September 11, 1975
Page 28652
AUTOMOBILE EMISSION STANDARDS
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, on September 3, the four major domestic automobile manufacturers launched a national advertising campaign in an attempt to convince the public to support a 5-year delay in cleaning up the automobile. This advertisement appeared in 1,800 daily newspapers, at a cost to the industry — and ultimately the consumer — estimated at $750,000.
In light of the request for clarification, it may be useful to review a few of the facts relating to the automobile and air pollution.
The purpose of emission controls is simply stated: to achieve air quality adequate to protect public health and welfare. The air quality standards are set at a level specifically chosen to do this. The National Academy of Sciences reviewed these standards a year ago and found no substantial basis for changing them. In fact, they pointed out that the margin of safety provided by the air quality standards is uncomfortably small. In the case of nitrogen dioxide, a major air pollutant, they even recommended that a new short term standard be added to provide more health protection.
What is the effect of air pollution on public health? Dr. John H. Knelson, Director of the Human Studies Laboratory for EPA told us last spring that photochemical oxidant — smog — impairs breathing capacity and aggravates asthma and other respiratory ailments. Smog is formed by the chemical reaction of two air pollutants, hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides with each other in the presence of sunlight. There is probably not a healthy person on the east coast who did not experience coughing and eye irritations this summer caused by hazardous oxidant levels similar to those reached in Washington during July and August.
There have already been over 60 alerts for oxidant this year. The problems of Los Angeles are well-known, but regions from Massachusetts, to Oregon, to Florida also had alerts. Detroit had its first air pollution alert ever for oxidant, as did Louisville and Kansas City. Nor is this just an urban problem. The entire State of Iowa celebrated the Fourth of July with record levels of air pollution and its first alert ever, according to EPA. A recent study by EPA shows that clouds of oxidant can be carried 50 to 75 miles or more from cities to rural areas.
Carbon monoxide, which comes primarily from cars is literally a lethal pollutant. It causes decreased alertness, which is especially serious for the driver of an automobile. In higher concentrations carbon monoxide increases incidence of heart attacks and hardening of the arteries and can cause death. And, nitrogen dioxide itself has been shown to increase susceptibility to acute respiratory disease.
The total health effect of these three automobile-related pollutants is severe. The National Academy of Sciences estimated as many as 4,000 deaths and 4,000,000 days of illness per year.
It is true that these hazards are not spread equally among the population, but the susceptible groups are large and significant: older persons, those with respiratory or heart ailments, and even children, about 20 percent of the population or about 40,000,000 people. The fundamental purpose of the clean air standards is to protect the health of these people.
Under existing law the statutory automobile emission standards are scheduled to take effect in model year 1978. It has been asked whether those particular standards are set at the appropriate level to achieve the necessary air quality. The National Academy of Sciences recently stated that there is no new scientific evidence to justify a relaxation of the hydrocarbon or carbon monoxide emission standards and that, indeed, the attainment of these standards is technically feasible and worthwhile.
The automobile manufacturers claim that tighter standards would make only marginal improvement in air quality. However, they apparently base their analysis of air quality differences solely on the number of regions attaining primary standards, a procedure which tends to mask real differences in the health implications of different air quality levels short of full attainment of the standard by a region over the full year. For example, EPA's calculations show that in 1980 there will be 46 percent more occasions on which the carbon monoxide standard is exceeded in the 26 cities studied if a freeze is implemented instead of statutory standards.
What about cost? The question is not the cost of pollution but who is to bear the cost. The National Academy of Sciences recently estimated the benefits of cleaning up auto emissions alone to be $2.5 to $10 billion per year. At present this represents costs borne by the general public in terms of medical bills, lost work hours, and damage to materials and plantlife. Their estimate of the cost of auto emission control is about the same, but with one major difference: it would be the polluter who pays.
The manufacturers claim the cost of clean up will be $150-$400 per car but the National Academy of Sciences found that compared to a conventional engine with a catalyst meeting 1975 standards the added cost to meet the statutory standards would be only $126-$203. Compared to precatalyst 1974 vehicles, the developing three-way catalyst meeting statutory standards would add to initial cost, but would save $19 over the life of the car.
In fact, if the manufacturers are given a delay, the consumer will be asked to pay three ways: for the cost of cars, for the added health costs due to lack of control, and finally for the cost of the advertisement supporting delay.
The manufacturers claim that fuel economy could be reduced by 5 percent to 30 percent by stricter standards, but EPA has pointed out that there is no inherent relation between emission standards and fuel economy. The 1975 emission standards had a favorable impact on fuel economy, which improved 14 percent over 1974. The Department of Transportation and EPA, last fall, reported that a 60 percent fuel economy gain is possible for 1980 model cars, assuming emission standards close to the statutory level. This would give a fleet average of 22 miles per gallon. Their analysis suggests that automobile weight, not emissions, is the most important factor in fuel economy. This assessment is generally confirmed by the National Academy of Sciences Report of June 5, 1975.
It is interesting that a study performed by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory at California Institute of Technology for the Ford Motor Co., and just released this August concluded that goals for emission reduction and energy conservation for the automobile over the next 5-10 years can be met with improvements in the conventional engine and to the vehicle.
The present automobile emission standards call for a 90 percent emission reduction from 1970 vehicles. Originally scheduled for 1975-76, these standards have been delayed several times already, as requested by the automobile manufacturers, and now are scheduled to become effective in 1978. The President and the auto manufacturers are now asking for a further delay of the statutory standards, until 1982. The table below gives the numerical details.
The Subcommittee on Environmental Pollution held extensive oversight hearings this spring on the Clean Air Act, and is now in the midst of marking up proposed amendments to the act. I hope this discussion will assist Members in understanding this complex issue as we continue to consider the control of automobile emissions and their effect on air quality.