Idaho National Laboratory Cultural Resource Management Plan

of building the reactor. Although the funding for CRBR survived years of budget battles in Congress,
private support weakened. In 1983, Congress canceled the funding. 276
The Integral Fast Reactor Concept: 1984-1994. Research at ANL-W facilities contributed to the
LMFBR program up until 1983, although ANL-W funding was not tied directly to the Clinch River
project. The public's concerns about plutonium theft and, after the accident at Three Mile Island, power
plant safety—along with a universal concern for effective methods of handling nuclear waste—inspired
ANL to redirect its research goals.
Scientists and engineers at ANL had been considering a new breeder reactor concept named the
Integral Fast Reactor (IFR). By 1984 the IFR had become new ANL priority in reactor development, with
tests and research centered at ANL-W. The project grew steadily. By 1994 employment levels at ANL-W
reached a peak of approximately 850 people. 277
Argonne was so interested in the IFR because it seemed to overcome many public concerns: its safety
was derived from the operation of laws of nature, not the absence of human error; its fuel cycle reduced
the volume of waste and the length of time it would be a hazard; and the nature of the residual plutonium
was not in a form attractive for diversion to weapons. IFR proponents hoped to fulfill the early promise of
nuclear energy for the peaceful and economic generation of electricity. 278
The fuel for the IFR was a metallic fuel (in contrast to the ceramic fuel typically used in commercial
reactors) with high thermal conductivity. The processing of spent fuel elements, which could be
accomplished on-site without shipping the material to a processing plant, separated the unused fuel from
most of the other waste, making the waste less highly radioactive than conventional spent fuel. Scientists
hoped that the IFR, with this “closed” fuel cycle might ease public concerns about transporting nuclear
fuels and wastes. 279
Testing of the new fuel elements took place at ANL-W. The fuel, a combination of uranium,
plutonium, and zirconium, appeared to perform more safely, economically, and efficiently than earlier
designs. The fuel had greater thermal conductivity than earlier fuels and could transfer heat from the
center of the reactor to the coolant more efficiently. This improved safety, because if heat should build up
in the core, the fuel elements would expand, slowing the fission reaction, and resulting in a natural
shutdown of the chain reaction.
The new “integral” fuel recycling process also added to efficiency and safety. It produced a
conglomerate of plutonium, uranium, and other heavier-than-uranium elements that could be refabricated
into new fuel elements in special hot cells located near the reactor. The ANL-W scientists believed this
system could neutralize the threat of plutonium theft. Weapons production requires a supply of “pure”
plutonium which could not be obtained from IFR fuel without additional reprocessing. Separating the
plutonium from the highly radioactive mix would require heavy investment in very large facilities that
would be difficult to hide.
In April 1986, the scientists at ANL-W loaded up the EBR-II reactor with IFR fuel and conducted a
Loss-of-Flow Test and a Loss-of-Heat-Sink Test to simulate a complete station blackout and a loss of
ability to remove heat from the core. In both tests, no operator interventions or emergency safety systems
276. “Breeder Program: Bethe Panel Calls for Reorientation,” Science (182:1236), p. 1237; Lanouette, p. 46-52.
277. “Argonne Proposes `Proliferation-resistant' breeder,” Physics Today (August 1984), p. 62; Holl, p. 446; Lindsay, personal
communication, Sept. 16, 1997.
278. Stacy, Proving the Principle, p. 232-237.
279. At ANL-West, EBR-II and the Fuel Cycle Facility (FCF) were modified. The changes made power production, fuel
reprocessing, and waste treatment possible at a single location. See Holl, p. 45-446.
267