Smog Checks and Air Pollution

* The article by EPA Administrator Carol Browner regarding smog checks at service stations (Commentary, Sept. 9) says that “test-only facilities are convenient for motorists.”

I don’t know where Browner got her “facts,” but I remember distinctly several years ago when California vehicle owners had to go to test-only facilities for smog tests. The waiting line was always long in the San Fernando Valley.

Browner’s reasoning for advocating the return to test-only facilities for smog checks--that test equipment at many service stations has been found to be defective and that the average wait is 90 minutes--does not sound valid to me. What assurance do we have that the equipment at test-only facilities will be any better and that the average wait will not be two hours or longer?

Why can’t those responsible for inspecting the service station test equipment conduct more surprise audits and levy heavier fines on violators? This seems to be the most logical approach to me.

EUGENIO V. CORAZO

Granada Hills

* With reference to the federal smog fiasco (Big Sister knows best), I recently had a vehicle smog checked. I made an appointment with my favorite (and very competent) mechanic. The vehicle failed the test. After about 15 minutes of adjusting the timing and the carburetion and retesting, it passed. He suggested a top tune which I subsequently had done.

Contrast this with: an appointment for a smog check (a wait because some of the machines are not working and several employees have sick days that must be used); an appointment with my mechanic for the adjustments; another appointment for a smog check with the same delays.

Is there a provision for impeachment for stupidity (and I don’t mean the economy)?

WILLIAM L. SIBLEY

Northridge

* Smog checks need restructuring, and The Times has done a superb job of covering virtually all aspects of the smog check restructuring debate in its news, editorial and Op-Ed pages.

However, one important point not mentioned in your pieces is that a well-safeguarded decentralized program with rigorous state supervision possesses one key advantage. Each element of an improved system can be phased in over time, its effectiveness monitored and evaluated, and mid-course corrections implemented in ways that facilitate continuous quality improvement for the entire smog check system. For example, real time computer data links, programs to improve test-repair performance, anti-fraud efforts, modern information technology, enhanced random roadside surveys and remote sensing can all be introduced and evaluated in a step-wise phased fashion, even before new emissions test technology is introduced.

Contrast this with a completely new system that requires the virtual separation of test and repair. It might be years before such a system could be implemented and properly evaluated.

Everything we know about total quality management and continuous quality improvement suggests that a properly managed, phased-in approach is more likely to be successful. But success will require more than safeguards in the test/repair process. It must also entail public education, mentoring of mechanics, identifying and repairing gross polluting vehicles, and rethinking every element of the entire smog check system.

JEROME AROESTY

LIONEL GALWAY

RAND, Santa Monica

* I just moved back to California after three years in Oregon. Smog inspections are done at state-operated stations there. A typical wait is 15 minutes. One drives up to the booth, hands the operator $10, and the test is done in about three minutes. Very well-trained personnel and very convenient. Here in Camarillo, I made two trips to service stations, with appointments, waited 45 minutes and still don’t have my car checked. The first man didn’t know how to use his new equipment and the second failed to show. Give me the Oregon system.

But the weather is significantly better here in Camarillo.

JOE CONLEY

Camarillo

* Your editorial (Sept. 6) about the Air Quality Management District set me to thinking. Instead of harassing businesses, the AQMD ought to be targeting automobiles, the largest contributors to air pollution. AQMD officials should think about raising the gas tax by a dollar or two--that kind of tax will get commuters to really think about car-pooling and riding the bus; use the extra income from the gas tax to subsidize alternate energy sources, which are non-polluting and renewable; raise the age to obtain a driver’s license to 18 or having a high school diploma.

AQMD gives me the impression it would rather fight with businesses than attack the major source of air pollution.

MASSE BLOOMFIELD

Canoga Park