NRC Considers Revamping Radiation Protection Standards
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) wants to change a vital safety guideline known for reducing radiation exposure in the U.S. for the last 50 years. Facilities using radioactive materials, like nuclear plants and hospitals, currently aim to keep radiation exposures ‘as low as reasonably achievable’ (ALARA). The NRC now proposes to leave this principle behind while holding onto maximum radiation exposure limits. Traditionally, these two standards ensure radiation safety: dose limits cap exposure levels, and ALARA keeps them as minimal as possible.
Research indicates a correlation between radiation exposure and cancer risk, which grows with higher doses. The dose limits will remain the same. However, the NRC proposes a ‘graded approach.’ This requires facilities to take specific actions based on potential radiation exposure to workers. This plan mandates more stringent safety measures as exposure nears the dose limits, ensuring they aren’t exceeded.
This initiative aligns with President Donald Trump’s effort to increase domestic nuclear energy output due to rising electricity demand. He aims to streamline nuclear reactor development, partly by pushing for science-based radiation limits, as noted in his executive order to the NRC. The Department of Energy has already stopped using ALARA. The NRC expects to finalize these changes soon.
Chairman Ho Nieh of the NRC denies compromising safety. He emphasizes that the change clarifies standards without altering public and worker exposure levels. He anticipates minimal shifts in current nuclear reactors. However, new, smaller reactor designs could advance faster with clearer requirements.
There is concern that removing ALARA could bring radiation levels closer to legal limits. The NRC counters this by stating that existing standards and industry norms should keep radiation far below hazardous levels. High-radiation areas incur higher operational costs and stricter access, discouraging close-to-limit dosages.
Doug True, chief nuclear officer at the Nuclear Energy Institute, insists the industry will continue minimizing exposure. ALARA’s removal will not lead to unchecked radiation levels. Justin Friedman, a nuclear energy consultant, supports removing ALARA, which he describes as creating regulatory uncertainty. Without it, the NRC can make informed decisions on acceptable risk levels.
Some experts worry. Edwin Lyman, with the Union of Concerned Scientists, cautions against raising permissible doses too close to the limit. The NRC wants to increase radionuclide emissions standards from 10 to 25 millirem per year, estimating lower real-world exposure due to distance and environmental factors. Lyman argues for improving ALARA instead of eliminating it.
Katy Huff, formerly with the U.S. Department of Energy, notes that while ALARA might be tough to regulate, its removal should make regulations clearer and safer. Still, she suggests clarifying rather than axing ALARA.
The National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements has not formally responded yet. Its president, Kathryn Higley, sees both positives and negatives in the new proposal. She points out that personal protective policies, which may help workers avoid harmful exposure, could potentially cause other health issues, like heat stress. The concern lies with the current occupational exposure cap of 5 rem per year, with ALARA keeping actual doses much lower.
Aligning with the international community’s average recommended dose of 2 rem per year remains questionable without ALARA. If the U.S. removes ALARA, it may face pressure to update to global standards to better protect workers.
The Associated Press provides financial support for climate and environmental reporting through private foundations while maintaining editorial freedom. Details on standards and funding can be found at AP.org.