Page images

Mr. JENSEN. We will talk gasoline engine, now, and forget diesel. We covered that before.

On the gasoline engine, the main uncontrolled source of pollution, to my way of thinking, is oxides of nitrogen, and I indicated research is needed on this. This has to be controlled.

Photochemical smog comes from a combination of unburned gasoline cooking under sunlight, so you get smog. This would eliminate one-half of this reactive substance. We have to eliminate the other half, which is oxides of nitrogen.

The State Legislature of California has introduced legislation which would direct the government to come up with some answers, but they do not have them yet.

Évaporative losses from the carburetor and the fuel tank is the other uncontrolled source. This could be that kind of a loss, or spillage in the gas tank, or parking your car on a hill and letting the raw gas run out.

The main question there, where research is needed, develops around how reactive these gasolines are. There is some indication they are not nearly as reactive, as far as smog is concerned, as are the fumes that come out of the tailpipe that are controlled here. We need more research on this.

To answer your questions directly, I would say the oxides of nitrogen is the biggest question.

Senator MUSKIE. One final question. You testified that the crankcase device is 100 percent effective. Do I understand that Ford has eliminated the crankcase device in its new cars?

Mr. JENSEN. Yes, sir. They took it off. They put it back on on March 1. So by the time you get to Detroit tomorrow, Ford will have a crankcase device on all of their present production.

Senator MUSKIE. Why did they eliminate it?

Mr. JENSEN. We asked the question. The answer they gave us was primarily one of maintenance. The crankcase device involves recirculating the fumes that blow by the piston back into the engine and reburning them.

They are metered back into the engine through a valve. That valve can get plugged up after a period of time, and it has to be serviced.

Ford found when that was not being serviced, it caused engine and operating problems across the country. They kept it on in New York and California, because we have a law, but they took it off of most of their models in the other States.

Starting last year they have a valve which goes four times as long without maintenance, so they can put it back on because the problem apparently is licked.

Senator MUSKIE. The other manufacturers did not have that problem?

Mr. JENSEN. No, at least they claimed they did not have the service problems that Ford did. There is a different amount of blowby that comes out of different engines, and apparently Ford had more blowby. This does not mean it was a less efficient engine, but there was a tendency to plug up their valve more than that of other companies.

Senator MUSKIE. What does the crankcase blowby add to the cost of the car? Do you have a figure on that?

Mr. JENSEN. The closed 100 percent system, unique in California, adds about $4 to $5 to the cost of a car. In the other States you have an 80-percent approximately controlled system. In California we have a 100-percent system, because we require it to take care of that worst 10 percent I mentioned, the worst 10 percent of the cars. Those in California are real clunkers. They would not operate in the winter, for example, in Washington, D.C., or in Maine, or in Indiana.

Senator MUSKIE. I had not realized there was this difference in standards between California and the rest of the country in blowby. Why, since it costs so little, do we not have the 100 percent in all cars?

Mr. JENSEN. I think you should ask that question tomorrow of the automobile industry.

Senator MUSKIE. I may say, Mr. Jensen, the reason we have you on today is to help us to ask questions tomorrow.

Senator Bayh?

Senator Bayh. You mentioned a moment ago this device eliminated one-half of the problem. This deals with your 70 to 80 percent removal of hydrocarbons. This is what you meant by eliminate?

Mr. JENSEN. Yes, sir.

Senator Bayh. In your crankcase device, if I understand everything I have seen and heard, you in California get 100 percent of this pollution removed.

I am anxious to find out why they go to the trouble of having two standards on this, also. But what percentage of the total automobile pollution is involved in the crankcase device, the crankcase pollution?

Mr. JENSEN. About 25 percent of the total hydrocarbons coming out of a car come out of the crankcase. About 60 percent come out of the exhaust, and the rest come out of evaporative losses.

So between the crankcase and the exhaust, you control most of the hydrocarbons.

Senator Bayh. Is it a fair summary, then, of the picture, as far as crankcase devices are concerned, particularly in light of the Secretary's concern that we do not implement anything on a national level that is not pretty well flawless, that at least we have one device that will do a 100 percent job for 25 percent of automotive pollution?

Mr. JENSEN. Yes, sir.

One other thing I should mention. On the crankcase device, too, this has been applied for foreign cars and for most trucks. I forgot to bring this out in testimony.

At the present time there is no existing system for foreign cars and for larger gasoline trucks for exhaust control. The crankcase device is almost full control, but not exhaust control.

Now, in California, the legislature has said, “We will give foreign cars a little more leadtime, but they have to comply with exhaust controls within a year or two, or they can't sell cars in California.”

Senator Muskie. It would almost seem inevitable that legislation would be required on foreign imports.

Mr. JENSEN. Yes, sir; but they did give them a little more leadtime, because American car makers are ahead of them.

Senator MUSKIE. I am most appreciative of your testimony, Mr. Jensen. It has been very helpful to us.

We cannot hope to become engineers or technicians in the field, but I think it is helpful in setting public policy that we have the advice and

testimony of technicians to tell us if the proposals we are suggesting have a sound basis in technology.

We thank you for your testimony.

I have just been handed a letter from the mayor of Denver, Colo. I will place his letter in the record at this point. Other communities and groups may no doubt submit similar communications. They will follow at that point. (The communications follow :)


Denver, Colo., April 6, 1965. Hon. EDMUND S. MUSKIE, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.

DEAR SENATOR MUSKIE: This letter is for the purpose of informing you and other members of the Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution that the city and county of Denver enthusiastically supports the air pollution control bill, S. 306.

The city of Denver has been working quite closely with the elected and ap. pointed officials of other cities and counties in the Denver metropolitan area in à cooperative effort to solve air pollution problems here.

The Clean Air Act being considered by your subcommittee will be of assistance to all of us who are actively working and striving for a solution to this problem.

One of the greatest assets Denver has is the natural beauty of its setting here in the shadows of the majestic Rocky Mountains. It is imperative, in my opinion, to preserve this setting by eliminating pollutants that impair this setting. The air pollution control bill will be of assistance in achieving this objective. Sincerely yours,


April 7, 1965. Hon. EDWARD S. MUSKIE, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.

DEAR SENATOR MUSKIE: I have recently read with great interest your remarks made in submitting amendments to the Clean Air Act of 1963, designated as Senate bill s. 306, and more particularly a portion of section 2 which would authorize the Secretary to make grants to municipalities in an amount up to two-thirds of the cost of the construction of facilities which are designated to eliminate air pollution resulting from the disposal of solid waste.

This legislation is most timely in view of the obsolescence prevailing in many of the urban incinerators and the increasing urgency in the elimination of air pollution.

The city of Pittsburgh had the dubious honor of being the Smoky City for many, many years. Concurrent with the initiation of the renaissance programs, which have gained for Pittsburgh a national and international reputation, an aggressive air pollution program has produced equally spectacular results.

The requirements of the Allegheny County Board of Health, which governs the city of Pittsburgh, permits only 0.20 pound of fly ash to be contained in 1,000 pounds of waste gas discharged into the atmosphere. I am advised that this is probably the most restrictive control applicable to any major city and the results obtained to date in Pittsburgh emphasize the wisdom of such restrictions. However, this imposes a very severe financial burden on this or any other urban area in providing incinerator facilities to meet current increasing refuse demands and maintain appropriate air pollution controls.

The city of Pittsburgh has currently in the design stage additional refuse disposal facilities to handle 350 tons daily. The director of the department of public works advises me that the total cost of these facilities will approximate $2.800,000, of which 25 percent or more represents the cost of meeting air pollution requirements.

To this should be added, within a relatively few years, pollution controls and modernization of present incinerator facilities. The timeliness of S. 306 as relates to Pittsburgh's problems in eliminating air pollution resulting from the disposal of solid waste is most apparent.

It is our sincere hope that early passage of this legislation can be accomplished and the appropriate procedures promulgated to permit the application of Federal aid to those municipalities which, like Pittsburgh, are faced with an immediate urgency in providing additional disposal facilities. Very truly yours,


STATEMENT BY MAYOR THEODORE R. McKELDIN, OF BALTIMORE, MD. The administration of the city of Baltimore strongly recommends the adoption of Senate bill 306 amending the Clean Air Act.

The commissioner of health and his staff have given the bill careful study, and believe its provisions are essential to attack the problems of air pollution. In particular, this bill makes available the means to control air pollution resulting from blowby emissions from crankcases and emissions from exhaust systems of motor vehicles. Furthermore, the bill will combat the problem of particulate air pollution resulting from open burning operations which are necessary because of the lack of sufficient and adequate solid waste disposal facilities.

Air pollution due to open burning operations and from motor vehicles represents two of the most pressing problems in the Baltimore metropolitan area, as borne out by the study of the U.S. Public Health Service made in 1964, This study concludes that air pollution due to particulate matter is higher than desirable, and the relatively large concentrations of oxides of nitrogen, hydrocarbons, and aldehydes present at the time of the study indicate the problem of photochemical smog during the summer months.

A material reduction in the particulate matter present in the atmosphere could be achieved by a ban on open burning of solid wastes. This has been the desire of the Baltimore City Health Department for a number of years ; however, it could not justifiably propose such legislation because the city itself is a major contributor of particulate matter from open burning. The city, at present, has neither the capacity to handle the amounts of solid waste nor the type of equipment to handle large solid waste items.

The voters of Baltimore last November approved a bond issue of $2,150,000 to construct an incinerator. It is now evident, however, that larger incinerator facilities than originally contemplated will be necessary to meet the needs of hoth the city and the two other principal political units of government within the Baltimore metropolitan area.

Such facilities should also be capable of handling the burning of bulky items such as automobiles, furniture, mattresses, and refrigerators if we are to meet all of our needs.

The adoption of Senate bill 306 would make it possible for the city to obtain financial assistance to expand its incineration capacity so that it would be entirely feasible to enact legislation banning open burning of solid waste. Likewise, the requirement in the bill for the installation of blowby devices and the control of exhaust emissions by the automobile manufacturers, and the provision for grants to provide for the inspection and maintenance of such devices, would be the most logical approach to the problem of reducing pollution from automobile exhaust emissions. Automobile emission control legislation should be on a national basis since local legislation is not practical because of the large volume of automobiles and trucks which cross political boundaries each day.


Washington, D.C., April 9, 1965.
Chairman, Special Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution, Senate Committee

on Public Works, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR MUSKIE: The American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations wishes to support most strongly S. 306, amending the Clean Air Act of 1963 (Public Law 88–206). We urge that it be approved by the U.S. Senate without any weakening amendments.

S. 306 would greatly strengthen the Federal air pollution program. It would enlarge more than threefold the authorization for Federal funds necessary to

carry out its purposes, and extend the program through fiscal 1968, as well as expanding research programs into emissions from gas and diesel powered vehicles and sulfur emissions from coal-fired powerplants. Under the provisions of S. 306, the Federal Government would be enabled to provide matching grants to municipalities for construction of solid waste disposal facilities.

The heart of this legislation, in our view, is the power given the Secretary of HEW to establish nationwide Federal standards on emissions from gasoline and diesel powered vehicles in interstate commerce. In addtion, S. 306 authorizes an annual appropriation of $25 million to allow the Secretary to enter into agreements with air pollution agencies of the various States for the purpose of inspection and maintenance of the devices required to control noxious and toxic emissions from motor vehicles.

The facts plainly demonstrate that the largest single cause of America's polluted air is the harmful chemicals release into the atmosphere by internal combustion motor vehicles. This hazard to the health, safety, the economic welfare and esthetic enjoyment of Americans is growing as millions more new cars, trucks, and buses leave the assembly lines for our highways every year.

Experience has shown that promises of voluntary compliance by industry to clean its house with respect to the water pollution it creates has been paper compliance only, and nothing more or less than a delaying tactic. Unless the standards section of this legislation is written into law and firmly enforced, there will only be further costly delay in solving the problem of securing abate. ment of air pollution from motor vehicles, with an attendant and unnecessary increase in health hazards and economic loss to the Nation.

It is therefore indispensable to begin now a meaningful air pollution control program for America by passage of S. 306 in its present form by the U.S. Senate.

I respectfully request that this statement be made a part of the record of this hearing on the bill. Sincerely yours,


Director, Department of Legislation. We will recess and resume tomorrow in Detroit.

(Whereupon, at 1:15 p.m., the subcommittee recessed, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Wednesday, April 7, 1965, in Detroit, Mich.)

« PreviousContinue »