Issues: Oil & Energy

My name is Richard Kassel. I am a senior attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), a national, non-profit environmental advocacy organization. I coordinate NRDC's Dump Dirty Diesels Campaign.^[2] On behalf of our more than 400,000 members, thank you for your exciting and worthwhile proposal, and thank you for the opportunity to comment.^[3]

NRDC has been working to clean up diesel emissions since the mid-1970s -- at about the same time as we were spear-heading the campaign to remove lead from gasoline. In fact, we published our first paper on the health threats of diesel particulates in 1976, and our first book on the subject in 1979.^[4] As coordinator of NRDC's Dump Dirty Diesels Campaign, I have written often on the subject of diesel's health threats.^[5] The Campaign began here in New York City as an effort to clean up our city's dirty diesel buses -- and has become a local, regional and national effort to clean up our nation's dirty diesel trucks, buses and other diesel-fueled vehicles. In our view, diesel's toxic particles and nitrogen oxide emissions are probably the most serious air pollution threat facing many Americans, particularly in New York City and other urban areas.

Today, we are here to congratulate EPA for its Proposal, and to urge EPA to remove sulfur from diesel and to clean up the nation's trucks and buses. We are here to urge you to hold the line against an oil industry that would rather fight for its profits and against cleaner fuels and to hold the line against those who would urge caution, delay and compromise rather than support the necessary, desirable and feasible application of technology to protect the public's health.

The reasons for our applause today are clear -- EPA's proposal means cleaner air and better health for all of us. By the mid-2006, 97 percent of the sulfur in diesel fuel would be eliminated, and starting with the 2007 model year, asthma attack-inducing soot particles would be slashed by 90 percent. By the end of the decade, tailpipe emissions of smog-forming nitrogen oxides would be cut by 95 percent. These emission reductions will be the equivalent of removing the pollution from 13 million of today's trucks from the roads.^[6] Every New Yorker, and more than 120 million Americans who live in areas that don't meet EPA's health standards for smog and soot, would benefit greatly from these cuts.

The barrier to cleaner trucks and buses is, in a word, sulfur. Just as lead in gasoline was a barrier to cleaner cars -- through the use of catalytic converters -- in the 1970s, today's high-sulfur diesel fuel prevents the use of new emission control technologies that could virtually eliminate diesel's black cloud. EPA's proposal would take care of this, by cutting sulfur levels by mid-2006, opening the door to dramatic emission reductions in 2007.

Here's the truth: Just as a small amount of lead in gasoline disables automobile catalytic converters, even a small amount of diesel sulfur will disable the most promising emission controls for nitrogen oxides and will make the soot controls less effective. In other words, a smaller, compromised sulfur cut (as suggested by oil interests) would render the EPA's proposed PM and NOx targets unachievable, but EPA's proposed 97 percent sulfur cut would make the air cleaner in every state of the nation.

Undoubtedly, the oil industry will continue its fight until the end of the year, hoping to push this Proposal into the next Administration. They are fighting against cleaner air and improved public health -- even though this industry earns more profits in a single quarter of a single year than its own estimated costs of compliance for the entire 10-year roll-out of the Proposal. EPA and the administration should continue to hold firm because you are on the verge of a historic environmental victory. When it happens, removing sulfur from diesel fuel will be the biggest vehicle news since the removal of lead from gasoline. By cleaning up every truck and bus in the nation, this should mean longer, healthier lives for asthmatics, and many other Americans, who currently hold their breath when a diesel truck or bus blows by and who fear the summer's first ozone alerts far more than they should.

Why New York City Needs Cleaner Diesels -- and is the Appropriate Setting for Today's Hearing

New York City is a great place for your first hearing on this proposal, for several reasons:

• First, we live with some of the highest diesel particulate matter levels in the nation. Over half of the particulate emissions in midtown Manhattan come from diesel tailpipes -- more than ten times the national average.^[7]
  
  
• Second, we live with chronically high summertime smog levels, and our state has recently been informed by EPA that its ozone plan will be 46 tons/day short of its attainment goal in 2007. This is a national problem -- nationwide, there were more than 7,000 exceedances of the 8-hour ozone standard in 1999.^[8]
  
  
  • This is also a northeast regional problem that can't be solved without significant NOx reductions from the diesel sector -- roughly one-third of the smog-forming nitrogen oxide emissions in the northeast come from diesel tailpipes (including on-road and non-road).^[9] Reducing emissions from power plants and cars will not be enough to meet the ozone standards in the northeast and elsewhere.
    
    
  • Just in the northeast, there were 339 exceedances of the 8-hour ozone standard in the first 11 days of June.^[10] EPA reported that unhealthful levels of ozone were forecast throughout the northeast as recently as this past Saturday.^[11] Given our recent temperatures and smog levels, your timing could not be better.
  
  
  
• Third, New York State is home to more than one million asthmatics -- including over 500,000 children. We live with some of the nation's highest asthma rates, including rates for pediatric asthma emergencies and hospitalizations. Asthma rates in some New York City communities along commercial trucking routes and near diesel bus and truck depots are four-to-six times the national average.^[12]
  
  
• Finally, New York City and State are at the forefront of adopting clean-fuel bus technologies. Earlier this year, NRDC celebrated a huge victory here in New York City, when the State's Metropolitan Transportation Authority agreed to finally clean up its bus fleet after a decade-long campaign. By next year, the MTA will be using low-sulfur diesel fuel in all of its diesel buses; by 2003, all 3,600 diesel buses will be equipped with advanced particulate traps; and by 2005, the MTA will have over 1,000 natural gas and hybrid-electric buses on New York City streets. Likewise, the City's Department of Transportation is converting its entire 1,100-bus fleet to compressed natural gas. These actions show that cleaner heavy-duty vehicles are not only necessary and desirable from an environmental and public health perspective, but they are feasible from a large fleet operator's perspective.

Why Reducing Diesel Pollution is a Top NRDC Priority

There is no real debate that breathing diesel fumes is hazardous to the public's health. Compared to auto emissions, which are bad enough, diesel fumes are especially noxious.

Diesel vehicles emit large quantities of particulate matter (PM), NOx and toxic compounds. More than fifty studies show links between particulate matter generally and a wide range of health impacts, including increased asthma attacks and emergencies, numerous cardiopulmonary ailments, and premature death. Almost all diesel particulates are less than one micron in diameter, which adds to their ability to evade respiratory defense mechanisms, lodge deep in our lungs and trigger health impacts. Nitrogen oxides contribute to ground-level ozone formation, acid deposition, nutrient pollution of waterways, and secondary (i.e., atmospheric) formation of particulate matter.

While numerous government bodies have concluded that diesel exhaust is harmful to human health, NRDC is particularly concerned about the growing evidence that diesel particulates are associated with increased cancer risk. Diesel exhaust has long been considered to be at least a probable human carcinogen by the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) and the World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC).

In the past two years, three actions by various government bodies moved the nation further along this path: In February 1998, EPA staff reiterated its 1994 conclusion that diesel exhaust is a probable human carcinogen, based on compelling epidemiological studies.^[13] We expect the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee to finalize this work at its July meeting. In August 1998, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) formally declared diesel particulate exhaust to be a toxic air contaminant.^[14] California has also published a unit cancer risk estimate for diesel particulate that is considerably higher than the cancer risk estimate for benzene, formaldehyde and 1,3-butadiene (see Appendix A). And in December 1998, the National Toxicology Program advisory board recommended that diesel exhaust particulates be listed as "reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen" in the ninth edition of the Congressionally-mandated Report on Carcinogens.^[15]

Diesel's link to cancer results in thousands of avoidable cancers nationwide. The association of the nation's state, territorial and local air pollution officials (STAPPA/ALAPCO) estimates that current levels of diesel pollution result in over 125,000 potential lifetime cancers nationwide, based on their extrapolation of the MATES-II study, including more than 10,000 potential lifetime cancers in New York.^[16] Rather than using the elemental carbon methodology used in the MATES-II study, NRDC has estimated the potential lifetime cancer risk in midtown Manhattan using the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) unit risk estimate for diesel particulate matter.^[17] Applying the CalEPA unit risk estimate, NRDC estimates that current levels of diesel pollution in midtown Manhattan could yield nearly nine thousand potential lifetime cancers. It is important to note that this calculation is an estimate only, and is not a prediction of actual cancer events that will occur in the future. It is offered merely as an illustration of a potential order of magnitude of diesel-related cancer risk.

NRDC Strongly Supports EPA's Proposed National Sulfur Cap of 15 Parts-Per-Million (ppm) in mid-2006 for All On-Road Vehicles.

NRDC strongly supports EPA's proposed national sulfur cap of 15 ppm in mid-2006. In fact, NRDC has previously testified that EPA should adopt a national sulfur cap of 10 ppm.^[18] NRDC would strongly oppose any sulfur level above a cap of 15 ppm because such a sulfur level would disable NOx adsorbers and other promising NOx and PM controls, and would reduce the effectiveness of continuously regenerating PM traps and other promising emission controls.

Cutting sulfur levels to a cap of 15 ppm or below makes sense for at least two reasons. First, it makes sense because high sulfur levels inhibit or disable many promising emission control technologies that could dramatically reduce PM, NOx and toxics. Second, it makes sense because the sulfur in the fuel results in higher emissions of PM₁₀, PM_2.5, PM_2.5 precursors, SO₂ and smoke from the tailpipes of diesel vehicles.

Implementing the new sulfur cap nationally by mid-2006 makes sense for at least two reasons also. First, a national approach to low-sulfur diesel is critical, given the mobility of the vehicles themselves. Because the presence of sulfur could disable NOx adsorbers and other emission controls, EPA must ensure vehicle operators that the on-road diesel fuel supply is as close to sulfur-free as possible, wherever the vehicle is operating. Second, implementing the low-sulfur cap in mid-2006 ensures that the fuel supply of low-sulfur diesel will be adequate to service the first model year 2007 vehicles that are sold (typically, in the summer and fall preceding the calendar year).

NRDC believes that a paradigm shift is required to sufficiently clean up diesel emissions. Such a paradigm shift involves a "systems" approach to reducing diesel emissions -- evaluating fuel, engine and aftertreatment technologies together as a unified system to maximize the potential emission reductions from the entire "system." Such an approach was critical to the success of last year's Tier 2 emissions and gasoline sulfur standards, and it is appropriately the principle behind today's Proposal. We support and applaud this approach.

Fuel changes will be required to enable the most advanced PM and NOx controls to be used on a widespread basis. Current diesel sulfur levels in the U.S. are as high as 500 ppm (for nonroad vehicles, sulfur levels reach 5000 ppm). Lowering diesel sulfur to a cap of 15 ppm or less would improve or enable many new emission control technologies. In some cases, reducing sulfur to below 15 ppm would improve the performance of these technologies (e.g., oxidation catalysts and continuously regenerating PM traps). In other cases, sulfur levels below a cap of 15 ppm would enable technologies that are being developed and/or have been demonstrated in Europe successfully but that cannot be used with our current high-sulfur diesel fuel numbers (e.g., NOx adsorbers).

If it happens, removing sulfur from diesel fuel will be the biggest vehicle pollution news since the removal of lead from gasoline. Predictably, the oil companies that fought unleaded gasoline in the 1970s and that would have to clean up their diesel fuels in order to reach the new emission targets are crying foul. It's clear that some companies would rather spend their money on lobbyists than on cleaner fuels. The oil companies are wrong to oppose these steps, and here's why.

Because they can't win on the science, the oil industry is crying poverty, and claiming that the EPA plan could harm the U.S. economy. The oil companies assert that the EPA proposal will force them to spend, together, between $3 and $4 billion over the next six to ten years to update their refineries to produce low-sulfur diesel fuel. Given that America's largest oil companies reported nearly $12 billion in profits in just the first quarter of 2000 (see Appendix B), this investment in cleaner fuels is a reasonable cost of continuing an extremely profitable business. As for the U.S. economy, it is estimated that these rules could add three or four cents to the price of a gallon of diesel fuel over the course of the decade -- hardly enough to derail the nation's strong economy. It's worth noting that BP Amoco has reported that its 15 ppm sulfur fuel will be sold in California next year at an incremental cost of five cents/gallon, even without the economies-of-scale benefits of a nationwide fuel.^[19] These costs seem especially reasonable once the benefits of eliminating 2.8 million tons/year of NOx, 305,000 tons/year of non-methane hydrocarbons, and 110,000 tons/year of particulates are factored in.^[20]

It's also worth noting that some industry opponents of this Proposal are veiling their opposition by asserting a need for "more time" to study the Proposal, i.e., that EPA should not rush to reduce diesel emissions this year. To them, NRDC responds: "you've had more than twenty years' notice from the environmental and public health community that it's time to dump dirty diesels, and time's up." Technologies that require low-sulfur diesel are being commercialized and used in Europe and elsewhere, and are providing the benefits of reduced diesel emissions in those places. Every year of delay on industry's part means more avoidable asthma emergencies and more avoidable cancers. If industry supports the goals of the rule -- including the need to act expeditiously -- it should say so, and we will look forward to working with such industry to address its concerns.

It is important to note that other countries are already reducing the sulfur levels in diesel fuel. With its large diesel car population, the European Community (EC) has begun to reduce diesel sulfur levels. Diesel sulfur sold in the EC will be capped at 50 ppm sulfur starting in 2005, and there is movement towards a 10 ppm cap in 2008. Some countries are acting faster: Sweden has a 50 ppm cap already, and is moving towards the national adoption of a 10 ppm cap (90% of Swedish diesel is already at this 10 ppm level, thanks to an effective incentive program).

It is worth noting that the nonroad sector needs sulfur controls as well. Currently, there are no caps on sulfur levels in diesel fuel used in nonroad engines, and 5000 ppm sulfur levels can be found in non-road diesel fuel. This results in excess emissions in every part of the nation. Lowering sulfur levels in nonroad diesel fuel will reduce emissions from these engines immediately, and will enable new nonroad engines to meet more stringent emission targets.

NRDC strongly supports EPA's proposed new standards for particulate matter and nitrogen oxides (0.05 grams-per-brake-horsepower-hour (g/bhp-hr) for PM and 0.2g /bhp-hr for NOx, respectively). However, NRDC strongly urges EPA to eliminate the four-year phase-in of the NOx standard.

Given the serious health risks posed by diesel's high levels of PM and NOx emissions, NRDC strongly supports EPA's proposed emission levels. NRDC also supports EPA's other proposed emissions standards (e.g., non-methane hydrocarbons, formaldehyde, and complete vehicle standards).^[21] However, we believe that the engine and aftertreatment industries should work together with EPA and others to meet the NOx standard for all new heavy-duty engines in 2007, rather than phasing in the 2007 NOx standard over a four-year period.

The Clean Air Act provides four years of lead time and three years of stability for all heavy-duty engine emission standards.^[22] Legally, EPA could introduce a new PM standard in the 2005 model year, and new NOx and NMHC standards in 2007. However, EPA's proposal to implement all three new emission standards in 2007 makes practical sense -- as would a decision to fully implement the NOx and NMHC standards in 2007 -- for several reasons. First, by that time, low-sulfur diesel fuel will be available nationwide, so there will be no fuel barrier to the national use of the advanced PM and NOx controls that meet the 2007 proposed standards. Second, implementing all of the new standards at the same time will minimize the cost and burdens of compliance, particularly for engine manufacturers and after-treatment companies that will be commercializing new equipment to meet the proposed PM, NOx and NMHC standards. Under the current approach, these companies will have to maintain separate production lines for engines that meet the 0.2 g/bhp-hr NOx standard and for those engines that will continue to be certified at the 2.4/2.5 g/bhp-hr NOx + NMHC level until 2010. These companies will have to maintain accurate records for their production and sales through 2010 to demonstrate compliance with the NOx phase-in, and EPA will have the added regulatory burden of overseeing this compliance. Third, other low-emission heavy-duty activities around the world -- from the California Air Resources Board's urban bus standards to the European Communities upcoming diesel requirements -- will have created incentives for the commercialization of advanced emission control technologies elsewhere that will be applied to meeting EPA's requirements.

By 2007, technologies will have been commercialized to meet a 0.2 g/bhp-hr NOx standard in California (and perhaps the European Community, starting in 2008). It should be feasible to use these technologies nationwide at that time. Finally, every state in the nation will have theoretically attained the current national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for ozone except California, and many states will be striving to either maintain that standard or attain upcoming ozone and/or particulate matter NAAQSs. It is worth noting that the Manufacturers of Emission Controls Association (MECA) has written that it "strongly believes" that NOx adsorber technology and catalyst-based diesel particulate filters will be commercially available by 2007 to help meet EPA's proposed PM and NOx standards, provided that 15 ppm sulfur fuel is available.^[23]

It is also likely that advanced non-diesel alternatives -- from advanced natural gas engines to fuel cells and hybrid-electric drive-trains -- will be significantly further along the commercialization path. Each of these alternatives provides pathways to meeting the proposed 2007 standards, as well as fleet and state opportunities to take advantage of early adopters' credits through a "blue sky" program (discussed below).

NRDC does not support a mid-term technology review at this time. In 1997, EPA finalized a series of emission standards for heavy-duty engines starting in model year 2004, and provided for a mid-term technology review. This review still remains unfinished, reducing the amount of time available for companies to meet whatever new requirements emerge from this review. Last year's Tier 2 rules did not include a technology review, after much discussion and debate. In the event that EPA decides to add a technology review to this Proposal, NRDC strongly urges the agency to (a) limit such a review to the proposed NOx standard only and (b) specifically state that such a technology review would be a "two-way" review, i.e., it would include a review of whether the 2007 NOx standard could be strengthened further.

EPA Needs to Adopt Strong "Blue Sky" Standards for Advanced Technology Vehicles and Alternative-Fuel Vehicles (ATV/AFVs) to Create Incentives for State and Fleet Programs.

One of the principal tenets of NRDC's Dump Dirty Diesels Campaign is a belief that there are vehicle niches and local or regional environments where no diesel is clean enough. In chronically polluted environments like New York City, southern California, Washington, D.C., and in many other ozone and PM nonattainment areas, NRDC believes that the "mandatory minimums" of EPA's national PM, NOx and NMHC standards are not stringent enough to adequately protect the public. Plus, without adequate in-use compliance and enforcement mechanisms, and without emission standards to reduce the public's exposure to diesel's many toxic constituents (see below), we do not believe that the public's health is adequately protected. In such local or regional environments and vehicle niches, NRDC believes that states and fleets can and should go beyond currently-available diesel technologies and purchase vehicles that run on cleaner ATV/AFVs like natural gas or electric power.

Certain vehicle niches are well-suited for natural gas and other ATV/AFVs. Fleets that meet the following criteria are the best early adopters of ATV/AFV technology: fleets that are centrally-fueled, that operate in congested urban environments, that are high emitters, that are heavy fuel-users, and/or that use either public funds or incentives to offset incremental costs.

NRDC recognizes that EPA cannot provide the tax incentives or direct funding to make state and local ATV/AFV programs work. This role is being played primarily by the Departments of Transportation and Energy, as well as numerous state and local programs. However, EPA can and should provide guidance to states that wish to allocate SIP credits for ATV/AFV programs, and should adopt "blue sky" standards that will guide the vehicle, engine and aftertreatment industries to the most protective level of emissions performance. In other words, by setting "blue sky" standards, EPA can provide an extremely valuable service to state, local and private interests that are trying to determine exactly what should be the goal for the next level of regulation, and can provide some uniformity to a public that may be confused by competing definitions of what is meant by "clean."^[24] The 1998 non-road engine rule provides a precedent for this action.

NRDC will provide further guidance on the level of "blue sky" standards in our supplemental comments, to be submitted prior to the close of the comment period.

EPA's Diesel Work Won't Be Finished Until It Develops a Comprehensive In-Use Compliance and Enforcement Program (including strict adherence to the NTE Limits in Last Year's Consent Decrees), and Until It Addresses Non-Road Engines and Currently-Unregulated Toxic Emissions.

Setting more stringent tailpipe standards alone will not be sufficient to assure Americans that diesels are getting cleaner, so NRDC strongly urges EPA to adopt a strong in-use compliance and enforcement program for the nation's trucks and buses. Thanks to the diesel engine industry's decade-long practice of designing and building engines that meet EPA's certification standards while emitting far-greater emissions on the open road, Americans continue to breathe excess NOx emissions from the current truck fleet. These excess emissions will add a wide range of serious public health impacts and costs, including an estimated 2,500 premature deaths, 5,000 hospitalizations and public health costs of 6-21 billion dollars over the lives of these vehicles. EPA should take steps immediately to assure Americans that future engines will meet EPA's emission standards throughout their useful lives, including a codification of the not-to-exceed (NTE) limits in last year's Consent Decrees between the U.S. government and seven major diesel engine manufacturers,^[25] the adoption of onboard diagnostics (OBD) requirements, the implementation of a comprehensive in-use testing program and other compliance and enforcement mechanisms. NRDC strongly opposes any change to the NTE limits contained in the Consent Decrees, and strongly supports the application of the NTE limits to all heavy-duty engines and vehicles, regardless of the fuel used.

We also urge the agency to embark on an integrated approach to bring non-road diesel fuel and emissions to a level of parity with on-road fuels and engines. The health needs are the same, and the technological availability is comparable. Given the slow turn-over rate of these vehicles, prompt action in this area will be help assure near- and mid-term emission reductions from this growing pollution source.

NRDC also strongly urges EPA to adopt rules to reduce currently-unregulated hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) and other known toxic constituents of diesel exhaust. Over 40 HAPs or substances regulated as "toxic air contaminants" by CalEPA are commonly found in diesel exhaust.^[26] As noted above, CARB and other public health agencies have taken steps to designate diesel particulate exhaust as a form of toxic air contaminant or carcinogen. While we support EPA's actions to reduce formaldehyde in this Proposal and acknowledge the indirect reductions from benzene, acetaldehyde and 1,3-butadiene that will result from the PM, NOx and NMHC standards being proposed, EPA needs to address the broad range of diesel toxics more directly, as soon as possible. EPA's first step in this direction should be to finalize its determination that diesel exhaust poses a cancer risk to humans.

Conclusion

NRDC applauds EPA for its Proposal, and we look forward to working with the Administration towards the successful finalization of this Proposal by the end of this year. Towards that end, we expect to submit supplemental comments prior to the end of the comment period.

For more than twenty years, we have been working to "dump dirty diesels." If the Proposal is finalized this year and implemented in full in 2007, the vehicle, engine and fuel industries will have gone a long way to address our environmental and health concerns.

Thank you again for the opportunity to comment. For further information, please do not hesitate to contact Richard Kassel at (212) 727-4454 or at rkassel@nrdc.org.

Appendix A

Applying California's risk estimate to midtown Manhattan's PM levels

Last year, the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) estimated the "unit risk" of cancer due to exposure to diesel particulate matter (PM) at 3.0 x 10^-4 per micrograms/cubic meter (ug/m³ ). In other words, CalEPA estimated that 300 out of each one million people would be expected to develop lung cancer if exposed to 1 ug/m³ over a 70-year lifetime. CalEPA further estimated that Californians were exposed to 1.8 ug/m³, thereby yielding a lifetime cancer estimate of 540 cancer cases per million people at this level of exposure.

Using a similar methodology, California has established unit risk estimates for other toxic compounds emitted by motor vehicles. For example, California's unit risk estimate for 1,3 butadiene is 170 cancer/million; for benzene, the unit risk estimate is 29 cancers/million; for formaldehyde, the unit risk estimate is 6 cancers/million. Thus, the California unit risk estimate for diesel PM is considerably higher than any of the other major toxic compounds found in motor vehicle exhaust.

What does this mean for New Yorkers?

New Yorkers may breathe the highest levels of ambient diesel particulate matter in the nation.

In 1993, New Yorkers in midtown Manhattan breathed an average of 24.8 ug/m³ of diesel PM -- over half of the average annualized ambient PM level of 47 ug/m³, according to the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYS DEC). Although NYS DEC has not measured diesel PM separately since 1993, total ambient PM has increased by over fifteen percent since then -- to roughly 56 ug/m³ in 1998. (raw data only; no 1999 data has been released).

If we assume that the relative proportion of diesel PM as a component of all ambient PM has not changed since 1993, then it is reasonable to assume that New Yorkers in midtown Manhattan breathed 29.6 ug/m³ of diesel PM in 1998. If maintained over a 70-year lifetime, such an exposure to diesel PM would yield a lifetime cancer risk of 8870 cancers/million -- in other words, nearly 9000 times EPA's risk threshold for toxic pollutants.

It is important to note that this calculation is an estimate only, and is not a prediction of actual cancer events that will occur in the future. It is offered merely as an illustration of a potential order of magnitude of diesel-related cancer risk.

Appendix B

Notes

1. 65 Federal Register 35430 (June 2, 2000) (the "Proposal"). Abbreviations not defined herein shall have the meaning attributed to them in the Proposal.

2. Along with Janet Hathaway, I represent NRDC on EPA's Mobile Source Technical Review Subcommittee. I also am an adjunct professor at Pace University School of Law, where I teach courses on the Clean Air Act.

3. These remarks provide an outline to NRDC's comments on the Proposal. Given the time constraints of today's hearing, it is not be possible to provide sufficient detail on each component of the Proposal. NRDC will submit more detailed written comments prior to the close of the comment period, as a supplement to today's remarks.

4. See, e.g., F. Perera and A.K. Ahmed, Respirable Particles, Ballinger Publ. Co., Cambridge, MA, 1979.

5. See, e.g., R. Skelton and R. Kassel, End of the Line for Dirty Diesels, NRDC, New York, 1993; G. Solomon et al, Exhausted by Diesel -- How America's Dependence on Diesel Engines Threatens our Health (contributor), NRDC, New York, 1998; D. Wooley, Clean Air Handbook, 8th edition, West Publ. Co., 1998 (wrote chapter on mobile sources); T. Campbell, R. Kassel, J. Mark, M. Robinson, Addressing the Technical and Public Health Issues of Diesel-Electric Hybrid Buses, NRDC/Coalition for Clean Air, Union of Concerned Scientists, 1999.

6. Statement of EPA Administrator Carol M. Browner, May 17, 2000.

7. NYS Department of Environmental Conservation, State Implementation Plan for Inhalable Particulate (PM10), September 1995, p. 11. According to DEC, 52.8% of the particulates measured on Madison Avenue come from diesels. In contrast, approximately 0.5% of the national PM10 emissions inventory comes from onroad diesel vehicles. Calculation based on data in U.S. Dept. of Energy, Transportation Energy Data Book: Edition 19 -- 1999, tables 4.8 and 4.9.

8. Clean Air Network, US PIRG Educational Fund, Danger in the Air -- Unhealthy Smog Days in 1999, p. 1, Jan. 2000.

9. Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM), Heavy-Duty Engine Emissions in the Northeast, Boston, MA, May 1997, p. EX-3.

10. http://www.nescaum.org/Exceedance_Page/00injune_8hr.html

11. http://www.epa.gov/region01/eco/dailyozone/dailyozone.html

12. C. Luz, et al, Socioeconomic Factors and Asthma Hospitalization Rates in New York City, Journal of Asthma, 36(4), pp. 343-350 (1999); American Lung Association of New York State, Impacts and Predictors of Lung Disease, 1998. For example, the pediatric asthma hospitalization rate was 7489 per million hospital discharges in the Bronx in 1994 (the most recent data available).

13. U.S. EPA, Office of Research and Development, Health Assessment Document for Diesel Emissions, Review Draft, EPA/600/8-90/057C, February 1998, Chapter 5.

14. California Air Resources Board, Resolution 98-35 (listing of diesel particulate as a toxic air contaminant), adopted August 27, 1998.

15. See http://www.dieselnet.com/news/9812ntp.html

16. State and Territorial Air Pollution Program Administrators/Association of Local Air Pollution Control Officials (STAPPA/ALAPCO), Cancer Risk from Diesel Particulate: National and Metropolitan Area Estimates for the United States, March 2000. This report was based on calculations of cancer risk first published in South Coast Air Quality Management District, Multiple Air Toxics Exposure Study (MATES-II), Draft Final Report, November 1999.

17. See Appendix A.

18. See NRDC Comments on EPA Proposed Rule No. A-98-32, submitted at EPA's hearing in Philadelphia, PA on November 2, 1999.

19. http://www.ecdiesel.com/keypoints.html; BP Amoco, press release, June 15, 2000.

20. 65 Federal Register 35430 (June 2, 2000). NRDC also notes the estimated incremental vehicle costs of this proposal: $1,000-1,600 per vehicle over the long run. Given that heavy-duty buses now cost over $300,000 and that heavy-duty trucks can cost over $200,000, we believe that this is a reasonable cost of compliance.

21. NRDC also strongly supports the proposal to close the crankcases in turbocharged diesels.

22. 42 U.S.C.A. 7521(a)(3)(C)(1990); also cited as Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, Section 202(a)(3)(C) (1990).

23. MECA, letter to EPA Administrator Carol M. Browner, May 3, 2000

24. For example, Washington, D.C.'s transit agency currently calls its 250 ppm sulfur diesel an "ultra-low sulfur diesel" fuel; New Jersey Transit recently purchased more than 1,000 diesel buses that it is calling "clean diesel," yet these engines are merely certified to EPA's current emission standards.

25. Consent decrees filed in 1999 between the United States and each of Caterpillar Inc., Cummins Engine Company, Inc., Detroit Diesel Corporation, Mack Trucks, Inc. and Renault V.I., s.a., Navistar International Transportation Corp. and Volvo Truck Corporation (collectively, the "Consent Decrees").

26. NRDC, Exhausted by Diesel, p. 6.