DOCSLIB.ORG

Small Modular Reactors an Analysis of Factors Related to Siting and Licensing in Washington State

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Small Modular Reactors an Analysis of Factors Related to Siting and Licensing in Washington State Small Modular Reactors An Analysis of Factors Related to Siting and Licensing in Washington State Prepared for: Washington State Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council January 2016 Executive Summary This report investigates the potential for developing Appendix A to this report provides a status update nuclear power generation in the state of Washington, for many of the agencies, companies and research focusing on one of the advanced nuclear reactor organizations who are involved in activities related design technologies currently in development: Small to SMR development and related nuclear power Modular Reactors (SMRs). SMRs are defined by the development. This provides the reader with an US Department of Energy (USDOE) and others in understanding of current SMR technology and the industry as nuclear power plant “modules” of development, much of which would apply if an 300 megawatts or less. Their concept includes offsite applicant proposes an SMR in Washington in the future. manufacturing, self-contained fuel, power generation For example, industry groups and agencies such as and cooling, multiple module operation, and passive USDOE have recommended a number of regulatory core failure protection that requires no action to changes related to SMR licensing. The NRC is considering ensure core integrity in the case of an accident. rule changes in response to those recommendations. This report looks at a range of potentially suitable Finally, although many different SMR technologies locations for such a facility in Washington by applying are being examined around the world, the United selected site selection criteria on a statewide basis. It States has 4-5 different designs in contention. The also considers the locations of past and present power USDOE selected two of these designs as candidates plant sites, including past nuclear sites. The report for funding and development support. For this study, discusses the many water supply options available we developed a generic SMR design model that is an to an applicant, and their constraints, and the lower amalgam of the two finalists (NuScale and mPower). water use options available for SMRs. It also describes We used this model as the basis for our analysis of the typical process likely to be followed to permit such potential locations for SMRs in Washington. Since a facility in Washington; makes recommendations for the USDOE selection, the mPower project has slowed streamlining this permitting, mostly using existing down its rate of development and lost its USDOE rules and regulations; and suggests studies and/ funding, leaving the NuScale design as the apparent or activities that the State can implement, track, or leader for the time being, although the Tennessee investigate in the future. Valley Authority (TVA) is moving forward with a non- specific siting approach that may involve NuScale, The report describes the extensive licensing process mPower, or another technology in the near future. that the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) The mPower project is continuing, but at a slower would apply in the siting of any SMR, and how the pace. Our model SMR is a combination of the two and State could better coordinate with that process, this report does not favor any SMR design. The status recognizing that the NRC siting process is likely to be of these projects is also discussed in Appendix A. the critical path because it is longer than the State’s process. The report also discusses the connected roles that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) have with the NRC licensing process, as well as the role of Washington’s Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council (EFSEC) and other agencies. ES-1 Golder Associates Small Modular Reactors | Siting and Licensing in Washington State This report focuses on siting, permitting, new The report includes suggestions on next steps the developments, and future activities. It does not State might consider, and the timing of those steps, in address public acceptance as a siting criteria, nor does preparation for the next Site Certification Agreement it evaluate the implications of Initiative 394 (passed (SCA) to EFSEC for a nuclear power plant. The report in 1981), which requires a public vote to approve the discusses when the State may want to take actions issuance of bonds to support the construction of any if there was a desire to attract SMRs, attract their major public energy facility. Instead, we considered manufacturing, or pass legislative incentives. Such other siting factors, and discussed potential facility recommendations are entirely dependent on the costs and schedules without defining the sources State’s direction and goals. Some other states have of funding. taken steps to address these goals already. The report is organized into the following chapters: SMR development has the potential for significant improvements in nuclear plant siting associated with ▪ Chapter 1 – Background, scope, and approach cost, safety, permitting schedule, generation flexibility, ▪ Chapter 2 – Small reactor history leading to and site requirements. It also has the potential for today’s technology significant carbon-free baseload generation. Public ▪ Chapter 3 – The assumptions that went into and agency concerns are still likely, related to waste the Model SMR used to evaluate site suitability disposal, fuel transport, and nuclear power, but in Chapter 4 the potential for advances in safety and licensing processes offered by SMRs have generated interest in Chapter 4 – An overview of suitable locations for ▪ Washington, the United States, and around the world. SMRs in Washington, recognizing that a nuclear plant siting study would need to incorporate site- specific factors and 1-2 years of study ▪ Chapter 5 – A discussion of the major permit requirements including considerable details about the NRC and related processes, so the State can evaluate opportunities for involvement ▪ Chapter 6 – Recommendations for streamlining and improving the permit process, and recommendations for further actions the State can consider to stay informed and be involved in the SMR siting and development process ES-2 Golder Associates Table of Contents Executive Summary .................................................................................... ES-1 Acronyms and Abbreviations ............................................................................i 1.0 Introduction ............................................................................................. 1-1 1.1 Background .......................................................................................... 1-1 1.2 Scope..................................................................................................... 1-1 1.3 Approach .............................................................................................. 1-1 1.4 Consultation and Contacts .................................................................. 1-3 2.0 History and Description of Small Modular Reactors ............................ 2-1 2.1 Nuclear Power in Washington and the United States ....................... 2-1 2.2 SMR Development Worldwide ............................................................ 2-2 2.3 Current SMR Siting in the United States ........................................... 2-4 2.4 Other Reactor Technologies ............................................................... 2-6 3.0 The Model SMR Developed for the Location Suitability Analysis ....... 3-1 3.1 Introduction to SMR Technologies ...................................................... 3-1 3.2 Developing a Model SMR .................................................................... 3-2 3.3 SMR Model Attributes Used in the Location Analysis ....................... 3-2 3.3.1 Facility Power Output .................................................................... 3-2 3.3.2 Facility Components/Typical Plant Layout .................................... 3-4 3.3.3 Operational Requirements and Resource Needs ......................... 3-5 3.3.4 Operational Outputs ..................................................................... 3-5 3.3.5 Facility Site Requirements ............................................................. 3-6 4.0 Suitable SMR Locations in Washington State ....................................... 4-1 4.1 Suitable Location Analysis .................................................................. 4-1 4.1.1 Introduction ................................................................................... 4-1 4.1.2 Location Suitability Criteria .......................................................... 4-2 4.1.3 GIS Database for Analysis .............................................................. 4-4 4.2 Results of Suitable Location Analysis .................................................. 4-8 4.3 Existing Power Plant Sites in Washington .......................................... 4-9 4.4 Rivers and Water Rights Availability in Washington ....................... 4-12 5.0 Permits and Approvals For SMRs ........................................................... 5-1 5.1 Federal Permits and Approvals ........................................................... 5-1 5.1.1 Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)......................................... 5-3 5.1.2 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) .................... 5-12 5.1.3 US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) .......................... 5-13 5.1.4 Other Federal Agencies ..............................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Small Isn't Always Beautiful Safety, Security, and Cost Concerns About Small Modular Reactors
    Small Isn't Always Beautiful Safety, Security, and Cost Concerns about Small Modular Reactors Small Isn't Always Beautiful Safety, Security, and Cost Concerns about Small Modular Reactors Edwin Lyman September 2013 © 2013 Union of Concerned Scientists All rights reserved Edwin Lyman is a senior scientist in the Union of Concerned Scientists Global Security Program. The Union of Concerned Scientists puts rigorous, independent science to work to solve our planet’s most pressing problems. Joining with citizens across the country, we combine technical analysis and effective advocacy to create innovative, practical solutions for a healthy, safe, and sustainable future. More information is available about UCS at www.ucsusa.org. This report is available online (in PDF format) at www.ucsusa.org/SMR and may also be obtained from: UCS Publications 2 Brattle Square Cambridge, MA 02138-3780 Or, email [email protected] or call (617) 547-5552. Design: Catalano Design Front cover illustrations: © LLNL for the USDOE (background); reactors from top to bottom: © NuScale Power, LLC, © Holtec SMR, LLC, © 2012 Babcock & Wilcox Nuclear Energy, Inc., and © Westinghouse Electric Company. Back cover illustrations: © LLNL for the USDOE (background); © Westinghouse Electric Company (reactor). Acknowledgments This report was made possible by funding from Park Foundation, Inc., Wallace Research Foundation, an anonymous foundation, and UCS members. The author would like to thank Trudy E. Bell for outstanding editing, Rob Catalano for design and layout, Bryan Wadsworth for overseeing production, and Scott Kemp, Lisbeth Gronlund, and David Wright for useful discussions and comments on the report. The opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of the organizations that funded the work or the individuals who reviewed it.
    [Show full text]
  • Deployability of Small Modular Nuclear Reactors for Alberta Applications Report Prepared for Alberta Innovates
    PNNL-25978 Deployability of Small Modular Nuclear Reactors for Alberta Applications Report Prepared for Alberta Innovates November 2016 SM Short B Olateju (AI) SD Unwin S Singh (AI) A Meisen (AI) DISCLAIMER NOTICE This report was prepared under contract with the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), as an account of work sponsored by Alberta Innovates (“AI”). Neither AI, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL), DOE, the U.S. Government, nor any person acting on their behalf makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by AI, PNNL, DOE, or the U.S. Government. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of AI, PNNL, DOE or the U.S. Government. Deployability of Small Modular Nuclear Reactors for Alberta Applications SM Short B Olateju (AI) SD Unwin S Singh (AI) A Meisen (AI) November 2016 Prepared for Alberta Innovates (AI) Pacific Northwest National Laboratory Richland, Washington 99352 Executive Summary At present, the steam requirements of Alberta’s heavy oil industry and the Province’s electricity requirements are predominantly met by natural gas and coal, respectively. On November 22, 2015 the Government of Alberta announced its Climate Change Leadership Plan to 1) phase out all pollution created by burning coal and transition to more renewable energy and natural gas generation by 2030 and 2) limit greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from oil sands operations.
    [Show full text]
  • A Comparison of Advanced Nuclear Technologies
    A COMPARISON OF ADVANCED NUCLEAR TECHNOLOGIES Andrew C. Kadak, Ph.D MARCH 2017 B | CHAPTER NAME ABOUT THE CENTER ON GLOBAL ENERGY POLICY The Center on Global Energy Policy provides independent, balanced, data-driven analysis to help policymakers navigate the complex world of energy. We approach energy as an economic, security, and environmental concern. And we draw on the resources of a world-class institution, faculty with real-world experience, and a location in the world’s finance and media capital. Visit us at energypolicy.columbia.edu facebook.com/ColumbiaUEnergy twitter.com/ColumbiaUEnergy ABOUT THE SCHOOL OF INTERNATIONAL AND PUBLIC AFFAIRS SIPA’s mission is to empower people to serve the global public interest. Our goal is to foster economic growth, sustainable development, social progress, and democratic governance by educating public policy professionals, producing policy-related research, and conveying the results to the world. Based in New York City, with a student body that is 50 percent international and educational partners in cities around the world, SIPA is the most global of public policy schools. For more information, please visit www.sipa.columbia.edu A COMPARISON OF ADVANCED NUCLEAR TECHNOLOGIES Andrew C. Kadak, Ph.D* MARCH 2017 *Andrew C. Kadak is the former president of Yankee Atomic Electric Company and professor of the practice at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He continues to consult on nuclear operations, advanced nuclear power plants, and policy and regulatory matters in the United States. He also serves on senior nuclear safety oversight boards in China. He is a graduate of MIT from the Nuclear Science and Engineering Department.
    [Show full text]
  • Nuscale Energy Supply for Oil Recovery and Refining Applications
    Proceedings of ICAPP 2014 Charlotte, USA, April 6-9, 2014 Paper 14337 NuScale Energy Supply for Oil Recovery and Refining Applications D. T. Ingersoll,a C. Colbert,a R. Bromm,b and Z. Houghtona aNuScale Power, LLC 1100 NE Circle Blvd, Suite 200, Corvallis, OR 97330 bFluor Corporation 100 Fluor Daniel Dr., Greenville, SC 29607 Tel: 541-360-0585 , Email: [email protected] Abstract – The oil recovery and refining market is highly energy intensive, representing roughly 7% of the total U.S. energy consumption. The NuScale small modular reactor design is especially well suited for supplying clean, reliable energy to this market due to the compact size of the reactor and the high degree of modularity included in the design, allowing multiple reactors to be combined into a scalable central plant. A preliminary technical and economic assessment has been completed to evaluate the feasibility and desirability of using NuScale power modules to support oil recovery and refining processes, thus reducing the overall carbon footprint of these industrial complexes and preserving valuable fossil resources as feedstock for higher value products. I. INTRODUCTION modular reactors (SMR), are generally characterized by having unit power outputs of less than 300 MWe and are The production of refined petroleum products is highly substantially manufactured in a factory and installed at the energy intensive with most of the energy being used either site rather than constructed on-site. in the field for crude oil recovery processes or at a refinery A new SMR design that has been under development for processing of the crude oil into end-use products such in the United States since 2000 is the NuScale design that as transportation fuels or petrochemicals.
    [Show full text]
  • Small Modular Reactors – Key to Future Nuclear Power Generation in the U.S.1,2
    Small Modular Reactors – Key to Future Nuclear Power Generation in the U.S.1,2 Robert Rosner and Stephen Goldberg Energy Policy Institute at Chicago The Harris School of Public Policy Studies Contributor: Joseph S. Hezir, Principal, EOP Foundation, Inc. Technical Paper, Revision 1 November, 2011 1 The research described in this paper was funded by the U.S. DOE through Argonne National Laboratory, which is operated by UChicago Argonne, LLC under contract No. DE-AC02-06CH1357. This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by the United States Department of Energy. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor the University of Chicago, nor any of their employees or officers, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of document authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof, Argonne National Laboratory, or the institutional opinions of the University of Chicago. 2 This paper is a major update of an earlier paper, July 2011. This
    [Show full text]
  • Download 2020 Year in Review
    2020 in review dedication of the entire NuScale team. Thank you for being a part of the supportive community that has cheered us on along the way. NuScale’s licensing, engineering, manufacturing, construction, and deployment work progresses and we remain on schedule to deliver NuScale Power Modules™ to clients by 2027. The thrill of bringing the country’s very first NuScale power plant online only two years after that has not faded—our excitement grows with each passing John L. Hopkins day. This is truly the decade of the SMR and NuScale is Chairman & Chief Executive Officer proud to usher it in. We share other exciting announcements in this review of Though 2020 was a remarkable year at NuScale Power, 2020, such as our new smaller power plant solutions and it was certainly not without its challenges. As the world the ability of our SMR to produce even more power to endeavors to cope with a pandemic that still presents so bring additional flexibility and economic benefits to our much uncertainty, there will be more challenges yet to customers. I hope you enjoy reading about these and other address. Through the inward reflection that 2020 has inspiring developments and that you continue to stay required of us all, may we move gracefully into the year connected with us as a part of the NuScale community. ahead with renewed inspiration and a clear commitment to bring about a healthier and more prosperous world for With a transformational year behind us, we look ahead to everyone. I know that together we can bring about the 2021 with a commitment to people, planet, and prosperity changes we wish to see to make this new world a reality.
    [Show full text]
  • Highly Reliable Nuclear Power for Mission-Critical Applications
    Proceedings of ICAPP 2016 April 17-20, 2016 – San Francisco, CA HIGHLY RELIABLE NUCLEAR POWER FOR MISSION-CRITICAL APPLICATIONS J. Doyle, B. Haley, C. Fachiol, B. Galyean, D. T. Ingersoll NuScale Power, LLC 1100 NE Circle Blvd, Suite 200, Corvallis, OR 97330 Tel: 541-360-0681, Email: [email protected] Abstract – Some energy consumers require power on a The NuScale small modular reactor design currently 24/7/365 basis with a high level of certainty, including under development in the United States is well suited to defense installations, isolated communities and some provide highly reliable power because of several features industrial processes. For these customers, interruptions in related to both the nuclear steam supply system and the electricity or heat can mean substantial financial loss or overall plant design. First, the NuScale power module even the loss of lives. In the absence of grid-scale energy utilizes an integral pressured water reactor (iPWR) storage, a high level of power reliability can only be configuration that yields a simplified and highly robust accomplished through the robustness and redundancy of design of the individual modules (Ref. 1). Second, the power generators. The NuScale small modular reactor multi-module nature of a NuScale plant, which can contain design is well suited to provide highly reliable power up to 12 separate modules and power conversion systems because of several features related to both the nuclear operating independently, allows the plant to provide some steam supply system and the overall plant design. In level of power on a continuous basis even when individual analogy to RAID (redundant array of independent disks) modules are taken offline for refueling or maintenance.
    [Show full text]
  • Fundamentals of Nuclear Power
    Fundamentals of Nuclear Power Juan S. Giraldo Douglas J. Gotham David G. Nderitu Paul V. Preckel Darla J. Mize State Utility Forecasting Group December 2012 Table of Contents List of Figures .................................................................................................................................. iii List of Tables ................................................................................................................................... iv Acronyms and Abbreviations ........................................................................................................... v Glossary ........................................................................................................................................... vi Foreword ........................................................................................................................................ vii 1. Overview ............................................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Current state of nuclear power generation in the U.S. ......................................... 1 1.2 Nuclear power around the world ........................................................................... 4 2. Nuclear Energy .................................................................................................................... 9 2.1 How nuclear power plants generate electricity ..................................................... 9 2.2 Radioactive decay .................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Current Issues DOE's Nuclear Energy Programs
    Current Issues DOE's Nuclear Energy Programs Dr. Peter Lyons Assistant Secretary for Nuclear Energy U.S. Department of Energy Nuclear Energy Advisory Committee June 5th, 2014 Overview FY15 President’s Budget Request Vogtle Loan Guarantee Issued Small Modular Reactors/ Rothwell and Ganda Report Idaho National Lab Used Fuel and Waste Management NEAMS Reorganization Integrated Energy Systems Nuclear Energy University Programs (NEUP) 2 President Obama’s Energy Goals “We can build the next-generation nuclear reactors that are smaller and safer and cleaner and cheaper.” Ohio State University- March 22, 2012 “Today, I'm announcing a new national climate action plan, and I'm here to enlist your generation's help in keeping the United States of America a leader -- a global leader -- in the fight against climate change.” June 25, 2013, Georgetown University “…the debate is settled. Climate change is a fact. And when our children's children look us in the eye and ask if we did all we could to leave them a safer, more stable world, with new sources of energy, I want us to be able to say yes, we did.” President Obama’s 2014 State of the Union Address 3 Secretary Moniz on Nuclear Energy “The Energy Department is committed to strengthening nuclear energy’s continuing important role in America’s low carbon future, and new technologies like small modular reactors will help ensure our continued leadership in the safe, secure and efficient use of nuclear power worldwide.” New Investment in Innovative Small Modular Reactor, December 12, 2013 “All-of-the-above is not merely a slogan, but a clear-cut pathway to creating jobs and at the same time reducing carbon emissions, which recently stood at their lowest level in 20 years… President Obama has made clear that he sees nuclear energy as part of America’s low carbon energy portfolio.
    [Show full text]
  • A Big Future for Small Nuclear Reactors? Jack Spencer and Nicolas D
    No. 2514 February 2, 2011 A Big Future for Small Nuclear Reactors? Jack Spencer and Nicolas D. Loris Abstract: More and more companies—in the U.S. and abroad—are investing in new commercial nuclear enter- prises, chief among them, small modular reactors (SMRs). Talking Points The SMR industry is growing, with many promising devel- • Small modular reactors (SMRs) represent an opments in the works—which is precisely why the govern- important development in the evolution of ment should not interfere, as subsidies and government commercial nuclear power in the United States. programs have already resulted in an inefficient system for • SMRs can be built in the United States and large reactors. Heritage Foundation nuclear policy experts could provide important competition in the explain how the future for small reactors can remain energy industry that will push technology for- bright. ward while driving prices lower. • Their lower up-front capital costs than tradi- tional nuclear power, scalability, and multi- functionality add to the benefits that attract Small modular reactors (SMRs) have garnered sig- investors. nificant attention in recent years, with companies of • Inefficient licensing and rulemaking, a failed all sizes investing in these smaller, safer, and more nuclear waste management policy, and too cost-efficient nuclear reactors. Utilities are even form- much federal government intervention are ing partnerships with reactor designers to prepare for creating barriers to the SMR progress. potential future construction. Perhaps most impres- • Most current attempts to promote SMR devel- sive is that most of this development is occurring opment rely on government bureaucrats and without government involvement.
    [Show full text]
  • The Nuclear Illustrative Programme of the Commission (PINC), and Is a Collection of Factual Data Gathered from Several Sources
    EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 4.4.2016 SWD(2016) 102 final COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Accompanying the document Communication from the Commission Nuclear Illustrative Programme presented under Article 40 of the Euratom Treaty for the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee {COM(2016) 177 final} EN EN Table of figures ...................................................................................................................................... 3 1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 4 1.1 Overview of the European nuclear industry ............................................................................ 4 2 The front-end of the nuclear fuel cycle ........................................................................................ 6 2.1 Demand for natural uranium .................................................................................................... 6 2.2 Conversion ............................................................................................................................... 7 2.3 Enrichment .............................................................................................................................. 7 2.4 Fuel fabrication ........................................................................................................................ 8 3 Nuclear new build .......................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Small Modular Reactors: Adding to Resilience at Federal Facilities
    Small Modular Reactors: Adding to Resilience at Federal Facilities December 2017 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This Report was prepared pursuant to a contract with Allegheny Science & Technology Corporation with funding from the U.S. Department of Energy (“DOE”), Office of Nuclear Energy, under Small Modular Reactor Report, MSA No. DOE0638-1022-11, Prime Contract No. DE-NE0000638. The views and assumptions described in this report are those of the authors. This Report does not represent the views of DOE, and no official endorsement should be inferred. Additionally, this Report is not intended to provide legal advice, and readers are encouraged to consult with an attorney familiar with the applicable federal and state requirements prior to entering into any agreements for the purchase of power. TVA’s decisions regarding power assets are subject to management recommendation and TVA Board of Director’s approval, and are based on a number of strategic considerations, including expected power demand, least cost planning requirements, financial flexibility, and consistency with integrated resource planning. The authors of this Report are Seth Kirshenberg, Hilary Jackler, and Jane Eun at Kutak Rock LLP and Brian Oakley and Wil Goldenberg at Scully Capital Services, Inc. The authors gratefully acknowledge the assistance of federal government officials working to support the small modular reactor program and the development of nuclear power. DOE provided the resources for this Report and invaluable leadership, guidance, and input. In particular, the authors appreciate the leadership, support, guidance, and input from Tim Beville, Program Manager, Small Modular Reactors Program at DOE, Tom O’Connor, Director, Office of Advanced Reactor Deployment at DOE, and Daniel Stout, Senior Manager, Small Modular Reactors at the Tennessee Valley Authority (“TVA”).
    [Show full text]