United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on Publ.

Air pollution--1970. Hearings, Ninety-first Congress, second session, on S. 3229, S. 3466 [and] S. 3546 (Volume pt. 3) online

. (page 1 of 49)
Online LibraryUnited States. Congress. Senate. Committee on PublAir pollution--1970. Hearings, Ninety-first Congress, second session, on S. 3229, S. 3466 [and] S. 3546 (Volume pt. 3) → online text (page 1 of 49)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook


AIR POLLUTION— 1970

Parts



JOINT HEARINGS

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON
AIK AND WATER POLLUTION

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS

AND THE

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE

UNITED STATES SENATE

NINETY-FIKST CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION
ON

S. 3229, S. 3466, and S. 3546



MARCH 24 AND 25, 1970



Printed for the use of the Committees on Public Works and Commerce




AIR POLLUTION— 1970

Parts



JOINT HEARINGS

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON
AIE AND WATER POLLUTION

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS

AXD THE

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE

UNITED STATES SENATE

NINETY-FIRST CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION
ON

S. 3229, S. 3466, and S. 3546



MARCH 24 AND 25, 1970



Printed for the use of the Committees on Public Works and Commerce



U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
43-166 WASHINGTON : 1970



pt3



For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Washington, D.C. 20402 - Price $1.25 <_

V \



COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS
JENNINGS RANDOLPH, West Virginia, Chairman
STEPHEN M. YOUNG, Ohio JOHN SHERMAN COOPER, Kentucky

EDMUND S. MUSKIE, Maine J. CALEB BOGGS, Delaware

B. EVERETT JORDAN, North Carolina HOWARD H. BAKER, Jr., Tennessee

BIRCH BAYH, Indiana ROBERT J. DOLE, Kansas

JOSEPH M. MONTOYA, New Mexico EDWARD J. GURNEY, Florida

WILLIAM B. SPONG, Jr., Virginia ROBERT W. PACKWOOD, Oregon

THOMAS F. EAGLETON, Missouri
MIKE GRAVEL, Alaska

Richard B. Royce, Chief Clerk and Staff Director

J. B. Huyett, Jr., Assistant Chief Clerk and Assistant Staff Director

Barry Meyer, Counsel

Bailey Gdard, Assistant Chief Clerk (Minority)

Tom C. Jorling, Minority Counsel

Professional Staff Members: Joseph F. Van Vlauricken. Leon G. Billings, Richard D.
Grundy, Stewart E. McClure, Hal Brayman, and Adrien Waller; and Department of
Commerce Fellow: Walter Planet



Subcommittee on Aie and Water Pollution

EDMUND S. MUSKIE, Maine, Chairman

JENNINGS RANDOLPH, West Virginia J. CALEB BOGGS. Delaware

BIRCH BAYH, Indiana JOHN SHERMAN COOPER, Kentucky

JOSEPH M. MONTOYA, New Mexico HOWARD H. BAKER, Jr., Tennessee

WILLIAM B. SPONG, Jr., Virginia ROBERT J. DOLE, Kansas
THOMAS F. EAGLETON, Missouri



COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE

WARREN G. MAGNUSON, Washington, Chairman

JOHN O. PASTORE. Rhode Island NORRIS COTTON, New Hampshire

VANCE HARTKE, Indiana HUGH SCOTT, Pennsylvania

PHILIP A. HART, Michigan WINSTON PROUTY, Vermont

HOWARD W. CANNON. Nevada JAMES B. PEARSON, Kansas

RUSSELL B. LONG, Louisiana ROBERT P. GRIFFIN, Michigan

FRANK E. MOSS, Utah HOWARD H. BAKER, Jr., Tennessee

ERNEST F. HOLLINGS. South Carolina CHARLES E. GOODELL, New York

DANIEL K. INOUYE. Hawaii MARLOW W. COOK, Kentucky
JOSEPH D. TYDINGS, Maryland
WILLIAM B. SPONG, Jr., Virginia

Frederick J. Lordon, Staff Director

Michael Pertschok, Chief Counsel

S. Lynn Sutcliffe, Staff Counsel

Arthur Pankopf, Jr., Minority Staff Director

J. Paul Mollot, Minority Staff Counsel

(II)



CONTENTS



Tuesday, March 24, 1970 p^g^ ;

Baron, Robert Alex, executive vice president, Citizens for a Quieter City,

Inc., New York, N.Y 908 ,

Gr^enwald, Alvin G., of Greenwald, Landrum & Bairn, attorneys at law:
Statement 990

Kleppe, Hon. Thomas S., a Representative in Congress from the State of

North Dakota 863

Magnuson, Hon. Warren G., a U.S. Senator from the State of Washington, j

and chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee on Air Pollution I

Legislation 879 |

Miller, Dwight B., assistant director, Northern Regional Research Labora-
tory, Agricultural Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Peoria, 111 900 '.

Sontag, Lester W., ^I.D., Pels Research Institute, Yellow Springs, Ohio — 876
Volpe, Hon. John, Secretary, Department of Transportation; accompanied

by John H. Shaffer, Administrator, Federal Aviation Administration; '

John Powers, Director, Office of Noise Abatement, Federal Aviation
Administration; J. Thomas Tidd, Assistant General Counsel, Depart- j

ment of Transportation; Charles Foster and Richard Strombotne, Office '

of Research and Technology, Department of Tran8portation 880 .

Wednesday, March 25, 1970 i

Blanchard, Lawrence E., Jr., executive vice president, Ethyl Corp., ac- i

companied by Howard E. Hesselberg, coordinator of air conservation, \

and Daniel A. Hirschler, director of automotive research 1036

Chenea, Paul F., vice president, GM Research Laboratories; accompanied \

by Fred W. Bowditch, director, emission control, General Motors en- i

gineering staff; and John D. Caplan, executive director, General Motors !

Research Laboratories 1056 j

Gammelgard, Peter N., senior vice president for public and environmental
affairs, American Petroleum Institute 1104 '

Gunness, Robert C, president, Standard Oil Co. (Indiana); accompanied j

by Philip C. White, general manager of research, and Russell C. Mallatt, ;

coordinator for air and water conservation 1086

Misch, Herbert L., vice president. Ford Motor Co.; accompanied by James

C. Gaghardi 1012 '

Tipton, Stuart G., president. Air Transport Association of America; ac- :
companied by Clifton F. Von Kann, vice president, operations and engi-
neering, and William Becker, assistant vice president in charge of opera-
tions 993 I

ADDITIONAL DATA '

Air Transport Association:

Table: New aircraft added to fleet — U.S. scheduled airhne industry ;

(as of Dec. 31, 1969) 1 998 i

Baron, Robert Alex:

"Noise and Urban INIan," b.v Robert Alex Baron, reprinted from '

American Journal of Public Health, November 1968 911 '

"Noise: The Audible Pollutant," by Robert Alex Baron, reprinted ,

from Nation's Cities, September 1969 917 I

"Noise Pollution: A Need for Action," by Samuel Rosen, M.D., \

Reprinted from Medical Tribune and ^ledical News, Jan. 4, 1968. 921 \

"Noise Studies Confirm Hazard to Animals, INIan," reprinted from :

Medical Tribune, Jan. 26, 1970 _.. 922 i

(in)



IV

Blanchard, Lawrence E., Jr. :

Letter dated April 13, 1970, to Senator Muskie expressing views of Page

Ethyl Corp. on amendment 501 1051

Boggs, Hon. J. Caleb:

HEW news release, March 24, 1970 1004

Briefing paper: Noise pollution 905

Chenea, Paul F. :

Statemcnit of E. N. Cole before the California Air Resources Board and

its technical advisory committee 1064

Dole, Hon. Robert J.:

Letter dated March 10, 1970, to President Nixon endorsing Repre-
sentative Kleppe's proposal for grain alcohol-gasoline blend 869

Announcement dated March 25, 1970, of panel formed to study effects

of tetraethyl lead 1055

Eagleton, Hon. Thomas F.:

"Rolls-Royce Steering Into Financing Woes," article reprinted from

the New York Times, Wednesday, March 25, 1970 1011

Gammelgard, Peter N.:
Charts:

Average research octane number trends and compression ratio

trend 1106

Exhaust emission standards, California:

Hydrocarbons and oxides of nitrogen 1106

Carbon monoxide 1107

Gujmess, Robert C:

Standard Oil Co. of (Indiana), Chicago, 111.: Statement on fuel

additives presently in use 1100

Kleppe, Hon. Thomas S.:

Letter dated February 18, 1970, to Senator Muskie suggesting blend-
ing of grain alcohol with gasoline 867

Letter dated February 16, 1970, to President Nixon outlining grain

alcohol-gasoHne blend 867

Memorandum : Major Legal Theories Found in Noise Cases, from American

Law Division, Legislative Reference Service, Library of Congress 928

"Aviation Noise, A Survey of Background and Legal Problems," by
Julia L. Sayles, legislative attorney, American Law Division,

Legislative Reference Service, Library of Congress 931

"Noise and the Law," by George A. Spater 945

Eva W. Nair v. Benjamin D. Thaw 968

"Noise as a Nuisance," by William H. Lloyd, from University of

Pennsylvania Law Review, April 1934 972

City of Jacksonville v. George Schumann et ux., et al 982

Miller, D wight B.:

Table: Effect of wheat cost on ethyl alcohol cost 902

Misch, Herbert L.:
Charts:

Fig. 1 : Effect of combustion chamber deposit accumulation on

exhaust hydrocarbons 1020

Fig. 2: Hydrocarbon emission differences due to fuel type 1021

Fig. 3: Effect of leaded fuel on the control efficiency of air cleaner

EGR systems 302-CID-2V auto Galaxies 1 1021

Fig. 4: Effect of lead on catalyst life 1022

Fig. 5: Depreciation in engine performance at varying TEL

content (V-8 engine) ~ 1022

Fig. 6: Fuel and temperature effects on average thickness losses

of sandblasted OR-1 alloy specimens 1023

Rasmussen, Max, Antelope, Mont., articles submitted by:

"Wheat for Motor Fuel," by Ted Sorenson, from the Montana Farmer-
Stockman, January 15, 1970 871

'Agri-Gas' — A New Market for Wheat?" by Mike Wohld, from the
Montana Farmer-Stockman 873



(< ( ,



APPENDIX— Part 3

Statements: Page

American Mining Congress 1113

Ashland Oil & Refining Co 1114

Husky Oil Co 1116

Lead Industries Association, J. L. Kimberley, executive vice president. 1117

Mobil Oil Corp 1126

National LP- Gas Association, letter dated March 16, 1970, from

Arthur C. Kreutzer, executive vice president 1127

LP-Gas Engine Fuel — Its Role in Air Pollution Abatement 1128

National Oil Jobbers Council 1136

Sun Oil Co 1138

Texaco, Inc 1140

Universal Oil Products Co., John O. Logan, president 1141

Letter dated ^laj^ 6, 1970, to Chairman Muskie from Senator Hiram L.
Fpng, of Hawaii, with enclosures:
^"Lead Poisoning. An Old Problem With a New Dimension," by P. B.

Hammond 1151

Lead Contamination of the Atmosphere and the Earth's Surface, ex-
tract from proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, Feb. 1,

1970 1 - 1177



AIR POLLUTION— 1970



TUESDAY, MARCH 24, 1970

U.S. Senate,
JoixT Meeting of the Subcommittee on Air and

Water Pollution of the Committee on Public

Works and the Commerce Committee,

Washington^ B.C.

The subcommittee met at 9 :30 a.m., pursuant to recess, in room 4200,
New Senate Office Building, Senator Thomas F. Eagleton (member
of the subcommittee) presiding, pro tern.

Present : Senators Eandolph, Muskie, Eagleton, Cooper, Baker, and
Dole.

Also present : Senators IMagnuson, Hart, Moss, and Pearson.

Staff members present : Richard B. Royce, chief clerk and staff direc-
tor; M. Barry Meyer, counsel; Bailey Guard, assistant chief clerk,
minority; Tom Jorling, minority counsel; Leon G. Billings and
Adrien Waller, professional staff members.

Senator Eagleton (presiding). Good morning.

The full Commerce Committee is sitting jointly this morning with
the Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution of the Committee on
Public Works, which is now in session to continue its hearings on
S. 3229, S. 3466, and S. 3546.

The first witness this morning is the Honorable Thomas S. Kleppe,
of the U.S. House of Representatives.

Congressman Kleppe.

STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS S. KLEPPE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

Mr. Kleppe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Members of both committees, I appreciate this opportunity to testify
on air pollution control legislation.

My testimony today relates exclusively to the advantages of combin-
ing gasoline with alcohol made from gram to produce a cleaner burn-
ing motor vehicle fuel. I believe a strong start in this direction could
be made within the framework of amendments to the Clean Air Act
proposed by many INIembers of Congress, including myself.

On February 16, 1970, I wrote to President Nixon suggesting that
he instruct affected Federal agencies to investigate the possibilities of
utilizing the alcohol-gasoline blend as a means of combating air pollu-
tion.

There is nothing new about the basic idea. For many years it has been
extensively discussed, studied, and tested. Today, with the great
national interest in our total environment and with the serious air

(863)



864

pollution caused by motor vehicle exhausts, it may be an idea whose
time has finally come.

There isn't any question that an alcohol-gasoline blend will work
efficiently in present-day motor vehicles. It will measurably reduce
hydrocarbon exhaust emissions by as much as 50 percent, some tests
show. It will prolong engine life. It will provide extra power, with-
out a tetraethyl-lead additive. It has long been used successfully in
other countries.

The obvious question is : Wliy aren't we using it ? The answer, up
to now, has always been : Cost.

Back in the middle 1950's, President Eisenliower appointed a com-
mission to study increased industrial uses of agricultural products.
Then the principal objective was to expand markets for surplus farm
products. The projected cost of producing alcohol from grain led the
commission to conclude that it would be "impracticable to recommend
an alcohol motor- fuel program."

The urgent need to control air pollution, to regulate automobile
emissions of carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons, places the cost fac-
tor of converting grain to alcohol in a different perspective now. More-
over, large-scale conversion of grain to alcohol could literally save
billions of dollars of farm program costs.

In his message to Congress on the environment, the President
pointed out that most air pollution is produced by the burning of
fuels. About half is produced by motor vehicles.

The proposed amendments to the Clean Air Act would empower the
Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare to "establish standards
respecting the chemical or physical properties of any motor vehicle
fuel or fuel additive to assure that such fuel or fuel additive will not
cause or contribute to emission which would endanger the public
health or welfare. * * *"

Even though new engine designs, more lead-free gasolines and im-
proved exhaust control devices will come during the 1970's, millions
of motor vehicles now on the road and to be built in the next few
years will be operating well into the 1980's. It would appear on the
basis of what we already know, that immediate implementation of
an alcohol-gasoline program is fully warranted. We could begin on a
limited basis almost overnight. The mood and the money were not
there in the past but they are today.

I believe what is needed now, to get a large-scale alcohol -gasoline
fuel "on the road," is convincing proof that it can be done economi-
cally. We must look not only at the first cost of extracting alcohol
from grain but also at the value of the high protein byproduct which
remains as a food and feed source. We must consider what a cleaner-
burning lead- free motor vehicle fuel would be worth from both a
public health and dollar standpoint.

We must consider the savings in farm program and price support
costs which would result from the elimination of production controls
and payments to farmers for diverting wheat and feed grain acreage.
This would be the neighborhood of $2 billion a year and there would
be further savings of perhaps half a billion dollars in storage, interest
and admnistrative costs borne by USDA.

In other words, we must look at the manv "offsets" against the cost
of producing alcohol from grain. Viewed that way, I am reasonably



865

convinced that alcohol can be made from grain at relatively low cost —
low enough to make it economical and practical as an automotive
fuel.

Although the petroleum industry opposed this concept in the past,
for obvious reasons we have a far different situation today. Like it or
not, the industry will have to come up with a much cleaner-burning
and probably lead-free fuel or alternative power sources will inevit-
ably be developed. The State of California is now buying automobiles
powered with bottled gas. Battery-powered automobiles — we had some
years ago — are being considered again. Some say we should go back
to the Stanley Steamer.

I may add, Mr. Chairman, the Secretary of HEW, Mr. Finch, is
putting on display a steam automobile in the vacant lot just opposite
the Cannon Building.

It has been suggested, facetiously I am sure, that a 100-mile-long
extension cord could be hooked up to the dream car of the future

Alcohol is also made from petroleum products. This certainly gives
the petroleum industi^y a major stake in the development of alcohol-
gasoline fuels. Moreover, the petroleum reserves of the United States
are neither unlimited nor renewable. Alcohol from grain is, of course,
a renewable resource.

Although industry now has the capacity for producing considerable
amounts of alcohol, a mammoth expansion would be required to con-
vert 3 or 4 billion bushels of grain into this form each year. Several
hundred plants, costing several billions of dollars, would have to be
constructed. If the petroleum industry shifts from tetraethyl-leaded
gasolines to the more costly refining processes necessary to produce
higher-octane, nonleaded products, the transition would be at least as
expensive.

The president of Union Oil Co. says on this :

Several years will be required to construct the needed new refining equipment
The total capital cost of installing new refining equipment nationwide to add
7 octane numbers is estimated to be between $5 billion and $6 billion. Because
of limited construction capacity, it is impossible for all major refineries to add
such needed equipment in a time schedule that may be required by law.

So I ask, why not go the other route? '\^niy not. start now with pro-
duction of the alcohol-gasoline blend ?

The implications of this for the Nation's farm economy would be
enormous. I would like to add here also, Mr. Chairman, we gave much
time and thought in promoting rural development. If there is one way
to motivate and boost rural development it could be with activity of
additional grain production such as this product would involve.

For years we have sought to obtain new industries for rural areas.
Certainly it would make sense to locate alcohol extraction plants where
the grain is produced.

If we "freed up" our millions of retired acres for all-out grain pro-
duction, both the farm economy and the total economy would get a
much-needed boost. It would take more machinery, more gasoline —
blended with alcohol. More fertilizer, more labor, more transporta-
tion, more of everything that goes into farm production and the trans-
portation and utilization of agricultural commodities.

It would open the way for tremendous increases in the development
of higher yielding wheats and other grains which might not meet



866

present-day millino- standards but which would be entirely suitable
for conversion into alcohol. Today there is adA^anced experimenta1:ion
on a duram wheat-rye cross — Triticale — which has tremendous yield
potential, as much as 200 bushels per acre on a dryland farm, accord-
ing: to some reports.

Tliere is no doubt in my mind that by putting our idle acres to work
and, at the same time, utilizing more fully the higher yielding grain
varieties, the United States could easily produce the extra 3 billion
or more bushels needed to meet motor vehicle fuel requirements. There
would still be enough — a safe margin — to meet both domestic and ex-
port requirements.

As of January 31, 1970, Commodity Credit Corporation had under
price support loan and under actual ownership 1,762,399,000 bushels
of feed grains and 862 million bushels of wheat. Both of these totals
are up substantially over a year earlier.

These quantities of grain are not all to be counted as surpluses. Con-
servatively, though, I would say about half of the totals could be so
classified. In other words, we have more than enough grain available
noAV to swamp existing facilities for converting grain to alcohol. By
the time additional facilities were available, farm production could
easily be increased sufficiently to keep them operating at full capacity.

I have received a few letters from people around the country who
say it is criminal to talk about converting grain to motor vehicle fuel
at a time when there are millions of hungry people in the United
States and hundreds of millions throughout the world. If this is true,
then it is also immoral to impose production restrictions on American
farmers today. What I am proposing, essentially, is a program under
which we would continue to supply at least as much food grain to our
own people and to those around the world as we are today. The grain
for alcohol would come from increased American production — from
our idle acres and the higher yielding crop varieties.

Then there is the question of cost — both to the Government and to
the user of the alcohol-gasoline blend. When the "offsets" I mentioned
are cranked into the equation, it seems to me that the Government
would gain, both in farm programs savings and in the incalculable
benefits which would result from cleaner air.

From the motorist's i)oint of view, I believe a blend of 10 or 12 per-
cent of grain alcohol with gasoline will cost him little more than the
higher octane, nonleaded gasoline he will be using in the future if the
decision is made to rely entirely on what the Union Oil Co. calls
"more severe refining processes"."lf the "offsets" are fully weighed, it
may well be less.

In fact, the motorist using the alcohol-gasoline blend would receive
as a bonus, instead of green stamps or a free candv bar, actual dollar
savings through the longer and more trouble-free operation of his
automobile engine.

It seems to me that the transition to the alcohol-gasoline blend could
be made in an orderly way. without disrupting the petroleum indus-
try, the automotive industry or the farm economy. We could start now,
in a limited way, with what we have available. There is time to smooth
out the bumps in the road ahead before we get there. It will take
some planning, some ingenuity and some determination. But it can be
done.



867

I am encouraged by the support I have received not only from the
public but also from Members of Congress, scientists and others con-
cerned witli the air pollution problem. It is time to bring this dream,
so long held by American farmers, to realit^^.

(The letters' accompanying Representative Kleppe's statement fol-
low:)

CONGEESS OF THE UNITED STATES,

House op REPEESENTATrvES.
Washington, D.C., February 18, 1970.

Hon. Edmund S. Muskie,

Chairman, Subcommitteee on Air and Water Pollution, Committee on Public
Works, U.S. Senate, Washington, B.C.
Deae Senator : At a time when both air pollution and accumulating surpluses
of agricultural commodities are serious national problems, it is appropriate to
consider a plan which would measurably reduce both.

This could be accomplished through the blending of alcohol made from grain
with gasoline to produce a cleaner-burning motor vehicle fuel which would re-
duce hydrocarbons in exhausts by as much as 50 per cent and cut farm program
costs and surpluses in the process.

I invite your consideration of this proposal which I have outlined in a letter
to the President.
Sincerely,

Tom Kleppe, M.C.

( Letter to President Nixon follows : )

Congress of the United States,

House of Representatives.
Washington. B.C., February 16, 1970.
Hon. Richard M. Nixon,
President of the United States,
The White House, Washington, B.C.

Dear Mr. President : A cleaner-burning motor vehicle fuel combining gaso-
line with alcohol made from grain may be an idea whose time has finally come.

I know you will recall this was one of the possibilities studied by the Com-
mission on Increased Industrial Use of Agricultural Products which reported
its findings to you, as President of the Senate, and to the Speaker of the House
on June 15, 1957.

Then the principal objective was to expand markets for surplus farm products.
The projected cost of producing alcohol from grain — perhaps 40 or 50 cents per
gallon — led the Commission to conclude that it would be "impracticable to recom-
mend an alcohol motor-fuel program."

Economic utilization of surplus U.S. grains remains a problem as acute as it
was in 1957. However, the urgent need to control air pollution — to regulate auto-
mobile emissions of carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons — places the cost factor
of converting grain to alcohol in a different perspective. Moreover, large-scale
conversion of grain to alcohol could literally save billions of dollars of farm
program costs.

In the February 10 Jlessage to Congress on the Environment, you pointed out
that "Most air pollution is produced by the burning of fuels. About half is pro-
duced by motor vehicles."

To implement the recommendations set forth in your Message, the Secretary
of Health. Education and Welfare submitted to the Congress on February 11
proposed amendments to the Clean Air Act which would empower him to "estab-
lish standards respecting the chemical or physical properties of any (motor



Online LibraryUnited States. Congress. Senate. Committee on PublAir pollution--1970. Hearings, Ninety-first Congress, second session, on S. 3229, S. 3466 [and] S. 3546 (Volume pt. 3) → online text (page 1 of 49)