIAL INCORPORATED BY REFERENCES Table 1.6-1 lists topical reports which provide information additional to that provided in this UFSAR and which have been filed separately with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) in support of this and similar applications.
A legend to the review status code letters follows: A - NRC review complete; NRC acceptance letter issued.
AE - NRC accepted as part of the Westinghouse Emergency Core Cooling System (ECCS) evaluation model only; does not constitute acceptance for any purpose other than for ECCS analyses. B - Submitted to the NRC as background information; not undergoing formal NRC review. O - On file with NRC; older generation report with current validity; not actively under formal NRC review. U - Actively under formal NRC review.
B/B-UFSAR 1.7-1 REVISION 9 - DECEMBER 2002 1.7 DRAWINGS The drawings cited in each UFSAR Chapter are included as "General References" only; i.e., refer to the drawings to obtain additional detail or to obtain background information. These drawings are not part of the UFSAR. They are controlled by the Controlled Documents Program. References on the figures contained in the UFSAR to ComEd, CECo, and Commonwealth Edison will be revised to reflect the change in facility ownership to Exelon Generation Company when other changes to that figure are needed. 1.7.1 Electrical, Instrumentation, and Control Drawings Subsection 1.7.1 of the FSAR provides a list of electrical, instrumentation, and control drawings that were provided to the NRC during the initial licensing phase. 1.7.2 Drawings for Independent Structural Review Subsection 1.7.2 of the FSAR provides a list of the structural, architectural, mechanical loading and electrical loading drawings that were provided to the NRC to enable them to perform the Project Structural Review and the Independent Structural Review during the licensing phase.
B/B-UFSAR 1.7-2 REVISION 9 - DECEMBER 2002 TABLE 1.7-1 This Table has been intentionally deleted.
B/B-UFSAR REVISION 9 - DECEMBER 2002 Pages 1.7-3 through 1.7-17 have been intentionally deleted.
B/B-UFSAR REVISION 9 - DECEMBER 2002
Figures 1.1-1 through 1.1-3 have been deleted intentionally.
B/B-UFSAR REVISION 9 - DECEMBER 2002
Figures 1.2-1 through 1.2-17 have been deleted intentionally.
B/B-UFSAR 1.0-i REVISION 5 - DECEMBER 1994 CHAPTER 1.0 - INTRODUCTION AND GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF PLANT TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
1.0 INTRODUCTION
AND GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF PLANT 1.1-1
1.1 INTRODUCTION
1.1-1 1.2 GENERAL PLANT DESCRIPTION 1.2-1 1.2.1 Site and Environment 1.2-1 1.2.2 Nuclear Steam Supply System 1.2-1 1.2.3 Engineered Safety Features 1.2-2 1.2.4 Emergency Core Cooling System 1.2-3 1.2.5 Control and Instrumentation 1.2-3 1.2.6 Electrical System 1.2-4 1.2.7 Turbine and Auxiliaries 1.2-4 1.2.8 Fuel Handling System 1.2-5 1.2.9 Radioactive Waste Management System 1.2-5 1.2.10 Features of Special Interest 1.2-5 1.2.11 Structures 1.2-6
1.3 COMPARISON TABLES 1.3-1 1.3.1 Comparisons with Similar Facility Designs 1.3-1 1.3.2 Comparison of Final and Preliminary Information 1.3-2 1.3.3 References 1.3-2
1.4 IDENTIFICATION OF AGENTS AND CONTRACTORS 1.4-1 1.4.1 Licensee 1.4-1 1.4.2 Architect-Engineer 1.4-1 1.4.3 Reactor Designer 1.4-1 1.4.4 Constructor 1.4-2 1.4.5 Consultants and Service Organization 1.4-2 1.4.5.1 Security Systems - ETA 1.4-2 1.4.5.2 Dames & Moore 1.4-3 1.4.5.3 HARZA Engineering 1.4-3 1.4.5.4 Murray and Trettel, Inc. 1.4-3 1.4.5.5 Shirmer Engineering Corporation 1.4-3 1.4.5.6 Hyla S. Napadensky 1.4-4 1.4.5.7 NALCO Chemical Company 1.4-4 1.4.5.8 Westinghouse Environmental Systems Department (WESD) 1.4-4 1.4.5.9 Illinois Natural History Survey (INHS) 1.4-5 1.4.5.10 NUS Corporation 1.4-5 1.4.5.11 Eberline Instrument Corporation (EIC) 1.4-5
B/B-UFSAR 1.0-ii REVISION 9 - DECEMBER 2002 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont'd)
PAGE 1.4.5.12 Meteorology Research, Inc. (MRI) 1.4-5 1.4.5.13 Illinois State Museum (ISM) 1.4-6 1.4.5.14 Equitable Environmental Health, Inc. (EEH) 1.4-6 1.4.5.15 Espey, Huston & Associates, Inc. (EH & A) 1.4-6 1.4.5.16 University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee (UWM) 1.4-7 1.4.5.17 Aero-Metric Engineering, Inc. (AME) 1.4-7 1.4.5.18 Iowa Institute of Hydraulic Research 1.4-7 1.4.5.19 Babcock and Wilcox International (B&W) 1.4-8 1.4.5.20 Framatome Technologies, Incorporated (FTI) 1.4-8 1.4.5.21 Stone & Webster Engineers and Constructors, Inc, (S&W) 1.4-8 1.5 REQUIREMENTS FOR FURTHER TECHNICAL INFORMATION 1.5-1 1.5.1 Programs Required For Plant Operation 1.5-1 1.5.1.1 Core Stability Evaluation 1.5-1 1.5.2 Other Programs Not Required For Plant Operation 1.5-1 1.5.2.1 Fuel Development Program For Operation at High Power Densities 1.5-2 1.5.2.2 Blowdown Forces Program 1.5-2 1.5.2.3 Blowdown Heat Transfer Testing 1.5-2 1.5.3 References 1.5-4
1.6 MATERIAL INCORPORATED BY REFERENCES 1.6-1 1.7 DRAWINGS 1.7-1 1.7.1 Electrical, Instrumentation, and Control Drawings 1.7-1 1.7.2 Drawings for Independent Structural Review 1.7-1
B/B-UFSAR 1.0-iii REVISION 9 - DECEMBER 2002 CHAPTER 1.0 - INTRODUCTION AND GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF PLANT LIST OF TABLES
NUMBER TITLE PAGE 1.3-1 Plants Using Three-Buttress Containment Design 1.3-3 1.4-1 Exelon Generation Company's Nuclear Power Plants in Service or Under Construction 1.4-9 1.4-2 Nuclear Power Plants Completed or Currently Under Design by Sargent & Lundy 1.4-10 1.4-3 Westinghouse Pressurized Water Reactor Nuclear Power Plants 1.4-11 1.5-1 Blowdown Heat Transfer Phase I Test Parameters 1.5-5 1.5-2 Blowdown Heat Transfer Phase II Test Parameters 1.5-6 1.6-1 Topical Reports Incorporated by Reference 1.6-2 1.7-1 Deleted 1.7-2
B/B-UFSAR 1.0-iv REVISION 9 - DECEMBER 2002 CHAPTER 1.0 - INTRODUCTION AND GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF PLANT DRAWINGS CITED IN THIS CHAPTER*
- The listed drawings are included as "General References" only; i.e., refer to the drawings to obtain additional detail or to obtain background information. These drawings are not part of the UFSAR. They are controlled by the Controlled Documents Program.
DRAWINGS* SUBJECT M-1 General Site Plan Units 1 & 2 M-2 Property Development Units 1 & 2 M-5 General Arrangement Roof Plan Units 1 & 2 M-6 General Arrangement Main Floor At El. 451'-0" Units 1 & 2 M-7 General Arrangement Mezzanine Floor At El. 426'-0" Units 1 & 2 M-8 General Arrangement Grade Floor At El. 401'-0" Units 1 & 2 M-9 General Arrangement Floor Plan At El. 383'-0" Units 1 & 2 M-10 General Arrangement Basement Floor At El. 364'-0" Units 1 & 2 M-11 General Arrangement Floor Plan At El. 346'-0" Units 1 & 2 M-12 General Arrangement Radwaste/Service Building Units 1 & 2 M-13 General Arrangement Fuel Handling Building Units 1 & 2 M-14 General Arrangement Section "A-A" Units 1 & 2 M-15 General Arrangement Section "B-B" Units 1 & 2 M-16 General Arrangement Section "C-C" and "D-D" Units 1 & 2 M-17 General Arrangement Section "E-E" Units 1 & 2 M-18 General Arrangement Section "F-F" Units 1 & 2 M-19 General Arrangement Lake Screen House Units 1 & 2 (Braidwood) M-20 General Arrangement River Screen House Units 1 & 2 M-22 General Arrangement Miscellaneous Plans Units 1 & 2 M-34 P&ID Index and Symbols Units 1 & 2
B/B-UFSAR 1.3-1 REVISION 8 - DECEMBER 2000 1.3 COMPARISON TABLES 1.3.1 Comparisons with Similar Facility Designs The design is conceptually similar to Exelon Generation Company's Zion Station. Differences in the design of the two plants have been allowed only (1) when dictated by the site characteristics, (2) when the change would result in significant safety improvement, simplification of construction or operation procedures, or cost savings; or (3) as required to comply with appropriate codes and standards, NRC criteria, regulatory guides, and regulations.
The nuclear steam supply system is similar to that of the Zion Station but has a slightly higher power rating. The reactor containments are of the same materials and size as those at the Zion Station, but each has only three buttresses, rather than six as used at Zion. The number of post-tensioning tendons is reduced, and the number of wires per tendon increased, from that used at Zion. The reduced number of buttresses allows for greater separation of penetration areas for redundant safety-related systems. Several plants on which this buttress design has been used are listed in Table 1.3-1. The polar cranes in the reactor containment are mounted on the containment wall, rather than on the missile barrier as at Zion. This allows use of a greater area for component laydown in the containment.
Two 100%-capacity containment spray systems are used, rather than the three systems used at Zion. Four containment fan coolers are used, rather than the five used at Zion. The emergency diesel-generator systems for each unit are entirely independent and use two 5500-kW diesel generators per unit. The arrangement of equipment in the common auxiliary building allows greater physical separation of redundant systems and their piping and cables than was possible at Zion. The Byron Station uses natural draft cooling towers for heat rejection. Zion utilizes once-through cooling. Mechanical draft cooling towers are provided for essential service cooling at Byron.
The Braidwood Station uses a large man-made cooling pond for heat rejection. An auxiliary cooling pond, integral with the main pond, is provided for essential service cooling.
Table 1.3-2 of the FSAR provided the design comparison of the Byron/Braidwood nuclear steam supply system with Comanche Peak, Indian Point 2, South Texas, Sun Desert, W. B. McGuire Nuclear Station, Trojan Nuclear Power Plant, SNUPPS, and the Watts Bar Application. This information was current at the time the Byron Unit 1 operating license was granted and has not been included in the UFSAR.
B/B-UFSAR 1.3-2 REVISION 8 - DECEMBER 2000 1.3.2 Comparison of Final and Preliminary Information The Byron/Braidwood Power Plant design was subject to continuing review throughout the construction of the stations. The experience gained at Zion Station and other PWRs was used to enhance equipment reliability and performance. Current design technology was used to upgrade earlier plant design methods. No significant design changes have been made to the Byron Station or the Braidwood Station which have not been previously reported by amendment to the PSAR, except for the inclusion of 17 x 17 optimized fuel. Table 1.3-3 of the FSAR listed those significant changes reported since the issuance of the Byron and Braidwood Stations Construction Permits. This information was current at the time the Byron Unit 1 operating license was granted and has not been included in the UFSAR.
Other changes included the removal of the part length control rods (they are not needed to control Xenon induced axial instabilities), the enlargement of spent fuel capacity, the use of more corrosion-resistant materials in the steam generators and moisture steam separators, improved equipment packaging to do a reactor refueling in a shorter time period, an upgraded design for the reactor coolant pump seals, and replacement steam generators for Unit 1. These concepts are described in later chapters.
1.3.3 References 1. Exelon Generation Company, "Byron/Braidwood Stations Fire Protection Report in Response to Appendix A of BTP APCSB 9.5-1," (current amendment).
B/B-UFSAR 1.3-3 TABLE 1.3-1 PLANTS USING THREE-BUTTRESS CONTAINMENT DESIGN PLANT/UTILITY DATE OF OPERATION Arkansas Nuclear One Arkansas Power & Light Co. 5-21-74 Millstone-2 Northeast Utilities 8-1-75 Rancho Seco Sacramento Municipal Utility District 8-16-74 Trojan Portland General Electric Co. 11-21-75 J.M. Farley-1 Alabama Power Co. 6-25-77 B/B-UFSAR 1.4-1 REVISION 8 - DECEMBER 2000 1.4 IDENTIFICATION OF AGENTS AND CONTRACTORS 1.4.1 Licensee Exelon Generation Company is the Licensee for the Byron Station, Units 1 and 2, which is located in Rockvale Township, Ogle County, approximately 4 miles south of Byron, Illinois, and for Units 1 and 2 of the Braidwood Station, which is located in Reed Township, Will County, approximately 6 miles southwest of Wilmington, Illinois. The Licensee is responsible for the design, construction, and operation of the nuclear power plants.
Commonwealth Edison supplies electrical service to an area of 13,000 square miles with a population of approximately 8 million persons, located primarily in the northern third of Illinois.
Dresden 1, Commonwealth Edison's first nuclear generating station, went into commercial service during August 1960, and has produced more than 10 billion kWh. Additional nuclear units in service or under construction are listed in Table 1.4-1.
1.4.2 Architect-Enqineer For the work covered by this application, Sargent & Lundy (S&L) has been retained as the design consultants. The Licensee has employed Sargent & Lundy for power plant design work for over 80 years. Sargent & Lundy is an independent consulting engineering organization founded in Chicago, in 1891. For over three-quarters of a century, the firm has specialized exclusively in the design of generation, transmission, distribution, and utilization of steam and electric power and related facilities. The firm has provided the complete engineering services for more than 600 turbine-generator units with a total capacity of 53,000,000 kW. Of this total, some 9,800,000 kW is in nuclear generating capacity. Table 1.4-2 lists the nuclear plants completed by or currently under design by Sargent & Lundy. 1.4.3 Reactor Designer Westinghouse has designed, developed, and manufactured nuclear power facilities since the 1950s, beginning with the world's first large central station nuclear power plant (Shippingport), which started producing power in 1957. Completed or contracted B/B-UFSAR 1.4-2 REVISION 5 - DECEMBER 1994 commercial nuclear capacity totals were in excess of 98,000 MWe. Westinghouse pioneered new nuclear design concepts, such as chemical shim control of reactivity and the rod cluster control concept, throughout the last two decades. Westinghouse manufacturing facilities include the largest commercial nuclear fuel fabrication facility in the world and the world's most modern heat transfer equipment production facility, as well as other facilities producing nuclear steam supply system (NSSS) components. Table 1.4-3 lists all Westinghouse pressurized water reactor (PWR) plants to date, including those plants under construction or on order at the time of the Byron/Braidwood application. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and the Electric Power Research Institute have contracted with Westinghouse for research into NSSS-related activities. Westinghouse experience was also utilized by the NRC and Metropolitan Edison immediately following the Three Mile Island Unit 2 accident and the corporation continues to participate with the Westinghouse Owner's Group of utilities in addressing the NRC action plan and other operations improvements.
1.4.4 Constructor Construction coordination of all activities at the site was under the supervision of the Commonwealth Edison's Station Construction Department. The department exercises site managerial functions as discussed in Chapter 17.0 of the UFSAR. The Station Construction Department was the constructor for Zion Station. This department has coordinated the construction activities for almost all of Commonwealth Edison's existing power plants. It was also the construction coordinator for La Salle County Station.
1.4.5 Consultants and Service Organization 1.4.5.1 Security System - ETA The design of the physical security system and the administrative controls was performed by ETA, Inc. ETA personnel have had varied and in-depth experience in the design, safety analysis, and environmental review of nuclear power plants and related facilities as well as in the management and organization of security systems. They are very familiar with the details of the current generation of light water reactors and, in particular, those critical areas and components of the plants which might be the most vulnerable to sabotage. They are also familiar with the current regulations and guidelines of the NRC that define the required performance and objectives of a security system for licensed activities.
B/B-UFSAR 1.4-3 1.4.5.2 Dames & Moore The independent consulting firm of Dames & Moore was employed to conduct studies relating to the geology, seismology, and groundwater hydrology at both sites. The firm also conducted preconstruction baseline studies, including wildlife surveys as well as soil and vegetation analyses. Having performed environmental studies for approximately 30 nuclear power plant sites, Dames & Moore is a recognized authority in the field of environmental engineering of nuclear power plants. 1.4.5.3 HARZA Engineering HARZA was employed in the design of the water treatment facilities at both stations. HARZA has been involved with a variety of technical studies for at least ten nuclear power stations. Among these studies have been facility design, review of design and structure, hydrology, and groundwater. In addition, HARZA Engineering has designed some of the largest hydroelectric projects in the world, including major concrete structures and earthfilled dams. 1.4.5.4 Murray and Trettel, Inc.
Murray and Trettel (M&T) is an environmental consulting firm which, since 1960, has provided significant meteorological input to both preoperational and operational phases of meteorological programs for nuclear power stations. M&T has also provided meteorological input to a wide variety of air pollution and environmental problems as well as allied control technique programs.
Murray & Trettel provided meteorological data for both stations by implementation of an onsite measurement program incorporating a tower for elevation measurements. 1.4.5.5 Shirmer Engineering Corporation Shirmer Engineering is a firm of consulting fire protection engineers. The firm has done work on 17 Department of Energy nuclear fuel production and laboratory facilities, as well as for numerous nuclear power stations for Sargent & Lundy. Shirmer Engineering has also performed services for many fossil units. Shirmer Engineering provided evaluation of the fire protection systems at both stations and assisted in the preparation of the Byron/Braidwood Fire Protection Report.
B/B-UFSAR 1.4-4 1.4.5.6 Hyla S. Napadensky Ms. Napadensky was retained to help evaluate the probability of an accidental explosion occurring on a train carrying explosives in the vicinity of the Braidwood Station. Ms. Napadensky is the Manager of Fire Safety Research at the IIT Research Institute of the Illinois Institute of Technology. Ms. Napadensky has directed analytical and experimental research in the areas of explosion effects, hazards and risk analysis, safety of chemical systems, explosives and propellant sensitivity, and initiation mechanisms during her 17 years with IIT Research Institute.
1.4.5.7 NALCO Chemical Company The NALCO Chemical Company (formerly Industrial Bio-Test, Inc.) consisted of two divisions, Industrial Bio-Test Laboratories, and NALCO Environmental Sciences, which conduct studies relating to toxicology and ecological sciences, respectively. The Environmental Science Division includes seven subdivisions: (1) aquatic biology, (2) fisheries and field operations, (3) water and wastewater chemistry, (4) radiochemistry, (5) air sciences and data processing, (6) land and plant sciences, and (7) environmental physiology. As a technical consultant on the Braidwood project, the NALCO Chemical Company provided a clam bed mapping survey in the area of the station's intake and discharge structures located on the Kankakee River. 1.4.5.8 Westinghouse Environmental Systems Department (WESD)
WESD, established as a department of the Westinghouse Power Systems Company in 1969, consisted of environmental scientists and engineers experienced in the areas of aquatic and terrestrial biology and ecology; geology; limnology; environmental chemistry and physics; physical oceanography, meteorology and climatology, radiology, public health aspects of pollutant emissions, and systems engineering and integration.
WESD conducts broad environmental surveys, environmental program planning and data interpretation, and provides recommended action programs for meeting federal, state, and local environmental quality regulations. As a technical consultant on the Braidwood project, WESD staff biologists conducted a 2-year baseline study of the Braidwood Station site. Distributions of phytoplankton, zooplankton, periphyton, benthos, fish, fish eggs and larvae, and water chemistry in the Kankakee River in the vicinity of the site were determined, and quantitative data on terrestrial flora and fauna were collected. The impacts of plant construction and operation in the biotic communities of the site were predicted.
B/B-UFSAR 1.4-5 1.4.5.9 Illinois Natural History Survey (INHS) The Illinois Natural History Survey (INHS), which has its beginnings almost 120 years ago, is a division of the State Department of Registration and Education and provides services to farmers, homeowners, sportsmen, and all other citizens of Illinois as well as to industries. INHS cooperates in biological research with the Illinois Department of Agriculture, Conservation, and Public Health; the University of Illinois, Southern Illinois University, and other educational institutions; various research branches of the federal government; and other agricultural, conservation, municipal, and business organizations throughout the state. INHS aquatic biologists were involved in a 4-year study of the Kankakee River and Horse Creek near Custer Park, Illinois. The purpose of the study is to obtain biological, physical, and chemical data which will be used to evaluate any effects of the construction and operation of the Braidwood Station and its associated cooling lake on the biota and water quality of the Kankakee River and Horse Creek. The station's cooling pond will use the Kankakee River as a source of water for both intake and discharge purposes.
1.4.5.10 NUS Corporation NUS Corporation is a consulting engineering, research, and testing firm specializing in environmental and energy systems engineering, systems analysis, design engineering, management consulting, and training programs related to these areas. NUS has provided advice and professional guidance to utility, industrial, and government clients throughout the United States and in a number of foreign countries.
As a technical consultant on the Braidwood project, NUS was involved in a study to determine the adequacy of the station's ultimate heat sink.
1.4.5.11 Eberline Instrument Corporation (EIC)
Eberline Instrument Corporation (EIC) has provided radiation measurement equipment, comprehensive radiation protection services, and analytical laboratory services to the nuclear industry since 1953. As a technical consultant on the Byron/Braidwood projects EIC performed preoperational environmental radiological baseline studies on and around the site. 1.4.5.12 Meteorology Research, Inc. (MRI) Meteorology Research, Inc. (MRI) is an environmental consulting firm which, since 1951, has provided meteorological and air B/B-UFSAR 1.4-6 REVISION 1 - DECEMBER 1989 quality instruments and services to all aspects of industry in the solution of weather-related problems. These range from environmental impact assessments of existing or proposed airports and other major developments to problems of warehousing and marketing seasonal consumer goods. Of particular interest is the influence the local topography has on temperatures and winds. MRI provided meteorological data from 1973 through mid-1975 for Byron and Braidwood Stations by implementation of an onsite meteorological measurement program. 1.4.5.13 Illinois State Museum (ISM)
The Illinois State Museum conducts archaeological investigations throughout the state of Illinois. As a member of the Illinois Archaeological Survey, they have the expertise and services to perform contract archaeological work. Their studies included a pedestrian reconnaissance survey, subsurface testing and excavating, and laboratory analyses of datifacts, pollen, and soils.
As a technical consultant on the Braidwood project, ISM identified and made recommendations which Commonwealth Edison acted upon to aid in preserving the archaeological sites on Braidwood Station and pipeline corridor property.
1.4.5.14 Equitable Environmental Health, Inc. (EEH)
Equitable Environmental Health, Inc. (EEH), successor to Environmental Analysts, Inc./Tabershaw-Cooper Associated, Inc., is a multidisciplinary firm that offers the consulting services of medical professionals, scientists, engineers, economists, and technical support personnel in all areas of environmental health and economics.
EEH staff biologists conducted a 2-year baseline study of the Byron Station site. Distributions of phytoplankton, zooplankton, periphyton, benthos, fish, fish eggs and larvae, and water chemistry in the Rock River in the vicinity of the site were determined and quantitative data on terrestrial flora and fauna were collected. The impacts of plant construction and operation on the biotic communities of the site were predicted, and data were provided for a benefit-cost analysis of the project. 1.4.5.15 Espey, Huston & Associates, Inc. (EH & A)
Espey, Huston & Associates, Inc. (EH & A) is a consulting firm addressing the environmental problems associated with industrial and urban development. EH & A professionals cover a broad range of expertise including civil engineering, environmental engineering, mathematics and computer science, and all phases of aquatic, estuarine, and terrestrial ecology.
B/B-UFSAR 1.4-7 REVISION 1 - DECEMBER 1989 As a technical consultant on the Byron project, EH & A conducted the construction phase terrestrial and aquatic monitoring programs. 1.4.5.16 University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee (UWM) The University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee under Dr. Elizabeth Benchley of the Dept. of Anthropology, conducts archaeological investigations throughout Wisconsin and northern Illinois. As a member of the Illinois Archaeological Survey, they have the expertise and services to perform contract archaeological work. Their studies included a pedestrian reconnaissance survey, subsurface testing, and lab analysis of datifacts, pollen, and soils. As a technical consultant on the Byron project, UWM identified and made recommendations which Commonwealth Edison acted upon to aid in preserving the archaeological sites on Byron Station and pipeline corridor property. Also, UWM conducted archaeological investigations on the Byron transmission line right-of-ways. 1.4.5.17 Aero-Metric Engineering, Inc. (AME) Aero-Metric Engineering, Inc., founded in 1969, is based in Sheboygan, Wisconsin. The staff was made up of over 50 technical photogrammetric personnel, many having professional engineer and/or survey registration. AME's capabilities allow for a complete range of precision photogrammetric services, including aerial photography, mapping, and multiple survey skills.
As a technical consultant on the Byron project, AME will be providing annual aerial infra-red photographs. 1.4.5.18 Iowa Institute of Hydraulic Research The Iowa Institute of Hydraulic Research, formally organized in 1931, is a Division of the University of Iowa's College of Engineering. The Institute staff exceeded 80 in number and was comprised of a professional staff with Ph.Ds in the areas of Civil Engineering, Mechanical Engineering, Physics, Mechanics and Hydraulics, and Aeronautical Engineering, with most of these personnel holding joint academic appointments in the College of Engineering's Division of Energy Engineering. The Institute of Hydraulic Research conducts programs of fundamental research and advanced design and analysis in the areas of environmental pollution, bioengineering, naval hydrodynamics, river mechanics, ice hydraulics, hydrology, water resources, hydraulic structures, fluid mechanics, advanced instrumentation and data-handling techniques for fluids research, and mathematical modeling of watersheds and hydrology.
B/B-UFSAR 1.4-8 REVISION 9 - DECEMBER 2002 As a technical consultant on the Braidwood project, the Institute conducted a thermal evaluation to determine the adequacy of the ultimate heat sink. 1.4.5.19 Babcock and Wilcox International (B&W) B&W is located in Cambridge, Ontario, Canada. B&W has fabricated fossil-fueled boiler components for over 100 years and has fabricated nuclear system components since the late 1950's. B&W has supplied replacement steam generators for Byron Unit 1 and Braidwood Unit 1.
1.4.5.20 Framatome Technologies, Incorporated (FTI)
FTI is located in Lynchburg, Virginia and has been providing services to the electric power industry for over four decades. FTI engineering services include the necessary expertise, experience, and NRC-approved computer codes and methodologies to support the transient analysis of the Unit steam generators. 1.4.5.21 Stone & Webster Engineers and Constructors, Inc. (S&W) S&W is located in Boston, Massachusetts and has been providing services to the electric power industry for over 100 years. S&W has provided balance-of-plant design-engineering support services in support of the power uprate of the Byron and Braidwood units.
B/B-UFSAR 1.4-9 REVISION 8 - DECEMBER 2000 TABLE 1.4-1 EXELON GENERATION COMPANY'S NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS IN SERVICE OR UNDER CONSTRUCTION UNIT NOMINAL GROSS1 RATING (MWe) SCHEDULED COMMERCIAL SERVICE DATE Dresden 1 210 1960 Dresden 2 850 1972 Dresden 3 850 1972 Quad-Cities 1 850 1972 Quad-Cities 2 850 1972 Zion 1 1085 1973 Zion 2 1085 1973 La Salle 1 1122 1978 La Salle 2 1122 1979 Byron 1 1175 1985 Byron 2 1175 1987 Braidwood 1 1175 1988 Braidwood 2 1175 1988 1Note that this is a gross rating, not a net rating.
B/B-UFSAR 1.4-10 REVISION 1 - DECEMBER 1989 TABLE 1.4-2 NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS COMPLETED OR CURRENTLY UNDER DESIGN BY SARGENT & LUNDY UNIT NOMINAL GROSS2 RATING (MWe) YEAR OF POWER OPERATION EBWR 5 1956 Elk River 22 1962 La Crosse 60 1967 SEFOR 20 (MWt) 1969 Dresden 2 850 1969 Dresden 3 850 1971 Quad-Cities 1 850 1971 Quad-Cities 2 850 1972 Zion 1 1085 1973 Zion 2 1085 1973 Fort St. Vrain, Unit 1 330 1973 Enrico Fermi, Unit 2 1200 1988 La Salle County Station, Unit 1 1122 1979 La Salle County Station, Unit 2 1122 1980 Byron Station, Unit 1 1175 1985 Byron Station, Unit 2 1175 1987 Braidwood Station, Unit 1 1175 1988 Braidwood Station, Unit 2 1175 1988 Clinton Power Station, Unit 1 992 1981 Kaiseraugst 992 1982 2Note that this is a gross rating, not a net rating.
B/B-UFSAR 1.4-11 TABLE 1.4-3 WESTINGHOUSE PRESSURIZED WATER REACTOR NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS PLANT OWNER UTILITY LOCATION SCHEDULED COMMERCIAL OPERATION MWe NET NUMBER OF LOOPS Shippingport Duquesne Light Company; Energy Research & Development Administration Pennsylvania 1957 90 4 Yankee-Rowe Yankee Atomic Electric Company Massachusetts 1961 175 4 Trio Vercellese (Enrico Fermi) Ente Nazionale per L'Energia Elettrica (ENEL) Italy 1965 260 4 Chooz (Ardennes) Societe d'Energie Nucleaire Franco-Belge des Ardennes (SENA) France 1967 305 4 San Onofre Unit 1 Southern California Edison Co.; San Diego Gas and Electric Co. California 1968 450 3 Haddam Neck (Connecticut Yankee) Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company Connecticut 1968 575 4 Jose Cabrera-Zorita Union Electrica, S.A. Spain 1969 153 1 Beznau Unit 1 Nordostschweizerische Krafwerke AG (NOK) Switzerland 1969 350 2 Robert Emmett Ginna Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation New York 1970 490 2 Mihama Unit 1 The Kansai Electric Power Company, Inc. Japan 1970 320 2 Point Beach Unit 1 Wisconsin Electric Power Co.; Wisconsin Michigan Power Co. Wisconsin 1970 497 2 H. B. Robinson Unit 2 Carolina Power and Light Co. South Carolina 1971 707 3 B/B-UFSAR 1.4-12 REVISION 8 - DECEMBER 2000 TABLE 1.4-3 (Cont'd) PLANT OWNER UTILITY LOCATION SCHEDULED COMMERCIAL OPERATION MWe NET NUMBER OF LOOPS Beznau Unit 2 Nordostschweizerische Kraftwerke AG (NOK) Switzerland 1972 350 2 Point Beach Unit 2 Wisconsin Electric Power Co.; Wisconsin Michigan Power Co. Wisconsin 1972 497 2 Surry Unit 1 Virginia Electric and Power Co. Virginia 1972 822 3 Turkey Point Unit 3 Florida Power and Light Co. Florida 1972 745 3 Indian Point Unit 2 Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. New York 1973 873 4 Prairie Island Unit 1 Northern States Power Company Minnesota 1973 530 2 Turkey Point Unit 4 Florida Power and Light Co. Florida 1973 745 3 Surry Unit 2 Virginia Electric and Power Co. Virginia 1973 822 3 Zion Unit 1 Exelon Generation Company Illinois 1973 1050 4 Kewaunee Wisconsin Public Service Corp.; Wisconsin Power and Light Co.;
Madison Gas and Electric Co. Wisconsin 1974 560 2 Prairie Island Unit 2 Northern States Power Company Minnesota 1974 530 2 Takahama Unit 1 The Kansai Electric Power Company, Inc. Japan 1974 781 3 Zion Unit 2 Exelon Generation Company Illinois 1974 1050 4 B/B-UFSAR 1.4-13 REVISION 8 - DECEMBER 2000 TABLE 1.4-3 (Cont'd) PLANT OWNER UTILITY LOCATION SCHEDULED COMMERCIAL OPERATION MWe NET NUMBEROF LOOPS Doel Unit 1 Indivision Doel Belgium 1975 390 2 Doel Unit 2 Indivision Doel Belgium 1975 390 2 Donald C. Cook Unit 1 Indiana and Michigan Electric Company (AEP) Michigan 1975 1060 4 Ringhals Unit 2 Statens Vattenfallsverk (SSPB) Sweden 1975 822 3 Almaraz Unit 1 Unit Electrica, S.A.; Compania Sevillana de Electricidad, S.A.;
Hidroelectrica Espanola, S.A. Spain 1976 902 3 Beaver Valley Unit 1 Duquesne Light Company; Ohio Edison Company; Pennsylvania Power Company Pennsylvania 1976 852 3 Diablo Canyon Unit 1 Pacific Gas and Electric Co. California 1976 1084 4 Indian Point Unit 3 Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. New York 1976 965 4 Lemoniz Unit 1 Iberduero, S.A. Spain 1976 902 3 Salem Unit 1 Public Service Electric and Gas Company; Exelon Generation Company; Atlantic City Electric Co.;
Delmarva Power and Light Co. New Jersey 1976 1090 4 B/B-UFSAR 1.4-14 TABLE 1.4-3 (Cont'd) PLANT OWNER UTILITY LOCATION SCHEDULED COMMERCIAL OPERATION MWe NET NUMBEROF LOOPS Trojan Portland General Electric Co.; Eugene Water and Electric Board; Pacific Power and Light Company Oregon 1976 1130 4 Almaraz Unit 2 Union Electrica, S.A.; Compania Sevillana de Electricidad, S.A.;
Hidroelectrica Espanola, S.A. Spain 1977 902 3 Asco Unit 1 Fuerzas Electricas de Cataluna, S.A. (FESCA) Spain 1977 902 3 Diablo Canyon Unit 2 Pacific Gas and Electric Co. California 1977 1106 4 Joseph M. Farley Unit 1 Alabama Power Company Alabama 1977 829 3 Ko-Ri Unit 1 Korea Electric Power Co., Ltd. Korea 1977 564 2 North Anna Unit 1 Virginia Electric and Power Co. Virginia 1977 898 3 North Anna Unit 2 Virginia Electric and Power Co. Virginia 1977 898 3 Ohi Unit 1 The Kansai Electric Power Co., Inc. Japan 1977 1122 4 Ohi Unit 2 The Kansai Electric Power Co., Inc. Japan 1977 1122 4 Ringhals Unit 3 Statens Vattenfallsvert (SSPB) Sweden 1977 900 3 Sequoyah Unit 1 Tennessee Valley Authority Tennessee 1977 1148 4 Angra dos Reis Unit 1 Furnas-Centrais Electricas, S.A. Brazil 1978 626 2 B/B-UFSAR 1.4-15 TABLE 1.4-3 (Cont'd) PLANT OWNER UTILITY LOCATION SCHEDULED COMMERCIAL OPERATION MWe NET NUMBEROF LOOPS Asco Unit 2 Fuerzas Electricas de Cataluna, S.A. (FESCA);
Empresa Nacional Hidroelectrica del Ribagorzana, S.A. (ENHER); Fuerzas Hidroelectricas del Segre, S.A.;
Hidroelectrica de Cataluna, S.A. Spain 1978 902 3 Donald C. Cook Unit 2 Indiana and Michigan Electric Company (AEP) Michigan 1978 1060 4 Lemoniz Unit 2 Iberduero, S.A. Spain 1978 902 3 Sequoyah Unit 2 Tennessee Valley Authority Tennessee 1978 1148 4 Watts Bar Unit 1 Tennessee Valley Authority Tennessee 1978 1177 4 William B. McGuire Unit 1 Duke Power Company North Carolina 1978 1180 4 Joseph M. Farley Unit 2 Alabama Power Company Alabama 1979 829 3 Krsko Savske Elektrarne, Ljubljana, Slovenia, Elektroprivreda, Zagreb, Croatia Yugoslavia 1979 615 2 Ringhals Unit 4 Statens Vattenfallsvert (SSPD) Sweden 1979 900 3 B/B-UFSAR 1.4-16 REVISION 8 - DECEMBER 2000 TABLE 1.4-3 (Cont'd) PLANT OWNER UTILITY LOCATION SCHEDULED COMMERCIAL OPERATION MWe NET NUMBEROF LOOPS Salem Unit 2 Public Service Electric and Gas Company; Exelon Generation Company Atlantic City Electric Co.; Delmarva Power and Light Co. New Jersey 1979 1115 4 Virgil C. Summer South Carolina Electric and Gas Company South Carolina 1979 900 3 Watts Bar Unit 2 Tennessee Valley Authority Tennessee 1979 1177 4 William B. McGuire Unit 2 Duke Power Company North Carolina 1979 1180 4 Byron Unit 1 Exelon Generation Company Illinois 1981 1120 4 Comanche Peak Unit 1 Texas Utilities Generating Co. Texas 1980 1150 4 Seabrook Unit 1 Public Service Company of New Hampshire; United Illuminating Company New Hampshire 1980 1200 4 South Texas Project Unit 1 Houston Lighting and Power Co.;
Central Power and Light Co.;
City Public Service of San Antonio; City of Austin, Texas Texas 1980 1250 4 B/B-UFSAR 1.4-17 REVISION 8 - DECEMBER 2000 TABLE 1.4-3 (Cont'd) PLANT OWNER UTILITY LOCATION SCHEDULED COMMERCIAL OPERATION MWe NET NUMBEROF LOOPS Beaver Valley Unit 2 Duquesne Light Company; Ohio Edison Company; Pennsylvania Power Co.;
Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company; Toledo Edison Company Pennsylvania 1981 852 3 Braidwood Unit 1 Exelon Generation Company Illinois 1981 1120 4 Callaway Unit 1 SNUPPS - Union Electric Co. Missouri 1981 1150 4 Catawba Unit 1 Duke Power Company South Carolina 1981 1153 4 Jamesport Unit 1 Long Island Lighting Company New York 1981 1150 4 Ko-Ri Unit 2 Korea Electric Power Co., Ltd. Korea 1981 605 2 NORCO Puerto Rico Water Resources Authority Puerto Rico - 583 2 Braidwood Unit 2 Exelon Generation Company Illinois 1982 1120 4 Byron Unit 2 Exelon Generation Company Illinois 1982 1120 4 Catawba Unit 2 Duke Power Company South Carolina 1982 1153 4 Comanche Peak Unit 2 Texas Utilities Generating Co. Texas 1982 1150 4 Marble Hill Unit 1 Public Service Company of Indiana, Inc.;
Northern Indiana Public Service Company Indiana 1982 1150 4 B/B-UFSAR 1.4-18 TABLE 1.4-3 (Cont'd) PLANT OWNER UTILITY LOCATION SCHEDULED COMMERCIAL OPERATION MWe NET NUMBEROF LOOPS Millstone Unit 3 Northeast Nuclear Energy Co. Connecticut 1982 1156 4 Seabrook Unit 3 Public Service Company of New Hampshire; United Illuminating Company New Hampshire 1982 1200 4 South Texas Project Unit 2 Houston Lighting and Power Co.; Central Power and Light Co.; City Public Service of San Antonio; City of Austin, Texas Texas 1982 1250 4 Taiwan Unit 5 Taiwan Power Company Taiwan 1982 950 3 Wolf Creek Unit 1 SNUPPS - Kansas Gas and Electric Company; Kansas City Power and Light Company Kansas 1982 1150 4 Alvin W. Vogtle Unit 1 Georgia Power Company Georgia 1983 1113 4 Callaway Unit 2 SNUPPS - Union Electric Company Missouri 1983 1150 4 NEP-1 New England Power Company - 1983 1150 4 Fort Calhoun Unit 2 Omaha Public Power District; Nebraska Public Power District Nebraska 1983 1150 4 Jamesport Unit 2 Long Island Lighting Company New York 1983 1150 4 Sears Island Central Maine Power Company Maine - 1200 4 B/B-UFSAR 1.4-19 TABLE 1.4-3 (Cont'd) PLANT OWNER UTILITY LOCATION SCHEDULED COMMERCIAL OPERATION MWe NET NUMBEROF LOOPS Taiwan Unit 6 Taiwan Power Company Taiwan 1983 950 3 Alvin W. Vogtle Unit 2 Georgia Power Company Georgia 1984 1113 4 Marble Hill Unit 2 Public Service Company of Indiana, Inc.;
Northern Indiana Public Service Company Indiana 1984 1150 4 Shearon Harris Unit 1 Carolina Power and Light Co. North Carolina 1984 900 3 Sterling SNUPPS - Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation; Central Hudson Gas and Electric Corporation; Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation; Orange and Rockland Utilities, Inc. New York 1984 1150 4 Atlantic Unit 1 (O.P.S.) Public Service Electric and Gas Company; Atlantic City Electric Co.;
Jersey Central Power and Light Company New Jersey 1985 1150 4 NEP-2 New England Power Company - 1985 1150 4 South Dade Unit 1 Florida Power and Light Co. Florida 1985 1150 4 Sundesert Unit 1 San Diego Gas and Electric Co. California 1985 950 3 B/B-UFSAR 1.4-20 TABLE 1.4-3 (Cont'd) PLANT OWNER UTILITY LOCATION SCHEDULED COMMERCIAL OPERATION MWe NET NUMBEROF LOOPS Tyrone Unit 1 SNUPPS - Northern States Power Company Wisconsin 1985 1150 4 Shearon Harris Unit 2 Carolina Power and Light Co. North Carolina 1986 900 3 South Dade Unit 2 Florida Power and Light Co. Florida 1986 1150 4 Atlantic No. (O.P.S.) Public Service Electric and Gas Company; Atlantic City Electric Co.;
Jersey Central Power and Light Company New Jersey 1987 1150 4 Shearon Harris Unit 4 Carolina Power and Light Co. North Carolina 1988 900 3 Sundesert Unit 2 San Diego Gas and Electric Co. California 1988 950 3 Sayago Unit 1 Iberduero, S.A. Spain 1980's 1000 3 Sayago Unit 4 Iberduero, S.A. Spain 1980's 1000 3 Shearon Harris Unit 3 Carolina Power and Light Co. North Carolina 1990 900 3 Unassigned Unit 1 (O.P.S.) Public Service Electric and Gas Company; Atlantic City Electric Company New Jersey 1990 1150 4 Unassigned Unit 2 (O.P.S.) Public Service Electric and Gas Company; Atlantic City Electric Company New Jersey 1992 1150 4 B/B-UFSAR 1.5-1 1.5 REQUIREMENTS FOR FURTHER TECHNICAL INFORMATION The design of the Byron/Braidwood units is based upon proven concepts which have been developed and successfully applied to the design of pressurized water reactor systems. There are currently no areas of research and development which are required for operation of this plant. At the time of issuance of construction permits for the Byron/ Braidwood units, the Preliminary Safety Analysis Report (PSAR) and the standard design report which it referenced, RESAR-3, identified certain research and development programs which were incomplete. These programs, which have been successfully completed, have provided technical information which has been used either to demonstrate the safety of design, more sharply define margins of conservatism, or lead to design improvements. Reference 1 presents descriptions of those safety-related research and development programs which have been carried out for, by, or in conjunction with Westinghouse Nuclear Energy Systems, and which are applicable to Westinghouse pressurized water reactors. The discussion which follows documents the completion of the construction permit stage research programs. 1.5.1 Programs Required for Plant Operation Two programs were identified as required for plant design and operation in the PSAR:
- a. core stability evaluation and
- b. fuel rod burst program.
Both programs are complete. The fuel rod burst program was completed at the time of the PSAR. The core stability evaluation program was not. A discussion of the core stability evaluation program follows. 1.5.1.1 Core Stability Evaluation The program to establish means for the detection and control of potential xenon oscillations and for the shaping of the axial power distribution for improved core performance has been satisfactorily completed. See item 1, Reference 2, for a further discussion of the tests and results. 1.5.2 Other Programs Not Required for Plant Operation The following programs were not complete at the time of the PSAR but are now satisfactorily complete.
B/B-UFSAR 1.5-2 1.5.2.1 Fuel Development Program for Operation at High Power Densities The program to demonstrate the satisfactory operation of fuel at high burnup and power densities has been satisfactorily completed. See item 8, Reference 2, for a further discussion of the program and its results.
1.5.2.2 Blowdown Forces Program Westinghouse has completed BLODWN-2, an improved digital computer program for the calculation of local fluid pressures, flows and density transients in the primary coolant systems during a LOCA.
BLODWN-2 is used to evaluate the effects of blowdown forces in this application. Refer to item 15 in Reference 4 for a further discussion of the tests and results. 1.5.2.3 Blowdown Heat Transfer Testing (Formerly Titled Delayed Departure From Nucleate Boiling) The NRC Acceptance Criteria for Emergency Core Cooling Systems for Light-Water Power Reactors was issued in Section 50.46 of 10 CFR 50 on December 28, 1973. It defines the basis and conservative assumptions to be used in the evaluation of the performance of emergency core cooling systems (ECCS). Westinghouse believes that some of the conservatism of the criteria is associated with the manner in which transient DNB phenomena are treated in the evaluation models. Transient critical heat flux data presented at the 1972 specialists meeting of the Committee on Reactor Safety Technology (CREST) indicated that the time to DNB can be delayed under transient conditions. To demonstrate the conservatism of the ECCS evaluation models, Westinghouse initiated a program to experimentally simulate the blowdown phase of a LOCA. This testing is part of the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) sponsored Blowdown Heat Transfer Program, which was started early in 1976. Testing was completed in 1979. A DNB correlation developed by Westinghouse from these test results is used in the ECCS analyses for Byron/Braidwood. Objective The objective of the blowdown heat transfer test was to determine the time that DNB occurs under LOCA conditions. This information was used to confirm a new Westinghouse transient DNB correlation. The steady-state DNB data obtained from 15x15 and 17x17 test programs was used to assure that the geometrical differences between the two fuel arrays is correctly treated in the transient correlations.
B/B-UFSAR 1.5-3 Program The program was divided into two phases. The Phase I tests started from steady-state conditions, with sufficient power to maintain nucleate boiling throughout the bundle, and progressed through controlled ramps of decreasing test section pressure or flow initiated DNB. By applying a series of controlled conditions, investigation of the DNB was studied over a range of qualities and flows, and at pressures relevant to a PWR blowdown.
Phase I provided separate-effects data for heat transfer correlation development.
Typical parameters used for Phase I testing are shown in Table 1.5-1.
Phase II simulated PWR behavior during a LOCA to permit definition of the time delay associated with onset of DNB. Tests in this phase covered the large double-ended guillotine cold leg break. All tests in Phase II were also started after establishment of typical steady-state operating conditions. The fluid transient was then initiated, and the rod power decay was programmed in such a manner as to simulate the actual heat input of fuel rods. The test was terminated when the heater rod temperatures reached a predetermined limit.
Typical parameters used for Phase II testing are shown in Table 1.5-2.
Test Description The experimental program was conducted in the J-Loop at the Westinghouse Forest Hills Facility with a full length 5x5 rod bundle simulating a section of a 15x15 fuel assembly to determine DNB occurrence under LOCA conditions.
The heater rod bundles used in this program were internally-heated rods, capable of a maximum linear power of 18.8 kW/ft, with a total power of 135 kW (for extended periods) over the 12-foot heated length of the rod. Heat was generated internally by means of a varying cross-sectional resistor which approximates a chopped cosine power distribution. Each rod was adequately instrumented with a total of 12 clad thermocouples. Results The experiments in the DNB facility resulted in cladding temperature and fluid properties measured as a function of time throughout the blowdown range from 0 to 20 seconds. Facility modifications and installation of the initial test bundle were completed. A series of shakedown tests in the B/B-UFSAR 1.5-4 REVISION 1 - DECEMBER 1989 J-Loop were performed. These tests provided data for instrumentation calibration and check-out, and provided information regarding facility control and performance. Initial program tests were performed during the first half of 1975. Under the sponsorship of EPRI, testing was reinitiated during 1976 on the same test bundle. The testing was terminated in November 1976 and plans were made for a new test bundle and further testing during 1978-1979. These tests were completed in December of 1979.
1.5.3 References
- 1. F. T. Eggleston, "Safety-Related Research and Development for Westinghouse Pressurized Water Reactors, Program Summaries," WCAP-8768, October 1978.
- 2. F. T. Eggleston, "Safety-Related Research and Development for Westinghouse PWRs Program Summaries," WCAP-8768. Spring 1976 Edition.
- 3. "Safety-Related Research and Development for Westinghouse PWRs Program Summaries," WCAP-8458. Fall 1977 Edition. 4. "Safety-Related Research and Development for Westinghouse PWRs Program Summaries," WCAP-8004. Fall 1972 Edition.
B/B-UFSAR 1.5-5 TABLE 1.5-1 BLOWDOWN HEAT TRANSFER PHASE I TEST PARAMETERS PARAMETERS NOMINAL VALUE INITIAL STEADY-STATE CONDITIONS Pressure 1250 to 2250 psia Test section mass velocity 1.12 to 2.5x106 lb/hr-ft2 Core inlet temperature 550° F to 600° F Maximum heat flux 306,000 to 531,000 Btu/hr-ft2
TRANSIENT RAMP CONDITIONS Pressure decrease 0 to 350 psia/sec and subcooled depressurization from 2250 psia Flow decrease 0 to 100%/sec Inlet enthalpy constant B/B-UFSAR 1.5-6 TABLE 1.5-2 BLOWDOWN HEAT TRANSFER PHASE II TEST PARAMETERS PARAMETERS NOMINAL VALUE INITIAL STEADY-STATE CONDITIONS Pressure 2250 psia Test section mass velocity 2.5x106 lb/hr-ft2 Inlet coolant temperature 545° F Maximum heat flux 531,000 Btu/hr-ft2
TRANSIENT CONDITIONS Simulated break Double-ended cold leg guillotine breaks B/B-UFSAR 1.6-1 1.6 MATERIAL INCORPORATED BY REFERENCES Table 1.6-1 lists topical reports which provide information additional to that provided in this UFSAR and which have been filed separately with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) in support of this and similar applications.
A legend to the review status code letters follows: A - NRC review complete; NRC acceptance letter issued.
AE - NRC accepted as part of the Westinghouse Emergency Core Cooling System (ECCS) evaluation model only; does not constitute acceptance for any purpose other than for ECCS analyses. B - Submitted to the NRC as background information; not undergoing formal NRC review. O - On file with NRC; older generation report with current validity; not actively under formal NRC review. U - Actively under formal NRC review.
B/B-UFSAR 1.7-1 REVISION 9 - DECEMBER 2002 1.7 DRAWINGS The drawings cited in each UFSAR Chapter are included as "General References" only; i.e., refer to the drawings to obtain additional detail or to obtain background information. These drawings are not part of the UFSAR. They are controlled by the Controlled Documents Program. References on the figures contained in the UFSAR to ComEd, CECo, and Commonwealth Edison will be revised to reflect the change in facility ownership to Exelon Generation Company when other changes to that figure are needed. 1.7.1 Electrical, Instrumentation, and Control Drawings Subsection 1.7.1 of the FSAR provides a list of electrical, instrumentation, and control drawings that were provided to the NRC during the initial licensing phase. 1.7.2 Drawings for Independent Structural Review Subsection 1.7.2 of the FSAR provides a list of the structural, architectural, mechanical loading and electrical loading drawings that were provided to the NRC to enable them to perform the Project Structural Review and the Independent Structural Review during the licensing phase.
B/B-UFSAR 1.7-2 REVISION 9 - DECEMBER 2002 TABLE 1.7-1 This Table has been intentionally deleted.
B/B-UFSAR REVISION 9 - DECEMBER 2002 Pages 1.7-3 through 1.7-17 have been intentionally deleted.
B/B-UFSAR REVISION 9 - DECEMBER 2002
Figures 1.1-1 through 1.1-3 have been deleted intentionally.
B/B-UFSAR REVISION 9 - DECEMBER 2002
Figures 1.2-1 through 1.2-17 have been deleted intentionally.