Restrictions come in several forms. One of them being security and safety.
We have big mainstream (tobacco) companies denying any linkage between smoking and cancer. We had a major energy trading firm (Enron) that was a total scam. We had a major automobile manufacturer (Ford) leaving a substandard gasoline tank in place ... and preventing information about it from leaking to the public. We had a major oil company (BP) skimping on safety measures and keeping mum about it, plus a major engineering firm (Halliburton) doing a substandard cement job on a wellhead (Deepwater Horizon) and keeping mum about it when it blew. We have a major car manufacturer (Volkswagen) deliberately falsifying emissions tests. And so forth and so on.
And you really really think it's a good idea to entrust an enitity of a similar ilk with the building and management of a load of fast breeders across the country? Because I don't.
In addition, fast breeder reactors tend to be sodium-cooled, plutonium-generating contraptions [see e.g. http://www.scientificamerican.... ]. So in return for burning U238 you get a lot of Pu239. Neat, from an engineering perspective, plus you can use the high neutron flux to "burn" all kinds of waste too. So far so good.
Only (as has been rehashed ad-nauseam) you need extensive reprocessing to separate the Pu239 from fuel rods that contain U238 and its end-product, Pu239. So you take the rods out of the reactor, cart them to a reprocessing plant, dissolve the rods in acid, and chemically separate the Pu239 from the rest, reconvert the Pu salts and the U salts into metals, produce new rods (or pellets or whatever), cart the reprocessed rods back ... and think of something clever to do with the rest of the (highly radioactive and highly poisonous) salts. Doable. Only ... neither the salts nor the metallic plutonium is nice stuff to produce hundreds of kilograms of (as you will with a fast breeder). It's extremely toxic, highly radioactive, and lasts for millennia.Oh, and it can be used to cobble together nuclear weapons (with a bit of stabilization added, etc.).
In addition, there is plant safety. The sodium coolant for the primary loop will react spectacularly with the water coolant for the secondary loop if you ever get leaks in your piping or your heat exchanger (as seems to be quite often).
Am I the only one who thinks this is an extra set of vulnerabilities vulnerability the US doesn't need when there are squads of potential suicide terrorists looking for an opening?
So yes, there are all kind of restrictions to ensure safety and security at all stages of the plutonium-cycle. Expensive. So err ... your plan would be to relax the safety restrictions in order to make fast breeders economically competitive on top of the security risks already inherent in having a plutonium-based reactor scheme? Really?
Well, I don't. I'm unhappy about fast breeders and their inherent fuel cycle, and that's with pretty darned heavy (and costly) security restrictions in place. Unfortunately, we need a nuclear industry, if only to keep current and to maintain a certain nuclear arsenal. It's dangerous and costly ... but probably better than *not* having it.
However I'm dead against anything like it _without_ the heavy security restrictions.