Tougher Emission Rules Set for Big Diesel Vehicles
By MICHAEL JANOFSKY

Published: May 11, 2004


ASHINGTON, May 10 — The Bush administration announced new regulations on Monday that will significantly reduce emissions from tractors, bulldozers, locomotives, barges and other nonroad vehicles propelled by diesel fuel that altogether spew more soot than the nation's entire fleet of cars, trucks and buses.

Advertisement


Michael O. Leavitt, administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, said after a meeting with President Bush that the regulations would be made official on Tuesday, setting in motion a plan for full compliance by 2012.

The new regulations require refineries to produce cleaner-burning diesel fuel and engine makers to cut diesel emissions by more than 90 percent, a reduction that health experts say could prevent as many as 12,000 premature deaths and 15,000 heart attacks every year.

"This is a big deal," Mr. Leavitt told reporters after the meeting at the White House, comparing the importance of the new diesel standards to regulations decades ago that took lead out of gasoline. "The result of this is that people will live longer, live better and live healthier lives."

The new regulations, the first for this group of vehicles, were developed through years of collaboration among environmental groups, public health advocates, engine makers and fuel refineries. Representatives from all of the groups said the adoption of the new standards reflected an extraordinary, and unusual, willingness of the E.P.A. to listen to everybody.

"The process they used was unlike any other process I've ever seen," said Bill Becker, executive director of two groups that represent state and local air pollution agencies. "They opened the door, let everybody in and made us all feel like the favorite child of the parent."

The goal of the new standards is to lower the sulfur content of diesel fuel that is used in engines, some as large as 6,000 horsepower. Sulfur not only leads to more particulate matter, better known as soot, in the atmosphere, but it also prevents newer engine technologies from reducing the levels of other pollutants.

Stronger regulations for buses and trucks that use diesel fuel were adopted in the final days of the Clinton administration. They were kept in place by Mr. Bush and are set to take effect in 2007. The new regulations build on that effort, with all nonroad diesel vehicles, except for locomotives and marine vessels, required to reduce the sulfur content of diesel fuel to 500 parts per million by 2007 and to 15 parts per million by 2010. Locomotives and boats have an additional two years, to 2012, to reach the lower standard.

Currently, the average level of sulfur content is 3,400 parts per million.

The environmental agency predicts that once the current fleet of diesel-powered engines is retired, the level of nitrogen oxides in the air will be reduced by 738,000 tons annually and the level of soot by 129,000 tons.

Industry leaders, as well as environmentalists, said progress toward the new regulations came about through several factors, including public pressure on the administration to produce tangible evidence of interest in cleaning the air, a willingness of refineries and engine makers to bear the enormous costs of improvement in exchange for a longer phase-in period and a realization by environmental groups that the new standards will have a substantial health benefit even if they take some years to put into practice.

Edward Murphy, an official with the American Petroleum Institute, said: "This means a huge investment for us, in the billions. We're concerned about the cost, but it's worthwhile because the environmental benefits justify it."

Jed Mandel, a spokesman for the Engine Manufacturers Association, a trade organization, said, "The industry members are committing themselves to developing new products, not fighting the idea of getting more emission reductions."

An array of environmental groups applauded the administration for the new rules. But in many cases, the praise was tempered by concern over other unresolved and contentious issues involving air, water and land management.

"This rule will go a long way toward reducing the significant pollution problem of nonroad diesel engines," said Richard Kassel of the Natural Resources Defense Council, which worked closely with the E.P.A. in developing the standards. "Unfortunately, this positive step stands in contrast with the administration's backward slide on other air pollution issues."

Emily Fignor, a clean air expert with the U.S. Public Interest Research Group, said: "It's remarkable that these strong rules come from the same administration that has otherwise turned back the clock on 30 years of environmental progress."

Some environmentalists suggested that the approval of the new regulations also reflects benefits for Mr. Bush — at minimal political risk.

Phil Clapp, president of the National Environmental Trust, which has battled the White House on other environmental issues, said the new regulations placed the biggest financial burden on two companies that make a variety of diesel-powered engines, Cummins and Caterpillar. But because one company, Cummins, is based in Indiana, a state Mr. Bush is sure to win in the November election, and the other in Illinois, which Mr. Bush will probably lose, Mr. Bush is not likely to suffer any adverse consequences, Mr. Clapp said.

Further, he predicted, the new standards will become "the poster child to create the image that the administration is strongly pursuing dangerous air pollutants."

Carl Volz, a spokesman for Caterpillar, said he had not contemplated any such political consideration for the new rules. A spokesman for Cummins, Mark D. Land, declined to discuss the regulation "from any sort of a political standpoint."


Special Offer: Home Delivery of The Times from $2.90/week.

__________________
Jennifer
90 350sdl

Sounds great in theory. It will be interesting to see how it works in practice.

The last time they decreased the sulpher content of diesel fuel the lack of lubricity started knocking out injection pumps left and right. Because of this the truckers, farmers and even this MB diesel driver were adding oil to the fuel to get the lubricity back so as to protect the expensive IP's. The effect of this was MORE sulpher in the fuel than if they had never changed it in the first place.

If practice ALWAYS followed theory it would definitely be a different world.

Politicians, particularly those in the Senate and House of Representatives typically consider themselves to be authorities on every possible subject regardless how complex. After all they were voted into Congress, doesn't that double or triple their IQ?

Have a great day,

Just to clarify, sulphur does not, never has, and never will lubricate anything. Its the PROCESS of removing the sulphur that reduces the lubricity of diesel fuel.

Regards,

__________________
Brian Toscano

Even if their are pains, reducing sulphur content of diesel fuel is a good thing. I think the plan is environmentally friendly, without being extremist.

Regards,

__________________
Brian Toscano

Ah but therein lies the rub.... What if your ultra-low sulfer Diesel costs you $3-4 per gallon?

How about no sulfer Diesel for $6 per gallon?

At what price point is the fuel clean enough?

What would be the effect of adding Marvel Mystery Oil to the fuel? Or other diesel fuel additives on the market? Don't know - just wondering...

Low sulphur diesel is nothing new. Serveral states, including Texas are already requiring ULSD for on-road vehicles. The only difference is that the announcement today extends that to off-road vehicles such as construction equipment.

Regards,

__________________
Brian Toscano

ULSD does not cost $3-4 gallon but I hear French spring water is costing $3/pint nowadays.

__________________
Brian Toscano

md,

I'm not a chemist as you can tell. Does adding the oil to the fuel put sulpher back into the fuel?

Just curious,

Don,t worry too much about ULSD. we have had it for a few years here in UK with out many problems. There were a lot of scare stories of wear in pumps etc, but the fuel companies have added lubricant to the fuel to compensate.
Tighter controls on emmisssions have led to much more efficient engines i.e. more power from less fuel. Look at the CDI Mercs.

Brian

__________________
Brian

1995 E300 Diesel 124T - 210k

Larry, double or triple zero is still zero.....

Wes

I'm amazed that this article doesn't mention biodiesel. Instead of trying to eliminate sulfur from petroleum diesel, why not increase the production of biodiesel that has no sulfer to begin with, burns much cleaner anyway and is better for our engines?

__________________
2004 VW Jetta TDI (manual)

Past MB's: '96 E300D, '83 240D, '82 300D, '87 300D, '87 420SEL

I'm not amazed...it doesn't seem like the government is taking biodiesel seriously yet. I tend to agree with you, though; encouraging biodiesel is a much better idea. Not only does it burn cleaner, but it reduces our dependency on OPEC oil.

If I could afford the $3/gal (dino diesel's not too far behind here, though ), I'd be putting B100 in my vehicles...although I may take it one step further and do an SVO conversion...

Biodiesel would be a good step toward a cleaner environment but how much is it possible to produce? Same with SVO? It's not like we have a big excess of grains right now to produce a lot of oil with. Just a guess, but my guess is that the government doesn't pay much attention to biodiesel because at best it could only be a drop in the bucket of all the Diesel used. I'm not saying it's not a great idea to produce and use it because it is, just pointing out that there will never be enough of it available for everyone.

__________________
1985 300D Turbo ~225k
2000 F350 (Powerstroke) 4X4, SWB, CC, SRW, 6spd ~148k
1999 International 4900, DT466e (250hp/660 ft/lbs), Allison MD3060 ~73k

If we would just put effort into production and stop playing with soy, we could provide a substantial qty of our diesel needs (or ALL of it.)

Soy yields around 60gals/acre. Oil seed crops average 100-120 gals/acre. Oil palms yield 600 gals/acre (can't be grown just everywhere.) But...., Algae, YES, algae can allegedly average from 14,000 to 20,000 gals/acre! Now THAT would be an effective alternative source.

__________________
1984 300D Turbo - 4-speed manual conversion, mid-level resto

1983 300D - parts car

1979 300TD Auto - Parts car.

1985 300D Auto - Wrecked/Parts.


=========================

"If you don't know where you are going, any road will get you there". Lewis Carrol