A Guide to Implementation and Maintenance of a. School Bus No-Idling Policy

A Guide to Implementation and Maintenance of a School Bus No-Idling Policy New Brunswick Lung Association March 31, 2007

A Guide to Implementation and Maintenance of a School Bus No-Idling Policy Table of Contents Executive Summary... 1 I Background and History..2 II - Purpose and Benefits of a School Bus No-Idling Policy... 3 Environmental Reasons... 3 Economic Reasons... 4 Health Reasons...5 III - How To Develop a School Bus No-Idling Policy... 7 Establish a Steering Committee... 7 Define an Action Plan... 8 Identify and Address the Barriers... 9 Develop Communications Strategies and Materials... 10 IV - How To Implement a School Bus No-Idling Policy... 12 Pilot the Program... 12 Review the Pilot Results... 13 Roll-out the Program... 13 V - Policy Maintenance of a School Bus No-Idling Policy... 15 Monitoring and Reporting Mechanisms... 15 Measuring Mechanisms... 15 Appendices... 17 Appendix A - NB Department of Education Policy 504 Appendix B - Resources and Contact List Appendix C - Exposure of School Children to Diesel Exhaust from School Buses Appendix D - Pollution Risk Is Found on Diesel School Buses Appendix E - Diesel Health Effects Appendix F - School Buses, Air Pollution & Children s Health Appendix G -New Brunswick Lung Association s School Bus Driver Power Point Presentation

Executive Summary This Guide to Implementation and Maintenance of a School Bus No-Idling Policy outlines the reasons for, and the recommended steps for developing, implementing and maintaining a school bus no-idling policy. Information for the guide is based on the research and work involved in the introduction of the New Brunswick Department of Education s Policy 504 on School Vehicle Inspections, Maintenance and Reduction of Idling. This policy was introduced in September 2005. It is the first provincial school bus no-idling policy of its kind in Canada. The goal of this guide is to share the information, strategies and recommendations of the no-idling efforts begun in New Brunswick with other provincial Departments of Education. The guide discusses the environmental health benefits of a no-idling policy to students, staff and bus drivers, in addition to the economic spin-offs in terms of fuel savings. The New Brunswick Department of Education with assistance from the New Brunswick Lung Association successfully undertook a four phase process: 1. Define the purpose and benefits of a school bus no-idling policy 2. Develop a province-wide school bus no-idling policy 3. Implement a school bus no-idling policy 4. Maintain and monitor the school bus no-idling policy School transportation officials concerned with protecting human health and the environment should also consider complementary initiatives such as purchasing policies that make fuel efficiency a priority, and no-idling policies for personal and delivery vehicles. For additional assistance and information, contact representatives of the New Brunswick Department of Education and the New Brunswick Lung Association. 1

I Background and History The background of the New Brunswick Department of Education s School Bus No-Idling policy reaches back several years. The work first began on school bus idling in 1999, when New Brunswick Lung Association representatives met with then Minister of Education Dennis Cochrane to discuss initiatives to address air quality at schools. Other meetings followed with the Deputy Ministers of Education for English and French schools respectively. Together, these meetings helped lay the groundwork and buy-in for future school bus idling work. In addition to meeting with key Department of Education representatives, a literature review and research on school bus idling was also conducted to gain a complete picture of school bus idling. For instance, the Lung Association gathered information on the environmental, health and economic benefits of a no-idling initiative. The facts and figures on the New Brunswick school bus fleet were also gathered, along with information on whether school buses were contracted or owned and controlled by the Department of Education. (Some provinces have a combination of owned and contracted school buses. In some provinces, the Department of Education, Transportation and/or Supply and Services control the school bus fleet.) Later in 1999, the New Brunswick Lung Association began its first work on school bus idling under the umbrella of its Healthy School Program. This program began in partnership with the New Brunswick Department of Education. Without this strong partnership, work on school bus idling would not have been possible. An Advisory Committee was established to guide the program and establish program goals. Members of the Advisory Committee were senior members of the provincial Departments of Education, Health & Wellness, Natural Resources and Energy, and Environment. The Advisory Committee identified school bus idling as a main program goal. Having already established support and buy-in from the Minister and Deputy Ministers of the Department of Education, the work on school bus idling began with discussions and meetings with transportation officials in the project s first pilot school district. These discussions resulted in an idling reduction program at one school in that district. In later discussions with the Advisory Committee, the Department of Education representatives and school district transportation officials, it was agreed to pilot a no-idling school bus program at one school in another school district. After a successful pilot, the program spread to the entire school district and beyond. Based on the success of this pilot work, the New Brunswick Lung Association worked closely with the Department of Education officials to expand school district no-idling strategies to a province-wide policy. A province-wide no-idling school bus policy impacts approximately 1,200 school buses in the province. In order for a province-wide school bus no-idling policy to be successfully implemented and adhered to, a number of important initiatives need to be in place. The New Brunswick Lung Association has designed, developed and implemented this manual as a model for other provinces and territories. 2

II Purpose and Benefits of a No-Idling Policy There are numerous benefits to implementing and maintaining a school bus no-idling policy. The most obvious are the health benefits to students, school staff and bus drivers. The overall impact means air pollutants and greenhouse gases (a major contributor to climate change) are reduced as well. A policy can also result in economic benefits due to fuel savings and reduced engine wear. It is also important to note that while vehicle emissions are emitted outdoors, they impact indoor air quality as well. For instance, when school buses park near schools, their emissions enter the school via doors, windows and ventilation systems. The following is a list of the environmental, economic and health benefits of reducing vehicle emissions and implementing a no-idling program. An unexpected benefit of the no-idling policy was the reduction in noise pollution in the school bus loading zone, said Shelley McLeod, School District 18 Transportation Manager, New Brunswick Department of Education. This greatly improved the ability of staff in ensuring students got to their proper buses and created an environment that facilitated communication between drivers and school personnel. The difference was especially notable in school yards where large numbers of idling school buses were gathered waiting for dismissal. Environmental Reasons Climate change is a complex issue studied by hundreds of scientists in Canada and around the world. Although we still have much to learn there is general scientific agreement that human-made emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouses gases (GHGs) primarily from the combustion of fossil fuels are at the root of the problem. One of the largest sources of GHG emissions is the transportation sector due mainly to its dependence on fossil fuels such as gasoline diesel coal and oil. Burning these fuels produces carbon dioxide the principal GHG making the transportation sector the largest source of carbon dioxide emissions in Canada. (Source: March 19, 2007. Natural Resources Canada s website http://oee.nrcan.gc.ca/communities-government/climatechange.cfm?attr=16) Canada s transportation sector produces a quarter of all greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, a major contributor to climate change. Reducing vehicle emissions could be the most important move Canadians make in reducing greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to climate change. (Source: Mach 19, 2007. http://www.ec.gc.ca/envirozine/english/issues/54/feature2_e.cfm) 3

Every minute that you don t idle, you re reducing pollutants such as greenhouse gases and particulate matter. Excessive idling can clog fuel injectors, leading to the incomplete combustion that can increase emissions. (Source: Natural Resources Canada s Smart Driver for School Bus Participants Handbook, page 47) One litre of diesel fuel will produce 2.8 kg of greenhouse gases, and most of that weight comes from the air you breathe. Your engine needs oxygen to burn fuel, but only one-fifth of the air is oxygen. You need about 12 kg of air to burn a single litre of diesel. (Source: Natural Resources Canada s Smart Driver for School Bus Instructor s Guide, page 78) A single bus driver s fuel-efficient habits could certainly save one cup of diesel per day. If 5,000 fellow bus drivers adopted similar habits, it would collectively eliminate 3,300 kg of greenhouse gases enough to fill three two-storey houses. (Source: Natural Resources Canada s Smart Driver for School Bus Instructor s Guide, page 78) Economic Reasons Fuel is one of the largest operating costs for school bus fleets and unnecessary idling is the main contributor of fuel wastage. Higher fuel bill: If an idling bus burns four litres of fuel per hour, then this nonproductive idling adds up to just an hour a day for 200 days of the year, that means that 800 litres of fuel are being wasted every year. If fuel costs 80 cents a litre, a fleet of 50 buses could be wasting $32,000 every year. (Source: Natural Resources Canada s Smart Driver for School Bus - Participants Handbook, page 46) Increased maintenance costs: Prolonged engine idling can contaminate oil, increase deposits in cylinders and clog fuel injectors, particularly in diesel engines. At 600 rpm, for example, excess intake air will cool the cylinder liners, leading to incomplete combustion. The unburned fuel will then be drawn into the sump that holds the oil, reducing the effectiveness of your lubricant. This can reduce the life of your engine oil by 75 percent, from 600 engine hours to 150 engine hours. An engine needs to idle no more than three minutes before shutting down to lubricate turbocharger bearings. (Source: Natural Resources Canada s Smart Driver for School Bus Participants Handbook, page 46-7) Shortened engine life: According to a report by the Argonne National Laboratory, one hour of idling can cause the same engine wear as 11 kilometres of driving (if the bus gets under seven mpg or three km/litre). That s better than previous estimates of wear that were the equivalent of three to five hours of highway driving, thanks to a combination of lower idle speeds and lower sulphur levels in fuel, but it s still wasteful. (Source: Natural Resources Canada s Smart Driver for School Buses - Participant s Handbook, page 47) 4

Fines: Many Canadian cities have introduced laws that restrict nonproductive idling as a tool to reduce smog and noise. Other jurisdictions will likely follow. The Federation of Municipalities has voted in favour of supporting the reduction of greenhouse gases (GHGs), and this is one way to accomplish that goal. (Source: Natural Resources Canada s Smart Driver for School Bus Instructor s Guide, page 79) Health Reasons While school buses are the safest way to transport children to and from school, diesel exhaust from idling school buses can accumulate on and around the bus and pose a health risk, particularly to children. (Source: March 19, 2007. http://www.epa.gov/ne/eco/diesel/school_buses.html) Diesel exhaust contains significant levels of small particles, known as fine particulate matter They pose a significant health risk because they can pass through the nose and throat and lodge themselves in the lungs. These fine particles can cause lung damage and premature death. They can also aggravate respiratory conditions such as asthma and bronchitis. (Source: March 19, 2007. Website of the Environmental Protection Agency http://www.epa.gov/ne/eco/diesel/health_effects.html) Diesel emissions are a complex mixture of hazardous particles, gases and vapours that can cause adverse effects on the human respiratory system (Hoek et al., 2002; U.S. EPA, 2002; Weir, 2002; Yin et al., 2002). Several governmental and scientific agencies have ascertained that diesel exhaust is a probable human carcinogen. As early as 1988, the American National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) designated diesel exhaust as a potential occupational carcinogen, as did the California Air Resources Board (CARB) in 1998 (Kagawa, 2002; Decker et al., 2003). The World Health Organization (WHO) proclaimed it a probable human carcinogen in 1996, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) a likely human carcinogen in 2002 (Decker et al., 2003) Numerous studies have linked PM to aggravated cardiac and respiratory (heart and lung) diseases such as asthma, bronchitis and emphysema and to various forms of heart disease. Children and the elderly, as well as people with respiratory disorders such as asthma, are particularly susceptible to health effects caused by PM. (Source: March 20, 2007. http://www.atl.ec.gc.ca/airquality/pollutants_e.html#pm Scientists now believe that there is no "threshold," or safe level, for exposure to PM. Particulate matter is not limited to urban areas. Exposure to PM in Canada is widespread, and it remains a problem in every region of Canada all year round. A correlation has been established between high levels of airborne PM and increases in emergency room visits, hospital admissions and deaths. (Source: March 20, 2007. http://www.atl.ec.gc.ca/airquality/pollutants_e.html#pm 5

Several governmental and scientific agencies have ascertained that diesel exhaust is a probable human carcinogen. Recent studies have also shown a relationship between lung diseases such as asthma and exposure to emissions from diesel engines. There is evidence to suggest that children are especially vulnerable to these effects. (Source: March 20, 2007. http://www.nb.lung.ca/pdf/school%20bus%20report%20en%20final.pdf) Symptoms most often associated with diesel exhaust exposure are irritation of the eyes and nose, bronchoconstriction, cough and signs of laboured breathing, chest tightness and wheezing. Long-term studies point toward chronic inflammation and fibrosis of the lungs (Gamble et al., 1987a; 1987b; Ulfvarson, 1987; Rudell 1996; U.S. EPA, 2002). Asthma accounts for one quarter of school absenteeism and is the most common chronic disease plaguing children. In 2000-01, 8.7% of Canadians, four years of age or older, suffered from asthma Studies have shown an association between traffic congestion, diesel exhaust and asthma (Ciccone et al., 1998; English et al., 1999; Masayuki et al., 2002; Wargo et al., 2002). Observations suggest that exposure to motor vehicle traffic and diesel fumes can contribute to asthma exacerbations and increase the rate of asthmatic attacks. (Source: March 20, 2007. http://www.nb.lung.ca/pdf/school%20bus%20report%20en%20final.pdf 6

Environmental III How To Develop a School Bus No-Idling Policy When developing an idling policy, it is important to begin with four key steps: 1. Establish a steering committee 2. Define an action plan 3. Identify and address the barriers 4. Develop communications materials and strategies 1. Establish a Steering Committee When establishing a steering committee, select people and groups who are essential to implementing a no-idling policy or who have expertise in this area. Their understanding and support is vital to the successful development, implementation and maintenance of a school bus no-idling policy. In some cases, you may have to educate your members about the purpose and benefits of a policy. If they are not aware of the environmental health and economical impacts of a policy or are confused as to how it may affect them, it could impact whether a policy is successful or not. Steering committee members could represent some of the following groups: Department of Education School transportation branch School bus drivers union / company Parent groups Health and safety committee Teachers union Principal groups Helpful Hint You may want to contact the organizers involved in the development and implementation of the New Brunswick Department of Education s School Bus No-Idling policy (see Appendix A). 7

Key topic areas to address with your steering committee are: The value of a policy What the policy will mean What the action plan involves 2. Define an Action Plan Once you have decided why a school bus no-idling policy is important, your next step is defining an action plan. The action plan will involve answering three key questions: Q1. What do you want to do? Q2. When do you want to do it? Q3. What will be the roles and responsibilities? Each province or school district may answer these questions differently, according to the needs of the jurisdiction. To help you answer these questions, see the Profile below of how the New Brunswick Department of Education addressed these same concerns. Profile: When defining their action plan, the NB Department of Education decided that: A1. All school buses that stopped for five minutes or more must stop idling on and off school property A2. A short pilot project was run for a month in one school district. As a result of the success in this district, other school districts followed suit. Shortly afterwards, the roll-out of a province-wide policy occurred. A3. The school district transportation supervisor will inform and oversee all school bus drivers. The school principal can report the bus numbers of any idling buses to the supervisor. The principal will also inform all staff, students and parents about the pilot project (via newsletters and bookmarks) and later, about the province-wide policy. 8

3. Identify and Address the Barriers Identify and address any concerns immediately. Below are some sample problems and solutions. Ask steering committee members for input and feedback. They may have important questions not addressed in this guide. Some concerns may be specific to your area or situation, and may require a local solution. (Please share your local problems and solutions with the authors of this report, so they may help others address similar concerns.) Common Q & A s Q A Q A How are safety lights run if the bus is turned off? The requirement to run safety lights was a big concern in the New Brunswick pilot project. However, transportation officials said that the buses batteries should be able to run the safety lights for the short period of time that the buses are loading. What happens if windows steam up or freeze over? Steaming up or frosting over should not be a problem for the short amount of time that buses are stopped at schools. Drivers should limit their arrival times at school so that they are not waiting excessive amounts of time. Drivers should turn off all switches and fans while running the safety lights off the battery. This way, there is no load on the system when the engine is restarted. According to Natural Resources Canada s Smart Driver for School Bus (page 80), it is important that buses idle for three to five minutes prior to shutting down in order to prevent the burning of the turbocharger s lubricating oil. Any idling beyond that point will simply waste fuel. An engine will remain warm for a long period of time. If you cool it down slowly, you ll be able to restart it within an hour and drive away as soon as the oil pressure rises. Q A What happens in cold weather if buses stall? Transportation officials in New Brunswick say that well maintained buses should not stall in cold weather. However, at the discretion of the transportation manager, some buses are allowed to idle in some extreme weather conditions. Natural Resources Canada s Smart Driver for School Buses Instructor s Guide information (page 73-74) states, Once they re started, engines should not be allowed to idle for more than three to five minutes, even in cold temperatures, to ensure the turbocharger is properly lubricated. Then you should slowly drive away as soon as practical In extremely cold weather, it (school buses) should not be allowed to idle for more than 10 minutes. 9

Q A What about student and driver comfort? In winter conditions, drivers and students should be dressed for the weather. The bus will only be turned off for a short period of time. The buses usually will not cool down completely in that amount of time. The NB Department of Education recommends that their buses report to schools five minutes before school dismissal to avoid longer no-idling times. To allow for driver comfort and interaction, some schools allow bus drivers in meet in the school lobby or other areas until student dismissal time. This is an issue that can be discussed and decided for each school district. Q A Can idling damage the vehicle s engine? According to a report by the Argonne National Laboratory (Source: Natural Resources Canada s Smart Driver for School Buses Participant s Handbook, page 47), one hour of idling can cause the same engine wear as 11 kilometres of driving (if the bus gets under seven mpg or three km/litre). That s better than previous estimates of wear that were the equivalent of three to five hours of highway driving, thanks to a combination of lower idle speeds and lower sulphur levels in fuel, but it s still wasteful. In addition (page 46), Prolonged engine idling can contaminate oil, increase deposits in cylinders and clog fuel injectors, particularly in diesel engines. At 600 rpm, for example, excess intake air will cool the cylinder liners, leading to incomplete combustion. The unburned fuel will then be drawn into the sump that holds the oil, reducing the effectiveness of your lubricant. This reduces the life of your engine oil by 75 percent, from 600 engine hours to 150 engine hours. An engine needs to idle no more than three minutes before shutting down to lubricate turbocharger bearings. 4. Develop Communications Strategies and Materials Effective education and communication strategies and materials are essential to a successful no-idling program. The following is a checklist for effective communications. A Checklist for Effective Communications (Source: Dr. Doug MacKenzie-Mohr) Understand who your audience is (bus drivers and school staff). Make your communications (instructions for not idling) clear and specific. Make it easy for people to remember what to do, and how and when to do it. Where possible, use personal contact to deliver your message. Have your message delivered by someone who is credible with your audience. Model the activities you would like people to engage in. Give feedback at the individual/group level about the new activity. Communication materials may vary from province to province. Your steering committee should decide what materials would be the most appropriate and effective for your school bus drivers and school staff. 10

The following are some of the communication tools used in the New Brunswick school bus no-idling program. No-Idling Signs The school bus no-idling signs are used to remind bus drivers of the no-idling policy. They are posted near student pick-up areas. The signs are two-foot square and made of metal. They are either attached directly to school buildings or mounted on metal posts. No-Idling Handouts The school bus no-idling handouts were distributed to both school bus drivers and school staff to remind them of the noidling policy and its benefits. The handouts are approximately two inches wide and six inches long. Since New Brunswick is a bilingual province, the handouts are English on one side and French on the other. No-Idling Key-Chains The no-idling key-chains were distributed to school bus drivers as a reminder of the policy, and as a daily prompt to turn their engines off. As referred to above, to accommodate for New Brunswick s bilingualism, the key-chains are in English and French. 11

IV - How To Implement a School Bus No-Idling Once your steering committee has defined your action plan, identified and addressed possible barriers, and developed your communications strategies and materials, you are ready to begin the process of implementing your school bus no-idling policy. The following are three key steps to implement a school bus no-idling policy. 1. Pilot the program 2. Review the pilot results 3. Roll-out the program 1. Pilot the Program An important first step in implementing a school bus no-idling policy, is to pilot the program. A pilot phase provides an opportunity to identify and address any potential and real problems before rolling-out a larger district or province-wide policy. Begin by choosing a small sample of pilot participants, perhaps the buses that serve one school or school district. The purpose of the pilot is also to gather information on what went right and what needs improvement. The following are the basic steps involved in a pilot school bus no-idling initiative: Establish a start and end date for the pilot project. Collect baseline observations, such as present idling times and other significant observations, such as meeting places for drivers school lobbies or in buses. Carry-out your communications strategies (i.e. inform all key people about the pilot transportation officials, bus drivers, school staff and parents). Distribute appropriate communications materials and prompts (signs, key-chains, etc.). Run the pilot and make observations. Evaluate the pilot. Measurement of results: compare baseline, benchmark and pilot results. 12

Helpful Hint It is important to run a pilot project during the warmer months of the year (between April and October). It is also important to plan the pilot project and evaluations for a time of year when weather conditions are least likely to change, so that the pre- and post-data collection and intervention results are not skewed by varying degrees of temperature. Also during the warmer months, the amount of available daylight is greatest, making it easier and safer to make observations. Data collection is a valuable part of the pilot project. It will help you assess the success of the various components of your action plan. Plus, it will provide an indication of some of the barriers, if any, that you may face in implementing a policy. Helpful Hint When conducting the pre- and post-intervention data, discreetly position the staff/volunteers out of sight yet where they are able to clearly see the school buses. The staff/volunteers should be trained to look for visible tailpipe exhaust or a mildly shaking tailpipe as indications that a bus is idling. 2. Review the Pilot Results In many cases, the pilot project may encounter few if any problems. In that case, prepare to either expand the scope of your pilot project or prepare for a province-wide roll-out of the policy. See the Profile of The Healthy School Program in this document, for how the New Brunswick Department of Education first approached their no-idling policy. If you encountered some barriers or areas of concern, have your steering committee look for solutions to the situations that were observed. This guide s contact list (Appendix B) may be helpful in providing some assistance. 3. Roll-out the Program Once you have addressed any concerns identified in the pilot stage, and your communication materials and strategies are in place, you are ready to roll-out your noidling policy. Congratulations! An example of a successful pilot project can be seen in the Profile below. 13

Profile: The Healthy School Program While working on their indoor and outdoor air quality project The Healthy School Program project workers from the New Brunswick Lung Association and the project s steering committee were alerted to school staff s concerns about vehicle emissions from school buses. The Healthy School Program s steering committee wanted to know whether a no-idling policy for school buses could be implemented to address the problem. After gathering information on the benefits and value of a program, the committee met with the New Brunswick Department of Education s transportation staff. The discussion addressed a variety of questions, such as could safety lights run off the bus battery; would windows frost up, would students be warm etc. It was agreed that a no-idling pilot project should be tried at some schools in School District 6. In one case, school buses picked up primary school students at 2:10 p.m., then drove around to the next-door elementary school and idled for 15 20 minutes, until the dismissal for the elementary students. Not only were students in the elementary school exposed to vehicle emissions via windows, doors and the air exchange systems, but the primary school students and the drivers were exposed to emissions while they waited (buses were parked end-to-end). Hampton Elementary School The pilot project to turn buses off while waiting outside the elementary school went well. The school district transportation supervisor, Shelley McLeod understood and supported the value of a no-idling policy. After the success of the pilot project, she implemented a district-wide policy. The transportation supervisor also knew the value of communication, awareness and education. She invited Lung Association staff to address meetings of the district school board and workshops for bus drivers. She also participated in media interviews to let the public know about the program. Signage and education materials (window stickers and bookmarks) were also used to remind drivers about the policy. School staff could contact the transportation supervisor to report any buses that continued to idle. From this pilot project, grew a district-wide policy, which spread to implementation in other school districts, and ultimately to a province-wide policy a first in Canada. 14

V Policy Maintenance of a School Bus No-Idling Policy Once a school bus no-idling policy has been introduced, it is important to maintain the program. You may have the best policy in the world, but if the policy is not being followed or people do not understand it, little is being achieved. Establishing effective monitoring, reporting and measurement mechanisms are key to policy maintenance. Monitoring and Reporting Mechanisms Monitoring and maintaining a no-idling policy should be simple and straightforward. It also has to be understood by all school partners (bus drivers, staff, parents and students). The following are the steps involved in reporting school bus idling. School staff should note the school bus numbers and report them to the principal. School principals should contact their district school transportation supervisor to report the bus idling (ideally with a brief description of the situation i.e. bus arriving early, idling for 20 minutes, number of occurrences etc.) If there is another reoccurrence (after Steps 1 and 2), the school principal can then approach the driver(s) directly, as well as report the incident to the school district transportation supervisor. Measuring Mechanisms One of the spin-off benefits of a no-idling policy is fuel savings. With tight budgets, saving money is always an important factor. School District Transportation officials should measure the fuel savings from implementation of a no-idling policy. Measurement tools such as those suggested in Natural Resources of Canada s Fleet Smart tool - Fuel Management 101 are helpful. This one-day workshop is designed to help fleet managers prepare a fuel management plan, implement the plan, and measure and monitor its success. 15

The program is designed around four key questions: Why you should have an energy management plan How to make a plan How to benchmark your fleet How to sell your plan to management, implement your plan, analyze the results and plan for the future. Fuel management 101 will provide fleet managers with the necessary tools to answer these questions, as well as provide ideas and a template for creating a fuel management plan for your fleet. If savings are not evident, look for possible explanations (i.e. increased student population, more buses, longer routes etc.). Otherwise, this may be a flag or an indication that the policy is not being adhered to as planned. One solution would be to: Meet and discuss concerns with stakeholders Review the communications, education and awareness strategies Review the monitoring and reporting mechanisms 16

Appendices 17

Appendix A New Brunswick Department of Education Policy 504

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION POLICY 504 Page 1 of 4 Subject: School Vehicle Inspections, Maintenance and Reduction of Idling Effective: November 1977 Revised: June 1994; July 1, 2001, September 6, 2005 1.0 PURPOSE This policy establishes the requirements for the inspection and maintenance of school vehicles as required under the Pupil Transportation Regulation. The policy also sets out requirements for the avoidance of idling of school vehicles. This policy was previously titled Policy 504 School Vehicle Inspections and Maintenance and prior to 2001, Policy 504 Repairs to School Buses. 2.0 APPLICATION This policy applies to all school vehicles, including school buses, other buses, vans or cars, and school vehicles being used to convey students under a conveyance contract. 3.0 DEFINITIONS Bus means any motor vehicle designed for carrying ten or more passengers and used for the transportation of persons. Maintenance refers to routine maintenance of and necessary repairs to provincially owned and leased school buses, including fuel, parts and cleaning supplies. School bus means a school vehicle that is a bus, is painted national school bus yellow, and is equipped with a warning system. School vehicle means a motor vehicle operated by a school district or under a conveyance contract for the conveyance of students in the public school system, and excludes motor vehicles in a public transit system. 4.0 LEGAL AUTHORITY Pupil Transportation Regulation under the Education Act Section 11 General driver responsibilities Section 14 Vehicle inspection and maintenance by drivers Section 21 Maintenance of school vehicles Section 22 Inspection of school vehicles Regulation 84-145 under the Motor Vehicle Act. ORIGINAL SIGNED BY MINISTER

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION POLICY 504 Page 2 of 4 5.0 GOALS / PRINCIPLES The Department of Education believes that regular school vehicle inspections are required to ensure that the vehicles being used to convey students are safe and clean. The Department of Education recognizes that overall air quality can be improved with the reduction of idling of school vehicles. 6.0 REQUIREMENTS / STANDARDS 6.1 Basic Daily Inspection All School Vehicles 6.1.1 Each driver must conduct a basic inspection of his/her school vehicle each day that the vehicle is used to convey students. 6.2 Vehicle Inspections and Maintenance School Buses 6.2.1 Drivers Responsibilities 6.2.1.1 The basic daily inspection for a school bus, to be carried out by the driver under section 6.1.1, must include those elements specified in Appendix A of this policy. 6.2.1.2 Any driver of a school bus assigned to convey students for a cocurricular or extra-curricular trip outside of regular school hours must conduct a basic pre-trip inspection of the bus before they embark on the trip. This inspection must be conducted prior to the trip even if a basic daily inspection had been conducted earlier the same day. 6.2.1.3 A driver must avoid idling the school bus. This includes during drop-off and boarding times at school, when the bus is awaiting student dismissal and when parked. School buses may only idle during extreme weather conditions. 6.2.2 Responsibilities of the Vehicle Management Agency 6.2.2.1 The Vehicle Management Agency, in cooperation with the school districts, is responsible for ensuring that a provincial Motor Vehicle Inspection (MVI) is conducted every six (6) months on provincially owned and leased school buses. 6.2.2.2 Section 21 of the Pupil Transportation Regulation states that superintendents are responsible for ensuring that school buses are properly maintained in accordance with the maintenance program prescribed by the Department of Transportation. The specific maintenance schedule for each school bus is established by Vehicle Management Agency of the Department of Transportation.

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION POLICY 504 Page 3 of 4 Each maintenance schedule is developed in accordance with the standards and requirements set out in the manufacturer's manual and the applicable laws and regulations pertaining to the type of vehicle. 6.2.2.3 The Vehicle Management Agency, with the cooperation of the Department of Education and the school districts, establishes administrative guidelines identifying which cleaning materials and supplies may be obtained by school bus drivers at Agency repair facilities. 6.3 Vehicle Inspections and Maintenance Other School Vehicles 6.3.1 The basic daily inspection for school vehicles that are not school buses must include those elements specified in Appendix B of this policy. 6.3.2 In addition to the basic daily inspection, drivers of school vehicles that are not school buses are also required to carry out a more detailed inspection of their vehicles on a weekly basis. Those elements that must be inspected on a weekly basis are specified in Appendix B. 6.3.3 The owner of a school vehicle that is a bus is responsible for ensuring that a provincial Motor Vehicle Inspection (MVI) is conducted every six (6) months on each vehicle that is used to convey students (as per section 4, Regulation 84-145 under the Motor Vehicle Act). 6.3.4 Section 21 of the Pupil Transportation Regulation states that an owner of a school vehicle operating under a conveyance contract is responsible for ensuring that the vehicle are properly maintained. 6.3.5 A superintendent entering into a conveyance contract must ensure that the contract stipulates the requirements set out in section 6.3 of this policy. 6.3.6 Drivers of school vehicles that are not school buses must avoid idling, as outlined in section 6.2.1.3. 7.0 GUIDELINES / RECOMMENDATIONS 7.1 School districts and schools should encourage a non-idling practice for every motor vehicle on school property, including parents vehicles. 8.0 DISTRICT EDUCATION COUNCIL POLICY-MAKING 8.1 District Education Councils may develop policies that are more specific than the provincial policy regarding inspections of school vehicles and idling.

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION POLICY 504 Page 4 of 4 9.0 REFERENCES Collective Agreement CUPE Local 1253 10.0 CONTACTS FOR MORE INFORMATION Department of Education Educational Facilities and Pupil Transportation Branch (506) 453-2242 ORIGINAL SIGNED BY MINISTER

Appendix B Contact List Name Title Phone Number Email New Brunswick Department of Education Jean-Pierre BoudreauDirector of Educational 506-453-2242 JP.Boudreau@gnb.ca Facilities and Transportation Branch Tim O Connor Senior Project Administrator 506-453-2242 Tim.O Connor@gnb.ca with Educational Facilities and Transportation Branch Ron Arsenault Training and Safety 506-453-2242 Ron.Arsenault@gnb.ca Coordinator; Public Transportation Shelley McLeod School District 18 506-453-2672 Shelley.McLeod@gnb.ca Transportation Manager New Brunswick Lung Association Kenneth Maybee President and CEO 506-455-8961 Nblung@nbnet.nb.ca Barbara MacKinnon Director of Environmental 506-455-8961 Nblung@nbnet.nb.ca Research Alison Howells Director of Environmental 506-455-8961 Nblung@nbnet.nb.ca Initiatives Jane O Rourke Environmental Programs Coordinator 506-455-8961 Nblung@nbnet.nb.ca

Appendix C Exposure of School Children to Diesel Exhaust from School Buses

Exposure of School Children to Diesel Exhaust from School Buses Our study, conducted in three communities in New Brunswick between April and June, 2003, investigated children s exposure to pollutants known to be in diesel exhaust. Particulate matter (PM1.0, PM 2.5), black carbon, UV-absorbing aromatic compounds and volatile organic compounds were measured during school bus rides and during walks to school. This research was a collaborative initiative between the New Brunswick Lung Association, Health Canada, Environment Canada, New Brunswick Department of Education, Environment and Human Health Inc, and the New Brunswick Research and Productivity Council. In New Brunswick, approximately 95,000 students travel to school by bus each day. School buses are the best mode of transportation for children in terms of road safety and in reducing the number of vehicles on the road. They do however expose both students and drivers to various diesel exhaust pollutants. It is important to note that passengers in any vehicle traveling through traffic are exposed to gasoline and diesel exhaust pollutants. Diesel emissions are a complex mixture of hazardous particles and gases that can cause adverse effects on human health. Symptoms and health effects can range from irritation of eyes and nose, exacerbation of asthma, decreases in lung function and growth, and chronic inflammation. In older people exposures may lead to development of cancer or the onset of heart attacks. This study found that: Overall, the levels of pollutants on New Brunswick buses is lower than levels found in previous studies in Los Angeles, Connecticut and British Columbia. Commuting on a school bus exposes a student to higher levels of pollutants than does walking to school. Short bus rides have higher average exposures to PM 2.5 which may be due to opening of bus doors in high traffic areas. Long bus rides had higher cumulative exposures compared with short bus rides for PM 2.5, PM 1.0, black carbon and U.V. absorbing material. The age of the bus, mileage, and the type of fuel injection system (mechanical or

electronic) did not strongly affect exposure to PM 2.5. These findings indicate that the school buses tested in this study were well maintained. Morning rides had higher average and maximum exposures to PM 1.0. Cold temperatures are believed to lead to higher vehicle emissions, and cold mornings lead to higher cold-start emissions. Average ambient (levels in the air in the general region) PM 2.5 during the entire sampling period was 5 µg/m 3. Average exposures on the buses were two to four times higher than levels in the ambient air. Temperature and humidity impacted all measurements. Measurements were higher on cold days and PM 2.5 was higher on days with humidity above 60%. General Recommendations The results of this, and other similar studies suggest that there are several steps that should be considered to reduce the exposure levels experienced by children: 1. Eliminate bus idling: An anti-idling policy for schools is strongly recommended by several organizations including the US EPA (Clean School Bus USA: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/schoolbus/anti idling.htm). They recommend this policy not only to reduce the levels of exposure to diesel exhaust, but also to reduce fuel wastage and engine wear and tear. Bus drivers should also undergo periodical training to understand the issues pertaining to idling. 2. No-idling policy for all vehicles on school grounds: In addition to school buses, there should be a no-idling policy for all other vehicles on the school grounds. 3. Number of bus stops: For short bus routes, consider reducing the number of stops or relocating stops to areas with lower traffic density. Frequent stopping and opening/closing of doors allows for greater contribution from outside sources (i.e. surrounding traffic) to the levels of traffic- related air pollutants on the bus. 4. Exhaust pipes: To avoid self-pollution, consider re-engineering bus exhaust pipes to extend to the left rear-end of the bus so exhaust will not be emitted on the same side of the bus as the doors. An even better location to release exhaust is from a stack above the back of the bus, as the vacuum created at the back of the moving bus draws exhaust from lower pipes back towards the bus. Crankcase exhaust should be released from the same location. 5. Ventilation: Investigation of alternate methods of the ventilation of the bus cabin is needed and air-filtering systems should be considered. There exists a discrepancy between public transit buses, which for the most part have air conditioning, and school buses, which usually do not.

6. Retrofit diesel buses to lower emissions: It is strongly recommended that retrofitting of buses be given high priority in order to lower emissions. Retrofit measures include pollution control devices such as diesel oxidation catalysts and diesel particulate matter filters. Low sulphur diesel, to be regulated in 2006, is necessary for the introduction of this retrofit technology. (U.S EPA: www.epa.gov/otaq/schoolbus/retrofit.htm). 7. Future purchasing of the buses: Whenever in the future a new bus is being purchased/contracted, only low-emission vehicles should be chosen. 8. Avoid caravanning: Buses leaving school in the afternoon should leave at staggered departure times to avoid tailgating. Bus drivers should be instructed to avoid other diesel school buses whenever possible. 9. Reduce in-cabin exposure levels to as low as possible with existing technology: All efforts should be made to minimize exposure levels keeping in mind that the WHO states that there is no safe threshold for the health effects of diesel exhaust (IPCS, 1996). Remediation actions to date: The Government of Canada is taking steps to improve the quality of diesel fuel. A new regulation will reduce the level of sulphur in diesel from 500 to 15 parts per million by 2006. This will allow new emission control technology to be installed on buses and will decrease emissions of pollutants. The Government of New Brunswick announced in October 2005 the first-in-canada province-wide no-idling policy for school buses. Contact: The New Brunswick Lung Association (506) 455-8961 nblung@nbnet.nb.ca Photos: Thanks to New Maryland School for allowing us to photograph some of their children.

Appendix D Pollution Risk Is Found on Diesel School Buses

April 26, 2005 - New York Times Pollution Risk Is Found on Diesel School Buses By NICHOLAS BAKALAR University of California researchers calculate that in large urban areas, children riding in school buses with diesel engines collectively inhale more school bus exhaust than everyone else in the city combined. Exposure to the ultra fine diesel particulate matter, or D.P.M., is known to raise the risk for cancer. Scientists at the Berkeley and Los Angeles campuses tested the air inside six buses while they were being driven through the Los Angeles metropolitan area with the windows opened and closed. Except for one 1975 model, all the buses were built from 1985 to 2002. Air pollution inside all six buses was substantial, although newer buses and those driven with the windows open exposed passengers to fewer pollutants. The study, published in the April 15 issue of Environmental Science & Technology, found that children riding in these school buses inhaled 34 to 70 percent more D.P.M. than the average weekday commuter did during the same day. But don't abandon the school bus yet. "School buses are built like tanks," said Julian D. Marshall of Berkeley, the lead author. "When you compare the relative risk to your health of riding in a school bus to riding in a car, the school bus wins hands down." Exposure to D.P.M. inside the buses is so concentrated, the researchers concluded, that a 20 percent reduction in their emissions alone would be as beneficial to a student's health as a 20 percent cut in the emissions of all other vehicles in the Los Angeles area.

Appendix E Diesel Health Effects

Diesel Health Effects It has been shown that cases of respiratory diseases have increased in North America over the past decades and are becoming one of the leading causes of death (Statistics Canada, 1997). In fact chronic obstructive lung disease will be the third leading cause of death by 2020 worldwide (Murray & Lopez, 1997). Air pollution plays an important role in the development of several respiratory conditions, including infections like bronchitis and pneumonia, exacerbation of symptoms of chronic obstructive lung disease and asthma, decreased lung function and lung growth, and is a factor in development of lung cancer (Schwartz et al., 1993; Peters et al., 1999; Gent et al., 2003; Avol et al., 2001; Brunekreef & Holgate, 2002; Pope III et al., 2002; US EPA 2002). It also contributes to higher rates of heart attacks (Peters et al., 2001). Therefore it is not surprising that it has been in the research spotlight for the past two decades and that governments, organizations and industries are changing their policies, recommendations and actions to protect human health. Symptoms most often associated with diesel exhaust exposure are irritation of the eyes and nose, bronchoconstriction, cough and signs of laboured breathing, chest tightness and wheezing. Although no short-term lung function changes have usually been detected, long-term studies point towards chronic inflammation and fibrosis of the lungs (Gamble et al., 1987[a]; Ulfvarson, 1987; Gamble et al., 1987[b]; Rudell 1996; US EPA, 2002) Asthma accounts for one quarter of school absenteeism and is the most common chronic disease plaguing children. In 2000/01, 8.7% of Canadians four years of age and over suffered from asthma. Between 1995 and 1999 the prevalence of asthma increased by 14% among children between ages 4 and 11. It occurs currently in approximately 7 to 10% of children (Health Canada, 2002; Canadian Lung Association, 2004). In New Brunswick, 54569 people over the age of 12 years were diagnosed with asthma in the year 2000/01 and there were 8652 young people between the ages of 12 and 19 suffering from asthma. Asthma rates in the population are still increasing and have grown by 3 to 5% (Statistics Canada, 2001), and studies have shown a causal relationship between traffic congestion, diesel exhaust and asthma (English et al., 1999; Ciccone et al., 1998, cited in Wargo et al., 2002; Masayuki et al., 2002). Observations suggest that exposure to motor vehicle traffic and diesel fumes can contribute to asthma exacerbations and increase the rates of asthmatic attacks. Diesel emissions can be generally categorized as tailpipe emissions and running loss emissions. Tailpipe emissions result directly from fuel combustion and are those products of fuel combustion (gases and particles) from the engine that are collected in the exhaust manifold and emitted at the tailpipe. Running loss emissions can include exhaust gases (those gases not collected in the exhaust manifold and emitted at the tailpipe) such as crankcase vent gases or engine leakage, and also fuel vapours. Fuel vapours are not usually a significant emission from diesel vehicles (Seinfeld, 1986). Diesel emissions are a complex mixture of hazardous particles, gases and vapours that can cause adverse effects on the human respiratory system (Yin et al., 2002; Weir, 2002; Hoek et al., 2002; US EPA, 2002). Several governmental and scientific agencies have ascertained that diesel exhaust is a probable human carcinogen. Already in 1988 the

American National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) designated it as potential occupational carcinogen, and California Air Resources Board (CARB) in 1998 as toxic air pollutant (Kagawa, 2002; Decker et al., 2003). The World Health Organization proclaimed it a probable human carcinogen in 1996, and the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) a likely human carcinogen in 2002 (Decker et al., 2003). Diesel gaseous emissions contain carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, oxides of nitrogen (NOx, specifically nitric oxide and nitrogen dioxide), sulfur dioxide and volatile organic compounds (VOCs), specifically non-methane hydrocarbons, carbonyl compounds like aldehydes, and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (US EPA, 2003; Brauer et al., 2000; Lloyd & Cackette, 2001; Ayala et al., 2002; US EPA, 2002; Grosjean & Grosjean, 2002). Diesel particulate emissions consist of carbonaceous material, usually 75% elemental carbon known as "char" or soot and 20% organic carbon - although these percentages vary widely depending on engine technology and the type of exhaust technology present. A small fraction of the PM mass consists of inorganic compounds like sulfate, water bound to the sulfate and various trace elements (metal oxides) originating from diesel oil and engine material (Ayala, et al., 2002; US EPA, 2003). Diesel engines are not as large a source of CO or VOC emissions compared with gasoline engines (US EPA, 2002; Yo & Yu, 2001). Nonetheless some of the most aggravating components of diesel exhaust are benzene, 1,3-butadiene, toluene and m,pxylene among hydrocarbons, and aldehydes and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. Benzene and 1,3-butadiene are human carcinogens and aldehydes are both human carcinogens and mucous membrane irritants, which is one of the reasons diesel exhaust causes respiratory irritation and is often a trigger for asthmatics (Pandya et al., 2002; Lipsett et al., 1999; Ormstad et al., 1998). Past studies focused mostly on the amount of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) (Graham & Karman, 1994; Chan et al., 1993; Kuusimäki et al., 2003; Kuusimäki et al., 2004; Jo & Yu, 2001; Szaniszlo & Ungvary, 2001) but in recent years diesel particles have been examined more closely (Levy et al., 2001; Gee & Raper, 1999; Kelly et al., 2003). Particulate mass emissions from diesel-powered vehicles are much greater than those from gasoline-fueled vehicles (US EPA, 2002), and include health-aggravating small particles (fine particles with the diameter up to 2.5 micrometer, PM 2.5 ) and very small particles (ultra-fine particles with diameter under 1 micrometer, PM 1.0 ). 98% of the particles, emitted from diesel engines belong to ultra-fine particles less than one micrometer in diameter (US EPA, 2002; Solomon et al., 2001; Kittelson et al., 1998, cited in US EPA, 2002). Exposure to PM, especially fine and ultra-fine (PM 2.5 and PM 1.0 respectively) even for very brief periods or at low levels, has been associated with heart attacks, reduced respiratory functioning and increased mortality because of their ability to penetrate deep into the lung tissue (Pandya et al., 2002; Blomberg, 2000; Salvi & Holgate, 1999; Vrang et al., 2002; Pope A.III et al., 2002). Lately more studies show the link between fine particles found in diesel exhaust and asthma (Pandya et al., 2002). In fact, nearly all of the particles emitted from diesel engines are less than 0.1 µm diameter. Several studies have compared the exposure of people to exhaust. They found that particles and VOC (hydrocarbons and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons) concentrations were higher during morning rush hours and on weekdays and reflected passing traffic

(Levy et al., 2001; Kinney et al., 2000; Graham & Karman, 1994). Pedestrians experienced increased exposures to exhaust air pollutants with heavier traffic; but pollutants mixed well and travelled with the winds and air turbulence created by the passing vehicles, and were diluted and dispersed quickly (Graham & Karman, 1994; Kinney et al., 2000). Exposure to diesel exhaust has been consistently found to be significantly elevated in workers exposed to diesel engines and the exposures were higher during winter (Kuusimaki et al., 2002; Kuusimaki et al., 2003; Groves & Cain, 2000; Hansen et al., 2004). Gee and Raper (1999) found that the exposure of people on buses to respirable PM 4.0 varied and was much higher than that experienced by bicyclists. The wide fluctuations probably reflected traffic conditions and limited ventilation on buses. On the other hand motorcyclists experienced higher levels of VOCs than bus passengers likely due to their direct exposure to tailpipe emissions (Chan et al., 1993).

References Avol, E. L., Gauderman, W. J., Tan, S. M., London S., J., & Peters, J., M. (2001). Respiratory effects of relocating to areas of differing air pollution levels. American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, 164, 2067-2072. Ayala, A., Kado, N. Y., Okamoto, R. A., Holmen, B. A., & Stiglitz, K. E. (2002). Comparative Study of Diesel and CNG Heavy-Duty Transport Bus Emissions. Proceedings of the 12th CRC On-Road Vehicle Emissions Workshop, San Diego, CA: April 2002. Retrieved February 25, 2004 from the World Wide Web: www.arb.ca.gov/research/cng-diesel/cng-diesel.htm Blomberg, A. (2000). Airway inflammatory and antioxidant responses to oxidative and particulate air pollutants - experimental exposure studies in humans. Clinical and Experimental Allergy, 30, 310-317. Brauer, M., Hsieh, J., & Copes, R. (2000). School BusAir Quality. Final Report. Retrieved December5,2002 from the World Wide Web: www.soeh.ubc.ca/research/report%202001/school%20bus%20report-final.pdf Brunekreef, B. & Holgate, S. T. (2002). Air pollution and health. Lancet, 360 (9341), 1233-1243. Cadle, S. H., Croes, B. E., Minassian, F., Natarajan, M., Tierney, E. J., Lawson, D. R. (2004). Real-world vehicle emissions: A summary of the Thirteenth Coordinating Research Council On-road Vehicle Emissions Workshop. Journal of Air and Waste Management Association 54, 8-23. Canadian Lung Association. (2004). Asthma facts and statistics. Retrieved January 28, 2004 from the World Wide Web: www.lung.ca/asthma/facts.html Chan, C. C., Lin, S. H., & Her, G. R. (1993). Students exposure to volatile organic compounds while commuting by motorcycle and bus in Taipei City. Journal of Air and Waste Management Association, 43 (9), 1231-1238. Decker, H., Patton, V., Scott, J., & Spencer, N. (2003). Closing the diesel divide: protecting public health from diesel air pollution. New York, NY: American Lung Association & Environmental Defense. English, P., Neutra, R., Scalf, R., Sullivan, M., Waller, L., & Zhu, L. (1999). Examining associations between childhood asthma and traffic flow using a geographic information system. Environmental Health Perspectives, 107 (9): 761-767, Sept. 1999. Environment Canada (2003). Canadian Climate Normals 1971-2000. Retrieved March 10, 2004 from the World Wide Web: www.climate.weatheroffice.ec.gc.ca/climatenormals/resultse.html?province=nb%2.

Fitz, D. R., Winer, A. M., Colome, S., Behrentz, E., Sabin, L. D., Lee, S. J., Wong, K., & Kozawa, K. (2003). Characterizing the range of children s pollutant exposure during school bus commutes. [Report]. Retrieved October 21, 2003 from the World Wide Web: www.arb.ca.gov/research/schoolbus/schoolbus.htm Gamble, J., Jones, W., & Minshall, S. (1987[a]). Epidemiological-environmental study of diesel bus garage workers: Acute effect of NO2 and respirable particulate on the respiratory system. Environmental Research, 42 (1), 201-214. Abstract retrieved January 15, 2004 from the World Wide Web: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=retrieve&db=pubmed&list Gamble, J., Jones, W., & Minshall, S. (1987 [b]). Epidemiological-environmental study of diesel bus garage workers: Chronic effect of diesel exhaust on the respiratory system. Environmental Research, 44 (1), 6-17. Abstract retrieved January 15, 2004 from PubMed on the World Wide Web: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=retrieve&db=pubmed&list Gee, I. L., & Raper, D. W. (1999). Commuter exposure to respirable particles inside buses and by bicycle. The Science of the Total Environment, 235, 403-405. Gent, J. F., Triche, E. W., Holford, T. R., Belanger, K., Bracken, M. B., Beckett, W. S., & Leaderer, B. P. (2003). Association of low-level ozone and fine particles with respiratory symptoms in children with asthma. Journal of American Medical Association, 290 (14), 1859-1867. Graham, L., & Karman, D. (1994). Contribution to curbside air quality from mobile sources: Part I: Measurement methods. MSED Report #94-28-1. Ottawa, ON: Environment Canada. Graham, L. (2003). Exposure of school children to diesel exhaust from school buses - VOC sample collection and analysis. Environmental Technology Centre, Emissions Research and Measurement Division, (ERMD) Report #03-28, (unpublished), Ottawa, ON: Environment Canada Grosjean, D., & Grosjean, E. (2002). Airborne carbonyls from motor vehicle emissions in two highway tunnels. Research Report/Health Effects Institute 107, 57-92. Abstract retrieved February 5, 2004 from PubMed on the World Wide Web: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query Groves, J. & Cain, J. R. (2000). A survey of exposure to diesel engine exhaust emissions in the workplace. Annals of Occupational Hygiene, 44 (6), 435-447. Abstract retrieved December 18, 2002 from PubMed on the World Wide Web: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query

Hansen, A. D. A., Rosen, H., & Novakov, T. (1984). The aethalometer - an instrument for the real-time measurement of optical absorption by aerosol particles. The Science of the Total Environment, 36, 191-196. Hansen, A. M., Wallin, H., Binderup, M. L., Dybdahl, M., Autrup, H., Loft, S., & Knudsen, L. E. (2004). Urinary 1-hydroxypyrene and mutagenicityin bus drivers and mail carriers exposed to urban air pollution in Denmark. Mutat Res 557 (1), 7-17. Abstract retrieved January 15, 2004 from the World Wide Web: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query Health Canada. (2002). Chronic respiratory disease. [Fact sheet]. Ottawa, ON: Centre for Chronic Disease Prevention and Control, Population and Public Health Branch, Health Canada. Available also on the World Wide Web: www.hc-sc.gc.ca/pphbdgspsp/publicat/rdc-mrc01/index.html Hoek, G., Brunekreef, B., Goldbohm, S., Fischer, P., & Van den Brandt, P. A. (2002). Association between mortality and indicators of traffic-related air pollution in the Netherlands: a cohort study. Lancet, 360 (9341), 1203-1209. Jo, W-K., & Yu, C-H. (2001). Public bus and taxicab drivers work-time exposure to aromatic volatile organic compounds. Environmental Research, 86 (1), 66-72. Abstract retrieved January 15, 2004 from the World Wide Web: www.sciencedirect.com Joumard, R., & Sérié, E. (1999). Modeling of cold start emissions for passenger cars. [Report LTE 9931 2 nd version]. Institut National de Recherche sur les Transports and leur Sécurité: MEET Project Contract No ST-96-SC.204. Retrieved March 2004 from the World Wide Web: http://www.inrets.fr/infos/cost319/meetdeliverable08.pdf Kagawa J. (2002). Health effects of diesel exhaust emissions - a mixture of air pollutants of worldwide concern. Toxicology, 181-182, 349-353. Abstract retrieved February 5, 2004 from PubMed on the World Wide Web: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=retrieve&db=pubmed&list Kelly, K. E., Wagner, D. A., Lighty, J. S., Sarofim, A. F., Rogers, C. F., Sagebiel, J., Zielinska, B., Arnott, W. P., Palmer, G. (2003). Characterization of exhaust particles from military vehicles fueled with diesel, gasoline, and JP-8. Journal of Air and Waste Management Association, 53, 273-282. Kinney, P. L., Aggarwal, M., Northridge, M. E., Janssen, N. A. H., & Shepard, P. (2000). Airborne concentrations of PM2.5 and diesel exhaust particles on Harlem sidewalks: A community-based pilot study. Environmental Health Perspectives 108 (3), 213-218. Retrieved January 10, 2003 from EBSCOhost database (Academic Search

Elite) on the WorldWide Web: www.epnet1.niehs.nih.gov/docs/2001/108p213-218kinney/abstract.htm Kuusimäki, L., Peltonen, Y., Kyyro, E., Mutanen, P., Peltonen, K.,& Savela, K. (2002). Exposure of garbage truck drivers and maintenance personnel at a waste handling centre to polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons derived from diesel exhaust. Journal of Environ Monit, 4 (5), 722-727. Abstract retrieved December 18, 2002 from PubMed on the World Wide Web: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query Kuusimäki, L., Peltonen, K., Mutanen, P., & Savela, K. (2003). Analysis of particle and vapour phase PAHs from personal air samples of bus garage workers exposed to diesel exhaust. The Annals of Occupational Hygiene, 47 (5), 389-398. Abstract retrieved January 15, 2004 from the World Wide Web: http://annhyg.oupjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/47/5/389 Kuusimäki, L., Peltonen, Y., Mutanen, P., Peltonen, K.,& Savela, K. (2004). Urinary hydroxy-metabolites of naphtalene, phenanthrene and pyrene as markers of exposure to diesel exhaust. International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health, 77 (1), 23-30. Abstract retrieved January 15, 2004 from SpringerLink - Article on the World Wide Web: www.springerlink.com/app/home/contribution.asp? Lapin, C. A. (2002). New research compares exhaust emissions from school buses in compressed natural gas, low-emitting diesel and conventional diesel configurations. Presented at the Society of Automotive Engineers International Truck & Bus meeting & Exhibition, November 18, 2002, Detroit, Michigan: Cobo Center. Retrieved February 25, 2004 from the World Wide Web: www.greendieseltechnology.com Levy, J. I., Houseman, E. A., Spengler, J. D., Loh, P. & Ryan, L. (2001). Fine particulate matter and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon concentration patterns in Roxbury, Massachusetts: A community-based GIS analysis. Environmental Health Perspectives, 109 (4), 341-347. Retrieved January 15, 2004 from PubMed on the World Wide Web: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query Lipsett, M., & Campleman, S. (1999). Occupational exposure to diesel exhaust and lung cancer: a meta-analysis. American Journal of Public Health, 89 (7), 1009-1017. Lloyd, A. C., & Cackette, T. A. (2001). Diesel engines: Environmental impact and control. Journal of the Air and Waste Management Association, 51, 809-847. Magee Scientific Company, Berkeley, CA: The Aethalometer. Retrieved November, 2002 from the World Wide Web: www.mageesci.com Masayuki S., Yoshio, N., Michiko, A., Motoaki, A. (2002). Effects of air pollution on the prevalence and incidence of asthma in children. Archives of

Environmental Health, 57 (6), 529-535. Retrieved February 2, 2004 from EBSCOhost database (Academic Search Elite) on the World Wide Web: www.epnet.com Monahan, P. (2002). Pollution report card: Grading America s school bus fleets. [Report]. Union of Concerned Scientists. Retrieved February 24, 2004 from the World Wide Web:.http://www.ucsusa.org/publications/report.cfm?publicationID=410#pr Murray, C. J., & Lopez, A. D. (1997). Alternative projections of mortality and disability by cause 1990-2020; Global burden of Disease Study. Lancet, 349, 1498-1504. NESCAUM ( Northeastern States for Coordinated Air Use Management). (2003). Research in progress, personal communication NESCAUM, February 2004. New Brunswick Department of Education. (2003). Pupil Transportation Standard Requirements. Retrieved January 27, 2004 from the World Wide Web: www.gnb.ca//0000/transport-e.asp New Brunswick Department of Environment and Local Government. (2003). Air quality operating approvals. New Brunswick Clean Air Act: Public information access site. Retrieved February 19, 2004 from the World Wide Web: www.gnb.ca/0009/0355/0005/index-e.html O Neill, D. & Tistadt, D., A. (2001). A representative sample of Fairfax County public schools buses found to be free of significant diesel exhaust. Springfield, Virginia: Johnie Forte Support Center. [Report]. Retrieved February 24, 2004, from the World Wide Web: www.epa.gov/otaq/schoolbus/research.htm Ormstad, H., Johansen, B.V., & Gaarder, P. I. (1998). Airborne house dust particles and diesel exhaust particles as allergen carriers. Clinical and Experimental Allergy, 28, 702-708. Pandya, R. J., Solomon, G., Kinner, A., & Balmes, J. R. (2002). Diesel exhaust and asthma: Hypotheses and molecular mechanisms. Environmental Health Perspectives, 110 (Suppl. 1), 103-112. Peters, J. M., Avol, E., Gauderman, W. J., Linn, W. S., Navidi, W., London, S. J., Margolis, H., Rappaport, E., Vora, H., Gong, H. Jr., & Thomas, D. C. (1999). Astudy of twelve southern California communities with differing levels and types of air pollution. American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, 159, 768-775 Peters, A., Dockery, D. W., Muller, J. E., & Mittleman, M. A. (2001). Increased particulate air pollution and the triggering of myocardial infarction. Circulation, 103, 2810-2815.

Pope III, C. A., Burnett, R. T., Thun, M. J., Calle, E. E., Krewski, D., Ito, K., & Thurston, G. D. (2002). Journal of American Medical Association, 287 (9), 1132-1141. Rudell, B., Ledin, M. C., Hammarstrom, U., Stjernberg, N., Lundback, B., & Sandstrom, T. (1996). Effects on symptoms and lung function in humans experimentally exposed to diesel exhaust. Occupational Environmental Medicine, 53 (10), 658-662. Abstract retrieved January 15, 2004 from the World Wide Web: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=retrieve&db=pubmed&list Salvi, S., & Holgate, T. (1999). Mechanisms of particulate matter toxicity. Clinical and Experimental Allergy, 29, 1187-1194. Seinfeld, J. H. (1986). Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics of Air Pollution. (Chapter 3.6). New York: John Wiley and Sons. Schwartz, J., Slater, D., Larson, T. V., Pierson, W. E., & Koenig, J. Q. (1993). Particulate air pollution and hospital emergency room visits for asthma in Seattle. American Review of Respiratory Disease 147, 826-831. Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc. (SAE) (1996). SAE J 1667 Snap Acceleration Smoke Test Procedure for Heavy-Duty Powered Vehicles. Retrieved from the World Wide Web on January 9, 2004: www.arb.ca.gov/homepage.htm Solomon, G. M., Campbell, T. R., Feuer G. R., masters, J., Samkian, A., Paul, K. A., & Guzman, J. S. (2001). No breathing in the aisles: Diesel exhaust inside school buses. Natural Resources Defense Council: Coalition for Clean Air. Retrieved February 24, 2004 from EPA on the World Wide Web: www.epa.gov/otaq/schoolbus/research.htm Statistics Canada (1997). Selected leading causes of death by sex. Ottawa, ON: Statistics Canada. Retrieved February 24, 2004 from the World Wide Web: www.statcan.ca/english/pgdb/health36.htm Statistics Canada (2001). Asthma in New Brunswick by age group and Persons with asthma by sex, provinces. Information obtained February 23, 2004, from the New Brunswick Provincial Epidemiology Service, Fredericton: Statistics Canada, Community Health Surveys, 2000-2001. StatSoft Inc. (2003). Statistica (data analysis software system). Version 6. Retrieved from the World Wide Web: www.statsoft.com Szaniszlo, J., & Ungvary, G. (2001). Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon exposure and burden of outdoor workers in Budapest. Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health Part A, 62 (5), 297-306. Retrieved February 10, 2004 from the World Wide Web: http://taylorandfrancis.metapess.com.

Thermo Systems Inc. (2000). Model 8520 DustTrak aerosol monitor: Operation and service manual. St. Paul, MN: TSI. Thermo Systems Inc. (2001). Model 8525 P-Trak ultrafine particle counter: Operation and service manual. St. Paul, MN: TSI. TSI - Thermo Systems Incorporated (2003). Frequently asked questions: Humidity effects. Retrieved October 2003 from the World Wide Web: www.tsi.com/exposure/faq/dusttrak/answers/dust29.htm TSI Incorporated. (2002). TrakPro data Analysis Software. Retrieved from the World Wide Web December, 2002: www.tsi.com/iaq/products/trakpro.htm. Ulfvarson, U., Alexandersson, R., Aringer, L., Svensson, E., Hedenstierna, G., Hogstedt, C., Holmberg, B., Rosen, G., & Sorsa, M. (1987). Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment and Health, 13 (6), 505-512. Abstract retrieved January 15, 2004 from the World Wide Web: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=retrieve&db=pubmed&list U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). (2002). Health assessment document for diesel engine exhaust. (EPA/600/8-09/057F). Washington, DC: National Center for Environmental Assessment, Washington, DC: Office of Research and Development, for the Office of Transportation and Air Quality. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1997a). Compendium of methods for the determination of toxic organic compounds in ambient air: Compendium method TO-14A (2 nd ed.). (EPA/625/R-96/010b). Cincinnati, OH: Manning, J. A., Burckle, J. O., & McElroy, F. F. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1997 b). Compendium of methods for the determination of toxic organic compounds in ambient air: Compendium method TO- 15 (2 nd ed.). (EPA/625/R-96/010b). Cincinnati, OH: McClenny, W. A., & Holdren, J. O. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). (1997c). Final regulatory impact analysis: Control of emissions of air pollution from highway heavy-duty engines. Office of Air and radiation, Office of Mobile Sources, Engine Programs and Compliance Division. Retrieved March 2004 from the World Wide Web: www.epa.gov/otaq/regs/hdhwy/1997frm/hwy-ria.pdf Vrang, M. L., Hertel, O., Palmgren, F., Wahlin, P., Raaschou -Nielsen, O., Loft, S. H. (2002). [Effects of traffic generated ultrafine particles on health]. Abstract.(Article in Danish). Ugeskr Laeger, 164 (34), 3937-3941.

Wargo, J., Brown, D., Cullen, M., Addiss, S., Alderman, N., Hood, K., Trahiotis, M., Yellen, J. (2002). Children s exposure to diesel exhaust on school buses. North Haven, CT: Environment & Human Health, Inc. Weir, E. (2002). Diesel exhaust, school buses and children s health. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 167 (5), 505. Yin, X-J., Schafer, R., Ma, J. Y. C., Antonini, J. M., Weissman, D. D., Siegel, P. D., Barger, M.. W., Roberts, J. R., & Ma, J. K-H. (2002). Alteration of pulmonary immunity to Listeria monocytogenes by diesel exhaust particles (DEPs). I. Effects of DEPs on early pulmonary responses. Environ Health Perspect 110, 1105-1111.

Appendix F School Buses, Air Pollution & Children s Health

School Buses, Air Pollution & Children s Health: Improving Children s Health & Local Air Quality by Reducing School Bus Emissions Laidlaw & Gordon Foundations November 2005

Reference: Ontario Public Health Association (OPHA). School Buses, Air Pollution & Children s Health: Improving Children s Health & Local Air Quality by Reducing School Bus Emissions. Toronto, Ontario: 2005. Author & Project Manager: Kim Perrotta, MHSc, Manager, OPHA Environmental Health Program (2002-05) Project Advisory Committee: This school bus project has benefited greatly by the expertise, policy direction and editorial advice offered throughout by: Louise Aubin, Research & Policy Analyst, Peel Health & OPHA Member Helen Doyle, Manager, York Region Health Services & OPHA Member Ronald Macfarlane, Supervisor, Environmental Protection Office (EPO), Toronto Public Health David Roewade, Public Health Planner, Environmental Health and Lifestyle Resource Division, Region of Waterloo Public Health Franca Ursitti, Research & Policy Analyst, Peel Health & OPHA Member (formerly Research Consultant, EPO, Toronto Public Health) Acknowledgements: While the views and positions articulated in this report are those of the author and the Project Advisory Committee, we would like to thank the following people who reviewed the report and offered advice that was helpful to its development: Dr. Monica Campbell, Manager, EPO, Toronto Public Health Dr. Ian Johnson, Department of Public Health Sciences, University of Toronto & OPHA Member Dr. Barbara MacKinnon, Director of Environmental Science & Research, New Brunswick Lung Association Valerie McDonald, Member, People for Public Education Ken Ogilvie, Executive Director, Pollution Probe Charles O Hara, Researcher, Air Programme, Pollution Probe Research Assistance: We would like to thank the following people who provided research assistance in support of this project: Jenny Lourenco, HBSc. & Louise Aubin, MES, Peel Health; Steven Rebellato, MSc, York Region Health Services; and Vanita Sahni, MHSc, Toronto Public Health Appreciation: The OPHA would also like to express its appreciation to: The Laidlaw Foundation for funding this project; Environment Canada for funding the background report; The Walter & Duncan Gordon Foundation for funding the OPHA Environmental Health Program from 2002 to 2005; and Toronto Public Health, Peel Health, York Region Health Services, & Region of Waterloo Public Health for in-kind support.

Background Report Author: We would like acknowledge Ralph Torrie of Torrie Smith Associates who prepared the background report, Emission Reduction Options for Ontario School Buses (October 2005), which forms the basis of Sections C, D and E of this report and informs our recommendations. Background Report Advisory Committee: We would also like to acknowledge the contribution of those individuals who offered valuable direction, advice and/or information towards the preparation of the background report: Sandy Chan, Senior Policy Analysts, Student Transportation, Ministry of Education Patrick Cram, Senior Program Engineer, Transportation Systems Branch, Environment Canada Rick Donaldson, Executive Director, & Jack Laurie, Ontario School Bus Association (OSBA) Richard Gilbert, Research Director, Centre for Sustainable Transportation Paul Kersman, Policy Analyst, Drive Clean, Ministry of the Environment Greg Rideout, Toxics Emissions Research & Field Studies, Emissions Research & Measurement Division, Emissions Testing Centre, Environment Canada Toros Topaloglu, Environmental Systems Specialist, Ministry of Transportation of Ontario Photos: Kim Perrotta Distribution: Copies of this report and the background report are available on the OPHA website at www.opha.on.ca. Hard copies of this report can be requested from the OPHA at info@opha.on.ca or 416-367-3313.

Executive Summary This report examines emissions from school buses and recommends the establishment of a Healthy School Bus Program that is directed at improving children s health and local air quality. We are concerned about emissions from school buses for several reasons. School buses in Ontario are predominantly heavy-duty diesel vehicles that emit significant quantities of diesel-related air pollutants such as fine particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, and diesel particulate matter as they travel to and from our children s schools. They are also self-polluting vehicles that can expose children on-board to high levels of fine particulate matter and diesel particulate matter. These air pollutants have been clearly associated with a broad spectrum of acute and chronic impacts. They have been found to: Aggravate asthma, leading to more frequent and severe asthma attacks; Increase the number of respiratory infections; Reduce lung function; Aggravate and induce allergies; Increase school day and work day absences; Increase emergency room visits, hospital admissions and premature deaths; and Contribute to the development of chronic heart and lung diseases including lung cancer and asthma. While children may spend only a few hours per day on school buses, the high levels of exposure encountered on-board can add considerably to their daily and annual exposures to fine particulate matter and diesel particulate matter. With approximately 800,000 Ontario children being transported on school buses each year, these exposures represent a significant public health concern. The respiratory systems of children are sensitive to air pollution, and children with preexisting respiratory conditions such as asthma, are particularly vulnerable. With a 12% asthma rate among children in this country, there could be approximately 96,000 asthmatic children traveling in school buses in Ontario each year. In addition to being the source of considerable pain, suffering, lost-time and anxiety, childhood respiratory diseases place a considerable strain upon our health care system. In 1999, they were responsible for over 8,000 hospital admissions and almost 20,000 hospital days among schoolaged children in Ontario. In addition, asthma is reported to be responsible for over one-third of the Ontario Health Insurance Plan (OHIP) expenditures directed at children in this province. Childhood exposures also can influence the health of exposed individuals in later life. For example, a small shift in the average lung function among a population of children can translate into a substantial increase in the number of adults who are more susceptible to respiratory diseases including lung cancer, and premature death, later in life. Exposure studies directed at conventional diesel school buses found that emissions from tailpipes and engine compartments contribute significantly to concentrations of air pollutants on-board. They found that on-board concentrations were also influenced by local air quality in the communities studied, traffic density on the roads traveled, wind direction and the configuration of the windows (i.e. open or closed), and idling and queuing patterns.

The exposures studies also found that concentrations of air pollutants on-board school buses could be reduced almost to ambient air levels, even under idling conditions, by outfitting them with diesel particulate filters (on the exhaust system) and closed crankcase filtration devices (in engine compartments) and running them on ultra-low sulphur diesel fuel. These studies also suggest that on-board exposures can be reduced by keeping doors and windows closed when buses are idling, avoiding idling when buses are waiting in front of schools, and avoiding caravanning on roadways. We have found that emissions from new diesel engines are much lower today than they were 10 years ago, and will decline significantly again between now and 2016 as new diesel engine emission standards are implemented. We have estimated that, in 2005, Ontario s 15,000 school buses collectively emitted approximately: 114 tonnes of particulate matter, 718 tonnes of hydrocarbons, 2,601 tonnes of nitrogen oxides, and 285 kilotonnes of carbon dioxide. Given the introduction of low-emitting diesel school buses over the 2007-2010 period and the age of Ontario s school bus fleet, it appears that school buses that are already on the road, especially the 1994-2003 model year school buses, will be the dominant source of emissions from Ontario school buses for the next 10 years. Although pre-1994 school buses represent a quickly diminishing percentage of Ontario s fleet, they will continue to emit a disproportionate share of particulate matter for the next few years because of their higher emission rates. After examining the school bus exposure studies and the emission reduction options, it was concluded that: Replacing Pre-1994 School Buses: The replacement of pre-1994 buses should be given high priority because of the very high emissions associated with them. Given that the new buses purchased to replace them will be on the road for about 15 years, it is recommended that they be replaced with new buses that meet the 2007 emission standards. This scenario could cost about $17 million to implement because of the incremental costs (about $10,000 per bus) associated with the best available diesel technology relative to new buses that meet the 2004 emission standards. This scenario would also produce significant exposure benefits for the 90,000 children per year who may ride those 1,700 school buses over the next 15 years. While most of the buses in this cohort should be fully depreciated, additional incentives may be needed to ensure that all buses in this cohort are retired by 2007. All School Buses: The closed crankcase filtration device has the potential to reduce concentrations of fine particulate matter on-board school buses to ambient air levels at a cost of about $400 to $600 per bus. While this technology has been validated by the US Environmental Protection Agency, it is a relatively new technology with little real world experience. The cost of installing these devices on all school buses in Ontario would be about $7.5 million. The reliability of these devices should be tested with demonstration projects with the intention of installing them on all school buses in Ontario once proven reliable. Retrofitting 1994-2003 School Buses: Emissions from 1994-2003 model year school buses could be significantly reduced by retrofitting them with diesel particulate filters and calibrating them for low NO x emissions. If this scenario were applied to 9,000 1994-2003 model year school buses, emissions of particulate matter, hydrocarbons, and nitrogen oxides from Ontario s entire fleet of school buses could be reduced by 51%, 75%, and 15% respectively between 2006 to 2016 period at a cost of about $90 million. This scenario could also produce significant exposure benefits for the 477,000 children per year who may ride those 9,000 school buses over the next 4 to 13 years.

Replacing 1994-2003 School Buses: Significant emission reductions could also be achieved if the 1994-2003 model year school buses were replaced with new buses that meet the 2007 emission standards. The emission profile of these new buses, which would cost about $10,000 more than a new bus built to 2004 emission standards, would be equivalent to retrofitting with a diesel particulate filter for particulate matter and hydrocarbons, but superior for nitrogen oxides. These new buses would also produce significant exposure benefits for the children transported on them. The decision about whether to retrofit or replace a 1994-2003 model year school bus would be influenced by the age of the existing bus and the financial situation of the school bus operator. Maintenance and Driving Practices: Proper maintenance, idling, and vehicle operation practices should be employed to reduce emissions of air pollutants and greenhouse gases from all model year school buses. These practices cost little money to implement and can produce cost savings because of associated reductions in fuel consumption. They can also produce exposure benefits for the children and drivers transported on-board. To fully implement all of the emission reduction options identified above in Ontario could cost up to $115 million or $23 million per year over 5 years. These costs must be considered in context. The Ontario school bus fleet has a replacement value of about $1.5 billion, annual capital investment in new buses is in the range of $100 million per year, and annual funding for student transportation hovers around $700 million. As a general rule, air pollutant emission reduction investments should be kept below one year s capital investment. In this context, the costs of the emission reduction options outlined above seem reasonable. However, given that funding for student transportation in Ontario has been extremely limited for several years, it is important that school bus upgrades and retrofits be funded out of a supplementary funding pool directed towards improving children s health and local air quality. Several programs have been established in the United States to fund emission reductions from U.S. school buses. Since 2002, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has run the Clean School Bus USA program that provides funds to schools and other organizations for retrofitting existing buses and replacing older buses. Since 2000, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) has run the Lower-Emissions School Bus Program which aims to reduce the exposure of school children to both toxic and smog-forming air pollutants by funding the replacement of old buses with new, low-emitting school buses and retrofitting in-use school buses with technologies that significantly reduce PM emissions. A number of school boards across North American have developed formal anti-idling policies including the New Brunswick Board of Education. Among school boards in Ontario that responded to an informal survey, none had formal anti-idling policies in place, although several used contracts with school bus operators to encourage proper idling practices. Recommendations 1. It is recommended that the Ontario Ministry of the Environment establish a multi-year Healthy School Bus Program, with $10-20 million per year, that has the dual goals of reducing childhood exposure to diesel-related air pollutants and improving local air quality by: a. Ensuring the retirement of all pre-1994 model year school buses by 2007; b. Encouraging the replacement or retrofitting of all 1994-2003 model year school buses by 2011;

i. When retrofitting, encourage the use of diesel particulate filters wherever possible, and the next best available technology where diesel particulate filters are not practical; c. Ensuring that all new school buses purchased over the next few years meet 2007 emission standards; d. Encouraging the demonstration of closed crankcase filtration devices in school buses in Ontario, and their installation in all school buses once proven to be reliable; and e. Developing, in collaboration with Natural Resources Canada, the Ontario School Bus Association, and Ontario school boards, a module on proper idling, fuel management, and low emission driving practices, to be included in the provincial curriculum for school bus operators. The Healthy School Bus Program should be designed with recognition for both the financial pressures experienced by school boards and school bus operators and the varying realities of small and large school bus operators in the Province. The Program should facilitate bulk purchase arrangements that could significantly reduce the costs of retrofits and replacements. Given both the potential contribution of school buses to air pollution in localized areas and the contribution of local air quality to pollutant concentrations on-board school buses, priority should be given to school boards operating in areas that experience poor regional air quality and to schools that experience poor local air quality. Priority should be given to school buses used for longer commutes, multiple-commutes, and greater numbers of passengers. While improving the health of children in Ontario, this Program would also help the Province to achieve its 1996 commitment to reduce emissions of nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds in Ontario by 45% of 1990 levels by 2015. It would also help the Province to achieve its 2000 commitment to attain the Canada-Wide Standards for fine particulate matter of 30 µg/m 3 (24-hour) and for ozone of 65 ppb (8-hour) by 2010. 2. It is recommended that the Federal Government establish a multi-year Healthy School Bus Fund, with $10 to 20 million per year, to support programs developed by provincial governments and other organizations, that are directed at the dual goals of reducing childhood exposure to diesel-related air pollutants and improving local air quality. This Fund should give priority to school boards operating in communities that are currently out of attainment with the Canada-Wide Standards for fine particulate matter or ozone. While improving the health of children across the country, in Ontario this Fund would also provide emission reductions that could be used to fulfill Canada s commitments to reduce emissions of nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds under the Ozone Annex of the Canada-U.S. Air Quality Agreement. It would also produce emission reductions that could be counted towards a Particulate Matter Annex under the Canada-U.S. Air Quality Agreement. 3. It is recommended that school boards in Ontario, in collaboration with the Ontario Ministry of the Environment and Natural Resources Canada, develop formal policies respecting idling in school buses particularly in the vicinity of school properties.

Summary of Emission Reductions, Exposure Benefits & Costs for Preferred Options Annual Per Bus Basis & Cumulative Fleet-Wide Basis Annual Per Bus Basis Cumulative Fleet-Wide Basis Replacement of Pre-1994 Buses with Best Diesel Technology Retrofit 1994-2003 Buses with DPF & Low NOx Setting Reduction in Emissions 98% PM 90% HC 80% NOx 10% CO2 90% PM 95% HC 25% NOx Exposure Benefits Significantly Reduce On- Board Exposure to DPM Significantly Reduce Exposure to DPM Cost & Years of Benefits $10,000 plus base cost of new bus; 15 years $10,000; 4 to 13 years Total Cost for Fleet $17 million plus - 1700 buses $90 million 9,000 buses # of Children Covered 1.35 million (53 children x 1700 buses x 15 years) 4.0 million (53 children x 9,000 buses x 8.5 years) Cumulative Emissions Reduced - Total Fleet (Tonnes) PM 72 HC 276 NOx 985 CO2 12,400 PM 272 HC 3,542 NOx 2,653 Cumulative Reduction in Emissions - Total Fleet 14% PM 6% HC 6% NOx 0.4% CO2 51% PM 75% HC 15% NOx Replacement of 1994-2003 Buses with Best Diesel Technology Retrofit buses with Engine Crankcase Filter 77% PM 89% HC 70% NOx N.R. Significantly Reduce On- Board Exposure to DPM Significantly Reduce On- Board Exposure to PM2.5 $10,000 plus base of new bus; 15 years $400-600; 1-15 years N.R. N.R. N.R. N.R. $6 to 9 million -15,000 buses 6.4 million (53 children x 15,000 buses x 8 years) HC = hydrocarbons PM=particulate matter NO x =nitrogen oxides CO 2 =carbon dioxide N.R. = not reported N.R. N.R.

Appendix G New Brunswick Lung Association s School Bus Driver Power Point Presentation

IDLE FREE BUS School Bus Idling Brought to you by: OVERVIEW Purpose Background Why no-idling Myth Vs. Fact PURPOSE To discuss the current no-idling policy for school buses To explain its health and environmental benefits. BACKGROUND Began with test pilot at Fairvale Elementary school Pilot successful District Six no-idling policy Now - No-idling policy province-wide Future? Rest of Canada WHY IDLING? Indoor and outdoor air quality is affected by vehicle emissions. Vehicle emissions contain numerous air pollutants that impact our health and environment. Main sources at schools are parental vehicles, and school buses Impact indoor air quality via doors, windows and ventilation systems. WHY IDLING? Diesel exhaust classified as a probable human carcinogen by many government authorities (WHO) No known safe levels of diesel exhaust exposure for children, especially those with respiratory disease. Nox and Particulate Matter (PM) emitted in large quantities from diesel engines linked to harmful effects in children. PM inhaled deep into the lungs.

WHY IDLING? Linked to dramatic rise in asthma and other chronic respiratory illnesses among children. According to one US study, children breathe school bus exhaust about 180 hours a year. Bus drivers have high exposure due to the longer time on buses. WHY IDLING? Problem with school bus idling: Idling buses have higher concentrations of particulates and carbon than moving buses. Queued idling buses have the highest levels of particulates and black carbon measured. They tend to accumulate diesel exhaust which may be retained during the ride. What you can do We re not saying keep children off the bus just that there are healthier and safer ways of doing things. Let s do what s easy School Bus Idling MYTH VS. FACT Myth #1 - I need to idle the bus to keep the safety lights flashing Fact - Bus batteries hold enough power to keep the safety lights flashing for a long time without draining the battery MYTH VS. FACT MYTH VS. FACT Myth #2 The bus needs to keep running order to keep the windows from steaming up Myth #3 The bus will be cold inside when the students get in the bus Fact The driver s windows will usually remain clear, or will clear quickly once the vents are turned on Fact Students will be dressed for the weather. In extreme weather drivers can wait in the school lobby if waiting for a long time

Wrap-up Congratulations! The New Brunswick no idling policy is the first of its kind in the country No Idling = Good for Student, Staff, and Driver Health QUESTIONS? -IDLE

Éliminer le régime de ralenti pour les autobus Autobus scolaires en marche au ralenti Présenté par : Objet Contexte APERÇU Raisons d éliminer le régime de ralenti Mythes et réalités Récapitulation OBJET Le but de cette présentation est d expliquer la politique actuelle d élimination du régime de ralenti pour les autobus scolaires, ainsi que les bienfaits pour la santé et l environnement découlant d une telle politique. CONTEXTE Un projet pilote visant l élimination du régime de ralenti, mis en œuvre par Shelly Nason à l école primaire Fairvale, est à l origine de la politique. Constat de succès du projet pilote Mise en œuvre du projet à l échelle du district scolaire CONTEXTE Mise en vigueur d une politique d élimination du régime de ralenti à l échelle du district scolaire 6, à quelques exceptions près Aujourd hui politique d élimination du régime de ralenti à l échelle de la province Demain? Le reste du Canada RAISONS D ÉLIMINER LE RÉGIME DE RALENTI La qualité de l air intérieur et de l air extérieur est affectée par les émissions des véhicules Les émissions des véhicules contiennent plusieurs polluants qui nuisent à la santé et à l environnement Les principales sources d émissions dans les cours d école sont les véhicules des parents et les autobus scolaires Les polluants qui entrent par les fenêtres, les portes et les systèmes de ventilation affectent la qualité de l air intérieur