American Lung Association of California • Coalition for Clean Air • Environment California • Environmental Defense • NRDC • Physicians for Social Responsibility, Los Angeles • Union of Concerned Scientists

Enviro, Health Groups Ask Bush EPA to Hold Firm on Proposed Rule
Nearly 40 Percent of LA’s Soot from Mobile Sources Comes from Diesel Bulldozers, Ships, and Other Heavy Equipment

Related Link: Proposed EPA Regulations For Non-road Diesel Engines and Fuel: Comments of American Lung Association of California
Los Angeles, California, June 17, 2003

Los Angeles, Calif. — In a rare show of support for the Bush Administration’s environmental policies, a coalition of public health and environmental groups spoke out today in favor of a proposal by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to lower pollution from heavy diesel equipment by 90 percent and to substantially clean up the fuel used in those engines.

EPA conducted a public hearing in Los Angeles to seek input on the draft rule that would require so-called "non-road" diesel equipment, like farm and construction vehicles, to meet emission levels comparable to highway vehicles over the next decade. In addition, the rule would cut the sulfur level in diesel fuel for all types of these non-road engines, including ships and trains. Health professionals, scientists and environmental activists, accustomed to almost daily rollbacks in environmental protections, expressed concern that the Administration would bow to internal political pressures to weaken the proposed rule, especially in light of the departure of EPA Administrator Christine Todd Whitman who has championed the regulation.

Diesel emissions are a particular concern in the Los Angeles area, where the largely unregulated diesel non-road sector accounts for a staggering 38 percent of the soot emitted from all mobile sources, according to a report issued last week by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS). Nationally, diesel-fueled heavy equipment commonly used at industrial and construction sites produced more deadly fine particle soot in 2001 than cars, trucks and buses combined.

"The dirtiest diesels aren’t necessarily the trucks and buses on LA’s streets," said Patricia Monahan, author of the UCS report, Cleaning Up Diesel Pollution: Emissions from Off-Highway Engines by State. "Whether you’re downtown or down on the farm, off-highway engines, such as bulldozers, tractors, and ships, are major polluters." One typical non-road dump truck emits more soot than 2000 average cars, she added.

EPA’s current proposal would require oil refiners nationally to reduce the sulfur in the diesel fuel used in heavy equipment from its current uncontrolled level of 3,400 parts per million (ppm) to 500 ppm in 2007 and 15 ppm in 2010. The sulfur level in diesel fuel for ships and trains would be reduced to 500 ppm, and EPA is considering lowering that level to 15 ppm as well. EPA estimates increased fuel costs of 4.8 cents per gallon to reach the lower standard, but also expects the cleaner fuel to result in lower maintenance costs equal to a 3.3 cents-per-gallon savings. Sulfur poisons emission controls for diesel engines just as lead in gasoline disabled catalytic converters. Once the sulfur in the fuel is reduced to minimal levels, the rules would require most new engines to be equipped with state-of-the-art emission control technologies that reduce particulate soot and smog-forming nitrogen oxides by about 90 percent, largely consistent with standards for trucks and buses. These pollution controls would be phased in between 2011 and 2014. Equipment costs will vary, but are expected to add one to two percent to the retail cost. Similar requirements already were adopted for highway vehicles such as trucks and buses.

"If we can clean-up the nation's big-rigs on the road, we can do the same for bulldozers, farm tractors, and heavy port equipment. EPA has an opportunity — and an obligation — to bring these cleaner technologies to a sector that is responsible for so much of California’s air pollution — and to do it faster than this rule currently requires," said Julie Masters, an attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). "The breathing public cannot afford any more delay in cleaning up the nation's belching diesel equipment."

While extremely supportive of the proposed rule, the groups are concerned that its important health benefits will be achieved too far in the future and are calling for more rapid implementation.

When in place, EPA’s proposed controls would prevent an estimated 16,324 asthma attacks and 770 premature deaths each year in California alone, according to state and local air officials. Nationally, EPA has estimated that when the new rule is fully implemented, cleaning up emissions from heavy diesel equipment will prevent 9,600 premature deaths annually, along with 8,300 fewer hospitalizations, 16,000 fewer heart attacks, 260,000 fewer respiratory problems in children including 5,700 fewer asthma-related emergency room visits and almost a million work days lost.

"The Bush administration should require the oil industry and engine manufacturers to reduce the harmful diesel emissions from construction, industrial and farm equipment as soon as possible and not years in the future," said James Dahlgren, MD., a Santa Monica physician specializing in environmental and occupational toxicology and a member of Physicians for Social Responsibility. "Every day we delay, more people suffer asthma attacks, bronchitis, and lung cancer from breathing diesel fumes."

San Pedro resident Marie Malahi was a competitive skier who took part in World Cup competition. Once she moved downwind of the Port of Los Angeles, she developed so many health problems that she can no longer venture into cold weather.

"My entire family has developed health problems, including allergies, severe asthma, chronic sinus infections, autoimmune diseases, and various breathing problems, to name a few. My mother never had health problems, and moved in with us in her 50s and she developed asthma," said Malahi. "I don’t want to shut down the operations here, I just want them to use the cleanest technology that’s available."

Environmental and public health groups also have called for EPA to strengthen the proposal by including all engine sizes (not just the bigger engines that EPA proposes) and by developing stronger emissions standards for railroad locomotives and marine vessels -- noting the huge pollution challenges posed by California’s ports and rail yards.

"To understand why EPA needs to adopt a tough non-road diesel rule, one only needs to breathe the air in the ports, airports, transportation corridors, and construction sites in the Los Angeles area," said Todd Campbell, Policy Director for the Coalition for Clean Air. "Our region experiences cancer levels 1500 times above 'acceptable cancer-risk limits' and there are plans to triple the volume of heavy-duty diesel non-road equipment and infrastructure to meet international, national and regional trade demands by 2025. It's not a question of want," continued Campbell, "this rule is a 'must-have' policy for California air quality."

California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment has concluded, "Long-term exposure to diesel exhaust particles poses the highest cancer risk of any toxic air contaminant evaluated…" An ARB study found that about 70 percent of the total inhalation cancer risk from air pollution for the average Californians is due to diesel exhaust.

"The public health benefit of controlling diesel emissions has never been more clear," claimed Vandana Bali with the American Lung Association of California. "Children and adults will have fewer asthma attacks and hospitalizations linked to lung illnesses and lower pollution levels will mean fewer premature deaths and school absences.  EPA must not bow to industry pleas to slow down this rule.  In fact, we are urging EPA to cut diesel pollution sooner than proposed. "

While the environmental and public health groups found themselves in the unusual position of supporting a Bush Administration-proposed environmental policy, many expressed concern that the plan could get weakened before it is finalized.  The Bush Administration has had an extensive record of supporting policies that weaken existing law including the Clear Skies Initiative, which would weaken public health protections of the current Clean Air Act. 

"The Bush administration is on the right track with this proposal to reduce harmful diesel pollution," said Environment California’s Evan Paul. "But for clean air, it’s one step forward after several steps back."

####

Organization Contacts:
Andy Weisser (American Lung Association of California) 818-703-6444
Todd Campbell (Coalition for Clean Air) 310-721-3302
Evan Paul (Environment California) — 415-206-9185 ext. 307
Jerilyn Mendoza (Environmental Defense) — 213- 368-5501
Julie Masters (Natural Resources Defense Council) — 323-934-6900
Martha Arguello (Physicians for Social Responsibility) 213-386-4901
Patricia Monahan (Union of Concerned Scientists) 510-843-1872 ext. 308

Related Link: Proposed EPA Regulations For Non-road Diesel Engines and Fuel: Comments of American Lung Association of California - Los Angeles, California, June 17, 2003