From the issue dated March 10, 1993
PORTRAIT
Taking on the Tail Pipe -- and the EPA
By Peter Monaghan
Donald H. Stedman says it stinks.
He means both the gunk that comes out of automobile tail pipes -- the subject of his research -- and the trouble he's having getting the country to adopt his methods for reducing it.
Mr. Stedman, a professor of chemistry at the University of Denver, has been tirelessly hounding officials of the Environmental Protection Agency since 1986, telling them he has a better, simpler way of combating harmful vehicle emissions. His system is simply an infrared-light beam sensor linked to a video camera. At highway on-ramps or other locations, it spots "gross polluters" -- the few vehicles that cause most of the problems -- and snaps pictures of their license plates. The vehicles can later be called in for repair.
The technology has many converts, from members of Congress to state environmental officials. But people at the EPA say the technique hasn't been proved, and they are sticking to the present method of testing each vehicle.
A feisty, transplanted Englishman whose spirited lobbying is sharpened by mischievous wit, Mr. Stedman insists his system works. He and his colleagues just completed a study in Provo, Utah, in which they used remote sensing to identify cars that were gross polluters, notified their owners, and even repaired the cars free of charge. He began studying his technology in the mid-1970's, after working for the Ford Motor Company.
Mr. Stedman says he knows what's behind the federal government's opposition to remote sensing. "This invention really attacks a problem on which billions of dollars are being spent, and when billions are being spent, lots of vested interests are involved."
For years the EPA has required cities to use a gauge to check emissions from the tail pipes of idling cars. The tests, which generally must be completed on cars every two years, are paid for by vehicle owners and support thousands of inspectors at service stations and testing facilities across the country.
In 1990, Congress amended the Clean Air Act, giving states a menu of approaches to choose from to maintain emissions standards. Instead of the tail-pipe tests, the EPA is now encouraging cities to use a computerized treadmill to test the emissions from all vehicles.
The EPA awards credits to cities for various approaches to reducing pollution. Cities earn the most credit for requiring emissions testing using the treadmills. They earn some for requiring the use of alternative fuels, and none for using remote sensing. Federal highway funds are linked to the credits.
"The EPA's interpretation of the requirements of the Clean Air Act is a kick in the teeth for remote sensing," says Mr. Stedman.
The agency prefers treadmill, or dynamometer, testing to the old tail-pipe monitoring because tail-pipe tests check only idling vehicles. Cars can test fine, then belch smog while driving the roads. The treadmill test checks vehicles as they run at various speeds. But the method requires that every owner go to a test station for a procedure that takes at least 15 minutes.
"The dynamometer," objects Mr. Stedman, "is a valuable diagnostic tool, but it's hardly valuable to test every car with it." He says a small percentage of cars cause most of the problems, adding that his studies have shown that only 8 per cent of cars cause more than half of all automobile pollution.
Mr. Stedman reasons that by catching the few gross polluters and encouraging them to correct problems, usually with a simple tune-up, air quality can be greatly improved for far less money and time than the current method requires. He says that a handful of remote sensors could be placed at random points throughout a city. In Nevada, where remote sensing is being tested, state officials estimate that the tests would cost about 50 cents a car and that one device could check 1,000 cars an hour. The dynamometer check, by contrast, costs a vehicle owner roughly $10, and an inspector can check, at most, 10 cars an hour.
But the EPA argues that while remote sensing works well in detecting carbon monoxide, it does less well with the two other major pollutants, hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides. Says Jane Armstrong, an official in charge of the EPA's emissions-control strategies: "Don likes to emphasize the `look at the lazy bureaucrats' aspect. The EPA is saying, `The science isn't proven."'
Still, Mr. Stedman has an increasing number of converts. Rep. Joseph Barton, a Texas Republican, managed to include a provision in the Clean Air Act requiring states at least to consider using Mr. Stedman's methods. (Mr. Stedman convinced Mr. Barton that remote sensing was worthwhile after the professor traveled to Washington and performed the tests on cars that passed outside a Congressional office building.)
Six states are planning limited use of remote sensing and law-enforcement officials in Los Angeles have piloted the technique as a way of catching car owners who tamper with emissions-control equipment.
Mr. Stedman takes pride in the fact that he doesn't add much pollution to the air. He leaves his 1976 Volkswagen bus at home each day, puffing and panting his way to work on a bicycle.
He is, however, far from an anti-automobile ideologue. "Getting the individual to believe it's sinful to drive his car at all is a gross misuse of the scientific data," he says.
Copyright © 1993 by The Chronicle of Higher Education
