S.C. might require auto emissions testsFederal pollution limit could prompt annual inspections By Bo Petersen (Contact)
The Post and Courier
Friday, June 13, 2008
South Carolina doesn't require vehicle exhaust inspections, but they could be on the horizon for Charleston motorists if the area doesn't start meeting a new federal ozone standard. If the area fails to meet the standard by 2010, owners could be forced to have their cars and trucks tested by a mechanic once a year. A machine would check if exhaust pollutants were being cleaned up enough. Such tests already are required in about half of North Carolina's counties at a cost of $30 per vehicle. If a motorist's vehicle fails the test, he has to get the problem fixed. The Charleston area is at 74 parts per billion of ozone in its air, just below the 75 parts per billion threshold that will have to be met starting in less than two years. Vehicle emissions testing would be required in areas that are deemed to be "moderately" above the standard, said Brian Barnes, S.C. Health and Environmental Control air quality environmental manager. Failing to meet the standard also eventually could mean losing millions of dollars per year in federal money to build new roads. The Environmental Protection Agency will decide the meaning of "moderately" above the standard in 2010. In the meantime, commuter and commercial traffic continues to increase in the Charleston area, with major expansions of Interstates 26 and 526 under way or in the planning stages. The I-26 work alone, designed partly to accommodate an expansion of the port, is expected to put 10,000 more vehicles per day on the road. Ozone is the chief greenhouse gas, created largely by sunlight reacting with pollutants from cars and trucks. It's considered a major health threat. A recent analysis by The Post and Courier suggested that when looked at as a single emissions source, vehicles would rank as one of the biggest polluters in the Lowcountry. The exhaust tests would be part of a multi-approach plan the EPA demands that failing states put together to try to meet the standard. If Charleston doesn't go too far over the limit, DHEC likely would submit a plan that doesn't include testing, Barnes said. Testing "is a very unpopular thing. It's an expensive thing. We would use the smartest approach to get the area back in attainment." Under the old 80 parts per billion standard, the tests were required in areas that were 10 percent above the limit. But decisions were made on a case-by-case basis. Winning EPA approval of plans without vehicle testing depends on how big a polluter vehicles are considered to be relative to other polluters in the area, said Elizabeth Ouzts of Environment North Carolina, a clean air advocate in that state. "In most cases," she said, "you're going to have to reduce pollutants from cars." The plan also could include projects such as road construction with carpool lanes, bicycle and pedestrian friendly developments and no-idling zones, as well as industrial reductions. |
Article tools |
|
Notice about comments: Charleston.net is pleased to offer readers the ability to comment on stories. We expect our readers to engage in lively, yet civil discourse. Charleston.net does not edit user submitted statements and we cannot promise that readers will not occasionally find offensive or inaccurate comments posted in the comments area. Responsibility for the statements posted lies with the person submitting the comment, not charleston.net. If you find a comment that is objectionable, please click "suggest removal" and we will review it for possible removal. Please be reminded, however, that in accordance with our Terms of Use and federal law, we are under no obligation to remove any third party comments posted on our website. Full terms and conditions can be read here. |
Comments
This article has 24 comment(s)
Posted by ForPnC on June 13, 2008 at 3:38 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I moved here a couple of years ago. (Love it here!) I've wondered why there aren't mandatory inspections on vehicles. There are a lot of deathtraps out there. If a person can't afford to do basic maintenance on a car to keep it safe then they shouldn't be driving.
As for emissions testing, what about diesel vehicles? I have a gas car and a diesel truck. Are we going to have to pay $30 for someone to stand beside the truck while it's started up? Just to hear them say "Yep, that's a diesel all right." Just to get a sticker that says "exempt?" I know states that do this.
I don't mind inspections. They're needed in some cases. I don't mind emissions testing as long as they don't screw the diesel owners.
Posted by Halcyon on June 13, 2008 at 6:22 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I also moved here from a state that required yearly emissions testing and yearly safety inspections for vehicles over 3 model years old. I don't really have a problem with emissions testing, it's the safety inspections I have an issue with. The way the inspection law is written in NY, the shops have you by the balls when it comes to repairs.
For example, it will say "inspect brakes." Your brakes might be mechanically sound, but the shop will tell you that you need new pads to pass inspection. You're really screwed if you happen to take your car in with an expired inspection. The first thing they do is scrape the sticker off the window if it's already expired and then if you fail, you ride around with no sticker, just begging for a ticket.
Posted by Charles_Town on June 13, 2008 at 7:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I would have no problem with vehicle inspections.
Posted by desspec on June 13, 2008 at 8:09 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Start with all the obviously-not-just-bought paper-tagged vehicles on the road ... to all who "don't mind", when was the last time you volunteered to have your vehicles inspected? You are "free" to do so at present.
Posted by 1963 on June 13, 2008 at 8:13 a.m. (Suggest removal)
We used to have inspections on vehicles but was dropped in the 90s. Lots of wrecks running the roads around here. But I think when the state dropped inspections is was required of individuals to keep their cars in good repair and if not I believe you can get a ticket for excessive smoke emmissions and broken window glass.
Posted by Early on June 13, 2008 at 8:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Damn, there goes my Electra 225!
Posted by ColdBeer on June 13, 2008 at 8:29 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I have an auto emission about 6:30 every morning.... It's very easy if you have a good diet.
Posted by ln1959 on June 13, 2008 at 8:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Damn Early, thats what I took my road test in. I tell you, it was hard parallel parking. ha ha ha
Posted by beth1070 on June 13, 2008 at 8:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The vehicle inspections that SC used to require were such a joke. I knew so many people who never really had their cars inspected, they just knew somebody who owned a service station, they'd pay the fee and be handed a sticker to put in the windshield of their vehicle. It was such a corrupt business that lined the pockets of many people, especially service station owners. I'm in favor of getting these smelly, air contaminating clunkers off the road, but it needs to be better regulated than it once was. I think that the price of gas will be more effective at getting these air polluting cars off the road. Pretty soon even the new car owners won't be able to afford to drive.
Posted by Early on June 13, 2008 at 9:05 a.m. (Suggest removal)
In1959, what an awesome vehicle, I really to love to look at them. Wish they made them like that again! I like the older Monte Carlos also.
Yea, they drove like a tank. I took my road test in a 67 Camaro, that was relatively easy!
Posted by Weeeee on June 13, 2008 at 9:33 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Eh I support more than simple emissions testing. In fact, I think SC should have mandatory vehicle inspections. You KNOW there's something wrong when you see a car driving around without a hood or doors missing. Come on.
Posted by ColdBeer on June 13, 2008 at 9:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I've always been amazed that the quality of most cars in SC is as good as it is. I would think that with no testing, things would be a lot worse. When we had testing in the 80's, I saw many more peices of crap on the road than I usually do now.
Posted by Weeeee on June 13, 2008 at 9:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)
CB, that just goes to show money is to be made by corrupt stations that hand out stickers for cash.
Posted by Thomas1776 on June 13, 2008 at 11:23 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Motorcycles and boats will have to comply also. That's just the way it's going to have to be.
When you drive in heavy traffic, there is no way to escape being poisoned by what you are breathing in (thanks to so much growth and the cutting away and never ending destruction of mother natures natural filters).
Man is doomed by his own doing no matter what. But of course we can just say it's not "our" fault and let someone else be concerned about it. When you are dead and gone, it can't hurt you anymore.
Posted by singleroni on June 13, 2008 at 11:46 a.m. (Suggest removal)
LOOK AT THE TRACTOR TRAILER TRUCKS THEY GIVE OFF MORE EMISSION THAN A DOZEN CARS BUT WILL BE EXEMPT FROM THE LAW. BECAUSE OF WORK REQUIRED. WE NEED OUR CARS FOR WORK. SO WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE.. ARE YOU GOING TO TEST CARS AND TRUCKS COMING INTO CHARLESTON. REMEMBER ALL OF THE TOURIST WHO ARE CONTRIBUTING TO THE EMISSIONS? THIS IS JUST ANOTHER TAX DRAIN.
Posted by ColdBeer on June 13, 2008 at 11:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)
singleroni, The newer trucks are probably burning cleaner than our cars. The EPA has come down hard on diesel fuel engines. If you see smoke coming out the stacks of an 18 wheeler now-a-days, something is broke. Starting last year, the trucks had to be built with DPFs (similar to our catalytic converters) and there is another step reduction in emissions in 2010.
All of the trucks are already required to have an annual inspection that checks more than any car inspection I've ever seen. In addition to the annual inspection, the DOT routinely inspects trucks at the state run weigh stations.
Posted by ForPnC on June 13, 2008 at 3:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)
One thing a few of you are right about. Those inspection stations are full of nothing more than pure thieves. It was disgusting being at the mercy of legal stealing.
Posted by SCSIGirl2 on June 13, 2008 at 3:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I lived in SC years ago (and still pine for it!!) and I was amazed that I didn't have to get my car "smogged" as we call it here in CA. When I moved back, I couldn't bring the SC car because it had none of the equipment needed for smog (catalytic converter stuff I think). We haven't had "inspections" since I was a kid. Good luck SC!
PS Sure miss it there - hello Summerville, Hanahan, N Chas, Chas, and Moncks Corner!!!
Posted by PalmettoDP on June 13, 2008 at 4:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Then, after we have inspections, they'll say we're still not in compliance (or lower the compliance threshold) and add on even more fees. I would rather us just give up federal funding - but that will create a whole new set of problems.
Posted by drp7773 on June 13, 2008 at 4:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Georgia have these inspections, they will cost you about 35.00 a year, you will need to get one done every year and send a recipt of the passing grade to the tax place in ordeer to get your new sticker for your plate. If you fail it will be manatory to spend and this will go up an down but 150.00 to 250.00 on a repair to pass the test or you can not get your new tag. Nothing else will be inspected but your emissions. They will have facilities all over to do this. Any car 3 years or newer will be exempt and classic cars that were built before emission will be exempt.
Posted by katrenavantassle on June 13, 2008 at 4:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)
We had inspections on vehicles in SC about 20 yrs ago...they found out they were not doing any good and discontinued them...NOW THEY WANT THEM BACK>??? BS to me,
I say let the driver be held responsible and if he gets pulled over by law enforcement for driving a crappy piece of junk then let him get a big fine! Of course, that excludes me or my family...LOL!
Posted by luvmydogs59 on June 13, 2008 at 6:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The state where I used to live has vehicle inspections, no charge (well, that's not exactly accurate...they are paid for by taxes). Used to be once a year, but then was changed to what they call an "enhanced inspection", a nice term for sitting around longer (over 1/2 an hour) waiting for the people to inspect the cars. They changed to all new high tech equipment, blah, blah, blah. Only need to go every 2 years now. It wouldn't matter if it was once a month...the area that I lived in was a major metropolitan area and even with inspections, a lot of cars were spewing some nasty stuff. And since the introduction of the enhanced inspection, noone can go to their neighborhood garage and pay off the mechanic for a sticker. Ah...the good old days LOL.
I see so many cars, mostly older, spewing really nasty stuff out. I know cars can be stopped and ticketed, but you'll never find a LEO around at that time. I don't really care if they bring back inspections, but take it out of the taxes I pay (like my home state) and don't charge me extra for it.
Posted by rollo on June 13, 2008 at 8:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)
What a load of hooey. The article states as fact(without attribution or reference) that ozone is the "chief greenhouse gas". Yet I've always been told that the prob with ozone is that it tends to stay close to the ground! If it does not rise to the upper troposphere (the ceiling of the greenhouse) it cannot add to the greenhouse effect, which has never been established as working in the real world anyway.
If you listen to the Algore acolytes, CO2 is the chief greenhouse gas.
This is just more BS from DC and like most scams its' basis is a fear of some exaggerated danger.
Posted by rollo on June 13, 2008 at 10:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Ozone
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Ozone
IUPAC name Trioxygen
Identifiers
CAS number [10028-15-6]
Properties
Molecular formula O3
Molar mass 47.998 g·mol−1
Appearance bluish colored gas
Density 2.144 g·L−1 (0 °C), gas
Melting point
80.7 K, −192.5 °C
Boiling point
161.3 K, −111.9 °C
Solubility in water 0.105 g·100mL−1 (0 °C)
Thermochemistry
Std enthalpy of
formation ΔfHo298 +142.3 kJ·mol−1
Standard molar
entropy So298 237.7 J·K−1.mol−1
Hazards
EU classification not listed
Except where noted otherwise, data are given for
materials in their standard state
(at 25 °C, 100 kPa)
Infobox disclaimer and references
For other uses, see Ozone (disambiguation).
Ozone or trioxygen (O3) is a triatomic molecule, consisting of three oxygen atoms. It is an allotrope of oxygen that is much less stable than the diatomic O2. Ground-level ozone is an air pollutant with harmful effects on the respiratory systems of animals. Ozone in the upper atmosphere filters potentially damaging ultraviolet light from reaching the Earth's surface. It is present in low concentrations throughout the Earth's atmosphere. It has many industrial and consumer applications. Ozone, the first allotrope of a chemical element to be recognized by science, was proposed as a distinct chemical compound by Christian Friedrich Schönbein in 1840, who named it after the Greek word for smell (ozein), from the peculiar odor in lightning storms.[1][2] The formula for ozone, O3, was not determined until 1865 by Jacques-Louis Soret[3] and confirmed by Schönbein in 1867.
Ozone as a greenhouse gas
Although ozone was present at ground level before the industrial revolution, peak concentrations are now far higher than the pre-industrial levels and even background concentrations well away from sources of pollution are substantially higher.[20][21] This increase in ozone is of further concern as ozone present in the upper troposphere acts as a greenhouse gas, absorbing some of the infrared energy emitted by the earth. Quantifying the greenhouse gas potency of ozone is difficult as it is not present in uniform concentrations across the globe. However, the scientific review on the climate change (the IPCC Third Assessment Report[22]) suggests that the radiative forcing of tropospheric ozone is about 25% that of carbon dioxide.
I found this on Wikipedia, perhaps Bo Peterson should avail himself of some of the resources on the www.