AkPIRG launches summer campaign to end Alaska’s use of “dirty diesel”

Alaska Public Interest Research Group wants end to Alaska’s exemption to 1990 Clean Air Act, but refiners say U.S. guidelines impractical for Alaska

Steve Sutherlin

PNA Managing Editor

The Alaska Public Interest Research Group intends to knock on 50,000 doors in Alaska this summer in a campaign to end Alaska’s use of “dirty diesel” fuel.

AkPIRG canvassers are currently active in Anchorage and Fairbanks and have already contacted thousands of Alaskans, Steve Conn, AkPIRG executive director told PNA in early June.

“So far, people have been shocked to realize that their state burns the dirtiest diesel in the nation,” Trevor Kaul, canvass director for AkPIRG said.

The group is concerned about special exemptions Alaska was granted from portions of the Clean Air Act of 1990 that require states to reduce diesel emissions by using cleaner burning fuel in diesel engines.

Other states are currently required under the act to reduce diesel emissions to 500 parts per million, while Alaska emissions are allowed to be as high as 3000 ppm.

U.S. standards are scheduled to become stricter in 2006 when new large-vehicle diesel engines will be designed to produce less than 15 ppm of particulate exhaust, using ultra-low sulfur diesel.

Alaska’s diesel emissions are six times dirtier than the rest of the nation, creating a public health threat, Steve Cleary, AkPIRG research assistant said.

“Sulfur in diesel emissions causes cancer, genetic mutations and other health ailments like asthma and bronchitis,” Cleary said.

The Alaska challenge

The costs of converting in-state refineries to produce the ultra-low sulfur diesel is very high relative to the small amount of the product that is actually required to meet the new guidelines in 2006. Only 5 percent of the diesel used in the state is for on-road use, and the balance is exempt from the federal guidelines, Burden said.

Burden said it was his understanding that there are fewer than 20,000 diesel vehicles in the entire state.

“The health benefits from reducing diesel emissions are not an issue that we argue or disagree with,” he said. “In large cities with large volumes of diesel vehicles additional controls are probably justified and appropriate.”

Burden said dust from breakup or dust blowing in from Matanuska-Susitna area riverbeds is the culprit when particulate levels in Anchorage approach or exceed federal standards.

Infrastructure limitations in the state also complicate the delivery of the low sulfur fuel, Burden said.

“In Alaska we don’t have the luxury of multiple tanks and pipelines,” Burden said, adding that there is a high probability of contamination in the interface between products that are shipped or stored in the same pipelines and tanks.

Residue in storage tanks around the state might be enough to push sulfur levels above the 2006 standard.

“To give you an idea of what 15 parts per million is, that would be less than a teaspoon in an Olympic-sized swimming pool,” Burden said.

Alaska to develop plan

An adequate transition plan has to be provided to the EPA by April 1, 2002, by the Commissioner of the Department of Environmental Conservation, or the national plan will take effect in the state.

By September 2006, the transition plan must insure the availability of ultra-low sulfur fuel to supply on-road Alaska.

Bush Alaska can continue to burn unregulated diesel until a 2007 or later model vehicle is imported into the village, at which time enough ultra-low sulfur fuel for the vehicle must be imported. Running 2007 or later diesel vehicles with improper fuel can cause damage to engine and to the pollution control equipment on the vehicle.

Burden said ultra-low sulfur diesel would probably have to be imported to the state.

“We can’t see justifying the cost to make such a small amount of ultra-low sulfur fuel,” he said.

The distribution of ultra-low sulfur diesel raises other troubling issues, Burden said. Bush retailers and residences may need to install additional tanks for the new fuel, or clean out old tanks in which case it remains to be determined who will foot the bill. A danger of increased ground contamination will exist due to the greater number of vessels.

“Hopefully we can come up with a joint resolution that meets the federal requirement and doesn’t end up costing all of us a lot of unnecessary expenditures,” Burden said.

But Steven Conn at AkPIRG doesn’t think the diesel committee’s plan will do enough.

“Health care costs to residents takes second place on this committee dominated by fuel refiners,” Conn said in a written statement provided to PNA, adding that the American Lung Association estimates Alaskans spend $22 million yearly in health care costs because of high levels of particle pollution.