Case File
dc-24663721Court UnsealedAir Pollution Foundation Final Report 1961
Date
May 15, 2024
Source
Court Unsealed
Reference
dc-24663721
Pages
65
Persons
0
Integrity
No Hash Available
Summary
Final report / Air Pollution Foundation Air Pollution Foundation. San Marino, Calif. : The Foundation, 1961. https://hdl.handle.net/2027/uc1.c101155592 Public Domain in the United States, Google-digitized http://www.hathitrust.org/access_use#pd-us-google We have determined this work to be in the public domain in the United States of America. It may not be in the public domain in other countries. Copies are provided as a preservation service. Particularly outside of the United States, persons rec
Ask AI about this document
Search 264K+ documents with AI-powered analysis
Extracted Text (OCR)
EFTA DisclosureText extracted via OCR from the original document. May contain errors from the scanning process.
Final report / Air Pollution Foundation
Air Pollution Foundation.
San Marino, Calif. : The Foundation, 1961.
https://hdl.handle.net/2027/uc1.c101155592
Public Domain in the United States, Google-digitized
http://www.hathitrust.org/access_use#pd-us-google
We have determined this work to be in the public domain in the United States
of America. It may not be in the public domain in other countries. Copies are
provided as a preservation service. Particularly outside of the United States, persons
receiving copies should make appropriate efforts to determine the copyright
status of the work in their country and use the work accordingly. It is possible
that current copyright holders, heirs or the estate of the authors of individual
portions of the work, such as illustrations or photographs, assert copyrights over
these portions. Depending on the nature of subsequent use that is made, additional
rights may need to be obtained independently of anything we can address. The
digital images and OCR of this work were produced by Google, Inc. (indicated
by a watermark on each page in the PageTurner). Google requests that the images
and OCR not be re-hosted, redistributed or used commercially. The images are
provided for educational, scholarly, non-commercial purposes.
TD883
A532
Final Report
AIR POLLUTION
FOUNDATION
LIBRARY
MAY1 5 1961
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF
AND TRANSPORTATION TRAFFIC ENGINEERING
1961
R 2 as FA SR if F
ed iE a
AR Ll A
Eee
dc sg
So Ee X
RE. 5 Sa
bi IE RS
or A I |
Bil AER )
na
or he 7
a f
EE :
oa
Ale Bian io
FR AR Re A
© Vina
= Te
i — EE
= A Tr
so Cie
Eo
fe. ht
Bi 2
alias
VAS Te E
5 a a
Ne
i iE ;
Google Cr
Foreword
TD883
4532
IT WOULD BE
most
satisfying
if
the
final
report
of the Air Pollution Foundation could
be
called afinal report
on
Los Angeles
smog .Such
isnot the case .
As spelled out
inthe first brochure issued by the Foundation's Board
of Trustees
inlate 1953 ,
the "sole reason for the existence
of the Air Pollution Foundation
is
to
shorten the time
itwill take
to
eliminate smog .
"We believe we have accomplished
this task .We have helped supply the facts which have shown that the only remaining
cause
of Los Angeles smog
ismotor vehicle exhaust .We have been instrumental
in
getting private industry
todevelop suitable exhaust control devices and
inconvincing
California's legislators
of
the need for a
state -wide motor vehicle pollution control
law .But the final report on smog will not
bewritten until adequate exhaust control
will have become areality .
Because the Air Pollution Foundation has been a
unique social experiment ,
this
report
isprimarily ahistory
of
the Foundation and
its
accomplishments .
Like any
other historical episode ,
the Foundation's efforts must
be
viewed
in
relationship
to
what others did prior
to
its
inception ,
the activities
of others during
its
existence ,and
what others may do after
it
is
dissolved .
Accordingly ,
we have tried
tomake this
report an abbreviated history
of
the Los Angeles smog problem ,with emphasis on
the part played by the Foundation
inassessing the problem and developing asolution .
For those
of
uswho were privileged
to
take part
inthe Foundation's activities ,
it
was an interesting and rewarding experience .Our success
or failure can
be
evaluated
intrue perspective only by posterity .
Regardless ,
however ,
of the final judgment
to
be rendered ,
credit must
be
given
to
the business and civic leaders
of Southern
California who conceived the idea
of
the Foundation and followed through with
financial support .
These are men
of the same mold
as
those who solved the water and
harbor problems
of Los Angeles and made Southern California great .
Ifour present
and future leaders will attack their civic responsibilities with similar courage and
vigor ,the future
of Southern California ,
both spiritually and materially ,
is
assured .
W. L. FAITH
San Marino ,California
April 1
,1961
Final Report
Foreword ...
1542-1953 The Past is Prologue .
4
5
1954 Foundation Research Program Initiated . •.11
1955 Accelerated Research Activity . 16
1956 Filling in the Gaps .... 22
1957 Emphasis on Auto Exhaust .26
1958 Year of Controversy .
.30
1959 State Attacks Auto Exhaust Problem 34
1960 Final Year of Research . 41
1961 Dissolution -And Beyond .
.47
Appendix .49
AIR POLLUTION FOUNDATION
2556 MISSION STREET
SAN MARINO , CALIFORNIA
MAY, 1961
1542-1953 THE PAST IS PROLOGUE
THE FIRST REFERENCE to
air pollution
in
the Los Angeles Basin
is
attributed
tothe Spanish explorer ,
Juan Rodriguez Cabrillo .
In 1542 ,
after observing the smoke made by Indians burning brush ,
he
called San
Pedro Bay the "Bay
of Smokes .
"The atmospheric condition that contributed
tothe
accumulation
of smoke was the combination
of
low wind speed and the intense atmospheric temperature inversion that was typical of
late summer and early fall days
in
the Southern California coastal plain .
As weather conditions
of
a
locality
donot change markedly over aperiod
of
a
few
centuries ,we should not have been surprised 400 years later ,when the population
of
the Los Angeles Basin had reached 3million ,
to
see an intense air pollution problem
develop .
In the interim ,
although there must have been many days when atmospheric visibility was restricted ,
there were not a
sufficient number
to
cause much comment .
Tropical haze (dust ,
pollen ,
fibers ,
salt particles )
,
common even
insubtropical areas ,
was not
at all unusual and was accepted
as
anatural phenomenon ,
inthe same way
early morning fogs are accepted along the coast .
Man Made -
Air Pollution
Occasionally ,when an activity
of man resulted
in
a
polluted atmosphere ,
the populace called for remedial measures .An article published inthe Los Angeles Herald ,
Saturday ,
January
17,
1903 ,
is
apropos .
Portions
of
the article follow .
Frequently "
last week former Pittsburghers who were on Spring Street were given a
strong reminder
of
home ;
it
is
not likely that any others of the hundreds
of
people who
thronged the busy thoroughfare found anything
in
the atmospheric conditions that
recalled a
single pleasant incident
or
period
of
their lives .
One afternoon during the
week adarkness suddenly spread over the street ;
inshops and stores from Third
toFifth
streets electric lights were turned on ;
people peered
in
wonder through the blackness ,
unable
todistinguish objects only afew feet from them .
Some thought
itan eclipse
of
the
sun ,
afew thought that aheavy fog had settled over the city ,but soon all knew the truth ,
that
itwas smoke that obscured the sun and drove out daylight from the street ,
smutted
their faces and soiled their linen .
Itwas like meeting a
railroad train
in
a
tunnel .
"...
Several "
weeks ago a
petition was filed with the City Clerk protesting against the
local smoke nuisance .
It
recited that the amount
of
smudge carried
inthe output
of
the
big flues
of
a
number
of
local hotels and bakeries was
so
great that
it
had become a
menace
to
public health
aswell
aspublic nuisance .
This petition went the way
ofmany
others addressed
to
the old city council .
Itwas read
inthe council chamber and referred
to the committee on legislation ,
and that was the last ever heard
of
it.
"
5
The Beginnings of Smog
So Los Angeles marched on to
its
rendezvous with smog .
By 1940 ,
periods
of
polluted air were becoming noticeable more frequently and with greater intensity .
By this time the population
of
the Los Angeles Basin ,
as
noted before ,
had reached
nearly 3million .But with the onset
of World War
II
,more pressing problems arose ,
and air pollution problems were subordinated
to
the war effort .During this period ,
however ,widespread complaints concerning atmospheric eye irritation became common ,
particularly
inthe East Los Angeles area .Most
of
the complaints were traced
to
an oil -gas plant that had been converted
to
a
butadiene manufacturing operation .
Vapors released from
anopen condenser were highly irritating
tothe eyes and spread
over awide area when the atmosphere was stagnant .
Even after the condenser was
replaced with a
closed condenser (and later ,
after the plant had been dismantled )
complaints about intense eye irritation continued .
Apparently during the early 1940's ,
eye irritation became generally noticeable ,
even though a
direct source was eliminated .
Thus ,more and more people became
cognizant
of
eye -irritating smog .
By 1944 ,
extensive crop damage
in
the Basin was
caused by smog ,
and ,
by 1945 ,
public tempers shortened and stayed that way .
Smog
had come
toLos Angeles .
Early Control Activity
In 1945 ,
Stephen W. Royce ,
president and manager
of
the Huntington Hotel
in
Pasadena ,
asked Gen. Amos Thomas
to
join his staff ,
with the sole assignment
of
fiinding out what smog was and what could be done about
it.
Inthe same year ,
the
Los Angeles Times brought Prof. Raymond
R.
Tucker ,
who had spearheaded the
St. Louis cleanup ,
to
Los Angeles for a
study that required several weeks .
Concurrently ,
the Board
of
Supervisors
of
the County
of
Los Angeles made the
County Health Officer its Director
of Air Pollution Control ,
who ,
inturn ,
appointed
Dr.
I.
E. Deutch
asCounty Air Pollution Engineer .The City
of Los Angeles also set
up aBureau
of Air Pollution Control
inthe City Health Department .
Unfortunately ,
regulations subsequently adopted by the two governmental groups
were not the same .
Both dealt mainly with smoke abatement ,
but even then
it
was
realized that the Los Angeles problem was more complex than just black smoke .
By the spring
of 1946 ,
itbecame apparent that an
all
-embracing air pollution control district was preferable to
the nonuniform codes
ofmany municipalities and the
county .
Adraft
of
a
proposed Air Pollution Control Act was prepared by County Counsel
Harold W. Kennedy for submission
to
the California Legislature .The draft was then
approved by the County Board
ofSupervisors and the Citizens '
Smog Advisory Committee ,
headed by William M. Jeffers .
Some industrial opposition
to
the bill developed and ,
for a
time ,
threatened
its
passage .
However ,
after a
meeting
of
Gen.
Thomas ,Mr. Jeffers ,
and Mr. Kennedy with industrial officials ,
*
opposition was withdrawn and the bill was passed .
This *
meeting
is
reported
inan excellent review ,
entitled "The History ,
Legal and Administrative
Aspects
of Air Pollution Control
in
the County
of
Los Angeles ,
"
by Harold W. Kennedy ,
May 9,
1954 .
6
The Air Pollution Control District
The Los Angeles County Air Pollution Control District (APCD ) was activated on
October 14 , 1947. Dr. Louis C. McCabe was appointed Air Pollution Control Officer
and , in early 1948 , the air pollution personnel of the City Health Department were
transferred to the APCD .
During the next six years , a great deal of progress was made in controlling industrial effluents , but in spite of this, smog conditions became worse .
Major regulations put into effect during this period were :
I. Definition of air contaminants
II. Permits to construct and operate equipment that may emit air contaminants
must be obtained from the APCD .
III. Establishment of permit fees
IV. Prohibitions :
Rule 50. Smoke abatement (includes opacity definition )
Rule 51. Effluents that create nuisances
Rule 52. Particulate matter limitations
Rule 53. Sulfur dioxide and combustion contaminants
Rule 54. Dust and fumes (limited according to process weight )
Rule 56. Storage of petroleum products
V. Hearing Board Procedures
VI . Orchard or citrus grove heaters
Because smog abatement was not noticeable as a result of these regulations , public
disappointment grew into intensive criticism of the APCD , fanned by speeches and
"Letters to the Editor " by the overzealous , by fanatics , and even by well -meaning
citizens who were led to exasperation by the turn of events .
Considerable venom was directed toward petroleum refiners , who had yet to live
down their short -lived opposition to the passage of the law setting up the APCD .
Refineries were accused of dumping pollutants into the atmosphere under the black
of night ; the APCD was accused of not enforcing the law.
By the fall of 1953 , charges and countercharges reached a crescendo . Cities blamed
the County, the County blamed the State , the State blamed the cities , and the merrygo -round continued . At a meeting of a group of University of California scientists in
Riverside in November, it was suggested that unless the smog problem could be
solved , "parts of Southern California may have to be evacuated ." In late October ,
Governor Knight had appointed a blue -ribbon committee of scientists to study the
problem and to report their recommendations to him at a conference to be held early
in December .
7
A five -day siege of smog in late October and early November brought the confusion to a head . The vice -mayor of Pasadena said the city "may sue all
Southern
California oil refineries .
"He also asked the Governor
to
declare Southern California
an emergency area and
to
quarantine every producer
of air pollutants causing smog .
On the fifth day
of
the smog siege ,
downtown office workers were reported
to
have
walked "
off the job
indroves .
"The acting postmaster complained that the smog was
making
itdifficult for him
tobreathe and was reported
tohave collapsed
at his desk .
Aprominent physician said that anyone who could get out
of
town should
do
so
at
once .The Los Angeles Daily News asked the question :
"How many more Black Mondays must we have before those towhom we have delegated enforcement powers and
who say these powers are sufficient
to
do the necessary enforcement are going
togive
us a
demonstration ?
"
The Air Pollution Foundation
isFormed
Itwas
inthis environment that the Air Pollution Foundation was organized .Agreement to
organize was reached
at
ameeting
of more than 75 businessmen ,
industrialists ,
civic leaders ,
churchmen and government officials
at
the Ambassador Hotel
on November 2,
1953 .
Chairman
of
the meeting ,Asa
V. Call ,
president
of Pacific Mutual Life Insurance
Co. ,
said :
“As
of
today ,
smog
isthe most serious matter that faces the area (Southern
California )
.
Anumber
ofgroups have been going
indifferent directions .Maybe they
can be controlled and maybe they can't ... This should be a
program carried out
over a
period
of
several years without fear
or
favor .
Ifwe can come up with the
answer and somebody gets hurt ,
that's too bad .
If
no one gets hurt ,
somuch the
better .
"
The Foundation was officially incorporated under the laws
of California
as
a
nonprofit research organization on November 16,
1953. Its first officers were :
Chairman :Fred
D. Fagg ,
Jr. ,President ,University
of Southern California
Vice Chairman :
Stephen W. Royce ,
President and Manager ,Huntington Hotel ,
Pasadena
Treasurer :
James
E.
Shelton ,President ,Security -First National Bank
Secretary :Leroy Garrett ,Musick ,Peeler &Garrett
Committees on Finance ,Research ,
and Personnel were established
to
get the Foundation going .
Several policies were adopted
to
guide the activities
of
the Foundation .
These were :
What the Foundation Proposes To Do : 1.
To assemble a
competent technical staff
to
organize and direct a
broad program of
cooperation ,
research ,
and public information .
2.
To determine ,
record ,
and publish what has been accomplished
to
date by
all
agencies dealing with the Southern California problem .
8
3. To determine what remains to be done and to employ experts through the
device of research or service contracts — who will provide information and advice for
the shaping of future policies and action .
4. To collect information as to what other municipal areas have done , and are
doing, under similar circumstances .
5. To provide and maintain a library of materials pertinent to the subject of air
pollution .
6. To consult with, exchange information with , and to suggest to governmental
and private agencies those research activities , enforcement methods , or other matters ,
which have not yet been conducted or tried and which seem to offer promise of air
pollution abatement - so that the efforts of
all
groups and individuals may
be
coordinated properly . 7.
To publish current information -by the most appropriate means on
all phases
of air pollution and its abatement .
What the Foundation Does NOT Propose To Do : 1. Itwill not duplicate services already rendered by governmental
or
private
agencies . 2. Itwill not conduct research activities directly -unless
it
appears clear that no
existing agency can conduct them
as
advantageously .
3.
Itwill not expend funds entrusted
to
it
for the construction
or
equipping
of
Foundation laboratories that will duplicate facilities already available . 4. Itwill not hold public hearings for the purpose of
receiving complaints ,
or
in
any way
to
substitute for governmental agencies now charged with responsibility for
certain phases
of
the air pollution problem .
5.
Itwill not offer any immediate
or
ready solution for a
very complicated ,
longrange problem .
Afurther implied policy was listed
in
abrochure used
inthe solicitation
of
funds
for the Foundation under the question :
"How long will the Foundation exist ?
"
"Current research plans are on a
5
-year basis .When the answers have been found ,
the
Foundation will close shop -because
it
is
self -liquidating .
"
These policies have guided the activities
of
the staff throughout the Foundation's
existence .
Beckman Committee Report
Afinal event
of
importance
in
1953 was the second session
of
the Governor's Air
Pollution Control Conference ,held on December 5
inLos Angeles .The Special Committee on Air Pollution ,
appointed earlier and chaired by Dr. Arnold
O.
Beckman ,
presented
its
report .The committee recommended that the following measures be put
into effect and that dates for conformance
be
promptly established by the APCD :
9
1. All open skimming ponds , separators , sumps , and sewers associated with the
production and refining of petroleum shall be prohibited .
2. Gasoline transfers involving mobile carriers shall be prohibited unless satisfactory means are provided for preventing escape of vapors to the atmosphere .
3. The problem of spillage and loss of volatile hydrocarbons at filling stations
shall receive immediate attention , to the end that suitable equipment and procedures
for controlling this source of air pollution are put into use at an early date .
4. The feasibility of reducing or relocating existing facilities and curtailing future
expansion of air -polluting industries , such as petroleum refining , shall be actively
investigated .
5. Enforceable regulations for the control of obviously offensive fumes from automotive exhaust shall be immediately established and enforced .
6. Large motor vehicles , particularly buses and trucks , shall be required to use
liquefied petroleum gas or equally satisfactory means for abating noxious exhaust
fumes as rapidly as possible .
7. Systems for the collection and disposal of all combustible rubbish shall be
established promptly and local burning shall thereafter be prohibited .
As will be seen later, these recommendations were not completely acceptable to
the public , but they served as a framework for the initial activities of the Foundation's staff .
10
1954
FOUNDATION RESEARCH PROGRAM INITIATED
THE YEAR 1954 was understandably a
hectic one for the Foundation . A staff had to be formed ; headquarters had to be set
up ; the nature of the smog problem in Southern California had to be appraised ; and
an aggressive research program had to be developed and put under way.
The Technical Staff
The newly appointed president and managing director of the Foundation , Dr.
Lauren B. Hitchcock , reported for duty on February 1, 1954. On March 15 , headquarters were opened at 704 South Spring Street , Los Angeles . By the end of May ,
key staff members had been selected .
The scientific team which was to carry the brunt of developing and directing the
Foundation's research program during
its
first three years were ,
in
addition
toDr.
Hitchcock :
W.
L. Faith ,chief engineer and deputy director
Morris Neiburger ,chief meteorologist
N.
A. Renzetti ,chief physicist
L.
H. Rogers ,chief chemist
Other key positions filled were public information officer ,
Burt Leiper ;
business
manager ,
Robert
S.Weatherly ;
and librarian ,Mrs. Mary Ann Jordan .
The officers and members
of
the Board
of
Trustees performed yeoman duty
in
getting the Foundation under way .
Afinance committee under the chairmanship
of
Edward W. Carter ,president ,Broadway -Hale Stores ,
Inc. ,
raised funds from business
and industry for the first year's program .
Aresearch committee ,
headed by Dr.
Lee
A.
DuBridge ,
president
of
California Institute
of
Technology ,worked closely
with the scientific team
of
the Foundation
in
developing the research program .
The most important contribution
of
the Trustees was their constant insistence on
objective ,
independent action by the staff .
Thus ,
from
its
inception ,
the Foundation
was committed
to
"impartial fact -finding ,without fear
or
favor .
Let the chips fall
where they may .
"This admonition was
so
strong that no contributor ever asked the
Foundation's staff
to
alter
or
soft -pedal any
of
its
conclusions
or
todirect
its
research
activities away from sensitive areas .
There were no sacred cows .
Getting Under Way
The obvious prerequisite
to
a
sound research program was aprofound understanding of the nature of
the smog problem
inthe Los Angeles Basin .
Conferences were
held with everyone purporting
to
have aknowledge
of
the facts .
Especially valuable
was the cooperation and counsel
of
the Los Angeles County Air Pollution Control
District ,
Stanford Research Institute ,
various citizens '
committees ,
and government
bureaus .We soon became aware
of
strong differences
of
opinion among scientists
11
working on the problem, and especially of misconceptions of a certain segment of
the population. In the latter case, we solicited the help and cooperation of the press ,
radio , and TV in the development of a sound public information program. Our findings and programs were widely reported . The press did an excellent job of proclaiming our objectivity and suggesting patience on the part of the public . The smog
committee of Kiwanis International was of especial help in informing the public ,
particularly opinion leaders , of the technical nature of the problem and the need for
moral support of the Foundation . Over a period of three years , a Kiwanis speakers '
bureau, armed with information supplied by the Foundation , carried the story of the
air pollution problem in Los Angeles directly to the public .
The Beginnings of an Understanding
After many conferences , both formal and informal , we were able to start differentiating fact from opinion and separating likely theories from wishful thinking and
emotional hopes . We were subjected to harebrained schemes and fanciful flights of
imagination , but we gave everyone a chance to propound his panacea .
In June , we published our first scientific report , summarizing available data on the
Meteorology ofthe Los Angeles Basin, by Neiburger and Edinger . We were especially
fortunate in having Prof. Neiburger on our staff , inasmuch as he was the only staff
member with previous experience in Los Angeles smog studies .
Our library was another source of useful information . From the very beginning ,
we collected pertinent reprints and manuscripts dealing with the Los Angeles smog
problem . The staffs of Stanford Research Institute and the Los Angeles County Air
Pollution Control District were particularly helpful and made copies of their valuable
collections available to us . Another source of highly useful information was Prof. A. J.
Haagen-Smit of Caltech , who was unstinting with his time .
As a result of intensive library research and many conferences , we were able to
sort out the areas of agreement and disagreement with respect to Dr. Haagen-Smit's
theory of photochemical smog and the relative contribution of various sources to
atmospheric smog formers . Our Report No. 2, "Combustion and Smog," by W. L.
Faith , pointed out these areas of disagreement .
By July , 1954 , we were in a position to envision a research program. It was obvious
that Los Angeles smog resulted from restricted air movement in the Los Angeles
Basin and a variety of emissions related to the daily activities of a rapidly increasing
population. ( In retrospect , this statement doesn't seem to show much progress , but
at the time it was the only statement upon which experts would agree .)
The Initial Research Program
To proceed beyond this point we needed answers to several questions .
1. Were the methods of computing air mass movements by use of surface -wind
measurement (as used by Neiburger and Edinger ) sufficiently accurate to define
the relative contribution of various sources of pollutants ?
To answer this question , an air tracer study was devised in which a fluorescent
pigment (zinc -cadmium sulfide powder ) was released from various points of interest
and recollected at sampling stations spread along a 25-mile arc downwind from the
point of release . This study was financed by the Los Angeles County APCD through
12
a research contract with the Foundation . The dispersal and sampling was carried out
by the Ralph M. Parsons Co. , with personnel supplied by the APCD .
2. Was it a fact that visibility in the Los Angeles Basin had grown progressively
poorer since the early 1930's ?
This information was needed to determine if controls put into effect in the late
1940's had affected visibility in the Basin. The study was to be carried out under the
direction of Dr. Neiburger in conjunction with the U. S. Weather Bureau and the
IBM Corporation Service Bureau .
3. Were any of the many proposals for eliminating smog by meteorological modification of the atmosphere suitable for use in Los Angeles ?
This study was undertaken by Dr. Neiburger . His very interesting report , published in Science , October 4 , 1957 , pp . 637-645 , showed that the power requirements
for atmospheric modification were exorbitant and prohibitive .
4. Could some of the objections by capable scientists to Haagen-Smit's theory of
photochemical smog formation be resolved by extension of his studies by an independent laboratory ?
Confirmatory studies were delegated under contract to the Armour Research Foundation, Chicago, Illinois . Dr. Haagen-Smit cooperated fully with the investigation.
As a result , his keen insight concerning the photochemical formation of smog was
corroborated .
Two related studies of atmospheric photochemistry were also initiated . One was a
critical examination of the literature of atmospheric chemistry by Professors P. A.
Leighton and W. A. Perkins of Stanford University . Another was a laboratory study
of the detailed mechanism of smog formation by Stanford Research Institute at its
Southern California Laboratories in South Pasadena .
5. What was the nature of the atmosphere in the Los Angeles Basin during smog
sieges ? What was the relationship between oxidant values and other manifestations
of smog ? How were the manifestations of smog distributed in severity and time
throughout the entire Basin ?
To answer these questions , an Aerometric Survey of the Los Angeles Basin was
carried out from August to November, 1954. It was the most ambitious survey heretofore attempted in the air pollution field . A substantial portion of the study was supported by the Los Angeles County APCD through contracts with the Air Pollution
Foundation . The Department of Water and Power , City of Los Angeles , also assisted
in the work through a service contract . The total cost of the survey was in excess of
$400,000 and involved the services of 305 persons on a full- or part-time basis for a
total of over 9,000 man -days . Over 100,000 individual measurements were made .
In conjunction with the survey , a contract was also made with Mr. Neil Goedhard
of the School of Public Administration of the University of Southern California to
bring the general statistical data of the Los Angeles Basin up -to -date .
6. What are the present and future emissions of hydrocarbons from the refineries
and oil fields of Los Angeles County?
13
This was an area of considerable controversy and emotional indignation . We
believed it would be in the public interest to make an independent audit of refinery
emissions , so a contract was placed with the Southwest Research Institute , San
Antonio , Texas, to make the study . The various petroleum refiners cooperated wholeheartedly .
7. What new techniques can be utilized to allow more precise and sensitive measurements of air pollutants ?
In preparing for our aerometric survey , we became aware of an appalling lack of
adequate instrumentation for atmospheric measurements . Under the guidance of our
chief physicist , Dr. N. A. Renzetti , we undertook a search for modern instruments
that might be adapted to air pollution studies .
Subsequently we contracted with Borman Engineering Co. , North Hollywood , California , to build an ultraviolet spectrometer suitable for determination of atmospheric
ozone . We also arranged with the National Bureau of Standards to release Mr. Ralph
Stair to study the ultraviolet spectra of the sun , as viewed through the atmospheric
smog layer in Pasadena . This was done every day during the month of October.
A second survey was made during November by Prof. D. M. Gates of the University of Denver, using an infrared spectrometer .
A preliminary study of a variety of other instruments was also started .
Evaluation of Sources and Their Control
Although the questions listed in the foregoing were believed amenable to direct
research investigations , there were two important sources of pollutants about which
more information was deemed necessary before embarking on expensive research
contracts . One of these was motor vehicle exhaust ; the other was rubbish disposal
by incineration .
Motor Vehicle Exhaust
To learn more about motor vehicle exhaust , we arranged a “Conference on Vehicle
Combustion Products and Other Emissions ," which was held in Pasadena , California ,
on August 19 , 20 , and 21. A group of 60 experts , representing the automobile industry , the oil industry, universities , and governmental organizations, attended . Sessions
were held on composition and analysis of auto exhaust gases ; composition and analysis of diesel exhaust gases ; effect of fuel composition , fuel additives , and lubricating
oil additives ; automotive engineering design and exhaust control devices ; and chemical reactions in polluted atmospheres .
Important conclusions of the conference were :
1. Automobile exhaust is a serious contributor to Los Angeles smog .
2. More data were required on the composition of motor vehicle exhaust . A prerequisite was better methods of analysis .
3. Fuel modification would probably be of only limited value in ameliorating
smog .
4. Further work on afterburners was desirable .
14
As a direct result of the conference , several projects on automobile exhaust were
activated . A contract was given to Midwest Research Institute , Kansas City, Missouri ,
to determine the effect of automobile exhaust composition on the various manifestations of smog .
Two projects were placed at Southwest Research Institute , San Antonio , Texas.
One was for a critical evaluation of a catalytic muffler developed by Dr. Eugene
Houdry of Oxy -Catalyst , Inc. This was the only exhaust afterburner device that was
available in a suitable prototype .
The second project initiated at Southwest Research Institute was an economic
feasibility study of various stop -gap methods that had been proposed to alleviate
probable smog effects from motor vehicle exhaust .
Rubbish Disposal and Incineration
To learn more about incinerator emissions and alternate methods of rubbish disposal , a Conference on Incineration , Refuse Disposal, and Air Pollution was held in
Pasadena , California , on December 3 and 4, 1954. Participants included sanitary
engineers ; government administrators in the fields of sewage and sanitation on
municipal , state, and Federal levels ; academic personnel ; and various other specialists in the field of air pollution control .
Principal recommendations and conclusions adopted by the conferees were :
1. The combustion of rubbish in household and backyard incinerators has the
twofold detrimental effect of distillation of a large proportion of the material
and the production and discharge to the air of particulate materials capable
of forming extensive and persistent aerosols which aggravate air pollution .
Household and backyardtype incinerators and open rubbish fires should be
recognized as unsatisfactory solutions of the community refuse disposal problem in the Los Angeles metropolitan area .
2. Combustion of rubbish in the municipal or industrial incinerator , which leads
to the discharge into the atmosphere of an unsatisfactory stack effluent , is indefensible .
3. Since the sanitary landfill method of refuse disposal has been shown to be economical and acceptable from the standpoint of public health , and since it creates no air pollution problems , this method should be given immediate consideration for the disposal of rubbish in the Los Angeles metropolitan area .
A full discussion of the conference proceedings was published in Air Pollution
Foundation Report No. 3.
Studies by the Foundation staff prior to the conference indicated that the composition of effluent gases from backyard incinerators was fragmentary and conflicting.
Accordingly , a project was placed at Battelle Memorial Institute , Columbus, Ohio , to
evaluate the amount and type of effluents that were emitted from a typical backyard
incinerator .
15
1955 ACCELERATED RESEARCH ACTIVITY
THE YEAR 1955 was
one
of
intensive
research activity .The staff had tosupervise the many research contracts made in
1954 ,
evaluate the data obtained ,
and arrange for publication
of
the results .
Ten technical
reports were issued ,
including the report
of
the incineration conference already mentioned ;
the First Technical Progress Report ,
issued
inMarch ;
and the Second Technical Progress Report ,
issued
in
November .
Progress can be illustrated best by a
brief review
of
the other seven technical
reports issued .
Report No.
5.
Hydrocarbon Losses from the Petroleum Industry
in
Los Angeles
County ,by Southwest Research Institute .
The audit
of
petroleum refinery hydrocarbon losses showed a
value
of
250 tons
per day ,
about midway between the estimates
of
the Los Angeles County APCD and
the Western Oil and Gas Association .
Itwas obvious that the methods of estimation
used by the three groups affected the results .
This ,
in
itself ,
was useful information
and paved the way for a
later cooperative approach between the APCD and WOGA .
Report No.
6. Basic Statistics
of
the Los Angeles Basin ,
by Neil Goedhard .
Data obtained were useful
in
delineating the limits
of
the Los Angeles Basin and
predicting trends for motor vehicle exhaust emissions .
The Basin limits were later
adopted by the APCD
in
conjunction with the smog alert system .
Report No.
7.
Tracer Tests
of
Trajectories Computed from Observed Winds ,
by
M. Neiburger .
The results
of
this study indicated that the method
of
computing the movement
of
air masses from the direction and speed
of
surface winds ,
although not exact ,
gave
reasonably accurate results .
Itwas also concluded that better calibration
of
the existing wind station network was advisable and that more surface stations ,in
addition
to
a
few upper wind measurements ,would improve trajectory computations .The recommendations were adopted by the APCD .
Report No.
8.
Field Evaluation
ofHoudry Catalytic Exhaust Converters ,by Southwest Research Institute .
The most valuable result
of
this study was the establishment
of
techniques suitable
for the evaluation
of
exhaust control devices .
Three types
of
catalytic mufflers were
tested two types for vehicles using nonleaded gasoline and one for those using
leaded gasoline .The “leaded muffler ”
and the “intermediate white muffler "
(for nonleaded gasoline )
both failed before reaching 5,000 miles
of
operation .
The other
muffler ,
for nonleaded gasoline ,was still reducing the hydrocarbon content
of exhaust
gases satisfactorily when the test was discontinued
at
10,000 miles .Chief conclusion
16
was that "the Houdry catalytic muffler in
its
present embodiment
is
not sufficiently
rugged and long -lived for use
as
a
partial solution
to
the Los Angeles smog problem .
"The Oxy -Cat converter that was found suitable for use on vehicles using nonleaded gasoline was not considered seriously for practical reasons ,
including high
sensitivity
of
the catalyst ,
which would lead
to
almost complete loss
of
activity
if
accidentally exposed
to
lead -containing exhaust gases .
Report No.
9. An Aerometric Survey
of the Los Angeles Basin ,August November -
,
1954. N. A. Renzetti ,Editor .
The final report
of
this comprehensive cooperative effort ,
as
indicated
inthe preceding chapter ,
was a
virtual gold mine
of
technical information concerning the
nature
of
smog
in
Los Angeles .
The general conclusions drawn from the study are
worthy
of
repetition :
This survey established with reasonable precision the distribution
in
space and
time
of
the various manifestations
of
smog and
of
the contaminants that may be the
principal contributors throughout the Los Angeles Basin . Itestablished on astatistically sound basis relationships ,
or the lack thereof ,among
the various air pollutants and manifestations
of
smog .
It
established certain base lines for concentration
of
pollutants and severities
of
smog manifestation by which future changes
or
progress can be gauged and trends ,
if
any ,
toward toxic levels can be estimated .
It
established the influence
of
incinerators
as
a
contributor
to
smog .
Itconfirmed the importance
ofphotochemical reactions
inthe formation
of smog .
Itprovided additional evidence that the sources
ofsmog are widespread throughout
the Basin and not limited
to
certain local or small areas .
Many specific conclusions were also drawn ,
and the data obtained are still being
studied
inlight
of more recent atmospheric analyses .
One recommendation
of
note that resulted from the study was the following :
"
In
order
tomonitor the distribution and trend
ofpollution
inthe Los Angeles Basin and
tomaintain acheck on the possibility
ofdevelopment
of
dangerous concentrations ,
a
minimum
of
fourteen stations should be established
inthe Los Angeles Basin .
"
Subsequently ,
the APCD established such anetwork .
Since then ,
it
has been improved greatly and now serves as
the basis for the County's smog alert system .
Some
of
the equipment used
inthe survey
is
still
in
use for monitoring the atmosphere
in
various parts
of California .
Inretrospect ,
one can see that the aerometric survey
of
1954 was one
of
the most
valuable contributions that the Foundation made
in
the battle against smog .
If
the
Foundation had done nothing else ,
it
would have merited its existence by this one
project .
Report No. 10. Feasibility
of Control Methods for Automobile Exhaust ,
by Southwest Research Institute .
17
Shortly after the Foundation was formed . it was apparent to the staff that there
was a need for the evaluation of a great many proposals for the alleviation of smog
from motor vehicle exhaust by what were called "simple " methods of control . Among
the proposals that were examined for technical and economic feasibility by Southwest Research Institute were :
1. That
all
automobiles ,
trucks ,
and buses be required
to
use liquefied petroleum
gas
as
a
fuel
in
place
of
gasoline .
2.
That only public service buses
be
required
to
use LP gas
as
fuel
in
place
of
gasoline .
3.
That alcohol
or
alcohol -gasoline blends
be
used
inplace
of
gasoline .
4.
That the "Houdry white gas muffer "
be
installed on
all
cars and that ,
inorder
for the muffler
to
be
effective ,
all motor vehicles
be
required
to
use nonleaded
white (
)gasoline .
Actually none
of
these proposals was found feasible for reasons well spelled out
in
the report .
Report No. 11. Visibility Trend
in
Los Angeles ,
by M. Neiburger .
If
this study
of Weather Bureau records
in
1932 did nothing else ,
it
showed that
human "
memory
is
aweak and uncertain instrument .
"
Long -time residents
of Los
Angeles still assert :
"
Inthe old days you could see Catalina
at
noon every day .
”But
the records don't bear them out .One day
in
seven
is
amore nearly accurate statement .This is
important ,
because
it
sets a
base line for improvement
inatmospheric
visibility .Even when smog
isgone .
fog and haze will still limit visibility when the air
is
stagnant .
Atmospheric Photochemistry
While the staff supervised the work being done under Foundation contracts ,
it
also
had the responsibility
of
following closely pertinent research work going on
inother
laboratories spread throughout the United States .Of particular value were the studies
on atmospheric photochemistry being done by Haagen -Smit
in
conjunction with the
APCD and by Stephens and others
at
the Franklin Institute .
These studies were
closely correlated with related work under Foundation auspices
in
the large sunlit
greenhouse
at Midwest Research Institute and
inthe newly constructed smog chamber
at Stanford Research Institute . In
fact ,
without fully realizing
it
at
the time ,
the construction
of
the SRI smog
chamber was amajor contribution
tothe unraveling
of
the mystery
of
atmospheric
photooxidation
ofhydrocarbons
to
produce smog .
Studies
inthe chamber during 1955 demonstrated the need for sunlight
toproduce
ozone and the atmospheric eye irritant that plagued Los Angeles .
Important Conferences
One way
ofkeeping advised
of
important findings was by bringing together experts
inthe field
to
discuss their findings .Accordingly ,
the Foundation joined with SRI ,
the Air Pollution Control Association .
and the three local universities
to
sponsor the
18
Third National Air Pollution Symposium in Pasadena on April 18, 19 , 20 , 1955 .
The proceedings of the symposium have been widely published and will not be further
discussed here . The Foundation took advantage of this gathering of scientists to sponsor a conference on aerosols on April 20 and 21. It had become apparent that the size
and composition of the aerosol component of smog ,
its
sources ,
and the mechanism
of
its formation were largely unknown but important factors
inthe chemistry and
physics
of smog .This conference was agreat help
tothe staff
indefining its research
program .
As a
consequence ,
the Foundation entered into a
contract with Berkeley
Research Products ,
Albany ,
California ,
to
develop and manufacture an aerosol
counter for determination of the size distribution of aerosols .The 10 -channel counter
proved
to
be ahighly useful piece
of
equipment when used
in
conjunction with the
smog chamber
atSRI .
Technical Advisory Committee
IsFormed
The great surge
in
air pollution research
in
1955 presented a
twofold problem
to
the staff .
Itwas necessary
to
keep advised
of
a
great many activities throughout the
world .
Further ,
the Foundation's Board
of
Trustees insisted that we carry out only
necessary studies that others were not able
orwilling
to
do with funds from other
sources .
Accordingly ,
aTechnical Advisory Committee was formed
to
counsel the scientific
staff .
The committee was composed
of
civic -minded scientists (see Appendix for list
of names )
who served the Foundation without remuneration until 1958 when the
committee was disbanded .
Pasadena Air Monitoring - 1955
As aresult
of
recommendations
of
the Technical Advisory Committee ,
afollow -up
of the 1954 aerometric survey ,but on a
considerably reduced scale ,was undertaken
inthe Pasadena area ,
July -November ,
1955. Objectives
of the survey were (
1
)
determination of
the relationship between atmospheric oxidant and ozone measurements ;
(
2
)
determination
of
the relationship between the oxidant precursor
inearly morning air and the severity of
smog later
in
the day ;
(
3
)
determination
of
the relationship between the hydrocarbon content ofearly morning air and the severity of
smog
later ;
and (
4
)
determination
of whether the relationship among oxides
ofnitrogen ,
oxidant precursor ,
and oxidant observed
in
laboratory experiments manifests itself
inthe smog atmosphere .
The results
of
these studies were
ofprimary value later
insetting up experiments
inthe SRI smog chamber and evaluating the resulting data .
Composition of Automobile Exhaust
Although air pollution scientists were still trying
to
learn the basic facts about the
formation
of
photochemical smog ,
automotive engineers were busy trying
to
determine the nature of
automobile exhaust emissions and the effect
of
engine variables
on the amount and type
of
emissions .
The Automobile Manufacturers Association had undertaken
to
study exhaust emissions and their relationship to
Los Angeles smog
in
late 1953. During 1954 ,
the
Coordinating Research Council (
a
joint venture
of
the Society
of Automotive Engi19
neers and the American Petroleum Institute ) formed a Group on Composition of
Exhaust Gases under
its
Coordinating Fuel and Equipment Research Committee .
The group was further divided into a
Sampling and Analysis Panel ,
a
Variables
Panel ,
aLiterature Survey Panel ,
and a
Field Survey Panel .As a
result
of
the activities of
these panels ,
the exhaust gases
of
hundreds
of
automobiles were analyzed
under avariety
of
conditions ,
particularly for hydrocarbons .Membership
of Coordinating Research Council panels was traditionally limited to
industrial members ,
but
in1955 amember
of
the Foundation staff was invited
to
join the Literature Survey
Panel .
In
this way ,
the Foundation was continually apprised
of
valuable data .
Public Information Activities
Despite the obvious need for technical data ,
public clamor that something
bedone
at
once could not be ignored .
The Board
of
Trustees
of
the Foundation deemed
it
wise for the Foundation
to
engage
in
a
public information program
to
advise the
public
of
research activities and
of
the need for regulations based
on
facts rather
than whimsey .
The public still remembered a
particularly intense siege
of
smog
in
the fall
of
1954 ,
during which time Governor Knight was called
to
Los Angeles "
to
do
something about it
.
"
Anew Air Pollution Control Officer ,Mr.
S.
Smith Griswold ,
took
office
inlate 1954 and the APCD began
its
greatest period
ofgrowth ,particularly
in
its research activities .
The State Legislature increased appropriations
to
the State
Department
of Public Health
to
continue activity initiated by Gov. Knight
inOctober ,1954 .
Under the sponsorship
of Senator Kuchel ,
the Congress
of
the United States passed
Public Law 159 ,
an air pollution control law authorizing the
U.
S.
Public Health
Service
to
carry out a
research and training program
inthe field
of air pollution .
InLos Angeles County ,
the smog alert system went into effect
inJune ,
1955. This
emergency regulation ,Regulation VII ,was designed
to
prevent the excessive buildup
of air contaminants and
toavoid any possibility
of
acatastrophe caused by them .The
air pollution control officer was empowered
toset limits for important toxic air pollutants and todevelop plans to
limit emissions
inthe Los Angeles Basin whenever alert
levels were exceeded .
This might entail enforced shutdown
of
industrial plants
or
cessation of traffic .
The pollutants and levels chosen for the alert system were
as
follows (
inparts per
million
of
air )
:
Carbon monoxide
Nitrogen oxides
Sulfur oxides
Ozone
First Alert Second Alert Third Alert
100 200 300
3
5
10
3
5
10
0.5 1.0 1.5
First Alert :
Close approach
tomaximum allowable concentration for the population at
large .
Still safe but approaching a
point where preventive action
is
required .
Second Alert :Air contamination level
at which a
health menace exists
in
a
preliminary stage .
20
Third Alert : Air contamination level at which a dangerous health menace exists .
Just after the alert system went into effect, the worst smog in Los Angeles ' history
was experienced ( September 13 ) when the oxidant value reached 0.90 parts per
million (ppm) . The need for a sound public information program was obvious .
In this vein , the Foundation , in 1955 , published 10 technical reports , as mentioned
previously, and distributed them widely . A monthly newsletter was initiated . Two
speakers ' bureaus , one developed by Kiwanis International's 110 clubs in the Los
Angeles Basin and one formed by business and industrial supporters of the Foundation, were kept active . Sound motion pictures and color slide collections were made
available to these groups as visual aids . The annual meeting of the Foundation was
held in conjunction with the Southern California Conference on the Elimination of
Air Pollution arranged by the California State Chamber of Commerce in cooperation
with the APCD and the Foundation .
Status ofthe Smog Problem -December, 1955
By the end of the year , the Foundation could state the following major conclusions :
1. There was little likelihood that any practical changes in the meteorology or
topography of the Los Angeles Basin would be effective in reducing smog .
2. Control of the effluents from the back -yard burning of rubbish could well be
accomplished by banning this archaic practice .
3. No effective method of reducing hydrocarbon emissions from the exhaust of
internal -combustion engines was available .
4. No methods were available for the control of oxides of nitrogen from combustion effluents .
In
its
Second Technical Progress Report (Report No.
12
)
,
the Foundation posed
the following questions : 1. Will a50 per cent reduction
inhydrocarbon emissions from automobile exhaust
markedly reduce the frequency
or
severity
of
smog attacks ?
If
not ,
is
70
per
cent required ?
90 per cent ?
2.
Concurrently with a
reduction
in
atmospheric hydrocarbons ,will reduction
of
oxides
ofnitrogen
be
necessary ?
3.
How may extremely fine aerosol emissions ,
presently uncontrollable ,
be controlled ?
Insupport
of
the third question ,
the following statement was made :
The "
opinion
of medical authorities
as
to
the probable health hazards
ofvery fine aerosols
is
sufficient reason for seeking amethod of
control .
Furthermore ,
the high correlation
between the aerosol content
of
the atmosphere and eye irritation found
in
our aerometric survey lends support to
the need for more information and ,
possibly ,
control .
Further information should also
be
sought
as
to
the nature and amount
of
aerosol
emissions in automobile exhaust .
"
21
1956 FILLING IN THE GAPS
AsS WE ENTERED the year 1956 , we found
that our studies had to be correlated even more with burgeoning research programs
of other groups . Examples of important studies under way elsewhere were :
Los Angeles County APCD
APCD and Automobile Manufacturers
Association
APCD and Coordinating Research
Council
Franklin Institute (for the American
Petroleum Institute )
Southern California Joint Research
Air monitoring ( continuous ) ; inventory
of pollution sources ; meteorological
studies
Average Los Angeles traffic pattern
Composition of automobile exhaust
Infrared studies of smog -
forming reactions
Council on Power Plant Emissions Power -plant emissions
University of California , Berkeley ,
and University of Southern California
University of California , Riverside
U. S. Public Health Service and California Dept. Public Health
U. S. Public Health Service and U. S.
Bureau of Mines
Particulate matter in automobile exhaust
Plant damage by smog
Health studies
Incinerator design
The great increase in governmental research on the national, state, and local level
was a giant step forward in the battle against smog in Los Angeles . The role of the
Foundation became one of filling in the gaps in research programs . As will be seen
later, we tended to concentrate more and more on atmospheric chemistry and the
role of motor vehicle exhaust .
Foundation Reports
During 1956 , the Foundation published four more reports on studies made primarily the year before .
Report No. 13. Wind Trajectory Studies of the Movement of Polluted Air in the
Los Angeles Basin, by Morris Neiburger , N. A. Renzetti , and Rita Tice .
During this study , more than 1,000 trajectories , or wind paths , were calculated ,
tracing the movements of air -borne pollution to affected areas in the Los Angeles
Basin. The conclusions were striking .
On nearly one -half of the days when substantial smog was measured in the downtown station , the air had come over the San Gabriel Mountains ; about one -fourth of
the time the air entered the Basin across the West Coast . In neither case did these
22
wind streams pass near refineries . The fact that most trajectories passed over regions
of heavy traffic , but not over industrial plants , helped the indictment of vehicular
exhaust as a major contributor to smog .
Report No. 14. Solar Radiation , Absorption Rates , and Photochemical Primary
Processes in Urban Air, by P. A. Leighton and W. A. Perkins .
This report was an outstanding scientific achievement , not only as a thorough and
systematic analysis but as a pioneering study of the application of photochemical
principles to an urban air pollution problem. For the first time ,
all
pertinent knowledge inthe broad field ofphotochemistry was collated and critically examined for its
relevance
to
the formation
of
smog .
Although the report dealt mainly with primary
photochemical processes ,
itbrought out many areas
of
ignorance that would have
to
be filled
inbefore adequate knowledge
of
atmospheric chemical reactions would be
attained .As a
consequence ,Dr. Leighton was also commissioned
to
prepare a
report
on secondary photochemical processes ,which was published
in
1958. The two reports
have served
as
a
virtual "Bible "
for research scientists in this field .
Report No. 15. Proceedings
of
the Conference
onChemical Reactions
inUrban
Atmospheres ,
L.
H. Rogers ,Editor .
About the time Dr. Leighton completed Report No.
14,
itwas deemed advisable
to
bring together experts
inthe field
ofatmospheric photochemistry ,with the objective
of
improving the general understanding
of
the phenomena involved .With the assistance of
the National Science Foundation and the American Petroleum Institute ,
40
leading authorities attended the meeting
inLos Angeles on February 2
and 3,
1956 .
The printed proceedings were distributed widely
to
public and university libraries .
Report No. 16. Analysis
of Air Near Heavy Traffic Arteries ,by
N.
A. Renzetti .
One
of
the many anomalies
of
the Los Angeles smog problem was the disproportionately low values ofhydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides often found during intense
smog periods .
Apossible explanation was that these smog -forming substances had
been
at
higher concentrations some time earlier
in
the day ,
had reacted
to
form
oxidant and
to
give these other effects ,
and that the concentrations
of
these smogformers had thereby become reduced .
Accordingly ,
the Foundation contracted with the Truesdail Laboratories
to
collect
air samples within 75 feet
ofheavily traveled traffic arteries .Air samples were collected from September 4to
October 2,
1956 ,
and analyzed for carbon monoxide ,
carbon dioxide ,
and hydrocarbons .
As expected ,
concentrations were considerably
higher than those found
atmonitoring stations .The concentration ranges found were
later used
to
guide auto exhaust studies
inthe smog chambers
at
Stanford Research
Institute and Midwest Research Institute .
Motor Vehicle Exhaust Studies
Studies
of
the photochemical reactions
of
diluted automobile exhaust
inthe smog
chambers
at SRI and Midwest Research Institute were continued
at
a
high rate
of
effort during 1956. The first results were not finally reported until 1957 and will be
23
discussed in the next chapter . Nevertheless it became apparent early that irradiation
of exhaust gases at experienced atmospheric concentrations could account for all the
manifestations of smog found in Los Angeles.
Members of the Automobile Manufacturers Association Vehicle Combustion Products Subcommittee inspected both installations in May and personally experienced
eye irritation . Preliminary data were also presented to the subcommittee at a meeting
in Detroit in August. The subcommittee accepted the conclusion that motor vehicle
exhaust did, in fact , produce smog and further agreed that it was a "major" contributor to smog . They reserved judgment on whether it was the principal source of
smog until additional data became available .
Incinerator Studies
Although public opinion appeared to have crystallized in 1955 in favor of ending
the disposal of combustible rubbish by burning , particularly in single -chamber incinerators , it was still uncertain when this desirable goal would be reached . The County
Board of Supervisors had banned single -chamber incinerators, effective October 1 ,
1957 , but controversy continued over collection and disposal methods and could have
made enforcement impractical at that time .
The diagnosis of incinerator effluents as important contributors to Los Angeles'
smog was confirmed by the Foundation project completed at Battelle Memorial Institute during 1956. Over a one -year period , a single -chamber incinerator was operated
under scientific control on combustible refuse representative of that burned in Los
Angeles . Exclusive of carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide , and fly ash, 82 to 407
pounds of organic compounds were found in the combustion gases per ton of refuse
burned . No doubt remained as to the pollution potential of rubbish burning in singlechamber incinerators . The complete data were published by the investigators in the
Journal of the Air Pollution Control Association . It is interesting to note that several
years later these data were used in indicting single -chamber incinerators in the San
Francisco Bay Area .
Instrument Development
Work continued in 1956 on the evaluation and comparison of various analytical
instruments for measuring low concentrations of contaminants in the atmosphere .
Among the instruments studied were infrared spectrometers for hydrocarbons, a continuous instrument for nitrogen oxides , potassium iodide and ferrous thiocyanate
methods for oxidant, the Ehmert ozone analyzer , a modified O'Konski particle counter ,
and the Goetz particle collector .
Technical Audit of Foundation Program
In the spring of 1956 it was suggested by trustees of the Foundation that an independent evaluation of the Foundation , its value to the community , and itsmethods ofoperation should bemade as
a
guide
to
the trustees for future procedure .
The committee selected was
as
follows :
John K. Northrup (former president of
Northrup Aircraft ,
Inc. )
,
engineering consultant ,
chairman ;
Jerome
K. Doolan ,
consultant ,
Bechtel Corporation ;
Robert
D.
Fisher ,
financial vice president ,
University
24
of Southern California ; Frederick A. Lindvall , dean of engineering , California Institute of Technology ; and Wm . G. Young , dean , Division of Physical Sciences , UCLA .
The committee presented its final report to the Board of Trustees in October .
Basically, the committee approved the policies and operating procedures of the Foundation . Several recommendations for changes in procedure were made . These were
later modified and adopted by the Board of Trustees .
The sanction of staff activities by a committee of such outstanding men was a great
source of confidence to the staff .
Importance of Automobile Exhaust
As 1956 drew to an end , it became apparent to the Foundation that motor vehicles
were the principal contributors to smog in Los Angeles . The following statement of
the case is taken from the President's Report, 1956 .
The evidence supporting the conclusion that motor vehicles are the principal contributors to smog is as follows :
1. Over one -half of our total air pollution comes from motor vehicles .
2. Three-fourths of the hydrocarbons in the air come from motor vehicles .
3. Two -thirds of the oxides of nitrogen come from motor vehicles .
4. Nitrogen dioxide , together with hydrocarbons and their derivatives , are the principal smog -
forming air contaminants . In the presence of sunshine these materials
react to form ozone . No other method of forming significant amounts of ozone in
the lower atmosphere is known.
5. Typical smog damage to vegetation has been duplicated by subjecting plants to a
mixture of ozone and hydrocarbons in amounts similar to those found in the Los
Angeles atmosphere on smoggy days .
6. Scientific studies show that the only material in the air that is both capable of
absorbing energy from sunlight and present in amounts sufficient to cause observed
smog effects , is nitrogen dioxide .
7. Tests in large chambers have demonstrated that auto exhaust , in quantities similar
to those in the Los Angeles atmosphere , produces oxidant and eye irritation when
subjected to sunlight.
8. A study of wind trajectories in the Los Angeles Basin shows that air masses high
in ozone values and eye irritation in downtown Los Angeles and in Pasadena nearly
always passed over heavy traffic areas and in many cases did not pass over any other
major pollutant source .
9. Scientific experiments have also shown that oxides of nitrogen at very low concentrations will react with hydrocarbons to form an aerosol capable of restricting visibility , even in the absence of sunlight.
10. A major portion of the carbon dioxide in our air derives from fossil fuels , i.e. ,
petroleum .
11. A major portion of the carbonaceous particulate matter in our air is of fossil origin .
Dr. Hitchcock Resigns
In November , 1956 , Dr. L. B. Hitchcock , president and managing director of the
Foundation since
its
inception ,
resigned
to
return
toprivate consulting work .He had
done a
remarkable job
in
organizing the Foundation staff and guiding the Foundation's activities during its
first three years .He was succeeded
asmanaging director
by W.
L.
Faith .The presidency
of
the Foundation was combined with the chairmanship of the Board of Trustees .
25
1957 EMPHASIS ON AUTO EXHAUST
ITT HAD BEEN decided in 1956 that the
future program of the Foundation would be directed almost completely to a study of
motor vehicle exhaust and its control . This was divided into two types of work :
( 1 ) determining the nature of the automobile exhaust -smog reaction and ( 2) how
automobile exhaust could be controlled adequately and economically . Four technical
reports , in addition to the Third Technical Progress Report (Report No. 17 )
, were
published .
Report No. 18. Eye Irritation from Irradiated Auto Exhaust, by E. A. Schuck.
This was the first comprehensive report of the studies in the smog chamber at
Stanford Research Institute that had commenced early in 1955. The comparatively
long period between inception and first publication of results was occasioned by the
exploratory nature of the work and the need for the accurate calibration of the chamber , the measuring instruments , and the human eye irritation panel . Further , variations difficult to control in automobile engine operation and in the response of individuals to eye irritation made many experiments necessary in order to draw statistically valid results .
Two series of experiments were conducted . In the first series , the concentration of
the exhaust in the controlled atmosphere was varied, as was also the residence time
of the mixtures in the chamber . Eye irritation was determined for both irradiated
and nonirradiated mixtures . In the second series , the irradiation and residence time
were held constant and the proportions of three of the types of exhaust -idling , acceleration , cruising — were also held constant . The proportion of deceleration exhaust
was varied .
Chief values of the published results were the demonstration of the smog -
forming
tendency of exhaust under a variety of conditions , the apparent importance of hydrocarbon-oxides of nitrogen ratio , and a preliminary understanding of the nature of
the photochemical reaction .
Report No. 19. Reactions of Auto Exhaust in Sunlight, by F. V. Morriss and Calvin
Bolze , Midwest Research Institute.
In this study carried out in comparatively large chambers subjected to direct sunlight, the chambers were charged with varied proportions of automobile exhaust , two
different hydrocarbons, nitric oxide , and nitrogen dioxide. Oxidant formation and
eye irritation were measured . The experimental pattern was statistically designed to
yield maximum information .
From a study of statistically significant effects that were found, the following conclusions may be drawn :
26
1. Automobile exhaust , irradiated in concentrations similar to those found in the
atmosphere of Los Angeles , produces both the oxidant and eye irritant manifestations of Los Angeles smog .
2. In these experiments , eye irritation increased as hydrocarbon level increased .
3. In a similar fashion , oxidant values increased as hydrocarbon level increased .
4. At hydrocarbon levels greater than those measured in the atmosphere , but at
nitrogen oxide levels that have actually been experienced , oxidant formation
was suppressed as hydrocarbon concentration increased . Eye irritation , however , continued to increase at these high levels , and this lack of correlation may
be worthy of note .
5. Some factor in automobile exhaust makes it a more potent smog -former than
the two pure hydrocarbons studied in combination with exhaust .
6. The role of the nitrogen oxides in smog formation is complex , and may be
dependent on type and structure of the organic compound with which it reacts ,
as well as the ratio of concentrations .
At the time these results were published, many of the correlations could not be
explained . In the light of recent information from other laboratories, the data are
plausible .
Report No. 20. Catalytic Decomposition of Nitric Oxide , by Charles H. Riesz ,
Fred L. Morritz , and Karl D. Franson , Armour Research Foundation .
In order to arouse interest in research on the control of oxides of nitrogen, a
member of the staff presented a paper * before the annual meeting of the American
Institute of Chemical Engineers in 1956. Interest of Armour Research Foundation
was evoked and a contract was let to study catalytic methods of eliminating nitric
oxide from gas mixtures . A laboratory method was developed in which charcoal
activated with potassium carbonate caused appreciable decomposition of nitric oxide .
Unfortunately , this method was not practicable in the presence of oxygen -containing
exhaust gases .
Report No. 21. Automobile Exhaust and Smog Formation , by W. L. Faith , N. A.
Renzetti , and L. H. Rogers .
This was a staff report of the great amount of work that had been carried out on
the subject , particularly during the past several years . The report covered : ( 1 ) the
relationship of automobile exhaust to smog , ( 2 ) the internal-combustion engine ,
(3 ) nature of auto exhaust , ( 4 ) atmospheric analyses , ( 5 ) analytical methods and
testing procedures , (6) control methods for exhaust , and ( 7 )
legal and enforcement
problems .
Some of the material in Chapter 6, "Control Methods for Auto Exhaust," bears
repetition here . Considerable information on the control of hydrocarbons from motor
vehicles during the deceleration portion of the driving cycle had been developed by
the automobile industry . As a result , several fuel cutoff devices , throttle retarders ,
* Faith , W. L., "Nitrogen Oxides -A Challenge to Chemical Engineers," Chem . Eng . Progr . 52,
342-4 ( 1956) .
27
and vacuum -controlled throttle openers were thoroughly tested by the industry . Efficiencies of 80 per cent were reported , but when it was found that the total contribution of the deceleration phase was less than 25 per cent , interest in this approach
flagged .
One direct-flame afterburner had been developed by Clayton Manufacturing Company and had been tested on a bus engine by the Air Pollution Control District . The
unit was found to be highly effective in burning exhaust hydrocarbons during idling
and deceleration , but did not sustain a flame during acceleration and cruising .
This latter problem led the Foundation to initiate a study at Atlantic Research
Corporation , Alexandria , Va .
, to determine the limiting conditions under which a
flame could be supported in automobile exhaust gas mixtures . The report will be
discussed in the next chapter .
The Search for Catalysts
An intriguing method of removing hydrocarbons from motor vehicle exhaust gases
was by catalytic oxidation . This method is sometimes referred to as "flameless combustion ," and it is essentially a method of burning organic materials at temperatures
below those that will support a flame . This may be done by carrying out the oxidation
in the presence of certain specially prepared minerals called “oxidation catalysts .”
Such a catalyst was the basis for the Oxy-Cat converter discussed previously.
Late in 1956 , the Foundation had proposed specifications for a catalyst suitable
for oxidizing exhaust hydrocarbons and had publicized the list. Even today , these
specifications , listed below , are pertinent .
1. It should convert at least 90 per cent of the organics into carbon dioxide and
water .
2. It should ignite at a relatively low temperature . (Some catalysts take 7-10
minutes to warm up .)
3. It must operate effectively under a wide variety of conditions. Hydrocarbon
content of exhaust varies tremendously , depending on whether the car is
accelerating , decelerating , cruising, or idling .
4. It has to be inert to lead , sulfur , barium , calcium, and phosphates with which
it would come into contact .
5. It should operate effectively at a temperature low enough to allow use of mild
steel housing.
6. It should retain effectiveness for at least 10,000 miles of car operation , regardless of the condition of the car .
7. Catalyst replacement should be cheap (less than $ 10) and easily made .
8. The catalyst should not be adversely affected if flooded with gasoline or water.
9. It should not be fouled by partly burned lube
oil
.
Ideally ,
it
should also convert this into carbon dioxide and water .
10.
It
should preferably resist coating by molten -lead salts .But
ifnot ,
the coating
should spall off
athigh temperatures .
11.
It
should ,
preferably ,
not oxidize nitrogen .
28
In March , 1957 , the Foundation , in cooperation with the Los Angeles County
APCD , sponsored a two -day conference on "Catalytic Decomposition of Vehicular
Exhaust Gases ." Consensus of the group of experts who attended the meeting was
that the major catalyst problem facing them was the anomaly of high catalyst activity
at low temperatures and stability at elevated temperatures , particularly in the presence of lead compounds . Perhaps the most important result of the conference was the
increased research activity in industrial laboratories where catalyst know-how was
available .
By the end of the year, several promising preliminary reports on exhaust catalysts
were published . At the “Third Southern California Conference on Elimination of Air
Pollution " ( again sponsored by the State Chamber of Commerce in conjunction with
the Foundation and others )
, a General Motors spokesman reported promising results
in a 10,000 -mile test run with a catalytic converter attached to an automobile using
leaded gasoline . Earlier , personnel of the Ford Motor Company had also reported
good results with a different type of catalyst .
Plans for the Future
By the end of 1957 , the Foundation had further delineated the areas of motor
vehicle exhaust research in which it would concentrate its efforts .
On the recommendation of
its
Technical Advisory Committee ,
the research program was tobe concentrated on two problems that so
far had defied solution :
(
1
)
determination
of
the relative importance
of
engine and fuel variables and specific
exhaust components on the formation
of
smog ,
and (
2
)
development
of
scientific
principles upon which effective exhaust control devices could be based .
29
1958 YEAR OF CONTROVERSY
ALTHOUG LTHOUGH 1958 was marked by two controversies in which the Foundation became involved (about which more later)
, it
was also a year of considerable technical advance . Again , the nature of these advances
can best be illustrated by discussion of the Foundation reports published during
the year.
Report No. 23. "Eye Irritation from Solar Radiation of Organic Compounds and
Nitrogen Dioxide , by E. E. Harton , Jr., and C. C. Bolze , Midwest Research Institute .
This was the second report of the group working under Foundation auspices in the
two sunlit glasshouses at Midwest Research Institute . Previous work had shown differences in the chemical activity of automobile exhaust , a saturated hydrocarbon, and
an olefinic hydrocarbon . Accordingly , a series of statistically designed experiments
on the photochemical reaction between oxides of nitrogen and a great many specific
hydrocarbons and other organic compounds was carried out . Major conclusions were :
1. Olefins produced more eye irritation than paraffins , and they produced more
oxidant. The same was true for branched -chain olefins as compared with
straight-chain olefins . Location of the double bond in olefins also appeared to
influence eye irritation , but not oxidant formation .
2. Various commercial solvents produced little , if any , eye irritation .
3. In general , there was no correlation between eye irritation values and oxidant
values .
In addition, a variety of anomalies were encountered that indicated the complexities of reactions that might be encountered in the atmosphere .
Report No. 24. Photochemical Secondary Reactions in Urban Air , by Philip A.
Leighton and W. A. Perkins .
This was the second of two learned dissertations on atmospheric photochemistry
prepared by Leighton and Perkins for the Foundation . The report was another scientific milestone in unraveling the complexities of photochemical smog , and , like the
authors ' first report (Report No. 14 )
, it will serve for many years as a basic foundation for research in the field.
Report No. 25. Combustibility of Simulated Automobile Exhaust Gases , by Bernard
Greifer and Raymond Friedman , Atlantic Research Corporation , Alexandria , Va.
One attractive means of controlling the smog -
forming characteristics of automobile
exhaust was the complete combustion , by direct flame , of the hydrocarbons in the
exhaust gases . Unfortunately , this method of attack had not been successful because
of the difficulties of burning the low-level concentrations found during acceleration
and cruising . Because Atlantic Research Corporation had considerable experience in
complex combustion problems , they were awarded a contract to determine the limit30
ing conditions under which exhaust hydrocarbons could be expected to maintain a
flame . The report of their laboratory studies showed that combustion could be maintained if the gases entering the afterburner were heated to certain minimum temperatures suitable to the concentration of combustibles in the stream . The report gave
considerable impetus to the development of practical afterburners.
Report No. 26. Air Pollution Effects of Irradiated Automobile Exhaust as Related
to Fuel Composition, by E. A. Schuck and H. W. Ford , Stanford Research Institute,
and E. R. Stephens , Franklin Institute.
Over a period of several years , reports from the Los Angeles County APCD had
suggested that smog could be controlled by modification of the composition of gasoline used in the Los Angeles Basin. Examination of the laboratory methods used in
the APCD's studies indicated that
its
procedures and equipment may have been
inadequate for definite conclusions
to
be drawn .
Abroad -scale study was therefore developed
to
study the influence
of
both fuel
and engine variables on the production
of
photochemical smog .
The smog chamber
at Stanford Research Institute was particularly well suited
to
this study .The investigators were aided considerably by personnel and equipment from Franklin Institute
who were under contract with the American Petroleum Institute .
The study showed that under some engine operating conditions ,
certain smog
manifestations ,
particularly eye irritation ,
were related
to
fuel composition .
More
important ,
however ,
itwas shown that
inthe range
ofpractical fuels and the type
of
engine operation usually encountered ,
the effect
of
fuel composition was negligible .
During the course
of
the investigation ,
several new analytical tools were adapted
tothe study .This was avery rewarding experience ,because
itopened up new avenues
of
following the photochemical smog reaction
inthe chamber with even lower concentrations of
contaminants than had been previously allowable .
One entirely unexpected result
of
the study was the finding that aerosol formation
inthe chamber was a
function
of
the sulfur content
of
the gasoline .This result again
opened up an entirely new field for investigation .
Exhaust Control Developments
During 1958 ,
considerable progress was made by industrial concerns
inthe development ofpractical devices for the control ofhydrocarbons in
exhaust gases .
Thompson Ramo Wooldridge developed a
direct -flame afterburner that involved
use
of
a
combination combustion chamber and heat exchanger .
Aprototype
of
the
unit was tested briefly by the Foundation
inthe smog chamber
at SRI .During the
test ,
hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide were reduced by 90 per cent .
Irradiation
of
the treated exhaust did not produce eye irritation .
Asimilar test was made
of
a
catalytic converter developed by Ford Motor Company .Here ,
again ,
hydrocarbons were reduced
to
such levels that smog manifestations did not develop when treated exhaust was irradiated inthe smog chamber .
Performance tests
onthree different catalytic converters were published by General
Motors personnel ,
but no smog chamber tests were made .
Improved Maintenance
Ever since the motor vehicle had been suspected
ofcontributing
tothe smog problem ,
suggestions had been made that relief from smog could
be
obtained by better
31
maintenance practices . The problem was brought into sharp focus late in 1956 when
the Coordinating Research Council carried out an extensive survey of the exhaust
emissions of several hundred automobiles in the Los Angeles area . To nearly everyone's amazement , the hydrocarbon and carbon monoxide emissions were several times
higher than those that previously had been measured in Detroit . Actually , the emissions were so high, few automotive engineers believed engines could be in such poor
condition . In 1958 , results of exhaustive tests by Chrysler Corporation engineers
became available . They showed unequivocally that high emissions of the type found
in the survey could be attributed either to poor carburetor adjustment or to a faulty
electrical system , or both . Major conclusions of the study were ( 1 ) Los Angeles area
automobiles were in much poorer condition than those in other areas and (2 ) proper
maintenance could reduce exhaust emissions by 60 per cent . Unfortunately , practical
means of enforcing good maintenance are not available .
Controversies with the Los Angeles County APCD
The APCD Budget. When the Air Pollution Foundation was formed in 1953 , the
budget of the APCD (fiscal year 1953-54 ) was $ 1,010,000 . By the fiscal year ending
June 30, 1958 , the annual budget had reached $ 4,067,000 .
In March , 1958 , the Air Pollution Control Officer asked the Foundation for comments on the proposed budget of $ 3,800,000 for 1958-59 . This was not unusual . In
1955 , a similar request had been made when the Foundation was requested to comment on specific contemplated research projects . On that occasion , the Foundation
supported the District , because it believed the proposed research program was well
conceived and proper.
Review of the projects proposed for 1958-59 disclosed several projects that were
duplicates of studies already completed elsewhere or which showed little promise of
contributing to the solution of the smog problem . It was therefore recommended that
the budget be reduced by $ 650,000 . Neither the Air Pollution Control Officer nor the
County Board of Supervisors agreed with our suggestions and the budget was adopted
essentially as proposed . During the budget hearings before the Board, the Foundation
was accused of bias , self -interest , and of being " an oil company -supported institution." Obviously, this controversy produced strained relations between the Foundation and some County officials .
Relations became even more strained later in 1958 during the hearings on Rule 62 .
Rule 62. In October , the APCD proposed an addition to the APCD Rules and
Regulations directed toward the control of the sulfur content of fuels . The proposed
rule was worded in such a way as to prohibit the burning of fuel oil in the District
between May 1 and October 31 of any year .
Hearings were held by the Board of Supervisors for two days late in October . The
hearings were marred by a high emotional pitch, misstatements , half-truths , and a
general aura of confusion . As a consequence , the Foundation recommended to the
Board of Supervisors that the hearings be recessed until January , 1959 , to allow the
Foundation to study available data and to prepare a factual report on the subject.
On October 30 , the Foundation was requested to supply any pertinent data it might
have or develop before November 13. This was an inadequate amount of time , but
the Board was told a report would be sent them prior to January 15 , 1959. The report
32
was filed with the Board January 13 , despite the fact that Rule 62 was adopted in the
interim (November 13 , 1958 ) .
In preparing the report , the staff evaluated
all
pertinent literature on Los Angeles
smog and District data on emissions
of
contaminants from fuel -oil burning and data
on the atmospheric concentrations
of
sulfur dioxide for the period 1953-58 .
Dr.
Moyer
D. Thomas
of SRI was engaged
to
evaluate District data on vegetation damage .North American Weather Consultants ,
Santa Barbara ,
California ,
was selected
todetermine the likelihood
of
the occurrence
ofmeteorological conditions that could
lead
toan air pollution catastrophe
inLos Angeles and
to
determine the relationship
between sulfur dioxide emissions and visibility .
The report submitted
tothe Board
ofSupervisors showed there was no scientific
basis for Rule 62. Obviously ,
there must have been political reasons for the rule .
Federal Government Activities
The Federal Government entered the air pollution scene on alarge scale with the
passage
of Public Law 159
in1955. The law directed the U.
S. Public Health Service
toconduct and support research on air pollution and
toprovide technical services
to
state and local governments and
to
private agencies .Authorization was granted for
appropriation
of
funds up
to
$25,000,000 over a
five -year period .As a
result ,
research
was initiated
invarious governmental facilities ,
and particularly
at
the Taft Sanitary
Engineering Center ,Cincinnati ,Ohio .Research grants were made
touniversities and
research institutes for specific medical ,
scientific ,
and engineering studies .
Scientific
personnel were assigned ,
on a
loan basis ,
to
various state and local agencies and
to
universities ;
training courses were established for technicians .
Inaddition ,
aNational
Air Sampling Network for measuring air -borne particulate matter was established ,
with stations in 225 communities . InNovember ,
1958 ,
the
U.
S.
Public Health Service sponsored aNational Conference on Air Pollution inWashington ,D. C.
Purpose
of
the conference was
to
assess
the atmospheric pollution problem
inthe United States
in
all
its
social ,
political ,
and
scientific aspects .The proceedings
of the conference were published
asPublic Health
Service Publication No. 654 ;
it
still serves
as
an excellent resume of the state of our
knowledge
of air pollution matters
as
of
that date .
The increasing activity
of
the Federal Government was one factor that contributed
tothe slackening
ofgeneral activities
onthe part
of
the Foundation and concentration
on the motor vehicle exhaust problem .
As Federal research projects increased ,
the
Foundation could focus
its
attention almost completely on the unique factors
of Los
Angeles smog .
We were thus able
to
decrease our staff
in
an orderly manner and
to
prepare for
the day when others could take over our research and public information programs .
Dr.
L. H. Rogers ,
chief chemist for the Foundation since
its
inception ,
resigned
in
late 1958. We were fortunate
to
be able
to
replace him ,
on a
part -time consulting
basis ,with Dr. Philip
A.
Leighton .By this time ,we had already curtailed our public
information activities by gradually reducing our public information staff . 3333
1959
STATE ATTACKS AUTO EXHAUST PROBLEM
AT THE END OF 1958 , we estimated that
two more years of work by the Foundation would complete the basic research phase
of the Los Angeles smog problem . We expected that in two more years we could
provide sufficient essential facts to allow private industry to produce workable , economic controls for automobile exhaust and thereby have a means of eliminating Los
Angeles smog . We hoped that concurrent development in the legislative field and in
industrial laboratories would accent the accumulation of basic information and help
us achieve our goal . We were not disappointed .
Legislative Advances
It had become obvious at the end of 1958 that the control of motor vehicle exhaust
was a bigger problem than could be handled at the county level , so Los Angeles ' air
pollution officials and our State legislators took their case to Sacramento .
They explained to Governor Brown and to various legislative committees that
county control of heavy intercounty traffic would be an almost impossible task . Representatives from other areas , principally the Bay Area and the Central Valleys ,
pointed out that smog from motor vehicle exhaust was gradually building up in many
California communities .
Some wanted a law to force the installation of control devices not yet invented , but
the Legislature turned this down . Three laws were passed , however , which greatly
accelerated the drive toward adequate control .
Assemblyman William B. Rumford and others introduced an act directing the
State Director of Public Health to develop and publish standards for the quality of
air in California . The act stated :
"The standards shall be so developed as to reflect the relationship between the
intensity and composition of air pollution and the health , illness , including irritation to the senses, and death of human beings , as well as damage to vegetation and
interference with visibility ."
A second law, the Rees -Richards Act, further instructed the State Director of
Public Health to :
66
"... determine by February 1, 1960 , the maximum allowable standards of emissions of exhaust contaminants from motor vehicles which are compatible with the
preservation of public health including the prevention of irritation to the senses .”
The third part of the package was an act directing the State Department of Motor
Vehicles to study the problem of motor vehicle inspection .
In pursuance of these directives , the State Director of Public Health on December
4, 1959 , recommended certain air quality standards and motor vehicle standards to
the California State Board of Public Health . The recommendations were subsequently
adopted . The importance of the standards is such that they are outlined here .
34
CALIFORNIA STANDARDS FOR AMBIENT AIR QUALITY
Reasons for each standard are shown in italics
POLLUTANT
Oxidant
Ozone
"ADVERSE "
LEVEL
Level at which
there will be
sensory irritation , vegetation
damage , reduction in visibility , or similar
effects
"Oxidant
Index " 0.15
ppm for 1 hr by
the potassium
iodide method
(eye irritation ,
plant damage ,
and visibility
reduction)
"SERIOUS "
LEVEL
Level at which
there will be
alteration of
bodily function
or which is
likely to lead to
chronic disease
"EMERGENCY "
LEVEL
Level at which
it is likely that
acute sickness
or death in
sensitive groups
of persons will
Occur
No standard set No standard set
Nitrogen
Dioxide
Hydrocarbons
Photochemical
Aerosols
Sulfur 1 ppm for 1 hr 5
Dioxide or 0.3 ppm for
8 hrs (plant
damage )
Carbon
Monoxide
Particulates
No standard set
Sufficient to
reduce visibility
to less than 3
miles when relative humidity
is less than
70%
ppm for 1 hr (bronchoconstriction in
human
subjects )
30ppm for 8
hrs or 120 ppm
for 1 hr (interference with
oxygen transport byblood)
10 ppm for 1 hr
(severe distress
in human
subjects )
No standard set
No standard set No standard set
35
Hydrocarbons *
CALIFORNIA STANDARDS
FOR MOTOR VEHICLE EXHAUST
Carbon Monoxide *
**
275 parts per million by volume as hexane
(0.165 mole per cent carbon atoms )
1.5 per cent by volume
*Calculated on the basis that an over -all 80% reduction is needed .
** Calculated on the basis that an over -all 60% reduction is needed .
The standards refer to a composite sample representing an average driving
cycle . Exhaust gas concentrations shall be adjusted to a dry exhaust volume
containing 15% by volume of carbon dioxide plus carbon monoxide .
Hydrocarbons are defined as the organic constituents of vehicle exhaust , as
measured by a hexane -sensitized nondispersive infrared analyzer or by an
equivalent method . Carbon monoxide shall be measured by a nondispersive
infrared analyzer or an equivalent method .
Industrial Advances
No completely satisfactory control device for automobile exhaust was developed
during 1959 , but the industrial effort to produce such a device was intensified . Work
continued on the three devices previously mentioned , the Thompson Ramo Wooldridge afterburner , the Houdry catalytic muffler , and the Ford Motor Company's
catalytic muffler .
General industrial activity in the field intensified so much that the Foundation
engaged a New York consultant , Dr. John G. Dean , to follow these activities , particlarly in the eastern part of the United States . Dr. Dean was particularly fitted to this
assignment , not only because he was a competent and experienced chemist and metallurgist, but he was also an expert on catalysis .
He, and other members of the staff during 1959 , visited 25 industrial laboratories
developing catalysts or catalyst components specifically for exhaust control . Six of
these concerns , and at least five others , were also working on direct-flame afterburners . Many of the developments in these laboratories were more advanced than
those which had been publicized . As a consequence , we were confident that at least
three effective devices would be developed by the end of 1960 .
The program was set back somewhat , however , when the State Department of
Public Health included carbon monoxide as one of the elements to be controlled in
motor vehicle exhaust . Prior to this time , we had proceeded on the theory that only
the olefinic hydrocarbons needed to be controlled in order to eliminate smog . Carbon
monoxide , although a dangerous air pollutant in high concentrations , was known not
to take part in the atmospheric photochemical reaction that produced Los Angeles'
smog .
Afew so-called lowtemperature catalysts that had been developed to remove olefins
selectively from exhaust had to be discarded . Fortunately, hightemperature catalysts
and direct -flame afterburners burned carbon monoxide as well as hydrocarbons .
36
Basic Research Advances
Practically all the basic research work sponsored by the Foundation in 1959 was
centered around the smog chamber at Stanford Research Institute. The only other
project of importance was one at Franklin Research Institute. Results of the two
projects were published during the year as Reports 28 and 29.
Report No. 28. Elimination of Oxides of Nitrogen from Automobile Exhaust, by
Francis R. Taylor , Franklin Institute, Philadelphia .
The objective of the study was to find means of eliminating nitric oxide from motor
vehicle exhaust . This method of controlling smog formation has one very appealing
aspect ; i.e. , the probable chemical reactions by which nitric oxide can be destroyed
do not liberate heat and do not require the addition of air, as does hydrocarbon
oxidation .
The results of the study were highly encouraging. It was found that various chromium-containing catalysts would speed up the reaction between NO and CO , NO
and hydrogen, and straight decomposition of nitric oxide to the point where almost
complete elimination of nitric oxide could be attained at relatively moderate temperatures and at gas flow rates that are encountered at high automotive speeds .
An unexpected dividend accrued when it was found that the same catalyst would
also catalyze the oxidation of olefins , without affecting the elimination of nitric oxide ,
if small amounts of air were carefully added .
This work was carried out only on a laboratory -bench scale and had to be confirmed in an automotive laboratory .
Report No. 29. Photooxidation of Hydrocarbons in Mixtures Containing Oxides of
Nitrogen and Sulfur Dioxide , by E. A. Schuck and G. J. Doyle, Stanford Research
Institute .
This was the third extensive report of the group working under Foundation auspices at Stanford Research Institute.
In previous studies , the group had shown that the only way one could reproduce
typical smog symptoms in the laboratory was by irradiation of motor vehicle exhaust .
They had also shown that gasoline composition was not an important factor in production of smog . Chromatographic analysis of exhaust hydrocarbons during irradiation indicated marked variations in the rate at which various exhaust hydrocarbons
partake in the smog reaction . For 1959 , therefore , it was decided to study the role of
individual hydrocarbon species in the smog -producing reactions .
A wide variety of olefinic, paraffinic, aromatic , and heterocyclic hydrocarbons
were reacted with nitrogen dioxide in the smog chamber in the presence of simulated
sunlight. The rate of disappearance of the hydrocarbon was monitored ; the air mass
was analyzed for various reaction products ; and the irradiated mixture was tested for
eye irritation . Simultaneously with these studies , the formation of aerosols from
similar reactions in the presence of sulfur dioxide was studied in small reaction flasks .
37
The results of these experiments were enlightening and of considerable practical
significance. Major results and conclusions were :
1. Olefinic hydrocarbons were the only species which reacted fast enough to
account for smog formation .
2. Only those olefins that yield formaldehyde or acrolein by initial oxidation produced noticeable eye iritation . Indications are therefore that the eye irritants
in smog are chiefly formaldehyde and acrolein. Other minor irritants may also
be present .
3. All olefins yielded ozone on photooxidation . Certain branched -chain paraffins
also produced ozone , but so slowly that this reaction is probably not important
in the atmosphere .
4. A visibility -blurring aerosol was produced by irradiation of olefin -nitrogen
dioxide mixtures , but only when small amounts of sulfur dioxide were present .
Even with sulfur dioxide present , irradiation of paraffin -NO2 and aromaticNO2 mixtures did not produce an aerosol .
5. Several common industrial solvents were also studied to determine their participation in the smog -
forming reaction . They were found to be unreactive .
The practical significance of this work is apparent . If only olefinic hydrocarbons
were responsible for smog symptoms , this would be the only class of hydrocarbons
that need be removed from motor vehicle exhaust gases.
Fortunately , olefinic hydrocarbons are much more susceptible to oxidation (burning ) than other types of hydrocarbons and thus can be readily removed by catalytic
means . Preferential oxidation of olefins in exhaust gases will result in much less heat
liberation (something to be desired ) than if all the combustibles were burned.
Further , the reaction may be initiated at a lower energy level (also something worth
striving for ) . Recognition of these factors will probably result in simplified exhaust
afterburners.
As mentioned previously, however , this finding became academic , at least as far
as California is concerned , when carbon monoxide limitations were placed on motor
vehicle exhaust emissions .
Other Laboratories
Basic research on photochemical smog continued at several other laboratories
throughout the United States and Canada . One of the functions of the Foundation
staff was to keep continually advised of important results elsewhere and correlate
them with the studies at SRI . This liaison was a specific charge of our chemical
consultant , Dr. P. A. Leighton, and our chief physicist, Dr. N. A. Renzetti . Although
Dr. Renzetti left the full -time staff in September , he remained a part -time consultant
of the Foundation through 1960 .
Specific photochemical research studies of importance that were followed closely
were those of Calvert and co-workers at Ohio State University , Cvetanovic in Canada,
and several workers at Franklin Institute. Their reports threw considerable light on
the mechanism of photochemical reactions in polluted atmospheres .
38
Another study of considerable value was an extensive set of experiments by Darley
and coworkers at the University of California at Riverside on the plant-damaging
and eyeirritating effects of ozone -hydrocarbon mixtures . Their results were of considerable value in interpreting the data from the SRI smog chamber .
Fuel Composition
Research studies at SRI during 1958 , and published in Report No. 26, convinced
us that the influence of fuel composition on the production of smog by motor vehicle
exhaust was of a low order of importance . In our studies at SRI , we had found that
fuels of very high olefinic content (>50 %) produced somewhat more reactive
exhaust hydrocarbons than fuels of lower olefin content . On the other hand, fuels in
common use rarely contained as much as 25 per cent olefins . Below this level , we
could not distinguish one fuel from another insofar as smog formation from exhaust
gases was concerned . We concluded that regulation of the composition of automotive
fuels was an unpromising approach to the problem of urban air pollution .
For several years , however , the Los Angeles County Air Pollution Control District
had theorized that reduction of the olefin content of gasoline would decrease the
incidence and severity of smog . Accordingly , in June , the District proposed Rule 63 ,
which would restrict the olefin content of gasoline sold in Los Angeles County. After
a study of the experimental procedures used by the District , and a review of the data
obtained, the Foundation concluded that the proposed rule was not based on scientific
facts and would result only in higher gasoline prices and no diminution of smog .
The Board of Supervisors was so informed .
No other opposition developed , so despite the fact that District data supporting the
rule were of doubtful significance, the rule was passed . The rule limited gasoline
sold in Los Angeles County to a 30 bromine number ( approximately 15 per cent
olefins ) after June 30 , 1960 , and to a 20 bromine number ( approximately 10 per
cent olefins ) after December 31 , 1961. The Board of Supervisors did recognize the
tenuous basis for the rule and adopted a resolution calling for an intensified research
effort to determine whether the values selected should be raised or lowered .
Subsequently , the U. S. Bureau of Mines published several papers reporting studies
of the relationship between the olefin content of fuel and the olefin content of exhaust
gases. One of the conclusions is :
“More precisely , the majority of experimental data from this laboratory shows a
slight trend toward decreased olefin emissions with higher olefinic content of the
fuel."
Nevertheless , the rule has not yet been rescinded .
Only One More Year Required
At the Annual Meeting of the Foundation's Board of Trustees on November 12 ,
1959 , Fred D. Fagg , Jr., in "The President's Message ," said :
"After six productive years of pioneering activities by the Foundation , completion
of the scientific work necessary for an economic end to our smog problem is now
within one year's reach .
39
"This represents high accomplishment . Obviously, the basic research conducted
by the Foundation is principally responsible . But the Foundation has also provided
technical leadership and has welded noteworthy cooperation among public agencies ,
private groups , and individuals working on various aspects of air pollution . And
through its public information activities , the Foundation has won the confidence of
opinion leaders and important support for the thesis that given time and the necessary
funds , science and engineering will eliminate smog .
"Now we have reached the time when the original plan for the Foundation is near
fulfillment . Our scientific staff advises that , granted sufficient finances , the remaining
research required for a workable and satisfactory solution to the smog problem will
be completed by the end of 1960.
"The Board of Trustees is confident that the reaction of the Southern California
business community to this unequivocal declaration will be that any job so vital to
all who live and work here , and which CAN be completed in one more year ,
SHOULD AND MUST be completed in that time . Delay would be indefensible .
"Accordingly , the Foundation's Trustees have decided that 1960 shall be the final
year for which we will raise operational funds and that the Foundation shall be dissolved thereafter upon conclusion of the staff's work .
"During the liquidation period-the early months of 1961 , for which no additional
financing will be required-the Foundation will interpret and sum up its final year's
findings , thus completing the scientific solution to the intricate smog problem , and
publish
its
concluding reports for the guidance
of
those
in
private industry and
government whose obligation
itwill
be
tomake full and proper use
of
the solution
inbringing about the actual end
of
smog .When the Foundation removes itself from
the scene ,
itwill
bewith the knowledge that
its
intended role
in
betterment
of
the
public welfare has been discharged .
"
40
1960 FINAL YEAR OF RESEARCH
WITH THE KNOWLEDGE that 1960 would be
our final year of operation , plans had to be made for an orderly demise . We therefore set the following goals :
1. Establishment of research projects jointly with other sponsors , who would be
able to support continuing projects at least to some degree after the Foundation
was dissolved .
2. Publication of summary articles that would outline progress to date and point
out areas of knowledge where further investigations were needed .
3. Continued liaison with industrial laboratories and government for the purpose
of accelerating the motor vehicle pollution control program.
4. Liquidation of the assets of the Foundation early in 1961 and dissolution of
the corporation.
Of the several research programs supported in 1960 , two were of such a nature
and scope as to result in technical progress reports . These were :
Report No. 31. A Progress Report on the Photochemistry of Polluted Atmospheres , by E. A. Schuck, George J. Doyle, and Noboru Endow, Stanford Research
Institute.
This project, which was a continuation of studies made for us by Stanford Research
Institute since 1955 , was supported jointly by the Foundation and the U. S. Public
Health Service through a National Institutes of Health grant to SRI . The report presented further information concerning the nature of the photochemical smog reaction ,
particularly with regard to eye irritation and haze formation . Previous work had
shown that the major products of the photooxidation were produced by rupture of
the double bond in the reacting olefin . In certain cases, however , products appeared
which could not be accounted for by simple bond rupture. Results of the current
project showed how secondary photooxidation of initial products could account for
a portion of the final products . It was further shown that part of the olefin oxidation
could be effected by alkyl nitrites, which were identified among the minor products
of olefin photooxidation . At the present time , the eye irritants in the atmosphere
appear to be formaldehyde and peroxyacyl nitrates , and possibly acrolein.
It was also conclusively demonstrated that eye irritation from motor vehicle
exhaust irradiation could be controlled by reduction of exhaust olefins . Indications
were that oxides of nitrogen control would not be nearly so effective , inasmuch as
very small amounts of nitrogen oxides (0.1 ppm ) could oxidize a sufficient amount
of olefin in the atmosphere to produce noticeable eye irritation .
Further work was also done on the role of sulfur dioxide in the production of the
photochemical aerosol , one of the hallmarks of Los Angeles smog . No other nucleiformers tested (sodium chloride, sodium carbonate , and lead chloride ) produced
41
photochemical aerosols . On the other hand , extremely small quantities of sulfur
dioxide (in the order of 0.01 ppm ) were sufficient to initiate nuclei formation .
Considerably more research appears to be necessary to elucidate the photochemical
atmospheric reaction . It was heartening , therefore , to learn that further support will
be given this project by the National Institutes of Health. To further aid this work,
the Foundation in December donated to SRI
all
the equipment
it
owned that was
being used on the project ,
together with a
cash grant
of
$50,000 .
Report No. 32. Total Hydrocarbon Emissions from Automobiles ,
by Paul
R.
Lepisto ,et al
.
,
Southwest Research Institute ,
San Antonio ,
Texas .
InJanuary ,
1960 ,
General Motors engineers reported data showing that
in
some
cases hydrocarbon emissions
in
crankcase blowby gases were
of
the same order
of
magnitude
as
those emitted
in
the exhaust .
This was subsequently corroborated by
workers
at
the
U.
S.
Public Health Service Taft Sanitary Engineering Center
in
Cincinnati .
Attention was also called by other groups
to
evaporation losses from
carburetors and fuel tanks .
Speculation
as
to
the relative magnitudes
of
these various automotive sources
of
hydrocarbons led the Foundation
to
contract with Southwest Research Institute
to
measure the total hydrocarbon emission from aselected group
of automobiles .
Itwas
hoped that such a
study would place the various emissions
in
proper perspective .
Five different cars were examined .
They were
in
various conditions
of maintenance ,
equipped with different types
of carburetors ,
and operated
in
different traffic
patterns ,
using fuels similar
to
those sold
in
Los Angeles .
Results indicated that
70.2 %
of the hydrocarbons emitted were
inthe exhaust gases ;
24.0 %,
incrankcase
blowby ;
less than 0.1 %,
carburetor running losses ;
2.8 %by tank fuel evaporation ;
and 2.9 %by fuel evaporation from the carburetor during hot soak ,
i.e. ,during standing after the vehicle had been inoperation .Itwas concluded that both exhaust and
blowby hydrocarbons would have
to
be controlled
to
eliminate smog ,
but that the
other emissions were too small
to
be
of
significance .
Other Research Projects
Several smaller research programs were also supported during 1960. Generally ,
these were meant
toclarify minor points
or
toinitiate longer range projects that could
be carried on by others after dissolution
of
the Foundation .The chief projects were :
Development
of
an
Instrument for Measuring SO2 .
For several years ,
the Atomic
Energy Commission's Office
of
Isotopes Development had been sponsoring aresearch
project
at Tracerlab ,
Inc. ,Waltham ,Mass .
,
to
develop an ozone -monitoring instrument based on radio -isotope analysis .The work had resulted in
a
device based on a
reaction between ozone and a
clathrate compound containing the radioisotope ,
krypton -85 .Under proper conditions ,
ozone reacted with the clathrate and liberated
krypton -85 ,which could be measured by an instrument similar
to
aGeiger counter .
In the course
of
this study ,Tracerlab found that a
similar reaction might be made
suitable for the analysis
of
atmospheric sulfur dioxide .
Development
of
a
simple
atmospheric monitoring device for sulfur dioxide ,
particularly one which did not
require the use
of
solutions ,
had been on the Foundation's agenda for some time .
However ,
because
of
the difficulty
of
the study ,
the necessary development could not
42
possibly be completed before the Foundation would be dissolved . Accordingly , we
made an agreement with the Atomic Energy Commission whereby we would support
the study for the last six months of 1960 if the AEC would support the work after
that time , depending , of course , on the progress made in the meantime .
Results obtained in 1960 were recently published in our Seventh Technical Progress Report ( Report No. 33 ) . Although many difficulties remain , the six-month study
indicated the approach was promising . Consequently , the study is presently being
supported by the Atomic Energy Commission .
Development of an Olefin-Measuring Instrument . Early in 1960 , attention of the
Foundation was called to a laboratory procedure for the measurement of olefins by
Dr. S. W. Nicksic of California Research Corporation while working in the laboratories of the Los Angeles County APCD .
The process developed ( a bromination procedure ) appeared to be adaptable to a
simple , inexpensive , portable instrument , which was very badly needed both for
measurement of atmospheric olefins and for the measurement of olefins in motor
vehicle exhaust . The Foundation therefore sought agreement with Dr. Nicksic and
the APCD to allow us to contract for the manufacture of two instruments based on
the bromination technique . As a result , a contract was let to Mast Development Co. ,
Inc. , Davenport, Iowa, to modify the process and to adapt it to two instruments , one
to monitor low concentrations of olefins in air , the other to measure the comparatively
higher concentrations in motor vehicle exhaust .
Two commercial prototype instruments which show considerable promise of being
useful were manufactured . The atmospheric unit was donated to the California State
Department of Public Health for field trials . The other unit was donated to the Taft
Sanitary Engineering Center of the U. S. Public Health Service for evaluation as an
exhaust measuring device . Greater detail was published in our Report No. 33 .
Air Monitoring for Suspected Eye Irritants . The studies at SRI and those conducted at the University of California at Riverside indicated that the principal eye
irritants in Los Angeles smog were formaldehyde , acrolein , and peroxyacyl nitrate
(PAN) . Excellent correlations between the concentrations of these three materials
and eye irritation had been obtained in laboratory studies . However, because of the
many differences that had been noticed between laboratory atmospheres and the
ambient air , it was believed wise to attempt to measure the concentrations of suspected irritants in the actual atmosphere and to correlate these concentrations with
eye irritation reported by panels of people for the same atmosphere .
Accordingly , the Foundation (
through Truesdail Laboratories ) and the APCD
entered into a joint study in which concentrations were measured at certain morning
hours at 434 South San Pedro Street , Los Angeles , and in the afternoon at 820 Mission Street , South Pasadena . Eye irritation was also measured once each day at each
location (at the midpoint of the sampling schedule ) . The study was conducted five
days each week between July 5 and November 18, 1960 .
Generally speaking , the data obtained neither corroborated nor invalidated the
theory . A great many anomalies were encountered , such as incidences of eye irritation when aldehydes were not found in the atmosphere . It is believed that a combination of analytical difficulties and variable factors affecting eye irritation measurement in the ambient air contributed to the scatter of the data . One cannot , however ,
43
discard the possibility that some mechanism other than the formaldehyde -acrolein
theory must also be operating in the ambient atmosphere .
Development of Catalyst for Nitrogen Oxide Control . Previous work at Franklin
Institute had indicated that chromite catalysts were effective in the removal of nitric
oxide from simulated automobile exhaust gases passed over the catalyst at a constant
rate . Accordingly , a project was placed with Scott Research Laboratories , Perkasie,
Pa .
, to test these catalysts on automobile exhaust .
Generally, it was found that with excess air added to the exhaust gases , nitric
oxide was not eliminated but that hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide were oxidized ;
only in the absence of added air was nitric oxide removed by the catalyst . This leads
one to believe that a system could be devised for removing all three contaminants
(NO , CO, and hydrocarbons ) from exhaust gases. Further studies will , however , be
required.
Grants-in-Aid for Air Pollution Research
Besides the previously mentioned grant made to SRI , two other grants were made
during 1960. In December , a grant of $10,000 was made to the University of
Southern California for general studies on the air pollution problem . In August, a
grant of $ 11,200 had been made to the University of California at Riverside to aid
their studies on vegetation damage . Several other grants of both cash and equipment
had been made to UCR over a period of years . By far the most effective work done
on the relationship of air pollution to vegetation was that carried out and published
by UCR scientists . The various gifts made to them by the Foundation probably represented the most effective utilization of funds of any the Foundation spent . This statement in no way detracts from the excellent work done by others with Foundation
grants , notably UCLA and Caltech .
Public Information Activities
For several years the Foundation had been asked repeatedly for a brief dissertation describing air pollution in general and smog in particular for use by high school
students . Accordingly , a 20 -page pamphlet titled "Air Pollution and Smog " was
prepared by Don Kirby , Foundation Public Information Officer , in May . Approximately 18,000 copies were distributed by the Foundation and by the Los Angeles
County APCD .
A second brochure, "The Air Pollution Problem -An Appraisal ," by W. L. Faith ,
Managing Director (36 pp ) was released in November . Requests for this brochure
were so many that 50,000 copies were eventually printed.
The Air Pollution Foundation Newsletter was published bimonthly for the third
successive year. The final issue was sent out in December . Although the Newsletter
had a circulation ( nonpaid ) of only 2500 , we believe it served a worthwhile function
in keeping opinion leaders apprised of current air pollution problems and developments in Los Angeles .
Motor Vehicle Pollution Control
The greatest development of the year 1960 was the passage of the California Motor
Vehicle Pollution Control Bill (AB 17 ) by the Legislature in April . This was a
44
necessary step if Los Angeles and other parts of California were ever to solve the
smog problem.
Basically, the bill provided for the Governor to appoint a 13 -man Motor Vehicle
Pollution Control Board, which would be delegated to issue certificates of approval
for motor vehicle pollution control devices which after testing were found to operate
within the standards set by the California State Board of Health, and which would
meet other criteria adopted by the Board.
One year after certification of at least two devices , no new motor vehicle may be
registered in California unless it is equipped with a certified device , nor may any
used motor vehicle upon transfer of ownership be registered unless and until it is
equipped with a certified device . Certain "smog -free " areas could be exempt by due
process of law from the provision referring to used cars either listed in the above or
in the following statements .
After the second December 31 that follows certification, no used commercial
vehicle shall be registered unless it is equipped with a certified device , whether the
vehicle is sold or kept by its owners .
After the third December 31 , the law is extended to cover all remaining vehicles ,
except those that may be exempt by the Board . It is expected that exemption will be
granted to diesel engines , motorcycles , farm machines , and other classifications for
which devices are either unnecessary or not available .
The Board was appointed in May and got to work in July . By the end of the year
it had established an office in Los Angeles , hired an administrative officer and some
staff , held five meetings in different parts of California , contracted for the services
of a testing laboratory , prepared and distributed application blanks for submission
of devices for test, and announced
itswillingness
to
begin testing .
Agreat many policy decisions had
to
bemade before the Board could expect
to
receive devices for testing .Among the important decisions made were the following : 1.
The Board would test devices
in
well -defined steps .
Step I
testing would be
chiefly
to
determine
if
a
device met the standards adopted by the State Board
of Health with regard
tohydrocarbon and carbon monoxide emissions .
2.
The Board adopted a
policy statement regarding its ultimate intention
to
control blowby or
crankcase emissions .
This decision was occasioned by three
events .
a.
Research findings by several groups that crankcase blowby amounted
to
a
significant percentage
of
total hydrocarbon emissions from motor
vehicles .
b.
Adoption
of
a
standard for motor vehicle crankcase vent emissions by
the State Board
of
Public Health in December (allowable emission of
0.15 per cent
of
supplied fuel
at
specified modes
ofoperation )
.
c.
The availability
of crankcase blowby control devices ,
as
shown by voluntary installation on all 1961 model automobiles sold in
California by
American motor car manufacturers .
3.
The Board adopted a
policy that criteria for device certification ,
in
addition
to
public health standards ,would be established and would include life (not
less than 1
year )
,warm -up time ,
effect
of abusive driving ,
odor ,
noise ,
safety ,
and similar factors "
to
the best interests
of
the buying public .
"
45
Motor Vehicle Pollution Control Device Development . Although no devices had
been offered the Board by the end of the year, many companies were known to have
reached a point in design and development where only a knowledge of final criteria
and standard test procedure precluded submission of devices for test.
The Foundation was kept advised by many manufacturers of their progress , and
interpreted for them the almost daily procession of events related to the motor vehicle
pollution problem.
Two general types of exhaust control devices (direct flame and catalytic ) appeared
to be ready for testing . Most of the direct-flame afterburners took advantage of heat
conservation by use of internal heat exchangers ; others required the addition of a
small amount of fuel to sustain a flame under all operating conditions. Catalyst manufacturers had apparently overcome the problem of catalyst deactivation by deposition
of lead salts ( from the antiknock fluid in the gasoline ) . High temperature deactivation had been surmounted by internal design . Both types of devices appeared competitive . Price range was expected to be in the neighborhood of $75-125 .
Announcement of Plans to Dissolve Foundation
In December , the Foundation formally announced plans for
its
liquidation early
in1961 ,
subject
tothe approval
of
the Superior Court .Under the plan submitted
to
the Court ,any residual assets
of
the Foundation
at
the time
of
its dissolution will be
donated
to
Caltech for additional research work
inthe field
of air pollution .
Inreleasing the news
of
dissolution
to
the press ,
the Foundation said :
Inasmuch
aswe know that motor vehicle exhaust
is
the sole remaining source of smog
in
Los Angeles ,
and the State
of California has embarked upon its control ,
the end
of
the 20 -year smog siege
isnow
insight .
By the time the Foundation closes its doors ,
all the basic scientific research will be
completed ,
and the technical reports published ,
to
enable engineering
to
carry out
its
function
of
constantly improving ,
year by year ,
the efficiency
of
present -day prototypes
of automobile exhaust control devices that will eventually make Los Angeles -type smog
only amemory .
46
1961 DISSOLUTION-AND BEYOND
THE ACTIVITIES of
the Foundation during
the first part
of
1961 were primarily
of
the nature
of an orderly liquidation .
Reports
had
tobe written ,
assets converted largely
to
cash (exceptions are the library and
certain air -monitoring instruments which could be utilized by Caltech
as
is
)
,
and outstanding debts had tobepaid .
Extra copies
of Foundation reports and reprints were
distributed
to
those who could best use them .
Dissolution now awaits the final hearing
on
the liquidation procedure which has
been set by the Superior Court for May
24,
1961 .
The Future in Los Angeles
Now that the cause
of
eye -irritating smog (motor vehicle exhaust )
isknown ,
and
the State
of California has set up means for its control ,what does the future hold for
Los Angeles ?Will the State Board
do
athorough job and require control devices on
all motor vehicles ,
or will
somany exemptions
bemade that smog will
be
only
slightly alleviated ?
One can only resort
to
conjecture ,
but close affiliation with the Motor Vehicle
Pollution Control Board can only impress one
as
tothe dedication
of
itsmembers
to
do the necessary job and
to
do
it
in
the best interests
of
the entire community .As
with all public activities ,
political considerations may
at
times take precedence over
technical factors ,
but these are not expected
tobe major stumbling blocks .The public
is
determined
to
put
an
end
to
the smog menace ,
so
the Board will have plenty
of
support .
Probably the greatest delay will
be
in
equipping very old automobiles ,
but
they will have
tobe controlled
ifsmog
is
to
beeliminated .
If
all
goes
asexpected ,
the
area should be truly "smog -free "by the summer
of
1968 .
In the meantime ,
there will be concentrated efforts
to
reduce even further the
remaining emissions from stationary sources .
Some
of the proposals will undoubtedly
be capricious
ifone
is
to
judge from recent Rules 62 and 63. This problem
of more
and more control based on suspicion
or
a
supposed need
to
show official concern
poses economic problems that can only result
in
great harm
to
the community
if
officials fail
to
consider economics .One can make the air over Los Angeles
as
"pure "
as
that over the High Sierras ,
but
in
so
doing the community could be destroyed .
On the other hand ,
one can have reasonably clean air and a
thriving community
as
well ,
if
the equities are considered
in
the development
of
air pollution legislation .
The one difficult problem
to
be
overcome not only
inLos Angeles ,
but elsewhere ,
is
the hiatus
in
our knowledge relating human health
to
air contaminants .This can
be solved only by research ,
and probably research
at
the Federal level
or
supported
largely with Federal funds .
The misguided hypochondriacs who sieze every opportunity to
harass the economy by shouting for more control
ofeverything (but with47
out evidence of need ) are doing themselves a disservice . The same amount of energy
well directed could give considerable impetus to securing adequate funds for medical
research .
This does not mean that some laws may not have to be tightened , and occasionally
new ones written. It only means that a reasonable need for control must exist before
a control law is activated . Only high-grade research can show what is reasonable and
what is not . It must then be made available to officialdom in language easy to understand . The press , radio, and TV have some responsibility here . Controversy may
increase readers , listeners , and viewers , but in matters as ubiquitous as air pollution,
the thoughtful editorial greatly outweighs the controversial headline .
Another factor that must be considered is the changing modes of American communities . Plants locate in a given place and control their emissions accordingly . But
as people move closer to the plant, more stringent control becomes necessary . This
means more stringent laws .
All of these factors will become more important in Los Angeles . But basically the
smog problem will be resolved only as the control of automotive exhaust is effected .
Any added controls on stationary sources will produce unnecessary economic problems until the results of health -oriented research dictates otherwise . In the final
analysis , however , of the basic problems facing Los Angeles , i.e., air , water , transportation, and communications , the first to be solved may well be air .
48
APPENDIX
OFFICERS OF THE FOUNDATION ( 1953-1961 )
1953-1954
Fred D. Fagg, Jr., Chairman , Board of
Trustees
Stephen W. Royce , Vice Chairman
Lauren B. Hitchcock , President
James E. Shelton , Treasurer
Leroy A. Garrett, Secretary
Robert S. Weatherly , Asst. Treasurer
Raymond B. Allen , Chairman , Board of
Trustees
Arnold O. Beckman , Vice Chairman
Lauren B. Hitchcock , President
W. L. Faith , Vice President
1955
James E. Shelton , Treasurer
Gerald G. Kelly , Secretary
Robert S. Weatherly, Asst . Treasurer
Murray S. Marvin , Asst . Secretary
Lee A. DuBridge , Chairman , Board of
Trustees
Walter Braunschweiger, Vice Chairman
Lauren B. Hitchcock , President
1956
W. L. Faith , Vice President
James E. Shelton , Treasurer
Gerald G. Kelly , Secretary
James B. Russell , Asst . Treasurer
Murray S. Marvin , Asst . Secretary
A. J. Gock, President and Chairman ,
Board ofTrustees
J. Howard Edgerton, Vice President
Frank L. King, Treasurer
Fred D. Fagg, Jr., President and Chairman, Board of Trustees
F. M. Banks , Vice President
Frank L. King, Treasurer
1957
1958
Gerald G. Kelly , Secretary
Robert L. Hunt , Asst . Treasurer
Murray S. Marvin , Asst . Secretary
Gerald G. Kelly , Secretary
Robert L. Hunt , Asst . Treasurer
Murray S. Marvin , Asst . Secretary
1959-1961
Fred D. Fagg, Jr., President and Chair
man, Board ofTrustees
F. M. Banks , Vice President
Harry M. Bardt, Treasurer
Gerald G. Kelly , Secretary
Robert L. Hunt , Asst . Treasurer
Murray S. Marvin , Asst . Secretary
4.9
BOARD OF TRUSTEES ( 1954-1961 )
RAYMOND B. ALLEN
Chancellor , University of California at Los Angeles
1954-1958
LEE A. DuBRIDGE
President, California Institute of Technology
1954-1961
J. L. ATWOOD
President, North American Aviation , Inc.
1955-1961
J. HOWARD EDGERTON
President, California Federal Savings
1955-1961
F. M. BANKS
President, Southern California Gas Company
1954-1961
FRED D. FAGG, JR.
President Emeritus , University of Southern California
1954-1961
1954-1961
HARRY M. BARDT
Executive Vice President, Bank of America
1958-1961
LEONARD K. FIRESTONE
President, Firestone Tire & Rubber Company
of California
1955-1961
WELTON D. BECKET
President, Welton Becket and Associates
1957-1961
J. S. FLUOR
President, The Fluor Corporation , Ltd.
1958-1961
GARNER A. BECKETT
Honorary Chairman of the Board,
American Cement Corporation
1955-1961
Y. FRANK FREEMAN
Vice President, Paramount Pictures Corporation
1955-1961
ARNOLD O. BECKMAN
President, Beckman Instruments, Inc.
1954-1961
A. J. GOCK
Director , Bank of America
1955-1961
MILO W. BEKINS
President, Bekins Van & Storage Company
1955
BEN P. GRIFFITH
President, Griffith Company
1955-1961
WALTER BRAUNSCHWEIGER
Bank of America
1954-1961
ASA V. CALL
Chairman , Pacific Mutual Life Insurance Company
1954-1961
EDWARD W. CARTER
President, Broadway -Hale Stores, Inc.
1954-1961
TERRELL C. DRINKWATER
President, Western Air Lines , Inc.
1956-1961
ROY M. HAGEN
President, California Consumers Corporation
1954-1956
CHARLES F. KETTERING
Research Consultant and Director ,
General Motors Research Staff
1955-1956
FRANK KING
Chairman of the Board, California Bank
1957-1961
VERN O. KNUDSEN
University of California at Los Angeles
1959-1961
50
E. J. LOEBBECKE
President , Title Insurance and Trust Company
1959-1961
STEPHEN W. ROYCE
President and Manager ,
Huntington -Sheraton Hotel , Pasadena
1954-1961
O. F. MARSAL
Plant Manager , M-E-L Division , Ford Motor Co.
1957-1958
D. J. RUSSELL
President, Southern Pacific Company
1955-1961
H. C. MCCLELLAN
President, Old Colony Paint & Chemical Company
1955-1956
J. PHILIP SAMPSON, M.D.
Past President, Los Angeles County
Medical Association
1955-1956
JOHN A. MCCONE
President , Joshua Hendy Corporation
1954-1957
JAMES E. SHELTON
Chairman of the Board,
Security-First National Bank
1954-1961
STANDISH L. MITCHELL
General Manager , Automobile Club of
Southern California
1955-1956
REESE H. TAYLOR
Chairman of the Board ,
Union Oil Company of California
1954-1961
HARVEY S. MUDD
President, Cyprus Mines Corporation
1954
NORMAN P. THOMPSON
Executive Vice President,
Automobile Club of Southern California
1956-1961
WILLIAM C. MULLENDORE
Southern California Edison Company
1954-1961
FORD J. TWAITS
Ford J. Twaits Co.
1955-1956
KENNETH T. NORRIS
President, Norris -Thermador Corporation
1955-1957
ARTHUR J. WILL
Los Angeles
1958-1960
FRED B. ORTMAN
Associate Director , Stanford Research Institute
1954-1961
P. G. WINNETT
Chairman of the Board , Bullock's , Inc.
1954-1957
ALDEN G. ROACH
President, Columbia -Geneva Steel Division ,
United States Steel Corporation
1954-1956
JAMES C. ZEDER
Vice President, Chrysler Corporation
1955-1958
EDWARD C. ROSENOW , JR.
, M.D.
Executive Director , Los Angeles County
Medical Association
1957-1958
51
TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE ( 1955-1957 )
DR . FRANCIS E. BLACET
Dean, Division of Physical Sciences,
University of California at Los Angeles
DR . LESLIE A. CHAMBERS
Director of Research, Los Angeles County ,
Air Pollution Control District
WILLIAM H. CLAUSSEN
Executive Secretary, Smoke and Fumes Committee,
American Petroleum Institute
DR . ARIE J. HAAGEN -SMIT
Professor ofBio -Organic Chemistry,
California Institute of Technology
CHARLES M. HEINEN
Vice Chairman , Vehicle Combustion Products
Subcommittee, Automobile Manufacturers Association
CHARLES A. JONES
Executive Secretary, Smoke and Fumes
Committee, American Petroleum Institute
DR . PETER KYROPOULOS
Executive in Charge of Technical Development,
General Motors Styling
DR . JOHN T. MIDDLETON
Chairman , Dept. of Plant Pathology,
University of California at Riverside
DR . LAWRENCE M. RICHARDS
Assistant Manager of Research and Development,
Richfield Oil Corporation
DR . WILLIAM G. YOUNG
Vice Chancellor , University of California
at Los Angeles
PROFESSIONAL AND BUSINESS STAFF
LAUREN B. HITCHCOCK
Managing Director
1954-1956
DONALD L. KIRBY
Assistant Information Officer
1955-1956
Public Information Officer
1957-1960
W. L. FAITH
Deputy Director and Chief Engineer
1954-1956
Managing Director
1957-1961
MacKENZIE WASSON
Public Information Assistant
1955-1956
M. NEIBURGER
Senior Meteorologist
1954-1955
N. A. RENZETTI
Senior Physicist
1954-1958
Consulting Physicist
1959-1961
MARY ANN JORDEN
Librarian
1955-1957
JAMES B. RUSSELL
Business Manager
1956
L. H. ROGERS
Senior Chemist
1954-1958
BURT LEIPER
Public Information Officer
1954-1956
ROBERT S. WEATHERLY
Business Manager
1954-1955
ROBERT L. HUNT
Business Manager
1957-1961
JOHN G. DEAN
Consulting Chemist
1959-1960
PHILIP A. LEIGHTON
Consulting Chemist
1959-1960
52
CONTRIBUTORS
ΤΟ
AIR POLLUTION FOUNDATION
(Numbers in parentheses refer to number of years contribution was made )
Aerojet-General Corporation (5 )
Allison and Rible (3)
Alloy Steel and Metals Company (6 )
American Airlines (6 )
American Cyanamid Company ( 1)
American Meter Company , Inc. (4)
American Pipe and Construction Co. (4 )
American Potash & Chemical Corporation (7)
Apex Steel Corporation, Ltd. (5 )
Associated Brick Manufacturers of So. Calif . (3 )
Atchison , Topeka and Santa Fe Railway ( 7 )
Automobile Club of Southern California ( 2 )
Automobile Manufacturers Association ( 7)
Avery Label Co. , a Division of Avery Adhesive
Products, Inc. (5)
Baker Oil Tools, Inc. (4 )
Barker Bros. Corporation ( 7)
Barr Lumber Company ( 2)
Bauer , J. A. , Pottery Company ( 1)
Baxter, Don , Inc. (5 )
Bechtel Corporation (7)
Becket , Welton, and Associates ( 1)
Bendix, The, Corporation
Beneficial Management Corporation of
America (4 )
Bethlehem Steel Company , Inc. (4 )
Beverly Hills Hotel ( 1)
Bohemian Distributing Company (5 )
Bowers Manufacturing Co. , Inc. ( 2)
Braun, C. F., and Company ( 5 )
Briles Manufacturing ( 1)
Broadway Department Stores (7)
Brock , M. J., & Sons , Inc. (5 )
Bullock's , Inc. ( 7)
California Cotton Oil Corporation ( 5 )
California Hardware Company (3 )
California Portland Cement Company (5)
Cannon ,
James H., Foundation (5 )
Capital Research & Management Company (4)
Carnation Company (5 )
Coldwell , Banker & Company ( 5)
Continental Can Company , Inc. ( 5 )
Convair (Pomona) (3)
Cooper Precision Products ( 1)
Coulter's (4)
Crown Zellerbach Foundation ( 2 )
Curtin , Mrs. Thomas E. ( 1)
Davies , Keusder & Brown (1)
deMille , Cecil B., Trust (4 )
Desmond's , Inc. (5 )
Disney , Walt , Productions (4 )
Doheny , Mrs. Edward L. (3 )
Douglas Aircraft Company (4 )
du Pont de Nemours , E. I. , & Company , Inc. (7)
Eastern Columbia ( 1)
Escherich Bros. , Inc. ( 2)
53
Ethyl Corporation ( 7)
Farmers Insurance Group (5)
Fibreboard Paper Products Corporation ( 1)
Firestone Tire & Rubber Company of
California (6 )
Flintridge China Company (2)
Fluor Corporation , Ltd., The (7)
Frantz , McConnell & Seymour (3 )
Garrett Corporation ( 2 )
General Telephone Company of California ( 5)
Gibraltar Savings & Loan Assn. of Beverly
Hills ( 1)
Gilfillan Bros. , Inc. ( 2)
Gladding , McBean & Company ( 7)
Goodrich, The B. F., Company (6 )
Hycon Manufacturing Company (2 )
Hydril Company ( 2 )
Hydro-Aire , Inc. ( 1)
Industrial Indemnity Company (6)
International Business Machines Corporation ( 5)
Investors Savings and Loan Association ( 2)
Jeffries Banknote Company ( 3)
Johns -Manville Corporation ( 2)
Jorgensen, Earle M., Co. (4 )
Kaiser Steel Corporation ( 2)
Kay -Brunner Steel Products, Inc. ( 2)
Kiewit , Peter, Sons ' Co. (3 )
Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company , The (6 ) Kirk , Morris P., & Son , Inc. (5)
Kwikset Locks , Gough Industries Inc. ( 1)
, Inc. (3 )
Graybar Electric Company , Inc. (6 )
Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company , The (2 ) Leisure, Werden & Terry Agency ( 1)
Great Lakes Carbon Corporation ( 4 )
Griffith Company (6 )
Gruen, Victor , Associates (4 )
Haggarty's ( 1)
Hansen -Lynn Company , Inc. ( 1)
Haskins & Sells ( 5)
Helms Bakeries ( 5)
Hoffman Electronics Corporation (4 )
Hollywood Turf Club ( 1)
Hughes Aircraft Company (5 )
Lever Brothers Company (5 )
Litton Industries ( 1)
Lockheed Aircraft Corporation ( 7)
Los Angeles Clearing House Association (7)
Bank of America
California Bank
Canadian Bank of Commerce (California )
Citizens National Bank
First Western Bank & Trust Company
Security-First National Bank of L. A.
Union Bank
Los Angeles Newspaper Publishers
Association (3 )
Los Angeles Turf Club, Inc. ( 5)
54
Lyon Van & Storage Company ( 1)
Maas, A. R. , Chemical Co. (2)
Matson Navigation Company (5)
May Company ( 7)
Mayfair Markets ( 1)
Pacific Telephone and Telegraph Company (7 )
Pacific Tile & Porcelain Company (6 )
Packard Bell Electronics ( 2)
Parsons , Ralph M. , Company , The (4 )
Pasadena Federal Savings & Loan
Association (3 )
McKee , Robert E., General Contractor, Inc. (3 ) Peck, C. L. (3)
Menasco Manufacturing Company ( 1)
Metropolitan Coach Lines (2 )
Monolith Portland Cement Company ( 1)
Mosaic Tile Company , The (2 )
Moviola Manufacturing Company (5 )
Phillips Poultry Company ( 1)
Pomona Tile Manufacturing Co. (6 )
Productol Company ( 2)
Prudential Insurance Company of America,
The ( 5 )
National Tank & Manufacturing Co. , Inc. ( 1)
Newbery Electric Corporation (4 )
Norris -Thermador Corporation (5)
North American Aviation , Inc. ( 7 )
Northrop Corporation (6 )
O'Keefe & Merritt Co. (2 )
O'Melveny & Myers (3 )
Radioplane Division, Northrup Corporation (4 )
Ralphs Grocery Company ( 2)
Redondo Tile Company , Ltd. ( 1)
Republic Supply Company of California ,
The ( 5 )
Rexall Drug and Chemical Company (5)
Riverside Cement Company ( 5)
Riverside Steel Construction ( 7)
Grayson Controls, Division Robertshaw -Fulton
Orange County Ceramic Tile Mfg . Co. ( 1)
Controls Company ( 5)
Overton , Lyman & Prince ( 1)
Robinson, J. W., Co. ( 7)
Rowan , R. A. , & Co. ( 7 )
Pacific Airmotive Corporation ( 1)
Pacific Clay Products (3 )
Pacific Enameling and Plating Company ( 1)
Pacific Indemnity Company ( 5)
Pacific Mutual Life Insurance Company ( 5)
Pacific Pipeline Construction Company (4)
Pacific Pumps , Inc. (3 )
Schlitz, Jos .
, Brewing Company ( 1)
Sears , Roebuck and Co. (7)
Silverwoods (3 )
Southern California Edison Company ( 7)
Southern California Gas Company ( 7 )
55
Southern California Poultry Company (3 )
Southern California Ready Mixed Concrete
Assn . & Southern California Rock Products
Association (5 )
Southern Counties Gas Company of
California ( 7)
Southern Pacific Company (7)
Southern Pipe ( 7 )
Southwest Steel Rolling Mills (4 )
Southwestern Portland Cement Company (5 )
Sprague Engineering Corporation (4 )
Spring Street Realty Company ( 5)
Staats , William R., & Co. ( 5 )
Standard Federal Savings & Loan
Association (4 )
Starnes , Walter , Company ( 1)
United Air Lines (7)
United Concrete Pipe Corporation ( 6 )
United States Borax & Chemical Corporation (5 )
United States Lime Products Division, The
Flintkote Company ( 1)
United States Rubber Company (6 )
United States Steel Corporation (3 )
Universal Cast Iron Manufacturing Co. ( 1)
Universal Consolidated Oil Company ( 5 )
Utility Appliance Corporation ( 1)
Van Camp Sea Food Company ( 1)
Van de Kamp's Holland Dutch Bakers (4 )
Vernon Kilns ( 1)
Virtue Bros. Mfg . Co. (2 )
State Mutual Savings and Loan Association (5 ) Voit , W. J., Rubber Corporation (5 )
Stauffer Chemical Company (6)
Sunkist Growers ( 1)
Volker , William , & Company ( 1)
Von's Grocery Co. ( 1)
Sutro & Co. ( 1)
Taywood Steel Products, Inc. ( 1)
Thompson Ramo Wooldridge , Inc. (5 )
Thrifty Drug Stores Co. , Inc. ( 2 )
Title Insurance and Trust Company (5 )
Transco Products , Inc. (6 )
Trans World Airlines ( 1)
Trousdale Construction Company ( 1)
Twaits -Wittenberg Co. ( 1)
Wayne Manufacturing Company ( 1)
Weber Aircraft Corporation ( 2)
Western Electric Co. , Inc. ( 1)
Western Geophysical Company of America (5 )
Western Oil and Gas Association ( 7)
Western Precipitation Division, Joy
Manufacturing Company (4 )
Whelan Drug Company , Inc. ( 1)
X-Ray Products Corporation ( 1)
Union Carbide Chemicals Company ( 2 )
Union Federal Savings and Loan Association (4 ) Zinsco Electrical Products ( 1)
56
RECEIPTS
Contributions
FINANCIAL STATEMENT
1956 19572 1958 1959 1960
$774,465 $552,885 $331,143 $497,373 $420,205 $390,360 $182,490
1953-54 1955
Collections¹ 123,596 191,863
Interest 978 1,242 5,604
Royalties and Sale
ofEquipment
7,471
1,440
6,974 9,034 12,832
4,400 1,504 1,252
Carry over from previous year
TOTAL INCOME
291,989
$899,039 $1,037,979
319,707 170,547 279,289 310,457 368,215
$656,454 $676,831 $710,868 $711,355 $564,789
EXPENDITURES
Research Programs
Services by outside research organizations
Internal
Public Information
General and Administrative
TOTAL EXPENSE
ACCRUED NET ASSETS
$377,004 $399,892 $229,552 $226,577 $240,635 $188,829 $268,886
122,010 149,787 134,151 105,009 103,385 97,936 91,378
not separated 68,847 42,953 29,864 25,003 25,522 27,456
99,746 79,251 36,092 31,388 30,853 30,299
$607,050 $718,272 $485,907 $397,542 $400,411 $343,140 $418,019
108,036
$291,989 $319,707 $170,547 $279,289 $310,457 $368,215 $146,7703
1For specific studies (principally from
L.
A.County APCD ).
2Change
indistribution
of expenditures .
3This sum will
beused for operations and liquidation expenditures during first 5months
of1961. Any excess will
bedonated
toCal Tech for air
pollution research .
57
TECHNICAL REPORTS *
published by the
AIR POLLUTION FOUNDATION
No. 1 " Meteorology of the Los Angeles Basin"
M. Neiburger and J. C. Edinger , 99 pp .
, April , 1954 .
No. 2 "Combustion and Smog "
W. L. Faith , 63 pp .
, September , 1954 .
No. 3 "Conference on Incineration , Rubbish Disposal , and Air Pollution "
Francis R. Bowerman , ed.
, 52 pp .
, January , 1955 .
No. 4 "First Technical Progress Report"
W. L. Faith , L. B. Hitchcock , M. Neiburger , N. A. Renzetti , L. H. Rogers ;
89 pp.
, March , 1955 .
No. 5 " Hydrocarbon Losses from the Petroleum Industry in Los Angeles County”
Southwest Research Institute, 22 pp.
, November, 1954 .
No. 6 "Basic Statistics of the Los Angeles Area "
Neil Goedhard, 74 pp .
, January , 1955 .
No. 7 "Tracer Tests of Trajectories Computed from Observed Winds "
M. Neiburger , 59 pp.
, April , 1955 .
No. 8 "Field Evaluation of Houdry Catalytic Exhaust Converters "
Southwest Research Institute, 77 pp .
, June , 1955 .
No. 9 "An Aerometric Survey of the Los Angeles Basin, August-November , 1954 ”
N. A. Renzetti , ed .
, 334 pp .
, July, 1955 .
No. 10 "Feasibility of Control Methods for Automobile Exhaust"
Southwest Research Institute , 63 pp.
, August, 1955 .
No. 11 "Visibility Trend in Los Angeles "
M. Neiburger , 45 pp .
, September , 1955 .
No. 12 "Second Technical Progress Report"
W. L. Faith , L. B. Hitchcock , M. Neiburger , N. A. Renzetti , L. H. Rogers ;
143 pp .
, November , 1955 .
No. 13 "Wind Trajectory Studies of the Movement of Polluted Air in the Los
Angeles Basin"
M. Neiburger , N. A. Renzetti , R. Tice ; 74 pp .
, April , 1956 .
No. 14 "Solar Radiation , Absorption Rates , and Photochemical Primary Processes
in Urban Air"
Philip A. Leighton and William A. Perkins , 130 pp .
, March , 1956 .
*All reports are out -of-print, but are available in public and university libraries throughout the
United States .
58
No. 15 "Proceedings of the Conference on Chemical Reactions in Urban Atmospheres "
L. H. Rogers , ed.
, 135 pp .
, November , 1956 .
No. 16 "Analysis of Air Near Heavy Traffic Arteries "
N. A. Renzetti , 28 pp .
, December , 1956 .
No. 17 "Third Technical Progress Report"
W. L. Faith , N. A. Renzetti , L. H. Rogers ; 110 pp .
, March , 1957 .
No. 18 "Eye Irritation from Irradiated Auto Exhaust"
E. A. Schuck, 85 pp .
, March , 1957 .
No. 19 "Reactions of Auto Exhaust in Sunlight "
F. V. Morriss and Calvin Bolze , 71 pp .
, March , 1957 .
No. 20 "Catalytic Decomposition of Nitric Oxide”
Charles H. Riesz , Fred L. Morritz , and Karl D. Franson, 22 pp.
, May , 1957 .
No. 21 "Automobile Exhaust and Smog Formation "
W. L. Faith , N. A. Renzetti , and L. H. Rogers , 103 pp .
, October , 1957 .
No. 22 "Fourth Technical Progress Report"
W. L. Faith , N. A. Renzetti , L. H. Rogers ; 91 pp .
, March , 1958 .
No. 23 "Eye Irritation from Solar Radiation of Organic Compounds and Nitrogen
Dioxide "
Erskine E. Harton , Jr., and Calvin C. Bolze , 61 pp.
, April , 1958 .
No. 24 "Photochemical Secondary Reactions in Urban Air"
Philip A. Leighton and William A. Perkins , 212 pp .
, August, 1958 .
No. 25 "Combustibility of Simulated Automobile Exhaust Gases "
Bernard Greifer and Raymond Friedman , 36 pp .
, September , 1958 .
No. 26 "Air Pollution Effects of Irradiated Automobile Exhaust as Related to Fuel
Composition"
E. A. Schuck, H. W. Ford , and E. R. Stepehns , 991 pp .
, October , 1958 .
No. 27 "Fifth Technical Progress Report"
W. L. Faith , N. A. Renzetti , L. H. Rogers ; 77 pp.
, March , 1959 .
No. 28 "Elimination of Oxides of Nitrogen from Automobile Exhaust"
Francis R. Taylor , 49 pp.
, September , 1959 .
No. 29 "Photooxidation of Hydrocarbons in Mixtures Containing Oxides of Nitrogen and Sulfur Dioxide "
E. A. Schuck and G. J. Doyle, 104 pp.
, October, 1959 .
No. 30 "Sixth Technical Progress Report"
W. L. Faith and N. A. Renzetti , 81 pp.
, March , 1960 .
No. 31 "A Progress Report on the Photochemistry of Polluted Atmospheres "
E. A. Schuck, George J. Doyle, Noboru Endow ; 110 pp .
, December , 1960 .
No. 32 "Hydrocarbon Emissions from Automobiles "
Paul R. Lepisto, Herbert C. McKee , Kenneth D. Mills, Ralph J. Wheeler,
45 pp.
, February , 1961.
No. 33 "Seventh Technical Progress Report"
W. L. Faith and N. A. Renzetti , 86 pp .
, March , 1961 .
59
OTHER FOUNDATION PUBLICATIONS
President's Report, 1954 5th Annual Report, 1958
President's Report, 1955 Annual Report, 1959
President's Report, 1956 Air Pollution and Smog , 1960
Annual Report, 1957 The Air Pollution ProblemAn Appraisal , 1960
W. L. FAITH
OTHER STAFF PUBLICATIONS
"SCAPF - What It Is and What It Does ," Ann . Meeting, Soc . Automotive Engrs .
,
Detroit, Jan. 1955 .
"Smog ," Chem . Eng . Progr . 51 ( 2 )
, 101F-103F ( 1955 ) .
"Methods and Devices for Controlling the Hydrocarbon Content of Automotive Exhaust Gases ," Soc. Automotive Engrs . Seminar on Fuels and Lubricants , Los
Angeles , April 6, 1955 .
"Air Pollution -A Word to the Wise," Chem. Processing 19 (6-7 )
, 212 ( 1956 ) .
"Nitrogen Oxides -A Challenge to Chemical Engineers," Chem. Eng . Progr . 52 (8 ) .
342-344 (1956 ) .
"What Causes Smog ? " Refining Eng . 28 ( 11 )
, C3 -C8 ( 1956 ) .
"Air Pollution Research -Whose Responsibility ?" in Proc . Am . Power Conf. 18,
216-220 ( 1956 ) . ( Illinois Inst. Technol .)
"The Automobile Problem ,” in Proc . First Tech . Meeting, West Coast Sect .
, Air
Pollution Control Assoc .
, 146-156 ( 1957 ) .
"The Role of Motor Vehicle Exhaust in Smog Formation ," J. Air Pollution Control
Assoc . 7 ( 3)
, 219-221 ( 1957 ) .
"Automobile Exhaust and Smog Formation " (with J. T. Goodwin, Jr., F. V. Morriss ,
and C. Bolze ) ibid . ( 1 )
, 9-12 ( 1957 ) .
"The Air Pollution Survey," Ind. Wastes 2 (4 )
, 83-87 ( 1957 ) .
60
"Notes on Solving the Auto Exhaust Problem in Smog Formation ," Chem . Eng .
Progr. 53, 406 ( 1957 ) .
"Engineering Problems in Controlling Automobile Exhaust Gases ," Ann . Meeting,
Am . Soc . Mech . Engrs ., New York, Dec. 1957 .
"Small Particles in Air Pollution ," Ind. Wastes 3 ( 1) , 7-8 ( 1958 ) .
"Research on Auto Exhaust, " Clean Air Quart . 2 ( 2 )
, 5-6 ( 1958 ) .
"Air Pollution Problems of Valley Areas," Ind. Wastes 3 (3)
, 79 ( 1958 ) .
"The Air Pollution Survey ," ibid . ( 5 ) , 7-10 ( 1958 ) .
Air Pollution Control , John Wiley , New York, March 1959 , 259 pp.
"Air Pollution Abatement -Survey Report," Chem . Eng. Progr . 55 ( 3 ) , 38-43
( 1959 ) .
"Auto Exhaust in Air Pollution ," Div . Petrol . Chem .
, 136th Natl . Meeting, Am .
Chem . Soc .
, Atlantic City , Sept. 1959 .
"The Sulfur Dioxide Furor ," Ind. Wastes 4 ( 5 )
, 89-90 ( 1959 ) .
"Air Quality Standards," ibid . 5, 44-45 ( 1960 ) .
"Status of Motor Vehicle Exhaust Afterburners ," Div . Refining , Am . Petrol . Inst.
Meeting, Detroit, May 11 , 1960 .
"Hydrocarbons as Air Pollutants,” Ind . Wastes 5 , Aug. 1960 .
"Automobile Exhaust Control-A New Market for Catalysts ," 138th Natl . Meeting,
Am. Chem . Soc .
, New York, Sept. 12 , 1960 .
"Air Pollution from Auto Exhaust," J. Occupational Med . 1 (9 )
, 439-441 ( 1960 ) .
"Air Pollution Review, 1958-59 ,” Ind. Eng . Chem. 52 ( 11 )
, 967-971 ( 1960 ) .
"Air Pollution from Hydrocarbons ," Natl . Petrol . Assoc . Meeting, Cleveland , Ohio ,
April 19 , 1961 .
"Motor Vehicles, Air Pollution , and Afterburners ," Discovery (London ) 22 , June
1961 .
L. B. HITCHCOCK
"Air Pollution Situation in Los Angeles -An Aerometric Survey," in Proc . 3rd Natl .
Air Pollution Symposium, Pasadena , Calif .
, 1955 , pp . 12-33 .
"Air Pollution and the Oil Industry ," 28th Ann . Spring Meeting, Pacific Coast District, Am . Petrol . Inst.
, Div . Production , Los Angeles , April 1955 .
"Some Scientific Aspects of the Urban Air Pollution Problem ," Sci . Monthly 81
( 1 ), 10-21 ( 1955 ) .
“What the Air Pollution Foundation Is Doing ," Southern Calif . Conf . on Elimination
of Air Pollution , Los Angeles , Calif .
, Nov. 10 , 1955. (Proc . published by the
California State Chamber of Commerce .)
"Urban Air Sanitation-The New Look ," Ind. Wastes 1 (8 )
, 261-266 ( 1956 ) .
M. NEIBURGER
"Weather Modification and Smog ," Science 126 , 637-645 ( 1957 ) .
"Meteorological Aspects of Oxidation Type Air Pollution ," in The Rossby Memorial
Volume , Rockefeller Inst. Press , New York, 1959 , pp. 158-169 .
61
N. A. RENZETTI
U.C. BERKELEY LIBRARIES
C101155592
"Ozone in the Los Angeles Atmosphere ," J. Chem . Phys . 24, 909 ( 1956 ) .
"A Comparative Study of Oxidants and Ozone in Los Angeles Atmosphere ," A.M.A.
Arch . Ind. Health 14, 458-467 ( 1956 ) . (With J. C. Romanovsky.)
"Recording Colorimeters and Recording Spectrometers for Air Pollution Measurements ," Proc. Instr . Soc. Am .
, Part I , 56-27-3-1 to 13 ( 1956 ) . (With L. H.
Rogers.)
"An Automatic Long -Path Ultraviolet Spectrometer for the Determination of Ozone
in the Atmosphere , ” Anal . Chem . 29, 869-874 ( 1957 ) .
"The Formation of Aerosols by Irradiation of Dilute Auto Exhaust," J. Air Pollution
Control Assoc . 8 ( 1 ) , 23-32 ( 1958 ) . (With G. J. Doyle.)
"Ozone in Los Angeles Atmosphere ," Advances in Chem. Ser . No. 21 , Am. Chem.
Soc.
, Washington , D. C. , 1959 , pp. 230-262 .
"The Chemical Nature of the Particulate in Irradiated Automobile Exhaust," J. Air
Pollution Control Assoc . 8 (4 ) , 293-296 ( 1959 ) . (With G. J. Doyle.)
"Photochemical Aerosol Formation in Sulfur Dioxide -Hydrocarbon Systems ,” Intern .
J. Air Pollution 2 (4) , 327-345 ( 1960 ) . (With G. J. Doyle.)
"Eye Irritants Formed During Photooxidation of Hydrocarbons in the Presence of
Oxides of Nitrogen ,” J. Air Pollution Control Assoc . 10 ( 5 )
, 389-392 ( 1960 ) .
(With E. A. Schuck.)
"Preliminary Observations on the Relationship Between Eye Irritation in Synthetic
Systems and in the Atmosphere ," ibid . 11 ( 3 )
, 121-124 ( 1961 ) . (With E. A.
Schuck .)
L. H. ROGERS
"New Instruments for Air Pollution Studies ," Perkin -Elmer Instr . News 7 ( 3 )
, 1,
6-7 (Spring 1956 ) .
"Smog Effects and Chemical Analysis of the Los Angeles Atmosphere ," J. Air Pollution Control Assoc . 6 (3 )
, 165-170 ( 1956 ) . (With N. A. Renzetti and M. Neiburger .)
"Automatic Apparatus for the Determination of Nitric Oxide and Nitrogen Dioxide
in the Atmosphere ," Anal . Chem. 28, 1810-16 ( 1956 ) . (With M. D. Thomas
et al .)
"Air Pollution Research Seminar," Public Health Repts . 72 (4 )
, 367-374 ( 1957 ) .
(With J. T. Middleton et al.)
"High Sensitivity Continuous Instrumentation for Atmospheric Analysis ," Chem .
Eng. Progr. 53 (8 )
, 381-384 ( 1957 ) .
"Report on Photochemical Smog ," J. Chem. Educ . 35 , 310-313 ( 1958 ) .
"Nitric Oxide and Nitrogen Dioxide in the Los Angeles Atmosphere ," J. Air Pollution Control Assoc . 8, 124-128 ( 1958 ) .
"Eye Irritation from Irradiated Automobile Exhaust," ibid .
, 310-313 ( 1959 ) . (With
E. A. Schuck .)
"Health Hazards of Automobile Exhaust," Public Health Repts . 74 (6 )
, 551-558
( 1959 ) . (With J. R. Goldsmith.)
62
66
UN
ArroyoSeco Freeway Harbor Freeway
RETURN
TO Institute of Transportation Studies Library
412 Mclaughlin Hall
ALL BOOKS MAY BE RECALLED .
Overdues are subject to replacement charges.
Renewals may be made by phone:
(510) 642-3604
DUE AS STAMPED BELOW
AUG 29'94
REC.CIRC . SEP 08 1994
227
INSTITUTEOFTRANSPORTATIONSTUDIES--
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA , BERKELEY
FORM NO. INST. TRANSP 50M , 11/79 BERKELEY, CA 94720
Related Documents (6)
Dept. of JusticeAug 22, 2017
17 August 16 through August 31 2016_Redacted.pdf
Kristen M. Simkins From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Juan Mendez Tuesday, August 16, 2016 1:10 AM Brenda A. McKinley; C. Kay Woodring; Caitlyn D. Neff; Danielle Minarchick; Eric A. Lockridge; Jeffrey T. Hite; Jonathan M. Millinder; Julie A. Simoni; Kevin T. Jeirles; Larry L. Lidgett; Lee R. Sheaffer; Lorinda L. Brown; Matthew T. Fisher; Melanie L. Gordon; Michael S. Woods; Richard C. Smith; Stephanie D. McGhee; Thomas S. Allen, Jr.; Walter E. Jeirles Calendar and Status Report 8/16/2016 20
1846p
Dept. of JusticeAug 22, 2017
1 May 1 1255-May 6 237_Redacted.pdf
Kristen M. Simkins me: Sent Tn: Subject: Atladimem: LT. THOMAS E. ALLEN JR Thomas S. Allen. Jr. Sunday. May BIL EDIE 12:55 AM Allyson FL Dwell; Brenda McKin1e?c C. Kay Wandring: Caitlyn D. Neff: Daniel?le Minarch?lck: JeFFrey' T. Hite; Jon D. Fisher. Jonathan M. Mfl?n-der. Joseph 5. Kolenorluan Mendez: Kevin T. Jeirles; [any Lidgett Lee R. Shea??er: Lorinda L. Brown.- Matti-new T. Fishet: Melanie Gordan; Michael S. Woods Richard C. 5mm; Shephanie D. Calander?mtus Report SMDIE 20150501004
493p
DOJ Data Set 10CorrespondenceUnknown
EFTA Document EFTA01658735
0p
DOJ Data Set 10OtherUnknown
EFTA01658735
38p
Court UnsealedNov 19, 2025
HOUSE OVERSIGHT 016698-mailing
November 12, 2025 release of Jeffrey Epstein documents by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. Microsoft Excel Spreadsheets converted to PDF. Originals in NATIVES/001 folder
73p
Dept. of JusticeAug 22, 2017
17 August 1 through August 15 2016_Redacted.pdf
JAN 1 2 3 4 7a to 12p 0 4 0 7 1p to 5p 1 3 0 5 6p to 12a 2 0 1 10 1a to 6a 0 0 0 0 AVER 1 2 0 6 total 3 7 1 22 Year to date searches 5 7 12 9 4 8 32 6 26 8 3 2 10 39 7 18 7 8 0 8 33 763 8 18 5 3 2 7 28 9 4 4 0 0 2 8 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 12 3 1 0 4 16 12 13 16 23 20 17 3 2 0 7 10 12 39 49 Jan 14 15 16 17 11 20 4 1 19 15 3 0 3 7 0 0 0 0 0 4 8 11 2 1 33 42 7 5 Month Average 18 7 9 1 0 4 17 19 20 21 9 22 14 11 16 9 9 2 1 0 0 4 7 10 7 29 40 28 190.75 22 14 13 1 0 7 28 23 24 25 26 27 28 4 0
1793p
Forum Discussions
This document was digitized, indexed, and cross-referenced with 1,400+ persons in the Epstein files. 100% free, ad-free, and independent.
Annotations powered by Hypothesis. Select any text on this page to annotate or highlight it.