Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Siting Constraints topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Task force: Delaware’s flood and land‑use profile would constrain small modular reactor siting
Summary
State officials and planners told the Delaware Nuclear Energy Feasibility Task Force that coastal and inland flooding, parcelization and limited available acreage mean potential SMR sites are scarce; planners highlighted brownfields such as Indian River as the few locations with existing infrastructure but said engineering and zoning hurdles remain.
Sen. Stephanie Hanson, chair of the Delaware Nuclear Energy Feasibility Task Force, opened the session by asking members to review materials circulated from Rep. Lisa Blunt Rochester’s office and a resolution from Martin Wilkerson. The meeting focused on whether Delaware can host one or more small modular reactors (SMRs) given the state’s hazard profile and land‑use constraints.
AJ Shaw, the task force’s emergency‑management presenter, told members that water — coastal flooding and inland drainage incidents — is the state’s dominant hazard and must be a central factor in siting screening. “If it rains, it could flood where you’re at,” Shaw said, summarizing analyses in Delaware’s hazard‑mitigation plan and noting recent storms that produced severe inland flooding. He recommended that screening rely on micro‑scale engineering and off‑site emergency‑response planning rather than flood‑zone maps alone.
David Edgel, director of state planning coordination, presented GIS‑based maps showing how overlays (floodplains, wetlands, wellhead protection areas, preserved lands and quarter‑mile buffers around residences and schools) eliminate much of Delaware’s land area from consideration. Edgel said the office used sea‑level‑rise scenarios and transmission proximity as additional filters and estimated a preliminary land need of roughly 250–500 acres for a conservative SMR site footprint. He said the result is not a site recommendation but a demonstration that “there are places that remain, but the options are limited.”
Task force members pressed presenters about county readiness and examples. Shaw said county mitigation plans are required for federal funding and vary in quality; Edgel pointed to the Indian River/Millsboro coal‑fired plant site as an example of existing industrial infrastructure (rail, water, high‑voltage lines) that could lower siting costs if reused, but he warned that reuse would still require coastal‑zone and engineered flood protections.
Members discussed the tradeoffs between siting in brownfields or industrial corridors and the engineering and community engagement needed for any proposal. Several members urged early outreach to county planners so comprehensive plan amendments and rezoning could be considered centrally rather than reactively after a developer application.
The task force did not make any site selections or vote on policy changes at this meeting. The facilitator, Brad Sperger, will lead focused sessions on June 1 and June 15 to move toward final recommendations and asked members to submit their module matrices in advance.
