Reducing Radiation Standards Is Okay

Billions of dollars spent mitigating negligible amounts of radiation only prevent us from having affordable, carbon-free energy.

By Taylor Tougaw, Director of Government Affairs at the American Conservation Coalition Action (ACC Action)

Much ado has been made about the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s draft proposal to end LNT ALARA requirements in nuclear generation and research facilities. LNT ALARA stands for Linear No-Threshold, As Low As Reasonably Achievable, and it refers to safety protocols that workers need to abide by to reduce as much risk as possible to get the job done. No-Threshold means that any exposure to radiation, no matter how small, is a health risk. It assumes that there is no threshold at which radiation exposure is safe. The Linear portion means that risk increases linearly with increased exposure. ‘As Low As Reasonably Achievable’ is thus a policy that seeks to expose workers to the lowest amount of radiation that can possibly be achieved in completing a job. This involves using expensive robots for some jobs, requiring robust PPE for humans, and billions of dollars worth of duplicative infrastructure to shield communities from radiation. Sounds reasonable, right?

The strategy falls apart when one realizes that, in fact, there is a safe threshold for radiation exposure. We receive doses of radiation constantly, whether it be from medical diagnostic tools like X-rays, the radon in our homes, or from general background radiation that exists everywhere in the universe. According to the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, one receives 1,000 millirems(mrem) of radiation in a CT scan. One can also expect to receive about 228 mrem from radon in your home each year. Surprisingly, the average U.S. adult will be exposed to 310 mrem of ionizing radiation each year simply from background cosmic radiation. To put this in perspective, living near a nuclear plant results in less than 1 mrem each year. Of course, exposure increases dramatically for workers inside these plants, but even a ten-fold increase in mrem exposure for workers doesn’t come anywhere near the normal and safe level of background radiation that we all experience each day. Thus, billions of dollars spent mitigating negligible amounts of radiation only prevent us from having affordable, carbon-free energy and do nothing to mitigate risks to workers.

Imagine, if you will, that we applied the LNT ALARA model to our own lives. We could, for example, approach germs with the same mentality. Under an LNT ALARA model, we could assume that all germs are bad, no matter the quantity or type. Therefore, we would wear a mask 24/7, reduce all personal physical interactions, never take public transportation, and constantly apply hand sanitizing gel wherever we go. This lifestyle would undoubtedly kill us; the vast majority of bacteria and viruses are benign, and many are actually beneficial. Exposure to these germs is worth the risk to live a fulfilling, normal life. On top of that, the continued cost of masks, soap, sanitizers, and other PPE would bankrupt us.

In the nuclear world, this is exactly what happens. Jobs that could be done by one person, which may involve exposure of around 300 mrem (one CT scan), are currently split between three people so as to spread the time spent exposed to radiation. This costs plants three times as much money and time. Billions of dollars are spent on duplicative shielding and concrete barriers that only reduce risk by fractions of a percentage, if at all. Workers are forced to wear PPE like gas masks in areas where radiation exposure is actually below naturally occurring background levels. ALARA also treats tools and PPE (like the already unnecessary gas masks) used in nuclear areas as radioactive waste, which requires extensive and extremely expensive decommissioning processes, despite the fact that the tools are often used in areas with extremely low levels of radiation.

The ALARA regulations, passed in 1975, had an immediate and dramatic effect. Between 1973 and 1980, the cubic yards of concrete in nuclear reactors increased from 90,000 to 162,000. The number of man-hours per kilowatt-hour of energy generated surged from 9.6 in 1972 to 28.5 in 1980. The Sequoyah Nuclear Plant in Tennessee, scheduled for completion in 1973 at a cost of $300 million, was completed for $1.7 billion in 1981, after 23 changes to structure or components were requested by the regulator.

Of course, you won’t read any of this granular thinking in the mainstream media. Let us take the opening line of a recent POLITICO article, for example:

“The principle that radiation exposure should be as low as possible to protect human health has endured at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for more than half a century. The NRC is now taking its first steps to end that standard.”

This type of doomsday rhetoric underscores not only how little the general public understands about these regulations but also the extent to which this decision has become politicized rather than being based on scientific evidence. Removing radiation protections appears, on its face, to be wanton ignorance of the dangers of nuclear energy, and the mainstream media relishes any chance it gets to attack the current administration. By framing ALARA regulations as some sort of sacrosanct, timeless provision, they errantly show their bias. There is little reverence, and perhaps scorn, for much older laws, so this narrative very obviously shows that the clear disdain is motivated by something other than the science.

Thankfully, there are incredibly smart people working hard behind the scenes on these issues. In January, Secretary Wright issued a memorandum that ended all ALARA protocols at DOE, citing a 2025 report by the Idaho National Laboratory that recommended the cessation of ALARA requirements. The Nuclear Innovation Alliance puts its best when they say we ought to “mend, and not end,” the programs. While exposure to extra levels of radiation certainly does carry a risk, there is a safe threshold at which there is a negligible risk. By reducing the draconian and costly requirements for practices under acceptable risk thresholds, we can significantly cut down on the cost and time of building the reactors our nation so desperately needs.

Taylor Tougaw is the Director of Government Affairs at the American Conservation Coalition Action (ACC Action).