HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Statement 1982/04/13 Item 10COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
ITEM TITL
SUBMITTED BY:
Item 1 e
Meeting Date 4/13/82
Resolution ~a8~/- Supporting House Resolution 252, the Vento-Lewis
Clean Air Resolution
City Attorney
(4/5ths Vote: Yes No_~)
The City Council at its meeting of April 6, 1982
accepted the recommendation of the City Manager to
endorse House Resolution 252, the Vento-Lewis Clean
Air Resolution.
RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the Resolution
BOARD/COMMISSION RECOA'u`'~NDATION : N/A
DISCUSSION:
The City Council has continuously supported the basic
principles of the Clean Air Act of 1970 and now views
with alarm the attempts of any political industrial
coalitions to destroy the protection provided by the
Clean Air Act.
We received a very solid statement of support from
Ofelia Duncan of the San Diego Clean Air Coalition to
endorse House Resolution 252, the Vento-Lewis Clean
Air Resolution, which was certainly impressive coming
from those who value not only the lives of our citizens,
but the quality of life that we enjoy.
., .~.z,.~.,,._
:.
~. ~ , . ~ ~~
P_
- /~3
Form A-113 (Rev. 11/79)
uo pa~~~wgns payo~~~y ~1N3Wp~0a ~d1N3WN0~IAN3 aay~0
~s~~ uo~~eo~~~~oN ~p~d aou~u~pap x uo~~n~osaa ~uawaau6d
SITATNX3
T0:
FROM:
onorable Mayor and City Council
hula Vista, California
~Gt,
DATE: March 25, 1982 ;~,,~
felia Duncan, San Diego Clean Air Coalition
ndorsement of douse Resolution 252,
he Vento-Lewis Clean Air Resolution
~~
nclosed please find a copy of ~-252 and additional materials
rovided by various groups in the San Diego Clean Air Coalition
hick may deepen your knowledge of the future of the auality
f our air in San Diego County.
e are asking cities in this county to endorse the Vento-
ewis Clean Air Resolution HR-252. '.ire believe that your
upport will not only show your commitment toward providing
lean and healthy air auality for all, but that you.will
lso spur others in the community to take a more active
ole in resolving air polution problems. Ule cannot under-
stimate the urgency of public awareness of necessary action
o ensure the healthful quality of our air. As community
eaders your role is essential in helping create that public
wareness.
the fact that people are not as conscious as they could be
of poor air quality is, in a way, understandable. Unless
we personally experience difficulty taking air in, we are
not fully cognizant of the act of breathing--at least not
in the same way that we are of the act of drinking water.
If we were to ingest water polluted to the degree that our
air often is, we would never stand for it. Our society
accepts much tighter standards for drinking water than for
the air we hreathe. This is particularly ironic when you
consider that, on the average, a person will ingest up to
two litres of water per day and will breathe from `7,000 to
25,000 litres of air each day. In addition, the respiratory
system is often more efficient in absorbing pollutants into
the blood stream.
Even though San Diego is not in attainment with Clean Air
standards, it_is interesting to note that, according to a
recent SANDAG survey, 6'7°~0 of the respondents think our
air quality is excellent or good; however, they de not
want it to get any worse: Nearly 74?~ of these same people
think the Clean Air Act should be stricter or remain the
same--more than half wanting it stricter. Only '7^~ think it
should be less strict. The rest did not know.
Endorsing the Vento-Lewis Resolution merely echoes the
desire of your constituents to have clean air to breathe
and focuses attention on the need for positive action to
achieve t'rlat goal.
- 2 -
To: Honorable Mayor and Chula Vista 3/25/82
City Council
Re: Endorsement of House Resolution 252
~n7e would appreciate your prompt action on this matter.
Sincerely,
C.l/ -~
Ofelia Duncan
Encls.
Note 1. Steering Committee of the San Diego Clean Air Coalition:
American Lung Association of San Diego and Imperial Counti~
San Diego Audobon Society
League of Women Voters, San Diego County
Friends of the Earth
Sierra Club
Citizens Coordinate for Century 3
Note 2. The cities of Coronado, Del Mar, El Cajon and La Mesa
have already endorsed the Vento-Lewis Clean Air
Resolution HR-252.
pP-/0~3/
°°SMOG" IN SAN DIEGO
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT
Sou hern California's "smog" is legendary. Few people have not heard of it. But few understand
wha it is and what its effects can be. In San Diego County, the air pollutant of chief concern is
pho ochemical oxidant. What makes this pollutant so difficult to control is that it's not emitted
dire tly from tailpipes or smoke stacks. It's an end product, formed in the air from vehicle-and
stat onary-source emissions which react with sunlight (hence the term, "photochemical"). The main
ingr dients in the oxidant recipe are two gases, hydrocarbons and oxides of nitrogen. Since hun-
dre s of tons of these gases are spewed into our air every day and since we have an abundant supply
of s nshine most of the time, conditions for forming oxidant here are usually good. In addition,
and r occasianal wind and weather patterns, some of the oxidant formed in the Los Angeles area
find its way to San Diego.
Wh is oxidant important to control? There are many reasons, but the main factor is its negative
effe t on health. More than ninety per cent of oxidant is ozone, a toxin, unstable form of oxygen.
Ozo a can interfere with respiration and cause breathing difficulty, especially if a person is per-
for ing strenuous exercise. Other chemical compounds in the oxidant "mix" can cause burning
eye ,sore throat and mucous membrane irritation. Sensitivity to photochemical smog varies from
pers n to person, but it's been demonstrated that just about everyone experiences discomfort when
leve s reach 20 parts of ozone per hundred million parts of air (pphm) or more. It's at this level
that a "smog alert" is issued by the Air Pollution Control District. Local media are requested to
hel spread the word that the smog level is high and that people should stay indoors and avoid
stre uous exercise. Schools in the affected area are notified to stop outdoor physical education
and after-school sports activities. Taking it easy when the smog level is evaluated is good for every-
one but it's especially important for children, the elderly and anyone with a heart or lung problem.
We xperience alert-level smog on only 5 to 10 days each year in San Diego County, and normally
onl for 1 or 2 hours during those days. If these few days were the extent of our smog problem,
con ern about it might be small-but ozone can affect health and other aspects of living at levels
mu h lower than the alert. After considering a great deal of research including medical testimony
and studies of observed effects on humans, the federal government concluded that ozone levels of
12 phm or lower constitute "clean air". Levels above this standard indicate "dirty air", air which
ma have some adverse effect on health. Unlike the alert level, where nearly everyone experiences
disc mfort, exposure to lower levels of ozone affects fewer people and is more difficult to measure
pre isely. Studies are underway to try to determine effects of lower-level pollutant exposure in the
gen ral population over the course of many years' resident in an area. Does it shorten one's poten-
tial ifespan, make one more susceptible to infectious diseases? Are there more health care expenses,
mor frequent cleaning of clothes and washing of cars? The number of variables makes an accurate
pict re of costs in health and in dollars difficult to arrive at, but researchers believe that the cost of
dirt air over a lifetime is much higher than the cost of cleaning it up.
To ave truly clean air, the federal requirements allow the ozone standard to be exceeded an
ave ge of once a year. In San Diego County the standard is exceeded on about 60 to 90 days each
yea . Obviously we have a long way to go to achieve clean air. Recent amendments to the Federal
Cle n Air Act have given San Diego and areas like it until 1987 to bring oxidant levels down to the
stan ard. Federal monies for new sewerage and highway construction may be withheld if we do
not, since this type of construction would tend to induce growth in areas where smog is already a
pro lem.
io~3/
What kinds of attempts at smog control are we making? Since we can't do much about ozone
once it's formed, we have to concentrate on reducing the emissions that contribute to it. Emissions
from vehicles are controlled by the state, which operates the motor vehicle pollution control pro-
gram through the Air Resources Board. Emissions from stationary sources are the responsibility of
local air pollution control districts like San Diego County's. The most significant smog-forming
emissions are hydrocarbons, which are given off when fuel is incompletely burned, as in gasoline
engines, or are evaporated from gas tanks, carburetors and many petroleum-based solvents, thinners
and coatings. To reduce hydrocarbons in our air, the Board of Supervisors, which serves as the
County's Air Pollution Control Board, has adopted rules controlling the amount of allowable
emissions from the most sources of hydrocarbons within the County's borders. One of the most
well-publicized efforts to control hydrocarbons has been the gasoline vapor recovery program
at service stations.
No matter how stringent, however, rules by themselves will not clean up our air. Neither will
regulation of any one source, no,matter how significant. This is because our pollution comes from
many sources, both mobile and stationary, and is affected by many factors. In the past, environ-
mental problems were often addressed individually. The relationship of one problem to another
was not always perceived. Now we know that factors such as land use, transportation patterns,
energy scarcity and personal lifestyles are related to our pollution problems and must be part of the
solution. Recognizing this, in 1976 local governments responsible for air quality, land use and
transportation planning developed a plan for ozone control in San Diego County. Called the
Regional Air Quality Strategy (RAQS), the plan was adopted as a general policy statement by the
Board of Supervisors, the Board of the Comprehensive Planning Organization (CPO) and by most of
the city councils of the incorporated cities in the county. The RAOS will serve as the basis for a
comprehensive Air Quality Maintenance Plan (AOMP) required by the federal government. It
will address all of our air quality problems over the next several years.
With so much stress on solutions through new technology, stricter regulation and more compre-
hensive planning, is there anything an individual can do to help? Emphatically, yes. Much of the
energy shortage and many of our pollution problems are related to the demand for non-renewable
fuels. We have been accused of being "energy junkies", using gasoline, electricity and natural gas
as if they were in limitless supply. A conscious effort to drive less, combine routine errands, and
turn off lights and appliances when not in use will reduce pollutants and save energy. Keeping
vehicles well maintained, particularly the timing and carburetion, will decrease emissions and
increase miles per gallon. Using other forms of transportation such as mass transit or bicycles
conserves air quality and saves money. One of the most cost-effective ways to reduce air pollu-
tants is the car pool; by dialing 237-POOL, Commuter Computer (a free service) will match a
prospective carpooler with others in the same area who want to share a ride. Using water-based
paints and coatings where possible and not "topping off" gas tanks when filling up will also help
cut down the number of hydrocarbons escaping into our air.
The individual can' be a powerful force in affecting environmental laws and policies. Citizens can
participate in the decision-making process by attending public hearings, supporting environmental
legislation and expressing their concern to elected representatives and through letters to editors.
Being willing to vote for strict controls and to absorb some of the personal cost of cleaning the air
in dollars and lifestyle changes are among the most critical things a person can do. Informed and'
active citizens have been and hopefully will continue to be the backbone of the environmental
movement, both locally and nationwide.
APCD%1Q80
FATE OF THE CLEAN AIR ACT
IS ABOUT TO BE DECIDED:
S~EAK NOW OR FOREVER
HOLD YOUR BREATH!
Yo~ breathe 17,000 times each and every day.
and think...
the air you breathe clean? Does it just look clean when actually, the air
en ring your lungs is contaminated by dangerous chemicals? Does it make
se se that the very breath you take may be causing you physical harm?
O. It does not make sense, and that is why Congress passed the Clean
Ai Act in 1970. This law protects us by placing limits on certain emissions
fr industrial plants, automobiles, and other sources. In 1978 alone, the
la saved 14,000 lives, as well as $21 million in health, property, crops and
of er materials:
ow, industry lobbyists and the Reagan Administration have launched a
m ssive campaign to destroy this protection by gutting the Clean Air Act.
U less we act, we will have more cancer, more heart and lung disease, more
la es killed by acid rain, more smog, and increasingly dirty air everywhere.
THREAT OF AIR POLLUTION
illions of Americans live in places where the air is dangerously polluted. The primary sources of
thi pollution are the combustion of materials at industrial and power plants, and emissions from
mo or vehicles. This pollution adds appreciably to the death toll from cancer, lung disease and heart
a ks. Studies show that areas around certain polluting factories are often cancer "hot spots."
S ngent pollution controls in our large polluted cities must be maintained. We must also
ma ntain limits on pollution in areas which are still relatively clean, or the air quality in those
are s may deterioriate to that of our dirtiest industrial cities.
it pollution travels. Acid rain for example, which is formed by the combination in the atmosphere
of ertain common pollutants, falls to earth often hundreds of miles away. It has been measured in all
par of the country and has already destroyed life in thousands of lakes in the U.S. and Canada. We
m t take steps to stop acid rain.
of the President's Council on Environmental Quality.
~~~~i
THE CLEAN AIR ACT HAS WORKED.
Although problems of air pollution are nowhere near solved, the Clean Air Act has proven
effective. Emissions of nitrogen oxides, for example, have been reduced by 40% over the past 10
years.
Here's how the law works: The Clean Air Act requires the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to set
standards limiting the amount of pollutants in our air. Each state then develops and carries out its own plan for
achieving the federal standards within deadlines set by the law. Costs are considered when choosing control
strategies to meet the standards. When the EPA sets health standards, it sets them at levels that are supposed to
provide an ample margin of safety for the health of sensitive individuals like the very young, very old, or those
with disorders such as asthma.
In places where the standards have not yet been met, new plants can be built if pollution is kept to a minimum
and is offset by a reduction in emissions from another source in the area. This policy allows industrial growth
while maintaining progress toward clean air.
In areas where the air already meets the standards, the Prevention of Significant Deterioration Program (PSD)
keeps the air clean. In national park areas, for example, no appreciable increase in pollution is allowed. In other
areas substantial growth of new factories is allowed, but stringent pollution requirements must be met.
The Clean Air Act also requires the auto industry to control pollution from cars, trucks and buses -the
sources which contribute most heavily to air pollution in urban areas.
CLEAN AIR AND THE ECONOMY:
FACTS ~ FICTION
Opponents of a strong Clean Air Act repeatedly charge that stringent pollution controls
are incompatible with a healthy economy. The facts simply do not support this rhetoric.
Accusation: Auto emission regulations have seriously
hurt the American automobile industry.
Fact: The National Commission on Air Quality
concluded that factors such as interest rates, petroleum
prices and foreign competition, and not pollution
requirements, are responsible for the problems of the
U.S. auto industry.
Accusation: The Clean Air Act causes inflation.
Fact: The National Commission on Air Quality, a
congressionally mandated multi-year study of the
Clean Air Act, concluded: "The effect of the Act's
requirements on national economic indicators
(inflation and GNP) has not been significant."
Accusation: Federal pollution control requirements
have thrown thousands of people out of work.
Fact: The EPA this year concluded: "Jobs are created
in the pollution control industry and in all industries to
operate and maintain pollution equipment and
facilities. By 1987, there (will be) a net increase of
524,000 additional jobs as a result of pollution
controls."
But the-most important fact is: 80% of the American people want the Clean Air Act
protected and strengthened (Harris Poll Survey, September 1981). Mr. Louis Harris himself said
this huge majority in favor of strong pollution control is "as clear-cut as anything I have ever seen in
my professional career."
It is important for our elected representatives to get this basic message. Despite the efforts of
industry and the Reagan Administration a tide of general public support can persuade your
representative and senators to reject any weakening of the law.
5569 Lakewood Dr.,
San Diego Clean Air Coalition La Mesa, California 92041
~'-i6~/