Legislature(2021 - 2022)BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
02/15/2022 03:30 PM Senate COMMUNITY & REGIONAL AFFAIRS
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 | |
| SB181 | |
| SB177 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | SB 181 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | SB 177 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
SENATE COMMUNITY AND REGIONAL AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
February 15, 2022
3:31 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Shelley Hughes, Chair
Senator Robert Myers, Vice Chair
Senator Lyman Hoffman
Senator David Wilson
Senator Elvi Gray-Jackson
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SENATE BILL NO. 181
"An Act relating to identification requirements for
contractors."
- HEARD & HELD
SENATE BILL NO. 177
"An Act relating to microreactors."
- HEARD & HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: SB 181
SHORT TITLE: IDENTIFICATION OF CONTRACTOR IN ADS
SPONSOR(s): COMMUNITY & REGIONAL AFFAIRS
02/04/22 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/04/22 (S) CRA, L&C
02/15/22 (S) CRA AT 3:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
BILL: SB 177
SHORT TITLE: MICROREACTORS
SPONSOR(s): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
02/01/22 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/01/22 (S) CRA, RES
02/15/22 (S) CRA AT 3:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
WITNESS REGISTER
Daniel Phelps, Staff
Senator Shelley Hughes
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Introduced SB 181 on behalf of the
committee.
HOLLY BORGMANN, Vice President of Government Affairs
ADT Security Services
Boca Raton, Florida
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 181.
CHRISTINA CARPENTER, Director
Division of Environmental Health
Department of Environmental Conservation
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented SB 177 on behalf of the
administration.
GWEN HOLDMANN, Director
Alaska Center for Energy and Power (ACEP)
University of Alaska Fairbanks
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented a PowerPoint on SB 177.
JOHN JACKSON, PhD., National Technical Director
Department of Energy-nuclear Microreactor Program
Idaho National Laboratory
Idaho Falls, Idaho
POSITION STATEMENT: Offered his perspective during the hearing
on SB 177.
ACTION NARRATIVE
3:31:21 PM
CHAIR SHELLEY HUGHES called the Senate Community and Regional
Affairs Standing Committee meeting to order at 3:31 p.m. Present
at the call to order were Senators Gray-Jackson, Hoffman, and
Chair Hughes. Senator Wilson arrived immediately thereafter and
Senator Meyer arrived during the course of the meeting.
SB 181-IDENTIFICATION OF CONTRACTOR IN ADS
3:31:53 PM
CHAIR HUGHES announced the consideration of SENATE BILL NO. 181
"An Act relating to identification requirements for
contractors."
She stated that this was the first hearing and the intention was
to hear the introduction and sectional analysis, take public
testimony and hold the bill in committee.
3:32:49 PM
Daniel Phelps, Staff, Senator Shelley Hughes, Alaska State
Legislature, Juneau, Alaska, introduced SB 181 on behalf of the
committee. He spoke to the sponsor statement that read as
follows:
Since 1968 when AS 08.18.051 became statue,
contractors in the State of Alaska have been required
to list their name, mailing address, address of the
contractor's principal place of business, and
contractor registration number in all advertising.
Although simple, this requirement can incur great
expense for contractors, particularly those looking to
advertise in print, radio, or television where each
additional word or line increases the cost.
Furthermore, many contractors in our state maintain
several business licenses specific to each service
they provide. This requires the contractor to list
multiple registration numbers within the same
advertisement.
Senate Bill 181 amends the current statute by adding a
section which allows contractors to provide an
internet website or landing page that contains the
identification requirements for contractor
advertisements in place of those same requirements.
Additionally, this bill requires contractors to
specify that the internet website or landing page
provided contains the information required under
statute.
This section is added to spare costs to contractors
and streamline the advertisement process
3:33:56 PM
Senator Wilson joined the meeting.
MR. PHELPS presented the following sectional analysis for SB
181:
Section 1 AS 08.18.051 (b) Page 1, Line 3 through
Page 1, Line 15
Amends AS 08.18.051 regarding identification
requirements for contractors in advertisements. The
new language specifies that a contractor's internet
website or landing page satisfies the contractor's
identification requirements in advertisements so long
as it contains the identifiers required under AS
08.18.051 and the advertisement states that the
required information is contained on the contractor's
Internet website or landing page.
CHAIR HUGHES asked if this was compulsory.
MR. PHELPS answered no; SB 181 offers contractors the choice to
continue to list the required identifiers manually or provide
that information on a website instead.
3:35:26 PM
CHAIR HUGHES opened public testimony on SB 181.
3:35:37 PM
HOLLY BORGMANN, Vice President of Government Affairs, ADT
Security Services, Boca Raton, Florida, stated support for SB
181 which will modernize the law and help provide more robust
consumer protection for customers in Alaska. Similar legislation
has broad support from a diverse range of states. She described
the manual process ADT consumers go through to find contractor
information versus the simpler process of accessing the
information at ADT.com. She opined that the electronic option
was more consumer-friendly.
3:37:05 PM
CHAIR HUGHES closed public testimony and held SB 181 in
committee.
3:37:33 PM
At ease.
SB 177-MICROREACTORS
3:38:55 PM
CHAIR HUGHES reconvened the meeting and announced the
consideration of SENATE BILL NO. 177 "An Act relating to
microreactors."
3:39:14 PM
CHRISTINA CARPENTER, Director, Division of Environmental Health
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, Anchorage,
Alaska, presented SB 177 on behalf of the administration. She
paraphrased the following prepared testimony:
This one-page bill defines a microreactor according to
the federal definition in the Infrastructure
Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA). It also creates a
carve-out from the ongoing study requirements and the
legislative siting requirements.
The existing study requirement involves six state
departments and was designed to analyze the operations
of a massive legacy reactor. We believe that the
Alaska Center for Energy and Power (ACEP) along with
national labs is the appropriate place for these
studies. ACEP has been studying this issue for over
ten years and is committed to work with DEC on a
microreactor roadmap for Alaska.
There are currently no microreactors in Alaska, and
the timeframe for microreactors coming to the market
is estimated at 5-7 years. Allowing these exemptions
now, will allow microreactors to be situated without
the necessity of legislative approval for land,
reducing the burden on atomic industrial development.
The legislative siting requirement reflects the
statewide nature of a legacy reactor. A microreactor
is a local issue, whereas a legacy reactor has a 50-
mile emergency planning zone. A microreactor's
planning zone ends at the reactor facility's door.
This bill does not remove the requirement that
municipalities must approve of the DEC siting permit.
In addition to extensive clean energy industry
support, SB 177 has received backing for a diverse
group of stakeholders ranging from forward-thing
Alaskans like the Copper Valley Electric Authority,
clean energy nonprofits like Clear Path Action, and
our own Alaska Center for Energy and Power in
Fairbanks. We expect that list to grow dramatically as
we continue to engage with Alaskans in upcoming weeks.
MS. CARPENTER presented the sectional analysis for SB 177:
Section 1:
Removes the requirement for microreactors to be
situated on legislatively designated land.
Section 2:
For microreactors, exempts state departments and
agencies from the requirement to conduct studies
concerning changes in laws and regulation.
Section 3:
Provides the definition of "microreactor."
3:42:15 PM
CHAIR HUGHES asked if legislative oversight would continue in
communities in the unorganized borough that do not have a local
government to provide oversight.
MS. CARPENTER said she believes that would be the case, but she
would follow up with a definitive answer.
CHAIR HUGHES requested the follow up information include input
from the Department of Law.
3:43:36 PM
GWEN HOLDMANN, Director, Alaska Center for Energy and Power
(ACEP), University of Alaska Fairbanks, Fairbanks, Alaska,
stated that her background was in thermal energy and physics,
but she started working on the topic of micronuclear reactors
about twelve years ago. Initially it was a request from Senator
Hoffman to look at nuclear as a potential energy source for
Alaska. She noted that in 2022 ACEP provided an update to the
2011 report that included recommendations to amend state
statutes.
MS. HOLDMANN began the presentation, recognizing the technical
experts at the National Laboratories that have supported the
ongoing efforts to understand the opportunities that
microreactors present to Alaska. She noted that Dr. John Jackson
from the Idaho National Laboratory would be supporting the
presentation today.
MS. HOLDMANN turned to slide 3 that lists different nuclear
energy technologies from legacy reactors to modular nuclear
reactors to microreactors. She acknowledged some of the
preconceived notions people have about legacy reactors, then
pointed out that microreactors are quite different. One of the
big differences relates to safety. Microreactors have a small
amount of nuclear material in one place and they have inherent
safety features that are quite different than the legacy reactor
technologies.
3:46:39 PM
CHAIR HUGHES noted the smoke billowing from the legacy reactors
pictured on the slide and asked her to talk about whether
microreactors were more environmentally friendly than legacy
reactors.
MS. HOLDMANN clarified that it was water vapor coming from
cooling towers, which is a legacy feature associated with
nuclear power plants and other large-scale thermal power
generation. Microreactors don't need cooling towers because they
are small-scale and modular.
CHAIR HUGHES asked her to speak to the safety features of
microreactors and how the technology differs from the legacy
reactors that are associated with catastrophic accidents.
3:48:56 PM
MS. HOLDMANN responded that the nuclear energy industry has a
very good safety record globally, but that isn't well understood
because of the three major accidents that have occurred in the
sixty-year history of using nuclear energy for power generation.
She said it probably has the fewest deaths per megawatt hour of
generation of any technology globally.
MS. HOLDMANN explained that microreactors are designed to ensure
additional levels of safety for the public and the environment.
Most are self-contained reactor systems with multiple levels of
safety. These reactors don't need to be cooled continually.
Further, if an unplanned event were to occur, the microreactor
would naturally stop, so there wouldn't be the possibility of a
runaway thermal reaction or meltdown of the reactor. There are
also inherent safety features associated with the fuels used for
these reactors. The fuel is encapsulated in a ceramic-like
material that is thermally and mechanically resistant to damage.
Microreactors use different types of fuel, but they all have
these and other safety features.
3:51:16 PM
SENATOR D. WILSON asked whether nuclear energy was classified as
a renewable energy resource.
MS. HOLDMANN answered no, but it qualifies as a carbon-free
source of energy. She added that she believes microreactors have
the potential to load-follow and back renewable, which would be
a great benefit for Alaskan communities to potentially
decarbonize their energy supply. The image on the slide is one
example of the kind of technology ACEP works on.
3:52:16 PM
MS. HOLDMANN advised that ACEP was formed about 12 years ago to
look at the opportunities and challenges associated with Alaska
energy production. Based at the University of Alaska-Fairbanks,
ACEP is an applied energy research center. It's research
directly impacts the lives of the people, communities, and
industries in the state.
MS. HOLDMANN advanced to slide 5. She stated that ACEP prepared
reports in 2011 and 2021 at the request of the legislature. The
first report focused on the historical use of nuclear energy in
Alaska, including the Fort Greely SM1 reactor that was
commissioned in 1962, decommissioned in 1972, and generated
several megawatts of electric power. The Army installed several
of these in different facilities. These nuclear systems are akin
to what would be found in a submarine or naval ship. They do not
have the inherent safety features of the microreactors the
industry is developing today. She directed attention to the
website http://acep.uaf.edu for historical information on other
nuclear projects in Alaska.
3:54:13 PM
CHAIR HUGHES asked her to speak to the history of a project for
the community of Galena. She noted that it never got off the
ground, but the work Marvin Yoder did on the project was known
around the country
MS. HOLDMANN responded that Mr. Yoder was the city manager for
Galena and it was his idea to develop a 10MW reactor for the
community. The project drew national attention because of the
community interest it generated. The Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) used that project as the impetus to rethink its
permitting strategy for site licensing, and the statutes were
revised as well. She noted that SB 177 recommended an update to
the statute to reflect new technology.
3:56:05 PM
CHAIR HUGHES gave a shout out to Marvin Yoder for getting this
started years ago. She then asked Ms. Holdmann if she thought
the bill was driven by vendors or based on community or
Department of Defense (DOD) needs.
MS. HOLDMANN offered her perspective that SB 170 follows up on a
bill a Senator Bishop introduced two or three years ago, and it
follows the recommendation in ACEP's report. The bill isn't
industry driven but ACEP believes industry support is important
to co-fund feasibility studies and provide a reasonable path for
ACEP to develop these technologies when they're available in the
future. She said an indication that the technology is evolving
is that theres a project for Eielson Air Force Base that is
planned to be commissioned in 2027.
3:57:43 PM
CHAIR HUGHES said she didn't believe the bill was vendor driven.
Rather, its based on the need for energy solutions for Alaska
communities that started years ago with Senator Hoffman and the
city manager from Galena.
MS. HOLDMANN advanced to slide 6, and reviewed the
recommendations in the 2021 updated report to the legislature:
• Continue to track technology and
policy/regulatory trends
• Create a state working group on Small Nuclear
Energy as a forum to bring together stakeholders
• Create a roadmap for Alaska nuclear applications
including specific use cases and a more robust
economic analysis, especially for microreactors
• Review/revise AK state statutes related to
nuclear energy
CHAIR HUGHES asked if a working group had already been formed.
MS. HOLDMANN answered yes; the group meets monthly and has heard
presentations from NRC and industry representatives. The purpose
is to educate Alaskans about the changes in technology,
regulations, and licensing on the federal level, and to ensure
that the people making decisions about developing the technology
understand the geographic nuances and Alaska-specific use cases.
MS. HOLDMANN reviewed the facts about nuclear energy outlined on
slide 7, with special emphasis on the safety record:
• Nuclear energy supplies 20% 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)
4:00:28 PM
SENATOR HOFFMAN offered his understanding that France produces
more nuclear energy on a percentage basis than any other
country.
MS. HOLDMANN agreed that France was the global leader for
nuclear energy production on a percentage basis. She recalled
that about 80 percent of France's energy supply comes from
nuclear.
MS. HOLDMANN advanced to slide 8 and described the
characteristics of microreactors:
Microreactors are an emerging class of small, advanced
reactors with the following general attributes:
• Output of 1 to 10's of MWe **
** we are aligning State definition with 42
U.S.C. 16271 (capable of generating no more
than 50 MWe)
MS. HOLDMANN offered comparisons. The University of Alaska
Fairbanks recently built a coal-fired power plant that
produces up to 20 MWe, and the peak load for Bethel is 9
megawatts of electric power output.
CHAIR HUGHES asked her to speak to the reason the bill defines
microreactor as capable of generating no more than 50 megawatts
of electric energy, not 10 megawatts.
MS. HOLDMANN answered that some of the microreactors in this
class of advanced reactor technology are at the 10MW threshold
and ACEP doesn't want to be forced to return to the legislature
in a year or two to request a revision to the statutes. She
acknowledged that 50 megawatts was somewhat arbitrary, and a
threshold that all the microreactors in this category were well
below. Also, it aligns with the federal definition in IIJA and
federal code related to advanced reactors.
4:03:09 PM
CHAIR HUGHES asked if 50MW of electric power generation came
from federal law and federal code.
MS. HOLDMANN answered yes and relayed her strong belief that it
was far better to reference national law and statutes than to
create definitions unique to Alaska.
MS. HOLDMANN continued to discuss the characteristics of
microreactors listed on slide 8:
• Capable of load following and non-electric
applications (e.g., process heat)
CHAIR HUGHES asked what the temperature might be.
MS. HOLDMANN replied it's in the 400 degree Celsius range,
which is similar to the heat generated in a coal-fired
plant. In response to an additional question, she said it's
above the temperature to generate steam.
4:05:03 PM
SENATOR MYERS joined the meeting.
MS. HOLDMANN continued to discuss the characteristics of
microreactors on slide 8:
• 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)
4:06:37 PM
CHAIR HUGHES asked if leakage was a concern associated with
transporting microreactors.
MS. HOLDMANN answered that nuclear material is regularly
transported on highways. She noted that ACEP has been working
with industry in the design phase to understand packaging and
the size and weight restrictions for transporting these advanced
microreactors by barge. She said she didn't foresee that it
would be any different than the current parameters for
transporting nuclear material.
4:07:59 PM
SENATOR D. WILSON noted that some Alaska communities were still
dealing with contamination from nuclear waste. He asked whether
Alaska would store the nuclear waste from these microreactors in
the state or ship it outside. In response to Senator Hughes'
earlier question, he advised that 400 degrees Celsius was
equivalent to 752 degrees Fahrenheit.
MS. HOLDMANN answered that the statute clarifies that in Alaska
nuclear waste can only be moved for the purpose of moving it
outside the state. SB 177 does not alter that restriction. The
idea is that anytime one of these microreactors is spent, it
would be returned to the vendor. There is no intention to store
it within Alaska. She said disposing of nuclear waste is a
national issue, and her hope is that there will be a solution
for long-term waste storage in the US in the next 15 years.
That's when the first microreactor will need to be replaced if
it's installed five years from now.
To the point about existing nuclear waste contamination in
Alaska communities and the long-term implications, Ms. Holdmann
said ACEP has done a lot of research and was working closely
with the Department of Energy (DOE) Nuclear Energy Office to
review the reports that were filed. Her belief is that there is
no remaining contamination from the Project Chariot era and she
would like to work with DOE to assure communities in that region
of that fact.
4:11:27 PM
CHAIR HUGHES asked where the closest nuclear waste storage site
was located.
MS. HOLDMANN answered that it's the Hanford Nuclear Site in
Washington state. She presumed that was where the radioactive
waste from the final state decommissioning of Fort Greely would
go.
SENATOR D. WILSON joked about sending it to the aerospace
station in Kodiak.
MS. HOLDMANN acknowledged the potential for nuclear power to be
used in long-duration space missions.
4:12:38 PM
MS. HOLDMANN directed attention to the chart on slide 9 that
shows the kinds of companies working in the area of small
nuclear reactors. She pointed to the companies that were quite a
bit below the 10MWe threshold. She also noted that some at the
leading edge were being considered for a transportable
microreactor solution that the Army was working on under the
umbrella of Project PELE. It will potentially be deployed in the
next two years for military application. In the 10-100 MWe range
are reactor designs that might replace the legacy reactors in
the country. NuScale Power is looking at deploying 6-12 60MWe
NuScale microreactors for that purpose
MS. HOLDMANN directed attention to the artist renderings on
slide 10 of microreactors under development. Both companies have
expressed interest in Alaska. The image on the left is from the
Ultra Safe Nuclear Corporation in Seattle. That company is
interested in working on a feasibility study of Copper Valley
Electric Association. The design of that reactor is on the 10 MW
threshold of electric power output. The image on the bottom is
an example of the smaller footprint Westinghouse 5MWe eVinci
reactor design. She noted that while the USNC reactor had the
potential to be installed below grade, there was more interest
in above grade installations because of seismic concerns.
4:15:52 PM
MS. HOLDMANN advanced to slide 11, What Does Passive Safety
Mean? She described safety as the most important attribute of
microreactors. She recapped her earlier explanation of the new
fuel configurations and passive cooling. The slide read as
follows:
Fuel/fuel configuration
New fuel configurations such as TRISO particles cannot
melt in a reactor and can withstand extreme
temperatures and stresses that are well beyond the
threshold of current nuclear fuels.
The schematic illustration of a TRISO fuel pellet showed the
fuel kernel (UCO UO); the porous carbon buffer layer; the inner
22
pyrolytic carbon layer; the silicon carbide layer; and the outer
pyrolytic carbon layer.
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)
4:17:06 PM
MS. HOLDMANN turned to the image on slide 12 of the Trans Alaska
Pipeline (TAPS) and a ground cooling thermal unit that provides
an example of passive cooling through the use of heat pipes. The
double set of fins on the top section dissipate the heat that
has been removed from the ground to keep the permafrost frozen
and stable. This system uses ammonia. The temperature range is
very different than for microreactors, but the concept of using
a working fluid for the passive removal of heat is the same.
MS. HOLDMANN displayed slide 13, Question: What do Micro Reactor
Technologies have in Common with the Automobile Industry? She
said the hope is that factory assembly will bring the price of
these microreactor systems down to the point that they are
competitive with the existing power generation options. She
explained that the conceptual image on slide 14 shows multiple
NuScale Power reactor units configured to potentially replace a
legacy reactor. She displayed a picture of the diesel powerhouse
in Tuluksak, Alaska and restated that these microreactors can do
load following to back diesel and renewable energy generation.
She acknowledged that additional studies to assess the economics
was necessary.
4:19:21 PM
MS. HOLDMANN displayed slides 17 and 18 that provide a sampling
of the statutes that relate to nuclear energy. The bolded
statutes are the ones recommended for change.
• 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.
• 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.
4:19:51 PM
MS. HOLDMANN advanced to slide 19, Question: Do Microreactors
have a role in Alaska's Future Energy Mix? She posited that SB
177 provides the opportunity for communities in Alaska to
consider whether or not microreactors should be considered to
meet energy needs in the future. The Department of Energy
provided funding for the UAA Center for Economic Development to
conduct use-case analyses for a rural hub community; Railbelt
application; military base such as Eielson AFB; and mining
operation such as the Red Dog. Stakeholders were interviewed to
start the process of considering which of those to continue.
MS. HOLDMANN displayed an aerial view of the National Reactor
Innovation Center at the Idaho National Laboratory and relayed
that the committee would hear from INL Director Ashley Finan on
Thursday. She noted that this was where the emerging reactor
technologies were likely to be deployed in the US. There is a
similar site at the Chalk River Laboratories in Canada, and
that's where Ultra Safe Nuclear Corporation plans a deployment
in the 2027-2029 timeframe.
MS. HOLDMANN reviewed the information on slides 22 and 23 about
the Eielson Air Force Base Microreactor Pilot Project. She
clarified that SB 177 was not introduced because of this
project, but it provides an example of the reason that the
statutes related to microreactors need amendment.
Eielson AF Microreactor Pilot
• 2019 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA)
required the DoD 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)
• 1-5 MWe
• Will not be grid connected; onsite heat and power
only
Proposed Timeline:
? February/March 2022 RFP released
? Vender selected late 2022
? 2022-23 Permitting and licensing
? 2025 begin construction
? 2027 Commercial operation
4:22:18 PM
SENATOR MYERS asked whether SB 177 was necessary to start the
pilot project, or if legislative approval of the siting was not
required since it was on a military installation.
MS. HOLDMANN said her understanding was that because it is a
commercial reactor it is subject to the legislative siting
authority. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has taken that
position and the Air Force has agreed. By contrast, Project PELE
is a purely military application and it probably would not be
subject to the legislative siting authority.
4:24:03 PM
SENATOR GRAY-JACKSON asked if the Eielson AFB pilot microreactor
project would be the first in Alaska.
MS. HOLDMANN answered yes, and clarified that no microreactors
have been deployed in the US.
SENATOR D. WILSON asked what will happen to the coal fired power
plant at Eielson AFB when the microreactor is installed.
MS. HOLDMANN replied the reactor is not adequately sized to meet
the entire load at Eielson AFT, so the coal plant presumably
will continue to operate. She added that if the pilot is a
success, there could be a strategy to replace the coal plant
with multiple small reactors for the future.
4:25:18 PM
SENATOR HOFFMAN asked, aside from the Eielson pilot, what the
federal government was doing regarding microreactors.
MS. HOLDMANN answered the federal government has been investing
a lot of money in this space through the Department of Energy.
The National Reactor Innovation Center (NRIC) is supporting
vendors in perfecting their designs and fuel components and
moving the technology to market.
4:26:42 PM
SENATOR HOFFMAN relayed that he had the opportunity to travel to
Russian where he met the scientist who built the first nuclear
submarine for Russia. That man was interested in nuclear power
generation for the northern communities in Russia. He asked what
was happening in the rest of the world regarding the use of
nuclear power for remote locations.
MS. HOLDMANN said Russia has deployed a barge mounted nuclear
reactor on the other side of the Bering Strait. It's similar to
a naval reactor that has been repurposed for shore-based power
and heat for northern communities in Russia. She acknowledged
that these made her nervous because those systems lack the
intrinsic and inherent safety features of microreactors. She
added that Canada was working closely with the US in the
microreactor area and China was doing a lot of work to develop
microreactor technologies.
4:28:34 PM
CHAIR HUGHES how far the Russian barge mounted unit was from the
Alaska border.
MS. HOLDMANN answered its near Wrangel Island on the Arctic
Ocean coastline.
CHAIR HUGHES asked her to send the specific location and
distance from the Alaska boarder to the Senate Community and
Regional Affairs Committee.
4:29:07 PM
MS. HOLDMANN advanced to slide 24, Alaska Roadmap. She relayed
that the chart shows the four stage gate questions to determine
whether or not nuclear energy was a viable option as part of the
energy mix for the future. These are: 1) does the technology
exist; 2) is it safe; 3) is it environmentally responsible to
deploy in Alaska; and 4) is it cost-effective.
4:29:35 PM
MS. HOLDMANN concluded the presentation, reviewing the reasons
she likes microreactors and sees them as a paradigm shift for
the future, particularly in rural communities:
• 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
4:31:39 PM
SENATOR HOFFMAN asked whether national discussions about the use
of microreactors include the potential to address global warming
by reducing the carbon footprint.
MS. HOLDMANN answered that the primary driver nationally for
using this technology is the potential to decarbonize the energy
supply for electric power generation.
SENATOR MYERS asked if some of the uranium to fill these
microreactors could come from the uranium deposits in Alaska.
MS. HOLDMANN said she couldnt speak to the quality of the
uranium deposits at either Bokan Mountain or [Boulder Creek] on
the Seward Peninsula, but she had not heard any discussion about
using those resources for this application.
4:34:01 PM
CHAIR HUGHES observed that some of the bullets on the last slide
were statements and some ended in a question mark. She
specifically asked Ms. Holdmann why there was a question after
Safer since she was so definitive that these microreactors are
safe.
MS. HOLDMANN answered that she is absolutely certain that
microreactors are safer than legacy reactor technologies. This
is based on scientific evidence and 12 years work in this area.
She said she also believes microreactors are likely to be safer
than some of the status quo energy sources, but she needs to
analyze that further by comparing generation sources,
transportation, and storage of the fuel where its used.
4:35:52 PM
CHAIR HUGHES asked if that explanation applied to the bullet,
Reduced risk of environmental contamination? She is confident
it is lower risk, but shed like to do more research.
MS. HOLDMANN answered that one of her interests is to ensure
that Alaskans have accurate information to make decisions about
the energy mix in their communities in the future.
4:36:38 PM
SENATOR HOFFMAN noted that one of the recommendations in the
updated 2021 report was to continue to track the technology
trends. He asked if her office had the resources to do that.
MS. HOLDMANN answered that she strongly believes that the
university and ACEP have an important role to play in looking at
and tracking these emerging technologies. This includes working
with state agencies and looking at other emerging technologies
such as hydrogen and different transmission lines. She opined
that Alaska has the opportunity to be the best in the world in
some of these technology spaces.
SENATOR HOFFMAN, speaking as chair of the budget subcommittee
for the university, said hed like to facilitate getting that
accomplished.
4:39:27 PM
SENATOR D. WILSON mentioned apples to oranges comparisons and
asked which would be the safer for the Bristol Bay community,
the Pebble Mine or a micronuclear reactor.
MS. HOLDMANN responded that its about the size of the footprint
in the event of an incident. If there was an incident with a
microreactor and some fuel was released into the environment, it
would be a local event. There isnt the potential for downstream
radioactive effects. A community thats ten miles away would not
be affected. If there was an incident at the Pebble Mine, the
downstream effects would be different and would be evaluated
differently. Its not an apples to apples comparison.
CHAIR HUGHES asked Dr. Jackson if he had anything to add to Ms.
Holdmanns testimony.
4:41:29 PM
JOHN JACKSON, PhD., National Technical Director, Department of
Energy-nuclear energy (DOE-NE) Microreactor Program, Idaho
National Laboratory, Idaho Falls, Idaho, said Ms. Holdmann did a
very good job of covering the high points of microreactor
deployment. He added his perspective that the Department of
Energy was investing more than just money into microreactor
technology. A suite of programmatic efforts run through the
National Laboratory complex support de-risking the technology
and backing the developers of the technology.
4:42:51 PM
CHAIR HUGHES asked Ms. Natcher if she had anything to add.
ALLISON NATCHER, Interagency Coordination Unit Manager, Division
of Spill Prevention and Response, Department of Environmental
Conservation (DEC), to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC),
Anchorage, Alaska, stated that she had nothing to add at this
point.
CHAIR HUGHES noted that Ms. Carpenter indicated she had an
answer to an earlier question about legislative oversight in the
unorganized borough.
4:43:43 PM
MS. CARPENTER, Department of Environmental Conservation, advised
that according to art. X, sec. 6 of the Alaska Constitution, the
legislature has the power of assembly in the unorganized
borough. Therefore, it will continue to have siting authority
for microreactors in the unorganized borough. SB 177 eliminates
the legislative siting authority in the organized borough, but
NRC, DEC, and the municipality with jurisdiction will need to
sign off on the siting.
4:44:45 PM
CHAIR HUGHES thanked the presenters and held SB 177 in
committee.
4:45:25 PM
There being no further business to come before the committee,
CHAIR HUGHES adjourned the Senate Community and Regional Affairs
Standing Committee meeting at 4:45 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB 181 Sponsor Statement 2.14.2022.pdf |
SCRA 2/15/2022 3:30:00 PM SCRA 2/22/2022 3:30:00 PM |
SB 181 |
| SB 181 Sectional Analysis 2.14.2022.pdf |
SCRA 2/15/2022 3:30:00 PM |
SB 181 |
| SB 177 Govenor Dunleavy Transmittal Letter.pdf |
SCRA 2/15/2022 3:30:00 PM SCRA 2/17/2022 3:30:00 PM SCRA 3/8/2022 3:30:00 PM |
SB 177 |
| SB 177 Sectional Analysis Version A.pdf |
SCRA 2/15/2022 3:30:00 PM SCRA 2/17/2022 3:30:00 PM SCRA 3/8/2022 3:30:00 PM |
SB 177 |
| SB 177 Testimony - Received as of 02.07.22.pdf |
SCRA 2/15/2022 3:30:00 PM SCRA 2/17/2022 3:30:00 PM SCRA 3/8/2022 3:30:00 PM |
SB 177 |
| SB 177 Research UAA CED Microreactors in Alaska.pdf |
SCRA 2/15/2022 3:30:00 PM SCRA 2/17/2022 3:30:00 PM SCRA 3/8/2022 3:30:00 PM |
SB 177 |
| SB 177 Research ACEP Nuclear Report 1.1.2021.pdf |
SCRA 2/15/2022 3:30:00 PM SCRA 2/17/2022 3:30:00 PM SCRA 3/8/2022 3:30:00 PM |
SB 177 |
| SB 177 Presentation Gwen Holdmann 2.15.2022.pdf |
SCRA 2/15/2022 3:30:00 PM |
SB 177 |