say it was mixed. I am not going to try to say it was strictly smog. But the pollutants in the air certainly were aggravated to a very real degree. Now, the cars were bumper to bumper, of course, and there were many, many accidents last night on the freeway between San Diego and Los Angeles. So we have not only the problem here of health, we have the problem of safety. You didn't mention the problem of safety. You recognize that it is an important item, do you not? Mr. DORN. Oh, yes, I should say. Senator RANDOLPH. And here, of course, in this area we know that we have perhaps as fine a freeway system as in any section of the United States. Mr. DORN. I should say thanks to you and your great efforts, we appreciate your help very much. Senator RANDOLPH. Thank you very much, Mr. Dorn. I do double as chairman of our Subcommittee on Roads, and I am constantly aware of the problems that arise in connection with the strengthening of the highway facilities in the Nation. I believe we have about 500 miles of freeway within, let's say, 50, 60, 70 miles that just channel this traffic right into Los Angeles. Is this correct? Mr. DORN. That's right, we are the hub. Senator RANDOLPH. So it is a problem, the problem of the moving motor vehicle here in the Los Angeles area. Now, I don't subscribe wholly to the editorial, Mr. Chairman, that I am going to place in the record with your permission; I want it understood that this is only a viewpoint, and I think it is important that the viewpoint be incorporated in the hearings. But as you discussed the emissions from the exhausts, Mr. Dorn, quite helpfully-I will not read this editorial which appeared in the Wheeling, W. Va., Intelligence, except to say that it quotes B. C. Lucas, an engineer in Philadelphia. Now, he says opening and closing electric circuits produces ozone, a gas having a toxicity 50 times that of nitrogen of oxide. Now, he goes on and says a single electrically propelled car moving through a city will likely accelerate and decelerate hundreds of times, which, if multiplied by the thousands or millions of vehicles in a metropolitan region, could produce a more damaging type of air pollution than now exists. I am only bringing this to the attention of the subcommittee, and I am sure we will attempt perhaps to determine the views of Mr. Lucas, if he is reliable; I understand that he at least is knowledgeable in the field and will discuss it. So I would ask, Mr. Chairman, that we include the article and the references by Mr. Lucas. (The document above referred to follows:) [From the Wheeling (W. Va.) Intelligence] BOOMERANG DANGER SIGNALS WARN AGAINST UNDUE HASTE IN CLEAN AIR DRIVE The prospect of a major federal thrust on air pollution adds interest to an article in the current issue of Rodale's Health Bulletin which tends to cast doubt on the electric automobile as the answer to the problem of traffic generated contamination. Those who believe that banishing the gasoline motor from our congested areas and substituting electrics would end automobile pollution in our urban centers may be living in false hope if the conclusions of B. C. Lucas, a Philadelphia engineer, are well founded. Mr. Lucas makes the point that electric cars themselves might constitute a dangerous source of pollution. "It is well known," Lucas wrote in a letter to the Philadelphia Bulletin, "that opening and closing electric circuits produces ozone, a gas having a toxicity 50 times that of nitrogen dioxide." He notes that nitrogen dioxide is one of the more toxic components of the photochemical smog produced as a result of auto exhaust, and adds: “A single electrically propelled car moving through a city will likely accelerate and decelerate hundreds of times which, if multiplied by the thousands or millions of vehicles in a metropolitan region, could produce a more damaging type of air pollution than now exists." Whether the potential is as great as believed by this correspondent, who apparently speaks from the background of familiarity with the subject, the very fact that some basis seems to exist for questioning the status of the electric automobile from a pollution point of view, raises another and broader question: Is there danger that in our enthusiasm to promote the cause of clean air we may do a lot of economic mischief without accomplishing our purpose? Everybody associated with this greatly accelerated and broadened drive for clean air would be well advised, it would seem, to proceed with caution. Senator RANDOLPH. Mr. Dorn, you indicated this was not a new problem. Mr. DORN. No. Senator RANDOLPH. So often Congress, I think, is chargeable, as people generally are, of coming into a situation such as this, after the fact. You spoke of a serious problem of air pollution many years ago in the United States. I presume you were thinking of Donora, Pa.! Mr. DORN. That's right, in 1948. Senator RANDOLPH. That was in 1948 in October, and at that timewe are still prone, Mr. Chairman, to forget that out of the 14,000 persons who lived in that steel town, that there were 6,000 persons who became violently ill; violently ill-and so ofttimes we have had the danger signals raised, but there has to be, I believe you used the word "thrust," as the chairman did, there has to be this abrupt impact, and now it is here. Mr. DORN. I hope so. Senator RANDOLPH. So I do commend you and those associated with you in the affirmative actions that you have taken. Mr. DORN. Thank you. May I just say, coming from San Diego, there are many people who come from the east on that very route you were on, the Golden State Highway. Now, there is and has been projected a bypass route that goes behind these mountains that could take all those trucks that are on that road you were on and bypass this whole basin and keep those fumes out of this basin that we are in. I am hoping that when you are wearing your other hat on that road committee that you will help us to get those moneys to get that road committed out through the Antelope Valley. Senator RANDOLPH. I doff my hat to you. Senator MUSKIE. Senator Baker? Senator BAKER. Nothing. Senator MUSKIE. Senator Tydings? Senator TYDINGS. Supervisor Dorn, the proposed Air Quality Act of 1967, which is the basis for these hearings, would set emission con trol levels for industry, which contributes heavily to air pollution. On the basis of your experience setting regulations on emission control for industries in Los Angeles County, how stringent do you think the Federal standards should be? Mr. DORN. I think you ought to take our rules and just enact them and enforce them. It would save you the money that would be spent on research and development of such rules. Senator TYDINGS. Í ask unanimous consent that we incorporate that blue book in the record at this point. Senator MUSKIE. Without objection. (The document above referred to follows. Text resumes on page 101.) REGULATION I. GENERAL PROVISIONS RULE 1. TITLE. These rules and regulations shall be known as the rules of the Air Pollution Control District. RULE 2. (Amended 1-16-58) DEFINITIONS. a. Except as otherwise specifically provided in these rules and except where the context otherwise indicates, words used in these rules are used in exactly the same sense as the same words are used in Chapter 2, Division 20 of the Health and Safety Code. b. (Amended 1-16-58) Person. ''Person'' means any person, firm, association, organization, partnership, business trust, corporation, company, contractor, supplier, installer, user or owner, or any state or local governmental agency or public district or any officer or employee thereof. c. Board. "Board'' means the Air Pollution Control Board of the Air Pollution Control District of Los Angeles County. e. Section. "Section'' means section of the Health and Safety Code of the State of California unless some other statute is specifically mentioned. f. Rule. ''Rule'' means a rule of the Air Pollution Control District of Los Angeles County. g. (Amended 3-14-63) Los Angeles Basin. "Los Angeles Basin" is defined as being within the following described boundaries: Beginning at the intersection of the southerly boundary of the Angeles National Forest with the easterly boundary of the County of Los Angeles; thence along said easterly boundary in a general south westerly direction to the mean high tide line of the Pacific Ocean; thence continuing along the boundary of the County of Los Angeles (in the Pacific Ocean) in a general southwesterly, westerly and northwesterly direction to its most westerly intersection with the boundary of the City of Los Angeles (in the Pacific Ocean); thence in a general northerly direction along the generally westerly boundary of the City of Los Angeles to its most northerly intersection with the westerly boundary of the County of Los Angeles; thence in a general easterly direction along the northerly boundary of said City of Los Angeles to the southwesterly corner of Section 16, Township 2 North, Range 13 West, S.B.B. & M.; thence in a general easterly direction along said southerly boundary of the Angeles National Forest to said easterly boundary of the County of Los Angeles. |