The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has proposed eliminating the "as low as reasonably achievable" (ALARA) principle, a radiation safety standard that has guided regulatory practices for nearly five decades. ALARA requires facilities—such as nuclear power plants, hospitals, and academic institutions that use radioactive materials—to maintain radiation exposures at the lowest practicable levels, even when exposures fall below established regulatory limits. The NRC seeks to replace this principle with a new “graded approach,” which would tailor protective measures based on the potential radiation dose to workers, while retaining existing dose limits for the public and occupational exposure.

ALARA has been a foundational element of radiation safety worldwide, complementing dose limits that set maximum allowable exposures. Research shows that radiation exposure positively correlates with increased cancer risk, making the principle a precautionary measure designed to minimize public and worker doses well below those limits. The NRC’s proposed change comes amid efforts by President Donald Trump’s administration to expand domestic nuclear energy production in response to rising electricity demand driven by data centers and artificial intelligence growth. An executive order signed last year directed the NRC to “adopt science-based radiation limits” to facilitate faster deployment of new nuclear reactors.

NRC Chairman Ho Nieh indicated the revision is not intended to lower safety standards but to provide clearer regulatory guidance, reducing ambiguities associated with ALARA. He suggested the new framework would have little impact on existing large reactors but could accelerate the development of smaller advanced reactors by providing clearer radiation protection expectations. The commission plans to finalize the rule in the coming months.

Industry representatives generally support the proposal. Doug True, chief nuclear officer at the Nuclear Energy Institute, said the sector remains committed to minimizing radiation doses to workers and the public, emphasizing that operations will not simply run up to regulatory limits. Some experts argue that ALARA created a “moving target” for regulators, complicating consistent decision-making. Justin Friedman, a nuclear energy consultant and former U.S. State Department official, believes removing ALARA will help regulatory scientists better assess manageable risks on a scientific basis.

However, critics warn the proposal could potentially raise permissible radiation doses in some cases while remaining below dose caps. Edwin Lyman, director of nuclear power safety at the Union of Concerned Scientists, pointed to a specific NRC proposal to increase radionuclide emission limits from 10 to 25 millirem per year for a hypothetical individual living at the property line of nuclear facilities. The NRC asserts that actual exposures would remain lower due to population distributions and environmental dispersion.

Lyman and others argue the NRC should enhance rather than discard ALARA to ensure continued protection of workers and the public. They note ALARA allows risk management trade-offs rather than demanding exposures be minimized without regard to cost or practicality, a nuance that has sometimes been misunderstood in political debates.

Kathryn Higley, president of the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, said the NRC’s proposal presents both beneficial clarity and potential concerns. She highlighted the importance of balancing radiation protection with other occupational hazards, such as heat stress caused by wearing full protective gear in radioactive environments. Higley also noted the U.S. occupational dose limit of 5 rem per year is higher than the international average recommendation of 2 rem, and that alignment with global standards could become a topic of future discussion if ALARA is removed.

Former U.S. assistant secretary for nuclear energy Katy Huff welcomed regulatory clarity but expressed uncertainty whether scrapping ALARA entirely would maintain the same level of effectiveness, stating she was initially expecting refinement rather than elimination of the principle.

Overall, the NRC’s proposal reflects a broader shift in regulatory approach amid changing energy priorities, seeking to balance radiation protection with operational efficiency. The debate continues among regulators, industry, and safety advocates about the best way to protect workers and the public from radiation risks while facilitating nuclear energy expansion.