DECISION OF THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGARDING SUSPENSION OF THE 1975 AUTO EMISSION STANDARDS

MONDAY, MAY 14, 1973

U.S. SENATE,

COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AIR AND WATER POLLUTION,

Washington, D.C.

The subcommittee met at 10 a.m., pursuant to call, in room 4200, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Edmund S. Muskie (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Present: Senators Muskie, Biden, Baker, Buckley, and Domenici. Senator MUSKIE. The committee will be in order.

At the outset, I have a brief statement I would like to present to set the context of this hearing.

This morning, the Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution continues its hearings on the implications of the decision of the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to grant the automakers a 1-year delay in the deadline for compliance with the Clean Air Act's 1975 auto emission standards.

The witnesses this morning represent the National Academy of Sciences. The Clean Air Act directed the Academy to provide an independent evaluation of the technological feasibility of compliance with the statutory auto emission standards.

The Academy's Committee on Motor Vehicle Emissions issued a comprehensive report on February 15, 1973. That report discussed, in depth, various issues relating to mandated auto emission standards and the technological options available to meet those standards.

The National Academy of Sciences report concluded that technology to meet the 1975 standards exists but that the technological solution selected by the domestic auto manufacturers might be the most expensive and least dependable of the available alternatives. They further concluded that the catalyst based system, if used to meet the 1976 standards, would be: "The most disadvantageous with respect to first cost, fuel economy, maintainability and durability." I have said repeatedly that the American public has a right to expect from the auto industry a clean, fuel efficient, and dependable car. The Clean Air Act and its emission standards were designed to maintain maximum flexibility to meet that goal. No technical choices were dictated-no design standards were mandated.

Thus, the availability or lack of availability of clean, efficient, and durable cars will be determined by the technological choices which

(463)

the auto companies made-not choices imposed or required by the Congress.

The domestic auto industry now argues that clean engines and consumer needs are incompatible. Apparently this leaves to the Congress the task of determining how their goals will be achieved. If the auto industry cannot provide the American public with an acceptable form of personal transportation, the initiative must necessarily shift to the Government.

There is another important matter which I would like to discuss before the hearing begins. The issue of the nitrogen oxide emission standards was raised by Mr. Ruckelhaus in his statement on April 17.

The Administrator recommended that, because the present ambient air measuring technique for nitrogen oxide has been found to be inaccurate, the Congress should amend the clean Air Act to revoke the nitrogen oxide emission standard for 1976 cars and authorize the EPA to set NOx standards administratively.

The Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution is evaluating the basis for and impact of this recommendation. I have had the opportunity to review several documents pertaining to this issue and the staff spent 2 days at EPA's National Environmental Research Center in Durham, N.C., engaged in intensive discussions with EPA scientists and doctors involved in examining the problem.

Based on the available information, I am not convinced there is sufficient data to justify a change in the nitrogen oxide standards at the present time. I have doubts that a change should be considered until a validated measuring technique has been developed. According to EPA's most optimistic estimates, the validated technique will not be available until March 1974.

In the interim period-until the basis for the Administrator's judgment is validated, I would urge the auto industry and others involved in development of NOx control technology to maintain their effort to comply with the present requirements of the law.

I remind the auto industry that the Congress, not the administration, has authority to change these standards. I would urge the auto companies to maintain their efforts, in good faith, to meet the requirements of the law until such time as a change in the law can be justified and the law is changed.

I don't know whether my colleagues on the committee have statements they would like to make at this time. Senator Domenici?

Senator DOMENICI. No, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I apologize for being late. I have no statement at this time.

Senator MUSKIE. I would like to say, Senator Domenici, I understand there was put into the record on May 9 the Auto Emission Standards Report which is the product of a scientific advisory committee you formed in New Mexico.

I have had excellent reports on the report and I would like to commend you.

Senator DOMENICI. I think you know, Mr. Chairman, if New Mexico has an abundance of anything, it has an abundance of tremendous scientists, because of Los Alamos and similar scientific endeavors. I asked representatives of a number of them to get together occasionally and talk with me.

I sent them some of Chrysler's information and some of our own. They put together a scientific team and evaluated it for me. They sent me their resume. That is what I included in the Congressional Record.

I, too, was pleased with their efforts. It was not done with a vast amount of resources to back it, but simply to provide a double check from other scientists not so intimately involved regarding the authenticity of certain investigative performances done elsewhere.

I thank you for recognizing it as being a contributing factor in this instance.

Senator MUSKIE. I think it is interesting that as a Senator you should have organized a scientific advisory committee in your State. Your action might well be emulated by the rest of us. Without objection, I think that study ought to be included in the record. Senator DOMENICI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [The study referred to follows:]

[From the Congressional Record, May 9, 1973]

AUTO EMISSION STANDARDS

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, as an American who is deeply concerned about air pollution and as a member of the Air and Water Subcommittee of the Senate Public Works Committee, I have followed very closely the debate on the 1975 auto emissions standards. Prior to the announcement of EPA's decision on April 11, 1973, I had asked my scientific advisory committee in New Mexico to prepare a report for me on the issue of automobile emission standards.

I received the report from that committee at about the same time the Air and Water Subcommittee held hearings on the EPA's decision on the 1975 auto emissions standards and I found the report to be very helpful to me in preparation for and participation in those hearings. I feel that the work of groups such as this represents significant resources which I urge my colleagues in the Senate to utilize to a greater extent. I ask unanimous consent that the report be printed in its entirety at this point in the RECORD.

There being no objection, the report was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:

"AUTOMOBILE EMISSIONS STUDY

"(BY THE SCIENTIFIC ADVISORY COMMITTEE TO SENATOR PETE V. DOMENICI)

"ANSWERS TO SPECIFIC QUESTIONS

"The option of the study participants regarding auto emissions is: "(1) Automobile emission standards and regulations to control emissions are necessary now. Both will become more important as time goes by.

"(2) The federal auto emissions standards (levels) are reasonable in that (a) they will improve air quality in many metropolitan areas to an acceptable level and (b) they will slow the deterioration of air quality during further industrial and population growth until other control measures can be taken.

"(3) It is technically feasible to build automobile engines that can meet the federal standards. However, with only 20 months until the 1975 automobiles are due to come out, Chrysler may not make it. The approach they have chosen (piston engines and catalytic converters) and the lack of progress they have shown to date toward meeting the standards are prime factors. Consequently, their contention that a severe burden on natural and economic resources will result from the standards is partially true.

"The United States Environmental Protection Agency has prepared a reply to industry's criticism of the automotive emissions standards entitled "The Federal Automobile Emission Standards, Their Purpose, Their Need, Their Impact,' The study participants support the EPA position described in this reply in its entirety.

"The discussion below is intended as a concise qualification and elaboration of the answers given above.

"NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES REPORT

"The specific questions that were considered by our group were addressed in a vastly greater depth by the National Academy of Sciences for the Congress and the Environmental Protection Agency. The work, 'Report by the Committee on Motor Vehicle Emissions,' dated February 15, 1973, 140 pages, is available from the Academy. Its substance and conclusions, with which ours are in consonance, are not quote nor summarized here because of the danger of taking them out of context as we believe the Chrysler report has done. We believe that this is the single best summary of the automobile emissions problem currently available.

"STANDARDS

"Federal exhaust emissions standards (Federal Register, Vol. 37, No. 221, Part II, dated Nov. 15, 1972) for light duty vehicles and required reductions from uncontrolled levels (noted as % in Chrysler report) are shown below:

"Federal air quality standards and those for New Mexico are shown in Table I (attached). The amount that auto emissions need to be regulated to achieve the air quality standards cited is a function of growth in the number of cars, the trend in size and type of engines, atmospheric conditions in each locality, the amount auto emissions contribute to air pollution relative to other sources, etc. Quantitative estimates of the items above have been based on insufficient data. Consequently, current and future decisions must be based on the best information available and must be accepted subject to revision as new and better information becomes available.

"CRITERIA

"The criteria used to establish air quality standards will influence the standards that are set. What criteria should be used depend on many variables that interact in a complex manner. The Clean Air Act defines standards as follows:

"Primary-those necessary to protect public health; and secondary--those necessary to protect the public's welfare from any known or anticipated adverse effects of a pollutant.

"Further the act states that:

66

"The promulgation of national primary and secondary ambient air quality standards shall not be considered in any manner to allow significant deterioration of existing air quality in any portion of any State.'

"Much of the Chrysler proposal for relaxed emission controls centers on arguments concerning those levels necessary to meet only the primary standard of protecting public health.

"Whether auto emissions for 1975–76 should be based on primary or secondary air quality standards is a difficult question. Our group believes that not only should the secondary standards be used as criteria where they apply but also air quality in New Mexico, which is better than the federal standards, should not be permitted to deteriorate below existing quality.

"EFFECTS

"Tables II and III are listings of toxicological effects of air pollutants. They are included here to help provide some perspective on the problem.

"ENGINES THAT MEET FEDERAL STANDARDS

"EPA has tested three engines that meet the 50,000-mile durability requirement for emission standards. The Honda meets the requirements through vortex controlled combustion combined with small engine displacement. It provides 65 horsepower which limits its use to 1600-pound automobiles. The Mazda Wankel rotary engine, which meets the standards, is small also and requires a thermal reactor for oxidation of carbon monoxide and unburned hydrocarbons. Even these engines will require additional development if enlarged to be suitable for standard sized and larger cars. The Mercedes diesel is a fairly large engine but is noisy and emits fumes. Both characteristics are objectionable but are not covered by current standards.

"AMERICAN AUTO MANUFACTURERS' APPROACH TO EMISSION CONTROL

"There is great concern that the American automobile manufacturers have chosen an emergency approach with limited options in continuing with current engine technology which requires the proposed catalytic systems for controlling emissions. It is true that, having made this choice, time scales may not permit catalytic converters to be successfully developed and tested at reasonable cost before the 1975 deadline. However, if the standards or the time sales are relaxed at this time, it is feared that the auto manufacturers will not exert sufficient effort to solve the emission problem. The alternatives, which might be more satisfactory, but for which there also is insufficient time, include changing over to new engine types under active investigation by the Department of Transportation as well as private agencies or converting to other fuels. (Another alternative for meeting air quality standards for which the auto manufacturers are not responsible would be to develop mass transit systems and reduce the number of private automobiles. This too is a complex problem relating to public acceptance.)

The inefficiency of the piston engine-catalyst system is cause for concern. This system will result in the expenditure of greater amounts of gasoline at a time when the shortage of petroleum products is critical. There is no doubt that the whole matter is complex and that the interactions of one decision on another need to be examined.

"COSTS

"The following appears in the EPA statement on automobile emissions:

"The government sets the emission standards; industry chooses the technology.'

"We add, 'and the public pays the costs.'

"At this point in time we do not believe that anyone knows whether there will be a cost gain or loss to the public. Nor do we know to what degree the public would choose to pay for clean air.

"The public will have to pay the cost of automotive developments to control emissions whether in the form of catalytic converters, in new tooling for new engine types or in other forms. Also, the public will have to accept the current loss in vehicle performance resulting from the use of emission controls. It is possible that the position of the automobile manufacturers reflects their interpretation of the choice that the public would make on the basis of current cost information. Following is an attempt to tabulate a balance sheet to show how costs interact.