« PreviousContinue »
mated by 1980, we had to start to clean up this source of pollution immediately. Through directed research, assignment of technical personnel, and other efforts the Federal Government has given us an invaluable assist as we've tackled our problem.
We stand ready to work with you in Congress and with the appropriate agencies in the executive branch to provide any assistance which you feel will be helpful as you move ahead into national control of emissions from motor vehicles.
Thank you once again for the opportunity to share our experiences with you.
Mr. JENSEN. The State of California, through the motor vehicle pollution control board, which I represent today, for a little over 41 years has been involved in this very complicated problem. We have learned quite a bit during this time.
One thing is that in our opinion the legislative initiative has to keep pace with the engineering technology. It is a complicated subject, and it requires a great deal of legislative initiative.
I think S. 306 demonstrates this kind of feeling in Washington.
In the subjects you asked me to comment upon, first, the establishment of standards and criteria for the allowable emissions from gasoline powered vehicles, I think the word “standards” itself is an oversimplification.
This has to be most flexible in any proposed legislation. Standards have to have criteria, and specific test procedures, just like specifications for a contract going out to bid. We found in California that standards can be twisted to fit any kind of a device. You have to tie it down to an average vehicle and an average trip.
There was 86 million cars in the United States. Every one drives different routes. They are driven differently, they are in different climates. The only way you can pin this down is to somehow come up with an average. This has probably been our most difficult job in California.
You cannot just say "standards." You have to have a lot of criteria about how long you want this to last, and what kind of a trip you want it for. The specifications are really more important than the standards, in many respects.
Senator MUSKIE. May I interrupt, Mr. Jensen, at this point, so that the record may clearly reflect the differences between the two?
When you are talking about standards, I take it that you are talking about the composition of the emission
Mr. JENSEN. Yes, sir.
Senator MUSKIE (continuing). When it leaves the tailpipe and reaches the atmosphere.
Criteria are the ingredients of the performance that will produce that standard.
Mr. JENSEN. Yes, sir.
Senator MUSKIE. You are saying that you not only have to set the standard, but you also have to have some influence upon the criteria that go into the construction of the device and the performance of the engine. Is that a fair statement?
Mr. JENSEN. Yes, sir.
Let me give a couple of examples to bring out the point you are making.
For example, a standards, as you have written in the law, 275 parts per million, really does not mean much unless you tie it in, for example, to the older car, as that new car gets older.
On the crankcase devices, we surveyed the cars in California. We had as a criteria that the device had to work on the worst 10 percent of the cars in the State--not the best 90 percent, but in the worst 10 percent, because we figured new cars are going to get old.
That kind of criteria is essential, because a standard of 275 parts per million means little, unless you have some of these criteria tied in with it.
With this kind of background, the specific recommendations are, first, the standards should not be in the law, but should be with some agency to set.
The second point follows this. This should be flexibility in the standards.
In California, as the previous witness indicated, in 4 years we have already completely revised our crankcase standards for 100 percent control, and we have adopted tighter exhaust standards effective in 1970 to give engineering leadtime to the industry. This kind of flexibility is essential so you can move ahead.
This gets back to one of the points you made earlier, Mr. Chairman, in your discussion with the Assistant Secretary.
Senator MUSKIE. Do you feel that these changes in California standards have a solid basis in experience that you consider to be reliable?
Mr. JENSEN. Yes, sir; and the reason I feel this is thta a good case, Mr. Chairman, can be made for waiting until all the facts are in. A good, scientific, solid case can be made. But there is not time to wait until all the facts are in.
If you do not move now to clean up the sewage that comes out of automobiles, as has been clearly demonstrated here today, there are more and more cars coming along, and you have to move on the best inforination you have.
Every step we have taken in California was based on a lot of technical advice across the country and around the world. We have this kind of advice that gives us a sense of confidence to go ahead and put this program into effect in our State.
Senator MUSKIE. I cannot emphasize that too much, because of the obvious caution that Assistant Secretary Quigley demonstrated on this point. I am not going to belabor that again.
Mr. JENSEN. My final recommendation is that the standards be nationwide. This would eliminate a lot of problems of enforcement, which you brought out in your questioning of the previous witness.
You may want to study the possibility of regional standards, or some such possibility, where you have a State like California, which is the more serious problem than it is elsewhere, but at least at the moment I think there is enough information for nationwide standards.
I want to point out, Mr. Chairman, that this results in a hardship on some rural areas. We face this in California. I think you are going to have to face it in the United States. Twenty percent of the people in our State live in rural and mountain areas, where there is
practically no air pollution; yet our legislature has gone ahead and adopted this strict law so those people in these rural areas are still going to have to have devices on their cars and control measures.
Senator MUSKIE. Once in a while they get down into the other 80 percent of the State, do they not?
Mr. JENSEN. Yes, sir. The second question you asked me to comment on was establishment of standards and criteria for allowable emission from diesel-powered vehicles,
That question is complicated by the fact that there has been a lack of research, so we do not really know the chemical composition that causes the smoke. We do have enough information to indicate that this is not really a cause of area wide photochemical smog. However, it is a nuisance, and one which the public demands be corrected.
In California, where a motorist is going to have to put out money, and is already putting out money, for a smog device on a car, and then drives behind a bus or truck with smoke or odor, he gets very incensed, and rightly so, so we have to control the diesels along with the gasolinepowered vehicles in order to make the whole program work.
On this basis we have only adopted so far in California require. ments for smoke. We are now adopting subjective standards for odor, but we have to move ahead, because of this public relations aspect, which I indicated.
So my recommendations in this regard would be, first, that because of the lack of competition, only one-half of 1 percent of the vehicles are diesel, and there is not the big market that results in a competitive desire to find an answer to gasoline-powered vehicles, the Government has to take more initiative for more research into the kind of thing that Senator Bayh was mentioning, of developing devices because there is not the desire or market that exists in gasoline vehicles.
The second requirement is, again, nationwide requirements are indicated, because of crossing State lines, which is typical of diesel operation.
Third, I think you also have to consider dilution of smoke and odor so it is not noticeable, since it is not an area wide problem.
Fourth, I think that we should recognize that enforcement over the road is still going to be required, even after you get devices on cars, because a poorly maintained vehicle would negate the device.
Finally, on diesel, I think you have to give some kind of power over fuel composition. That is not true of gasoline-powered vehicles, as far as we know,
Senator Muskie. May I note in your prepared statement, in which you point out that the diesel engine manufacturers have agreed to smoke limits on their new equipment.
Do you know whether or not this will apply to all diesel engines sold anywhere in the country?
Mr. JENSEN. Yes, sir; it is nationwide.
This sort of follows the pattern in California. We adopted smoke standards a year ago last October, then in March, 6 months later, the automobile industry voluntarily decided to put these controls in nationally.
But this is only on new trucks and buses from the factory. This is why I mentioned the maintenance factor, because poor maintenance can negate that setting at the factory.
The next question you asked related to the necessity for accelerated research.
I will point up a couple of areas specified in the bill. First, on evaporative losses from the carburetor and fuel tank, the important point
there, and this carries over into other facets of emissions from cars, is to see how reactive the hydrocarbons are in forming smog.
It may very well be that a pound of unburned gasoline that evaporates does not cause the same kind of a bad reaction as a pound of unburned gasoline coming out of the actual pipe, but we have to have some definitive action on that point.
Research has to go ahead, because the dollars and cents involved indicate that you want to control the most reactive hydrocarbons with the least cost.
The second point is nitrogen oxides. There are three areas I outlined in the prepared statement. One of the most important is to find out what the role of nitrogen oxides is in photochemical reaction.
For example, if you controlled 100 percent of the nitrogen oxides coming out of the automobiles, you still would have 50 or 60 percent remaining in the Los Angeles areas which come from home furnaces and hot water heaters, for example.
If you controlled the exhaust problem at so much of a percentage, and you still had so much left, would it control the smog? We do not know this. We think this requires further research.
Next is the effect on health. The cumulative effect of oxides of nitrogen on health should be explored. Aldehydes you have covered, and I will just skip that.
Finally, there is one area of research which has been discussed here earlier which would direct itself to the present devices going on cars in California on the crankcase and those coming on 1966 models.
There is a lot of research involved here that should be done using California as a workshop to see how the controls affect the atmosphere, and so forth.
The Air Pollution Laboratory: Here, I think there is a need. I am not qualified to say how much of a need exists from the Federal level. I do think there is certainly a need for Federal leadership and guidance, with some support for regional laboratories, so we get a nationwide study of this problem, rather than one fixed laboratory. I think the Federal leadership is needed, but in regional laboratories.
Another point you did not ask me to comment on relates to maintenance. I think I should discuss this, because it is part of the bill. We have found in California that the level of mechanics' native ability to follow written instructions, for example, leaves something to be desired.
On crankcase devices going on cars, we found that 28 percent of these were going on incorrectly because the mechanics did not follow written instructions. We found that after 2 years, only 18 percent of the valves on crankcase devices were being serviced properly, even though the recommendations were in the service manuals, and had been distributed to gasoline stations, and so forth.
These exhaust devices coming on 1966 model cars are going to have to have maintenance. Now, the one device we have approved, the Chrysler system, requires a 312-hour sophisticated tuneup to keep it
General Motors, Ford, and American Motors have not told us what maintenance is going to be required on their systems, but this kind of maintenance on a mandatory basis may mean a complete revolution in the automotive mechanics service in the United States.
In California, the legislature has written a complete new smog law to get at this problem. I think the provisions in S. 306 are fine. They are general enough so there can be a real study.
I point out this is a challenging problem in our State, and one which we and you in this country have yet to face.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, in conclusion, let me make a few points.
The California Motor Vehicle Pollution Control Board thoroughly endorses S. 306. We think this is a nationwide problem. We think the bill is a good one.
The comments I have made merely tend to suggest that the bill be more flexible, because of the complicated nature of the problem, but certainly we endorse the bill. We even think you might want to make it more flexible than I have indicated, and have something in there so that existing vehicles, used vehicles, if something came along that would be cheap and could be used, maybe this should go into the law, so that the sewage could be cut down that is going into the air.
The California situation is obviously a workshop which all of us have to watch. The fact that control devices are now being tested on proving grounds, and hundreds and hundreds of cars are being tested, still does not prove out these devices. When 850,000 of these get into the hands of private motorists, the first year, in California, then we will have a situation where we can see what maintenance does to these devices.
So there has to be a great emphasis on what happens in this State, so we can avoid any of our mistakes. Those of the automobile manufacturers, for national application.
S. 306, the Clean Air Act, brings in private industry through committees. I cannot emphasize how important this is.
In California we have literally hundreds of technical advisory people who have counseled us every step of the way. We have borrowed engineers from Detroit. We have borrowed engineers from the petroleum industry who have worked with us.
The State government has never developed one single control device for one single car. This has been done by private industry. It requires a partnership. The Government's function in this instance is to indicate what the health needs are, to prescribe the framework so that the scientists and engineers in private industry can find the solutions. But certainly this kind of partnership and encouragement has to go forward.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, I want to indicate that the U.S. Public Health Service has been most helpful. They, too, have loaned us an engineer to help us. They have cooperated right along the line.
So I think this cooperative effort which has started can move ahead so we can have nationwide control of automobiles.
Senator Muskie. Thank you for your statement. It is very helpful, Mr. Jensen.
May I ask what kind of devices are the new, 1966 model, cars going to be equipped with? Are they going to be the afterburner devices of some kind, or are they going to be different?
Mr. JENSEN. Let me show you on this. From General Motors, Ford, American Motors, many of their cars in 1966 will come with an air pump. This air pump is manufactured by General Motors. It is hooked up by the fan. They pump air into the engine.