Document ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2001-0017-0527
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2005-12-24T05:00Z

"
Grahame,
Thomas"
<
Thomas.
Grahame@
HQ.
DOE
.
GOV>

12/
07/
2005
10:
44
AM
To
Jason
Burnett/
DC/
USEPA/
US@
EPA
cc
"
Jindal,
Nikesh"
<
Nikesh.
Jindal@
HQ.
DOE.
GOV>,
"
Daniels,
Jarad"
<
Jarad.
Daniels@
HQ.
DOE.
GOV>,
"
Graham,
John"
<
John_
Graham@
omb.
eop.
gov>
Subject
can
you
get
an
answer
on
this
question
on
discussion
of
24
hour
standard?

Jason,
in
the
discussion
of
the
24
hour
standard
starting
on
pg.
67,
I'm
trying
to
understand
why
there
doesn't
seem
to
be
mention
of
the
results
of
Goldberg
and
Burnett,
2003,
and
of
Ito
et
al,
2003.
Both
are
in
the
staff
paper,
and
both
are
in
the
Ross
and
Langstaff
memo.
Both
studies
show
insignificant
results,
Goldberg
and
Burnett,
2003
at
53.1
µ
g/
m3
and
Ito
et
al
at
55.2
µ
g/
m3.
These
are
in
contrast
to
the
results
of
Burnett
and
Goldberg,
2003,
showing
significant
results
at
39
µ
g/
m3
(
all
are
98th
percentile
figures).

I
can
think
of
a
number
of
discussion
points
about
why
some
studies
have
significant
findings
and
others
don't,
but
it
also
seems
to
me
that
the
Administrator
in
his
assessment
of
the
evidence
for
different
levels
of
a
24
hour
standard
in
the
Preamble
probably
should
include
studies
which
were
both
considered
in
the
CD
and
also
noted
in
the
Ross
and
Langstaff
memo.
How
the
Administrator
assesses
such
studies
is
one
thing,
but
not
mentioning
them
at
all
is
another.

What
reasons
would
argue
against
even
mentioning
them,
as
opposed
to
mentioning
them
and
discussing
them?

Thanks,

Tom
Thomas
J.
Grahame
U.
S.
Department
of
Energy
1000
Independence
Ave.,
SW
Washington,
DC
20585
202
586
7149
(
voice)

202
586
7085
(
fax)