Experts tell Delaware task force that radioactive waste, siting and timelines are central barriers to SMR deployment

Delaware’s legislative task force on small modular reactors heard technical briefings from three experts on January 23, who told members that while small modular reactors (SMRs) can offer dispatchable, low‑carbon power, the industry’s biggest near‑term obstacles are spent‑fuel management, permitting timelines and upfront deployment costs.

John Wick, an environmental specialist with decades of experience in nuclear waste work, told the panel that the U.S. currently relies on on‑site dry cask interim storage at roughly 70 sites in 35 states and lacks a working deep geological repository for commercial high‑level waste. He described three back‑end options — interim on‑site storage, reprocessing and deep geologic disposal — and said consolidated interim storage appears politically and legally feasible in the near term, citing recent court rulings that allow federal licensing processes to proceed for such a project. Wick emphasized transportation logistics for moving thousands of metric tons of spent fuel and noted that reprocessing is expensive, raises proliferation concerns and ultimately still produces high‑level waste that requires disposal.

Mike Wolsey, a former Senate nuclear policy fellow and principal at New Era Energy, explained the distinction between evolutionary SMRs (smaller versions of licensed light‑water reactors available to order today) and advanced Gen‑IV designs (molten salt, liquid metal and gas‑cooled concepts still in prototype stages). Wolsey said the most common SMR concepts are around 300 megawatts and that modular construction and factory manufacture can reduce some project risks; however, he warned that advanced designs are unlikely to be broadly available at scale until the 2030s. He also contrasted land use: a nuclear site can deliver large annual output on a small footprint compared with solar.

Bob Coward, an industry consultant focused on delivery and deployment, framed SMRs as a strategic option to firm a grid increasingly dependent on variable renewables and subject to capacity‑market volatility. He argued that the industry must build customer confidence and reduce perceived cost and regulatory risk to secure the private‑sector commitments needed for large deployments. Coward described an industry strategy of 'establish, advance, expand' and urged the task force to consider use cases — from powering data‑center campuses to providing industrial heat — and to engage the long list of stakeholders needed for successful siting.

After the briefings, task force members asked questions about financing, who would pay to repackage and transport spent fuel, and whether sites such as Salem or Indian River could host SMRs. Presenters estimated siting and construction timelines at new locations could span a decade, noted various policy dependencies (including evolving NRC licensing approaches such as 10 CFR part 53) and underscored the political uncertainties that affect reprocessing and repository options.

Members asked staff to circulate presentation materials and follow up with utilities and site owners to clarify site availability and remediation constraints. The task force scheduled further discussion of technical and fiscal details at future meetings.