December 17, 1973
Page 41922
Mr. WILLIAM L. SCOTT. Mr. President, let me first express my appreciation to the distinguished chairman of our full committee and to the ranking Republican member of the committee for their kind remarks.
In the legislative process, as I see it, reasonable people can have different opinions. I favor the bill before us but doubt that it goes far enough. My amendment would extend the 1975 interim standards for an additional 2 years. An automobile manufacturer would have until the model year 1978 to reduce carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons by 90 percent from the 1970 standards. It would give him a 2-year extension rather than the 1 year provided in this bill. In my opinion, a 1-year extension is not sufficient time to permit the automobile industry to have a choice of methods for reducing air pollution.
This amendment is identical with a provision the other body added to the National Emergency Energy Act last week. It is similar to a bill I introduced in October with a number of cosponsors.
That measure provides for a 2-year extension with an option in the administrator of the environmental protection agency to extend it for 1 additional year. However, the House language is used in the present amendment because it has already been agreed to in the other body.
I understand that it also has the support of the administration. In fact, I am told that it has the wholehearted support of the administration.
I would read to the Senate a statement that was made December 5 by the Deputy Director of the Federal Energy Office, John C. Sawhill, just his concluding remarks–
I fully recognize that we must balance our energy and our environmental objectives. Based upon the presentations and analysis available to me at this time, I conclude that the extension of the 1975 interim standards to model year 1976 and 1977 epitomizes the balance between the objectives of reducing energy consumption and reducing atmospheric pollution. Additional studies should be made of the possibility of freezing the 1973-74 standards.
Mr. President, we all want to reduce air pollution, all of us want a clean environment, but it must be coupled with a realistic view of our present energy situation and the present state of our economy. In my opinion, the automobile industry should have a sufficient leadtime to develop a cleaner and more efficient motor rather than to be compelled to use a dirty motor and to clean up the exhaust by add-on devices.
I believe that is really the crux of the matter – giving the industry time to plan, and not have periodic interruptions in this planning by changes in the law made in the Congress. I feel that this amendment does give time for them to make decisions that must be made.
During hearings last month before our full Committee on Public Works, the spokesmen for the three leading automobile manufacturers were in disagreement as to the wisdom of using a catalytic converter. Under the amendment, there will also be sufficient time to evaluate a report from the National Academy of Sciences and to determine the extent of health damage, if any, of emissions of sulphates and sulphuric acid from catalyst equipped vehicles. At present there appears to be substantial disagreement on that point by the experts. However, to the layman, it appears preferable to strive for a clean motor, burning the fuel as completely as possible for the energy it provides, than to have the pollutant reduced by an add-on device after it has left the engine.
As you know, Mr. President, present law provides that by 1976 there shall also be a 90 percent reduction from the 1971 level of nitrogen oxides emissions. This is discussed in some detail by the knowledgeable Senator from New York (Mr. BUCKLEY) in his supplement to the committee report. I had urged a 2-year extension of this requirement in the committee, plus authorization for the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to extend the period for an additional year, but the House language which is adopted as this amendment provides that during or after the 1977 model year, the automobile emission standards shall be no more than two grams of oxides of nitrogen per vehicle mile. I understand the Environmental Protection Agency has recommended this standard as high enough for health protection in ambient air and obtainable without adverse problems within the automobile or petroleum industries.
Mr. President, I believe there are three major matters that must be weighed in the various energy measures coming before the Congress. One, of course, is the effect any legislation or action we take has on the environment. Second, what effect will it have on the energy crisis with which we are confronted? And, third, what effect will it have on the economy? This amendment will not do violence to any of the three. It should tend to prevent further erosion in gasoline mileage and, in fact, give the industry time to perfect a more efficient motor.
The identical language has been adopted in another bill by the House. It does have administration support. I urge its approval and ask for the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. WILLIAM L. SCOTT. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time, but do want to comment further before the vote on the amendment.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I yield myself 5 minutes.
First of all, I think I ought to comment on the administration's alleged position on the amendment of the distinguished Senator from Virginia. He spoke of the administration's wholehearted support for this amendment. He read from a communication presumably from Mr. Simon, who is the new energy administrator.
I think the source of the testimony is significant, Mr. President. There is an inclination, in the name of the energy crisis, to throw overboard values in the environmental field that it has taken us long years to fix as a part of our public policy. Mr. Simon has no responsibilities in that field. His recommendations in the field, I think, therefore, ought to be put in proper perspective.
Unless Mr. Russell Train, Administrator of EPA, does not speak for the administration, it is inaccurate to describe the administration's position as wholehearted support for the pending amendment.
I ask unanimous consent that there be included in the RECORD a letter to the editor dated November 27, 1973, by Mr. Russell Train, Administrator of EPA.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
CLEAN AIR BACKFIRE
SIR: I read with interest your editorial entitled, "Clean Air Backfire." After reviewing the information presented, I have concluded that many of the assumptions underlying your statements concerning catalysts are in error. This is especially true in regard to fuel penalties associated with catalysts.
The use of a catalytic control device to meet emission-control standards will definitely save gasoline as compared to the fuel penalties associated with current emission-control systems. For example, it is conservatively estimated that use of catalysts on the majority of the 1975-through- 1977 model vehicles to meet the federal emission-control standards will save 151,000 barrels of gasoline per day. This figure includes the penalties associated with the use of lead-free gasoline.
In addition, it goes without saying that the use of the catalyst provides for meeting more stringent emission standards and substantially reducing emissions beyond the levels emitted from 1973 and 1974 automobiles.
EFFECTS OF DELAY
If we postpone the implementation of the 1976 nationwide emission standards (95 percent in exhaust emissions reduction), Detroit may attempt to achieve interim 1975 standards (83 percent exhaust emissions reduction) without using the catalyst. Automobile manufacturers have always been more concerned with the sticker price of their vehicles, choosing to ignore improvements which would lower the operating cost. Since the catalyst cost is added to the purchase price, Detroit might choose to achieve the standards without the catalyst, which would reduce fuel economy to 1973 levels. If we adopt a standard which requires the use of catalysts we will substantially reduce emissions and enhance the likelihood of better fuel economy.
Backing off to the interim 1975 California standard (90 percent exhaust emissions reduction) is an option and would require the use of catalysts. While there is some evidence that adopting the California standard nationwide would make possible slight fuel savings, 1-3 percent, when compared with imposing the 1976 statutory requirement (95 percent exhaust emissions reduction) we have good evidence that Detroit could achieve fuel savings in this range using technology which is available now and still achieve the 1976 statutory requirement. We believe that before sacrificing our hard fought air quality goal we should explore alternative ways of improving fuel economy, particularly when you consider that fuel economy will be better in 1977 than in 1973 and our air will be substantially cleaner.
D.C. TRAVEL CUT
To illustrate this point, the Clean Air Act requires that we achieve the primary health standards by 1977. If the 1975 interim standards (83 percent reduction) were implemented in place of the statutory standards (95 percent reduction) on 1976 and 1977 automobiles, Washington, D.C., would have to achieve an additional 11 percent reduction in vehicle miles traveled to meet the health standards by 1977. Since a 13 percent reduction in vehicle miles is already required for the area, accomplishment of the additional reductions is unlikely by 1977. Consequently, the people of the National Capital could be exposed to hazardous levels of pollution for an additional two to three years.
On your point regarding the use of the Honda stratified charge engine, current testing which is being conducted by General Motors shows that the stratified charge system could bring us back to pre-controlled fuel economy levels. This is essentially the level which General Motors believes they can achieve using the catalyst. If the emissions timetable is pushed back, the fuel savings from the catalyst will be lost.
POLLUTION PROM CATALYSTS
Your editorial also mentioned the problem of sulfuric acid mist or sulfate emissions from catalysts and referred to EPA scientists urging a delay in catalyst usage due to this potential problem. EPA has recently completed a preliminary evaluation of this possibility and determined that if high sulfate emissions accompany catalyst usage, a resulting air-quality problem is unlikely to develop for several years. Accordingly, time is available to further evaluate the potential for sulfate emissions from catalysts and to determine the extent to which this will be a problem. If a sulfate emission problem does exist, EPA has several courses of action available to solve the problem and still permit the use of catalysts. These include reducing the sulfur-content levels of lead-free gasoline and modifying the catalytic process to prevent excessive sulfate formation.
In view of the significant reduction in emissions provided by the catalysts, the energy savings associated with its use and our ability to prevent any sulfur-emissions problem which may develop from endangering the public health, EPA believes the emissions standards should be implemented as scheduled.
RUSSELL E. TRAIN, Administrator,
Environmental Protection Agency.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, a reading of that letter makes clear to anyone that Mr. Train is opposed not only to the amendment offered by the Senator from Virginia but also to the pending bill which has been reported by the committee. Let me read his concluding paragraph. He says:
In view of the significant reduction in missions provided by the catalysts, the energy savings associated with its use and our ability to prevent any sulfur-emissions problem which may develop from endangering the public health, EPA believes the emissions standards should be implemented as scheduled.
By that Mr. Train means the 1975 interim standards, the 1976 standards, the 1977 standards, without change – not that Mr. Train is not sensitive to new information or to new understanding that we may develop in the continuing search for data and judgment on these important questions. No; he is simply reflecting the voice of current evaluation of all the questions that have been raised.
The fact is that the 1975 standards which the committee bill would extend for another year represent a fuel economy for all operators of motor vehicles n this country.
Moreover, the 2 years that the committee bill would now give to the industry gives the industry ample time to meet those standards and to move on to the standards which are now fixed in the law for the years beyond 1976.
For example, Senator SCOTT's amendment would freeze in the law until 1978 the 1975 interim standard on hydrocarbons, which is 1.5 grams per mile.
It would freeze into law the interim standard on carbon monoxide which is 15. And it would freeze into law until 1978 the NOx standard of 3.1.
The committee bill, on the other hand, would still retain as the target for 1977 the 0.41 standard for hydrocarbons – and the industry has indicated no great doubt that it can achieve that standard. The standard is 3.4 for carbon monoxide, and again industry has demonstrated its ability to meet that standard.
The NOx standard is the one standard that causes the industry to raise doubts about its own ability to develop adequate technology.
In the committee bill we have frozen the NOx standard at 3.1 for 1975 and 1976. We think that it would be premature to do more than that at this point.
Mr. President, let me emphasize that when we consider the standards of the Clean Air Act of 1970, what we are considering is health-related standards. These were not arbitrary standards picked out of the air to create technological problems for the industry or to create problems for those who operate the vehicles manufactured by the automobile industry. Rather, we sought to identify the performances at which public health would be damaged by given levels of air pollutants transmitted into the atmosphere from motor vehicles.
EPA has maintained those standards since the 1970 Act was enacted into law.
The Senate has authorized a study by the National Academy of Sciences and has appropriated half a million dollars for that purpose. It also had testimony as to the validity of the standard.
The National Academy study was designed to be performed in two stages First there was to be an interim study which was made available to us this fall. Second, there was to be a more comprehensive study, which we expect to get next summer.
Now, with respect to the interim study, which the National Academy sent to us this fall, I read as follows:
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.
Mr. President, we have appropriated half a million dollars to test that question. That study is underway, and the industry does not need a study at this point with respect to developing its technology beyond 1976.
There is absolutely no health justification and no technological justification for taking the step which the Senator's amendment would cause us to take today.
The committee has already committed itself to conducting hearings early next year. We expect that they will be conducted in the latter part of January on this whole issue.
EPA submitted its own conclusions on the NOx question the day before the committee reported the pending bill out of committee. There have been no hearings on that EPA report. There is evidence from the Japanese that the NOx problem may be even more serious from a health standpoint than reflected by our own law. The Japanese requirements are even more stringent than ours.
In addition, a week or two ago in California, the subcommittee held hearings at Riverside on the latest available evidence of the damage to the environment from NOx. There was recent evidence of widespread damage to the lettuce crops of California attributable to previously unidentified effects of NOx pollutant.
There is no reason to take a step of this kind unless one just simply panics in the heat of the energy crisis and throws overboard values that have been established after long years of study and careful deliberation to establish a proper balance between doing what is possible and what the health of the country requires.
The Senator's amendment would extend for 1 further year the HC and the carbon monoxide standards which the committee bill would extend for 1 year only. The committee action is all the industry needs. Mr. President, as a matter of fact, I think one of the companies indicated a willingness to accept a freeze at the level of the California interim standards. And the California interim standard is not the 1.5 covered by the committee amendment or the Senator's amendment, but a 0.9 for hydrocarbons. It is not 15 percent for the carbon monoxides, as provided in the Senator's amendment, but is 9.0. And with respect to NOx, it is 2.0 and not 3.1, as covered by the Senator's amendment. So, on these counts, Mr. President, the Senator from Virginia may well be able to make the argument he is making today when we do have more evidence. However, we do not have that evidence now. It could be premature to take this step at this time. And its effect would be to freeze the NOx standards at 2.0, not until 1978, but permanently thereafter.
We think the effect may well have a predictable impact on public health which we would regret. There is no reason to take the step now, in terms of the energy crisis and in terms of what we now know are the effects of the pollutants on our environment.
Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.
Mr. BUCKLEY. Mr. President, would the Senator from Maine yield to me?
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I yield such time as he may require to the Senator from New York.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York is recognized.
Mr. BUCKLEY. Mr. President, I really think I should be asking that my time be allocated 45 percent and 55 percent between the proponents of the amendment and the distinguished chairman of the committee. I say this because, while I think the issues that are involved are extremely difficult, we have received a volume of compelling evidence on this matter.
I have enormous sympathy with the objectives of the Senator from Virginia. And I know that he, too, has sought to balance the compelling objectives in the most prudent way, taking into consideration not only health requirements, but also the other imperatives which we now face.
In point of fact, I voted with him for an amendment that would have frozen the NOx standards to 2.0 for a 2-year period. And this, of course, is an important part of the amendment he has offered.
I would believe, as he does believe, that this would have created a degree of certainty that would have been helpful to the industry in coming up with the most effective design, even though we now have assurances that the committee will consider this particular recommendation shortly after the first of the year.
I will not be able to support the Senator from Virginia for two reasons. First, I am willing to abide by the judgment of the committee on the nitrous oxide standard for the reason that we will be, in fact, having hearings upon the recommendations of EPA. I do believe, knowing this committee and subcommittee as I do, that we will see fast action. We will also be informed by some of the information which the National Academy of Sciences will be marshaling.
So, I believe that what we face here is a deferral rather than a longtime, indefinite postponement of consideration of the advisability of adopting a 2.0 NOx standard.
With respect to the proposal that we extend the 1975 interim standard for 2 years, this may well be something that becomes desirable, but I see no necessity to do so at this time. We are giving the automobile industry here and abroad a comfortable target within which the engineers can work in seeking the most efficient and effective way of meeting those standards, keeping in mind the next stage.
I believe, too, that the public move toward smaller cars, toward cars that are inherently more efficient in their consumption of energy, will have the effect of rendering unnecessary the experimentation with alternatives. I think this is something we will see develop within the next 2 years.
Finally, the experience of this committee has been that breakthroughs have occurred that 6 months earlier had not been predicted by anyone in the industry. We saw this in terms of the utilization and distribution of the catalyst. General Motors, a year or so ago, or even more recently, was testifying that this was not the answer. Now they are wholeheartedly in favor.
I, therefore, do not feel that there is a need at this time to create so large a target, and thereby reduce some of the incentive to the industry to develop more effective ways and alternative ways of achieving our health goals.
For all of those reasons, Mr. President, and with a great deal of reluctance, I shall vote against the amendment offered by the Senator from Virginia, but I do pledge to him that I will continue to work with him in the examination of the NOx standard and a determination as to whether we should enact new legislation to that effect, and I shall continue to keep as open a mind as I can toward the evidence that will be brought to the floor as we move into actual experience with 1975 model cars.
Mr. RANDOLPH. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. BUCKLEY. Gladly.
Mr. RANDOLPH. In connection with the comment on the situation that we call the NOx problem, I want to reinforce what the Senator has said, but from the standpoint of the committee itself. We will have hearings very early in the coming session on this subject in the subcommittee. The results of those hearings will, of course, be brought to the full committee, and it will be the desire and the determination of the chairman, of course, working with the members, to bring this matter from the full committee to the Senate itself.
I think that is an assurance which the Senator has given as an individual member, and which I want to reinforce as the chairman of the committee.
I think the able Senator from Virginia must know, and I am sure he does know, that this is a pledge which will be kept from the standpoint of prompt attention to the problem to which his amendment is directed.