Comments and Testimonies

June 19, 2000

CLEAN AIR COUNCIL COMMENTS ON UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY PROPOSED RULEMAKING: CONTROL OF AIR POLLUTION FROM NEW MOTOR VEHICLES: HEAVY-DUTY ENGINE AND VEHICLE STANDARDS; HIGHWAY DIESEL FUEL SULFUR CONTROL REQUIREMENTS; PROPOSED RULES. 65FR35430.

INTRODUCTION

My name is Iain Taylor. I am a policy analyst for Clean Air Council. Founded in 1967, Clean Air Council is a Pennsylvania-based, non-profit membership organization working through a combination of public education, community advocacy, and oversight of government enforcement of environmental laws to ensure that all can live in a healthy environment. Clean Air Council has offices in Philadelphia and Harrisburg, Pennsylvania and Wilmington, Delaware. The Council is perhaps best known for its willingness to sue the EPA and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania when they do not properly implement the Clean Air Act. Thank you for allowing me to testify on this important issue.

On behalf of Clean Air Council I urge you to adopt these proposed rulemakings. The quality of America's air is a serious environmental health issue. Emissions from diesel engines continue to pollute the air and endanger the health of many Americans.

Philadelphia has the fourth worst air quality in the nation. According to a recent report by the EPA, the air in Philadelphia County exceeds Federal "safe" level for cancer by 297 times. Small steps have been taken to reduce the level of particulate matter (pm) throughout the greater Philadelphia area. Unfortunately, even low concentrations of PM can adversely affect human health. A recent study estimated that 2,599 premature deaths are caused by soot particles in Philadelphia annually. Although the nation as a whole is affected by diesel engine emissions, large cities in particular, are continuing to experience dangerous levels of air pollution. Throughout the country, too many Americans are forced to breathe high concentrations of harmful particulates each and every day.

MAIN ARGUMENT

Less than two percent of all vehicles on the road today use diesel fuel. Nevertheless, these vehicles emit 50 percent or more of the dangerous soot particles in urban areas, and nearly one-third of all smog-forming nitrogen oxide emissions. Soot particles are extremely dangerous and contain more than 40 hazardous pollutants, including many potential or probable carcinogens. Nitrous Oxide (NOx) reacts with volatile organic compounds in the presence of sunlight to create ground level ozone or smog. Smog exacerbates asthma and other respiratory diseases.

PM and NOx cause serious public health concerns and contribute to soot and smog pollution that is associated with 15,000 deaths annually throughout America, as well as a million cases of respiratory problems each year. Diesel emissions are also responsible for some 400,000 national cases of asthma attacks every year. While air pollution may present more of a long-term health affect to otherwise healthy adults, to vulnerable individuals such as children, the elderly, and those with chronic respiratory and cardiovascular problems, it can be deadly. These groups remain disproportionately susceptible to air pollution, and are the first to feel the affects of diesel emissions. Without adequate regulation diesel engines will continue to adversely affect the environment, increase the number of cases of heart and lung disease, aggravate asthma, and produce additional pubic health problems.

Epidemiologists in approximately seventy cities around the world have consistently found that more people die and are hospitalized during periods when particulate pollution levels rise even a moderate amount. Rarely has such a clear pattern emerged in epidemiology and most environmental health experts are now convinced that this is not a coincidence. Despite this overwhelming evidence, opponents of the proposed rulemaking have still managed to find fault with the results of epidemiological studies that link particulate matter with adverse health effects. One of the main industry criticisms has been that confounding factors such as temperature, weather, and seasonal factors, or co-occurring pollutants could be contributing to the observed health effects associated with particulate matter. Currently, a number of carefully designed studies have been able to single out many such factors giving credence to the fact that PM itself is directly responsible for some of the health effects.

Recent examinations have been done using clinical and toxicological studies with personalized exposure to PM to correlate these epidemiological results. Several of these studies were done by examining hospital patients and nursing home residents, deriving data on the actual effects of human exposures to particulate matter; something which had previously been unavailable. The latest results from these correlating personalized studies not only conclude that PM is a major contributing factor but also suggests some reasons why PM causes adverse health affects. For example in the past year, about a dozen major scientific studies have turned up heart pattern changes in animals and elderly people. One study indicated that the tiny particles of PM seem to alter the normal pulsing of the human heart and that even the air pollution levels commonly found daily in Philadelphia and other cities across the country are enough to disrupt the body's ability to regulate the pumping of blood. Rising particulate counts on a given day are enough to disrupt the beat-to-beat variations that are designed to meet the demands of regular activities ranging from sleep to exercise. This threat is of particular concern to the elderly, those suffering from arrhythmia - a life-threatening condition of skipped or premature beats, and those with heart conditions and lung disease or asthma. Experts have estimated that particulate pollution may account for 1% of heart disease fatalities in the United States, amounting to about 10,000 deaths a year.

Today Clean Air Council calls on EPA to:

Adopt proposed heavy-duty diesel engine and vehicle standards as expeditiously as possible.
Adopt highway diesel fuel sulfur control requirements as expeditiously as possible to prevent the poisoning of emission control equipment in trucks and buses
Require retro-fit of older vehicles with diesel engines to meet modern emission standards.
CURRENT FEDERAL STANDARDS

Many environmentalists have come here to praise EPA's proposal today-the Council also comes to ask the EPA- what took you so long?

A recent poll determined that roughly nine out of ten Americans believe that big diesel trucks and buses should be required to use the best available pollution control technology. Despite all of this information and knowledge, diesel manufacturers and fuel providers and the Federal government have continued to ignore the problem. Current diesel engine and fuel standards remain insufficient and outdated. Although heavy-trucks and buses are among the nation's largest pollution sources, the oil industry and engine manufacturers have done remarkably little to reduce the pollution from these sources. In addition, Federal standards are currently so weak that most diesel engines are not even required to install readily available pollution controls. The Clean Air Act mandates that the EPA set national ambient air quality standards that will protect public health. There is no doubt that present diesel engine emissions do not reflect this goal. In order to protect and improve public health, the EPA must take the initiative to establish comprehensive reductions in pollution from vehicles with diesel engines.

EPA's proposed rulemakings are a step in the right direction, and should be approved. The proposed rulemakings, however, should be improved. Reducing sulfur in diesel fuel by 97 percent will cut smog-forming pollution by 95 percent in 2007 and soot pollution by 90 percent by 2007. Unfortunately, the proposed rulemakings delay implementation of these needed air quality improvements far too long. There is no reason why the EPA cannot shorten the compliance schedule for vehicles containing diesel engines. The standards proposed by the proposed rulemakings may be stringent enough, but the EPA has chosen to unnecessarily delay their implementation. Moreover, because the proposed standards do not take affect for a number of years, Clean Air Council would like to request an additional requirement to the proposed regulation. By the year 2008, two years after almost all the sulfur has been removed from diesel fuel, the Council suggests all heavy-duty trucks and buses 15 years old or less, must comply with the new standards or retro-fit with a new converter that would sufficiently reduce their harmful emissions to appropriate standards.

RESPONSE TO THE OPPOSITION

Opponents of EPA's proposal cite increasing costs and a lack of feasible alternatives as obstacles to the implementation of EPA's proposed regulation. In reality, there are a number of options available today that could significantly reduce emissions from diesel engines. Natural Gas, for instance, is an effective replacement for diesel fuel and has proved to be cost effective and environmentally sound. Although an extensive cost study has not yet been completed, the Council, along with other environmental groups, believes that regulation will affect the price of diesel fuel only minimally. Furthermore, the benefits of clean air and improved health would certainly exceed a small increase in costs.

FINAL THOUGHTS

If EPA does not move expeditiously with these proposed rulemakings, the quality of public health will continue to get worse. Sales of diesel engines are rapidly increasing. Approximately 1 million new diesel engines are put to work in the U.S. every year. Unless EPA is willing to aggressively implement the proposed national low sulfur and diesel engine regulations, diesel emissions will continue to have a significant affect on public health.

Clean Air Council believes that diesel fuel vehicles should have the same, or equivalent, strict emission standards as gasoline vehicles. Every vehicle designed should be forced to meet the same pollution control standards, regardless of the chosen fuel, vehicle weight, or engine type. Air pollution is dangerous and serious threat to all Americans. Congress intended that the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 would force technological advances in pollution control. Current diesel engine and sulfur in fuel regulations are far too lenient on diesel vehicles and fuels and remain unacceptable. It is time for the federal government to understand this growing health threat and deal with it. These proposed regulations are a step in the right direction.

EPA's proposed action is good news for everyone who wants to breathe healthier air, especially children, seniors, and people with existing respiratory problems. The public wants and deserves clean air. This proposal will ensure that they get it.

Thank you for your time and consideration, and the opportunity to comment of this crucial public matter.

CONCLUSION

Clean Air Council reserves the right to submit more detailed testimony in writing before the close of the comment period. Any questions to this testimony should be addressed in writing to: Joseph Otis Minott, Esq. Clean Air Council, 135 S. 19th Street, Suite 300, Philadelphia, Pa. 19103. Or e-mailed to mailto:jminott@cleanair.org