DOCSLIB.ORG

Economic Analysis of the Columbia Generating Station

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Economic Analysis of the Columbia Generating Station Economic Analysis of the Columbia Generating Station McCullough Research Robert McCullough Marc Vatter Rose Anderson Jil Heimensen Sean Long Christopher May Andrew Nisbet Garrett Oursland December 2013 MCCULLOUGH RESEARCH ROBERT F. MCCULLOUGH, JR. PRINCIPAL December 11, 2013 Dr. John Pearson Mr. Charles Johnson Oregon and Washington Physicians for Social Responsibility 812 SW Washington Street Suite 1050 Portland, Oregon 97205 RE: Economic Analysis of Columbia Generating Station (CGS) The report on Columbia Generating Station’s economics is attached below. I would like to thank you for the opportunity to return to a project I worked on in the 1980s. Energy Northwest (then the Washington Public Power Supply System) is a fascinating study with complex economics and a long and tangled history. While I respect your concerns about nuclear power, you will find little on the risks of nuclear generation in this report. Our mandate was quite narrow – to carefully consider the economics of CGS and its possible replacement with other supplies. Our conclusion, bolstered by many interviews with the project’s owners and operators, as well as with industry representatives throughout the region, is that CGS can be replaced at a significant cost savings to the region’s ratepayers and utilities – approximately a $1.7 billion dollar saving. Our recommendation is that BPA issue a Request For Proposals (RFP) for alternatives and displace the unit within the current institutional framework. The study has been unnecessarily complicated by a lack of transparency at Energy Northwest. Even the simplest requests have been delayed by months. In a number of cases, our request for materials already provided to the press has experienced a lengthy delay before response. We would like to thank Timothy Ford, the Washington State Assistant Attorney General for Government Accountability, and our liaison at BPA, Steven Weiss, for their help in working through these issues. Sincerely, Robert McCullough 6123 REED COLLEGE PLACE ● PORTLAND ● OREGON ● 97202 ● 503-777-4616 ● [email protected] MCCULLOUGH RESEARCH Economic Analysis of CGS December 11, 2013 Page 1 ________________ 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS 2 Executive Summary .................................................................................................. 7 2.1 Recommendations .................................................................................................. 14 2.2 The Bottom Line .................................................................................................... 15 3 The historical roots of nuclear generation in the Pacific Northwest .............. 17 3.1 Net Billing ................................................................................................................ 18 3.2 Hydro-Thermal Power Plan .................................................................................. 19 3.3 Cost Overruns and Construction delays ............................................................. 21 3.4 Changing regulations and legal problems ............................................................ 22 3.5 Shifting public opinion ........................................................................................... 23 3.6 Construction screeches to a halt ........................................................................... 23 3.7 Bond Defaults and Litigation ................................................................................ 25 3.8 Renaming WPPSS and CGS ................................................................................. 26 3.9 Competition Comes to the Pacific Northwest ................................................... 26 3.10 Repeating History ................................................................................................... 28 4 Review of the Washington Nuclear Project Number 2 (WNP-2 or CGS) .... 28 4.1 Technology and Operations .................................................................................. 30 4.1.1 Fukushima Dai-ichi Accident and Policy Responses ............................ 38 4.2 Governance and Ownership ................................................................................. 42 4.2.1 Cost and Operational Arrangements Outside of the 1971 Project Agreement ................................................................................................................ 51 4.2.2 A Case Study: Management Failure in the Replacement of CGS’s Steam Condenser .................................................................................................... 58 4.3 Costs ......................................................................................................................... 69 4.3.1 Historical Costs .......................................................................................... 69 4.3.2 Forecasted Costs ........................................................................................ 75 4.3.3 Bond Repayment ........................................................................................ 80 4.4 Transparency ........................................................................................................... 80 4.5 Economic Dispatch ................................................................................................ 83 4.6 Nuclear Fuel Cycle .................................................................................................. 86 4.6.1 Uranium Mining ......................................................................................... 88 4.6.2 Uranium Milling and Processing .............................................................. 88 MCCULLOUGH RESEARCH Economic Analysis of CGS December 11, 2013 Page 2 ________________ 4.6.3 Conversion .................................................................................................. 89 4.6.4 Enrichment ................................................................................................. 89 4.6.5 Uranium Tails Pilot Project ...................................................................... 91 4.6.6 Depleted Uranium Enrichment Program ............................................... 92 4.6.7 Emissions .................................................................................................... 93 4.7 CGS Life Expectancy ............................................................................................. 96 4.7.1 Kewaunee Nuclear Plant ........................................................................... 97 4.7.2 San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS) ............................ 100 4.7.3 Crystal River 3 ........................................................................................... 101 4.7.4 West Coast Plants ..................................................................................... 102 4.7.5 Mark Cooper’s Renaissance in Reverse Report on Aging Nuclear Reactors .................................................................................................................. 107 4.7.6 Statistical Analysis of Plant Life Expectancy ........................................ 112 4.7.7 CGS Life Expectancy .............................................................................. 114 4.8 CGS Decommissioning Cost Escalation ........................................................... 117 4.8.1 The NRC Formula ................................................................................... 120 4.8.2 Site Restoration Costs .............................................................................. 128 4.8.3 Fuel Removal and Dry-Cask Storage .................................................... 128 4.8.4 Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 ......................................................... 129 4.8.5 Waste Confidence Decision .................................................................... 133 4.8.6 Decommissioning Cost Escalation ........................................................ 133 5 The Market Test .................................................................................................... 137 5.1 Avoidable Costs .................................................................................................... 142 5.2 The FY 2015 Market Test ................................................................................... 143 5.3 Recommendation .................................................................................................. 145 5.4 Power Contracts .................................................................................................... 146 5.4.1 Contract Basics ......................................................................................... 148 5.4.2 Contract Comparison .............................................................................. 150 5.5 Long Term Cost Comparison ............................................................................. 150 5.6 AURORAxmp® Price Analysis ......................................................................... 153 5.6.1 AURORAxmp® ....................................................................................... 154 5.6.2 Inputs Specific to the CGS ..................................................................... 154 MCCULLOUGH RESEARCH Economic Analysis of CGS December 11, 2013 Page 3 ________________ 5.6.3 PHASE I: Acquisition, Retirement, and Operation of Generators with Expected Hydroelectric and Wind Output ....................................................... 156 5.6.4 PHASE II: Operation of Generators with Stochastic Hydroelectric and Wind Output .................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Management Handbook 2020
    MANAGEMENT HANDBOOK 2020 Energy Northwest may revise or discontinue policies, procedures, or benefits described in this handbook, and/or institute new policies, procedures, or benefits. This handbook nor any other Energy Northwest policies, procedures, or practices (whether verbal or written) or the acceptance or continuance of employment are to be construed as a contract of employment, a promise of continued employment, or as creating an implied or contractual duty between an employee and Energy Northwest. All employment may be terminated "at will” by Energy Northwest or the employee for lawful reasons. Management Handbook 2020 Introduction Congratulations and welcome to Energy Northwest’s leadership team! You are part of a group of highly skilled professionals focused each day on the relentless pursuit of excellence through continuous improvement. This ensures we provide our public power members and regional ratepayers with safe, reliable, cost-effective, responsible power generation and energy solutions. I want to personally thank you for stepping up to the challenge of leadership on our management team. It’s a very important position to our agency, and to the people you lead. This handbook gives you the guidelines and resources to manage and direct your staff to help them accomplish individual and agency goals. It contains much of the information you will need to be successful in your leadership role here at Energy Northwest; it describes the many important programs, processes and resources available to you. The handbook also lists key expectations for supervisors and managers. I encourage you to use this handbook often as you get started in management, and keep it as a reference throughout your career with the agency.
    [Show full text]
  • Final Environmental Assessment for the Energy Northwest WNP-1/4 Lease Renewal January 2017 I
    DOE/EA-2044 Assessment Energy Northwest WNP-1/4 Lease Renewal, Hanford Site, Washington January 2017 U.S. Department of Energy Richland Operations Office Richland, WA 99352 Approved for Public Release; Further Dissemination Unlimited U.S. Department of Energy DOE/EA-2044 Terms Used in this Document Area of Potential Effect (APE) – the geographic area within which an undertaking may cause changes in the character or use of historic properties, if such properties exist. The APE is influenced by the scale and nature of the undertaking. Best Management Practices (BMPs) – Standard activities, operating procedures, and practices that are used to prevent or reduce potential environmental impacts from project activities. Cultural Resources - A general term used to refer to a wide range of resources, including historic structures, archaeological sites, places of traditional, religious and cultural significance, sacred sites, Native American human remains, and associated objects that are entitled to special consideration under federal statute, regulations, and executive orders. Energy Northwest (EN) – the municipal corporation and joint operating agency that owns both the Industrial Development Complex (IDC) and the Columbia Generating Station (CGS) Federal Threatened or Endangered Species - Plant or animal species that are at risk of becoming endangered in the near future throughout all or a significant part of their range. Threatened or endangered status is formally designated by a listing process under the Endangered Species Act (16 USC 1531 et seq.). Industrial Development Complex (IDC) – the collective name applied to the area occupied by Washington Nuclear Projects Number 1 and Number 4 (WNP-1/4) that reflects the current industrial nature of the site.
    [Show full text]
  • TVA's Bad Nuclear
    TVA’s Bad Nuclear Bet: Gambling BILLIONS on Bellefonte Reactors Prepared by the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy August 2011 Executive Summary “The circumstances for Bellefonte Units 1 and 2 are unique; no other licensee has ever given up its construction permits, partially dismantled the plant and allowed the facility to degrade, then requested that the permits be reissued.” -Joseph F. Williams, NRC Senior Project Manager1 The history of the Tennessee Valley Authority’s (TVA) Bellefonte site in Jackson County, Alabama spans nearly 40 years. A total of four reactors have been proposed, and billions of dollars have been spent, but not a single kilowatt of electricity has ever been produced. After allowing the site to sit idle for more than 20 years and scrapping the facility for spare parts, TVA is now proposing to restart construction of the Bellefonte Unit 1 reactor, which may be one of the greatest gambles in the agency’s history. Southern Alliance for Clean Energy has serious concerns about TVA’s push to complete the mothballed, abandoned Bellefonte reactors. Bellefonte’s unique and complicated history is compounded by that fact that, in order to complete construction of the reactors, TVA faces unique and complicated problems—many worse than any other reactor project has previously faced. This report documents some of our concerns and makes it clear that finishing Bellefonte is not a gamble worth taking. Our concerns include Bellefonte's long, complicated history; multiple safety concerns that have not been addressed; the troubled history of the Babcock &Wilcox “Mark-C 205” design; the unnecessary and costly nature of Bellefonte; and additional obstacles.
    [Show full text]
  • EMS-01 Use Category: INFORMATION Major Rev: 014 Minor Rev: 001 Title: Environmental Management System Program Description Page: 1 of 81
    Initials Verify Revision Information Prior To Use Date Number: EMS-01 Use Category: INFORMATION Major Rev: 014 Minor Rev: 001 Title: Environmental Management System Program Description Page: 1 of 81 PCN#: ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEM N/A *EMS-01* Effective Date: 6/30/16 EMS-01 Number: EMS-01 Use Category: INFORMATION Major Rev: 014 Minor Rev: 001 Title: Environmental Management System Program Description Page: 2 of 81 DESCRIPTION OF CHANGES Justification (required for major revision) Update is the result of the annual procedure review (AR 347279) and to address deficiency identified in CR 335161 and CR 335225. Page(s) Description (including summary, reason, initiating document, if applicable) All Updated reference to GBP-REC-02 and SWP-REC-02. All Minor spelling and grammar corrections. All Removed outdated reference to GBP-ENV-12 and replaced with RPI-29.0. 6 Section 5.0 - Updated management section. 11 Section 8.9 - Removed outdated reference to RPI-20.0 and referenced E&RP SharePoint for list of permits. 13 Section 9.2 - Removed revision dates of PSM-5.7. 15 Section 9.3 – Added reference to GBP-PUR-02. 28 Section 9.8 - Added reference to GBP-REC-03 to section on public record request. Added reference to the Regulatory Communication Database on SharePoint. 31-32 Section 9.10 - Added reference to GBP-PRO-01 to relevant procedure section for document control. Clarified document control requirements (CR 335161). 33-34 Section 9.11 – Updated records management requirements to address protection and storage of environmental records (CR 335225). 44 Section 9.16 – Removed third paragraph that discussed GBP-ENV-12 requires mangers are informed of environmental issues.
    [Show full text]
  • FEDERAL REGISTER INDEX January–October 2019
    FEDERAL REGISTER INDEX January–October 2019 Nuclear Regulatory Commission Ground Water Protection at Uranium In Situ Recovery Facilities – 574 RULES ( Jan 31); 6979 ( Mar 1) Access Authorization and Fitness-for-Duty Determinations – 43667 ( Aug 22) Harmonization of Transportation Safety Requirements with IAEA Adjustment of Civil Penalties for Inflation for Fiscal Year 2019 – 2433 ( Feb 7) Standards – 14898 ( Apr 12) Advanced Power Reactor 1400 (APR1400) Design Certification – 23439 List of Approved Spent Fuel Storage Casks: ( May 22) Holtec International HI-STORM 100 Cask System, Certificate of Compliance No. 1014, Amendment No. 13 – 6086 ( Feb 26) Advanced Power Reactor 1400 Design Certification – 41885 ( Aug 16) Holtec International HI-STORM 100 Multipurpose Canister Cask System, Clarification of Export Reporting Requirements for Nuclear Facilities, Certificate of Compliance No. 1014, Amendment No. 14 – 52815 Equipment, and Non-Nuclear Materials – 12483 ( Apr 2) ( Oct 3) Final State Agreement: Holtec International Storage, Transport and Repository 100 Storage Vermont: Discontinuance of Certain Commission Regulatory Authority System, Certificate of Compliance No. 1008, Amendment No. within the State – 51365 ( Sep 30) 3 – 43729 ( Aug 22) List of Approved Spent Fuel Storage Casks: NAC International NAC-UMS Universal Storage System, Certificate of Holtec International HI-STORM 100 Cask System, Certificate of Compliance Compliance No. 1015, Amendment No. 7 – 21728 ( May 15) No. 1014, Amendment No. 13 – 6055 ( Feb 26); 16201 ( Apr 18) Measurement Standards Used at U.S. Nuclear Power Plants – 21727 Holtec International HI-STORM 100 Multipurpose Canister Cask System, ( May 15) Certificate of Compliance No. 1014, Amendment No. 14 – 52747 Measurement Standards Used at U.S. Nuclear Power Plants; ( Oct 3) Correction – 33710 ( Jul 15) Holtec International HI-STORM 100 Multipurpose Canister Cask System, Certificate of Compliance No.
    [Show full text]
  • Economic Impacts of the Columbia Generating Station an Analysis by the Nuclear Energy Institute
    ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF THE COLUMBIA GENERATING STATION AN ANALYSIS BY THE NUCLEAR ENERGY INSTITUTE JANUARY 2018 1 Economic Impacts of the Analysis by the January 2018 Columbia Generating Station Nuclear Energy Institute TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary ................................................................................................... 2 Historical Background ............................................................................................... 4 National, State and Regional Benefits ................................................................. 5 Community Leadership and Environmental Protection .................................. 7 Economic Impact Analysis Methodology ......................................................... 10 Conclusion ................................................................................................................... 11 © 2018 Nuclear Energy Institute, Inc., Economic Impacts of the Columbia Generating Station all rights reserved. No part of this report may be reproduced, transmitted or modified without written permission of the Nuclear Energy Institute, Inc. 2 Economic Impacts of the Analysis by the January 2018 Columbia Generating Station Nuclear Energy Institute Columbia’s operations Columbia provides over support over $690 million 3,930 jobs, in economic output, including more than including more than 2,830 jobs $475 million in Washington. in Washington. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Columbia Generating Station (Columbia), located To quantify the economic impacts of this facility,
    [Show full text]
  • The Risks of Reviving TVA's Bellefonte Project Report Prepared
    The Risks of Reviving TVA's Bellefonte Project Report Prepared for Southern Alliance for Clean Energy (SACE) Fairewinds Associates, Inc Arnie Gundersen, Chief Engineer August 3, 2011 Table of Contents Introduction and Background....................................................................................3 Bellefonte’s Unique Design.........................................................................................3 Quality Assurance (QA) Breakdown..........................................................................9 Cannibalization ........................................................................................................12 Containment Issues...................................................................................................14 Historical Precedent .................................................................................................20 Post Fukushima Lessons Learned ............................................................................22 Conclusion ................................................................................................................22 Attachments..............................................................................................................24 Page 2 of 24 Introduction and Background The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) has requested permission from the NRC to complete construction and begin operation of the previously terminated TVA Bellefonte Nuclear Unit 1 located in Hollywood, Alabama. At this point in time, TVA believes it may be
    [Show full text]
  • A Comparative Analysis of Nuclear Facility Siting Using Coalition Opportunity Structures and the Advocacy Coalition Framework
    UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA GRADUATE COLLEGE ORDER IN A CHAOTIC SUBSYSTEM: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF NUCLEAR FACILITY SITING USING COALITION OPPORTUNITY STRUCTURES AND THE ADVOCACY COALITION FRAMEWORK A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE FACULTY in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY By KUHIKA GUPTA Norman, Oklahoma 2013 ORDER IN A CHAOTIC SUBSYSTEM: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF NUCLEAR FACILITY SITING USING COALITION OPPORTUNITY STRUCTURES AND THE ADVOCACY COALITION FRAMEWORK A DISSERTATION APPROVED FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF POLITICAL SCIENCE BY ______________________________ Dr. Hank C. Jenkins-Smith, Chair ______________________________ Dr. Carol L. Silva, Co-Chair ______________________________ Dr. Christopher M. Weible ______________________________ Dr. Deven E. Carlson ______________________________ Dr. Jill A. Irvine © Copyright by KUHIKA GUPTA 2013 All Rights Reserved. Dedication For my incredible parents, Anil and Alpana Gupta, for making all of this possible, and my husband, Joseph T. Ripberger, for being a constant inspiration. Acknowledgements This dissertation would not be possible were it not for the invaluable support I have received throughout my journey as an undergraduate at Delhi University in India, a graduate student at the University of Warwick in England, and my pursuit of a doctorate at the University of Oklahoma in the United States. During my time at Delhi University, Ramu Manivannan was an amazing mentor who taught me the value of making a difference in both academia and the real world. My greatest debt is to Hank Jenkins-Smith and Carol Silva at the University of Oklahoma, whose encouragement, guidance, and intellectual advice has made this journey possible. I am deeply grateful for their unending support; this dissertation would not exist without them.
    [Show full text]
  • Energy Northwest No 1. (WNP): Environmental Assessment And
    August 31, 2006 Mr. J. V. Parrish Chief Executive Officer Energy Northwest P.O. Box 968 (Mail Drop 1023) Richland, WA 99352-0968 SUBJECT: ENERGY NORTHWEST NUCLEAR PROJECT NO. 1: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT FOR TERMINATION OF CONSTRUCTION PERMIT CPPR-134 (TAC NO. MC9245) Dear Mr. Parrish: Enclosed is a copy of the Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact related to your request dated August 9, 2005, and supplemented by letter dated July 7, 2006, that Construction Permit No. CPPR-134 be terminated. The environmental assessment is being forwarded to the Office of the Federal Register for publication. Sincerely, /RA/ Brian J. Benney, Project Manager Plant Licensing Branch IV Division of Operating Reactor Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket No. 50-460 Enclosure: As stated cc w/encl: See next page August 31, 2006 Mr. J. V. Parrish Chief Executive Officer Energy Northwest P.O. Box 968 (Mail Drop 1023) Richland, WA 99352-0968 SUBJECT: ENERGY NORTHWEST NUCLEAR PROJECT NO. 1: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT FOR TERMINATION OF CONSTRUCTION PERMIT CPPR-134 (TAC NO. MC9245) Dear Mr. Parrish: Enclosed is a copy of the Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact related to your request dated August 9, 2005, and supplemented by letter dated July 7, 2006, that Construction Permit No. CPPR-134 be terminated. The environmental assessment is being forwarded to the Office of the Federal Register for publication. Sincerely, /RA/ Brian J. Benney, Project Manager Plant Licensing Branch IV Division of Operating Reactor Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket No.
    [Show full text]
  • Energy Northwest
    BONNEVILLE POWER ADMINISTRATION Fact Sheet May 2018 Energy Northwest: Delivering value to BPA and the Northwest The relationship between BPA and Energy Northwest is unique among “Energy Northwest’s Columbia Generating the Bonneville Power Administration’s Station is a valuable, around-the-clock energy suppliers. Energy Northwest generating resource that supports BPA’s mission of delivering reliable, clean and and BPA have a shared responsibility affordable power to our utility customers for the Columbia Generating Station throughout the Northwest.” that runs much deeper than a power purchase agreement. — Elliot Mainzer, administrator and chief executive officer, BPA The simplest statement of the relationship is that Energy Northwest owns and operates the Columbia Generating Station, the Northwest’s only commercial nuclear power plant, while BPA funds the nuclear plant and markets its power. Bonneville and Energy Northwest both seek excellent plant performance as defined through measurements of safety, power generation, reliability and efficiency. Energy Northwest, a joint action agency of the state of Washington, currently made up of 27 of public utilities, also has helped BPA refinance and manage debt, resulting in hundreds of millions of dollars in savings to BPA ratepayers. Power benefits Columbia is an integral part of BPA’s energy portfolio. BPA provides about 30 percent of the electricity consumed in the Northwest. Of that, Columbia provides about 1,200 megawatts, or approximately 13 percent of BPA’s firm energy resource, making it the region’s third largest power resource behind Grand Coulee and Chief Columbia Generating Station Joseph dams. That’s enough energy for about one million homes or 4 percent of the region’s power.
    [Show full text]
  • Kewaunee Power Station Applicant's Environmental Report Operating
    Kewaunee Power Station Applicant’s Environmental Report Operating License Renewal Stage Kewaunee Power Station Applicant’s Environmental Report Table of Contents Operating License Renewal Stage TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page Acronyms and Abbreviations..............................................................................................AA-1 Chapter 1 - Introduction .......................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Purpose of and Need for Action .................................................................................. 1-1 1.2 Environmental Report Scope and Methodology.......................................................... 1-1 1.3 Kewaunee Power Station Licensee and Ownership ................................................... 1-2 1.4 References.................................................................................................................. 1-5 Chapter 2 - Site and Environmental Interfaces ..................................................................... 2-1 2.1 Location and Features ................................................................................................ 2-1 2.2 Aquatic Ecological Communities................................................................................. 2-3 2.3 Groundwater Resources ............................................................................................. 2-9 2.4 Critical and Important Terrestrial Habits ...................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Assessment of the Nuclear Power Industry
    Assessment of the Nuclear Power Industry – Final Report June 2013 Navigant Consulting, Inc. For EISPC and NARUC Funded by the U.S. Department of Energy Assessment of the Nuclear Power Industry Study 5: Assessment of the Location of New Nuclear and Uprating Existing Nuclear Whitepaper 5: Consideration of other Incentives/Disincentives for Development of Nuclear Power prepared for Eastern Interconnection States’ Planning Council and National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners prepared by Navigant Consulting, Inc. Navigant Consulting, Inc. 77 South Bedford Street, Suite 400 Burlington, MA 01803 781.270.0101 www.navigant.com Table of Contents Forward ....................................................................................................................................... ix Basic Nuclear Power Concepts ................................................................................................ 1 Executive Summary ................................................................................................................... 5 1. BACKGROUND .................................................................................................................... 9 1.1 Early Years – (1946-1957) ........................................................................................................................ 9 1.1.1 Shippingport ............................................................................................................................. 11 1.1.2 Power Reactor Demonstration Program ..............................................................................
    [Show full text]