Joint Congressional Committee on Atomic Energy (JCAE), the AEC issued for public information on April 12, 1972, an environmental statement on the Liquid Metal Fast Breeder Reactor Demonstration Plant. This statement (AEC Report WASH-1509) updated an earlier draft statement that was issued in July 1971 and reflects the comments received from agencies of the Federal Government, environmental organizations, and the public. It also references other pertinent material, previously published, related to these issues, including the rather extensive bibliography, TID-3333, parts I and II, of research and development on sodium-cooled reactors conducted over the last 23-year period. The specific responses to the comments received on the earlier draft statement are also included in WASH-1509. This statement contains the most comprehensive analysis of all environmental implications of the plant yet available and includes detailed discussions on such topics as thermal effects, radioactive waste storage, transportation of radioactive material, plutonium toxicity, and safeguards. Later, in the course of the demonstration plant project, the AEC plans to issue more detailed statements which will then provide the additional information necessary to assess further the environmental impacts of the plant.

TOXICITY OF PLUTONIUM

Senator STENNIS. Concern over the toxic nature of the plutonium that will be used in the LMFBR has been expressed by a number of scientists and the public. Explain the nature of this problem as it relates to the design of the LMFBR and also to public health and safety.

Mr. SHAW. The toxicity and other potentially hazardous properties of plutonium have been recognized from the time the element was discovered. Research on the biological factors involved in the control of plutonium hazards has been conducted for 25 years and is continuing. The excellent record in controlling plutonium hazards in the nuclear power industry has resulted largely from the increase in knowledge of its physiological and toxicological behavior that has kept pace with its greater availability. Research and development on the properties of plutonium relating to the safety and other aspects of its use as a nuclear fuel has been continually underway in the United States and other countries for 20 years. More recently much industrial experience is being generated with plutonium handling and shipping as a result of using the oxide fuel in commercial light water reactors.

The fuel for the LMFBR will be mixed oxides of plutonium and uranium (PuO2-UO2). This mixed oxide is a noncombustible, dense, and refractory material that is most difficult to reduce to particles of respirable size even under postulated reactor accident conditions. Some of the uranium in the fuel, as well as that in the blanket in the fast reactor, will be converted to plutonium during the course of reactor operation. However, this plutonium and fission products of the spent fuel would constitute a hazard only if there were some way in which it could escape from the separate protective barriers of fuel cladding, primary coolant system, primary systems compartments and containment with which it is surrounded and somehow enter the environment. Providing assurance that radioactive material will not escape has been

one of the important objectives of the AEC's program in the development of water-cooled reactors, and will continue to receive primary emphasis in the development of the LMFBR. The necessity for safe operation of the LMFBR has been considered in great detail during preliminary conceptual design and will be extensively evaluated during the safety reviews required to obtain the construction permit and the operating license. Adequate precautions have been developed to assure the safe handling of plutonium and to avoid its release to the environment. These precautions are applied to all phases of fuel fabrication, handling, storage, transportation, and reprocessing. These matters are discussed in WASH-1509.

CORE COOLING SYSTEM

Senator STENNIS. Will the LMFBR use the same kind of energy core cooling system as used on present-day water-cooled reactors? Mr. SHAW. No; the excellent heat convection characteristics of sodium, its high boiling temperatures and the absence of significant amounts of stored energy, insure that practical plant arrangements can be engineered so that emergency core cooling in an LMFBR can be provided by use of the remaining primary heat transfer loops, assuming as in present light water cooled reactors that one loop has failed. Thus, no separate loop or emergency cooling systems for cooling in event of large system ruptures or loss of all pumping power is required in the reactor design. These characteristics and the use of other design features can assure that the core will remain covered with sodium and that the heat transfer system will be capable of removing decay heat even under the most severe accidents reasonably postulated

to occur.

REACTOR CONTROL

Senator STENNIS. Is it true that the LMFBR is more difficult to control than light water reactors, because breeders operate closer to the melting point of their structural materials than do water-cooled re

actors.

Mr. SHAW. The ease of reactor control is related directly to the nuclear characteristics of a reactor core. Light water reactors (thermal reactors) need not respond as quickly as fast reactors, such as the LMFBR, to reactor system or core malfunctions because of their different nuclear characteristics. This, however, is a relative matter that must be considered in the design of the mechanisms for safe control of reactors. It is a fact that fast reactor behavior is well understood and adequate instrumentation, control equipment and procedures are available to provide proper, safe control of fast reactor operations. The LMFBR operating temperature, while higher than for water reactors, is far from the melting point of its structural materials, and thus this temperature difference has little relevance to the control of the reactor. On the other hand, the high reactor operating temperature contributes to the system's high overall thermal efficiency and therefore to a reduced discharge of waste heat.

LMFBR DEPLOYMENT

Senator STENNIS. Concern has been expressed that the commitment to build and operate the first LMFBR demonstration plant represents the beginning of the large-scale deployment of LMFBR's. Would the AEC comment on the state of LMFBR development and on its deployment.

Mr. SHAW. The AEC and others in this country and abroad have been working on the sodium-cooled breeder reactor for more than 25 years. During this time, the breeder passed through periods of exploratory development, laboratory experiment, and conceptual engineering into those stages involving in-depth engineering, manufacturing, and prooftesting of first-of-a-kind components, equipment, and systems. These have been incorporated into experimental installations and supporting test facilities to assure adequate understanding of design and performance characteristics, as well as to gain experience associated with other major operational, economic, and environmental parameters. The LMFBR program is at an advanced state where construction and operation of a 300 to 500 MWe LMFBR plant is the next logical research and development step. It is small enough to permit practical extrapolations of components and to represent a reasonable financial investment at this stage, yet large enough to test the performance of large systems. Such a demonstration plant would show, through actual experience, how all the essential components of the facility function, individually and as a coherent system. In addition, hard information would be obtained on the complex interaction of the system with its associated supporting facilities and with the local environment under actual operating conditions. A firmer grasp would be obtained on the range of costs and technlogical factors of importance to energy development and use. Such information is needed for input into the continued planning of research and development programs for the LMFBR and other advanced reactors. It also would be used for guidance in designing other test facilities and future experimental plants, and for further assessment of the implications of introducing large commercial breeders and other large electric generating plants.

This first and subsequent demonstration plants do not commit the Nation to deployment of commercial breeder nuclear plants. Commitments for commercial liquid metal fast breeder reactors (LMFBR's) would depend on future decisions by utility companies after consideration of available energy source options.

It is not a foregone conclusion that LMFBR's will eventually be deployed. As these research and development efforts progress, the technological uncertainties should become resolved and decision points should be reached that permit development either to proceed with increased confidence or to be canceled. This is particularly true of the demonstration plant phase of research and development. For example, within the combined experience of AEC, industry and foreign nuclear programs there are a number of demonstration nuclear powerplants which are still in operation and contributing to the development program. Some plants made their technological contribution and have been shut down. However, there are other demonstration plants which never reached the definitive contract stage, were terminated at an early phase pursuant to the provisions of the contract, or were essentially

completed but failed significantly to live up to the underlying technological expectations. All of these possibilities are necessarily implicit in such demonstration plant projects.

APPA SUPPORT

Senator STENNIS. The American Public Power Association's (APPA) statement before this committee on May 8, 1972, provided support for the administration's budget request for the AEC. In particular the APPA supported the request to provide increased regulatory personnel, safety research, expansion of uranium enrichment capacity, the LMFBR demonstration plant, and work on dry cooling towers, energy storage, and underground transmission. Do you have any comments on the APPA's statement of support?

Mr. SHAW. Yes, sir; we appreciate the support of the American Public Power Association (APPA) as well as their activities as a part of other ongoing efforts related to research and development activities affecting the Atomic Energy Commission programs. For example, the APPA is actively involved as part of the Senior Utility Steering Committee as well as the Senior Utility Technical Advisory Panel for the LMFBR demonstration plant. Their member organizations, along with the utilities belonging to the Edison Electric Institute (EEI) and National Rural Cooperative Association (NRECA), are contributing approximately $250 million to the first LMFBR demonstration plant and are assisting materially in the guidance of the policies relating to this effort; this is demonstrated by their attendance at all meetings. Additionally, they are members of the Electric Research Council whose interest and pursuit of additional research and development in support of all energy programs have complemented the Commission's efforts. For example, their representatives have been attending industrial group meetings pertinent to safety research programs and have agreed to help guide this most important area.

In summary, APPA's statement of support is reinforced by their active participation in these research and development program efforts as well as by contribution of their management talents to help plan and guide these efforts.

Senator STENNIS. What is the effect on the projected benefits of introducing the LMFBR into the power generation economy if 10 percent discount rate is chosen rather than the 7 percent rate, used in the LMFBR cost-benefit study? On what basis was the 7-percent discount rate chosen?

Mr. SHAW. Before answering this question directly, it is important to understand the reasons for preparing the LMFBR cost-benefit study and other civilian power studies. They serve and will continue to serve the purpose of helping the AEC to discern possible trends, to guide policies and to help assure that development programs will be pertinent to national needs and in conformance with the latest environmental quality standards. The assumptions basic to these studies are a continuing AEC program activity. These assumptions are reviewed, the analysis techniques refined, and the studies updated as appropriate. Thus, it should be clear that the potential economic benefits of the LMFBR can only be presented in terms of possibilities and ranges until it can be supplemented by the hard economic data that would

79-275-72-pt. 5—2

become available with increasing definition as operating experience with demonstration plants is attained.

The LMFBR cost-benefit study, prepared in 1970, reported that the 10-percent discount rate for the 1986 introduction of the breeder reduced the net benefits of the breeder 75 percent from the case where the discount rate was 7 percent. Even at the 10-percent rate, the benefit-to-cost ratio is greater than 3 and thus projects a substantial economic incentive to pursue vigorously the LMFBR program.

In conducting this study, discount rates ranging from 0-12.5 percent were used in order to examine the sensitivity of the benefits to these varying rates.

While the Office of Management and Budget presently requires a 10-percent discount rate in the evaluation of future projects, it also recognized that modeling private practices should use the discount rate appropriate to that sector of the private economy. The 7-percent discount rate was selected as a reference rate in the study because it most nearly represents the after-tax rate of return the utilities must make on investments. There is much historical precedent for the use of this rate.

Senator STENNIS. Recently published reports indicate that there are those who believe that the AEC has been far too conservative in its estimates of uranium resources. Would you comment on the effect that the commercial availability of the LMFBR will have on the price and availability of uranium?

Mr. SHAW. Yes, sir. The AEC estimates are based upon actual exploration and development drilling results, mining and milling cost data and available geologic information. This information is made available for our use by the uranium mining industry. Geologic information is also available from the U.S. Geological Survey and from general minerals industry exploration. It is expected that continued aggressive exploration by the uranium industry will result in the development of additional low-cost uranium resources. However, if one looks at the projected demand for uranium based upon the best estimates of electric power demand, the economic factors involved in power production in a competitive industry and other factors assuming, in one case, that the LMFBR as well as light water reactors are available, to the utility industry and, in another case, assuming that only light water reactors are available, it appears probable that the supply of low-cost uranium would not be adequate for any extended period in the latter case and that the price of uranium could rise quite rapidly. If the LMFBR becomes commercially available in the mid1980 time period, our studies indicate that the demand for uranium can be met without the cost of uranium rising to a point where this cost significantly affects the cost of power.

ENERGY DEMAND

Senator STENNIS. The assumption used in the Atomic energy LMFBR cost-benefit study depended heavily upon the assumption of a continued rising demand for electrical power. What was the basis for the estimates for the electrical energy demand?

Mr. SHAW. The electrical energy demand as reported in WASH1184, "Updated (1970) Cost-Benefit Analysis of the U.S. Breeder