Document JJym8rLBLLjxqev3n84wkzpY6

Message From: Sent: To: CC: Subject: Jones, Enesta [/0=EXCHANGELABS/OU=EXCHANGE ADMINISTRATIVE GROUP (FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=65B8E6C6E5CA4A7A9AE85D98A4C8EEDB-EJONES02] 10/17/2017 2:40_:56_PM_________________ Patrick J. Kiger j Ex. 6 j Press [/o=ExchgeLabs7=Txchahg"'d"mlnistrative Group (FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/cn=Recipients/cn=b293283291dc44eOb5dlc36be9281d8a-Press] Re: writer for HowStuffWorks, with a few questions regarding ultrafine particles Hi Patrick, attributable to an EPA spokesperson: Q: I've seen it said in some other news articles that the EPA doesn't regulate or set limits on ultrafine particles (0.1. microns in size), though it sets air quality standards for larger particles. Is that accurate? The EPA currently has National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for fine particles (PM2.5) and for coarse particles that are small enough to be inhaled into the lungs (i.e., PM 10). These standards are based on strong scientific evidence that exposures to ambient particles in these size ranges can cause harmful cardiovascular and respiratory effects. Given uncertainties in the health evidence for ultrafine particles, and limitations in the available monitoring data, a separate standard for ultrafine particles was not established in the last review of the PM NAAQS, completed in 2012. This decision in the 2012 review was consistent with the advice provided to the EPA by the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC). Q: Has there been any recent consideration of creating a standard for ultrafine particles? If so, what stage is the agency at in the process? The Clean Air Act charges the EPA with periodically reviewing the NAAQS and the underlying scientific information, and with revising the standards if appropriate. We are currently early in the process of our next periodic review of the PM NAAQS. As part of that review, the Agency will examine the updated scientific evidence for PM-related health effects, including available studies that evaluate the potential for ultrafine particles to harm human health. We anticipate that the review of the scientific evidence for PM will proceed over the next several years. On Oct 17, 2017, at 8:41 AM, Patrick J. Kiger <j Ex. 6 wrote: L____________________________________________ i hi Enesta: Thanks for getting back to me. I need to file the story this evening. I already have an expert but if you could just get answers to the questions for me Today, that would provide what I need. A response by email is fine. Regards, Patrick On Oct 17, 2017 7:43 AM, "Jones, Enesta" <Jones.Enesta@epa.gov> wrote: Hi Patrick, I'm back to handle. What's your hard deadline? On Oct 13, 2017, at 2:10 PM, Patrick J. Kiger <j Ex. 6 i> wrote: Hi Enesta: Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA Tier 13 ED 002061 00024756-00001 I'm a writer for HowStuffWorks, a website that does a lot of science, technology and health-related news coverage. I have a few questions for a story that I'm trying to do on the subject of ultrafine particles, and the extent to which they're a health concern. Q: I've seen it said in some other news articles that the EPA doesn't regulate or set limits on ultrafine particles (0.1. microns in size), though it sets air quality standards for larger particles. Is that accurate? Q: Has there been any recent consideration of creating a standard for ultrafine particles? If so, what stage is the agency at in the process? Also, I'm wondering if you can put me in touch with an agency expert on this subject, regards, Patrick J. Kiger 240-235-6203 (office) [Z Z ^ -6 Z Z j(cell) www. patrickiki ger. com Twitter: @PatrickJKiger Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA Tier 13 ED 002061 00024756-00002