
"
Johnston,
A.
Todd"
<
ajohnston@
nma.
org>

07/
14/
2006
11:
47
AM
To
Jason
Burnett/
DC/
USEPA/
US@
EPA
cc
Subject
PM10
I
attach
a
brief
that
explores
the
legal
issues
associated
with
retaining
the
current
1987
PM10
standard,
and
the
historical
application
of
that
standard
to
mining
sources.
The
bottom
line
is
that
retention
of
PM10
in
any
form
is
illegal.
(
The
paper
also
addresses
the
proposed
alternative
form
that
deducts
PM2.5.)
That
aside,
mining
sources
cannot
comply.
This,
coupled
with
the
understanding
that
coarse
particles
from
rural/
mining
sources
do
not
cause
harm
at
ambient
exposures,
has
recognized
by
previous
administrations,
and
Congress
where
it
directed
EPA
to
"
use
administrative
good
sense
to
exclude
it"
from
regulation.
The
administrative
measures
that
EPA
and
the
states
have
traditionally
used
to
discount
these
emissions
from
determinations
of
ambient
compliance,
have
been
a
"
band­
aid"
 
a
way
of
avoiding
the
very
real
decision
that
is
before
the
agency
now
­
and
will
not
survive
if
EPA
makes
a
finding
that
coarse
particles
cause
harm
at
ambient
levels.

I
have
attached
a
chart
clearly
demonstrating
the
mining
industries
inability
to
comply
with
the
PM10
standard.
The
data
represented
in
the
chart
was
compiled
by
EPA
and
used
in
its
1987/
88
decision
not
to
list
surface
coal
mines
as
major
PSD
sources.
There
were
two
reasons
for
that
determination:
1)
the
lack
of
health
effects,
and
2)
the
impossibility
of
compliance.
