ALARA – As Low As Reasonably Achievable

Mark Hinaman

January 8, 2023

•

min read

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) long ago adopted a policy referred to as ALARA (acronym for “as low as reasonably achievable”). The spirit of ALARA was to protect humans, both workers and members of the public, from dangerous levels of radiation. Tragically, what began as a well intentioned policy has essentially destroyed what could be the most valuable industry on earth: clean, reliable, deployable, emission free power.

Let’s discuss the meaning of the phrase, what it was trying to protect against, how it’s failed, and what we can do to change it.

Definition

In Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 20 acts as the defining pillar for standards protecting against radiation. ALARA is defined in the opening sections, and then it’s used or referenced over 20 times through the remainder of the nearly 1,700 pages of federal regulations governing nuclear activity.

Here’s the definition directly from the CFRs:

ALARA (acronym for “as low as is reasonably achievable”) means making every reasonable effort to maintain exposures to radiation as far below the dose limits in this part as is practical consistent with the purpose for which the licensed activity is undertaken, taking into account the state of technology, the economics of improvements in relation to state of technology, the economics of improvements in relation to benefits to the public health and safety, and other societal and socioeconomic considerations, and in relation to utilization of nuclear energy and licensed materials in the public interest.

We’ll dissect this piece by piece, but let’s start with a few questions:

What does reasonably achievable mean?
What economic metrics or hurdles need to be met to qualify improvements?
How do improvements improve public health and safety if they’re made?
What other societal an socioeconomic considerations are there? I.e. What is the purpose for which the licensed activity is undertaken?
1. Solve climate change. If that’s the purpose
2. Improvements don’t provide additional benefits to public health. They detract from it. Most requirements above what can be found in a coal fired power plant is simply unnecessary. We haven’t had a member of the public in the United States hurt from radiation from nuclear power.

Protection

Again, the spirit of the rule was to keep both workers and the public safe from harmful levels of radiation exposure. This makes sense to a limit; however, left unchecked, it has the potential to go far beyond a rational benefit.

What does reasonably achievable mean? In the words of Jack Devanney, one of the leaders of ThorCon, it’s as much as you can afford:

“Because during that 70s, when the prices costs were worked out being up, the regulation was matching it under ALARA. As low as reasonably achievable means really means as what can you afford, sir? Yeah, if you’re gonna afford it, then you have to do it. And of course, the regulatory ratchet only goes one way. So at the end of the boom, nuclear had these super high costs and couldn’t recover.” -Jack Devanney, Decouple Podcast (transcript), published June 16, 2021

The way the rule is scripted does not take a holistic view of energy, emissions, or the benefit to public health. If it did, the limits would be pealed back to promote more nuclear power.

Are the dose limits appropriate? The annual dose limits vary for different members of the public. For radiation workers, it’s 5 rem (or 5,000 mrem). Here’s a quick table showing dose limits for works and the public:

If you’re unfamiliar with radiation doses, I recommend you check out this quick video explaining them. Part 2 is also good. Whether or not these dose limits are set appropriately is a much debated issue and outside of the scope of ALARA.

Economics of Improvements for State of Technology

Let’s address this from the perspective of microreactors. Micro-nuclear reactors (defined generally as 1 – 20 MW) are a technology that’s new to the commercial industry. No micro-nuclear power reactor has been deployed yet for commercial use, and the largest economic hurdle standing in the way of deploying these reactors is the regulatory burden to license them. Consequently, ALARA essentially shouldn’t apply.

I’ve spoken with mining companies, government agencies, oil and gas service companies, and investors who would be ecstatic to have the benefits of nuclear power reactors on their properties; however, the biggest risk to them is not the technology, liability insurance, or public perception. The biggest risk to them is the permitting process to actually license the machines. They cannot accept an indeterminate timeline with ill-defined bounds of how long a specific process is going to take. Because the timeline to license a reactor is undetermined, the maximum amount of time must be considered in the economic calculation. If the amount of time required to license the reactor exceeds the projected payback period, then the project is uneconomic.

As such, under the current regulatory regime, microreactors – in the state they’re in – are not economic to license. If the interpretation of ALARA changed to alleviate many of the existing requirements, then they easily could be.

Fortunately, the NRC is actively exploring this as they outline in their Micro-Reactor Licensing Strategies White Paper (emphasis ours):

“The NRC staff has identified several actions that could streamline the environmental review of micro-reactor applications. These actions include the recent issuance of guidance to applicants and NRC staff on the conduct of environmental reviews for advanced non-LWRs and micro- reactors, development of a GEIS for advanced nuclear reactor applications, a proposed rulemaking that would codify the generic findings of the advanced nuclear reactor (ANR) GEIS, and a potential rulemaking that would streamline 10 CFR Part 51, including a potential revision to 10 CFR 51.20(b) that would allow the NRC to prepare an EA for certain types of reactor applications (e.g., micro-reactors) rather than an EIS…

…As described in the staff’s proposal to revise and update 10 CFR Part 51 and associated guidance (SECY-21-0001, “Rulemaking Plan—Transforming the NRC’s Environmental Review Process,” dated December 31, 2020 (ADAMS Accession No. ML20212L393)), the staff has identified 10 CFR 51.20(b) as a candidate for potential streamlining revisions. In 10 CFR 51.20(b), the NRC lists several categories of licensing actions that the Commission has determined require an EIS, including issuance of permits and licenses for power reactors. Based upon over 40 years of NRC regulatory experience, the staff has determined that an EA may suffice to meet NEPA requirements for the evaluation and disclosure of environmental impacts for some categories of licensing applications that currently fall within the scope of 10 CFR 51.20(b). The staff would then prepare an EIS only for applications in which it could not make a finding of no significant impact (FONSI). Based on its experience with environmental reviews of large LWRs, the staff has determined that an EA may be appropriate for some advanced reactor applications with limited expected environmental impacts, such as those involving the deployment and operation of micro-reactors.” –Micro-reactors Licensing Strategies, ML21235A418, accessed Jan. 7, 2023

This is meaningful, and the implications should be explored in a separate post. It’s included here for reference.

Economics of Improvements in Relation to the Benefit of Public Health

This is perhaps the most bizarre section of the ALARA definition. In Part 20 it directly states, “[As Low As Reasonably Achievable] means making every reasonable effort to maintain exposures to radiation as far below the dose limits in this part as is practical consistent with the purpose for which the licensed activity is undertaken, taking into account…the economics of improvements in relation to benefits to the public health and safety,…”

Let’s break this down linearly:

The licensed activity is to commercially generate deployable, affordable, and clean (read: carbon and emission free) electricity, heat, and/or power utilizing fissionable material as the primary heat source.
The purpose for which the licensed activity is undertaken is to better human lives by making their electricity cheaper, their air cleaner, and their power dependable.
“Improvements” at nuclear power stations in relation to the benefits of public health and safety have cost the nuclear industry more money and haven’t actually improved benefits to public health.
1. Installing additional back-up safety equipment makes the power plants more expensive.
2. Installing large containment structures makes the power plants more expensive.
3. Requiring multiple back-up generators to be onsite and serviced makes the power plants more expensive.
4. Having thousands of pages of regulations increases regulatory burden, and ultimately makes the power plants more expensive.
All of these “improvements” have not been demonstrated to be necessary to make power plants safer than coal fired power plants, natural gas power plants, or even the wind or solar industry. Considering no member of the public has been hurt or injured from radiological releases – ever – no improvement via safety “upgrades” could actually be made.
Some of the practices and “improvements” have even gone so far as to make some power plants uneconomic, which forced utilities to close their nuclear plants and utilize sources of power which are ultimately dirtier, require additional mining, and have more deaths or injuries per unit of energy generated.
This culmination of actions and principles ultimately reduced the health and safety of the public.
As such, ALARA should be interpreted and essentially reversed to motivate lifting as many regulations as possible to utilize the benefits of nuclear power.

Other Societal and Socioeconomic Impacts and the Purpose of the Licensed Activity

These include:

Deployable, dependable power.
Minimized land footprint.
The cheapest electricity generation ever built.
Minimized number of people required to generate a maximum amount of power for the rest of us.
Eliminating Climate Change.
Reversing Climate Change.
The only real, rapidly deployable, and rationally feasible solution to Climate Change which obeys all laws of physics.

These are the “other societal and socioeconomic impacts” that nuclear power has, and they are 100% all in the public’s best interest. To realize all of them, nuclear power should be built everywhere as fast as possible. To that end, I interpret ALARA demands we repeal many (all?) of the restrictive requirements in place to license and build new nuclear reactors. The existing framework creates a radically unnecessary burden on the industry to perform hundreds of thousands of man-hours of paperwork with little to no benefit returned to the public’s health and safety.

Yes, we should hold individuals, companies, and countries accountable if they hurt people – both their employees and the public. We already do this in every other heavy industry, and there’s no reason nuclear power should be held to a different standard from the rest of industrial world.

An alternate, modern interpretation of ALARA might be:

In the interest of bettering human lives everywhere, nuclear power should be built as fast as possible. The benefits of nuclear power far outweigh the costs or risks associated with radiation releases or exposures. As such, as low as reasonably achievable should literally have the reverse meaning of its current connotations within the nuclear regulatory and industrial complex. Internationally recognized dose limits should be observed and adhered to when possible, but the protection against radiation should be secondary to the enormous benefits of generating large amounts of power for as many humans as possible. Likewise, nuclear power and the radiation hazard it generates should be treated like other industrial hazards and regulated appropriately. If there’s an accident, then the owner is liable for the damage or harm they inflict on society. There should not be thousands of prescriptive rules surrounding the industry as a barrier to entry.

If the Nuclear Regulatory Commission disagrees, then we – the industry, the public, and the world – should change their mandate and change the rules.

Want to help us change the rules? It starts with us. We can make a difference.

Reach out to learn how.

******