NAME:
1840
HAP 133080
record
1841
1842
1843
PAGE
in
the
EIS.
So there
is nothing new here in terms of what we could say
iS PS €00)
to you on that.
The reasoning behind it sw today as it was
TL ALS
THY CRITE ECR De
A
zn—$hat—tom.
Wenterrte-t—to take
It is unfortunate
1845
that
1846
Say.
1847
really
there
is
no
clear-cut
was
the
body established
1850
for
the
government.
1851
That
1852
interpretation
1853
approach, toythe
1854
this.
is
their
of
On.
1856
Mr.
DEYOUNG.
1857
Mr.
YATES.
1864
or
no.
That
is
all I
can
promulgate
responsibility.
these.
Radiation Council,
EPA
Ffhey
radiation
They have
We
the
which
standards
;
CONCUR (WV THE FEL
did egree earitet enour
had
letters
EPA
from thet
NFOR THE DOD CugAnuP PROGRAM,
YATES.
1863
to
standard&-
Mx.
1862
yes
AND TO CLEANUP CRITERIA THAT WERE
1855
1861
°
To comment on interpreting these standards w@t% is
1849
1860
approach.
that the numbeve.e dosesare so close
a responsibility of EPA.
THE Aauvtepp re oF
They have received, the Federal
1848
1859
a conservative
TeKa7 Ries, eee LK CLEC
1844
1858
79
Did Interior consult EPA on this at all?
Yes.
Did
you consult EPA
before
the
Secretary sent
his letter out in January?
Mr.
DEYOUNG.
EPA has
been involved in various meetings
and has testified before this committee.
Mr.
YATES.
What is the attitude of EPA in this,
have one?
Mr.
apply.
does it
:
DEYOUNG.
They
do
EPA has
apply.
said
the
Federal standards
should