President Trump thinks the US nuclear revival is running into too much red tape. That’s why he’s directing the NRC to curb the costs and regulatory hurdles impeding his goal to quadruple US nuclear capacity by 2050.
The NRC’s response: The agency has suggested a whole host of regulatory shifts—including modifying some radiation protections for workers and the public. In a July proposal, the agency suggested scrapping ALARA, a safety principle to keep radiation levels “as low as reasonably achievable.”
Why the switch-up? ALARA creates a “regulatory burden that is not commensurate with the resulting public health and safety benefit,” according to the NRC. While plenty of nuclear experts support the principle, some have noted that it’s confusing and can raise operating costs.
The replacement: The agency wants to use a graded approach, where it would define the radiation doses (all below the current legal limit) at which plant operators must take certain protective measures. The NRC claims this would be easier and cheaper to roll out than ALARA.
The industry POV: Some nuclear heavyweights and startups support the NRC’s proposal. Westinghouse claimed that ALARA prompts high costs and delays, while Kairos Power said the alternative floated by the NRC “has the potential to better focus resources on activities that are most important to radiation protection outcomes.”
The issue: The NRC has offered scant specifics on this graded approach, said Patrick White, a nuclear engineer and expert with the Clean Air Task Force. This has left the industry and the public in the dark.
But the NRC has publicized the financial incentives. The agency claims that eliminating ALARA could save the industry roughly $9.5M/year.
Yes, but: That’s chump change in the nuclear world. In 2025, total US nuclear generation cost roughly $29B, according to EIA data.
Plus, the switch could come with major risks, including:
Increasing radiation exposure: While doses received by workers and the public would likely remain below the legal limit, more exposure is possible. In fact, the graded approach could “just invite more careless practices,” said Edwin Lyman, director of nuclear power safety at the Union of Concerned Scientists.
Testing public trust: “You hear the NRC is cutting radiation protection standards so it can build more nuclear power plants in your backyard—and that doesn't build trust and support,” White said.
Slowing speed-to-power: The shifts are also likely to increase regulatory uncertainty, and could delay the development of new nuclear tech, White wrote in a comment to the NRC on behalf of the Clean Air Task Force.
The bottom line: The NRC’s proposal probably won’t “have a meaningful impact on either the deployment of nuclear energy or the cost,” White told us.