fungicide ethylenebisdithiocarbamate. Of the chemicals considered as probable candidates for substitution, EPA has confirmed that methyl parathion; para-thion, malathion, phorate, and demeton are "fully suitable" to act as substitutes for certain uses of DDT, and bromacil for certain uses of 2,4,5-T.

EPA points out that for each substi­tute, a report is issued that gives the scientific data base for the chemical and also a position paper on the pesti­cide's safety and efficacy. The scientific data base, in addition to information from open literature or the agency's petition files, includes input from in­dustry, the states, academia, and the 10 EPA regions.

Specifically, the agency gets from the regions data on the availability of a pesticide in a geographic location, local agricultural practices, state preference for a pesticide for specific uses, poten­tial hazards unique to a region (such as human poisoning, wildlife kills), and pesticide efficacy for specific uses. In areas of data deficiency, the office of research and development will develop testing and screening techniques and protocols to evaluate certain toxicologi-cal aspects of the substitute, the report notes.

If a review determines that no current­ly registered substitutes are available for one or more uses of a problem pesti­cide, or if it does not confirm the suit­ability of the substitutes, the agency pursues liaison efforts with industry to stimulate industry into initiating or ac­celerating new product R&D. And, the report points out, the agency will need to reconsider its position with respect to those uses. Further, if the review con­cludes that a substitute would have ad­verse effects, on man or the environ­ment, the substitute will be put into in­ternal review for possible litigation decisions, and the manufacturer will be notified so that the problem can be cor­rected before it occurs.

EPA's substitute chemicals review is in two phases, the report points out. Phase I is based on currently available data. This consists of initial scientific and economic studies to determine the safety and efficacy of a substitute. If this phase raises no significant question as to a substitute's suitability, then it is confirmed and forwarded to the agency's office of general counsel, which handles all EPA litigations. But if Phase I iden­tifies potential hazards, the second phase is triggered.

Phase II consists of a biosphere and a socio-economic review. Data from Phase I are re-examined and "in-depth" studies of safety, efficacy, and eco­nomics are conducted using unpub­lished or yet to be published data from industry and academia. If this phase concludes that the benefits do outweigh the risks, the agency would recommend the substitution, with the stipulation that the substitute be re-examined and reregistered in five years. On the other hand, it is possible that a problem chem­

ical is the lesser of two evils and is re­tained in favor of the substitute.

The research effort backing up the substitute chemicals program, besides providing the scientific and economic bases for the program, also provides data with respect to analytical methods, environmental monitoring techniques, and human effect testing procedures. There are four major subject areas:

• Toxicological methodologies and evaluation research, including the iden­tification and evaluation of the proba­bility of occurrence of toxic impurities in technical-grade pesticides; develop­ment of a pesticides warning system based on the incorporation of sensory chemicals in the formulation; and in­halation, chronic, and acute toxicity studies.

• Screening techniques for "genesis" problems. These include the develop­ment of rapid, reproducible, and reliable screening tests for carcinogenicity and mutagenicity of chemicals.

The Ford Administration's top priority program for solving the nation's energy needs—development and commerciali­zation of the liquid-metal fast-breeder reactor (LMFBR)—is coming under in­creasing fire from Congress and environ­mentalists. And there is even disagree­ment within the Administration over how fast the program should proceed. At the center of the controversy is the in­creasingly expensive proposed Clinch River breeder reactor demonstration plant on which construction is scheduled to begin next year.

Congress, after funding the breeder program for decades, now is questioning the need for the costly breeder in view of projected declining energy demands and the potential environmental problems involved in its operations. In March, the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy es­tablished an ad hoc subcommittee, under the chairmanship of Rep. Mike McCormack (D.-Wash.), to conduct a thorough review of the breeder program. The subcommittee has held two briefing sessions, and it plans further public hearings and trips to breeder demon­stration plants in other countries as part of its review. Its investigation is ex­pected to be completed by Labor Day. Also, the Joint Economic Committee has held hearings on cost overruns in the breeder programs. And at press time Rep. Morris K. Udall's (D.-Ariz.) House Subcommittee on Energy & the En­vironment was beginning three days of extensive hearings on the LMFBR.

Of special concern to Congress are the large amounts of money that may be needed for the full LMFBR program. Early last month the General Account­ing Office reported that total expendi­tures for the breeder from fiscal year 1948 through fiscal 1974 amounted to $1.8 billion. Recent estimates, according to GAO, show that an additional $8.9

• Acceptable and usable alternative methods of pest control. This area in­cludes classification of herbicides in ac­cordance with their biochemical modes of action, and investigation of the com­mercial feasibility of insect growth regu­lators and pheromones.

• Movement and fate of pesticides in the environment. This includes moni­toring and sampling of residues, use of microelectrolytic conductivity detectors for gas chromatographic determination, development of conceptual models for movement of pesticides through the en­vironment, and validating laboratory, microcosm studies in relation to field work.

For fiscal year 1976 EPA plans to focus its investigation on fungicides and minor crop uses which have minimal registered substitutes. It has requested another $5 million for that year and chances are good that Congress will ap­prove.

Ling-yee Gibney, C&EN Washington

billion will be needed to carry the pro­gram through to full commercialization by the year 2020. This total of $10.7 billion compares with a 1968 estimate of a total cost of $3.9 billion. About 17,000 people are engaged in LMFBR activities funded by the government to the tune of about $58 million per month. About one fourth of these are management, scien­tific, and technical personnel.

One reason for pursuing development of the breeder, despite its costs, has been that it would produce more fissionable fuel than it consumes, thus conserving the U.S.'s low-cost uranium resources. The breeder uses a mixture of plutonium and uranium wastes, which have been accumulating from the enrichment process necessary for producing com­mercial light-water reactor fuel. As it generates electricity, the breeder trans­mutes the uranium into plutonium, which then can be used to fuel other breeder reactors.

However, although admitting the value of conserving uranium, environ­mentalists want to see the breeder pro­gram delayed until the health, safety, and regulation problems involved in the production, transportation, and disposal of the large quantities of plutonium in­volved can be resolved. They also are concerned about the safety of the breeder itself. These problems, they con­tend, are not adequately dealt with in the Atomic Energy Commission's seven-volume, 4300-page proposed final en­vironmental impact statement issued last January.

For example, J. G. Speth of the Na­tional Resources Defense Council advo­cates a delay of five to 10 years in the breeder demonstration program, includ­ing the Clinch River facility, until the health and environmental risks can be assessed adequately and procedures spelled out to prevent possible damage.

Costs, safety threaten breeder reactor

16 C&EN June 9, 1975

He says that AEC seriously underesti­mated the potential adverse health effects of plutonium, which he terms "fiendishly toxic." Speth points out that AEC estimates, which see health risks from the LMFBR as no greater than those involved in exposure to naturally occurring radiation, fail to take into ac­count the possibility of accidents, such as core disruptions, and the possibility that plutonium may fall into the hands of terrorists.

Theodore B. Taylor, chairman of In­ternational Research & Technology Corp., also wants the regulations gov­erning the transportation and handling of nuclear materials improved before any decision is made to go ahead with the breeder program. He is concerned that the present safeguards are insuf­ficient to protect the components of the LMFBR fuel cycle against sabotage de­signed to release dangerous quantities of radioactive materials or against clan­destine or overt theft of plutonium for subsequent destructive purposes. Tay­lor adds that although light-water reac­tors do produce plutonium, it is too dilute to be used in a bomb and its very intense radioactivity makes it self-protective. However, once the pluto­nium is separated from the wastes in the form of plutonium nitrate solution, as it would be if used for fuel in a breed­er, then conversion to plutonium oxide used in fission bombs is a straightfor­ward and widely published process.

Other LMFBR opponents claim that AEC failed to give enough weight to other energy alternatives, such as solar and geothermal sources, that might be just as efficient and useful as the breeder. And they claim that AEC seriously overestimated future energy demands making the breeder look more necessary then it really is.

Proponents of the LMFBR, on the other hand, contend that it represents the only energy technology now avail­able whose scientific and engineering feasibility has been proved. They point out that uranium represents the only resource now in use that does not have an alternative use. And there will be a

McCormack Udall

need to conserve oil, natural gas, and perhaps coal, for use as feedstocks for chemicals, plastics, drugs, and fuels for aircraft. Westinghouse's John W. Simp­son, for instance, says that although the growth in energy needs for the future may be significantly lower than AEC projections, electrical energy will con­tinue to assume a greater role in meeting total energy demand. He estimates that by the year-2000 the electric utilities will be supplying 60% of U.S. total energy needs.

An Energy Research & Development Administration staff statement on the AEC environmental impact statement concludes that it seems "imprudent in the extreme to abandon a technology in an advanced state of development in the hope that other seemingly more attrac­tive technologies are certain to be avail­able to replace it." The statement does recognize that the issues raised by LMFBR opponents are substantial, but emphasizes that by its very nature an R&D program is designed to highlight problems that should be solved before a new technology can be introduced commercially. The statement adds that there are no major problems that are not amenable to orderly and planned resolution by a safety R&D program. Further, the ERDA staff statement takes exception to those individuals who insist that a program not go forward until all the issues are resolved and com­plete assurance is given that an unac­ceptable environmental impact will not be encountered in the distant future.

The Environmental Protection Agency has taken a position somewhere between the advocates and opponents of the LMFBR. In its review of the AEC environmental impact statement, EPA finds that it addresses the environ­mental impact and economic aspects of the overall breeder program about as well as can be expected given the state of presently available information. How­ever, EPA argues that the safety and transportation risks have not yet been established and adds that the specific safety problems, their expected solu­tion, and the projected environmental impacts eventually must be publicly de­tailed and reviewed. It also finds that energy demands in the future might well be 28 to 33% lower than those projected by AEC.

As a result of EPA's review, EPA Ad­ministrator Russell E. Train says that at this time the agency cannot support a decision to commit the nation to future full-scale commercialization of LMFBR technology. He adds that it is possible that a stretch-out of four to 12 years in the commercialization of the breeder program might be accommodated with­out harm to the U.S.'s nuclear energy base. This would give time for a full re­view of the possible health and safety problems. But Train makes it clear that EPA is not opposed to the breeder con­cept or to going ahead with the demon­stration phase of the program.

ERDA, which inherited both the

breeder program and the environmental impact statement from AEC, does not appear to be fully committed to com­mercialization of the breeder reactor. Although the staff statement supports the findings of the AEC environmental impact statement, it emphasizes the R&D nature of the program. And unlike AEC, ERDA is responsible for develop-in&all energy technologies.

ERDA Administrator Robert Sea-mans has ordered a comprehensive in-house review of the environmental im­pact statement and has asked for review of it by outside experts. The review, which is not expected to be completed until late summer, included two days of public hearings last month.

To further complicate and possibly delay matters, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which is charged with overseeing the safety of nuclear power and which must issue a site clearance permit and construction license before work on the Clinch River facility can be­gin, has yet to schedule a public hearing on the issue. And NRC recently put off for three years a decision on whether to allow plutonium recycling, a necessary step in providing fuel for the breeder.

On top of all this the breeder's fund­ing is in doubt. The Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, whose figures appear in both the House and Senate authoriza­tion bills, has approved the full $566 million requested by the Administration for the breeder program in fiscal 1976. The authorization includes $181.5 mil­lion for the Clinch River facility, which under original AEC estimates would carry the program to commercialization by 1990. This would eliminate the need for ERDA to request new authorizations each year.

But Sen. John V. Tunney (D.-Calif.) intends to introduce an amendment to the ERDA authorization bill that would cut all but research money for the breed­er and prohibit construction activity for at least a year. A similar amendment is expected to be offered on the House floor. And there are several other bills pending in both House and Senate that would prohibit issuing any new licenses for nuclear fission power facilities for five years or ban the use of plutonium as a fuel for the same period. The legisla­tion also authorizes a comprehensive study by Congress' Office of Technology Assessment of the whole nuclear reactor program.

Congress' reaction to the LMFBR controversy should be known soon. The ERDA authorization bill plus amend­ment will come up for House action the middle of this month and the Senate bill with be up for consideration at the end of the month. An indication of just how much emphasis ERDA is giving to the LMFBR program also probably will be available this month. By June 30 ERDA must report to Congress its analysis of the benefits and potential of all the various energy technologies under its control.

Janice R. Long, C&EN Washington

June 9, 1975 C&EN 17