FUSION | BUILDING A REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
Towards a fusion rulebook
The US NRC anticipates that several different fusion technologies will be commercialised in the 2030s. It wants to complete rulemaking before the decade starts. Developers agree
THE US NRC IS MOVING on what the Fusion Industry Association (FIA) described as an “aggressive schedule” to license and regulate fusion reactors. The rulemaking process was kicked off in earnest on 3 January 2023, when the NRC staff presented a paper titled: Options for licensing and regulating fusion energy systems, based on industry consultation. The end of the process is in sight: The NRC plans to publish its proposed rule at the end of May 2025, and the final rule in October 2026. In its initial document, the NRC staff explained that
fusion research and development activities have previously been carried out largely under the auspices of the Department of Energy (DOE). Research and development activities related to advancing the science of fusion technologies and plasma physics have largely been performed by, or for, the DOE in facilities such as the DIII-D National Fusion Facility in San Diego, California; the Tokamak Fusion Test Reactor and National Spherical Torus Experiment in Princeton, New Jersey; and the National Ignition Facility in Livermore, California. The States of California, New York, Washington, and Wisconsin have each licensed fusion research and development activities.
By 2009 there was an expectation that fusion energy
devices would require a regulatory framework, but at that time the NRC believed it was too early to expend significant resources on development. It directed staff to wait until the commercial deployment of fusion technology became more predictable. But commercial companies are now targeting system deployments in the 2030s, so in 2020 the Commission directed the NRC staff to consider appropriate treatment of fusion reactor designs (a rulemaking which would be approached separately from an ongoing rulemaking for advanced nuclear fission reactors, which would create 10 CFR Part 53). The rulemaking was justified by the benefits that could
accrue in having a dedicated regulatory path for fusion. It would be bring anticipated fusion energy systems within the byproduct material regulatory framework; ensure appropriate security requirements for large quantities of tritium held on site; update content-of-application requirements to allow for appropriate application and scaling of existing requirements (e.g., emergency preparedness, financial assurance, and facility design); give regulatory certainty for industry and clarity for public stakeholders; align fusion energy system licensing,
Above: The target chamber of LLNL’s National Ignition Facility 26 | November 2024 |
www.neimagazine.com
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53
