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