Air Pollution Foundation Minutes and Agendas pt 2, 3 Feb 1955 - May 1955

p. 1

Share

p. 2

Share

p. 6

Share

p. 7

Share

p. 8

Share

p. 9

Share

p. 10

Share

p. 11

Share

p. 12

Share

p. 13

Share

p. 14

Share

p. 15

Share

p. 16

Share

p. 17

Share

p. 18

Share

p. 19

Share

p. 20

Share

p. 21

Share

p. 22

Share

p. 23

Share

p. 24

Share
W.L. Faith's presentation of the Research Committee's Report. "Dr Faith explained which project reports would be completed in the near future, what progress was being made in active projects and in what fields new research was necessary. He particularly stressed the significance of Stanford Research Institute's Mr J. B. Leiper was then invited to the meeting to report on public relations. He stated that the services of Robinson-Hannagan Associates, Inc., public relations counselors, have been satisfactory. progress in the field of moving picture shorts, newspaper pictures and school information plans ... information kits on smog for use by press, radio, television and speakers ... proposed in-plant programs and tv and radio stories about the work of the Foundation were outlined.

p. 26

Share

p. 28

Share
The Foundation, as a "public-spirited group of civic leaders" would ... be wise to make our "cross section" a more realistic one. 3. Occasional statements by some of the Trustees, individually and one at a time, through the press in the form of letters, articles, or interviews. 5. A group of speakers provided by Trustees' and Contributors' organizations has been formed and will be undertaking various speaking engagements before neighborhood groups etc. 4. Publication by the Foundation of its technical reports, now in press and coming along within the next few months, which should do much to evidence our sincerity of purpose and objectivity, to the extent that these reports are read or become known to the people concerned. In other words, we still have faith that "by our deeds we shall be known." 2. Appearance by some of our Trustees on television, radio, and other public platforms to make statements about the Foundation's activities. The election of a significant number, up to perhaps eleven, new Trustees would be an added safeguard against the appearance of bias favoring big industry. 1. Broadening the Board membeship as suggested above. The problem is not one of fact, but attitude. We know that we are being really objective and impartial in our fact-finding and recommendations ... But there are a number of steps we can take which may help to correct this attitude: The sixty-four-dollar-question that is being asked more and more frequently by responsible members of the community who appear to be sincere, earnest and objective is, "How can the Foundation possibly be objective about the various contributions of industry to air pollution, when the Foundation derives most of its financial support from industry?"

p. 29

Share

p. 30

Share

p. 31

Share

p. 32

Share

p. 33

Share

p. 34

Share

p. 36

Share

p. 38

Share

p. 39

Share

p. 40

Share

p. 41

Share

p. 42

Share

p. 43

Share

p. 44

Share

p. 45

Share

p. 46

Share
views and went on to criticize my speech at the State Chamber of Commerce -- April 7, 1955 Personal & Confidential Memo to the Executive Committee of the Air Pollution Foundation; Subject: Meeting of Smoke and Fumes Committee, Western Oil and Gas Association The purpose of the meeting was to provide an opportunity for informal discussion of the oil industry's stack emissions (non-hydrocarbon pollutants) as set forth in Stanford Research Institute report distributed by the Western Oil and Gas Association, January 1954. At the invitation of Mr Magruder, Executive Vice President of General Petroleum Corporation and Chairman of the Smoke and Fumes Committee, Dr. Faith and I attended a luncheon meeting in the California Club, Wednesday April 6, to meet with the committee. Upon invitation of Mr. Magruder, I explained to the committee that in the course of Foundation studies of principal sources of pollution in the Basin, we had gotten around to industrial stack emissions of combustion products. I referred to the oil industry combustion products as set forth in the Stanford report (which indicates that oil industry combustion products amount to between 20 and 24 per cent of total combustion products so far identified). ... and explained that we in the Foundation were interested in learning whether the oil industry likewise contemplated studies of these losses, if possibly some studies were already underway, and if they felt it was a subject with which they should be concerned, This luncheon meeting was the outgrowth of several conversations and meetings which I have had with Mr Magruder in the past month. Mr. Magruder as chairman questioned "the advisability of the Foundation calling attention to ... combustion products or publicizing them. George Davidson (VP Std Oil CA) said he understood that SO2 in the amounts presently emitted and found in our atmosphere were actually beneficial to plants and people. He endorsed Mr. Magruder's

p. 47

Share
In other words, the question we raised concerning their stack gases was answered in two ways: (1) don't concern yourself with it, and (2) general criticism of Foundation activities. that the Foundation would publish findings which be accepted as unbiased, where the oil industry's findings were not meeting with such acceptance. In short, he felt that WOGA did not want the Foundation concerning itself with refinery stack gases but "just stick to research." Others indicated that when and if we could prove that any of these stack emissions were harmful, then would be the time to worry about controlling them." Hitchcock reports that Standard Oil of California's VP, George Davidson, "criticized my speech at the State Chamber of Commerce air pollution meeting in San Francisco a month ago, because I called attention to a growing Bay Area air pollution problem." Mr William Stewart, VP of Union Oil Co, continued the criticism of the Foundation particularly along the lines that our policies indicated we were attempting to cover "too broad a program" and also that our research program seemed to be of a "shotgun" character, instead of sticking to "pinpoint research." He explained that he and others present had been part of the group which formed the Foundation, and that it was their understanding that, in diverting substantial funds to the Foundation, the Foundation would serve as "the research department for the oil industry, as well as other industries," was to be of a "protective" nature, and that I, as head of the Foundation, would in effect become the "research director for the oil industry;" While the meeting was conducted in a friendly enough atmosphere, I think it brought out again and more clearly a basic misunderstanding of the Foundation's purposes. I believe this is of sufficient importance to deserve consideration by the Executive Committee as to how this misunderstanding may be resolved. I explained that the Foundation's activities were carefully determined on the basis of policies established by the Board of Trustees, and that our research program was formulated under the counsel and approval of the Research Committee of the Board. I stated that we took parallel appraochees to the air pollution problem: (1) research to identify specific harmful pollutants, and (2) research for remedial measures having as their purpose the reduction of pollution at the source ... I urged unanimity of policies and goals within the Foundation and its supporters as essential in a community already imepeding progress by a diversity of views.

p. 48

Share

p. 49

Share

p. 50

Share
With respect to our public information program, however, he states, "the above is my understanding of the purpose for which the Foundation was established and is the only project it has proposed which I can fully recommend." As stated by Mr. Jenkins himself, his comments are based upon a press release of November 1954, rather than on any firsthand knowledge of the Foundation's research program. The Coordinating Research Council (American Petroleum Institute and Society of Automotive Engineers), as well as the Automobile Manufacturers' 5/6/55 Research Committee of the Board of Trustees memo; Subject: "Comments of V.N. Jenkins, Union Oil Company re Foundation's Research Program." Mr Reese H. Taylor submitted to the Executive Committee at its meeting on April 13, 1955 a five-page report by V. N. Jenkins of the Union Oil Company addressed to W. L. Stewart, of that company, The report discusses each of our research projects in order and concludes that we should not be working on any single one of these projects.

p. 54

Share
The Air Pollution Foundation's news release of November 16, 1954 ... indicates that the Foundation is departing from the basic purposes for which it was established and is allying itself with the control authorities. Re: "proposed studies on the possibility of limiting the use of automobiles by making it mandatory for drivers to "share the ride" to the point that perhaps a seventy-five percent reduction in auto travel in the Basin might be attained." duplication of work which will be done by API and AMA (CRC) and by SRI sponsored by WOGA as well as several member companies of the petroleum refining industry. study of the development of alternate fuels, such as alcohol blends -- direct duplication of API-AMA (CRC) and WOGA-sponsored SRI work -- study into equipment that might reduce emissions (a Catalytic Muffler) considered to be "outside the scope of the Foundation."

p. 55

Share
Jenkins states that a study which hoped to answer questions as: "Does auto exhaust actually form smog?" or What would be the effect of closing down the refineries, stopping all incinerators or keeping all cars off the roads?" is wasteful, too large and too long-term. On study that would "acquire information on various public transportation systems with respect to the smog improvement that might result from ... a reduction in the number of private automobiles on the street," Jenkins states "I doubt very much if anything constructive would ever come from such a survey." "projects which ... deal, in their entirety, with the control of automotive exhaust gases ... are entirely unsuitable for a program such as the Foundation's." "The above projects certainly could not be considered to be within the province of the Foundation." and " a study of the specific recommendations necessary to formulate laws to stop the driving of automobiles which give off excessive fumes," Jenkins states that "I do not consider any part of this program as either appropriate to be engaged in by the Foundation or as likely to be profitable in any way since a greater amount of the data is expected to obtain from it will be obtained more cheaply by other agenices now at work on similar projects." study on "control devices ... some of the local refineries are using to control hydrocarbon losses during the filling of large tanks and to develop a device for controlling loss of hydrocarbon vapors while filling automobile tanks at filling station."

p. 56

Share
Study of incinerator gases should never have been places as backyard incinerators were already in the process of being banned. "The list of the projects involved indicates a lack of mature consideration of the smog problem and their relation to it. Very few of them, in my opinion, would be expected to yield either pertinent of worthwhile result. Some of them are direct duplication of studies already under way." Regarding the APF's proposal to establish a "first-class public information bureau" to inform the public of "definite facts," Jenkins expresses his "understanding" that this was "the purpose for which the Foundation was established and is the only project it has proposed which I can fully recommend." "I doubt very much if anything constructive would ever come from such a survey." Regarding projects under Section X (under which fell the Caltech Isotope Study) Jenkins says "It is recommended that support for several of these items would be requested from State and Federal Agencies."

p. 57

Share

p. 58

Share

p. 59

Share

p. 60

Share

p. 61

Share

p. 62

Share

p. 63

Share

p. 65

Share
The President state that the Foundation had already presented to the Public Health Service a list of projects considered by the Foundation's staff to be of importance. It was the consensus of the meeting that the planned increase in the number of the members of the Board of Trustees to obtain a broad representation of the public would assist greatly in publicizing the soundness of all the Foundation's work. The establishment of a scientific sub-committee to advise the Research Committee on technical matters was proposed. The Trustees were requested to suggest at the next meeting the names of the technical representatives from different industrial organizations, such as the American Petroleum Institute, the Western Oil and Gas Association, and the Southwest Research Institute, as possible candidates for appointment on the sub-committee. A brief report of the April 6, 1955 meeting of the Western Oil and Gas Association's Smoke and Fumes Committee was given by the President. Copies of a memorandum on the Air Pollution Foundation Program prepared by Vance N. Jenkins, were distributed by Mr. Taylor, and the memorandum was referred to the Research Commtitee for analysis.

p. 66

Share

p. 67

Share

p. 68

Share

p. 69

Share

p. 70

Share
Sections
Page of 70