light water reactor which produced at least as much fuel as it consutied? A 350 megawatt heavy water reactor? A 350 megawatt gas cooled reactor?

The question implies obvious concern that the high cost of the 350 megawatt Clinch River liquid metal breeder demonstration plant is specific to the LMFER concept and could be avoided by going by another reactor type. It is very important to realize that all studies to date have indicated that the seemingly high cost of the Clinch River project are heavily related to the demonstration aspects of the Clinch River project and not to the reactor type. The Clinch River project is not being built just to show scientific feasibility, but also has to bear the costs of:

Development of codes and standards for use in a real commercial market.

R and D program support to demonstrate safety and environment al aspects of reactor.

Provision for technology transfer to a wide industrial base. Development of licensing envelope within which future commercial plants can operate.

First-of-a-kind costs associated with a new reactor.

If a 350 megawatt plant of any of the reactor types mentioned were to serve all of the purposes of a true demonstration reactor such as the Clinch River plant, then it would also have to bear much or all of the costs associated with the items mentioned above. Since these costs tend to dominate the cost of a demonstration reactor, it is not expected that the full construction cost of a 350 megawatt breeder demonstration plant of any other reactor type would be significantly different from that of the Clinch River project (800 million) if it could be started on the same schedule as the Clinch River project. In fact, since the actual construction of another type demonstration reactor would take many years to start, inflation could significantly raise the cost beyond that of the Clinch River project.

The above does not mean that the cost of constructing a reactor prototype is independent of the reactor design being considered, but does indicate that the purposes and conditions under which a demonstration reactor is built is apt to greatly influence the total project cost. For these reasons it is impossible to make a definitive statement about the cost of building other prototype 350 megawatt breeder reactors without further definition of the conditions and goals under which these reactors would be built. General comments about the various reactor types, however, can be made on the basis of present information.

LMFER breeders. Independent, detailed studies along with actual plant construction cost data suggest that LIFER's as a reactor type should cost no more than 20% more than the present type of light water reactors. Recent French experience, in fact, suggests a cost differential of only 1.5%.

Gas-cooled breeders. Gas-cooled breeder reactor technology is not as well developed as is LFBR technology and more time and base program support would be required to build a gas-cooled breeder demonstration plant than a LIFER demonstration plant. Present studies also indicate that the final capital costs of a gas-cooled breeder would tend to be higher than that of a LMFER. Heavy water breeder. This concept could build upon parts of the Canadian CANDU system technology which would help total system costs, but it must be recognized that CANDU systems are not now licensable in this country and additional base support on licensing, safety and standard support would be needed. Further, the present CANDU-type reactors are not developed as breeder reactors and detailed designs for heavy water breeder reactors do not exist. On the basis of CANDU costs, however, the capital costs of heavy water systems can be expected to be greater than that of light water reactors and not significantly different from sodium cooled breeders.

Light water breeders. A light water breeder reactor could obviously build upon the present light water reactor technology which already exists in this country. This could potentially result in significant total demonstration project cost savings. However, it must be recognized that the breeding principle has not yet been demonstrated. ERDA is thus proceeding to prove (or disprove) the principle of light water breeding by the installation of a Light Water Breeder Reactor (LWBR) core in the Shippingport reactor. Assuming successful scientific demonstration of the LWBR concept, ERDA could begin a larger scale demonstration reactor some time in the early 1980's. However, detailed cost estimates for this concept are somewhat premature at this time. It may be possible to demonstrate this concept at about the 350 e level using an existing LWR plant. In this case the cost might be considerably reduced.

Finally, it should be noted that neither a light water nor a heavy water thermal breeder concept is a true substitute for the LFBR. Only the gas-cooled breeder concept could offer a real substitute for the LMFBR in a growing power demand situation. Comparisons of the costs between thermal breeder systems and LFER systems can, therefore, be very misleading.

3.

What would be the costs of the above reactors if the purpose were

to construct prototypes which in the course of their lifetime
required the mining of 1500 tons of uranium or less?

The comments about the cost of demonstration reactors being largely
influenced by factors other than the basic reactor design,
explained in the previous answer, also apply to near breeder
reactors. General comments about near breeder systems costs,
however, are given below.

Gas-cooled near breeder. Given development of a true commercial gas reactor such as the HTGR, the development of a gas-cooled reactor which would use less than 1500 tons of uranium in its lifetime would be a feasible technological extension. However, without Government help, no further industrial development of the gas reactor concept is expected. To develop this concept would require Government assistance in the expensive commercial demonstration phase and would require the development of a thorium recycle process technology. Estimated costs for commercial demonstration of the HTCR concept and the thorium fuel cycle are in the several billion dollar range.

Heavy water near breeder. The presently developed heavy water
CANDU reactor system is based on a throwaway fuel cycle which
requires about the same fuel input as present light water
reactors. To develop a heavy water near breeder which would
have a lifetime requirement of less than 1500 tons of uranium
is possible, but this will require development of advanced
reactor designs and the development of a thorium fuel cycle
capability. The costs of establishing the safety and licensing
criteria of the heavy water concept in this country would also
have to be included in a demonstration program. It should also
be noted that high conversion heavy water designs inherently
mean higher D20 inventories, high capital cost, and high fuel
cycle costs. In fact, because of the high fuel throughput
required, fuel reprocessing costs can become exorbidant.

Light water near breeder. A light water near breeder could be
developed using much of the existing light water technology.
However, a thorium fuel cycle would have to be established in
addition to the demonstration of the reactor concept so that
the total demonstration cost would still be high. In addition,
it should be noted that while the light water near breeder
demonstration plant phase might be accomplished at less cost
than for heavy water or gas concepts, preliminary design studies
indicate that an ultimate commercial light water high conversion
reactor would tend to be less economic than either a heavy
water or gas high conversion reactor.

XIX.

ERDA Involvement in Transportation Security

JAMES A. HALEY, FLA., CHAIRMAN

A. TAYLOR, N.C.
AROLD T. JOHNSON, CALIF.
MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZ.
PHILLIP BURTON, CALIF.
ROBERT W. KASTENMEIER, WIS.
PATSY Y. MINK, HAWAII
LLOYD MEEDS, WASH.
ABRAHAM KAZEN, JR., TEX.
ROBERT G. STEPHENS, JR., GA.
JOSEPH P. VIGORITO, PA.
JOHN MELCHER, MONT.
TENO RONCALIO, WYO.
JONATHAN B. BINGHAM, N.Y.
JOHN F. SEIBERLING, OHIO
HAROLD RUNNELS, N. MEX.
ANTONIO BORJA WON PAT, GUAM
RON DE LUGO, V.I.

BOB ECKHARDT, TEX.

GOODLOE E. BYRON, MD.

JAIME BENITEZ, P.R.

JIM SANTINI, NEV.

PAUL E. TBONGAS, MASS.

ALLAN T. HOWE, UTAH

JAMES WEAVER, OREG.

BOB CARR, MICH.

GEORGE MILLER, CALIF.

THEODORE M. (TED) RISENHOOVER,

OKLA

JAMES J. FLORIO, N.J.

JOE SKUBITZ, KANS.
SAM STEIGER, ARIZ.
DON H. CLAUSEN, CALIF.
PHILIP E. RUPPE, MICH.
MANUEL LUJAN, JR., N. MEX,
KEITH 9. SEBELJUS, KANS.
ALAN STEELMAN, TEX.
DON YOUNG, ALASKA
ROBERT E. BAUMAN, MD.
STEVEN D. SYMMS, IDAHO
JAMES P. (JIM) JOHNSON, COLO.
ROBERT J. LAGOMARSINO, CALIF.
VIRGINIA SMITH, NEUR.
SHIRLEY N. PETTIS, CALIF.

The April 22 issue of Nucleonics Week reports that by October 1, 1976, the ERDA transportation system will be used for shipment of strategic quantities of ERDAowned special nuclear materials. As you are aware, private shippers contend that they can provide whatever level of security that ERDA might require, and that such security will be equivalent to that provided by the ERDA system.

Since the rationale underlying this decision might apply equally well to future decisions concerning the shipment of privately owned special nuclear materials, I would appreciate your providing me the reasoning behind your determination. I would also like to know whether this logic has led you to conclude that the NRC should require that strategic quantities of privately owned nuclear materials be transported by a government owned transportation system.

Sincerely,

Morris K. Udall, Chairman
Subcommittee on Energy and

the Environment