Agencies Slow to Accept New Smog Detector : Pollution: Backers say remote sensor is cheaper, more efficient than current vehicle-checking system. Some officials are beginning to agree.
Donald Stedman, a peppery chemistry professor at the University of Denver, thought his “remote sensing” smog-fighting device would be instantly acclaimed, accepted and placed in service--the ultimate weapon in the fight against vehicle-borne air pollution.
But he discovered that building a better mousetrap is one thing, and getting federal and state bureaucrats to use it is quite another.
Stedman’s machine employs what is called infrared spectroscopy in roadside tests to detect vehicles with excessively high carbon monoxide (CO) or hydrocarbon (HC) readings--in much the same way a radar gun nabs speeders.
Stedman contends, and many other smog researchers agree, that more than 50% of the pollutants come from no more than 10% of the 23 million vehicles registered in California. The professor believes his device can find these “gross polluters” much faster and cheaper than the state’s $600-million-a-year smog check program.
California “should abolish smog check and adopt my system,” said Stedman, whose supreme self-confidence sometimes irritates both friend and foe. “If they did, they’d save a lot of money and the air would be cleaner.”
He has some strong supporters in the scientific community.
“There is no doubt about the general value of this device,” said John H. Seinfeld, professor of chemical engineering at Caltech and a national air pollution expert. “The people who are still complaining about it are just dragging their feet. It has been shown to my satisfaction, and I think to most scientists’ satisfaction, that it is effective and accurate and should be a part of any future program.”
Seinfeld also raised a larger issue.
“One of the things this thing has shown is that the inspection and maintenance system--the smog check system--isn’t very good and that we should be doing things in a totally different way.”
Because mobile sources such as cars and trucks account for more than half of the pollution in the South Coast Basin, a better vehicle inspection system is desirable.
But smog-fighting agencies, including the federal Environmental Protection Agency, the state Air Resources Board and the South Coast Air Quality Management District, have been slow to accept remote sensing.
In the last year or so, the position of officials has changed from outright opposition to partial acceptance, but they still raise many objections to the devices, which have been developed by General Motors and by Hughes Optical, as well as by Stedman. At best, remote sensing has been assigned a marginal role in the effort to clean the air.
“I’m aware that there are a lot of evangelists out there, people who have been converted by a good sales pitch,” said R. J. Sommerville, chairman of the statewide committee of experts that oversees smog-fighting efforts for the Legislature. “But my view is that (remote sensing) needs to be designed and tested and worked into a future overall program, not pulled out and used separately right away.”
Mike Nazemi, planning manager for the AQMD, said the district might consider a pilot program this year but does not plan wholesale introduction of remote sensing technology.
State Sen. Robert Presley (D-Riverside), probably the most influential legislator on air pollution issues, said: “We need to take a very cautious approach. We need to look at (remote sensing) a little more before we know if it can be used effectively.”
But Stedman and others insist that the device, which has been used to test more than 5 million vehicles in recent years, has proven its worth.
During a demonstration outside the state library here recently, only three “gross polluters” were identified out of 100 vehicles that drove through Stedman’s infrared beam. But those three were emitting more carbon monoxide than 60 other “very clean” cars combined, he said.
Last summer, in a test of 60,000 vehicles traveling along Rosemead Boulevard in Los Angeles County, 300 were identified by remote sensing devices as “gross polluters,” Stedman said, and when these cars were pulled over, 92% of them proved to be just that.
A spokesman for the ARB, which sponsored the test, said the agency has not analyzed the results of the Rosemead study.
Stedman and his supporters also contend that remote sensing is far more cost-effective than the state’s system of periodic smog checks.
The professor said his device can test more than 1,000 cars an hour, at a cost of about 50 cents per car, compared to the longer time and average $30 cost of California’s smog inspections.
Los Angeles County Dist. Atty. Ira Reiner would like to use remote sensing to catch people who tamper with smog devices; they fix the devices to pass the test every other year, then return their cars to a smog-producing condition.
Deputy Dist. Atty. Joseph P. Charney said 40% of the grossly polluting vehicles pulled over during last summer’s Rosemead study had emissions systems that had been tampered with.
Charney said the district attorney’s office wants to fine deliberate tamperers at least $300 and require them to repair the emissions systems, no matter what the cost.
If remote sensing is inexpensive and technically sound, and if it would quickly identify many of the dirtiest vehicles on the road, why has acceptance been slow?
An ARB report to the Legislature last December said remote sensing devices pick up carbon monoxide emissions but do not measure two other important pollutants: hydrocarbons and oxides of nitrogen, or NOX.
However, Stedman replied that his device measures hydrocarbons almost as accurately as carbon monoxide. ARB now acknowledges that he is correct. The professor also pointed out that there is no test for NOX emissions from tailpipes.
The ARB report also criticized remote sensing for its inability to spot “evaporative emissions”--those that do not emerge from the tailpipe but are caused by such things as a leaking gas cap, a cracked hose or parking the car on a sun-baked lot.
Again, Stedman responded, no other test measures evaporative emissions.
ARB spokesman Bill Sessa said the agency’s researchers have found that remote sensors often falsely identify vehicles as gross polluters if they are starting up or if they are accelerating or decelerating, not running at a steady speed. Stedman acknowledged the problem but called it “not major.”
Some critics have raised a “big brother” objection to stopping heavily polluting cars on the road or freeway.
“If we allow law enforcement officers to stop polluting vehicles, does that mean they can search the vehicles, too?” asked a legislative staffer who works with civil liberties issues.
Another, perhaps more serious problem, is that many of the “gross polluters” are old cars that belong to poor people.
“That’s a bigger issue and a problem that we’re going to have to deal with,” said Larry L. Berg, an AQMD board member. “As we move to clean up the air, we could be placing an undue burden on people with low incomes.”
Beyond technical and social considerations, some believe that the smog inspection system is kept in place by entrenched bureaucrats as much as anything else.
The ARB employs 815 people and has an annual budget of $93 million. The Bureau of Automotive Repair, which supervises the smog check program, employs more than 600 people and has an annual budget of $73 million.
“So many interests are involved, so many vested interests, when you cast doubt on the inspection system, you cause a lot of fear,” Berg said. Stephen Sayle, an aide to Rep. Joe Barton (R-Tex.), a strong supporter of remote sensing, said: “Basically, folks have invested to go in a certain direction and it’s awful hard for them to change.”
However, change does seem to be coming, partly because many believe remote sensing has been shown to be effective, partly because serious defects are showing up in the smog test program and partly because the inspection system probably cannot meet the stiffer federal standards that are coming.
“There was, at one time, a much broader difference of opinion about using remote sensing,” said ARB’s Sessa. “Now it’s more a question of figuring out how to use it.”
The Remote Smog Detector: How It Works
1) Vehicle passes through an infrared beam, across one lane of traffic.
2) A computer-controlled detector records carbon monoxide and hydrocarbon readings from the car’s exhaust tailpipe.
3) Simultaneously, a video camera takes a picture of the rear of the car, including its license plate.
4) License plate and emissions readings are displayed on a television screen monitored by operator.
5) If the readings exceed legal limits, the offending vehicle could be pulled over to be checked for a defect or a possible tampering of an emissions system. Or a warning letter could be sent to the vehicle’s registered owner.
