The NRC’s decision: In May, the NRC closed a comment period for proposed revisions on a regulatory framework for commercial fusion energy. The proposed changes are primarily to 10 CFR Part 30, fitting fusion into its approach for regulating particle accelerators rather than its framework for fission reactors. This also means that applications for fusion facilities will go through Agreement States.
The commission is now finalizing the rule change with an estimated publication date of December 2027.
Mutually beneficial: The FIA white paper emphasizes the benefits to states that choose to host fusion energy companies, including high-quality jobs and long-term capital investment.
Fusion companies must consider a multitude of factors when selecting their facility sites, and the paper cites state-level regulations as a key factor. States that work ahead to prepare their licensing programs for commercial fusion, offering thorough oversight and predictable timelines, may be more attractive for siting.
The NRC’s framework makes Agreement States responsible for licensing, inspection, enforcement, and decommissioning oversight for commercial fusion facilities.
“This structure allows Agreement States to be at the center of the emerging fusion ecosystem and gives them an important opportunity to shape how fusion projects are deployed in their jurisdictions,” said the paper.
Several states, including California, Massachusetts, Washington, and Tennessee, have already been navigating hosting fusion companies. Tennessee recently issued its first license to operate a commercial fusion machine in the state to Type One Energy, for its stellarator prototype.
While new ground is being broken for commercial fusion regulation, companies are also still heavily involved with research and development and are seeking locations that support collaborations with university, national laboratory, and industry partners.
State-by-state challenges: Not every state has taken the same approach to its byproduct material and accelerator statutory and regulatory frameworks. Some have written laws that are broad and are expected to seamlessly carry over to fusion machines, while others may have policies or procedures that will require adjustment, if, for example, radioactive materials and particle accelerators reside in different state agencies or operate under distinct procedures.
The FIA recommends that states examine their current frameworks and pursue action such as memorandums of understanding or legislative change to ensure these complications are resolved and to ensure clear and consistent regulatory practices.
Staying ahead of the curve: The report also encourages engagement between interested Agreement States. The Organization of Agreement States provides a mechanism for Agreement States to collaborate with each other and the NRC on regulatory issues, and the release of the paper coincided with the OAS annual meeting.
The FIA recommends that states consider reciprocity frameworks that allow for structured reliance by one state on the evaluations performed by another. This approach takes into consideration the intentions of many commercial fusion companies to eventually expand to multiple sites. Reviews for second or third sites utilizing similar units could be accelerated if some aspects of the review for the first site carry through, allowing review of the new sites to focus on local considerations.
“Before the first commercial-scale applications arrive, states should begin now to articulate how they will approach reciprocity so that developers can plan their deployment strategies with greater confidence,” said the paper.
The paper also suggests that states conduct capacity assessments that consider both the initial licensing phase, any oversight related to construction and commissioning, and the long-term oversight of operating facilities.
“Because the pool of fusion-specific expertise is limited and demand is expected to grow as commercialization proceeds, states that act early will be better positioned to secure the talent and partnerships they require,” it says.
States should learn about and plan for low-level waste associated with fusion energy, the paper recommended, which may include materials activated through neutron radiation- and tritium-contaminated materials, depending on the fusion concept.