« ForrigeFortsett »
are not talking about increasing the amount of oxides of nitrogen in motor vehicles.
We are saying, if the hydrocarbon control program is not truly effective and as California's population grows and doubles over 25 years and as we have 16 million cars in California, we have to face up to the problem of oxides of nitrogen control as well as hydrocarbons.
Now, this presents a number of problems because, as has been pointed out I think earlier this morning, oxides of nitrogen don't only come from the motor vehicle. They also are discharged from a variety of other sources and the control of oxides of nitrogen from motor vehicles would also have to take into account what is the contribution of the sources and control necessary here.
The State department of public health at this very moment has under consideration a need for oxides of nitrogen control and will hold public hearings in California over the next few months, perhaps by the summer, to determine whether or not oxides of nitrogen control is necessary, and if so, should the State department of public health set standards on this.
Now, it is a lot more complicated than just deciding oxides of nitrogen control is needed, because this then sets into motion the devices for oxides of nitrogen; as Dr. Askew mentioned, once we set the standard the motor vehicle pollution control board will take under ocnsideration devices that meet its standard.
On the other hand, I think there is argument for doing any control. If we are going to do it, I think we should do it as soon as possible because there is always a long leadtime to develop and produce the devices.
Senator MUSKIE. Are you in a position to discuss air-quality standards?
Mr. Askew. Yes, sir.
Senator MUSKIE. As you know, the Clean Air Act does not authorize the establishment of standards, but it does direct the Public Health Service to develop air quality criteria as a guide to the States and communities.
At such point as it may be possible to develop air quality standards, how will they be used; how can they be used to control air pollution emissions?
Mr. MAGA. I think we could think a moment about the oxides of nitrogen problem which is a current one.
Oxides of nitrogen are concerned because at least three things, one is oxides of nitrogen, are irritating substances and moderately high concentrations become toxic, so people are concerned about any specific oxides of nitrogen, nitrogen dioxide because of health effects.
It is important to get some good sound data on what levels of oxides of nitrogen and specific NO2, nitrogen dioxide, has an effect on people. That would be first.
And if there were a good data and 1 or 21/2 parts per million of NO2, there could be shown to have some effect on people, this would then tell us about the need to maintain oxides of nitrogen below these levels.
Another item that has come up, NO2, if present in perhaps concentrations of a half a part per million or more imparts a reddish color to the atmosphere, if you have a fairly clear day; if you look through the atmosphere at 10 miles you might think of this as looking through rose colored glasses.
Now, this phenomenon isn't clearly understood either. The third item of importance is that the oxides of nitrogen, as I mentioned, enter into this photochemical reaction. The concentrations here involved are much lower than the health effects. Oxygens of nitrogen at a quarter of a part per million enter into the reaction to produce smog and this, I think, is one of the most important areas that needs answering now and I think much of the money of the Public Health Service ought to be devoted to answer the question, what is the specific role of oxides of nitrogen in a photochemical reaction and to what levels must we reduce oxides of nitrogen to prevent the reaction?
What is the atmospheric concentration of NO.; what should the air quality standard of NO:-on the basis, has to do with photochemical reaction on the basis of color and health aspects.
Senator MUSKIE. So that the first thing you would seek to accomplish with air standards is to determine the levels of concentration which are harmful on human beings or on property or plant life?
Mr. MAGA. Right.
Senator MUSKIE. Once you have determined what those levels ought to be, then how do you use standards to control!
Mr. Maga. I can cite this one, in the case of California, the case of the existing standards for motor vehicle emissions.
The State department of public health, after obtaining advice from toxicologists and physicians throughout the United States, and seeking advice from people in the Federal Government set an air-quality standard for carbon monoxide of 30 parts per million for 8 hours.
Then it went to the records on what are the concentrations of carbon monoxide now existing in California's atmosphere.
And fortunately for the State, Los Angeles County had obtained long records of concentration of carbon monoxide in the atmosphere. We found that this air-quality standard that we had set had been exceeded on a number of occasions in Los Angeles and had reached levels as high as over 70 parts per million quite frequently for 1 hour and quite frequently had gone over 40 parts per million for 8 hours: and we had the standard which said 30 for 8 hours and a standard in Los Angeles that exceeded.
We were able to forecast, based on gasoline consumption, what the department felt would be the total emission of carbon monoxide in 1970 from Los Angeles. We were then able to calculate how much control was needed to reduce the values below 30 parts per million: we concluded this would be 60-percent reduction in carbon monoxide. so in the case of carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons, the department was able to calculate the degree of control needed for hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide, and this would be true, I think, for other pollutants.
You can envision this whole problem of air pollution as being a volume of air into which you discharge a quantity of pollutants and this ends up with a concentration. If you know accurately what concentration you want to maintain in the community, you can adjust the emissions so that you would be at or below this concentration and this is how it would be applied, I think.
Senator MUSKIE. Is it a question of adjusting emissions or eliminating emissions?
Mr. Maga. Well, either one; it is hard to eliminate all emissions. It would be controlling air pollution sources.
In general it has been found not practical to eliminate, but I mean, by adjusting, controlling the emissions or reducing the emissions to a point where you would be below the air-quality levels that have been set for the community.
Senator Muskie. How do the standards work under the permit system, for example, about which we heard this morning!
Mr. MAGA. Well the permit system is something that Los Angeles had in effect long before the standards were set, but they would work
That if Los Angeles were concerned with discharge of some pollutants for which there was a standard they would use the standard to guide them as to kind of air quality they ought to maintain or they want to maintain. Now, they might want, for example, a standard might be set up on vegetation damage, Los Angeles might, or another area might, feel that this wasn't something they wanted to protect.
Or they might decide that they want to maintain air-quality levels even below the standard. I think the standard would be guides to communities to indicate to them at what levels they could expect trouble.
If you are a growing community and you are concerned with air pollution you could measure the concentrations in the community; match these with the air-quality standards and decide for yourself as a community how far below the standards you were or how far above them and accordingly design a control program.
If you were near the standards or above them I think a community would be obligated to institute some kind of a control program and try to reduce the pollutants.
Senator MUSKIE. What sort of authority do you now have to enforce standards as you develop them?
Mr. Maga. At the present time the standards have a dual function in California, as has been pointed out several times.
Local air pollution control districts are responsible for control of stationary sources; the State is responsible for motor vehicles. In the State the department has both responsibilities direct; in the case of controlled districts the standards are largely recommendations and guides to local agencies in their control program.
There is no law that makes air quality standards mandatory on a local district. They are for their guide and assistance.
Senator MUSKIE. Dr. Askew, turning again to the motor vehicle problem, Mr. Griswold this morning suggested that the automobile industry now has the capability, as indicated by the Chysler clean air package, of cleaning up exhaust emissions by up to 60 percent.
Now, do you agree or disagree with that evaluation?
Mr. Askew. Senator, I don't know because it hasn't been tested according to our test procedures and gone for the full 12,000 miles on a representative sample of cars.
The cars that they are talking about putting this on are brandnew cars. We do not test on brandnew cars because we expect that we are going to have to install these on our older cars and we want to have a representative test. We don't want to have it just on new cars because this will take us 10 years before we are able to get them on new cars.
If the Chrysler kit works on all of the cars and will meet the State standard of 275 parts per million, then I think that a particular device would have, or system I should say, would have a good likelihood of being approved.
If it doesn't, it will be in with those others that don't meet the testing procedure.
Senator MUSKIE. But you expressed optimism earlier that this problem might be licked technologically by 1966.
Mr. Askew. I believe this is true, yes. I believe we probably will have some of these devices on 1966 model cars.
Senator MUSKIE. How soon thereafter would it be on all model cars? Mr. Askew. Well, the second year, if they are available for the aftermarket type of vehicle. It would be on used cars as they are sold, as the registration is changed, and on commercial vehicles, and the third year after this would be on the individual's car as they reregister. In other words, as they get their new license tag.
Senator MUSKIE. And this would reduce hydrocarbon emissions to 275 parts per million, roughly?
Mr. ASKEW. Yes, sir.
Now, there was something that was said this morning that I don't think was ever cleared up, as to why we went only back to the 1950 model car.
Actually, the aftermarket, going from the 1960 model back to the 1950 model, covers 87 percent of the automobiles in California and it would make it practically impossible to go back and to tool up and to make these for some of the older makes and models for which there are less than 6,000_vehicles registered and most of the—and the fact of the matter is, I don't think there is any exception—there isn't any vehicle before the 1950 model—that there are still 6,000 of them running on the streets in the State.
Senator MUSKIE. As you evaluate these devices are you concerned at all with the cost of installing them in a car?
Mr. Askew. Yes, this is one of the things that the board has to determine, that the cost will not be an unreasonable burden. This is one of the criteria.
Senator MUSKIE. What would you consider unreasonable?
Mr. Askew. Well, we have kicked this thing around a great deal in our own board and while we have never come right down to it we have been trying to relate it to such things as replacing a battery, or a muffler, and how much this is per mile and there are some on our board who think that this shouldn't be over a tenth-of-a-cent-a-mile cost: others think a half-a-cent-a-mile cost, and others tell us that: Well, it is going to cost you a cent a mile.
Senator MUSKIE. What do you think is attainable?
Mr. Askew. Well, it depends on whether or not we can approve three or four devices and get a lot of competition, because this is a very lucrative market. When you start talking about putting these on new cars the first year—and eventually you are going to end up with seven and a half or eight million of these and they could cost anywhere from $50 to $75 or $100, I don't know what it is likely to cost-if you multiply that by the millions, you see what the market is and we hope that our good friends in the industry are not going to try to go too far and have to get real expensive models of these that probably they would be able to bring them out at a cost which the public would be willing to spend on his used car which may be 5-, 6-, 8-, 10-years old.
Senator MUSKIE. What would be the range of cost that you anticipate now, if you have a figure! I am just trying to get the record as complete as possible.
Mr. Askew. We have heard different people—not with the device companies themselves, but other people--estimate it anywhere from $35 to $200.
Senator MUSKIE. Would you consider $200 ?
Mr. Askew. I think that would be quite expensive to put on a car that may not have a blue book value of $200.
Of course, if we are going to roll this back to get our 1940 air we have to get it on at least 85 percent of these cars in this State and this is what our target is.
Senator MUSKIE. What would be the life of these devices? That is another question I wanted to ask.
Mr. ASKEW. The State requirement is that they meet the State standards for a full 12,000 miles and this theoretically is 1 year driving, although, from studies made by our group, the average car in California drives 9,400 miles a year and we are going to extend that by a couple of thousand miles, saying that they have to test out for a full year. The recertification and inspection through these stations would be done on an annual basis.
Our recent last session of the legislature also gave us a staggered system whereby these may be installed, and are required to be installed, on the vehicle on the last digit of the number. If it ends in one it is supposed to be in January; it goes on down to zero in October. This is to try to speed the installation of these devices on the cars.
This would be a job of informing of the job and motivating them to go in on the month in which their license plate would require them to go in so that it would be renewed; whether it is a recharge or they take this off and put a new thing on or just what it is, it would be done, as we envision it, at this time on an annual basis.
Senator MUSKIE. Do you have a different problem with diesel fuels than you do with gasolines?
Mr. Askew. The State has just set some diesel smoke standards. Senator MUSKIE. Have you set any odor standards yet? Mr. Maga. Not yet; no. Mr. Askew. But we are working on this and we have the problem of figuring out what we are going to do about the smoking diesel. We have not yet acted on this although our staff has a technical committee working and we are going into this as rapidly as we can develop information. This is a new development for us, Senator.
Senator MUSKIE. Do you anticipate using the Clean Air Act to get additional research money; additional support of your research program?
Mr. Askew. I am sure that, in time, there will be requests made of the service to assist us in some of these areas which both Mr. Maga and I briefly touched on and I am sure that as time goes on they will probably be a great many requests for, if not funds, at least personnel and assistance to get research underway.
Senator MUSKIE. I think the record may cover this point, but to make it absolutely clear, if we were to get an exhaust control device