SANDIA REPORT SAND2016-2600 Unlimited Release March 2016
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
SANDIA REPORT SAND2016-2600 Unlimited Release March 2016 Assessment of Small Modular Reactor Suitability for Use On or Near Air Force Space Command Installations Bobby Middleton, Thomas R. Boland, William E. Schlafli, Bruce T. Landrey Prepared by Scitor Corporation, an SAIC Company Colorado Springs, CO 80915 Submitted To: Sandia National Laboratories Albuquerque, NM 87185 Sandia National Laboratories is a multi-program laboratory managed and operated by Sandia Corporation, a wholly owned subsidiary of Lockheed Martin Corporation, for the U.S. Department of Energy's National Nuclear Security Administration under contract DE-AC04-94AL85000. Approved for public release; further dissemination unlimited. Issued by Sandia National Laboratories, operated for the United States Department of Energy by Sandia Corporation. NOTICE: This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government, nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, nor any of their contractors, subcontractors, or their employees, make any warranty, express or implied, or assume any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represent 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, any agency thereof, or any of their contractors or subcontractors. The views and opinions expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government, any agency thereof, or any of their contractors. Printed in the United States of America. This report has been reproduced directly from the best available copy. Available to DOE and DOE contractors from U.S. Department of Energy Office of Scientific and Technical Information P.O. Box 62 Oak Ridge, TN 37831 Telephone: (865) 576-8401 Facsimile: (865) 576-5728 E-Mail: [email protected] Online ordering: http://www.osti.gov/scitech Available to the public from U.S. Department of Commerce National Technical Information Service 5301 Shawnee Rd Alexandria, VA 22312 Telephone: (800) 553-6847 Facsimile: (703) 605-6900 E-Mail: [email protected] Online order: http://www.ntis.gov/search 2 SAND2016-2600 Unlimited Release March 2016 Assessment of Small Modular Reactor Suitability for Use On or Near Air Force Space Command Installations Thomas R. Boland Scitor Corporation William E. Schlafli Scitor Corporation Bruce Landrey Landrey and Company Bobby D. Middleton Sandia National Laboratories PO BOX 5800 MS 1136 Albuquerque, NM 87185 ABSTRACT This is the final report of the Small Modular Reactor (SMR) Suitability study by Sandia National Laboratories and the Scitor Team (Scitor Corporation and Landrey & Company). SMRs are being considered by the U.S. government as a clean energy option that can meet the economic, environmental and energy security goals of the country. This report was sponsored by the US Department of Energy (DOE) under the SMR Licensing Technical Support program, of which one of the goals is to advance the commercial viability of domestic SMR designs. The study reflects the intent of the memorandum of understanding between the DOE and the Department of Defense (DoD) to enhance national energy security and demonstrate leadership in transitioning the United States (US) to a low carbon economy. This report assesses the suitability of using US-developed light water SMR technology to provide energy for Schriever Air Force Base, CO and Clear Air Force Station, AK, and for broader SMR applications to meet DoD and Federal energy needs. This report also outlines deployment scenarios to optimize the use of an SMR’s capacity to meet aggregated DoD and Federal energy needs within selected regions of the US. Finally, the report includes recommendations for follow-on actions by DoD and DOE to further the development of US SMR technology and effectively address viable solutions for national energy security and clean energy goals. 3 4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors wish to acknowledge the many subject matter experts who provided guidance and information for this document. DOE NE: Mr. Timothy Beville, SMR Licensing Technical Support Program Manager; Headquarters, Air Force Space Command: Mr. Scott Anderson, Mr. Tim Pugh, Mr. Todd Wynn, CMSgt Shaun Guilfoil, Mr. Tom Dickinson, Mr. John Moreau, Col George Petty, Mr. Charles Bryant, Mr. Doug McCarty; Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Installations, Environment and Energy: Mr. Douglas K. Tucker; Missile Defense Agency: Lt Col Joshua D. Snodgrass, Lt Col Matthew Feaster, Mr. Jerry Slusser; Sandia National Laboratories: Dr. Evaristo “Tito” Bonano, Mr. Gary Rochau, Mr. Mike Hightower; Air Force Civil Engineer Center: Mr. Dan Gerdes, Mr. Baron James A. Rabe; 50th Space Wing: Col Deanna Burt, Ms. Devon Thomas, Mr. John Campbell, Mr. Derren Horstmeier, SSgt Reynaldo Aguero; 21st Space Wing: Col Douglas Schiess, Col Troy Endicott; 13th Space Warning Squadron: Lt Col Jason Burch, Maj Scott Howe, Mr. Mark Anderson, Mr. John Moylan, SMSgt Gerald Babcock; Oak Ridge National Laboratory: Mr. Randy Belles, Mr. Olufemi A. Omitaomu, Mr. Gary Mays; Utility companies: Mr. Barry Ingold (Tri-State Generation & Transmission), Ms. Marilyn Kray, (Exelon Corporation), Mr. Terry Pickens (Xcel Energy), Mr. Dan Stout (Tennessee Valley Authority), Mr. Scott Bond (Ameren), Mr. Jim Gaston (Energy Northwest) Mr. Ed Arguello (Colorado Springs Utilities), Mr. Andy Colisimo (Colorado Springs Utilities), Mr. Dave Waldner (Mountain View Electric Association), Mr. Mike Wright (Golden Valley Electric Association), Mr. Paul Morgan (Golden Valley Electric Association); SMR vendors: Mr. Chris Colbert, Mr. Mike McGough, Mr. Jay Surina, Mr. Charles Marcinkiewicz, Dr. Daniel Ingersoll, Mr. John Marshea, Mr. John Stageberg (NuScale Power); Mr. Keyes A. Niemer (mPower BWXT); Mr. Thomas Marcille (Holtec International); Mr. Robert Sisk (Westinghouse); University of Oklahoma: Dr. Hank Jenkins-Smith; Hobart & William Smith Colleges: Dr. Tom Drennan. 5 CONTENTS Nomenclature .................................................................................................................................. 8 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................................... 11 1.0 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................ 21 2.0 SMR OVERVIEW ....................................................................................................... 25 2.1. SMR Characteristics and Benefits ................................................................................ 25 2.2. Current US SMR Technologies .................................................................................... 26 2.3. LCOE Considerations ................................................................................................... 30 2.4. Associated Technologies .............................................................................................. 32 3.0 THE DoD ENERGY LANDSCAPE ............................................................................ 35 3.1. Background ................................................................................................................... 35 3.2. Guidelines and Studies .................................................................................................. 38 3.3. Acquiring Use of DoD Land for Energy Production .................................................... 41 4.0 THE DoD AND SMRS ................................................................................................ 43 4.1. Why Air Force Space Command? ................................................................................ 43 4.2. Use Case Installation Selection Criteria ....................................................................... 45 4.3. Observations from Site Visits ....................................................................................... 46 4.4. Aggregation of Demand ................................................................................................ 59 4.5. DoD Benefits from Non-Electric SMR Applications ................................................... 60 4.6. Public Perception of Nuclear Energy ............................................................................ 61 5.0 DOD DEPLOYMENT STRATEGIES ........................................................................ 63 5.1. Key Considerations and Their Implications ................................................................. 63 5.2. Scenario 1: SMR Sited on Schriever AFB to Serve Regional DoD/Federal Facilities 64 5.3. Scenario 2: SMR Sited on Clear AFS to Serve Regional DoD Facilities and Utility Load in Alaska ........................................................................................................................ 65 5.4. Scenario 2b: SMR Sited on a DoD Installation Near Fairbanks, AK ........................... 67 5.5. Scenario 3: Aggregation of DoD Demand Through a Federal Power Marketing Agency 67 5.6. Scenario 4: Aggregation of DoD and Federal Demand Through the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) ....................................................................................................................