The Department of Energy Ends ALARA - The National Interest

The National Interest

The National Interest logo

Search...

Submit

Open search interfaceClose search interface

Industry and radiation concept. On the flag of the United States, there is a symbol of radioactivity and a torn cardboard with the inscription – As Low As Reasonably Achievable

Topic: Nuclear Energy

Blog Brand: Energy World

Region: Americas, and North America

Tags: Advanced Nuclear Reactors, Radiation, Regulatory Reform, Small Modular Reactors (SMRs), and United States

The Department of Energy Ends ALARA

January 19, 2026

By: Nick Loris

Share

Share this link on Facebook

Share this page on X (Twitter)

Share this link on LinkedIn

Share this page on Reddit

Email a link to this page

By ending the ALARA principle, DOE opens the door to science-based radiation regulation that could restore nuclear power’s competitiveness.

Last fall, Energy Secretary Chris Wright told the audience at Senator John Curtis’ (R-UT) conservative climate summit that “nuclear is going to become sexy again.” For policy wonks and proponents of modernizing outdated nuclear regulation, there may be nothing sexier than reforming the As Low As Reasonably Achievable (ALARA) principle.

The Linear No-Threshold (LNT) model and the ALARA principle are two elements that have guided US radiation standards for decades. While well-intentioned, outdated radiation standards have imposed unnecessary costs, slowed innovation, and reinforced public fear for years, while providing little to no benefit to the environment or public health. Reform is not merely desirable; it is a strategic necessity and essential for improving the economic outlook for nuclear power.

This week, E&E News reported that the Department of Energy (DOE) will end the use of the ALARA principle. The timing is critical because the United States is striving to meet growing energy needs, accelerate the deployment of advanced reactors, and maintain global leadership in energy innovation. A welcome next step would be for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to follow DOE’s lead.

Background on Radiation Standards in the United States

The LNT hypothesis emerged from experiments on fruit flies in 1927 conducted by Hermann Muller, which showed radiation can induce heritable mutations. Interpreted amid Cold War fears of fallout and atomic weapons, this research shaped the belief that any dose of ionizing radiation increases cancer risk in a linear fashion. In 1956, the Biological Effects of Atomic Radiation (BEAR) report from the National Academy of Sciences institutionalized LNT as the foundation for radiation protection.

Introduced by the NRC in 1975, the ALARA principle was initially meant to apply LNT pragmatically by requiring exposures to be kept “as low as reasonably achievable” while factoring in cost and feasibility.

Over time, however, ALARA lost its balancing intent. Regulatory enforcement increasingly pushed operators to minimize exposures well below natural background radiation levels, regardless of the benefits. These reductions became mandatory for licensing and compliance, fueling a culture of regulatory absolutism.

Trusting the Science

The LNT model is deeply flawed and rife with scandal and deception. Importantly, modern research fundamentally challenges the assumption that risk increases linearly at low doses. Radiobiology shows that cells are not passive victims of radiation damage; they possess complex repair systems and adaptive responses that mitigate low-dose effects.

Epidemiological evidence supports this shift. Populations in Kerala, India, exposed to natural radiation levels up to 80 times higher than average, show no increased cancer rates. Studies of nuclear shipyard workers also reveal no significant increase in risk at low exposures. Reports from the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) conclude that applying linear risk models at these doses is scientifically unjustified and may significantly overestimate risk.

As Emily Caffey, a radiation health physicist and assistant professor at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, told E&ENews, “ALARA has been misapplied across the board in a lot of different areas, and it has cost taxpayers a lot of money, and it has caused a lot of unnecessary fear in the public by saying, ‘Well, any little bit of radiation dose is going to give you a cancer,’ which is just fundamentally not true.”

ALARA Makes Nuclear Unnecessarily More Expensive

Maintaining ultra-conservative standards is enormously costly as compliance with ALARA balloons construction and operating budgets of nuclear power plants. Similarly, expenditures for decommissioning and waste management projects are driven by thresholds disconnected from actual health risk.

The Department of Energy has repeatedly faced cost escalations in cleanup projects, where...