nuclear-news

Changes to radiation protection in the USA -could have been worse but are still bad

Tony Webb 2 July 26

The US NRC has now released its proposed revisions to radiation protection standards
mandated by President Trump’s 2025 Directive (EO14300). It could have been worse. The
proposals do not completely abandon the established principle that there is no safe level of
exposure in favour of the contested view that low level exposures are ‘beneficial’. They do
not propose raising the existing permissible limits on exposure for workers and the public.
They do however abandon other important principles such as that all exposures should be
kept as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA) and give the nuclear industry flexible options
for a whole range of ‘operating procedures’ that can be used to control and limit exposures

– all overtly designed to ease the regulatory burden on the industry.

While repeatedly claiming that existing standards are already  “conservative” these US
regulations already permit higher exposures than recommended internationally. The US 5
Rem (50 mSv ) occupational exposure limit is 2.5 times greater than the internationally
recommended limit used in most countries. Far from placing the proposals in the context of
the scientific evidence the proposals refer only to the outdated and flawed Life-span studies
of the Japanese bomb survivors who received high doses over short time periods rather
than studies of populations receiving low doses over longer time periods. In the whole 180-
page document outlining the proposed new regs I could not find a single mention of the
INWORKS studies of European and US nuclear plant workers that show the current
international standards underestimate the current internationally accepted level of
radiation-induced cancer risks used to set occupational exposure limits.

There is also no
mention of the increased risks for cardio-vascular diseases and dementia faced by such
workers and no mention of the studies of populations living close to nuclear plants that
show higher cancer rates – increasing the closer people live to these facilities. Buried in the
detail where devils usually hide there are also proposals that would weaken the so called
‘planned special exposures’ limits – the carve out that is used in the USA and elsewhere to
permit hiring of casual workers as ‘radiation sponges’ for the radiation-dirty jobs in annual
shutdown maintenance and clean-up operations for nuclear power plants. A closer reading
will probably reveal a more concerns but overall, the NRC proposals represent a significant
weakening of US standards that need to be opposed both within the USA and globally lest
they lead to weakening of standards or operating procedures for protection in other
countries. Other countries have reason to worry that joint operations with the USA (like the
Australian AUKUS nuclear submarine deal) and shared technologies that use these weaker
NRC standards as the basis for their design will be used as a backdoor for relaxation of
protection standards worldwide. US groups and others interested have 45 days to register
objections with the NRC to this latest Trump Dictated obscenity. Comments must be
submitted electronically using https://www.regulations.gov

On the positive side the legitimate concerns raised by these US proposals provide unions,
public health and environment groups in all countries with a ‘calling card’ to raise the demand with our national protection agencies for improved regulations for occupational
and public exposures in line with the available scientific evidence that shows current
standards need to be significantly tightened.

July 8, 2026 - Posted by Christina Macpherson | radiation, USA