Regulations governing the packaging and transportation of radioactive material
Post comments here:
https://www.regulations.gov/document/NRC-2025-1667-0001
This is what Sharon and I just posted, with NRC Comment Tracking Number
mt6-m1cx-nl1k
August 23, 2026
We strongly oppose proposed changes to 10 CFR part 71 as described in NRC-2025-1667-0001 covering: " ... regulations governing the packaging and transportation of radioactive material ... ". The proposed changes are designed to: " ... support the future domestic deployment of microreactors and other similar new nuclear technologies ... ".
The proposed change would: "... Allow increased radiation level limits, under certain conditions ...", because there may be: "... accelerated timelines that may not allow for extended decay heat or radiation level reduction through post-irradiation cooling ...". So, instead of requiring a design and a transportation plan that meets radiation standards, the new version of Part 71 would reduce radiation protection.
If the proposed changes to Part 71 are implemented, companies that transport radioactive materials will save money. But the public (including unborn generations and people outside the United States) will pay the health and accident costs.
The NRC claims that: " ... the proposed rulemaking would not impact threatened or endangered species or critical habitat ...", but the NRC does not explain why, except to say that: " ... the proposed rule provisions would not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment ... ". Whether or not the second statement is correct, what happens in the human environment may be totally different from what happens to animals living in a critical habitat such as a river, national forest, etc..
The proposed rule change says that: " ... transportation of radioactive material is one of the safest sectors of hazardous materials logistics ... " because there have been: " ... no recorded fatalities or serious injuries attributable to radiation exposure during transport or as a result of a transportation accident." How would we know? It is virtually impossible to prove that a particular radiation exposure led to a fatality or serious injury. Furthermore, under these regulations, thousands of reactors will be transported around the country, according to the NRC's own estimates. Serious accidents will be risked with each shipment. The totality of risk must be considered.
The NRC admits that fatalities and serious injuries can occur as a result of radiation exposure -- that's exactly why there are radiation standards. But the standards don't guarantee that no living things will die or suffer generational damage -- they only reduce the probabilities for "reference man". Increased levels of radiation exposure should only occur (if at all) after careful consideration of the true costs to the environment, to all humans (not just "reference man"), and to all living things. Alternatives, including wind and solar power, must be properly considered for their lower risk, lower cost, faster deployment, recyclable components, etc..
As a society, we should not accept that multiple generations could suffer genetic harm, for example just because a pregnant woman happens to be stuck in a traffic jam next to a vehicle that is carrying radioactive material that is allowed by the increased radiation limits of this new regulation.
This proposed change is one of many the NRC has published recently. As the NRC itself explained during a recent public meeting, all of these regulations are dependent on each other and the order in which they are approved matters. So, for instance, if this regulation is approved, any changes to 10 CFR Part 20 (Standards for Protection Against Radiation) might have to be revised. There are several ways this intertwined approval process might subvert the requirements of other regulations (both NRC regulations and those from other federal, state, and local agencies). For example, the proposed rule for Reforming and Modernizing the Radiation Protection Framework (
https://www.regulations.gov/document/NRC-2025-1140-0001) has 576 comments as of August 23, 2026 whereas the proposed change to Part 71 (this regulation) has only 3 comments. However if the changes to Part 71 are approved first, many of the comments concerning Part 20 could be negated without evaluating the concerns that they raise.
Multiple groups, including other government agencies, have requested extensions of specific comment deadlines. For example, the Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors (CRCPD), requested a 15-day extension of the comment deadline for NRC-2025-1667-0001 (this proposed regulation). The CRCPD describes itself as the national nonprofit organization representing the radiation control programs of all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the U.S. territories, and provided a clear explanation of why a small extension for this particular deadline would be useful.
We urge the NRC to reconsider the CRCPD's request for a comment-period extension, and to provide a clear answer concerning how comments on the overlapping proposals for rule changes will be reconciled.
Sharon & Ace Hoffman, Carlsbad California USA
Contact information for the author of this newsletter:
Ace Hoffman
Carlsbad, California USA
Author, The Code Killers:
An Expose of the Nuclear Industry
Free download:
acehoffman.org
Blog:
acehoffman.blogspot.com
YouTube:
youtube.com/user/AceHoffman
Email: ace [at]
acehoffman.org
Founder & Owner,
The Animated Software Company
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments should be in good taste and include the commentator's full name and affiliation.