EPA Raised Limits Of 'Allowed' Man Made Radiation In Food And Water, Used ICRP Input To Make Decision

EPA already increased 'allowable' levels for radiation in many categories. Now they want to do it again. Click on link below to find out more about what the EPA did the last time they suggested changing the rules.

http://agreenroad.blogspot.com/2014/06/epa-raises-allowable-radiation-in.html

WHY EPA NEEDS TO REDUCE RADIATION LIMITS DRASTICALLY

If anything, they should be REDUCING radiation limits and exposures DRASTICALLY, not increasing them again and again.

via Ray Lutz "They want to water down the standards by changing from incidence of cancer to cancer deaths, and changing to a risk-based approach (which means they can have higher doses if you are not too likely to get them) and another glaring shortfall is the omission of nuclear waste sites and storage facilities from the standards! Make no mistake about it, these changes are being pushed by the industry to severely loosen up the limits."

Use the following resources to comment. If you don't do it, then who? If not now, then when?

Nuclear Power Plant Studies Show Child Leukemia, Breast, Thyroid Cancer Rates Increase RADICALLY Closer To Plants; via @AGreenRoad
http://agreenroad.blogspot.com/2012/10/child-leukemia-breast-thyroid-cancer.html

Low Dose Radiation Dangers/Symptoms For Children And Adults
http://agreenroad.blogspot.com/p/low-dose-radiation-dangers-for-children.html

Radiation In Food/Water, Geiger Counters, Dosimeters, Radiation Readings
http://agreenroad.blogspot.com/p/low-level-nuclear-radiation-in-food-and.html

911 Planet Emergencies
http://agreenroad.blogspot.com/p/why-all-nuclear-plants-must-be-shut-down.html

Effects Of Internal Low Level Nuclear Radiation

http://agreenroad.blogspot.com/p/effects-of-internal-low-level-nuclear.html

Animals, Insects, Birds And Plants Radiation Effects
http://agreenroad.blogspot.com/p/animals-and-low-level-radiation-effects.html

Uranium Mining and Enrichment, Nuclear Fuel Manufacturing, Fracking
http://agreenroad.blogspot.com/p/uranium-mining-and-enrichment.html

Nuclear Accidents, Recycling, Nuclear Fuel
http://agreenroad.blogspot.com/p/nuclear-accidents-around-world.html

Individual Radioactive Elements/Isotopes, USA Radiation Exposure Prevention and Reversal, Music
http://agreenroad.blogspot.com/p/individual-radioactive-elementsisotopes.html

Nuclear Reactor Recertification, Relicense
http://agreenroad.blogspot.com/p/nuclear-reactor-recertification.html

Long Term Storage Of Nuclear Fuel, Nuclear Waste
http://agreenroad.blogspot.com/p/recycling-or-long-term-storage-of.html

WHY ICRP SHOULD BE KICKED OUT OF EPA DECISION MAKING PROCESS

The EPA is going to use input from the ICRP; which is funded by the nuclear industry. Anyone see any problems with that? Your comments might include that all input from ICRP should be banned, as it is biased and corrupt, and that organization cannot be trusted. Be sure to comment about the basic corruption of the whole nuclear industry... Use the following resources for things that you can quote or use, or link to...

ICRP [International Commission on Radiological Protection] Caught Manipulating And 'Faking' Scientific Data; via @AGreenRoad
http://agreenroad.blogspot.com/2014/05/icrp-international-commission-on.html

Art And Science Of Deception; Global Corporations And The 1%, Whistleblowers, And Solutions
http://agreenroad.blogspot.com/p/corporations-art-and-science-of.html

EPA POSED THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS FOR PUBLIC COMMENTS, DUE BY AUG. 2014

Should the Agency express its limits for the purpose of this regulation in terms of radiation risk or radiation dose?

B. Issue 2: Updated Dose Methodology (Dosimetry)

How should the Agency update the radiation dosimetry methodology incorporated in the standard?

C. Issue 3: Radionuclide Release Limits

Should the Agency retain the radionuclide release limits in an updated rule and, if so, what should the Agency use as the basis for any release limits?

D. Issue 4: Water Resource Protection

How should a revised rule protect water resources?

E. Issue 5: Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste Storage

How, if at all, should a revised rule explicitly address storage of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste?

F. Issue 6: New Nuclear Technologies

What new technologies and practices have developed since 40 CFR part 190 was issued, and how should any revised rule address these advances and changes?
Consequently, the Agency is seeking input on the following questions:

a. Should the Agency express its limit for the purpose of this regulation in terms of radiation risk or radiation dose?

b. Should the Agency base any risk standard on cancer morbidity or cancer mortality? What would be the advantages or disadvantages of each?

c. How might implementation of a risk limit be carried out? How might a risk standard affect other federal regulations and guidance?

6. QUESTIONS FOR PUBLIC COMMENT

With the aforementioned as background, the Agency is seeking input on the following questions:

a. If a dose standard is desired, how should the Agency take account of updated scientific information and methods related to radiation dose—such as the concept of committed effective dose?

b. In updating the dose standard, should the methodology in ICRP 60 or ICRP 103 be adopted, or should implementation allow some flexibility? 

What are the relative advantages or disadvantages of not specifying which ICRP method be used for the dose assessment?

7. QUESTIONS FOR PUBLIC COMMENT

a. Should the Agency retain the concept of radionuclide-specific release limits to prevent the environmental build-up of long-lived radionuclides? 

What should be the basis of these limits?

b. Is it justifiable to apply limits on an industry-wide basis and, if so, can this be reasonably implemented? Would facility limits be more practicable?

c. If release limits are used, are the radionuclides for which limits have been established in the existing standard still appropriate and, if not, which ones should be added or subtracted?

5. QUESTIONS FOR PUBLIC COMMENT

The Agency is seeking input on the following aspects of this issue:

a. If a ground water protection standard is established in the general environment outside the boundaries of nuclear fuel cycle facilities, what should the basis be and how should it be implemented?

b. Are additional standards aimed at limiting surface water contamination needed?

a. How, if at all, should a revised rule explicitly address on-site storage operations for spent nuclear fuel?

b. Is it necessary to clarify the applicability of 40 CFR part 190 versus 40 CFR part 191 to storage operations? Should the Agency clarify the scope of 40 CFR part 190 to also cover operations at separate facilities (off-site) dedicated to storage of spent nuclear fuel (i.e., should we clarify the definition of the “nuclear fuel cycle” to include all management of spent nuclear fuel up until the point of transportation to a permanent disposal site)?

a. Are there specific new technologies or practices with unique characteristics that would dictate the need for separate or different limits and do these differences merit a reconsideration of the technical basis for 40 CFR part 190? (Thorium, etc.)

b. Should the Agency develop standards that will proactively apply to new nuclear technologies developed in the future, and if so, how far into the future should the Agency look (near-term, mid-term, etc.)? (Thorium, etc.)

c. In particular, do small modular reactors pose unique environmental concerns that warrant separate standards within 40 CFR part 190

Source: http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0689-0001

EPA PROPOSING TO GARNISH WAGES WITH NO HEARINGS OR COURT PROCEEDINGS

via stock July 9, 2014 As EPA is in process of increasing "safe" radiation levels, they can also take your wages without any type of court proceeding or hearing. Hmmmmm, who are these people?

According to The Washington Times, the agency announced the plan to enhance its purview last week in a notice in the Federal Register. The notice claimed that federal law allows the EPA to "garnish non-Federal wages to collect delinquent non-tax debts owed the United States without first obtaining a court order." The notice went on to say that the EPA had fast-tracked the new rule, enabling it to take effect September 2 unless the agency receives enough adverse public comments by August 1. The EPA said the rule was not subject to review because it was not a "significant regulatory action."

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jul/8/power-grab-epa-wants-to-garnish-wages-of-polluters/

Joe Pork Earmarks "There is nothing wrong with an agency collecting a legal debt. But, what's creates a legal debt anymore? Agencies were required to give administrative due process, appealable to a court after that if the person chose. But this is another power grab by EPA. It's not so much the debt, but what they decide to fine. Really, a pond on your own property? Soon they'll fine farmers for growing crops because they aren't indigenous to that land."

End

EPA Raised Limits Of 'Allowed' Man Made Radiation In Food And Water, Used ICRP Input To Make Decision
http://agreenroad.blogspot.com/2014/07/epa-changing-rules-around-nuclear-wants.html