Legislature(2021 - 2022)ADAMS 519
02/08/2022 10:15 AM House ENERGY
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 | |
| HB299 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 299 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 299-MICROREACTORS
10:20:25 AM
CHAIR SCHRAGE announced that the only order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 299, "An Act relating to microreactors."
10:21:15 AM
GWEN HOLDMANN, Alaska Center for Energy & Power, provided a
PowerPoint presentation titled, "Small Scale Nuclear Power an
option for Alaska?" [hard copy included in the committee
packet]. She began on slide 2 and introduced the national lab
technical experts.
10:23:29 AM
MS. HOLDMANN moved on to slides 3 and 4, on the Alaska Center
for Energy and Power (ACEP), and talked about the history of the
center and the current size of its organization. She explained
that ACEP looks "broadly" at renewable and non-renewable energy
sources statewide.
10:24:54 AM
MS. HOLDMANN turned to slide 5, addressing partnerships and
funding, and emphasized that ACEP works closely with the private
sector and is currently working on about 40 projects that are
funded through the private sector. She explained ACEP's primary
funding sources are the U.S. Department of Defense and the U.S.
Department of Energy.
10:25:30 AM
MS. HOLDMANN continued to slide 6, explaining that in 2011 ACEP
released a report that reviewed the history of nuclear projects
in Alaska and the feasibility of the technology at the time,
which did not "really clearly fit" but has "come along" since
then.
10:26:31 AM
MS. HOLDMANN advanced to slide 7, detailing updated report to
the legislature. She explained that there has been a
"renaissance" in the technology. She talked about an interest
group ACEP formed six months earlier, and the recommendations
that came from it, which resulted in review and revision of
Alaska statutes relating to nuclear energy.
10:27:56 AM
MS. HOLDMANN provided a background on nuclear energy on slide 8.
She explained that nuclear energy amounts to around 20 percent
of the national energy supply. She talked about the safety
record of the nuclear power industry in America, referencing the
three significant accidents in history and pointing out that
only Chernobyl resulted in deaths.
10:29:13 AM
MS. HOLDMANN defined microreactors on slide 9 and spoke to her
experience flying over a "legacy reactor." She said micro
reactors have a very small amount of nuclear material, produce
around one to "a couple dozen" megawatts, and would be smaller
than the University of Alaska Fairbanks power plant. They are
capable of "load following" and producing heat. Ms. Holdmann
stated that they are also factory made and can be transported to
the site more contained. She emphasized the difference between
micro reactors and small modular reactors, and she talked about
the autonomous control system responsible for the reactors
functioning.
10:33:23 AM
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS requested more detail on load following
and the time it takes to scale up or ramp down the reactors.
MS. HOLDMANN replied that the power generation aspect is like
conventional steam generation; some have a storage unit for heat
that then use that heat to drive a turban and ramp up and down
within a minute or two. She said she wonders about the economic
viability of using it in that capacity.
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS asked how fast a source must be able to
respond to qualify as load following.
MS. HOLDMANN answered that if a source can ramp up or down
within a minute or two, that is load following technology.
10:36:06 AM
MS. HOLDMANN resumed the presentation on slide 10, which modeled
small nuclear reactors on a chart. She explained that there is
a "break" in the sizing of the reactor technology below 50
megawatts of power.
10:37:23 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN asked where ACEP was on its "roadmap" of
potential applications.
MS. HOLDMANN replied that ACEP was limited in its ability to
make determinations on where one would go, citing state
regulation and statute would be the responsibility of the
Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC). She expressed
hope for separate funding through the university to support the
roadmap.
10:39:48 AM
MS. HOLDMANN, in response to a question from Representative
Rauscher, explained that the confines of releasing reactor
technology is licensing through the federal Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC). She said the technologies under development
are going through the licensing process. In response to a
follow-up question, she explained that the list comprises
vendors actively planning to seek NRC licensing approval for
their design. She added that any reactors developed out of
country without seeking approval by the NRC would not be
eligible for the U.S. market.
10:41:53 AM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK asked if ACEP was limiting itself to 10
megawatts.
MS. HOLDMANN answered yes.
CHAIR SCHRAGE noted that federal requirements for small reactors
have a threshold of 50 megawatts.
10:42:25 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN referred to the earlier questions on
peaking loads, baseline loads, and the quick ramping power of
hydro power compared to the steadier output of fossil fuel
sources, and he asked where nuclear fits on that spectrum.
MS. HOLDMANN, in response, said that sometimes hydro is used as
a baseline source because of economic feasibility, and fossil
fuels are often used for peaking demand. She said microreactors
would not be much different from hydro power plants.
10:44:42 AM
MS. HOLDMANN resumed the presentation on slide 11, with two
examples of microreactors under development that have both
expressed interest in the Alaska market.
10:45:39 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ZULKOSKY asked about the capacity needed to
manage such systems, specifically what is needed in terms of
staff oversight and management.
10:46:26 AM
ASHLEY FINAN, PhD, Director, National Reactor Innovation Center,
Idaho National Laboratory, explained that the National Reactor
Innovation Center (NRC) provides regulatory oversight with
resident inspectors and personnel on sight at nuclear
facilities.
REPRESENTATIVE ZULKOSKY inquired about communities off the road
system and how operations would affect the safety of locals and
environmental conditions.
10:49:52 AM
DR. FINAN replied that the key regulator is NRC. She stated
that many designs do not require intervention; in the case of an
emergency, reactors shut down on their own. She emphasized that
regardless, all aspects would be evaluated and approved by the
regulator.
10:51:00 AM
MS. HOLDMANN added that NRC licensing is a two-phase process:
one for the technology, and one for the site. She proffered
that APEC is looking at applications for "hub communities" in
rural scenarios.
10:52:51 AM
MS. HOLDMANN resumed the presentation on slide 12 that explained
the idea of "passive safety." She explained that the 50-
megawatt output is arbitrary; microreactors are more associated
with "advance reactors" with a passive safety component that
will automatically cool the reactor. She also explained that
the fuel itself is being designed to minimize the possibility of
release into the environment.
10:55:23 AM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER asked whether reactors are tested before
arrival.
MS. HOLDMANN said many reactor technologies are tested at
national reactor test sites, and she deferred to Dr. Finnan who
is on site of one of the test facilities.
10:56:07 AM
DR. FINAN confirmed that many are pursuing the demonstration
process, including in Idaho, Wyoming, Washington, and Tennessee.
Approximately nine projects are moving forward. She said that
many developers don't see Alaska as a place for an initial
demonstration but think it would be a great place for
microreactors.
10:57:02 AM
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS asked if the fuel configuration had been
tested or will be tested and if every reactor goes through the
safety process.
DR. FINAN answered that there are several different fuels being
used, but many are using tri-cell fuel, which has been going
through a decade-long process to ensure its safety. In the
event of loss of coolant, the fission products are contained
within the fuel rather than being released. She said around
half of the projects are using that design.
10:59:15 AM
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS asked if all the companies are using the
same fuel.
DR. FINAN answered that there are several types of fuel
configurations.
11:00:39 AM
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS assumed that passive cooling designs are
tested.
DR. FINAN confirmed that the reactors do get validated by the
national laboratory and tests are run. She explained that the
test facility in Idaho has the capability to test fuels in
multiple accident conditions, more extreme than have ever been
encountered, to "make the fuel fail." She explained that by
observing the failure, the laboratory can understand what it
looks like and how it happens, so it can adjust its operating
parameters. She noted that China has confirmed that the
reactors shut themselves down, and she emphasized that the lab
is not in charge of the regulatory approval.
11:02:42 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN asked about encapsulated fuel technology.
MS. HOLDMANN said the fuel is an important piece, and
fabricating fuel is important in raw deployment.
11:04:21 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN asked about the diagram of the emergency
and control drum driver on slide 11.
MS. HOLDMANN deferred to Dr. Finan.
DR. FINAN explained that nuclear reaction is essentially shut
down by inserting a material that absorbs neutrons.
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN offered his understanding that the
smaller compact nature is inherently better in terms of seismic
considerations.
11:06:58 AM
BRUCE MCDOWELL, Advisor, Pacific Northwest National Lab,
explained that NRC does both a safety and environmental review
for any site, including the potential for ground movement. He
explained that during the design type review, NRC looks at the
operating parameters and checks to see if the designs can
withstand those. He said seismic activity is considered when
choosing and approving of a site.
11:09:05 AM
MS. HOLDMANN resumed the presentation on slide 13 and talked
about the use of heat pipes in passive heat extraction.
11:10:24 AM
MS. HOLDMANN showed slides 14 and 15, which listing some of the
statutes that relate to nuclear energy that could be updated
based on the updated technology. She explained that they
propose an addition of a legal definition of a "Microreactor",
as well as an update to the wording around advanced reactors.
She continued to the second proposal for two additional
requirements, citing interviews she conducted with former
legislators around any nuclear project in Alaska. She described
the requirements as "Honorius" and proposed an exception for
microreactors. She finished the list by highlighting the unique
legislative authority for nuclear reactors, and she proposed
microreactors be exempt from it.
11:15:06 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ZULKOSKY expressed appreciation for the dialogue
around diversifying Alaska's energy portfolio. She asked about
what impact these plants may have on the warming of permafrost,
impacting infrastructure and the environment.
MS. HOLDMANN addressed the uncertainty and expressed her
excitement about the possible certainty pertaining to long-term
price structures and delivery that microreactors could bring.
She recommended that from standpoint of energy security, these
would be worth exploring for hub communities like Bethel. She
asked Mr. McDowell to address the possible negative impacts of a
microreactor.
11:18:30 AM
MR. MCDOWELL addressed the potential for reactors in Alaska and
the unique challenges for NRC. He explained that the footprint
is smaller, there is no water-based coolant, and the foundations
will be unique due to the permafrost. He talked about how NRC
regards climate change as a change to baseline conditions and
the potential environmental impact 40 years from now.
11:21:51 AM
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS inquired about price per kilowatt hour and
ways to reduce that price to remain competitive with the Lower
48, citing projected costs for Valdez.
MS. HOLDMANN responded that the economics of a system is
difficult, and there are still many open questions in terms of
costs and requirements from NRC. She talked about the
information that the Eielson Air Force Base project will
provide.
11:24:33 AM
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS mentioned that the city of Valdez has
testified to their interest in a small-scale reactor, and he
asked who could provide consulting services for local
governments.
MS. HOLDMANN answered that ACEP has been careful not to enter
NDA with any particular vendor to remain a resource for
stakeholders with questions about this technology. She said
very few people in Alaska are knowledgeable about this space.
National labs and the U.S. Department of Energy provide support
to this Alaska, as well as 20 participants from national labs
who regularly inform Alaskans through the working group. She
addressed Valdez specifically and talked about the internship
that specifically investigated the feasibility of a microreactor
in Valdez. She also expressed interest in how a micro reactor
could, for example, make the Railbelt system more robust.
11:27:38 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN asked if the Eielson project would require
any statutory change, or if the legislature would need to
approve a citing location chosen by the Air Force.
MS. HOLDMANN explained that it would be subject to any relevant
state law if HB 299 is not passed. If the bill does pass, the
Fairbanks NorthStar Borough would still have authority for
approval.
11:28:52 AM
CHAIR SCHRAGE asked whether other states require legislative
approval for siting.
MS. HOLDMANN offered her understanding that Alaska is unique,
and she deferred to Dr. Finan.
11:29:34 AM
MS. HOLDMANN said there are a variety of other laws around the
country; some have voter approval and others have legislative
approval.
11:30:26 AM
MS. HOLDMANN resumed the presentation on slides 20 and 21,
addressing the Eielson project. She then moved to slide 23 and
summarized her personal interest in small reactors and provided
her background. She emphasized the need for a path to
competitive pricing. She also stated her appreciation of
protecting the sensitive environment in Alaska and talked about
an ongoing project to estimate the environmental costs
associated with status quo. She opined that HB 299 would keep
the door open to exploring the technology and for industry to
consider this as a potential option.
11:34:21 AM
CHAIR SCHRAGE thanked the presenters.
[HB 299 was held over.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 299 ACEP Presentation.pdf |
HENE 2/8/2022 10:15:00 AM |
HB 299 |
| 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 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 |
| HB 299 Testimony - Received as of 02.07.22.pdf |
HENE 2/8/2022 10:15:00 AM HENE 3/1/2022 10:15:00 AM |
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 |