Page images
PDF
EPUB

Senator BAYH. No questions.

Senator MUSKIE. Thank you very much, Mr. Mayor.

Our next witness unfortunately cannot be here, but he sent a substitute. He was to have been Mr. Warren Dorn, of the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors, speaking for the National Association of Counties. I understand he has a substitute who will present his paper. Will you identify yourself, sir, and proceed?

STATEMENT OF SPENCER WILLIAMS, COUNTY COUNSEL, SANTA CLARA COUNTY, CALIF.; ACCOMPANIED BY C. D. WARD, GENERAL COUNSEL, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES

Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am Spencer Williams, the county counsel of Santa Clara County, Calif. Mr. Dorn had a reaction to a smallpox vaccination and is unable to be here.

Senator MUSKIE. It had nothing to do with air pollution?

Mr. WILLIAMS. I do not think so.

I have with me Mr. C. D. Ward, who is the general counsel for NACO.

This statement I am making for Mr. Dorn is also being made for NACO.

I might mention that Santa Clara County is in the bay area. While Los Angeles gets most of the publicity, we also have a small problem with smog in the bay area.

Senator MUSKIE. Would you like us to help you on the publicity? Mr. WILLIAMS. Any help would be welcome.

I will present Mr. Dorn's statement.

STATEMENT OF WARREN M. DORN, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES, PRESENTED BY SPENCER WILLIAMS

Mr. WILLIAMS. I last had the privilege of addressing you at your hearings in Los Angeles during January of last year. At that time, I urged upon you the necessity of enacting legislation to control emissions from motor vehicles.

It is, therefore, a pleasure to come before you to express satisfaction with the draft of the legislation that you are considering today, and to be afforded the privilege of offering suggestions.

It is also a pleasure to recognize on your parent committee our own California Senator George Murphy.

The fact that you have proceeded to this point indicates that we are in full agreement as to the need for Federal regulation of motor vehicle emissions. The impact of these emissions upon public health, and upon the quality of our atmosphere in this country, have been made clear by much of the testimony you have heard over several years, all of which I have followed closely.

The record is equally clear that only by the enforcement of compulsory standards can the automobile industry be induced to take the necessary steps to reduce motor vehicle contamination. The experience we have had in California shows that only by enacting and implementing such laws were we able to obtain from the automobile

industry the controls for exhaust emissions which will be built into new cars to be sold in California during the 1966 model year.

Spokesmen for the automobile industry have admitted in testimony before your committee that if the rest of the Nation is to receive these improvements in automotive design, there must be similar legislation at the national level. For this purpose, it is desirable that there be uniform standards which will serve as a minimum requirement so that the industry may have a specific target.

On the other hand, it is clear that there is a difference in the degree of motor vehicle emission control needed in various localities. Communities with heavy traffic concentrations or more stagnant air conditions require more stringent controls. A large metropolitan area such as Los Angeles needs a greater reduction in vehicle emissions than does Bangor, Maine.

Because of these differences, the legislation should say that the Federal Government does not occupy the field in such a way as to exclude the States. The Federal standard should be looked upon as the minimum requirement that should apply to motor vehicles throughout the Nation, but each State should still retain the power to fix a more demanding standard, if air pollution conditions within its boundaries so require.

Senator MUSKIE. May I ask a question at this point? I do not know whether you feel you are in a position to answer questions, but if you are not, I would still like to have the question in the record.

It seems to me when we are dealing with a motor vehicle which crosses State lines so freely, it is almost an impossible suggestion made in Mr. Dorn's statement that the requirements can vary from a Federal minimum to something higher.

In the first place, you would have the problem of taking these automobiles off the assembly lines, and if you had this variation in connection with this problem, it seems to me this would present great difficulties for them.

Secondly, there is also the question of the mobility of the automobile across State lines.

Mr. WILLIAMS. I can only answer that by saying, of course, in California we have a much different physical situation than you have in the east coast, where you travel hundreds of miles before you get to another State. Also, I think our experience in California has been that the automobile industry has installed these devices at State standards, and they have been sold in California.

Senator MUSKIE. Do you think a given manufacturer could produce automobiles meeting 50 standards?

Mr. WILLIAMS. I think Mr. Jensen, the next witness, would be better able to answer that question than I would.

Senator MUSKIE. I just wanted to get that in the record.

Mr. WILLIAMS. In Los Angeles County, where the State of California has jurisdiction over automobiles, it is already recognized that the proposed Federal standards of 275 parts per million (p.p.m.) of hydrocarbon, and 1.5 percent of carbon monoxide are not adequate to control emissions from motor vehicles. Even a reduction to 180 p.p.m. hydrocarbon and 1 percent carbon monoxide, which is belatedly being programed by the State for 1970, is not regarded as the ultimate required by the seriousness of our problem.

For these reasons, then, I suggest that the legislation be amended in such a way as to leave unmistakable the intent of the Federal occupancy of the field is not exclusive, and that a power remains in the States to enact and enforce standards that are more restrictive, but not standards that are less restrictive.

As I understand the present proposals, the means of controlling emissions are to be applied to new cars at the point of manufacture. If it should turn out that used vehicles are also to be brought under control, then installations should be limited to those made by dealers at the time of resale. Installers should be closely policed and carefully qualified.

It is also advisable to provide for a continuing review and reappraisal of the Federal standards, with the objective of increasing their stringency to keep pace with improvements in control techniques, such as those which may evolve as the industry meets progressively more demanding State standards.

I would also suggest that the purchasing standard of the Federal Government be geared to the most stringent State emission standards, rather than to the lesser nationwide minimum standard.

In other words, the Federal Government should buy only the best controlled vehicles that can be produced, not merely the minimum quality. This will enable Federal vehicles to move freely among the States without danger of ever violating any motor vehicle standard. This will also have the beneficial effect of increasing the pressure for better vehicles and of stimulating competition among the manufacturers. Those who produce the best controlled vehicles will have access to Federal business, while a laggard in reducing vehicle emissions will find himself barred from competing for these sales.

We have had such a policy in Los Angeles County, and it has had precisely this effect, The impact of a Federal policy should reach even further, because of the publicity attendant upon placement in a status of being unacceptable to the Federal Government. The net effect should be to drive down the level of motor vehicle emissions at the fastest possible rate.

In regard to the crankcase emission standard, I suggest that the requirement be for 100-percent control of these emissions, rather than as set forth in the draft. California now requires 100-percent control, and the industry has produced millions of cars to this standard. Therefore, there seems to be no reason for not setting the Federal standards as "no blowby emissions."

In regard to the diesel provisions of Senate bill 306, paragraph 3, section 6, does not seem clear as to whether the regulation of diesel emissions would apply only to vehicles manufactured after the date of the legislation, or would apply to vehicles already in use before that date. Under some circumstances, it may be reasonable to apply these requirements to existing vehicles, and suitable wording should be inserted to provide for this.

In summary of our views on standards, we approve and endorse the bills and their purposes, and suggest the following changes:

1. That the Federal standards be described as minimum, not maximum.

2. That the States retain power to enact standards that are more stringent, but not to enact standards that are less stringent than the Federal standards.

3. That the Federal purchasing standards be those of the strictest State.

4. That the Federal standard for crankcase emission be 100 percent control, or "no emission."

5. That provision be made to apply the standards for diesel emissions to existing vehicles, rather than only to those manufactured after the date of the legislation.

6. That provision be made for a continuing review and reappraisals of the Federal standards.

Senator MUSKIE. May I interrupt at this point?

Note the contrast between your testimony and that of Secretary Quigley. The Secretary made the point that we do not have the knowledge to send out the kind of language set out at the bill at this time. We ought to wait for more experience.

You tell us that the California experience indicates that on the basis of experience, the standards in the bill are not strict enough in terms of today's know-how.

Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes, sir. An obvious conflict of testimony.

Senator MUSKIE. I just want to make that point on the record.

Mr. WILLIAMS. Last summer the National Association of Counties adopted the following amendment to the American county platform, our official policy statement:

The National Association of Counties recommends initiation and acceleration of a national research program to provide for improved and economic methods of solid waste collection, storage processing, and disposal, including land reuse; to provide technical assistance to States; to provide financial assistance on a matching basis to assist in the establishment of demonstration projects; and to provide for training and professional and technical personnel.

We therefore strongly support the proposal to provide grants for the construction of facilities which are designed to eliminate air pollution resulting from the disposal of solid waste.

At this point, I request that a statement by William J. Phillips, supervisor of Orange County, Calif., and chairman of NAC's Water and Air Pollution Control Committee, be made a part of the record. His statement discusses the cost and magnitude of this problem of solid waste disposal in one county, and demonstrates the need of a Federal program to aid our local governments in this area.

Senator MUSKIE. It will be included in the record at this point. (The statement referred to follows:)

STATEMENT OF SUPERVISOR WILLIAM J. PHILLIPS, COUNTY OF ORANGE, CALIF., CHAIRMAN, WATER AND AIR POLLUTION COMMITTEE, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES AND CHAIRMAN, AIR POLLUTION COMMITTEE, COUNTY SUPERVISORS ASSOCIATION OF CALIFORNIA

Gentlemen, we in Orange County, Calif., have pioneered solid waste disposal through sanitary land fill. Areas of land that are generally considered useless, such as canyons and ravines, or areas of high flood hazard, soil erosion and fire hazard, are purchased or leased by the county for a very small fee. Through a system of transfer stations located at points far away from our disposal sites, solid wastes are collected from private trash companies and transported to the disposal sites in large 22-ton trucks by the county. At the disposal site, roads are built by the county into the site; water is provided for the scientific, sanitary

46-378-65--7

land fill. The trash is covered immediately to cut down on any infectious flies and insects, and of course flood control is provided. As the disposal site is filled, land is reclaimed and sold or leased to adjoining communities for recreational uses at half its appraised value, or to private individuals under sealed bids. The larger pieces of reclaimed land will be kept by the county for use in our master plan of regional parks. These will be pieces of land of over 100 acres that will become available as our program progresses.

Each man, woman, and child in Orange County disposes 4 pounds of solid wastes a day, or the equivalent of 803,000 tons a year. By utilizing our sanitary land fill methods, we have been able to stop the resultant air sewerage of the 803.000 tons each year. In addition to the abatement of air pollution resulting from the burning of solid waste, Orange County will reclaim 1,346 acres of unusable land. Presently, 184 acres have been developed for recreational and commercial uses; 118 additional acres being reclaimed but undeveloped. We are currently using 1,044 acres for active disposal sites.

The cost per ton of our solid waste disposal program, including land acquisition, administration, and cost of equipment, runs at $2.20, resulting in a tax rate of about 7 cents per $100 assessed valuation. This means that the average taxpayer will pay $3 per year in taxes, and about $18 a year to private disposal companies (total cost $21) to have all his solid wastes disposed of. In addition, we have cut our air pollution problem tremendously, reclaimed unusable land, and provided for recreational and commercial developments at virtually no cost to the taxpayer.

In the realm of air pollution control devices on gas- and diesel-powered vehicles being controlled by the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare. great care must be taken so as not to interfere with States which may require more stringent controls. For example, the combined total of vehicles in the counties of Los Angeles and Orange numbered 4% million; with each car emitting 6 pounds of carbon monoxide, 0.3 pounds of nitrous of oxide and 1.1 pounds of hydrocarbons per day. This is equivalent to 2 gallons of gasoline being emitted by each car per day, or 9 million gallons of gasoline being spewed into the air every day. Quite obviously, we have a problem unique from other parts of the United States, and must require very stringent emission standards. However, requiring compulsory emission standards throughout the Nation will make great strides in the eventual abatement of our national air pollu tion problem and should be applied as soon as possible.

Because of Orange County's great stride in the solid waste disposal program, and because of the unique problem of southern California relative to automobiles and air pollution, I wholeheartedly support and urge the passage of Senate bill 306, with the reservation that our California State emission requirements will not be infringed upon if they are higher than that of the Federal Government.

Mr. WILLIAMS. Thank you.

We should like to make two further points with respect to the proposed amendment. With regard to the establishment of a Federal Air Pollution Control Laboratory, we are pleased to support this provision, as it is currently included in the platform of this association, and we believe that such a facility is essential to an effective prosecution of the research associated with the problem of air pol lution.

The problem of motor vehicle inspection is one which requires serious consideration by the States. Currently, less than half of the States have such programs, and, in many cases, they are limited in scope and effectiveness.

We support the need for improved motor vehicle inspection programs by the States, and such programs should include provisions relating to vehicle emission control systems. We believe that such effective motor vehicle inspection systems will promote the safety, health, and welfare of all of our citizens.

Prior to closing, we would like to express our concern with the fact that the funds made available under the provisions of section

« PreviousContinue »