Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

It is possible, of course, that catalytic or other devices that would not be damaged by lead can be perfected but if they are, they will perform just as well, if not better, and last longer, in an absence of lead.

Certainly there is no known emission control technique whose effectiveness is enhanced by the presence of lead in gasoline. And in nearly all instances, it appears that such devices can be made of cheaper materials when they are to be used with unleaded gasoline.

It is the view of qualified independent scientists and engineers, such as the expert panel recently assembled by the Commerce Department, that the development of a desirable variety of devices to meet increasingly stringent future emission standards requires that leadfree gasoline be available.

There are some arguments for keeping lead in gasoline, but they are not very persuasive. One such argument is that unleaded gasoline will be more expensive, that is true; but studies already made suggest that if the use of lead additives is phased out in an orderly way, the increased cost to the average motorist can be held to about 1 cent per gallon.

Another argument is that today's automobile engines required lead in gasoline as a valve lubricant. This is also true, to some extent, but the fact is that as little as one-half gram of lead per gallon, about 80 percent below present levels, would serve this purpose in present automobiles.

Furthermore, new automobiles can readily be designed to operate satisfactorily without any lead in gasoline, in fact, automobile manufacturers have indicated that almost all 1971 model domestic cars will be so designed.

Still another argument that has been made is that substitution of aromatic hydrocarbons for lead in order to maintain current octane ratings would increase the smog forming potential of motor vehicles exhaust emissions.

In this connection, it should be noted that the exact relationship between aromatic content and smog producing potential has not been well established, particularly with respect to the changes in gasoline consumption and composition that would be associated with production of lead-free gasoline.

In any event, exhaust gas treatment, particularly with catalytic devices, is especially effective in reducing smog forming exhaust components. Even if there are slight increases in emissions from smog forming hydrocarbons, they will be insignificant in the context of our projected requirements for severe limitations on total hydrocarbon emissions.

Finally, the assumption that current octane ratings must be maintained is not valid. Domestic automobile manufacturers have indicated that the 1971 and later model cars will be designed to use fuel having lower octane ratings than today's regular gasolines; this will include models that previously required premium gasoline.

A great deal more could be said about the economic and technological ramifications of producing unleaded gasoline. This subject is being studied by a panel of experts assembled by the Department of Commerce; their study is supported in part by the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.

Their initial report, issued just 2 months ago, strongly recommends that steps be taken promptly to discontinue the use of lead additives in gasoline, and more specifically to require that lead free gasoline be generally available by 1974.

If legislation proposed by President Nixon in February of this year is enacted by the Congress, the machinery for planning and executing and orderly reduction and eventual elimination of the use of lead additives will be available. I am referring to the President's proposal that the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare be authorized to regulate the use of fuel additives.

If such legislation is enacted and we fully expect that it will be, we will give first attention to the lead problem.

But that regulatory effort, in itself, will not be sufficient. Based on present information, it appears that, until such time as lead free gasoline is the only fuel needed for our cars, an economic disincentive to the use of leaded gasoline will be necessary to discourage the use of such gasoline in motor vehicles that do not require its use.

It is for that reason that the President has made the tax proposal that you now have under consideration. I certainly urge favorable action on this proposal at the earliest possible time.

In conclusion, I want to try to put into perspective the question of whether our present scientific knowledge justifies the removal of lead from gasoline.

All scientific work is incomplete, and all scientific evidence is subject to modification through advances in research. But these truths cannot be used as an excuse to ignore the knowledge we already have or to postpone the action that such knowledge appears to demand at a given time.

Reversing the tide of environmental pollution will require many changes, in the way we do things. But there is nothing new about that. For example, lead is no longer used in paint on baby's cribs. A material that once was used to waterproof basement walls, but that was explosive, has been banned. So has the use of carbon tetrachloride as a household cleaner.

In the retrospect, the need for such steps seems obvious, and we may well wonder why they were then not taken sooner. I expect that within a few years, that is what we will be saying about lead in gasoline, particularly when the use of lead-free gasoline adds only a slight increment to the cost of operating motor vehicles.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
Dr. Heffner, we are glad to recognize you.

STATEMENT OF DR. HUBERT HEFFNER, ACTING DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY; ACCOMPANIED BY DR. S. WILLIAM GOUSE, JR., TECHNICAL ASSISTANT

Dr. HEFFNER. It is a pleasure to be here to support the administration's proposal to tax lead additives in gasoline. Such a tax will create an immediate and effective incentive for the rapid marketing of a gasoline with a low and eventually zero lead content. This tax coupled with the fuel additive regulatory authority requested by the Secretary of HEW will provide the petroleum and the automotive industries with clear guidelines on which to base their investment, marketing research, and development decisions.

We all know that the use of lead additives in gasolines has been an extremely cost effective means of improving the efficiency and performance of our automotive vehicles by permitting high compression ratios in spark ignition reciprocating engines.

It has been less costly to produce the required octane gasolines by means of lead additives than by refining technology. Why now are the lead additives suddenly undesirable? Let me try to put this in perspective.

This has not been a sudden realization, but a growing awareness on the part of many that at some point in time the lead additives in motor vehicle fuels would have to be eliminated.

Our growing population coupled with the rising per capita ownership and use of automotive vehicles has caused more and more stringent emission requirements to be set by the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.

In addition, data shows that blood levels of lead in traffic policemen and garage mechanics are significantly higher than the average blood level of lead and too close to the values at which toxic effects are observed to provide an adequate margin of safety.

These data, coupled with the uncertainty as to the effects of longterm changes in these levels have led to considerable concern with respect to the health aspects of lead entering the atmosphere from motor vehicle fuels.

There is an increasing awareness on the part of the public of the state of the environment and the desire to improve its quality. These forces coupled with the auto industry's general statements that it will be extremely difficult if not impossible to meet the 1975 automotive emission standards with a leaded fuel come together in such a way to make it desirable to begin decreasing the lead content in gasolines immediately.

The Commerce Technical Advisory Board recently convened a panel at the request of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare and the Cabinet Committee on Environment to study the relationship between automotive fuels and air pollution.

It issued a preliminary report which called for general availability of low lead fuel by the end of calendar year 1972 and general availability of unleaded fuel by July 1, 1974.

This report concluded that a low or unleaded fuel would be more costly than fully leaded fuel, and thus, by the fall of 1974, we must have universally available unleaded gasoline at a price that will not preclude its acceptance.

This conclusion clearly indicates that one must impose a price penalty on the lead additive in order to make the lower lead or clear fuels more attractive to the consumer.

The automotive companies have indicated that they will begin marketing this fall automobiles which will not require more than a 91 octane fuel. This fuel can be full leaded, low lead, or unleaded. Manufacturers will specify if their products require a specific lead content fuel. They have also announced that they intend to continue manufacturing engines of this octane requirement. This means that then we will be adding to our automotive population at a rate of about 10 percent a year, vehicles which can operate on the newer fuels.

All octane numbers are Research Octane Numbers.

In addition, perhaps 20 to 30 percent of the existing automotive population can also operate satisfactorily on 91 RON fuel. And so while there is no absolute requirement for widespread availability of a clear fuel until the summer of 1974 it would be imprudent not to start moving toward that direction immediately.

There are a number of reasons why the Federal Government should take action now and not delay. Any one of these, by itself, is not enough to cause such a change in direction, but taken altogether constitute a conclusive case for imposing a tax on the lead additive to motor fuels.

Let me briefly summarize them:

(1) One of these already mentioned, is that the imposition of the tax would exert strong pressures on oil companies to convert refining capacities and change marketing practices so they can produce and market adequate quantities of the new fuels.

Since there is at least a 2-year time span from a decision to go on new refinery capacity, and some months before that in preliminary design phases, one must start the wheels turning now in order that we are not caught in a costly construction rush 3 or 4 years from now.

A recently executed economic analysis indicates that the proposed tax of $4.25 per pound of additive is an appropriate incentive to induce production of 91 RON fuel on both a short- and long-term basis.

(2) Some automobile manufacturers have already chosen emission control technology for the 1974 model year cars. Others will make the decision shortly. It would be extremely useful to have firm Federal positions both on the lead tax and fuel additive regulations as soon as possible in order to allow industry to make these decisions with confidence and minimum cost to society.

(3) There are those who indicate that certain thermal reactor devices can operate on a fully leaded fuel. Our investigations indicate that the behavior of some of these devices is satisfactory on fully leaded fuels under some conditions. However, they do not meet the necessary auto manufacturers test prior to going into general service. If the way in which automotive vehicles were used and maintained were controlled, then there would be much more flexibility in choice of technology for emission control. However, we cannot and should not dictate the condition of operation of automobiles. In addition, the reactor devices that work on a fully leaded fuel work significantly better and can be made from cheaper materials when operated on unleaded fuels.

In any case it is unlikely that reactors will meet the proposed 1980 research goals.

(4) The goals of several of the companies have been publicly stated with regard to emission control devices for the 1975 model year. They are likely to use catalysts with 100,000-mile life in ordinary passenger service with no special maintenance requirements.

(5) The industry has also indicated that it will begin marketing cars with advanced emission control devices for testing in fleet services as soon as possible, in order to get larger-scale experience in general use. This testing will require widespread availability of unleaded fuel.

(6) There is evidence that decreasing lead content in motor fuel would decrease hydrocarbon emissions. Clear fuel would probably reduce hydrocarbon emissions from existing properly maintained automotive

vehicles between 7 and 20 percent. This reduction would also hold for the new vehicles that would be marketed requiring an unleaded fuel.

(7) Recent data obtained by an auto manufacturer indicates that lead particles account for at least 39 percent 2 of the particulate matter in automotive exhaust and under some conditions account for perhaps as much as 90 percent. Decreasing or eliminating the lead content in fuel would undoubtedly reduce the amount of particulate matter entering the atmosphere.

This reduction is significant because of the health aspects of ingested particles of any composition and because information is becoming available that indicates these aerosols serve as nuclei for smog formation.

(8) It is undeniable that blood lead levels in people exposed to heavy auto traffic are significantly higher than average.

Although we do not know positively the cause and effect relationship between automotive exhaust produced lead particles and health, we do know that lead levels in blood are coming much too close to the level at which lead poisoning appears in some people.

Since we do not know what the long-term effects of prolonged increased blood levels of lead are, it is not prudent to wait until positive evidence develops.

(9) It is true that lower lead or zero lead fuel will be more expensive than the present leaded fuels, and if the industry were required to suddenly go from present gasolines to unleaded gasolines at the same octane quality, the investments required and thus the cost to the consumer would be prohibitive.

However, no such move is intended. In fact the auto industry is making possible a large new market for low octane fuel. The pool octane value of some companies in some parts of the country is already at 91. The national average is between 88 and 89.

This means that some companies can market limited amounts of unleaded 91 octane fuel changing little except their marketing strategies. Since a half gram of lead produces about three octane numbers, those companies with an 88 octane pool can market a 91 octane fuel containing a half gram of lead with no change in their refinery operations.

Companies with a high pool octane number (91) such as Union Oil in California, can produce 93 octane gas with only a half gram of lead in it at little or no increase in price.

The recent Commerce Technical Advisory Board Panel on Automotive Fuels and Air Pollution estimated that a reasonable transition to low lead and eventually unleaded fuels should not cost the refiner more than the order of 11⁄2 cents per gallon to produce. This means a maximum of the order $15 to $20 per year for the average driver with no credit for reduced maintenance cost.

The users of these new fuels should have reduced maintenance costs for operating their vehicles. The lower cost will show up in longer life for spark plugs and longer life for exhaust system components, and for longer intervals between oil changes.

There is evidence that indicates that on balance there will be no or little or no net cost to the automotive vehicle owner resulting from a slightly more expensive unleaded fuel.

Depends upon definition of particulate and measuring technique.

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »