Cleaner Air for America

THE CASE FOR A NATIONAL PROGRAM TO CUT POLLUTION FROM TODAY’S DIESEL ENGINES

THE CASE FOR A NATIONAL PROGRAM TO CUT POLLUTION FROM TODAY’S DIESEL ENGINES

AUTHORS Yewlin Chee Cindy Copeland Mark MacLeod Jana Milford Vickie Patton Janea Scott Nancy Spencer Cover images: Left: Trucks “plugged in” to the IdleAire system (Photo courtesy of IdleAire). Center: Children’s baseball team (Doug Menuez/Photodisc Green). Right: Construction equipment retrofit with a diesel particulate filter (Photo courtesy of Johnson Matthey).

Our mission Environmental Defense is dedicated to protecting the environmental rights of all people, including the right to clean air, clean water, healthy food and flourishing ecosystems. Guided by science, we work to create practical solutions that win lasting political, economic and social support because they are nonpartisan, cost- effective and fair.

The complete report is available online at www.environmentaldefense.org. Contents

Acknowledgments iv

Executive summary v

Introduction 1

CHAPTER 1 Principles for a national retrofit program 3

CHAPTER 2 The dangers of diesel pollution 8

CHAPTER 3 The pollution reduction gap 12

CHAPTER 4 Cleaning up existing engines is a cost-effective way to protect 14 Americans from the health risks of diesel exhaust

CHAPTER 5 Diesel cleanup programs that 20 are working now

Conclusion 33

APPENDIX A The national pollution burden from diesel engines 34

APPENDIX B Methodology used to estimate the benefits and costs of pollution 38 reduction scenarios for existing diesel engines

Notes 42

iii Acknowledgments

The authors of this report are: Yewlin quickly and successfully numerous tasks Chee, Cindy Copeland, Mark MacLeod, involved in writing and producing the Jana Milford, Vickie Patton, Janea Scott, report. And last, but certainly not least, and Nancy Spencer. We would like to we extend our sincere appreciation to the thank Dr. John Balbus for his consulta- many people who lent their knowledge, tion on the health effects section of the ideas, wisdom and insight to reviewing report. We would also like to thank several iterations of this report. technical consultant Sandra Goodman, Environmental Defense does not from E3 Ventures, for her detailed endorse any particular air pollution analysis of the costs and benefits of control technology or method. This retrofitting various diesel fleets. We report factually describes air pollution very much appreciate the help of control technologies and methods based Stephanie Tatham for completing on published reports.

iv Executive summary

The U.S. Environmental Protection A national program to cut pollution Agency (EPA) estimates that by 2030, its from today’s diesel engines would speed revolutionary programs to reduce air pol- the transition to cleaner diesel engines lution from new diesel buses and freight and achieve healthier air for today’s chil- trucks and new nonroad diesel equipment dren. To assess the health benefits and will slash diesel emissions by more than costs of a comprehensive diesel emission 80% from 2000 levels. Collectively, these reduction program for existing engines, federal standards are projected to prevent as well as to evaluate potential funding more than 20,000 premature deaths, levels, Environmental Defense examined 15,900 hospital admissions, and over two scenarios in which different emission half a million asthma attacks each year. control measures were applied to diesel But because these federal standards construction equipment, school buses apply only to new diesel engines and and transit buses in the core counties because diesel engines are so durable, of the 50 largest metropolitan areas the high levels of pollution from exist- in the U.S. These 88 counties, along ing diesel sources will persist through- with the District of Columbia, contain out the long lives of the engines in 94.6 million people, or one-third of service today. The practical effect of the U.S. population. this lengthy transition to cleaner diesel We examined construction equipment engines is that the children suffering because these engines have high pollu- the effects of diesel exhaust today will be tion levels and typically operate for long raising their own children before the hours. We included diesel school buses new federal emission standards deliver and transit buses because they expose their full health benefits in 2030. sensitive populations to diesel pollution.

FIGURE 1 Investments in a national diesel control program yield healthy returns An investment in diesel engine retrofits ranging from $600 million to $1.6 billion yields amulti-year stream of health benefits with a net present value ranging from $10.6 to $19.2 billion.

15 $10.6 billion–$19.2 billion

10 Billions of dollars 5

$600 million–$1.6 billion 0 Investment Health benefits

v FIGURE 2 Diesel pollution reduction scenarios: range of annual costs when investments spread over seven years

300

250

$129 million–$287 million 200 $83 million–$296 million

150

100 Millions of dollars

0 Diesel oxidation catalyst Diesel particulate filter

Our two scenarios assumed installation and ranged from $10.6 billion to $19.2 of two widely available emission control billion (see Figure 1). measures on construction equipment and Our analysis provides a benchmark buses within the studied counties: diesel for the level of funding necessary to particulate filters and diesel oxidation make a real impact in reducing danger- catalysts. Diesel particulate filters can ous emissions from the existing diesel reduce particulate pollution by 80% to fleet. Over the course of seven years, the 95% per engine, but can only be applied emission controls examined in our study to a limited set of engines. Diesel oxida- would range in cost from approximately tion catalysts reduce particulate pollution $83 million annually to $296 million by 20% to 35% per engine, but are sig- annually (see Figure 2). Environmental nificantly lower in price and can be Defense recommends federal funding for a applied broadly across fleets. Thus, these national program of $296 million annu- two scenarios illustrate the range of ally for seven years. Federal funding in costs to achieve steep reductions from a the higher part of the cost range would limited set of engines and more modest increase the ability of a national pro- reductions over many more engines. The gram to address types of diesel engines scenarios are illustrative. The appropri- and control technologies excluded from ate mix of pollution reduction strategies our analysis such as locomotive and will vary widely across communities. marine engines and idle reduction strate- Using EPA’s valuation methodologies, gies. Importantly, it would also provide we found that investment in a national resources to better accommodate con- diesel pollution control program will trols for additional pollutants, to support yield healthy returns. Figure 1 shows the additional communities, large and small, lump sum costs of applying the two tech- across America that are committed to nology scenarios to school buses, transit well-run clean diesel programs, and to buses and construction equipment in address the administrative costs inherent the 50 most populated cities ranged in a program of this scope. The nation’s from $600 million to $1.6 billion. 50 most populated areas, which were The net present value of the resulting examined in our pollution reduction health benefits far exceeded these costs, scenarios, are listed in Table 1.

vi TABLE 1 50 most populated metropolitan areas in the U.S., examined in diesel pollution reduction program scenarios

1. New York City 26. Milwaukee 2. Los Angeles 27. Orlando 3. Chicago 28. Indianapolis 4. Washington-Baltimore 29. San Antonio 5. San Francisco-Oakland 30. Norfolk-Virginia Beach-Newport News 6. Philadelphia 31. Las Vegas 7. Boston 32. Columbus, OH 8. Detroit 33. Charlotte, NC 9. Dallas-Fort Worth 34. New Orleans 10. Houston 35. Salt Lake City 11. Atlanta 36. Greensboro, NC 12. Miami, FL 37. Austin 13. Seattle-Tacoma 38. Nashville 14. Phoenix 39. Providence-Fall River 15. Minneapolis-St. Paul 40. Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill 16. Cleveland 41. Hartford 17. San Diego 42. Buffalo, NY 18. St. Louis 43. Memphis 19. Denver 44. Jacksonville, FL 20. Tampa-St. Petersburg 45. Rochester, NY 21. Pittsburgh 46. Grand Rapids, MI 22. Portland, OR 47. Oklahoma City 23. Cincinnati 48. Louisville, KY 24. Sacramento 49. Richmond, VA 25. Kansas City 50. Greenville-Spartanburg, SC

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000

Diesel exhaust is one of the most Diesel exhaust is made up primarily dangerous forms of air pollution of microscopic particles that lodge deep Diesel exhaust is as ubiquitous as diesel in our lungs and deliver toxic pollutants equipment, which is used throughout our to our bloodstreams along with a variety economy, in transportation, construction, of hazardous gases like sulfur dioxide agriculture and industry, on our highways and oxides of nitrogen. It is associated and streets, in our waters and on our rails. with a wide range of health effects The need for a major national program beyond cancer, including neurological to reduce diesel pollution is based on the effects, a weakened immune system, extraordinary level of harm diesel exhaust respiratory disease and cardiovascular causes to the people who breathe it. Diesel disease. Diesel exhaust contributes to exhaust and many of its components are all the adverse health effects associated considered probable human carcinogens. with particulate pollution, and also to EPA national air toxics data shows that the formation of ground-level ozone, up to 80% of the total cancer risk Amer- which is a powerful respiratory irritant icans face from air pollution can be associated with asthma attacks, hospital- attributed to diesel exhaust. izations and premature death.

vii FIGURE 3 Particulate pollution under phase-in of federal standards for diesel trucks, buses, and machinery

400,000

350,000

300,000

250,000

200,000

150,000

100,000 Emissions (tons per year) per (tons Emissions 50,000

0 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030

The pollution reduction gap being administered by local, state Now is the time for national action to cut and federal government agencies. pollution from today’s diesel engines. The On a limited scale, these programs serious health effects of diesel pollution are are delivering the promise of lower expressed by EPA’s projected benefits of its diesel emissions and speeding the emission standards for new diesel trucks transition to cleaner diesel fleets. The and buses and nonroad equipment. Once geographic and technological range those programs are fully phased in by of these programs demonstrates both 2030, EPA estimates 20,000 premature the nationwide scope of the diesel deaths will be prevented each year. The pollution problem and the opportunity same health effects that will be avoided in for an expanded federal effort to 2030 are occurring now, and will continue deliver cleaner, healthier air to com- until today’s high-polluting diesel equip- munities across the country. These ment is replaced or cleaned up. Because programs are the proving grounds diesel engines are so durable, newer, for a more complete national program. cleaner engines will be slow to penetrate Figure 4 summarizes some of the the market, and EPA projects that only diesel pollution reduction programs 50 percent of the ultimate annual level of communities across the nation are health benefits resulting from the new carrying out today. nonroad engine standards will be achieved by 2020. Figure 3 shows the full particulate pollution reductions under EPA’s emission A national diesel pollution standards for diesel trucks, buses and reduction program: Cleaner Air machinery will not be realized until 2030. for America A well-funded, well-designed national program would accelerate the transition Diesel cleanup programs are to cleaner diesel technology and close working today the gap between the clean diesel tech- Grant, loan and incentive programs nology of tomorrow and today’s high to reduce diesel pollution are already levels of dangerous diesel pollution.

viii Environmental Defense strongly sup- accelerate diesel emission reductions. A ports creation of a new federal grant and national program should be flexible in loan program organized on the follow- responding to these differences. ing principles: 6. A federal grant and loan program 1. A diesel pollution reduction program should reward state and local efforts. should maximize health and environ- State and local support for emission mental benefits. Projects competing reduction measures can be rewarded for federal grant and loan funds should through federal matching funds. be ranked by the health and environ- 7. A federal program should capitalize mental benefits they will produce, on and support community action. with priority given to projects that offer The burden of air pollution falls the greatest protection, especially those heavily on local governments. Com- that target susceptible subpopulations munities are banding together in public- including children. private partnerships to reduce pollution 2. A diesel pollution reduction program such as the Cleveland Air Toxics pilot should promote cost-effective solutions. project. Projects associated with such A competitive grant process should mini- collaborative local efforts should be mize costs by encouraging competition given priority in a federal grant and among cleaner diesel solutions. loan program.

3. Including all industry sectors serves 8. Information on program performance many populations. A national program should be accessible. EPA should estab- should serve the broad range of people lish standardized metrics to report the exposed to diesel exhaust, including progress of grant and loan recipient pro- schoolchildren and the people who live grams, and should make this informa- near and work at railroads, ports, road- tion widely accessible. ways, farms, mines, construction sites and industrial facilities where diesel A well-designed federal grant and equipment is used. loan program to reduce diesel pollution 4. A program should advance a broad could help foster a variety of clean air programs including: 1) local, state and range of solutions. Successful solutions federal agency leadership in cleaning up will include pollution control retrofits, government diesel fleets through pro- replacement of old engines with curement policies, 2) federal recognition newer, cleaner models, operational of diesel pollution reduction programs changes such as idle-reduction, and in state air quality management plans, alternative power sources such as truck and 3) local collaborative efforts to lower stop electrification and shore power exposure to hazardous air pollution for marine vessels. All of these solutions through comprehensive community- should compete for federal funds on based strategies. the basis of their costs and the benefits The human health and economic they offer. case to lower pollution from today’s 5. Incentives should be tailored to the diesel engines is compelling. With specific application. Some sectors will sustained federal support, the nation be better suited for grant programs, can speed the transition to cleaner while for others, loans will provide diesel engines and achieve cleaner air sufficient incentive for fleet owners to for America today.

ix FIGURE 4 Cleaner air for America success stories

5 6 7 3

8 2 8 8

1 Seattle and Juneau cruise ship docks. The anti-idle technology would eliminate 12.5 tons of NOx West Coast Diesel Emissions Reduction Collaborative per year at an average-sized rail switching yard. facilitated Princess Cruise’s project to provide shore- based electric power to its cruise ship docks. Shore 6 New York: Construction contracts require power will eliminate 13 tons per year of smog- cleaner diesel equipment. State law requires best

forming oxides of nitrogen (NOx) and 2 tons per year of available retrofits and ultra low sulfur diesel (ULSD) particulate pollution emissions in Seattle. fuel in all state-controlled construction projects in Lower Manhattan, including at the World Trade 2 Los Angeles: Alternative marine power eliminates Center site. Local Law 77 makes ULSD and best ship pollution at berth. The new China Shipping available emission control technology a requirement terminal at the Port of Los Angeles will eliminate of all city contracts.

1ton of NOx and particulate pollution each day it is in use. 7 Hunts Point Truckstop electrification. Electrified truck stop facilities are reducing idling emissions at 3 Denver: Hybrid buses serve downtown this massive meat and produce market located in a passengers. Hybrid electric and compressed natural New York City neighborhood where one-third of the gas-fueled buses deliver passengers to a downtown children suffer from asthma. pedestrian mall that links offices, shopping and regional transit. 8 I-85 Truckstops reduce diesel emissions in Georgia, South Carolina and North Carolina. 4 Houston locomotive retrofit and repower Electrified stations eliminate idling emissions and save projects: The Texas Emissions Reduction Project is 263,000 gallons of diesel fuel per year at each of three funding replacement of old switching engines with truck stops. Truckers turning off their engines will

newer, cleaner models, and repowering engines with eliminate 35 tons per year of NOx and 1 ton per year hybrid technology. TERP expects to reduce locomotive of PM emissions at each electrified truck stop.

NOx emissions by 3300 tons. Various locations: EPA’s Clean Schoolbus USA 5 Chicago Anti-Idling Study. A cooperative public- Program is making the ride to school healthier for private demonstration project estimates that available kids in 47 communities scattered across the country.

x Introduction

Diesel exhaust is one of the most can maximize the human health benefits dangerous and pervasive forms of air of clean air investments by acting swiftly pollution. In 2004, the U.S. Environ- to close the divide between today’s high- mental Protection Agency (EPA) polluting engines and the cleaner fleets finalized a program to dramatically due years from now. reduce pollution from nonroad diesel The technical foundation for clean- engines used in construction, agri- ing up today’s diesel engines is at hand. culture, manufacturing and mining. Cleaner low sulfur diesel fuel is already This program complements the clean available in some large markets and will air standards for nonroad diesel engines be required for onroad vehicles in 2006. and fuel adopted in 2001 for onroad The broad availability of cleaner diesel diesel engines used in trucks and fuel creates the opportunity to deploy buses. EPA estimates that by 2030, arange of cost-effective emission con- the nonroad and onroad diesel programs trols, such as diesel particulate filters, together will slash emissions from these to reduce pollution from existing diesel fleets by more than 80% from 2000 engines. Similarly, strategies to control levels and annually prevent more than engine idling are available to cut emis- 20,000 premature deaths. sions from idling trucks, buses, loco- EPA’s actions to reduce diesel pol- motives, and marine engines. lution are truly revolutionary. But the EPA’s diesel retrofit program, along emission standards apply only to new with leading state programs like Cali- engines, and diesel engines are so dur- fornia’s Carl Moyer Program and able that they are typically used for Texas’ Emission Reduction Plan, have many years, sometimes for decades. shown that diesel retrofits are a feasible Therefore, the diesel revolution will take and cost-effective means to reduce years to be fully realized, and its benefits pollution from existing engines. This will be delayed as dirty old engines includes dangerous diesel particulate continue to run and pollute for years matter, nitrogen oxides that lead to to come. EPA estimates that by 2020, ozone pollution and the many toxic only half of the annual pulic health and carcinogenic chemicals found in benefits of the nonroad diesel rule will diesel exhaust. Federal leadership to be achieved. The children suffering the expand these programs will deliver effects of diesel exhaust today will be the promise of EPA’s diesel emission raising their own children before the reduction programs to Americans with- new emission standards deliver their out waiting decades for old engines to full health benefits in 2030. To realize wear out. more immediate health protections We review the serious health for today’s children, it is essential to and environmental threats caused cut pollution from diesel engines that by diesel exhaust, and the striking are on the road today. amount of diesel pollution that will A program that will reduce diesel be emitted between now and the full pollution today can relieve the burden realization of the emission reductions imposed on the millions of people EPA’s new diesel standards are exposed to the dangerous exhaust from designed to achieve. We evaluate the diesel engines now in use. Policymakers investments necessary to achieve more

1 immediate clean air benefits across existing diesel engines: construction America, and the extraordinary divi- equipment, onroad heavy-duty dends in human health protections trucks, school and transit buses, that will result. Finally, we highlight commercial marine engines, and some of the promising and successful locomotives. These programs are emission reduction programs already the proving grounds for more far- in place across the spectrum of reaching national action.

2 CHAPTER 1 Principles for a national diesel retrofit program

The case for reducing pollution from reduction projects that deliver public existing diesel engines is compelling. health and environmental benefits in a Accelerated retrofit and replacement of cost-effective manner. Because of the existing engines, combined with changes wide variety of populations affected by in the way these engines are operated, diesel emissions and the range of will yield immediate public health bene- emission reduction strategies available, fits. Chapter 5 examines a variety of EPA will need a sufficient degree of successful programs in place now to cut flexibility to assess and rank competing diesel pollution. These programs show projects. By adopting the following that diesel retrofits and other emission design principles, Congress would reduction strategies for existing diesel maximize the benefits of a federal grant engines are both practical and cost- and loan program while giving the effective. Indeed, the experience gained Agency an appropriate degree of from the programs in place provides the guidance and discretion on the selection technical and policy foundation for a of individual projects: more comprehensive national strategy. This section describes the principles 1. A diesel pollution reduction for designing a more comprehensive program should maximize health federal grant and loan program as well and environmental benefits as non-financial incentives to cut pollu- The primary consideration in ranking tion from today’s diesel engines. Such proposed diesel emission reduction initiatives could have multi-faceted projects should be the health and envi- benefits for state and local governments. ronmental benefits produced by the States could draw on expanded support project. Projects expected to produce for diesel pollution abatement programs the greatest health and environmental to lower particulate pollution and ozone, benefits include those that: serve areas and to cut haze in national parks and that fail to meet the health-based wilderness areas. State pollution abate- national ambient air quality standards, ment strategies to address these air serve areas with high population densi- quality problems are due in 2007 for ties, target susceptible subpopulations ozone and haze, and 2008 for particu- including children and the elderly, late pollution. Enhanced programs reduce more than one pollutant and/or to cut pollution from existing diesel air toxic, and assist areas that receive a engines could also benefit urban and disproportionate amount of air pollution rural communities hard hit by diesel from diesel equipment. pollution or otherwise seeking federal While assisting communities in support for ways to lower the public’s achieving the national heath-based air exposure to hazardous diesel exhaust. quality standards is an important goal of any national diesel retrofit program, a program should not overlook the health Design principles for a grant and environmental benefits of projects and loan program in areas meeting the national standards. Congress should establish a federal For example, truck stops—where rows grant and loan program that would of tractor-trailers run their diesel make funds available to diesel emission engines constantly to provide heat and

3 electricity for the cab—create local hot 3. A program should include all industry spots of poor air quality where truck sectors and serve many populations stop employees, truckers, other travelers, A diesel emission reduction program and surrounding neighbors endure high should not be limited to certain sectors. exposure levels. Idle reduction programs Instead, a program should promote can provide important public health technology in all sectors including benefits to those exposed even if the construction, locomotive, school and truck stop is located in an area meeting transit buses, short-haul freight and the health standards. garbage trucks, marine and ports, and The contaminants in diesel exhaust agriculture. Each of these industry also degrade the environment and sectors is also comprised of a sub- contribute to haze in national parks. population of Americans including Diesel pollution reduction projects to farmers, dockworkers, railway workers, help protect forests, aquatic ecosystems children, laborers, tourists on ferry or scenic vistas can be important in their boats, construction workers, and many own right while also lowering harmful others. A national program should human exposure to particulate pollution. attempt to serve all of these populations by supporting pilot projects that will 2. A diesel emission reduction program spur development and broader deploy- should promote cost-effective solutions ment of emission reduction applications A competitive grants process would suited to each sector. minimize costs by creating competition between diesel retrofit solutions. Such 4. A program should advance a broad competition promotes efficiency across range of diesel emission reduction the program design chain including technologies the emission control manufacturers, The goal of a diesel emission reduction equipment suppliers, and fleets. As a program is, of course, to provide public general guiding principle, those appli- health and environment benefits by cations that provide greater public reducing diesel pollution. But the health or environmental benefits per technology to provide diesel emission dollar should be selected over those reductions can take many forms. The list with higher unit costs. of possible applications is expansive and The implementing agency will includes: switching to ultra-low sulfur need some flexibility to evaluate cost- diesel fuel; repowering with more effectiveness. Some measures that efficient and cleaner engines; installing appear cost-effective in the short run after-market emission control tech- may be less so over time. Even within nology; and idle reduction programs fleets, some portions of the fleet have including use of auxiliary power units, more potential for cleanup than and truck stop or port electrification. others—which also impacts cost- A competitive grants program open effectiveness. The agency administering to all possible technologies will release the program should also be given flex- the power of the market to spur inno- ibility to award some funds to innovation. American entrepreneurs, whether vative approaches that are not as far working on after-market emissions con- along in research, development and trol equipment, auxiliary power units, deployment but that are nevertheless or any other diesel emission reduction promising in achieving cost-effective solution should be eligible for appropri- pollution reductions. ate incentives. Pre-selecting a subset of

4 technology applications for support Another form of leverage is non- would inhibit innovation. financial. States and local governments could establish specifications requiring 5. Incentives should be tailored to the retrofit equipment as part of the con- sector and specific applications tract competition for public works Incentives should be tailored to the projects. States could also establish economic characteristics of the teams of diesel emission reduction industry sector and the specific experts that could assist communities application. The scope of possible with developing diesel emission reduc- diesel emission reduction measures tion project proposals, preparing grants and variety of applications necessitates applications, designing monitoring aligning the economic incentive pro- and verification programs and other vided from a grant and loan program activities. States could also develop their with the economic and business own leadership program by committing characteristics of individual applications. to retrofit a portion of the state vehicle For instance, there may be limited fleet. A federal grant program could give opportunity to recover the capital additional weight to applications from investment made to retrofit construction states that undertake one or more of equipment. Therefore, a grant for the these practices. full capital cost of the equipment may be required to induce retrofit invest- 7. A federal program should capitalize ment. But for truck stop electrification, on and support community action the story may be quite different. In this EPA has recently established a case, fuel savings that accrue to truck community-based air toxics program owners by turning off their engines and known as Community Action for a utilizing the electric power source at Renewed Environment. The program the terminal can be used to pay for utilizes a multi-stakeholder local col- the electrification equipment. Rather laborative approach to identify com- than a full grant, truck stop electrifica- munity air toxics risks and carry out tion proposals may only need a low cost specific measures to reduce those loan program to overcome the “first risks. The proposed measures for the cost” barrier. pilot initiative in Cleveland, Ohio included diesel retrofit and idle 6. A federal grant program should reduction projects. Community encourage state and local efforts involvement can help ensure diesel To provide the greatest amount of pub- emission reduction projects are rigor- lic health and environmental benefits, a ously implemented and evaluated. federal grant program should leverage Further, communities developing a state and local resources. An example comprehensive strategy to lower air is a provision for matching funds where toxics exposure demonstrate a strong state and local governments devote commitment to air quality improve- some of their own resources to access a ments. To reward this level of com- larger amount of federal dollars. Such munity effort and leverage the benefits aprovision would increase the total of federal support, diesel pollution supply of funds—and concomitant abatement projects that are proposed as benefits—and would help demonstrate part of a broader community-based air acommunity's commitment to the toxics initiative should receive some success of the program. higher funding priority.

5 8. A program should make information Similarly, local, state and federal air accessible quality managers can better understand Expanding the scope of diesel emission the role of diesel emission reductions reduction efforts requires stakeholder technologies as part of an overall confidence. Equipment owners and effort to improve air quality. A federal operators need to know how diesel program that encourages cooperation pollution control technologies perform and the transfer of information between in real world conditions. State and local EPA, states, and local stakeholders officials relying on diesel emission can accelerate the development of reduction strategies as part of air quality clean air solutions. planning need to know that reduction While a federal grant and loan strategies actually deliver the promised program can “seed” solutions that have benefits. The public requires similar broader benefits, it is unlikely there will assurance if taxpayer funds help pay for be enough resources in any single retro- the projects. To bolster confidence, EPA fit program to address the millions of and the California Air Resources Board existing diesel engines. Other policies must establish a system for prompt, and programs including non-financial accurate and reliable verification of incentives will be required to comple- diesel emission reduction technologies. ment a national voluntary grant and Further, projects funded under a federal loan program. grant and loan program should be subject to appropriate monitoring and STATE AND FEDERAL AGENCY verification protocols. EPA should LEADERSHIP then publicize information on the per- Public agencies should be leaders in formance of projects including their incorporating public values into oper- cost-effectiveness. By reporting on ating decisions and should be the first successful and unsuccessful projects, to avail themselves of diesel emission participants can replicate the successes reduction solutions. The federal gov- and avoid potential failures. ernment has a series of laws, executive orders, and presidential directives governing its own energy and water Placing a national diesel management. State governors have emission reduction grant and issued executive orders specifying goals loan program in context for renewable energy purchases by state These design principles apply to a agencies. The President and Congress, voluntary grant and loan program. along with their state counterparts, Such a program can spur the deploy- could establish similar programs to ment of retrofits and other diesel reduce diesel pollution from existing emission reduction solutions. Retrofit federal and state fleets. projects funded by the program can serve as platforms for testing and veri- SPECIFICATIONS IN PUBLIC fication of additional equipment con- WORKS CONTRACTS figurations—which is necessary for Another way of promoting the use of wider deployment. These same projects cleaner diesel fleets is for local, state and provide valuable experience for equip- federal governments to include diesel ment owners and operators, mechanics emission reduction practices as a require- and maintenance personnel, and engine ment in contracts for public works and emissions control manufacturers. projects such as highway construction

6 and the building of public facilities. LOCAL COLLABORATIVE EFFORTS Contracts can include specifications Much of the current progress reducing for the use of ultra-low sulfur diesel pollution from existing diesel engines fuel, installation of emission controls on has originated from local initiatives equipment, and idle reduction practices. such as those in Puget Sound and Once construction fleets upgrade their Sacramento. As noted, Cleveland is equipment and practices for government pursuing diesel emission reductions contracts, the public would continue to as part of a community-based, multi- receive benefits if the equipment is used stakeholder collaborative process to in private contracts. This approach has lower air toxics. Recently, regional been adopted in several state and local diesel collaboratives, such as the projects already.1 Establishing such Midwest Diesel Initiative and the requirements for all federal highway West Coast Diesel Emissions Reduc- projects would be a dramatic incentive tion Collaborative, have brought to further deployment of emission together affected citizens, industry reduction strategies. and public officials to examine diesel emission reduction measures. STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS A strong non-financial incentive for diesel A ROLE FOR REGULATION emission reduction programs is their While this discussion has focused potential eligibility to qualify as emission on voluntary programs, in some cases reduction measures in state and tribal air local, state, or federal agencies may quality management plans required to determine that some form of regula- restore healthy air or cut haze in national tion is the appropriate solution. For parks. EPA already has prepared guidance instance, the California Air Resources for local governments relying on truck Board has established a requirement idling and switchyard locomotive idling that locomotive and marine engines emission reductions in air quality man- operating predominately within the agement strategies. EPA should finalize state use ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel in rigorous guidance to assist state, tribal 2007, several years before federal law and local air quality managers in deter- would require. State and local officials mining the amount of emission reduc- must preserve their authority to tailor tions that can be obtained from various diesel emission reduction policies to diesel pollution control programs. local conditions.

7 CHAPTER 2 The dangers of diesel pollution

Diesel exhaust is the mix of gas, that “long-term exposure to diesel liquid and solid components that is exhaust particles poses the highest produced when an engine burns diesel cancer risk of any toxic air contaminant fuel. Its composition depends on the evaluated ....”2 Aseparate assessment type of engine, the operating condi- suggested that the result for the tions, fuel characteristics and the United States as a whole is even worse: presence of a control system, but it 80 percent of the total cancer risk always contains both particulate from hazardous air pollutants nation- matter and a complex mixture of wide is associated with the inhalation hundreds of gases. The small size of of diesel exhaust.3 the particles in diesel exhaust and the Last year, CARB sponsored a risk large number of toxic chemicals it assessment of diesel exhaust at the J.R. contains make diesel exhaust a par- Davis Yard, a busy hub for railcar ticularly potent threat to the human switching located in Roseville, near body. In addition, oxides of nitrogen Sacramento. It is the busiest rail yard

(NOx) and volatile organic compounds west of the Rocky Mountains, and rail (VOCs) in diesel exhaust combine cars are switched there around the clock. in the presence of sunlight to form Once a rural area, Roseville has boomed ground-level ozone, which poses further in population, and families in new serious danger to human health and to homes live close to this large source the environment. of diesel pollution. More than 40 constituents of The Roseville study concluded that diesel exhaust are listed by either dangerous concentrations of ultra-fine EPA or the California Air Resources particulates from the rail yard extend Board (CARB) as hazardous air pol- out over a now-crowded landscape lutants or toxic air contaminants. At and affect residents for miles around.4 least 21 of these substances are listed Specifically, diesel exhaust from the by the State of California as known rail yard contributes an estimated carcinogens or reproductive toxicants. additional cancer risk at a rate between Numerous governmental agencies and 100 and 500 cases per million people scientific bodies including EPA, the over an area in which between 14,000 World Health Organization, CARB, and 26,000 people live, and at a rate and the Health Effects Institute have between 10 and 100 cases per million concluded that diesel exhaust is a people over a larger area in which probable human carcinogen. 140,000 to 155,000 people now live. According to the Multiple Air Cancer risks posed to workers in the Toxics Exposure Study (MATES-II) immediate area of the switching yard conducted by California’s South were even higher. The study concluded Coast Air Quality Management that the cancer risk associated with District, about 70 percent of the total diesel emissions at the rail yard were inhalation cancer risk from air pollu- substantially higher than the risk tion for the average Los Angeles posed by diesel emissions on the resident is due to diesel exhaust.1 adjacent interstate highway, I-80, California’s Office of Environmental which is itself a major east-west Health Hazard Assessment concluded trucking route, and an additional

8 Exposure to diesel exhaust has been associated with a wide range of health effects including cancer, neurological effects, a weakened immune system, respiratory disease and cardiovascular disease. A recent evaluation of lung cancer mortality in approximately 55,000 railroad workers between 1959 and 1996 revealed that those regularly exposed to diesel exhaust had a higher risk of dying from lung cancer than workers with limited exposure. The risk of lung cancer mortality for workers who operated diesel-powered trains was 40% greater than that for workers like ticket agents and clerks who were less exposed.7 Even short-term exposure to diesel exhaust can have immediate effects like diz- ziness, headaches, light-headedness, and nausea.8 People who inhale diesel exhaust can experience nasal irritation, breathing difficulties, cough and chest tightness.9 Animal studies suggest that exposure to diesel exhaust particulates decreases the body’s ability to fight bacterial infections.10 In both animals and humans, short-term

DAVE DAVE HENRY exposure to diesel exhaust causes inflam- The J.R. Davis Yard in Roseville, California. mation in the bloodstream and thick- ening of the blood, symptoms which are source of dangerous diesel emissions associated with cardiovascular disease that threatens this growing community. and heart attacks and offer a potential explanation for the increase in cardiovascular morbidity from air pollution.11 Diesel exhaust’s small particles Long term exposure to diesel exhaust are a big problem has been associated with other respira- The small size of the particles in tory effects including chronic inflamma- diesel exhaust makes it an efficient tion of lung tissue.12 Several studies have means of delivering chemicals into also linked diesel exhaust particles to our bodies. Diesel exhaust is easily asthma, suggesting that these particles inhaled deep into the lungs, where can increase the severity of respiratory its clearance is slow compared to larger symptoms in individuals with pre- particles that are primarily deposited existing conditions like asthma.13 in larger airways.5 Up to 85% of fine particles remain in the lungs 24 hours after initial exposure.6 This means Health effects of fine particulate that diesel exhaust has easy, long lasting pollution access to the most sensitive parts of Because it is so laden with fine particles, the lungs. diesel exhaust is implicated in all of the

9 NOx pollution from diesel engines While this report addresses mostly particulate mat- Similar to particulate pollution, EPA’s revolution- ter, diesel exhaust also contains both oxides of nitro- ary new emission standards for onroad and nonroad gen (NOX) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs), diesel engines will achieve dramatic reductions which combine in the atmosphere to form ground- from current NOx emission levels by 2030, but most level ozone, the primary component of smog. Ozone of these reductions will not be achieved for more smog can have serious effects on respiratory health than a decade. including shortness of breath, chest pains and There are several technologies currently coughing that can lead to asthma attacks, hospital available or in development to accelerate the pace admissions and emergency room visits, decreased of NOx reductions from diesel engines, including: lung function, possible long-term lung damage, and 17 • Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR), which can premature death. These consequences are more 19 achieve a 75–90% reduction in NOx , severe if ozone exposure occurs during physical • Lean NOx catalysts, which can achieve a 10–40% activity, for example working or exercising outdoors. 20 reduction in NOx , NOX also contributes to several other types of • Exhaust gas recirculation, which can achieve a pollution including nitrate particulate pollution, 21 40% or more reduction in NOx , and regional haze in national parks, nitrogen pollution • Fuel emulsifiers, which can achieve a 16–20% in our coastal waterbodies and forests, and acid reduction in NOx. rain in forests, soils and aquatic ecosystems. Diesel exhaust is a special concern for areas Like any retrofit option, these technologies that do not meet the federal air quality standards are not proper for all engines in all locations. for ozone due to its major contribution to ozone- Fleet operators and equipment manufacturers forming NOx. In 2004, EPA found that 474 counties, will know which technology is appropriate. home to 159 million Americans, do not comply with CARB has determined that NOx removal is cost- the federal health-based eight-hour ozone effective at a cost of up to $13,600 per ton of NOx standard.18 Overall, diesel engines, including reduced.22 The Texas Emissions Reduction Program highway vehicles (onroad), nonroad engines, marine follows a similar standard of $13,000 per ton of 23 vessels and locomotives released almost 6.9 million NOx reduced. short tons of NOX in 2002, or 32% of NOX from all Communities working to restore and maintain anthropogenic sources. In places like the San healthy ozone concentrations or otherwise impacted

Joaquin Valley and Houston, the NOx levels from by NOx pollution will need a variety of tools to cut diesel engines can be even higher. NOx pollution from today’s diesel engines.

FIGURE 5

Current NOx emissions from diesel engines and reductions under new EPA rules

6 100

Baseline emissions Controlled emissions Percent reduction 90 5 80 Percent reduction 70 4 60

3 50

40 2 30

20 1 10 Emissions (millions of tons per year) per tons of (millions Emissions 0 0 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030

Reductions show the effect of the 2001 onroad diesel rule and the 2004 nonroad diesel rule. Percent reductions are relative to emissions from all major onroad and nonroad diesel engines categories in the year 2000 except locomotives and commercial shipping. Source: Estimated from EPA, 2000 and EPA, 2004a

10 Children, the elderly and the chronically ill bear special risks from diesel exhaust Children, the elderly, individuals with asthma, cardiopulmonary disease and other lung diseases, and individuals with chronic heart diseases are particularly susceptible to the effects of diesel exhaust.24 Evidence continues to mount that children, especially those with asthma, are exceptionally sensitive to the effects of fine particle pollution.25 Air pollution affects children more than adults because they inhale more pollutants per pound of body weight and have a more rapid rate of respiration, narrower airways, and a less mature ability to metabolize, detoxify, and excrete toxins. Children also spend more time outdoors engaged in vigorous activities. Ath- letes are similarly susceptible for this reason. Exposures that occur in childhood are of special concern because children’s developmental processes can easily be disrupted and the resulting dysfunctions may be irreversible. CORBIS In addition, exposures that occur early in life appear more likely to lead to disease than do exposures later in life.26

dangers that led EPA in 1997 to adopt from exposure to fine particles include more protective health-based national asthma attacks and decreased lung ambient air quality standards for fine function.15 The effects on cardiovascular particles. Last year, EPA released a health are just as severe; numerous comprehensive review of recent scien- studies have linked elevated particulate tific evidence on the harmful effects of pollution with incidence of irregular particulate pollution in a report titled heartbeat and increased heart attack risk.16 Air Quality Criteria for Particulate The weight of evidence on the Matter, commonly known as the significant morbidity and mortality PM Criteria Document.14 The PM associated with fine particles is so Criteria Document detailed a wealth strong that EPA and the Clean Air of studies that built upon previously Science Advisory Committee have established health impacts of particulate recommended significantly tightening pollution including increased hospital the national air quality standards for and emergency room visits for respira- fine particles to reduce the immense tory and cardiovascular illness and burden that fine particle pollution increased mortality. Respiratory effects places on public health.

11 CHAPTER 3 The pollution reduction gap

EPA has estimated that by 2030, the now in use is replaced or cleaned up. diesel rule for onroad trucks and buses Figure 6 shows the pace at which EPA will prevent 8,300 premature deaths each projects the health benefits from its non- year which otherwise would have been road diesel rule will be achieved, begin- caused by exposure to particulate pollution ning in 2007, when the first phase of the from diesel emissions.1 EPA projects that low-sulfur diesel fuel requirements take the onroad diesel rule will also annually effect for nonroad engines. Only about prevent more than 7,000 hospital 30% of the ultimate level of annual admissions, 360,000 asthma attacks and benefits will be realized by 2015, and more than 1.5 million lost workdays in just over 50% will be realized by 2020. 2030.2 The nonroad rule similarly These numbers suggest that thousands promises tremendous health benefits in of premature deaths could be prevented 2030, including avoidance of 12,000 each year by speeding the cleanup of non- premature deaths and 8,900 hospital road diesel engines in the current fleet. admissions each year from particulate The slow progress toward the health pollution exposure.3 The nonroad rule is benefits promised by the new federal projected to annually prevent 200,000 diesel rules is mirrored by the rate of cases of exacerbated asthma in children diesel emission reductions. Most of the 4 in 2030. Notably, EPA’s estimates of reductions in particulate pollution (PM2.5) the benefits of reduced diesel emissions emissions resulting from the rules will do not even consider any reduced cancer not be achieved for more than a decade.

risk associated with the new rules. Figure 7 shows projected trends in PM2.5 The same health effects that will be emissions from onroad and nonroad diesel avoided in 2030 when implementation engines. By 2030, the national inventories

of these federal rules matures are occur- of PM2.5 emissions from diesel engines ring today and will continue to occur are projected to be about 80% lower than until high-polluting diesel equipment emission levels in 2000. However, more

FIGURE 6 Pace of achieving health benefits from EPA’s non-road diesel rule

120

100

Percent of 2030 health benefits achieved Percent 0 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030

EPA’s report shows monetized benefits, including improved visibility and human health. Health benefits account for 98% of the total.) Source: Adapted from EPA, 2004a, Table 9-16.

12 FIGURE 7

Current PM2.5 emissions from diesel engines and reductions under new EPA rules

400 100 Baseline emissions Controlled emissions Percent reduction 350 90 80

300 Percent reduction 70 250 60

200 50

150 40 30 100 20 50 10

Emissions (thousands of tons per year) per tons of (thousands Emissions 0 0 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030

Reductions show the effect of EPA’s 2001 onroad diesel rule and 2004 nonroad diesel rule. Percent reductions are relative to emissions from onroad and nonroad diesel engines in the year 2000. Source: Estimated from EPA, 2000 and EPA, 2004a.)

TABLE 2 Median lifetimes for diesel engines used in various types of construction and agricultural equipment Equipment type Engine size (hp) Activity (hrs/yr) Median engine life (yr) Row Crop Tractor 300 475 17 Row Crop Tractor 500 475 25 Crawler/Dozer 90 900 9 Backhoe 100 1135 20 Hydraulic excavator 430 1100 11 Grader 220 960 8.2

Estimated using EPA’s default emissions modeling assumptions (EPA, 2004b) than half of the reductions in annual the long lifespan of diesel engines, emissions levels will be postponed until especially those used in heavy agricul- after 2015. tural and construction equipment. As Two factors drive the delay in reduc- shown in Table 2, under typical operating diesel pollution. The first factor is ing loads and levels of use, EPA esti- the lapse in time before the emissions mates that heavy equipment engines can standards take effect for new engines. last for two decades or more, depending The standards finalized in 2001 for on how they are used. onroad engines will be phased in from These two factors combine to extend 2007–2010, while the phase-in of new the current high diesel pollution levels standards for nonroad diesel engines is for years into the future. At the same based on engine size, and begins in 2008 time, the long life of diesel engines with engines smaller than 75 horse- means that applying available pollution power (hp). Final standards for nonroad control technologies and practices to engines greater than 750 hp will not be existing engines can have immediate effective until 2015. The second factor is and lasting human health benefits.

13 CHAPTER 4 Cleaning up existing engines is a cost-effective way to protect Americans from the health risks of diesel exhaust

The health effects of diesel exhaust in the short term and the phase-in of new described earlier are not abstract. They diesel engine emission reductions over the are a regular part of life for millions period from 2007 through 2030. Until of people who are exposed to diesel existing, high-polluting diesel engines exhaust. Diesel exhaust is a special have been replaced with new technology, concern for areas that do not meet the retrofits are an important means to federal air quality standards for ozone reduce diesel pollution and achieve the and particulate matter. In 2004, EPA emission reductions these areas need to found 474 counties, home to 159 million protect public health and comply with Americans, do not comply with the their Clean Air Act obligations. health-based eight-hour ozone standard.1 Reducing pollution from existing EPA also has found that 208 counties diesel engines can also lower harmful do not comply with the health-based exposure to diesel exhaust in areas that fine particulate pollution standard.2 Air meet the federal air quality standards. quality managers need to take aggressive For existing diesel equipment, the com- action to meet the ozone and particulate bination of retrofit control technology air quality standards, protect their popu- with ultra-low sulfur fuel can reduce lation’s health, and meet the compliance emissions of hazardous diesel particulate deadlines they face over the coming years. matter (PM), dramatically improving Immediate retrofit programs can help both environmental conditions and communities bridge the gap between public health. Catalyzed diesel particu- the statutory deadlines they face to late filters (DPFs) are the most effective reduce particulate pollution and ozone retrofits that are widely available now. COURTESY OF DONNA WEAVER, CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT CONNECTICUT OF DONNA WEAVER, COURTESY Construction equipment retrofit with a diesel oxidation catalyst.

14 COURTESY OF JOHNSON MATTHEY COURTESY Construction equipment retrofit with a diesel particulate filter.

Diesel particulate filters can reduce PM Current costs for DOC retrofits to emissions by 80-95%, with simultaneous school bus engines and construction reductions in hydrocarbon and carbon equipment range from $700 to $2,500.7 monoxide emissions.3 Current equip- These retrofit costs are only about ment costs for DPF retrofits for school 1% of the new equipment price for buses and construction equipment range medium-sized construction equip- from $4500 to $10,000.4 Even at the ment.8 DOCs do not require ultra-low upper end of this range, these costs are sulfur diesel fuel for operation and can be only a fraction of the typical new equip- used in many different applications. ment price for construction equipment To assess the health benefits and in the 175–300 horsepower size range.5 costs of a comprehensive diesel emission Moreover, costs are expected to come reduction program for existing engines, down significantly due to economies as well as to evaluate potential funding of scale and as experience with DPF levels, Environmental Defense examined retrofits increases. DPFs must be used two scenarios in which different emission in conjunction with ultra-low sulfur control measures were applied to diesel diesel fuel and are not appropriate for construction equipment, school buses all applications. and transit buses in the core counties Diesel oxidation catalysts are a making up the 50 largest metropolitan well established and cheaper but less areas in the U.S. These 88 counties, effective alternative to DPFs for retrofit along with the District of Columbia, applications. They can reduce diesel contain 94.6 million people, or one- PM emissions by 20–50%, although third of the U.S. population. there is some concern that DOCs We examined construction equipment may not reduce ultra-fine particles. because these engines have high pollu- DOCs also cut hydrocarbon and carbon tion levels and typically operate for long monoxide emissions by about 60–90%.6 hours. We included diesel school buses

15 TABLE 3 50 most populated metropolitan areas in the U.S., examined in diesel pollution reduction program scenarios

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 and transit buses because they expose lump sum costs of applying the two sensitive populations to diesel pollution. technology scenarios to school buses, Our two scenarios assumed installa- transit buses and construction equip- tion of DPFs and DOCs within the ment in the 50 most populated cities studied counties. Because these two ranged from $600 million to $1.6 bil- technologies vary significantly in appli- lion. The net present value of the result- cability and pollutant removal efficiencies, ing health benefits far exceeded these these two scenarios illustrate the range costs, and ranged from $10.6 billion of costs to achieve steep reductions from to $19.2 billion. a limited set of engines and more modest Our analysis reaches results consistent reductions over many more engines. The with the analyses EPA performed for its scenarios are illustrative. The appropri- onroad and nonroad diesel rules, which ate mix of pollution reduction strategies showed that the societal benefits of each will vary widely across communities. of these rules would vastly outweigh their Using EPA’s valuation methodologies, costs. In the case of the onroad diesel we found that investments in a national rule for trucks and buses, EPA esti- diesel pollution control program will mated that, in 2030, the value of the yield healthy returns. Figure 8 shows the health and welfare improvements it

16 FIGURE 8 Investments in a national diesel control program yield healthy returns An investment in diesel engine retrofits ranging from $600 million to $1.6 billion yields amulti-year stream of health benefits with a net present value ranging from $10.6 to $19.2 billion.

15 $10.6 billion–$19.2 billion

10 Billions of dollars 5

$600 million–$1.6 billion 0 Investment Health benefits

FIGURE 9 Diesel pollution reduction scenarios: range of annual costs when investments spread over seven years

300

250

$129 million–$287 million 200 $83 million–$296 million

150

100 Millions of dollars

0 Diesel oxidation catalyst Diesel particulate filter could quantify would outweigh the costs the existing diesel fleet. Over the course of the rule by more than 15:1.9 The of seven years, the emission controls agency similarly estimated that, in 2030, examined in our study would range in the benefits of the nonroad diesel equip- cost from approximately $83 million ment rule would outweigh its costs by a annually to $296 million annually (see ratio of 40:1.10 Figure 9). The analysis of diesel retrofit scenarios Environmental Defense recommends provides a benchmark for the level of federal funding for a national program of funding necessary to make a real impact $292 million or more annually for seven in reducing dangerous emissions from years. Funding at the higher part of the

17 A delivery of ultra low sulfur diesel fuel to New York's World Trade Center site. In late 2006, ULSD will be widely available across the United States cost range would allow a national pro- cancer risk from reduced exposure to gram to address types of diesel engines diesel exhaust are not considered. and control technologies excluded Furthermore, only the benefits of direct from our analysis such as locomotive particulate matter reductions were and marine engines and idle reduction considered in our analysis; the analysis strategies. Importantly, it would also did not account for the co-benefits of provide resources to better accommo- hydrocarbon and carbon monoxide date controls for additional pollutants, reductions from use of DPFs and to support communities, large and small, DOCs or of sulfur oxides reductions across America that are committed to from using ultra-low sulfur diesel. well-run cleaner diesel programs, and to To estimate benefits from retrofit address the administrative costs inherent applications, the particulate pollution in a program of this scope. benefits from the nonroad rule were The health benefits associated with scaled down by the ratio of particulate reduced particulate pollution were esti- emissions reductions from retrofits to mated based on EPA’s benefits analysis the particulate emissions reductions in for the 2004 nonroad diesel rule. The the nonroad rule. The benefits were also benefits quantified include reduced risk scaled down by the ratio of the current of premature death, non-fatal heart population to the projected 2030 pop- attacks, chronic and acute bronchitis, ulation that was used in the nonroad exacerbated asthma, upper and lower rule analysis. Other than the population respiratory symptoms, work loss days, adjustment, our benefits analysis and minor restricted activity days. An assumes that exposure patterns asso- important limitation of our reliance on ciated with retrofits will be the same EPA’s benefits estimates for the nonroad as those associated with new nonroad rule is that the benefits of reduced engine control requirements.

18 This assumption may lead to under- area found that children riding on diesel- estimation of the health benefits from fueled school buses inhale roughly a retrofit programs that target urban areas million times more school bus exhaust with relatively high exposure to particulate (by mass) than non-riders in the general pollution. The analysis does not account population.11 Consequently, cleaning for enhanced benefits to individuals like up diesel exhaust from school buses is construction workers who are highly aparticularly cost-effective means of exposed to diesel exhaust at construction reducing such children’s exposure.12 The sites and school children who are highly assumptions and methodologies relied exposed while riding on school buses. A in our retrofit scenario analysis are recent study conducted in the Los Angeles described in more detail in Appendix B.

19 CHAPTER 5 Diesel cleanup programs that are working now

A variety of programs at the federal, State currently fail to meet the federal state and local levels have already begun health-based air quality standard for to close the gap between today’s high ozone (“smog”) including the entire diesel pollution levels and the reduced New York metropolitan area, Albany diesel emissions of the future. This and Rochester.3 Nearly 90% of New section describes a sampling of pro- York residents live in one of these grams across the country that are counties. Similarly, EPA recently found reducing diesel emissions through solu- that the following 10 counties in New tions that include retrofit and repower York State are out of compliance with projects, accelerated low sulfur fuel the federal health-based standard for use, idle reduction technologies and particulate pollution: Bronx, Kings, changes in the way diesel engines are Nassau, New York, Orange, Queens, operated.1 For additional examples of Richmond, Rockland, Suffolk and pollution control technologies, please Westchester. 4 Diesel pollution is one see Environmental Defense’s Cleaner of New York’s most pressing environ- Diesel Handbook.2 mental health problems, especially because diesel equipment is being used in areas with very high concentrations Start spreadin’ the news: of people. New York is providing cleaner Lower Manhattan is a thriving mix air today of apartments, art galleries, shops and Retrofit programs will be a critical com- restaurants, where more than 4,000 ponent to any New York State cleanup children live in neighborhoods as plan because 30 counties in New York diverse as Tribeca, Chinatown and

Reconstruction at the World Trade Center site in New York City.

20 Battery Park City. During the recon- Delivering diesel emission struction of the World Trade Center reductions where they are site, lower Manhattan will also be one of needed most the nation’s largest construction sites, HUNTS POINT ELECTRIFICATION teeming with diesel engines operating PROJECT, NEW YORK CITY just steps from schools, playgrounds, At the southern tip of the Bronx, just parks, homes and offices. above Manhattan, the extremely poor The close proximity between this and mostly minority Hunts Point massive construction project and a community has one of the highest dense population called out for air asthma rates in the nation. Approxi- quality protections. New York’s leaders mately one out of every three children have responded to that call and are has asthma in Hunts Point.8 Given the requiring best available retrofits and connection between diesel exhaust and ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel in state- respiratory disease, it is not surprising controlled lower Manhattan con- that Hunts Point is also a hotspot of struction projects, including the World diesel pollution. Trade Center site. 5 Contractors and The Hunts Point Cooperative subcontractors using diesel-powered Market includes one of the largest meat nonroad vehicles with an engine horse- markets in the world, as well as the power rating of 60 hp and above are Hunts Point Produce Market, through now required to use ultra-low sulfur which 80% of fresh produce in the New diesel fuel and to retrofit, where prac- York area moves. The market draws ticable, their equipment with oxidation hundreds of diesel trucks each day, catalysts, particulate filters, or tech- which are a major source of the 20,000 nology with “comparable or better diesel truck trips through the neighbor- effectiveness.”6 At World Trade hood each week. On average, a long-haul Center 7, retrofits and other pollution truck operator can have an 8–12 hour control measures are already in place. layover at the Hunts Point market while Several pieces of construction equip- waiting to load or unload, or to comply ment have been retrofitted, and one with the federal rest period require- electric crane is being used in lieu of a ments. When trucks idle through this typical diesel engine crane because it layover, the resulting diesel emissions does not create any on-site emissions. place a serious burden on the people New York City also recently extended who live and work in Hunts Point. cleaner diesel requirements to city- Hunts Point, then, was an ideal place funded construction projects. New York for the nation’s first operational advanced City Local Law 77 adds specifications truck stop electrification project. Sus- to city contracts requiring the use of tainable South Bronx, the New York ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel and best Power Authority and IdleAire Tech- available emissions-control technologies nologies Corporation received a grant in all city construction. Local Law 77 from Clean Air Communities to con- also calls for PM and NOx pollution construct a system that can accommodate trol technologies, requiring agencies to 28 trucks. At full operation, the project use technologies that “shall be primarily is expected to eliminate 2,000 tons of based on the reduction in emissions of pollution each year.9 The Hunts Point particulate matter and secondarily based project is delivering diesel emission upon the reduction in emissions of reductions in a community where they nitrogen oxides.”7 are urgently needed.

21 Cleaner school buses for more pollutants per pound of body precious passengers weight, have a more rapid rate of The pollution that comes from the respiration and narrower airways, are diesel engines that power school buses less able to metabolize and rid their can cause respiratory disease and bodies of certain toxins, and are exposed exacerbate long-term conditions like during developmental stages when the asthma. There are about 450,000 public impacts can be lasting; and school buses in the United States and 3. Some studies indicate that children about 390,000 of those run on diesel in school buses are exposed to airborne fuel. About two-thirds of the diesel particulate pollution concentrations school buses on the road today were 5–15 times higher than background manufactured between 1990 and 2002. levels.11 These buses can be made much cleaner by upgrading or retrofitting their exist- The EPA created the Clean School ing emission control systems. About Bus USA program to help lower chil- one-third of all diesel school buses are dren’s exposure to diesel exhaust. In pre-1990 buses.10 Because these buses 2003, this program allocated $5 million are so dirty and often cannot use diesel to 17 demonstration projects involving pollution controls, the best solution for about 4,000 school buses. EPA expects them is replacement. these projects to remove more than Children’s exposure to diesel pollu- 200,000 pounds of diesel particulate tion on school buses is of particular pollution from the air over the next ten concern for several reasons: years. In 2004, EPA awarded another $5 million for 20 retrofit and replace- 1. Across the country millions of chil- ment projects, and this year, will award dren ride the school bus every day; $7.5 million in a cost-shared grant 2. Air pollution affects children more program that will assist school districts than adults because children inhale in upgrading their diesel fleets.12

FIGURE 10 EPA’s Clean School Bus USA program has supported demonstration projects across the country

2004 demonstration projects 2003 demonstration projects

Source: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/schoolbus/demo_projects.htm

22 Clean School Bus USA has reduced chil- ultra-low sulfur diesel available to dren’s exposure to diesel exhaust in com- 15 fleets across Oregon and to retrofit munities across the country, including: 42 school buses with particulate matter filters.17 Michigan. • In the greater Lansing area, • Tennessee. Of the approximately 8,000 the Okemos Public Schools will equip school buses in Tennessee, 95% are 40 to 50 buses with diesel oxidation powered by diesel engines.18 Tennessee’s catalysts and crankcase filtration Clean School Bus program is a joint 13 systems. The Okemos School effort between the Tennessee Depart- District serves approximately 4,000 ment of Education and the Department children who attend five elementary of Environment and Conservation, in schools, two middle schools and one partnership with local governments, 14 high school. school systems and local communities. • New Mexico. Working in partnership with the State Department of Edu- cation, state officials will replace three In-cabin exposure and older diesel school buses with new crankcase emissions 15 compressed natural gas (CNG) buses. Recent studies have shown that a The CNG-fueled school buses will child riding inside of a diesel school achieve substantial emissions reduc- bus may be exposed to considerably tions relative to the conventional more diesel particulate pollution diesel-fueled buses they replaced.16 than car commuters. Pollution inside the bus comes from both • Oregon. Sharon Banks of the Lane the tailpipe and from the crank- Regional Air Pollution Authority case. Crankcase emissions, on successfully created a market for ultra average, make up between 10–25% low sulfur diesel (ULSD) fuel in Lane of total engine emissions over a prescribed test cycle but become County, Oregon. The objective was to very high (50–80%) on a relative bring ULSD fuel to Lane County at basis when idling.20 an affordable price ahead of EPA’s The Clean Air Task Force 2006 mandate. To bring the price of recently completed a study that ULSD fuel down to a competitive sheds light on technologies that level, Ms. Banks built broad-based provide cleaner air inside the school 21 demand. City managers, county bus. Emissions control technolo- administrators, school districts, transit gies that focus solely on the tailpipe do not clean up all of the pollution authorities, municipal waste haulers, inside the bus, although they are large private fleets, fuel distributors effective at lowering pollution for and public utilities were all involved in someone who is standing near the the endeavor. The program has been a bus.22 Similarly, emissions control tremendous success. In the short technologies that focus solely on period from October 1, 2004 to Feb- the crankcase will not clean up all ruary 1, 2005, the Lane Clean Diesel of the pollution inside the school Project received commitments from its bus. The study found that a diesel particulate filter-crankcase emis- partners to purchase over 2 million sion control technology combina- gallons of ULSD. Additionally, the tion used with ultra low sulfur Lane Regional Air Pollution Authority diesel fuel virtually eliminated the has received a grant from EPA’s Clean pollution inside the bus. School Bus Program to help make

23 With the support of a grant from Denver and San Francisco find EPA’s Clean School Bus program, alternative routes for cleaner 83 school buses will be equipped with transit diesel oxidation catalysts through a Many transit districts have fleets with public/private partnership between high-polluting diesel buses. Local the Chattanooga-Hamilton County governments are considering a variety Air Pollution Control Bureau and of solutions to reduce harmful diesel First Student Inc., a local private exhaust in urban areas while meeting bus contractor.19 transit needs. For the last five years, Denver’s One straightforward way to lower Regional Transportation District has pollution from school buses is to turn operated 36 “EcoMark” buses on a them off when they are not in use. A downtown pedestrian mall, connecting school bus that is idling pollutes the air, some 50,000 passengers per day to wastes fuel, and imposes unnecessary shopping, business, and regional bus costs for school districts facing tight and light rail routes along the mile-long budget constraints. A typical school mall. These hybrid buses run on a com- bus burns about half a gallon of fuel per bination electric/compressed natural gas hour of idling.23 If 100 buses reduced engine. Electric power is provided by idling time by just 10 minutes each day, batteries that are charged by an alter- they would realize a fuel savings of some nator and regenerative braking (the 1500 gallons per year. This translates buses also have a small compressed into more than $2250 annual savings in natural gas engine that recharges the fuel costs.24 School districts that estab- bank of batteries). Instead of a diesel lish idle-free zones can lower harmful engine, the buses have a 2.5-liter Ford diesel pollution while saving money for industrial engine fueled by the com- other educational priorities.25 pressed natural gas tanks. The Regional COURTESY OF THE REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT OF DENVER, CO DISTRICT OF THE REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COURTESY Hybrid compressed natural gas RTD Shuttle.

24 Transportation District has found that 180,000 tons of nitrogen oxides, and the hybrid buses produce lower emis- 5,000 tons of particulate matter. EPA sions and have lower operating costs also projects that locomotive switcher than the diesel buses previously used long-duration idling emits 12,000 tons on the route.26 of nitrogen oxides and 500 tons of Last year, San Francisco voters particulate matter annually.29 approved the “Healthy Air Enforce- An individual long-haul truck idles ment Act,” which requires the city’s about six hours a day, 310 days a year or Municipal Railway to replace all of its about 1,860 hours per year.30 The truck- pre-1991 diesel buses with cleaner tech- ing industry has analyzed the impact nology by 2007. The Municipal Railway’s of idling on engines; both in terms of goal is to eliminate all bus emissions by maintenance and engine wear costs. 2020, when it hopes to operate a fleet Excessive idling creates the need for powered exclusively by hybrid engines, more oil and filter changes. Similarly, batteries, and fuel cells. San Francisco the longer the idling time, the sooner has placed its first order for diesel- the engine needs to be rebuilt. Engine electric hybrid buses that are already in wear is a function of fuel consumed, and use in Seattle, Boston and New York. long- duration idling consumes significant fuel. The trucking industry estimates that, due to the need for more oil Reducing the high cost of idle time changes and earlier overhaul costs, long- Idling occurs when an engine runs but duration idling costs the average truck the vehicle is not moving. There are owner $1.13 per day.31 several reasons why engines idle: to keep One solution to the problem of idling fuel and engines warm and avoid prob- is simply to turn the engine off, which lems restarting in cold weather, for the saves fuel and money and virtually comfort of drivers and passengers on eliminates pollution. When this is not a ahot summer days and cold winter viable solution, there are several other nights, or simply to be ready to move options available. Though this discus- the vehicle on short notice. But idling sion focuses on truck idling, many of wastes fuel and pollutes the air. Further, these solutions can be used on any diesel new technologies provide alternatives to engine. These solutions include: the functions served by idling. • Auxiliary power generators. Auxiliary As part of EPA’s SmartWay Transport power generators are powered by 1-, Partnership, EPA estimates that truck 2-, 3- or 4-cylinder diesel engines and locomotive idling consumes over and produce 110- to 220-volt elec- 1billion gallonsof diesel fuel annually. tricity to run AC-powered devices, The average truck uses 0.8 gallons of from heaters and air conditioners fuel an hour while idling.27 An idling to microwaves.32 locomotive switching engine consumes 3–4 gallons of fuel per hour in normal • Auxiliary power units (integrated). weather and in extremely cold weather Auxiliary power units typically include (below 15ºF) it can use up to 8–11 gal- an internal combustion engine, com- lons per hour at idle.28 Marine vessels and pressor and alternator and are fully in- non-road vehicles also idle their engines. tegrated into the truck’s own heating, EPA estimates that long-duration ventilating and air conditioning (HVAC) idling by freight trucks annually emits system to provide climate control, bat- 11 million tons of carbon dioxide, tery charging and engine heating.33

25 • Electrical Power on and off board. I-85: North Carolina, South Truck Stop Electrification allows Carolina and Georgia are truckers to “plug in” vehicles to oper- trucking toward cleaner air ate necessary systems without idling With the support of a $1.5 million the engine. Options for truck stop grant from the National Association electrification include stand-alone of State Energy Offices, energy and systems that are owned and operated environmental agencies in North by the truck stop and can provide Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia heating, ventilation, and air condi- have sponsored a project to electrify tioning directly to the sleeper com- 150 parking spaces at three truck stops partment as well as combined systems along the busy interstate highway cor- that require both on-board and off- ridor (I-85) that connects Atlanta with board equipment.34 Charlotte and Raleigh-Durham.37 Each • Engine idle management technology. electrified truck stop is expected to save An automatic engine shut down/ 263,000 gallons of fuel annually, and start up system controls the engine prevent 2,700 tons of carbon dioxide, (start and stop) based on a set time 35 tons of nitrogen oxides, 15 tons of period or on ambient temperature, carbon monoxide, 1.8 tons of hydro- and other parameters (e.g., battery carbons and 1 ton of particulate emis- 38 charge).35 sions each year. All three of these truck stops use • Fuel-fired and other no-idle heat the IdleAire system, which provides and/or HVAC systems. These systems an external heating, ventilation and air include air conditioners that operate conditioning unit installed above each on battery power or heaters that use a truck parking space. Heat and air are small fraction of the diesel fuel that is delivered to the truck cab through a burned by an idling engine.36 service delivery console and return air HTTP://WWW.IDLEAIRE.COM/NEWSROOM/PHOTOS Trucks “plugged in” to the IdleAire system.

26 supply that is connected through the around ports, and along inland water- passenger window of the truck’s cab or ways hundreds of miles from the open through a built-in access point available sea. Control of this overlooked pollution in newer trucks.39 Drivers can also source has only recently become a pri- access the internet and cable television. ority for EPA and state and local officials. Independent truck owners and fleets Emission control programs for ships lag have signed agreements with IdleAire to far behind land-based sources. And pay $1.40 to $1.6540 per hour to use its foreign-flagged marine vessels present standard services. An idling truck wastes unique jurisdictional issues that do not about 0.8 gallons of fuel per hour, which apply to land-based sources. translates into about $1.75 wasted every Despite these challenges, commercial hour (May 2005, the retail cost of high- marine pollution can be reduced in the way diesel fuel was about $2.1841 a gallon). near-term by retrofitting and repower- Combined with the trucking industry’s ing ships. The following programs are estimate that maintenance for long- already in place and delivering cleaner duration idling costs about $1.13 per air in and around domestic ports. day, truck idling is an expensive practice. When the significant health benefits of reduced pollution are considered, truck Shore power: reducing emissions stop electrification is a solution makes from ships at berth in Los both economic and environmental sense. Angeles, Juneau and Seattle Large ships generally turn off their primary propulsion engines when they Ship to shore: reducing are parked at berths loading and un- commercial marine pollution loading cargo or passengers, activities Commercial marine vessels contribute collectively called “hotelling.” But they to air pollution along our coasts, in and continue to run smaller auxiliary engines COURTESY OF THE PORT OF LOS ANGELES OF THE PORT LOS COURTESY A barge crane lifts electrical cable plugs to the first AMP vessel to call at the port.

27 COURTESY OF THE PORT OF LOS ANGELES OF THE PORT LOS COURTESY A terminal at the Port of Los Angeles is designed to accommodate and simultaneously charge two Alternative Marine Power vessels. to provide electricity, heating and cooling. U.S. Navy has provided shore power at On oceangoing vessels, these engines naval bases for many years, but it is only often run on the same extremely high- in the last few years that shore power sulfur bunker fuel that they burn at sea. facilities have been built for large com- Because the overwhelming majority mercial ships. of these huge vessels are subject to no The Los Angeles area has both international air pollution regulations or the worst ozone (smog) in the country only weak restrictions applicable to the and two of the busiest ports. The boom- newest engines, this dirty bunker fuel is ing international cargo business at burned in crowded port areas without the ports of Los Angeles and Long any emission controls whatsoever. Beach is expected to triple by 2020, This practice of powering a ship at which means that ship emissions will berth with the ship’s own engines creates increase dramatically over the next the paradoxical situation in which elec- 15 years as well. tricity is produced by the uncontrolled Last summer, the world’s first burning of one of the dirtiest fuels in shore power facility for container the world within sight and breathing ships opened at the Port of Los distance of land-based vehicles and Angeles. As a result of a settlement stationary sources subject to rigorous of lawsuits brought by the Natural standards designed to protect public Resources Defense Council, Coalition health from the very same pollutants. for Clean Air and local citizens’ groups, West Coast ports have begun to address the City of Los Angeles equipped the the problem of ship emissions at berth China Shipping Terminal at Berth 100 by providing shore power facilities that with alternative marine power capable allow ships to plug into land-based elec- of providing electrical service to two tricity and turn off their engines. The large container ships simultaneously.

28 Container ships dominate both the trols such as diesel oxidation catalysts shipping traffic and the pollutant emis- are feasible means of reducing emissions sions inventory at Los Angeles. According from oceangoing ships at berth. to the Port of Los Angeles, a container Princess Cruises, part of the world’s ship on a typical port call using its own largest cruise line, Carnival Corpora- engines produces emissions equivalent tion, has begun providing shore power to 69,000 diesel truck miles. By con- for passenger cruise vessels. In 2001, it trast, a container ship using the shore- became the first cruise line to use shore based alternative marine power system power when it provided electrical service is expected to eliminate an estimated to its passenger terminal in Juneau, one ton of NOx and particulate pollu- Alaska. By 2004, seven Princess cruise tion per day in port. ships were equipped to use shore power Shore power projects require signifi- in port. cant capital investments in electrical The Juneau shore power facility was infrastructure and modifications to completed through an innovative part- existing ships. The Port of Long Beach nership between Princess, the City of recently commissioned a detailed study Juneau and Alaska Electric Power & of the feasibility and cost-effectiveness Light Company. Princess bore the cost of shore power facilities for oceangoing of retrofitting its ships—at $500,000 cargo ships.42 That study concluded that each—to accept shore power.43 The for ships that frequently call at the same City and Borough of Juneau set aside port and have high power needs at berth, $300,000 from cruise passenger fees as investment in shore power facilities is a a contribution to the cost of the land- cost-effective way of reducing hotelling based expenditures related to the project, emissions. It also concluded that other and Princess paid the remainder of the measures including alternative fuels, $2.5 million in capital costs to provide alternative engines, and emission con- shore power. Alaska Electric Light and COURTESY OF THE PORT OF LOS ANGELES OF THE PORT LOS COURTESY A full ship “plug in” of Alternative Maritime Pier.

29 Power Company agreed to segregate the that push and pull large vessels through amount Princess pays for shore power port are the second largest source of ship in a fund to defray the cost of winter- emissions, behind only oceangoing ships. time power generation and thereby Ferryboats are also a major source reduce local consumers’ power bills. of NOx pollution in New York. Before In 2004, Princess expanded its shore September 2001, ferries carried 85,000 power program to Washington State, commuters a day into and out of Man- with the installation of shore power hattan.46 After the September 11 terrorist facilities in Seattle to serve the same attacks, private ferry service doubled to ships that dock at Juneau and ply the 1,000 trips a day. More than 40 boats Inside Passage route between the Pacific ply these routes, and ferry traffic is Northwest and Alaska. The Puget Sound expected to increase as the redevelop- Clean Air Agency, Port of Seattle and ment of Lower Manhattan moves EPA all participated in this project. The forward. At present, these boats are not project was facilitated through the West required to have pollution controls. So Coast Diesel Emissions Reduction Col- while passengers are enjoying a scenic laborative, an international partnership trip to work, the diesel engines that power of federal government agencies from their ride discharge almost 20% of the the U.S., Canada and Mexico, as well total NOx emissions from all ships of as state and local governments and non- any size in the New York Harbor. profit and private sector partners from In response to the growing problem California, Oregon, Washington, Alaska of ferry pollution, a coalition of state, and British Columbia.44 city, federal, educational and environ- Princess paid $1.8 million in capital mental organizations, including Environ- costs to construct shore power facilities mental Defense, is working with ferry and EPA made a $50,000 grant to fund operators to cut ferry pollution. The Seattle City Light’s extension of high Private Ferry Emissions Reduction Initia- capacity electrical service to the terminal. tive will use $6.8 million from New York The Puget Sound Clean Air Agency City’s Department of Transportation, predicts that this shore power project the New York State Energy Research will reduce NOx emissions by 14.5 tons and Development Authority, and the and particulate pollution by 2.5 tons Federal Transit Administration to evalu- during the 2005 cruise season.45 ate, demonstrate and then deploy emission reduction technologies on virtually all private ferries now serving New York Reducing emissions from small City. By the time it is complete, the harbor craft in New York and Private Ferry Project aims to achieve a Los Angeles 75-95% reduction in ferry pollution. Oceangoing vessels calling in U.S. ports California’s Carl Moyer Program are major polluters, but each large ship funds the incremental cost of repower- only stays a few days in a given port. ing harbor craft such as tugboats with Smaller harbor craft that remain in port new, cleaner engines rather than replace- year-round pollute much less on a per- ments that would produce the same level ship basis, but because they operate con- of emissions as the existing engines. tinuously in a relatively small area, their Through 2002, 130 small vessels in emissions can add up to a major con- the Los Angeles area were repowered tribution to local pollution. For instance, with the assistance of $19.5 million in New York Harbor, the small towboats in incentive program funds. As a result,

30 almost 1,400 tons of NOX emissions and earlier, the concentration of pollutants 55 tons of particulate pollution have been from locomotives gathered at switching eliminated each year.47 yards can make these facilities dangerous hotspots of toxic pollution. To make matters worse, these yards are often Locomotive emissions: moving located in dense urban population centers, to the front of the train in where residents and workers are already California, Illinois and Texas exposed to pollution from many other Like commercial marine ships, loco- sources. The huge growth of imports motive engines are among the last arriving by container ships has led to rail sources of diesel pollution that EPA has congestion at port facilities, which also left to address through rigorous emis- tend to be located near large populations. sion controls. Yet just like any other Railroads and the communities in diesel engines, locomotives produce the which they operate have begun to recog- same dangerous blend of chemicals and nize that locomotives must be a part of particulate matter that endangers the comprehensive plans to reduce diesel people who breathe their emissions. pollution. The Port of Los Angeles last EPA is currently reviewing its emission year adopted its first rail policy, which standards for new and remanufactured calls for the development of facilities to locomotive engines. handle an expected quadrupling of cargo Long-haul rail service delivers cargo volumes by 2025 and aims to reduce across the country.The business of switch- traffic congestion by speeding cargo ing rail cars and assembling cars into loading and shifting truck traffic to rail.48 trains for this service takes place at switch- Union Pacific, the nation’s largest ing yards where rail lines meet. As shown rail carrier, has just put in service its in the study of Union Pacific’s Roseville, first hybrid switching locomotive, used California switching yard, discussed to switch cars at Los Angeles area ports. COURTESY OF RAILPOWER TECHNOLOGIES CORP. TECHNOLOGIES OF RAILPOWER COURTESY Green Goat, hybrid locomotive.

31 The hybrid locomotive operates on by more than 3,300 tons, at an average an electric battery and a diesel engine cost of about $5900 per ton. that recharges the battery. Union Chicago is another major hub of rail Pacific projects that the hybrid engine traffic, situated at the point where several will emit 80-90% less NOx,and use east-west rail lines dip around the 40–70% less diesel fuel than a standard southern end of the Great Lakes. One- diesel-powered switching engine.49 third of all long-haul rail traffic in the Expansion of this technology could country passes through Chicago, and have a dramatic impact on locomotive the largest U.S. rail yard, the Belt Rail emissions at ports and switching yards Yard, is located there. EPA and the City across the country. of Chicago sponsored a locomotive idle The Texas Emissions Reduction reduction demonstration project in 2002 Project (TERP) focuses on reducing and 2003. The governments recruited

NOx emissions in areas violating the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway federal health-based ozone standard. Company, the Wisconsin Southern Rail- TERP has committed almost $20 million road Company, and Kim Hotstart Com- to reduce locomotive emissions in the pany, a manufacturer of idle reduction Houston-Galveston area, which suffers systems, as partners in the project. Based the highest ozone levels in the state. The on the successful performance of idle Houston locomotive projects include reduction systems in Chicago, EPA esti- replacement of old switching engines mated that anti-idle retrofits at a typically and repowering locomotives with cleaner sized rail yard with five switching engines hybrid technology. TERP officials expect would eliminate 12.5 tons of NOx at a 50 these projects to reduce NOx emissions cost of $1,420 per ton of NOx reduced.

32 Conclusion

Cleaner air for America is at hand benefits and costs, using EPA method- EPA has adopted bold national emission ologies, shows that the human health standards that are transitioning the benefits of broadly expanding these nation to cleaner new diesel freight programs to additional communities trucks, buses and diesel equipment. across America exceed the costs by at Because diesel engines are long-lived least a 12 to 1 ratio. A well-designed and fleet turnover is slow, this transition program to lower pollution from exist- will occur incrementally over the next ing diesel engines operating today twenty to thirty years. Innovative action will accelerate the nation’s transition in a variety of local communities has to cleaner, new engines and achieve demonstrated that programs to lower momentous human health benefits. the pollution from today’s diesel engines With expanded federal support and are not only viable but highly beneficial. community leadership, cleaner air for Our detailed analysis quantifying the America is at hand.

33 APPENDIX A The national pollution burden from diesel engines

Diesel engines are used throughout the several key pollutants, including nitro- U.S economy in onroad vehicles, non- gen oxides, volatile organic compounds, road equipment and vehicles, marine fine particulates, sulfur dioxide, and vessels and locomotives, and in station- carbon dioxide, a critical greenhouse gas. ary applications to power equipment such as pumps and loading equipment and to generate electricity. Diesel exhaust Diesel and smog: nitrogen oxides is a particularly potent collection of and volatile organic compounds

dangerous chemicals, and a significant Diesel exhaust contains both NOX and contributor to national inventories of VOCs, which combine in the atmo-

FIGURE 11

National NOx emissions by source category, 2002 (21.1 million short tons)

Highway diesel Non-road 16% diesel/ships/trains 17%

Other 9% Highway gasoline 19%

Fuel combustion 39%

Source: U.S. EPA National Emission Trends

FIGURE 12

National NOx emissions from all diesel sources, 2002 (6.9 million short tons)

Marine Railroads 15% 13% Other Farm equipment 5% 8%

Construction equipment 11%

Highway diesel 48%

Source: U.S. EPA National Emission Trends

34 sphere to form ground-level ozone, the of diesel particulate matter makes it a primary component of smog. NOX also particularly efficient and dangerous contributes to several other types of means of delivering harmful chemicals pollution including nitrate particulate into our bodies. pollution, nitrogen deposition and acid Diesel engines are a major source of deposition. Diesel engines are responsi- fine particle pollution. In 2002, diesel ble for about one-third of all NOx pollu- engines released approximately 314,000 tion from anthropogenic sources, see short tons of PM2.5 and accounted for Figure 11. The highway sector and non- almost 5% of total fine particle pollution road sector are each responsible for about in 2002. 3 Nonroad diesel vehicles created half of the NOx emissions from all diesel about two-thirds of those emissions. sources, see Figure 12.

Sulfur dioxide Fine particulate matter Sulfur dioxide emissions contribute Diesel engines produce far more par- to the formation of secondary fine ticulate pollution than gasoline engines. sulfate particles that threaten health Depending on operating conditions, fuel and impair visibility as well as acid quality and emission controls, light-duty deposition that harms ecosystems. diesel engines can emit 50-80 times and Diesel engines discharged 510,000 tons heavy-duty diesel engines can emit 100 of sulfur dioxide in 2002, or 3% of the to 200 times more particle mass than sulfur dioxide released from all anthro- typical catalytically equipped gasoline- pogenic sources. Nonroad engines and powered engines.1 Diesel particulate marine equipment released most of the matter is typically fine (< 2.5 microns) SO2 from diesel sources, largely because or ultrafine (< 1 micron) in size. Virtu- they have operated on diesel fuel with ally all of the diesel exhaust particle mass high sulfur content. 4 has a diameter of less than 10 microns, As new restrictions on highway diesel 94% is less than 2.5 microns, and 92% fuel sulfur content take effect in 2006 is less than 1.0 microns. 2 The small size for onroad vehicles and in 2010 and

FIGURE 13

National PM2.5 emissions from all diesel sources, 2002 (314,00 short tons)

Marine Farm equipment 13% 19% Railroads 6%

Other Construction equipment 9% 21%

Highway diesel 32%

Source: U.S. EPA National Emission Trends

35 FIGURE 14

National SO2 emissions from all diesel sources, 2002 (510,00 short tons)

Marine 31%

Railroads Non-road 9% 39%

On-road diesel 21%

Source: U.S. EPA National Emission Trends

FIGURE 15

National CO2 emissions from transportation, 2003 (1,874.7 million metric tons)

Gasoline 60%

Other Marine fuel 3% 3%

Diesel fuel Jet fuel 22% 12%

Source: U.S. DOE Energy Information Administration

2012 for nonroad equipment, the levels required for onroad diesel fuels. 5 The of sulfur dioxide emissions from those extraordinarily high sulfur content in diesel engines will fall dramatically. residual fuel makes shipping one of the

However, the dirtiest of the diesel fuels, biggest sources of SO2 emissions on the the residual fuel burned in oceangoing planet, despite the relatively small vessels, is not subject to any current or number of large ships in existence. proposed restriction on sulfur. Sulfur content in marine residual fuel can range as high as 45,000 ppm, or a Carbon dioxide—a global staggering 4.5% sulfur. EPA reports warming pollutant that, worldwide, residual fuel averages Human-induced increases in atmo-

27,000 ppm sulfur. This is nearly 2,000 spheric carbon dioxide (CO2) and other times the 15 ppm level soon to be greenhouse gases are shrouding the

36 Earth, pushing temperatures to metric tons in 2003. Transportation extremes, melting glaciers and played a large role in this pollution, disrupting natural systems. Much of the emitting 1.9 billion metric tons of CO2.

CO2 emitted domestically is a result of In 2003, the combustion of diesel fuel burning fossil fuels. Total emissions of contributed 22% of the CO2 released 6 CO2 in the U.S. reached 5.9 billion from transportation sources.

37 APPENDIX B Methodology used to estimate the benefits and costs of pollution reduction scenarios for existing diesel engines

This appendix describes the method- two pollution reduction technologies to ology used to analyze the benefits and diesel equipment in the core counties costs of two scenarios to reduce pollution of the following 50 largest metropolitan from existing diesel engines. E3 Ventures, areas in the United States. a technical consultant retained by The scenarios covered some 88 Environmental Defense, performed this counties and Washington, D.C. with analysis. The two scenarios reduced 94.6 million people or one-third of the emissions of fine particulate pollution 2001 total U.S. population.

(PM2.5) by retrofitting diesel construc- The monetary benefits analysis used tion equipment, school buses, and methods and assumptions similar to transit buses with (1) diesel particulate those used by the U.S. Environmental filters (DPFs) or (2) diesel oxidization Protection Agency in its regulatory catalysts (DOCs). The scenarios applied analysis of the nonroad diesel rule.1

TABLE 4 50 most populated metropolitan areas in the U.S., examined in diesel pollution reduction program scenarios

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000

38 Because many of the assumptions used equipment, rough terrain forklifts, rubber in the analysis are based on national-scale tire loaders, tractors/loaders/backhoes, information, the results are similar across crawler tractor/dozer, skid steer loaders, all cities and average values were used to off-highway tractors, dumpers/tenders, estimate the retrofit costs and benefits. and other construction equipment. The analysis assumes retrofit equip- County-level counts of school and ment costs range from $4,500 to $10,000 transit buses were estimated using NEI for DPFs, and from $700 to $2,500 for emissions and vehicle miles traveled DOCs.2 Particulate pollution removal (VMT) data. Based on the MOBILE6 efficiencies (for direct particulate matter) model, school buses are assumed to are assumed to range from 80% to 95% travel 9,939 miles annually and transit for DPFs, and from 20% to 35% for buses are assumed to travel 35,113 miles DOCs.3 The analysis also assumes that annually. School and transit bus VMT 40% of on-road engines (i.e., transit and data were divided by these annual aver- school buses) manufactured after 1994 ages, respectively, to estimate the num- and 20% of all non-road engines (i.e., ber of school and transit buses in each construction equipment) can be retrofit county. The resulting bus number esti- with a DPF, and that 80% of all on- and mates were compared with other data- non-road diesel engines can be retrofit bases such as the Department of with a DOC. To compare the annual Transportation’s National Transit data- benefits of PM2.5 emission reductions base. Because the NEI-VMT derived from engine retrofits with annualized bus estimates for some of the areas costs, the analysis assumes that retrofits examined in this analysis appeared lower occur midway through a 15-year depreci- than suggested in other databases, the ating engine life, and amortizes equip- estimated number of buses for all counties ment costs over seven years. was doubled. County-level counts of

PM2.5 emission rates for existing construction vehicles were obtained vehicles were obtained for each of the from EPA’s Office of Transportation counties included in this analysis from and Air Quality. EPA’s National Emissions Inventory Because DPFs are effective on (NEI) for 2001.4 NEI emissions for vehicles manufactured after 1994, this school and transit buses are included analysis estimates the age distribution in the Heavy Duty Diesel Vehicle-Bus of state school bus fleets using data (Transport and School Bus) vehicle reported in the Union of Concerned category, which includes emissions Scientists’ 2002 report: Pollution Report from brakes, tires and exhaust. Exhaust Card: Grading America’s School Bus Fleets. emissions were separated out and used Age distributions for transit bus fleets exclusively in this analysis. NEI emissions are based on MOBILE6 Fleet Char- for construction equipment are included acterization Data. in the Construction & Mining Equip- The estimate of the health benefits ment vehicle category. This category in- associated with PM2.5 emission reduc- cludes pavers, plate compactors, rollers, tions from diesel engine retrofits and the scrapers, paving equipment, surfacing associated monetization of those bene- equipment, signal boards/light plants, fits was based on direct scaling with the trenchers, bore/drill rigs, excavators, PM2.5 emission reductions and associ- concrete/industrial saws, cement and ated health benefits and monetary bene- mortar mixers, cranes, graders, off- fits under the EPA Nonroad Diesel highway trucks, crushing/processing Engine Rule as reported in Chapter 9

39 of the Final Regulatory Analysis: Control health endpoints reported in the non- of Emissions from Nonroad Diesel Engines road diesel Regulatory Analysis to the (hereinafter “Regulatory Analysis”). The (health) incidence reductions associated estimated benefits in the Regulatory with each retrofit scenario. All monetary Analysis are based on 2030 data, which values are expressed in 2000 dollars. assume full implementation of the non- PM-related health endpoints include road diesel rule.5 The corresponding premature mortality, chronic bronchitis, benefits associated with the two retrofit non-fatal heart attacks, respiratory scenarios (i.e., DPFs and DOCs) were hospital admissions, acute bronchitis, estimated by applying the ratio of PM2.5 asthma exacerbations, upper and lower emissions reductions from the retrofit respiratory symptoms, work loss days, scenarios to the PM2.5 emission reduc- and minor restricted activity days. tions assumed in the Regulatory Analy- With the exception of non-fatal heart sis. The benefits of the retrofit scenarios attacks, the nonroad diesel Regulatory were further scaled back to account for Analysis expresses the monetary values the difference between projected 2030 of health-related benefits associated U.S. population and 2001 U.S. popula- with reduced PM exposure as point esti- tion levels. mates. However, the monetary benefits Although the health benefits associ- of reduced non-fatal heart attacks assume ated with diesel engine retrofits con- illness costs and lost earnings in later tinue over several years, the retrofit years and are discounted at rates of three analysis estimates annual PM-related and seven percent. The economic value health benefits, and does not discount of reduced work loss days is estimated future benefits that occur in later years. by applying 2001 average metropolitan- Furthermore, although there is a recog- area wage data from the Bureau of nized time lag between reductions in Labor Statistics. PM exposure and decreases in the occurrence of adverse health effects, the retrofit analysis applies the simplifying Estimating the benefits of diesel assumption of full realization of reduc- pollution reduction scenarios tions in PM exposure and reductions in The range of capital costs associated adverse health impacts (i.e. the analysis with retrofitting construction equip- does not apply a distributed lag struc- ment, and school and transit buses in ture to the benefits estimation). the 88 counties and Washington, D.C. The retrofit analysis estimates the included in this analysis is shown in the monetary value of the health benefits Table 5. Although diesel oxidization associated with diesel engine retrofits catalysts are less expensive than diesel by applying the unit values used for particulate filters, the aggregate costs of economic valuation of the PM-related DOC retrofits are higher than those of

TABLE 5 Range of estimated capital costs and benefits DPF DOC Value used in analysis Low capital cost estimate $731.0 million $470.0 million $600.5 million High capital cost estimate $1.62 billion $1.68 billion $1.65 billion Low value of benefits estimate $10.6 billion $18.1 billion $10.6 billion High value of benefits estimate $10.9 billion $19.2 billion $19.2 billion

40 DPF retrofits because more engines can health care costs, which are increasing be retrofit with a DOC. much more rapidly than the overall price Table 5 also shows the range of bene- level. Total national health expenditures fits associated with the diesel engine in the U.S. increased by 7.7% in 2003 retrofit scenarios. These benefits accrue over 2002—four times the rate of infla- over the remaining life of a retrofitted tion in 2003.6 Over the next several engine, which this analysis assumes to years, health care expenditures are fore- be seven years. The monetary values of cast to increase by 7.1% annually7,as the health benefits are related to PM2.5 compared to the long-range consumer emission reductions, which are in turn price index forecast of 2.4 percent.8 related to the PM2.5 reduction efficien- The two retrofit scenarios (i.e., DPFs cies of the retrofit technology and the and DOCs) were selected because they number of engines that are retrofitted. reflect widely available technology and The net present value (NPV) of the two substantially different approaches benefits associated with diesel engine to diesel pollution reduction strategies. retrofits was analyzed (1) considering The DPF scenario reflects the appli- the lowest benefit stream within the cation of technology that can achieve four scenarios analyzed which was DPF avery high degree of particulate pollu- retrofits with a relatively low PM removal tion removal for the engines affected rate of 80 percent, and (2) considering but can only be applied to a limited set the highest benefit stream which was of engines. Conversely, the DOC DOC retrofits with a relatively high scenario reflects lower price technology PM removal rate of 35 percent. that achieves significantly less particu- The benefits of diesel engine retro- late pollution removal on a per engine fits—the avoided instances of adverse basis but can be more widely applied health effects—span the remaining across fleets thereby reaching a greater useful life of the retrofitted engine, set of engines. The DOC scenario which this analysis assumes to be seven estimated 605,000 diesel engines would years. The monetary value of health be fitted with pollution control devices. benefits increases over time. The in- The DPF scenario estimated 148,500 creasing value of some benefits, such as engines would be fitted with DPF avoided premature deaths and avoided pollution controls. In actual practice in work loss and minor restricted activity any single community, the solutions to days, are related to wage and price reduce diesel pollution from existing levels, while the monetary value of other engines would vary widely depending on benefits, such as chronic and acute technological and policy considerations. bronchitis, non-fatal heart attacks, Further, the options available would respiratory hospital admissions, asthma include a suite of technological solu- exacerbations, and upper and lower tions, operational practices such as idle respiratory symptoms, are related to reduction, and engine replacement.

41 Notes

Chapter 1 9 South Coast Air Quality Management District, Multiple Air Toxics Exposure 1 See Environmental Defense, Cleaner Diesel Study (MATES-II) in the South Coast Handbook at http://www.environmentaldefense Air Basin, March 2000. See http://www .org/go/dieselhandbook for several examples. .aqmd.gov/matesiidf/es.pdf. Last accessed May 3, 2005. Chapter 2 10 California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, “Health Risk 1 South Coast Air Quality Management Assessment for Diesel Exhaust” (May District, Multiple Air Toxics Exposure 1998). Study (MATES-II) in the South Coast 11 Air Basin, March 2000. See http://www Nemmar, A.; Hoet, P.H.M.; Dinsdale, D.; .aqmd.gov/matesiidf/es.pdf. Last accessed Vermylen, J.; Hoylaerts, M.F.; Nemery, B. May 3, 2005. (2003) “Diesel Exhaust Particles in Lung Acutely Enhance Experimental Peripheral 2 California Office of Environmental Health Thrombosis.” Circulation. 107:1202–1208. Hazard Assessment and American Lung Association, Factsheet “Health Effects of Salvi, S.; Blomber, A.; Rudell, B.; Kelly, F.; Sandstrom, T; Holgate, S.T.; Frew, A. (1999) Diesel Exhaust,” 2001. See http://www “Acute Inflammatory Responses in the .oehha.ca.gov/public_info/facts/dieselfacts Airways and Peripheral Blood After .html. Last accessed May 3, 2005. Short-Term Exposure to Diesel Exhaust 3 Environmental Defense, Scorecard, 2002, in Healthy Human Volunteers.” Am. J. calculated from 1999 EPA National-scale Respir. Crit. Care Med. 159:702–709. Assessment of Air Toxics data. See http:// 12 California Office of Environmental Health www.environmentaldefense.org/pressrelease Hazard Assessment and American Lung .cfm?ContentID=75. Last accessed May 3, Association, Factsheet “Health Effects of 2005. Diesel Exhaust,” 2001. Available online at 4 California Air Resources Board “Roseville http://www.oehha.ca.gov/public_info/facts/ Rail Yard Study,” Oct. 14, 2004. See http:// dieselfacts.html. www.arb.ca.gov/diesel/documents/rrstudy/ 13 Nel, A.E.; Diaz-Sanchez, D.; Ng, G.; Hiura, rcexecsum.pdf. Last accessed May 3, 2005. T.; Saxon, A. (1998) “Enhancement of 5 Schwartz, J.; Dockery, D.; Neas, L. (1996) allergic inflammation by the interaction “Is Daily Mortality Associated Specifically between diesel exhaust particles and the with Fine Particles?” Journal of the Air immune system.” J. Allergy Clin. Immunol. and Waste Management Association 102(4 pt 1):539–554. 46: 927–39. McConnell, R.; Berhane, K.; Gilliland, F.; 6 Brown, J. S.; Zeman, K.L.; Bennett, W.D. London, S.J.; Vora, H.; Avol, E.; (2002) “Ultrafine particle deposition and Gauderman, W.J.; Margolis, H.G.; clearance in the healthy and obstructed Lurmann, F.; Thomas, D.C.; et al. “Air lung.” Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 166: pollution and bronchitic symptoms in 1240–1247. southern California children with asthma.” 7 Garshick, E.; Laden, F.; Hart, J.E.; Rosner, Environ. Health Perspect. 107(9):1–9 B.; Smith, T.J.; Dockery, D.W.; Speizer, F.E. (1999). (2004) “Lung Cancer in Railroad Workers 14 EPA, National Center for Environmental Exposed to Diesel Exhaust.” Environmental Assessment, Air Quality Criteria for Par- Health Perspectives 112: 1539–1543. ticulate Matter (October 2004). Available 8 California Office of Environmental Health online at http://cfpub2.epa.gov/ncea/ Hazard Assessment and American Lung cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=87903. Association, Factsheet “Health Effects of 15 Delfino, R.J.; Quintana, P.J.; Floro, J.; Diesel Exhaust,” 2001. See http://www Gastanaga, V.M.; Samimi, B.S.; Kleinman, .oehha.ca.gov/public_info/facts/dieselfacts M.T.; Liu, L.J.;Bufalino, C.; Wu, C.F.; .html. Last accessed May 3, 2005. McLaren, C.E. (2004) “Association of

42 FEV1 in asthmatic children with personal J.M.; Dominici, F. (2004) “Ozone and and microenvironmental exposure to Short-term Mortality in 95 US Urban airborne particulate matter.” Environ. Communities, 1987–2000.” Journal of the Health. Perspect. 112: 932–941. American Medical Association Penttinen, P.; Timonen, K.L.; Tuttanen, P.; 292:2372–2378. Mirme, A.; Ruuskanen, J.; Pekkanen, J. 18 See http://www.epa.gov/ozonedesignations/. (2001) “Ultrafine particles in urban air and Last accessed April 5, 2005. respiratory health among adult asthmatics.” 19 See http://www.meca.org/jahia/Jahia/ Eur. Respir. J. 17: 428–435. engineName/filemanager/pid/229/ H. Desqueroux et al. (2002) “Short-Term retrofitfact.PDF?actionreq Effects of Low-Level Air Pollution on =actionFileDownload&fileItem=214. Last Respiratory Health of Adults Suffering accessed April 28, 2005. From Moderate to Severe Asthma,” 20 Paul W. Park, “Correlation Between Environmental Research Vol. 89 Catalyst Surface Structure and Catalyst (Section A):29–37. Behavior: Selective Catalytic Reduction with 16 Devlin, R.B.; Ghio, A.J.; Kehrl, H., et al. Hydrocarbon.” May 21, 2002. EMSL 2002. (2003) “Elderly humans exposed to con- Richland, Washington. See http://www.emsl centrated air pollution particles have .pnl.gov/new/emsl2002/abstracts/park.doc. decreased heart rate variability.” Eur. Respir. Last accessed April 28, 2005. The California J. 21(suppl 40):76–80. Air Resources Board has verified a Lean NOx Gold, D.R.; Litonjua, A.; Schwartz, J.; catalyst at a 25% reduction in NOx.The veri- Lovett, E.; Larson, A.; Nearing, B.; Allen, fied Lean NOx catalyst is used in combina- G.; Verrier, M.; Cherry, R.; Verrier, R. tion with a Diesel Particulate Filter. See (2000) “Ambient Pollution and Heart Rate http://www.arb.ca.gov/diesel/verdev/level3/ Variability.” Circulation 101: 1267–1273. level3.htm. Last Accessed April 28, 2005. Magari, S.R.; Hauser, R.; Schwartz, J.; et al. 21 See http://www.meca.org/jahia/Jahia/ (2001) “Association of heart rate variability engineName/filemanager/pid/229/ with occupational and environmental retrofitFAQ%20%28revised%29.pdf exposure to particulate air pollution.” ?actionreq=actionFileDownload&fileItem Circulation. 104:986–991. =712. Last accessed April 28, 2005. Pekkanen, J.; Peters, A.; Hoek, G., et al. 22 California Air Resources Board. “The Carl (2002) “Particulate air pollution and risk of Moyer Memorial Air Quality Standards ST-segment depression during repeated sub- Attainment Program Guidelines: Approved maximal exercise tests among subjects with Revision 2003.” September 30, 2003. See coronary heart disease: the Exposure and http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/moyer/2003 Risk Assessment for Fine and Ultrafine Particles in Ambient Air (ULTRA) study.” moyerguide.pdf Last accessed May 3, 2005 23 Circulation. 106:933–938. Texas State House of Representatives. Peters, A.; Liu, E.; Verrier, R. L.; Schwartz, “House Bill 1365.” §8(a) Effective June 22, J.; Gold, D. R.; Mittleman, M.; Baliff, J.; 2003. See http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/ Oh, J. A.; Allen, G.; Monahan, K.; Dockery, cgi-bin/tlo/textframe.cmd?LEG=78&SESS D. W. (2000) “Air pollution and incidence of =R&CHAMBER=H&BILLTYPE cardiac arrhythmia.” Epidemiology 11: 11–17. =B&BILLSUFFIX=01365&VERSION =5&TYPE=B Last accessed May 3, 2005. Peters, A.; von Klot, S.; Heier, M.; 24 Trentinaglia, I.; Hormann, A.; Wichmann, U.S.EPA Health Assessment Document E.; Lowel, H. (2004) “Exposure to Traffic for Diesel Engine Exhaust, May 2002, and the Onset of Myocardial Infarction.” EPA/600/8-90/057F. New England J. of Medicine 351: 1721–1730. 25 See, e.g., Norris, G., et al. (1999) “An Peters, A.; Dockery, D.W.; Muller, J.E.; et Association Between Fine Particles and al. (2001) Increased particulate air pollution Asthma in Emergency Department Visits and the triggering of myocardial infarction. for Children in Seattle,” Environ. Health Circulation. 103:2810–2815. Perspect. 107: 489–493. 17 62 Fed. Reg. 38,856 ( July 18, 1997); Bell, Tolbert, P.E., et al. (2000) “Air Quality and M.L.: McDermott, A.; Zeger, S.L.; Samet, Pediatric Emergency Room Visits for

43 Asthma in Atlanta, Georgia,” Am. J. Engines, Table 6.5-3, EPA420-R-04-007, Epidemiol. 151:798–810. May 2004 Gauderman, J.W., et al. (2000) “Association 6 See http://www.meca.org/jahia/Jahia/ Between Air Pollution and Lung Function engineName/filemanager/pid/229/ Growth in Southern California Children,” retrofitfact.PDF?actionreq American Journal of Respiratory and =actionFileDownload&fileItem=214. Last Critical Care Medicine 162:1383–1390. accessed on April 4, 2005 26 American Academy of Pediatrics, “Ambient 7 Summary of Products That Are Reported to Air Pollution: Respiratory Hazards to Chil- Reduce Particulate Emissions From Diesel- dren,” American Association of Pediatrics Fueled Engines. Report Appendix IX, Cali- News, 1993. See also Landrigan, P., et al. fornia Air Resources Board; 10/2000. See (1998) “Children’s Health and the Environ- http://www.epa.gov/otaq/retrofit/documents/ ment: A New Agenda for Prevention meca1.pdf Last Accessed on April 5, 2005. Research,” Environmental Health Per- 8 EPA, 2004, Table 6.5-3 spectives 106 (suppl. 3): 787–94 9 EPA (2000) Regulatory Impact Analysis: Heavy Duty Engine and Vehicle Standards Chapter 3 and Highway Diesel Fuel Sulfur Control Requirements, EPA420-R-00-026, 1 EPA (2000) Regulatory Impact Analysis: December, Table ES-5. Heavy Duty Engine and Vehicle Stan- 10 EPA (2004a) Final Regulatory Analysis: dards and Highway Diesel Fuel Sulfur Control of Emissions from Nonroad Diesel Control Requirements, Table VII-19, Engines, EPA420-R-04-007, May 2004, EPA420-R-00-026, December 2000. Table 9-17. 2 Ibid. 11 Marshall, Julian D. and Eduardo Behrentz, 3 EPA (2004a) Final Regulatory Analysis: “Vehicle Self-Pollution Intake Fraction: Control of Emissions from Nonroad Diesel Children’s Exposure to School Bus Engines, Table 9-11, EPA420-R-04-007, Emissions,” Environ. Sci. Technol. 39, May 2004. 2559–2563 (2005). 4 Ibid. 12 Id.

Chapter 4 Chapter 5 1 See http://www.epa.gov/ozonedesignations/. 1 The diversity of programs described here Last accessed April 5, 2005 reflects the varying needs of individual 2 See http://www.epa.gov/pmdesignations/ projects with respect to equipment, location, documents/Apr05/factsheet.htm. Last fuel availability, and other related factors. accessed April 27, 2005. Also, see generally, This is not a comprehensive list of successful http://www.epa.gov/pmdesignations/. Last retrofit projects across the country and accessed April 5, 2005 Environmental Defense does not endorse 3 See http://www.meca.org/jahia/Jahia/ any particular retrofit technology or retrofit engineName/filemanager/pid/229/ technology manufacturer. retrofitfact.PDF?actionreq 2 Environmental Defense’s Cleaner =actionFileDownload&fileItem Diesel Handbook may be found at =214 Last accessed on April 4, 2005 http://www.environmentaldefense.org/go/ 4 Summary of Products That Are Reported to dieselhandbook Reduce Particulate Emissions From Diesel- 3 See http://www.epa.gov/ozonedesignations/ Fueled Engines. Report Appendix IX, regions/region2desig.htm. Last accessed California Air Resources Board; 10/2000. April 18, 2005. See http://www.epa.gov/otaq/retrofit/ 4 See http://www.epa.gov/pmdesignations/ documents/meca1.pdf Last Accessed on finaltable.htm. Last accessed April 18, 2005. April 5, 2005 5 New York State Assembly. N.Y. ALS 5 EPA (2004) Final Regulatory Analysis: Chapter 259, Assembly Bill 11700 (2004). Control of Emissions from Nonroad Diesel New York State Governor’s Office. “Press Release: Governor Signs Bill Creating the

44 20 Coordinated Construction Act for Lower Information based on Donaldson letter to Manhattan.” August 10, 2004. See http:// Environmental Defense dated March 25, www.state.ny.us/governor/press/year04/aug1 2004. 0_1_04.htm Last accessed May 3, 2005. 21 See http://www.catf.us/publications/view/ 6 Ibid. 82. Last accessed April 13, 2005. 7 New York, NY, Local Law 77, §2(f)(1) 22 The CATF study found that a bus equipped (2003). See http://www.nyccouncil.info/ with a diesel oxidation catalyst (DOC) pdf_files/bills/law03077.pdf. Last accessed showed cabin levels of ultrafine particles, May 2, 2005 black carbon and PAH that were similar in 8 See http://www.cleanaircommunities.org/ magnitude to those observed in conventional projects/huntspoint.html. Last accessed buses. Thus, the CATF found it difficult to May 3, 2005. ascertain whether a DOC provided any 9 Ibid. in-cabin benefit. See http://www.catf.us/ publications/view/82. Last accessed 10 See http://www.epa.gov/cleanschoolbus/ April 27, 2005 basicinfo.htm. Last accessed on April 13, 23 2005. See http://www.epa.gov/cleanschoolbus/ antiidling.htm. Last accessed April 27, 2005. 11 See Children’s Exposure to Diesel Exhaust on 24 School Buses, http://www.ehhi.org/reports/ See http://www.epa.gov/cleanschoolbus/idle diesel, last accessed on April 13, 2005. See _fuel_calc.htm. Last accessed April 27, also Marshall, J.D.; Behrentz, E. (2005) 2005. EPA uses a fuel cost of $1.50 per “Vehicle Self-Pollution Intake Fraction: Chil- gallon to make this calculation although the dren’s Exposure to School Bus Emissions,” Energy Information Administration shows Environ. Science Technol. 39, 2559–2563. current highway diesel retail prices at about The Natural Resources Defense Council and $2.18 per gallon. the Coalition for Clean Air issued a report 25 EPA’s website offers guidance about setting examining children’s exposure to diesel ex- up anti-idling programs. See http://www.epa haust on school buses called, No Breathing in .gov/cleanschoolbus/antiidling.htm. Last the Aisles. This report found that a child rid- accessed April 27, 2005. ing inside a diesel school bus may be exposed 26 Regional Transportation District, “State-of- to as much as four times the level of diesel the-art FREE MallRide facts.” See http:// exhaust as someone riding in the car immedi- www.rtd-denver.com. Last accessed May 2, ately in front of that same bus. See http:// 2005. www.nrdc.org/air/transportation/schoolbus/ 27 See http://www.epa.gov/smartway/ schoolbus.pdf. Last accessed April 13, 2005. idlingimpacts.htm. Last accessed May 2, 12 See http://www.epa.gov/cleanschoolbus/ 2005 funding.htm. Last accessed April 13, 2005 28 Ibid. 13 See http://www.epa.gov/otaq/schoolbus/ 29 demo_projects.htm. Last accessed April 13, Ibid. 2005. 30 See http://www.ctre.iastate.edu/pubs/truck 14 See http://okemos.k12.mi.us/users/admin/ _idling/gaines.pdf, slide 6. Last accessed about.htm. Last accessed April 16, 2005. May 3, 2005. 31 15 See http://www.epa.gov/otaq/schoolbus/ See http://www.epa.gov/smartway/ demo_projects.htm. Last accessed April 13, idlingimpacts.htm. Last accessed May 2, 2005. 2005. 32 16 See http://www.cleanairfleets.org/altfuels See http://fleetowner.com/equipment/ .html. Last accessed April 16, 2005. whatsnewin/fleet_whats_new_auxiliary/. 17 See http://www.epa.gov/otaq/schoolbus/ Last accessed May 2, 2005. demo_projects.htm. Last accessed April 13, 33 Ibid. 2005. 34 See 18 See http://cleanairtn.org/tnschoolbus.php. http://www.eere.energy.gov/cleancities/idle/t Last accessed April 16, 2005. ruck_elec.html. Last accessed May 2, 2005. 19 See http://www.epa.gov/otaq/schoolbus/ 35 See http://www.epa.gov/smartway/ demo_projects.htm. Last accessed April 13, idlingalternatives.htm. Last accessed May 2, 2005. 2005.

45 36 See http://www.nitesystem.com/index.cfm/ 48 Port of Los Angeles, News Release, “Board news?id=4. Last accessed May 2, 2005. of Harbor Commissioners Approve First- 37 See http://www.eere.energy.gov/state Ever Port of Los Angeles Rail Policy,” _energy_program/project_brief_detail.cfm/ August 13, 2004. See pb_id=727. Last accessed May 2, 2005. http://www.ewire.com/display.cfm/Wire 38 See http://daq.state.nc.us/news/pr/2004/ _ID/2261. Last accessed May 3, 2005 diesel_10252004.shtml. Last accessed 49 Los Angeles Times, “New Hybrid Loco- May 2, 2005. motive’s Emissions Are Clean As A 39 See http://www.idleaire.com/technology. Whistle,” March 25, 2005. Last accessed May 2, 2005. 50 EPA, “Case Study: Chicago Locomotive 40 See http://www.idleaire.com/products_and Idle Reduction Project,” March, 2004, _services/fleets/. Last accessed June 10, EPA420-R-04-003. See http://www.epa 2005. .gov/smartway/documents/420r04003.pdf. Last accessed May 3, 2005. 41 See http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/oog/info/gdu/ gasdiesel.asp. Last accessed May 30, 2005. 42 ENVIRON, Cold Ironing Cost Effectiveness Appendix A Study,prepared for the Port of Long Beach, 1 U.S. Department of Health and Human March 30, 2004. See http://www.polb.com/ Services, “Tenth Report on Carcinogens,” pdfs/4_environment/Cold-Ironing-Report National Toxicology Program, Research .pdf. Last accessed May 3, 2005. Triangle Park, NC, 2002. See http://ehp 43 Princess Cruise Lines, Press release, .niehs.nih.gov/roc/tenth/profiles/s069dies “Princess Ships to Connect to Shore Power .pdf. Last accessed May 2, 2005 in Seattle for 2005 Summer Season,” Sep- 2 tember 30, 2004. See http://www.princess California Air Resources Board, Emissions .com/news/article.jsp?newsArticleId=na703. Inventory 1995, Technical Support Division, Last accessed May 3, 2005. October 1997. 3 44 For a description of the West Coast Diesel U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Emissions Reduction Collaborative, see “1970 - 2002 Average annual emissions, all http://www.westcoastdiesel.org/. Last criteria pollutants,” 2005. See http://www accessed May 2, 2005. .epa.gov/ttn/chief/trends/trends02/ trendsreportallpollutants010505.xls. Last 45 Correspondence with Tom Hudson, Puget accessed June 10, 2005. Sound Clean Air Agency, December 22, 4 2004. Ibid. 5 46 The New York, Northern New Jersey, Long 68 Fed. Reg. 9,745 at 9,768. (February 28, Island Nonattainment Area Commercial 2003). Marine 6 U.S. DOE Energy Information Admin- Vessel Emissions Inventory (prepared for istration, “Emissions of Greenhouse the Port Authority of New York and New Gases in the United States 2003,” Jersey, USACE, New York District, Starcrest DOE/EIA-0573(2003), December 2004. Consulting Group, LLC, April 2003), See http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/ page 88. ggrpt/index.html. Last accessed May 2, 47 Overview of State and Local Air Quality 2005 Needs and Requirements to Reduce Emis- sions at Marine Ports,” presentation of Henry Appendix B Hogo, South Coast air Quality Management 1 District, at the U.S. Maritime Administration EPA (2004a), Final Regulatory Analysis: Workshop on Maritime Energy and Clean Control of Emissions from Nonroad Diesel Emissions, January 2002, http://www.marad Engines, EPA420-R-04-007 (May 2004). .dot.gov/NMREC/conferences_workshops/ 2 California Air Resources Board, Summary of jan%2029-30%202002/hogo.pdf. Last ac- Products That Are Reported to Reduce Particu- cessed May 8, 2005. Carl Moyer Program late Emissions From Diesel-Fueled Engines. 2004 Guidelines, available online at http:// Report Appendix IX, Oct. 2000. See http:// www.ncuaqmd.org/marine_vessel2004guidel www.epa.gov/otaq/retrofit/documents/ ines.pdf. Last accessed May 2, 2005 meca1.pdf. Last accessed on April 5, 2005.

46 3 Manufacturers of Emission Controls the scaling adjustments EPA applied to the Association, http://www.meca.org/jahia/ final nonroad diesel rule. Jahia/engineName/filemanager/pid/229/ 6 Smith, Cowan, Sensenig, and Catlin. retrofitfact.PDF?actionreq “Health Spending Growth Slows in 2003.” =actionFileDownload&fileItem=214. Last Health Affairs, 24:1 (2005). accessed on April 4, 2005. 7 Heffler, Smith, Keehan, Borger, Clemeus, 4 U.S. EPA, National Emission Inventory and Truffer. “U.S. Health Spending Pro- (NEI), Emission Factor and Inventory jections for 2004-201,” Health Affairs, Group, Office of Air Quality Planning and February 23, 2005. Standards, January 2005. 8 Blue Chip consensus projection of annual 5 This analysis is based on the EPA Regu- consumer price index for 2007–2011. latory Analysis for proposed nonroad diesel Blue Chip Economic Indicators, March 10, rule (preliminary scenario), in order to avoid 2005.

47 National Headquarters 257 Park Avenue South New York, NY 10010 212-505-2100

1875 Connecticut Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20009 202-387-3500

5655 College Avenue Oakland, CA 94618 510-658-8008

2334 North Broadway Boulder, CO 80304 303-440-4901

2500 Blue Ridge Road Raleigh, NC 27607 919-881-2601

44 East Avenue Austin, TX 78701 512-478-5161

18 Tremont Street Boston, MA 02108 617-723-5111

Project Office 3250 Wilshire Boulevard Los Angeles, CA 90010 213-386-5501