Legislature(2021 - 2022)BUTROVICH 205
03/21/2022 03:30 PM Senate 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 | |
| HB79 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | SB 177 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 79 | TELECONFERENCED | |
SB 177-MICROREACTORS
3:34:07 PM
VICE CHAIR MICCICHE announced the consideration of SENATE BILL
NO. 177 "An Act relating to microreactors."
He asked Gwen Holdmann to present the bill.
3:35:12 PM
GWEN HOLDMANN, Director, Alaska Center for Energy and Power,
University of Alaska Fairbanks, Fairbanks, Alaska, said she'd
like Christina Carpenter to provide an introduction of SB 177.
3:35:49 PM
At Ease.
3:36:23 PM
VICE CHAIR MICCICHE reconvened the meeting and asked Ms.
Carpenter to introduce SB 177.
3:36:30 PM
CHRISTINA CARPENTER, Director, Division of Environmental Health
Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), Anchorage,
Alaska, introduced SB 177 paraphrasing 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.
3:39:21 PM
MS. CARPENTER presented the following 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."
3:39:50 PM
SENATOR STEVENS commented on: the love hate relationship the
U.S. has had with nuclear power, his assumption that most of the
cooling towers associated with nuclear reactors were gone, and
the most recent experience in Ukraine where large nuclear plants
have become targets. He asked if microreactors placed in small
communities would be safe from malicious attack.
MS. CARPENTER replied that Ms. Holdmann would discuss safety
during the forthcoming presentation.
SENATOR KIEHL noted that the definition of microreactor
references a federal law that identifies a size that is less
than 50 megawatts (MW). He asked what the limitations were in
that federal law.
MS. HOLDMANN said she'd like to address that during the
presentation, but it was related to the definition of a
microreactor in the IIJA, which is under 50 MW of electric power
and having the characteristics associated with an advanced
reactor that is defined in state statute. She offered to have
Ashley Finan, the director of the National Reactor Innovative
Test Site at the Idaho National Laboratory (INL), supplement
that explanation.
3:42:55 PM
SENATOR KAWASAKI noted that bill Section 2 essentially exempts
microreactors in the state from going through the regular
legislative siting and permitting requirements and the required
advance studies. He asked what those studies might look like and
how they differ from the existing Title 18 requirements.
3:43:40 PM
MS. CARPENTER answered that the bill exempts only microreactors
from the requirement in current statute for six state agencies
to conduct ongoing studies to evaluate the various impacts of
these reactors. There would still be a requirement for a one-
time study overseen by the Alaska Center for Energy and Power
(ACEP) and the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC)
for the siting of these microreactors.
SENATOR KAWASAKI pointed out that part of the siting requirement
in AS 18.45.025(b) talks about where a nuclear reprocessing
facility or nuclear waste disposal facility may be located. He
asked if that would be part of the study that ACEP and DEC would
do in lieu of the original facility siting permits.
MS. CARPENTER deferred the question to Ms. Holdmann.
3:45:27 PM
MS. HOLDMANN asked if he was referring to AS 18.45.027
pertaining to nuclear waste.
SENATOR KAWASAKI answered no, he was asking about AS
18.45.025(b) that talks about where a nuclear fuel production
facility, a nuclear reprocessing facility, or a nuclear waste
disposal facility may be located. His question was whether the
ACEP and DEC study would be required to include the study of
those things.
MS. HOLDMANN said Ms. Carpenter was speaking to AS 18.45.030,
which pertains to the studies the six state agencies are
required to do related to nuclear development and risks. The
bill does not seek to change AS 18.45.025 other than removing
legislative siting authority for microreactors. Nor does the
bill seek to change licensing requirements, including any
subsequent studies that would be required for typical licensing
by state agencies. The bill only removes the requirement for
ongoing and continuous studies by those six agencies.
SENATOR KAWASAKI referred to AS 18.45.030 that talks about the
studies required by the six agencies before a permit is issued.
The first is the requirement for the Department of Health and
Social Services to particularly look at hazards to the public
health and safety. He asked if that would still be required as a
matter of course for microreactors.
MS. HOLDMANN answered that the agency permitting requirements
will remain in place. SB 177 does not relate to changes to state
permitting of a microreactor or the site on which it could be
developed. This bill exempts microreactors from the ongoing and
continual studies that are above and beyond the existing
licensing and permitting requirements for a reactor at the state
level.
VICE CHAIR MICCICHE asked Ms. Carpenter if she had anything to
add.
MS. CARPENTER indicated that the response was sufficient.
3:48:21 PM
SENATOR KAWASAKI said if his reading was accurate that Section 2
creates a new subsection (b) in AS 18.45.030 "Conduct of studies
concerning changes in laws and regulations with a view to atomic
industrial development." that exempts microreactors from those
study requirements.
MS. CARPENTER answered that is correct. SB 177 would create a
carve-out for microreactors from those ongoing study
requirements. That work would be done by the national labs and
ACEP, although microreactors in the state would still be subject
to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) safety testing and
permitting requirements as well as any DEC siting authority.
3:49:43 PM
SENATOR VON IMHOF questioned the reasoning for considering
microreactors. She asked if there were companies that have
advanced technology to safely dispose of the wastewater and if
they currently were manufacturing microreactors at affordable
prices.
MS. HOLDMANN answered that none of these reactor technologies
had been installed in the U.S. but the expectation was that a
number of different systems would be installed at the National
Reactor Innovation Center (NRIC) at the National Laboratory in
Idaho and potentially other places in the U.S. including Eielson
Air Force Base in Alaska. She noted that Ashley Finan, the
director of NRIC was online and available to discuss that
project. SB 177 proposes to update the 40-year-old statutes that
were written before microreactors were considered at the
national level. She suggested that the presentation might answer
some of the questions about wastewater disposal, testing, and
safety. The purpose of SB 177 acknowledges that the technology
has changed from the legacy gigawatt-scale light-water reactors
and that the current statutes impede the ability of communities
and sites in the state to move forward with a feasibility or
planned project development for a microreactor.
VICE CHAIR MICCICHE invited Ms. Holdmann to begin the
presentation.
3:52:47 PM
MS. HOLDMANN began the presentation with a recognition of the
ongoing help ACEP had received from national laboratory
technical experts to further the idea of microreactors in the
state. She specifically recognized Ashley Finan, the director of
the National Reactor Innovation Center at the Idaho National
Laboratory who was online today. She also provided background on
herself as the director for ACEP. She relayed that she had
worked on the idea of advancing microreactors for several years.
Her background was in mechanical engineering and physics. She
was the lead engineer at the Chena Hot Springs geothermal power
plant, which is relevant to the application of nuclear reactor
technology. ACEP has been interested in tracking the technology
for the last 12 years and at the request of the legislature.
MS. HOLDMANN explained that the Alaska Center for Energy & Power
(ACEP) is an applied research center at UAF that looks at
innovative energy solutions and applications for Alaska
communities and industry. She noted that earlier today she gave
a presentation to Hilcorp about the potential use of
microreactors for Alaska industries. ACEP has a statewide focus
and has researchers based in Fairbanks, Anchorage, and Juneau.
3:54:41 PM
MS. HOLDMANN advanced to slide 6, stating 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 10 MW nuclear power plant in Galena that
was under consideration about 20 years ago. It also included
nuclear testing or project development such as Project Chariot,
the testing on Amchitka Island, and the reactor at Fort Greeley
that was deployed in 1962 and partially decommissioned in 1972.
The final decommission will begin this year.
MS. HOLDMANN reviewed the recommendations in the 2021 report to
the legislature:
[Original punctuation on slide 7 provided.]
• 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
3:57:09 PM
MS. HOLDMANN said she wanted to provide a few facts about
nuclear energy to respond to Senator Stevens' comments about
safety and his observations about the cooling towers. She
discussed the following points:
[Original punctuation provided.]
• 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)
3:58:36 PM
MS. HOLDMANN turned to slide 9 and described the following
attributes of microreactors:
Microreactors are an emerging class of small, advanced
reactors with the following general attributes:
• Output of less than 10 megawatts of electric
power (MWe)
She noted that SB 177 uses the definition of capable of
generating no more than 50 MWe. This aligns with the
federal definition in the Infrastructure Investment and
Jobs Act (IIJA) that references advanced reactor designs
that have additional attributes. Using this definition came
about through consultation with the national laboratory
partners.
• 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).
She characterized microreactors as a thermal battery (heat
source) that can be used for power generation and other heat
applications. In lieu of refueling, the reactor core may be
replaced.
4:01:28 PM
MS. HOLDMANN advanced to slide 10, Small Nuclear Reactors (under
development in U.S., < 300 MWe). The chart shows some of the
companies that are actively pursuing licensing through the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). They are looking at U.S.
markets for their technology. She pointed to the clear
bifurcation at the 10 MWe scale. Below that are the
manufacturers that fit in that microreactor definition. Many of
those that are larger fall under what is called a modular
reactor approach and are designed to replace the legacy reactors
in the U.S. The benefit is that several modules can be deployed
at the same site, they can be worked on individually, they have
less nuclear material, and they have inherent and intrinsic
safety features.
4:03:02 PM
MS. HOLDMANN advanced to slide 11 that illustrates two examples
of micro nuclear reactors (MNR) under development. Both
companies have expressed interest in the Alaska market. The
first example is from the Seattle based company Ultra Safe
Nuclear Company. They are working on a feasibility study with
Copper Valley Electric Association to potentially deploy a
system in Valdez, and they are looking at doing a demonstration
at Chalk River Laboratories in Canada. This reactor is designed
to be deployed below ground and will generate about 10 MWe. The
second example is the Westinghouse eVinci reactor design, which
is just 5 MWe and more modular. It is proposed for deployment
above grade in a series of four CONEX containers, just one of
which has the microreactor.
MS. HOLDMANN displayed slide 12 and discussed the meaning of
passive safety. She said she breaks the inherent safety into two
components. One is the fuel configuration. New fuel
configurations have been developed in the last decade, one of
which is tristructural isotropic (TRISO) particles. These are
designed with the uranium fuel at the core with multiple layers
of advanced carbon materials that are heat resistant and can
withstand the temperatures and physical stresses that are well
beyond the threshold of current nuclear fuels. The fuel is
designed to never come in contact with the environment.
The second component of passive safety is the passive cooling
feature. Unlike the legacy reactors, these advanced reactors do
not require active systems to cool the fuel in an emergency.
Microreactors have much less nuclear material in one place and
the heat from the reactor core is designed to be removed through
passive thermodynamic and physical properties that take place
without pumps or extra power. Advanced reactors have multiple
layers of safety that she believes places them in a different
category of nuclear power than the old legacy reactors.
4:07:03 PM
MS. HOLDMANN turned to the image on slide 13 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 noted that the state statutes related to nuclear
energy listed on slide 14 were worth looking at and that the
three of the statutes listed on slide 15 were the ones the bill
proposes to amend.
4:09:56 PM
MS. HOLDMANN advanced to slide 16 and explained that the
University of Alaska Anchorage Center for Economic Development
conducted a use case analysis of whether microreactors have a
role in Alaska's future energy mix. The images on slide 17
illustrate four use cases: rural hub community, Railbelt
application, military base at Eielson AFB, and mining operation
at the Red Dog Mine.
MS. HOLDMAN explained that the state map depicted on slide 18
identifies the limited number of communities in rural Alaska
that have enough heating and electric load demand to host a
small modular microreactor.
4:11:09 PM
SENATOR VON IMHOF noted that Dillingham has the capacity for 3
megawatts (MW) and Bethel has the capacity for 7 megawatts. She
asked what capacity mining operations like Donlin [Gold], Fort
Knox, or Red Dog Mine might have.
MS. HOLDMANN answered that the load requirements for mining
operations typically would be in the 10s of megawatts, although
the small graphite mine outside of Nome might be just 6 or 7
megawatts.
SENATOR VON IMHOF asked if the 223 MW load demand for Fairbanks
was just residential and commercial or if it also included
Eielson AFB.
4:12:25 PM
MS. HOLDMANN answered that the 223 MW does not include the
military base. It is the load for the Golden Valley Electric
Association grid and while Eielson AFB is connected, it
primarily self generates from a coal plant. The load estimates
on slide 18 are for the communities, but they do not show all
possible applications.
MS. HOLDMANN displayed an aerial view of the National Reactor
Innovation Center at the Idaho National Laboratory and relayed
that this was where many of the advanced reactors are expected
to be tested in the next decade. She noted that Dr. Finan was
available to answer questions about the facility and the
testing.
MS. HOLDMANN reviewed the information on slides 20 and 21 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
She noted that the microreactor will not provide all the demand
so it will be run in parallel with the existing coal power
plant.
• Will be licensed by the NRC; subject to state
regs
• Privately owned/operated through PPA [power
purchase agreement] with USAF
Proposed Timeline:
• February/March 2022 RFP [request for proposal]
released
• Vender selected late 2022
• 2022-23 Permitting and licensing
• 2025 begin construction
• 2027 Commercial operation
4:15:23 PM
SENATOR STEVENS asked if she had any concerns about locating a
microreactor on Eielson Air Force Base when it was already
potentially a target. He asked if Fairbanks residents had a say
in whether they want a nuclear reactor so close.
MS. HOLDMANN deferred the first question to Dr. Finan. To the
second question, she said SB 177 does not remove local siting
authority, so the Fairbanks North Star Borough will have some
decision-making authority over the project.
SENATOR STEVENS asked whether villages would also have a choice
about whether or not to have a microreactor in or close to the
village.
MS. HOLDMANN answered yes, the bill does not remove local
control in a borough or municipal government. The siting
authority would revert to the legislature for a project that is
located outside a municipality or borough. She noted that the
NRC also has a robust process for consent-based siting for a
nuclear facility of any kind.
VICE CHAIR MICCICHE asked Dr. Finan to address Senator Stevens'
question about the potential for a microreactor located on a
military base being a target.
4:18:05 PM
ASHLEY FINAN, Director, National Reactor Innovation Center
(NRIC), Idaho National Laboratory, Idaho Falls, Idaho, explained
that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has security requirements
for all reactors in the U.S. The microreactors under discussion
today are all designed to withstand natural events such as
tornadoes, earthquakes, and high winds as well as human-caused
external events. Some of the key features of advanced reactors
are the inherent safety features that make them more resilient
in the event of a negative external event. No human intervention
is necessary, off-site power is not required to cool and
shutdown safely, and the advanced fuel forms are more resilient
to impact. She offered to follow up with a more comprehensive
written response.
4:19:52 PM
SENATOR STEVENS asked if she could say that humans would not be
exposed to the release of nuclear energy if a stinger missile
were to hit an advanced microreactor located at Eielson Air
Force Base.
DR. FINAN answered that she did not have any technical knowledge
or detailed information about stinger missiles or other weapons.
There are standards to protect against such threats, but the
information is classified. She nevertheless offered to look into
the matter and follow up with what she finds.
SENATOR STEVENS said it seems that any kind of missile would be
dangerous
4:21:12 PM
VICE CHAIR MICCICHE asked Dr. Finan to provide information to
Senator Revak's office about the general risk of microreactors
versus conventional reactors and their risk when under attack.
DR. FINAN agreed to provide the information.
4:21:39 PM
SENATOR KIEHL asked where in statute it says that the siting
authority would revert to the legislature for a reactor project
that is located outside a municipality or borough.
MS. CARPENTER answered that she would follow up with the exact
statutory language.
4:23:12 PM
MS. HOLDMANN advanced to slide 22, Alaska Roadmap. She committed
ACEP to answer the questions the committee and other Alaskans
have about small microreactors and to continue to work with NRIC
to develop a state roadmap leading to a possible pilot project.
She acknowledged that the slide came from the 2011 report so it
was more than a decade old. Nevertheless, it does show the four
stage gate questions: 1) does the technology exist; 2) is it
safe; 3) is it environmentally responsible to deploy in Alaska;
and 4) is it cost-effective. She said these are the questions
Alaskans need to have answered to determine whether or not
nuclear energy was a viable option as part of the energy mix for
the future.
4:24:28 PM
MS. HOLDMANN stated that ACEP does not promote one technology
over another, but nuclear energy is worth keeping an eye on. She
recounted the reasons she was interested in pursuing small
reactors and thus the passage of SB 177:
• The idea of providing baseload energy to Alaskan
communities and industry is very interesting
• The ability to load follow means they have the potential to
firm up renewables and meet variable demand for industry
• It is one way for industry to reduce its carbon footprint
• They are safer than legacy reactors, but should also be
compared to other status quo generation
• Competitive pricing depends on the value of heat
• There is value in long term certainty about the cost of
energy
• Reduced risk of environmental contamination compared to the
status quo and legacy reactor technologies
• It has the possibility to complement the existing Alaska
resource mix
4:27:22 PM
SENATOR KIEHL noted that the Japanese Ministry of Health
disagrees with the statement on slide 8 that nobody had "ever
died as a result of radiation exposure due to a commercial
nuclear reactor accident (including Fukushima Daiichi)."
He returned to his earlier question about the definition
referenced in the bill that says that any advanced nuclear
reactor under a certain capacity is a microreactor. He asked
whether the definition of "advanced nuclear reactor" [in 42
U.S.C. 16271] changed in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs
Act (IIJA), and if she would talk about the meaning of the legal
language in that definition.
4:28:30 PM
MS. HOLDMANN answered that ACEP put a lot of effort into looking
at different definitions of microreactor. There really isn't a
size threshold but there was concern about ensuring that the
statutes wouldn't need further amendment to accommodate the
developers that are proposing microreactor designs that are at
or slightly above the 10 MW threshold. There was no interest in
creating a definition that was unique to Alaska.
MS. HOLDMANN stated that it was the Governor's Office that chose
to align the definition of microreactor in the bill with the
IIJA definition, which is less than 50 MW of electric power. She
suggested he ask Dr. Finan to supplement that explanation if
that was the committee's desire.
4:29:50 PM
VICE CHAIR MICCICHE asked Dr. Finan to round out the response.
4:29:56 PM
DR. FINAN stated that the focus of her work is on advanced
reactors that have advanced safety and other features that are
suitable for different markets. She opined that there were many
applications nationwide and particularly in Alaska for which the
50 MW and lower range of microreactors makes sense. However,
from a technical perspective there isn't a hard line for what is
and is not a microreactor.
DR. FINAN said she thinks about these as mostly advanced
reactors that achieve those inherent safety features, but as Ms.
Holdmann described, the limitation of potential site boundaries
is an important characteristic of advanced reactors. It applies
to microreactors, but it also applies to advanced reactors that
are larger than the ones being considered in the definition in
SB 177.
SENATOR KIEHL said he asked because unless there was a new
definition in the federal law, what she described was
significantly more restrictive than what is cited in the bill.
The definition he found online in that federal law is anything
that makes improvements to the nuclear reactor technology that
existed two years ago is an advanced reactor. He suggested that
if that was the definition the bill was looking for, the
committee should talk about what it should say.
He also asked for some discussion about the safety of the fuel
pellets that were described in slide 12 and what would happen if
those were released into the environment.
4:33:15 PM
DR. FINAN answered that the major innovation in the TRISO fuel
pellet is that it traps radioactive materials inside the fuel.
This is distinctly different than the fuel used in today's
reactors. Now the radioactive gases that leave the fuel are
contained by a cladding and if that melts, the radioactive gas
is released into the coolant. If several additional barriers
fail, the radioactive gas can be released into the environment.
DR. FINAN stated that this advanced fuel is encased in a silicon
carbide graphite matrix that does not fail at the temperatures a
reactor will reach in a worst-case accident. Radioactive gases
are not released into the coolant so there is not the potential
for release into the environment if multiple barriers fail. This
means the emergency planning zone can be reduced from the space
a gas can potentially travel to the much smaller space a solid
potentially can travel. Therefore, the 10-50 mile emergency
planning zone can be reduced to the site boundaries.
DR. FINAN stated that the Department of Defense's pursuit of
demonstration projects using TRISO fuel is an illustrative
example. DoD is looking at using these microreactors in forward
operating locations overseas to provide clean, secure energy
that does not rely on diesel fuel supply lines that are
vulnerable in national defense activities. Tests run the last
10-15 years have proved that micronuclear reactors that use
TRISO fuel don't fail. The Chinese, Germans and others have
experienced similar results. It is so robust that it is the fuel
of choice in forward operating applications.
4:36:46 PM
SENATOR KAWASAKI asked what happens to the spent nuclear fuel or
waste that's produced during reprocessing.
DR. FINAN answered that reprocessing is not envisioned in the
near term, but the waste product of the reactor would be handled
the same way that nuclear byproducts are handled today. That is
to have a robust storage system where the waste is held until a
final disposal site is identified or there is reprocessing.
Waste other than spent nuclear fuel is classified from low to
high level of radioactivity or toxicity and managed accordingly.
4:38:21 PM
SENATOR KIEHL asked where he could find the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission's safety regulations for commercial microreactors.
DR. FINAN answered that the nrc.gov website has a library of
references, including all its regulations. She offered to follow
up and help identify the relevant regulations, particularly the
detailed security and safety regulations.
VICE CHAIR MICCICHE asked for follow up information and source
material about the difference in technologies between
conventional nuclear reactors that are designed to serve
millions versus these very much smaller microreactors. He
described the hearing today and the follow up as a fact-finding
mission. He thanked the presenters.
4:41:08 PM
VICE CHAIR MICCICHE opened public testimony on SB 177.
4:41:4530 PM
MICHAEL ROVITO, Deputy Director, Alaska Power Association (APA),
Anchorage, Alaska stated that APA is a statewide trade
association for electric utilities in Alaska. The association
supports SB 177 so any members that are considering
microreactors will be able to move forward with the knowledge
that a portion of the permitting process has been streamlined.
He described microreactors as a viable source of power that have
the potential to lower the cost of energy for Alaskans, decrease
dependency on the use of diesel, position the state for better
economic development opportunities, and raise Alaska's profile
as a hub of energy innovation and independence.
MR. ROVITO highlighted that electric utilities that are seeking
to permit microreactors will still have to satisfy state and
federal permitting requirements as well as any local
requirements before a project can move to the construction
phase. SB 177 streamlines the process by exempting microreactors
under 50 megawatts from legislative siting authority and the
ongoing study requirements. Passing SB 177 will help electric
utilities in Alaska further their mission to provide safe,
reliable, and affordable power.
4:43:33 PM
COURTNEY OWEN, Civic Engagement Coordinator, Alaska Community
Action on Toxics (ACAT), Anchorage, Alaska, stated her testimony
was prepared by Pamela Miller, ACAT's senior scientist and
executive director. She read the following:
Thank you chair and members of the Senate Resources
Committee for considering our perspective on SB 177.
The Alaska Community Action on Toxics is a statewide
nonprofit environmental health and justice research
and advocacy organization based in Anchorage. We
oppose SB 177 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're a false solution for our energy needs and
the climate crisis.
Nuclear power is destructive throughout its lifecycle,
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 January 6, 2022, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
determined that Oklo [Inc.] failed to provide
sufficient information on topics such as potential
accidents and certain safety systems. Microreactor
venders 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 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 that they
are so safe that they can function without operators.
A single Oklo microreactor core would contain about
ten 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 or 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 SM-1A 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."
4:46:30 PM
SENATOR STEVENS asked for additional information on the
experimental nuclear reactor at Fort Greely and what happened.
MS. OWEN answered that Pamela Miller had a report that she would
provide by email.
4:46:54 PM
SENATOR VON IMHOF asked if she said that one microreactor was
equivalent to ten nuclear bombs.
MS. OWEN restated that a single Oklo microreactor core would
contain about ten nuclear weapons worth of nuclear and
radioactive material.
SENATOR VON IMHOF asked specifically what nuclear weapons were
used in that comparison because the presentation emphasized the
comparatively small amount of nuclear fuel that is used in
advanced micronuclear reactors, and the bill limits the size to
less than 50 MW.
MS. OWEN asked whether she could refer the question to ACAT's
senior scientist.
VICE CHAIR MICCICHE replied that would be fine and the committee
could also ask Dr. Finan that question.
4:49:13 PM
GARY NEWMAN, Representing Self, Fairbanks, Alaska, paraphrased
the following prepared remarks:
Chair Micciche (on behalf of Chair Revak, who was
excused) and members of the committee:
My name is Gary Newman, a 50 year resident of
Fairbanks, Alaska. I have long worked with and closely
followed energy technology and policy in conjunction
with my professional career. To be transparent, I
serve on the Golden Valley Electric Association (GVEA)
Board of Directors, but my testimony is solely mine.
I've participated in ACEP's Nuclear Working Group and
listened to testimony before legislative committees.
While by no means expert in the highly technical
details of the proposed technologies, I am able to
critically evaluate what is being proposed.
Most of the testimony has come from proponents of this
potential technology, with others just opposed to
nuclear at all. I'd like to offer a practical
approach.
1. I would agree the Legislature is not the
appropriate body for siting authority. In
conjunction with state agencies, the Regulatory
Commission of Alaska (RCA) is the more logical
siting authority.
2. Removing the requirements of on-going studies
otherwise required in AS 18.45.030 is
problematic. DEC is not the only agency that
should have purview over this, as the list of
departments in that section demonstrates. The
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) may have
extensive permitting requirements, but the State
of Alaska has a stake too on behalf of its
citizens.
3. Instead of eliminating all on-going studies, just
remove 'on-going' from that description. Why
would you NOT want the state departments to look
at this new proposed technology for regulations?
As to local control, most small municipalities do
not have the capacity or legislative authority to
analyze or regulate this. In Fairbanks, it takes
a simple conditional use permit approval by the
Planning Commission for a nuclear power plant.
Alaskans often say we need more local control, whether
at the state or local levels. SB 177 does the opposite
and is premature, as all should agree that this
technology is in its infancy. The proposed pilot
project at Eielson AFB might be functional in 2027.
Copper Valley Electric is looking at a feasibility
study with a similar timeline. Let's see how these
develop before absolving the State of Alaska of most
regulatory engagement.
To conclude, the State of Alaska needs to have a stake
in the evaluation and operation of this unproven
method of power generation. Please consider just
eliminate 'on-going' in 18.45.030.
Also, consider changing siting authority from the
Legislature to the RCA, who already have siting
authority for power generation in the Railbelt as a
consequence of regulations implemented last year from
SB 123 passed in the last legislature.
4:51:32 PM
SENATOR VON IMHOF asked him to submit his testimony in writing.
MR. NEWMAN agreed to do so.
4:52:02 PM
VICE CHAIR MICCICHE closed public testimony on SB 177 and
announced he would hold SB 177 in committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB 177 Letters of Support 3.21.2022.pdf |
SRES 3/21/2022 3:30:00 PM |
SB 177 |
| SB 177 Sectional Analysis 3.21.2022.pdf |
SRES 3/21/2022 3:30:00 PM |
SB 177 |
| SB 177 Presentation Gwen Holdmann 3.21.2022.pdf |
SRES 3/21/2022 3:30:00 PM |
SB 177 |
| SB 177 Supporting Document ACEP Nuclear Report 2020.pdf |
SRES 3/21/2022 3:30:00 PM |
SB 177 |
| SB 177 Supporting Document UAA CED Microreactors in Alaska 2020.pdf |
SRES 3/21/2022 3:30:00 PM |
SB 177 |
| SB 177 Transmittal Letter 3.21.2022.pdf |
SRES 3/21/2022 3:30:00 PM |
SB 177 |
| HB 79 Explanation of Changes 3.21.2022.pdf |
SRES 3/21/2022 3:30:00 PM |
HB 79 |
| G.pdf |
SRES 3/18/2022 3:30:00 PM SRES 3/21/2022 3:30:00 PM |
HB 79 |
| HB 79 Collected Written Testimony as of 3.18.2022.pdf |
SRES 3/18/2022 3:30:00 PM SRES 3/21/2022 3:30:00 PM |
HB 79 |