The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is proposing to do away with a 50-year-old basic safety principle that has minimized the amount of radiation that people in the United States are exposed to and has been adopted around the world.
Currently, facilities such as nuclear power plants, hospitals and academic institutions that use radioactive materials must ensure that radiation exposure is kept “as low as reasonably achievable”, or the ALARA principle. The NRC’s proposal would abandon that philosophy while maintaining a different standard for maximum radiation exposure.
The two standards have worked together in radiation safety. Dose limits set the maximum amount of radiation that the public and radiation workers can be exposed to, and ALARA kept radiation exposure as low as practical within those limits. According to research Radiation exposure increases A person can get cancer, and the risk increases as the dose increases.
Dose limits remain unchanged. But the NRC, which regulates civil nuclear technology and radioactive materials, now wants to replace ALARA with a “tiered approach.” This approach includes several actions that facilities should take depending on the potential radiation dose to workers. If the dose limit is approached, more stringent radiation protection measures will be required to avoid exceeding the dose limit.
President Donald Trump executes an executive order on revitalizing the nuclear industrial base in the Oval Office of the White House on May 23, 2025 in Washington. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci, File)
President Donald Trump executes an executive order on revitalizing the nuclear industrial base in the Oval Office of the White House on May 23, 2025 in Washington. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci, File)
Add AP News to Google
See more stories on Google by adding AP News as your preferred source.
Share Read more
This comes as President Donald Trump attempts to: Quadruple domestic nuclear energy production This is because demand for electricity is rapidly increasing amid the boom in data centers and artificial intelligence. NRC reform is one way President Trump is trying to accelerate nuclear reactor development. In an executive order last year, he directed federal agencies to: Adopt science-based radiation restrictions”
The Department of Energy, which oversees the country’s energy policy, has already suspended the use of ALARA. The NRC is expected to finalize radiation protection regulations in the coming months.
NRC Chairman Ho Nie said the commission has not lowered safety standards.
“We’re just removing ambiguity,” he said on a call with reporters. “But the standards for worker and public exposure haven’t changed. We’re just providing more clarity.”
Nee does not foresee any major changes to the country’s existing large conventional nuclear reactors. But companies designing and building new, smaller nuclear reactors could act more quickly if they had a clearer understanding of radiation protection requirements, he said.
Without ALARA, could radiation doses approach their limits?
The NRC said the radiation exposure limits are set well below levels associated with health effects and that it expects remaining standards and industry practices will result in radiation doses well below the limits. There is an incentive to do so. Working in areas with high radiation levels is more expensive and time-consuming because access is restricted and more investigation is required.
Nuclear industry trade associations agree with the NRC.
Doug True, chief nuclear officer at the Nuclear Energy Association, said: “We continue to look at what we can do to reduce doses to our workers and keep doses to the off-site public as low as possible.” “It’s not just about opening the door and running everything to the limit.”
Justin Friedman, a nuclear energy consultant who previously worked for the U.S. State Department for 30 years, said ALARA created a “moving target” for regulation. He added that eliminating the rule would allow NRC scientists to make more rational decisions about the appropriate level of manageable risk.
Some experts question the wisdom of eliminating ALARA
Four nuclear reactors and cooling towers operate at the Alvin W. Bortle Power Plant in Waynesboro, Georgia, May 31, 2024. (AP Photo/Mike Stewart, File)
Four nuclear reactors and cooling towers operate at the Alvin W. Bortle Power Plant in Waynesboro, Georgia, May 31, 2024. (AP Photo/Mike Stewart, File)
Add AP News to Google
See more stories on Google by adding AP News as your preferred source.
Share Read more
Edwin Lyman, director of nuclear safety for the Union of Concerned Scientists, warned that some of the NRC proposals could potentially raise allowable radiation levels, even if they remain below the cap. Mr. Lyman particularly highlighted the proposed revisions to radionuclide emission standards.
Radiation exposure for the general public is limited to 100 millirem per year. The typical radiation dose from a chest x-ray is 10 millirem.
The NRC wants to raise radionuclide emission standards from a conservative dose of 10 millirem per year to 25 millirem per year, based on a hypothetical person living in a house on the property line of a nuclear power plant.
The NRC says the actual public dose will likely remain much lower because people actually live far from nuclear facilities and benefit from dispersion through the air and water.
To protect the public and workers, the NRC should improve ALARA, not repeal it, Lyman said. Lyman said ALARA is a political target because some people mistakenly believe that radiation exposure must be as low as possible, no matter the cost. In reality, trade-offs are possible.
Katie Huff, a former U.S. assistant secretary for nuclear power, said the requirement could be difficult to regulate in some cases. Huff, a professor and department chair at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, added that further clarification would improve the regulatory environment without harming the public.
However, Huff said he thought the NRC would clarify what reasonable means under ALARA without abolishing it. She said she was positive that a phased approach would be equally effective.
Radiation protection experts say the proposal has pros and cons
The National Radiation Protection Measurements Council, authorized by Congress to provide independent scientific guidance, has not yet formally considered it. Council President Kathryn Higley said there are a few things she personally likes. 180 page document And others think there is a problem.
He said the NRC should consider the big picture for risk management. For example, if workers at a nuclear power plant enter an area where there is radioactive material in the air, they may wear full personal protective equipment with a respirator, according to ALARA, said Higley, a professor emeritus at Oregon State University. That can slow them down and expose them to heat stress, which can cause more damage than even low doses of radiation, she said.
Higley said his concern with the proposal is that it would maintain the current occupational dose limit for adult radiation workers at 5 rem, or 5,000 millirem, per year. With ALARA in place, average doses for workers are well below that cap.
The International Commission on Radiological Protection recommends an average occupational dose of 2 rem per year. of NRC was previously discovered Adjustment was not justified because worker exposures were lower and regulatory changes would be costly.
Higley said the United States may need to align itself with the international community if ALARA is repealed.
___
Associated Press climate and environment reporting receives funding from several private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP standard Please see below for our philanthropic efforts, list of supporters and areas funded. AP.org.
