Bill Gillespie Senior Environmental Scientist Mid-Atlantic Regional Air Management Association

1. Reducing Diesel Emissions from Construction Projects Bill Gillespie Senior Environmental Scientist Mid-Atlantic Regional Air Management Association MARAMA September 18, 2006

2. Presentation Outline • What is the Mid-Atlantic Diesel Collaborative • Work of the Construction Workgroup • Why it is important to reduce construction emissions • A case study • Key elements of successful programs • Making it happen in our region – Discussion

3. The Mid-Atlantic Diesel Collaborative • MDC is a partnership between leaders from federal, state, and local government, the private sector, and environmental groups • District of Columbia • Delaware • Maryland • New Jersey (non voting) • North Carolina (non-voting) • Pennsylvania • Virginia • West Virginia Winners in Pennsylvania’s Clean School Bus Art Contest

4. Mission and Purpose • Mission of the Mid-Atlantic Diesel Collaborative is: • Reduce diesel emissions to protect public health throughout the Mid-Atlantic Region

5. Mission and Purpose • Purpose • Leverage resources and expertise to reduce diesel emissions to improve public health • Promote collaboration and coordination among projects within the Region. • Raise awareness of activities underway and the need for additional diesel emission reduction projects in the Region.

6. Organization • MDC Steering Committee • Adopts goals & strategies; supports, leads & promotes projects; oversees workgroups, etc. • Voting members are the EPA Region 3 Air Directors • MDC Workgroups • Construction • Freight • Ports/Marine • School Buses • Urban Fleets

7. The MDC Construction Workgroup • Goal • Develop strategies, incentives, and projects to reduce diesel emissions from construction equipment and vehicles in the Mid-Atlantic Region • Workgroup Chairs • Brian Rehn, EPA Region 3 • Alison Tracy, Philadelphia Air Management Services

8. Workgroup Focus • Projects and incentive programs for diesel construction equipment/vehicles including: • Retrofit • Replacement • Re-powering • Reduced activity levels (such as reduced idling) • Measures that optimize vehicle operating characteristics

9. Workgroup Strategy • Share information among workgroup members • Seek funding for construction-related projects • Work with MPOs to identify large construction projects and achieve emission reductions at these projects • Award/recognize “Environmentally Friendly” construction companies and projects

10. Workgroup Initiatives • Meet with MPOs, State DOTs and FHWA offices in Mid-Atlantic to identify large construction projects in the region. Determine if diesel emissions reduction projects can be implemented at these projects. • Explore the use of contract language to reduce diesel emissions on large, state/federally funded construction projects • Explore the idling time of cement trucks and develop programs to reduce idling time if possible. • Develop opportunities to demonstrate/verify new technologies on construction equipment.

11. The Importance of Reducing Construction Emissions • About 2 million diesel engines are in use in construction equipment across the nation • About 31% were manufactured before the introduction of emissions regulations • Equipment has long operational life, often lasting more than 25-30 years • According to EPA models, in 2005, construction equipment generated roughly: • 32% of all land-based non-road NOX emissions • 37% of land-based PM10 emissions

12. The Importance of Reducing Construction Emissions • The health risks associated with diesel exhaust include cancer, asthma, and heart disease • Construction equipment emissions often occur in locations where people live, work, and play • Emissions sometimes occur in dense, urban environments where exposure is amplified • Reducing diesel emissions improves “quality of life” and reduces nuisance complaints

13. A Case Study: Boston’s “Big Dig” • The Big Dig, or the Central Artery/Tunnel project was: • $13 billion project in downtown Boston • Included: • 4-lane tunnel under Boston harbor, • 10-lane bridge over the Charles River • 8-10-lane underground expressway for I-93 • Work began in 1991

14. A Case Study: Boston’s “Big Dig” • In assessing the project, Massachusetts DEP: • Addressed the potential of enormous dust and odor complaints • Then saw the prospect of high diesel emission exposure • MA DEP, the project proponent and others worked in partnership to develop a diesel retrofit project

15. A Case Study: Boston’s “Big Dig” • MA DEP worked with the MA Transportation Authority (MTA) to develop a partnership – the Clean Air Construction Initiative (CACI) • CACI included: • MA DEP, MTA, MA Executive Office of Environmental Affairs • EPA Region I • Northeast State for Coordinate Air Use Management • Manufacturers of Emissions Controls Association

16. A Case Study: Boston’s “Big Dig” • The retrofit project was: • Practical, affordable, & flexible • Conducted in phases • Phase I; retrofit 10 pieces of equipment. Control systems donated by MECA • Phase II; retrofit 50 pieces of equipment. MTA funds control equipment • 60 pieces of equipment (25% of all vehicles) reduced emissions 200 tons over 4-5 years, equivalent to removing 1,300 public buses from the road for one year

17. A Case Study: Boston’s “Big Dig” • The retrofit project installed mostly: • Diesel Oxidation catalysts (DOCs) • Some Diesel Particulate Filters (DPFs) installed • Typical DOC costs were about $2,500 per vehicle • There were no O&M issues with retrofitted equipment • No “loss of power” • No increased fuel use • No additional downtime • No engine warranty problems

18. A Case Study: Boston’s “Big Dig” • The retrofit project at the Big Dig was a Big Success! • Emissions reduced • Retrofit equipment worked • Minimal costs • Public felt their interests were served • Emission reductions helped advance the project • All partners looked good, felt good, and got recognition • MA DEP now requires the retrofit of diesel equipment on MA Clean Water Drinking Water projects

19. Key Elements of Successful Programs • Executive leadership • Partnering • DEPs, DOTs, construction companies, others • Funding • Practical, affordable, flexible • Voluntary vs. mandatory programs

20. Funding Sources • Federal grants: EPA and DOE • State grant programs • State DEPs • City or state “Air Quality Funds” • Enforcement Supplemental Environmental Projects • State DOTs • Congestion Mitigation Air Quality (CMAQ) funding • Diesel Collaboratives • Private sources

21. Funding Sources Obligated CMAQ Funding (in millions)

22. Voluntary vs. Mandatory Programs • There have been successful voluntary and successful mandatory programs • There can be legal issues with mandatory programs, however. • Clean Air Act prohibits state and local governments from setting their own emission standards for old non-road engines – a concept called “federal preemption” • The issue of mandatory retrofits at construction projects is in the courts… • See Associated General Contractors of America (AGC) web site for background information

23. Making it Happen in our Region • Discussion • Contact Information: • Telephone: (410) 467-0170 • E-mail: bgillespie@marama.org