The NRC proposed new radiation safety rules that keep the Linear Non-Threshold (LNT) model but replace the "As Low As Reasonably Achievable" (ALARA) standard with a graded threshold approach. The agency acknowledges ALARA's implementation problems — vague "reasonableness" tests, subjective enforcement, and endless cycles of dose reduction — but estimates the changes will save industry only $9.5 million annually across power, medical, and research sectors.

The LNT model, which holds that any radiation dose carries proportional cancer risk with no safe threshold, remains intact despite a Trump executive order labeling it "irrational" and lacking scientific basis. The NRC explicitly rejected hormesis — the claim that low doses stimulate protective repair — and found no "consensus-supported, regulation-ready alternative" to LNT. This preserves the scientific foundation for radiation protection while attempting to fix regulatory confusion.

Under the proposed graded approach, the NRC would set exposure thresholds below levels where biological effects are clearly documented, requiring progressively aggressive controls at higher tiers. However, the framework contains internal contradictions: LNT posits no thresholds exist, yet the new rules regulate by thresholds. The agency also defines "optimization" using language that mirrors the ALARA principle it seeks to eliminate.

Organizations currently in compliance face no mandatory changes; adoption is optional and only worthwhile if cost savings materialize. The rule also updates radiation monitoring equipment requirements to reflect modern technology. The modest savings projection suggests the overhaul won't trigger the nuclear construction boom the administration envisioned, leaving the industry's fundamental economics largely untouched.