ML18064A893

the Clinch River Breeder Reactor Plant Project Final Report Breeder Reactor Corporation

ML18064A893
Person / Time
Site:	Clinch River
Issue date:	01/31/1985
From:	- No Known Affiliation
To:	Office of New Reactors
T Dozier
References
L98 160205 001
Download: ML18064A893 (50)

Text

L98 160205 001 FOREWORD his report is intended to seNe !WO purposes. One is to provide a history of the Clinch River Breeder Reactor Plant Project in the context of other significant events leading up to

' development of the liquid metal fast breeder reactor. The other purpose is to summarize the projecfs principal technological contributions to the inter-national library of knowledge on this major energy conversion concept. Our hope is thatthis report may prove useful to others involved in future develop-ment of breeder reactor plants throughout the world.

CONTENTS Executive Summary..... .. . . . . . .. .. 2 Historical Perspective '4 Evolution of the Project............... 8 Project Objectives 18 Project Organization 18 Project Management 19 Technical Achievements 20 Site Preparation and Excavation. 33 licensing 36 Project Documentation 37 Chronology 38 References... .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. . .. . .. .. . 43 Bibliography. . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . .. . 44 BRC Utilities 45

~

1

EXECUTIVE

SUMMARY

T he breeder reactor, first con- enactment of authorizing legislation, ceived In the early 1940 s, has proposals were solicited, participants long been regarded as the key selected, and final contractual to realization of the full energy agreements reached. For their part, potential contained in the world's the 753 electric systems representing uranium resources, This potential is the investor-owned, public power believed to be at least as large as and electric cooperative sectors of the world's fossil fuel reserves. Since the industry pledged a record $257 the breeder's conception, scientists million to the project. This remains and engineers in the United States the largest utility Industry commit-and overseas have advanced ment ever made to a single research steadily toward the goal of breeder and development project.

power plants for application on The projects objectives electric utility systems which could encompassed basic concepts more produce power competitively with far-reaching than merely bUilding alternative technologies. another power plant. Design, Although the early work on the construction and operation were breeder was performed almost intended to document experience exclusively in the United States, other and information leading to eventual industrialized countries, especially development of the LMFBR concept.

those with limited natural fossil fuel In 1973, work got under way and it resources, have become involved proceeded rapidly until April, 1977.

and now attach a high priority to At that point political opposition research and development efforts o

intensified and progress slowed due on breeder development. Today, largely to efforts by the Carter ad-technical feasibility has been estab- ministration to cancel the project.

lished and commercial deployment Congress, on the other hand, seems virtually assured. The timing, continued to appropriate funds for while less certain, is likely to reflect project activities, In the early 1970*. the consensus In the the individual socio-economic After his election in 1980, President U.S. among govemment, Industry, and circumstances of the various Reagan called for work to resume at the scientific communltles was that technically advanced nations, its earlier pace, By 1982, however, development of the liquid metal fast breeder reactor (LMFBRJ should be In the early 1970s, the consensus Increased costs, resulting largely vig0rousiy pulSWd as a national priority In the U.S. among government from the long delay Imposed by the to promote the nation's long-term industry, and the scientific com- previous administration, combined economic and security Interests. munities was that development of with a growing concern about the the liquid metal fast breeder reactor national budget resulted in the (LMFBR) should be Vigorously erosion of Congressional support. In pursued as a national priority to October, 1983, Congress declined to promote the nation's long-term appropriate further funding and the economic and security interests. The project was terminated.

Clinch River Breeder Reactor Plant Over its twelve-year history, Clinch Project became the focal point of River made important contributions the national LMFBR program. to breeder technology in such areas Authorized by Congress In 1972,the as design, research and develop-goal of this joint government-industry ment engineering, component effort was to develop, design, fabrication, and licensing, Among license, build and operate the the more significant technical nation's first large-scale demonstra- contributions were the development tion breeder reactor. of high-temperature design criteria, The U,S, Atomic Energy Commission the adoption of a heterogeneous selected Commonwealth Edison core design and the development Company and the Tennessee Valley of many innovative designs for Authority to assist it in managing the sodium system components.

project. Within months following Licensing review of the plant design 2

proceeded to the point where a The projecfs Innovative organiza-Construction Permit would have tion and operating procedures been issued had the project been 'received high marks for continued. The review established management effectiveness in the important benchmarks which can various audits and reviews con-serve as a point of departure for the ducted by both government and design of breeder power plants independent consultants in the future. throughout its lifetime.

The termination agreement Attermination, the project-related recognized these accomplishments research and deve.lopment was and provided for use of the essentially completed and the plant technology developed In the design over 90 percent completed.

governmenfs ongoing base Value of major components com-technology progrqrn. Pertinent pleted or on order was $788 million, scientific, technical and licensing $380 million of which was completed data have been Identified, and delivered; site preparation and indexed, and stored for easy, rapid excavation were essentially retrieval. Itwill be readily available to completed. In all, about $1.7 billion liqUid metal reactor program partici- had been spent on the project.

pants and other interested parties.

=._:' _._."'-~~.;~

3

HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE obel Prize laureate Enrico Fermi led the team of scientists who achieved the first self-sustaining chain reaction at the University of Chicago on December 2, 1942.

Chicago Pile 1- the first nuclear reactor - confirmed the theory that enormous amounts of energy could be generated and controlled by nuclear fission.

Fermi and other physicists were also aware that it was theoretically possible to go a step beyond the fissioning process and actually breed more fuel than was consumed in a reactor.

Over 99 percent of naturally occurring uranium consists of non-fissionable Uranium 238. Only seven-tenths of one percent of the ore is fissionable uranium. During the fissioning process, two to three neutrons are released. In the breeder, one of these keeps the chain reaction going, while the other neutrons are captured to breed new fuel by turning non-fissionable Uranium 238 into fuel that is fissionable - Plutonium 239.

The significance of this is the vast energy potential created by breeding.

Fast Flux Test Facility at Hanford, Washington Fermi was enthused about the prospects of the breeder and predicted in 1945 that the "country which first develops a breeder reac-o tor will have a great competitive advantage in atomic energy."

Spurred on by Fermi, a number of his colleagues proceeded to de-monstrate the feasibility of the The most recent addition to the facilities breeding concept.

built under the U.S. LMFBRprogram is the By 1945, the United States had Fast Flux Test Facility which began already begun work on its first fast operating in 1982 at the Hanford reactor to test breeder concepts. This Engineering Development Laboratory mercury-cooled, plutonium-fueled near Richland, Washington reactor known as Clementine was designed and built by the Los Alamos 4

Scientific Laboratory. The reactor of coolant flow caused damage to testing of advanced fuels and was operated from 1946 to the reactor core. The reactor was components. It was not designed to December 1952 when it was shut .repaired and subsequently resumed breed or produce electricity. FFTF down. It served as a test bed for operation before itwas shut down in also served as a stepping stone in months of low-power critical experi- 1971. Its operation added significantly the design of the Clinch River ments in addition to accomplishing to the data base on LMFBR plant Breeder Reactor Plant.

its previous objective of demonstrat- component operating performance. In 1984 FFTF established a world ing the fundamental concept of Construction began on Experi- record for the longest period of breeding. mental Breeder Reactor-II at the continuous full-power operation of a Clementine was followed by a Department of Energy's Idaho fast reactor when it ran for 101 series of experimental breeder reac- National Engineering Laboratory consecutive days. The cycle tors intended to advance the operated by Argonne National capacity factor, which is a measure technology toward the objective of Laboratory in 1958. Since criticality in of the plants operating effectiveness using this technology for economical 1964, this 20-megawatt (electric) during a cycle, was 99.5 percent-electric power production. The first of plant has generated over one and another significant achievement.

those was called EBR-I - for one-half billion kilowatt hours and is Experimental Breeder Reactor. still operating. EBR-II has provided Designed and built by Argonne essential knowledge on breeder National Laboratory in Arco, Idaho, technology particularly fuel it was the first nuclear plant to performance. EBR-II was constructed produce electricity. Under the with a complete integral fuel repro-leadership of Dr. Walter Zinn, the cessing and fabrication facility within Director of the Argonne National the breeder complex. In 1983 it Laboratory, development started in earned an engineering award for its 1947 on a breeder cooled by sodium outstanding operation as a cogen-and potassium. The fuel was U235 eration plant. EBR-II now generates surrounded by a blanket of U238. In electricity and heating steam forthe 1951, EBR-I produced a modest out- facility's buildings.

put of electricity from a small Another landmark breeder generator that illuminated several reactor facility was the Southwest light bulbs in the reactor building. Experimental Fast Oxide Reactor EBR-I produced a wealth of (SEFOR) built by General Electric information during its 12 years of Company at Strickler, Arkansas. This operation - confirming the feasibility 20-megawatt (thermal) reactor of breeding and the engineering verified the inherent safety of a suitability of liquid metal coolants.f1] mixed-oxide-fueled fast reactor.

The Sodium Reactor Experiment SEFOR operated from 1969 to 1972 (SRE) and the Hallam Nuclear Power under the joint sponsorship of several Facility were sodium-cooled, U.S. electric utilities and the nuclear graphite-moderated power manufacturing companies, the U.S.

reactors. The SRE provided the basic Atomic Energy Commission (AEC),

information needed for the design of and the countries associated with the the Hallam facility. Both reactors European Atomic Energy Commu-operated in the thermal neutron nity - Belgium, West Germany, energy range and, although they France, Italy, Luxembourg, and were not designed to demonstrate the Netherlands.

the breeder concept, contributed A recent addition to the facilities significantly to early sodium-cooled built under the U.S. LMFBR program is reactor technology. the Fast Flux Test Facility (FFTF) which Detroit Edison Company began began operating in 1982 at the construction of the Enrico Fermi Plant Hanford Engineering Development in 1956. This 60-megawatt (electric) Laboratory near Richland, sodium-cooled breeder achieved Washington. FFTF is the largest ex-criticality late in 1963. The plant was perimental fast reactor in the world shut down in 1966 when a blockage designed specifically for irradiation 5

breeder - BN-350 - went into Fast Breeder operation in 1973. BN-350 provides o

Development around 150 megawatts for electricity and an additional 200 megawatts Overseas for a desalination plant. Atthis time, I

n all, 24 breeders are either in the Soviet Union operates the world's operation, under construction or largest liquid metal fast breeder.

fast breeder research and develop- planned around the world. The This reactor, which went into ment has been conducted abroad nations actively involved in breeder operation in 1981, is a 600-since the early 19505 in the United King- development include France, the megawatt (electric) plant known as dom, france and the Soviet Union. United Kingdom, the Soviet Union, BN-600. The Soviets have also under Japan, West Germany, India, Belgium, consideration a still larger 800-the Netherlands, and Italy. megawatt (electric) commercial-Fast breeder research and de- scale breeder designated BN-800, velopment has been conducted and a 1600-megawatt (electric) abroad since the early 1950s in the follow-on unit. The progress of the United Kingdom, France and the Soviets and their dedication to the Soviet Union. The French are recog- development of nuclear energy and nized as the world leaders in breeder the breeder is notable considering development. More recently, a their vast reserves of fossil fuels. In number of other European countries, addition to possesing extensive coal Japan, and India have either reserves, the Soviet Union is the undertaken fast breeder programs largest oil producing nation in of their own or entered breeder the world.

programs as partners in joint Nevertheless, France has achieved undertakings. a preeminent position in breeder The United Kingdom launched its development by steadily breeder program with the Dounreay advancing the technology and Fast Reactor in 1955. The 15-mega- crossing the threshold toward watt (electric) reactor went critical in commercial-scale breeders. The 1959 and ramped up to full power history of French breeder levels by 1963. The UK has been development has been one of operating its breeder demonstration quick progression in designing and plant- the 250-megawatt (electric) building successively larger Dounreay Prototype Fast Reactor - breeder reactor plants.

since 1975. A conceptual design for a Rapsodie - an experimental 1320-megawatt (electric) breeder fast reactor - was launched in reactor has also been completed. 12) 1958 and produced first power in The first fast reactor built in the 1967. France has operated its Soviet Union was its BR-1 plant built breeder demonstration plant-British Prototype Fast Reactor the 250-megawatt (electric) in 1955 as a zero-energy assembly for fast reactor physics investigations. Phenix - since 1973. The plant In quick order, that plant was has maintained an overall plant followed by two other experimental operating factor of approxi-breeder reactors designated BR-2 mately 60 percent. This is and BR-5.A 12-megawatt [electric] fast outstanding performance for a reactor known as BOR-60 began demonstration plant and operation in 1969. compares favorably with the best operating records of this Scale-ups of breeder plants were nation's current light water pursued systematically by the Soviets reactors. During its first two years resulting in the construction and of operation, the plant achieved operation of large follow-on the highest reliability of any breeder reactors in the next power plant in the world.

decade. A 350-megawatt (electric) Moreover, Phenix has a thermal 6

efficiency of 44.3 percent which conventional light water reactors, France, the United Kingdom, and surpasses light-water reactor breeding new fuel from its Phenix the Soviet Union are presently plant efficiencies and even those .plant, gearing up for commercial- operating demonstration plants.

of fossil plants. scale operations with the Super- West Germany and Japan are The French nuclear authorities phenix generation of plants, and scheduled to bring similar plants have expressed their determination also leading the way in on-line in the near future. The to lead the world in the production reprocessing spent nuclear fuel, Soviet Union has a commercial-of electricity with nuclear energy. and disposing of radioactive waste scale breeder in operation, while By 1995, France plans to generate materials. France has its commercial about 75 percent of its electricity The breeder demonstration prototype scheduled for start-up from nuclear plants compared to plants of West Germany and Japan next year. Although it has no over 50 percent today. With the [3] are comparable in size to the commitment to construction, the breeder reactor and other Clinch River plant. The West German United Kingdom has done recyclable resources, France could plant - SNR 300 - is a 280- extensive advanced design on a fulfill its stated national goal of megawatt (electric) breeder commercial-scale breeder. All of becoming energy self-sufficient. scheduled for start-up in 1987. This these nations have expressed The Superphenix - a 1200- breeder is being built in strong interest in deploying megawatt (electric) prototype collaboration with the commercial breeder reactors as commercial-scale plant - is Netherlands, Belgium, and the an integral part of their overall nearing completion. When it United Kingdom. A follow-on long-term strategy for economic becomes operational in 1985, breeder - a 1300-megawatt and secure energy supplies.

this French plant will surpass the (electric) plant called SNR-2 is Soviet Union's BN-800 in size and scheduled for the 1990s. SNR-2 is a claim the record as the largest collaborative effort among operating breeder plant in the West Germany, France, and Italy.

world. Superphenix is as big as Japan's 280-megawatt (electric) today's largest light water Monju demonstration plant will also reactors and will generate begin operation in 1990, India has enough electricity for a city of embarked on a breeder program over a million people. The jointly with France on a 15-electricity will be fed into power megawatt (electric) reactor grids serving France, Italy and scheduled for operation in the Germany, France expects this plant mid-1980s, India is aiming its fast to generate electricity almost as breeder program for commercial cheaply as a modern coal-fired development by the year 2000, plant. [4)

Looking to the future, France has disclosed proposals for two 1500-megawatt (electric) Superphenix-2 plants, A final decision on proceeding o~ these plants is dependent on such considerations as future generating needs, the economics and performance of its existing plants, and its evolving national energy plan, At this stage in the development of nuclear technology, France stands as one of the world leaders French Superphenix Plant in realizing the full potential of Under Construction energy from the atom. It is now successfully demonstrating management of the entire nuclear fuel cycle, France is currently generating electricity from 7

. ~-----------------------------------------------r:;t EVOLUTION OF THE PROJECT T he genesis of the Clinch River Project dates back to the policy statement of the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission again evaluated nuclear energy in view of the progress that had occurred in the inteNening years. In its 1967 Supplement to the 1962 Report to the President, the AEC (AEC) defining the objectives of the nation's nuclear research and noted that "the promise shown of a development program. It was near-term place for nuclear power embodied in a report entitled had developed beyond Civilian Nuclear Power . .. A Report expectations." During this time, the to the President - 1962. This Report AEC obseNed that "worldwide to President John F. Kennedy was interest is concentrated on the prepared by the Commission in sodium-cooled breeder" because cooperation with the Depart- of its better economic potential and ment of the Interior, the Federal capability for conseNing resources Power Commission, and the compared to other high-gain National Academy of Sciences. breeders.

In this report, the AEC described Plans for the introduction of a the efforts directed by the federal sodium-cooled fast breeder government to acquire an expand- demonstration plant were ing fund of theoretical and perceived to be a logical pro-practical knowledge in nuclear gression in developing the energy. A principal conclusion of technology. In the view of the AEC, the report was that an alternative utility acceptance of the o

source of energy was needed to demonstration plants would supplement fossil fuel resources. probably be motivated by the Nuclear energy was judged to be incentive of cheaper electricity and

,-'" the only practical energy source contingent on developed pi capable of meeting this need in the technology, on the existence of a Although conventional reactors were competitive and self-sustaining foreseeable future. A vigorous expected to make a contribution industry, and a minimum investment national nuclear power program toward meeting near-term energy of risk capital.

could also be pursued without demands, this report to the President interfering with the other key Funds Authorized to Define Project found that the breeder reactor must be element in a healthy energy mix successfully developed to realize the

- a growing coal industry. In 1969, the AEC took the next step full potential of the nation's uranium resources, Although conventional reactors in developing a breeder were expected to make a demonstration plant when it issued contribution toward meeting invitations for proposals to five major near-term energy demands, reactor companies to define the this report to the President found scale and other parameters of such that the breeder reactor must be a plant. This was known as Project successfully developed to Definition Phase of Round IV of the realize the full potential of the AEC Power Reactor Demonstration nation's uranium resources. Program. The statutory authority for Therefore, the report conclud- this action was granted by Congress ed, the future energy program in Public Law 91-44 dated July 11, for the United States should 1969 - the authorization to develop include "the vigorous develop- the nation's first large-scale ment and timely introduction of demonstration breeder reactor improved converters and plant.

especially of economic In a report accompanying the [5]

breeders; the latter are essential authorization, the Joint Committee to long-range major use of on Atomic Energy stated that studies nuclear energy." and assessments by the AEC had led Five years later, the AEC once to the establishment of the liquid 8

metal fast breeder reactor required to furnish a general development efforts as the "highest description of the proposed power priority civilian nuclear reactor .plant and describe the general program." It declared that the features of the proposed arrange-committee had "consistently urged ment to build the plant.

development of this important With the satisfactory disposition of concept which, when fully utilized, the Project Definition Phase, the AEC has the potential of meeting could now advance to the Definitive indefinitely the future energy needs Cooperative Arrangement for an of our nation and without undue LMFBR demonstration plant.

effect on our environment." Meanwhile, other events were The AEC was empowered to propelling the breeder program embark on a two-phase approach forward and casting the fast reactor for the first LMFBR demonstration in a new light as a national program plant. The first phase - the Project of the highest priority.

Definition Phase - was to define the Fast Breeder Program Becomes scope of the demonstration project A National Goal in sufficient detail to provide the As the 1970s began, a firm basis for a realistic assessment consensus emerged within govern-of the extent of the required effort, ment. industry and the scientific costs, and technical and economic community that the fast breeder risks. Phase Two was the Definitive program should be the focus of the Cooperative Arrangement for the nation's research and development o

design, construction and operation program for nuclear energy. Expert of the plant. opinion on many fronts supported Definitive Cooperative Arrangement the conclusion that the federal Authorized government should embrace the development of the breeder reactor As the 1970s began, a firm consensus With the Project Definition Phase as a priority national goal that should emerged within government, industry underway, attention now focused on be achieved to promote the nation's and the scientific community that the Phase Two-the Definitive long-term economic and security fast breeder program should be the Cooperative Arrangement. Public interests. focus of the nation's research and Law 91-273 was passed on June 2, The vital role of the fast breeder development program for nuclear 1970, and provided funds for the AEC was once again clearly endorsed energy.

to "enter into a cooperative and substantiated in late 1970 in arrangement with a reactor correspondence between Paul manufacturer and others for McCracken, then Chairman of the participation in the research and Council of Economic Advisors, and development. design, construction Dr. Glenn Seaborg, Chairman of the and operation of an LMFBR power Atomic Energy Commission.

plant." McCracken was charged with the The AEC was to follow the criteria task of gathering information for previously submitted to the Joint President Richard M. Nixon on Committee on Atomic Energy in proposals for a national energy Public Law 91-44 which authorized program. As part of this effort, he wrote development of the fast breeder. to the Atomic Energy Commission on The authorizing legislation provided October 8, 1970, for proposals and [6]

$100 million to the AEC to continue budget estimates on various with the project definition phase and programs including the breeder to provide further assistance, reactor. McCracken noted that the service, facilities and other AEC had long been pursuing research equipment. Before entering into on the fast breeder as the major any arrangement on the final long-term answer to the nation's breeder program, the AEC was energy supply problem.

9

,'We should like to consider a program that would establish the breeder system to fruition with a degree of assurance commensurate with its and implement a national goal of overwhelming importance. Early completing a successful introduction of the breeder demonstration of a commercial- promised not only to reduce total size fast breeder reactor in this development costs but offered the decade': McCracken told the AEC. United States "potential savings McCracken asked for proposals from cheaper energy of approxi-and arguments both for and mately $1 billion for each year by against them. Dr. Seaborg which commercial introduction of responded to the letter on the breeder system was October 31, 1970. [7] advanced." Seaborg expressed the "We are in full agreement with opinion that the breeder program you on the need to begin at once justified the required investment of the vital task of dealing with the national resources many times over longer term aspects of the energy and presented strong arguments supply problem," Seaborg for its acceleration.

answered. "We believe the Anticipating critics of the fast development of the breeder breeder reactor program, Seaborg reactor on an urgent basis is candidly declared that the essential to assure an adequate principal arguments against the supply of energy, the very lifeblood breeder were requirements for of our national strength and well- significant advanced funding on a

"" o

'We believe the development of the breeder reactor on an urgent basis is being. The breeder reactor holds the key to providing a world, rapidly growing in population and energy needs, with an abundant and economic source of useful energy for a thousand years or more."

continuing basis and for commitment of experienced personnel and other resources. It has long been recognized, he said, that the development of any breeder reactor concept would essential to assure an adequate supply Seaborg said that the AEC require large-scale investments of energy, the very lifeblood of our Wholeheartedly urged the for a long period, with return on the national strength and well-being," President to promulgate the investment accruing at a late date.

development of the breeder But he said the investment was reactor system in this decade as a justified and he pointed to the funds priority national goal. Such an spent on successfully developing the action by the President would be light water reactor for commercial "the most decisive single step that use as a sound precedent for could be taken now toward making such commitments.

assuring an essentially unlimited In summarizing his views, energy supply, free from problems Seaborg closed by saying that the of fuel resources and atmospheric implications of increases in contamination." He continued that electric power requirements, the the urgency for developing the logistic problems of fossil fuels, and breeder was heightened by the the economics of large light water increasing awareness of a number reactors strongly reinforce the of deteriorating aspects of energy need for the government to exert supply and environment such as the the leadership to achieve success depleting of fossil fuel supplies and in this decade.

dependence on foreign sources. "We believe that implementing a The AEC chairman called for early national goal to develop and introduction of the breeder reactor demonstrate the breeder reactor and stated that construction of two to a degree of maturity sufficientfor or more demonstration plants was broad, large-scale commercial the essential next step to bringing application by the end of the 10

decade is technically sound, is Then the President outlined a economically justified, and is the broad range of initiatives to ensure decisive way to provide this ample energy supplies for the future nation with a means for meeting its beginning with a commitment to needs for abundant inexpensive complete the successful demonstra-energy with acceptable effects on tion of the liquid metal fast breeder the environment." reactor by 1980, The government must meetthe challenge of quickly The Presidenfs Clean Energy Message demonstrating "the best of these Early in June of 1971, President new concepts" for clean energy Nixon delivered a message to such as the fast breeder reactor.

Congress delineating a program to In advocating prompt construction ensure an adequate supply of clean of a breeder plant. the President energy in the future, This was the first continued:

message ever submitted by a "Our best hope today for meeting the nation's President to Congress on energy growing demand for economical clean policies and underscored the energy lies with the fast breeder reactor.

Because of its highly efficient use of nuclear sudden urgency accorded to fuel, the breeder reactor could extend the life energy and its newfound priority on of our natural uranium fuel supply for decades the national agenda, The President to centuries, with far less impact on the said the nation could no longertake environment than the power plants which we are operating today. For several years, the AEC for granted the availability of ever has placed the highest priority on developing increasing supplies of clean energy. the liquid metal fast breeder. Now this project His message declared that a is ready to move out of the laboratory and into sufficient supply of clean energy is the demonstration phase with a commercial size plant. We have very high hopes that the essential to sustain healthy breeder reactor will soon become a key economic growth and improve the element in the national fight against air and quality of national life, water pollution." [8]

The United States Atomic Energy Commission, 1969 11

Senior Utility Steering Committee energy, and provide an abundant supply of clean, economical D

ue to the magnitude of the energy to all its citizens."

undertaking of building the first large-scale demonstra- The essential step - recognized tion breeder reactor, the Atomic clearly by the Steering Group -

Energy Commission determined was the construction and that the project had to have the full operation of a demonstration plant support and backing of essentially as the logical next step toward the entire utility industry. This making the breeder a commer-included investor-owned, public cially competitive concept in the power and rural electric shortest possible time.

cooperative sectors of the industry. In addition to providing technical expertise, the Steering Group was In April of 1971 - two months charged with a second major before President Nixon had mandate from the AEC - eliciting delivered his Clean Energy support from the electric utility Message to Congress advocating industry. In carrying out this respon-construction of a breeder sibility, the committee sought demonstration plant - the conditional commitments for Atomic Energy Commission had contributions from every sector of already appointed two advisory the electric industry. By the end of committees to furnish advice and 1971. the committee had received guidance in obtaining this general conditional pledges amounting to support from the overall electric approximately $250 million to be industry. The committees were o

applied to the cost of the the Senior Utility Steering demonstration project, provided Committee and the Senior the government elected to go

~

.' Technical Advisory Panel.

ahead with the project. This stands Consisting of 26 of the leading today as the largest contribution The essential step - recognized clearly senior management and by the Steering Group - was the ever pledged by the utility industry engineering executives from the to a single research and construction and operation of a de- utility industry, the committees monstration plant as the logical next development program.

provided technical input and step toward making the breeder a carefully evaluated the entire When the government invited commercially competitive concept national breeder program. the industry to submit proposals in the shortest possible time. for a Definitive Cooperative Report of Steering Committee Arrangementfor a model breeder The Steering Committee [9J demonstration program, sub-reported its findings to the AEC late missions were received from in 1971 in full support of the view that leading utility companies and demonstration plants were a "key energy organizations throughout and integral part of the breeder the country. These included research and development proposals from Southern Services program and that prompt initiation and Middle South Services; the of the actual construction phase Empire State Atomic Development was of the utmost importance." The Associates; the Tennessee Valley utility advisors noted that a viable Authority and Commonwealth breeder would be a "vital national Edison Company; Yankee Atomic asset because nuclear power Electric Company; and New offers the best prospect of reconcil- England Electric System.

ing the nation's energy needs with After considerable deliberation, its environmental goals. The fast the Atomic Energy Commission breeder would allow the United selected the joint submission from States to achieve the full potential Commonwealth Edison and the of nuclear power, retain leadership Tennessee Valley Authority for in the peaceful uses of atomic negotiations leading to the

,~

12

definitive arrangements that was to manage the design, ultimately became the basis for the construction and operation of Clinch River Breeder Reactor the plant in cooperation with the Plant Project. [10] AEC. Overall direction was provided by a Project Steering Commonwealth Edison- Committe comprised of senior TVA Proposal Selected representation of AEC, The Atomic Energy Commission Commonwealth Edison and IVA.

announced the decision to By February of 1972, preliminary proceed with the Commonwealth site investigations including core Edison-IVA proposal on January 14, drilling and seismic surveys began.

1972.

In keeping with the Presidents Memorandum of Understanding determination to assure the nation On August 7, 1972, a of an adequate supply of energy in Memorandum of Understanding the years ahead, the AEC ac- was signed to confirm that cepted the Commonwealth agreement had been reached on Edison-IVA proposal to construct the principal features of a and operate the nation's first cooperative arrangement to de-demonstration breeder reactor. sign, develop, construct, test and The AEC said it was gratified that operate a fast breeder on an the proposal brought together electric utility system. The the resources of a major investor- memorandum was signed by the owned and a major public- AEC, IVA Commonwealth Edison, o

owned power supplier. PMC and BRC as a statement of The Commission declared itwas intention and to present a general enthusiastic about the project framework for later negotiations of because of the inherent definitive contracts among the advantages of the breeder and parties. By February of 1972, preliminary site characterized the effort of the The parties first affirmed their investigations including core drilling utility industry in raising about $250 belief that the demonstration and seismic sUNeys began.

million in support of the breeder plant was an "indispensable part of as "an unprecedented coopera- AEC's overall, long-range LMFBR tive endeavor." The AEC further research and development noted that the pledge was program" to bring the conceptto advanced by all segments of the the stage of commercial useful-utility industry including privately, ness. The governments base publicly and cooperatively-owned breeder program was recognized companies. as vital to the success of the Following the selection of the demonstration plant. The parties proposal, the project partners then set forth the purpose of the began to pull together the rest of project. the principal features of the team including primary the arrangement, and the respon-contractors. sibilities of each of the participants.

Breeder Reactor Corporation IVA agreed to make available a (BRC) and Project Management siteforthe planton its property on Corporation (PMC) were formed as the Clinch River in Oak Ridge, not-for-profit, tax-exempt organiza- Tennessee. The plant would be tions. BRC was to provide senior interconnected to the IVA power counsel on behalf of the utility grid.

industry, to serve as the mechanism for collecting utility pledges for the project, and to keep the industry informed about the project status. PMC 13

Principal Project Agreements Signed connected with the project beyond the fixed contributions of agreement formalizing the [11] the utilities and to endeavor to Memorandum of Under- obtain the necessary congres-standing was signed by the sional authority and funds to make AEC, NA Commonwealth Edison any additional contributions Company, and Project required by the project.

Management Corporation on July Following the review and 25, 1973. This four-party agreement concurrence by the Joint provided the definitive details and Committee on Atomic Energy of contractual obligations of the the four-party agreement. PMC parties involved in the undertaking. and the AEC initiated the final steps The agreement stated that the in selecting the major contractors parties to the contract were and the beginning of full-scale bringing a broad spectrum of design, development. and expertise, resources and licensing activities.

commitment to the project. Both Contracts were signed with Commonwealth Edison and NA Westinghouse Electric Corporation had participated in the Project as the principal reactor Definition Phase and had been manufacturer contractor leaders in the effort among the supported by General Electric private, pubiic, municipal and Company and the Atomics cooperatively-owned utilities to International Division of Rockwell raise approximately $250 million for o

International as subcontractors.

the project. Both Edison and NA Burns and Roe, Inc., was named the had pledged substantial financial architect-engineer. The construc-contributions from their respective tion contractor selected some organizations to the project. years later for the project was The agreement stated that the parties Commonwealth Edison and N A Stone & Webster Engineering to the contract were bringing a broad both agreed to lend personnel and Corporation.

spectrum of expertise, resources and bring to the project management Project Agreements Amended commitment to the project. expertise and utility operating experience. This provision would The first official cost estimate for serve to represent the many utility the project was established by the contributors and assure that the AEC in 1972 at a level of $699 design and operating features of million. This estimate was based on the plant reflected the technical the premise that the AEC would and economic requirements for provide a large measure of R&D operation of a breeder plant on a from its base program and absorb utility system. as R&D the first-of-a-kind cost The AEC committed its staff increment for the plant's major expertise, laboratories and components. Late in 1974, a revised contractors from the LMFBR cost estimate based on the program to the project. This reference design reached $1.7 included its experience in the billion. This was the first cost management of the design, con- estimate based on a firm plant struction and operation of design and fully taking into experimental reactor plants and account a schedule which test facilities. The AEC was also to included the National Environ-provide direct financial and mental Protection Act require-personnel contributions to the ments for site evaluation.

project and major support from In large measure, the cost its base program. increase was due to changes in The AEC agreed to accept the the scope of the project. design open-end financial risks changes needed to meet new 14

environmental and licensing to be a material and continuing requirements, the transfer of breach of the principal project certain research and development agreement but otherwise con-costs to the CRBRP Project and tinued its participation and added escalation and direct costs support of the project.

caused by schedule delays. This abrupt shift in national policy Because'the revised cost reversing the previous priority estimate substantially exceeded support for the breeder reactor previous estimates, the partners in program and the Clinch River the project concluded that Project was enunciated by congressional reauthorization for President Carter on April 7, 1977. In a 1'1 CRBRP was necessary. They also national policy speech on nuclear (12)

II recognized the desirability of energy, President Carter stated that realigning the authority over no dilemma was more difficult to project decisions to reflect the resolve than that connected with larger financial contribution to be the use of nuclear power. While he made by the federal government. said that nuclear power must share This necessitated amending the in the nation's energy production, agreement signed by the four the President also depicted parties to the project. Under nuclear energy as a serious risk Modification Number 1, which worldwide if the "process will be became effective on May 1, 1976, turned to providing atomic total responsibility for management weapons,"

of the Clinch River Project was He rendered a number of transferred to the federal government. Title to all property acquired by PMC with project funds was conveyed to the government along with PMCs rights and obligations under the contracts decisions resulting from his review of nuclear power policy. These called for indefinitely deferring commercial reprocessing and recycling of plutonium, restructur-ing the breeder reactor program, o

President Carter sought to deemphasize nuclear energy and the breeder with the various contractors and accelerating research into program in subsequent messages.

working on the project. It became alternative nuclear fuel cycles. The Despite a great effort to curtail energy the major responsibility of PMC to President ordered that the date demand. the President foresaw a gap support the AEC with experienced when breeder reactors would be between the "energy we need and the utility personnel and administer the put into commercial use should be energy we can produce or import."

utility interests in the project. deferred indefinitely.

Termination of the Project President Carter sought to deemphasize nuclear energy and Substantial progress occurred in the breeder program in virtually every aspect of project subsequent messages. Later in activities despite major difficulties April, the President told a joint and obstacles encountered by session of Congress that a com-Clinch River. Preeminent among prehensi\ie national energy policy these difficulties was the opposition was needed and he stressed the of President Jimmy Carter to the value of conservation, renewables project. A number of actions were and alternate energy forms, as taken by his administration major components of his plan.

intended to cancel the project. Despite a great effort to curtail These included an indefinite sus- energy demand, the President pension of project licensing foresaw a gap between the proceedings in April of 1977. Atthis "energy we need and the energy point, BRC suspended the collection we can produce or import.

of payments under the utility Therefore, as a last resort, we must contribution agreements, since it continue to use increasing considered the government action amounts of nuclear energy."

15

I n directing his attention to With the election of President "nuclear power and the Ronald Reagan, the policies plutonium economy," inhibiting the project gave way to a President Carter said a concerted commitment to complete the Clinch effort must be made to find answers River Project. The policy of the new to the problems of nuclear administration was enunciated proliferation. In addition, the when President Reagan issued a President sought to "defer statement on nuclear energy on indefinitely construction of the October 8, 1981, in which he Clinch River liquid metal fast directed the government to breeder reactor demonstration proceed with demonstration of project and to cancel all breeder reactor technology component construction, commer- including the Clinch River Project cia
ization' and licensing effort. The as "essential to ensure our United States' breeder program will preparedness for longer-term redirect efforts toward evaluation nuclear power needs."

of alternate breeders, fuels, and While this administration support advanced converter reactors with enabled the project to move emphasis on nonproliferation and forward once again, the long safety concerns." (13) delays imposed by the Carter Despite the opposition of the administration and by other factors Carter administration, Congress largely beyond the control of appropriated sufficient funds to management had driven the assure continuation of the project. projected total cost for the project Under the circumstances, only to $4 billion. This, combined with thel1.j limited activities could be rising tide of fiscal conservatism, conducted in engineering, design served to erode the support of and procurement of long lead time Congress for further funding of the components. project.

~-~~-~,.

President Ronald Reagan hosts electric utility and labor representatives to discuss the

. . Clinch River Plant, July 1983.

16

r8 In approving federal financing for the project. Congress current realities, would have a appropriations in fiscal year 1983, took no further action on funding. substantially greater international Congress directed the Department This action foreclosed the prospect dimension, and that the valuable of Energy to explore possibilities for for future funding and forced aspects of the project would be supplementing future federal termination of the project. preserved and utilized in the appropriations with additional As a result. Secretary of Energy Donald ongoing program. These private sector financing. In Hodel issued a statement following assurances are reflected in the response to this congressional the vote that DOE would begin Clinch River Termination mandate, a task force of utility and immediately to plan for an "orderly Agreement.

financial experts developed a plan termination of the project." The agreement further stipulated to raise one billion dollars of private thatthe parties will consult on post-Following the Senate's action, capital toward completion of the termination programs and DOE notified the parties of the Clinch River Project, The billion activities. This arrangement pro-principal project agreements "that dollars represented 40 percent of vides for including utility industry it appears thatther6 are or will soon the estimated remaining cost to participation in programs be insufficient project resources to complete the project. designed to promote DOE's permit the effective conduct of the At the end of fiscal year 1983, project, including full satisfaction of breeder program through research and development anticipated commitments and application of data, designs, related to the project was 98 contingencies." information and components percent complete, the plant developed during the course of the An agreement to terminate the [17]

design was about 93 percent Clinch River Project. Consultation is r( project was entered into by the complete and $1.6 billion had been also to continue on such matters as Department of Energy, NA invested in the project. The value of licensing, site restoration and other Commonwealth Edison, PMC, and major components delivered had windup activities for the project.

BRC on November 10, 1983. In the reached over $380 million out of agreement, the project partners about $788 million either recognized the value of the completed or on order atthe time breeder program and its of termination, The total value of importance to the future energy components needed to complete outlook for the United States, the plant was estimated to be Breeder reactor technology was

. slightly over one billion dollars.

Site preparation was essentially acknowledged as an important component in meeting this nation's II completed by the fall of 1983, and future energy needs, and con-a construction permit was tinued cooperation and anticipated by year-end. [15] consultation among the project The alternative financing plan,[16J participants was endorsed as along with provision of a multi-year "necessary to accomplish an appropriation for the remaining orderly termination of the project federal funds, provided a practical and enhancement of DOE's basis for completing the project. breeder program through The administration embraced the post-termination programs and plan and urged its acceptance activities,"

by Congress, When Clinch River was Despite broad support for the terminated, congressional leaders project by the administration and a on both sides of the debate coalition of industry. labor. the expressed the conviction that a scientific community and others, on strong national LMFBR program October 26, 1983, by a vote of 47-45 should be maintained. The pivotal on a key amendment and then by factors on which the decision was a vote of 56-40, the Senate tabled made were timing and cost. Energy an amendmentto a supplemental Secretary Hodel assured the appropriation for fiscal year 1984. industry that DOE was committed to This amendment would have maintaining a strong LMFBR authorized DOE to obtain one program and that the program billion dollars of private sector would be redirected in the light of 17

PROJECT OBJECTIVES

!J..

delineated in the principal project agreement, the purpose of [18]

the Clinch River Project was to design, build and operate the nation's first large-scale demonstration breeder reactor plant.

The specific objectives were as follows:

"1. To attempt to successfully demonstrate the liquid metal fast breeder reactor in 1983,

2. To help:

I Confirm and demonstrate the potential value and environmental desirability of the LMFBR concept as a practical and economic future option for generating electric power (consideration to the impact of the demonstration plant on the environment will be given throughout the design and planning phase of the project and will be integrated into design and planning decisions.)

II Confirm the value of this concept for conserving important nonrenewable natural resources III Develop for the benefit of government, industry, and the public, important technological and economic data IV Provide a broad base of experience and information for commercial and industrial application of the LMFBR concept V Verify certain key characteristics and capabilities of breeder power plants for operation on utility systems such as licensability and safety, operability, reliability, availability, maintainability, flexibility, and prospect for economy.

3. To utilize to the maximum extent practicable the technology [19]

developed or being developed in (ERDA) programs recognizing that this project is an indispensable part of ERDA's overall long-range LMFBR research and development program and will be essential to the success of the LMFBR demonstration plant."

PROJECT ORGANIZATION A Partnership of Government and Private Industry T

he Clinch River Project benefited from a unique organization reflecting its partnership arrangement as a joint venture of the federal government and private industry. The U.S. Department of Energy (successor to ERDA) had lead responsibility for managing the project. Day-ta-day management was carried out by a single integrated organization with DOE and the other major project partners consisting of Commonwealth Edison Company, the Tennessee Valley Authority, and Project Management Corporation.

A non-profit organization formed especially for the Clinch River Project, PMC represented the utility industry interests. A second non-profit group known as Breeder Reactor Corporation provided senior counsel on behalf of the utility industry and provided the financial resources from member companies. BRC also was charged with conducting a public information program to keep the public and member companies informed aboutthe project. BRC is composed of 753 electric systems nationwide, and a list of member companies appears in this publication.

Westinghouse Electric Corporation was the lead reactor manufacturer contractor for the project. General Electric Company and the Atomics International Division of Rockwell International were the other two major reactor manufacturer contractors.

18

Burns and Roe, Incorporated, was the architect-engineer.

Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation was the general construction contractor.

PROJECT MANAGEMENT T

hroughout the duration of the Clinch River Project its management and performance repeatedly won high marks in audits Qnd reviews by government agencies, independent euthorities, .and other panels constituted as a reslJlt .of con@ressional action ClAG! the Initiative of tne executive branc!;) of g0vernmeht. These reviews and audits Included numerous studies conducted by the United States General Accounting Office and the U.S. Department of Energy Office of the Inspector General.

One of the most recent reviews was an audit focusing on management competence by the Inspector General in July of 1982. [20J The auditfound thatthe project was well managed. The management was commended for the "systems and procedures [which] had been implemented throughoutthe project that enabled the project director to exercise effective control and direction over the work done by the various project participants."

Special management systems were developed or adapted for use on Clinch River to control the flow of technical information, control design configurdtion, and monitor cost and schedule performance.

Among these was a computerized interface lata-reporting system. This computerized system was used os a managementtool In cOAtrolllng more than o,500 Interfaces - points of contact between different organizations and decision makers - existing because of the multiple contractors and design teams working on the project nationwide. At one point around 4,000 people located in over 30 states and the District of Columbia were employed on Clinch River contracts. The computerized interface system ensured the integration of the overall project schedule, kept the project on track and resolved problems and differences as they developed.

A Configuration Management Plan established guidelines for the control of the design and any resulting development design changes.

In addition, an "earned value" Performance Measurement System (PMS) was developed for the Clirilch River Project in aC<;:Qrdance with DOE criteria. The PMS provided the basis for the accurate measurement Management Pollees and Procedures of cost and schedule performance. document for the Project The Inspector General report concluded that "despite the many externally caused disruptions to the project. an effective project management structure had been maintained and the project had been advanced significantly at the time of our review."

The U.S. General Accounting Office issued a report to the Congress titled The Clinch River Breeder Reactor-Should the Congress [21)

Continue To Fund It? in May of 1979. In this report, the Comptroller General stqted, "The $1.9 billion increase In total estimated project cost has been usec:i by the administration and critics of the LMFBR program as evidence thatthe Clinch River Project, Is not cost beneficial and is no longer justified. However, much of the cost increases are attributed to factors beyond the control of the project management."

• 0' 19

---=-

TECHNICAL ACHIEVEMENTS Design W

hen the project was terminated, the Clinch River plant design was at the forefront of LMFBR technology and incorporated many advanced technical features not contained in other plants here and overseas.

During the decade it was under development. the plant design was continuously updated to incorporate the latestfeatures and innovations in the United States and abroad. The plant design was over 90 percent complete by 1983 with 8,000 of nearly 10,000 major architect-engineer drawings delivered but with many detailed drawings yet to be produced. In many ways the design represents a major step beyond the technical sophistication of earlier domestic and foreign breeders.

Among the advanced features of the Clinch River design were:

• A heterogeneous core that improved core performance, In-creased breeding ratio and en-hanced safety.

• The development of high-temp-erature design criteria which provide a solid base for the design of systems and com-ponents Irrespective of their size and serve as a reference basis for future LMFBR plants.

• Limited free-bow core restraint which mechanically re-strained the fuel and blanket assemblies Full-scale mockup of the heterogeneous core during normal and off-normal operation.

• A shorf-shaft pump that was smaller than previous pumps but yielded greater pumping capacity.

• The adoption of multiplexing for the instrumentation and control circuits connecting the control room to the plant systems. Multiplexing substant-ially reduced cable require-ments and would have saved millions of dollars In the cost of the plant.

.~ ..

20

• An ultra-high sensitivity fission and performance can be detector with 50 times the enhanced by incorporating a responsiveness of conventional heterogeneous core design in fission detectors. large (1000 MWe) LMFBR designs.

• Development and application A breeding ratio of 1.43 and a com-of computer codes for hlgh- pound system dOUbling time of temperature system/component about 16 years are attainable with design analyses.

the heterogeneous core

• Other significant advances in configuration.This important component design and de-development is regarded as the velopment included a valveless intennediate loop that single most significant advance in enhances plant reliability by modern LMFBR core design, eliminating mechanical valves.

and the bent-tube or "hockey stick" steam generator.

Improved Core Design One of the most significant features of the plant design was its heterogeneous core, This core design was adopted for the plant in 1979. The design extends fuel life, ensures safe operation, and breeds new fuel with greater efficiencies than previous designs.

In the heterogeneous core, the blanket elements not only surround the core, but ore also interspersed within the core. The advantages of the heterogeneous core included:

• Enhanced breeder performance

• Greater margins of safety

• Improved fuel performance and fuel reliability

• Greater flexibility for testing alternate fuel cycle

• Increased breeding ratio for large plants

• The adoption of this advanced core design by CRBRP required an exhaustive series of core physics simulation experiments in the Argonne National Laboratory's Zero Power Plutonium Reactor to verify the analytical predictions, The sophisticated analytical tools used to analYze this core design have been verified by extensive in-reactor and out-of-pile tests for physics, thermal hydraulics, struc-ture, restraint system, and thermal Zero Power Plutonium Reactor at striping, Further, reactor safety Argonne National Laboratory 21

Natural Circulation simultaneously along one circuit.

.he inherent safety of the Multiplexing would also have

, LMFBR core cooling system to eliminated over 1% million feet of dissipate decay heat in the cable in the plant. reduced the reactor even after the sodium construction schedule and costs, pumps are not functioning was and improved plant reliability.

verified through tests conducted by Lessons of Three Mile Island Applied the Fast Flux Test Facility in Atotal review of the plant systems cooperation with the Clinch River was conducted to reflect the Project team. lessons learned as the result of the The tests demonstrated the Three Mile Island accident in 1979.

effectiveness of this ultimate mode This review led to a number of of emergency core cooling forthe design changes and added Clinch River plant which provides further to the confidence in the natural circulation of the sodium to planfs design basis, The review remove heat from the core in the conducted by 23 experts in event of loss of pumping power. engineering and design was The tests also confirmed the completed priorto procurement of validity of the computer codes major control room components, used to predict actual operating During this review, the project also conditions of the reactor. Measure- incorporated changes reflecting ments of flow and temperatures in the latest operating experience the piping loops were in from the Fast Flux Test Facility.

agreement with predictions. Design Models The circulation tests provided The design efforts made exten-o The inherent design ofthe LMFBR-ond the Clinch River plant-took full another margin of safety funda-mental to liquid metal fast breeder reactors and its well-proven technology. The inherent design of the LMFBR - and the Clinch River plant-took full advantage sive use of a spatial engineering model of the entire plant built by architect-engineer Burns and Roe.

The model replicated in detail the six major plant buildings including every pipe 1inch in diameter and advantage ofthe unique properties of of the unique properties of liquid larger and every conduit 3 inches in liquid sodium to enhance safety. sodium to enhance safety, Chief diameter and larger, The model among these well-recognized allowed designers to solve qualities is that liquid sodium potential construction and mainte-does not possess the corrosive nance problems in advance.

effects of water. In addition, as a With the aid of the model, coolant. it is far superior to water constructors could visualize their with 40 times the heat transfer task in three dimensions, Finally, capability. Moreover, since engineers writing operating and sodium boils at such a high maintenance procedures were temperature - 1608°F - a low- able to verify and refine techniques pressure coolant system with a before actual operation of the wide margin to boiling can be plant.

employed - another safety Other spatial models were factor. created forthe head access area, Control Circuit Multiplexing the fuel handling machinery and Multiplexing of control circuits equipment. and the planfs shut-significantly reduced costs and down systems, improved plant reliability and An engineering model of the maintainability. heterogeneous core assembly was An electronic innovation tested in the Zero Power Plutonium developed by the aerospace and Reactor. This enabled designers to telecommunications industries, confirm the design tools and multiplexing enables thousands of thereby accurately predict signals to be transmitted performance of the core, 22

[Clockwise from left] scale model of plant, head access area mockup, control room mockup 1

0< **

23

High-Temperature Design Criteria T

he Clinch River Project The problem in the upper furthered the development internals structure was solved by of high-temperature design lining the mixing chamber with criteria. The project developed Inconel-718. This alloy has a greater critical high-temperature design high-cycle fatigue strength at high criteria for core assemblies, the temperatures and eliminated the reactor vessel, the primary heat possibility of surface failure of the transport systems, and the auxiliary mixing region. Thermal striping in systems consistent with the intent of the core region was mitigated by the American Society of design changes and the use of a Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Boiler special type of stainless steel in the and Pressure Vessel Code. These replaceable core components. A criteria formed the basis for new series of materials tests firmly codes and standards published as established the ability of these code cases by ASME and other materials to withstand thermal engineering societies. Codes and striping.

standards represent accepted As a result of these design practice in the engineering and processes, a number of advanced construction industries. They assure computer codes were developed that an acceptable level of and applied for high-temperature quality and performance is provided system design analysis. The analyses in the materials and components were also applied for component and workmanship of the plant. design.

o An example of the accomplish- Through the use of the design and ments in high-temperature design analysis base developed by the is illustrated by the work done on project for both reactor system and the upper internals structure (UIS). plant components, a greater The UIS is an integral part of the degree of certainty in the Although the analytical work on high- prediction of performance was reactor. The UIS has a number of temperature design criteria proved obtained. In addition, these functions such as support for the successful, it remained to demonstrate developments provided a control rod drive lines and performance in an operating plant. reference basis for future LMFBR instruments to monitor core performance. Another of its designs.

important functions is to mix the Advances were also made in the sodium that flows out of the development of criteria and reactor core to prevent excessive analytical techniques applicable to temperature variations. This is a high-temperature design for difficult engineering problem concrete. Engineering improve-because temperature differences ments were instituted to ensure the of 200 0 F and more can occur at integrity of structures and structural the core exit between the fuel safety features subject to high assemblies, the blanket assemblies, temperatures. These can be applied and the control rods. Known as to nuclear plants worldwide where thermal striping, this phenomenon high temperature is a critical occurs because the interior of the design consideration.

reactor area is subject to much Although the analytical work higher temperatures than the on high-temperature design walls of the reactor vessel. criteria proved successful, it The Clinch River Project performed remained to demonstrate per-extensive thermal hydraulics and formance in an operating plant.

materials testing to ensure that With termination of the project.

the design provided adequate this phase of development is yet protections from thermal striping to be carried out.

strains.

24

r 1E3i"L---=-=....~------nr~1 Research and Development he Clinch River design was designs were based on experience supported by intensive atthe Fast Flux Test Facility, the inner research and development and radial blanket assemblies had programs backed up by extensive to be developed without FFTF experimental and test facilities. This precedent. Even though FFTF data research and development was were utilized to the full extent conducted by Argonne National additional testing was performed to Laboratory, the Energy Technology predict fuel performance for Engineering Center, the Hanford cladding operating temperatures Engineering Development and burnup requirements which Laboratory, the FastFlux Test Facility, were more ambitious than in FFTF.

Los Alamos National Laboratories, These requirements influenced the Naval Research Laboratory, Oak the national core and fuel Ridge National Laboratory, Sandia development program and resulted National Laboratory, and Idaho in a more effective base technology National Engineering Laboratory. program.

The project also utilized the Before the project was extensive R&D of private industry and terminated, work was begun to particularly the work of Atomics reduce the cost of fabricating fuel International, General Electric assemblies. The tests conducted for Company, and Westinghouse the Clinch River Project at EBR-II and Electric Corporation. FFTF, which included exposing fuel By year-end 1983, the research in a reactor core, are likely to o

and development was essentially continue. This will provide the data completed. The research and necessary for the next generation of development and tests for the breeder reactors.

planfs fuel, materials and Core Restraint System components have provided the U.S.

with a valuable data base for The core restraint system controls While the fuel assembly designs were breeders. Exhaustive testing under the positions and interaction of the based on experiences at the Fast Flux plant conditions has confirmed the reactor core assemblies. Its Test Facility, the inner and radial reliability of the design developed principal functions are to provide blanket assemblies had to be for the planfs most critical control of core geometry and core developed without FFTF precedent.

components such as the steam motion and to ensure acceptable generators, the sodium pumps, and insertion and withdrawal loads on the reactor shutdown systems. reactor assemblies. With the advent Through development and testing, of mixed oxide as core fuel, the a system was devised to mitigate the effects of swelling and creep of consequences of potential sodium core materials became an fires and spills. The effectiveness of essential consideration of the core this sodium fire suppression system restraint system design. A full-sized was confirmed in the largest test of mechanical mockup of the CRBRP its kind in the world. core was built and tested to clearly establish the complex interaction Fuel and Core Performance patterns that exist when the Irradiation experiments were predicted thermal and irradiation-carried out to furnish the data induced distortions are simulated.

needed to fabricate the fuel for Through this extensive test program breeder reactors. The experiments and with the advances that CRBRP provided information on the fuel pin has made in thermal-hydraulic and assembly design and the design testing and analysis, the project was of the reactor core to meet the able to develop sophisticated high-performance criteria set as analytical tools to accurately the objective. determine the core restraint While the fuel and fuel assembly performance of the core.

25

Suppression or Sodium Reactions In air-filled cells that contain nonradioactive sodium systems, W hile sodium has been employed safely in breeders for decades, special safety provisions have to be catch pans are located to collect spilled sodium without leakage and incorporate a unique system for fire suppression.

designed into the plants because this element is chemically reactive. The system was evaluated in a Precautions have to be taken to series of tests. This comprehensive assure that sodium reactions with test program used prototypic air and water can be contained concrete for the plant. A sodium fire even under emergency conditions, test facility was constructed with a and to protect concrete structures large-scale prototypic model of the and prevent sodium-concrete catch pan fire suppression deck reactions. system.

The project then initiated the The general characteristics of a largest sodium test ever conducted coolant leak accident in a breeder in the United States.

are lower pressure, higher tempera-ture and longer duration than in About 6,000 gallons of sodium at conventional light water reactors. 1060° F were released into an air The duration of the heat and the atmosphere over a 10-minute resultant penetration Into the period, triggering the sodium fire concrete structures is one of the detection and suppression most significant factors to be apparatus. The system, featuring a unique passive design, performed o

considered in the evaluation of accident effects on breeder as predicted and rapidly ex-structures. High temperature design tinguished the fire with minimum was employed in the Clinch River effect on plant structures and Project system to accommodate contents. A filtration system The project then Initiated the largest prevented any fine products from temperatures up to 1472° F.

sodIum test ever conducted In the the sodium fire from escaping into UnIted states. Sodium containment technology the environment.

was significantly advanced through The test successfully demonstrated the project's research and the ability of the fire suppression development program. A Sodium system to control and extinguish Fire Protection System was severe sodium fires even under developed to detect leaks, alert the "worst case" conditions.

plant through an alarm system, extinguish sodium fires, and prevent The end-result was a system reignition. Design features were aiso proven to be effective in safe-developed to protect concrete guarding a fast breeder plant from structures from sodium spills and sodium fires and mitigating the fires and to prevent sodium- consequences of sodium reactions concrete reactions. with optimum effectiveness.

In primary system cells that contain radioactive sodium or sOdium-potassium systems, the project developed protective systems consisting of carbon steel plates that are continuously welded and anchored to the concrete. The liner is primarily designed to contain spilled sodium and to preclude a sodium-concrete reaction. These cells are inerted with nitrogen to limit the burning of spilled sodium.

Components A bout $380 million worth of major components had been delivered at the time of termination out of a total of about system was accurate within a few thousandths of an inch. This positioning enabled a machine located over the head to reach

$788 million completed or on order. down directly into the vessel to Most of these components were remove or insert all the removable stored in various warehouses near components - the fuel, blanket, the plant site or housed in control rods, radial shield convenient locations throughout the assemblies, and the lower inlet United States or were undergoing modules. The straight-pUll design tests at laboratories and contractor resulted in simpler, more reliable facilities. equipment for refueling of the The components required a high reactor. The closure head and fuel degree of precision in machining handling machine successfully and assembly techniques and completed functional testing in 1983.

advanced the application of new materials and metallurgical procedures to meet the challenges of high-temperature design for the reactor industry.

Advancements were also made in a host of systems and components. Foremost among these were the reactor vessel closure, the control rod systems, the sodium pump, the steam generator and the lower and upper internals of the reactor vessel. The project developed a number of unique high-temperature and seismic design methods.

Closure Head A reactor vessel closure head of innovative design was developed for the project. A unique triple-rotating-head design permitted unhindered, vertical access to all removable core components. This allowed the reactor to be refueled without removing the head. Also, all refueling components could be maintained by hands-on maintenance procedures, thus ensuring high reliability of all refueling operations.

A computer-driven system moved Reactor vessel closure head the head so it could be positioned precisely over the exact location desired by the operator. The positioning accuracy of the refueling machinery to drive the SOO-ton, 20-foot diameter rotating heads was demonstrated by repeated tests. The tests confirmed that the 27

Sodium Pumps A nother example of advanced technology developed for the Clinch River Project is its large sodium pump. The Clinch River design is a vast improvement over previous pumps. The sodium pump for FFTF is capable of pumping 14.500 gallons per minute. The pump for Clinch River could circulate 33,700 gallons per minute even though it was smaller and less expensive to build than its FFTF predecessor.

This pump circulates sodium to remove heat from the reactor core and transfer it to another part of the plant where steam is produced to generate electricity. Six pumps would have been used in the Clinch River plant.

A year-long series of sodium pumping tests were successfully completed in 1983 demonstrating that the pump and its drive motor would meet all operational design requirements. The tests disclosed that the pump was easy to assemble and disassemble and was highly reliable. The pump was tested under severe conditions that simulated the 30-year design life of the plant. These included severe temperature transients ranging from 10000 F down to 700 0 F in a matter of seconds during which the pump continued to operate without fault.

The Clinch River design incorpo-rated features developed through unique high-temperature design capability. Designers reduced the pump shaft length to 13 feet less than the FFTF pump. This resulted in con-siderable cost savings. The pump featured a double-suction impeller that significantly improved performance, Prototype sodium pump internals 28

--: .----- ~

Steam Generators A rod-anode X-ray machine was used in the quality control S team generators are generally regarded as one of the most critical compo-nents in an LMFBR because both water and sodium flow through procedures to examine each weld.

In this procedure, X-ray film was wrapped around the outer circumference of the weld, and a rod-anode target and electron-them and must be kept separate lens assembly which generates to prevent chemical reactions. The X-rays was inserted into the tube steam generator takes heat from through the tubesheet. This the reactor and transfers it to permitted comparison of the .

o water so steam can be produced quality of welds with acceptance for generating electricity.

standards.

The Clinch River steam generators featured a unique The prototype steam generator design known as a bent-tube or was tested at full power in 1983. The "hockey stick" configuration. It was test was the largest demonstration The Clinch River steam generators called "hockey stick" because of test ever conducted in the U.S. with featured a unique design known as a the 90-degree bend at its end. The a steam generator filled with bent-tube or "hockey stick" configura-bend provided for differential sodium and water. tion. It was called "hockey stick" thermal expansion between the As part of the steam generator because ofthe 90-degree bend at its

,. . tube bundle and shell. The pro- development program, the project end. The bend provided for differential totype was 65 feet long and built and tested sodium-water thermal expansion between the tube weighed over 100 tons. Ten more reaction protection systems. A bundle and shell.

units were being fabricated when prototypic water-In-sodium module the project was terminated. was developed to detect extremely The unitwas a counterflow heat minute leaks so that corrective exchanger consisting of an outer action could be taken in a plant to shell surrounding 739 tubes. Sodium avert serious damage to equipment entered near the top and flowed and reduce downtime.

down inside the shell and outside of A second development for the the tubes of the steam generator. steam generator system evolving Water or steam came from the out of the base technology program bottom of the unit and flowed was an improved rupture disk upward inside the tubes. assembly. This assembly is designed Each of the 739 steam tubes was to relieve pressure in the steam butt-welded at both ends to generator to prevent damage from matching machined projections large sodium leaks and aid in event-on the tubesheets. This tube-to- ual system cleanup and recovery.

tubesheet welding technique permitted complete inspection of every weld. The welding was accomplished with an in-bore weld head especially developed and tested for this particular task.

To maintain close control over the physical properties ofthe resulting weld, no filler metal was added.

Procedures and equipment were developed to assure high reliability of the welds. The contour and thickness of each weld were ultrasonically checked by a trans-ducer probe assembly inserted inside the tube.

29

Ex-vessel storage tank 30

Diverse Shutdown Systems T he primary and secondary control rod systems for Clinch River were another advanced development. In simple terms. the control rods tum the reactor off and susan" fuel storage table inside a tank containing liquid sodium for the cooling of spent fuel assemblies. This provided for over 'two full cores of fuel storage yet took half the space on by being inserted or removed of altemanve designs. The design made from the reactor core. It possible for each IndMdual storGge The Clinch River Project was the space to have room accessible for first nuclear plant to employ 'two over 700 fuel or blanket assemblies or fully redundant independent and other removable core components.

diverse mechanical shutdown systems. Each system was separate Ultra*Hlgh 5ensltMty Detector yet capable of shutting the plant down by itself. Because each system A new ultra-high sensitMty fission was completely different the risk of detector was one of the unique having the plant fail to shut down advancements developed as a due to common-mode failure was result of the research conducted for eliminated. the Clinch River Project. When The design was based on some 10 calibrated. this fission detector years of research and development measures the thermal power of a and testing. The units were subjected nuclear reactor by counting the to thousands of test scrams. A scram is number of neutrons. The device has an automatic shutdown of a nuclear 50 times the sensitivi1y of convention-reactor by rapid insertion of the al fission detectors and is designed o

control rods Into the reactor. The to operate reliably In high-control rods traveled about 80.000 temperature. high-radiation feet (over 15 miles) during the course environments for up to 30 years.

of proving their reliability. Conventional fission detectors by contrast have an expected life of Anewu/lra-hlgh sensIllvllyfialon detec-Tests were also conducted to 'two to three years.

verify the acceptability of the tools tor was one of 11M unique GdtIance-and procedures to maintain the ments dtweIoped as a twUIt of 11M re-control rod system. This resulted in seafCh conducted ftN 11M Clinch RIver modifications and redesigns to ensure Project.

that the equipment would meet lifetime design criteria.

Both of the control rod drive systems were completely tested in sodium. These tests demonstrated the reliability of performance of the shutdown systems for the 30-year life of the plant subject to routine maintenance and procedures as performed during the test phase.

Ex-Vessel Storage Tank The ex-vessel fuel storage tank is part of the Reactor Refueling System.

The design of the component and itsJocation permitted the movement of fuel whenever conditions are optimum for shipping and receMng new and spent fuel rather than being confined to periods of reactor shutdown. The design was unique in employing a double-decker iazy 31

Electromagnetic Pump T

he Clinch River Project

= developed an Electromag-netic (EM) Pump that was a significant improvement over the performance and efficiency of predecessor models.

An EM pump is a single, rugged device with no moving parts that causes an electrically conducting fluid such as liquid sodium to flow by exerting a magnetic force. Four EM pumps were to be used in the Auxiliary Liquid Metal System used to cool spent fuel from the reactor and to remove decay heat from the reactor itself in some emergency situations.

The design features a unique throat with six rectangular parallel-flow passages. These throat passages were successfully fabricated from a solid piece of steel by means of an electrical discharge machining method that allowed for the components to be fabricated without welding. The technique eliminated distortion and simplified inspection.

Under test in sodium at temperatures up to 11300 F - a maximum emergency temperature for the primary sodium pump - the prototype EM pump met and generally exceeded all performance specifications.

Nominal rating for the EM pump was 400 gallons per minute at a pressure of 60 pounds per square inch. The pump achieved flow rates of 800 gallons per minute at this pressure and could generate pressures up to 200 pounds per square inch at lower flow rates.

EM pumps of earlier design attained efficiencies on the order of 15 percent. The Clinch River electromagnetic pump de-monstrated a peak efficiency in excess of 40 percent.

32

SITE PREPARATION AND EXCAVATION P

reparation of the site for the strikes and "lockouts" during Clinch River Breeder Reactor construction. The leadership of the Plant was virtually complete Building and Construction Trades by late 1983. The stage was set for Department of the AFL-CIO, noted placing concrete to form the main that eliminating construction delays plant structures as soon as the related to labor-management project received a construction issues would aid effective planning permit. and efficiency, reducing Such progress in preparation for construction schedules and costs.

construction was possible because Site preparation began in 1982 of thorough planning that began a following NRC approval ofa request decade earlier. Geological, seismological and hydrological studies completed in 1974 had indicated the suitability of the 1.364-acre Clinch River site.

As general construction by the project to start site pre-paration under a special section of NRC regulations. This approach to begin site preparation - not normally followed for nuclear construction - promised o

A site excavation model was one ofthe innovative tools for both the planning contractor, Stone & Webster expeditious completion of work and and performance of site work. The 10-Engineering Corporation employed over $100 million in cost savings while by-11-foot model was built to scale, with innovative construction planning preseNing all elements of NRC's one inch equalling 20 feet both techniques and implemented environmental, safety and hearing vertically and horizontally.

major initiatives in labor- processes.

management practices to reduce costs and finish the excavation Cost-effective Excavation Techniques ahead of schedule.

A site excavation model was one of the innovative tools for both the The project implemented planning and performance of site innovative techniques and work. The 10-by-11-foot model was design to save excavation costs built to scale, with one inch equal- and reduce the schedule for site ling 20 feet both vertically and preparation.

horizonta Ily. It represented about 122 The original site topography of the main site's 182 acres. Color consisted of a ridge, the top of wh ich coding showed cleared and was 880 feet above sea level. This uncleared areas, excavation and ridge was leveled to 780 feet above fill. Removable pieces %-inch thick sea level before excavation of the representing elevations in 10-foot pit began. To save costs and increments, were easily rearranged schedule time, several changes to to illustrate changes in topography the excavation design were made through various stages of site as more information concerning preparation and construction. The the site geology was developed.

model was used in reviewing Natural fractures, called joints, volumes of earth and rock to be were discovered at right angles to removed, identifying problem the bedding planes, creating areas, developing the sequence of "failure wedges" of rock bounded Site excavation model excavation steps and verifying by potential failure planes. The the schedule. original excavation design relied A labor agreementfacilitating an on the removal of possible failure accelerated construction schedule wedges by having the exterior was reached in early 1982. The walls excavated at an angle less project was brought under than that of the failure planes.

provisions of the Nuclear Power This would have resulted in an Construction Stabilization extremely large excavation, with Agreement, a labor-management side walls excavated to 26 accord that essentially eliminated degrees from horizontal.

33

Completed site excavation.

34

S ome major problems resulted from this design. This excavation wouid have required the removal of a large amount of rock which would be both costly and time consuming.

Also, crane access to the bottom of the excavation was a major concern because the excavation severely limited the areas where cranes could be located. Lack of surface area for storing construction material and equipment was also a problem, since the excavation took up such a large area of the site.

As a result of these problems. the design was altered. This alteration required near-vertical faces on the north, east and south faces and a face sloped 26 degrees from horizontal on the west side. It also provided areas to locate cranes and to store construction material and equipment and reduced the amount of rock to be removed.

The vertical walls of the excavation were anchored in place with over 2,400 rockbolts. These steel bolts.

ranging in size from 5 to 50 feet long, were imbedded in the rock and cemented and bolted securely to the face of the wall. The technique saved over $5 million and reduced the schedule for site preparation by nearly three months in spite of record-breaking rains which hindered site work.

Preliminary site work was essentially completed by the end of 1983 and included ali sediment ponds, quality control test laboratory, Proposed site redress concept and other construction shops.

concrete batch plants. the nuclear island excavation, all rock-bolting and the foundation for a ringer crane. About three million cubic yards of earth and rock were removed during excavation.

Upon termination. of the project planning was initiated for redress of the site to return it to an environ-mentally and aesthetically acceptable condition if no alternative use of the site in its present condition can be found.

35

LICENSING O ne of the objectives of the project was to demonstrate the Iicensability of the Clinch River plant. The project early in 1983. A partial initial decision recommending a Limited Work Authorization (LWA) was issued by the NRC's Atomic Safety and

i. demonstrated that this objective was attainable by successfully Licensing Board (ASLB) in February of 1983. It found that the project met completing all the steps leading up all applicable regulatory require-to a construction permit. ments in regard to environmental The Clinch River Project protection and radiological demonstrated that an LMFBR could site suitability.

be licensed in a reasonable time The project received its Limited frame. In the space of about three Work Authorization in May of 1983.

years - beginning in 1981 when Public hearings on the safety of the licensing activities were reinstituted plant design were completed in in earnest - the project resolved August. In September, the NRC Staff virtually every issue in its favor and filed Proposed Findings of Fact and was on the verge of obtaining a Conclusions of Law stating that the construction permit. plant could be constructed and Licensing began in 1974 and was operated without undue risk to the moving rapidly forward by early health and safety of the public, the 1977, In that year, a Final Environ- applicants were technically mental Statement was issued qualified to design and construct the that found the plant and site met plant, and the construction permit applicable environmental criteria should be granted.

o The Clinch River Project demonstrated and that the action called for was issuance of a construction permit.

This was followed by a Site Suitability Report in which the NRC concluded that the site was satisfactory from the standpoint of radiological On January 24, 1984, a Memorandum ofFindings was issued by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board that resolved all issues raised in hearings related to the construc-tion permitforthe Clinch River plant that an LMFBR could be licensed in a health and safety. in favor of the applicants. If reasonable time frame. Licensing activity at the Nuclear Congress had appropriated funds Regulatory Commission was for construction, a construction suspended from 1977 to 1981 as the permit would have been issued result of actions by the Carter rather than this memorandum.

administration. Throughout the licensing process, After licensing activities were inteNenors continually challenged reinitiated in 1982, the NRC allowed the project. Adversaries brought the projectto begin preliminary site four federal court actions intended preparation in parallel with the to halt the project and none were environmental review. The action successful.

was taken under provisions of a The 250,000 pages of section of NRC regulations that documentation associated with the enabled the project to begin site licensing effort should be helpful in preparation while allowing the the design and licensing of breeder environmental review to proceed reactors in the future. Of particular simultaneously. significance for the future was the Hearings related to suitability of agreement reached with the NRC the plant site and the staff that hypothetical core environmental impact of the plant disruptive accidents need not be were conducted in 1982. The included in the design basis. The Environmental Protection Agency regulators also agreed that it is issued a National Pollutant possible to design LMFBRs that limit Discharge Elimination System the risks to the public health and permit that became effective safety from core disruptive and core 36

melt accidents that go beyond the design basis.

In commenting on the Memorandum of Findings, DOE [Z2) stated thatthe conclusions reached by the NRC "clearly show that the project has met a major objective-demonstrating the Iicensability of liquid metal fast breeder reactors."

In addition, DOE commented that the Memorandum of Findings "confirms the technical merit and safety of the plant as planned and designed and provides firm conclusions regarding the safety and environmental acceptability of breeder reactors." The Department concluded that the decision and the extensive evaluation and review process leading up to it provided "further confidence in the safety of LMFBRs and support for continued development of technology for a virtually inexhaustible energy o

source."

PROJECT DOCUMENTATION Termination of the project CRBRP technical information as one A Technical Documentation Data Sase necessitated several changes in the of the RECON data bases was [TDDS] system was established to overall records collection and available. collect, microfilm, and index the most disposition policies. A Technical A secondary effort for the current and approved technIcal Documentation Data Base (TDDB) project is the collection, indexing, documentation related to the CRSRP system was established to collect and storage of appropriate CRBRP liquid metal fast breeder reactor design microfilm, and index the most administrative and backup and licensing efforts.

current and approved technical technical documentation under the documentation related to the National Archives and Records CRBRP liquid metal fast breeder SeNice approved records reactor design and licensing efforts. schedule. These two systems will This TDDB system utilizes the UNICORN meet the information needs of both software developed by Stone & future LMFBR designers and project Webster for the projecfs Quality historical researchers.

Records Management System.

Dissemination of the TDDB will be through the Department of Energy to authorized parties.

The DOE/RECON system was the logical choice as the repository and retrieval polnttorthe TDDB because it was an established national network; no new software would have to be developed to place the TDDB into the RECON System; and the financial and human support seNices for maintenance of the 37

CHRONOLOGY July - 1969

-The U.S. Congress provided statutory authorization of a two-phased approach to develop the nation's first large-scale demonstration breeder reactor.

June -1970

-Congress passed Public Law 91-273 authorizing the U.s. Atomic Energy Commission to enter into a cooperative arrangement to build a liquid metal fast breeder reactor demonstration plant.

, February - 1971

-The AEC invited propo$als from the private sector for the construction a demonstration breedel reactor.

June - 1971

-President Nixon presented his energy message to the nation supporfin demonstration of breeder technology as an essential step in assuring an adequate supply of energy for the future.

January - 1972

-The AEC selected the proposals by Commonwealth Edison and the Tennessee Valley Authority as the best of the plans submitted by utilities nationwide for the development of a breeder reactor.

March - 1972

- Breeder Reactor Corporation and Project Management Corporation were formed by the electric systems participating in the breeder demonstration project as not-for-profit tax-exempt organizations. BRC was organized to raise funds for the project and to provide senior counsel on behalf of the utility industry. PMC represented the interests of the utility industry in the project.

August - 1972

-A site in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, on the Clinch River, was selected for the demonstration plant.

July - 1973

- The principal project agreements to build and operate the Clinch River Project were signed by the AEC, Commonwealth Edison, PMC and TVA.

November - 1973

- Westinghouse Electric Corporation was selected as the lead reactor manufacturer contractor supported by General Electric Company and the Atomics International Division of Rockwell International as subcontractors.

January - 1974

- Burns and Roe, Incorporated was selected as architect-engineer.

June - 1974

- BRC utilities exceeded the financial goal set for member electric systems. In all, 753 electric systems from the investor owned, public power and rural electric sectors agreed to contribute $253 million to the Clinch River Project. This was the largest utility industry commitment ever made to a single research and development project.

March -1975

- BRC reached its third anniversary; member electric systems now totaled 737; financial commitments totaled $251186, 166.

38

-~---- ~ - * *

• II April

• 1975

- Burns and Roe awarded the contract for the turbine generator to General Electric Company.

June *1975

- The NRC announced docketing of the Preliminary Safety Analysis Report.

_ Babcock and Wilcox Company was awarded a contract to design and fabricate the CRBRP reactor vessel.

January

• 1976

-Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation was named construction contractor.

May *1976

-A contract modification was signed giving the government management authority for the Clinch River Project and placing PMC in an advisory and supporting management role.

February

• 1977

-Final Environmental Statement for the Clinch River plant was issued containing favorable findings on site selection and concluding that there was no substantially better alternate site.

March

• 1977

-A favorable Site Suitabilitv Report (SSR) was issued for the plant. The SSR approved the suitability of the site from the standpoint of radiological health and safety.

April

• 1977

-PresIdent Carter delivered his energy message to Congress which stated that "there Is no need to enter the plutonium age by licensing or buildIng a fClst breeder reactor such as the proposed demonstratIon plant at Clinch River."

-The Atomic Safety and Licensing Board indefinitely suspended hearings on the Clinch River Project.

November

• 1978

- Congress approved funds to continue work on the Clinch River Project despite administration opposition.

December

• 1978

- The first two major components for the Clinch River Project arrived in Oak Ridge and were placed in storage.

- Value of major components, prototypes and test items completed and delivered reached $19 million.

January

• 1979

-A new heterogeneous core design was adopted for the Clinch River plant. The design vastly improved operating and safety characteristics of the breeder core and placed the United States in the forefront of breeder technology in this critical area.

December

• 1979

- Value of major components, prototypes and test items completed and delivered reached $58 million.

- The 60-foot tall reactor vessel for the Clinch River Breeder Reactor Plant was completed ahead of schedule and $2.7 million under estimated cost. The $22.6 million vessel is being stored indoors in the same shop in 39

which it was built by Babcock and Wilcox in Mt. Vernon Indiana.

5 February

• 1980

!:II eThe Fast Flux Test Facility on the Hanford reservation near Richland, Washington achieved a self-sustaining chain reaction.

December

• 1980 eValue of major components, prototypes and test items completed and delivered reached $123.8 million.

September

• 1981 eLicensing was reinitiated and NRC established a program office to conduct the staff's licensing review of CRBRP.

October

• 1981 ePresident Reagan issued a policy statement supporting nuclear energy and directing the government to complete the Clinch River Project because it is "essential to ensure ourpreparedness for longer-term nuclear power needs."

December

• 1981 eValue of major components, prototypes and test items completed and delivered reached $2478 million.

April

• 1982 eA labor agreement was signed by Robert A Georgine, president of the Building and Trades Department of the AFL-CIO and Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation officials, placing the project under the terms of the national Nuclear Power Construction Stabilization Agreement. This accord essentially eliminated anystrikes and lockouts during construction.

June *1982

.site Suitabilitv Report revision issued with the same conclusion as the report in 1977 - that the plant site was environmentally suitable.

JUly* 1982 eAn independent audit of the Clinch River Project by DOE's Inspector General found that the Clinch River Project was soundly managed and had made significant progress despite externally imposed disruptions.

August

• 1982 eThe NRC voted to allow site preparation for the plant to begin.

September

• 1982 eSite preparation began for the Clinch River Project on September 22.

November

• 1982 eon November 1, the final supplement to the Final Environmental Statement was released recommending issuance of a construction permit for the Clinch River Project.

December

• 1982

.congress approved funds for the project for 1983 but stipulated that DOE must develop proposals to encourage greater financial participation in the project by the private sector.

-Value of major components, prototypes and test items completed and delivered reached $360.8 million.

March

• 1983

_The ASLB issued a decision recommending a Limited Work Authorization.

This cleared the way for obtaining a construction permit. The board 40

concluded that the project was licensable from an environmental standpoint and that the site met NRC safety requirements.

-Safety Evaluation Report was released concluding that the construction permit should be granted.

April - 1983

-The Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards issued a positive report following completion of its review of the projecfs application for a construction permit.

May -1983

_ The project received a Limited Work Authorization from the NRC. This major licensing milestone demonstrated the environmental acceptability of LMFBRs in the United States.

June -1983

- The prototype steam generator was brought to full testpower at the Energy Technology Engineering Center. This was the largest LMFBR steam generator test ever conducted in the U.S.

-Sodium testing of the full-sized prototype sodium pump was successfully completed at the Energy Technology Engineering Center.

JUly* 1983

- President Reagan announced his endorsementofan Alternate Financing Plan for the Clinch River Breeder Reactor. The plan was designed to raise

$1 billion in private capital and reduce by 40 percent federal funding requirements to complete the project.

September - 1983

-Excavation for the nuclear island area was completed. About three million cubic yards of earth and rock had been excavated from the site.

October - 1983

- The NRC staff filed its Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law with regard to the construction permit proceedings. The findings concluded that there was reasonable assurance that safety questions would be satisfactorily resolved prior to completion of construction, the plant could be constructed and operated at the Clinch River site without undue risk to the health and safety of the public, the applicants were technically qualified to design and construct the plant and that a construction permit should be granted.

-By a vote of 56-40, the U.S. Senate agreed on October 26 to a motion to table an amendment to a supplemental appropriation for fiscal year 1984 which would have authorized the Secretary of Energy to enter into an agreement to obtain alternate financing of one billion dollars for the Clinch River Project. The vote effectively rejected a proposed multi-year appropriation and denied funding for the project. Secretary of Energy Hodel issued a statement following the vote that the department would begin immediately to plan for "an orderly termination of the project."

November - 1983

-An agreement reached by 00£ TVA Commonwealth Edison, BRC and PMC to terminate the project became effective on November 14. DOE began "an orderly termination of the project."

December - 1983

_ Value of major components, prototypes and test items completed and delivered reached $381 million.

41

January

• 1984

• A Memorandum ofFindings was issued by the ASLB that resolved all issues raised in hearings related to the construction permit for the plant in favor of the applicants. In view of the termination, this document was issued in lieu of a construction permit.

The heterogeneous core was adopted for the Clinch River Plant in January 1979.

42

REFERENCES

1. Fast Reactor Technology: Plant Design, John G. Yevick Editor, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1966, Chapter I.

2. Atomic Industrial Forum, Nuclear Power Plants Outside The United States, December 31, 1983, p. 10.

3. Atomic Industrial Forum, Nuclear Power Plants Outside The United States, December 31, 1983, p. 11.

4. Breeder Reactor Corporation, A World of Energy, October 1982.

5. Authorizing Appropriations for the Atomic Energy Commission for Fiscal Year 1971, Report by the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, May 11, 1970.

6. Letter from Paul M. McCracken, Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors to Glenn Seaborg, Chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission, October 8, 1970.

7. Letter from Glenn Seaborg, Chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission to Paul M. McCracken, Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors, October 31, 1970.

8. Message to the Congress on a Program to Insure an Adequate Supply of Clean Energy in the Future, June 4, 1971, President Richard Nixon.

9. LMFBR Demonstration Plant Program, Proceedings of senior Utility Steering Committee and senior Utility Technical Advisory Panel for the Period April 1971 Thru January 1972, U.SAE.C., March 1972.

10. Transcript of Press Conference, Dr. James R. Schlesinger, Chairman, U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, January 14, 1972.

11. Agreement Among United States of America as Represented by the United States Atomic Energy Commission and Tennessee Valley Authority and Commonwealth Edison Company and Project Management Corporation, July 25, 1973.

12. Statement on Decisions Following a Review of U.S. Nuclear Power Policy, President Jimmy Carter, April 7, 1977.

13. Address Before a Joint Session of the Congress on the National Energy Program, President Jimmy Carter, April 20, 1977.

14. Assessment of the Cost to Complete the Clinch River Breeder Reactor Plant Project, A Report to the Secretary, Prepared by: the Assistant Secretary for Nuclear Energy, U.S. Department of Energy, September 14, 1983.

15. Report to the Congress on Alternative Financing of the Clinch River Breeder Reactor Plant Project, USDOE, March 1983.

16. Financing the Clinch River Breeder Reactor Project, a Task Force Report to the Breeder Reactor Corporation Supplementing its March 12, 1983, Report on Alternative Financing Possibilities for the CRBRP Project, June 23, 1983.

17. Agreement Among United States of America as Represented by the Department of Energy and Tennessee Valley Authority and Commonwealth Edison Company and Project Management Corporation and Breeder Reactor Corporation, November 10,1983.

18. Modification NO.1 to Agreement Among United States of America as Represented by The United States Atomic Energy Commission and Tennessee Valley Authority and Commonwealth Edison Company and Project Management Corporation.

43

19. The Atomic Energy Commission was succeeded by the Energy Research and Development Administration (ERDA) In January 1975. It.

in turn. was succeeded by the Department of Energy In October 1977.

20. Audit of the Clinch River Breeder Reactor Plant Project, Oak Ridge, Tennessee. DOE. Office of Inspectar General, July 2, 1982.

21. The Clinch River Breeder Reactor-should the Congress continue to fund it? Report to Congress by the Comptroller General of the

'United States, May 7, 1979.

22. News Release, Breeder Reactor Corporation 84-01, February 6. 1984.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Energy History Chronology from World War II to the Present, Prentice C. Dean. August 1982. U.S. Department of Energy, DOE/ES0002.

Atomic Shield, Richard G. Hewlett and Francis Duncan, The Pennsylvania State University Press, 1969.

Nuclear Reactors Built, Being BUilt, or Planned, Technical Information Center, U.S. DOE. August 1983.

Nuclear Engineering International, August 1983.

44

BREEDER REACTOR CORPORATION UTILITIES The 753 electric uLiliUe! that com- Blackstone Valley Eleclric Company Company (I) Daw90n County Public Power DisLrict pose Breeder Reactor Corporation (I) Chickasaw Electric Cooperative (C) (P)

(BRC) represent a true Cloa-section Blount Eleclric Sy.t.m (M) Chippewa Valley Electric Cooperative Dayton Electric D.partm.nt (M) of America's power companiee. BRC Blu. Earth*Nicoll.t*Faribault (C) Daylon Pow.r & Liqht Company (I) members include representatives from Cooperative Electric Association Choctawatchee Electric Cooperative, Decatur Utiliti.s (M) every sector of the electric utility in- (C) Inc. (C) Dek Rural Electric Coop.rativ. (C) duatry in the United StatMi-investor- Blue Graas Rural Electric Cooperative Choptank Electric Cooperative, Inc. Delaware Rural ElecLTic Cooperative, owned, public power, municipal, and Corporation (C) (C) Inc. (C) cooperatives. BRC consists of 133 Blue Ridge Electric Cincinnati Ga9 & Electric CompaIlY D.lmarva Pow.r & Liqht Company (I) illveolor*owned utiliti.. (I), 44 public M.mbership Corporation (C) (I) Denton County Electric Cooperative, pow.r dilltricls (P), 124 municipal (M), Blue Ridge Mountain Eleclric Citizens Electric Company (I) Inc. (C) and 452 coop.rativ** (C). Toq.th.r M.mbership Coop.rativ. (C) City 01 Bandon (M) D.partm.nt of Electricity Clarksvill.,

these utiliti** have pledqed $257 Bolivar Eleclric D.partm.nt (M) City of Chicamauqa (M) T.ne..... (M) million 10 build the Clinch Rivel Pro- BooDe Valley Electric Cooperative (C) City 01 Fort Collino Liqht & Power Department of Electricity Sprin9field.

ject in the largest single research and Bo.lon Edillon Company (I) D.partm.nt (M) T.ne..... (M) development project ever undertaken Bowlinq Gr..n Municipal Utiliti.. (M) City 01 Idaho FaU. (M) D.lroit Edillon Company (I) by the federal government and private Brazos Electric Cooperative, Inc. (C) Cjty of Richland Energy Service Dicbon Electric Department (M) illdu.lry. AI th**nd of 1982, BRC Brislol, Virqillia, Utiliti** Board (M) D.partm.nt (M) Dwe Electric Power Association (C) utiliti** had alr.ady illv..ted $135 Bristol, Tennessee, Electric SY9tem City of Sevi.rvill. (M) Dixie Electric Membership million in the Clinch River ProjecL (M) Claiborne Electric Cooperative. Inc~

Corporalion (C)

Brockton Edison Company (I) (C) Dixie Escalante Rural Electric A & N Eleclric Coop.rativ. (C) Brown Atchison Electric Cooperative Clark El.ctric Coop.rativ. (C) A..ociation, Inc. (C)

Aberd.en El.ctric D.partm.nl (M) AsoociaUon, Inc. (C) Clark: Rural Electric Cooperative Douglas Electric Cooperative, Inc. (C)

Adams County Cooperative Eleclric Brown County Rural Electric Corporation (C) Duck River Electric Membelship Company (C) A..ociation (C) Clark. Eleclric Coop.rativ., Inc. (C) Corporation (C)

Adamo Eleclric Cooperative, Inc. (C) Brown.vill. Utility D.partm.nt (M) Claverack Rural ElecLric Cooperative, Duke Power Company (I)

Adams MarqueUe Electric Buchanan County Rural Electric Inc. (C) Duncan Valley Electric Cooperative, Cooperative (C) Coop.rativ. (C) Clay Electric Coop.raliv., Inc. (C) Inc. (C)

Adams Rural Electric Cooperative, Buck.ye Pow.r, Inc. (C) Clay Electric Coop.raliv., Inc. (C) Dunn County Electric Coop.rative (C)

Inc. (C) Buckeye Rural Electric Cooperative, Clearwater Polle Electric Cooperative, Dy.roburq Eleclric Sy.t.m (M)

Aqralile Coop.rativ. (C) Inc. (C) Inc. (C) Ea9t Central Oklahoma Electric Aiken Electric Cooperative, Inc. (C) Buena Vista County Rural Electric Clearwater Power Company (C) Coop.rativ. (C)

Alabama Pow.r Company (I) Cooperative (C) Cleveland Eleclric llluminalinq E U A S.rvic. (I)

Alb.rtville Utiliti.. Board (M) Company (I) East Kentucky Power Cooperative, Alcorn County Electric Power Buffalo Electric Cooperative (C) CI.v.land Uliliti** (M) Inc. (C)

A"ociation (C) Burke-Divide Eleclric Cooperative, Clinton Utiliti** Board (M) Easl Mi88isaippi Electric Power Alger Delta Cooperative Electric Inc. (C) CMS Electric Coop.rativ., Inc. (C) A"ociation (C)

A"ociation (C) Burt County PubUc Pow.r Dillirici (P) Coast Eleclric Power ASSOCiation (e) Eaot.m Edillon Company (I)

Allamakee Clayton Electric Butler County Rural Electric Coastal Eleclric Coop.raliv., Inc. (C) Eastem lllinois Power Cooperative (C)

Coop.rativ., Inc. (C) Coop.rativ. (C) Codington-Clark Electric Easton Utiliti89 Commission (M)

Allegheny Eleclric Cooperative, Inc. Butler County Rural Public Power Cooperativ., Inc. (C) Eau Claire Electric Cooperative (C)

(C) Dilltricl (P) Columbia Power System (M) Edi.on Sault Electric Company (I)

Amory Eleclric & Water Department Butler Rural E1eclric Coopelative Columbia Rural Electric Association, El Paso El""lric Company (I)

(M) Association, Inc. (C) Inc. (C) Eleclric Board, Muscl. Shoals (M)

Anza El.ctric Coop.rativ., Inc. (C) Butler Rural Electric Cooperative, Columbus & Southern Ohio Electric Electric Power Board of Chattanoo9a Appalachian Electric Cooperalive (C) Inc. (C) Company (I) (M)

Arab Eleclric (C) C&W Rural Electric Cooperalive Columbus Liqht & Wal.r Departm.nl Elizabethlon Electric Sy.t.m (M)

Arizona Electric Power Cooperative, Association, Inc. (C) (M) Elk Hom Public Pow.r Dillirict (P)

Inc. (C) Calhoun County ElecLric Cooperative Columbus Rural Electric Cooperative Empir. Dilltricl Electric Company (I)

Arizona Public Servic. Company (I) A..ooiation (C) (C) Erath County Electric Cooperative Ark Valley Electric Cooperative Callaway Electric Cooperative (C) Comanche County Electric A"ociation (C)

A..ocialion, Inc. (e) Cambridge Electric Liqhl Company Coop.rativ. (C) Erwill Utiliti.. (M)

Arkansa9 Missouri Power Company (I) (I) Commonwealth Edison Company (I) Elowah Utiliti** D.partm.nl (M)

Arkanoa. Pow.r & Liqht Company (I) Canadian Valley &lecinc Cooperative, Concordia Electric Cooperative, Inc. Eugene Water & Electric Board (M)

Arkansas Valley Electric Cooperative Inc. (C) (C) Fairfield Electric Cooperative, Inc.

Corporation (C) Caney Fork Electric Cooperative (C) Connecticut Light & Power Company (C)

Arrowhead Electric Cooperative, Inc. Cape & Vineyard Electric Company (I) Farmera Electric Cooperative, Inc.

(C) (I) Conowingo Power Company (I) (C)

Ashley Chicot Electric Cooperative, Capilol Electric Cooperative, Inc. (C) Consolidated Edi.on Company (I) Farmer9 ElecLric Cooperative, Inc.

Inc. (C) Carolina Pow.r & Liqht Company (I) Consumers Power Company (I) (C)

AtchiJIon-Holt Eleclnc Cooperative Carroll County Electrical DepartmenL Consumers Power, Inc. (C) Farmers Mutual Eleclric Company (C)

(C) (M) Cooke County Eleclric Cooperative Fanuels Rural Eleclric Cooperative Ath.ns Electric Departm.nt (M) Carroll Electric Cooperative, Inc. (C) A..ociation (C) Corporation (C)

Ath.n. Utiliti.. Board (M) Carroll Electric Cooperative Cookeville Electric Department (M) Fay.n.vill. Electric 5y.l.m (M)

Atlantic City Electric Company (I) Corporation (C) Cooperative Light & Power Federated Rural Electric AMociation B*K Electric Coop.raUv., Inc. (C) Carroll Electric Membership A..ociation of Lak. County (C) (C)

Bak.r Electric Cooperativ., Inc. (C) Corporation (C) Cooperative Power Association (C) Firelands Electric Cooperative (e)

Baltimor. Ga. & Electric Company (I) Carteret-Craven Electric MembeI9hip Coo9-Curry Eleclric Cooperative, Inc. Fint Electric Cooperative Corporation Barron County Electric Cooperative Coop.rativ. (C) (C) (C)

(C) Cavalier Rural Electric Cooperative, Comhu.k.r Public Pow.r Dillirict (P) Filchburg Gao & Eleclric Liqhl Bartl.1I Electric Coop.rativ., Inc. (C) Inc. (C) Cotton Electric Cooperative (e) Company (I)

Bedford Rural Electric Cooperative. Cedar Vall.y Eleclric Cooperative (C) Courtland El.ctric D.partm.nt (M) Flathead Electric Cooperative, Inc.

Inc. (C) Central Alabama Electric Cooperative Covin91oD Electric SY9tem (M) (C)

B.l/aU. Eleclric Coop.rativ., Inc_ (C) (C) Cowlitz Public Utility Dilltrict (P) Fleming-Mason Rural Electric Belmont Electric Cooperative, Inc. Central Electric Cooperative, Inc. (C) CP NaLional Corporation (I) Coop.rativ. (C)

(C) Central Electric Power Association (C) Craighead Electric Cooperative Flint Hill9 Rural Electric Cooperative Beltrami Electric Cooperative, Inc. Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corporation (C) A"ociation (C)

(C) Company (I) Crawford Electric Cooperative (C) F1or.nc. Electricity D.partm.nl (M)

B.nton County Board of Public C.nlrallllinoi. Liqhl Company (I) Cuivre River Electric Cooperative, Florida Power Corporation (I)

Utiliti.. (C) C.nlral lllinoill Public S.rvic. (I) Inc. (C) Fore9t Grove Liqht & Power Benlon County Electric Cooperative Central Kan9as Electric Coopelative, Cullman El.ctric (C) D.partm.nt (M)

A..ociation (C) Inc. (C) Cullman Pow.r !loaId (M) Forked D..r Electric Coop.rativ. (C)

Benton Eleclric Sy.t.m (M) C.nlral Lincoln P.opl.'s Utility (P) Cumberland Eleclric M.mbership Fori Belknap Electric Cooperative, Benton Rural Electric Association (C) C.ntral Pow.r & Liqht Company (I) Corporation (C) Inc. (C)

Berkeley Electric Cooperative. Inc. Central WiBcOWlin Electric Cumberland Valley Rural Electric Fori Loudoun Electric Cooperative (C) Cooperative (C) Coop.raUv. (C) (C)

Be989mer Electric Service (M) Chariton Valley Electric Cooperative Cuming County Public Power DistricL Four County Electric Member9hip Big Bend Electric Cooperative, Inc_ (C) (P) Corporalion (C)

(C) Cherokee County Rural Electric Custer Public Power District (P) Four County Electric Power Big Sandy Rural Electric Cooperative Cooperative (C) D SOlO Rural Electric Cooperative A"ociation (C)

Company (C) Cherokee Electric Cooperative (e) Association, Inc. (C) Fox Creek Rural Electric Cooperative Blachly-Lan. County Coop.rativ. (C) Cherryland Rural ElecLric Cooperative Dakota Electric A"ociaUon (C) Corporalion (C)

Black River Electric Cooperative (C) (C) Dalla. Pow.r & Liqht Company (I) Franklin County Public Power District Black River Electric Cooperative (C) Cheyenne Light Fuel & Power Darke Rural Electric Cooperative, Inc. (P)

(C) 45.

FranlcJin County Public Utility District r.o.ter~County Rural Electric Marion Rural Electric Cooperative (C) NIW Orlllne Publlo Sorvlce. Inc. (I)

II (P) Cooperative Corporation (C) Marshall County Rural Electric NIW River Llqhllil Power Franklin Electric Cooperative (e) Interstate Power Company (1) Cooperative (C) CooperlUYI (C)

Franklin Electric Plant Board (M) Iowa Electric Light & Power Company Marshall Dekalh Electric Cooperative Nlw York Statl EllOtric iii Ga. (I)

FranlcJin Power & Li9ht (I) (I) (C) Nlwborn EllotriC Clpartment (M)

Franlc1in Rural Electric Cooperative Iowa Illinois Gas & Electric Company Maryville Utilitieo Board (M) Nlwberry EloolrlO Cooperative. Inc.

(C) (I) M..on County Public Utility Di.tr!ct (C)

Freebom-Mower Electric Cooperative Iowa Power & Light Company (I) No.3 (P) Nlwport Elootrlc Corporation (I)

(C) Iowa Public Service Company (I) M....chusells Electric Company (I) Nlwport UulluH Board (M)

Frontier Power Company (e) Iowa Soulbem Utilities Company (I) Matanuska Electric Association, Inc. Nlaoara Mohawk Power Corporation Frost*Benco Eledric (C) J A C Electric Cooperative (C) (I)

Fruit Bell Electric Cooperative (C) A"""iation (C) Maylield Electric & Water Sy.tem (M) Niobrara ValllY EllOtric Momberohip Ft. Payne Impuvemenl Aulbority (M) Jacbon County Rural Electric (C) McCook Public Power Dislrict (P) CorporaUon (C)

Fulton Electric System (M) Jackson County Rural Electric McDonouqh Power Cooperative (e) NlIhnabotna Valley Rural Eleclric Gallatin Department of Electricity (M) Cooperative (C) McLennan County Electric CooperaUva (C)

Georgia Power Company (I) Jackson Electric Cooperative (C) Cooperative, Inc. (C) Nobla. CooperaUve Electric (C)

Gibllon County Electric Membership Jacbon Utility Division (M) McLeod Cooperative Power Nodak Rural Electric Cooperative.

Corporation (C) James Valley Electric Cooperative, Association (C) Inc. (C)

GIa.gow Electric Planl Board (M) Inc. (C) McMinnville Electric Sy.lem (M) Nodaway Worth Electric Cooperative Glidden Rural Electric Cooperative Jasper Newton Eleclric Cooperative, McMinnville Water & Li9ht (C)

(C) Inc. (C) Department (M) NoUn Rural Eleclric Cooperative Golden Valley Electric Association. Jefferson Davis Electric Cooperative, McPheroon Board of Public Utilitie. CorporaUon (C)

Inc. (C) Inc. (C) (M) Norlb Alabama Electric Goodhue County Cooperative Electric Jellico Electric Sy.tem (M) Mecklenbur9 Electric Cooperative (C) CooperaUve (C)

Asoociation (C) Jeroey Central Power & Light Meeker Cooperative Liqht & Power North Arkanaaa Cooperative, Inc. (C)

Graham County Electric Cooperative. Company (I) Asoociation (C) North Central Electric Cooperative.

Inc. (C) Joe Wheeler Electric Membership Memphis~Light Gas & Water Division Inc. (C)

Grand Electric Cooperative, Inc. ee) Corporalion (C) (M) North CliIDtral Missouri Electric Granite State ElecLric Company (1) Jobn.on City Power Board (M) Menard Electric Cooperative (C) Cooperative. Inc. (C)

Grant Electric Cooperative (e) Johnson County Electric Cooperative Meriwether Lewis Electric Cooperative North Central Public Power District Grayson Rural Electric Cooperative (C) (C) (P)

(C) Jones Onslow Electric Membership Melropolitan Edison Company (I) North Georgia Eleclric Membership Great Plains Eleelric Cooperative, Corporatioo (Cl Mid-South Electric Cooperative Corporation (Cl Inc. (C) Jump River Electric Cooperative, Inc. Asoociation (C) North Star Electric Cooperative, Inc.

Greene County Rural Electric (C) Mid-Carolina Electric Cooperative, Inc. (C)

Cooperative (C) K B R Rural Public Power District (P) (C) North Weat Electric Power Greenville Light & Power Sy.tem (M) Kanoas Gas & Electric Company (I) Middle Tennessee Electric Corporation. Inc. (C)

Grundy County Rural Eleclric Kans.. Power & Light (I) Membe,ship Corporation (C) North West Mjaouri Electric Cooperative (C) Kaw Valley Eleclric Cooperative Midstate Electric Cooperative, Inc. Cooperative (C)

Grundy Electric Cooperative. Inc. (C) Company (C) (C) North Western Electric Cooperative, Guernsey Muskinghan Electric Kay Electric Cooperative (C) Midwest Electric Cooperative, Inc. Inc. (C)

Cooperative. Inc. (C) Knoxville Utilitie. Board (M) (C) Northcentral Mississippi Electric Gull Power Compaq (I) Kosciusko County Rural Electric Midwe.t Eleclric. Inc. (C) Power Association (C)

Gull Stat.. Utillti.. Company (I) Membership Corporation (C) Midwest Energy, Inc. (C) Northeast Louisiana Power Gunleroville Eleclric Board (M) Milan Department 01 Public Utllitie. Cooperative. Inc. (C)

Guthrie County Rural Electric  !..alollelie Electric Department (M) (M) Northeast MiSBis8i.ppi Electric Cooperative (C) Lake Region Cooperative Electrical Minne.ota Power & Li9ht Company (I) Power Asoociation (C)

Halilaz. Electric Membership Asoociation (C) Minnesota Valley Electric Cooperative Northeast Missouri Electric Power Corporation (C) Lake Superior District Power (C) Cooperative (C)

Hamilton County Electric Cooperative Company (I) Mississippi Power & Light Company Norlboast NebraSka Rural Public AosociaUon (C) Lamar Electric Membership (I) Power District (P)

Hancock County Rural Electric Corporation (C) Mississippi Power Company (I) Norlbe..t Oklahoma Electric Cooperative (C) Lane Electric Cooperative, Inc. (C) Missoula Electric Cooperative, Inc. Cooperative. Inc. (C)

Hancock Wood Electric Cooperative, Lane*Scott Electric Cooperative (C) (C) Norlbe..t UtiliU.. Service Company Inc. (C) Laurens Electric Cooperative, Inc. (C) Missouri Edison Company (I) (I)

Hardin County Rural Electric Lawrenceburg Power System (M) Missouri Power & Light Company (I) Norlbem Lights, Inc. (Cl Cooperative (C) Lebanon Electric Department (M) Missouri Rural Electric Cooperative Northem Michigan Electric Harriman Power Department (M) Lee County Eleclric Cooperative, Inc. (C) Corporation (C)

Harrison County Rural Electric (Cl Mohave Electric CooperaUve. Inc. (C) Northern Neck Electric Cooperative Cooperative (C) Lenoir City Utilitie. Board (M) Monona County Rural Electric (C) .

Harrison Rural Eleclric Cooperative Lewis County Rural Eleclric Cooperative (C) Northern States Power Company (MN)

Corporation (Cl Cooperative (C) Monroe County Electric Cooperative, (I)

Harrison Rural Electrification Lewishurg Eleclric Sy.lem (M) Inc. (C) Norlbem Stat.. Power Company (WI)

Association (C) Lexington Electric System (M) Monroe County Electric Power (I)

Hart County Electric Membership Licking Rural Electrification Inc. (C) A"ociation (C) Northwest Iowa Power Cooperative Corpora lion (C) Liclting Valley Rural Eleclric Montana Dakota Utilities Company (I) (Cl Hartford Electric Li9hl Company (I) Cooperative (C) Monticello Eleclric Planl Board (M) Northwestern Public Service Company Hart.elle Electric Board (M) Lighthouse Electric Cooperative, Inc. Mor Gran Sou ElecLric Cooperative, (I)

Hawkeye Tn-County Electric (C) Inc. (C) Northwestern Rural Electric CooperaUve (C) Limestone County Electric Morristown Power System (M) Cooperative (C)

Hershey Electric Company (I) Cooperative, Inc. (C) Morrow Electric Cooperative, Inc. (C) Nyman Electric Cooperative, Inc. (C)

Hickman Electric System Board (M) Linn County Rural Electric Mountain E1ectric Cooperative, Inc. O'Brien County Rural Electric Hickman Fulton CaunUse Rural Cooperalive (C) (C) Cooperative (C)

Electric Cooperative Corporation Little Ocmulgee Electric Membership Mountrail Electric Cooperative, Inca Oak Ridge Eloctrical Division (M)

(C) Corporation (C) (C) Oakdale Electric Cooperative (C)

Hill County EJeciric Cooperalive. Inc. Little River Electric Cooperative, Inc. Ml. Cannel Public Utility Company (I) Oconee Electric MembsJ8hip (C) (C) Mt. Pl....nt Power System (M) Corporation (C)

Holly Springs Utility Department (M) Logan County P&L Association, Inc. Murfreesboro Electric Department (M) Oconto Eleclric Cooperative (C)

Holmes Wayne Electric Cooperative, (C) Murphy Electric Power Board (M) Ohio Edison Company (I)

Inc. (C) Lone Wolf Electric Cooperative, Inc. Murray Electric Sy.tem (M) Oklahoma Electric Cooperative (C)

Holston Electric Cooperative (C) (C) Narragansett Electric Company (I) Oklahoma Gas & Electric Company Holyoke Water Power Company (I) Long bland Lighting Company (I) Nashville Electric Service (M) (I)

Home Lighl & Power CompanY (I) Lorain Medina Rural Electric Natchez Trace Electric Power Okolona Eleclric Departmenl (M)

Hood River Electric Cooperative (e) Cooperative. Inc. (C) Asoocialion (C) Oliver*Mercer Electric Cooperative.

Hopldosville Electric Plant Board (M) Los Angeles Department Water & Navarro County Electric Cooperative, Inc. (C)

Horry Electric Cooperative, Inc. (el Power (M) Inc. (C) Omaha Public Power District (P)

Houoton Lighting & Power (1) Lost River Electric Cooperative, Inc. NCK Electric Cooperative. Inc. (C) Orange & Rockland Utilitie** Inc. (1)

Howard Electric Cooperative (e) (C) Nebraska Electric G & T Cooperative Osage Valley Electric Cooperative Howard Greeley Rural Public Power Loudon Utilities (M) (C) ASlociation (C)

Di.tricl (P) Louisiana Power & Light Company (I) Nehraska Public Power Dislrict (P) Osceola Electric Cooperative Inc. (C) j Humboldt County Rural Electric Louisville Utililies (M) Nemaha Marshall Electric Cooperative Oller rail Power Company (I)

Cooperative (e) Loup Valleys Rural Public Power A"ociaUon, Inc. (C) Ouachita Electric Cooperative Humboldt Electric Department (M) Districl(C) Nespelem Valley Electric Cooperative, Corporation (C)

Hunt.ville Uiiliti.. (M) Lower Valley Power & Light, Inc.(C) Inc. (C) Owen County Rural Electric Ida County Rural Electric Cooperative Lynches River Electric Cooperative, New Albany Water & Light (M) Cooperative Corporation (C)

(C) Inc. (C) New Bed/ord G .. & Edison Light (I) Oxford Eleclric Department (M)

Id;oho Power Company (1) Lyntegar Electric Cooperative, Inc. New England Electric System (1) P K M Electric Cooperative. Inc. (C)

Illini Electric Cooperative (C) (Cl New England Ga. & Electric P.R. & W. Electric Cooperative Illioois Power Company (1) Macon Electric Cooperative, Inc. (C) Association (I) Association, Inc. (C)

Illinoil!l Rural Electric Cooperative (e) Macon Electric Department (M) New En91aod Power Company (I) Pacilic Gas & Electric Company (I)

Indian Eleclric Cooperative, Inc. (e) Madison Ga. & Electric Company (I) New Enterprise Rural Eleclric Pacific Power &. Light Indianapolio Power & Light Magnolia Electric Power Association Cooperallve (C) Company (I)

Company (I) (C) New Jemey Power & Light Company Paducah Power Sy.tem (M)

Inland Power & Lighl Company (C) Maquoketa Valley Rural Electric (I) Palmetto Electric Cooperative, Inc.

Cooperative (C) (C) 46

Paris Board of Utiliti.. (M) Robertson Electric Cooperative, Inc. Springfi.ld Ulility Beard (M) V.ra Wal.r & Pow.r (P)

Paulding Putnam Electric (C) St. Croix County Electric Cooperative Verdigris Valley Electric Cooperative, Cooperative, Inc, (C) Roch8!ter Gas &. Eleclric Corporation (C) Inc. (C)

Pearl River Valley Electric Power (I) SI. Jooeph Light & Power Company (I) Victory Cooperative Association, Inc.

AMociation (C) Rockland Electric Company (I) Stamford Electric Cooperative, Inc. (C)

Pedemales Electric Cooperative, Inc. Rockwood Electric Utility (M) (C) Vigilanle Electric Cooperative, Inc.

(C) Roseau Electric Cooperative, Inc. (C) Stanton County Public Power District (C)

Pee Dee Electric Membe"bJp RSR Electric Coop.rativ., Inc. (C) (P) Virginia Electric Cooperative (C)

Corporation (C) Ruo8!tone Electric Aseociation (C) Slarlrville El.ctric System (M) Virqinia Electric &- Power Company Pella Cooperative Electric Association Ru...llvill. Electric Departm.nt (M) Stearn! Coop.rative Electric (C) (I)

(C) Ruoaellvill. Eleclric Plant Board (M) Steele Waseca Cooperative Electric Volunteer Electric Cooperative (C)

Pennsylvania Electric Company (I) Sac Couaty Rural Electric (C) W..I K.ntucky Rural Electric Pennsylvania Power & Liqht Coop.rativ. (C) Sullivan County Rural Electric Cooperative Corporation (C)

Company (I) Salmon River Electric Cooperative, Coop.rative, Inc, (C) Walton Electric Membership P.nnsylvania Pow.r Company (I) Inc. (C) Sulphur Spring. Vall.y Electric Corporation (C)

Pennyrile Rural Electric Cooperative Sail River Project (P) Coop.rative (C) Warren Electric Cooperative, Inc. (C)

Corporalion (C) Salt River Rural Electric Cooperative Sumner Cowley Electric Cooperative Warren Rural Electric Cooperative People', Cooperative Power Corporation (C) Associalion (C) Corporation (C)

AMociation (C) San Diego Gas & Electric Company Superior Water Light &: Power Wash Wat.r Pow.r Company (I)

Philadelphia Electric Company (I) (I) Company (I) Washington Electric Cooperative, Inc.

PhiiadelpbJa Uliliti.. (M) Sand Mt. Electric Cooperative (C) Sl1I'prise Valley Eleclric Corporation (C)

Pickwick Electric Cooperative (e) Santee Electric Cooperative, Inc. (C) (C) Washinglon Electric Cooperative (C)

Pioneer Rural Electric Cooperative, Scollsboro Electric Pow.r Beard (M) Surry Yadkin Electric Membership Water Valley El.ctric D.partm.nt (M)

Inc. (C)* Seattl. City Liqht (M) Corporation (C) Wat.rford Electric Light Company (I)

Planters Electric Membership Sedgwick County Electric SllBSOX Rural Electric Cooperative (C) Waushara Electric Cooperative (C)

Corporation (C) Cooperative A8!0cialion, Inc. (C) Sweetwater Public Utiliti** (P) Wayne County Public Power District Plateau Electric Cooperative (C) Sequachee Vall.y Electric SwiJJher Electric Cooperative, Inc. (C) (P)

Platte-Clay Electric Cooperative Cooperative (C) T.I.P. Rural Electric Cooperative (C) Wayne White Counti98 Electric (C) Seward County Rural Public Power Tallahatchie Valley Electric Power Coop.rative (C)

Plumas*Siena. Rural Electric District (P) Association (C) Weakley County Municipal Electric Cooperative (C) SheHield PowerlWater &. Gu Talquin Eleclric Cooperativ., Inc. (C) Sy.l.m (M)

Plymouth Eleclric Cooperative D.partment (M) Tanner Electric Cooperative (C) W.llo Eleclric Association (C)

Association (C) Sh.lby Eleclric Cooperative (C) Tarranl City Eleclric Department (M) West Central Electric Cooperative, Pocahontas Rural Electric Cooperative Shelby Rural Electric Cooperative Taylor County Electric Cooperative Inc. (MO) (C)

(C) Corporation (C) (C) West Central Electric Cooperative, Polk Burnell El.ctric Coop.rative (C) Shelbyville Power Syotem (M) Taylor County Rural Electric Inc. (SD) (C)

Polk County Rural Public Pow.r Sh.nandoah Vall.y El.ctric Cooperative (C) West Plains Electric Cooperative, Inc.

District (P) Cooperative (C) Taylor Electric Cooperative, Inc. (C) (C)

Pontotoc Electric Power Aasociation Sh.rrard Power Syol.m (I) T.nnessee Valley Authority (P) W..t Point El.clric Sy.tem (M)

(C) Sheyenne Valley Electric Cooperative, Texas Electric Service Company (I) West River Electric Association, Inc.

Portland Generalinq Electric Inc. (C) T.... Pow.r & Light Company (I) (C)

Company (I) Sho Me Power Corporation (C) Three Notch Electric MemberobJp (C) W..I T.xas Uliliti.. Company (I)

Potomac Electric Power Company (1) Sierra Pacilic Power Company (I) Three Rivers Electric Cooperative (C) Western Illinois Electric Cooperative, Pow.ll Valley Electric Cooperative (C) Singing River Electric Power Tid.land Electric MemberohJp Inc. (C)

Prentiss County Electric Power Association (C) Corporation (C) Weetem MaasachuseUs Electric

.As.ociation (C) Sioux C.nl.r Municipal Utilitie. (M) Tillamook Peeples Ulility Districl (P) Company (I)

Presque Isle Electric Cooperative, Sioux Electric Cooperative Tipmant Rural Electric Membership Wheatland Electric Cooperative, Inc.

Inc. (C) Association (C) Corporatioo (C) (C)

Price Electric Cooperative, Inc. (e) Siou:z Valley Empire Electric Tippah Electric Power AS8OCiation (C) White River Valley Electric Princeton El.ctric Board (M) Association, Inc. (C) Tiahominso County Electric Power Coop.rativ. (C)

Public Service Company of Colorado Slasb Pin. M.mbel1lhip Corporation Association (C) Wild Rice Electric Cooperative, Inc~

(I) (C) Tennessee Valley Eleclric Cooperative (C)

Public Service Company of New Slop. Eleclric Cooperativ., Inc. (C) (C) Winchester Power System (M)

Ham""bJre (I) Smithville Electric Syst.m (M) Todd Wadena Electric Cooperative Winnebago Rur.l Electric Public Servic. Electric & Gas Smoky Hill Electric Cooperative, (C) Cooporative Association (C)

Company (I) Inc. (C) Tomhigbee Electric Power Association Wlo<:onoln Eloctrlc Pow.r Company (I)

Public Service Indiana (I) Smoky Valley Electric Cooperative (C) Wisconsin*Michigan Power Company Public Services Company of Association, Inc. (C) Tongue River Electric Cooperative, (I)

Oklahoma (I) SomelB8t Rural Electric Cooperative, Inc. (C) Wisconsin Pow.r & Lighl Company (I)

Public Utility District 11 of Chelan Inc. (C) Top O~ichigan Rural Electric Wisconsin Public Service Corporation County (P) Som.rvill. Eleclric D.partm.nt (M) Coop.rativ. (C) (I)

Public Utility Dislrict HI of Clark South Carolina Electric & Gas Town of Estes Park Liqht &: Power Wise Electric Coop.rativ., Inc. (C)

County (P) Company (I) Department (M) Withlacoochee River Electric Public Utility Districl *1 of Dougla. South Central Electric Association (C) Town of McCI.ary (M) Coop.rativ., Inc. (C)

County (P) South Cenlral Power Company (C) Trempealeau Electric (C) Wolverine Electric Cooperative, Inc.

Public Utility District *1 of Grant South Central Public Power District Trenton Light &: Waler Department (C)

County (P) (P) (M) Woodbury County Rural Electric Public Utility Dislricl 11 of GraY" South Crawford Rural Electric Tri County Electric Coop.rativ. (C) Cooperative Association (C)

Harbor (P) Cooperative (C) Tri County Electric Cooperative, Inc. Wright County Rural Electric Public Utility District 11 01 Kittitas South Kentucky Rural Electric (C) Coop.rativ. (C)

County (P) Cooperative (C) Tri County Electric Coop.rativ. (C) York County Rural Public Power Public Utility District 11 of Klickitat South Misslsaippi Electric Power Tri County Electric M.mbe"bJp Districl (P)

County (P) Association (C) Corporation (C)

Public Utility District 11 of Lewis South Plains Electric Cooperative (C) Tri County Rural Electric County (P) Southeast Iowa Cooperative ElecLric Coop.rativ., Inc. (C)

Public Utility Dislricl '1 of Paci/fc Association (C) Tri-County Electric Cooperative County Southeast MicbJgan Rural Electric Association (C)

Public Utility District 11 of Pend Cooperative, Inc. (C) Tri-State Electric Membership Orielle County (P) South.rn Ca1ilornia Edaon Company Corporation (C)

Public Utility Dislrict 11 of Snohomish (I) Trico Electric Cooperative, loc. (e)

County (P) South.rn Indiana Gas & Electric (I) Tricounty Electric Cooperative (e)

Pug.t Sound Power & Liqht Company Southem Iowa Electric Cooperative Tricounty Rural Electric Cooperative (I) (C) (C)

PuIa.ki Electric Sy.t.m (M) South.rn Maryland Electric Tu1laboma Pow.r Sy.t.m (M)

Radiant Electric Coop.rativ. (C) Coop.rative (C) Tup.lo Wal.r & Light Department (M)

Rallo County Electric Cooperative (C) South.rn Nebraska Rural Public Tuscumbia Electric D.partm.nt (M)

Randolph Electric Membel1lbJp Power District (P) Twin Valley. Public Power District (P)

Corporation (C) Southern Pine Electric Power UGI Corporalion (I)

Rappahannock Electric Cooperative Association (C) Umatilla Electric Cooperative (C) Southside Electric Coop.rative (C) Associalion (C)

Rayle Electric M.mbersbJp Southwoot Arkansa.o Electric Union City Electric Sy.t.m (M)

Corporation (C) Coope:rative Corpo:ration (C) Union Electric Company (I)

Red Lake Electric Cooperative, Inc. Southweet Central Rural Electric Union Liqht, Heat & Power Company (C) . Cooperative Corporation (C) (I)

Red River Valley Cooperative Power Southwest MiaeiaBippi Electric Power Union Rural Electric Cooperative, Association (C) Association (C) Inc. (C)

Redwood Electric Coop.rative (C) Southw..t Public Pow.r Districl (P) United Electric Cooperativ., Inc. (C)

Riceland Electric Cooperative, loc. Southwest Texas Electric United lliuminating Company (I)

(C) Coop.rative, Inc. (C) United Rural Electric Inc. (C)

Rich Mountain Electric Cooperative, Southwest Tenne8898 Eleclric Upper Cumberland Electric Inc. (C) Membership Corporation (C) M.rnbe"bJp Corporation (C)

Rid.ta Electric Cooperative, Inc, (C) Southwestern Electric Power Company Utah Power & Lighl Company (I)

Ripley Power & Light Company (M) (I) Utility Board 01 Fol.y (M)

Roanoke Electric M.mb.rsbJp Sparta Electric System (M) Valley Rural Electric Cooperetive (e)

Corporation (<::2 47

\

PRODUCED BY BREEDER REACTOR CORPORATION JANUARY 1985 For further information contact Clinch River Breeder Reactor Project Office P.O. Box U, Oak Ridge, TN 37831 (615) 576-6000/After June 1985 (615) 576-0885 48