Legislature(2021 - 2022)BARNES 124
03/11/2022 01:00 PM House RESOURCES
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HJR34 | |
| HB299 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HJR 34 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 299 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE
March 11, 2022
1:02 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Josiah Patkotak, Chair
Representative Grier Hopkins, Vice Chair
Representative Calvin Schrage
Representative Sara Hannan
Representative George Rauscher
Representative Ronald Gillham
Representative Tom McKay (via teleconference)
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Zack Fields
Representative Mike Cronk
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 34
Supporting oil and gas leasing and development within the
National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska.
- MOVED HJR 34 OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 299
"An Act relating to microreactors."
- HEARD & HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HJR 34
SHORT TITLE: NAT'L PETROLEUM RESERVE IN ALASKA
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) PATKOTAK
02/22/22 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/22/22 (H) RES
03/09/22 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
03/09/22 (H) Heard & Held
03/09/22 (H) MINUTE(RES)
03/11/22 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
BILL: HB 299
SHORT TITLE: MICROREACTORS
SPONSOR(s): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
02/04/22 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/04/22 (H) ENE, RES
02/08/22 (H) ENE AT 10:15 AM ADAMS 519
02/08/22 (H) Heard & Held
02/08/22 (H) MINUTE(ENE)
02/10/22 (H) ENE AT 10:15 AM ADAMS 519
02/10/22 (H) Heard & Held
02/10/22 (H) MINUTE(ENE)
02/15/22 (H) ENE AT 10:15 AM ADAMS 519
02/15/22 (H) Heard & Held
02/15/22 (H) MINUTE(ENE)
03/01/22 (H) ENE AT 10:15 AM ADAMS 519
03/01/22 (H) Moved HB 299 Out of Committee
03/01/22 (H) MINUTE(ENE)
03/02/22 (H) ENE RPT 4DP 2NR
03/02/22 (H) DP: KAUFMAN, TUCK, RAUSCHER, SCHRAGE
03/02/22 (H) NR: ZULKOSKY, CLAMAN
03/11/22 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
WITNESS REGISTER
CHRISTINA CARPENTER, Director
Division of Environmental Health
Department of Environmental Conservation
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Introduced HB 299 on behalf of the sponsor,
House Rules by request of the governor.
GWEN HOLDMANN, Director
Alaska Center for Energy and Power
University of Alaska Fairbanks
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing on HB 299, provided a
PowerPoint presentation titled, "Small Scale Nuclear Power an
option for Alaska?"
ASHLEY FINAN, PhD, Director
National Reactor Innovation Center
Idaho National Laboratory
Victor, Idaho
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing on HB 299, answered
questions.
CARRIE HARRIS
Anchor Point, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing on HB 299, expressed her
concern about nuclear waste.
MICHAEL ROVITO, Deputy Director
Alaska Power Association
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 299.
JEREMIAH HAMRICK
Wasilla, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing on HB 299, expressed his
concern about nuclear waste.
MARGARET TARRANT, Environmental Justice Organizer
Alaska Community Action on Toxics
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 299.
LISA HOLLEN
Union of Concerned Scientists
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing on HB 299, expressed her
concerns with nuclear power.
ACTION NARRATIVE
1:02:25 PM
CHAIR JOSIAH PATKOTAK called the House Resources Standing
Committee meeting to order at 1:02 p.m. Representatives
Schrage, Gillham, Rauscher, Hopkins, and McKay (via
teleconference), and Patkotak were present at the call to order.
Representative Hannan arrived as the meeting was in progress.
HJR 34-NAT'L PETROLEUM RESERVE IN ALASKA
1:03:02 PM
CHAIR PATKOTAK announced that the first order of business would
be HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 34, Supporting oil and gas leasing
and development within the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska.
1:03:58 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER complimented the resolution's intent and
offered his support for its passage.
1:04:26 PM
CHAIR PATKOTAK thanked everyone for their good discussion of the
resolution.
1:05:01 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS moved to report HJR 34 out of committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying [zero]
fiscal note. There being no objection, HJR 34 was reported out
of the House Resources Standing Committee.
1:05:25 PM
The committee took a brief at-ease.
HB 299-MICROREACTORS
1:07:36 PM
CHAIR PATKOTAK announced that the final order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 299, "An Act relating to microreactors." He
noted that the bill is by request of the governor.
1:08:14 PM
CHRISTINA CARPENTER, Director, Division of Environmental Health,
Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), introduced HB
299 on behalf of the sponsor, House Rules by request of the
governor. She explained that the bill defines a microreactor
according to a federal definition contained in the
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. The bill also creates a
carve-out from the ongoing study and legislative siting
requirements that are currently in statute. The existing study
requirement involves six state departments and was designed to
analyze the operation of massive legacy reactors. She said [the
administration] believes that the Alaska Center for Energy and
Power (ACEP), along with the National Laboratories, is the
appropriate place for these studies. This issue has been
studied by ACEP for over 10 years and ACEP is committed to work
with DEC on a microreactor road map for Alaska.
MS. CARPENTER noted that currently there are no microreactors in
Alaska and the timeframe for microreactors coming to market is
estimated at five to seven years. These [proposed] exemptions
will allow microreactors to be situated without the necessity of
legislative approval for lands, reducing the burden on atomic
industrial development. The existing legislative siting
requirements reflect the statewide nature of a legacy reactor
while a microreactor is really a local issue. A legacy reactor
has a 50-mile emergency planning zone, whereas a microreactor's
emergency planning zone ends at the reactor facility's door.
The bill does not renew the requirement that municipalities must
approve of the DEC siting permit.
MS. CARPENTER related that HB 299 is supported by the clean
energy industry and a diverse group of stakeholders such as
Copper Valley Electric Authority, clean energy nonprofits like
Clear Path Action, and the Alaska Center for Energy and Power in
Fairbanks. This list is expected to grow as Alaskans are
engaged in the weeks ahead.
1:10:39 PM
MS. CARPENTER provided a sectional analysis of HB 299. She said
Section 1 removes the requirement for microreactors to be
situated on legislatively designated land. Section 2 exempts
state departments and agencies from the requirement to conduct
studies concerning changes in laws and regulation for
microreactors only. Section 3 provides the definition of
microreactor.
1:11:29 PM
GWEN HOLDMANN, Director, Alaska Center for Energy and Power
(ACEP), University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF), provided a
PowerPoint presentation titled "Small Scale Nuclear Power an
option for Alaska?" She turned to the second slide, "National
Lab Technical Experts," and acknowledged the collaborators who
have made themselves available to answer technical questions.
She proceeded to the third slide, "Alaska Center for Energy &
Power (ACEP)," and explained that ACEP is an applied energy
research center that looks at the options for current and future
energy solutions for Alaska communities and industries.
Microreactors are an example of the technology and a topic that
ACEP has been tracking for over 10 years at the request of the
legislature.
MS. HOLDMANN moved to the fourth slide, "ACEP Small Nuclear
Reports 2011 & 2021 'Small Modular Nuclear Power: an option
for Alaska?'" She recounted that ACEP was initially asked to
look at this in 2010/2011, for which ACEP produced a report that
included information on historically proposed projects. At that
time not many smaller reactors were available that would be
suitable for use in Alaska. Today, however, many smaller
reactors that would be better suited for the Alaskan environment
are moving closer to commercialization.
MS. HOLDMANN displayed the fifth slide, "2021: Updated Report to
Legislature 'Small Scale Nuclear Power: an option for Alaska?'"
She said ACEP's 2021 report made very specific recommendations
for moving forward in this area, one of which was to change
state statutes. This bill closely follows the recommendations
that ACEP made in its 2021 report, which was prepared at the
request of the legislature.
1:14:44 PM
MS. HOLDMANN explained that HB 299 defines a microreactor in
statute according to federal definitions consistent with the
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, which means a reactor
that produces no more than 50 megawatts (MWe) of electric power
and meets the standards of an advanced nuclear reactor as
defined in federal code. Secondly, HB 299 creates an exemption
for microreactors from the requirements of legislative siting
approval for each individual project because this is more of a
local issue than something that could impact the state.
Thirdly, the bill creates an exemption for microreactors from
the requirements of continuous [state] department studies for a
project once initial permitting is completed.
MS. HOLDMANN discussed what HB 299 does not do. She said the
bill does not exempt micro nuclear reactors (MNRs) from any
normal permitting and licensing requirements at the state or
national level. At the national level the lead federal agency
is the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) which has a very
robust licensing process on the technology side and site
licensing for any individual reactor. At the state level the
lead permitting agency is DEC. An NRC license is always going
to be a prerequisite for any project that is completed in Alaska
or anywhere in the US, but it's not the only requirement to
build a nuclear power plant. A developer would also have to
meet any state requirements and complete state environmental
reviews before construction or operation. This bill does not in
any way impact that process, it only removes the requirement for
ongoing continuous studies after the project has been developed
beyond those required for normal permitting compliance.
1:16:57 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER asked whether he is correct in
understanding that HB 299 would get rid of some bureaucratic red
tape that is not needed.
MS. HOLDMANN replied that that is correct.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER posed a scenario of purchasing a
microreactor and putting it in Sutton. He asked how many
permits would be left for him to "climb over" to make that
happen.
MS. HOLDMANN responded that from the national perspective the
NRC has a robust and extensive permitting process. She offered
to provide a list of those national level permits to the
committee if members would like. She said her understanding at
the state level is that DEC is going to need to develop a
process as part of a road map, which APEC hopes to work with DEC
in developing, for exactly what all those permitting
requirements will look like. She deferred to Ms. Carpenter to
answer further.
MS. CARPENTER confirmed that in the future DEC will need to
develop regulations specific to siting requirements. Since
there are no microreactors in the state, she explained, DEC has
not done that. In those regulations DEC would put requirements
about minimum setbacks from water or other properties. If air
or water permits were also required, DEC would have those
requirements as well.
1:19:26 PM
CHAIR PATKOTAK inquired about the relevance of Project Chariot
to today's discussion.
MS. CARPENTER answered that there is very little relevance. She
said Project Chariot creates concerns about the safety of
nuclear energy as an energy resource, especially in remote
locations. However, she continued, the modern nuclear energy
system or microreactor that is currently being discussed for
future deployment is quite different from the legacy that is had
in the state around nuclear testing and development.
CHAIR PATKOTAK stated that Project Chariot was a weapons-based
test versus today's power generation through microreactors.
1:20:46 PM
MS. HOLDMANN resumed her presentation. She reviewed the sixth
slide, "A few facts about nuclear energy...", which read as
follows [original punctuation provided]:
• Nuclear energy supplies 20 [percent] of the U.S.
electric power needs, more than all renewable
resources combined (including hydro)
• The U.S. produces more nuclear energy than any other
country in the world
• In the 60-year history of the nuclear power industry
in 36 countries, there have only been 3 significant
accidents at nuclear power plants.
• With the exception of Chernobyl, no nuclear workers
or members of the public have ever died as a result
of radiation exposure due to a commercial nuclear
reactor accident (including Fukushima Daiichi)
MS. HOLDMANN added that ACEP strives to provide accurate
information to Alaskans about different technologies. Because
nuclear energy can be used as a weapon there is an additional
concern about what the potential implications could be.
However, nuclear energy has an excellent safety record, and this
is just for conventional nuclear reactors not advanced or micro
nuclear reactors.
MS. HOLDMANN continued to the seventh slide, "What are
Microreactors?", which read as follows [original punctuation
provided with some formatting changes]:
Microreactors are an emerging class of small advanced
reactors with the following general attributes:
• Output of 1 to 10's of MWe
• Capable of load following and non-electric
applications (e.g., process heat)
• Factory fabricated and transportable nearly fully
assembled. Requires a small operational footprint.
• Employs passively safe operating and fuel designs
• Semi-autonomous control system/minimum on-site staff
• Long intervals without refueling (e.g., 10 years)
MS. HOLDMANN noted that the 50 MWe threshold in HB 299 is
consistent with definitions at the federal level. The reason
for that, she explained, is that it is an arbitrary threshold of
which all the advanced reactors that are being developed in the
micro category fall well below. Unlike legacy reactors,
microreactors are more like a thermal battery, a nuclear battery
that would be deployed as a system that provides heat, and that
heat is then used to drive conventional power generation
systems, one example being steam turbines.
1:25:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE asked whether the 50 MWe limitation would
prohibit microreactors from being placed in series with each
other and combined to create a larger plant made up of several
microreactors.
MS. HOLDMANN replied that that strategy is being considered very
significantly for microreactors. These microreactor designs
compliment a modular reactor, which is designed to replace many
of the legacy nuclear plants in the US. They are deployed in
parallel to one another within a single powerplant within a
single footprint. The idea is that there is less nuclear
material in any one place in a single reactor. For a site that
requires more than, say, 5 or 10 MWe of electric power,
microreactors could be installed in parallel and meet the
overall load that is trying to be accomplished for that site.
1:26:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER asked how much distance is needed
between the microreactor units.
MS. HOLDMANN responded that there is no precise answer. She
explained that many of these reactors are designed to be in a
large, containerized solution where they are installed close to
one another. Some of the manufacturers envision having two bays
next to each other so when the fuel in one of the reactors is
expended it can be pulled out. Because the expended fuel needs
to be cooled for 60 days, the second reactor can be brought on
and there would be no interruption.
1:28:23 PM
MS. HOLDMANN displayed the eighth slide, "Small Nuclear Reactors
(under development in U.S., <300 MWe)." She said the graphic
shows the different reactor technologies that are currently
under development for the US market. These are systems that are
planning to, or are currently, working through the NRC licensing
process. The cluster at the bottom left of the slide represents
the microreactors that are under development for the US market.
Modular reactors are shown on the top half of the graphic; they
are larger than 50 MWe which, in general, is a little bit too
big for the loads in Alaska.
MS. HOLDMANN proceeded to slide 9, "Example MNRs under
development." She related that Ultra Safe Nuclear Corporation
is currently working on a feasibility study with the Copper
Valley Electric Association. The design is around a 10 MWe
electric threshold with the reactor installed below ground and
the remaining equipment above ground. Westinghouse has
expressed interest in the Alaska market with its eVinci reactor.
This smaller, more compact design has a two-bay deployment
strategy and would be deployed above ground in an oversized
conex-type container along with three additional conex
containers with the ancillary equipment required for power
generation.
MS. HOLDMANN discussed the tenth slide, "What Does Passive
Safety Mean?" The slide read as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
Fuel/fuel configuration
New fuel configurations such as TRISO [tri-structural
isotropic] particles cannot melt in a reactor and can
withstand extreme temperatures and stresses that are
well beyond the threshold of current nuclear fuels.
Passive Cooling
Advanced reactors do not require active systems to
cool the fuel in an emergency. Instead they rely on
passive safety features which require no active
controls or operational intervention to avoid
accidents in the event of malfunction, and instead
rely on gravity, natural convection, or resistance to
high temperatures (or a combination thereof)
1:33:41 PM
MS. HOLDMANN continued to the eleventh slide, "Question: What
does TAPS [Trans Alaska Pipeline System] have in common with
micro reactor technologies?" She explained that the TAPS
pipeline uses a heat pipe to remove or extract heat from the
ground to keep the ground frozen, with ammonia used as the
working fluid. It is a passive process that doesn't require any
pumps or electric power to operate. It is a perfect example of
the type of strategy that is being used by some of these
microreactor technologies to remove heat from the reactor core
and then use that heat for various purposes.
MS. HOLDMANN moved to the twelfth and thirteenth slides,
"Question: What do micro reactor technologies have in common
with the automobile industry?" She said the answer is that both
are built to factory specifications and tolerances. The
thirteenth slide depicts a NuScale Power Reactor where the
reactors are installed in series, in parallel, with one another
in a compact footprint. This is more of a modular reactor than
a microreactor, she added, and a modular reactor would replace
the legacy reactors that are in the rest of the US.
MS. HOLDMANN addressed the fourteenth and fifteenth slides,
"Question: What do micro reactor technologies have in common
[with] diesel generators?" She explained that microreactors,
unlike legacy reactors, can load to follow. Microreactors can
complement renewables by following the output of a variable
renewable energy system like wind or solar and firming up the
output, or by following the load where there is daily or hourly
variation in the load. Microreactors are better suited to be
able to meet that changing demand than a legacy reactor. This
is needed in Alaska because Alaska has such a small market and
has challenges with integrating variable renewables and variable
loads on grids.
1:36:57 PM
MS. HOLDMANN spoke to the sixteenth and seventeenth slides,
"State Statutes Relates to Nuclear Energy," which read as
follows [original punctuation provided]:
• Sec. 18.45.020 Requires an applicant to follow the
NRC regulations;
• Sec. 18.45.025 Requires DEC to provide permission to
a nuclear developer, the state assembly to designate
by law any land that would be used, and DEC to
promulgate regulations for this section. If a
municipality has jurisdiction over the proposed
site, its approval is also required.
• Sec. 18.45.027 Pertains to nuclear waste. If the
fuel has been used for a period of time, this
statute might restrict the reactor containing
partially used fuel from being moved in state for
further use.
• Sec. 18.45.030 is an authorization of exhaustive/
continuing studies of nuclear development related
risks by DH&SS, DOL, DOT, DCCED, DF&G, DNR and other
State agencies.
• Sec. 18.45.040 relates to judicial enforcement of
the law via governor required processes.
• Sec. 18.45.070 allows coordination with the federal
government.
• Sec. 18.45.090 is an exemption related to mining
uranium
• Sec. 18.45.900 is filled with definitions.
MS. HOLDMANN, speaking to the sixteenth slide, stated that ACEP
has looked at all the Alaska statutes related to nuclear energy,
some of which ACEP did not recommend changing. One of those
statutes, for example, is AS 18.45.027 which currently provides
that any radioactive material in the state can only be moved for
the purpose of moving it outside of the state. She specified
that no changes were recommended to this statute because ACEP
doesn't foresee any possibility that that might become an issue
in the near future.
MS. HOLDMANN, speaking to the seventeenth slide, said ACEP
recommended making changes to three statutes [Sec. 18.45.025,
Sec. 18.45.030, Sec. 18.45.900] and these are the statutes that
are addressed in HB 299.
MS. HOLDMANN addressed the eighteenth slide, "Question: Do
microreactors have a role in Alaska's future energy mix?" She
said ACEP has continued to do studies and research on this,
including looking at the economics. She added that ACEP has
also worked closely with the University of Alaska Anchorage
Center for Economic Development, which prepared a Use Case
Analysis. She displayed the nineteenth slide and said the four
photographs, labeled "Rural Hub Community," "Railbelt
Application," "Military base (e.g., Eielson AFB)," and "Mining
Operations (E.g., Red Dog Mine)," represent the four use cases
that were looked at by the Center for Economic Development.
1:40:33 PM
MS. HOLDMANN moved to the twentieth slide and stated that the
map depicts the Alaska communities that might be big enough to
host a microreactor [Kotzebue (4 MW), Nome (9 MW), Galena (1
MW), Fairbanks (223 MW), Tok (2 MW), Bethel (7 MW), Dillingham
(3 MW), Naknek (8 MW), Anchorage (662 MW)]. Galena was
included, she explained, because about a decade ago it was
considered as a host for a microreactor. Today, however, Galena
would be too small to be considered a viable site.
MS. HOLDMANN discussed the twenty-first slide, "National Reactor
Innovation Center (Idaho National Laboratory)." She shared that
ACEP has been working with the National Reactor Innovation
Center (NRIC) on developing a road map for the state of Alaska,
along with DEC, Alaska Energy Authority (AEA), and others. She
said a look is being taken at the questions that need to be
answered and a pathway for deploying nuclear energy technologies
in Alaska. At this point in time, no advanced microreactors
have been deployed in situ, but several projects are expected to
happen in the next five years, many of those taking place at the
Idaho National Laboratory.
1:42:26 PM
MS. HOLDMANN reviewed the twenty-second and twenty-third slides,
"Eielson AF Microreactor Pilot," which read as follows [original
punctuation provided]:
• 2019 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA)
required the DoD [Department of Defense] to seek to
develop a pilot program for the development of at
least one micro-reactor by December 2027.
• Managed through the Office of the Deputy Assistant
Secretary of the Air Force for Environment Safety
and Infrastructure (SAF/IEE, Mark Correll)
• 1-5MWe
• Will not be grid connected onsite heat and power
only
• Will be licensed by the NRC; subject to state regs
• Privately owned/operated through PPA [power purchase
agreement] with USAF [US Air Force]
Proposed Timeline
• February/March 2022 RFP [request for proposals]
released
• Vender selected late 2022
• 2022-23 Permitting and licensing
• 2025 begin construction
• 2027 Commercial operation
MS. HOLDMANN turned to the twenty-fourth slide, "Alaska
Roadmap," and said the schematic depicts the way of thinking for
deployment of nuclear energy. The first question is whether the
technology exists. If the technology exists, the next question
is whether it is safe. If it is safe, the next question is
whether it is a responsible technology to deploy in the Alaska
environment. The last question is whether it is cost effective.
She said ACEP believes that these four questions need to be
answered in order to understand the possible landscape for
deploying microreactors in Alaska.
1:44:42 PM
MS. HOLDMANN concluded her presentation with the twenty-fifth
slide, "Why I am interested in small reactors:" which read as
follows [original punctuation provided]:
• Provide baseload energy heat and power
• Can load follow
• Carbon free
• Safer?
• Competitive Pricing?
• Better long-term certainty of energy costs?
• Reduced risk of environmental contamination?
• Possible complement to existing AK resource mix
MS. HOLDMANN added that her background is in mechanical
engineering and physics. She said she doesn't have a specific
background related to nuclear energy, but she has been involved
with a lot of developments in the state of Alaska and has a real
background in thermal energy systems. She has become personally
interested in the potential that microreactors have for Alaska
because she thinks they can provide baseload energy in the form
of heat and power. She pointed out that while she thinks
microreactors are safer it must be ensured that Alaskans
understand what that means, which is something ACEP is hoping to
do. When considering competitive pricing, she said ACEP is
interested in understanding what the value of the thermal energy
is, not just the electric power. Ms. Holdmann noted that better
long-term certainty of energy costs mostly applies to rural
areas that must import diesel fuel over long shipping routes and
over which there is little control over market price. Regarding
reduced risk of environmental contamination, she stated that
while new technology can sometimes be scary, the environmental
footprint of current technology must also be considered, such as
the transportation of diesel fuel across Alaska and the
contamination often related to that. She closed by stating that
microreactors could complement the existing resource mix in
Alaska, thereby allowing for more resilient and reliable energy
systems in the state.
1:48:19 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS inquired about how microreactors could
work within mining opportunities as well as development on the
North Slope to support a power supply with lower carbon and less
environmental contamination.
MS. HOLDMANN replied that ACEP has talked with the oil and gas
and the mining industries. Both industries are interested in
how to reduce their carbon footprint and see microreactors as
having a potential role there. Because microreactors have
process heat potential they might be able to offer additional
opportunities for refining and processing materials onsite so
that a higher value product could be exported from Alaska.
Mines come in all sizes, but many of them would need dozens of
megawatts. A potential environmental impact related to mining
is the importing of fuel and the potential impacts of fuel oil
spills. Microreactors would be a good alternative because the
chances of environmental contamination for the power generation
side of a mining operation would be significantly lower than
standard diesel generation technologies.
1:50:56 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE inquired about utilizing the heat coming
from microreactors to create other energy sources. He offered
his understanding that during times of less electrical demand,
things could be scaled over to heat for use in hydrogen cracking
or storage opportunities so as to not waste that energy.
MS. HOLDMANN confirmed that new opportunities are opened because
microreactor systems provide high temperature process heat.
This process heat could be used for industrial processes that
currently use carbon intensive energies, including producing
hydrogen or ammonia. The flexibility of these systems does
allow switching from one application to another, and ACEP wants
to work with its National Lab partners in understanding the
economics of these different use cases, which many of the
vendors say is technically feasible. In the context of Alaska
use cases, ACEP would like to better understand the economics of
toggling back and forth between different use cases and ramping
up and down output of a reactor.
1:53:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN drew attention to the twenty-fourth slide,
"Alaska Roadmap." She asked whether the vendors mentioned in
previous slides have been licensed.
MS. HOLDMANN answered that to date no reactor vendors have gone
completely through the NRC licensing process, and none have yet
been deployed in the US. Several vendors are well along their
way in planning deployments in the next few years and that would
include going through the NRC licensing process.
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN surmised the Alaska State Legislature is
looking at this because of Eielson having a pilot project. She
asked whether Eielson is the first project anywhere for the
Department of Defense and whether the DoD would then be looking
at the first vendor to get NRC approval.
MS. HOLDMANN replied that HB 299 has nothing to do with the
Eielson project. "The Eielson project ? has something to do
with it," she continued, "but it wasn't ? spurred by the fact
that this Eielson project has been proposed. This is something
that we think is important because ? if Alaska wants to consider
microreactors ? this cleanup of state statute enables
communities or industry to make decisions around considering
nuclear reactors as part of their future energy mix." Changes
to statutes were suggested by ACEP before the Eielson project
was announced and before ACEP knew that that was potentially
going to happen. Another project being done by DoD is through
the US Army for a very small transportable reactor for advanced
Army deployments. She offered her understanding that the
Eielson project will be the first commercial project, the first
power purchase agreement, engaged in by DoD for a microreactor.
In that process, a funding opportunity announcement will be put
out on the streets and bids for the project would include a plan
for licensing. Most likely it will be a combined license that
covers both the technology and site license requirements under
NRC. That will happen in parallel to the process of final
design, environmental impact assessments, and other permitting
work that needs to be done before ground would be broken.
1:55:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN asked whether a bad actor could turn a
microreactor's waste or operations into a dirty bomb.
MS. HOLDMANN responded that advanced fuel designs, like the
TRISO fuel, make it hard to break apart or to recycle that fuel.
It would be very difficult for someone to repurpose that fuel
for any purpose other than powering the reactor. She said she
will get better answers and provide them to the committee.
2:00:04 PM
ASHLEY FINAN, PhD, Director, National Reactor Innovation Center,
Idaho National Laboratory, replied that Ms. Holdmann answered
the question accurately. It would be very difficult, she
concurred, and the fuel would not be the most attractive target
because there are many easier ways to [to make a dirty bomb].
She suggested there be follow-up to the committee with a more
thorough response from the lab's experts.
CHAIR PATKOTAK said the committee looks forward to getting that
information.
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN concurred with having the experts weigh
in. She remarked that Alaska could become attractive because it
is a remote, isolated, unguarded, and unsecured location.
2:02:06 PM
CHAIR PATKOTAK, regarding the long-term certainty of energy
costs for rural villages, related that many communities make a
one-time purchase of diesel fuel that lasts for about 14 months.
Much of the capital cost involved with that, he continued, is
having storage tanks to fit sufficiently because the fuel is
used for power generation as well as heating homes. He
suggested that maybe instead of having four diesel tanks to
provide for heat and power generation, villages could have a
micro-nuclear reactor and then need only two diesel tanks. This
would be another layer to helping with energy costs and capital
costs for Alaska's smaller villages.
2:03:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS asked whether district heat has been
considered.
MS. HOLDMANN confirmed that district heat is being looked at.
She said there could be a multi-stage approach of using the high
temperature heat for industrial processes or for power
generation, and then the heat that is expended there could be
used for district heating purposes.
2:04:01 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GILLHAM inquired about the fuel particles being
the size of a poppy seed.
MS. HOLDMANN answered that the individual fuel particles that
are encased in the high temperature resistant ceramic materials
are the size of a poppy seed, not all of the fuel for a reactor.
REPRESENTATIVE GILLHAM asked whether a neighborhood could buy a
mobile reactor and a conex and then set up its own power.
MS. HOLDMANN replied that she can envision something in the
future where microreactors could replace small rural power
generation systems, but not in the near horizon because much
additional work needs to be done and systems further downsized
for that to happen. She deferred to Dr. Finan to provide
further comment.
DR. FINAN responded that that could be possible in the future.
Research and testing are ongoing to develop the technologies
that would be needed to make that possible. Right now, nuclear
reactors have human operators on site, so if a community wanted
to purchase a reactor it would also need operators to run it.
Some companies are developing both business models and
technologies that will allow them to sell more directly to users
who are not nuclear operators, instead users would purchase
nuclear energy as a service. She concurred with Ms. Holdmann
that much work needs to be done and said that that is probably
not how the initial deployment will be done.
DR. FINAN addressed the earlier question about the diversion of
materials. She clarified that these would not be unguarded or
unsecured, and that currently there is lots of guarding and lots
of security on nuclear power plants. Work is being done on
advanced nuclear technology to incorporate more passive safety
and to incorporate more passive security features that work
better in remote locations, she continued, but they will also
have active security features.
2:07:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GILLHAM, in relation to competitive pricing,
asked what the cost would be for a unit that could power a city
the size of Bethel.
MS. HOLDMANN answered that ACEP has been helping the vendors
understand better the economics of deploying these systems in
various Alaska contexts. The cost of power in rural Alaska is
very high, but not all that cost is fuel cost, some is
operational cost and the aspects of running a utility in a rural
setting. In a recent presentation a vendor talked about a price
tag of around $50 million. While that sounds high, it must be
remembered that that could also address the thermal energy needs
of a community.
DR. FINAN added that right now there aren't specific numbers for
specific technologies because the technologies will need to be
demonstrated before there can be confidence in their cost. Some
of the larger microreactors, like 50 MWe, are targeting to
compete with natural gas generators and coal generators.
Whether they will hit it remains uncertain until it is done, but
the companies are working towards that price point. For much
smaller microreactors, typically the companies are targeting
being competitive with diesel and other generators. Whether
that can be hit remains unknown until it is done, but that is
their target and that is what their investment and their
investors are placing their bets on.
2:11:32 PM
CHAIR PATKOTAK opened public testimony on HB 299.
2:12:09 PM
CARRIE HARRIS, agreed there is diesel contamination but pointed
out that diesel contamination does not have a 708-million-year
half-life like the fuel for nuclear reactors. She maintained
that these reactors use waste fuel from the Lower 48. She asked
how much waste fuel will be stored to fuel these reactors and
whether there will be a limit. She further asked whether
storage facilities for the waste fuel will be regulated or
whether Alaska will be a nuclear waste dump for the Lower 48,
which was tried before. She asked who will collect the fees for
storing the Lower 48's nuclear waste. She surmised Alaska would
be the first state to have this brand-new technology. She asked
whether it is a red flag that it is being developed in Idaho,
but Idaho wants to test it on Alaska.
MS. HARRIS disagreed that Project Chariot was a weapons testing
system. Rather, it was about blowing [an artificial] harbor at
[Cape] Thompson in 1958, she continued, and the project was
stopped. Regulations on these [microreactors] are needed
because radiation has massive spread through wind, water, and
the water table. She asked why Idaho isn't saying it wants the
first project if this nuclear technology is perfect. She
requested that answers be given to her questions.
2:15:42 PM
MICHAEL ROVITO, Deputy Director, Alaska Power Association (APA),
testified in support of HB 299. He paraphrased from the
following written statement [original punctuation provided]:
Alaska Power Association (APA) supports House Bill
299, and we urge its passage this year so electric
utilities considering Micro Modular Reactors (MMRs)
can move forward with their projects confidently
knowing a portion of the permitting process has been
streamlined.
APA is the statewide trade association for electric
utilities in Alaska. Our members provide power for
more than a half-million Alaskans from Utqiagvik to
Unalaska, through the Interior and Southcentral, and
down the Inside Passage.
Our electric utility members are constantly innovating
and integrating new technologies that support their
mission of providing safe, reliable, and affordable
power. MMRs are a viable source of power that have the
potential to lower the cost of energy for Alaskans,
decrease dependency on diesel, better position our
state for economic development opportunities, and
raise Alaska's profile as a hub of energy innovation
and energy independence.
It is important to point out that electric utilities
seeking to permit MMRs will still have to satisfy
state and federal permitting requirements before the
projects can be constructed. HB 299 helps to
streamline the process by exempting MMRs under 50MWe
from legislative siting authority and from numerous
required ongoing studies that could hamper
development.
Alaska's electric utilities provide power amid harsh
conditions, vast distances, and a lack of
interconnection to Lower 48 regional grids. By passing
HB 299, the legislature will help our state's electric
utilities more easily access a viable option for
providing reliable and affordable power and light in
the Last Frontier.
2:17:48 PM
JEREMIAH HAMRICK, expressed his concern about the massive
problems with nuclear waste. He said having nuclear waste every
10 years is going to be an issue for the state. While it is a
smaller size, it is still nuclear power and the safety of that,
and he doesn't foresee overcoming the nuclear waste problem.
The people who are pushing nuclear energy are going to downplay
the safety hazards and the nuclear waste, he charged; for
example, there has been no discussion today about the nuclear
waste and having to take care of that. Nuclear power is great
until it isn't, of which Fukushima is an example. Nuclear waste
can be disastrous even on a small scale. As well, Alaska has
many earthquakes. The people pushing for this like to say it is
carbon neutral, he continued, but they do not mention the
nuclear waste that must be dealt with. He urged caution on this
new technology and said he doesn't think the technology is for
Alaska at this time.
2:21:00 PM
MARGARET TARRANT, Environmental Justice Organizer, Alaska
Community Action on Toxics (ACAT), testified in opposition to HB
299. She paraphrased from the following written statement
[original punctuation provided]:
Alaska Community Action on Toxics (ACAT) is a
statewide non-profit environmental health and justice
research and advocacy organization based in Anchorage.
We oppose HB 299 because it allows that so-called
micronuclear reactors are not subject to certain
nuclear reactor siting and permitting regulations in
Alaska and may be constructed "on land that has not
been designated by the legislature."
There are serious health and safety concerns with
micronuclear reactors, and they are a false solution
for our energy needs and the climate crisis. Nuclear
power is destructive throughout its life cycle from
the mining of uranium which is done predominately on
Indigenous lands through the enrichment process to the
untenable problems of disposal of radioactive waste.
On Jan. 6, 2022 the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
determined that Oklo failed to provide sufficient
information on topics such as potential accidents and
certain safety systems. Microreactor vendors are
pushing to reduce (or even eliminate entirely)
personnel such as operators and security officers. In
a report about the safety of advanced nuclear
reactors, the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS)
determined that leaving the microreactors without
human guards is not safe. Even a very small reactor
contains enough radioactive material to cause a big
problem if it is sabotaged, and none of these reactors
have demonstrated they are so safe that they can
function without operators. A single Oklo micro-
reactor core would contain about 10 nuclear weapons'
worth of nuclear and radioactive material. According
to the UCS report: "Nuclear technology has fundamental
safety and security disadvantages compared with other
low-carbon (renewable) sources. Nuclear reactors and
their associated facilities for fuel production and
waste handling are vulnerable to catastrophic
accidents and sabotage, and they can be misused to
produce materials for nuclear weapons."
It is disturbing that the primary proponents of this
are representatives from the nuclear power industry
who have a vested interest. Opening the door to
nuclear power again in Alaska is unwise and dangerous.
We are still addressing the radioactive legacy of
massive radioactive contamination from the
"experimental" SM1A nuclear reactor at Fort Greely
that was a colossal failure. As the Union of Concerned
Scientists noted in their recent report evaluating
modern nuclear technologies, including micronuclear
reactors: "Advanced" Isn't Always Better.
2:25:03 PM
LISA HOLLEN, Union of Concerned Scientists, expressed her
concerns with nuclear power. She pointed to Fukushima and the
lives lost 11 years ago as an example of safety failure in an
earthquake zone. Given that in 1964 Alaska had the second
largest earthquake in the world, 9.2, she asked how there can be
any question of safety. She questioned where the nuclear
radiation will be put given there isn't any regulation of the
toxic chemicals being dumped in Alaska. For example, what the
US Navy couldn't dump in the ocean was dumped on land in Alaska
and now the state is dealing with that. She asked whether
Alaska wants to compound its contamination problem with more
nuclear radiation. She pointed out the problem of safety caused
by humans, an example being the person who shot the oil pipeline
causing a major environmental disaster. No safety issue is
addressed in the bill, she stated, and it is unviable to have
[nuclear power] in Alaska. She urged that the committee talk
with Dr. Edwin Lyman, Director of Nuclear Power Safety, Union of
Concerned Scientists, who has been dealing with nuclear waste
for 40 years.
2:27:33 PM
CHAIR PATKOTAK closed public testimony after ascertaining no one
else wished to testify on HB 299.
2:28:12 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER inquired about the size of the radiation
fallout area should an explosion occur involving a reactor.
MS. HOLDMANN invited the individuals who testified with
questions about the safety or potential applications of nuclear
energy or waste to join ACEP's working group. She said this can
be done through ACEP's web site and that the working group is
about getting good information to the people who have questions.
She deferred to Dr. Finan to provide additional information.
2:29:57 PM
DR. FINAN addressed the question about explosions. She said
explosions are characteristic of nuclear weapons, but not of
nuclear power plants. Advanced nuclear power plants do not have
the characteristics that are required to produce a nuclear
explosion, she continued, and because it isn't physically
realistic, she doesn't expect to see any fallout. She recalled
Ms. Holdmann's description of a 10-mile radius evacuation area
for large light-water reactors and of a facility site fence line
area for advanced reactors. She said that the fence line area
would be the expected impact of a major accident.
DR. FINAN, regarding the Fukushima accident, agreed there was
enormous loss of life that day. She said 20,000 people were
killed by the tsunami from the earthquake, not by a nuclear
accident. The nuclear incident, she continued, caused very
localized death among the workers, some from drowning, and there
was evacuation, but the destruction was the result of a tsunami,
not a nuclear accident.
DR. FINAN discussed the comparison made between nuclear and
diesel contamination. She agreed nuclear waste has a half-life,
but said diesel lasts forever. She cautioned about getting too
wrapped up in how long the half-life is and said most toxic
wastes last forever. The key point, she specified, is that
nuclear energy in the US is not causing contamination, most of
the contamination being heard about comes from a time of weapons
production. It needs to be distinguished between what is the
legacy of weapons activities and what has been the record of
nuclear energy, which has been very positive.
1:34:06 PM
DR. FINAN, regarding the concern expressed about nuclear waste,
stated that nuclear energy is unique in managing its waste very,
very closely and containing the waste onsite and packaging it in
concrete and knowing exactly where it is, how much it is,
monitoring it, and securing it. It's true that there isn't yet
a final disposal solution in the US, she continued. At present,
the Yucca Mountain designated disposal site has been caught up
in delays and dispute. She said she has a lot of optimism
because the Department of Energy is currently exploring consent-
based siting, which is an approach to siting nuclear waste
storage and disposal that relies on consensus communities, not
the selection of a site by policymakers. She said she doesn't
think that the disposal of nuclear waste from the Lower 48 is
being proposed by anybody. This is about the potential to use
advanced nuclear energy technologies to help Alaskans have
clean, secure, and affordable energy, she stated, it is not
about moving nuclear waste from the Lower 48 to Alaska. Moving
nuclear waste outside of the US is not permitted, she advised,
so nuclear waste could not be moved through Canada and therefore
she does not think it is on the table.
DR. FINAN addressed the concern expressed about Idaho wanting
Alaska to be the first. She said she is before the committee
representing Idaho National Laboratory and she lives in Idaho,
and she is not pushing personally for anything to happen in
Alaska. She said Idaho does want this first and is working to
host the first NuScale Power Plant. Idaho is also going to be
the site of DoD's Pele Mobile Microreactor, which is scheduled
for between 2023 and 2025, so before the Eielson project or any
other potential project in Alaska. Several other projects are
moving forward in Idaho, including two small reactors that are
in design and planning and one has some National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) coverage already. Idaho is not looking to
push this on Alaska, she added, it is up to Alaska to decide
whether it is right for Alaska.
2:38:21 PM
CHAIR PATKOTAK recalled that another question was about the
difference between the permitting requirements of a microreactor
and a regular sized reactor, and the ambiguity that less
stringent exceptions are being made for a microreactor.
DR. FINAN replied that the federal requirements, which include a
safety analysis and a security analysis through the NRC, are the
same for both microreactors and larger reactors. There is no
difference between NRC's requirements for a microreactor and
NRC's requirements for any larger reactors, she reiterated. The
NRC has the gold standard of regulatory standards in the world
for nuclear safety.
DR. FINAN, regarding the concern expressed about earthquakes in
Alaska, stated that advanced reactor technologies, especially
when they are much smaller, are being developed to be more
compatible with seismic isolation. There is awareness about
lots of earthquakes in Alaska, she advised. Earthquakes are
something that the NRC looks at very carefully for the safety of
the technology and that technology will fit on a given site,
including the seismic characteristics of a site.
DR. FINAN added that the same safety standards are applied on
the regulatory side; there is still the NEPA process. She
deferred to Ms. Holdmann or Ms. Carpenter to speak further to
the permitting requirements.
2:41:12 PM
CHAIR PATKOTAK requested that Ms. Holdmann or Ms. Carpenter also
address the gold standard process that the NEPA process sets out
and that [Alaska] cannot do anything below those standards.
MS. CARPENTER confirmed that any sort of microreactor sited in
Alaska would be subject to NRC's permitting requirements. She
said DEC has authority to permit the siting in addition to NRC's
permitting.
CHAIR PATKOTAK requested Ms. Carpenter to elaborate from the
state's aspect on the permitting difference between large
reactors and microreactors.
MS. CARPENTER responded that when DEC's atomic energy authority
was drafted in the 1970s it had large legacy reactors in mind.
So, she continued, HB 299 is trying to carve out a few things
for microreactors. First, HB 299 would remove legislative
siting requirements for microreactors but microreactors would
still be subject to local approval as well as DEC permitting and
NRC permitting. Second, HB 299 would exempt these microreactors
from the six state agency study requirements. The thought is
that ACEP along with the National Labs is the place to do that
study rather than the six state agencies.
2:43:55 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN addressed Ms. Carpenter's statement that,
as drafted HB 299 allows local governments to have siting
authority. She noted that much of Alaska is outside of local
government and asked whether siting authority would remain with
the legislature for unorganized boroughs. For example, whether
a remote mine in an unorganized borough would have the siting
authority to decide about placing a microreactor there or
whether the legislature would have that authority.
MS. CARPENTER answered that in an unorganized borough that
authority would remain with the legislature.
2:44:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE commented that HB 299 recognizes that
nuclear technology has come a long way over the past seven
decades. For example, he continued, there is now less reliance
on active cooling management in nuclear power generation, and
going to passive management with [microreactors], which
dramatically mitigates the risk of meltdown or environmental
contamination. It is important for the committee to explore and
vet the technology that is encompassed in this bill, he opined,
because it is no longer nuclear fuel rods with the risk of
meltdown if there is a human error in the cooling management.
With current technology that risk is greatly reduced, he added,
and he is not sure that the legislature needs to approve every
single mine or community that wants to put in a small-scale
passive nuclear power plant.
MS. HOLDMANN responded that Representative Schrage did a good
job of summarizing the day's presentation.
2:48:10 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER explained he is trying to get at the
properties of the radiation within these reactors as it would
relate to a reactor unit located in a community getting blown up
by a terrorist act. He asked what the fallout area would be for
the radiation within this type of reactor, and whether that
could even happen.
CHAIR PATKOTAK posed an example of someone shooting a missile at
a microreactor and blowing it up. He asked what sort of nuclear
fallout or contamination would result.
MS. HOLDMANN replied that she and Dr. Finan will get together on
this question and provide a written answer to the committee.
2:50:14 PM
CHAIR PATKOTAK announced that HB 299 was held over.
2:50:54 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Resources Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 2:51 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 299 Sectional Analysis version A.pdf |
HENE 2/8/2022 10:15:00 AM HENE 3/1/2022 10:15:00 AM HRES 3/11/2022 1:00:00 PM |
HB 299 |
| HB 299 APA Letter of Support.pdf |
HENE 2/8/2022 10:15:00 AM HENE 3/1/2022 10:15:00 AM HRES 3/11/2022 1:00:00 PM |
HB 299 |
| HB 299 ACEP UAF Presentation 3.11.2022.pdf |
HRES 3/11/2022 1:00:00 PM |
HB 299 |
| HB 299 Research & Background.pdf |
HENE 2/8/2022 10:15:00 AM HENE 3/1/2022 10:15:00 AM HRES 3/11/2022 1:00:00 PM |
HB 299 |
| HJR 34 Letter of Support RDC 3.11.2022.pdf |
HRES 3/11/2022 1:00:00 PM SRES 3/28/2022 3:30:00 PM |
HJR 34 |
| HB 299 Testimony Provided by ACAT 3.11.2022.pdf |
HRES 3/11/2022 1:00:00 PM |
HB 299 |
| HJR 34 Testimony Received as of 3.11.2022.pdf |
HRES 3/11/2022 1:00:00 PM SRES 3/28/2022 3:30:00 PM |
HJR 34 |