Jon
Scholl/
DC/
USEPA/
US
12/
02/
2005
08:
18
AM
T
o
sauerhaft.
beth@
epa.
gov,
shaver.
sally@
epa.
gov
c
c
S
u
b
j
e
c
t
Fw:
PM
Standard
FYI
Jon
Scholl
Counselor
to
the
Administrator
for
Agricultural
Policy
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
202)
564­
1530
­­­­­
Forwarded
by
Jon
Scholl/
DC/
USEPA/
US
on
12/
02/
2005
08:
17
AM
­­­­­

"
Hebert,
Tom"
<
THebert@
crowell.
com>

12/
01/
2005
09:
35
AM
T
o
Chad
Gregory
<
chaduep@
unitedegg.
com>,
"
Howard
Magwire
(
E­
mail)"
<
hmagwire@
mwmlaw.
com>,
"
Randy
Green
(
E­
mail)"
<
rgreen@
mwmlaw.
com>,
"
Atwood,
Deb"
<
DAtwood@
crowell.
com>,
"
Brown,
Amie"
<
AmBrown@
crowell.
com>
c
c
Jon
Scholl/
DC/
USEPA/
US@
EPA
S
u
b
j
e
c
t
RE:
PM
Standard
Chad,

We'll
propose
some
specific
times
for
tomorrow
and
Monday
and
get
something
worked
out
today.
EPA
is
under
court
order
to
update
the
Clean
Air
Act's
National
Ambient
Air
Quality
Standard
(
NAAQS)
for
particulate
matter
(
fine
and
coarse
­­
2
separate
categories).
A
PM
Fine
rule
was
issued
last
month
and
the
PM
Coarse
rule
is
to
be
issued
in
a
few
weeks.
The
question
before
them
under
the
CAA
NAAQS
program
is
not
who
is
to
be
regulated
in
terms
of
specific
industries,
or
how
much
is
being
emitted
by
certain
types
of
operations
­­
but
whether
the
human
health
science
says
that
human
health
is
harmed
by
particulate
matter
effects,
and
to
use
that
science
to
establish
a
chronic
and
acute
maximum
amount
of
that
particulate
matter
in
an
airshed
that
can
be
allowed
before
certain
regulatory
control
measures
kick
in.
The
CAA
statute
separates
this
decision
from
any
economic
implications
of
setting
that
health
based
standard
­­
and
the
only
question
is
"
is
human
health
at
risk,
and
if
so
how
much
of
the
substance
will
cause
those
problems?"
Economic
considerations
come
into
explicit
consideration
in
terms
of
the
control
technologies
that
might
be
called
for
­­
but
that
comes
later.
The
NAAQS
standard
is
set
first.

The
EPA
Administrator
clearly
understands
that
there
are
large
gaps
in
the
health
science
that
call
into
question
whether
such
effects
and
such
standards
can
be
established.
But
the
gaps
are
not
absolute
and
the
decision
as
to
whether
or
not
to
set
a
NAAQS
standard
for
particulate
matter
will
require
the
use
of
scientific
judgment
on
EPA's
and
the
Administration's
part.
We
(
agriculture)
should
and
do
have
something
to
say
on
these
questions
and
EPA
and
the
Administration
will
listen.
Whatever
decision
they
make
will
be
controversial
when
they
issue
the
proposed
rule
later
this
month
and
so
in
addition
to
communicating
our
views
to
them
now,
we
need
to
be
prepared
to
deal
with
that
controversy
and
to
submit
sound
and
effective
comments
during
the
public
comment
period
for
the
proposal.

Tom
­­­­­
Original
Message­­­­­

From:
Chad
Gregory
[
mailto:
chaduep@
unitedegg.
com]

Sent:
Thursday,
December
01,
2005
8:
08
AM
To:
Howard
Magwire
(
E­
mail);
Randy
Green
(
E­
mail);
Hebert,
Tom;
Atwood,
Deb
Cc:
Jon
Scholl
(
E­
mail)

Subject:
PM
Standard
I
appreciate
all
of
your
efforts
on
this
issue.
It
is
somewhat
frustrating
to
me
because
all
along
I
assumed
(
based
on
the
message
I
received
from
John
Thorne)
that
PM
2.5
and
PM
10
were
going
to
be
studied
in
the
NAEMS
and
that
future
CERCLA,
EPCRA
and
CAA
regulations
would
be
set
from
that
study.

Now
it
appears
that
EPA
plans
to
go
ahead
and
establish
PM
regulations
without
any
regards
to
"
scientific
proof",
according
to
NAS.

I
guess
we
need
to
have
a
conference
call
and
all
get
on
the
same
page
and
figure
out
what
we
can
and
need
to
do
to
try
and
convince
EPA
to
"
WAIT
and
see"
what
the
science
shows
before
regulating
animal
ag
out
of
business.
We
also
need
to
figure
out
when
and
how
much
we
need
to
get
the
Environmental
Committee
involved
on
this
issue.

I
am
available
for
a
call
anytime
Friday
(
12/
2)
or
Monday
(
12/
5).

Your
responses
are
appreciated.

Chad
Gregory
UEP
­­­­­
Original
Message­­­­­

From:
JT
Dean
[
mailto:
JTDean@
CenterFreshEggFarm.
com]

Sent:
Monday,
November
28,
2005
3:
31
PM
To:
chaduep@
unitedegg.
com
Subject:

From
the
latest
newsletter
 

Course
Particulate
Matter
­
The
Agency
is
proposing
to
set
a
national
ambient
air
quality
standard
for
course
particulate
matter
(
PM)
(
particles
grater
than
2.5
microns).
It
is
expected
that
EPA
will
issue
its
proposal
in
the
near
future.
The
proposed
standard
would
have
a
major
impact
on
mining
operations
and
agriculture,
including
animal
agriculture.
Significantly,
existing
data
does
not
support
the
establishment
of
a
health­
based
standard
for
particulate
matter
larger
than
2.5
microns.
In
addition
to
a
lack
of
data
showing
that
such
crustal
material
and
fugitive
dust
is
harmful,
there
is
not
sufficient
data
to
show
coarse
PM,
even
in
urban
areas,
is
harmful.
UEP
and
others
in
the
agriculture
community
have
suggested
that
EPA
not
take
any
action
on
coarse
PM
due
to
the
lack
of
science
that
links
coarse
PM
to
health
effects.
In
addition,
EPA
should
set­
up
a
peer
reviewed
nation­
wide
monitoring
program
that
studies
health
effects
associated
with
PM.
Does
this
mean
that
EPA
is
going
to
pay
to
pave
all
the
gravel
roads
in
Iowa?
Our
county
has
millons
of
chickens
and
tens
of
thousands
of
hogs
and
cattle.
The
amount
of
dust
produced
by
those
operations
is
minuscule
compared
to
the
road
dust
produced
taking
those
animals
to
market.
This
is
a
complete
joke
that
does
not
make
any
common
sense
whatsoever.

J.
T.
Dean
