Sidebilder
PDF
ePub

Governor BROWN. It will from now until November.

First let me congratulate the members of this committee and the Congress on the passage of the Federal Clean Air Act during the current session.

As President Johnson pointed out in signing the bill last month, this new legislation will make possible a national effort to control air pollution.

We agree with him that smog is "a serious and growing threat to both our health and safety."

Our long experience in California with combating this evil has proved to us that only a national effort on a massive scale will provide an ultimate solution for eliminating smog.

We hope that this subcommittee will continue its important investigations. You will have our complete support and cooperation in your studies.

We hope, too, that Congress this year will appropriate the full authorization of money to implement programs contemplated by the Clean Air Act.

We are especially concerned about Federal participation in research and development in the field of motor vehicle pollution to which I will confine my remarks today.

You get a measure of the problem when you consider that automobiles in the Los Angeles basin burn up some 7 million gallons of gasoline every day. And in the combustion process they pollute the air with 1,625 tons of hydrocarbons-the principal source of smog; 485 tons of oxides of nitrogen, and another 8,115 tons of carbon monoxide. I cite Los Angeles as an example but all of our major cities are threatened the same way. And 15 million Californians, some 85 percent of our total population, live in urban areas. President Johnson points out that 100 million Americans live in the cities and are affected by smog.

The time is clearly at hand now to ask whether we need Federal regulation to assist the cities and States in dealing with a problem of this magnitude.

We must ask whether it is a Federal responsibility, in addition to that which the State already has assumed, to require the manufacturers of automobiles to eliminate engine gas emissions when they pose a potential threat to the health and lives of our citizens.

I hope that in this hearing and in others you will make a serious study of that question. For we believe that automobile air pollutants do represent a threat to the lives of our citizens and to the economy of our State. The Surgeon General's report of 1962 substantiates that belief as does our own medical research.

In that connection I would point out that the State will sponsor the Seventh Annual Air Pollution Medical Research Conference to be held on February 10 and 11 in this city.

Medical experts and scientists from all over the United States and from foreign countries also will participate in this conference. The results of it will assist the Congress and Federal Government in its own deliberations on smog problems. And, of course, they will help us in making our determinations on control measures.

I cite the medical conference and other programs I will now briefly describe to assure you that California has not been waiting in the wings

for Federal action in smog control. Smog wasn't invented in Los Angeles but it was here that the fight against it was born and is being carried out. The work done in California is being emulated the country over.

It was in the early 1940's that smog first came under study in Los Angeles. Both the city and county health departments took note of it, as did the general public. In 1947 the legislature created the law permitting research facilities to test devices and establish criteria for certification of devices to control crankcase and exhaust emissions. To assist that work last year the State acquired the Los Angeles County Research Laboratory which it is now operating.

As a result of research there the State pioneered the crankcase blowby devices which now are standard installations on most new automobiles in the United States. Some 40 crankcase devices have been certified for use in California. They are now required on all new cars sold in California and they will be required on used cars that are sold in the State this year. By the end of 1965 nearly all cars in the State will be required to have a crankcase device. We estimate they will remove 500 tons of hydrocarbons a day from the air over Los Angeles, or about 20 percent of the total from cars.

Exhaust devices should handle about 60 percent of the hydrocarbons. The remaining 20 percent are lost in gasoline evaporation in carburetors and gas tanks and through faulty engine adjustments.

Let me now turn to a specific discussion of exhaust devices in my remarks to this committee, and let me say one other thing, I am not in this prepared statement saying anything about mass rapid transportation, and of course I imagine that this is beyond your function on this committee, but as Members of the Senate of the United States it is entirely possible that mass rapid transportation legislation may come before you. I think whatever we do in connection with the technical phases of this, that you should correlate the things that the counties and the States and the cities and the Nation are doing with respect to mass rapid transportation. Whatever we say about this we are going to need rapid transportation to assist in the solution of the problem of smog, to eventually remove some of the cars from the freeways, particularly in a State that will have 30 million people within the next 15 to 18 years, and as I spoke with you at breakfast this morning, the problem of growth and the bond issues that we issued, both in the cities and counties and States and special districts, that there is a particular limitation as to how much we can borrow in mass rapid transportation at the low interest rates which mean the difference between success and failure in paying this off in the fare box, but getting down to the specific recommendations before your committee.

The control of exhaust emissions presents a more difficult problem than crankcase gases. In addition to the hydrocarbons in exhaust we have oxides of nitrogen. We can remove hydrocarbons but we have not yet discovered how to eliminate the oxides.

To date, we have tested 12 different exhaust devices on hundreds of cars which have been driven over 7 million miles. So far no device has yet been certified by the board, although it appears certain approval of two devices will be given this year. That is our target.

Last Thursday the State's motor vehicle pollution control board adopted a standard for exhaust devices-a clear go-ahead signal to

the automobile and accessory manufacturers to provide us with suitable control devices. If devices are approved within the next few months we will require all 1966 model new cars sold in California to be equipped with such devices.

I cannot overstate the urgency of meeting that target date, especially for the Los Angeles area.

Today we have 3.5 million cars operating in the Los Angeles Basin. Next year we will have 200,000 more. By 1980 there will be 6 million

cars.

Statewide, we have 9 million cars now and by 1980 we estimate there will be 16 million.

Reports from our monitoring stations clearly show the urgency of the problem. We are not reducing the total amount of smog. We are only keeping even with growth.

The installation of crankcase and exhaust devices will go a long way toward not only keeping up with growth but rolling back the smog to 1940 levels. We cannot tolerate increased amounts.

The dramatic increase in the number of motor vehicles in our cities demonstrates the need for early action on controlling exhaust fumes. To accomplish this I think we need a thorough examination of the three general areas of responsibility which are involved:

First is the responsibility of government. It has been our task to identify the problems, their content and sources; to assist in the devising of control devices; to establish criteria and regulations for the employment of devices; and, finally, to set up enforcement procedures.

We have done that and we are doing it. In 1959 we became the first State in the Nation to establish standards for the safety of the air we breathe and for the discharge of pollutants from motor vehicle exhausts. We have created standards for crankcase and exhaust devices.

I can assure you, and the people of California, that the function of government in this fight is being admirably carried out and will continue to be vigorously pursued. We have the laws; we have the personnel; we have the public with us. And I would add that we are spending $2.5 million a year to carry out that responsibility.

Second is the responsibility of the individual. The motor vehicle. operator is required to install devices and maintain them. That responsibility is every bit as important as his duty to maintain his brakes and headlights for the safety both of himself and others on the road. I am confident that our motorists will accept and carry out this responsibility.

Finally, there is the responsibility of the manufacturer. I do not believe we have yet clearly defined or established that responsibility. It is this gap in responsibility which I think this committee should carefuly study. Until it is closed we cannot be sure of success in our battle to reduce the danger and discomfort of smog.

The automobile manufacturer is no different from the maker of any other product. His product should not be injurious to healh, nor a threat to the safety of the individual.

We do not permit manufacturers to add dangerous preservatives to the food we eat.

We do not permit chemical companies to pollute our water resources.

We do not permit oil refineries to spew hydrocarbons into the atmosphere.

And we can no longer permit the automobile to contaminate the air we breathe.

The place to control the contaminant is in the manufacture of the engine and the car itself. The manufacturers have recognized this principle with the crankcase device and I applaud their decision to incorporate such devices as standard equipment.

We suggest that the industry take the next step and provide as standard equipment exhaust controls which will meet existing State standards for clean air. Our tests of models provided by accessory manufacturers have proved tht exhaust gases can be controlled. The Chrysler clean air kit also indicates what can be achieved by the carmaker.

We are not asking the automobile industry to do something others have not. Here in Los Angeles alone industry has spent more than $100 million on stationary control devices since the abatement program went into effect. About half of that amount has been spent by the petroleum industry.

An industry that last year built and sold a record 7.7 million cars for about $25 billion, 10 percent of which were sold right here in California, has the research resources and the ingenuity to lick this problem.

I suggest that the industry step forward now and join hands with the State anod Federal Government in a concerted attack on this problem.

California has invested many hundreds of thousands of dollars in studying the problems involved. So have the Federal Government and the car and accessories manufacturers. I think the time is at hand to pool our information and find a solution to automobile smog. In addition, however, I think the Federal Government has the responsibility to make a determination, through the U.S. Public Health Service or by a high-ranking committee of private medical authorities, of the question whether smoking cars are not as dangerous to health as smoking cigarettes.

If they are and we believe this to be true-corrective measures are required. The automobile industry is in interstate commerce and the Federal Government clearly has jurisdiction.

From this I would not want you to conclude the State will not proceed with its own control measures. We cannot wait 10 years for studies to confirm what we have already established.

We have different problems than they do in the States of Maine or Indiana, but we cannot wait 10 years for studies to confirm what we have already established.

We shall proceed with our own control programs, cooperating closely as we have in the past with the automobile industry.

Through cooperation and good will we are convinced that an answer can be found to the eye-burning question of the hour: Is this smog really necessary?

We do not think it is. We intend to see that it is eliminated.

Thank you very much for giving me this opportunity to come before this distinguished committee and I do hope that Federal, State, private industry cooperation will result in some real answers.

Senator MUSKIE. Thank you, Governor, for a very useful statement for our record.

I was interested in asking just one or two questions.

In your statement you refer to the network of 16 smog monitoring stations which have been established.

Is this an adequate network to deal with your problem here?
Governor BROWN. I think it is.

I would rather have some of the experts answer that question, but the answer that I have is that the monitoring that we are doing now is satisfactory.

Senator MUSKIE. The second question I would like to ask is this:

As you know, the Clean Air Act provides for program grants to stimulate the initiation and the improvement and expansion of local and State programs.

In what ways do you conceive this program to be of potential value to you here in California since you have already established your programs? What are we talking about, also expanding them and improving them?

Have your people identified yet the areas of expansion and improvement that they think they can use the support of the Federal Government under this legislation?

Governor BROWN. Well, we feel that it is a national problem. I think one of the questions that was asked a little while ago was the question of whether one State should do the whole job or one county. We feel that we do take great pride in the fact that we have not waited for the Federal Government to help, but you can see from the growth problems that we have in schools, and education, in water, and crime, and all of these things, that we do need national intervention of some kind to assist us.

Although I think we are doing a good job, there is a limit and in my budget that will be presented to the legislature this next week. we have to cut way along the line, and in view of the fact that it is a national problem, we would like to see some aid by the Federal Government in this connection.

Senator MUSKIE. I was interested in the percentage of smog in Los Angeles that is attributable to automobiles in comparison with San Francisco.

Here is is 80 percent and San Francisco is 50 percent. Is it because there is a greater industrial complex in San Francisco?

Governor BROWN. You have a greater number of automobiles here in Los Angeles; I think you have a greater use of the automobile as a means of transportation, as a means of daily life than you have in a compact city like San Francisco where they use mass transportation a great deal more than they do here, where Los Angeles is spread out so greatly. And, another thing, you have the prevailing westerlies in San Francisco that aid in the matter.

Here in Los Angeles you have this overlay on a great many occasions that prevents the dissemination of smog after it is created, so you have different atmospheric conditions.

Senator MUSKIE. You have more fresh air in San Francisco than Los Angeles?

Governor BROWN. Well, there are a great many voters down here and I wouldn't want to make any comment on that.

« ForrigeFortsett »