<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Discussion Topic 3, Issues relating to children’s health, environmental justice, Tribes, and low-income populations.</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blog.epa.gov/milltailingblog/2010/07/discussiontopic3/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blog.epa.gov/milltailingblog/2010/07/discussiontopic3/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=discussiontopic3</link>
	<description>The purpose of this discussion forum is for EPA to receive public input as it reviews 40 CFR Part 192 regulations</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 25 Oct 2010 11:29:27 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.5.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: bcourter</title>
		<link>http://blog.epa.gov/milltailingblog/2010/07/discussiontopic3/comment-page-1/#comment-28</link>
		<dc:creator>bcourter</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 25 Oct 2010 11:28:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.epa.gov/milltailingblog/?p=418#comment-28</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[We really appreciate receiving your considered posting. 

Our review of radiation dose and risk and associated conversion factors will evaluate changes in EPA radiation standards and policy over time since the.40 CFR Part 192 regulations were published, and how they should be applied to uranium and thorium milling sites. In this context, the release of sites for public or private use, or some future intrusion at sites currently under institutional control will be an important scenario for modeling. The impacts to children&#039;s health, disadvantaged, EJ and Tribal populations will be examined as a special emphasis in accordance with Agency policy. 

We recognize that the clean-up and other radiation standards in the present regulation have become widely used even in EPA for remediation of (TENORM) contaminated sites containing uranium, radium, and/or thorium regardless of the source of contamination. However, our responsibility under the UMTRCA statute and this review is to ensure that the uranium and thorium mill sites are the ones which are being addressed in the standards.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>We really appreciate receiving your considered posting. </p>
<p>Our review of radiation dose and risk and associated conversion factors will evaluate changes in EPA radiation standards and policy over time since the.40 CFR Part 192 regulations were published, and how they should be applied to uranium and thorium milling sites. In this context, the release of sites for public or private use, or some future intrusion at sites currently under institutional control will be an important scenario for modeling. The impacts to children&#8217;s health, disadvantaged, EJ and Tribal populations will be examined as a special emphasis in accordance with Agency policy. </p>
<p>We recognize that the clean-up and other radiation standards in the present regulation have become widely used even in EPA for remediation of (TENORM) contaminated sites containing uranium, radium, and/or thorium regardless of the source of contamination. However, our responsibility under the UMTRCA statute and this review is to ensure that the uranium and thorium mill sites are the ones which are being addressed in the standards.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Phil Egidi</title>
		<link>http://blog.epa.gov/milltailingblog/2010/07/discussiontopic3/comment-page-1/#comment-20</link>
		<dc:creator>Phil Egidi</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 23 Sep 2010 04:53:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.epa.gov/milltailingblog/?p=418#comment-20</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A REM is a REM, or not, depending on what dose conversion factors are considered.  Clearly, EPAs work over the years (e.g., FGR13) has evolved to look at morbidity as well as mortality, age and sex adjusted compared to ICRP 26/30 NRC.  Standard Man does not fit the reservation (or almost anywhere else in the US these days).  The newer dosimetric approaches should be beneficial for all children and elderly people.

Whatever policy is adopted should consider that it if release of a rad site is at 15 mrem/y &gt; background, so should UMTRA/TENORM sites.
ALARA should be the driver in any case.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A REM is a REM, or not, depending on what dose conversion factors are considered.  Clearly, EPAs work over the years (e.g., FGR13) has evolved to look at morbidity as well as mortality, age and sex adjusted compared to ICRP 26/30 NRC.  Standard Man does not fit the reservation (or almost anywhere else in the US these days).  The newer dosimetric approaches should be beneficial for all children and elderly people.</p>
<p>Whatever policy is adopted should consider that it if release of a rad site is at 15 mrem/y &gt; background, so should UMTRA/TENORM sites.<br />
ALARA should be the driver in any case.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
