Legislature(2019 - 2020)BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
04/25/2019 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 | |
| Presentation: Nuclear Microreactors | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
SENATE COMMUNITY AND REGIONAL AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
April 25, 2019
3:31 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Click Bishop, Chair
Senator Chris Birch, Vice Chair
Senator Mia Costello
Senator Lyman Hoffman
Senator Elvi Gray-Jackson
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
PRESENTATION: NUCLEAR MICROREACTORS
- HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
No previous action to record
WITNESS REGISTER
JOHN WAGNER, Associate Director
Idaho National Laboratory
Idaho Falls, Idaho
POSITION STATEMENT: Delivered a presentation on nuclear energy
and microreactors.
MARCUS NICHOL, Director
New Reactor Deployment
Nuclear Energy Institute
Washington, D.C.
POSITION STATEMENT: Delivered a presentation on the policy and
regulatory opportunities of microreactors.
GWEN HOLDMANN, Director
Alaska Center for Energy and Power
University of Alaska Fairbanks
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Delivered a presentation titled "Nuclear
Microreactors and Alaska."
GEORGE ROE, Manager
Arctic Remote Energy Networks Academy
Alaska Center for Energy and Power
University of Alaska Fairbanks
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented an overview of a microreactor
workshop that was held in Anchorage on April 18, 2019.
MICHAEL PAWLOWSKI, Chief of Staff
United States Senator for Alaska Lisa Murkowski
Washington, D.C.
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided an update on Senator Murkowski's
efforts to advance nuclear energy at the federal level.
ACTION NARRATIVE
3:31:12 PM
CHAIR CLICK BISHOP 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, Costello,
Birch, Hoffman, and Chair Bishop.
^PRESENTATION: Nuclear Microreactors
PRESENTATION: Nuclear Microreactors
3:32:21 PM
CHAIR BISHOP announced that the committee will hear a
presentation on nuclear microreactors by John Wagner with the
Idaho National Laboratory (INL) and Marcus Nichol with the
Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI).
3:33:33 PM
JOHN WAGNER, Associate Laboratory Director, Idaho National
Laboratory, Idaho Falls, Idaho, stated that he is a nuclear
engineer and looks forward to answering questions and concerns
about nuclear energy and its potential deployment in Alaska.
He commenced with his presentation, Microreactors: "not your
grandparents' nuclear plants." He noted that the title of his
presentation borrows a phrase from U.S. Senator Murkowski's
resent op-ed, "Not your grandparents' nuclear plants." He said
it is a fitting remark when contrasting your grandparents'
plants to a microreactor.
3:34:53 PM
MR. WAGNER reviewed slide 2, Why nuclear energy? as follows:
• Only carbon-free, scalable energy source that produces
electricity 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year.
• Most reliable energy source in America:
o Operating efficiency to 92 percent.
• Produces, by far, America's largest percentage of zero-
carbon electricity, 56.1 percent.
• New reactors can be:
o Right-sized to location.
o Produce more than electricity.
o Designed to sync with renewable resources.
• 19 percent of America's electricity is produced by carbon-
free nuclear energy by:
• 98 nuclear power plants that operate in 30 states.
He explained that nuclear energy's baseload power is the most
reliable energy source. Last year the collective operating fleet
achieved a capacity factor of 92 percent. By comparison, solar
typically achieves around 10 to 25 percent and the capacity of
wind tends to be around 25 to 30 percent.
MR. WAGNER said nuclear energy produces, by far, the most
carbon-free energy in the country of any source; 56.1 percent in
2018, which is more than all other carbon free emitting sources
combined. One of the most relevant factors is energy density.
For example, a uranium fuel pellet the size of a fingertip has
the energy equivalent of three barrels of oil or a ton of coal.
Because of nuclear energy's density, current reactors typically
operate 18 months between refueling and some microreactors
operate 10 or more years between fueling.
MR. WAGNER said the new reactors can be right-sized to the
location, produce more than electricity, and can be designed to
work in concert with renewable energy sources He reported that
about 19 percent of the energy generated in 2018 was nuclear
from 98 power plants that operate reactors in 30 states.
3:37:38 PM
SENATOR HOFFMAN asked what country produces the most nuclear
power.
MR. WAGNER answered the United States of America.
SENATOR HOFFMAN asked if Japan at one time produced the most
nuclear power.
MR. WAGNER answered no. He added that unless things change,
China will surpass the U.S. because they are aggressively
building new nuclear reactors.
SENATOR HOFFMAN asked where Russia ranks in nuclear power
production.
MR. WAGNER answered that Russia is far behind.
SENATOR HOFFMAN asked if Russia was the country that designed
the first nuclear submarine.
MR. WAGNER answer no. It was the U.S. and the nuclear reactor
was tested at the Idaho National Laboratory (INL).
He explained that the origin of INL can be traced back to 1949
when it was established as the national reactor testing station.
That is where the technology was developed for all nuclear
reactors that have been deployed worldwide.
He said the current generation of light water reactors as well
as advanced concepts like molten salt reactors, sodium cooled
fast reactors, and high temperature gas reactors were built and
operated at INL. There have been 52 different reactors over the
years. The technology that is now deployed worldwide was all
developed and demonstrated in concert with other organizations
and other national laboratories.
He opined that INL now has an opportunity to develop and
demonstrate what will be the nuclear technology for the next
several decades throughout the world.
3:39:46 PM
MR. WAGNER explained that One Size Does Not Fit All is the theme
of the evolution and future of nuclear reactors. To that end,
researchers at the Idaho National Laboratory are collaborating
with industry and academia to develop nuclear reactor concepts
of various sizes for various use cases.
He said the next few slides will outline grandparent reactors,
existing reactors, what they look like, and the evolutions that
is generally towards smaller reactors culminating in
microreactors.
MR. WAGNER reviewed Existing (Large) Nuclear Reactors as
follows:
• 98 existing plants in the United States.
• New plants are on the order of a gigawatt of electricity
per plant.
• Plant sites with multiple units can produce multiple
gigawatts of electricity.
• Smaller plants, typically older ones in the United States,
vary from 5 to 600 megawatts.
• Two nuclear plants are being built in the state of Georgia
and both are a little over a gigawatt.
o Two Westinghouse AP1000s.
• Economies of scale and getting as much electricity out of a
given site as possible drove design principles for bigger
and higher-powered plants.
3:41:24 PM
SENATOR GRAY-JACKSON asked how many reactors are located on the
West Coast.
MR. WAGNER answered not very many; the density is in the
Southeast, Northeast, and Midwest. He noted that Diablo Canyon
Power Plant is located on the West Coast, one reactor is in
Washington state, and three units are operating in Arizona.
SENATOR BIRCH asked how many employees work in a one gigawatt
reactor.
MR. WAGNER answered approximately 500 to 700 employees.
He explained that as reactors were built from the 1950s to the
1980s, they grew in size and started to standardize. They were
substantial and complex construction projects built on site. It
took up to 10 years before power was generated, and cost
billions of dollars. He referenced an illustration that shows
the footprints of a tiny microreactor that is less than an acre,
a 50-acre small module reactor site, and a 1,500-acre
representation of a large existing reactor site.
MR. WAGNER described the illustration on slide 4 that shows a
typical existing pressurized water reactor (PWR). In the U.S.
there are two classes of light water reactors: PWR and the
boiling water reactor. Basically heat coming out of the nuclear
fuel from the fission reaction heats up water in the reactor
pressure vessel. Water flows through the vessel to a steam
generator that drives a turbine to make electricity. Typical
pressure vessels in a PWR system reach 2,500 pounds per square
inch (PSI).
3:45:19 PM
MR. WAGNER described Small Modular Reactors on slide 5 as
follows:
• The next generation of small-modular reactor designs
started a decade ago.
• Small-modular reactors were driven by the following
principles:
o Not all areas need a gigawatt of power.
o Smaller systems open opportunities for factory-built
construction.
o Potential for scalability.
He referenced an image of a new scale reactor with multiple 60
megawatt reactor modules.
SENATOR COSTELLO asked about the size the footprint for a small
modular reactor.
MR. WAGNER explained that the site size is estimated to be
around 50 acres. The actual footprint of the buildings is a few
acres.
SENATOR HOFFMAN asked where the first microreactors are expected
to be in 2026.
MR. WAGNER answered that they will be at Idaho National
Laboratory. He said INL is working with Utah Associated
Municipal Power Systems (UAMPS) that is a consortium of
municipal utilities.
SENATOR HOFFMAN asked when and where the first reactors will be
operative.
MR. WAGNER answered at the Idaho National Laboratory.
SENATOR HOFFMAN asked if he had heard of Evgeny Pavlovich
Velikhov, the author of Strawberries from Chernobyl.
MR. WAGNER answered no.
SENATOR HOFFMAN explained that Mr. Velikhov oversaw the
Chernobyl disaster and was also involved in Russia's nuclear
submarine program. He said he had an opportunity to meet with
Mr. Velikhov five or six years ago when he was working with top
Russian military officials to design small nuclear reactors for
northern Russian communities, similar to what Mr. Wagner was
proposing. He recalled that Mr. Velikhov said Russia was going
to have the small nuclear reactors ready by 2020. He asked Mr.
Wagner if he had any information as to what Russia and other
countries are doing with regard to developing small reactors.
3:48:36 PM
MR. WAGNER answered that he does not have special knowledge
about Russia's activities other than that they recently deployed
small reactors on ships for mobile power and are developing a
variety of smaller scale reactors for both civilian and military
applications.
SENATOR HOFFMAN noted that Mr. Velikhov convinced the Russian
government to use a decommissioned nuclear submarine to provide
electricity to a community. He added that he does not know where
Russia stands on small nuclear reactors, but the concept for
Alaska seems to be a solution.
MR. WAGNER agreed and noted that Russia continues to develop
nuclear icebreakers.
He added that in addition to electricity, microreactors have
applications for heat, industrial heat and steam for hydrogen
generation, and desalination. Microreactors are also intended to
be more integrable with intermittent and renewable sources.
He detailed that Utah Associated Municipal Power Systems plans
to have a reactor operating on the Idaho National Laboratory's
890 square mile property. He noted that UAMPS will be
demonstrating technology from the private company NuScale Power.
MR. WAGNER turned to slide 6 Microreactors, noting that as in
Russia, this country has some experience with microreactors in
military and civilian applications, but more demonstrated on the
military side. Rather than an onsite construction project,
microreactors are assembled in a factory and power is ready to
go once they are plugged in onsite. He noted that the size of a
microreactor is in significant contrast to the other two
reactors he mentioned.
3:51:49 PM
SENATOR BIRCH recalled that a number of years ago consideration
was given to the installation of a Toshiba 4S at Galena. He
asked if different local, state and federal impediments stand in
the way of any installation.
MR. WAGNER answered that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)
regulates siting, safety, and security of such systems so any
design would need to go through the NRC licensing process. While
the review process is largely federal, local communities and the
state is engaged.
3:53:10 PM
MR. WAGNER said over the last few years there has been a lot
more interest in microreactors for the purposes of:
• Applications that simply do not need that much energy.
• Power systems that may be able to operate for a decade or
more without refueling.
• Applications for remote communities in Alaska.
• Mining areas in Alaska, Canada, and South Africa.
• The Department of Defense (DOD) has renewed interest in
nuclear energy for some of their applications, including
remote desalination.
• Beyond electricity, addressing the needs of remote
installations for desalination and district heating.
• Power needs change and microreactors can be scaled by
adding more systems, similar to large batteries or diesel
generator replacement.
3:55:05 PM
MR. WAGNER directed attention to an image from the Los Alamos
National Laboratory (LANL) that provides some size perspective.
He explained that it is a solid block core system that relies on
heat removal technologies called heat pipes instead of water or
other coolants. The system is roughly 12 feet long and 6 feet in
diameter with an additional diameter representing shielding from
the system. He noted that Westinghouse has been working closely
with LANL and INL via their eVinci design.
SENATOR COSTELLO asked if the federal guidelines prevent
individuals from for accessing and possessing enriched uranium.
MR. WAGNER replied the federal government regulates and controls
access to all enriched uranium so a person with a 3-D printer
would not be able to access the basic materials to print nuclear
fuel. He added that microreactors rely on high-assay low-
enriched uranium and INL was working on an important supply
chain issue because there are no domestic sources. High-assay
low-enriched uranium (LEU) contains up to 20 percent uranium.
CHAIR BISHOP asked him or the next presenter to get the bogeyman
out of the closet and tell the committee how safe nuclear
generation is or is not.
3:58:14 PM
MR. WAGNER explained that fission reaction creates fission
products and transuranic elements, some of which have long decay
times. He opined that any nuclear system ultimately requires
geologic disposal of very long-life transuranic materials.
CHAIR BISHOP asked if the half-life is 500,000 years before the
material goes back to lead.
MR. WAGNER answered not exactly, but it is thousands of years.
He added that one of the interesting things about some
microreactor systems is that fuel utilization is rather low.
Some of the fuel INL is considering for the first reactor
demonstrations will come from spent experimental breeder reactor
fuel where the uranium is extracted for reuse.
MR. WAGNER directed attention to an image on slide 6 from the
company HolosGen that depicts a microreactor in a cargo
container that would support remote mining applications.
3:59:55 PM
He reviewed the following characteristics of microreactors
listed on slide 7:
• Small, easily transported sources for electricity and heat
• Full factory built
• Easily and quickly installed and removed from site
• Self regulating, high degree of passive safety
• Reliable sources of demand-driven power
• Easier to operate and require minimal operation
• Capable of operating for several years without refueling
• Designed to serve a range of energy applications
• Distributed to serve a range of energy applications
• Non-emitting sources of power
• On track for demonstration within 3-5 years.
MR. WAGNER said unlike the trends for the existing large, high
power density reactors, microreactors are designed to have
smaller sizes and very low power density. That means there is a
completely different way of removing heat from the reactors. In
time, microreactors will be completely autonomous and monitored
at an offsite location as opposed to current reactors that
require dozens of onsite operators. Many of the designs have an
intended operating life of a decade or more. With additional
research, the operating life can be extended further. A key
point is that some areas will rely on renewable wind or solar in
concert with the non-carbon emitting microreactor system
4:01:51 PM
SENATOR BIRCH asked if the fuel for a microreactor has a density
that might attract someone interested in aggregating the fuel to
make an explosive device.
MR. WAGNER explained that microreactors all rely on low-enriched
uranium, which is not a weapons-usable material. At maximum it
contains up to 20 percent uranium. Regarding concerns about
radiological dispersion devises, he said the NRC will be
regulating the safety and security of any nuclear system
deployed in this country. He noted that this oversite is the
gold standard in terms of protecting health, safety, and
security.
He highlighted that your grandparents' reactors have a
significantly different physical security presence, but what the
right physical security presence will be for microreactors to
meet the NRC requirements for various threats will be determined
in the licensing process.
4:04:12 PM
MR. WAGNER reported that there is a significant resurgence of
interest in nuclear energy that is largely driven by interest in
non-carbon emitting energy. He directed attention to slide 8
that highlighted the following points:
• Third Way identified less than 50 companies and developing
advanced nuclear reactor designs
• Significant private sector investment combined with
private-public partnerships
• DOE, ARPA-E and GAIN providing resources through funding
opportunities and voucher program
• DOE Office of Nuclear Energy Programs performing research
and development at National Labs to support reactor
development (Microreactor, Advanced Reactor Technology, and
Cross Cutting programs)
• DOD interest in microreactors
He reviewed the following technology advances enabling
microreactor development:
• Continued development of advanced reactor designs based on
coolants other than water
• Advancements in heat removal technologies (heat pipes) and
advanced, higher-efficiency power conversion systems
(Brayton cycle, super-critical CO2 , Stirling engines)
• Materials with improved thermal and structural performance
• Development of advanced modeling and simulation
capabilities
• Advanced manufacturing methods simplify fabrication
• Space reactor development and technology demonstration
(KRUSTY reactor)
• Investment in infrastructure to support reactor development
(fuel fabrication, irradiation testing)
MR. WAGNER reviewed the recent legislation that supports
microreactor development listed on Slide 10:
• Nuclear Energy Innovation Capabilities Act (NEICA)
o Signed into law September 2018
o Calls for the creation of a National Reactor
Innovation Center to support demonstration of cost-
shared private reactors
• Nuclear Energy Leadership Act
o Introduced in March by Senator Murkowski and others
o Calls for demonstration of two advanced reactors by
end of 2025, and 2-5 additional reactors by end of
2035
• 2019 National Defense Authorization Act
o DOE to develop a report to Congress on requirements
for a pilot program for microreactors
4:05:49 PM
MR. WAGONER reported that the Idaho National Laboratory is doing
a lot to support microreactor demonstrations. He briefly touched
on some of the following points on slide 11 that outline the
support INL is able to provide:
• Proven record of nuclear facility operations
• Existing buildings and green-field sites for reactor
demonstrations
• Engineering-scale fuel fabrication and advanced
manufacturing capabilities
• Utility connections, integrated energy systems testing
• Adjacent world-class nuclear research and development
experimental facilities and capabilities to support
development
• Common site characterization, controlled emergency planning
zone
• NRC-licensing and DOE-authorization for facilities as
appropriate
CHAIR BISHOP asked when the committee could visit INL to see
what is being done in the area of microreactors.
MR. WAGNER answered that the committee has an open invitation
and he would be happy to work with the chair offline on
scheduling.
4:06:57 PM
MR. WAGNER offered the following summary of the presentation:
• Microreactors may offer significant advantages for some
applications
• Microreactors have characteristics that enable rapid
development and deployment
• Technology advancements and experience provide improved
reactor designs
• A U.S. advanced reactor industry is developing several
microreactor concepts
• Government is supporting development through funding and
legislation
• INL is enabling developers by providing technical
resources, capabilities and a demonstration site
• A demonstration is foreseen in the next 3-5 years, meaning
it is time to consider applications of this emerging power
source
4:08:44 PM
MARCUS NICHOL, Director, New Reactor Deployment, Nuclear Energy
Institute, Washington, D.C., highlighted the following major
benefits of microreactors:
• Can operate nonstop, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365
days a year
• Maximum power output that achieves reliability factors
higher than 95 percent, some at 99.999 percent reliability
• Do not emit carbon dioxide or other criteria pollutants
into the air
• One of the lowest total carbon footprints for any of the
power technologies, even lower than some of the renewables
• Can be paired with some other technologies in remote areas
• Can generate hydrogen for industrial processes or
transportation
• Can produce heat for industrial processes or district
heating of homes in addition to providing electricity
• A lot of interest for use in remote areas, typically to
replace diesel generators
• Use in communities, industries including mines, or defense
installations
He advised that his presentation will cover the typical
questions he receives about microreactors such as when will they
be available, how much will they cost, and what are the
challenges to these reactors becoming a reality.
4:10:37 PM
MR. NICHOL displayed the Deployment Timeline from an October
2018 report that the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) developed.
He made the following points:
• The timeline was developed specifically with defense
installation in mind.
• The timeline is applicable to a remote community or mining
operation.
• To deploy a commercial microreactor will take about seven
years.
• A demonstration reactor will take three to five years.
• A commercial microreactor must go through a more involved
check process because it will be producing power for
commercial purposes.
• The first microreactor could be deployed before the end of
2027.
• The timeline could be earlier or longer depending on the
challenges during deployment.
• The critical path that dictates the timeline schedule is
driven largely by the NRC licensing and the construction
and fabrication of the microreactor itself.
• Fuel development and the fuel cycle much be considered.
o Many of the advanced microreactors will use fuel that
is not typically used in today's light water reactors.
o The NRC is very stringent on the fuel requirements
because it is a key component to the safety basis of
the reactor.
o The NRC wants to see a lot of testing data to support
the safety basis, but the data takes a lot of time to
develop to prove to the NRC that it is safe.
o While fuel development is not considered the critical
path, the process is considered a secondary critical
path that could extend the schedule if it isn't
addressed in a timely manner.
4:13:05 PM
MR. NICHOL discussed the following estimated costs outlined on
slide 4:
• Diesel generator costs
o Primarily fuel costs
o Fuel from $2.86/gallon to $4.89/gallon
• Microreactor costs
o Include used fuel disposal and decommissioning
o 10-year fuel life
o 40-year plant life
o 95 percent capacity factor
MR. NICHOL said the NEI finding that microreactors can be cost
competitive with diesel generators is based on a 2019 NEI
report. It looked at the cost of microreactors with sensitivity
analysis to better understand the different cost components as
well as competitiveness in different markets. The diesel
generator costs are for not just remote Arctic communities in
Alaska, they include remote areas and islands as well.
MR. NICHOL said NEI found that the first microreactor could cost
somewhere between $0.14 and $0.41 per kilowatt hour (kWh), which
would be competitive with diesel generators in the remote areas.
NEI believes this is a positive finding because first-of-a-kind
technology typically is more expensive and has a difficult time
competing in the market. In this case, microreactors are
expected to be cost competitive from the start. Ultimately,
costs could come down to between $0.09 and $0.30 per kWh. The
diesel generator costs were primarily estimated based on fuel
cost in the range of $2.86 and $4.89 per gallon. Those are costs
that have been seen in the remote markets over the past several
years.
He pointed out that microreactor costs include the cost of
disposing of the used fuel, decommissioning and removing the
reactor, and returning the location to what is referred to as a
green field. He said not many technologies include the end of
life costs in their models, but NEI does. The law dictates that
the industry pays for decommissioning costs up-front and as
operations are performed.
MR. NICHOL concurred with Mr. Wagner that microreactors are
expected to operate for 10 years without the need for refueling
from offsite. He said this is a key attribute of microreactors
that other technologies typically do not have.
4:16:44 PM
CHAIR BISHOP remarked that the diesel fuel price in rural Alaska
are double those that were quoted so microreactors would be in
the money very quickly in rural Alaska.
MR. NICHOL replied that a lot of benefits can be derived from
the lower costs of microreactors. If the cost of energy is less,
remote communities will be able to use their money for other
needs. Having lower energy costs also makes industrial processes
more competitive. Microreactors will make mines more profitable,
operate longer, and make lower grade ores more profitable.
CHAIR BISHOP commented that he would think that environmental
groups would embrace microreactors as a means of taking tons of
carbon out of the atmosphere.
MR. NICHOL answered that many, but not all, environmental groups
embrace nuclear energy. The Union of Concerned Scientists has
expressed support for the existing fleet of nuclear reactors,
but they have not expressed support for the advanced reactors.
The Nature Conservancy has expressed support for nuclear to
address climate change. They have suggested that to meet climate
change goals, nuclear power generation in the U.S. needs to
increase from 20 to 30 percent. It is broadly recognized that
nuclear energy needs to be part of the solution if climate
change is going to be addressed.
4:19:02 PM
MR. NICHOL explained that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC) sets very high safety and security standards for these
reactors as part of its regulation of the nuclear industry. The
safety requirements are set based on protecting the public from
the hazards of radiation. What that typically means is the core
needs to be kept cool. Step one in helping to protect the public
is that microreactors have less radioactive material than larger
reactors. Second, many microreactor designs incorporate advanced
techniques and features that will allow heat to be removed from
the core and remain cool indefinitely, even if there is no power
or additional cooling water. He noted that the inability to keep
the core cool was a cause for the Fukushima Daiichi accident in
2011. By comparison, microreactors are being designed with
inherent natural physics that will keep the core cool.
MR. NICHOL said the NRC sets very high standards for nuclear
plant security based on the design-basis threat for the
facility. The federal government in consultation with the
Department of Homeland Security and others define the
adversarial characteristics these nuclear power plants must be
protected against. He said the current reactors are protected
with a large number of security guards to prevent the bad guys
from doing any harm. He noted that some of the more advanced
reactors will have security built into the design itself.
MR. NICHOL stated that the NRC could safely license a
microreactor today but the current regulations are designed for
the very different technology of large, light water reactors.
The current regulations could require some things that are not
necessary for microreactors. He said NEI believes that there are
a number of areas where the NRC requirements could be right-
sized to better fit the microreactor technology.
4:23:12 PM
He continued to discuss the following regulatory opportunities
listed on slide 5:
• Right-size requirements
o Emergency preparedness
square4 Large reactors today have 10-mile emergency
planning zones. These are area where emergency
procedures need to be preplanned.
square4 Because of the size and safety of microreactors,
there is almost no risk to the general public for
offsite release of radiation.
square4 It could be that it would not be necessary to
preplan the emergency preparedness. There would
still be the capability of having emergency
response, but without an advance preplan.
o Security
square4 This is being built into the plant itself in
order to reduce the number of required security
guards.
square4 The different posture on security would be able
to rely on the local law enforcement to help with
a threat.
o Siting
square4 The current siting regulations are very specific
regarding how close reactors can be located to
population centers.
square4 The enhanced safety of microreactors will make it
possible to locate closer to towns, especially if
the heat is used for heating homes.
o Staffing
square4 Staffing needs for microreactors are not the same
as large, light water reactors.
square4 Make sure staffing is appropriate, especially for
microreactors that have the capability of
automatic operations.
4:24:55 PM
CHAIR BISHOP asked if he was talking about cogeneration, so a
village could get electricity and have a distribution for hot
water as well.
MR. NICHOL answered yes. He added that pairing transportation to
either hydrogen or electric generation could eliminate the use
of fossil fuels as well.
MR. NICHOL returned to the discussion of regulatory
opportunities. He highlighted the following about streamlining
reviews:
• Streamline reviews
o It may take the NRC three years to review the
application and safety basis for the reactor, but that
may possibly be reduced to two years.
o One of the challenges is the environmental timeline.
o Environmental
square4 There are opportunities to streamline the
environmental review as well for microreactors to
reduce the timelines.
o Safety
SENATOR BIRCH asked if the size and power output of a
microreactor is equivalent to the reactor used on a nuclear
submarine.
MR. NICHOL replied the physical size is roughly the same, but he
didn't know about the power output equivalency.
4:27:08 PM
MR. NICHOL reviewed the federal policy opportunities outlined on
slide 6:
• Support clarification of the technical basis
o Cross-cutting R&D
o Demonstrations.
• Support deployment
o Power purchase agreements
o Loan guarantees
o Fuel
o Supply chain.
• Fulfill used fuel responsibilities.
He explained that the federal government is looking at modifying
its power purchase agreements to make it easier to procure power
from microreactors. He described this as an important change for
DOD installations.
MR. NICHOL explained that there is no commercial domestic supply
for low-enriched uranium because there hasn't been any demand.
That won't change until microreactors or advanced reactors
demand that fuel, but there won't be those reactors without the
fuel. It's a chicken and egg situation. He highlighted that DOE
appears to be willing to step in and provide a bridge supply
until the commercial supply develops.
He said it is the federal government's responsibility to dispose
of used fuel. A final disposal place for nuclear waste is
located at Yucca Mountain in Nevada. A lot of work has gone into
proving the site's technical and safety basis for nuclear waste.
It is funded by the industry. He noted that the Nuclear Waste
Fund has over $30 billion, but appropriations for nuclear waste
activities continues to be a political issue.
4:28:53 PM
MR. NICHOL reviewed the following state policy opportunities
listed on slide 7:
• Equal treatment with other generation sources
o Clean energy policies
o Reducing barriers to entry
• Support the formation of an industrial base:
o Lower financing barriers,
o Incentives for supply chain.
• Provide infrastructure support:
o Training,
o Transportation improvements.
• Foster stakeholder engagement.
He said there are opportunities at the state level as well. The
first is equal treatment with other energy generation sources,
especially in the area of clean energy policies that address
climate change. Clean energy should include nuclear power. A lot
of places are focused strictly on renewable energy to address
climate change, but nuclear power is important in the climate
change arena and should not be excluded.
He opined that another state-level opportunity is reducing
barriers to entry. He noted that in 2010, the Alaska State
Legislature passed Senate Bill 220 (SB 220) that removed a
moratorium on nuclear power in the state and allowed nuclear
projects to gain access to funding.
MR. NICHOL said supporting the formation of an industrial base
is a state-level opportunity. If Alaska is looking at having
microreactors deployed in remote areas, attracting a supply
chain makes sense. The state could help by incentivizing the
supply chain and lowering financial barriers as well.
He opined that supporting infrastructure is another state-level
opportunity. Supporting infrastructure includes training people
who might work at a microreactor and others who may work within
the microreactor industry. Perhaps even more important for
remote applications is transportation improvements for roads and
bridges. Many of the microreactors will be small enough to
transport by truck, rail, or C-17 aircraft.
MR. NICHOL said the final state-level opportunity is to foster
stakeholder engagement, especially in remote areas. There may be
a lack of nuclear understanding, so fostering engagement is
important to address concerns and perspectives.
MR. NICHOL concluded saying that Alaska is not alone in its
interest in microreactors. There are international opportunities
as well. Canada issued a roadmap in 2018 to address its interest
in microreactors for Arctic communities and mining operations.
CHAIR BISHOP thanked Mr. Nichol and announced that the committee
will next hear from Gwen Holdmann and George Roe.
GEORGE ROE, Manager, Arctic Remote Energy Networks Academy
Manager, Alaska Center for Energy and Power (ACEP), University
of Alaska-Fairbanks, Fairbanks, Alaska introduced himself and
said he and Ms. Holdmann would provide some background and
recent information on nuclear microreactors and Alaska.
4:32:44 PM
GWEN HOLDMANN, Director, Alaska Center for Energy and Power,
University of Alaska Fairbanks, Fairbanks, Alaska, said she
would provide the background on what the Alaska Center for
Energy and Power (ACEP) has done and Mr. Mr. Roe would talk
about the workshop they attended last week.
She explained that ACEP was formed 11 years ago with the mission
to perform research on energy systems that are relevant to
Alaska, both now and in the future. ACEP is a mission-driven
organization that works closely with communities and industries
that have technologies that could potentially be relevant to
Alaska.
MS. HOLDMANN stated that ACEP is constantly assessing
opportunities for new technologies from other markets, providing
information to policy and decision makers and industry
representatives about the Alaska market, and ensuring that the
organization's use-cases are considered. For example, ACEP has
been advising microreactor companies on a technical level about
Alaska use-cases.
She reviewed the following discussion topics on slide 3:
• Highlights from prior (2010-2011) study of small modular
reactors.
• Observations from April 18, 2019 workshop.
• Proposed next steps.
4:34:44 PM
MS. HOLDMANN reviewed the following points on slide 4, Context
for 2010 Study on SMR's, Small Modular Nuclear Power: an option
for Alaska?
• Requested by Alaska State Legislature in 2009.
• Response to 2008 Global oil price spike that exposed
vulnerabilities of Alaska to annual (and intra-annual)
fluctuations in oil prices.
• Interest in solutions that can provide baseload power (many
remote locations only have access to intermittent
renewables).
• Interest in options that can offset heating loads as well
as electric power.
• Fukushima disaster occurred the same month the study was
finalized.
She explained that the 2010 study was an opportunity to take a
comprehensive look at small modular reactors which at the time
was what was being considered for potential use in Alaska.
MS. HOLDMANN said the 2010 report was a collaboration between
the University of Alaska Fairbanks and the University of Alaska
Anchorage. She detailed that she was the lead author of the
report. Contributors to the report included Dr. Dennis Witmer,
materials engineer; Dr. Frank Williams, chemical engineer;
University of Alaska students; and economists from the Institute
for Social and Economic Research (ISER).
4:36:26 PM
MS. HOLDMANN detailed that the 2010 study started out by
reviewing the history of nuclear technology utilization in
Alaska. The most well-known is the 2 megawatt reactor installed
at Fort Greely as part of the Army Nuclear Power Program. It
operated for about a decade. Several similar modular reactors
were installed in various places including the McMurdo Station
in Antarctica. It was decommissioned at the same time as the
unit at Fort Greely. Other examples of nuclear technology in
Alaska include the seismic monitoring station at Burnt Mountain
north of Fort Yukon. It used small radioisotopes thermoelectric
generators that allowed the station to monitor Russian
underground nuclear testing.
She said there are examples of actual nuclear activity in Alaska
related to the weapons. Amchitka was the site in the Aleutians
where three underground nuclear tests were performed. One was
the largest in the United States. Project Chariot was considered
between 1958-1962 to demonstrate the peaceful use of nuclear
explosives for major construction projects. However, it was
proposed before there was an understanding of the environmental
impact and potential impact to the food chain from radioactive
fallout.
4:38:29 PM
MS. HOLDMANN turned to slide 7, Representative Small Reactor
Sizes and Operating Temperatures. She noted that when the study
came out, reactor technology at the time was very large by
Alaska standards. The Toshiba 4S Project that was proposed for
Galena was of real interest because the 10 megawatt reactor was
a smaller scale that was potentially relevant to Alaska. She
said she believes that is why it generated so much interest and
discussion at the time.
She said slide 8 shows a slice of the microreactor technology
that is being considered today. This is smaller, lower outlet
temperature technology that was not on the drawing board at the
time of the 2010 study. She noted that the number one
recommendation from the 2010 study was to continue to explore
options for smaller than 10 megawatt reactor technology. She
quoted from the 2010 report:
There virtually is no market niche for mini nuclear
power reactor technology in the contiguous U.S. and
therefore little effort has been made to commercialize
a product in this size range. None the less, there is
a real potential here and this is what we should be
tracking.
She said that is why ACEP is excited to address the committee on
current smaller scale reactor technology.
MS. HOLDMANN explained that the Alaska map on slide 9 shows the
hub communities in Alaska based on the economics of potentially
deploying a reactor. She said a real challenge that makes the
2010 study obsolete is that it looked at reactors in the 45
megawatt range. That is uneconomic even in Alaska's rural
communities where energy costs are high because it's not
possible to use all the electrical and thermal energy that is
produced. That's still an issue today for the small module
reactors even if the prices are in the $0.14 to $0.17 range that
Mr. Nichol mentioned and the heat and power output is maximized.
However, possibilities are greater with these microreactors.
4:41:28 PM
MS. HOLDMANN displayed the bar graph on slide 10 that shows the
local price thresholds for small module reactor economic
feasibility. She explained that most of this work was done by
ISER but the numbers aren't accurate today because the
additional cost for the combined construction and operating
license would more than double the installed cost estimate in
2010. However, the relative size of the bars for the different
communities is relevant. For example, the smallest bar is
Fairbanks, which means that community is the best economic
opportunity for displacing existing sources of fuel. She
reminded the committee that the work in 2010 was based on a 45
megawatt reactor and since the current talk is about a much
smaller reactor, the communities such as Bethel that have
smaller loads would probably look much better if the analysis
was redone. She suggested that updating the analysis would be
worth doing in the near future.
4:42:49 PM
MS. HOLDMANN reviewed the report findings listed on slide 11.
She said one finding was that most of the proposed designs were
quite large by Alaska standards. Another finding was that the
technology is not mature. Both of the previous speakers alluded
to the fact that microreactor technology is moving along and
there is likely to be a demonstration at the Idaho National
Laboratory in the next several years. However, it is not
something that can be purchased off the shelf and installed in
Alaska in the next five years. At best it will be a decade
before microreactor technology is available so investment
decisions can't be made today. She suggested taking a wait and
see approach. She also pointed out that there are limitations as
to which sites would be available for deploying small
microreactors in Alaska. A low price point will require
maximizing the base load system for the electric power output
and the heat output and those are more difficult to modulate for
nuclear systems than for diesel generators.
4:44:32 PM
MS. HOLDMANN displayed the decision making chart that ACEP
developed in 2010 for a pilot project in Alaska for a small
scale modular nuclear system. She said she believes that the
chart is still relevant. She explained that ACEP established a
set of stage gates with yes and no decision points that ask
whether the technology exists, is safe, has potential
significant environmental concerns, and is economic.
4:45:15 PM
She directed attention to slide 12 and explained that ACEP has
tried to follow through on the action items that came out of the
2010 report. ACEP continues to maintain active monitoring
efforts of nuclear technology and the industry by sending
interns to work in the INL. ACEP has also advised manufacturers
or potential developers of the Alaska market. The following
action items came out of the study:
1. Maintain active monitoring effort to stay abreast of
developments in the nuclear power industry.
2. Provide input to NRC on unique needs, circumstances in
Alaska.
3. Identify mechanism to address ownership/insurance issue.
4. Remove technical and siting barriers in state statutes.
5. Explore options for small scale (10 megawatts or less)
reactor technology.
SENATOR HOFFMAN asked what the initial cost of the study was and
whether she thought it needed to be updated.
MS. HOLDMANN answered that $200,000 was directed to the Alaska
Energy Authority (AEA) for the study and ACEP did most of the
work. She opined that updating the study would be pretty
fantastic. ACEP has the framework in place for the economic
analysis which could be used to provide an updated look through
the lens of the smaller technologies. That shouldn't take much
time and probably wouldn't be too expensive.
SENATOR HOFFMAN thanked her for all the work she has done on the
study.
CHAIR BISHOP invited Mr. Roe to continue the presentation.
4:47:03 PM
MR. ROE said he would provide a brief update on the workshop
that he and Ms. Holdmann attended in Anchorage on April 18,
2019. The goal was for a cross section of Alaskan perspectives
and interests to gather and learn from the experts and then play
that against what Alaska needs for a cogeneration system for
both thermal and electrical energy to meet the needs of
industry, perhaps small communities, and certainly larger hub
communities. The participants then explored the kind of
engagement, if any, Alaska should have with these pilot studies.
The intention was to provide a record for industry to understand
what Alaska cares about in terms of microreactor technology and
its integration.
MR. ROE directed attention to the slide that illustrates and
lists the multiple and diverse stakeholders that ACEP gathered
from across the state. They represented the different regions,
economic drivers, and people who care for the state from the
perspective of the people and place. He said the response to the
invitations was so overwhelming that a virtual meeting was added
to accommodate the interest.
4:48:56 PM
MR. ROE explained that the stakeholders tried to discern the
logical place to start if microreactors were to come to Alaska.
The consensus was that a stationary reactor would be the right
approach. He explained that stationary does not mean that the
installation would be there forever, just that it is not on
wheels. The focus was on something that would provide a
continuous level of baseload power. He noted that microreactors
have more inertia than a diesel generator so they will likely
need to be paired with thermal or electrical storage to allow
the system to run without cycling beyond their initial
capabilities.
He said the exact mix of thermal and electric power will depend
on whether the intent is to generate hydrogen or power electric
vehicles in addition to more conventional loads. He noted that
ACEP received U.S. Economic Development Administration (EDA)
funds to do a study for a small reactor company. They have been
looking at the generator sizes in many small communities to see
what the logical pairing might be. He said ACEP has been paying
attention to the communities that have existing heat recovery
systems because in addition to electrical, they are familiar
with how to run thermal energy in their community environment.
This is very important, especially in areas that have
permafrost.
MR. ROE said the logical progression seems to be to start in a
fairly controlled setting such as a military base. The next step
would be to move to a larger industrial or institutional site
that also needs large amounts of heat and power. One of these
systems can be integrated into a larger system so that there is
no single thread dependence on a particular system. He said ACEP
has looked that the assets at various military bases that might
accommodate integration and several locations in Alaska have
expressed interest publicly in this technology.
He said mining is an interesting application in Alaska. These
are very controlled, small, isolated sites with fairly low risks
and they need large amounts of power and heat. Several people at
the workshop stated on the record that the cost of energy was
limiting the development of the resource. He said that is an
interesting statement that should be considered looking forward.
MR. ROE highlighted that ACEP facilitated discussion at the
workshop by asking different groups what they would be
interested in doing if they had a source of heat and power that
was small, compact, and could be installed without much effort.
He said he boiled the three pages of suggestions down to the
following points:
• Stakeholder consultation
• Assess reliability, safety, environmental risks
• Determine siting requirements
• Characterize regulatory and policy environment
• Incorporate cradle-to-cradle thinking
• Develop integrated commercialization roadmap
• Monitor industry / regulatory developments
• Incorporate Alaska interests and use cases in any
microreactor pilot program(s)
The most important point that came back from the various groups
was that people wanted to make sure stakeholders were consulted.
4:52:49 PM
SENATOR GRAY-JACKSON asked if the stakeholders included
representatives from Chugiak Electric and Municipal Light &
Power (ML&P).
MR. ROE answered yes; he named the individuals from those
utilities as well as from Matanuska Electric Association (MEA).
He said the other thing that was important to the various groups
was to have the risks of a nuclear accident well characterized.
That is part of the siting requirements that is based on the
size of the reactor and geo-technology, among other
considerations.
MR. ROE noted that one of the voices from Nome encouraged
cradle-to-cradle thinking so consideration is given to what
happens when the reactor is shut down. He said the intent is to
keep from creating a problem for communities by understanding
the technology and staying informed using the roadmap that Ms.
Holdmann shared. He said NEI has released two documents and
Canada has developed roadmaps for microreactors that are very
useful.
MR. ROE said the bottom line is that wherever a pilot study is
done, for example the demonstration reactor at INL in 2026, it
is important to ensure that Alaska-use cases are incorporated so
ACEP can help with the design to get as much value as possible
out of the pilot. Wherever the pilots may be, Alaska needs to be
at the table.
4:55:44 PM
CHAIR BISHOP opined that Alaska would be the premier spot for a
test drive because the Arctic nations are a target-rich
environment for microreactors.
MR. ROE concurred. He said it's important to proceed carefully,
but the benefits of affordable heat and power changes the game
for so many different perspectives.
He suggested the committee visit the Idaho National Laboratory
on June 18, 2019 when there is a by-invitation workshop in Idaho
Falls. He disclosed that the INL is in the process of reviewing
a proposal from the University of Alaska Anchorage to look at
the Alaska microreactor study. It focuses on public perception,
the use cases, and deeper-dive case studies so it should be a
very useful update to the 2010-2011 study.
CHAIR BISHOP thanked the presenters and recognized Mr. Michael
Pawlowski, Chief of Staff for U.S. Senator Lisa Murkowski.
4:58:04 PM
MICHAEL PAWLOWSKI, Chief of Staff, United States Senator Lisa
Murkowski of Alaska, Washington, D.C., said the senator thanks
the committee for looking at the potential for nuclear energy
for Alaska, the U.S., and ultimately the world. He related that
Senator Murkowski has been the leader on the federal level of
advancing nuclear power for the past several years. In 2016 she
held a hearing to understand what was happening in the advanced
nuclear realm. Stakeholders at that time agreed that the
Department of Energy (DOE) needed some policy changes to get the
federal government to work better with the private sector.
MR. PAWLOWSKI said Senator Murkowski included the Nuclear Energy
Innovation and Capabilities Act (NEICA) in the broad bipartisan
energy bill that she sponsored with U.S. Senator Cantwell in
2016. She continued to work the legislation until it was signed
into law in 2018. Once the law is implemented, it will
accelerate the development path for deploying the technology.
He said Senator Murkowski's colleagues also completed work on
the regulatory side. The regulatory oversight that the U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) provides is very beneficial
for reactor safety, but it can be a burden to innovators in the
industry. The nuclear regulatory framework that has been
developed over the decades is specifically tailored to the
large, light water reactor technology, which is a regulatory
mold that microreactors do not fit. He said microreactors are
inherently safe if there is a shutdown and inherently secure so
they may not need the massive and expensive security force that
the current reactors require. To deal with this challenge
Congress adopted the Nuclear Energy Innovation Modernization Act
(NEIMA). It requires the NRC to create a sensible regulatory
pathway specifically for advanced reactors. He stated that this
should speed the process for approval and decrease the
regulatory cost of advanced reactors all while ensuring world-
class levels of reactor safety.
5:00:58 PM
MR. PAWLOWSKI also mentioned the Nuclear Energy Leadership Act
(NELA) that is a bipartisan effort to allow nuclear developers
to successfully move their concepts through the challenging
developmental phases to full commercial deployment. He said the
Senate Energy Committee has scheduled an oversite hearing on the
bill next week so the Alaska Community and Regional Affairs
Committee efforts are timely.
MR. PAWLOWSKI said the ultimate point he would like to make is
the importance of fostering stakeholder engagement. While
Senator Murkowski is working on the different issues at the
federal level, she deeply appreciates the committee diving in
and looking at what might need to be done at the state level.
5:03:29 PM
SENATOR HOFFMAN said he believes it would be beneficial to
include a section in the NELA legislation about how
microreactors can reduce energy costs in rural Alaska,
potentially as a demonstration project. He agreed with the chair
that Alaska would be ideal to implement a microreactor project.
It would be a game changer for rural Alaska. He asked Mr.
Pawlowski to convey his comments to Senator Murkowski.
CHAIR BISHOP asked Mr. Pawlowski to reach out if there was
anything the committee could do to help Senator Murkowski move
NELA forward.
MR. PAWLOWSKI said he would convey Senator Hoffman's very
important points and work to see if language could be added to
the legislation for the types of demonstration projects and
partnerships that Senator Hoffman mentioned.
CHAIR BISHOP thanked the presenters.
5:07:20 PM
There being no further business to come before the committee,
Chair Bishop adjourned the Senate Community and Regional Affairs
Standing Committee meeting at 5:07 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| CRA-Hearing_Microreactors_Wagner.pdf |
SCRA 4/25/2019 3:30:00 PM |
Microreactors |
| NEI-Micro-reactor- Nichol.pdf |
SCRA 4/25/2019 3:30:00 PM |
Microreactors |
| UAF_ACEP_HoldmannRoe.pdf |
SCRA 4/25/2019 3:30:00 PM |
Microreactors |
| Murkowski_ADN Op Ed.pdf |
SCRA 4/25/2019 3:30:00 PM |
Microreactors |
| Murkowski_CNN Op Ed.pdf |
SCRA 4/25/2019 3:30:00 PM |
Microreactors |
| Murkowski_WashingtonExaminer Op Ed.pdf |
SCRA 4/25/2019 3:30:00 PM |
Microreactors |
| 2019 NELA - Fact Sheet.pdf |
SCRA 4/25/2019 3:30:00 PM |
Microreactors |
| 2019 NELA - Section-by-Section.pdf |
SCRA 4/25/2019 3:30:00 PM |
Microreactors |
| S.97 NEICA.pdf |
SCRA 4/25/2019 3:30:00 PM |
Microreactors |