study. We have held conversations with them about it over the past several months. We are prepared right now to contribute substantially in money and manpower to the continuation of this type study, and we are sure that there are others who would also be interested in taking part. We hope that the Public Health Service will indicate that it will go ahead with this project.

We feel that continued collaboration on this type study is essential if we are to move forward following the recommendation made by the Advisory Committee on Tetraethyl Lead to the Surgeon General in 1959 calling for cooperative studies to provide more definitive data on the levels and trends of atmospheric lead contamination in selected urban areas and of the body burden of lead of selected population groups. The Environmental Pollution Panel of the President's Science Advisory Committee last year recommended continuing surveillance of body levels of lead, more intensive research to gain understanding on the uptake and excretion of lead, the mechanisms of action of lead, and the relationships between tissue lead levels and disease or the aging process. The sense of the PHS Lead Symposium last December was surely to continue work toward such objectives.

This year the American Petroleum Institute already has underway, or will have shortly, research programs designed to help obtain such data. We have tried to design our research projects to make a real contribution to the cause of air pollution control. Perhaps you would be interested in a few details on one or two of them.

Several months ago, we got underway an engineering study of the feasibility, cost, and effectiveness of the pollution incident control plan devised last year by oil industry physicians and technologists.

Under our proposed system we believe it is possible for a community to predict potential air pollution incidents-those rare periods during which, because of atmospheric conditions, certain pollutants in combination build up to levels that in the past have been associated with health damage. We are interested in a combination in this study of SO2 and particulate matter. The study, being conducted by Jackson & Moreland, an independent engineering firm at Boston, Mass., will determine how-and if-New York City could apply the plan and how effective it might be.

We recognize the air pollution episode as today's prime air pollution problem and so we are trying to develop a positive answer to it. One must surely be found.

I might add that Mr. Cortelyou, air and water conservation coordinator of Mobil Oil Co., will give a report to the annual meeting of the Air Pollution Control Association next week in San Francisco on API's proposed plan.

The study by Jackson & Moreland should be completed sometime this fall. They have been at it for months now.

A second project, also to be conducted in New York City, relates closely to a recommendation of Mayor Lindsay's task force on air pollution, chaired by Norman Cousins who testified before your committee on June 7. Although we have been planning the project for several months, it fits right in with one of the principal points made by Mr. Cousins' group. The task force stated that New York City must learn more about the "nature and quantity" of pollutants in its air and "the number of sites, frequently of sampling, and the type of measuring

devices that should go into the making of such a monitoring network should be promptly determined."

These are the very objectives of a project that we are just about to start. The contractor will be New York Uiversity's School of Engineering.

We have already been in touch with Mr. Cousins to let him know of this project and to offer to work in cooperation with him and with officials of the city of New York during the course of the study.

Both of these projects should provide information of value beyond the confines of New York City. New York was chosen simply because this city offers perhaps the most complex testing ground for air pollution control experimentation.

I want to assure you that the petroleum industry is joined solidly with those working in the cause of air conservation. In an API policy statement recently issued we have pledged our continuing dedication to that cause. We intend to keep that pledge.

Mr. Chairman, I thought you might like to have a copy of that policy statement, so I have brought one with me.

Senator MUSKIE. It will be included in the record.

(The exhibit is as follows:)

STATEMENT OF POLICY OF THE AMERICAN PETROLEUM INSTITUTE ON AIR AND WATER

CONSERVATION

1. The American Petroleum Institute actively supports efforts to conserve or improve the quality of the nation's air and water.

2. The Institute believes that responsibility for taking practicable and reasonable actions to attain these goals is shared by individual citizens, business and industry, and local, state, and federal governments.

3. The Institute advocates voluntary cooperation in air and water conservation programs by industrial groups and governmental bodies, and pledges the petroleum industry to continue substantial contributions of time and money to these efforts. 4. The Institute recognizes that regulatory responsibility for air and water conservation in a particular area rests with the local level of government best able to cope with the specific problem, since air and water conditions vary from locality to locality and the proper approach for one area may not be suitable for another. When state or interstate agencies are unable to develop solutions to problems, federal involvement in regulation may be appropriate.

5. The Institute endorses intensive governmental, industrial, and university research into the complex nature of the causes and the many as yet unknown effects of varying levels and kinds of pollution. The Institute belives that scientific knowledge is the only sound and socially responsible basis for legislation and regulation; the nation cannot afford to waste time and money on misdirected efforts caused by inadequate information. The Institute pledges continuing cooperation, and contributions of technical know-how, to local, state, regional, and federal governmental units concerned with air and water conservation research.

6. The Institute recommends support of this policy by all segments of the petroleum industry.

April 1966.

Mr. GAMMELGARD. I would like to extend an invitation to your committee and to your staff to visit the Bureau of Mines Center at Bartlesville periodically during the progress of this joint project to see how it is going along, and the nature of it.

I might add that I have cleared this invitation with the Bureau of Mines.

Senator MUSKIE. You have their agreement?

Mr. GAMMELGARD. Yes, sir.

These, Senator, are examples of the oil industry-Bureau of Mines cooperative surveys, one on motor gasolines, and the other on diesel fuels. This happens to be the survey on winter-grade gasolines, but they also do a summer gasoline survey. The industry cooperates with the Bureau of Mines in submitting samples of various petroleum products, not limited to just diesel fuels or gasolines. We have worked with them for many years and have full confidence in them.

Senator MUSKIE. Let me ask you one or two questions about this joint project with the Bureau of Mines.

It struck me that it might be useful if the Public Health Service could in someway have access to what is being done to evaluate the progress being made and the avenues being explored from a health standpoint, if that would not interfere in any way with the project. Would you be amenable to exploring that possibility? I don't know whether the Public Health Service would find it useful. I simply raise the question as to whether or not we might, from the point of view of health, with the Public Health Service capabilities in this field, get some added benefits from the project by tying them in someway. They may say they wouldn't find this useful.

I am inquiring as to whether or not you would be amenable to exploring this.

Mr. GAMMELGARD. I can certainly speak for API, and the answer is "Yes, we would be glad to." One of the aspects of this project is to determine the evaporative emissions, that is, both fuel tank and carburetor losses, and exhaust emissions, those coming out the tailpipe, from a prototype fuel made to today's performance quality but without lead.

This is certainly going to have a profound effect on the nature and type of emissions coming from the automobiles, in our opinion.

I think Public Health might well be interested in that aspect of the project.

Senator MUSKIE. I think we do not have in the record anywhere the reasons why we need this antiknock additive. Why do we need it? Mr. GAMMELGARD. Senator, the only reason that we put lead in gasoline is to make a superior fuel at the most economical cost to the

consumer.

If we could, by processing, make the quality of gasoline required for the high-performance engines of today without lead or without any other additive, such as antioxidante, antirust, anti just about anything, if we could do that simply and more cheaply, by the various refining processes used, we wouldn't use any additives.

Additives are used to improve the characteristics of the fuel sold to the customers, whether it be lead or any of the others.

Senator MUSKIE. In what way is today's automobile engine different than it would be if you did not have an antiknock additive in the gasoline?

Mr. GAMMELGARD. Today's compression ratios are quite high. They require, for the high-performance engine, an octane rating of approximately 100, which is just about the national average of today's premium-grade gasolines.

To get to that 100 research octane rating by strictly processing would cause a complete upheaval of the processing schemes now used in U.S. refineries.

We have another study going forward-and the contract has been awarded to determine the estimated investment required and the estimated operating costs of making today's quality fuels without lead. There were several contractors that made such studies and published them, or at least one outside contractor and several other companies, not contractors but fuel additive suppliers. We decided in our own self-interest we would have to make such a study and not just accept figures made by people outside the industry. That was annouced at the lead symposium in December, and the same statement was made there, that the results of the survey when completed would be made available to PHS.

Senator MUSKIE. So that the lead additive makes possible higher compression ratios than would be possible without the lead additive. today?

Mr. GAMMELGARD. Unless you want to make some very expensive processing changes.

Senator MUSKIE. But we do not have that now.

Mr. GAMMELGARD. That is right.

Senator MUSKIE. What does the higher compression ratio mean to the automobile and the automobile owner?

Mr. GAMMELGARD. The higher the compression ratio in general the higher the efficiency of the engine. The compression ratio has gone up pretty regularly year by year.

Senator MUSKIE. When you say more efficient, do you mean more power or less fuel?

Mr. GAMMELGARD. More efficient use of the fuel. In other words, more power output per gallon of gasoline.

Senator MUSKIE. If you used nonleaded gasoline in a high-compression-ratio engine, what would be the result?

Mr. GAMMELGARD. Very poor operation of the engine.

Senator MUSKIE. So it has to do not only with fuel efficiency but also with the quality of performance of the engine?

Mr. GAMMELGARD. That is correct. You can ruin a high-compression engine running it on an inferior gasoline. You can tear it apart. Senator MUSKIE. There is one gasoline that advertises it is not leaded. How does that gasoline fit into this? I will not name it because I don't want to be accused of advertising in this hearing. But there is one gasoline that advertises it is not leaded.

How is it possible for it to be used in a high-compression engine? Mr. GAMMELGARD. I would rather that the company referred to, but not named, would speak for itself, but I think I can give an answer which is correct, and I hope it won't offend that company.

This company markets a nonleaded premium in only a relatively small part of its total marketing area. It does not market an unleaded regular or house-brand-grade gasoline anywhere.

These two circumstances-only part of their total marketing area and only applying to the premium-permits them to segregate blending stocks of higher octanes. It permits them to segregate them for this particular market to be used in their nonleaded premium.

I would say, without knowing their complete setup, but from a personal 30 years' experience in refining, that if they were to market a totally nonleaded gasoline, or if they would be required to market

64-886-66-17

a totally nonleaded gasoline, house brand and premium, and in their entire marketing area, they couldn't do it.

It is just impossible. That is, without a lot of processing changes and adding new units to their processing scheme.

Senator MUSKIE. Would this technique be available to any gasoline company? Could any gasoline company do what this company is doing now?

Mr. GAMMELGARD. No, not every company could. You could take a smaller company with, say, one plant, and one relatively small, concentrated marketing area, and they would not, unless they had very unusual processing setups in their plant completely different from what is typical of the industry, be able to market a nonleaded premium, even though they leaded their housebrand, or regular grade. One of the side effects of marketing an unleaded premium (which may be 30, 40 or 50 percent of the company's gasoline, depending on the area of the country, and varying widely area to area) is that you generally then have to put more lead in the remaining housebrand gasoline.

Senator MUSKIE. Why do you need lead in a house-brand gasoline? Mr. GAMMELGARD. To get to 94 octane, which is the average octane east of the Rockies today.

Senator MUSKIE. What is the purpose of that gasoline?

Mr. GAMMELGARD. House brand is a regular-grade gasoline. In other words, is not the premium gasoline. Various companies may call it different names, but in the industry, we just call it house brand or regular. It represents approximately 60 percent of the total automotive gasoline sold.

Senator MUSKIE. Senator Randolph.

Senator RANDOLPH. Mr. Gammelgard, if I drive my car into a filling station and ask the attendant whether I should have regular or high test in the tank-and I drive a Ford, I might say-I find the answers vary. One attendant will say high test and another will say regular. What do you say?

Mr. GAMMELGARD. I would say to buy the lowest grade gasoline available at your service station that operates satisfactorily in your

car.

Senator MUSKIE. That is a lawyer-like answer.

Mr. GAMMELGARD. I have a son who worked in stations for three summers and I know there are a lot of different answers you get from station attendants. Some try to push the more expensive product, whether the car needs it or not. But I think generally speaking there is a pretty close correlation between the premium-grade gasoline demand in the country and the technical, statistical sampling of the total car population and the percentage that should require premium.

There is a close correlation within a couple of percentage points. If data indicate that about 40 percent of the car population should use premium, sales will be pretty close to 40 percent.

People who try to burn regular in a premium-demanding car are not going to put up with the knocking that occurs when you have a lesser octane than needed in your car's fuel to match its compression ratio. Senator RANDOLPH. One further question: Will there come any lesser amout of effluent from the exhaust, by using regular? Mr. GAMMELGARD. I don't think you can find a difference.