GA, MA, & MI Collegians Champion Fusion as the FutureNate MyersMay 18, 2026
From Georgia to Michigan, CFACT collegians are urging federal regulators not to smother America’s next great energy breakthrough in red tape. As the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission considers its regulatory framework for fusion energy systems, three CFACT students submitted public comments calling for a clear, streamlined approach that recognizes fusion’s unique safety profile and enormous potential for American energy dominance.
Bryce McConnell of Kennesaw State University, Tal Prottas of Bentley University, and Jasper Gugino of Grand Valley State University each made the case that fusion should not be forced into outdated regulatory models designed for fission, but instead allowed to develop under rules that match its actual risks and benefits. You find their comments in full below, just as they were submitted to regulations.gov.
Bryce McConnell, Kennesaw State University
“Since the advent of the nuclear age in the 1950s, the United States has made relatively limited use of nuclear technology for energy and research outside of weaponry. While fission reactors remain a key component of nuclear energy, they are capital-intensive, heavily regulated, and often perceived as high-risk. By contrast, fusion energy—though still developing—offers a promising alternative that warrants a more tailored and enabling regulatory approach.
A clear and streamlined regulatory framework that recognizes the lower risk profile of fusion compared to fission would accelerate innovation and investment. Reducing unnecessary regulatory burdens—such as excessive licensing requirements and prolonged approval processes—would allow researchers and private-sector developers to advance fusion technologies more efficiently. This, in turn, could attract substantial domestic and international investment, support technological breakthroughs, and strengthen U.S. leadership in next-generation energy systems.
Fusion energy presents several potential advantages over fission. It produces significantly less long-lived radioactive waste, carries a lower risk of catastrophic failure, and relies on abundant fuel sources. Additionally, fusion does not carry the same public perception challenges associated with historical nuclear incidents such as Chernobyl disaster, Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster, and Three Mile Island accident. This creates an opportunity to reframe nuclear energy in the public mind as a safe, reliable, and forward-looking solution.
In conclusion, I urge the development of a simple, transparent, and appropriately scaled regulatory framework for fusion energy. Such an approach would enable faster technological progress, enhance energy security, reduce reliance on foreign fossil fuels, and position the United States at the forefront of a transformative energy future.”
Tal Prottas, Bentley University
“The NRC’s proposed regulatory framework regarding fusion reactors (Docket Id: NRC-2023-0071) can be best understood as an effort to align regulation with the essential physics of fusion. The key decision to regulate fusion systems under the 10 CFR Part 30 byproduct material framework is grounded in the fact that fusion is fundamentally different from fission. In a fission reactor, energy comes from a self-sustaining chain reaction that must be carefully controlled to avoid escalation. In contrast, fusion requires extremely precise conditions; that being very high temperatures and confinement, and if those conditions are disrupted, the reaction simply stops. There is no mechanism for a runaway reaction. That difference alone justifies a lighter, more targeted regulatory approach.
The proposed rule reflects this by focusing on the real sources of risk in fusion systems: tritium (a radioactive form of hydrogen used as fuel) and neutron activation of surrounding materials. For example, in the common deuterium–tritium reaction, most of the energy is carried by a high-energy neutron that can interact with reactor walls and make them slightly radioactive over time. The NRC’s licensing requirements (e.g., §30.32) therefore emphasize radiation protection, tritium containment, and tracking of radioactive materials, rather than requiring the kind of large-scale accident modeling used for fission reactors. This is consistent with how physics actually works. The hazards come from material interactions and inventories, not from an unstable (radioactive) energy source. The proposed rule can be reviewed here: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2026/02/26/2026-03865/regulatory-framework-for-fusion-machines.
The same logic applies to the overview of waste and environmental impacts. Fusion does not generate spent fuel or long-lived radioactive byproducts in the same way fission does. It is a radically different mechanism. Instead, any radioactivity largely comes from materials that have been exposed to neutron radiation, and those materials can often be designed to decay more quickly by choosing appropriate alloys. As a result, the NRC places fusion waste under the outlined existing low-level waste framework (10 CFR Part 61) rather than treating it as high-level nuclear waste. This once again reflects the underlying physics. Specifically, fusion reactions involve light elements and does not generate the heavy (long-lived) isotopes largely associated with fission. The Department of Energy highlights these differences in its overview of fusion vs. fission: https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/fission-and-fusion-what-difference.
In conclusion, the strength of the NRC’s proposal is that it is built around how fusion mechanistically/realistically behaves, rather than forcing it into a nearly arbitrary regulatory model designed for a different (more primitive) technology. By directing attention to tritium management, neutron activation, and radiation protection, while avoiding unnecessary requirements/regulations tied to chain reactions, the framework remains both scientifically grounded and practically efficient. Preserving this physics-based approach will be important to ensure that fusion can develop without inheriting regulatory burdens that do not match its actual risks.”
Jasper Gugino, Grand Valley State University
“To whom it may concern at the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
My name is Jasper Gugino and I represent Collegians for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT) at Grand Valley State University. I have had the privilege of growing up in the greatest country to ever exist and am thus interested in securing its future and enabling its continued prosperity. It is because of this that I am writing in support of the NRC’s proposed regulatory framework to treat commercial fusion energy facilities under the NRC’s byproduct material regulatory structure.
The benefits of fusion energy over and above those of fission energy are many fold. Fission reactors rely on a chain reaction of atoms splitting in order to release energy that is used to generate electricity. Although modern fission reactors are extremely safe, there is a risk of this chain reaction continuing if the conditions for nuclear fission are no longer kept. The use of nuclear fusion to generate power carries an even lower risk factor because due to the nature of combining atoms rather than splitting them apart, the reaction will simply stop when the conditions for fusion are no longer held. Fusion reactions also produce less radioactive waste that is already less radioactive than the waste produced by fission reactions.
On top of these things fusion reactors have the potential to be significantly more efficient than fission reactors, producing much more power with the same amount of fuel. Using a fission reactor and some uranium oxide fuel equal to the size of a soda can, Grand Valley State University’s campus where I study could be powered for about 8 days. With fusion, it could be powered for several times that with the same soda can of fuel. Fusion reactors would not only provide an enormous improvement on existing nuclear power technology that is in itself reliable and the most environmentally friendly power source, it also does not have the reputation that nuclear fission has earned from tragic events like the Chernobyl disaster and the Three Mile Island accident.
These advancements from fission technology and the feasibility of implementing fusion-powered energy due to their improved safety and generally positive public reputation mean that truly clean and powerful energy is a possibility for America. The NRC’s proposal providing clarity and removing unnecessary licensing requirements thus allowing for an expedited means of implementing fusion power, brings the vast benefits of fusion energy into the near future. Fusion energy would strengthen the United States’ ability to be energy independent, allow the United States to pioneer truly clean energy for the rest of the world, and preserve the beauty of America. It is because of this that I urge the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to approve of this nuclear fusion regulatory framework proposal.
Thank you,
Jasper Gugino CFACT Collegian, Grand Valley State University”
From Georgia to Michigan, CFACT collegians are urging federal regulators not to smother America’s next great energy breakthrough in red tape. As the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission considers its regulatory framework for fusion energy systems, three CFACT students submitted public comments calling for a clear, streamlined approach that recognizes fusion’s unique safety profile and enormous potential for American energy dominance.
Bryce McConnell of Kennesaw State University, Tal Prottas of Bentley University, and Jasper Gugino of Grand Valley State University each made the case that fusion should not be forced into outdated regulatory models designed for fission, but instead allowed to develop under rules that match its actual risks and benefits. You find their comments in full below, just as they were submitted to regulations.gov.
Bryce McConnell, Kennesaw State University
“Since the advent of the nuclear age in the 1950s, the United States has made relatively limited use of nuclear technology for energy and research outside of weaponry. While fission reactors remain a key component of nuclear energy, they are capital-intensive, heavily regulated, and often perceived as high-risk. By contrast, fusion energy—though still developing—offers a promising alternative that warrants a more tailored and enabling regulatory approach.
A clear and streamlined regulatory framework that recognizes the lower risk profile of fusion compared to fission would accelerate innovation and investment. Reducing unnecessary regulatory burdens—such as excessive licensing requirements and prolonged approval processes—would allow researchers and private-sector developers to advance fusion technologies more efficiently. This, in turn, could attract substantial domestic and international investment, support technological breakthroughs, and strengthen U.S. leadership in next-generation energy systems.
Fusion energy presents several potential advantages over fission. It produces significantly less long-lived radioactive waste, carries a lower risk of catastrophic failure, and relies on abundant fuel sources. Additionally, fusion does not carry the same public perception challenges associated with historical nuclear incidents such as Chernobyl disaster, Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster, and Three Mile Island accident. This creates an opportunity to reframe nuclear energy in the public mind as a safe, reliable, and forward-looking solution.
In conclusion, I urge the development of a simple, transparent, and appropriately scaled regulatory framework for fusion energy. Such an approach would enable faster technological progress, enhance energy security, reduce reliance on foreign fossil fuels, and position the United States at the forefront of a transformative energy future.”
Tal Prottas, Bentley University
“The NRC’s proposed regulatory framework regarding fusion reactors (Docket Id: NRC-2023-0071) can be best understood as an effort to align regulation with the essential physics of fusion. The key decision to regulate fusion systems under the 10 CFR Part 30 byproduct material framework is grounded in the fact that fusion is fundamentally different from fission. In a fission reactor, energy comes from a self-sustaining chain reaction that must be carefully controlled to avoid escalation. In contrast, fusion requires extremely precise conditions; that being very high temperatures and confinement, and if those conditions are disrupted, the reaction simply stops. There is no mechanism for a runaway reaction. That difference alone justifies a lighter, more targeted regulatory approach.
The proposed rule reflects this by focusing on the real sources of risk in fusion systems: tritium (a radioactive form of hydrogen used as fuel) and neutron activation of surrounding materials. For example, in the common deuterium–tritium reaction, most of the energy is carried by a high-energy neutron that can interact with reactor walls and make them slightly radioactive over time. The NRC’s licensing requirements (e.g., §30.32) therefore emphasize radiation protection, tritium containment, and tracking of radioactive materials, rather than requiring the kind of large-scale accident modeling used for fission reactors. This is consistent with how physics actually works. The hazards come from material interactions and inventories, not from an unstable (radioactive) energy source. The proposed rule can be reviewed here: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2026/02/26/2026-03865/regulatory-framework-for-fusion-machines.
The same logic applies to the overview of waste and environmental impacts. Fusion does not generate spent fuel or long-lived radioactive byproducts in the same way fission does. It is a radically different mechanism. Instead, any radioactivity largely comes from materials that have been exposed to neutron radiation, and those materials can often be designed to decay more quickly by choosing appropriate alloys. As a result, the NRC places fusion waste under the outlined existing low-level waste framework (10 CFR Part 61) rather than treating it as high-level nuclear waste. This once again reflects the underlying physics. Specifically, fusion reactions involve light elements and does not generate the heavy (long-lived) isotopes largely associated with fission. The Department of Energy highlights these differences in its overview of fusion vs. fission: https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/fission-and-fusion-what-difference.
In conclusion, the strength of the NRC’s proposal is that it is built around how fusion mechanistically/realistically behaves, rather than forcing it into a nearly arbitrary regulatory model designed for a different (more primitive) technology. By directing attention to tritium management, neutron activation, and radiation protection, while avoiding unnecessary requirements/regulations tied to chain reactions, the framework remains both scientifically grounded and practically efficient. Preserving this physics-based approach will be important to ensure that fusion can develop without inheriting regulatory burdens that do not match its actual risks.”
Jasper Gugino, Grand Valley State University
“To whom it may concern at the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
My name is Jasper Gugino and I represent Collegians for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT) at Grand Valley State University. I have had the privilege of growing up in the greatest country to ever exist and am thus interested in securing its future and enabling its continued prosperity. It is because of this that I am writing in support of the NRC’s proposed regulatory framework to treat commercial fusion energy facilities under the NRC’s byproduct material regulatory structure.
The benefits of fusion energy over and above those of fission energy are many fold. Fission reactors rely on a chain reaction of atoms splitting in order to release energy that is used to generate electricity. Although modern fission reactors are extremely safe, there is a risk of this chain reaction continuing if the conditions for nuclear fission are no longer kept. The use of nuclear fusion to generate power carries an even lower risk factor because due to the nature of combining atoms rather than splitting them apart, the reaction will simply stop when the conditions for fusion are no longer held. Fusion reactions also produce less radioactive waste that is already less radioactive than the waste produced by fission reactions.
On top of these things fusion reactors have the potential to be significantly more efficient than fission reactors, producing much more power with the same amount of fuel. Using a fission reactor and some uranium oxide fuel equal to the size of a soda can, Grand Valley State University’s campus where I study could be powered for about 8 days. With fusion, it could be powered for several times that with the same soda can of fuel. Fusion reactors would not only provide an enormous improvement on existing nuclear power technology that is in itself reliable and the most environmentally friendly power source, it also does not have the reputation that nuclear fission has earned from tragic events like the Chernobyl disaster and the Three Mile Island accident.
These advancements from fission technology and the feasibility of implementing fusion-powered energy due to their improved safety and generally positive public reputation mean that truly clean and powerful energy is a possibility for America. The NRC’s proposal providing clarity and removing unnecessary licensing requirements thus allowing for an expedited means of implementing fusion power, brings the vast benefits of fusion energy into the near future. Fusion energy would strengthen the United States’ ability to be energy independent, allow the United States to pioneer truly clean energy for the rest of the world, and preserve the beauty of America. It is because of this that I urge the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to approve of this nuclear fusion regulatory framework proposal.
Thank you,
Jasper Gugino
CFACT Collegian, Grand Valley State University”
This spring, students in California and Illinois led nature-focused hikes that brought CFACT’s message directly...
CFACT Collegians Sophie Fuller and Markus Fee of the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga recently...
CFACT Collegian Kaeli McIntyre brought a new kind of energy debate to Clovis Community College...