Would a change from lead into an unleaded gasoline increase the photochemical smog reactivity? Does your research tell you anythong about that?

Mr. MISCH. Well, it is a rather complex question.

Senator SPONG. I know.

Mr. MISCH. We have to assume what will happen in taking the lead out of fuel. Taking the lead out of fuel and at the same time requiring octane values for the total spectrum of fuel would necessitate additional refining, reforming processes and so on which would increase the aromatic portions of the fuel.

I don't know the degree to which this would have an influence on photochemical smog. I am not hedging at this point. The devices we expect to use to meet the 1975 level of national emissions requirements, such as catalysts, are very good in selectively eliminating the aromatics that might be of concern. However, for those vehicles not having a catalyst or something like that, I am sure the aromatics would increase.

Senator SPONG. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator EAGLETON. Thank you, Senator.

Thank you very much, Mr. Misch. We appreciate it.

Mr. MISCH. Thank you.

Senator EAGLETON. Our next witness is Mr. Lawrence E. Blanchard, executive vice president of the Ethyl Corp.

Would you identify the gentlemen accompanying you for the record. If it is possible to summarize your statement, we would appreciate it. Your full statement will be made a part of the record.

Senator SPONG. Mr. Chairman, I might say before Mr. Blanchard begins that placing him, on a time limitation and asking him to summarize his statement might be something of a burden for him. Senator EAGLETON. We do not want to overly burden you.

STATEMENT OF LAWRENCE E. BLANCHARD, JR., EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, ETHYL CORP., ACCOMPANIED BY HOWARD E. HESSELBERG, COORDINATOR OF AIR CONSERVATION, AND DANIEL A. HIRSCHLER, DIRECTOR OF AUTOMOTIVE RESEARCH Mr. BLANCHARD. I should say I am an ex-lawyer; I claim to be a finance man now. I can try to summarize my statement but it is not an easy one of this much importance from our standpoint.

My name is Lawrence E. Blanchard, Jr., and I am a resident of Richmond, Va. I hasten to add that I am no expert, I have never been before the Senate before. I did not realize how complicated it was to get all the experts to agree on every word I wrote in a speech, but I do want to say that with those first two sentences in here, no expert has been able to disagree with so far.

I am executive vice president of Ethyl Corp. which 47 years ago introduced into commercial use the gasoline additive known as lead antiknock compound, or "tetraethyllead," now an essential component of 98 percent of all motor gasoline made in the United States. With me today are two gentlemen with many years' experience in the technical aspects of automotive emissions control, Howard E. Hessel

berg, our coordinator of air conservation, and Daniel A. Hirschler, our director of automotive research.

We are very pleased to be here today for Ethyl is very proud of the contributions which it has made to the automotive industry through the development of the magic ingredient that has made "100 octane" synonymous with efficiency and economy throughout the world. The point was put succinctly by Mr. Cole, the president of General Motors, in a speech on January 14:

In short, tetraethyllead permited the petroleum industry to increase the octane rating of its gasolines and improve their antiknock characteristics. This allowed the auto companies to boost compression ratios which resulted in improved engine efficiency and benefits-either in terms of economy or performance.

We don't think that contributions of this magnitude should be lightly regarded. The story we want to tell you today is not a new story. It is the same story of contributions which we have convinced industry of for many years during all the years we were half owned by General Motors-and ever since.

This committee was one of the earliest crusaders against pollution; today, all Americans are crusading against pollution. We are, too, but we want the right solution, not temporary expedients that adversely affect the total ecology in the years ahead.

Unfortunately, since all of us want pure air, it is easy for the public to be stirred up by emotional appeals and impatient demands for shortcuts and easy answers. Many of us also like to find a scapegoat for unwelcome problems. It is far easier to shift the blame for problems than to solve them.

Today we are in the middle of a great emotional furor over lead antiknocks in gasoline. After living through the last 6 weeks-if you can call it living-there is no doubt in my mind that lead has been picked by some as the scapegoat for a host of serious problems of the automotive industry.

Therefore, the first part of my statement will be addressed to this recent furor that has created real confusion in the automotive, oil and related industries. This has taken on so many emotional and political overtones that it is difficult to discuss the matter in a rational manner, but we think the time has come to stop and take a long, hard look at just what is going on.

The second part of my statement will be addressed to the farreaching provisions of section 5 of S.B. 3466 which we believe should be amended and revised to prevent an abandonment of the total systems approach to automotive emission control that we feel represents the best hope for a long-range solution to air pollution problems.

THE CURRENT FURORE OVER LEAD ANTIKNOCKS IN GASOLINE

The present furore was started early in January by Mr. Cole of General Motors who announced in his speech on January 14, 1970, that General Motors could not meet the 1975 emissions standards unless lead was removed from gasoline for that year's cars. But a couple of weeks later, Mr. Cole announced that lead-free gasoline would be needed this year because General Motors had determined to go back to the engines of some 15 or 20 years ago, and thus he attempted to shift

43-166 0-70-pt. 3-13

to the oil industry the burden of meeting many of the tough pollutioncontrol problems that have been imposed by law on the automotive industry.

The stated purpose of this change is that some members of the automotive industry claim they do not know how to handle some of the engine effects created by lead antiknocks which were invented by General Motors and which have been used in virtually all the millions of automobiles that have been produced over the last 40 years.

The Detroit position was changed again a few weeks later when Mr. Cole stated at a meeting of the California Air Resources Board on March 5:

Now, in light of information we received yesterday, I believe General Motors could modify its position to some degree. We understand the problems that we didn't know about before a little better

He then stated that General Motors could get along with about half a gram of lead antiknock compounds per gallon-about 20 percent of present levels and still meet the standards through the 1974 model year.

We think we are all entitled to more advance "planning" out of Detroit than this. We think the much publicized sudden proposal to make cars with lower compression engines available in August and September of 1970 has seriously confused the total issue. Actually the publicity makes it clear that these cars can operate equally well on feaded or unleaded gasoline. So what is the purpose of all the publicity about needing a lead-free gasoline for the entire country within the next few months? We understand there will be no catalyst, no recycling device nor any other new emission control equipment added to these low compression cars. This is a cure that cures nothing.

You must take into account, if compression ratios are reduced for these 1971 model cars, the total amount of exhaust emissions will not in our opinion be reduced-rather, we think they will be increased. The carburetors of the low-compression-ratio cars have to be set for richer mixtures for the same degree of driveability. Fuel consumption and exhaust flow will be greater because of the lowered engine efficiency. The combination of these two effects will increase mass carbon monoxide emissions substantially. We believe nitrogen oxides may be reduced somewhat, but, in any event, the carbon monoxide formation will overshadow any slight decrease in hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxide emissions, and we think carbon monoxide is still probably the biggest problem, particularly in certain sections of the country.

We simply don't believe that any less efficient engine that burns more gas is going to help smog. Let me make it clear at this point, however, that we are not here today to argue for either a low-compression or a high-compression engine. We obviously have little or no voice in that decision. Either type can operate well on leaded gasoline and meet emission standards. But we do think you should recognize, which Mr. Hartke has just pointed out and Mr. Misch confirmed, that on January 27, 1970, Henry Ford II, said in a letter to a number of major oil companies:

I would also appreciate knowing how soon you think lead might be removed from premium grade fuel so we might again build new cars with more efficient engines requiring higher octane fuel.

In view of statements like these, the decisions you make in the next few months must take into account the fact that any restriction on lead antiknocks will eventually require major reformulations of gasoline to meet not only the proposed 1971 model octane ratings, but also increased octane ratings in the years to come, when you and I and the rest of the public will want to drive again an efficient engine with all the present day power attachments-from air conditioning to automatic transmissions.

Those major reformulations of gasoline are what raise the question of the billions of dollars that will be required and also raise the new health questions that I will talk about in a moment.

Ethyl Corp., through its Detroit Research Laboratories, has been doing multimillion dollar research on the internal combustion engine and its emissions since the early 1950's.

Ethyl has been able to modify existing cars produced in Detroit to stay consistently below prescribed emission standards, using presentday leaded gasolines. We have such a modified car-a Pontiac, incidentally-or, that is, it looks like a Pontiac. It is an E-t-h-y-l-so there is no confusion with an Edsel, as somebody accused me of the other day-that already meets all U.S. and California standards through 1974 and partially meets the 1975 standards. We brought this modified car with us today, and it is located out in front of this building. I sincerely invite the members of this subcommittee to go down and see it and preferably drive it because I am completely satisfied that it is as good as any car on the road today. Mr. Cole of California called this an experimental prototype, but that is where all automobiles have to start from.

To give you an idea of the order of magnitude of these emission controls, let me show the results of this car compared with the present 1974 California requirements, the proposed 1975 HEW requirements and an estimate of what the levels were before the automobile industry started its dramatic work on reducing emissions.

I think it is perfectly clear when you say the unburned hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, and nitrogen oxides are lower than before the control was started and-comparing this with out projected 1974 California requirements and proposed 1975 HEW requirements-it is perfectly obvious that this is dramatic progress.

It is my understanding that DuPont has developed mechanical emission control devices for cars that may do even better than our own. How many years can anyone expect scientists to stay ahead of the emission standards that have been set for the future? Even we are now 4 or 5 years ahead of schedule, and it had never occurred to us until January that the auto manufacturers could not continue to do at least

as well, and I am delighted to hear Mr. Misch say that he thinks they

can.

POSITION OF AUTO INDUSTRY

Now let's look for a moment at the position of the automobile industry today.

First, the mass of refining, distribution, and marketing problems for the oil industry stems from their suddenly saying they need lead-free gasoline by September 1970 for their new low-compression cars. But, as I have said, all of their publicity makes it clear that these cars can onerate equally well on either leaded or unleaded gasoline. When and if lead-free gas is needed by Detroit, the oil industry has made it clear that it will produce it. But let's not use the lead issue as a political issue if it accomplishes nothing. Industry must spend millions of dollars in this world of pollution problems in the decade ahead. No industry can waste billions on any red herrings.

They claim that some day in the future they may be able to develop a practical catalyst to run only on unleaded gasoline. It is bound to be obvious that there is no need for you and me to drive inefficient cars at increased costs and for the oil industry to rebuild facilities during the years that they are experimenting in their laboratories on possible catalysts.

Ethyl and DuPont have independently done much work on catalysts for automobile exhaust for many years. We carried out and met qualification testing of a catalytic device in California in 1963–64 when that State's law required that such a device be developed for installation on automobiles operated on leaded gas.

This was in the days when it was claimed you couldn't get substantial reductions of emissions without a catalyst and yet you have seen what has been accomplished. The automobile industry concluded in 1964 that mechanical approaches to emission reduction were far more practical than catalysts.

Last week this committee heard claims that treatment of exhausts by a platinum catalytic device would reduce hydrocarbon and carbon monoxide emissions to low levels. This claim is not new. The very first catalytic systems tested in the 1950's used platinum.

However, we don't believe that even the automobile companies who claim they may some day have to resort to catalysts think that platinum is the answer. Just last May in an SAE paper reporting on an investigation of a platinum catalytic system, General Motors said:

The catalyst used in this evaluation contained a noble metal. This is not practical for large volume uses because of the high costs and limited availability of noble metal. A catalyst is needed that does not use precious metals.

It is well known that the bulk of the known reserves of platinum in the world are controlled by Russia.

Incidentally, the same paper by General Motors reported that they had experienced exhaust valve problems with unleaded gasoline in the cars for their test programs. Valve seat wear was so extreme that the cylinder heads had to be replaced before the investigation could be completed. They stated in that report:

It became evident that the exhaust valves and seats were sensitive to speed and load conditions operating on nonleaded fuel. The objective of this evaluation