Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

System 80

System 80 is a Generation II (PWR) design developed by (CE), featuring a two-loop primary coolant system with vertical U-tube steam generators and a nominal thermal power output of 3,817 MWth per unit, yielding approximately 1,350 MWe electrical output. Three System 80 reactors were constructed and remain operational at the near , forming the largest facility in the United States by total capacity, with a combined net output exceeding 4,000 MWe. The design emphasizes standardized components for improved constructability and safety, including enhanced emergency core cooling systems and containment structures capable of withstanding severe accidents. Introduced in the as an evolution of earlier CE PWRs, System 80 incorporated empirical lessons from operational data to optimize reliability and efficiency, achieving high capacity factors at Palo Verde averaging over 90% in recent years. It served as the foundation for the System 80+ advanced PWR variant, which introduced further improvements such as quadrupled emergency capacity, and systems, and in-containment refueling for severe mitigation, earning U.S. design certification in 1997. While no System 80+ units were ultimately built in the United States due to market conditions in the , the original System 80 design has demonstrated long-term operational stability without design-related incidents compromising public safety, contributing substantially to generation.

Design and Technology

Core Specifications

The System 80 (PWR) core operates at a nominal thermal power of 3800 MWt, delivering approximately 1300 net electrical output per unit under design conditions. This power level supports a four-loop primary configuration, with serving as both moderator and to maintain subcooled conditions and prevent within the core. The core houses 241 fuel assemblies arranged in a cylindrical lattice, optimized for uniform power distribution and efficient neutron economy. Each assembly employs a 16×16 array of fuel rods, containing stacked uranium dioxide (UO₂) pellets enriched up to about 4-5 weight percent uranium-235, encased in Zircaloy-4 cladding for corrosion resistance and structural integrity. Guide tubes within select assemblies accommodate control element assemblies (CEAs), which deploy boron carbide (B₄C) or similar absorbers for reactivity control, supplemented by soluble boron in the coolant for fine-tuning and shutdown margin. Key geometric parameters include an active core height of 3.658 meters and an equivalent core diameter of 2.921 meters, yielding a height-to-diameter conducive to axial power shaping and thermal-hydraulic stability. These dimensions fit within a reactor vessel of approximately 12 meters in height and 4 meters in inner diameter, fabricated from to withstand pressures up to 17.24 (2500 psia). The design emphasizes high potential, with residence times supporting 18-24 month cycles, while incorporating reflectors to enhance utilization and reduce peripheral power peaking.
ParameterSpecification
Thermal power3800 MWt
Number of fuel assemblies241
Fuel rod array16 × 16
Active core height3.658 m
Equivalent core diameter2.921 m
Coolant inlet temperature~290°C
Coolant outlet temperature~325°C
Core performance relies on forced circulation via reactor coolant pumps, achieving average linear rates below 18 kW/m to limit cladding temperatures and product release risks. Departures from (DNB) margins are maintained above 1.3 under normal operations, verified through approved correlations tailored to the 16×16 geometry.

Safety Systems

The System 80 employs a four-train engineered features (ESF) to provide redundancy and diversity in mitigating design-basis accidents, including loss-of-coolant accidents (LOCAs) and anticipated transients without (ATWS). This design, standardized by , draws on post-Three Mile Island enhancements, such as improved ECCS performance models that limit peak cladding temperature to below 2200°F (1202°C) and ensure long-term core cooling via conservative Appendix K evaluations. The Emergency Core Cooling System (ECCS), integrated as the Safety Injection System (SIS), delivers borated coolant to the reactor core during LOCAs through multiple injection modes. High-pressure safety injection pumps in each of the four provide initial injection at reactor coolant system pressures up to 2000 psia, supplemented by accumulators for rapid depressurization response and low-pressure pumps drawing from the refueling water storage tank (RWST) for recirculation cooling after switchover. Each is independently powered and seismically qualified, with a design capacity to achieve reflood rates exceeding regulatory minima, as validated by thermal-hydraulic analyses reducing peak linear heat generation to 12.1 kW/ft. Containment integrity is maintained by a steel-lined, structure rated for peak internal pressures of approximately 60 psig from LOCA steam release, with a low-leakage design meeting 10 CFR 50 Appendix J requirements. The Spray System, actuated by the Engineered Safety Features Actuation System (ESFAS), uses low-pressure pumps to recirculate RWST water for heat removal and fission product scrubbing, reducing pressure below 25 psig within specified times; fan coolers provide supplemental cooling. Decay heat removal relies on the Emergency Feedwater System (EFWS), which supplies water to secondary-side steam generators via two motor-driven pumps and one turbine-driven pump per unit, ensuring auxiliary feedwater flow rates of at least 600 gpm total during loss of offsite power or main feedwater. The Reactor Protection System (RPS) independently monitors parameters like , coolant pressure, and temperature to initiate rapid insertion via hydraulic accumulators in the Control Rod Drive System, achieving subcriticality within seconds. For ATWS mitigation, the design incorporates diverse actuation logic powered by motor-generator sets, alongside ESFAS initiation of safety injection, steam generator PORV opening, and via the Anticipated Transient Without Scram Mitigation System Actuator (AMSAC), which employs feedwater runback to prevent steam generator dryout. All safety-related systems are Class 1E qualified, with physical separation and electrical to withstand single failures, seismic events up to 0.3g zero-period , and station blackout for at least 4 hours via diesel generators.

Fuel and Control Mechanisms

The fuel assemblies in the System 80 consist of (UO₂) pellets enriched to 2–5% , clad in Zircaloy-4 alloy tubes and arranged in a square 17×17 lattice with 264 fuel rod positions, guide thimbles for control elements, and provisions for in-core . Each assembly holds approximately 265 rods optimized for burnups up to 50,000 MWd/tU, with structural grids providing support and spacing to minimize and enhance heat transfer. The core comprises 217 such assemblies, enabling a thermal output of about 3,800 MWt per . Reactivity control relies on a combination of Control Element Assemblies (CEAs) and chemical shim via soluble in the primary coolant. CEAs feature 12-finger clusters of (B₄C) absorber rods clad in or , with full-strength designs using solid B₄C pellets in the upper section and reduced-diameter configurations in the lower section for improved neutron economy. The includes approximately 53 full-length CEAs for shutdown, power regulation, and override, plus part-length 4-finger CEAs (typically 16–20 assemblies) for axial power shaping and tilting without full core insertion. These are driven by electromechanical rod cluster control mechanisms mounted atop the reactor vessel, employing magnetic latches for stepwise insertion and via gravity drop in under 2 seconds. Boric acid concentration, adjustable from 0 to 2,500 ppm, compensates for depletion, product buildup, and temperature effects, while CEAs handle short-term transients and fine adjustments. This approach ensures stable operation across load-following scenarios, with the prioritizing rod worth minimization to reduce scram-induced power asymmetries. Unlike later evolutionary designs, the baseline System 80 does not eliminate soluble boron entirely, relying on it for margins during low-power conditions and refueling.

Development and Standardization

Origins with Combustion Engineering

(CE) developed the System 80 as a standardized (PWR) design in the early 1970s, aiming to enhance construction efficiency, reduce licensing variability, and improve overall plant economics through uniformity in components and systems. Rated at 3,800 MW thermal power with a two-loop primary coolant configuration, the design built on CE's prior PWR experience, incorporating refined steam generators, reactor vessel internals, and control systems for better fuel utilization and reliability. This initiative aligned with broader U.S. nuclear industry trends toward to address rising costs and regulatory demands prior to the 1979 . By September 1975, submitted a Standard Safety Analysis Report (SSAR) to the U.S. (NRC), detailing the reference System 80 configuration and proposing its use as a for future , subject to site-specific evaluations. The SSAR emphasized the design's margins, including robust structures and emergency core cooling capabilities derived from operational data of earlier CE reactors. This submission represented a formal in positioning System 80 as a replicable "reference plant" model, distinct from custom-built predecessors. The design's origins culminated in its selection for the in , where planning began in 1973 for three 3,800 MWt units. Construction started in 1976, with the project serving as the primary validation of System 80's standardized features, such as modularized balance-of-plant systems and pre-certified nuclear steam supply systems (NSSS). Despite ambitions for broader adoption, Palo Verde remained the sole U.S. deployment, with units achieving commercial operation between 1986 and 1988, demonstrating the design's operational viability amid evolving regulatory scrutiny.

Evolution to Standardized PWR

Combustion Engineering advanced its (PWR) lineage in the early 1970s by developing the System 80 as a standardized four-loop , responding to pressures for cost control amid regulatory scrutiny and construction overruns. Building on experience from earlier plants like the three-loop units at Calvert Cliffs (operational from 1975), System 80 scaled power output to around 3,800 MW thermal while standardizing components, including once-through steam generators and redundant cooling systems, to minimize custom and enable modular fabrication. This prioritized replication across multiple units to reduce licensing variability and construction timelines, aligning with federal initiatives like the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's emphasis on replicable designs post-Three Mile Island. A landmark in this evolution occurred on April 24, 1973, when Duke Power awarded a contract for six System 80 nuclear steam supply systems under Project 81, an effort to deploy identical plants for in and . Although economic and regulatory challenges limited the program to three units at Palo Verde— with construction starting in 1976 and the first achieving criticality in 1985—the project validated by pre-qualifying design elements for streamlined approvals and repetitive builds. System 80's uniformity facilitated higher-quality , as evidenced by its of proven hydraulics and controls from prior CE deployments, reducing first-of-a-kind risks. The 's extended to safety architecture, featuring a large dry containment and diverse injection capabilities refined from operational , which enhanced predictability without radical innovations. This approach contrasted with bespoke predecessors by enforcing fixed interfaces between nuclear island and balance-of-plant systems, enabling utilities to forecast costs more accurately—potentially halving subsequent build times to under five years through off-site . System 80 thus marked Combustion Engineering's commitment to scalable PWR deployment, influencing later evolutions like System 80+ while demonstrating empirical benefits in reliability from design consistency.

Deployment and Operations

Construction at Palo Verde

The , comprising three System 80 pressurized water reactors each rated at approximately 3,800 MW thermal, initiated design and planning in 1973 under the Arizona Nuclear Power Project, a led by Public Service. Construction commenced in 1976, with site preparation and foundation work beginning for all three units around May and June of that year. The standardized System 80 design facilitated modular construction approaches, including pre-fabricated components for the reactor coolant systems and steam generators, aimed at streamlining multi-unit assembly amid rising industry costs. Progress on Unit 1 advanced to initial criticality in late 1985, achieving commercial operation on January 31, 1986, followed by Unit 2's criticality in April 1986, grid connection in May, and commercial start in September 1986. Unit 3, while sharing the same construction start, experienced minor delays typical of sequential unit builds and reached commercial operation on January 29, 1988, marking full station completion after roughly 12 years. The project incorporated post-Three Mile Island regulatory enhancements, such as upgraded emergency core cooling systems integral to the System 80 architecture, without derailing the overall timeline. Total construction costs reached approximately $5.9 billion in dollars, reflecting capital expenditures for the reactors, turbines, and supporting like mechanical draft cooling towers using treated . This figure exceeded initial projections due to inflationary pressures and demands common to 1970s-era builds, though Palo Verde's multi-unit standardization and management practices—emphasizing and —contributed to relative efficiency compared to contemporaneous projects plagued by greater overruns. No major structural failures or safety-related halts were reported during erection of the 1,000-megawatt-class steam supply systems.

Performance Metrics and Reliability

The System 80 pressurized water reactors at have exhibited high operational performance, characterized by capacity factors frequently surpassing 90% annually, reflecting the design's and robust engineering that minimize downtime and maximize electricity output relative to rated capacity. For instance, Unit 2 achieved a 94.8% capacity factor in 2013, ranking it among the top-performing reactors globally that year. Across the 2011–2015 period, the plant's units averaged a 92% capacity factor, outperforming many peers and underscoring the reliability of the System 80's fuel and control systems in sustaining extended full-power operation. More recent data for Unit 1 indicate a 90.72% capacity factor in a reviewed operating period, consistent with the design's emphasis on efficient thermal-hydraulic performance and reduced maintenance needs. Refueling outages for the System 80 units occur on an 18-month cycle, with durations progressively shortened through optimized planning and specialized equipment, enhancing overall plant . In spring 2013, Palo Verde completed its first sub-30-day refueling outage at 29 days and 18 hours, setting a site record that demonstrates effective execution of outage-critical tasks like inspections and fuel assembly handling without compromising safety margins. Such efficiencies contribute to equivalent availability factors exceeding industry norms, as shorter outages reduce replacement power costs and forced derates. Reliability metrics further affirm the System 80's track record at Palo Verde, with low forced outage rates and minimal unplanned scrams attributable to the design's redundant safety features and proactive component monitoring. NRC Reactor Oversight Process performance indicators for the units consistently register in the green category for key areas such as unplanned power changes, safety system functional failures, and AC power system unavailability, indicating performance at or above licensee response column thresholds with no substantive safety cross-cutting issues. The standardized PWR architecture has enabled cumulative operational experience exceeding 100 reactor-years across the three units since initial criticality in the mid-1980s, with forced outage factors remaining below typical PWR averages due to Engineering's focus on durable materials and simplified maintenance protocols. These attributes have supported Palo Verde's role as a baseload provider, generating over million MWh annually while maintaining high equivalent availability.

System 80+ Advancements

Key Design Enhancements

The System 80+ design incorporates evolutionary improvements over the original System 80 , emphasizing enhanced safety margins, redundancy, and operational reliability while maintaining compatibility with existing infrastructure. Rated at 1400 , it achieves increased reactor core thermal margins through reduced hot leg temperature and the use of advanced TURBO™ fuel assemblies, which support higher and improved fuel performance. The features a ring-forged construction with lower 60-year RTNDT values and fewer welds, reducing potential failure points and enhancing long-term integrity. Safety systems in 80+ include a four-train Injection System capable of direct vessel injection, supported by an In-Containment Refueling Water Storage Tank (IRWST) to minimize piping vulnerabilities and ensure long-term cooling during accidents. A dedicated Depressurization () enables rapid depressurization of the reactor coolant system in severe accident scenarios, complemented by increased redundancy in shutdown cooling and containment spray systems. The Emergency Feedwater employs two divisions with diverse types and cavitating Venturis for flow control, improving reliability under station blackout conditions. Containment enhancements feature a large-volume, spherical structure designed for 365 kPa , incorporating a Flooding System to cool the reactor vessel exterior and prevent molten core-concrete interactions. mitigation is addressed via distributed igniters and recombiners to keep concentrations below 10% in the atmosphere. A secondary with an Annulus System provides additional fission product barriers. Primary circuit modifications include a 33% larger pressurizer volume and 25% increased secondary inventory, bolstering transient response and natural circulation capabilities. Advanced instrumentation and control systems, such as the Nuplex 80+ digital platform, incorporate human-factors-engineered control rooms and N-16 monitors for early detection of tube leaks. An auxiliary generator serves as an alternate AC power source, enhancing defense-in-depth against loss-of-offsite power events. These features align with (EPRI) Advanced Utility Requirements Document (URD) criteria, targeting core damage frequency reductions and projected plant availability exceeding 87% with lower operations and maintenance costs.

NRC Certification and Expiration

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) issued design certification for the System 80+ standard plant design, submitted by ABB Combustion Engineering (ABB-CE), via a final rule published in the Federal Register on May 8, 1997 (62 FR 27813). This certification, codified in Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 52, allowed referencing the design in combined license applications under the NRC's standardized licensing process established by the Energy Policy Act of 1992. The certification period was set at 15 years from the rule's issuance date, as specified in 10 CFR 52.55, expiring in May 2012. No applications for construction permits or combined licenses referencing the System 80+ were docketed with the NRC during its certification validity, reflecting limited commercial interest amid post-Three Mile Island regulatory hurdles and economic challenges in the U.S. nuclear sector. ABB-CE did not pursue renewal of the , which would have required demonstrating ongoing applicability and addressing any design changes or new regulatory requirements. Consequently, the System 80+ design lost its certified status for new deployments after , rendering Appendix B obsolete for prospective licensing references. In July 2025, the NRC amended 10 CFR Part 52 to extend the duration of active design certifications from 15 to 40 years (effective , 2025), aiming to reduce burdens and encourage advanced development. This change applies to certifications in effect at the time of the rule's adoption and future ones but does not retroactively revive expired designs like System 80+, which remain ineligible without a new application and review process. The expired status underscores the design's transition to a historical rather than a viable option for contemporary U.S. builds.

Derivatives and Global Influence

Impact on APR-1400 and Korean Designs

South Korea's nuclear power program incorporated System 80 technology through a 1987 technology transfer agreement with Combustion Engineering, selecting the design as the basis for a standardized Korean pressurized water reactor (PWR). This led to the development of the Optimized Power Reactor 1000 (OPR-1000), a two-loop PWR derived from the System 80, featuring a reactor core design adapted from Combustion Engineering's specifications and deployed in multiple units starting in the 1990s. The Korean Standard Nuclear Plant (KSNP), an updated iteration, scaled down and refined System 80 elements for improved efficiency and localization, enabling Korea Electric Power Corporation (KEPCO) to achieve over 90% domestic manufacturing by the early 2000s. The , certified by the U.S. (NRC) in 2019, evolved directly from these foundations as a Generation III PWR, adopting System 80+ analysis codes, methodologies, and evolutionary enhancements such as advanced systems and passive features. Key influences include the two-loop configuration, 1400 MWe capacity scaling from System 80+'s 1400 MWe baseline, and incorporation of innovations like improved emergency core cooling and containment systems, which were refined for seismic robustness in Korea's geological context. This lineage facilitated APR-1400's 60-year design life and high thermal efficiency, with units like Shin Kori 3 achieving commercial operation in 2016 after integrating proven System 80+ operational data from U.S. plants. Despite these advancements, the reliance on System 80 heritage drew scrutiny, including a 2023 allegation during export disputes that elements echoed unlicensed aspects of designs acquired by ; however, Korean authorities maintained the evolution stemmed from authorized transfers and independent optimizations. Overall, System 80's impact enabled to export variants, with four units under construction domestically as of 2022 and international deals in the , demonstrating the design's adaptability and economic viability.

Technological Legacy

The System 80 design introduced evolutionary enhancements to (PWR) technology, including a 33% increase in pressurizer volume compared to earlier models, which improved operational stability and capabilities; this feature influenced subsequent PWR configurations by prioritizing volume-based buffering for pressure control. Additionally, advancements in design, such as the use of tubing and optimized flow distribution to reduce and , addressed common issues in prior generations and established benchmarks for material selection in long-term PWR components. Key safety systems, including a four-train safety injection setup capable of both high- and low-pressure operation, emphasized and diverse cooling paths, reducing dependence on single failure points; these principles informed the safety architecture of later evolutionary PWRs by validating active system reliability through operational data from the Palo Verde units. The incorporation of digital control strategies, such as MSHIM (Modified Shift with Fuel Management) for axial power shaping and optimization, enhanced fuel efficiency and core monitoring, with similar methodologies adopted in Westinghouse's to maintain even power distribution and extend cycle lengths. The Nuplex 80+ control complex pioneered fully digital, human-factors-engineered interfaces with integrated diagnostics and automation, minimizing operator workload during transients; this shifted industry paradigms toward computer-based I&C systems, now ubiquitous in Generation III+ reactors for improved accuracy and over analog predecessors. Thermal-hydraulic analyses resolving issues like countercurrent flow limitations and two-phase critical flow further contributed by providing validated models for beyond-design-basis simulations, which regulatory bodies later referenced in certifying standardized designs. Overall, System 80's focus on incremental, experience-based refinements rather than radical innovations demonstrated a viable path for scaling PWR technology while upholding empirical safety margins.

Safety Record and Criticisms

Empirical Operational Safety

The three System 80 pressurized water reactors at Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, which entered commercial operation between January 1986 and January 1988, have accumulated over 1.2 million effective full-power reactor-years of operation as of 2025 without any core damage incidents, reactor pressure vessel failures, or off-site radiological releases exceeding regulatory limits. Safety systems, including emergency core cooling and containment integrity features inherent to the System 80 design, have reliably actuated during transients, preventing escalation to severe accidents. NRC performance indicators under the Reactor Oversight Process consistently rate key metrics—such as unplanned scrams per 7,000 critical hours, safety system functional failures, and heat removal system unavailability—as green (acceptable) or white (slightly below nominal) across all units in recent quarters, with no sustained yellow or red ratings indicating substantial performance deficiencies. Notable operational events have been limited to lower-severity transients, managed within design basis parameters. On March 14, 1993, Unit 2 experienced a single tube rupture attributed to intergranular attack , resulting in a primary-to-secondary leak of approximately 400 gallons per minute; operators safely depressurized the reactor, isolated the affected , and achieved cold shutdown within hours, with effluent releases confined to below 1% of technical specification limits and no detectable public dose. Similarly, on March 5, 1989, Unit 1 tripped from full power due to a main fire initiated by failed atmospheric dump valves, but redundant protection systems, including generators, maintained cooling without loss of integrity or off-site impact. In December 2016, Unit 3's 3B suffered a mechanical failure during a routine test, yet redundant units and station blackout coping strategies ensured no challenge to core cooling, with the plant remaining at power until scheduled maintenance. Early operational years saw challenges from steam generator tube degradation, common in Combustion Engineering designs, leading to multiple leak detections and forced outages in the late 1980s; Unit 1, for example, operated at a 62% in 1986 due to such issues, prompting enhanced inspection protocols and material upgrades. These were addressed through bobbin probe and eventual replacement of degraded components, reducing recurrence rates to near zero by the mid-1990s. Loss-of-offsite-power events, analyzed in NRC studies from 1987–2015, occurred at Palo Verde at rates comparable to or below the fleet average, with onsite restoration times averaging under 10 hours, supported by the design's four-train configuration. Empirical radiation exposure data from licensee event reports show collective occupational doses averaging 0.8 person-rems per unit annually in recent decades, well below industry medians and ALARA thresholds. Critics, including the , have highlighted latent vulnerabilities in backup systems, such as the 2017 Unit 3 diesel generator explosion that rendered one train inoperable for 57 days while the unit operated under single-train ; however, probabilistic assessments confirmed damage probability remained below 10^{-5} per reactor-year during this period, with no actual function loss. Overall, the absence of INES Level 3 or higher events—contrasting with global incidents at non-Western designs—underscores the System 80's causal robustness in preventing radiological harm through redundant, testable barriers, as validated by post-event root cause analyses.

Regulatory and Economic Challenges

The regulatory framework governing the System 80 design, developed by , imposed significant compliance burdens, particularly in the post-Three Mile Island (TMI) era following the 1979 accident. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) mandated extensive safety retrofits, probabilistic risk assessments, and design verifications for ongoing projects like Palo Verde, where construction of the three System 80 units began between 1976 and 1980. These interventions, intended to address core melt risks and emergency cooling deficiencies revealed at TMI, required iterative NRC reviews and modifications, extending licensing timelines and embedding additional engineering costs into the baseline design. A analysis estimated that each month of delay during the construction phase—often triggered by such regulatory hurdles—added approximately $10.6 million to reactor capital expenses in the early . Economically, System 80 deployment faced high upfront capital demands typical of gigawatt-scale light water reactors, exacerbated by macroeconomic pressures and site-specific factors during the late . Initial projections for Palo Verde pegged total costs at $2.8 billion ($730 per kW installed), but actual expenditures ballooned to around $9 billion ($2,365 per kW) by the plants' commercial operation in 1986–1988, a 3.2-fold overrun driven by regulatory backfits, in labor and materials (which accounted for much of the 1970s–1980s escalation), and disruptions. Despite Palo Verde's relative completion success compared to contemporaries plagued by multi-year , these —coupled with rising rates amplifying financing burdens—deterred additional U.S. orders for System 80, limiting the design to just three units and highlighting its marginal competitiveness against fossil alternatives amid stagnant electricity demand forecasts. Critics, including utility executives and engineering analyses, attributed much of the to regulatory instability, where frequent NRC rule changes mid-construction disrupted efforts and eroded learning curves across projects. For instance, post-TMI mandates for upgraded and added 10–20% to overall budgets industry-wide, without commensurate reductions in empirical failure rates beyond baseline probabilistic models. This dynamic fostered a perception of as a high-risk , contributing to Combustion Engineering's pivot toward evolutionary variants like System 80+ to incorporate pre-certified features and mitigate future overruns.

References

  1. [1]
    System 80 – Knowledge and References - Taylor & Francis
    System 80. System 80 refers to a type of pressurized water reactor that has a power output of 1350 MW(e).From: Fundamentals of Nuclear Science ...
  2. [2]
    [PDF] CE Technology Cross Training R325C - Chapter 15 Plant Differences.
    The CE System 80 design has two heat transport loops, each loop contains one steam generator. Each steam generator is a vertical U-tube heat exchanger with an ...
  3. [3]
    System 80+ - INIS-IAEA
    Jan 4, 2025 · The new design, called System 80+, is based upon evolutionary improvements to the System 80 Pressurized Water Reactor (PWR) that is currently in operation at ...
  4. [4]
    System 80+[trademark] PWR safety design (Journal Article) - OSTI.gov
    Since 1985, ABB Combustion Engineering Nuclear Power (CENP) and Duke Engineering Services, Inc. have been developing the next generation of ...
  5. [5]
    Engineering & Construction - Westinghouse Nuclear
    The 1970s Combustion Engineering System 80 designs were followed in the 1980s and 90s by the U.S. NRC-certified AP600 and System 80+ plant designs. Both of ...
  6. [6]
    [PDF] 09-17-75 Combustion Engineering Standard Safety Analysis Report
    Sep 17, 1975 · 'lbe Reference System-80 design consists of the nuclear steam supply system ... completion of the R&D programs, the Combustion Engineering ...
  7. [7]
    System 80+TM standard plant: Design and operations overview
    The System 80+ Standard Plant Design is a 1400 MWe evolutionary Advanced Light Water Reactor (ALWR), designed to meet the Electric Power Research Institute ...
  8. [8]
    [PDF] Final Rule, "Standard Design Certification for the System 80+ ...
    Nov 23, 1994 · In the proposed rule, the NRC included the technical specifications for the standard designs in the generic DCD in order to maximize the ...
  9. [9]
    Advanced Nuclear Power Reactors
    Apr 1, 2021 · The other type, System 80+, was an advanced pressurized water reactor, which was ready for commercialization but was never promoted for sale.US, EU and UK design... · Light water reactors · Fast neutron reactors
  10. [10]
    [PDF] ADVANCED LIGHT WATER REACTOR PLANTS SYSTEM 80 + TM ...
    4). The System 80+ nuclear steam supply system (NSSS) consists of a pressurized water reactor (PWR) with two primary coolant loops utilizing vertical U-tube ...<|separator|>
  11. [11]
    System 80: combustion engineering's standard 3800-MWt PWR
    Dec 24, 2024 · Information is presented concerning the specifications for the System 80 plant layout, steam generators, reactor coolant pumps, pressurizer, ...
  12. [12]
    [PDF] NUREG/CR-5783, "Aging Assessment of Combustion Engineering ...
    The total number of fuel assemblies in the reactor core depends upon plant size, varying from 133 to the new System-80 plants with 241 assemblies. Each fuel ...
  13. [13]
    [PDF] Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station (PVNGS) Units 1, 2, and 3
    Oct 4, 2019 · The reactor shall contain 241 fuel assemblies.- Each assembly shall ... batches of fresh fuel in the reactor core of any unit at Palo Verde.
  14. [14]
    [PDF] the performance of combustion engineering fuel in operating
    ANO-II is the first C-E reactor to feature fuel assemblies of a 16 x 16 array, the precusor to C-E's stan- dardized System 80 design.
  15. [15]
    Control Element Assemblies (CEAs) for CE-NSSS Reactors
    Plants based on System 80 technology do not shuffle CEAs between core locations since they reside in fixed locations of the UGS during a refueling outage.
  16. [16]
    [PDF] Pressurized Water Reactor Simulator
    In the USA, the Combustion Engineering System 80+ large PWR design was certified by the ... Active core height. 3.658 m. Equivalent core diameter. 2.921 m. Heat ...
  17. [17]
    Pressurized Water Reactor (PWR):Major Systems
    The key elements of the turbine-generator system of the pressurized water reactor (PWR) are turbines to convert thermal energy generated by the steam generators ...
  18. [18]
    A Best-Judgment Analysis of Emergency Core Cooling System ...
    The requirements for an emergency core cooling ... pressurized water reactor licensing analysis are detailed in Appendix K to 10CFR50. ... System 80™ nuclear steam ...
  19. [19]
    [PDF] Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station Units 1, 2, and 3
    Jan 14, 2022 · ATWS event are the System 80 safety grade systems listed below. 1. Reactor Protective System (RPS) - Initiates a reactor trip in the event of ...
  20. [20]
    [PDF] Tier 2 Chapter 04 - Reactor - Section 4.2 Fuel System Design
    The intermediate spacer grids (eight per fuel assembly) are M5™ strip material and are the AREVA NP HTP design. The grids provide lateral and rotational end ...
  21. [21]
    [PDF] Very High Burn-ups in Light Water Reactors - Nuclear Energy Agency
    However, the current Combustion Engineering System 80+ PWR is designed for full-core. MOX, and there are initial design options of the EPR and AP1000 to ...
  22. [22]
    [PDF] R304P - Westinghouse Technology 3.1 Reactor Vessel and Internals.
    The control rod drive mechanisms are electromechanical devices (magnetic jacks) ... by the solid-state full length rod control system (Section 8.1). The ...
  23. [23]
    3 Assessment of Advanced Nuclear Reactor Technologies
    The System 80+ core design uses only control rods for reactivity control, thus eliminating the need to adjust the boron concentration in the coolant. This ...Missing: specifications | Show results with:specifications
  24. [24]
    [PDF] system 80+ - Nuclear Regulatory Commission
    Jan 29, 2021 · CE System 80+ ALWR Reactor Building General Arrangement. Drawings ... Floating of the entire reactor building / nuclear system annex.
  25. [25]
    The Palo Verde story: a foundation for future multi-station nuclear ...
    Jan 2, 2025 · In 1973, the design and planning for the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station Was started featuring three 3800 MWt Combustion Engineering ...Missing: origins | Show results with:origins
  26. [26]
    Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Wintersburg, Arizona
    Nov 1, 2015 · The nearly 4-GW, three-unit Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station remains the largest generator of electricity in the US for the 23rd consecutive year.<|separator|>
  27. [27]
    Project 81 - An Almost Forgotten Standard Nuclear Plant Project
    Jun 28, 2016 · On April 24, 1973, Duke Power awarded the contract for the required six NSSSs to Combustion Engineering, selecting the very modern "System 80" ...
  28. [28]
    The ABB-CE system 80 standard plant design - INIS-IAEA
    Jan 11, 2025 · The ABB-CE System 80 is a modern, proven pressurized water reactor (PWR) design with high safety and availability, used in the US and Korea.
  29. [29]
    Palo verde story: a foundation for future multi-station nuclear power ...
    Dec 31, 1987 · In 1973, the design and planning for the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station was started featuring three 3800 MWt Combustion Engineering ...Missing: timeline | Show results with:timeline<|separator|>
  30. [30]
    Palo Verde - SCPPA
    Units 1, 2 and 3 of the Palo Verde Project reached commercial operation in January 1986, September 1986, and January 1988, respectively. In 2016 Palo Verde ...
  31. [31]
    Palo Verde 2 - World Nuclear Association
    Construction Start, Tuesday, 1 June 1976. First Criticality, Friday, 18 April 1986. First Grid Connection, Tuesday, 20 May 1986.
  32. [32]
    [PDF] Regarding Report, Palo Verde Economics-APS Projections Versus ...
    the New York Times stated that the l976 cost of building a reactor was $773/kWe. I have since discovered that Mr. Cowan meant the $773 figure as the average ...Missing: challenges | Show results with:challenges
  33. [33]
    The world's largest nuclear plants differ by age, number of reactors ...
    Feb 6, 2017 · Based on the most recent five years of data (2011–15), Palo Verde's capacity factor averaged 92%, while other large nuclear plants' capacity ...Missing: lifetime | Show results with:lifetime
  34. [34]
    [PDF] Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1, 2, and 3 ...
    The Palo Verde RPV and internals were designed by Combustion Engineering (System 80 ... Refueling Outage 2R26 (fall), that would be the preferred outage.
  35. [35]
    NRC: Palo Verde 2 - Quarterly Performance Summary
    Performance Indicators. Unplanned Scrams (G) · Safety System Functional Failures (G) · Reactor Coolant System Activity (G) · Drill/Exercise Performance (G) ...
  36. [36]
    [PDF] Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station – Integrated Inspection Report
    Feb 12, 2024 · Unit 1 entered the inspection period at approximately 95 percent power during a coastdown for refueling outage 1R24. On October 7, 2023, the ...
  37. [37]
    The United States operates the world's largest nuclear power plant ...
    Apr 24, 2025 · U.S. nuclear capacity factors have increased in part because of shorter refueling and maintenance outages and improved operational experience.
  38. [38]
    [PDF] IAEA-SM-353/43 XA0053574 SYSTEM 80+™ STANDARD PLANT
    The System 80+ Standard Plant Design is a 1400 MWe evolutionary Advanced Light Water Reactor. (ALWR), designed to meet the Electric Power Research Institute ( ...
  39. [39]
    [PDF] Chapter 6, "Final Safety Evaluation Report
    Unique features of the System 80+ design include: a large spherical, steel containment; an in-containment refueling water storage tank; a reactor cavity ...
  40. [40]
    View of System 80+ Standard Plant Design Reduced Off-Site ...
    1997 Combustion Engineering, Inc. All rights reserved.SYSTEM 80+™ STANDARD PLANT DESIGN REDUCEDOFF-SITE RADIOLOGICAL IMPACTSStanley E. RitterbuschABB ...<|separator|>
  41. [41]
    10 CFR Appendix B to Subpart H of Part 52 - Design Certification ...
    Appendix B constitutes design certification for the System 80 + 1 standard plant design, in accordance with 10 CFR part 52, subpart B. The applicant for ...<|separator|>
  42. [42]
    [PDF] Draft Burden spreadsheet Part 52 renewal 2023.xlsx - Regulations.gov
    NRC expects 0 applicant to maintain records for the System 80+ Design Certification Rule over the next 3 years. (This certified design has expired). Page 20 ...
  43. [43]
    Revising the Duration of Design Certifications - Federal Register
    Jul 2, 2025 · Otherwise stated, the 40-year duration period starts upon the date of issuance or renewal of the DC. Five DCs are currently in effect: appendix ...
  44. [44]
    [PDF] Direct Final Rule - Revising the Duration of Design Certifications
    Jun 30, 2025 · This direct final rule revises section VII so that the appendix can be referenced for a period of 40 years. VI. Regulatory Flexibility ...
  45. [45]
    U.S. and South Korean Cooperation in the World Nuclear Energy ...
    In 1987, KEPCO embarked on an effort to establish a standard Korean design, selecting the System 80 design from the U.S. firm Combustion Engineering (C-E) as ...
  46. [46]
    Nuclear Power in South Korea
    Beyond this, the Generation III APR1400 draws on CE System 80+ innovations. Fuel cycle. South Korea has always had an open fuel cycle, without enrichment or ...
  47. [47]
    Reactor Model - Korean Peninsula Energy Development Organization
    Thus, each unit is rated at 1000 MWe rather than the 1300 MWe of the original System 80 design. ... Regulatory stabilization is achieved by resolving open ...Missing: parameters | Show results with:parameters
  48. [48]
    [PDF] APR1400 Chapter 1, "Introduction and General Discussion," Final ...
    Dec 23, 2014 · The APR1400 design is a two-loop, evolutionary design, pressurized-water reactor (PWR) based on the System 80+ design by Combustion Engineering ...<|separator|>
  49. [49]
    [PDF] Overview of the APR1400 DC Project
    The APR1400 adopted proven technologies from the operation of OPR1000. The APR1400 used safety analysis codes and methodologies of the certified System 80+. The ...Missing: influence | Show results with:influence
  50. [50]
    Latest APR-1400 Reactor Now Online at South Korea's Shin Hanul ...
    Jun 11, 2022 · 60-Year Design Life. The APR-1400 is an evolutionary pressurized water reactor, based on the Combustion Engineering, or CE, System 80+ model.<|control11|><|separator|>
  51. [51]
    No more hurdles for Korea's nuclear reactor exports?
    Sep 20, 2023 · During the lawsuit, Westinghouse made another allegation that KHNP's reactors were developed based on Combustion Engineering's System 80 -- ...
  52. [52]
    A Global Review of PWR Nuclear Power Plants - MDPI
    While thermal power plants use fossil fuels, nuclear power plants use fissile fuel that enables a fission chain reaction to be obtained. In a PWR design ...<|separator|>
  53. [53]
    [PDF] STEAM GENERATOR TUBE EXPERIENCE.
    Feb 9, 1982 · (System 80) steam generator models include multiple features to minimize operating problems. The new features include: 1. Ferritic stainless ...
  54. [54]
    Design of a decoupled AP1000 reactor core control system using ...
    Aug 1, 2016 · Depending on its advancement, the MSHIM strategy has been employed by AP600, AP1000 and System 80 ... Westinghouse AP1000 advanced passive plant ...
  55. [55]
    The Nuplex 80+[sup TM] advanced control complex from ABB ... - OSTI
    Nuclear power-plant designs are in the process of extraordinary change. Worldwide social, political, industrial, and regulatory institutions are exerting ...Missing: contributions | Show results with:contributions
  56. [56]
    Resolution of thermal-hydraulic safety and licensing issues ... - OSTI
    Sep 1, 1995 · This paper discusses the thermal-hydraulic analyses and evaluations performed for the System 80+ design to resolve safety and licensing issues.
  57. [57]
    Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1
    Location: Wintersburg, AZ (50 miles W of Phoenix, AZ) in Region IV Operator: Arizona Public Service Co. Operating License: Issued - 06/01/1985Missing: origins | Show results with:origins
  58. [58]
    [PDF] LER 93-001-02:on 930314,SG tube ruptured in SG 2.Caused by IGA ...
    System (RPS)(JE). At approximately 0434 MST on March 14, 1993, Palo Verde Unit 2 experienced a steam generator tube rupture in Steam ...
  59. [59]
    [PDF] Final Accident Sequence Precursor Analysis - Palo Verde Nuclear ...
    On December 15, 2016, the 3B emergency diesel generator (EDG) experienced a significant mechanical failure during the performance of a regularly scheduled ...Missing: 80 | Show results with:80
  60. [60]
    [PDF] Analysis of Loss-of- Offsite-Power Events 1987–2015 - NRC.gov
    Five three-plant sites are used for LOOP purposes (starting with the data in 1988): Browns Ferry,. Oconee, Palo Verde, San Onofre, and Hope Creek/Salem. Page ...
  61. [61]
    The Back Story the NRC Doesn't Want You to Know about Palo Verde
    Jun 14, 2017 · About 18 months after one of two EDGs for the Unit 1 reactor at DC Cook was severely damaged during a test run, one of two EDGs for the Unit 3 ...
  62. [62]
    [PDF] "Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station Unit 2 SG Tube Rupture ...
    Jul 6, 1993 · the System 80 was changed so as to incorporate the lessons learned from the System. 80 and the 3410 Units: a. The dogleg section ofthe BWwas ...
  63. [63]
    [PDF] Delays in Nuclear Reactor Licensing and Construction - GovInfo
    A month's delay in the construction phase of reactor—which begins after NRC issuance of a construction permit—is estimated to add $10.6 million to its final ...
  64. [64]
    Why Does Nuclear Power Plant Construction Cost So Much? | IFP
    May 1, 2023 · Rising labor costs are the bulk of increased construction costs. Most nuclear plant cost increase in the 1970s-80s can be attributed to ...Missing: Combustion | Show results with:Combustion
  65. [65]
    Nuclear energy: The decade of deliverability
    Sep 19, 2025 · A number of projects have been successfully completed on time and on budget. The Palo Verde nuclear plant (Arizona, 1986 and 1988) was not only ...
  66. [66]
    Why Are Nuclear Power Construction Costs so High? Part II
    Jun 24, 2022 · We previously found that nuclear power construction costs in the US and around the world steadily increased from the late 1960s through the 1980s.
  67. [67]
    HARD TIMES FOR NUCLEAR POWER - The New York Times
    Apr 12, 1981 · So are cost overruns, which have become endemic among nuclear plants still under construction. Indeed, more than one power company now finds ...