Everstar News | Nuclear AI, Licensing & Compliance

Recent news coverage reports that the Department of Energy has terminated its decades-old ALARA (As Low As Is Reasonably Achievable) radiation safety standard. This is certainly an important moment for nuclear safety, but the full picture is more nuanced. The path to meaningful change is longer and more complex than many realize.

What's Being Reported?

According to E&E News reporting from January 12, 2026, Energy Secretary Chris Wright ended DOE's use of the ALARA principle. The article cites "a person familiar with the Trump administration's nuclear policy, granted anonymity to discuss sensitive issues," who confirmed that Wright decided to remove ALARA from DOE regulations with plans for a "subsequent process to decide replacement standards."

As of this writing, DOE has not publicly confirmed this action or released official documentation. We're working from news reporting with anonymous sources, not official DOE announcements or Federal Register notices.

But assuming it's true (and I believe it), here's the critical point: this would only affect DOE. It's not a final rule change across the federal government, and it doesn't affect the broader regulatory landscape—at least not yet.

The Interagency Reality: It's Complicated

The nuclear industry doesn't operate under a single regulator. Multiple federal agencies have jurisdiction over different aspects of radiation protection:

NRC (Nuclear Regulatory Commission): Regulates commercial nuclear power plants
EPA (Environmental Protection Agency): Sets environmental radiation standards
DOT (Department of Transportation): Regulates radioactive material transportation
DOL/OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration): Worker safety standards
DOD, DHS, HHS: Various other radiation-related authorities

These agencies coordinate through ISCORS (Interagency Steering Committee on Radiation Standards), established in 1995 to "facilitate consensus on acceptable levels of radiation risk to the public and workers" and "promote consistent risk approaches in setting and implementing standards."

ISCORS membership includes EPA, NRC, DOE, DOW, DHS, DOT, DOL/OSHA, and HHS, with observers from OMB, OSTP, and DNFSB. For true regulatory conformity across the federal government, all of these agencies would need to align their regulations—a process that historically took years.

The NRC hasn't changed its rules. While President Trump's Executive Order 14300 (issued May 2025) directed the NRC to conduct a "wholesale revision" of radiation protection standards, that rulemaking process is ongoing. The NRC still requires ALARA compliance under 10 CFR 20.1101(b), which states that licensees "shall use, to the extent practical, procedures and engineering controls based upon sound radiation protection principles to achieve occupational doses that are as low as is reasonably achievable."

The Real Driver: Nuclear's Culture of Excellence

Here's what makes this even more interesting: even if DOE, NRC, EPA, and other agencies all eliminated ALARA from their regulations, the nuclear industry would likely continue many ALARA practices anyway.

INPO (Institute of Nuclear Power Operations) is a non-governmental organization that sets excellence standards for its member utilities. This is, of course, a good thing in the abstract, but it drives real costs. Plants strive for top INPO ratings, which reward continuous improvement and safety behaviors that go well beyond regulatory requirements.

Consider the current state of operations:

Regulatory limit: 5 rem/year for workers
Typical administrative limits at plants: 1-2 rem/year (20-40% of regulatory limit)
Industry practice: Plants install extensive equipment (temporary shielding, flushing systems, etc.) to minimize dose during outages
INPO impact: The difference between an INPO rating of 1 versus 2 can hinge on dose reduction performance

Plants don't just meet ALARA—they compete to exceed it.

The Cost-Benefit Question Nobody's Asking

The real debate should be about reasonableness. Current ALARA implementation sometimes leads to scenarios where:

10+ man-hours are spent to save 1 millirem of dose
Thousands of dollars in equipment and planning go toward avoiding 5-20 millirem
Workers spend extensive time in preparation that may actually increase other safety risks

Is this reasonable? Under a revised framework, the calculation changes:

Current approach: Shield the room, do extensive surveys, install temporary systems → worker receives 5 mrem
Potential new approach: Accept that 20 mrem is reasonable for the task, plan accordingly, execute efficiently → worker receives 20 mrem but completes work faster with less complexity

The question isn't whether we should abandon radiation protection—it's whether we should recalibrate what "reasonably achievable" means in practice. For context, the average American receives about 620 mrem per year from all sources (natural background, medical procedures, etc.). The debate is about whether spending enormous resources to avoid 5-20 mrem in an occupational setting makes sense.

What This Means for the Industry

Even if ALARA is removed from federal regulations, I predict:

INPO standards will continue to drive excellence - Member utilities will maintain robust dose reduction programs to achieve top ratings
Administrative limits will remain - Plants set their own limits well below regulatory thresholds (1-2 rem vs. 5 rem regulatory limit)
Safety culture won't disappear - Decades of continuous improvement culture don't evaporate with a regulatory change
Interagency coordination takes time - Full regulatory alignment across DOE, NRC, EPA, DOT, etc. through ISCORS can be a lengthy process involving public comment, rulemaking, and coordination
The real impact may be at DOE facilities - National labs, weapons facilities, and DOE cleanup sites (like Hanford) may see the most immediate operational changes if the reported DOE action is confirmed

What I'm Watching

As this situation develops, several key questions remain:

Will DOE officially confirm and document this change? We need to see the actual order, memo, or Federal Register notice.
What replacement standards will DOE adopt? The reporting indicates a "subsequent process" to decide this.
Will other agencies follow? The NRC's ongoing regulatory review is the key one to watch for commercial nuclear.
How will ISCORS facilitate coordination? The interagency process will be critical for any government-wide changes.
How will industry respond? Will utilities maintain current practices due to INPO expectations, or will operational approaches shift?

The Path Forward

If the reported DOE action is confirmed, it represents a significant policy shift—but it's just the beginning of a longer conversation. For meaningful change across the nuclear enterprise:

NRC must complete its regulatory review and rulemaking process under EO 14300
Other agencies must align their standards through ISCORS
Industry must determine how to balance any regulatory changes with INPO expectations and safety culture
Public comment and stakeholder engagement will be essential

The real question isn't whether ALARA is good or bad—it's whether our current implementation represents the right balance between radiation protection and operational efficiency. That's a conversation worth having, but it requires understanding the full complexity of the regulatory landscape and the powerful role that industry standards play in driving behavior.

As we watch this unfold, remember: regulatory change is just one piece of the puzzle. Culture, industry standards, and operational philosophy will ultimately determine how the nuclear industry manages radiation protection in practice.