READ MORE AND TAKE ACTION NOW BEFORE NOV. 4! https://nirs.salsalabs.org/2025-1568exemptions
Radioactive waste does not belong in baby toys, frying pans, garden soil, jewelry, roads, cars, building supplies—or our everyday household items.
But the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is moving to exempt hundreds of radioactive isotopes from the licensing controls that currently apply to radioactive materials and waste.
The rule change lists levels of every radioactive form of every radioactive element—radionuclides—as exempt from licensing. That includes some level of plutonium, cesium, strontium, radioiodines, and nearly 800 more.
In other words: materials currently required to be treated as LICENSED RADIOACTIVE MATERIAL AND WASTE could be moved to an exempt list in 10 CFR 30 and no longer require radioactive-material licensing controls.
And NRC has done no analysis of how much radioactivity could be released over time or how many cancers and other health effects could result.
Why take this risk?
Background:
NRC claims the change would save regulators $6 million over five years—a little more than $1 million per year. But the cost of managing and dealing with even one cancer could far exceed that trivial savings. The public would instead bear the potential health and economic costs.
We have fought this before.
This approach was previously called Below Regulatory Concern (BRC)—and the public overwhelmingly opposed it.
Congress revoked both of NRC’s policies to deregulate nuclear waste and materials in 1992. NRC withdrew its 1986 and 1990 BRC policies in 1993 after intense public opposition.
Since then, NRC, EPA, DOE, and DOT have tried at least 15 more times to deregulate nuclear waste, materials, emissions, and practices—and the U.S. public has opposed every effort.
Today, 14 states have laws against deregulating nuclear waste, and dozens of counties, towns, and cities have adopted resolutions opposing BRC.
NRC must answer some fundamental questions before exposing the public and environment to irreversible radioactive releases:
Where is the demonstrated need for this rule change?
Why hasn’t NRC analyzed the health dangers?
Why hasn’t NRC analyzed the environmental dangers?
Why should $6 million in projected savings over five years justify shifting potentially enormous health and economic costs onto the public?
Why should contractors be allowed to use radioactive materials and wastes without the licensing restrictions currently required?
Once deregulated, these wastes could enter regular trash, hazardous waste, incinerators, consumer goods, building supplies, air, and water. Incineration could release radioactivity into the air and our lungs alongside hazardous chemicals, carcinogens, and other stressors.
And once radioactive materials are dispersed into our products, communities, and environment, we cannot take them back.
There is NO SAFE LEVEL of radioactivity. There is no justification for adding more man-made radioactive waste to our environment and our families just to save regulators a little over $1 million per year.
NRC: Keep radioactive waste under radioactive controls.