Goldilocks and the Three Frameworks: An Argument for a Hybrid Approach to Regulating Fusion Energy Systems

Part I will explore the beginnings of nuclear power regulation in the United States by outlining the short lifespan of the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC), the NRC’s [Nuclear Regulatory Commission's] predecessor, and why the Agency’s two competing directives of protecting public safety and encouraging industry development eventually led to its dissolution in 1974. The subsequent separation and assignment of these directives to newly created agencies— safety to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and development to the Energy Research and Development Administration—demonstrates that the NRC’s primary statutory directive is regulating nuclear power safely. Part II will delve into the early days of the NRC and analyze the effects of the AEC’s laissez-faire, industry-first approach to the regulation of nuclear power and its long-lasting ramifications on America’s public opinion toward nuclear fission reactors following the most infamous nuclear disaster in American history, the Three Mile Island accident. Part III briefly discusses NEIMA and how the Act brought nuclear fusion into the focus of future regulation and introduces the three fusion regulatory schemes proposed by the NRC staff in response to NEIMA. Part IV first analyzes the major positive and negative aspects of each fusion regulation approach and then utilizes historical examples and the potential dangers of fusion energy systems to critique the NRC Commissioners’ ultimate decision to place regulatory clarity and consistency over not only public safety and public perception of emerging technologies, but also regulatory flexibility for potential future innovations in fusion technology. Will fusion be seen as the future of energy as we know it or just another nuclear disaster waiting to happen? This abstract has been taken from the author's introduction.