Sidebilder
PDF
ePub

of the efficiency you have been describing, what would be the total reduction in the emission of air pollutants by an automobile engine if we have both the exhaust control and the crankcase control?

Mr. Askew. Well, maybe I should let Mr. Maga tell you; but, when the exhaust control standard was set, they did not think that the blowby contribution was very much and this is—would you say, this is all to our benefit, John, that we just have that control!

We still are thinking in terms of whether our 275 is too high or not and the State may, as time goes on, find that they probably will lower this 275.

Senator MUSKIE. Should you have both devices on?
Mr. Askew. Yes, you should have both devices on.

The fact of the matter, all new cars since 1963 models, nationwide, do not have the breather tube, which is where the air used to come out of the crankcase.

Mr. Maga?

Mr. MAGA. Yes; I think I might touch upon this and I think it is probably a good point that you brought up because, if you look, there is a tendency to believe that as soon as two exhaust-control devices are going to be improved that this solves the problem for motor vehicle emissions.

I think we have to be realistic and as you look down the road and California doubles its car population. that the standards must become ever more strict, so we are really talking about the first go-round and first approval, and in the near future, revised standards, and for the year 1980 still more strict stardards: alwavs possibilities of oxides of nitrogen devices will be devised and if we talk about these two devices only, the crankcase and the exhaust, and we talk about carbon monoxide.

The exhaust contributes 98 to 99 percent of the carbon monoxide, so in the case of exhaust, all of the carbon monoxide comes from exhaust; in the case of oxides of nitrogen, all of this comes from the exhaust, and exhaust control here would then be effective for all.

But in the haze of hydrocarbons, hydrocarbons come like this: erhaust, perhaps 60 percent; crankcase, something like 25 percent, and evaporative losses, 15 percent. So even if we were to control crankcase 100 percent, exhaust 80 percent, the overall control of hydrocarbons is going to be more in the order of 75 percent and this means every car in Los Angeles would have to have these devices. They are not just a part of them.

So this alone may not be enough as we go down the road. Structure standards on these, as well as new standards on evaporative losses, may be needed.

Senator MUSKIE. Roughly, what you are speaking of is very rough. You are talking about the possibility of controlling 70 to 75 percent of the air pollution created by an automobile when you talk about these two devices?

Mr. Maga. Of the lıydrocarbons; yes.
Senator MUSKIE. Yes.

Let me ask this question: We are involved in mathematics now, but earlier the testimony was that 80 percent of your problem here in the Los Angeles area is the motor vehicle; now if we are talking about controlling 75 percent of that 80 percent, is this a fair way to figure the net reduction in air pollution in the Los Angeles area?

Mr. MAGA. I suppose it would be, but I would be one to caution too-liberal use of some of these figures.

For example, if we are talking about carbon monoxide, in this case the motor vehicle may well be over 90 percent of the problem.

In the case of hydrocarbons the number has often been used of 80 percent, and truly, then, if 80 percent of the problem were motor rehicles, then you could reduce this by 75 or 80 percent; you would be reduced by some-in so reducing the relative contribution, one must be a little more specific than just one item. It involves all three of them and there are different percentages for each one.

Senator MUSKIE. Well, I think, then, I should ask you this one more question: Do you think that we need Federal legislation to specitically control the motor vehicle problem?

Mr. Maga. I personally don't think so.

My experience in California in doing, for instance, the Los Angeles County Air Pollution Control District activity, which is a very strict control program, and in viewing the bay area district approach, now, the bay area district, as you recall there was some mention of the problem being 50 percent. I think you must view this in light of their activities.

Los Angeles County District was organized in 1947, has had a control program for some 15 or 16 years.

The bay area's district program really was established in 1959 and they are proceeding down the road to control and one of the reasons they aren't as far along as Los Angeles, they haven't been in the business long enough.

From the standpoint of the effort in control in California, the laws that have been enacted and the enforcement program that has been undertaken, I think California would be able to cope with the problem. Our basic need, I think, is not so much Federal legislation, but what we need is facts and information on which to base our program and control devices that are truly useful and effective and inexpensive to put on our cars.

Our difficulty in California, as I see the problem, is not so much a lack of legislation now but the lack of knowledge and facts and Jerices.

Senator Muskie. Do you think that the automobile manufacturers have sufficient motivation now to develop these devices as rapidly as they should be, and could be, developed ?

Mr. Maga. I am really not capable of answering that. I think California is endeavoring in its best and most powerful way to put pressure on the automobile manufacturers, but I really am not acquainted with their activities enough.

Mr. Askew. I would like to add my thoughts in answer to your first question.

I don't think that there is need for Federal legislation until there is something to legislate, to require action, which we do not have today. I hope the Federal Government would keep an open mind, particularly our Congress, and work with us as we go along the way, and if we don't have this going along in a voluntary, smooth fashion, with maybe a little prodding along the way, maybe a hearing or something like this before your committee might be very beneficial.

Senator MUSKIE. Well, gentlemen, I think your testimony will be a very useful part of the record, and I again express my appreciation

[ocr errors]

for your willingness to come and your frankness in responding to questions.

I hope we have asked all of the questions that ought to be asked in order to get all of the information that you could give us.

Thank you very much.

Our next witnesses are Mrs. Hilard Kravitz, president, Stamp Out Smog, Los Angeles, Calif., and Dr. Hilan F. Keagy, chairman, Interchamber Committee for Conservation.

You may proceed, Mrs. Kravitz. STATEMENT OF MRS. HILARD KRAVITZ, PRESIDENT, STAMP OUT

SMOG, LOS ANGELES, CALIF Mrs. KRAVITZ. Thank you. I am Mrs. Hilard Kravitz and, Senator Muskie and committee members, I am most happy to be here speaking to you today.

În 1958, SOS emerged as a voluntary citizens' movement to stamp out smog. An aroused and indignant group of women felt that insufficient progress was being made in solving the problem of air pollution which threatened the health of the community.

SOS embarked on an intensive program of self-education, studying all available written data regarding air pollution. Numerous field trips were made to universities, research laboratories, medical research facilities, as well as visits to public officials, and technical experts in the air pollution field.

SOS accumulated an extensive body of information from which we developed the following seven-point program:

(1) A coordinated program of air pollution research between private and governmental agencies.

(2) The establishment of a regional air pollution control district.

(3) The enforcement of a standard of maximum exhaust emissions set by the State health officer with sanctions for violations.

(4) The recomposition of gasoline in order that products of combustion injurious to health are held at a fixed minimum.

(5) An extensive automobile inspection system under the department of motor vehicles.

(6) Effective enforcement of all smog control legislation governing industry and the public.

(7) The creation of a competent basinwide rapid transit system.

In order to execute this program, SOS enlisted the cooperation of the radio, TV, and the press to disseminate information to the public. The alarming scientific evidence regarding the health hazards of air pollution resulted in converting public apathy into vigorous support of our constructive program. SOS solicited the endorsement of organizations throughout the State and found them eager to support our objectives. Today we represent 426 organizations. These include chambers of commerce, business and professional groups, labor unions, garden clubs, associations of property owners, charitable and civic groups, and many others. SOS acts for them in all matters pertaining to air pollution

SOS, from its inception, has supported all local legislation to control air pollution. SÓS made many trips to Sacramento to aid in the passage of State legislation for the abatement of air pollution. Our members have appeared statewide before many county board of supervisors to help win approval for the recent "crankcase” control program of the California Motor Vehicle Pollution Control Board.

We have traveled as far as Washington, D.C., to present a statement before the Federal Power Commission regarding the immediate problem of securing additional supplies of natural gas for the Los Angeles area.

This briefly summarizes the years of effort and past accomplishments by SOŠ in the fight against air pollution.

At present, the Clean Air Act, passed in December of 1963, points the way for a strong Federal program to help solve the dilemmas of the many communities experiencing air pollution. The Federal Government has always supported the efforts of individual communities to solve this serious problem. However, we are relieved to see the Federal Government finally emerging as the leader in this fight, because it has been increasingly apparent to SOS that without this leadership the ultimate solution would be long delayed.

The control of automobile exhaust is the primary target in our present abatement effort. The importance of controlling this source of air pollution has been known to everyone working in the field, as well as to the automobile industry, since 1955. It is appalling that the automobile manufacturers have achieved so little progress in dealing with this emergency situation. Through the years, many portentous announcements have been made by the automobile manufacturers, beginning as early as 1955, when their association announced that it was devoting a million dollars a year to a research program.

In 1958, the year of the formation of SOS, the problem had already grown beyond the resources devoted to it by the automobile manufacturers. Had the same kind of vision been applied to this problem as to the annual design programs or the advertising programs of these companies, the problem might already have been solved. In 1960, a progress report by the automobile manufacturers on exhaust device development was made to the California Legislature. sponse to the anticipated arrival of these devices, the Motor Vehicle Pollution Control Board was created by the legislature. Today, in 1964, we find that Detroit is no longer involved in the actual development of a device.

Unfortunately the industry seems completely lacking in a sense of social responsibility relative to the air pollution monster they have created. They constantly plead for more time, as if time itself would solve the problem, while the pollution mushrooms and progress remains static. It is apparent that unless coerced by Federal or economic pressures this colossus will not assume its responsibility. It was only with the threat of Federal legislation that the automobile manufacturers “voluntarily” installed a blowby device in 1963 on their new cars.

SOS does not feel that either the Government or other manufacturers should solve the exhaust problem for the automobile industry.

We urge this committee to do whatever is in your power on the Federal level to demand that the exhaust pollution problem be placed squarely in the lap of the automobile manufacturers for immediate solution.

In re

Another factor in attacking the primary target of controlling automobile exhaust pollution, is research. The State of California has pioneered in the development of data to establish its exhaust control program. In spite of an incomplete body of scientific knowledge and essential data, California has had the courage to move ahead with an automobile exhaust program. We are willing to pioneeer with solutions, but we must do so with the best information that money can buy as a sound basis for our decisions, decisions which affect millions of people and a multibillion dollar industry.

It is here that the Clean Air Act of 1963 can immediately be applied to extend the findings on which these judgments are made. This committee can appropriate to the California State Department of Public Health moneys much needed to establish the basic research on which the ultimate success of the auto exhaust program depends. More research is presently needed on vehicle emissions, vehicle performance, driver habits, typical driving routes, and, most important, basic research is further needed to solve the ever-recurring controversy over the emissions of oxides of nitrogen and their relation to smog formation.

The control of automobile exhaust is an extremely complex and difficult problem, and it cannot be solved without the most precise data. Obtaining this information involves the kind of funds unavailable to the California State Department of Public Health. Your appropriations in this field will benefit not only the California program, but the auto exhaust control program throughout the Nation.

California has done the initial work for the entire Nation. We need your help to continue and to do the job as it should be done.

Another aspect of the air pollution problem where your help could be of vital importance apart from the automobile exhaust fields is in the area of stationary pollution. Legislation was recently passed by the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors requiring the use of natural gas as a year-round industrial fuel. This would be a major step forward in solving the stationary air pollution problem, if present supplies of natural gas were adequate to fulfill the intent of the legislation. There is presently before the Federal Power Commission a contract for certification of additional supplies of natural gas for this area. This agreement, made by Gulf Pacific Pipeline Co. and approved by the Los Angeles City Council

, guarantees a 20-year uninterrupted supply of gas to meet 80 percent of the needs of our major power producers, at a fixed price. All previous requests to obtain such supplies have been denied.

It is unlikely that there will be another opportunity to obtain such a beneficial contract if the current application is denied. No comparable offer has ever been made by the local gas companies, who have been on record as claiming that supplies to permit year-round industrial gas burning were not economically feasible. However, these companies are now trying, with less favorable contracts, to protect their monopoly.

We understand that the criterion of end use of a natural resource has been a major factor in the previous denials of such applications. We urge you to use the influence of your offices in the present controversy

before the Federal Power Commission involving this applica

« ForrigeFortsett »