Sun Baked GL
Veteran Member
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2000
- Location
- Furnace Valley, AZ
Don’t you just hate the EPA?
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>
COMMENT G.2: Volkswagen reminds EPA that a report recently published by the Health Effects Institute (HEI), calls into question the basis for current quantitative risk assessment for diesel exhaust and provides a summary of the findings and recommendations of HEI in this report. [HEI, "Diesel Emissions and Lung Cancer: Epidemiology and Quantitative Risk Assessment. A Special Report of the Institute's Diesel Epidemiology Expert Panel," Cambridge, MA, dated June 1999]. VW recommends that EPA consider the uncertainties raised by the HEI panel and the need for further investigation and notes that the report raises certain questions regarding the need for the stringency of the Tier 2 standards for diesel engines. (Volkswagen of America, Inc. (IV-D-60), p. 5-6)
RESPONSE: Commenters make two main points, neither of which we believe to be valid:
……1. The Tier 2 rulemaking, which is expressly designed to address ozone and PM air quality objectives, and not mobile source air toxics concerns, is not a legitimate or legally defensible forum for addressing any perceived cancer risks associated with diesel emissions.
…………The primary purpose of the Tier 2 regulation is to reduce ozone and PM emissions under section 202(a) and 202(i), in particular, to meet the NAAQS for those pollutants. Our primary basis for the Tier 2/Sulfur standards is the need to further reduce emissions contributing to continued nonattainment of the ozone and PM NAAQS. That need fully justifies our action to promulgate the Tier 2/Sulfur standards. Having met that hurdle, however, nothing in the Clean Air Act prevents us from recognizing and where possible quantifying other benefits associated with the Tier 2/Sulfur program. Indeed, it is consistent with the letter and spirit of the Clean Air Act to examine and evaluate the full range of health and welfare impacts from car and light truck emissions and from the Tier 2/Sulfur standards.
…………Furthermore, although the "Phase II Study" mandated by Section 202(i) of the CAA was limited to assessing whether or not tighter standards for LDVs and LDT1s were required to meet the NAAQS, EPA is not restricted to regulating emissions from these vehicles solely under section 202(i). Section 202(l) specifically provides for EPA regulation of hazardous air pollutants (i.e. air toxics) from motor vehicles and states that any standards promulgated pursuant to section 202(l) would be "under subsection 202(a)." Thus, it is clear that EPA has authority to regulate emissions of toxic air pollutants from all LDVs and LDTs. In fact, the formaldehyde standards promulgated today for all LDVs and LDTs are promulgated under sections 202(a) and (l).
…………Section 202(i) does not apply to LDT2s. Instead of promulgating the Tier 2/Sulfur regulations for LDT2s under section 202(i), we are promulgating the LDT2 regulations under 202(a).
…………We are promulgating standards for LDT3s and LDT4s under sections 202(a)(1) and (3). Section 202(a)(3) requires that standards for PM from heavy-duty vehicles (LDT3s and 4s are considered in the CAA to be heavy-duty vehicles) shall "reflect the greatest degree of emission reduction achievable through the application of technology which the Administrator determines will be available for the model year for which such standards apply, giving appropriate consideration to cost, energy and safety factors."
……2. The uncertainties and inadequacies in the existing database render it inadequate to assess diesel carcinogenicity.
…………Although uncertainties remain to be resolved in the quantitative risk assessment of diesel exhaust and its components, there is a growing scientific consensus that diesel exhaust and more specifically diesel PM is a likely human carcinogen. The Health Effects Institute report cited by the commenters reports that the following organizations have determined that diesel exhaust is a probable human carcinogen: National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (1988), International Agency for Research on Cancer (1989), World Health Organization (1996), National Toxicology Program (1998), Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (California EPA 1998), and the U.S. EPA (1998). We note that California's identification of diesel exhaust as a toxic air contaminant was approved by its Scientific Review Panel.
…………EPA's most recent draft risk assessment for diesel emissions classified diesel exhaust as a likely human carcinogen. As discussed in Chapter III of the RIA, it is the hydrocarbon and particulate fractions of diesel exhaust which are thought to be the source of diesel exhaust’s carcinogenic potential. Furthermore, while some of the cancer risk is likely associated with exposure to the gaseous components of diesel exhaust, studies conducted suggest that the particulate component plays a substantial role in carcinogenicity. We conclude that, given the available information and the standards promulgated for hydrocarbon emissions, the Tier 2 PM emission standards represent a reasonable and prudent step to protect public health. These standards will mitigate the risks associated with exposure to PM, including diesel PM, and can be legitimately claimed as a qualitative benefit of the Tier 2/Sulfur controls. Furthermore, while we believe that reductions in diesel PM emissions would have large health and economic benefits by reducing the cancer risk from diesel PM, it should be noted that such benefits were not included in our calculation of the health and economic benefits of the Tier 2/Sulfur program.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
This is from a BIG nasty 525 page document (2MB pdf) of comments on Tier 2: http://www.epa.gov/oms/regs/ld-hwy/tier-2/frm/rtc/tr2-rtc.pdf
[This message has been edited by Sun Baked GL (edited July 29, 2000).]
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>
COMMENT G.2: Volkswagen reminds EPA that a report recently published by the Health Effects Institute (HEI), calls into question the basis for current quantitative risk assessment for diesel exhaust and provides a summary of the findings and recommendations of HEI in this report. [HEI, "Diesel Emissions and Lung Cancer: Epidemiology and Quantitative Risk Assessment. A Special Report of the Institute's Diesel Epidemiology Expert Panel," Cambridge, MA, dated June 1999]. VW recommends that EPA consider the uncertainties raised by the HEI panel and the need for further investigation and notes that the report raises certain questions regarding the need for the stringency of the Tier 2 standards for diesel engines. (Volkswagen of America, Inc. (IV-D-60), p. 5-6)
RESPONSE: Commenters make two main points, neither of which we believe to be valid:
……1. The Tier 2 rulemaking, which is expressly designed to address ozone and PM air quality objectives, and not mobile source air toxics concerns, is not a legitimate or legally defensible forum for addressing any perceived cancer risks associated with diesel emissions.
…………The primary purpose of the Tier 2 regulation is to reduce ozone and PM emissions under section 202(a) and 202(i), in particular, to meet the NAAQS for those pollutants. Our primary basis for the Tier 2/Sulfur standards is the need to further reduce emissions contributing to continued nonattainment of the ozone and PM NAAQS. That need fully justifies our action to promulgate the Tier 2/Sulfur standards. Having met that hurdle, however, nothing in the Clean Air Act prevents us from recognizing and where possible quantifying other benefits associated with the Tier 2/Sulfur program. Indeed, it is consistent with the letter and spirit of the Clean Air Act to examine and evaluate the full range of health and welfare impacts from car and light truck emissions and from the Tier 2/Sulfur standards.
…………Furthermore, although the "Phase II Study" mandated by Section 202(i) of the CAA was limited to assessing whether or not tighter standards for LDVs and LDT1s were required to meet the NAAQS, EPA is not restricted to regulating emissions from these vehicles solely under section 202(i). Section 202(l) specifically provides for EPA regulation of hazardous air pollutants (i.e. air toxics) from motor vehicles and states that any standards promulgated pursuant to section 202(l) would be "under subsection 202(a)." Thus, it is clear that EPA has authority to regulate emissions of toxic air pollutants from all LDVs and LDTs. In fact, the formaldehyde standards promulgated today for all LDVs and LDTs are promulgated under sections 202(a) and (l).
…………Section 202(i) does not apply to LDT2s. Instead of promulgating the Tier 2/Sulfur regulations for LDT2s under section 202(i), we are promulgating the LDT2 regulations under 202(a).
…………We are promulgating standards for LDT3s and LDT4s under sections 202(a)(1) and (3). Section 202(a)(3) requires that standards for PM from heavy-duty vehicles (LDT3s and 4s are considered in the CAA to be heavy-duty vehicles) shall "reflect the greatest degree of emission reduction achievable through the application of technology which the Administrator determines will be available for the model year for which such standards apply, giving appropriate consideration to cost, energy and safety factors."
……2. The uncertainties and inadequacies in the existing database render it inadequate to assess diesel carcinogenicity.
…………Although uncertainties remain to be resolved in the quantitative risk assessment of diesel exhaust and its components, there is a growing scientific consensus that diesel exhaust and more specifically diesel PM is a likely human carcinogen. The Health Effects Institute report cited by the commenters reports that the following organizations have determined that diesel exhaust is a probable human carcinogen: National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (1988), International Agency for Research on Cancer (1989), World Health Organization (1996), National Toxicology Program (1998), Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (California EPA 1998), and the U.S. EPA (1998). We note that California's identification of diesel exhaust as a toxic air contaminant was approved by its Scientific Review Panel.
…………EPA's most recent draft risk assessment for diesel emissions classified diesel exhaust as a likely human carcinogen. As discussed in Chapter III of the RIA, it is the hydrocarbon and particulate fractions of diesel exhaust which are thought to be the source of diesel exhaust’s carcinogenic potential. Furthermore, while some of the cancer risk is likely associated with exposure to the gaseous components of diesel exhaust, studies conducted suggest that the particulate component plays a substantial role in carcinogenicity. We conclude that, given the available information and the standards promulgated for hydrocarbon emissions, the Tier 2 PM emission standards represent a reasonable and prudent step to protect public health. These standards will mitigate the risks associated with exposure to PM, including diesel PM, and can be legitimately claimed as a qualitative benefit of the Tier 2/Sulfur controls. Furthermore, while we believe that reductions in diesel PM emissions would have large health and economic benefits by reducing the cancer risk from diesel PM, it should be noted that such benefits were not included in our calculation of the health and economic benefits of the Tier 2/Sulfur program.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
This is from a BIG nasty 525 page document (2MB pdf) of comments on Tier 2: http://www.epa.gov/oms/regs/ld-hwy/tier-2/frm/rtc/tr2-rtc.pdf
[This message has been edited by Sun Baked GL (edited July 29, 2000).]