Thursday, January 29, 2026-In a controversial move that has alarmed scientists, regulators, and safety advocates, the Trump administration has quietly rewritten key nuclear safety rules at the U.S. Department of Energy to fast-track a new generation of experimental reactors.
According to documents obtained by National Public Radio, the overhaul was done without public notice or comment and shared only with companies building the reactors as part of a pilot program aimed at having at least three operational by July 4, 2026. The changes affect how reactors are regulated, from safety systems to environmental protections, and are now being used in evaluations of multiple reactor designs.
The rewritten directives slash over 750 pages of safety and security requirements, leaving only about one‑third of the original material and removing or weakening long‑standing protections.
Among the most significant shifts is the elimination of the “As Low As Reasonably Achievable” (ALARA) radiation exposure standard, which has been a cornerstone of nuclear safety for decades, the removal of mandated safety engineers for critical systems, and softened safeguards for groundwater and environmental contamination. Critics warn these changes could lead to higher radiation exposure for workers, less rigorous environmental monitoring, and weaker security protocols, all while reducing transparency and public trust.
Supporters of the rewrite argue that streamlining rules will cut regulatory barriers, accelerate innovation, and spur investment in nuclear energy as a source of cheap, reliable power.
Yet outside experts including former Nuclear Regulatory Commission officials and safety advocates caution that doing this in secret risks safety and legality, increases the chance of violations of existing environmental and safety laws, and undermines confidence in government oversight. With these new standards now in effect and shaping the future of U.S. nuclear development, the debate over safety versus speed has reached a critical and contentious point.
0 Comments