Some experts say that it is safe, efficient, and a major step toward U.S. energy independence. Others maintain that it is too dangerous and costly. In any event,fierce controversy swirls around
The breeder reactor project
Breeder reaclor. Arli.w’.y rendering shows rhe 375-MW Clinch Ricer planr in Oak Ridge. Tenn.
On the evening of Sept. 21, 1982, Percy Brewington, Jr., acting director of the Clinch River Breeder Reactor Project (CRBRP, Oak Ridge, Tenn.) for the U S . Department of Energy, picked up a chain saw and brought down the first tree for harvest at the project’s 1364-acre site. That same day, the U S . Court of Appeals for the I I t h Circuit had dissolved an injunction prohibiting thecommencement of site preparation work. The court order was one of a series of ups and downs that have characterized the project ever since the federal government’s 1972 decision to construct a liquid metal fast breeder reactor (LMFBR) demonstration plant at Oak Ridge-a reactor that would produce 1.4 times more fissionable plutonium fuel than it consumes (ES&T, October 1981, p. 1132). Other events include votes in Congress 406A
Environ. Sci. Technol.. VOI. 17. NO. 9. 1983
to stop all breeder funding, only to have thesevotes reversed subsequently. President Jimmy Carter made it a matter of first priority to ‘‘kill’’ the project, but was unable to do so, despite the power of his office. As things stand now, the breeder project could lose its funding after the end of this month, unless the private sector comes up with more than $1 billion. Unlikely though it may seem, electric utilities may yet commit themselves to providing these funds. In fact, in late June, a IO-utility task force devised a plan to raise $1 billion through a 30-year bond issue and certain other investment “vehicles” to be paid off through sales of the breeder’s electricity. If sales fall short, the federal government would guarantee the difference. At the time, the plan was considered a long shot for congressional approval.
Some experts familiar with the project have likened it to “The Perils of Pauline” of early moving picture days. In that series, the heroine appears ready to meet her doom, only to be dramatically rescued by the hero at the I Ith hour and 59th minute. The breeder reactor project so far seems to have led a similarly charmed life. But recently one of the breeder project’s principal rescuers, Sen. Howard Baker (R-Tenn.), announced that he will not stand up for reelection to the U S . Senate. What effect his departure may have on the project’s future remains to be seen. However, conventional wisdom has it that the effort would most likely be set back.
A picture of uncertainty The history and future of the breeder reactor present a picture of uncertainty; the project has been a
0013-936X/83/0916-0406A$01.50/0
0 1983 American Chemical Society
subject of intense controversy from the beginning. Proponents see it as a major step toward energy independence. They maintain that the cast, which they acknowledge has risen considerably faster than the inflation rate, will eventually be paid back not only in domestic energy independence but in technical know-how. They even foresee eventual profitability of this electric power source on a commercial scale and add that it can be safer than today’s nuclear light water reactors (LWRs), for example. On the other hand, critics of the project point out that the breeder would produce plutonium and be cooled by liquid sodium. Possibilities for accidental or deliberate harm to the en3ironment. or conversion of plutonium-239 (2@u) for use in weapons, rather than as fuel, are greatly enhanced. Critics also argue that if and when the breeder is completed, it would constitute an outmoded technology and add that several foreign countries are ahead of the U.S. in
U.S.S.R.
breeder technology (Table 1). CRBRP detractors decry the costs involved, which they maintain will never be recovered no matter how efficiently the breeder operates. Capital costs were estimated at $700 million in 1972. They are now put at $3.6 billion, upwards of five times the original forecast. Indeed, a recent U S . General Accounting Office (GAO) report suggests that the 1972 number could be increased by a factor of more than 12, to $8.8 billion. Alvin Weinberg, director of the Institute for Energy Analysis of Oak Ridge Associated Universities, vehemently disagrees with G A O s $8.8 billion projection. “Serious errors were made in GAOs estimate,” he told ES&T. Spokesmen for the breeder project say that GAO made assumptions about inflation, operation and maintenance costs, and electricity demand and prices projected far into the future-as much as 37 years-and included $3.9 billion of imputed interest
costs associated with the federal debt.
Sodium loops The phrase “liquid metal” in the 375-MW LMFBR refers to the liquid sodium used to cool the reactor and to transfer heat to water, which will produce steam to run the electric generators (Figure 1). Project critics express fears of intense fires that would result if the sodium ever came into contact with air or water. Breeder engineers counter that “sodium oxidizes slowly; there are no intense fires. Experience with the BN-350 [a 350-MW breeder at Fort Shevchenko on the Caspian Sea, U.S.S.R.] showed that the sodiumwater interactions could be ‘lived with.’ ’’ The word “fast” means that neutrons in the reactor core move rapidly-about 7600 km/s, as opposed to 2.24 km/s in a slow breeder, or light water reactor. Finally, the term “breeder” represents the “breeding” capability of the reactor to produce
BOR-60. Ulymovskaya, Dimitrwgrad BU350,” Shevchenkovskaya, Shevchenko. on Casplsn
SBa
BWOO, Ewloyarskaya. neat Sverdlovsk EN-1600(planned) Scotland Douneay, Caiiness, Scotland
1959 250
1965
1300 CDFR (planned) commercial weration. 163 (1 e: 40 ~ ~ n b l outside es me us.. f a nuclear r e a c t ~ of s all sats.207. representmg 105 823 MW)are undw consbucnon; 13 (12 574 k$Wlare on order:a M 172 (159 963 MW)are in some firm s t a p of pianning This representsa total of 555
I”
unifa(414 062MW).of Which 15 are breeders. e S t a b as 01 Dec 31, 1982. all liqulf mtal type Uses d u m m1art1loaps as wkl LMBR at Clinch River
Wm SCtuaHy wmmled eiacaicW dUses a pmldssi[yltar me sodium w i a n t e In WllabwaUanurith
Beteium. Italy, West Germany. Luxembourg, and The Netherlands
’In cotiarmratian wlth aelg~wn.The Nemeriands. United Kingdom 9 In &labaation wlth Fmce and Italy was p w also as a water dBsaWnatitlOn plant an me Caspian sea.reponedly suffered sodium Ires and explosi Sovse:Almic Industrial Faum (tor statistics) _..^ I^ -
_ p
Enviran. Sci. Techml.. Vol. 17, ,W.9, 1983
I 407A
more fissionable plutonium (z@u) fuel than it uses, through the fast neutron bombardment of and absorption by uranium-238 (’,’,”U) the most abundant uranium isotope. is not usable in LWRs because it is not fissionable. ’@u, derived from light water reactors, is the “match” necessary to start the breeder’s chain reaction (Figure 2 and Table 2). As operations continue, other isotopes of Pu (240-242) can be used in the breeder. The 241 isotope is fissionable. The neutron-absorbing 240 and 242 isotopes are not; nevertheless, they increase the reactor’s plutonium breeding ratio. Breeder experts point out that the presence of the nonfmionable isotopes renders the plutonium less desirable for weapons manufacture than Dlutonium from a low-fuel burnup reactor. The liquid sodium (Na) coolant, with a melting point of -207 OF, enters the reactor at 730 “F and leaves at 995 O F . Only a minuscule portion of the sodium is converted to the radioactive isotope ::Na-but that is another reason critics dislike the breeder. Weinberg reminded ES&T that the isotope’s half-life is 14.8 h. The sodium is pumped through the primary loop, through the reactor itself, and then through the intermediate heat exchanger. Its heat is transferred to the sodium in a second, or intermediate loop, and that sodium is pumped
*;a
FIGURE 1
Liquid metal fast breeder reactor
408A
Envlron. Sci. Technol.. VoI. 17, No. 9. 1983
through the intermediate sodium pump. The sodium in the secondary loop, in turn, transfers its heat to the water-steam component, and the steam drives the electric generator . (Figure 3). Other advantages of liauid sodium are its high boiling point, dbviating the need for pressurization of the breeder reactor’s coolant, and the fact that its heat brings the steam that drives the generator to 900 OF. This makes the breeder more thermally efficient than a reactor where the steam is at 500 O F , such as in an LWR. [In a coal-fired power plant, the steam driving the generators is normally at 925-1000 OF, engineers of Potomac Electric Power Company (Washington, D.C.) told ES& TI. The relatively short half-life of
whatever amount of :Na that there may be makes it possible to remove, repair, and reinstall the primary pump after as short a time as 12 days. Experience with such repairs was obtained at the Experimental Breeder Reactor EBR-11, near Idaho Falls, Idaho. In operation since 1963, EBR-I1 is a follow-up to EBR-I (Arm, Idaho), operated by Argonne National Laboratory from 1951 to 1963toprove breeder feasibility and test liquid sodium coolant technology. A third breeder was the Fermi reactor, operated in Michigan starting in 1963. Fermi suffered a partial core meltdown in 1968, resumed operations in 1971, and was subsequently taken out of service, principally for economic reasons. William Rolf, general manager of Project Management Corporation, a nonprofit organization responsible for the interests of utilities with respect to the CRBRP, addressed the possibility of liquid sodium coming into contact with air or water: “First of all, the sodium coolant systems are equipped with the most up-t+date leak detectors and guard vessels. Any sodium leak would trigger a shutdown of that system while the sodium level is maintained high enough to ensure core cooling. Sodium overflow vessels also help to maintain proper levels. “The cooling system has ‘cold traps’ designed to make certain that oxygen
levels in the sodium never exceed 10 ppm,” Rolf pointed out. An advantage of oxygen-free liquid sodium is that given the noncorrosive “atmosphere” it creates, as compared with conditions created by a water coolant, it cannot corrode (oxidize) metals such as iron. He said that sodium’s noncorrosivity was proven during 20 years of operating the EBR-I1 plant. This absence of corrosion offers a side benefit of reducing the radiation exposure of operation and maintenance personnel to about 1% of that experienced at an LWR. Rolf said that these data were obtained from French nuclear scientists based on 10 years of experience with the 250-MW Phenix breeder as well as on their data from LWRs.
controlled by project participants,” also received blame. In discussing these cost overruns, Rolf was referring to a report by DOE‘S inspector general (“Audit of the Clinch River Breeder Plant Project,” U S . Department of Energy, Office of the Inspector General, DOE/lG-O185,July 21, 1982).
Rolf:explained safety fealures of rhe sodium cooling system
did in other portions of the economy. Second, costs for certain materials, construction,and labor moved upward. Gilinsky, who acknowledges his lack of The project’s present status enthusiasm for the CRBRP, also sugAs of June, project research and gested that original cost estimates may development was said to be 98% com- have been made low “in order to avoid plete and plant design 90% finished. ‘spooking’ members of Congress who Expenditures on the CRBRP totaled must appropriate funds for such $1.469 billion. The value of major projects.” Moreover, when the original components completed and in storage cost estimates were made, those who or undergoing tests was almost $360 made them “hadn’t anticipated a lot of million, according to Breeder Reactor thines. and oromised too much.” GilCorporation (BRC, Oak Ridge, insky said. Taking issue with Gilinsky, Rolf Tenn.), the 753-utility consortium helping to finance the project. The plan cited cost increases. now Dut at $936 is to complete and start operating the million, which he chargesire “the direactor beginning in 1989. This will be rect result of delays caused by the nasubject to congressional funding, the tional policy debate initiated in 1977 outcome of further Nuclear Regula- by President Carter. In April 1977, the tory Commission (NRC) licensing Carter administration requested that actions, and any present or future liti- the environmental hearings [on the CRBRP] be ‘indefinitely postponed.’ gation. Why did costs escalate at a rate in Hearings were restarted in August excess of that of inflation? NRC 1982, and successfully completed in Commissioner Victor Gilinsky offered January 1983. The net result was a ES& T several explanations. First of five-year delay and corresponding cost all, increasing interest rates may have increases.” Circumstances “external played an important role, just as they to the project,” which “could not be
Arguments pro The present cost estimate for the CRBRP “breaks my heart,” said Alvin Weinberg, a veteran of the World War I1 Manhattan Project. “But since we’ve gone this far, we should finish the reactor and learn from it. If solar and fusion energy make sense, so does the breeder, because of its potential for ‘inexhaustible’ energy. “The US. erred not to go ahead with Clinch River 12 years ago, and by interposing the FFTF [Fast-Flux Test Facility, a reactor at Hanford, Wash., which tests breeder fuel but does not itself breed] instead.” Weinberg continued, “Let’s finish the reactor. Yes, it’s grievously expensive, but it may still pay off if it is followed by commercial breeders.” On the other hand, Gilinsky argued that the FFTF “did make sense, because one can test different fuel designs, and not choose one too early, especially when there is no urgency to do so.” Looking to the future, Weinberg observed, “We may not need inexhaustible energy for another 75 years. But 75 years is not all that long a time for developing prime energy. And if we will be deploying commercial breeders 75 years from now, and plan them to last 30 years, we must run our demonstration reactor now, so we will learn over the next 30 years. That’s why it’s a disgrace that the Clinch River
_. ~~
Uranium-to-plutonium reaction
Environ. Sci. Technol.. Vol. 17, No. 9.1983
409A
FIGURE 3
Breeder reactor heat transport and power generation
I
megawatts thermal power
%W,
Source: U.S Depanment 01 Energy
breeder has been delayed for so long.” Another argument advanced in support of the CRBRP has been that supplies of low-cost natural uranium, such as that used in the LWR and other once-through ‘‘burner’’ reactors, are limited and would be enormously extended with the LMFBR. Moreover, as Rolf explained, there is a stockpile of ’;@ (up to 3 x 105 metric tons) ready to use in the breeder immediately. It is made as a by-product of separation for ‘‘burner’’ reactors, submarines, and weapons. Rolf estimates the total current value of the stockpiled yz$Jat a mind-boggling $60 trillion. All of that uranium could yield u wards of 2 X lo5 metric tons of ’94 for use in both breeder and burner reactors, he points out. Still other arguments for the project include the nearly $1.5 billion already spent, equipment procured, and the more than 2000 technical, scientific, and administrative people trained for the CRBRP, all of which would be lost if the project does not go forward. In addition, in the late 197Os, the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) and British nuclear power authorities jointly announced a technology called
z22v
CIVEX, which they said would produce plutonium of sufficient quality to fuel burner and breeder reactors, but not pure enough to be convertible to weapons grade except with almost insurmountable technical difficulty. Arguments con One major argument against the breeder reactor is its accelerating capital cost. Indeed, if the cost escalates much further, one might expect that the present strong pressures to discontinue the project will become even greater, regardless of what may theoretically be learned if the LMFBR
hl
410A
Environ. Sci. Technol.. Vol. 17, NO.9. I983
plenfy of uranium“
were to be completed and operated. In June, the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee balked at providing $270 million to continue construction of the project during fiscal year 1984 unless the private sector would furnish at least $800 million. Opponents also are very unhappy at the prospects of increasing amounts of 4% ;’ that a breeder would produce. First of all, plutonium is toxic. Some experts believe, for example, that an extremely small amount of plutonium inhaled or entering the body through breaks in the skin could readily cause lung cancer, tumors a t other sites, or other toxic symptoms. The toxicity of plutonium serves as a basis for critics’ fears that terrorists may try to obtain it and threaten to contaminate, say, a given city’s air with plutonium aerosols, or actually do so (Weinberg’s comment to ES&T is that this is “pretty remote; botulism would be a much easier weapon”). Another fear is that terrorists may steal or divert ’221 for 1 weapons manufacture. Some opponents also suggest that if such happenings are to be prevented, security precautions might have to be taken at the expense of certain civil liberties. They add that
FIGURE 4
Breeder fuel cycle I
Source: U.S. Department 01 Energy
diversion of fuel could occur during its transport to and from reactors, at reactors, or at reprocessing plants. And with an LMFBR, there must be reprocessing in order to recover or recycle plutonium (Figure 4). Kerry OBanion, formerly of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (Calif.) and now with the U.S. General Services Administration, has pointed out that the whole justification for the breeder’s existence is that it duces-theoretically-more thanituses(ES&T,October 1 9 8 1 , ~ . 1132). But could the EPRI/British CIVEX system prevent breeder plutonium use in bombs? “Yes,”said Gilinsky, “ifthe plutonium is recycled in less than one year. And no one will recycle this fuel that quickly. The special radioactive isotope that is left in to make it so difficult to fabricate the plutonium into weapons decays with a half-life of about one year.” Quoting a 1980 report by the International Nuclear Fuel Cycle Evaluation Working Group that addressed the issue of proliferation, Rolf said that “the diversion risks encountered in the ,various steps of the breeder cycle present no greater difficulty than those
*,Yo-
of the LWR with a uranium-plutonium recycle, or even with a oncethrough cycle, in the longer term. Thus,” Rolf continued, “we are left with the choice of having other countries that are developing breeder plants set the rules for world use of plutonium, if we drop out of breeder development.” Fast breeder critics also are uneasy about the use of liquid sodium as a coolant. Sodium is extremely reactive chemically with air and water. If for some reason one or more of the liquid sodium loops failed and the sodium escaped into air or water, the resultant reactions could under the right conditions have flame temperatures hot enough to melt stainless steel and reactor materials. Rolf says that these “right” conditions cannot occur in a breeder reactor. OBanion says that a sodium coolant failure could lead to a breach in containment and to a mobilization of activation products through the oxidation of structural materials. Also, in the absence of cooling by sodium, and given the increased reactivity and higher heat in a breeder than in a burner (because of “fast” neutrons), a serious mishap in the core itself could
occur (ES&T, October 1981, p. 1134). Gilinsky suggested to ES&T that the argument that breeders are needed to enhance a dwindling supply of scarce uranium is no longer valid. The original contention, he said, was that by the year 2000, there would be 1200 gigawatts of total power generated by nuclear reactors in the US.,which would rapidly consume the available “As things turned out, only 10% or so of that gigawattage of nuclear plants will be built, and then we will be on a plateau,” Gilinsky predicted. He added, “There is much more uranium than we first thought-enough for many decades-so incentives for the CRBRP are reduced. We also thought that the price of uranium would go so high that plutonium would compete, but just the opposite happened. And reprocessing costs are about IO times more than we estimated they would he.”
*;a.
Waste products A burner reactor, such as an LWR, produces irradiation and waste products that must eventually be handled and disposed of somewhere. So does the breeder. To be sure, plutonium Environ. Sci. Technol., VOI. 17, No. 9, 1983
4llA
(2:4%) would not be a component, since it would be recovered and reused in burners and breeders. But there are other elementstransuranium “actinides” such as 21% 238-24p 24’.a!lAm, and242,2#Cm 91 P. 94 u, (americium and curium, res ectivel ), as well as nonactinide ‘g, P];Kr, ‘&I, Y and ‘24%e. OBanion has described waste from the reprocessing plant as an acidic liquid that must decay radioactively in tanks for several years before it can be vitrified and placed in long-term repositories (ES&T ,October 1 9 8 1 , ~1133). . On the other hand, breeder proponents point out that all of the actinides, of which plutonium is but one, can be consumed in a breeder. This would reduce the half-life of the waste isotopes from lo5 y to less than a century, Rolf said. He added that a test capsule was sent from Oak Ridge National Laboratory to the British Prototype Fast Reactor in 1979. It contained americium and curium to test the nuclear cross-section for use as fuel in breeder reactors. As for other products, such as SgSr and ::’Cs, “you get about the same types after reprocessing as you do from the LWR,” Gilinsky said. “You don’t get as much in the
way of uranium mine tailings, because you don’t need to mine as much uranium for breeders.” But Rolf reminded ES& T that the amount of waste generated, and repository space therefore needed, is proportional to the energy generated by a reactor. He maintains that breeders are 15%more thermally efficient than LWRs, so there would be 15% less waste per unit of energy produced by a breeder than by an LWR. Will there be a US. breeder? When the question, “will the breeder be built in the US.?”is asked, the answer is that three have already been built in Idahoand Michigan. “It’s funny, you know-civilian nuclear energy started with breeders,” Gilinsky observed. “Remember that at the time of Enrico Fermi and the Manhattan Project and immediately there after, uranium was thought to be scarce. So the scientists of that era counseled, ‘use all isotopes,’ which meant that breeders would be necessary. Who could tell at the time that this conventional wisdom concerning uranium would turn out not to be fact?” So perhaps the question should be rephrased: “will the CIinch Riuer
breeder reactor be built?” I t has its vigorous champions and vociferous opponents. It is vigorously supported by the present administration. And while its congressional support may appear to be weakening, a privatesector funding plan seemed to be developing as this went to press. Much money, time, and effort have gone into the LMFBR since 1972; a great deal of “hardware” has been procured, and several thousand jobs have been created. Moreover, if the project is abandoned, shutdown costs could be high. Government estimates range between $44.5 million and $1 billion. However, nuclear power industry experts speak about higher figures that could represent lawsuits by money-contributing utilities, site landscaping expenses, and firm contracts for equipment that would be rendered useless. Balancing these and related factors against the powerful economic and political opposition pressures the CRBRP is facing, ES& T will make the “unabashed assessment” that, as seen from the vantage point of July 1983, the chances of the project going forward to successfulcompletion stand at slightly higher than 50-50. -Julian Josephson
electrochemical detectors for liquid chromatography l6 I I -
I1
‘P
In 1974 BAS i d u c e d the first commercial LCEC vstem. With OYer 5ooo unlts installed and the largest research team to suppat them,Ys not wrprlslng that our neareu compemOrr are several geqerations behlnd us. Our thin-layer nrrnrducers lead the way with a wide selection of electrode materials In a wdeiy of interchangeable configurations. The laten members of the family are tevealed In the new L W / i 7 dual elemode amperomehy padcage. Parallel and seties ampermew can e n h c e selecHvity, detedon limits, speed and gradient compdibllity. Let us Ihow you how it’s done, no me else can. Write or call fa a detailed wessmm of your nuce analpis
F[
io
20 W E S
h l Parallel Mode LCEC: Sirnuhanews defea
[ba/l bioanalytical tytteml _._ .
.._..,-,S W 2 L
1205 Kent Avenue, West Lofoyette. IN 4 7 9 0 6 (317) 463-2505 T u 276141
Ducher Co. (Dosel) SWEDEN Skandinm~skCenetec (Kungsbocko) K O W d n Sung ScientIRc (Seoul) ITALY Anoly?lcal Connd 11(311o(Ciniselk mo) WQ: Diochrom said. (Vindelle) CANAD*: Mondel kienffic (Rodnracd.Ont.) UI:Anochem Ltd. (Luton) AUSIRWP xQ Instruments Warellan) B W L : Eldan Electronics (Jewxllem) ,
(
412A
Envimn. Sci. Technol.. VoI. 17, NO. 9, 1983
READER SWVlcE CARD
