 |
Cleaning up the nation’s diesel fleet on land and water is just one of EPA’s many initiatives to minimize air pollution, and it is well on its way to achieving its mission. As part of the 2005 Energy Policy Act, the Diesel Emissions Reduction Act (DERA) has funded almost 60,000 pieces of clean diesel technology since 2008 via the National Clean Diesel Campaign. From 2012 through 2016, $100 million was authorized for grants to reduce diesel emissions and more than $10 million is being awarded in 2014 alone.
In the past, the health effects of diesel emissions were based on studies that provided limited exposure data and had other limitations, leaving the EPA in 2002 to conclude that diesel emissions were a “likely human carcinogen.” In May 2014, the EPA released new information that underscores the importance of diesel emissions reduction programs based on human health impacts, giving proof that EPA’s clean diesel warranted continued funding.
The report, titled “Update on Diesel Health Issues and EPA Actions” shows that new epidemiology studies on lung cancer with improved exposure estimates performed since 2002 confirm that risk increases with increased exposure. In June 2012, the international Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) concluded diesel exhaust is, in fact, “carcinogenic to humans.”
In the report, the EPA also argues the potential advantages and disadvantages of calculating a “diesel cancer potency” as requested in 2009 by the National Environmental Justice Advisory Council (NEJAC). The EPA found the disadvantages far outweigh the advantages for several reasons. For example, the advantages include the possibility that voluntary programs might focus on older engines and that local level cancer risk calculations might enhance state/local/tribal efforts to reduce emissions, both of which could serve useful.
Need an answer fast? Relax. Our editors guarantee a personalized response to your questions within 3 business days. Take a free trial of Enviro.BLR.com® and see what everyone is talking about. For a limited time, also receive a free 2014 EHS Salary Guide. Download Now.
However, taken in the long-term context of the ongoing success of the Clean Diesel Program and the lengthy research periods required, the EPA says disadvantages could actually stymie future efforts. The rationale includes:
- Giving the appearance of needing to wait for more information (such as the diesel cancer potency) before taking further action, which could stymie the timely implementation of the most recent vehicle/engine standards and would not affect the stringency of standards that already achieve 99-percent emissions reductions.
- The EPA already quantifies health impacts from fine particulate matter (PM2.5) in its rules and some voluntary programs and includes predicted deaths from lung cancer as well as many more predicted PM-related deaths from other causes other than cancer, such as cardiovascular disease.
- EPA’s Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) process for assessing human health impacts is intensive and costly, and even with recent improvements, high-profile assessments, such as diesel exhaust, may take more than 5 years to complete and could cause EPA resources to be redirected from other high priority compounds.
Everything You Need for Environmental Compliance
Enviro.BLR.com puts everything you need at your fingertips, including practical RCRA, CAA, CWA, hazardous waste regulatory analysis and activity, news, and compliance tools. Try it at no cost or risk and get a FREE report.
A similar request by the NEJAC for the EPA to update noncancer findings showed equally unbalanced advantages and disadvantages that while identifying other outcomes and assisting voluntary programs, would again be resource intensive and not likely to impact EPA decision making because PM2.5 quantifications and assessments already accomplish the goals.
According to the report, in 2030, when the diesel standards are fully phased in, the following health benefits will be realized primarily through reductions in ambient PM and from ozone reduction:
- At least 39,000 fewer premature deaths
- 32,000 fewer hospital admissions
- 4,720,000 fewer lost work days
- $296 billion in benefits
- $15 billion cost
In light of the new findings, the EPA is working with the Health Effects Institute (HEI), which will evaluate the suitability of new epidemiology studies for quantitative risk assessment and will issue a report in Spring 2015. The HEI will also issue a report on long-term animal testing for engines that meet EPA’s 2007 model year standards.