Legislature(2021 - 2022)BARNES 124
05/10/2022 08:00 AM 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 | |
| SB177 | |
| HB120 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SB 177 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 120 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
SB 177-MICROREACTORS
3:05:56 PM
CHAIR PATKOTAK announced that the first order of business would
be CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 177(RES), "An Act relating to nuclear
facility siting permits; and relating to microreactors."
3:06:24 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment 1 to
CSSB 177(RES) [included in the committee packet], which read as
follows [original punctuation provided]:
"all cities and boroughs must approve a site for a
microreactor before DEC can permit it, except for
unorganized boroughs in which siting is the
responsibility of the legislature."
CHAIR PATKOTAK objected for the purpose of discussion.
3:06:33 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS explained Conceptual Amendment 1. He said
the Department of Environmental Conservation's (DEC's) letter
responding to questions about local authority over the siting of
microreactors states it is the bill's intent that local
governments do maintain siting authority regardless of the type
of borough or municipality. He noted that cities and boroughs
with planning and zoning already have this authority so [the
bill] is not changing anything. However, he continued, DEC
acknowledged some ambiguity for local governments which don't
currently have planning and zoning authority. He related that
the concept of Conceptual Amendment 1 is that in jurisdictions
which don't currently have planning and zoning authority,
comfort would be given to citizens who are concerned about the
bill that their local government is going to have siting
authority. He said he understands DEC's answer to be that the
local governments will have that authority anyway and therefore
Conceptual Amendment 1 is a clarifying amendment.
3:08:29 PM
CHAIR PATKOTAK invited DEC to provide context to the follow-up
letter referenced by Representative Fields [provided in the
committee packet] and to address the amendment.
CHRISTINA CARPENTER, Director, Division of Environmental Health,
Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), spoke to the
question from Representative Fields about the siting requirement
for the Municipality of Anchorage. She said the current
language in AS 18.45.025(c) includes the requirement that a DEC
permit may not be issued until the municipality with
jurisdiction over the proposed facility site has approved that
permit. So, she advised, if DEC was looking at approving a
microreactor site within the Municipality of Anchorage, the
department would require that the municipality approve that
before DEC would approve its permit, and that would not change
under SB 177. She apologized for not having had a chance to
read Conceptual Amendment 1.
3:10:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS agreed with Ms. Carpenter that it is clear
Anchorage, Juneau, and the larger jurisdictions already have the
siting authority, which he supports. He explained Conceptual
Amendment 1 was designed to confirm that local jurisdictions
which are organized but do not currently have planning and
zoning authority, do still have siting authority. He read aloud
Conceptual Amendment 1 and said he attempted to write the
amendment to be consistent with DEC's understanding of the bill
but provide clarity where DEC's memo suggested there is some
ambiguity with the current language.
3:11:50 PM
GWEN HOLDMAN, Director, Alaska Center for Energy and Power,
University of Alaska Fairbanks, stated she has been serving as a
technical advisor on microreactors on behalf of the
administration. She said this question has come up in her
discussions with different stakeholders and constituents around
the state. She noted she doesn't claim to be an expert in this
area, but said her understanding is that an organized
municipality can delegate this kind of authority to a planning
committee but if that committee doesn't exist that authority is
retained by the organizing city council or borough assembly.
She related that this has also come up with renewable energy
projects and siting authority related to those, so she knows
that that is the process for a place which does not have a
planning committee. She said she understands that the intent of
the conceptual amendment is to clarify what the bill states, but
offered her opinion that the language is not needed and doesn't
add anything to her interpretation of the bill.
3:13:28 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE opined that the bill is clear as written.
He said listening to the department's response gives him some
relief. He inquired whether, with the amendment, the City of
Fairbanks and the Fairbanks North Star Borough would both have
to approve [a siting].
3:13:55 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS responded he is trying to specifically
address the statement in the DEC memo that says, "Arguably the
bill provides local governments with a specific grant of
authority to approve these permits outside the planning
process." He maintained that this statement has a degree of
ambiguity. He said the letter continues with the statement, "As
a practical matter a municipality might be able to solicit
assistance." He related that the letter also says that the
statute does not require the municipality to have the zoning
authority, only that the municipality must provide approval. He
said it seems, given these statements, that it is the
understanding of DEC that municipalities probably have this
authority, and he thinks they should, and they do have an
agreement with Ms. Holdman. He said he will support the bill
anyway but would like to clear up any ambiguity and give
citizens some assurance that their local government retains
jurisdiction over siting.
3:15:11 PM
CHAIR PATKOTAK stated he falls back to the comfort of the
current statute and added that the conceptual amendment is last
minute. He said the DEC letter speaks to AS 18.45.025(c) which
states that the permit may not be issued until the municipality
with jurisdiction over the proposed facility site has approved
the permit. So, he continued, that covers municipalities and
cities that have elected to adopt planning and zoning. He
offered his understanding that the discussion point here is that
unorganized cities or organized cities or boroughs that are
lower class that don't retain planning and zoning permitting
authority still have some sort of backstop versus it being a
full legislature.
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS confirmed that that is the intent of the
proposed conceptual amendment.
3:16:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS related that his home municipality of
Fairbanks has planning and zoning powers but not economic
development powers or utility powers. He said he will be
supporting Conceptual Amendment 1 because, while it does say it
in the DEC memo, double clarification from the amendment would
be key so there is not some ambiguity in the future that a
second-class borough without specific powers is excluded from
the requirement. It would not be detracting or hurting the
bill, he continued, it would just be making it clear.
3:17:49 PM
MS. HOLDMAN, in reference to the words siting and permitting,
advised that it needs to be clear in the amendment that
communities retain siting authority over a project and that the
permitting of a project is the purview of DEC as well as the
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (USNRC). She suggested that
if the committee chooses to move forward with the amendment, the
draft language be adjusted to ensure it's clear that it's the
siting authority that is being retained by the local government,
not the approval of the permit.
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS responded that that is consistent with his
intent that the local jurisdiction pertains to siting.
3:19:01 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE said he supports the intent of Conceptual
Amendment 1 but isn't comfortable with the language and working
so quickly. He stated he would like to get the perspective of
Legislative Legal Services and clarify with DEC. He encouraged
taking the route of a floor amendment and said that he cannot
support the amendment.
3:19:32 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN surmised DEC has already started drafting
regulations that it anticipates needing if the bill becomes law.
She noted that in most state agencies which permit, it is an
affirmative process whereby the agency says yes once thresholds
have been met. She asked whether DEC is contemplating in its
regulatory package what analysis it would do regarding community
decisions and siting. For example, whether a community saying
yes to a specific project in a specific location would be
considered to be within DEC's oversight of the siting or whether
DEC would do [its own] analysis with considerations such as
earthquakes and tsunami hazards.
MS. CARPENTER replied that DEC has not started the regulation
package but has discussed what is anticipated in a draft
regulation package. She said this would include provisions of
what criteria had to be met before DEC could issue a permit,
such as local participation, the permit application review, and
local approval of DEC's permit. Regulations, she continued,
would include such things as minimum setback requirements from
homes or property lines if applicable, surface water, and
drinking water supply. She advised that the applicant would
also be required to identify any potential releases or impacts
to land, air, or water. She offered her understanding that
tsunami and earthquake evaluations are part of the USNRC permit
application process.
3:22:44 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS addressed Representative Schrage's point.
He said if Conceptual Amendment 1 is adopted, Legislative Legal
Services would write it because there would be a motion for
technical changes. He said he is willing to have the amendment
adopted now or to withdraw it and offer it on the floor.
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE responded that the amendment is unclear
as to whether it would be the cities or whether it would be the
cities and the boroughs, and he is concerned about a duplicative
approval process.
CHAIR PATKOTAK stated he is in support of something on the floor
because, as the bill is, there has been a lot of work regarding
recognizing the powers and preference of the different cities
and places.
3:24:04 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS withdrew Conceptual Amendment 1.
3:24:33 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCKAY asked whether the reactor for Eielson Air
Force Base has been sited and whether DEC or the Fairbanks North
Star Borough have been involved in that.
MS. HOLDMAN answered that the Eielson project is located
jurisdictionally within the Fairbanks North Star Borough. She
offered her understanding that it will be the borough that will
make the decision whether to approve the siting of the project
within the borough assembly or at the advice of the borough's
planning committee.
3:25:58 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN observed that the DEC fiscal note does not
anticipate any new money being needed to develop supervision of
microreactor permitting. She asked whether DEC is anticipating
a job class with people who have nuclear science or nuclear
engineering in their background or whether this will be absorbed
with the kinds of staff currently within the department.
3:26:53 PM
MS. CARPENTER responded that DEC put forward a zero fiscal note
in recognition that its microreactors are multiple years out.
At this point, she stated, she doesn't have an idea of the job
class or staffing requirements that will be needed. But, she
continued, it is noted that DEC can soon begin working on the
regulations package with existing staff because the department
has the support of Ms. Holdman's staff and the various national
laboratories that can assist DEC with the drafting of those
regulations. She specified that once the facility is permitted
in the state, it is subject to oversight by the U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission.
3:27:55 PM
CHAIR PATKOTAK requested Ms. Carpenter to make the department's
closing comments.
MS. CARPENTER offered her appreciation to the committee for
hearing CSSB 177(RES) and urged the committee's support for
passing the bill.
3:28:39 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS moved to report CSSB 177(RES) out of
committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying
[zero] fiscal note.
3:28:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN objected and said she will be voting no.
She related that she wishes the committee was talking about a
specific project, such as the Eielson project and the siting of
that project, because of the many concerns that have been
brought to her. She noted that on an active U.S. Department of
Defense (DoD) installation, some of the concerns about
oversight, security, and waste management would be addressed
because of the secured nature of a military site. She said the
state doesn't have the expertise in place and if Alaska had one
successful project then looking to change the law to make it
easier for multiple jurisdictions to do it would be a logical
step. No one has attempted to site a nuclear project in Alaska
using the current statute, she continued, yet it is being
attempted to throw it out. Representative Hannan said Alaska
has 150-plus local jurisdictions that will get to weigh in and
is going to trust the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory [Commission] to be
the state's experts and have the state's best interests at
heart. Things don't follow in a rational story of how the state
should be acting, she opined, so right now she is vehemently
opposed to the bill, but not to microreactors. She added that
need has been demonstrated to change [the law] and it is
premature.
3:31:02 PM
CHAIR PATKOTAK said he appreciates the scrutiny of a case-by-
case basis and would like to see this brought forward.
3:31:11 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER offered his understanding that this
process is a long way off and he doesn't think a lot of
communities will be rushing in right away. He said he believes
there will be scrutiny on the military base microreactor and the
microreactor in his community of Valdez. Alaska is a great
testing ground for this program, he opined, and it should be
helped along to see how it works out. He said he would vote
yes.
3:32:38 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives McKay, Fields,
Cronk, Hopkins, Rauscher, Gillham, Schrage, and Patkotak voted
in favor of moving CSSB 177(RES) out of committee with
individual recommendations and the accompanying [zero] fiscal
note. Representative Hannan voted against it. Therefore, CSSB
177(RES) was reported out of the House Resources Standing
Committee by a vote of 8-1.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 120 Amendment Fields G.4 5.10.2022.pdf |
HRES 5/10/2022 8:00:00 AM |
HB 120 |
| HB 120 Amendment Fields G.6 5.10.2022.pdf |
HRES 5/10/2022 8:00:00 AM |
HB 120 |
| HB 120 Amendment Fields G.5 5.10.2022.pdf |
HRES 5/10/2022 8:00:00 AM |
HB 120 |
| SB 177 DEC Responses to Committee Questions 5.10.2022.pdf |
HRES 5/10/2022 8:00:00 AM |
SB 177 |
| HB 120 Amendment Rauscher G.1 5.10.2022.pdf |
HRES 5/10/2022 8:00:00 AM |
HB 120 |
| SB 177 Testimony Packet 5.10.2022.pdf |
HRES 5/10/2022 8:00:00 AM |
SB 177 |
| SB 177 Fields Conceptual Amendment 5.10.22.pdf |
HRES 5/10/2022 8:00:00 AM |
SB 177 |
| HB 120 Amendment Packet with Committee Actions 5.10.2022.pdf |
HRES 5/10/2022 8:00:00 AM |
HB 120 |
| HB 120 Testimony Packet Four 5.10.2022.pdf |
HRES 5/10/2022 8:00:00 AM |
HB 120 |