December 5, 1973
Page 39600
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY SEVERS SUBSIDY TO INDUSTRY RESEARCH GROUP
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, 2 months ago, during the confirmation hearings for Russell Train to be Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, I requested a report from Mr. Train on the appropriateness of EPA's continuing support for the Coordinating Research Council. The Coordinating Research Council, as I have indicated in previous statements, is a group dominated by representatives of the auto industry and the oil industry. It does research, particularly supported by EPA, which has been used as a basis for regulations affecting the auto industry and oil industry.
In the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD of September 6, 1973, beginning on page 28681, I placed documents in the RECORD providing background for my concern over the direction of EPA's research program.
I am happy to provide for the RECORD today three letters that announce the decision by Administrator Russell Train to sever the Agency's relationship with the Coordinating Research Council. I believe that is a very wise decision which will serve the public interest. Administrator Train points out in his letter that he has conducted a thorough review of the relationship that has existed between EPA and the Coordinating Research Council. Of particular interest here is Administrator Train's October 26 letter to Mr. M. K. McCloud, of the Coordinating Research Council. EPA now plans to take over and manage three projects that have previously been delegated to CRC.
I applaud the decision made by Administrator Train. It will insure that objective work is completed, and that the appearance of objectivity, also crucial to the development and an independent regulatory agency, will be maintained.
Because there may continue to be some doubt about the wisdom of severing ties with the Coordinating Research Council/ Air Pollution Research Advisory Committee, I will also introduce for the record new and disappointing evidence of the inappropriateness of EPA's support for the CRC. I have a memorandum prepared at EPA discussing EPA's development of regulations for control of emissions from trucks and other heavy duty vehicles. That memorandum discusses the fact that these regulations are being developed, not by EPA as an independent regulator, but through a cooperative effort with the Coordinating Research Council representing the industry that is to be regulated.
EPA's decision to take such functions into its own research programs will do much to rectify an intolerable situation. The public, which also has a significant interest in the control of emissions from trucks and other heavy duty vehicles, has been excluded from the deliberations of the CRC.
The memorandum notes that in developing this regulation a representative of one of the Nation's engine manufacturers states that the CRC-dominated program to develop test procedures for vehicles was the most effective coup that the industry has pulled off on EPA. The memorandum goes on to state that this engine company representative took this position because the CRC action commits EPA to a long and complicated project which is bound to result in additional delays which could postpone instituting controls for heavy duty engines for many years. The memorandum then notes that–
This could be a very sensitive point for EPA in light of recent criticisms that have been raised about the EPA/industry joint CRC/APRAC projects.
Compromise of EPA's regulatory activities by the auto industry and the oil industry – through the CRC – are expressed clearly here in EPA's own memorandums. This reveals quite clearly why it was necessary for EPA to sever its funding relationship with CRC. If properly implemented, Administrator Train's decision should help restore some confidence about the independence of EPA's regulatory activities. I ask unanimous consent that the three letters mentioned previously, plus the two enclosures to the letter to Mr. McCloud, the EPA memorandum dated June 25, 1973, and the Ford Motor Co. letter to Mr. Stork, be printed in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
October 26, 1973.
Hon. EDMUND S. MUSKIE
Chairman, Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution,
Committee on Public Works,
U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.
DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: During the hearings on my nomination I promised to review this Agency's relationship with the Coordinating Research Council and to provide you a further report.
A thorough review has been undertaken and it is my decision that the Agency terminate its formal relationship with the Council and we will not enter any new jointly-funded projects with the Council. Although we will continue to maintain normal professional communications with the Council, we will withdraw from formal participation in the CRC planning process. There are a number of projects for which funds are currently obligated but not yet fully expended; on these projects EPA will continue its participation until completion. In addition, there are very few joint projects which are especially important to EPA; we will propose to the council that EPA completely take over, fund and manage these projects by our own research and development program elements.
This represents the thrust of my decision and it has been informally communicated to the CRC staff. My own staff is now preparing a letter to the Council spelling out the details and I will of course supply you with a copy of that letter after it has been delivered to the council.
Sincerely yours,
RUSSELL E. TRAIN,
Administrator.
NOVEMBER 16, 1973.
Hon. EDMUND S. MUSKIE,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution,
Committee on Public Works,
U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.
DEAR Mr. CHAIRMAN: In his recent letter, Administrator Train promised to supply you with a copy of his letter to the Coordinating Research Council.
I am pleased to enclose a copy of Mr. Train's October 26 letter to Mr. M. K. McLeod.
Sincerely yours,
ROBERT G. RYAN,
Acting Director, Office of Legislation.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
Washington, D.C.,
October 26, 1973.
Mr. M. K. McLEOD,
Coordinating Research Council,
New York, N.Y.
DEAR MR. McLEOD: This will formally advise you of our intention to withdraw from the CRC/APRAC Program. This decision has been reached with considerable personal regret by myself and my colleagues within EPA.
As you know, EPA's role in APRAC, particularly our joint funding of projects with industry, has received rather intensive criticism in recent months. We have considered this situation very carefully, both as regards technical and non-technical issues. I am satisfied from my review of the program that EPA's past participation in CRC/APRAC has been entirely constructive from every standpoint, and that the data generated under CRC/APRAC auspices have been free from bias.
Nevertheless, not only the fact of objectivity but also the appearance of objectivity must be considered when it comes to evaluating continued EPA participation in this activity. The fact that in the minds of at least some people deeply concerned with environmental matters there now is a serious question as to the objectivity and freedom of bias of CRC/APRAC research projects makes it necessary to assuage those doubts.
Therefore, our continuing participation in APRAC itself and in all but three of the jointly funded projects under APRAC will be discontinued, on an orderly basis, on the date when each current project reaches a stage where contracts based on presently committed EPA funds are complete, but in no case later than August 31, 1974.
Three projects of particular relevance to program priorities of EPA's Office of Research and Development will, if acceptable to CRC/APRAC, be taken over to be funded and managed solely by EPA until their completion. The enclosures to this letter set forth our views on appropriate ground rules for this systematic disinvolvement.
I must add that this in no way suggests an Agency position precluding participation of EPA technical staff on Committees and other cooperative industry/government activities to the extent that these are compatible with the interest and objectives of EPA.
It is my hope that informal cooperation will continue between APRAC and members of the EPA technical staff, and that the information deriving from both CRC/APRAC and EPA research in related areas be shared as expeditiously as possible through periodic meetings for exchange of information as well as through exchange of reports covering such investigations.
Sincerely yours,
RUSSELL E. TRAIN.
Administrator.
ENCLOSURE 1
GENERAL GROUND RULES FOR CONCLUDING EPA/APRAC RESPONSIBILITIES
(1) EPA will not participate in the management or funding of any new projects initiated by CRC-APRAC.
(2) EPA proposes to assume sole responsibility for completing projects CAPA-8, CAPA-9, and CAPA-11, with copies of all contract reports to be forwarded to CRC-APRAC. (See Enclosure 2)
(3) EPA will end its participation in all other CAPE, CAPM, and CAPA projects at the time of approval of the last contract report which covers work currently funded by EPA. In all of these projects, EPA participation will terminate by no later than August 31, 1974.
ENCLOSURE 2
CURRENT APRAC PROJECTS FOR WHICH EPA PROPOSES TO ASSUME FULL RESPONSIBILITY
Project
CAPA-8, Determination of Formation Mechanics and Composition of Photochemical Aerosols (Physical Study).
CAPA-9, Chemistry of Nitrogen Compounds in Air.
CAPM-11, Effects of Low Levels of Oxidants Upon Humans.
Recommendation
Increase EPA funding to 86 K for FY 1974 – assume complete responsibility for project direction.
As above, but EPA funding increasing to 93 K.
As above, but EPA funding increased to 105 K.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
PURPOSE
The purpose of this memorandum is to summarize some information on industry programs and attitudes as they relate to EPA's and California's program to control emissions from heavy duty engines.
BACKGROUND
The 1974 federal standards for the control of gaseous emissions from heavy duty engines will require no reductions for diesels and as a practical matter will have little effect on reducing emissions from gasoline engines over pre-controlled levels.
EPA has programmed a long-term program in conjunction with CRC-APRAC to develop data which will be used to develop a new test procedure. It is anticipated that this test procedure would be used to set more stringent standards sometime around 1979 to 1980.
There is currently a reassessment of the heavy duty situation going on within MSAPC to determine if additional action should be taken based on present type test procedures in advance of the standards anticipated in 1979-1980.
California has adopted standards for heavy duty engines in 1975 which represent a 38% reduction for CO and a 70 % reduction for HC and NOx over levels promulgated by the Federal Government to take effect in 1974.
DISCUSSION
In informal conversations with employees from Cummins Engine and Detroit Diesel (G.M.) it was indicated that both companies would be able to produce diesel engines that meet the California standard in 1975. (Cummins and Detroit Diesel sell between 80% to 90% of the diesel engines used in over-the-road applications). It was indicated that diesel engines built to meet the California standard will result in an increase in the initial cost of those engines (probably a larger percentage increase in initial costs than will be required of the gasoline engine). It was specifically stated by Cummins, however, that their new low emission engines will result in substantial improvements in fuel economy. Control techniques for diesels to meet the California levels could include new injectors, turbocharging, modification of aftercooling, raising the compression ratio, retarding timing, variable timing, combustion chamber changes, and larger camshafts.
In informal contacts with selected heavy duty gasoline manufacturers (General Motors and International Harvester) it was indicated that it is feasible to produce engines that meet the California levels in 1975. Engines built to meet the California standards will result in higher initial costs but probably not as large percentage-wise as those that are expected for diesel engines. It is anticipated, however, that there will be a fuel penalty associated with heavy duty gasoline engine emission control. Control techniques for gasoline engines could include EGR, air pumps and carburetor modifications. Some manufacturers have catalyst backup programs with an eye to substituting catalyst control for EGR to avoid adversely affecting fuel economy.
Cummins indicated that they anticipated a larger increase percentagewise in the price of diesel fuel versus the price of gasoline.
In a very candid discussion on June 8, 1973 at the Ann Arbor lab between representatives of Cummins Engine and EPA technical staff members, several points were made by the Cummins people which provide some perspective on the industry and the California and Federal programs to control heavy duty emissions. Although the Cummins representative would probably not want to be quoted, he indicated that it was his opinion that the CRC-APRAC (Cape 21) program to develop new test procedures for heavy duty engines/vehicles was the most "effective coup that the industry has pulled off on EPA" as it commits EPA to a long and complicated project which is bound to result in additional delays which could postpone instituting controls for heavy duty engines for many years. This could be a very sensitive point for EPA in the light of recent criticisms that have been raised about the EPA/industry joint CRC/APRAC projects.
The Cummins people indicated that their primary purpose in requesting the meeting with EPA was to learn if requirements similar to these in California were being considered for adoption nationwide. The emissions people from Cummins indicated that the amount of effort devoted to emission control within their company was in the process of being cut back due to speculation that EPA has no intention of instituting nationwide standards similar to California and that any additional controls would not be instituted by EPA until after the CRC/APRAC work was completed. The Cummins people indicated that the big rumor in the industry was that Detroit Diesel had "thrown in the towel" on emissions work and did not anticipate nationwide standards.
The situation is complicated by the question of whether the California standards will be enforced. The California requirement for heavy duty applies to engines and/or vehicles "first sold and registered in California". As with the 1975 interim standards in the light duty situation, this could provide an incentive to import vehicles and engines into the state that were initially sold elsewhere. A check with California on this enforcement problem indicated that in the heavy duty situation they would probably attempt to get additional authority to prevent importation and if this failed it is conceivable that the requirement could be postponed with a request that it be made nationwide. The local California RD engine dealers would, of course, stand to lose if engines were imported from out of state and can be expected to raise a protest.
CONCLUSION
That the MSAPC effort to develop recommendations on what action EPA should take with respect to heavy duty be given a much higher priority. Considerable confusion presently exists in the industry which is resulting in a slowdown in work related to emission control. Definitive guidance and/or rules need to be provided by EPA to the industry as soon as possible.
FORD MOTOR CO.,
Dearborn, Mich.,
July 27, 1973.
Mr. L. O. STORK,
Deputy Assistant Administrator,
Mobile Source Pollution Control,
Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR MR. STORK: In the EPA Hearing on Remand in respect to 1975 model emission standards the Administrator asked us specifically about our experience in respect to catalyst usage on light trucks. We stated we had essentially no experience with catalysts on trucks in customer usage and urged that standards be adopted which would not require these control systems on that type of vehicle. The public record indicates similar testimony was received from other automotive manufacturers. There was evidence that driving patterns of trucks in the hands of the customer was different than passenger cars. Based on the record we anticipated that EPA would adopt light truck standards that would not require catalysts.
Recently we have heard considerable public speculation that the proposed light duty truck standards for 1975 will be 2.0 gpm HC, 20 gpm CO and 3.1 gpm NOx. On that basis we would plan that between 8.3 to 25.1% of our trucks may require catalysts. Generally speaking, these would be on six cylinder engines or small eight cylinder engines.
We do not yet know the disposition of California's waiver request for 1975 light trucks. Accordingly, potential additional catalyst usage in that state is not included in the above projection.
For 1975 we are currently forced to assume the use of catalysts on all California heavy truck engines in order to meet the standards for which California received a waiver several years ago.
There are obvious problems in respect to filler necks on heavy duty trucks in California and the test fuels to be utilized for certification of 1975 truck engines. We have mentioned some of these potential difficulties to the Executive Officer of the California Air Resources Board.
To sum up the problem we want to point out that we have had practically no experience with catalyst usage on trucks. What experience we have had has been extremely negative. We do not believe that it is technologically feasible to utilize catalyst control systems on 1975 model trucks and yet we are faced with potential requirements for a national standard that could result in a considerable portion of our light trucks using them. We also know that California has a pending waiver which would require catalysts on light trucks in 1975 and an existing waiver which would require catalysts on heavy truck engines in 1975.
To our mind this diversion of effort will seriously jeopardize our attempts to meet the stringent 1975 passenger car standards in California and in the 49 states.
We would, therefore, urge reconsideration of proposed light duty truck standards; denial of the pending California waiver request; and reconsideration of the 1975 heavy duty gasoline truck engine waiver for California.
Sincerely yours,
D. A. JENSEN.