Document GmvDk0w8rVrxMB8r7V89Y4Owr

Bulletin Mo. L April BC, 1970 For: LEAD INDUSTRIES ASSOCIATION, INC. FOR RELEASE: MONDAY AFTERNOON, APRIL 13, 1970 TOP LEAD INDUSTRY SPOKESMAN IELLS PENNSYLVANIA LEGISLATURE THAT' REMOVAL F LEAD FROM GASOLINE MAY INCREASE POLLUTION PROBLEMS. HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 'April 13; -- A spokesman for the nation 3 lead industrywarned the Pennsylvania State Legislatu'a today r.ct to be trappea into believing tnat theearring of leaded gasoline is going to control auto emission problems. "It will not, and indeed there is good evidence that remcvox cf iead may even increase noxious gaseous emissions from present gasolines used in present automobiles," said J. L, Kimberley, executive vice president of the Lead Industries Association m an appearance before the House Committee on Health and Welfare cf the Pennsylvania General Assembly. The legislative body is conducting hearings to bon lead additives in gasoline by mid-1972. Kimberley warned, "It is astounding to find gross misconcepttens, misrepresentation: and false conclusions are being used officially to support the drive to get the lead out.'" The executive cited a document used as a guide to California legislators last week as an example. He cited several examples of errors in the brief. "The most advanced emission control devices that have actually been demonstrated -- and are presently available for adapting tc mass production for use on present cars -- have been shown to be effective with today's present leaded gasolines." He cited a thermal reactor system as an example. C~. March 2C, the California Air Pesources Board completed tests which indicated the system came well under the 1975 Federal emissions goals and came close to meeting 1980 goals. "It is strange," said Kimberley, "that so much reliance is placed on vague promises of emission control approaches that may oe developed after there is lead-free gasoline. .Stranger still is the delay in adopting and improving control methods that nave already been shown to work with existing gasolines and automobiles. "It stands to reason that if the emotional drive succeeds tc force the automobile public to use non-leaded gasoline, this may well close off one promising alternative to the solution of automobile exhaust problems. Today ths most advanced and demonstrated methods for such emission control work with leaded gasoline. Should leaded gasoline be banned, obviously research on and further development of such systems compatible with leaded gasoline will be greatly hampered if not brougrt tc a standstill." Kimberley added, "All the problems involved in removing lead would be worth tack ling if there were to be shown any need for getting lead cut cf gasoline on the grounds of public health or even nuisance. Lead is net involved in photochemical smog formation, nor in irritation of eyes or other membranes, nor has lead m the air, from whatever sources, been shown to present a danger tc public health. "In addition, there is considerable belief and evidence that .ten-leaded fuels could actually increase, rather than decrease, the more noxious and obnoxious auto fumes This is a vast unknown", Kimberley, a metallurgical and mechanical engineer, advised the Committee to reserve final- decision until careful study aha aevelopment of emission cantm systems, particulate controls and polluting effects cf unleaded fuels are completed. PNYC00001199 N10185 Attachment E Bulletin No. t April 20, 1970 Report on Meeting with Department of Health, Education and Welfare Officials HEW Headquarters Conference Room, Washington, D.C. Tuesday, April lU, 1970 Present' Robert V. Pauley, Special Assistant to HEW Secretary Roger Strelow, Special Assistant tc HEW Secretary John T. Middleton, Commissioner, National Air Pollution CcntrcV. Administration Eric Stork, Legislative Liaison, N.APCA Bureau cf Criteria and Standards Richard Jones, NAPCA Bureau of Criteria and Standards J.L. Kimberley, Executive Vice President, Lead Industries Association Carl Thompson, Senior Vice President, Hill and Knoviton, Inc. Tms memo will not attempt a chronological account but is organized Dy major subject areas covered. The atmosphere of the session was at all times cordial and friendly, beginning with the coincidence of Kimberley and Thompson getting on same elevator with Middleton and his coliegues to go to the HEW Secretary's office where they met with Pauley and went tc large conference room. Meeting was at one end of long table (originally set up, it was explained, by Nelson Rockefeller when he was HEW Dhdersecretary.). The conference lasted about an hour and a half, with the last few minutes only with Pauley and Strelow After Kimberley briefly outlined industry:s failure to understand why such urgency behind the drive to "get the led out of gasoline," the give and take was generally informal, with all taking some part but Middleton and Kimberley being primary spokesmen. On concemof lead industry; Middleton asked specifically to know more about Lead Industri Association. The membership, concern of industry, sources cf lead, relative importance of lead, relative importance of lead additives to gasoline, to total. use and domestic mining, etc. were outlined. At close of meeting, Pauley and Strelow asked specifically for fact sheet about cmper' a-tc; of lead additives to lead industry. This is to be provided tc Pauley. Group had not seen Wall Street Journal story and copies were provided tc eacn. On autcmotive emissions: Middleton and Finch's assistants pulled no punches in enuressing determination to accomplish drastic reduction in major automotive emissions. The e'-'ing of 1975 and 1980 goals was to make clear to auto makers what would be expected s: '.cere could be no question about at least 10 years goals. Middleton was not happy about tests that show consumer cars -- as contrasted with tested prototypes -- were net meeting even present emission standards. He briefly outlined NAPCA's intention to intensity testing and to insist that automobiles meet the control requirements or not be allowed on tne market. Particulates are of especial concern and lead bearing particulates are of especial importance. PNVC00001200 -2- Attachment E Thus the concern over lead was not solely related to its effect on control systems that w1: reduce the carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, and nitrous oxides. However, since leaded gasoline seems to have universally adverse effects cn control sys'em; the-removal of iead from gasoline would open up a number of other possibilities tnat are not now Immediately evident. They are looking toward getting emission standards down as soon as possible -- i.e,, 1975 and 1980 but also toward getting below these psais eventually It is felt much more may be able to be accomplished m reducing all emissions once the lean is removed. As to the danger of higher aromatics, this Is fully recognized, but they feel the Bureau of Mines data is not as clearcut as, for example, the concise quotation LIA has been using. In any event, the control standards would not permit increased emissions even if aromatics were to be increased in the fuel. Jones said their experiments indicated oethap; better control of emissions with the higher aromatics. As to systems developed for leaded gasoline, Middleton, had no definite answer as to why auto makers were by-passing these -- except his several general observations tnat leaner gasoline seemea to be detrimental in varying degrees -- to all systems and that ton- leaded gasoline offered more possible control measures in the long run. And again, none of the present systems appeared to he sufficiently effective cn particulate Before July I, he said, the Federal Register would carry the HAPCA proposed definitions and measurement procedures for auto emission particulates. Lead in the air and health concern; Middleton stated he knew that demonstrable health effec were primarily associated with ingestion, as per children eating old paint, or witn indus trial exposure. But he added that human health is not measured solely by whether a person is in the hospital or not or has impaired activity. He cited questions raised about lead's effect on ALA ''delta-aminolevulinic acid) as indication that 'he biochemical system may be distressed by iead. Although conceding tr.i-: work was still in serious contention, he said it was receiving serious research atre.-.Tion fromCuPont. He also accepts the reports of higher blood levels in city dwellers vs., rural lweiiers as evidence that auto exhaust lead is raising blood leads in urban people. Aside from specific health effects, the concern is ever the general environment a* impact of continued emission of lead into the air, waters, soils, fish and other organisms. Conceding that Patterson is not a medical scientist, Middleton cited the work by fm and associates as showing the lead burden in the environment is Increasing -- large.y due to leaded gascuine.. He cited Schaefer's studies on the effect of lead particles cn formation of ice crystals and rain. Others joined In to question what becomes of the lead emitted from automobiles. The pcssi bile correlation between carbon monoxide levels and lead levels in residential areas near freeways was discussed, A sampling of people in one area of California was said >. ty Streicv) to shew a relationship of increased cancer with proximity tc freeways and although there was no suggestion of lead being involved in this it was cited as a possible effect of auto emissions. PNY C00001201- -3- Attachment E Middleton was especially concerned about the submicron {below 1 micron) particles of lead. These comprise a large part of particulate exhaust, remain airborne indefinitely, and are most easily respirable. In brief, it would seem that NAPCA and HEW have no intention of waiting for any demonstra ble health effects on human beings even to be approacned. They feel that the very fact of lead constantly being spewed into the air -- to find its way to soils, waters, food supplies and, most important, air supplies -- must be slowed and halted. Middletcr. said that the lead criterion document on which the KAFCA has been working fcr some time is new scheduled for some time in 1971. He said that this document would be run through a special committee of the National Academy of Sciences to write and approve the portions relating to health. This would mean, he said, that the technical data available would be reviewed by the nation1s highest scientific body before it was issued. Cn lead emissions specifically, Middleton and ethers said that they did not really care how the emissions standards were reached so long as they are achieved. This means that if a satisfactory lead trap could be demonstrated thi3 would be an acceptable alternative to removing lead from gasoline. However, It was clear that none of the HEW people are optimistic about a lead trap and emission control system that will be sufficiently effective with leaded gasolines. They do not rule out the possibility -- it is only that they have been told by the auto companies that the number of alternatives and number cf possible avenues that could be followed for emission control are much greater with leaded gasoline than with non-leaded. However, Strelow said that HEW was trying to keep the future picture open and not close off alternatives as various kinds cf technology were developed. PNYC00001202