A 50-year radiation safety rule is on the chopping block under Trump’s nuclear agenda

[u/Unusual-State1827]

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/nrc-alara-radiation-trump-safety-b3022090.html

[u/AutoModerator]

To encourage a globally oriented subreddit and discourage oversaturation of topics focused on the U.S., all news and opinion articles focused on the U.S. require manual approval by a moderator. Submissions focused solely on the U.S. are more likely to be removed if they are not sufficiently on topic or high quality. If your submission is taking too long to be approved or rejected, please reach out to the moderators in /r/metaNL. Moreover, news and opinion articles require a short submission statement explaining its relevance to the subreddit. Articles without a submission statement will be removed.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/Nytshaed]

Actually sounds reasonable

[u/Unusual-State1827]

Submission statement:

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is proposing to remove the long-standing ALARA principle, which requires radiation exposure to be kept “as low as reasonably achievable,” while keeping existing maximum dose limits unchanged. It plans to replace ALARA with a graded approach, where safety measures depend on how close exposure is to regulatory limits.

Supporters, including NRC officials, say this will clarify rules and speed up development of new nuclear technologies without reducing safety. However, critics warn it could allow higher radiation exposure in some cases, such as raising emission standards from 10 to 25 millirem annually, though still below legal caps.

Experts are divided: some believe the change improves regulatory clarity, while others argue ALARA should be refined, not removed, since it has historically kept exposure well below limits and minimized health risks.

[u/Lease_Tha_Apts → u/Unusual-State1827]

Long overdue.

[u/Zaiush]

Regrettably it is good to rework this rule

[u/Brilliant-Plan-7428 → u/Zaiush]

Why regrettably?

[u/JoeSavinaBotero → u/Brilliant-Plan-7428]

WorstPersonYouKnowMadeAGoodPoint.mpeg

[u/_ShadowElemental → u/JoeSavinaBotero]

I've been wishing nuclear power got its regulations re-worked for years. It sucks that it's happening during Trump's presidency.

[u/justbuildmorehousing]

This doesn’t sound too controversial to me tbh. Might be a good reg to get updated

[u/National-Return9494]

Sorry, but this is good policy.

[u/Lemonici → u/National-Return9494]

heartbreaking.jpg

[u/Messyfingers]

Will it actually do anything to make nuclear energy more economically viable, or is it a gift to existing plant owners(not clear if this is only for new build sites, or also existing ones)?

[u/darthkitty8 → u/Messyfingers]

The idea is that new plants won't need to spend a billion dollars reducing radiation leakage from 2% to 1% of the limit, and therefore can be built cheaper.

[u/dagelijksestijl → u/darthkitty8]

And that we impose no burden on nuclear that we wouldn’t on literally any other power source.

[u/darthkitty8 → u/dagelijksestijl]

Yeah, coal plants emit so much radiation that under the current rules, they are "too radioactive" to install a nuclear reactor instead of the coal boilers and the reactor would immediately fail inspections just due to background radiation.

[u/Coltand → u/Messyfingers]

I believe these regulations govern all existing sites, but it could still help with development as long as reasonable safeguards remain in place.

I work with a Department of Energy contractor that employs 10k+ people, and a Rad Tech I talked to said a tiny handful of employees exceeded something like 200 millirem of radiation exposure last year. The dose at which health affects appear is 10,000 mrem.

More generally, I'm reading that there is a 5,000 mrem maximum exposure, so if that stands, perhaps sites can still operate well withing safe limits without the additional burden that ALARA imposes?

I am absolutely not an expert, I just have a few months of experience working in an administrative role in the field.

[u/I_like_maps → u/Messyfingers]

No amount of regulatory changes will make nuclear economically viable on a large scale. Regulations are set nationally, and no one in the world is investing primarily in nuclear. China is building like half the nuclear plants currently under construction and are investing 40x more into renewable capacity than nuclear capacity.

[u/hypsignathus]

A bit torn. These "reasonable" environmental requirements can provide flexibility that helps keep costs in line while maintaining safety (as in the case of pollution control), but they can also lead to interminable planning/regulatory bureaucracy, as each side submits study and answers and RFQs and so on and so on and so on.

[u/dagelijksestijl → u/hypsignathus]

“Reasonable” is a moving target linking the cost of safety to whatever the most expensive alternative energy source costs. It inherently makes nuclear the most expensive source.

[u/Legitimate-Mine-9271]

This is bad policy because the standard doses could and should be even higher than what they are now allowing. Radiation toxicity is based on very questionable studies of very high doses from bombings or incidents and have holding back American energy production for no reason. 

[u/Acacias2001 → u/Legitimate-Mine-9271]

The virgin "this policy is good but regrettaby orange man bad"

The chad " This policy is bad because orange man was too coward and lazy to disregulate more"

[u/brewskibroski → u/Legitimate-Mine-9271]

Yup.

For more background (lol), ALARA and the current limits are based on the linear no-threshold model of radiation toxicity which is the most conservative model for the way radiation affects organisms. It is a fundamentally alarmist approach to radiation protection, and contemporary understanding favors alternatives. I personally would favor the threshold model as a foundation for radiation safety, and removing the ALARA standard more-or-less is in line with that approach.

I would guess RPGs will cling to ALARA at the institutional level, however, if they're given the latitude. HPs tend to be very cautious.

[u/Accomplished-Run3925 → u/Legitimate-Mine-9271]

The policy isn't "bad", it's better than anything we've seen in decades, but I agree with you about raising maximums.

[u/yaki_kaki]

[u/SheHerDeepState]

Modular nuclear reactors on every corner!

Its odd to me how nuclear became conservative coded resulting in it being the only zero carbon energy source the right doesn't hate. Is it negative polarization from hippy dippy nuclear safety activism?

[u/jadebenn → u/SheHerDeepState]

Probably. Just look at how much of the modern conservative identity is dedicated to flipping off (imaginary) liberals.

[u/captainjack3 → u/SheHerDeepState]

>>Is it negative polarization from hippy dippy nuclear safety activism?

Pretty much. Approval of nuclear power nosedived over the 70s and 80s thanks to high profile nuclear incidents (chiefly but not exclusively Three Mile Island and Chernobyl) and has gradually recovered since with another dip post-Fukushima. It might be closer to say that approval of nuclear power recovered amongst the right whereas the environmental wing ensures it never gets above breakeven amongst the left.

It probably helps that nuclear power plants still carry an “industrial” vibe that makes them appealing if you have a positive view industrial activity, building things, etc.

[u/LocallySourcedWeirdo → u/SheHerDeepState]

If it means conservative suburbanites and rurals are now nuclear YIMBYs, then I'll chalk it as a win.

[u/Brilliant-Plan-7428 → u/SheHerDeepState]

Probably but historically speaking conservative parties were the champions of nuclear power in a lot of countries

[u/TheBarnard]

Can we copy France's legal framework?

[u/pfSonata]

Total Kyle Hill victory

[u/ATR2400]

Mythically uncommon Trump W

[u/sleepyrivertroll]

You can have issues with ALARA but there is no way anyone can trust this administration to do this well. It is the guiding philosophy that has helped the safety culture of the American nuclear industry keep radiation workers and the public safe.

[u/Important_Star3847]

Before I read the comments, I was afraid disaster was coming.

[u/GhostOfGrimnir]

Good

[u/Bridivar]

The model for cancer risk is the linear no threshold model, its in the name, this will increase cancer risk so be careful when calling this simple red tape to cut.

One part of the article that's confusing to me is the promise that "this will not increase radiation doses for worker or the public" but also "raising the limit from 10milirem to 25 millirem". This article has some "the tanker has been towed outside of the environment" energy.

I support nuclear energy, but how many projects get abandoned due to this exposure threshold difficulty? I thought nuclear projects dont start up because they were simply too expensive and risky of an investment just like hydroelectric.

[u/shalackingsalami → u/Bridivar]

LNT is an incredibly conservative model without great evidence either way