ML18064A893
| 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 significantevents leading up to development of the liquid metal fast breeder reactor. The other purpose isto summarize the projecfs principal technological contributions to the inter-national library of knowledge on this major energyconversion 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
o In the early 1970*. the consensus In the U.S. among govemment, Industry, and the scientific communltles was that development of the liquid metal fast breeder reactor (LMFBRJ should be vig0rousiypulSWdasanationalpriority to promote the nation's long-term economic and security Interests.
2 T
he breeder reactor, first con-ceived In the early 1940 s, has long been regarded as the key to realization of the full energy potential contained in the world's uranium resources, This potential is believed to be at least as large as the world's fossil fuel reserves. Since the breeder's conception, scientists and engineers in the United States and overseas have advanced steadilytoward the goal of breeder power plants for application on electric utility systems which could produce power competitively with alternative technologies.
Although the early work on the breeder was performed almost exclusively in the United States, other industrialized countries, especially those with limited natural fossil fuel resources, have become involved and now attach a high priority to research and development efforts on breeder development. Today, technical feasibility has been estab-lished and commercial deployment seems virtually assured. The timing, while less certain, is likely to reflect the individual socio-economic circumstances of the various technically advanced nations, In the early 1970s, the consensus In the U.S. among government industry, and the scientific com-munities was that development of the liquid metal fast breeder reactor (LMFBR) should be Vigorously pursued as a national priority to promote the nation's long-term economic and security interests. The Clinch River Breeder Reactor Plant Project became the focal point of the national LMFBR program.
Authorized byCongress In 1972,the goal ofthis jointgovernment-industry effort was to develop, design, license, build and operate the nation's first large-scale demonstra-tion breeder reactor.
The U,S, Atomic EnergyCommission selected Commonwealth Edison Companyand the Tennessee Valley Authorityto assist it in managing the project. Within months following enactmentofauthorizing legislation, proposals were solicited, participants selected, and final contractual agreements reached. Fortheir part, the 753 electric systems representing the investor-owned, public power and electric cooperative sectors of the industry pledged a record $257 million to the project. This remains the largest utility Industry commit-mentever made to a single research and development project.
The projects objectives encompassed basic concepts more far-reaching than merely bUilding another power plant. Design, construction and operation were intended to document experience and information leading to eventual developmentofthe LMFBR concept.
In 1973,work got underway and it proceeded rapidly until April, 1977.
At that point political opposition intensified and progress slowed due largely to efforts by the Carter ad-ministration to cancel the project.
Congress, on the other hand, continued to appropriate funds for project activities, After his election in 1980, President Reagan called forworkto resume at its earlier pace, By 1982, however, Increased costs, resulting largely from the long delay Imposed bythe previous administration, combined with a growing concern about the national budget resulted in the erosion of Congressional support. In October,1983, Congress declinedto appropriate further funding and the project was terminated.
Over itstwelve-year history, Clinch River made important contributions to breedertechnology in such areas as design, research and develop-ment engineering, component fabrication, and licensing, Among the more significant technical contributions were the development of high-temperature design criteria, the adoption ofa heterogeneous core design and the development of many innovative designs for sodium system components.
Licensing review ofthe plantdesign
proceeded to the point where a Construction Permit would have been issued had the project been continued. The review established important benchmarks which can serve as a pointofdeparture forthe design of breeder power plants in the future.
The termination agreement recognized these accomplishments and provided for use of the technology developed In the governmenfs ongoing base technology progrqrn. Pertinent scientific, technical and licensing data have been Identified, indexed,and stored foreasy, rapid retrieval. Itwill be readilyavailableto liqUid metal reactor program partici-pants and other interested parties.
The projecfs Innovative organiza-tion and operating procedures
'received high marks for management effectiveness in the various audits and reviews con-ducted by both government and independent consultants throughout its lifetime.
Attermination, the project-related research and deve.lopment was essentially completed and the plant design over 90 percentcompleted.
Value of major components com-pleted oron order was $788 million,
$380 million ofwhich was completed and delivered; site preparation and excavation were essentially completed. In all, about $1.7 billion had been spent on the project.
=.._:'
_._."'-~~.;~
3
4 HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE Fast Flux Test Facility at Hanford,Washington o
The mostrecent addition to the facilities built under the U.S. LMFBRprogram is the Fast Flux Test Facility which began operating in 1982 at the Hanford Engineering Development Laboratory near Richland, Washington 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 Pile1-the first nuclear reactor-confirmed the theorythat 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 morefuel 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.
Fermi was enthused about the prospects of the breeder and predicted in 1945 that the "country which first develops a breeder reac-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 breeding concept.
By 1945, the United States had already begun work on its first fast reactor to test breeder concepts. This mercury-cooled, plutonium-fueled reactor known as Clementine was designed and built bythe Los Alamos
Scientific Laboratory. The reactor was operated from 1946 to December 1952 when it was shut down. It served as a test bed for months of low-power critical experi-ments in addition to accomplishing its previous objective of demonstrat-ing the fundamental concept of breeding.
Clementine was followed by a series of experimental breeder reac-tors intended to advance the technology toward the objective of using this technologyfor economical electric power production. The first of those was called EBR-I -
for Experimental Breeder Reactor.
Designed and built by Argonne National Laboratory in Arco, Idaho, it was the first nuclear plant to produce electricity. Under the leadership of Dr. Walter Zinn, the Director of the Argonne National Laboratory, development started in 1947 on a breeder cooled by sodium and potassium. The fuel was U235 surrounded by a blanket of U238. In 1951, EBR-I produced a modest out-put of electricity from a small generator that illuminated several light bulbs in the reactor building.
EBR-I produced a wealth of information during its 12 years of operation -
confirming the feasibility of breeding and the engineering suitability of liquid metal coolants.f1]
The Sodium Reactor Experiment (SRE) and the Hallam Nuclear Power Facility were sodium-cooled, graphite-moderated power reactors. The SRE provided the basic information needed for the design of the Hallam facility. Both reactors operated in the thermal neutron energy range and, although they were not designed to demonstrate the breeder concept, contributed significantlyto early sodium-cooled reactor technology.
Detroit Edison Company began construction ofthe Enrico Fermi Plant in 1956.This 60-megawatt (electric) sodium-cooled breeder achieved criticality late in 1963. The plantwas shut down in 1966 when a blockage of coolant flow caused damage to the reactor core. The reactor was
.repaired and subsequently resumed operation before itwas shut down in 1971. Its operation added significantly to the data base on LMFBR plant component operating performance.
Construction began on Experi-mental Breeder Reactor-II at the Department of Energy's Idaho National Engineering Laboratory operated by Argonne National Laboratory in 1958. Since criticality in 1964, this 20-megawatt (electric) plant has generated over one and one-half billion kilowatt hours and is still operating. EBR-II has provided essential knowledge on breeder technology particularly fuel performance. EBR-II was constructed with a complete integral fuel repro-cessing and fabrication facility within the breeder complex. In 1983 it earned an engineering award for its outstanding operation as a cogen-eration plant. EBR-II now generates electricity and heating steam forthe facility's buildings.
Another landmark breeder reactor facility was the Southwest Experimental Fast Oxide Reactor (SEFOR) built by General Electric Company atStrickler, Arkansas. This 20-megawatt (thermal) reactor verified the inherent safety of a mixed-oxide-fueled fast reactor.
SEFOR operated from 1969 to 1972 underthe joint sponsorship ofseveral U.S. electric utilities and the nuclear manufacturing companies, the U.S.
Atomic Energy Commission (AEC),
and the countries associated with the European Atomic Energy Commu-nity -
Belgium, West Germany, France, Italy, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands.
A recent addition to the facilities built underthe U.S. LMFBR program is the Fast Flux Test Facility (FFTF) which began operating in 1982 at the Hanford Engineering Development Laboratory near Richland, Washington. FFTF is the largest ex-perimental fast reactor in the world designed specifically for irradiation testing of advanced fuels and components. Itwas not designed to breed or produce electricity. FFTF also served as a stepping stone in the design of the Clinch River Breeder Reactor Plant.
In 1984 FFTF established a world record for the longest period of continuous full-power operation of a fast reactor when it ran for 101 consecutive days. The cycle capacity factor, which is a measure of the plants operating effectiveness during a cycle, was 99.5 percent-another significant achievement.
5
o fast breeder research and develop-ment has been conducted abroad since the early 19505 in the United King-dom, france and the Soviet Union.
British Prototype Fast Reactor 6
Fast Breeder Development Overseas I
n all, 24 breeders are either in operation, under construction or planned around the world. The nations actively involved in breeder development include France, the United Kingdom, the Soviet Union, Japan,WestGermany, India, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Italy.
Fast breeder research and de-velopment has been conducted abroad since the early 1950s in the United Kingdom, France and the Soviet Union. The French are recog-nized as the world leaders in breeder development. More recently, a number of other European countries, Japan, and India have either undertaken fast breeder programs of their own or entered breeder programs as partners in joint undertakings.
The United Kingdom launched its breeder program with the Dounreay Fast Reactor in 1955. The 15-mega-watt (electric) reactorwent critical in 1959 and ramped up to full power levels by 1963. The UK has been operating its breederdemonstration plant-the 250-megawatt (electric)
Dounreay Prototype Fast Reactor-since 1975.A conceptual design for a 1320-megawatt (electric) breeder reactor has also been completed. 12)
The first fast reactor built in the Soviet Union was its BR-1 plant built in 1955 as a zero-energy assembly for fast reactor physics investigations.
In quick order, that plant was followed bytwo other experimental breeder reactors designated BR-2 and BR-5.A12-megawatt [electric] fast reactor known as BOR-60 began operation in 1969.
Scale-ups of breeder plants were pursued systematically bythe Soviets resulting in the construction and operation of large follow-on breeder reactors in the next decade. A 350-megawatt (electric) breeder -
BN-350 -
went into operation in 1973. BN-350 provides around 150 megawatts for electricity and an additional 200 megawatts for a desalination plant. Atthis time, the Soviet Union operates the world's largest liquid metal fast breeder.
This reactor, which went into operation in 1981, is a 600-megawatt (electric) plant known as BN-600. The Soviets have also under consideration a still larger 800-megawatt (electric) commercial-scale breeder designated BN-800, and a 1600-megawatt (electric) follow-on unit. The progress of the Soviets and their dedication to the development of nuclear energy and the breeder is notable considering their vast reserves of fossil fuels. In addition to possesing extensive coal reserves, the Soviet Union is the largest oil producing nation in the world.
Nevertheless, France has achieved a preeminent position in breeder development by steadily advancing the technology and crossing the threshold toward commercial-scale breeders. The history of French breeder development has been one of quick progression in designing and building successively larger breeder reactor plants.
Rapsodie -
an experimental fast reactor -
was launched in 1958 and produced first power in 1967. France has operated its breeder demonstration plant-the 250-megawatt (electric)
Phenix -
since 1973. The plant has maintained an overall plant operating factor of approxi-mately 60 percent. This is outstanding performance for a demonstration plant and compares favorably with the best operating records of this nation's current light water reactors. During its first two years of operation, the plant achieved the highest reliability of any power plant in the world.
Moreover, Phenix has a thermal
efficiency of 44.3 percent which surpasses light-water reactor plant efficiencies and even those of fossil plants.
The French nuclear authorities have expressed their determination to lead the world in the production of electricity with nuclear energy.
By 1995, France plans to generate about 75 percent of its electricity from nuclear plants compared to over 50 percent today. With the [3]
breeder reactor and other recyclable resources, France could fulfill its stated national goal of becoming energy self-sufficient.
The Superphenix -
a 1200-megawatt (electric) prototype commercial-scale plant -
is nearing completion. When it becomes operational in 1985, this French plant will surpass the Soviet Union's BN-800 in size and claim the record as the largest operating breeder plant in the world. Superphenix is as big as today's largest light water reactors and will generate enough electricity for a city of over a million people. The electricity will be fed into power grids serving France, Italy and Germany, France expects this plant to generate electricity almost as cheaply as a modern coal-fired 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 in realizing the full potential of energy from the atom. It is now successfully demonstrating management of the entire nuclear fuel cycle, France is currently generating electricity from conventional light water reactors, breeding new fuel from its Phenix
.plant, gearing up for commercial-scale operations with the Super-phenix generation of plants, and also leading the way in reprocessing spent nuclear fuel, and disposing of radioactive waste materials.
The breeder demonstration plants of West Germany and Japan are comparable in size to the Clinch River plant. The West German plant -
SNR 300 -
is a 280-megawatt (electric) breeder scheduled for start-up in 1987. This breeder is being built in collaboration with the Netherlands, Belgium, and the United Kingdom. A follow-on breeder -
a 1300-megawatt (electric) plant called SNR-2 is scheduled for the 1990s. SNR-2 is a collaborative effort among West Germany, France, and Italy.
Japan's 280-megawatt (electric)
Monju demonstration plant will also begin operation in 1990, India has embarked on a breeder program jointly with France on a 15-megawatt (electric) reactor scheduled for operation in the mid-1980s, India is aiming its fast breeder program for commercial development by the year 2000, France, the United Kingdom, and the Soviet Union are presently operating demonstration plants.
West Germany and Japan are scheduled to bring similar plants on-line in the near future. The Soviet Union has a commercial-scale breeder in operation, while France has its commercial prototype scheduled for start-up next year. Although it has no commitment to construction, the United Kingdom has done extensive advanced design on a commercial-scale breeder. All of these nations have expressed strong interest in deploying commercial breeder reactors as an integral part of their overall long-term strategy for economic and secure energy supplies.
French Superphenix Plant Under Construction 7
..~-----------------------------------------------r:;t EVOLUTION OF THE PROJECT pi o
Although conventional reactors were expected to make a contribution toward meeting near-term energy demands, this report to the President found that the breederreactormustbe successfully developed to realize the full potential of the nation's uranium resources, 8
T he genesis of the Clinch River Project dates back to the policy statement of the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) defining the objectives of the nation's nuclear research and development program. It was embodied in a report entitled Civilian Nuclear Power... A Report to the President -
1962. This Report to President John F. Kennedy was prepared by the Commission in cooperation with the Depart-ment of the Interior, the Federal Power Commission, and the National Academy of Sciences.
In this report, the AEC described the efforts directed by the federal government to acquire an expand-ing fund of theoretical and practical knowledge in nuclear energy. A principal conclusion of the report was that an alternative source of energy was needed to supplement fossil fuel resources.
Nuclear energy was judged to be the only practical energy source capable of meeting this need in the foreseeable future. A vigorous national nuclear power program could also be pursued without interfering with the other key element in a healthy energy mix a growing coal industry.
Although conventional reactors were expected to make a contribution toward meeting near-term energy demands, this report to the President found that the breeder reactor must be successfully developed to realize the full potential of the nation's uranium resources.
Therefore, the report conclud-ed, the future energy program for the United States should include "the vigorous develop-ment and timely introduction of improved converters and especially of economic breeders; the latter are essential to long-range major use of nuclear energy."
Five years later, the AEC once 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 noted that "the promise shown of a near-term place for nuclear power had developed beyond expectations." During this time, the AEC obseNed that "worldwide interest is concentrated on the sodium-cooled breeder" because of its better economic potential and capability for conseNing resources compared to other high-gain breeders.
Plans for the introduction of a sodium-cooled fast breeder demonstration plant were perceived to be a logical pro-gression in developing the technology. In the view of the AEC, utility acceptance of the demonstration plants would probably be motivated by the incentive of cheaper electricity and contingent on developed technology, on the existence of a competitive and self-sustaining industry, and a minimum investment of risk capital.
Funds Authorized to Define Project In 1969,the AEC took the nextstep in developing a breeder demonstration plant when it issued invitations for proposals to five major reactor companies to define the scale and other parameters of such a plant. This was known as Project Definition Phase of Round IV of the AEC Power Reactor Demonstration Program. The statutory authority for this action was granted by Congress in Public Law 91-44 dated July 11, 1969-the authorization to develop the nation's first large-scale demonstration breeder reactor plant.
In a report accompanying the [5]
authorization, the Joint Committee on Atomic Energystated that studies and assessments by the AEC had led to the establishment of the liquid
metal fast breeder reactor development efforts as the "highest priority civilian nuclear reactor program." It declared that the committee had "consistently urged development of this important concept which, when fully utilized, has the potential of meeting indefinitely the future energy needs of our nation and without undue effect on our environment."
The AEC was empowered to embark on a two-phase approach for the first LMFBR demonstration plant. The first phase -
the Project Definition Phase -
was to define the scope ofthe demonstration project in sufficient detail to provide the basis for a realistic assessment of the extent of the required effort, costs, and technical and economic risks. Phase Two was the Definitive Cooperative Arrangement for the design, construction and operation of the plant.
Definitive Cooperative Arrangement Authorized With the Project Definition Phase underway, attention nowfocused on Phase Two-the Definitive Cooperative Arrangement. Public Law 91-273 was passed on June 2, 1970, and provided funds for the AEC to "enter into a cooperative arrangement with a reactor manufacturer and others for participation in the research and development. design, construction and operation of an LMFBR power plant."
The AEC was to follow the criteria previously submitted to the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy in Public Law 91-44 which authorized development of the fast breeder.
The authorizing legislation provided
$100 million to the AEC to continue with the projectdefinition phase and to provide further assistance, service, facilities and other equipment. Before entering into any arrangement on the final breeder program, the AEC was required to furnish a general description of the proposed power
.plant and describe the general features of the proposed arrange-ment to build the plant.
With the satisfactory disposition of the Project Definition Phase, the AEC could now advance to the Definitive Cooperative Arrangement for an LMFBR demonstration plant.
Meanwhile, other events were propelling the breeder program forward and casting the fast reactor in a new light as a national program of the highest priority.
Fast Breeder Program Becomes A National Goal As the 1970s began, a firm consensus emerged within govern-ment. industry and the scientific community that the fast breeder program should be the focus of the nation's research and development program for nuclear energy. Expert opinion on many fronts supported the conclusion that the federal government should embrace the development of the breeder reactor as a priority national goal that should be achieved to promote the nation's long-term economic and security interests.
The vital role of the fast breeder was once again clearly endorsed and substantiated in late 1970 in correspondence between Paul McCracken, then Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors, and Dr. Glenn Seaborg, Chairman ofthe Atomic Energy Commission.
McCracken was charged with the task of gathering information for President Richard M. Nixon on proposals for a national energy program. As partof this effort, he wrote to the Atomic Energy Commission on October 8, 1970, for proposals and [6]
budget estimates on various programs including the breeder reactor. McCracken noted thatthe AEC had long been pursuing research on the fast breeder as the major long-term answer to the nation's energy supply problem.
o As the 1970s began, a firm consensus emerged within government, industry and the scientific community that the fast breeder program should be the focus of the nation's research and development program for nuclear energy.
9
o
'We believe the development of the breeder reactor on an urgent basis is essential to assure an adequate supply of energy, the very lifeblood of our national strength and well-being,"
10
,'We should like to consider a program that would establish and implement a national goal of completing a successful demonstration of a commercial-size fast breeder reactor in this decade': McCracken told the AEC.
McCracken asked for proposals and arguments both for and against them. Dr. Seaborg responded to the letter on October 31, 1970.
[7]
"We are in full agreement with you on the need to begin at once the vital task of dealing with the longer term aspects of the energy supply problem," Seaborg answered. "We believe the development of the breeder reactor on an urgent basis is essential to assure an adequate supply of energy, the very lifeblood of our national strength and well-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."
Seaborg said that the AEC Wholeheartedly urged the President to promulgate the development of the breeder reactor system in this decade as a priority national goal. Such an action by the President would be "the most decisive single step that could be taken now toward assuring an essentially unlimited energy supply, free from problems of fuel resources and atmospheric contamination." He continued that the urgency for developing the breeder was heightened by the increasing awareness of a number of deteriorating aspects of energy supply and environment such as the depleting of fossil fuel supplies and dependence on foreign sources.
The AEC chairman called for early introduction of the breeder reactor and stated that construction of two or more demonstration plants was the essential next step to bringing the breeder system to fruition with a degree of assurance commensurate with its overwhelming importance. Early introduction of the breeder promised not only to reduce total development costs but offered the United States "potential savings from cheaper energy of approxi-mately $1 billion for each year by which commercial introduction of the breeder system was advanced." Seaborg expressed the opinion that the breeder program justified the required investment of national resources many times over and presented strong arguments for its acceleration.
Anticipating critics of the fast breeder reactor program, Seaborg candidly declared that the principal arguments against the breeder were requirements for significant advanced funding on a 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 require large-scale investments for a long period, with return on the investment accruing at a late date.
But he said the investment was justified and he pointed to the funds spent on successfully developing the light water reactor for commercial use as a sound precedent for making such commitments.
In summarizing his views, Seaborg closed by saying that the implications of increases in electric power requirements, the logistic problems of fossil fuels, and the economics of large light water reactors strongly reinforce the need for the government to exert the leadership to achieve success in this decade.
"We believe that implementing a national goal to develop and demonstrate the breeder reactor to a degree of maturity sufficientfor broad, large-scale commercial application by the end of the
decade is technically sound, is economically justified, and is the decisive way to provide this nation with a means for meeting its needs for abundant inexpensive energy with acceptable effects on the environment."
The Presidenfs Clean Energy Message Early in June of 1971, President Nixon delivered a message to Congress delineating a program to ensure an adequate supply of clean energy in the future, This was the first message ever submitted by a President to Congress on energy policies and underscored the sudden urgency accorded to energy and its newfound priority on the national agenda, The President said the nation could no longertake for granted the availability of ever increasing supplies of clean energy.
His message declared that a sufficient supply of clean energy is essential to sustain healthy economic growth and improve the quality of national life, Then the President outlined a broad range of initiatives to ensure ample energysupplies for the future beginning with a commitment to complete the successful demonstra-tion ofthe liquid metal fast breeder reactor by 1980, The government mustmeetthe challenge of quickly demonstrating "the best of these new concepts" for clean energy such as the fast breeder reactor.
In advocating prompt construction of a breeder plant. the President continued:
"Our best hope today for meeting the nation's growing demand for economical clean energy lies with the fast breeder reactor.
Because of its highly efficient use of nuclear fuel, the breeder reactor could extend the life ofour natural uranium fuel supply for decades to centuries, with far less impact on the environment than the power plants which we are operating today. For several years, the AEC has placed the highest priority on developing the liquid metal fast breeder. Now this project is ready to move out ofthe laboratory and into the demonstration phase with a commercial size plant. We have very high hopes that the breeder reactor will soon become a key element in the national fight against air and water pollution." [8]
The United States Atomic Energy Commission, 1969 11
~.'
o The essentialstep -
recognized clearly by the Steering Group -
was the construction and operation of a de-monstration plant as the logical next step toward making the breeder a commercially competitive concept in the shortest possible time.
.,~.
12 Senior Utility Steering Committee D
ue to the magnitude of the undertaking of building the first large-scale demonstra-tion breeder reactor, the Atomic Energy Commission determined thatthe project had to have the full support and backing of essentially the entire utility industry. This included investor-owned, public power and rural electric cooperative sectors of the industry.
In April of 1971 -
two months before President Nixon had delivered his Clean Energy Message to Congress advocating construction of a breeder demonstration plant -
the Atomic Energy Commission had already appointed two advisory committees to furnish advice and guidance in obtaining this general support from the overall electric industry. The committees were the Senior Utility Steering Committee and the Senior Technical Advisory Panel.
Consisting of 26 of the leading senior management and engineering executives from the utility industry, the committees provided technical input and carefully evaluated the entire national breeder program.
Report of Steering Committee The Steering Committee [9J reported its findings to the AEC late in 1971 in full support ofthe view that demonstration plants were a "key and integral part of the breeder research and development program and that prompt initiation of the actual construction phase was ofthe utmost importance."The utility advisors noted that a viable breederwould be a "vital national asset because nuclear power offers the best prospect of reconcil-ing the nation's energy needs with its environmental goals. The fast breeder would allow the United States to achieve the full potential of nuclear power, retain leadership in the peaceful uses of atomic energy, and provide an abundant supply of clean, economical energy to all its citizens."
The essential step-recognized clearly by the Steering Group -
was the construction and operation ofa demonstration plant as the logical next step toward making the breeder a commer-cially competitive concept in the shortest possible time.
In addition to providing technical expertise, the Steering Group was charged with a second major mandate from the AEC -
eliciting support from the electric utility industry. In carrying out this respon-sibility, the committee sought conditional commitments for contributions from every sector of the electric industry. By the end of 1971. the committee had received conditional pledges amounting to approximately $250 million to be applied to the cost of the demonstration project, provided the government elected to go ahead with the project. This stands today as the largest contribution ever pledged bythe utility industry to a single research and development program.
When the government invited the industry to submit proposals for a Definitive Cooperative Arrangementfor a model breeder demonstration program, sub-missions were received from leading utility companies and energy organizations throughout the country. These included proposals from Southern Services and Middle South Services; the Empire State Atomic Development Associates; the Tennessee Valley Authority and Commonwealth Edison Company; Yankee Atomic Electric Company; and New England Electric System.
After considerable deliberation, the Atomic Energy Commission selected the jointsubmission from Commonwealth Edison and the Tennessee Valley Authority for negotiations leading to the
definitive arrangements that ultimately became the basis for the Clinch River Breeder Reactor Plant Project. [10]
Commonwealth Edison-TVA Proposal Selected The Atomic Energy Commission announced the decision to proceed with the Commonwealth Edison-IVA proposal on January 14, 1972.
In keeping with the Presidents determination to assure the nation of an adequate supplyof energy in the years ahead, the AEC ac-cepted the Commonwealth Edison-IVA proposal to construct and operate the nation's first demonstration breeder reactor.
The AEC said it was gratified that the proposal brought together the resources of a major investor-owned and a major public-owned power supplier.
The Commission declared itwas enthusiastic about the project because of the inherent advantages of the breeder and characterized the effort of the utility industry in raising about $250 million in support of the breeder as "an unprecedented coopera-tive endeavor." The AEC further noted that the pledge was advanced by all segments of the utility industry including privately, publicly and cooperatively-owned companies.
Following the selection of the proposal, the project partners began to pull together the rest of the team including primary contractors.
Breeder Reactor Corporation (BRC) and Project Management Corporation (PMC) were formed as not-for-profit, tax-exempt organiza-tions. BRC was to provide senior counsel on behalf of the utility industry, to serve as the mechanism for collecting utility pledges for the project, and to keep the industry informed about the project status. PMC was to manage the design, construction and operation of the plant in cooperation with the AEC. Overall direction was provided by a Project Steering Committe comprised of senior representation of AEC, Commonwealth Edison and IVA.
By February of 1972, preliminary site investigations including core drilling and seismic surveys began.
Memorandum of Understanding On August 7, 1972, a Memorandum of Understanding was signed to confirm that agreement had been reached on the principal features of a cooperative arrangement to de-sign, develop, construct, test and operate a fast breeder on an electric utility system. The memorandum was signed by the AEC, IVA Commonwealth Edison, PMC and BRC as a statement of intention and to presenta general framework for later negotiations of definitive contracts among the parties.
The parties first affirmed their belief that the demonstration plantwas an "indispensable partof AEC's overall, long-range LMFBR research and development program" to bring the conceptto the stage of commercial useful-ness. The governments base breeder program was recognized as vital to the success of the demonstration plant. The parties then set forth the purpose of the project. the principal features of the arrangement, and the respon-sibilities of each of the participants.
IVA agreed to make available a siteforthe planton its property on the Clinch River in Oak Ridge, Tennessee. The plant would be interconnected to the IVA power grid.
o By February of 1972, preliminary site investigations including core drilling and seismic sUNeys began.
13
o The agreement stated that the parties to the contract were bringing a broad spectrum of expertise, resources and commitment to the project.
14 Principal Project Agreements Signed agreement formalizing the [11]
Memorandum of Under-standing was signed by the AEC, NA Commonwealth Edison Company, and Project Management Corporation on July 25, 1973. This four-party agreement provided the definitive details and contractual obligations of the parties involved in the undertaking.
The agreement stated that the parties to the contract were bringing a broad spectrum of expertise, resources and commitment to the project. Both Commonwealth Edison and NA had participated in the Project Definition Phase and had been leaders in the effort among the private, pubiic, municipal and cooperatively-owned utilities to raise approximately $250 million for the project. Both Edison and NA had pledged substantial financial contributions from their respective organizations to the project.
Commonwealth Edison and N A both agreed to lend personnel and bring to the project management expertise and utility operating experience. This provision would serve to represent the many utility contributors and assure that the design and operating features of the plant reflected the technical and economic requirements for operation of a breeder plant on a utility system.
The AEC committed its staff expertise, laboratories and contractors from the LMFBR program to the project. This included its experience in the management of the design, con-struction and operation of experimental reactor plants and test facilities. The AEC was also to provide direct financial and personnel contributions to the project and major support from its base program.
The AEC agreed to accept the open-end financial risks connected with the project beyond the fixed contributions of the utilities and to endeavor to obtain the necessary congres-sional authorityand funds to make any additional contributions required by the project.
Following the review and concurrence by the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy of the four-party agreement. PMC and the AEC initiated the final steps in selecting the major contractors and the beginning of full-scale design, development. and licensing activities.
Contracts were signed with Westinghouse Electric Corporation as the principal reactor manufacturer contractor supported by General Electric Company and the Atomics International Division of Rockwell International as subcontractors.
Burns and Roe, Inc., was named the architect-engineer. The construc-tion contractor selected some years later for the project was Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation.
Project Agreements Amended The first official cost estimate for the project was established by the AEC in 1972 at a level of $699 million. This estimate was based on the premise that the AEC would provide a large measure of R&D from its base program and absorb as R&D the first-of-a-kind cost increment for the plant's major components. Late in 1974, a revised cost estimate based on the reference design reached $1.7 billion. This was the first cost estimate based on a firm plant design and fully taking into account a schedule which included the National Environ-mental Protection Act require-ments for site evaluation.
In large measure, the cost increase was due to changes in the scope of the project. design changes needed to meet new
1'1 II environmental and licensing requirements, the transfer of certain research and development costs to the CRBRP Project and added escalation and direct costs caused by schedule delays.
Because'the revised cost estimate substantially exceeded previous estimates, the partners in the project concluded that congressional reauthorization for CRBRP was necessary. They also recognized the desirability of realigning the authority over project decisions to reflect the larger financial contribution to be made by the federal government.
This necessitated amending the agreement signed by the four parties to the project. Under Modification Number 1, which became effective on May 1, 1976, total responsibility for management of the Clinch River Project was 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 with the various contractors working on the project. It became the major responsibility of PMC to support the AEC with experienced utility personnel and administer the utility interests in the project.
Termination of the Project Substantial progress occurred in virtually every aspect of project activities despite major difficulties and obstacles encountered by Clinch River. Preeminent among these difficulties was the opposition of President Jimmy Carter to the project. Anumber of actions were taken by his administration intended to cancel the project.
These included an indefinite sus-pension of project licensing proceedings in April of 1977.Atthis point, BRC suspended the collection of payments under the utility contribution agreements, since it considered the government action to be a material and continuing breach of the principal project agreement but otherwise con-tinued its participation and support of the project.
This abruptshift in national policy reversing the previous priority support for the breeder reactor program and the Clinch River Project was enunciated by President Carter on April 7, 1977. In a national policy speech on nuclear (12) energy, President Carter stated that no dilemma was more difficult to resolve than that connected with the use of nuclear power. While he said that nuclear power mustshare in the nation's energy production, the President also depicted nuclear energy as a serious risk worldwide if the "process will be turned to providing atomic weapons,"
He rendered a number of 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, and accelerating research into alternative nuclear fuel cycles. The President ordered that the date when breeder reactors would be put into commercial use should be deferred indefinitely.
President Carter sought to deemphasize nuclear energy and the breeder program in subsequent messages. Later in April, the President told a joint session of Congress that a com-prehensi\\ie national energy policy was needed and he stressed the value of conservation, renewables and alternate energy forms, as major components of his plan.
Despite a great effort to curtail energy demand, the President foresaw a gap between the "energy we need and the energy we can produce or import.
Therefore, as a last resort, we must continue to use increasing amounts of nuclear energy."
o PresidentCartersoughtto deemphasize nuclear energy and the breeder program in subsequent messages.
Despite a greateffort to curtail energy demand. the President foresaw a gap between the "energy we need andthe energy we can produce or import."
15
President Ronald Reagan hosts electric utility and labor representatives to discuss the Clinch River Plant, July 1983.
16 I
n directing his attention to "nuclear power and the plutonium economy,"
President Carter said a concerted effort must be made to find answers to the problems of nuclear proliferation. In addition, the President sought to "defer indefinitely construction of the Clinch River liquid metal fast breeder reactor demonstration project and to cancel all component construction, commer-ciaization'and licensing effort. The United States' breeder program will redirect efforts toward evaluation of alternate breeders, fuels, and advanced converter reactors with emphasis on nonproliferation and safety concerns." (13)
Despite the opposition of the Carter administration, Congress appropriated sufficient funds to assure continuation of the project.
Under the circumstances, only limited activities could be conducted in engineering, design and procurement of long lead time components.
~-~~-~,.
With the election of President Ronald Reagan, the policies inhibiting the projectgave wayto a commitmentto complete the Clinch River Project. The policy ofthe new administration was enunciated when President Reagan issued a statement on nuclear energy on October 8, 1981, in which he directed the government to proceed with demonstration of breeder reactor technology including the Clinch River Project as "essential to ensure our preparedness for longer-term nuclear power needs."
While this administration support enabled the project to move forward once again, the long delays imposed by the Carter administration and by other factors largely beyond the control of management had driven the projected total costfor the project to $4 billion. This, combined with thel1.j rising tide of fiscal conservatism, served to erode the support of Congress for further funding of the project.
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 Energyto 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 statementfollowing 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 immediatelyto 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 Following the Senate's action, thatthe parties will consult on post-capital toward completion of the DOE notified the parties of the termination programs and Clinch River Project, The billion principal projectagreements "that activities.
This arrangement pro-dollars represented 40 percent of it appears thatther6 are or will soon vides for including utility industry the estimated remaining cost to be insufficient project resources to participation in programs complete the project.
permitthe effective conduct of the designed to promote DOE's 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 An agreement to terminate the [17] developed during the course of the design was about 93 percent Clinch River Project. Consultation is r(
complete and $1.6 billion had been project was entered into by the also to continue on such matters as invested in the project. The value of Department of Energy, NA licensing, site restoration and other Commonwealth Edison, PMC, and major components delivered had BRC on November 10, 1983. In the windup activities for the project.
reached over $380 million out of about $788 million either agreement, the project partners completed or on order atthe time recognized the value of the of termination, The total value of breeder program and its components needed to complete importance to the future energy 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 II component in meeting this nation's completed bythe 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 bythe 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 amendmentand 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.
industrythat 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 T
he Clinch River Project benefited from a unique organization reflecting its partnership arrangement as a joint venture of the federal governmentand private industry.The U.S. Departmentof Energy (successorto ERDA) had lead responsibilityfor managing the project. Day-ta-daymanagementwas carried outbya 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 membercompanies. BRC also was charged with conducting a public information program to keep the public and membercompanies 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 theAtomics International Division of Rockwell International were the other two major reactor manufacturer contractors.
!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 ofthe demonstration planton the environmentwill be given throughoutthe 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 ofthe 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."
A Partnership of Government and Private Industry PROJECT ORGANIZATION 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!;) ofg0vernmeht. These reviews and audits Included numerous studies conducted bythe 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 managementcompetence by the Inspector General in July of 1982. [20J The auditfound thatthe projectwas well managed. The management was commended for the "systems and procedures [which] had been implemented throughoutthe projectthat enabled the project director to exercise effective control and direction over the work done by the various project participants."
Special managementsystems 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 ofthe design and any resulting developmentdesign changes.
In addition, an "earned value" Performance Measurement System (PMS) was developed forthe Clirilch RiverProject in aC<;:Qrdance with DOE criteria. The PMS provided the basis for the accurate measurement of cost and schedule performance.
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. GeneralAccounting Office issued a reporttothe 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 projectcost has been usec:i bythe administration and critics ofthe LMFBR program as evidence thatthe Clinch River Project,Is notcost beneficial and is no longerjustified. However, much ofthe cost increases are attributed to factors beyond the control of the project management."
0' Management Pollees and Procedures document for the Project 19
20
---=-
TECHNICAL ACHIEVEMENTS Full-scale mockup of the heterogeneous core
.~..
Design W
hen the project was terminated, the Clinch River plantdesign was at the forefront of LMFBR technology and incorporated many advanced technical features notcontained in other plants here and overseas.
During the decade itwas under development. the plantdesign was continuously updated to incorporate the latestfeatures and innovations in the United States and abroad. The plantdesign was over 90 percent complete by 1983with 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 ofthe 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 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.
- An ultra-high sensitivity fission detector with 50 times the responsiveness of conventional fission detectors.
- Development and application of computer codes for hlgh-temperature system/component design analyses.
- Other significant advances in component design and de-velopment included a valveless intennediate loop that enhances plant reliability by eliminating mechanical valves.
and the bent-tube or "hockey stick" steam generator.
Improved Core Design One of the most significant features ofthe plantdesign 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 blanketelements notonly 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 striping, Further, reactor safety and performance can be enhanced by incorporating a heterogeneous core design in large (1000 MWe) LMFBR designs.
Abreeding ratio of 1.43and a com-pound system dOUbling time of about 16years are attainable with the heterogeneous core configuration.This important development is regarded as the single most significant advance in modern LMFBR core design, Zero Power Plutonium Reactor at Argonne National Laboratory 21
o The inherentdesign ofthe LMFBR-ond the Clinch River plant-took full advantage ofthe uniqueproperties of liquid sodium to enhance safety.
22 Natural Circulation
.he inherent safety of the LMFBR core cooling system to dissipate decay heat in the reactor even after the sodium pumps are not functioning was verified through tests conducted by the Fast Flux Test Facility in cooperation with the Clinch River Project team.
The tests demonstrated the effectiveness ofthis ultimate mode ofemergency core cooling forthe Clinch River plant which provides natural circulation ofthe sodium to remove heat from the core in the event of loss of pumping power.
The tests also confirmed the validity of the computer codes used to predict actual operating conditions ofthe reactor. Measure-ments of flow and temperatures in the piping loops were in agreement with predictions.
The circulation tests provided 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 of the unique properties of liquid sodium to enhance safety, Chief among these well-recognized qualities is that liquid sodium does not possess the corrosive effects of water. In addition, as a coolant. it is far superior to water with 40 times the heat transfer capability. Moreover, since sodium boils at such a high temperature -
1608°F -
a low-pressure coolant system with a wide margin to boiling can be employed -
another safety factor.
Control Circuit Multiplexing Multiplexing of control circuits significantly reduced costs and improved plant reliability and maintainability.
An electronic innovation developed bythe aerospace and telecommunications industries, multiplexing enables thousands of signals to be transmitted simultaneously along one circuit.
Multiplexing would also have eliminated over 1% million feet of cable in the plant. reduced the construction schedule and costs, and improved plant reliability.
Lessons of Three Mile Island Applied Atotal review of the plantsystems was conducted to reflect the lessons learned as the result ofthe Three Mile Island accident in 1979.
This review led to a number of design changes and added further to the confidence in the planfs design basis, The review conducted by 23 experts in engineering and design was completed priorto procurement of major control room components, During this review, the project also incorporated changes reflecting the latest operating experience from the Fast Flux Test Facility.
Design Models The design efforts made exten-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 larger and every conduit 3 inches in diameter and larger, The model allowed designers to solve potential construction and mainte-nance problems in advance.
With the aid of the model, constructors could visualize their task in three dimensions, Finally, engineers writing operating and maintenance procedures were able to verify and refine techniques before actual operation of the plant.
Other spatial models were created forthe head access area, the fuel handling machinery and equipment. and the planfs shut-down systems, An engineering model of the heterogeneous core assemblywas tested in the Zero Power Plutonium Reactor. This enabled designers to confirm the design tools and thereby accurately predict performance of the core,
[Clockwise from left] scale model of plant, head access area mockup, control room mockup 1
0< **
23
o Although the analytical work on high-temperature design criteria proved successful, it remained to demonstrate performance in an operating plant.
24 High-Temperature Design Criteria T
he Clinch River Project furthered the development of high-temperature design criteria. The project developed critical high-temperature design criteria for core assemblies, the reactor vessel, the primary heat transport systems, and the auxiliary systems consistent with the intent of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code. These criteria formed the basis for new codes and standards published as code cases by ASME and other engineering societies. Codes and standards represent accepted practice in the engineering and construction industries. They assure that an acceptable level of quality and performance is provided in the materials and components and workmanship of the plant.
An example of the accomplish-ments in high-temperature design is illustrated by the work done on the upper internals structure (UIS).
The UIS is an integral part of the reactor. The UIS has a number of functions such as support for the control rod drive lines and instruments to monitor core performance. Another of its important functions is to mix the sodium that flows out of the reactor core to prevent excessive temperature variations. This is a difficult engineering problem because temperature differences of 200 0 F and more can occur at the core exit between the fuel assemblies, the blanket assemblies, and the control rods. Known as thermal striping, this phenomenon occurs because the interior of the reactor area is subject to much higher temperatures than the walls of the reactor vessel.
The Clinch River Project performed extensive thermal hydraulics and materials testing to ensure that the design provided adequate protections from thermal striping strains.
The problem in the upper internals structure was solved by lining the mixing chamber with Inconel-718. This alloy has a greater high-cycle fatigue strength at high temperatures and eliminated the possibility of surface failure of the mixing region. Thermal striping in the core region was mitigated by design changes and the use of a special type of stainless steel in the replaceable core components. A series of materials tests firmly established the ability of these materials to withstand thermal striping.
As a result of these design processes, a number of advanced computer codes were developed and applied for high-temperature system design analysis. The analyses were also applied for component design.
Through the use of the design and analysis base developed by the project for both reactor system and plant components, a greater degree of certainty in the prediction of performance was obtained. In addition, these developments provided a reference basis for future LMFBR designs.
Advances were also made in the development of criteria and analytical techniques applicable to high-temperature design for concrete. Engineering improve-ments were instituted to ensure the integrity of structures and structural safety features subject to high temperatures. These can be applied to nuclear plants worldwide where high temperature is a critical design consideration.
Although the analytical work on high-temperature design criteria proved successful, it remained to demonstrate per-formance in an operating plant.
With termination of the project.
this phase of development is yet to be carried out.
r 1E3i"L---=-=....~------nr~1 Research and Development he Clinch River design was supported by intensive research and development programs backed up by extensive experimental and test facilities. This research and development was conducted by Argonne National Laboratory, the Energy Technology Engineering Center, the Hanford Engineering Development Laboratory, the FastFlux Test Facility, Los Alamos National Laboratories, the Naval Research Laboratory, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Sandia National Laboratory, and Idaho National Engineering Laboratory.
The project also utilized the extensive R&D of private industry and particularly the work of Atomics International, General Electric Company, and Westinghouse Electric Corporation.
By year-end 1983, the research and development was essentially completed. The research and development and tests for the planfs fuel, materials and components have provided the U.S.
with a valuable data base for breeders. Exhaustive testing under plant conditions has confirmed the reliability of the design developed for the planfs most critical components such as the steam generators,the sodium pumps, and the reactor shutdown systems.
Through development and testing, a system was devised to mitigate the consequences of potential sodium fires and spills. The effectiveness of this sodium fire suppression system was confirmed in the largest test of its kind in the world.
Fuel and Core Performance Irradiation experiments were carried out to furnish the data needed to fabricate the fuel for breeder reactors. The experiments provided information on the fuel pin and assembly design and the design of the reactor core to meet the high-performance criteria set as the objective.
While the fuel and fuel assembly designs were based on experience atthe Fast Flux Test Facility, the inner and radial blanket assemblies had to be developed without FFTF precedent. Even though FFTF data were utilized to the full extent additional testing was performed to predict fuel performance for cladding operating temperatures and burnup requirements which were more ambitious than in FFTF.
These requirements influenced the national core and fuel development program and resulted in a more effective base technology program.
Before the project was terminated, work was begun to reduce the cost of fabricating fuel assemblies. The tests conducted for the Clinch River Project at EBR-II and FFTF, which included exposing fuel in a reactor core, are likely to continue. This will provide the data necessaryfor the nextgeneration of breeder reactors.
Core Restraint System The core restraint system controls the positions and interaction of the reactor core assemblies. Its principal functions are to provide control of core geometry and core motion and to ensure acceptable insertion and withdrawal loads on reactor assemblies. With the advent of mixed oxide as core fuel, the effects of swelling and creep of core materials became an essential consideration of the core restraint system design. A full-sized mechanical mockup of the CRBRP core was built and tested to clearly establish the complex interaction patterns that exist when the predicted thermal and irradiation-induced distortions are simulated.
Through this extensive test program and with the advances that CRBRP has made in thermal-hydraulic testing and analysis, the project was able to develop sophisticated analytical tools to accurately determine the core restraint performance of the core.
o While the fuel assemblydesigns were basedon experiences atthe FastFlux Test Facility, the inner and radial blanket assemblies had to be developed without FFTF precedent.
25
o The project then Initiated the largest sodIum test ever conducted In the UnIted states.
Suppression or Sodium Reactions W
hile sodium has been employed safely in breeders for decades, special safety provisions have to be designed into the plants because this element is chemically reactive.
Precautions have to be taken to assure that sodium reactions with air and water can be contained even under emergency conditions, and to protect concrete structures and prevent sodium-concrete reactions.
The general characteristics of a coolant leak accident in a breeder are lower pressure, higher tempera-ture and longer duration than in conventional light water reactors.
The duration of the heat and the resultant penetration Into the concrete structures is one of the most significant factors to be considered in the evaluation of accident effects on breeder structures. High temperature design was employed in the Clinch River Project system to accommodate temperatures up to 1472° F.
Sodium containment technology was significantly advanced through the project's research and development program. A Sodium Fire Protection System was developed to detect leaks, alert the plant through an alarm system, extinguish sodium fires, and prevent reignition. Design features were aiso developed to protect concrete structures from sodium spills and fires and to prevent sodium-concrete reactions.
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.
In air-filled cells that contain nonradioactive sodium systems, catch pans are located to collect spilled sodium without leakage and incorporate a unique system for fire suppression.
The system was evaluated in a series of tests. This comprehensive test program used prototypic concrete for the plant. A sodium fire test facility was constructed with a large-scale prototypic model of the catch pan fire suppression deck system.
The project then initiated the largest sodium test ever conducted in the United States.
About 6,000 gallons of sodium at 1060° Fwere released into an air atmosphere over a 10-minute period, triggering the sodium fire detection and suppression apparatus. The system, featuring a unique passive design, performed as predicted and rapidly ex-tinguished the fire with minimum effect on plant structures and contents. A filtration system prevented any fine products from the sodium fire from escaping into the environment.
The test successfully demonstrated the ability of the fire suppression system to control and extinguish severe sodium fires even under "worst case" conditions.
The end-result was a system proven to be effective in safe-guarding a fast breeder plant from sodium fires and mitigating the consequences of sodium reactions with optimum effectiveness.
Components A
bout $380 million worth of major components had been delivered at the time of termination out of a total of about
$788 million completed or on order.
Most of these components were stored in various warehouses near the plant site or housed in convenient locationsthroughoutthe United States or were undergoing tests at laboratories and contractor facilities.
The components required a high degree of precision in machining and assembly techniques and advanced the application of new materials and metallurgical procedures to meetthe 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.
Acomputer-driven system moved 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 system was accurate within a few thousandths of an inch. This positioning enabled a machine located over the head to reach down directly into the vessel to remove or insert all the removable components -
the fuel, blanket, control rods, radial shield assemblies, and the lower inlet modules. The straight-pUll design resulted in simpler, more reliable equipment for refueling of the reactor. The closure head and fuel handling machine successfully completed functional testing in 1983.
Reactor vessel closure head 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 heatfrom the reactor core and transfer itto 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 1000 0 F down to 700 0 F in a matter ofseconds 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 13feet less than the FFTF pump. This resulted in con-siderable cost savings. The pump featured a double-suction impeller that significantly improved performance, 28 Prototype sodium pump internals
o The Clinch River steam generators featured a unique design known as a bent-tube or "hockey stick" configura-tion. It was called "hockey stick" because ofthe 90-degree bendatits end. The bend provided for differential thermal expansion between the tube bundle and shell.
--:.----- ~ -
Arod-anode X-ray machine was used in the quality control 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-lens assembly which generates X-rays was inserted into the tube through the tubesheet. This permitted comparison of the quality of welds with acceptance standards.
The prototype steam generator was tested at full power in 1983.The test was the largest demonstration test ever conducted in the U.S. with a steam generator filled with sodium and water.
As part of the steam generator development program, the project built and tested sodium-water reaction protection systems. A prototypic water-In-sodium module was developed to detect extremely minute leaks so that corrective action could be taken in a plant to avert serious damage to equipment and reduce downtime.
A second development for the steam generator system evolving out ofthe base technology program was an improved rupture disk assembly. This assembly is designed to relieve pressure in the steam generatorto prevent damage from large sodium leaks and aid in event-ual system cleanup and recovery.
team generators are generally regarded as one of the most critical compo-nents in an LMFBR because both water and sodium flow through them and must be kept separate to prevent chemical reactions. The steam generator takes heat from the reactor and transfers it to water so steam can be produced for generating electricity.
The Clinch River steam generators featured a unique design known as a bent-tube or "hockey stick" configuration. It was called "hockey stick" because of the 90-degree bend at its end. The bend provided for differential thermal expansion between the
. tube bundle and shell. The pro-totype was 65 feet long and weighed over 100 tons. Ten more units were being fabricated when the project was terminated.
The unitwas a counterflow heat exchanger consisting of an outer shell surrounding 739 tubes. Sodium entered near the top and flowed down inside the shell and outside of the tubes of the steam generator.
Water or steam came from the bottom of the unit and flowed upward inside the tubes.
Each of the 739 steam tubes was butt-welded at both ends to matching machined projections on the tubesheets. This tube-to-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 ofthe welds. The contour and thickness of each weld were ultrasonically checked by a trans-ducer probe assembly inserted inside the tube.
29
30 Ex-vessel storage tank
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 on by being inserted or removed from the reactor core.
The Clinch River Project was the first nuclear plant to employ 'two fully redundant independent and diverse mechanical shutdown systems. Each system was separate yet capable of shutting the plant down by itself. Because each system was completely different the risk of having the plant fail to shut down due to common-mode failure was eliminated.
The design was based on some 10 years of research and development and testing. The units were subjected to thousands of test scrams. A scram is an automatic shutdown of a nuclear reactor by rapid insertion of the control rods Into the reactor. The control rods traveled about 80.000 feet (over 15 miles) during the course of proving their reliability.
Tests were also conducted to verify the acceptability of the tools and procedures to maintain the control rod system. This resulted in modifications and redesigns to ensure 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 partofthe 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 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 of altemanve designs. The design made It possible for each IndMdual storGge space to have room accessible for over 700 fuel or blanket assemblies or other removable core components.
Ultra*Hlgh 5ensltMty Detector A new ultra-high sensitMty fission detector was one of the unique advancements developed as a result of the research conducted for the Clinch River Project. When calibrated. this fission detector measures the thermal power of a nuclear reactor by counting the number of neutrons. The device has 50 times the sensitivi1y of convention-al fission detectors and is designed to operate reliably In high-temperature. high-radiation environments for up to 30 years.
Conventional fission detectors by contrast have an expected life of
'two to three years.
o Anewu/lra-hlghsensIllvllyfialondetec-tor was one of 11M unique GdtIance-ments dtweIoped as a twUIt of 11M re-seafCh conducted ftN 11M Clinch RIver Project.
31
- =
32 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 spentfuel 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 1130 0 F-a maximum emergency temperature forthe primary sodium pump-the prototype EM pump met and generally exceeded all performance specifications.
Nominal rating forthe EM pump was 400 gallons per minute ata 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.
SITE PREPARATION AND EXCAVATION P
reparation of the site for the Clinch River Breeder Reactor Plant was virtually complete by late 1983. The stage was set for placing concrete to form the main plant structures as soon as the project received a construction permit.
Such progress in preparation for construction was possible because of thorough planning that began a 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 contractor, Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation employed innovative construction planning techniques and implemented major initiatives in labor-management practices to reduce costs and finish the excavation ahead of schedule.
A site excavation model was one of the innovative tools for both the planning and performance of site work. The 10-by-11-foot model was built to scale, with one inch equal-ling 20 feet both vertically and horizontaIly. It represented about 122 of the main site's 182 acres. Color coding showed cleared and uncleared areas, excavation and fill. Removable pieces %-inch thick representing elevations in 10-foot increments, were easily rearranged to illustrate changes in topography through various stages of site preparation and construction. The model was used in reviewing volumes of earth and rock to be removed, identifying problem areas, developing the sequence of excavation steps and verifying the schedule.
A labor agreementfacilitating an accelerated construction schedule was reached in early 1982. The project was brought under provisions of the Nuclear Power Construction Stabilization Agreement, a labor-management accord that essentially eliminated strikes and "lockouts" during construction. The leadership of the Building and Construction Trades Department of the AFL-CIO, noted that eliminating construction delays related to labor-management issues would aid effective planning and efficiency, reducing construction schedules and costs.
Site preparation began in 1982 following NRC approval ofa request 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 expeditious completion ofwork and over $100 million in cost savings while preseNing all elements of NRC's environmental, safety and hearing processes.
Cost-effective Excavation Techniques The project implemented innovative techniques and design to save excavation costs and reduce the schedule for site preparation.
The original site topography consisted of a ridge, the top of which was 880 feet above sea level. This ridge was leveled to 780 feet above sea level before excavation of the pit began. To save costs and schedule time, several changes to the excavation design were made as more information concerning the site geology was developed.
Natural fractures, called joints, were discovered at right angles to the bedding planes, creating "failure wedges" of rock bounded by potential failure planes. The original excavation design relied on the removal of possible failure wedges by having the exterior walls excavated at an angle less than that of the failure planes.
This would have resulted in an extremely large excavation, with side walls excavated to 26 degrees from horizontal.
o Asite excavation model was one ofthe innovative tools for both the planning and performance of site work. The 10-by-11-footmodel was built to scale, with one inch equalling 20 feet both vertically and horizontally.
Site excavation model 33
34 Completed site excavation.
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 areasto locate cranes and to store construction material and equipment and reduced the amount of rock to be removed.
The vertical walls ofthe 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 bythe end of 1983 and included ali sediment ponds, quality control test laboratory, 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.
Proposed site redress concept 35
i.
LICENSING o
The Clinch River Project demonstrated that an LMFBR could be licensed in a reasonable time frame.
36 O
ne of the objectives of the projectwas to demonstrate the Iicensability of the Clinch River plant. The project demonstrated that this objective was attainable by successfully completing all the steps leading up to a construction permit.
The Clinch River Project demonstrated that an LMFBR could be licensed in a reasonable time frame. In the space of about three years -
beginning in 1981 when licensing activities were reinstituted in earnest -
the project resolved virtually every issue in its favor and was on the verge of obtaining a construction permit.
Licensing began in 1974 and was moving rapidly forward by early 1977, In that year, a Final Environ-mental Statement was issued that found the plant and site met applicable environmental criteria 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 health and safety.
Licensing activity at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission was suspended from 1977 to 1981 as the result of actions by the Carter administration.
After licensing activities were reinitiated in 1982,the NRC allowed the projectto begin preliminary site preparation in parallel with the environmental review. The action was taken under provisions of a section of NRC regulations that enabled the project to begin site preparation while allowing the environmental review to proceed simultaneously.
Hearings related to suitability of the plant site and the environmental impact of the plant were conducted in 1982. The Environmental Protection Agency issued a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit that became effective early in 1983. A partial initial decision recommending a Limited WorkAuthorization (LWA) was issued by the NRC's Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB) in February of 1983. Itfound thatthe project met all applicable regulatory require-ments in regard to environmental protection and radiological site suitability.
The project received its Limited Work Authorization in May of 1983.
Public hearings on the safety of the plant design were completed in August. In September, the NRC Staff filed Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law stating that the plant could be constructed and operated without undue risk to the health and safety of the public, the applicants were technically qualified to design and constructthe plant, and the construction permit should be granted.
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 in favor of the applicants. If Congress had appropriated funds for construction, a construction permit would have been issued rather than this memorandum.
Throughout the licensing process, inteNenors continually challenged the project. Adversaries brought four federal court actions intended to halt the project and none were successful.
The 250,000 pages of documentation associated with the licensing effort should be helpful in the design and licensing of breeder reactors in the future. Of particular significance for the future was the agreement reached with the NRC staff that hypothetical core disruptive accidents need not be included in the design basis. The regulators also agreed that it is possible to design LMFBRs that limit the risks to the public health and safety from core disruptive and core
PROJECT DOCUMENTATION 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 meta 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 thatthe 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 source."
Termination of the project necessitated several changes in the overall records collection and disposition policies. A Technical Documentation Data Base (TDDB) system was established to collect microfilm, and index the most current and approved technical documentation related to the CRBRP liquid metal fast breeder reactor design and licensing efforts.
This TDDB system utilizes the UNICORN software developed by Stone &
Webster for the projecfs Quality 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 haveto be developed to place the TDDB into the RECON System; and the financial and human support seNices for maintenance of the CRBRP technical information as one of the RECON data bases was available.
A secondary effort for the project is the collection, indexing, and storage of appropriate CRBRP administrative and backup technical documentation underthe National Archives and Records SeNice approved records schedule. These two systems will meetthe information needs of both future LMFBR designers and project historical researchers.
o A Technical Documentation Data Sase
[TDDS] system was established to collect, microfilm, and index the most current and approved technIcal documentation related to the CRSRP liquidmetalfast breederreactordesign and licensing efforts.
37
38 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 investorowned, publicpower 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.
-~----
~
II April
- 1975
- Burns andRoe awardedthe contractfor the turbine generatorto 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 beingstoredindoors in the same shop in 39
- 5!
- II 40 which it was built by Babcock and Wilcox in Mt. Vernon Indiana.
February
- 1980 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 itis "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 accordessentiallyeliminatedanystrikes andlockouts 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
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 generatorwas broughtto full testpoweratthe 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
- PresidentReagan announcedhis endorsementofanAlternate Financing Plan for the Clinch RiverBreederReactor. 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 nuclearislandarea was completed. Aboutthree 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.
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.
41
January
- 1984
- A Memorandum ofFindings was issuedbythe ASLB thatresolved 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.
42 The heterogeneous core was adopted for the Clinch River Plant in January 1979.
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 ofthe 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. AgreementAmong United States ofAmerica as Represented bythe 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 ofAmerica as Represented by the Department of Energy and Tennessee Valley Authority and Commonwealth Edison Company and Project Management Corporation and Breeder Reactor Corporation, November10,1983.
18.
Modification NO.1 to Agreement Among United States ofAmerica as Represented by The United States Atomic Energy Commission and Tennessee Valley Authority and Commonwealth Edison Company and Project Management Corporation.
43
44 19.
The Atomic Energy Commission was succeeded by the Energy Research and DevelopmentAdministration (ERDA) In January 1975. It.
in turn. was succeeded bythe 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. Hewlettand 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.
BREEDER REACTOR CORPORATION UTILITIES The 753 electric uLiliUe! that com-pose Breeder Reactor Corporation (BRC) represent a true Cloa-section of America's power companiee. BRC members include representatives from every sector of the electric utility in-duatry in the United StatMi-investor-owned, public power, municipal, and cooperatives. BRC consists of 133 illveolor*owned utiliti.. (I), 44 public pow.r dilltricls (P), 124 municipal (M),
and 452 coop.rativ** (C). Toq.th.r these utiliti** have pledqed $257 million 10 build the Clinch Rivel Pro-ject in the largest single research and development project ever undertaken by the federal government and private illdu.lry. AI th**nd of 1982, BRC utiliti** had alr.ady illv..ted $135 million in the Clinch River ProjecL A & N Eleclric Coop.rativ. (C)
Aberd.en El.ctric D.partm.nl (M)
Adams County Cooperative Eleclric Company (C)
Adamo Eleclric Cooperative, Inc. (C)
Adams MarqueUe Electric Cooperative (C)
Adams Rural Electric Cooperative, Inc. (C)
Aqralile Coop.rativ. (C)
Aiken Electric Cooperative, Inc. (C)
Alabama Pow.r Company (I)
Alb.rtville Utiliti.. Board (M)
Alcorn County Electric Power A"ociation (C)
Alger Delta Cooperative Electric A"ociation (C)
Allamakee Clayton Electric Coop.rativ., Inc. (C)
Allegheny Eleclric Cooperative, Inc.
(C)
Amory Eleclric & Water Department (M)
Anza El.ctric Coop.rativ., Inc. (C)
Appalachian Electric Cooperalive (C)
Arab Eleclric (C)
Arizona Electric Power Cooperative, Inc. (C)
Arizona Public Servic. Company (I)
Ark Valley Electric Cooperative A..ocialion, Inc. (e)
Arkansa9 Missouri Power Company (I)
Arkanoa. Pow.r & Liqht Company (I)
Arkansas Valley Electric Cooperative Corporation (C)
Arrowhead Electric Cooperative, Inc.
(C)
Ashley Chicot Electric Cooperative, Inc. (C)
AtchiJIon-Holt Eleclnc Cooperative (C)
Ath.ns Electric Departm.nt (M)
Ath.n. Utiliti.. Board (M)
Atlantic City Electric Company (I)
B*K Electric Coop.raUv., Inc. (C)
Bak.r Electric Cooperativ., Inc. (C)
Baltimor. Ga. & Electric Company (I)
Barron County Electric Cooperative (C)
Bartl.1I Electric Coop.rativ., Inc. (C)
Bedford Rural Electric Cooperative.
Inc. (C)
B.l/aU. Eleclric Coop.rativ., Inc_ (C)
Belmont Electric Cooperative, Inc.
(C)
Beltrami Electric Cooperative, Inc.
(C)
B.nton County Board of Public Utiliti.. (C)
Benlon County Electric Cooperative A..ociation (C)
Benton Eleclric Sy.t.m (M)
Benton Rural Electric Association (C)
Berkeley Electric Cooperative. Inc.
(C)
Be989mer Electric Service (M)
Big Bend Electric Cooperative, Inc_
(C)
Big Sandy Rural Electric Cooperative Company (C)
Blachly-Lan. County Coop.rativ. (C)
Black River Electric Cooperative (C)
Black River Electric Cooperative (C)
Blackstone Valley Eleclric Company (I)
Blount Eleclric Sy.t.m (M)
Blu. Earth*Nicoll.t*Faribault Cooperative Electric Association (C)
Blue Graas Rural Electric Cooperative Corporation (C)
Blue Ridge Electric M.mbership Corporation (C)
Blue Ridge Mountain Eleclric M.mbership Coop.rativ. (C)
Bolivar Eleclric D.partm.nt (M)
BooDe Valley Electric Cooperative (C)
Bo.lon Edillon Company (I)
Bowlinq Gr..n Municipal Utiliti.. (M)
Brazos Electric Cooperative, Inc. (C)
Brislol, Virqillia, Utiliti** Board (M)
Bristol, Tennessee, Electric SY9tem (M)
Brockton Edison Company (I)
Brown Atchison Electric Cooperative AsoociaUon, Inc. (C)
Brown County Rural Electric A..ociation (C)
Brown.vill. Utility D.partm.nt (M)
Buchanan County Rural Electric Coop.rativ. (C)
Buck.ye Pow.r, Inc. (C)
Buckeye Rural Electric Cooperative, Inc. (C)
Buena Vista County Rural Electric Cooperative (C)
Buffalo Electric Cooperative (C)
Burke-Divide Eleclric Cooperative, Inc. (C)
Burt County PubUc Pow.r Dillirici (P)
Butler County Rural Electric Coop.rativ. (C)
Butler County Rural Public Power Dilltricl (P)
Butler Rural E1eclric Coopelative Association, Inc. (C)
Butler Rural Electric Cooperative, Inc. (C)
C&W Rural Electric Cooperalive Association, Inc. (C)
Calhoun County ElecLric Cooperative A..ooiation (C)
Callaway Electric Cooperative (C)
Cambridge Electric Liqhl Company (I)
Canadian Valley &lecinc Cooperative, Inc. (C)
Caney Fork Electric Cooperative (C)
Cape & Vineyard Electric Company (I)
Capilol Electric Cooperative, Inc. (C)
Carolina Pow.r & Liqht Company (I)
Carroll County Electrical DepartmenL (M)
Carroll Electric Cooperative, Inc. (C)
Carroll Electric Cooperative Corporation (C)
Carroll Electric Membership Corporation (C)
Carteret-Craven Electric MembeI9hip Coop.rativ. (C)
Cavalier Rural Electric Cooperative, Inc. (C)
Cedar Vall.y Eleclric Cooperative (C)
Central Alabama Electric Cooperative (C)
Central Electric Cooperative, Inc. (C)
Central Electric Power Association (C)
Central Hudson Gas & Electric Company (I)
C.nlrallllinoi. Liqhl Company (I)
C.nlral lllinoill Public S.rvic. (I)
Central Kan9as Electric Coopelative, Inc. (C)
C.nlral Lincoln P.opl.'s Utility (P)
C.ntral Pow.r & Liqht Company (I)
Central WiBcOWlin Electric Cooperative (C)
Chariton Valley Electric Cooperative (C)
Cherokee County Rural Electric Cooperative (C)
Cherokee Electric Cooperative (e)
Cherryland Rural ElecLric Cooperative (C)
Cheyenne Light Fuel & Power Company (I)
Chickasaw Electric Cooperative (C)
Chippewa Valley Electric Cooperative (C)
Choctawatchee Electric Cooperative, Inc. (C)
Choptank Electric Cooperative, Inc.
(C)
Cincinnati Ga9 & Electric CompaIlY (I)
Citizens Electric Company (I)
City 01 Bandon (M)
City of Chicamauqa (M)
City 01 Fort Collino Liqht & Power D.partm.nt (M)
City 01 Idaho FaU. (M)
Cjty of Richland Energy Service D.partm.nt (M)
City of Sevi.rvill. (M)
Claiborne Electric Cooperative. Inc~
(C)
Clark El.ctric Coop.rativ. (C)
Clark: Rural Electric Cooperative Corporation (C)
Clark. Eleclric Coop.rativ., Inc. (C)
Claverack Rural ElecLric Cooperative, Inc. (C)
Clay Electric Coop.raliv., Inc. (C)
Clay Electric Coop.raliv., Inc. (C)
Clearwater Polle Electric Cooperative, Inc. (C)
Clearwater Power Company (C)
Cleveland Eleclric llluminalinq Company (I)
CI.v.land Uliliti** (M)
Clinton Utiliti** Board (M)
CMS Electric Coop.rativ., Inc. (C)
Coast Eleclric Power ASSOCiation (e)
Coastal Eleclric Coop.raliv., Inc. (C)
Codington-Clark Electric Cooperativ., Inc. (C)
Columbia Power System (M)
Columbia Rural Electric Association, Inc. (C)
Columbus & Southern Ohio Electric Company (I)
Columbus Liqht & Wal.r Departm.nl (M)
Columbus Rural Electric Cooperative (C)
Comanche County Electric Coop.rativ. (C)
Commonwealth Edison Company (I)
Concordia Electric Cooperative, Inc.
(C)
Connecticut Light & Power Company (I)
Conowingo Power Company (I)
Consolidated Edi.on Company (I)
Consumers Power Company (I)
Consumers Power, Inc. (C)
Cooke County Eleclric Cooperative A..ociation (C)
Cookeville Electric Department (M)
Cooperative Light & Power A..ociation of Lak. County (C)
Cooperative Power Association (C)
Coo9-Curry Eleclric Cooperative, Inc.
(C)
Comhu.k.r Public Pow.r Dillirict (P)
Cotton Electric Cooperative (e)
Courtland El.ctric D.partm.nt (M)
Covin91oD Electric SY9tem (M)
Cowlitz Public Utility Dilltrict (P)
CP NaLional Corporation (I)
Craighead Electric Cooperative Corporation (C)
Crawford Electric Cooperative (C)
Cuivre River Electric Cooperative, Inc. (C)
Cullman El.ctric (C)
Cullman Pow.r !loaId (M)
Cumberland Eleclric M.mbership Corporation (C)
Cumberland Valley Rural Electric Coop.raUv. (C)
Cuming County Public Power DistricL (P)
Custer Public Power District (P)
D SOlO Rural Electric Cooperative Association, Inc. (C)
Dakota Electric A"ociaUon (C)
Dalla. Pow.r & Liqht Company (I)
Darke Rural Electric Cooperative, Inc.
(C)
Daw90n County Public Power DisLrict (P)
Dayton Electric D.partm.nt (M)
Daylon Pow.r & Liqht Company (I)
Decatur Utiliti.s (M)
Dek Rural Electric Coop.rativ. (C)
Delaware Rural ElecLTic Cooperative, Inc. (C)
D.lmarva Pow.r & Liqht Company (I)
Denton County Electric Cooperative, Inc. (C)
D.partm.nt of Electricity Clarksvill.,
T.ne..... (M)
Department of Electricity Sprin9field.
T.ne..... (M)
D.lroit Edillon Company (I)
Dicbon Electric Department (M)
Dwe Electric Power Association (C)
Dixie Electric Membership Corporalion (C)
Dixie Escalante Rural Electric A..ociation, Inc. (C)
Douglas Electric Cooperative, Inc. (C)
Duck River Electric Membelship Corporation (C)
Duke Power Company (I)
Duncan Valley Electric Cooperative, Inc. (C)
Dunn County Electric Coop.rative (C)
Dy.roburq Eleclric Sy.t.m (M)
Ea9t Central Oklahoma Electric Coop.rativ. (C)
E U A S.rvic. (I)
East Kentucky Power Cooperative, Inc. (C)
Easl Mi88isaippi Electric Power A"ociation (C)
Eaot.m Edillon Company (I)
Eastem lllinois Power Cooperative (C)
Easton Utiliti89 Commission (M)
Eau Claire Electric Cooperative (C)
Edi.on Sault Electric Company (I)
El Paso El""lric Company (I)
Eleclric Board, Muscl. Shoals (M)
Electric Power Board of Chattanoo9a (M)
Elizabethlon Electric Sy.t.m (M)
Elk Hom Public Pow.r Dillirict (P)
Empir. Dilltricl Electric Company (I)
Erath County Electric Cooperative A"ociation (C)
Erwill Utiliti.. (M)
Elowah Utiliti** D.partm.nl (M)
Eugene Water & Electric Board (M)
Fairfield Electric Cooperative, Inc.
(C)
Farmera Electric Cooperative, Inc.
(C)
Farmer9 ElecLric Cooperative, Inc.
(C)
Farmers Mutual Eleclric Company (C)
Fanuels Rural Eleclric Cooperative Corporation (C)
Fay.n.vill. Electric 5y.l.m (M)
Federated Rural Electric AMociation (C)
Firelands Electric Cooperative (e)
Fint Electric Cooperative Corporation (C)
Filchburg Gao & Eleclric Liqhl Company (I)
Flathead Electric Cooperative, Inc.
(C)
Fleming-Mason Rural Electric Coop.rativ. (C)
Flint Hill9 Rural Electric Cooperative A"ociation (C)
F1or.nc. Electricity D.partm.nl (M)
Florida Power Corporation (I)
Fore9t Grove Liqht & Power D.partm.nt (M)
Forked D..r Electric Coop.rativ. (C)
Fori Belknap Electric Cooperative, Inc. (C)
Fori Loudoun Electric Cooperative (C)
Four County Electric Member9hip Corporalion (C)
Four County Electric Power A"ociation (C)
Fox Creek Rural Electric Cooperative Corporalion (C)
Franklin County Public Power District (P) 45.
46 FranlcJin County Public Utility District II (P)
Franklin Electric Cooperative (e)
Franklin Electric Plant Board (M)
FranlcJin Power & Li9ht (I)
Franlc1in Rural Electric Cooperative (C)
Freebom-Mower Electric Cooperative (C)
Frontier Power Company (e)
Frost*Benco Eledric (C)
Fruit Bell Electric Cooperative (C)
Ft. Payne Impuvemenl Aulbority (M)
Fulton Electric System (M)
Gallatin Department of Electricity (M)
Georgia Power Company (I)
Gibllon County Electric Membership Corporation (C)
GIa.gow Electric Planl Board (M)
Glidden Rural Electric Cooperative (C)
Golden Valley Electric Association.
Inc. (C)
Goodhue County Cooperative Electric Asoociation (C)
Graham County Electric Cooperative.
Inc. (C)
Grand Electric Cooperative, Inc. ee)
Granite State ElecLric Company (1)
Grant Electric Cooperative (e)
Grayson Rural Electric Cooperative (C)
Great Plains Eleelric Cooperative, Inc. (C)
Greene County Rural Electric Cooperative (C)
Greenville Light & Power Sy.tem (M)
Grundy County Rural Eleclric Cooperative (C)
Grundy Electric Cooperative. Inc. (C)
Guernsey Muskinghan Electric Cooperative. Inc. (C)
Gull Power Compaq (I)
Gull Stat.. Utillti.. Company (I)
Gunleroville Eleclric Board (M)
Guthrie County Rural Electric Cooperative (C)
Halilaz. Electric Membership Corporation (C)
Hamilton County Electric Cooperative AosociaUon (C)
Hancock County Rural Electric Cooperative (C)
Hancock Wood Electric Cooperative, Inc. (C)
Hardin County Rural Electric Cooperative (C)
Harriman Power Department (M)
Harrison County Rural Electric Cooperative (C)
Harrison Rural Eleclric Cooperative Corporation (Cl Harrison Rural Electrification Association (C)
Hart County Electric Membership Corporalion (C)
Hartford Electric Li9hl Company (I)
Hart.elle Electric Board (M)
Hawkeye Tn-County Electric CooperaUve (C)
Hershey Electric Company (I)
Hickman Electric System Board (M)
Hickman Fulton CaunUse Rural Electric Cooperative Corporation (C)
Hill County EJeciric Cooperalive. Inc.
(C)
Holly Springs Utility Department (M)
Holmes Wayne Electric Cooperative, Inc. (C)
Holston Electric Cooperative (C)
Holyoke Water Power Company (I)
Home Lighl & Power CompanY (I)
Hood River Electric Cooperative (e)
Hopldosville Electric Plant Board (M)
Horry Electric Cooperative, Inc. (el Houoton Lighting & Power (1)
Howard Electric Cooperative (e)
Howard Greeley Rural Public Power Di.tricl (P)
Humboldt County Rural Electric Cooperative (e)
Humboldt Electric Department (M)
Hunt.ville Uiiliti.. (M)
Ida County Rural Electric Cooperative (C)
Id;oho Power Company (1)
Illini Electric Cooperative (C)
Illioois Power Company (1)
Illinoil!l Rural Electric Cooperative (e)
Indian Eleclric Cooperative, Inc. (e)
Indianapolio Power & Light Company (I)
Inland Power & Lighl Company (C) r.o.ter~County Rural Electric Cooperative Corporation (C)
Interstate Power Company (1)
Iowa Electric Light & Power Company (I)
Iowa Illinois Gas & Electric Company (I)
Iowa Power & Light Company (I)
Iowa Public Service Company (I)
Iowa Soulbem Utilities Company (I)
J A C Electric Cooperative A"""iation (C)
Jacbon County Rural Electric (C)
Jackson County Rural Electric Cooperative (C)
Jackson Electric Cooperative (C)
Jacbon Utility Division (M)
James Valley Electric Cooperative, Inc. (C)
Jasper Newton Eleclric Cooperative, Inc. (C)
Jefferson Davis Electric Cooperative, Inc. (C)
Jellico Electric Sy.tem (M)
Jeroey Central Power & Light Company (I)
Joe Wheeler Electric Membership Corporalion (C)
Jobn.on City Power Board (M)
Johnson County Electric Cooperative (C)
Jones Onslow Electric Membership Corporatioo (Cl Jump River Electric Cooperative, Inc.
(C)
K B R Rural Public Power District (P)
Kanoas Gas & Electric Company (I)
Kans.. Power & Light (I)
Kaw Valley Eleclric Cooperative Company (C)
Kay Electric Cooperative (C)
Knoxville Utilitie. Board (M)
Kosciusko County Rural Electric Membership Corporation (C)
!..alollelie Electric Department (M)
Lake Region Cooperative Electrical Asoociation (C)
Lake Superior District Power Company (I)
Lamar Electric Membership Corporation (C)
Lane Electric Cooperative, Inc. (C)
Lane*Scott Electric Cooperative (C)
Laurens Electric Cooperative, Inc. (C)
Lawrenceburg Power System (M)
Lebanon Electric Department (M)
Lee County Eleclric Cooperative, Inc.
(Cl Lenoir City Utilitie. Board (M)
Lewis County Rural Eleclric Cooperative (C)
Lewishurg Eleclric Sy.lem (M)
Lexington Electric System (M)
Licking Rural Electrification Inc. (C)
Liclting Valley Rural Eleclric Cooperative (C)
Lighthouse Electric Cooperative, Inc.
(C)
Limestone County Electric Cooperative, Inc. (C)
Linn County Rural Electric Cooperalive (C)
Little Ocmulgee Electric Membership Corporation (C)
Little River Electric Cooperative, Inc.
(C)
Logan County P&L Association, Inc.
(C)
Lone Wolf Electric Cooperative, Inc.
(C)
Long bland Lighting Company (I)
Lorain Medina Rural Electric Cooperative. Inc. (C)
Los Angeles Department Water &
Power (M)
Lost River Electric Cooperative, Inc.
(C)
Loudon Utilities (M)
Louisiana Power & Light Company (I)
Louisville Utililies (M)
Loup Valleys Rural Public Power Districl(C)
Lower Valley Power & Light, Inc.(C)
Lynches River Electric Cooperative, Inc. (C)
Lyntegar Electric Cooperative, Inc.
(Cl Macon Electric Cooperative, Inc. (C)
Macon Electric Department (M)
Madison Ga. & Electric Company (I)
Magnolia Electric Power Association (C)
Maquoketa Valley Rural Electric Cooperative (C)
Marion Rural Electric Cooperative (C)
Marshall County Rural Electric Cooperative (C)
Marshall Dekalh Electric Cooperative (C)
Maryville Utilitieo Board (M)
M..on County Public Utility Di.tr!ct No.3 (P)
M....chusells Electric Company (I)
Matanuska Electric Association, Inc.
(C)
Maylield Electric & Water Sy.tem (M)
McCook Public Power Dislrict (P)
McDonouqh Power Cooperative (e)
McLennan County Electric Cooperative, Inc. (C)
McLeod Cooperative Power Association (C)
McMinnville Electric Sy.lem (M)
McMinnville Water & Li9ht Department (M)
McPheroon Board of Public Utilitie.
(M)
Mecklenbur9 Electric Cooperative (C)
Meeker Cooperative Liqht & Power Asoociation (C)
Memphis~Light Gas & Water Division (M)
Menard Electric Cooperative (C)
Meriwether Lewis Electric Cooperative (C)
Melropolitan Edison Company (I)
Mid-South Electric Cooperative Asoociation (C)
Mid-Carolina Electric Cooperative, Inc.
(C)
Middle Tennessee Electric Membe,ship Corporation (C)
Midstate Electric Cooperative, Inc.
(C)
Midwest Electric Cooperative, Inc.
(C)
Midwe.t Eleclric. Inc. (C)
Midwest Energy, Inc. (C)
Milan Department 01 Public Utllitie.
(M)
Minne.ota Power & Li9ht Company (I)
Minnesota Valley Electric Cooperative (C)
Mississippi Power & Light Company (I)
Mississippi Power Company (I)
Missoula Electric Cooperative, Inc.
(C)
Missouri Edison Company (I)
Missouri Power & Light Company (I)
Missouri Rural Electric Cooperative (C)
Mohave Electric CooperaUve. Inc. (C)
Monona County Rural Electric Cooperative (C)
Monroe County Electric Cooperative, Inc. (C)
Monroe County Electric Power A"ociation (C)
Montana Dakota Utilities Company (I)
Monticello Eleclric Planl Board (M)
Mor Gran Sou ElecLric Cooperative, Inc. (C)
Morristown Power System (M)
Morrow Electric Cooperative, Inc. (C)
Mountain E1ectric Cooperative, Inc.
(C)
Mountrail Electric Cooperative, Inca (C)
Ml. Cannel Public Utility Company (I)
Mt. Pl....nt Power System (M)
Murfreesboro Electric Department (M)
Murphy Electric Power Board (M)
Murray Electric Sy.tem (M)
Narragansett Electric Company (I)
Nashville Electric Service (M)
Natchez Trace Electric Power Asoocialion (C)
Navarro County Electric Cooperative, Inc. (C)
NCK Electric Cooperative. Inc. (C)
Nebraska Electric G & T Cooperative (C)
Nehraska Public Power Dislrict (P)
Nemaha Marshall Electric Cooperative A"ociaUon, Inc. (C)
Nespelem Valley Electric Cooperative, Inc. (C)
New Albany Water & Light (M)
New Bed/ord G.. & Edison Light (I)
New England Electric System (1)
New England Ga. & Electric Association (I)
New En91aod Power Company (I)
New Enterprise Rural Eleclric Cooperallve (C)
New Jemey Power & Light Company (I)
NIW Orlllne Publlo Sorvlce. Inc. (I)
NIW River Llqhllil Power CooperlUYI (C)
Nlw York Statl EllOtric iii Ga. (I)
Nlwborn EllotriC Clpartment (M)
Nlwberry EloolrlO Cooperative. Inc.
(C)
Nlwport Elootrlc Corporation (I)
Nlwport UulluH Board (M)
Nlaoara Mohawk Power Corporation (I)
Niobrara ValllY EllOtric Momberohip CorporaUon (C)
NlIhnabotna Valley Rural Eleclric CooperaUva (C)
Nobla. CooperaUve Electric (C)
Nodak Rural Electric Cooperative.
Inc. (C)
Nodaway Worth Electric Cooperative (C)
NoUn Rural Eleclric Cooperative CorporaUon (C)
Norlb Alabama Electric CooperaUve (C)
North Arkanaaa Cooperative, Inc. (C)
North Central Electric Cooperative.
Inc. (C)
North CliIDtral Missouri Electric Cooperative. Inc. (C)
North Central Public Power District (P)
North Georgia Eleclric Membership Corporation (Cl North Star Electric Cooperative, Inc.
(C)
North Weat Electric Power Corporation. Inc. (C)
North West Mjaouri Electric Cooperative (C)
North Western Electric Cooperative, Inc. (C)
Northcentral Mississippi Electric Power Association (C)
Northeast Louisiana Power Cooperative. Inc. (C)
Northeast MiSBis8i.ppi Electric Power Asoociation (C)
Northeast Missouri Electric Power Cooperative (C)
Norlboast NebraSka Rural Public Power District (P)
Norlbe..t Oklahoma Electric Cooperative. Inc. (C)
Norlbe..t UtiliU.. Service Company (I)
Norlbem Lights, Inc. (Cl Northem Michigan Electric Corporation (C)
Northern Neck Electric Cooperative (C)
Northern States Power Company (MN)
(I)
Norlbem Stat.. Power Company (WI)
(I)
Northwest Iowa Power Cooperative (Cl Northwestern Public Service Company (I)
Northwestern Rural Electric Cooperative (C)
Nyman Electric Cooperative, Inc. (C)
O'Brien County Rural Electric Cooperative (C)
Oak Ridge Eloctrical Division (M)
Oakdale Electric Cooperative (C)
Oconee Electric MembsJ8hip Corporation (C)
Oconto Eleclric Cooperative (C)
Ohio Edison Company (I)
Oklahoma Electric Cooperative (C)
Oklahoma Gas & Electric Company (I)
Okolona Eleclric Departmenl (M)
Oliver*Mercer Electric Cooperative.
Inc. (C)
Omaha Public Power District (P)
Orange & Rockland Utilitie** Inc. (1)
Osage Valley Electric Cooperative ASlociation (C)
Osceola Electric Cooperative j Inc. (C)
Oller rail Power Company (I)
Ouachita Electric Cooperative Corporation (C)
Owen County Rural Electric Cooperative Corporation (C)
Oxford Eleclric Department (M)
P K M Electric Cooperative. Inc. (C)
P.R. & W. Electric Cooperative Association, Inc. (C)
Pacilic Gas & Electric Company (I)
Pacific Power &. Light Company (I)
Paducah Power Sy.tem (M)
Palmetto Electric Cooperative, Inc.
(C)
Paris Board of Utiliti.. (M)
Paulding Putnam Electric Cooperative, Inc, (C)
Pearl River Valley Electric Power AMociation (C)
Pedemales Electric Cooperative, Inc.
(C)
Pee Dee Electric Membe"bJp Corporation (C)
Pella Cooperative Electric Association (C)
Pennsylvania Electric Company (I)
Pennsylvania Power & Liqht Company (I)
P.nnsylvania Pow.r Company (I)
Pennyrile Rural Electric Cooperative Corporalion (C)
People', Cooperative Power AMociation (C)
Philadelphia Electric Company (I)
PhiiadelpbJa Uliliti.. (M)
Pickwick Electric Cooperative (e)
Pioneer Rural Electric Cooperative, Inc. (C)*
Planters Electric Membership Corporation (C)
Plateau Electric Cooperative (C)
Platte-Clay Electric Cooperative (C)
Plumas*Siena. Rural Electric Cooperative (C)
Plymouth Eleclric Cooperative Association (C)
Pocahontas Rural Electric Cooperative (C)
Polk Burnell El.ctric Coop.rative (C)
Polk County Rural Public Pow.r District (P)
Pontotoc Electric Power Aasociation (C)
Portland Generalinq Electric Company (I)
Potomac Electric Power Company (1)
Pow.ll Valley Electric Cooperative (C)
Prentiss County Electric Power
.As.ociation (C)
Presque Isle Electric Cooperative, Inc. (C)
Price Electric Cooperative, Inc. (e)
Princeton El.ctric Board (M)
Public Service Company of Colorado (I)
Public Service Company of New Ham""bJre (I)
Public Servic. Electric & Gas Company (I)
Public Service Indiana (I)
Public Services Company of Oklahoma (I)
Public Utility District 11 of Chelan County (P)
Public Utility Dislrict HI of Clark County (P)
Public Utility Districl *1 of Dougla.
County (P)
Public Utility District *1 of Grant County (P)
Public Utility Dislricl 11 of GraY" Harbor (P)
Public Utility District 11 01 Kittitas County (P)
Public Utility District 11 of Klickitat County (P)
Public Utility District 11 of Lewis County (P)
Public Utility Dislricl '1 of Paci/fc County Public Utility District 11 of Pend Orielle County (P)
Public Utility Dislrict 11 of Snohomish County (P)
Pug.t Sound Power & Liqht Company (I)
PuIa.ki Electric Sy.t.m (M)
Radiant Electric Coop.rativ. (C)
Rallo County Electric Cooperative (C)
Randolph Electric Membel1lbJp Corporation (C)
Rappahannock Electric Cooperative (C)
Rayle Electric M.mbersbJp Corporation (C)
Red Lake Electric Cooperative, Inc.
(C)
Red River Valley Cooperative Power Association (C)
Redwood Electric Coop.rative (C)
Riceland Electric Cooperative, loc.
(C)
Rich Mountain Electric Cooperative, Inc. (C)
Rid.ta Electric Cooperative, Inc, (C)
Ripley Power & Light Company (M)
Roanoke Electric M.mb.rsbJp Corporation (<::2 Robertson Electric Cooperative, Inc.
(C)
Roch8!ter Gas &. Eleclric Corporation (I)
Rockland Electric Company (I)
Rockwood Electric Utility (M)
Roseau Electric Cooperative, Inc. (C)
RSR Electric Coop.rativ., Inc. (C)
Ruo8!tone Electric Aseociation (C)
Ru...llvill. Electric Departm.nt (M)
Ruoaellvill. Eleclric Plant Board (M)
Sac Couaty Rural Electric Coop.rativ. (C)
Salmon River Electric Cooperative, Inc. (C)
Sail River Project (P)
Salt River Rural Electric Cooperative Corporation (C)
San Diego Gas & Electric Company (I)
Sand Mt. Electric Cooperative (C)
Santee Electric Cooperative, Inc. (C)
Scollsboro Electric Pow.r Beard (M)
Seattl. City Liqht (M)
Sedgwick County Electric Cooperative A8!0cialion, Inc. (C)
Sequachee Vall.y Electric Cooperative (C)
Seward County Rural Public Power District (P)
SheHield PowerlWater &. Gu D.partment (M)
Sh.lby Eleclric Cooperative (C)
Shelby Rural Electric Cooperative Corporation (C)
Shelbyville Power Syotem (M)
Sh.nandoah Vall.y El.ctric Cooperative (C)
Sh.rrard Power Syol.m (I)
Sheyenne Valley Electric Cooperative, Inc. (C)
Sho Me Power Corporation (C)
Sierra Pacilic Power Company (I)
Singing River Electric Power Association (C)
Sioux C.nl.r Municipal Utilitie. (M)
Sioux Electric Cooperative Association (C)
Siou:z Valley Empire Electric Association, Inc. (C)
Slasb Pin. M.mbel1lhip Corporation (C)
Slop. Eleclric Cooperativ., Inc. (C)
Smithville Electric Syst.m (M)
Smoky Hill Electric Cooperative, Inc. (C)
Smoky Valley Electric Cooperative Association, Inc. (C)
SomelB8t Rural Electric Cooperative, Inc. (C)
Som.rvill. Eleclric D.partm.nt (M)
South Carolina Electric & Gas Company (I)
South Central Electric Association (C)
South Cenlral Power Company (C)
South Central Public Power District (P)
South Crawford Rural Electric Cooperative (C)
South Kentucky Rural Electric Cooperative (C)
South Misslsaippi Electric Power Association (C)
South Plains Electric Cooperative (C)
Southeast Iowa Cooperative ElecLric Association (C)
Southeast MicbJgan Rural Electric Cooperative, Inc. (C)
South.rn Ca1ilornia Edaon Company (I)
South.rn Indiana Gas & Electric (I)
Southem Iowa Electric Cooperative (C)
South.rn Maryland Electric Coop.rative (C)
South.rn Nebraska Rural Public Power District (P)
Southern Pine Electric Power Association (C)
Southside Electric Coop.rative (C)
Southwoot Arkansa.o Electric Coope:rative Corpo:ration (C)
Southweet Central Rural Electric Cooperative Corporation (C)
Southwest MiaeiaBippi Electric Power Association (C)
Southw..t Public Pow.r Districl (P)
Southwest Texas Electric Coop.rative, Inc. (C)
Southwest Tenne8898 Eleclric Membership Corporation (C)
Southwestern Electric Power Company (I)
Sparta Electric System (M)
Springfi.ld Ulility Beard (M)
St. Croix County Electric Cooperative (C)
SI. Jooeph Light & Power Company (I)
Stamford Electric Cooperative, Inc.
(C)
Stanton County Public Power District (P)
Slarlrville El.ctric System (M)
Stearn! Coop.rative Electric (C)
Steele Waseca Cooperative Electric (C)
Sullivan County Rural Electric Coop.rative, Inc, (C)
Sulphur Spring. Vall.y Electric Coop.rative (C)
Sumner Cowley Electric Cooperative Associalion (C)
Superior Water Light &: Power Company (I)
Sl1I'prise Valley Eleclric Corporation (C)
Surry Yadkin Electric Membership Corporation (C)
SllBSOX Rural Electric Cooperative (C)
Sweetwater Public Utiliti** (P)
SwiJJher Electric Cooperative, Inc. (C)
T.I.P. Rural Electric Cooperative (C)
Tallahatchie Valley Electric Power Association (C)
Talquin Eleclric Cooperativ., Inc. (C)
Tanner Electric Cooperative (C)
Tarranl City Eleclric Department (M)
Taylor County Electric Cooperative (C)
Taylor County Rural Electric Cooperative (C)
Taylor Electric Cooperative, Inc. (C)
T.nnessee Valley Authority (P)
Texas Electric Service Company (I)
T.... Pow.r & Light Company (I)
Three Notch Electric MemberobJp (C)
Three Rivers Electric Cooperative (C)
Tid.land Electric MemberohJp Corporation (C)
Tillamook Peeples Ulility Districl (P)
Tipmant Rural Electric Membership Corporatioo (C)
Tippah Electric Power AS8OCiation (C)
Tiahominso County Electric Power Association (C)
Tennessee Valley Eleclric Cooperative (C)
Todd Wadena Electric Cooperative (C)
Tomhigbee Electric Power Association (C)
Tongue River Electric Cooperative, Inc. (C)
Top O~ichigan Rural Electric Coop.rativ. (C)
Town of Estes Park Liqht &: Power Department (M)
Town of McCI.ary (M)
Trempealeau Electric (C)
Trenton Light &: Waler Department (M)
Tri County Electric Coop.rativ. (C)
Tri County Electric Cooperative, Inc.
(C)
Tri County Electric Coop.rativ. (C)
Tri County Electric M.mbe"bJp Corporation (C)
Tri County Rural Electric Coop.rativ., Inc. (C)
Tri-County Electric Cooperative Association (C)
Tri-State Electric Membership Corporation (C)
Trico Electric Cooperative, loc. (e)
Tricounty Electric Cooperative (e)
Tricounty Rural Electric Cooperative (C)
Tu1laboma Pow.r Sy.t.m (M)
Tup.lo Wal.r & Light Department (M)
Tuscumbia Electric D.partm.nt (M)
Twin Valley. Public Power District (P)
UGI Corporalion (I)
Umatilla Electric Cooperative Associalion (C)
Union City Electric Sy.t.m (M)
Union Electric Company (I)
Union Liqht, Heat & Power Company (I)
Union Rural Electric Cooperative, Inc. (C)
United Electric Cooperativ., Inc. (C)
United lliuminating Company (I)
United Rural Electric Inc. (C)
Upper Cumberland Electric M.rnbe"bJp Corporation (C)
Utah Power & Lighl Company (I)
Utility Board 01 Fol.y (M)
Valley Rural Electric Cooperetive (e)
V.ra Wal.r & Pow.r (P)
Verdigris Valley Electric Cooperative, Inc. (C)
Victory Cooperative Association, Inc.
(C)
Vigilanle Electric Cooperative, Inc.
(C)
Virginia Electric Cooperative (C)
Virqinia Electric &- Power Company (I)
Volunteer Electric Cooperative (C)
W..I K.ntucky Rural Electric Cooperative Corporation (C)
Walton Electric Membership Corporation (C)
Warren Electric Cooperative, Inc. (C)
Warren Rural Electric Cooperative Corporation (C)
Wash Wat.r Pow.r Company (I)
Washington Electric Cooperative, Inc.
(C)
Washinglon Electric Cooperative (C)
Water Valley El.ctric D.partm.nt (M)
Wat.rford Electric Light Company (I)
Waushara Electric Cooperative (C)
Wayne County Public Power District (P)
Wayne White Counti98 Electric Coop.rative (C)
Weakley County Municipal Electric Sy.l.m (M)
W.llo Eleclric Association (C)
West Central Electric Cooperative, Inc. (MO) (C)
West Central Electric Cooperative, Inc. (SD) (C)
West Plains Electric Cooperative, Inc.
(C)
W..t Point El.clric Sy.tem (M)
West River Electric Association, Inc.
(C)
W..I T.xas Uliliti.. Company (I)
Western Illinois Electric Cooperative, Inc. (C)
Weetem MaasachuseUs Electric Company (I)
Wheatland Electric Cooperative, Inc.
(C)
White River Valley Electric Coop.rativ. (C)
Wild Rice Electric Cooperative, Inc~
(C)
Winchester Power System (M)
Winnebago Rur.l Electric Cooporative Association (C)
Wlo<:onoln Eloctrlc Pow.r Company (I)
Wisconsin*Michigan Power Company (I)
Wisconsin Pow.r & Lighl Company (I)
Wisconsin Public Service Corporation (I)
Wise Electric Coop.rativ., Inc. (C)
Withlacoochee River Electric Coop.rativ., Inc. (C)
Wolverine Electric Cooperative, Inc.
(C)
Woodbury County Rural Electric Cooperative Association (C)
Wright County Rural Electric Coop.rativ. (C)
York County Rural Public Power Districl (P) 47
48
\\
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