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