NRC Regulation and Fusors

[Jim Kovalchick]

The fusor community has comfortably avoided NRC regulation of our devices. There was even a letter that some of us saved that we have considered de facto rulemaking that is really just a quoted mid-level staffer saying that they had no intention of regulating amateur fusors.

More recently, the NRC announced that they were exploring regulation of fusion reactors. Based on my own significant regulatory experience, I got some chills from the concept. Most here who expressed an opinion believed at the time that we would be forever free of intrusive regulation into our hobby. Despite the quiet that has existed, I remain vigilantly skeptical.

I read something today that has me thinking on the subject again. Specifically:

"On December 30, 2024, Last Energy, together with the states of Texas and Utah, filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas claiming that the NRC lacks authority to license “certain small, non-hazardous reactors.” The plaintiffs argue that the Atomic Energy Act excludes from the utilization facility licensing requirements any “equipment or devices not capable of producing or using significant quantities of fissionable material and not important from the public health and safety standpoint.” The lawsuit requests the court rule that the NRC does not have the legal authority to license certain SMRs. They claim that the NRC’s 1956 utilization facility rule was promulgated unlawfully and that Last Energy’s SMRs and certain university reactors should instead be regulated only under “applicable state-level radioactive materials handling, verification and inspection requirements.”

One might think that the premise of the lawsuit further supports fusors being exempt from regulation, and one may ultimately be correct in that thinking. However, I want to watch this situation carefully because the flip side is that the NRC will argue against it and may even be forced to provide additional regulatory guidance that brings "certain small, non-hazardous reactors" more clearly into regulation. You never know when we could get caught up in something inadvertently.

[Richard Hull]

I hope this is just a tempest in a teapot. Anyone with half a brain knows our fusors are no threat in the nuclear regulatory sense. I am wondering about all the worthless startups popping up. Some of these just may be doing useless power fusion that are capable of x-radiation and neutrons at a level that might be an issue. Perhaps they are trying to head off low level startups under the 1 million dollar funding level with little or no responsible organization behind them. I worry that phantom startups might create a "bunko" issue/"ponzi" scheme to generate money for the unscrupulous.

I wonder just how the future regulation on the purchase of small lots of Deuterium gas or heavy water might fall into their purview.

There as so many ways we could be put out of the amateur fusor effort.

Richard Hull

[Jim Kovalchick]

Richard,
Yep. That's exactly why I want watch this. We could get impacted simply by overlap with unintended and unnecessary impact.

Jim

[Dennis P Brown]

The best way to avoid the NRC here is for people not to try and get them involved when building a fusor. One reason I discourage people posting here not to do that ridiculous step. Better not to make an issue that the NRC currently have zero interest in regulating.

As for small amounts of radioactive materials, if I recall correctly, they have clear limits on amounts and types. Ditto on medial quantities and use. These reg's work very well and have worked for many decades without any issues I am aware. No idea what they do to regulate companies but that appears, to date, to have worked well as far as the public/worker safety has been concerned. As for reactors, well, that is so far beyond my ability to discus I'll just say - I'll punt on that question.

So, not sure what those States are trying to accomplish. If it is relative to small modular reactors, then certainly the NRC must regulate real fissionable materials - that is a safety issue for the public and workers. If the issue is amounts present (like how much plutonium or U-233/235 a company can use), that is a very technical point that only experts I feel could properly regulate and it appears the NRC has done that rather successfully for many decades already. To date, can't see what needs to be changed on that front by these States.

[Jim Kovalchick]

Dennis,
I agree that not being noticed is a good approach, but the ultimate way to fly under the radar is to know the rules and comply with them. It is not unreasonable for fusioneers here to know and apply posting requirements for example. Its not hard to know exempt quantities of radiological material and only own that much. It is not hard to label materials. It's not hard to keep an inventory, It's not hard to store in locked and posted containers. Every so often, law enforcement does show up at people's homes based neighbors calls. It's all especially important to me because I have unescorted access status at nuclear plants. I stay on the right side of the laws as I understand them and don't seek compliance by just keeping quiet.
Jim

[Dennis P Brown]

While I agree that people creating large amounts of radioactive samples (above NRC regs) using various methods must comply with those regs that is not really an issue here. Fusors do not produce any such issue at all. I do feel that the HV issue and x-rays are serious for fusors and we at the forum must address those issues with newbie's. Unless the fusor is located outside a private home, signs are not required. Through, proper safety measures should always be followed and anyone using caps (significant values) should have bleed systems installed and proper warnings.

I know that people collect dangerous amounts of radium from old dials and collect old radium "activated" water bottles and these not only must be properly stored/shielded and sealed in correct containers but should be properly marked by NRC reg's (and I'd hope by common sense for someone in that hobby!) Yet that is not a hobby we in this furor community promote or support; or at least that I am aware. Through we do offer warnings about those substances if that subject is brought up.

[Jim Kovalchick]

Dennis,
You're mistaken if you think there aren't a fair amount of fusor folks who also accumulate rad materials.

[Frank Sanns]

It makes sense to regulate or at least oversee most of the fusion startups.

Tritium is already covered and is a no go for amateur fusion.

A limit on input power, x-ray, and neutron output could make sense and not affect any of us. It would affect the startups though that are using large amounts of power and producing potentially hazardous radiation emissions.

2kw input limit and 10^7 neutron outputs is trivial.

Much like exempt nuclide calibration sources, they are ubiquitous and risk is very low.

There would have to be a lower practical limit or even a deuterium lamp could be considered a potential fusion device.

[Jim Kovalchick]

Frank,
Are you proposing sensible regulations would be implemented? What a funny man you are.

Jim