Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait. Bill Gillespie Senior Environmental Scientist Mid-Atlantic Regional Air Management Association MARAMA September 18, 2006 Reducing.

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: " Bill Gillespie Senior Environmental Scientist Mid-Atlantic Regional Air Management Association MARAMA September 18, 2006 Reducing."— Presentation transcript:

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

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 NO X emissions –37% of land-based PM 10 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) 200320042005 Maryland19.719.89.4 DC9.02.21.5 Virginia6.24.010.2

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:

Download ppt " Bill Gillespie Senior Environmental Scientist Mid-Atlantic Regional Air Management Association MARAMA September 18, 2006 Reducing."

Similar presentations

Ads by Google