when all of industry accepts its responsibility to conserve and protect the quality of our air supplies even as they seek to conserve and protect the investment of their stockholders. Respectfully, S. SMITH GRISWOLD, [From the Los Angeles Times, Apr. 9, 1965]. LOS ANGELES' MORE IRRITATING NEW YORK SMOG HELD MOST INJURIOUS TO HEALTH (By Robert C. Toth, Times National Science Correspondent) WASHINGTON.-Los Angeles may have the most irritating smog problem in the Nation, a Senate subcommittee was told Thursday, but its smog apparently is less dangerous to health than the polluted air which sometimes covers New York. Dr. Leonard K. Greenburg, former air pollution control chief of New York City, said New York's smog had 60 to 70 times more sulfur dioxide than Los Angeles. London experts have blamed many of the deaths during an extreme smog attack there on sulfur oxides, he said. Greenburg, now a professor at Albert Einstein Medical School in New York, said vital statistics have not shown any higher death rates in Los Angeles over the years despite the smog, but some deaths during New York smogs are suspected of having been caused by the air pollutants. Under Government grants, he is currently studying how and why different types of smog affect health. "We think at this time that the sulfur dioxide content in smog is very important in this respect," Greenburg said. He appeared before the Senate Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution in behalf of the American Public Health Association to support a bill to stiffen air pollution controls. The bill's two controversial provisions would: 1. Create a technical committee of Government and private agencies to encourage development of low-cost ways to reduce emissions of sulfur oxides from burning fuels. 2. Require all new autos, sold 6 months after bill's enactment to have blowby crankcase devices, and all new autos sold after November 1, 1966 (i.e., 1967 models) to be equipped with other devices to limit the amounts of hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide emissions. The limits are the same as required on 1966 model cars in California. URGE DEVICES NOW Several professional and industrial groups spoke in favor of the bill on provisions affecting them. Both the health association and the chief sanitary engineers of all the States endorsed the imposition of auto devices now. Representatives of coal, oil, and electricity-producing industries supported formation of the technical committee on sulfur emissions, but the Interior Department came out against it. Such cooperation is always needed, a Bureau of Mines official said, but not by law. This opposition led Senator Edmund S. Muskie, Democrat, of Maine, chairman of the Senate panel and 1 of 22 Senators sponsoring the bill, to complain: "Industry has taken a more positive attitude than Government agencies." CENSURES OPPOSITION He also complained about Tuesday's surprise opposition by a Johnson administration official of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, against the control devices for all new cars in the country. On Wednesday the subcommittee held hearings in Detroit where, Muskie said, the auto industry contended there was no major pollution problems from cars now, but if there is, the industry is technologically ready to solve it. On the other hand, added Muskie, HEW admitted there is a problem now, claimed the technical devices are not yet proved ready to solve it. but Muskie consistently paid tribute to Los Angeles for having raised the red flag to the air pollution danger now beginning to descend on all parts of the country, but one of the witnesses criticized past efforts of the city. WARNS AGAINST HURRY Testifying on the sulphur problem for the American Petroleum Institute, Curtis G. Cortelyou of the Socony Mobil Co., Inc., warned that moving too rapidly may result in misdirected efforts. "In the late forties and early fifties, oil companies, and ultimately the public, were required to expend $50 million on very specialized emission control equipment for company installations in Los Angeles," he said. "This, it was said, would solve the smog problem. The money was spent and everyone sat back waiting for the smog to go away. But it didn't. Time, as well as money, was wasted; a solution to Los Angeles' problem was needlessly delayed," he added. Muskie asked Cortelyou whether there had not been some benefits from the $50 million expenditure, and the oil company executive conceded that there might be some. "But much of it was not constructive," he added. Senator George Murphy, Republican, of California, said that the smog layer in Los Angeles is the color of a brown wall and "on some days you can't go downtown." "What causes it?" Murphy asked. Cortelyou said he did not really know but he had read it was a complex chemical and there was some synergistic effect in which several compounds produced results worse than the sum of results from each compound by itself. CREATED SENSATION An American Cancer Society report last October that said Los Angeles smog is not a threat to health created a sensation in southern California. The report said diseases and death rates for the smoggy counties of Los Angeles, San Bernardino, Orange, and Riverside were no greater than the rates for counties in northeastern California that never had smog. It also said that later investigations, and the passage of time, might someday prove that smog was unhealthful. The ACS report was attacked violently, with one Los Angeles County supervisor even charging the society was in cahoots with the automobile industry. A survey of the county medical association showed that 77 percent of Los Angeles physicians believed smog is bad for their patient's health, despite the lack of statistical proof. Los Angeles smog has been tested on animals and has been found to cause respiratory difficulties and lung tumors. FARM & INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT INSTITUTE, Chicago, Ill., March 31, 1965. Hon. EDMUND S. MUSKIE, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR MUSKIE: The members of the Farm & Industrial Equipment Institute note that S. 306, a bill introduced by you to amend the Clean Air Aet of 1963 (Public Law 206, 88th Cong.) refers to "all new gasoline powered vehicles" (sec. 3(c) (2)) and that nowhere in S. 306 is any exemption provided for farm, utility, and construction vehicles and tractors. We earnestly solicit that such an exemption be provided. The Farm & Industrial Equipment Institute is the 72-year-old trade association for manufacturers of agricultural and industrial equipment and tractors, representing the makers of about 90 percent of such equipment in the United States. There is no question in the minds of our member companies about the desir ability of preserving the natural resources of our country nor is there any doubt that internal combustion engine powered vehicles contribute to atmospheric contamination. We do feel, however, that legislative control of farm and industrial equipment vehicle emissions would not, at the present time, be either practical or effective. Exhaust from farm equipment does not usually constitute a significant contribution to the total contamination picture. Farm equipment is generally used in sparsely populated areas. In those areas where farm equipment adds contaminants to the atmosphere, the total level of contamination is very low. Consequently, the trace quantities of pollutants are probably not at a level where biological effects would result. Many farm equipment builders do produce a line of semi-industrial tractors. These tractors are modifications or adaptations of farm tractors and are used principally in nonagricultural earthwork. Few of them are used in urban areas. The art and science of engine emission control is now at an embryonic stage. The cost of emission control devices will be directly related to high expenses incurred for research and development premised upon applied experience in the field. While our industry produces only about 200,000 tractors a year, we do develop a large variety of models with a wide range of design features necessary to serve the needs of our customers. We feel that the present costs for a comprehensive development program for these tractors would be intolerably high when related to our limited volume of production and when interpreted into unit costs for each of the many different types. As more experience is gained with actual use of emission control devices, further development of the art will result and unit costs for such devices should decrease. The farm and industrial equipment industry, therefore, respectfully requests exemption from the provisions of S. 306 while, at the same time, looking forward to the day when such control devices become effective and practical in terms of our products. H.R. 463 and H.R. 1696, both intended to modify the Clean Air Act of 1963, limit the application of their proposals to vehicles "used for transporting passengers or freight on a fixed track or highway." May we suggest that the use of this language might adequately provide exemption for farm and industrial equipment from the provisions of S. 306? We are most grateful for your courteous attention to this business. Sincerely yours, DOUGLAS HEWITT. STATEMENT OF CARTER WELLS, PRESIDENT, EXHAUST AID CORP., MILWAUKEE, WIS. I have followed the lengthy discussions and studies on air pollution for over 10 years, in all parts of the country and even into foreign countries. The question always asked is: "What is Los Angeles doing on this, now?" Apparently all eyes and noses are on Los Angeles. This is a mistake. The Los Angeles situation is highly publicized because very often it is the butt of TV comedy, but seriously the unusual smog problem is the result of an unusual combination of geographical and meteorological phenomenon coupled with a traffic problem also unique in the country. Certain standards for exhaust emissions have been set by the Los Angeles and now the California control authorities. Unfortunately these standards are now being considered for the national standard. This is erroneous in its approach because there is not a single area in the United States with exactly the same pattern of smog-creating influences. In fact, right within the Los Angeles area there are voices which do not agree with their standard. Dr. A. J. Haagen-Smit, of Cal Tech, and formerly a consultant for the Los Angeles Air Pollution Control Board, has said that the standard is not likely to be attained within 80 percent of the desired goal.1 The basic law has recently been changed and three times within the last 4 months rules and regulations have been shifted around on the matter of devices. I ask, therefore, why the Senate Subcommittee on Air Pollution doesn't use a federally supported research organization, the Robert A. Taft Public Health Center in Cincinnati, to establish a realistic and attainable and financially feasible set of standards for emissions for the United States in general and let the local conditions be handled locally? There are now available various expensive units to reduce emissions to alleviate the smog problem, initially, but they are so expensive to buy and costly to maintain that the public and even the California authorities have rejected them. Even the latest devices now on test by the industry will cost a minimum of $75 with no estimate as yet as to upkeep or maintenance costs. 1 Journal of the Air Pollution Control Association, December 1962. On the other hand, were the Air Pollution Section of the Public Health Center to establish a realistic and attainable code, there are devices now available in the market, selling for under $15 per unit which would not work a hardship on individual carowners. Let's not let the tail (Los Angeles) wag the dog (the United States) as far as air pollution is concerned. [From Science, Mar. 26, 1965] AIR POLLUTION Air pollution is becoming a serious national problem. Formerly it was a local issue largely connected with industry, but today a principal source of increasing pollution is the ubiquitous automobile. When motor vehicles burn fuel they produce a number of products in addition to carbon dioxide and water. Important amounts of carbon monoxide and nitrogen oxides are formed. The fuel is not entirely consumed. Part is exhausted unchanged, part appears as hydrocarbons of smaller molecular weight, including reactive olefins. At a concentration of slightly more than 1,000 parts per million carbon monoxide kills quickly. Most people experience dizziness, headache, and other symptoms at approximately 100 parts per million. Concentrations as high as 72 parts per million have been observed in Los Angeles, and values above 100 parts per million have been measured in Detroit. In almost every metropolitan area peak concentrations of carbon monoxide approach the 100 parts per million level. In California efforts have been made to decrease the amounts of carbon monoxide emitted by motor vehicles by use of devices such as catalytic afterburners. At the same time there has been a trend toward higher combustionchamber temperatures. These efforts result in more complete combustion but also contribute to an increase in the production of oxides of nitrogen. Nitrogen dioxide is a poisonous brown gas. The threshold level for toxic effects is not well known, but it appears to be about 5 parts per million. On one occasion a concentration of nitrogen oxides of nearly 4 parts per million was observed in Los Angeles. Automobile exhaust products interact to produce physiological and chemical effects which are greater than the sum of the parts. Synergistic effects of carbon monoxide and nitrogen oxides on respiration have been noted. Light hydrocarbons alone are not very toxic, but in the presence of nitrogen dioxide and sunlight hydrocarbons give rise to noxious substances. Nitrogen dioxide acts as a photoreceptor and is decomposed to ultrogen oxide plus atomic oxygen. This reactive form of oxygen attacks hydrocarbons. The products may react with molecular oxygen to form peroxyl radicals. These in turn react with oxygen to form ozone. The oxidants react further with the original materials as well as with their reaction products. The result is a complex mixture of toxic substances. As yet there is little evidence of chronic effects from air pollution. However, a large fraction of our population is now being exposed to significant concentrations of a variety of toxic chemicals. These levels are often a substantial fraction of those which produce acute effects. There is a possibility that our people may be sustaining cumulative insidious damage. If genetic injury were involved, the results could be especially serious. At present we cannot accurately evaluate the hazards of air pollution. The toxicity of even some of the simple important chemicals is not well established. It is clear that there are acute synergistic effects, but these have not been thoroughly examined. Even so basic a problem as establishment of good methods for measuring the concentrations of pollutants has not been completely dealt with. The automobile and the automotive industry are central to our way of life and to our economy. Can we live with a constantly increasing level of pollution, or will we be forced to take drastic steps to protect the Nation's health? At present the Federal Government is spending about $24 million a year on the study of all aspects of air pollution. Considering the potential seriousness of the problem, this sum seems much too small.-PHILIP H. ABELSON HEARINGS BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS UNITED STATES SENATE EIGHTY-NINTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION ON S. 3 A BILL TO PROVIDE PUBLIC WORKS AND ECONOMIC DEVELOP- JANUARY 19 AND 21, 1965 Printed for the use of the Committee on Public Works LAW LIBRARY FEB 9 1965 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA 42-031 U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE WASHINGTON: 1965 |