Document jg1oGz1KkVrr4ZVRkyDL0REoR

Message From: Sent: To: CC: Subject: Daguillard, Robert [/0=EXCHANGELABS/OU=EXCHANGE ADMINISTRATIVE GROUP (FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=BBE9682B940C4F2C90732E4D37355DD4-DAGUILLARD,] i.j L2Z2.6./.2017..5j.Q5:.5.5.P.M Ex. 6 I________________________________________________ ! Press [/o=ExchangeLabs/ou=Exchange Administrative Group (FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/cn=Recipients/cn=b293283291dc44eOb5dlc36be9281d8a-Press] RE: Subject: Writing at suggestion of Dr. R. Baldauf: A few questions re apparently withdrawn' International Programme on Chemical Safety 1996 report, Environmental Health Criteria 171: Diesel Fuel and Exhaust Emissions. Dan, a quick follow-up: After reviewing your questions, we'll be referring you to WHO for answers. Regards, R. Robert Daguillard Office of Media Relations U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Washington, DC +1 (202) 564-6618 (O) [ Ex. 6 i From: Daguillard, Robert Sent: Tuesday, December 26, 2017 11:09 AM To:i Ex'6 i l _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ! Subject: Subject: Writing at suggestion of Dr. R. Baldauf: A few questions re apparently withdrawn1International Programme on Chemical Safety 1996 report, Environmental Health Criteria 171: Diesel Fuel and Exhaust Emissions. Good morning Dan, Dr. Gantt and my colleagues from our Seattle office forwarded me your inquiry. Have you, in fact, published your story; and regardless, do you still need the information you requested in the preceding e-mail? If so, what is your hard deadline? Happy to discuss. Very best, R. -- Original Message.:-:--_______________ , From: ddanforbes -i Ex. 6 j L_______________________________________________________ To: gantt.brent <gantt.brent@epa.gov> Sent: Fri, 22 Dec 2017 8:42 Subject: Writing at suggestion of Dr. R. Baldauf: A few questions re apparently withdrawn1International Programme on Chemical Safety 1996 report, Environmental Health Criteria 171 : Diesel Fuel and Exhaust Emissions. Good Morning, Dr. Gantt: Regarding the since 'withdrawn' International Programme on Chemical Safety 1996 report, Environmental Health Criteria 171: Diesel Fuel and Exhaust Emissions. (See here.) Just a couple of questions numbered in bold-face below. And thanks! Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA Tier 13 ED 002061 00022857-00001 Daniel Forbes, a reporter in Portland, Oregon here. Just to introduce myself, my 20-article series in The Portland Mercury on toxics from art-glass factories influenced state policy here in Oregon. (See here.) Currently I'm writing on the prospective re-opening of a Portland Public School campus. Part One of my environmental risk assessment of Harriet Tubman Middle School has been published (see here), with Part Two in the offing. And I was interviewed on our local NPR public radio station, OPB, on the matter (here). I've certainly relied on several papers from your colleague, Dr. Richard Baldauf. As you know, diesel particulate matter (DPM) is a big part of the issue for a school located literally 20-feet from the edge of I- 5, the West Coast's major, Canada-to-Mexico highway. Directly under the school is one of the worst bottlenecks in Oregon, up to 17,800 trucks a day belching and lurching directly below the campus. Part One of my article discusses that; Part Two will consider the stabs at mitigation of the outdoor air on campus, the students at some real risk - a risk that science can not yet quantify. Oregon does not regulate dirty diesel trucks the way California does. I read the minutes of the Oregon DEQ advisory group, the Air Toxics Science Advisory Committee (ATSAC) which pondered from 2015 to 2017 setting a new DPM Unit Risk Estimate benchmark. The committee initially declared the extant Oregon DEQ Ambient Benchmark Concentration of 0.1 ug/m3 -- adopted in 2005 from a 1996 WHO study that has since been withdrawn - as outmoded and no longer valid. In their discussions, they pointed to California's stringent URE of 0.003 ug/m3, which was also adopted by Washington State. Talked over the months about how that conservative standard might be a step too far, but that certainly cutting the extant Oregon standard of 0.1 by a factor o f ten, maybe - to 0.01 ug/m3 - was a good goal moving forward. Ultimately, they hemmed and hawed and kept it at 0.1. - which is 33-times higher than the CaliforniaAVashington benchmarks. The point as to why I write you today: The Oregon science advisers initially shied away from any reliance on the WHO's Criteria 171. But then they ultimately rested their DPM safe-air goal benchmark upon it, voting to do so in March 2017. So in Oregon DEQ's eyes, the 21-year-old, apparently withdrawn Criteria 171 still carried weight. See the DEQ's table on its Ambient Benchmark Concentrations, which uses a cancer-based DPM level of 0.1 ug/m3 based on "the best professional judgement" of DEQ's science advisors. (See here. Page 4.) "The selected value is close to that suggested by the World Health Organization." [Emphasis added.] So my few questions, please: 1. Was Criteria 171 withdrawn by the WHO? Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA Tier 13 ED 002061 00022857-00002 2. If so, why? What was considered the weakness in its epidemiology and/or toxicology? 3. If possible, please point me to the WHO statement withdrawing Criteria 171. A link with a page number would be great if you had it (said the greedy reporter). 4. What was the actual Unit Risk Estimate promulgated by Criteria 171? Was it 0.1 ug/m3? Was it some level very close to 0.1 ug/m3? I'm sorry to say - forgive me - but I'm afraid I need your reply today, Friday, as we plan to publish over the weekend. Many thanks, Daniel Forbes Cascadia Times Ex 6 I Robert Daguillard Office of Media Relations U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Washington, DC +1 (202) 564-6618 (O) ! Ex. 6 ! Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA Tier 13 ED 002061 00022857-00003