December 17, 1973
Page 41917
AUTOMOBILE EMISSION STANDARDS
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. HATHAWAY). Under the previous order, the hour of 12 o'clock having arrived, the Senate will now proceed to the consideration of S. 2772 which the clerk will state.
The second assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
S. 2772, to amend title 2 of the Clean Air Act, as amended.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the present consideration of the bill?
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Debate on this bill is limited to 30 minutes, to be equally divided and controlled by the Senator from Maine (Mr. MUSKIE) and the minority leader or his designee; with 30 minutes on any amendment, except one to be offered by the Senator from Virginia (Mr. WILLIAM L. SCOTT) on which there shall be 1 hour, and with 20 minutes on any debatable motion or appeal.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, will the Senator from Maine yield, without having any of his time applied to my request?
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Earlier today, Mr. President, I indicated that we would very likely lay before the Senate the FEA bill, so-called, as reported from the Committee on Government Operations, at the conclusion of business today, so that it would be the pending business tomorrow.
I am about to change that because I indicated last week that the Flood Control Insurance Act would be taken up on Tuesday, and it may have precedence over the FEA bill.
I make this statement now for the Record in order to let the Senate know that a commitment has been made which will be kept unless a way can be found to avoid it.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, during consideration of and voting on S. 2772, I ask unanimous consent that the privilege of the floor be granted to the following staff members of the Committee on Public Works: M. Barry Meyer, John W. Yago, Phillip T. Cummings, Leon Billings, Karl Braithwaite, Sally Walker, Charlene Sturbitts, Bailey Guard, Richard Helman, Katherine Cudlipp, Richard Herod and Harold Brayman.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Scott amendment be the first amendment in order when we get to that point in the discussion.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I yield myself 5 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, this legislation is the result of 18 days of hearings and 8 executive sessions devoted to the review of the implications of auto emission standards required as result of Clean Air Amendments of 1970. While the language of the bill is simple, its implications are important and complex.
The legislation extends for an additional year the interim emission requirements which the auto industry must meet for the 1975 model year. The effect of this amendment is to postpone for an additional year, the statutory standards established in 1970 for hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide. This amendment also vacates the 1976 interim NOx standard.
The Committee on Public Works is not unaware of the implications of this proposed legislation. Much controversy has surrounded the technology which the auto industry selected to meet statutory emission control requirements. While the catalyst controversy alone raises sufficient questions to urge moderation on the part of the Senate and the Congress, there are other issues regarding emission control requirements.
The committee was concerned with the questions raised about public health-related air quality requirements, fuel economy, oxides of nitrogen emission controls, nitrogen dioxide air quality standards, and transportation control strategies.
This bill would mean something less than a total, national commitment to catalysts – as few as 25 percent and as many as 50 percent of vehicles could meet these standards without catalysts and without fuel economy loss – because noncatalyst cars are small cars.
This bill would vacate 1976 standards which are more stringent than the 1975 interim standards but less stringent than the 1977 standards. Two years' experience with these interim standards will provide ample opportunity to evaluate catalyst issues; evaluate fuel economy questions related to stricter standards; and provide the auto industry with an opportunity to gear their technical efforts and resources to 1977 rather than the present moving target of different standards in 1975, 1976, and 1977.
This bill is a logical outgrowth of the procedure established in the 1970 act; that is, when administrative remedies were exhausted, the Congress would evaluate industry progress and ramifications of the statutory standards. This is the first result of that evaluation.
After the NAS studies the committee will have additional recommendations.
The Senate, through the Committee on Public Works, is paying $500,000 to the NAS to evaluate the need for current auto standards from a public health point of view and an evaluation of the cost effectiveness of alternative strategies to deal with auto emissions.
This bill will place a hold on auto standards for a sufficient period to evaluate the results of those studies. Any more would prejudge those results – any less would foreclose NAS input.
I would like to discuss the history of the issues with which this legislation deals and the basis for committee proposal.
The 1970 Clean Air Amendments (P.L. 91-604) required that all 1975 model cars achieve a reduction in emissions of hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide of 90 percent over the emissions from 1970 model cars. In section 202(b) (5) of the act, the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency is authorized to extend the date for compliance with that statutory standard for 1 year, upon a determination that:
(i) such suspension is essential to the public interest or the public health and welfare of the United States;
(ii) all good faith efforts have been made to meet the standards established by this subsection
(iii) the applicant has established that effective control technology, processes, operating methods, or other alternatives are not available or have not been available for a sufficient period of time to achieve compliance prior to the effective date of such standards, and
(iv) the study and investigation of the National Academy of Sciences conducted pursuant to subsection (c) and other information available to him has not indicated that technology, processes, or other alternatives are available to meet such standards.
The Administrator made such a determination in April of this year. In accordance with the statute, at that time an interim emission requirement for 1975 model year cars was established. Test procedures for the certification of emission controls on light duty vehicles and engines for model year 1975 have also been established. This legislation provides that the certification procedure for 1976 model cars shall be the same as that for 1975 model cars.
This legislation extends the Environmental Protection Agency interim emission requirements and the implementing test procedures for 1 more year and extends the final date for compliance with the statutory 90-percent reduction of hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide to model year 1977. The statutory standard for oxides of nitrogen will also become effective in model year 1977.
And, this legislation preserves the separate standard established by the administrator for California for model year 1976 as well as model year 1975. The statutory authority for a waiver at the request of the State of California for stricter emission controls in model year 1976 remains in effect.
The available evidence indicates the need to continue efforts to reduce air pollution emissions from automobiles. This finding is confirmed in a preliminary report to the committee from the National Academy of Sciences which concludes regarding present public health-related standards of air quality:
Present knowledge of health effects appears to afford no compelling basis for suggestions to either raise or lower the currently mandated primary air quality standards at this time.
The available evidence from the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Academy of Sciences and from other independent sources indicates that public health-related air quality standards are no more stringent than needed to protect the health of sensitive groups in our population from the adverse impact of air pollution.
The committee intends to continue its investigation of the validity of health standards which are the basis for the control requirements of the act. A final report from the National Academy of Sciences on the validity of present standards will be available in August, 1974.
This report and associated reports from the Academy on the feasibility of technology to control oxides of nitrogen emissions and on the costs and benefits of alternative strategies to achieve air quality standards will provide the committee with a basis for an evaluation of a number of aspects of the Clean Air Act, including statutory auto emission standards and transportation control strategy requirements.
Conflicting evidence was presented to the committee on the potential impact of unregulated emissions from catalyst-equipped vehicles.
One serious question relates to emissions of sulfates and sulfuric acid from catalyst- equipped vehicles. While there is considerable disagreement as to the validity and implications of available data, the Environmental Protection Agency scientists and contractors have found significant emissions of sulfates and sulfuric acid in tests on catalyst-equipped vehicles. Projections made by agency researchers from this data indicate a potential for roadside concentrations of sulfates and sulfuric acid in excess of those levels required to assure protection of public health.
Information provided the committee indicates that the projections were based on insufficient evidence and did not justify action by the committee which would delay the introduction of catalysts.
Present marketing trends in the industry show that smaller cars will have a large portion of the market by 1975 and 1976. Thus catalyst-equipped vehicles will have a significant on-the-road test without a total national or industry commitment to the technology.
Also, the Environmental Protection Agency is committed to a major field test of the unregulated emissions and other effects of catalyst control systems in California in late 1974 and early 1975. Reports of this full field investigation should be made available to the Congress by April 1975.
Another issue is emission of potentially toxic noble metal compounds. While no substantiated data was submitted as to emissions of such compounds, the committee expects the Environmental Protection Agency, the auto and catalyst manufacturers to direct adequate resources to monitoring the evaluation of this question to ascertain whether pollutants such as platinum compounds are released from catalyst-equipped vehicles in actual use.
The committee underscores the need to continue the development of alternative pollution control strategies and alternative engine systems which have inherently low emissions.
Should the concerns expressed regarding unregulated emissions be borne out in field tests and should other alternatives such as desulfurization of oil prove impractical, the Congress will want options available which would permit immediate abandonment of catalyst technology on the model years subsequent to 1976..
Much controversy exists regarding fuel economy or diseconomy associated with auto emission standards required for 1975 and subsequent model year vehicles.
There are two issues involved: the first is the extent to which there will be a significant penalty in crude oil requirements associated with the manufacture of lead-free gasoline.
The second is the extent of the penalty or savings associated with catalyst-equipped vehicles.
The committee is satisfied that the fuel penalty associated with production of lead-free gasoline, if any, is not a sufficient justification for abandoning our clean car efforts.
On the other hand, there is little controversy as to the fuel economy relationship between 1975 and 1974 cars. Virtually all testimony received by the Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution and the Senate Committee on Public Works this year indicates that the poorest fuel economy was achieved with 1973-74 vehicles, in part as a result of exhaust gas recirculation required to reduce oxides of nitrogen levels in intermediate and large cars.
The auto industry testified that the catalyst would permit an increase in engine efficiency and thus a decrease in fuel use. The auto companies agreed that the use of catalysts could permit up to a 5 percent to 6 percent increase in fuel economy depending on the efficiency of the postcombustion emission control system and the extent to which the engine is "detuned" from an emission point of view to maximize fuel economy and performance. General Motors and the Environmental Protection Agency have placed this fuel economy improvement at anywhere from 13 to 18 percent.
The committee believes on the basis of the evidence cited that implementation of the 1975 interim standards would result in improvement of both emission control and fuel economy.
Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.