ML25032A028
| ML25032A028 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 02/09/2025 |
| From: | Sarah Lopas NRC/NMSS/DREFS/ETRB1 |
| To: | |
| References | |
| Download: ML25032A028 (1) | |
Text
ML25032A028 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Public Meeting Summary
Title:
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Public Meeting on Section 206 of the ADVANCE Act, Regulatory Issues for Nuclear Facilities at Brownfield Sites Meeting Identifier: 20241542, Agencywide Documents Access Management System (ADAMS)
Accession No. ML25016A112 Date and Time of Meeting: Thursday, January 16, 2025; 1:00 - 5:00 p.m. ET Location: Teams Meeting/Teleconference Type of Meeting: Information Meeting with Question and Answer Purpose of Meeting: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff from the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards (NMSS) and Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR) held a public information meeting on January 16, 2025, to discuss the ADVANCE Act of 2024, Section 206, Regulatory Issues for Nuclear Facilities at Brownfield Sites. The purpose of this public meeting was to share and discuss information that may support the NRC's response to Congressional direction in Section 206 of the ADVANCE Act. The meeting was first noticed on December 30, 2024, and the meeting notice and agenda are available at ML25016A112.
Summary of Meeting: Similar to the November 2024 public meeting also on Section 206 (ML24345A048), this ADVANCE Act Section 206 public meeting was structured as two panels of individual presentations followed by a discussion among NRC staff and panelists. The meeting was opened for public comments after both panels concluded. The panel presentations, discussions, and public comments are summarized below. No regulatory decisions were made at the meeting. Presentations are available at ML25032A022, and the transcript is available at ML25032A021. A list of meeting attendees is enclosed.
Panel 1 (1) ADVANCE Act Section 206: Evaluating Potential Regulatory Issues for Nuclear Facilities at Brownfield Sites Mike King, Special Assistant for the ADVANCE Act, Office of the Executive Director for Operations Christopher Regan, Director, Division of Rulemaking, Environmental, and Financial Support, NMSS Sarah Lopas, Senior Environmental Project Manager, Division of Rulemaking, Environmental, and Financial Support, NMSS NRC staff began Panel 1 with an overview of how to get more information about the agencys actions related to the ADVANCE Act and the three recently issued ADVANCE Act Congressional reports. The staff provided an overview of the NRCs public ADVANCE Act website, which includes an interactive dashboard tracking ADVANCE Act implementation, a repository for key documents, and information on ADVANCE Act public meetings. The staff encouraged use of the ADVANCE Act comment portal as the place to provide feedback, questions, and ideas related to the ADVANCE Act to help inform the staffs Congressional reports. And finally, the staff covered the purpose of and agenda for the meeting.
2 (2) Feasibility of Brownfield Sites for Small Modular Reactor Deployment - Establishing Baseline Conditions to Support Regulation & Environmental Impact Assessment Matthew Bond, Environmental Biologist, Radioecology Section Head, Canadian Nuclear Laboratories Mr. Bonds presentation focused on the feasibility of brownfield sites for small modular reactor (SMR) deployment in Canada and establishing baseline environmental conditions for regulation and environmental impact assessment. The Canadian Small Modular Reactor Roadmap (2018) and its update (2022) outline the progress and efforts to deploy SMRs in Canada. SMR proposals are in various stages, with some targeting industrial reuse or brownfield sites, including former coal-fired power plants in Saskatchewan and New Brunswick. Mr. Bond provided a quick overview of brownfield siting for new nuclear. Pros include eligibility for grants and tax credits, use of existing infrastructure, proximity to amenities and workforce, and more likely public acceptance at these sites. Cons include potentially higher costs due to environmental cleanup and demolition, financing difficulties due to contamination uncertainties, and regulatory uncertainty regarding baseline contaminant conditions.
Mr. Bond then discussed environmental contamination with naturally occurring radioactive material (NORM) and technologically enhanced NORM (T-NORM) from coal storage and combustion. Mr. Bond explained that modern coal-fired power plants recover 99.5 percent of solid combustion waste, but older plants without advanced technologies had lower recovery rates, resulting in environmental contamination. Studies have found elevated levels of radionuclides compared to local background levels, including uranium-238, thorium-232, and potassium-40. Mr. Bond highlighted some studies that investigated radionuclide inventories escaping from coal-burning power plants, including significant uranium release with fly ash.
Mr. Bond explained that Atomic Energy of Canada Limited operates the Federal Nuclear Science and Technology work plan, supporting Canadian federal roles in health, nuclear safety, security, energy, and the environment. A proposal was submitted to investigate the feasibility of brownfield sites for SMR deployment after discussions with various Canadian federal agencies.
The proposal focuses on establishing radiological baseline conditions at brownfield sites for regulation and environmental impact assessments. The project, beginning in April, will sample former coal-fired power plants across Canada to identify general trends in radionuclide contamination and site variability. The research, funded by the Canadian federal government, aims to provide general trends rather than full site assessments, which would be the responsibility of SMR proponents. The goal is to understand general radiological conditions to inform regulation and environmental impact assessments. The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission is interested in the results to aid regulatory readiness and provide guidance for SMR proponents on environmental impact assessments. Theoretical scenarios illustrate the relationship between baseline ambient radioactivity, regulatory limits, and SMR operating envelopes, highlighting the variability based on site history and characteristics.
(3) Kentuckys Brownfield Redevelopment Program Cliff Hall, Manager, Superfund Branch, Division of Waste Management, Kentucky Energy and Environment Cabinet Nathan Hancock, State Superfund Section, Division of Waste Management, Kentucky Energy and Environment Cabinet Mr. Halls presentation centered on Kentuckys brownfield redevelopment program, which offers a defense against liability for pre-ownership contamination through environmental site assessments and all appropriate inquiries (e.g. environmental site assessments). Kentucky's
3 program was updated in 2012 to provide a more robust defense with upfront concurrence on all appropriate care. Criteria for the program include no familial, operational, or business relationships with responsible parties, and up-to-date American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) environmental site assessments. Applications for the program can be submitted prior to ownership, and a notice of eligibility is issued, followed by a notice of concurrence upon property ownership. Kentuckys program benefits lenders by ensuring the purchaser won't inherit liability and provides an efficient review process within 30 days.
Mr. Hall emphasized the importance of maintaining up-to-date environmental site assessments and the process of addressing potential contamination issues. Mr. Hall explained that Phase 2 environmental site assessments have no deadlines and establish baseline conditions prior to ownership, and that these assessments support managing actual site conditions rather than presumptive remedies. Site characterization may be required for reuse to ensure no exposure to contaminants, and in this case, property management plans must be prepared by professional geologists or engineers and are living documents that are updated as new information arises.
Mr. Hall noted that instead of subsurface testing, presumptive remedies can be used for limited use properties to manage assumed conditions without having to gather extensive data.
Mr. Hancock added that regular audits ensure compliance with property management plans.
(4) Tennessees Brownfields Voluntary Oversight and Assistance Program Evan W. Spann, Deputy Director of Field Operations, Division of Remediation, Tennessee Department of Environmental Conservation Mr. Spanns presentation on Tennessees voluntary oversight and assistance program picked up on the similarities to Kentuckys program but noted some differences. One difference includes that liability protections in Tennessee extend to successor parties. Mr. Spann stated that laws governing Tennessees program include the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act and the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act at the Federal level, and Tennessees Hazardous Waste Management Act.
He explained that there are two types of agreements: consent orders for liable parties and voluntary agreements for innocent purchasers. Mr. Spann said that the benefits of using Tennessees program include avoiding enforcement actions and establishing institutional controls to limit future liability, and that tax benefits are also available through the Tennessee Department of Economic and Community Development.
Mr. Spann explained that liability in Tennessee applies to owners/operators of inactive hazardous substance sites, with exceptions for due diligence. The voluntary application requires verification of non-liability and a summary of existing environmental information. Due diligence must comply with ASTM standards and be performed six months prior to purchase, because the program provides liability protection for real contamination, not perceived conditions. All appropriate inquiry involves identifying and addressing recognized environmental conditions.
Brownfield voluntary agreements outline the remediation or mitigation needed for site safety.
Voluntary parties must independently identify and mitigate risks to ensure no unacceptable risk to human health and the environment. Remedy strategies emphasize full site characterization, targeted cleanups, use of caps or covers, and preemptive mitigation. Ongoing monitoring may be required, particularly for vapor intrusion, to ensure remedy protectiveness, and Tennessee uses notices of land use restrictions to ensure remedies remain in place, including use/activity controls and compliance reporting.
4 (5) NRC's Decommissioning Funding Assurance Requirements and Existing Radiological Contamination at Brownfield Sites Richard Turtil, Senior Financial Analyst, Division of Rulemaking, Environmental, and Financial Support, NMSS Mr. Turtils presentation centered on financial qualifications and decommissioning funding requirements for nuclear facilities in light of the ADVANCE Acts direction to evaluate licensing issues at brownfield and retired fossil fuel sites. The NRC's requirements at 10 CFR 50.33, Contents of applications; general requirements, ensure applicants have adequate funding for construction, operation, and decommissioning of facilities. Current nuclear decommissioning funding assurance requirements at 10 CFR 50.75, Reporting and recordkeeping for decommissioning planning, use a minimum formula amount for large facilities, but site-specific cost estimates are envisioned for smaller new reactors and microreactors. Applicants must address liability for radiological contamination before and after operation, considering site-specific contamination and liability agreements between buyer and seller. For facilities being sited at brownfield sites with possible radiological contamination, the NRC will seek a thorough understanding of liability assumptions to ensure adequate decommissioning funding assurance.
Panel 1 Discussion The discussion portion of Panel 1 included the following points made by NRC staff and panelists:
In response to Mr. Turtils statement that applicants for advanced reactors at brownfield sites would need to submit site-specific information, Mike King asked for external stakeholder input on alternative ways to verify decommissioning funding beyond a site-specific analysis.
Mr. Turtil expressed interest in state-level liability processes and pre-site characterization for brownfield sites. Mr. Spann, Mr. Hancock, and Mr. Hall explained their state's programs and processes for ensuring compliance and liability protection for new owners, with an emphasis on ongoing responsibilities and audits to maintain program compliance.
Mr. Bond highlighted differences in coal plant contamination scales from local to regional and the importance of understanding these for site characterization.
Christianne Ridge from the NRC noted baseline brownfield site characterization data would be useful for nuclear decommissioning, and Mr. Turtil noted that internal NRC coordination among financial, environmental, and health physics branches would be important for site-specific decommissioning-related assessments of brownfield sites.
Panel 2 (6) NRCs Population-Related Siting Requirements for Advanced Reactors William (Bill) Reckley, Senior Project Manager, Division of Advanced and Non-power Production and Utilization Facilities, NRR Mr. Reckley explained that siting considerations for nuclear plants look both ways: impact on the environment and environmental impact on the plant. Some factors include routine effluents, accident potential, seismic activity, winds, and nearby industrial or military complexes. NRC regulations (10 CFR 100.21, Non-seismic siting criteria) emphasize siting reactors away from densely populated centers and considering population density. However, recent changes to
5 siting criteria are relevant for the ADVANCE Act and brownfield site locations, including guidance allowing the emergency planning zone to be assessed based on radiological consequences, and updates to Regulatory Guide 4.7, General Site Suitability Criteria for Nuclear Power Stations, (RG 4.7, Revision 4) (ML23348A082) include a consequence-based alternative approach where the population density consideration can be twice the distance at which an accident consequence analysis shows a dose of 1 rem over 30 days. The update to RG 4.7 was based on the Commissions chosen option from SECY-20-0045, Population Related Siting Considerations for Advanced Reactors, documented in SRM-SECY-20-0045.
The ongoing Part 53 rulemaking for advanced reactors incorporates this revised guidance, reflecting the consequence-based approach for exclusionary boundaries and population density considerations. Mr. Reckley also discussed that additionally, microreactors are receiving attention, with recent Commission papers (SECY-20-0093, SECY-24-0008) and a white paper (ML24270A206) addressing potential policy issues and siting considerations, and Section 208 of the ADVANCE Act specifically addresses microreactor siting and is relevant to these discussions related to population density and siting.
(7) Nuclear Energy Institutes Recommendations Related to NRCs Population-Related Siting Requirements Katie Austgen, Senior Project Manager for New Nuclear, Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI)
Ms. Austgen picked up from Mr. Reckleys discussion of RG 4.7, noting that Revision 4 to RG 4.7 clarified and added flexibility in considering population density and distance (PDD) for advanced reactor designs. However, NEI still had some concerns: (1) the revision didn't adequately contextualize PDD siting considerations with other siting elements, like defense-in-depth considerations, (2) it didn't compare the level of protection for advanced reactors to that for existing light water reactors, and (3) it didn't identify whether NRC's guidance would result in undue burden or excessive restrictions on siting for advanced reactors. NEI provided public comments and developed a white paper addressing these concerns, proposing 5 rem in 30 days as a criterion to better align with NRC's accepted level of protection for large light water reactors. Ms. Austgen stated that the NRC staff acknowledged NEIs concerns but retained the 2x distance of 1 rem in 30 days in the final revision to RG 4.7.
Ms. Austgen explained that current regulations, such as 10 CFR Part 100 and RG 4.7, may challenge the business case for advanced reactor deployment, but that there are opportunities, like the Part 53 rulemaking and the ADVANCE Act, to update regulations and guidance to better align with advanced reactor designs. NEI is developing white papers to gather more information and suggest potential modifications to NRC requirements. NEI sees opportunities for increased use of risk-and performance-based approaches for setting site boundaries for emergency planning, low population zones, and population center distances to site boundaries. Ms.
Austgen stated that current population siting requirements were developed with conservative assumptions for large light water reactors, but modern reactor designs include functional containment, low-pressure operation, and minimal source terms, leading to very low accident risks. Ms. Austgen said these advancements question the need for stringent population-related siting requirements. Ms. Austgen suggested that alternatives to the current 2x distance to 1 rem in 30 days criterion could be considered, such as 5 rem in 30 days, to better reflect advanced reactors' safety features. Ms. Austgen suggested that criteria for siting reactors in population centers could be revised, potentially adjusting the population threshold (currently 25,000 people) or using performance-based metrics instead of prescriptive requirements. She noted that clear modeling assumptions are needed for dose criteria, considering realistic exposure risks.
6 Existing safety analyses (e.g., accident analysis, emergency planning) could be leveraged for population-related siting decisions.
And finally, Ms. Austgen stated that there is significant demand for new nuclear capacity (300 gigawatts by 2050), requiring many new sites for characterization, evaluation, and review.
She noted that brownfield sites are preferable for their existing infrastructure and environmental considerations. Ms. Austgen explained that a recent study found over 400 coal plants suitable for advanced nuclear, but only one-fifth met the NRCs current population siting criteria.
Updating these criteria could expand that pool of potential sites. To align with the ADVANCE Act, Ms. Austgen stated that population center distance and density requirements should be updated to ensure public safety while facilitating advanced reactor deployment, and that stakeholder engagement would be needed to define appropriate criteria, ensuring they reflect advanced reactors' characteristics. She suggested that criteria should be scalable and clear, allowing stakeholders to navigate the process effectively.
(8) Gateway for Accelerated Innovation in Nuclear Coal-to-Nuclear Pilot Studies and Workforce Considerations Christine King, Director, Gateway for Accelerated Innovation in Nuclear (GAIN)
Ms. Kings presentation shared insights from GAINs pilot studies at three coal stations in Arizona, Kentucky, and Montana. She noted that the pilot study utilities do not have nuclear in their portfolio, which makes the consideration of nuclear energy a higher hurdle. The pilot studies included screening the site, evaluating suitable technologies, and conducting economic impact and workforce studies. Ms. King explained that the Department of Energy (DOE) has been conducting related work since 2022, including a comprehensive study and a guidebook on coal-to-nuclear transitions published in 2024. The initial study data included 349 retired coal sites, sites not owned or operated by a utility or those that were retired before 2012 were excluded. The remaining 229 sites were screened using GIS factors, including population, which reduced the number to 157 analyzed sites. Of these, another 52 sites were further screened out due to the NRCs population-related siting requirements.
Ms. King said that for all three pilot studies, there was an emphasis on interacting with the community and understanding coal-to-nuclear workforce match. Workforce is important because to build 200 gigawatts of new nuclear power in the U.S. by 2050, an additional 275,000 workers will be needed. GAIN's pilot study in Arizona contributed to a broader analysis on the economic impact of transitioning from coal to nuclear power. The analysis compared the economic impact of operating coal stations versus nuclear power plants of similar megawatt capacities. GAIN found that nuclear power plants generally employ more people than coal stations, creating direct, indirect, and induced jobs, and that supply chain jobs also benefit the community.
Nuclear power plants have a 1.5 multiplier effect on economic activity, inducing $50 of economic activity for every $100 of electricity produced, and studies in communities like Colstrip, Montana, are assessing the tax impact of nuclear energy addition and coal station closure. Ms. King explained that there is significant overlap in job types and education levels between coal and nuclear plant workers, therefore the transition from coal to nuclear presents opportunities for economic and employment benefits in energy communities, and headlines indicate a growing interest in redeveloping coal sites for nuclear power. Repurposing brownfield sites for new nuclear would leverage a communitys history of operating industrial and energy facilities, and oftentimes these communities are interested in continuing to be power producers.
7 (9) Role of Local Governments in Support of New Nuclear Development Kara Colton, Principal, Kaco Group, LLC Ms. Colton stated that she works with the Energy Communities Alliance (ECA), which includes local elected officials and economic development leaders from communities hosting DOE's nuclear sites. ECA is involved in providing information on nuclear-related issues, including siting a consolidated interim storage facility for high-level waste and spent nuclear fuel. However, ECA also has a new nuclear initiative, which opens doors to nuclear-curious communities looking for economic diversity or to replace closing industries. The new nuclear initiative focuses on attracting and supporting new nuclear development missions, communicating local resources, and addressing hurdles like waste, safety, and licensing timelines. ECA has hosted several New Nuclear forums, with high attendance and participation from NRC representatives (the next forum is scheduled for April 2025).
Ms. Colton discussed community needs, including understanding the timeline for licensing and construction; workforce training and retraining options for coal-to-nuclear transitions; and addressing concerns about community values and maintaining the local way of life. Ms. Colton emphasized the importance of local buy-in for project success and identifying trusted local voices to facilitate communication and transparency. She emphasized the importance of early and inclusive community engagement, bringing neighbors to meetings, and understanding the timeline for retiring coal plants and planning for nuclear projectsbuilding regular relationships and transparency are crucial for successful transitions. She also noted that ensuring all stakeholders have a foundational understanding of nuclear technology is essential for informed decision-making and participation, and that experts should focus on providing facts and facilitating full participation in decision-making, rather than advocating for the technology itself.
Ms. Colton noted that ECAs new nuclear initiative has seen growing participation, with meetings drawing over 250 attendees, indicating significant interest from various communities in nuclear development. She stated that communities across the U.S., from Alaska to Florida, are interested in exploring energy options, including nuclear, to maintain jobs and economic stability, and conversations about nuclear energy are evolving, with communities recognizing the need for diverse energy sources and the potential benefits of nuclear power.
(10)
Community Perspective Tracy Boatner, President & CEO, East Tennessee Economic Council and Member of Tennessee Governors Nuclear Energy Advisory Council Ms. Boatner began her presentation by introducing the East Tennessee Economic Council (ETEC), an independent nonprofit membership organization supporting federal missions and economic growth in East Tennessee since 1973. Key assets and partners in East Tennessee include Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Y-12 National Security Complex, and Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA). ETEC convenes groups every Friday morning to discuss opportunities related to DOE missions and economic growth. Ms. Boatner stated that Tennessee hosts about 250 nuclear companies, with 155 in the East Tennessee area, and that Oak Ridge has become a hub for advanced nuclear projects. She emphasized the need for NRC support through increased streamlining while still maintaining safety. She noted a few key projects ongoing or upcoming, including Kairos Power and their partnership with Google, TRISO-X fuel fabrication partnering with Amazon; the recently announced Orano uranium enrichment project; TVA's SMR projects at the Clinch River site; Type 1 Energy fusion energy project at TVA's former Bull Run coal site; and NANO Nuclear and other investments in Oak Ridge. Ms. Boatner also
8 highlighted ETECs regional collaboration with neighboring states Kentucky, West Virginia, and Virginia, in aligning goals and sharing potential costs, and partnering with universities and community colleges to support nuclear education and workforce development.
Panel 2 Discussion The discussion portion of Panel 2 included the following points made by NRC staff and panelists:
Ms. Lopas asked how the initiatives discussed by the panelists included outreach to Tribal governments. Ms. Colton emphasized that there is inclusive outreach to Tribes through several initiatives and groups, including ECA and cooperative agreements with DOEs Office of Environmental Management and other governmental and non-governmental organizations. She described that invitations are extended to Tribes for meetings and financial assistance is similar to that offered to local governments. Ms. King shared how for the Arizona coal-to-nuclear pilot study, the utility and town council ensured the Navajo Nation was involved in the research project. Ms. Lopas highlighted the importance of clear and frequent communication with Tribes due to the confusion that can arise when multiple private and public entities are involved in a project, i.e., ensuring that roles and responsibilities are clear. Ms. King pointed out that Alaska's approach was a good example of integrating federal review information on radioactive materials with state-level reviews of industrial facilities.
Ms. Lopas invited Mr. Reckley and Ms. Austgen to make any additional comments regarding their population presentations. Ms. Austgen reiterated that population-related siting criteria should align with the demonstrated safety of advanced reactors. Mr. Reckley highlighted the need to balance acknowledging inherent risks of nuclear power plants with addressing those risks through siting and other measures. He noted that the recent revision to RG 4.7 was a first step in updating long-standing policies, considering both the frequency and consequences of events. He stated that while a dose of 1 rem over a month is not life-threatening, it is significant and warrants consideration of societal risks. Mr. Reckley noted the importance of defense-in-depth as a measure to address unknowns and emphasized that new reactors have not yet been built or operated. He stated that the NRC acknowledges the potential safety improvements of advanced reactors, but this must be balanced with the need for proven performance. Ms. King suggested establishing a validation pathway to revisit and potentially revise criteria based on the performance of advanced reactors once they are built and operated.
Don Palmrose of the NRC added that the NRC's environmental reviews under the National Environmental Policy Act are crucial for informing the public about environmental risks, and that public meetings and interactions are key aspects of this communication process.
Ms. Colton highlighted the importance of ensuring communities are fully informed before consenting to projects. She emphasized the need for iterative conversations to address perceived risks and build trust. She suggested providing resources for impacted communities to hire their own experts to better understand and support projects. Ms. King noted challenges in explaining terms like "passive and inherent safety" and "walk-away safe" to communities. She stressed the need for industry to make these concepts more understandable, she also discussed the difficulty of explaining complex regulatory criteria in public meetings and suggested building from the new reactor designs to better communicate
9 safety features. Ms. Boatner highlighted the benefit of regular conversations about nuclear energy within the Oak Ridge community, which includes government, academia, and industry representatives, and stated that regular communication helps the community understand the potential and safety of nuclear energy before the siting of a reactor.
Public Comments The following points were made by members of the public:
Adam Stein of the Breakthrough Institute stated that building new nuclear facilities can increase population density over time, potentially affecting siting suitability, and that sequential licensing of SMRs at sites may lead to regulatory issues as population density changes. Regarding site characterization for coal sites, he cited the importance of characterizing the constituent materials left behind and noted the uncertainty of underground conditions. Emphasizing the need for clear criteria and processes for site characterization and population siting, Mr. Stein asked how he could further engage with NRC staff and Ms. Lopas said that additional information or comments could be emailed to Sarah.Lopas@nrc.gov or Allen.Fetter@nrc.gov.
The meeting concluded at 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time.
10
SUBJECT:
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION PUBLIC MEETING
SUMMARY
SECTION 206 OF THE ADVANCE ACT, REGULATORY ISSUES FOR NUCLEAR FACILITIES AT BROWNFIELD SITES DATED FEBRUARY 9, 2025 ENCLOSURE: LIST OF PUBLIC MEETING ATTENDEES DISTRIBUTION:
Public SLopas, NMSS AFetter, NRR CRegan, NMSS MSampson, NRR WReckley, NRR RTurtil, NMSS RSun, NMSS MHayes, NRR
- ADVANCENRC ADAMS Accession Number: Package ML25032A020, Summary ML25032A028, Transcript ML25032A021, Presentation Slides ML25032A022
- via email OFFICIAL RECORD COPY OFFICE NMSS/REFS:
PM NRR/DNRL:
PM NMSS/REFS:
BC NRR/DNRL:
BC NMSS/REFS:
PM NAME SLopas*
AFetter*
RSun*
MHayes*
SLopas DATE 2/3/2025 2/3/2025 2/8/2025 2/5/2025 2/9/2025
ENCLOSURE U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Public Meeting on Section 206 of the ADVANCE Act, Regulatory Issues for Nuclear Facilities at Brownfield Sites January 16, 2025 List of Public Meeting Attendees Attendee Organization Aaron McCraw NRC Adam Stein Breakthrough Institute Addison Hall Dominion Energy Alejandro Alen Arias NRC Alkhatib, Sari Argonne National Laboratory Allen Fetter NRC Amanda Leatherman NRC Amitava Ghosh NRC Amy Minor NRC Angela Coggins NRC Angela Sabet NRC anonymous Affiliation Unknown Anthony Dimitriadis NRC Aron Lewin NRC Beau Goldstein NRC Benjamin Beasley Abilene Christian University Bergman, Jana Curtis Wright Corporation Billy Gleaves NRC Blalock, Maddie (EPW)
Senate EPW Bond, Matthew Canadian Nuclear Laboratories Bradley A Werling NRC Brian Glowacki NRC Briana Arlene NRC Brittany Lutz Nuclear Innovation Alliance Bruce Watson NRC Bryson Roberson Clear Path Carol Dye NRC Caroline Hsu NRC Christine Palmer King Gateway for Accelerated Innovation in Nuclear Christopher Regan NRC Cliff Hall State of Kentucky Connie Kline Affiliation Unknown Court Reporter Isella Rivera Neal R. Gross and Company, Inc.
David Hills NRC Diana Diaz Toro NRC Donald Palmrose NRC Emil Tabakov NRC Eric Oesterle NANO Nuclear Erik Cothron Nuclear Innovation Alliance
2 Attendee Organization Evan W. Spann State of Tennessee Foley, Kay Nuclear Energy Institute Fred Miller NRC Gordon Curran NRC Hancock, Nathan C State of Kentucky Hanry Wagage NRC Ian Tseng NRC India Banks NRC Jared Nadel NRC Jason Albert Christensen Idaho National Laboratory Jean Trefethen NRC Jeffrey Rikhoff NRC Jenise Thompson NRC Jessica Moses-Arnone NRC Jessie Quintero NRC Jill Caverly NRC Jo Jacobs NRC Joan Seeman Affiliation Unknown Joe OHara NRC Joseph Giacinto NRC Joy Jiang Breakthrough Institute Kara Colton Kaco Group, LLC/Energy Communities Alliance Karen Loomis NRC Kathy Helms Affiliation Unknown Keion Henry NRC Kenneth See NRC Kevin Folk NRC Lance Rakovan NRC Leah Parks NRC Lisa Pope NRC Luissette Candelario-Quintana NRC Madelyn Nagel NRC Megan Wright NRC Michael J. Keegan Dont Waste Michigan Michelle Albert NRC Michelle Hart NRC Michelle Hayes NRC Mike King NRC Milton Valentin NRC Nadir Chaudhry NRC Nebiyu Tiruneh NRC Nguyen, Joseph Energy and Climate Change Canada O'Neill, Martin Nuclear Energy Institute Patrick Donohue NRC
3 Attendee Organization Peyton Doub NRC Rao Tammara NRC Richard Turtil NRC Robert Hoffman NRC Robert Sun NRC Sam Cohen NRC Samuel Gibson Hadron Energy Sarah Lopas NRC Sarah Tabatabai NRC Schimmoller, Brian Electric Power Research Institute Schindler, Charlie Ohio State University Sean Gallagher NRC Sean Schaub Wyoming Energy Authority Shannon Healy NRC Shawn Harwell NRC Spencer Toohill Affiliation Unknown Stephanie Devlin-Gill NRC Steve Koenick NRC Steve McCarthy NRC Steve Sanders State of Tennessee Steven Pope Information Systems Laboratory, Inc.
Susan Hoxie-Key Affiliation Unknown tam Tran NRC Ted Smith NRC Tracy Boatner Eastern Tennessee Economic Council Travis Leach NRC William Reckley NRC Yawar Faraz NRC Zach, Andrew (EPW)