URGENT - TAKE ACTION NOW
STOP RADIATION BETRAYAL!
“Below Regulatory Concern” is back, and it’s on steroids!
The NRC is quietly expanding the list of radioactive materials that can be used, sold, and disposed of without a license — to many hundreds.
They're calling it "noncontroversial." It is not. We defeated this many times before. We must defeat it again.
If enough people prove it’s controversial, adverse, and significant by November 4, the fast-track rule will be withdrawn.
⚠️WHAT IS THE PROBLEM
The NRC is using a fast-track process to exempt hundreds of radioactive substances (radionuclides) from licensing — claiming it's "noncontroversial" to avoid public analysis of health or environmental impact.
These hundreds of radioactive materials could go:
To commercial recycling to make consumer goods — zippers, baby toys, belt buckles, building supplies
To regular leaky trash dumps and incinerators
To hazardous dumps and processing centers
For deliberate use in everyday consumer goods and industrial products
This is not new. Every effort to deregulate radioactive waste and materials since 1986 has been rejected. Dozens of towns, counties, and cities have resolutions, and 14 states have passed laws rejecting exemptions like these.
In 1992, Congress formally revoked the NRC's Below Regulatory Concern (BRC) policy statements. The NRC is trying again — this time calling it something else.
The rule is labeled "noncontroversial." We must prove it’s both controversial and has significant adverse effects in our comments by November 4 to force the NRC to withdraw it and respond.
THREE FACTS TO KNOW
1
What it does
The list of radioactive materials exempt from licensing goes from about 60 to many hundreds of radionuclides.
2
Why it's flawed
NRC is treating a labeling level as a safe-to-leave-unregulated level — and hasn't shown why it thinks the two are equivalent.
3
Why your comment matters
NRC labeled this "noncontroversial." We must prove it’s both controversial and has significant adverse effects in our comments by November 4 to force the NRC to withdraw it and respond.
In 1992, Congress formally revoked the NRC's Below Regulatory Concern policy statements. The public has opposed every version of this since 1986. We defeated it before. We must defeat it again.
EIGHT ARGUMENTS FOR YOUR COMMENT
1.No demonstrated need for the rule change
The NRC has not identified the specific problem with existing regulations or shown why they claim the change is necessary.
2.Unanalyzed health risks
No adequate assessment of exposure pathways, individual radionuclide risks, or combined exposures — including the possibility of multiple radionuclides released simultaneously.
3.Incomplete cost-benefit analysis
Ignores costs of cancer and other health risks for meager economic savings: ~$6M over five years, yet the average pediatric cancer treatment is $833,000 to millions. The costs of medical treatment and environmental impacts have not been estimated.
4.Unanalyzed environmental risks
No evaluation of how radioactive materials could move through the environment — landfills, incineration, air, water, groundwater, soil, recycling and deliberate use in consumer products. Radioactive metal may be used in zippers, belt buckles, jewelry, baby toys, and more.
5.Federalism and state laws
14 states have passed laws rejecting exemptions like these. The NRC must respect state authority and the decades-long history of public opposition, including dozens of towns, cities, and counties who have passed resolutions opposing deregulation.
6. Reduced licensing oversight
The rule permits radioactive materials to be possessed or handled without licensing controls that currently apply to nuclear contractors.
7.Entry into waste streams and consumer products
Exempt materials could enter disposal, recycling, or industrial pathways — from landfills to baby toys — that are far less traceable than licensed handling.
8.Irreversibility and loss of traceability
Once radioactive materials are dispersed, mixed into waste, or incorporated into products, recovering or tracing is impossible.
HOW TO SUBMIT YOUR COMMENT
Write in your own words.
Say plainly that it is controversial and you are submitting a significant adverse comment
and ask the NRC to withdraw the direct final rule.
All comments become public records.
1.Click the button below or go to regulations.gov
Search for docket NRC-2025-1568 or RIN 3150-AL61, or use the direct link below.
2.State your opposition clearly
Say you are submitting a significant and adverse comment and that the rule is definitely controversial. Ask the NRC to withdraw the direct final rule.
3.Use the arguments above — or your own!
Substantive, individual comments carry more weight than identical form letters. Pick one or more arguments that resonate with you.
4.Submit before November 4 at 11:59PM ET
The deadline is firm. Significant, adverse comments may force the NRC to withdraw the final rule.
5.Keep personal information private
All comments become public records. Do not include private or sensitive personal information.
The NRC called this "noncontroversial." Prove them wrong.
Significant, adverse comments may force the NRC to withdraw the final rule.
Submit your comment before November 4
Docket NRC-2025-1568 · RIN 3150-AL61 · Deadline: November 4, 2026 at 11:59PM ET