U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

88–767 PDF 2015

S. HRG. 112–919 

FEDERAL EFFORTS TO PROTECT PUBLIC HEALTH 

BY REDUCING DIESEL EMISSIONS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CLEAN AIR AND NUCLEAR 

SAFETY 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

MAY 12, 2011 

Printed for the use of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gpo.gov 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

BARBARA BOXER, California, Chairman 

MAX BAUCUS, Montana 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

TOM UDALL, New Mexico 

JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon 

KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

MIKE CRAPO, Idaho 

LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee 

MIKE JOHANNS, Nebraska 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

BETTINA POIRIER, Majority Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

RUTH VAN MARK, Minority Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CLEAN AIR AND NUCLEAR SAFETY

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware, Chairman 

MAX BAUCUS, Montana 

FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon 

BARBARA BOXER, California, (ex officio) 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee 

MIKE JOHANNS, Nebraska 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma, (ex officio) 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

MAY 12, 2011 

Carper, Hon. Thomas R., U.S. Senator from the State of Delaware ................... 1 

Barrasso, Hon. John, U.S. Senator from the State of Wyoming .......................... 5 

Inhofe, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma, prepared 

statement .............................................................................................................. 76 

WITNESSES 

O’Keefe, Robert, vice president, Health Effects Institute .................................... 7 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 10 

Parfitt, Todd, deputy director, Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality .......................................................................................................................... 15 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 17 

Lanham, Robert, vice president, Williams Brothers Construction Co ................ 21 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 23 

Schaeffer, Allen R., executive director, Diesel Technology Forum ...................... 30 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 33 

Response to an additional question from Senator Carper ............................ 40 

Schneider, Conrad, advocacy director, Clean Air Task Force .............................. 43 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 46 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL 

Letters: 

Associated General Contractors (AGC) and the Clean Air Task Force 

(CAFT), dated May 11, 2011 ........................................................................ 78 

McCarthy, Gina, Assistant Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, dated May 9, 2011 .......................................................................... 80 

Statements: 

Regan, Timothy, senior vice president, Corning Incorporated ..................... 83 

Malec-McKenna, Suzanne, commissioner, City of Chicago ........................... 86 

Schafer, Larry, senior advisor, National Biodiesel Board ............................. 88 

(1) 

FEDERAL EFFORTS TO PROTECT PUBLIC 

HEALTH BY REDUCING DIESEL EMISSIONS 

THURSDAY, MAY 12, 2011 

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS, SUBCOMMITTEE ON CLEAN AIR AND NUCLEAR SAFETY, Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:30 p.m. in room 

406, Dirksen Senate Office Building, the Hon. Thomas Carper 

(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Present: Senators Carper and Barrasso. 

STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS CARPER, U.S. SENATOR FROM 

THE STATE OF DELAWARE 

Senator CARPER. This hearing will come to order. 

I think this might be, I might be mistaken, but I think this 

might be the first time that we have sat side by side in open hearings. Am I mistaken? 

Senator BARRASSO. It is a great day for America. 

Senator CARPER. I would like to think so. 

All right, welcome to our guests and those who are testifying and 

those who are not. But we appreciate the effort of all of you to join 

us here today. 

Today’s subcommittee hearing will review the Federal efforts, the 

ongoing Federal efforts to protect public health by reducing diesel 

emissions. Senator Barrasso and I have about 5 minutes for opening statements, give or take, and then I will recognize our panel 

of witnesses. You will have roughly 5 minutes for your opening 

statements. If you go a little beyond that, it is OK. If you go way 

beyond, that is not OK. But your entire statements will be made 

part of the record and we will have a couple of rounds of questions 

after that. 

We just had our last vote of the day and I saw a number of Senators streaming for the exits, and I don’t think they were coming 

here. They were probably smelling, what is it, aviation fuel. So a 

lot of them are probably heading home by now, but we are here 

and we are very much interested in what you have to say and so 

are the staffs. A lot of the staffs are actually watching on television. 

But my colleagues and I were sent to Washington, as I am often 

reminded, to govern, to find common sense solutions to the challenges that face our Nation. I don’t believe that Americans are especially interested in ideas that are Democrat or Republican. They 

want us to come up with ideas that will work and that we can all 
2 

agree on to make our country even better, like I like to say. I think 

I have heard Senator Barrasso say this. In the end, we are in this 

together. We need to figure out together how to get to a better 

place. 

Cleaning up dirty diesel emissions provides us with an opportunity to walk across the aisle. That is something we don’t do 

enough these days. I remember when George Voinovich sat in the 

seat now occupied by Senator Barrasso and when he sat in this 

seat chairing this subcommittee, one day he said to me, you know, 

we ought to work on reducing diesel emissions in our country. They 

talked about how we could get a payoff, I think for every dollar of 

investment, we would get about a $13 public benefit. He convinced 

me in about 5 minutes that this was a good thing to do. We have 

had I think great success for our country; a lot of bipartisan support for that. What we are doing today actually helps to build on 

that. 

But our Nation relies heavily on diesel power to transport commuters, to harvest our crops and to build our infrastructure. One 

of the good things we always say about the diesel engines is that 

they last a long time. The bad thing about diesel engines is that 

they last a long time. 

Clean diesel engines made today are reaching near zero emissions, but that does nothing for the millions of engines already in 

use. They are going to be with us for 20 years and more. Despite 

new engine standards, the EPA estimates that there are some 11 

million diesel engines in America that are lacking the latest pollution control technology, 11 million. 

These older diesel engines emit black carbon and toxic particles 

which we will hear today cause significant harm to the environment and to our health. Retrofitting or replacing older diesel engines with American-made technology can dramatically reduce diesel emissions. 

Unfortunately, there are few direct economic incentives for vehicle and equipment owners to retrofit or replace their old engines. 

Programs like the Diesel Emission Reduction Act help provide the 

right incentives to clean up our existing diesel fleet. 

An idea that came from my friend Senator Voinovich, as I said 

earlier, DERA is one of the most cost-effective clean air Federal 

programs and it does indeed provide an economic and health benefit of some $13 for every dollar of moneys that are spent. 

Through voluntary grants and through loans, DERA has reduced 

deadly emissions, saved lives and employed thousands of workers 

who manufacture, sell or who repair diesel vehicles and their components in each State. It is really a win-win-win situation. 

The other day, I was getting off the train in Delaware and trying 

to rush to get someplace on the riverfront for this big dinner we 

were having to honor outstanding school performers, superior superstar performance in some of our schools. I ran to my minivan 

trying to get to the event, and I was late and I didn’t want it to 

end before I got there. 

I pulled up trying to get to the Chase Center on the riverfront, 

and I pulled up behind a bus that was just stuck in the road right 

in front of me. The place I needed to turn right was just ahead of 

the bus and the bus wasn’t moving. On the back of the bus was 
3 

a sign, and it was one of these Chinese buses where you ride for 

$5 and go from Boston to Philadelphia or whatever. I got right behind this bus sitting there, and waiting for this bus to turn and 

hoping it will turn before the light turns red. 

But I was sitting there behind the bus and it was a diesel bus. 

There is a sign on the back of the bus and the sign said, double 

happiness. When I think about what we are doing here with diesel 

emission reduction, it is really triple happiness. It is really triple 

happiness. 

Because, one, we can use American technology, put Americans to 

work. We can end up by using something that is already an existing asset and diesels make it better. We can reduce emissions and 

make our American people healthy. That is a win-win-win. It is 

also triple happiness. 

Last Congress, we reauthorized the DERA Program through 

2016. We made some changes to try to improve DERA’s effectiveness. Unfortunately, the President’s budget for Fiscal Year 2012 zeroed out DERA funding. Although I appreciate dedication to reducing the Federal deficit, cutting such a successful program doesn’t 

make sense. I like to say, if something is not working, then we 

ought to make it better. If it is not perfect, make it better. I would 

like to say as we allocate money to do certain things, we ought to 

ask the question: Can we get a better result for less money? But in this case with $13 of benefit for every $1 of investment, 

that is a pretty good return and it is one that is hard for me to 

understand why the President would say, you know, we are going 

to zero that program out. It seems kind of counterintuitive. 

But I will continue to work with my colleagues, with Senator 

Barrasso and others, to ensure that this program continues to be 

funded at reasonable levels. Although a great success, DERA has 

not been able to greatly reduce emissions from our Nation’s construction equipment, the bulldozers, diggers, backhoes that build 

our Nation’s infrastructure and produce some 25 percent of America’s mobile diesel emissions. 

At risk are children who live near construction sites, commuters 

stuck in traffic, and workers who operate construction equipment. 

In fact, heavy equipment operators who are exposed to diesel exhaust are 47 percent more likely to die from a heart attack, 47 percent. 

To better address this problem, today I am introducing the Clean 

Construction Act of 2011. This common sense approach is simple. 

In areas of poor air quality, areas of nonattainment for 2.5 ppm, 

Federal transportation projects should reduce, not increase, deadly 

diesel emissions. 

The Clean Construction Act accomplishes this goal by requiring 

just in those limited places where the nonattainment for ppm 2.5, 

but requires that 1 percent of the cost of the transportation project 

in a particulate matter nonattainment area be used to upgrade 

dirty diesel equipment. 

The bill applies solely to particulate matter in nonattainment 

areas where significant air quality problems already exist. 

Some will criticize this bill as diversion of transportation dollars. 

I understand that. However, I am going to ask my colleagues to 

recognize that 1 percent of the cost of a small set of projects is a 
4 

reasonable price to ensure that fewer Americans die from diesel 

soot, and this will do that. 

In closing, we look forward to hearing from our witnesses today 

about the health impacts of diesel emissions and ways to get greater diesel emission reductions. I also look forward to working with 

Senator Barrasso, with other colleagues, to reduce diesel emissions 

that threaten our communities and our children. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Carper follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. TOM CARPER, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF DELAWARE

My colleagues and I were sent to Washington to govern and to find common-sense 

solutions to the challenges facing our Nation. I don’t believe Americans are especially interested in Democratic ideas or Republican ideas. They want us to come up 

with ideas that will work and we can all agree on to make our country even better. 

Cleaning up dirty diesel emissions provides us an opportunity to work across the 

aisle, something we do too rarely these days. Our nation relies heavily on diesel 

power to transport commuters, harvest our crops, and build our infrastructure. 

The good thing about diesel engines is that they last a long time, and the bad 

thing about diesel engines is that they last a long time. Clean diesel engines made 

today are reaching near zero emissions, but that does nothing for the millions of 

engines already in use and will be in use for the next 20 years. 

Despite new engine standards, the EPA estimates there are 11 million diesel engines in America lacking the latest pollution control technology. These older diesel 

engines emit black carbon and toxic particles, which we will hear today, cause significant harm to the environment and to our health. Retrofitting or replacing older 

diesel engines with American made technology can dramatically reduce diesel emissions. 

Unfortunately, there are few direct economic incentives for vehicle and equipment 

owners to retrofit or replace their old engines. Programs like the Diesel Emissions 

Reduction Act (DERA) help provide the right incentives to clean up our existing diesel fleet. 

An idea that came from my friend Sen. Voinovich, DERA is one of the most costeffective clean air Federal programs, averaging more than $13 in health and economic benefits for every $1 in funding. Through voluntary grants and loans, DERA 

has reduced deadly emissions, saved lives and employed thousands of workers who 

manufacture, sell or repair diesel vehicles and their components in each state. It 

is a true win-win-win. 

Last Congress, we reauthorized the DERA program through 2016 and made some 

changes to try to improve DERA’s effectiveness. Unfortunately, the President’s 

budget for fiscal year 2012 zeroed out DERA funding. 

Although I appreciate dedication to reducing the Federal deficit, cutting such a 

successful program doesn’t make sense. I will continue to work with my colleagues 

to ensure this program continues to be funded. 

Although a great success, DERA has not been able to greatly reduce emissions 

from our nation’s construction equipment. The bulldozers, diggers, and backhoes 

that build our nation’s infrastructure produce 25 percent of America’s mobile diesel 

emissions. 

At risk are children who live near construction sites, commuters stuck in traffic, 

and workers who operate construction machinery. In fact, heavy equipment operators who are exposed to diesel exhaust are 47 percent more likely to die from a 

heart attack. 

To better address this problem, today I am introducing the Clean Construction 

Act of 2011. This common-sense approach is simple: in areas of poor air quality, 

Federal transportation projects should reduce, not increase, deadly diesel emissions. 

The Clean Construction Act accomplishes this goal by requiring that 1 percent of 

the cost of a transportation project in a particulate matter nonattainment area is 

used to upgrade dirty diesel equipment. The bill applies solely to particulate matter 

nonattainment areas, where significant air quality problems already exist. 

Some will criticize this bill as a diversion of transportation dollars. However, I ask 

my colleagues to recognize that 1 percent of the cost of a small set of projects is 

a reasonable price to ensure fewer Americans die from diesel soot. 

In closing, I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today about the health 

impacts of diesel emissions and ways to get greater diesel emission reductions. I 

also look forward to working with my colleagues to reduce toxic diesel emissions 

that threaten our communities and our children. 
5 

Senator CARPER. Senator Barrasso. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BARRASSO, U.S. SENATOR FROM 

THE STATE OF WYOMING 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

I welcome all the witnesses who have joined us this afternoon. 

It is a pleasure to work with you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, 

in particular though, I want to recognize two constituents of mine 

from Wyoming, Mr. Todd Parfitt who is testifying today, as well as 

Ms. Jennifer Frazier. Mr. Parfitt is the deputy director of Wyoming’s Department of Environmental Quality, and Ms. Frazier is 

an air quality engineer with the Department. So I want to thank 

them for traveling all the way from Cheyenne, WY. 

Senator CARPER. I don’t see her. Where is she? 

Welcome. Looks pretty young. So does Mr. Parfitt. 

Senator BARRASSO. You should spend more time in Wyoming, 

Mr. Chairman. 

Senator CARPER. Maybe I will. I have been there before. 

Senator BARRASSO. We would love to have you. 

Senator CARPER. I will come back. 

Senator BARRASSO. I know of the time commitments both of them 

have made to be here to discuss reducing diesel emissions in Wyoming and across the country, so I want to thank them for being 

here. 

I want to thank all of our guests. 

Today’s hearing is on the efforts to protect the public health by 

reducing diesel emissions. I didn’t have some of the statistics that 

you cited about the increased risk of heart attack and for every dollar spent, $13 saved. But obviously, the Diesel Emission Reduction 

Act, or DERA, has been instrumental in making those type of efforts successful. 

The program has awarded hundreds of thousands of dollars to 

States like Wyoming to retrofit, and you mentioned the specific 

word retrofit in your comments, retrofit school buses, trucks and 

heavy equipment. The program has our support and has bipartisan 

support. This program to me is a model of how environmental 

progress can be achieved through providing States the flexibility 

that they need to achieve environmental goals. 

This type of flexibility is not found in many of the new regulations that are coming out of the EPA these days. Let’s look at what 

the Diesel Emission Reduction Act has achieved in Wyoming. 

In 2008, DERA awarded Wyoming $196,000 from the EPA 

through the DERA State Grant Program to implement a unique 

diesel emission reduction project. The funds provided for purchasing one new hybrid electric diesel-powered school bus for the 

Wyoming Department of Education, which is behind you. That bus 

was delivered and was put into use in Pinedale, WY. It is now 

being used in Green River, WY. It is scheduled to move to either 

Cheyenne or Casper to determine its best uses. 

Emissions and cost savings in fuel use are being tracked and the 

new hybrid electric diesel engine is expected to reduce fine particulate material emissions by 90 percent, NOx by 70 percent, increase 

fuel mileage by 70 percent, and reduce operational costs by at least 

50 percent to comparable diesel-powered school buses. 
6 

In 2009, there was an award of $235,000 to the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality through the DERA State Program 

to purchase a second hybrid electrical diesel-powered school bus for 

the Wyoming Department of Education. This time, the bus used a 

different technology to generate hybrid power. This bus is currently 

being used in Pinedale to compare its use to the previous hybrid 

technology that was tested in 2008. The bus is expected to be 

moved to either Casper or Cheyenne at the end of the current 

school year to gather more urban collection of data. 

According to the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality, similar emission reductions and cost savings as the first bus 

are expected and are being tracked for a final report. 

Then in 2010, there was a grant of $588,000 to through the 

DERA State Grant Program to match funds with Fremont County 

to purchase a new 2010 emission-compliant bulldozer, an excavator, and the picture is behind us. This project was designed to 

show that new diesel engine technology could be applicable for use 

in normally nonregulated off-road diesel engine applications. 

Both pieces of equipment replaced very old equipment and had 

essentially no emissions controls on them, what they replaced. The 

engines were required to be scrapped by the State in an effort to 

get that type of engine out of service. So the two pieces of equipment have been delivered and are in use in Fremont County today. 

The emission data being collected are expected to show an increased fuel efficiency of 25 percent, reductions in NOx by 20 percent, particulate matter by 51 percent. 

So these are just a couple of examples in Wyoming, by no means 

all of the examples, and I think we will hear from all of our people 

testifying today. Additional funds have been used to retrofit dozens 

of buses, trucks and other heavy equipment around our State. 

So I look forward to working with you, Mr. Chairman, and the 

Members of this Committee in a bipartisan way to see that programs like this continue to have the support to succeed. I thank 

you, Mr. Chairman, for your interest and commitment to this program. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you. Thanks for that statement, and I 

look forward to working with you on this and a lot of other stuff, 

too. 

Let me go ahead and introduce or reintroduce our panel, starting 

off with Mr. Robert O’Keefe, vice president of the Health Effects Institute. Where is that located? In Boston, OK. 

Next, Mr. Todd Parfitt. Again, as Senator Barrasso said, Mr. 

Parfitt serves as the Deputy Director of the Wyoming Department 

of Environmental Quality. 

Next, Mr. Robert Lanham, vice president of Williams Brothers 

Construction Company, recently awarded the National Clean Diesel Camping Pioneer Award by EPA for all his leadership to reduce 

diesel emissions. 

Where are you all from, Texas did you say? Houston. OK. 

Next, Allen Schaeffer. Mr. Schaeffer serves as executive director 

of the Diesel Technology Forum. 

Where are you all located? OK, Frederick, MD. 
7 

Finally, we have Mr. Conrad Schneider, no stranger to this subcommittee or this committee, the advocacy director of the Clean Air 

Task Force. 

Very nice to see you, Mr. Schneider. 

Again, roughly 5 minutes for your statements and then the full 

context of your statements will be part of the record, and we will 

get started on the questions. 

Mr. O’Keefe, please proceed. 

STATEMENT OF ROBERT O’KEEFE, VICE PRESIDENT, HEALTH 

EFFECTS INSTITUTE 

Mr. O’KEEFE. Thank you very much. 

Chairman Carper, Ranking Member Barrasso and other Members of the committee who will be reading this testimony later, 

thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today on the 

health effects of exposure to diesel exhaust. 

I am Robert O’Keefe, vice president of the Health Effects Institute. We are a nonprofit, independent research institute uniquely 

funded equally by EPA and industry to carry out independent research on the health effects of air pollution, including diesel exhaust. 

Sources of diesel, as you point out, are pervasive on the Nation’s 

highways, and include trucks, buses, and in agriculture and construction, as well as rail and shipping. Given the numerous sources 

of diesel exhaust, population exposure can be widespread. HEI’s 

2010 review, Traffic-Related Air Pollution and Health, found that 

those living within 300 to 500 meters of a major roadway are most 

likely to be exposed to traffic air pollution. 

The review found, remarkably, that 38 percent to 45 percent of 

the population in cities studied in the United States lived within 

this high-exposure zone. Urban industrial areas, including truck 

and bus depots, ports and constructionsites, can often have even 

higher concentrations. 

Diesel exhaust from older engines, as you pointed out, is a complex mixture of fine particles, including black carbon, thousands of 

organic and inorganic components and some 40 hazardous air pollutants. It has been associated with health effects, including a 

range of respiratory symptoms, premature mortality, and potential 

links to lung cancer. 

HEI’s traffic review expert panel found a causal connection between exposure to traffic-related pollution and asthma exacerbation 

in children and adults. For example, HEI Review Committee Member Dr. Bert Brunekreef found in his study that children attending 

schools near roadways with heavy diesel truck traffic had significantly higher incidence of wheeze and other respiratory ailments 

than those schools with lower diesel exposure. 

Diesel exhaust is also a significant contributor to the mixture of 

fine particles or PM2.5 and black carbon in the ambient air. A number of epidemiological studies have found associations between exposure to PM and increases in illness and premature death. EPA 

itself has concluded that PM2.5 is causally related to cardiovascular 

mortality and morbidity. 

Based on HEI analyses and companion evidence, EPA estimates 

that over 20,000 annual premature deaths could be avoided by re-
8 

placing older diesel technology, on-road and non-road engines, with 

newer, cleaner ones. 

A number of national and international organizations, including 

HEI, have reviewed what we know from workers studies and from 

toxicology about older diesel engine exhaust and its possible association with lung cancer. Based on that evidence, the International 

Agency for Research on Cancer, the U.S. National Toxicology Program and USEPA have concluded that diesel from older engines is 

a likely human carcinogen. 

Thus, there is an extensive body of literature suggesting that 

particles, including black carbon and other exhaust from older technology diesel engines, can have significant effects on the lung and 

the heart. 

Having said that, with the advent of cleaner, low-sulphur fuels 

and new clean diesel technology, the way forward for diesel is exceptionally promising. In 2001, EPA promulgated the heavy duty 

on-highway diesel rules requiring significant reductions in fuel sulphur and in particle and nitrogen dioxide emissions. The diesel industry complied with this new regulation by developing advanced 

diesel technology, new particle filters and NOx controls. 

At the same time this occurred, the diesel industry and government, including DOE, the EPA and the California Air Resources 

Board, supported a unique product stewardship initiative at the 

Health Effects Institute and the Coordinating Research Council. It 

was called the Advanced Collaborative Emissions Study, and it was 

the most rigorous emissions testing ever done on new heavy-duty 

engines. 

The results of the testing of the emissions of these new diesel engines has been nothing short of dramatic. Emissions of fine particulate matter have been reduced by 99 percent from levels emitted 

by 2004 engines, only a generation before, and early 90 percent 

lower than the 2007 national emissions standards themselves. 

Emissions of carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons and air toxics are 

more than 90 percent lower than 2004 levels, and NOx, which of 

course contributes to the formation of smog, was approximately 70 

percent lower, with more reductions to follow. This substantial 

over-compliance with EPA standards is a credit to industry and 

regulators alike. 

I have highlighted the negative health consequences of exposure 

to older technology diesel and the dramatic progress in producing 

new cleaner engines with particulate traps and advanced NOx controls that over time will penetrate the marketplace and result in 

cleaner air and improved health. Similar particle traps in companion technologies have now been applied as retrofits to existing 

vehicles, with similar reductions. 

There is a challenge, however. Diesel engines, as you pointed out, 

have a long life expectancy which will slow fleet replacement and 

emissions reductions. Through natural replacement, the U.S. EPA 

does not expect full fleet turnover for on-road engines until 2030. 

This may take even longer for non-road. Given the evidence of effects from older diesel technology and the fact that retrofit and replacement technology exists to reduce these emissions and effects 

now, can action be taken to accelerate this transition? 
9 

Such an acceleration will help protect the current generation of 

Americans from the emissions of the legacy fleet of older diesels 

that will continue to operate on the Nation’s highways and in its 

fields and workplaces for years to come. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. O’Keefe follows:] 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 

Senator CARPER. Thanks very much. Those are impressive figures. 

Mr. Parfitt, please proceed. 

STATEMENT OF TODD PARFITT, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, 

WYOMING DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY 

Mr. PARFITT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

As was mentioned earlier, my name is Todd Parfitt. I am the 

deputy director for the Wyoming Department of Environmental 

Quality. I would like to thank Chairman Carper and Senator 

Barrasso for the opportunity to be here and testify at this hearing 

today. 

Wyoming is a State rich in natural resources that provide significant amounts of the Nation’s energy. As such, Wyoming’s economy 

is largely dependent upon and driven by the mineral exploration 

and extraction industry. Wyoming recognizes and places great 

value on the protection of its natural resources. The mission of the 

Wyoming DEQ is to protect, conserve and enhance the quality of 

Wyoming’s environment for the benefit of current and future generations. 

As we carry out our mission, we do so with the understanding 

that it must be done in a balanced manner, protecting our natural 

resources, while maintaining the State’s economic strength and stability. Oftentimes, new environmental regulations fail to adequately recognize the impacts created for industries and for the 

State agencies charged with their implementation. 

This is not the case with DERA. Wyoming has successfully implemented voluntary programs that achieve reductions in diesel 

emissions from sources that are not covered under existing regulations. Voluntary programs like DERA are far less costly for the 

State to implement than traditional regulatory programs. This voluntary program has achieved desired reductions in air pollution 

without the negative implementation costs to both regulators and 

the regulated community. The DERA Program has been efficiently 

run by both EPA and the State with little negative impacts on 

State resources. 

Wyoming has implemented four projects through DERA that will 

reduce diesel emissions and yield public health benefits. These 

projects include the purchase of two hybrid electric diesel-powered 

school buses put into use in southwest Wyoming, the replacement 

of heavy equipment utilized at landfills. This project was possible 

because economic incentives to local governments were available 

through DERA at a time when budgets would not allow these 

equipment upgrades. 

The replacement and retrofit of 153 school buses, bringing 65 

percent of the State’s bus fleet up to 2010 emissions standards. 

Last, the implementation of emission control solutions for non-road 

construction equipment used by industry servicing the natural gas 

fields in Sublette County, WY. 

Through a combination of DERA funds and industry contributions, nonregulated emissions reductions were successfully 

achieved as a result of engine retrofits, removing an estimated 744 

tons of air pollutants per year. 
16 

Diesel-fired engines were built to last and that is exactly what 

they are doing. All of the Wyoming projects implemented under 

DERA have resulted in the replacement or retrofit of older engines, 

some dating back to the 1980’s. The outcome is a reduction of air 

contaminant emissions, including precursors to ozone pollution. All 

of this results in cleaner air and health benefits to the citizens of 

Wyoming. 

The public is exposed to pollutants associated with emissions 

from many sources. The emissions reductions resulting from implementation of DERA projects play an important role in improving 

air quality. This has clearly been an effective program in Wyoming 

with voluntary participation and significant contributions by both 

industry and local government. 

The Wyoming DEQ supports the EPA initiative to conduct a retrospective review of existing regulations to weed out unnecessary 

and unproductive rules and programs. DERA is not one of those 

programs. We believe that EPA and the States would benefit from 

slowing the pace of new rules to allow for a more thorough evaluation of costs and impacts of implementation on the States and industry. 

There are currently 99 new or revised rules under consideration 

by EPA in this year alone. EPA initiatives should strive to strike 

a balance between environmental protections and economic stability. By providing programs with State flexibility, environmental 

protection can be maximized while minimizing impacts to industrial growth and State budgets. DERA is a program that meets this 

criterion. 

When EPA publishes its new ozone standard, which is likely to 

be reduced from the current 75 parts per billion, many more areas 

in the west will be considered in nonattainment of the standard. 

DERA provides needed assistance in reducing one of the key ozone 

precursors, nitrogen oxides. This is an excellent example of a program that leads directly to pollution reduction and provides an important piece of the solution to meeting a new standard. 

With that, I would like to thank Senator Carper and Senator 

Barrasso for the opportunity for this testimony. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Parfitt follows:] 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 

Senator CARPER. Thanks, Mr. Parfitt. Well done. 

Mr. Lanham, please proceed. 

STATEMENT OF ROBERT LANHAM, VICE PRESIDENT, 

WILLIAMS BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION CO. 

Mr. LANHAM. Mr. Chairman and Members of the committee, 

thank you for the opportunity to present the construction industry’s 

perspective on reducing diesel emissions. I have said earlier, I am 

Bob Lanham, vice president of Williams Brothers out of Houston, 

TX. I am here today representing the Associated General Contractors of America. I have been AGC’s Highway Division Chairman in 

years past. I have also served as the association’s environmental 

committee chair. 

I am proud to report, in addition to what you have already said, 

Mr. Chairman, in your kind introduction, that EPA has recognized 

us as a Pioneer in the national clean diesel effort. EPA has also 

recognized us and singles out our company as a case study on how 

to perform emission reduction projects. AGC has worked side-byside with the EPA over the last 10 years in every major Federal 

initiative with regards to clean diesel in an effort to improve air 

quality while trying to protect the construction industry from serious economic harm. 

Through all these initiatives, we sought four goals: No 1, to identify appropriate incentives for retrofit; No. 2, secure Federal funding for such retrofits; No. 3, inform our constituency, our member 

chapters, and get the word out with regards to the funds available; 

and No. 4, to work with the Congress to try to enable a Federal 

tax incentive for diesel retrofit. 

Among all these initiatives, AGC also serves as a co-chair of a 

Federal Advisory Non-Road Construction Work Group, so our leadership extends on many fronts with regards to the subject. ABC 

was an original supporter and played a significant role in the development of DERA, the Diesel Emission Reduction Act. We continue to champion amendments to improve the process, make more 

funds available for private sector participation, and ensure a full 

funding of the program. 

AGC chapters have been awarded significant DERA grants to aid 

their particular efforts. Diesel equipment is an essential element of 

a contractor, especially a transportation contractor like myself. Investment in equipment ranges from small equipment at tens of 

thousands of dollars to large equipment that is in the millions. 

Regardless of the size of the contractor, the majority of our net 

worth is involved in the value of that equipment. Net worth provides financial security demanded by our banks and bonding companies. Solutions like we are talking about today does something 

special. It preserves that value of equipment; preserves our ability 

to protect our investment; and also give us and retains our ability 

to conduct business, wonderful solutions that permit these things. 

Although Federal standards are improving, significant emission 

reductions are now in the new models coming off the assembly line. 

As you said, Mr. Chairman, diesel equipment lasts a long time. We 

think there is ample opportunity as the existing fleet develops and 

exhausts its economic life. There is public good that can be derived 

by addressing those emissions. We worked with the Clean Air Task 
22 

Force to develop what we call our clean construction principles. 

This collaboration resulted in agreement which conserves for our 

benefit the competitive bid system in our industry, preserves the 

value of our fleet, and supports our efforts to try to address transportation needs, and it compensates businesses for any associated 

cost. 

We are pleased, Mr. Chairman, that this became a big part of 

your bill the Diesel Construction Act of 2011. 

While the economic life of equipment is being exhausted, we 

would also like to encourage as we implement these things, based 

on my experience, and we have done nearly 400 emission reduction 

projects, that there are, as anything new, some cautions and concerns or challenges that will be faced. 

Some of these things, one, these technologies are not cookie-cutter, not something you can go down to the shop and buy. There will 

be technology challenges, logistical challenges. There are also safety considerations that we need to address, as well as the essential 

performance of the piece of equipment. 

But despite these challenges, these things with intelligent people 

are problems that can be addressed and overcome. We, realizing 

that, embrace this clean construction proposal proposed by Senator 

Carper. It strikes a careful balance between helping pay for installation and ultimately the contractors will assume the long-term 

maintenance of these devices, and allow States to apply valuebased judgments in this program on a case-by-case basis to allow 

both the owners to clean up equipment on public projects and allow 

it to do it in a best possible manner to respect the taxpayers. 

We are pleased, Mr. Chairman, to support the Clean Construction Act of 2011 and look forward to working with you in the legislative process. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Lanham follows:] 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
29 
30 

Senator CARPER. That was exactly 5 minutes. Thanks so much. 

Thanks for your encouragement and for your good stewardship and 

for setting a good example for the rest of us. 

Mr. Schaeffer, please. 

STATEMENT OF ALLEN R. SCHAEFFER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

DIESEL TECHNOLOGY FORUM 

Mr. SCHAEFFER. Thank you, Chairman Carper, Senator Barrasso. 

Good afternoon. My name is Allen Schaeffer and I am executive director of the Diesel Technology Forum. We are a not-for-profit educational group representing the Nation’s leading diesel engine and 

equipment manufacturers, fuel refiners, and companies that make 

emissions control technology. 

We are here today because diesel is the workhorse of the U.S. 

and global economy. It is the prime mover, powering over 90 percent of the commercial trucks, more than three-fourths of all transit buses, 100 percent of freight locomotives and marine work 

boats, and two-thirds of all farm and construction equipment. 

Though not the subject of today’s hearing, I would be remiss 

without mentioning the newest generation of clean diesel cars, 

which are providing the greatest effort toward reducing oil consumption and greenhouse gases, more than any other affordable 

drive technology today. 

You have our detailed written statement. I am going to deviate 

from that. I would like to focus our attention on two attachments 

to our testimony, the first being these graphs that highlight the 

journey of transformation of clean diesel technology. This journey 

began in 2000 in what was then a time of a stretch goal of making 

diesel engines near zero emissions. Ten years later, I am happy to 

report that manufacturers of diesel engines have met the challenge. 

Along with cleaner diesel fuel, they are now delivering technology 

that is near zero emissions for highway trucks, and the same kind 

of technology is coming for the off-road engines and equipment as 

well. 

Thanks to these advancements, in some U.S. cities the air coming out of a class 8 heavy-duty clean diesel truck is cleaner than 

the air going into it. Not only are today’s diesel truck engines near 

zero emissions, they are, on average, using 5 percent less fuel. 

There are more challenges ahead and industry is working with 

EPA and NHTSA right now on the first-ever greenhouse gas rules 

for these vehicles. 

A hallmark of diesel engines has been the process of continuous 

improvement, each year making advancements in technology. The 

new generation is certainly far away from the older generation. I 

would like to focus the rest of my remarks on the opportunity to 

make improvements in existing engines and equipment, and we believe they are significant ones. 

Mr. Chairman, you and other congressional leaders recognized 

early on, back in April, 2004, this opportunity, and the value and 

importance of diesel engines and equipment to the economy. You 

brought together disparate groups and organizations to work together to produce what we know today as the Diesel Emissions Reduction Act. You cited its benefits, $13 of return on investment for 
31 

every $1 put into it, and a leverage factor of $3 on the table after 

$1 of Federal investment. 

This is a really important program because it addresses the 

things that you work hard on here every day, the big Es: environment, energy and the economy. In just the first year alone, DERA 

resulted in 46,000 fewer tons of NOx emissions, 465,000 fewer tons 

of CO2, and saved 3.2 million gallons of diesel fuel, which resulted in a savings of $8 million to our economy. 

Now, imagine for a moment, if you might, what we could have 

achieved had DERA been fully funded over those first 5 years. That 

would have been a $1 billion Federal investment, leveraged to a $3 

billion investment; thousands more contractors, truckers and others would have upgraded their engines and equipment, creating demand for the technology and, in turn, creating jobs in manufacturing and service segments, resulting in tens, if not hundreds of 

millions of gallons of fuel savings and hundreds of thousands of 

more tons emissions could have been reduced. 

We have heard from Mr. Parfitt about the success stories of 

DERA and there are 49 States’ other stories just like that. To make 

sure we keep having these success stories, we have a serious challenge ahead, and that is to restore the Diesel Emissions Reduction 

Act and continue this unique program. 

DERA is the one program that should be accelerated, not terminated. There is a well-established continuing need for DERA. As 

you have just heard from Bob Lanham, the recent recession has 

substantially altered the economic landscape of many large and 

small businesses and industries that use diesel technology as the 

tools of their trade. Equipment acquisition and retention cycles 

have been adversely affected. For example, according to 2010 data 

from R.L. Polk, over the last 5 years, the average age of a class 8 

commercial truck has increased by 1.7 years. As a result, the need 

for upgrading engines and equipment is more important today than 

it was 5 years ago. 

Voluntary incentive-based programs are important policy tools 

for the future. Given the economic circumstances, we believe that 

voluntary programs make the most sense for moving forward with 

upgrading and modernizing existing engines and equipment. Manufacturers of diesel engines and equipment recognize and respect 

the significant value that contractors, truckers and other owners 

place in their equipment and the decisions surrounding its purchase and use. 

Equipment managers went flexibility and choice. They want the 

ability to manage their business in a way that enables them to be 

good employers, efficient producers and good stewards of the environment. A voluntary incentive-based program has proven to be the 

best way to achieve these goals. 

In conclusion, diesel’s combination of power density, fuel efficiency, performance reliability, durability and environmental performance are still unmatched today by any other fuel or technology. 

Clean diesel technology is now the new standard and is positioned 

to play a role in our sustainable future. 

With significant opportunities for preserving the value and performance of the many existing out there, DERA works for many 

reasons. Because it is voluntary and incentive-based, it offers car-
32 

rots instead of sticks. It provides flexibility to both States and owners and operators of equipment. It is based on a results-oriented 

competitive process. It has fostered understanding of the practical 

issues that lie at the intersection of environmental goals and realworld business decisions, making distinctions between what is 

technologically possible and economically practical. It encourages 

private and local investment, and finally, rewards the American 

public with a substantial return on its investment, as much as $13 

for every dollar contributed. 

Congress and you, Mr. Chairman, have played a visionary role 

in establishing this voluntary incentive-based program that has 

proven to be wildly effective. If ever a program made sense to continue and has the sustained support of environmental, labor, public 

health and industry groups, this is the one. 

We hope that we can work together to retain and restore DERA. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Schaeffer follows:] 
33 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 
39 
40 
41 
42 
43 

Senator CARPER. From your lips to God’s ears. We will hope that 

the request will be granted. Again, I just want to say, he is not 

here, but George Voinovich, as you know, played a huge role in getting DERA on the table, out there, something to be debated and 

voted on. 

I remember he came to me, Senator Barrasso, he came to me I 

want to say maybe 3 or 4 years ago and said he had this idea on 

the Diesel Emission Reduction Act. He was looking for a Democrat 

cosponsor to be the lead Democrat, and it took about 5 minutes to 

convince me. We introduced the bill and within 40 days it was 

adopted into law. I have never seen anything go that fast from a 

conversation to being enacted into law, so pretty amazing. It had 

the kind of support there which included not just George and I, 

who worked on a lot of stuff together, but Jim Inhofe and Barbara 

Boxer; just an extraordinary partnership. 

So we have got to keep it going. 

All right, I almost said Senator Schneider, Conrad Schneider. 

STATEMENT OF CONRAD SCHNEIDER, ADVOCACY DIRECTOR, 

CLEAN AIR TASK FORCE 

Mr. SCHNEIDER. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much, Senator 

Barrasso. Good afternoon. My name is Conrad Schneider. I am the 

advocacy director of the Clean Air Task Force, and I appreciate the 

opportunity to speak to you today. 

Based in Boston, we are a national nonprofit environmental advocacy organization whose mission includes reducing adverse 

health and environmental impacts from diesel engines. 

Today, I would like to talk to you about two ways the Federal 

Government can reduce the threat posed by diesel exhaust. One is 

fund DERA and two is enact the Clean Construction Act of 2011 

as part of the next transportation reauthorization bill. 

DERA is a highly successful program, as you have heard, and enjoys broad bipartisan support. Clean Construction, which now has 

been endorsed by us, the Clean Air Task Force and the Associated 

General Contractors, provides a unique opportunity to integrate 

and streamline clean air measures into project delivery, while delivering support for contractors to clean up dirty equipment and 

protect public health. 

We believe that devoting up to 1 percent of the cost of transportation projects to clean air is not too much to ask to help protect 

the health of our citizens. Mr. O’Keefe covered the health effects 

of diesel, so I won’t repeat them here except to say that fine particle pollution produced by diesels causes 21,000 deaths per year, 

according to our report from 2005, Diesel and Health in America, 

and nationally, diesel exhaust poses a cancer risk that is three 

times higher than the risk from all the air toxics tracked by EPA 

combined. 

With respect to DERA, while the U.S. EPA has mandated tighter 

emissions rules on new diesel engines, emissions from the current 

fleet remain uncontrolled. As the Diesel Technology Forum has 

noted, the rate of turnover of the fleet to new cleaner engines has 

been slowed due to the recession, as sales of new cleaner diesels 

have plummeted. As a result, older, dirtier diesels will be doing 
44 

more work and be with us for longer than expected, which means 

more pollution. 

In 2005, Congress sought to provide States and localities with 

new tools to help meet Clean Air Act requirements. DERA was 

passed overwhelmingly and quickly as a federally sponsored voluntary retrofit initiative to reduce these emissions. The program 

was initially authorized at $200 million a year for 5 years, or $1 

billion. Since that time, about half that amount has been appropriated for DERA, $300 million through the Recovery Act. 

However, the President’s 2012 budget has proposed to zero out 

the program. We believe that this would be a mistake. Since its inception, EPA estimates that the Federal appropriations for DERA 

has cleaned up 50,000 diesel vehicles, resulted in the reduction of 

thousands of tons of fine particulate matter, and created 9,000 jobs. 

The continued need for DERA has recently been acknowledged 

by the Obama administration. In her May 9 letter, Senator Carper, 

to you, EPA’s Assistant Administrator McCarthy admitted that 

continuing DERA would provide a cost-effective way to address the 

existing fleet and will deliver immediate public health benefits. 

EPA Administrator Jackson recently testified similarly in answer 

to questions before the full committee. 

Throughout the program’s history, DERA has enjoyed strong bipartisan support, most recently demonstrated last December when 

Congress took the extraordinary step of reauthorizing DERA during the lame-duck session. DERA is backed by a uniquely broad coalition of environmental, public health, industry, labor, State and 

local government groups. States and localities, and all of us, support additional funding for DERA. It is our hope that Congress will 

continue to provide leadership on this issue and we urge you to allocate $50 million to DERA for Fiscal Year 2012, which is equal to 

the 2008 level. 

The DERA coalition has also requested that Congress support the President’s budget request of $300 million for State and local 

air agency grants in helping them to meet Clean Air Act requirements and discharge them. 

With respect to clean construction, one sector that has been underserved by DERA and other existing programs is the construction 

sector. Construction contractors are not always well positioned to 

take advantage of these programs, which have required a competitive grant process. 

There is a better way, we believe: clean construction as part of 

project delivery. Modern pollution control equipment is being used 

today across the country in building transportation projects that 

ensure that no harm is done to the air quality in communities 

where these projects are being accomplished. 

Originating with the Big Dig in Boston, and in the Lower Manhattan reconstruction after the attacks of 9/11, today clean construction contract specs have been adopted by New York City, New 

York State, Illinois, Rhode Island and most recently by Mayor 

Daley in the city of Chicago and by Governor Christie in New Jersey. 

Senator Carper, you crafted the Clean Construction Act of 2011, 

which will reduce these emissions by helping to clean up on- and 

off-road construction equipment working on federally funded trans-
45 

portation infrastructure projects located in areas with poor air 

quality. The bill accomplishes this by ensuring that diesel construction equipment employs modern engine and pollution-reduction 

technology through a requirement and funding. 

As a policy road map, the Clean Air Task Force and Associated 

General Contractors distilled a set of clean construction principles 

based on our experiences at the State level, and those were embodied in your bill and we both endorse and congratulate you on 

the introduction of the bill today. We recommend that Congress 

adopt this approach as part of the transportation bill reauthorization to help provide retrofit re-power, upgrade equipment, and provide maximum achievable reduction of diesel particulate matter as 

an eligible project expense through a change order process, a process with which States and contractors are familiar. 

In conclusion, let me just say that to maintain strict cost controls, the bill requires that no more than 1 percent of a transportation project’s cost must be used by States to upgrade this equipment. The Clean Air Task Force has commissioned case studies on 

10 projects and the results have consistently shown that project 

equipment can be cleaned up for no more than 1 percent to 1.5 percent of the project cost. 

So in conclusion, let me just say thank you for the opportunity 

to testify in support of clean diesel in these two important Federal 

statutes, and I look forward to working with you in securing funding for DERA and including clean construction in our Nation’s next 

transportation bill. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Schneider follows:] 
46 
47 
48 
49 
50 
51 
52 
53 
54 
55 
56 
57 
58 
59 
60 
61 
62 
63 
64 

Senator CARPER. All right, Mr. Schneider, thank you very much 

for your testimony, for your enthusiasm, and for your encouragement. 

I have a question I would like to lead off with, but before I do 

that, let me ask unanimous consent to enter into the record a 

handful of items here. Let me just read through these quickly, but 

I ask unanimous that the following items be submitted for the 

record: first, a joint letter from the Associated General Contractors 

of America and the Clean Air Task Force in support of the Clean 

Construction Act of 2011; and second, a statement by Mr. Timothy 

Reagan, senior vice president of Corning, Incorporated, regarding 

cost-effective ways to reduce diesel emissions; third, a statement 

from Mrs. Suzanne Malec-McKenna, commissioner of the Department of the Environment for the city of Chicago regarding similar 

clean diesel construction efforts going in her city as the ones proposed in the Clean Construction Act of 2011; fourth, responses from 

the Environmental Protection Agency that we had sent them on 

DERA; and finally, a statement from Mr. Larry Schafer, senior advisor to the National Biodiesel Board regarding the advancement 

of biodiesel. 

Without objection, these will be admitted into the record. 

Do I hear objection? 

Senator BARRASSO. No objection. 

Senator CARPER. Pretty quiet. OK, good. Hearing none, so ordered. Thank you. 

[The referenced documents follow on pages 78–95.] 

Senator CARPER. OK, first question if I could, a question to Mr. 

O’Keefe and I might follow it up with asking Mr. Schaeffer, maybe 

Mr. Parfitt as well, but the initial question to you, Mr. O’Keefe. 

Could you just take a minute or two and discuss why small particulate pollution is harmful to our health? Could small diesel exhaust particles be especially dangerous to public health because 

they are encased with toxins? 

Mr. O’KEEFE. I would be glad to. The particulate component of 

diesel exhaust is PM2.5 and it is a pollutant of special concern. 

Senator CARPER. Why don’t you tell us, why do they call it PM2.5? 

Mr. O’KEEFE. PM2.5, thank you, goes to the size of the particle. 

The range of particles generally regulated goes from ultra-fine particles, which diesel is also a significant source of, through PM2.5

which diesels also put out, up to what is known as the coarse fraction, the difference between PM2.5 and PM10 which are larger 

granular parts of the particulate. They tend to have somewhat different health effects, although it is at this point somewhat hard to 

distinguish, particularly between ultra-fine and PM2.5. They are 

generally all known as fine particles. 

The simple statement is that fine particles are often made of carbon and other toxins. They are small enough that they can be absorbed relatively deeply into the lung and can be absorbed into the 

system and have been associated with a range of cardiovascular 

and respiratory effects. These are documented both in studies of 

short-term effects of particles where when air pollution goes up or 

down on a particular day, one can observe a corresponding increase 

or decrease in mortality. There is a key HEI study called the National Mortality, Morbidity and Air Pollution Study, or NMMAPS, 
65 

of the 90 largest U.S. cities that documented these effects from 

daily exposure to particles. 

But also longer-term studies, chronic studies, as evidenced by the 

American Cancer Society Pope study, which was a study originally 

of over some 400,000 Americans and exposure to long-term effects 

of particles. This is really the seminal study for regulation that 

looks at particulates, as I said, of which diesel is a major source. 

It found that there are significant cardiovascular and respiratory 

effects associated with particles, including ischemic heart disease, 

which can reduce blood flow to the heart and potentially cause 

heart attack. 

Senator CARPER. All right, thank you. 

Let me just followup on that, if I could, with Mr. Schneider and 

Mr. Parfitt, OK? The followup, could you also take maybe a minute 

apiece and discuss for us how dirty diesel engines contribute to 

nonattainment areas for particulate matter and ozone? 

Second, how are the emissions from old diesel engines contributing to nonattainment areas, compared to newer vehicles, powerplants and other sources? 

Do you want to go first, Mr. Schneider? 

Mr. SCHNEIDER. I would be happy to address that, if I can go 

first, thanks. 

First of all, there are many, many different sources of particulate 

matter. You mentioned a few right there. As powerplants are getting cleaner as a result of some of the EPA regulations that are 

coming out, diesels are becoming the largest fraction of the remaining particulate matter. Powerplant pollution has been cleaned up 

as a result of EPA regulations in the east that have to do with 

health-based standards and visibility regulations in the west, to 

the point where they are about half of what they were just 10 years 

ago. We have documented what the health benefits have been from 

that. 

So it is a success story, and through the Clean Air Transport 

Rule, there are going to be even more reductions. 

When we did our study that pegged diesel deaths at about 

21,000, at the time we did it powerplants were responsible for 

about 24,000 deaths. Now, powerplants deaths are about down to 

13,000 deaths and they are going down from there. Over time, as 

you have heard, diesel deaths will go down, too, as the new engines 

come into the system, but it is going to take 30, 40 years for that 

to play through, as opposed to the regulations on powerplants. 

So if you are a State and you are trying to meet your Clean Air 

Act requirements, attainment goals, those are happening right 

now. Those requirements are in the very near future, not 20 or 30 

years out. So there need to be strategies that address diesel particulate pollution to help State regulators who are in nonattainment 

areas deal with those. 

Whether it is DERA or whether it is the Clean Construction Act 

and so forth, you have to deal with each particular sector as appropriate for that particular sector and push those emissions down to 

help regulators meet their targets. 

So that is the basic thing, and just the math is such that diesel 

is going to be the biggest quotient that portion is going to have to 

be addressed. 
66 

With respect to the difference between the old and new vehicles, 

Mr. Schaeffer has a great graph on that as a part of his presentation materials there. The difference between an uncontrolled diesel engine and one that is fitted with a particulate filter is really, 

they are certified at 85 percent cleaner for particulate. But our inuse testing has shown probably close to 90 percent, 95 percent 

cleaner as a result of that. 

The statement that Mr. Schaeffer made earlier about how the air 

going in sometimes is cleaner coming than it was going in, we have 

actually demonstrated that in the field. These particular filters are 

actually air filters. If you are in a polluted area, polluted air goes 

into the engine and comes out cleaner than it was when it went 

in, which is pretty amazing. 

Senator CARPER. When he made that statement, I leaned over to 

Senator Barrasso. I said, you know, if we could get enough of those 

out there and operating, we could have a lot of clean air. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator CARPER. There is a point of diminishing returns, I suppose. 

Mr. SCHNEIDER. Yes. 

Senator CARPER. Mr. Parfitt, do you want to take a shot at that 

one, please? 

Mr. PARFITT. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

With respect to how the replacement and retrofit of engines in 

ozone nonattainment areas is beneficial, the emissions from these 

construction vehicles, heavy equipment, out in the nonattainment 

areas, I am particularly referring to southwest Wyoming, related to 

ozone formation, these pieces of equipment emit nitrogen oxides 

and volatile organic compounds, which are precursors to the development of ozone. 

The work that we have done with the retrofit of heavy construction equipment in this area has been an important part of getting 

a handle on the reduction of ozone formation amongst other things 

and other programs that we have in place right now to address 

ozone formation. DERA is a key program to addressing that. We 

were able to retrofit 36 engines in that area and achieve significant 

reductions. The point I would like to make is that there are several 

other pieces of equipment that could be retrofitted to further reduce those conditions that lead to the constituents that are precursors to ozone. 

As far as the old versus the new vehicles, as we have demonstrated, there are significant reductions in particulate matter, reductions of the 2.5 particulate matter of 90 percent in some instances. It really depends on the type of engine that you are replacing, but you do realize significant reductions in both nitrogen oxides and particulate matter. 

Senator CARPER. All right. Thanks so much. 

Senator Barrasso. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Schaeffer, in reading your testimony, you make reference to 

the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality. I know they 

used $1.1 million of DERA funding and did a $2.3 million project 

in Pinedale, WY. The program provided engine upgrades in construction equipment serving the natural gas fields in Pinedale. As 
67 

you know, Pinedale has had some air quality issues that the State 

and the community and employers are all trying to address. 

I understand that the project resulted in really significant reductions in diesel emissions, a reduction of 423 tons of NOx and 48 

tons of particulate matter, and 47 tons of hydrocarbons, and 226 

tons of carbon monoxide. So I don’t know if you or maybe Mr. 

Parfitt would care to elaborate in more detail on the success of that 

effort in providing the cleaner air in Pinedale? 

Mr. SCHAEFFER. If I could, and thank you for the question, Senator Barrasso. Just a comment about some aspects of that project, 

and then a broader statement about the solutions that are available. 

We think of retrofit in a very broad sense. There are many ways 

to get lower emissions our existing engines and equipment. The situation that you are citing specifically in Wyoming involved a range 

of things, including engine re-powers. This is an example of preserving the value in machines where we take an engine out and 

put a newer model in that is going from a tier zero or perhaps an 

unregulated machine in some of the very, very large equipment, to 

a tier two or even a tier three level technology. Depending on the 

circumstances, they are different in every machine. That yields a 

tremendous benefit, as you have outlined, for emissions reduction. 

The other incredible value there, though, is to the operator, because you now you have provided the operator substantial value extending the life of his equipment, and he is probably getting a 

much better performance out of the equipment and lower fuel consumption. So he is feeling the economic benefits. The environment 

is feeling the clean air benefits. 

Senator BARRASSO. Mr. Parfitt, I don’t know if you want to add 

any more? 

Mr. PARFITT. Yes, thank you, Senator. 

In addition, I would like to add that one of the successes of this 

program, outside of the actual reductions in emissions, was the voluntary effort coming forward by the operators. Not only did DERA 

contribute funds to these retrofits and upgrades, but also industry 

made significant contributions through not only direct contributions from those operators, but also through the Jonah Infill office, 

which is associated with that particular development, to the tune 

of about 46 percent of the total cost of the project. 

Senator BARRASSO. You used the words, the voluntary effort, in 

terms of financing. Also I think in your written testimony you had 

said that voluntary programs like DERA are far less costly for the 

State, for you as deputy director of the Department of Environmental Quality, less costly for the State to implement than traditional regulatory programs or standards coming out of Washington. 

Can you comment on that a little bit? 

Mr. PARFITT. Yes, and I guess I would make two points. 

The first is this is something that has been recognized by the 

States and currently we are engaged in discussions with EPA 

through ECOS, the Environmental Council of States, to look at the 

cost of rules that get passed down to States, and how we can take 

a closer look at that to reduce the impacts to the States when it 

comes to implementation of these programs as they are passed 

down. 
68 

As we have new regulations that get passed down to the States, 

we have to look at what the costs are, and those costs are in staffing for compliance and inspections; for developing new rules; conducting hearings and so forth. So when we have voluntary programs like this, we don’t have those associated costs that normally 

come with some of these new regulations. 

Senator BARRASSO. That kind of leads to my next question, because you talked about in your testimony that oftentimes the new 

environmental regulations fail to really adequately recognize the 

impacts created for industry and for our State agencies that are ultimately charged with implementing these things. 

So I know you just gave us a couple of examples. Any others that 

you could think of? 

Mr. PARFITT. Well, there is one example where the rule is under 

consideration right now for a sulphur dioxide 1-hour standard. 

Where the proposal is right now is that nonattainment zones with 

the 1-hour standard would be established through modeling. This 

is a deviation from the typical practice of establishing nonattainment zones through actual monitoring. 

Our concern with that would be that you can designate an area 

in nonattainment through modeling efforts, but you would have to 

establish monitoring to remove the nonattainment status. What 

that means is that the States would be left with the task of setting 

up monitoring stations, which are very expensive, to make those 

determinations. 

Senator BARRASSO. You also mentioned the EPA is soon to be 

issuing new ozone standards, which you said may put many areas 

of the west in nonattainment. I am the Chairman of the Republican Western Caucus, so those are obviously issues that we have 

concern about. 

So could you explain for the committee what the standard’s impact on Wyoming communities and Wyoming’s Department of Environmental Quality are going to be? 

Mr. PARFITT. Sure. Right now, we have one area in southwestern 

Wyoming where we have had some nonattainment issues with 

ozone. If the standard is lowered, there would be more areas of the 

State, moving over in to the eastern parts of Wyoming, that would 

fall into nonattainment depending on where the new standard 

comes out. 

One of the things that needs to be recognized in the western 

States is that we are dealing with wintertime ozone. This is a little 

bit different than what we are traditionally concerned about with 

ozone, which is summertime in urbanized areas. So in recent years, 

we have been doing a lot of research to understand why ozone 

forms in the wintertime in the areas of Wyoming where it does. 

There are many, many variables involved. 

Senator BARRASSO. OK. 

Mr. Schaeffer, if I could, in the testimony earlier, you, and I 

think all of the witnesses, said that DERA is a program that 

works, and it is a program that has been a success. The Chairman 

and I have stated the program is a success. It has bipartisan support. It was begun in a bipartisan way. But the President has zeroed out funding for the program in Fiscal Year 2012. 
69 

I don’t know if you can explain the phenomenon of what has happened here, why this has happened, or if you or anyone on the 

panel can explain this, why we are in this situation? 

Mr. SCHAEFFER. Thank you for the question, Senator, and that 

is a difficult question, not knowing the priorities in decisions that 

were made within the Administration, both at EPA and within the 

Office of Management and Budget. 

I think, based on our assessment of that, that there is really 

some faulty interpretation. As I pointed out in my statement, the 

continuing need is pretty well justified and fairly well documented 

in terms of the number disparity of what DERA was able to accomplish in its first period, the first 5 years, with regards to what is 

remaining out there. 

We have 11 million pieces of equipment. I would say that not all 

of those would be eligible for retrofit because they may be too old 

or used in a way that would not provide the right technology fit, 

but it is a big number. We are not sure about why that might be. 

I think at this point, it is really an issue of how do we move forward and how do we restore not only the goodwill we have with 

DERA, working with such a broad-based coalition, and the Administration, which has been a valued partner here. 

I think this is a decision that was looked at only on a dollars 

basis and not on a practical and what-makes-sense basis. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator CARPER. Let me just followup and question back and 

forth with Senator Barrasso and Mr. Parfitt. 

I asked my staff, other than particulate matter, are there other 

pollutants that have national air quality standards, in offering our 

2011 construction equipment legislation we are unveiling here 

today? The point is that in order to require that up to 1 percent 

of transportation funds in an area be used for air pollution, that 

requirement cannot be triggered by nonattainment in ozone; could 

not be triggered by nonattainment in carbon monoxide or nitrogen 

oxide or sulphur dioxide or lead; only on particulate matter. Is that 

correct? That is my understanding. 

I see people nodding their heads. Yes? 

Mr. LANHAM. As I read, yes, sir, I agree with that. 

Senator CARPER. Yes, that is the intent. The amount of money 

that could be spent would be a maximum of 1 percent of transportation funding, only if it is triggered by nonattainment for particulate matter, for PM2.5.

So if areas are in noncompliance for ozone or carbon monoxide 

or nitrogen oxide or SOx or sulphur dioxide or lead, that doesn’t 

trigger the 1 percent requirement. So I just want to be clear on 

that. If the cost for attainment is less than 1 percent, say half of 

a percent or something, that is how much could be spent. 

Let me just ask a question. For those who might not be enamored with the clean construction legislation that we are introducing 

today, would you just share with us what some of their concerns 

might be? Then for the panel, if you feel comfortable, how would 

you address or rebut those concerns? 

Anybody at all? There may not be any concerns that you are 

aware of, so it would be a pretty short answer. Anybody? 
70 

Mr. SCHAEFFER. Mr. Chairman, we have not seen your legislation. It has been introduced today, from what we have heard. As 

we have heard our colleagues testify to here, it sounds like a very 

positive effort and program that would expand the benefits of clean 

diesel technology in the construction sector. We would be happy to 

take a look at it and provide some comments to you and your staff. 

Senator CARPER. All right. Thanks. 

Anybody? Mr. Lanham? 

Mr. LANHAM. Senator, yes sir. Having been involved with similar 

discussion of this in State and local levels and very similar, it is 

easy for us in the policy discussions, and technology is extremely 

sophisticated, and where we find often difficulties in implementation. I think we have one mind and philosophy on this is the details and getting into the technology, is unilateral application. 

We have found, and I think Allen alluded to it, that there are 

some applications that don’t fit. As we implement, we need to recognize those things and tailor them because we want to see this 

thing succeed. We don’t want to see a lot of horror stories come 

back about what didn’t work. We want to hear about what did 

work. 

I think if we put our heads together, we can meet some of these 

logistical concerns. We have done 175 re-powers as a company and 

it took us 21⁄2 years to accomplish that. With our equipment support staff and the manufacturers out there that were supporting 

us, it took two and a half years just to get that. 

So the infrastructure that exists to support this effort has some 

constraints that give us pause as we full-scale implement this. How 

ready are they to support? There is a ramp-up concern. There will 

be some logistics issues that we will have to address as we move 

forward. 

Senator CARPER. All right. Great. Thank you. 

I have a question here for Mr. Schaeffer, if I could. In your statement, I believe you claim ‘‘Clean diesel technology is making a bigger contribution toward reducing oil consumption and greenhouse 

gases, more than any other affordable drive technology today.’’ 

That is quite a statement. 

Could you just elaborate on that, please? 

Mr. SCHAEFFER. I can. As I mentioned at the outset, that is not 

the subject of the hearing today, but the reference is to the new 

generation of clean diesel cars, which are on average 30 percent 

more energy efficient than their gasoline counterparts. To make a 

long story short, the clean diesel car technology is able to achieve 

that 30 percent benefit no matter where you are driving, whether 

you are on I–95 from here to Wilmington or whether you are in 

Wilmington and stuck in traffic behind that bus, like you were. So 

it is getting that full range of benefit of technology and fuel economy, no matter where it is operating. 

Contrast that with hybrid technology that may only get very high 

fuel economy if you are in a lot of urban operation, or contrast that 

with a plug-in hybrid electric which has a very limited range, 

which works well if you are within the range of the charging area, 

but not well if you are driving between Wilmington and Wyoming. 

Senator CARPER. OK. Do you know how far it is from Wilmington 

to Wyoming? 
71 

Mr. SCHAEFFER. I should know, but I don’t, unfortunately. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator CARPER. I have fun with my colleagues Senator Barrasso 

and Senator Enzi, who are from the State of Wyoming, but there 

is a town called Wyoming, DE. Not infrequently, I will say to them, 

like, I was just in Wyoming this past weekend, and I will say to 

them, I was just in Wyoming yesterday or the day before yesterday. 

You were? What were you doing in Wyoming? I said, well, I was 

just coming out of Dover and it was like right there to go through. 

But anyway, Wyoming is a great place, and a great place, actually, for Little League baseball, if you can believe that. 

I want to ask a followup question if I can, maybe one for Mr. 

Schneider and then one for Mr. Lanham, if I could. 

But for Conrad Schneider, given the limited resources, do you believe that the DERA program has been able to adequately address 

dirty diesel emissions from construction equipment on transportation projects? I think I know the answer, but let me just ask it 

anyway. 

Mr. SCHNEIDER. Thank you for the question, Senator. When we 

began the process of discussing what resulted in the principles that 

we ended up agreeing with AGC on to sort of form the basis of this 

idea, one of the first things that their representatives told us that 

they had really tried very, very diligently to access the DERA 

money, and also under SAFETEA-LU, some of the congestion mitigation air quality money. 

Though I think as a result of the joint efforts of pretty much people sitting here at the table and others, they have been more successful more recently. There haven’t been enough resources, and 

that process is pretty difficult because it has involved, in both 

cases, a competitive grant application process. A lot of contractors, 

I think Mr. Lanham’s company is big enough to be able to have the 

capacity to be able to do some of that, but some of the smaller outfits don’t have. They don’t have grant-writers on staff, let’s put it 

that way. They are busy building our infrastructure. 

I think together, we thought there was a better way, a more efficient way to streamline this type of thing into project delivery 

though the principles that we negotiated. 

So our basic answer is DERA is a great program. It needs to be 

restored, I think was the word that was used here, and funded. But 

with respect to this particular sector that has been historically underserved, we feel this is an additional tool would be very helpful. 

Senator CARPER. All right. 

Mr. Lanham, did you want to comment on that as well? 

Mr. LANHAM. Yes, sir, Senator. I agree with what Conrad said. 

I think our industry has been underserved. Typically, in a competitive grant situation, the way they calculate dollars per emissions 

reduced and trying to find an equitable way to compete for grant 

funds, the non-road sector generally does not compete well against 

on-road applications. The bang for the buck is better in an on-road 

application. We find ourselves generally on a competitive grant 

basis on the outside looking in. 

Texas does have its own kind of local version of DERA that we 

have been able to avail. It has been around for about 10 years, and 

that is how we have been able to have such a track record as a 
72 

firm, using our local program to assist. But we have suffered exactly that same dilemma at the State level, that the non-road application finds a great difficulty competing against on-road. The 

cost per ton of emissions reduced, if that is the benchmark, then 

competitive grants tend to favor on-road applications, and we lose 

out. 

Senator CARPER. All right. I think you sort of answered the question I was going to ask you there. 

Let me just throw this one out there for you. One of the attractions for Diesel Emission Reduction Act has been the report I believe by EPA that for every dollar that we spend to reduce diesel 

emissions, we recognize a benefit, a combined health and economic 

benefit of $13. As I said earlier, in this business, that is a pretty 

good return. I think in any business. 

I don’t know and I should probably ask Paul Schmidt and Laura 

Haynes about this, and I will later, but have we asked EPA or anyone else yet to figure out if the cost-benefit ratio on our clean construction legislation that we are introducing, what might that be? 

What might that be? Let me just say, would you expect it to be 

roughly the same? Would you expect it to be slightly more, slightly 

less? Please, anyone. 

Mr. SCHNEIDER. I don’t believe anyone has asked EPA to do that 

calculation yet. We have done a very rough calculation which I 

would say is not definitive. We have been trying to look at this and 

I think we would welcome having EPA’s input to that. 

But we would expect it to be probably the same or a little lower 

than that, but still very, very well cost benefit justified. I would say 

somewhere between 6 to 1 and 13 to 1 would be just a ballpark 

guess. That would put a program like the Clean Construction Act 

in the top tier in terms of performance. 

Senator CARPER. All right. Thank you. 

Any other speculators out there who want to take a shot at that? 

Mr. LANHAM. Intuitively, Senator, I would agree with what 

Conrad said, the same or less just because understanding the way 

equipment operates and where it operates and how it operates, and 

possible exposures. That makes sense. 

Mr. SCHNEIDER. Let me just add one thing because one of the 

things that Bob said troubled me. I agree with him, but misimpression might have been left. If you are looking at a snapshot 

in terms of what the cost benefit would be, you are going to put 

retrofit or do an upgrade today and you are going to see tomorrow 

what the benefit would be. That is one metric and that is the way 

EPA typically has looked at this. 

But we are talking, as has been established earlier, about pieces 

of construction equipment that are going to last a long time. So if 

you looked at it over a period of time, it is much more competitive, 

much more attractive. You know, if you look at over a period of 

time, there is a lot more to be said in terms of the value of upgrading this equipment than could be seen just in a quick snapshot. I 

think that is one of the things being missed in the competitive 

process a bit. That is kind of under-weighted in the scale of things. 

So I think that 13 to 1 for DERA, that is a good number, but 

I think if you compared them over, you may be comparing a little 

bit apples to oranges, something that is going to last 5 years, it is 
73 

a good benefit. But if you can cleanup something that is going to 

last 30 years, there is a lot of benefit to that. 

Senator CARPER. All right. Thank you. 

Anyone else on this question? Before you comment, Mr. O’Keefe, 

the last question I am going to ask is, I am going to just ask you 

to, as we wrap up, to just reflect on the testimony of your colleagues at the table, and the conversation that we have had, the 

questions asked. Just ask you if there is any closing statement. 

You were asked to make an opening statement, and I will just ask 

you if there is a closing thought you would like to leave us with. 

Mr. O’Keefe, would you go ahead? Please proceed. 

Mr. O’KEEFE. Sure. Just on this issue of cost-effectiveness, I 

think it would be useful to point out that a key component of costeffectiveness are health benefits, and the pollution mix that is provided by off-road diesel vehicles is not dissimilar from that that 

would be seen from on-road vehicles. So one would expect a really 

significant or consistent level of avoided health impacts that would 

occur from the Clean Construction Act. 

So that part of this analysis I think would hold quite firm. 

Senator CARPER. OK. Good. Thank you. 

All right. Maybe one more. Let’s see. Oh, yes. Again, Mr. Schneider, if you have a thought on this. You talked a little bit about this, 

at least you did, or Mr. Lanham, but I want to come back and just 

ask for the record and ask you to respond to it again. 

Diesel retrofits were supposed to receive priority funding under 

the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Program. However, 

States have largely avoided using CMAQ funds for these retrofits. 

Can you again just explain why CMAQ may not be a good fit for 

diesel retrofits? 

Mr. SCHNEIDER. I think, first of all, going forward, with respect 

to new transportation, it is not clear whether there is going to be 

a CMAQ Program as it has existed in the past. So I think part of 

the idea was to create a program that can fit with whatever set of 

priorities and allocations comes in the new transportation bill. So 

that is first. 

But historically, even though Congress had given a signal that 

it wanted States to prioritize diesel, and it is something we supported, diesel retrofits under CMAQ, it hasn’t happened. So why 

hasn’t it happened? 

So one of the reasons is, as we discussed before, contractors typically don’t have Federal grant writers on staff to be able to access 

that money. So that was not a great fit there. 

No. 2, with respect to the way that rescissions work under the 

transportation programs, sometimes early on the SAFETEA-LU 

process, CMAQ money was one of the first places that States would 

actually return money to the Federal Government when there were 

rescissions. So there was just less money available. There were already a lot of competing interests looking to access that money. So 

once again, diesel retrofit sort of lost out. 

I think third, I don’t think there was very clear guidance on this 

point from the Federal Highway Administration. Frankly, I think 

there was sort of a slip twixt cup and lip between Congress’ intent 

and what FHA really said with respect to how States should do it. 
74 

They didn’t really know how to do it. They didn’t get good guidance. As a result, I think it was just underserved. 

So I think there were three things working against it, and that 

is not to say it wasn’t a good idea. We supported it at the time, 

but the idea is when you live and learn, you learn from experience 

and try to make things better. I think when we sat down at the 

end of SAFETEA-LU, the official end of SAFETEA-LU a couple of 

years ago with AGC, we sort of said, OK, what didn’t work here, 

and how can we make it better. 

What we came to Congress with was the set of principles we negotiated which we hope will provide a platform for a better program that will be more effective. We just commend you for picking 

that up and running with it. So thank you. 

Senator CARPER. Sure. Thank you for those thoughts. 

OK, I would appreciate each of you making a brief closing comment or thought and sharing with us. That would be great. 

Mr. O’Keefe, do you want to lead us off? 

Mr. O’KEEFE. Sure. In terms of responding to my fellow panelists, as a former State regulator, I have to say that the notion of 

ever-tighter EPA national ambient air quality standards, even if 

they are warranted, pose significant challenges in compliance, as 

has been pointed out. That really resonated with me. The PM 

standard is being tightened. The ozone standard looks like it may 

be tightened. 

Even though PM is the trigger for funding under this rule, the 

rule offers the opportunity to reduce PM, NOx and ozone obviously 

NOx being a precursor to ozone. The clean fuel benefits have also 

already succeeded in reducing SO2 earlier on by moving to lower 

sulphur fuel. So there are really multiple benefits to moving forward with DERA. 

Second, I think that there are opportunities to target from a 

health-based perspective the next generation of DERA funds. While 

the first generation has been well used, there are areas where 

there are significantly higher exposures. These are around ports. 

These can be around transfer stations. These can be around urban 

canyons. They can be around industrial sites or construction sites. 

These are places where the risks are higher, and the judicious 

use of these funds could really yield significant health impacts that 

are greater than just from exposure to ambient air alone. Although 

there would be ancillary benefits to ambient air reductions as well. 

So it just makes a lot of sense. 

Senator CARPER. That is a very good point. Thank you for mentioning that. 

Mr. Parfitt. 

Mr. PARFITT. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. In closing, I would 

say that the DERA Program has been recognized as a voluntary 

program where it has been well received by industry. It has been 

well received by the local governments as an opportunity to make 

these upgrades to their equipment and reduce air emissions. 

I think that we have only begun to see the benefits from the 

DERA Program. There are many other opportunities out there that 

we have recognized where this program could be utilized. So, I 

think that the voluntary nature and the significant opportunities 
75 

for additional retrofits and upgrades is important and I certainly 

support the DERA Program. 

Senator CARPER. Great. Thanks so much. Thanks for joining us 

today. 

Mr. Lanham. 

Mr. LANHAM. Mr. Chairman, it is my first time to ever come to 

Washington to testify. Thank you for the invitation to be here 

today. I am honored. It has been a learning experience for me. 

Senator CARPER. We have learned from you, too, so it is a twoway street. 

Mr. LANHAM. I have been involved with this issue, Mr. Chairman, a long time, and we have found that collaboration and cooperation yields innovative solutions. DERA, your legislation, are 

examples of innovation. It allows creativity, flexibility, things done 

in a manner that can be business-friendly and accomplish great 

goals for the environment. All those are great opportunities ahead. 

I thank you for the opportunity to be able to participate in that. 

Senator CARPER. Great. You have added a lot to the panel and 

we appreciate very much your input. Thanks. 

Mr. Schaeffer. 

Mr. SCHAEFFER. Thank you, Senator Carper. It has been our 

pleasure at the Diesel Technology Forum to be part of the Diesel 

Emissions Reduction Act history, dating back to the original announcement and introduction of legislation here on Capitol Hill and 

seeing the first 5 years of the program be so widely successful. 

Our only hope is that going forward, we have that same level of 

commitment and success that we have enjoyed in the past. I think 

we have learned the voluntary, incentive-based programs can work. 

It is an innovative policy. It is not a regulation. It is not a mandate. But with the right amount of funding, people can come together and work toward common solutions, and we have seen that 

here quite substantially. 

I would say over time we have also learned a lot. Particulate 

matter was the initial focus, and I think since then we have 

learned that upgrading and modernizing existing diesel engines 

and equipment has a lot of collateral benefit, reductions in NOx 

and hydrocarbons, and the fuel savings that occur from things like 

engine re-powers can be quite substantial, and that has lowered 

CO2. As you plot a climate strategy ahead, I think those are going 

to be important considerations for the future. 

So we appreciate the opportunity to be involved and you have 

our continued commitment to do so. 

Senator CARPER. All right. Great. Thank you for those comments. 

Mr. Schneider, you get the last word here. 

Mr. SCHNEIDER. I appreciate it, Senator. Thanks for having me. 

I guess what I would say is reflecting on the day here and the 

panelists’ comments is that out in the hinterland, we get the sense 

that there is pessimism about what Washington can actually accomplish sometimes, particularly in the environmental area. There 

seems to be a lot of divisiveness around a variety of different environmental topics and so forth. It causes one to question whether 

there is actually a potential to get something done. 

Well, here you have two issues where people have come together: 

DERA, which has a track record of people coming together and 
76 

reaching across the aisle; and clean construction, where at least 

two of the major stakeholders that are involved, the environmental 

community and the contractors who are actually working the 

equipment, agree on a pathway forward. 

So it just strikes me that there is an opportunity here to actually 

accomplish something in both these particular areas. We would 

commend you for your leadership and as someone who is a problem 

solver, as someone who is looking for the ability to move things forward. We hope that your colleagues will soon sign up. 

So thank you very much. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you for your kind words. 

Again, I only wish that George Voinovich were here to hear all 

these kind words being said about the efforts that he led and I was 

privileged to join him in leading as well, along with a lot of our colleagues. 

I again want to thank all of you for coming, for preparing for 

today, and for responding to the questions from Senator Barrasso 

and myself. Some of our colleagues who aren’t here will have questions and they will be submitting those. They have 2 weeks to submit those questions and materials for the record. I would just ask 

that when you receive the questions, that you respond promptly to 

them. 

As we go forward, I am reminded of the words of Albert Einstein. 

Albert Einstein said from time to time, ‘‘In adversity lies opportunity. In adversity lies opportunity.’’ We have plenty of adversity 

when we have tens of thousands of people dying from breathing air 

with high levels of particulate matter. There is plenty of adversity 

there. 

But there is also opportunity. I think we have seized on that opportunity in enactment of the Diesel Emission Reduction Act. I 

think we have the potential for doing the same with our clean construction legislation. 

The legislation as introduced may not be perfect, but represents 

certainly a good effort. Hopefully between now and the time we will 

have a chance before we vote on it, we will have a chance to make 

it better. We would appreciate your constructive comments and 

that of others to make it better still. 

I want to express my thanks to our staff, both Democrat and Republican, for their work on DERA. A lot of people are part of that 

coalition, and other folks who have helped us in drafting and preparing the legislation for clean construction. 

With that said, I believe this hearing is a wrap and we are done. 

Thanks so much. 

We are adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 4 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[Additional statements submitted for the record follow.] 

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF

OKLAHOMA

Senator Carper, thank you for holding this hearing. 

Today’s hearing touches on one of the few EPA programs that has bipartisan support. The Diesel Emissions Reduction Act, a voluntary grant and loan program designed to reduce diesel emissions from our Nation’s ‘‘legacy fleet,’’ was first passed 

as part of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and was reauthorized last Congress by 

voice vote in both chambers. The President signed legislation reauthorizing DERA 

in the last days of the 111th Congress. 
77 

In this context there is great irony in the President’s call to strip the program 

of all funding for the upcoming fiscal year. This is a classic bait-and-switch—a tactic 

which this President and this EPA are making routine practice. You see, the President knows that Congress will restore the funding. So the move allows him to appear fiscally responsible, knowing full well that the program will continue. 

But this move also diverts attention from the other, more problematic programs 

and regulations where EPA is aggressively moving forward—and with no regard for 

our Nation’s fiscal and economic well-being. 

Senator Carper, it is in these other areas that this committee should focus its 

time. 

Take, for example, what’s happening with greenhouse gas regulation. Implementation of EPA’s cap-and-trade agenda will have ruinous consequences for our economy, with some estimates as high as $400 Billion in lost GDP. These costs come 

despite the fact that, as Administrator Jackson has confirmed, these rules by themselves will have no impact on reducing global greenhouse gas concentrations. Yet 

despite what’s at stake, this committee has had no oversight hearings on the design 

or implementation of EPA’s GHG rules since they took effect this year. 

Another area of great concern is EPA’s torrent of rules covering the electric power 

sector. EPA is set to roll out a suite of rules that will significantly affect the price 

and availability of electricity for citizens across the United States, including, among 

others, its Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) rule, the Transport 

Rule, and new requirements for fly ash and cooling water. These rules, taken together with the agency’s greenhouse gas requirements, could cost families and businesses over $300 Billion by 2015 according to a recent analysis by ICF International 

and the Edison Electric Institute. 

But even with an estimated 60 to 100 GW of our Nation’s coal-fired electric generating capacity on the line, and reports that the agency’s MACT proposal is fraught 

with technical errors and miscalculations, this committee has called no oversight 

hearings. 

EPA’s recently finalized rules governing emissions from industrial and commercial 

boilers (Boiler MACT) are an example of an agency making a complete debacle of 

the rulemaking process. In this case, the agency has finalized rules that directly 

threaten both small and large businesses—as well as municipalities, universities 

and Federal facilities—due to impractical, costly regulatory requirements. An analysis from Global Insight estimates the rule could put up to 798,250 jobs at risk and 

reduce U.S. GDP by as much as $1.2 billion. To date, this committee has had no 

hearings on these rules. 

Indeed, the enormous amount of energy that EPA expended in 2010 jamming 

through its cap-and-trade agenda—a program that was not statutorily required by 

the CAA and was discretionary on EPA’s part—left the agency with insufficient resources to accomplish its main statutorily required tasks. For example, had the 

agency not tried to do too much at once, it would have had time to correct errors 

in its Utility MACT proposal that reportedly resulted in proposed standards that are 

off by a factor of 1000. 

Other examples of an agency out of control include the ozone NAAQS reconsideration: a potentially $670 billion hit to GDP; the Cement MACT: $3.4 billion in compliance costs and the potential to shut down 17 plants across the country. These 

and a variety of other rules in the pipeline—widely and aptly acknowledged as the 

‘‘EPA Train Wreck’’—all point to an agency in pursuit of an ideological agenda with 

little regard for the costs and practical complications of its rules. 

I do appreciate today’s hearing. But today I call on you, Senator Carper, and Senator Boxer, to fulfill this committee’s oversight obligations by taking an in-depth 

look at EPA’s ‘‘Train Wreck’’ and what it will mean for jobs, energy security, consumers, manufacturers, small businesses, and economic growth. 
78 
79 
80 
81 
82 
83 
84 
85 
86 
87 
88 
89 
90 
91 
92 
93 
94 
95 

Æ