POLLUTION KILLS

Wonder drugs have scored impressive victories over infectious lung diseases, but air pollution has scored an even more impressive and deadly victory.

Air pollution, like water pollution and urban slums, is a direct result of our unparalleled economic expansion. Industrial production, power generation, waste disposal and heating, which have contributed so much to our economic leadership, also play key roles in poisoning our atmosphere. Why, then, do we single out the internal combustion engine of the car, bus, and truck for special action now?

Of the total 133 million tons of measurable pollution we are producing annually, the internal combustion engine produces more than 85 million tons-or almost two-thirds. Four-fifths of this total, or about 73 million tons, is produced by the 74 million automobiles in operation in the Nation today. Obviously, if we can find a feasible alternative to the gasoline engine for the car, we can reduce air pollution by more than 50 percent. If that alternative will serve for the 18 million trucks and buses in the Nation, we can reduce the total by better than 63 percent.

CONTROL POLLUTION AT SOURCE

Rather than pressing ahead with alternatives to internal combustion engines, why can we not act to control their pollution?

In 1965, Congress approached the problem by amending the Clean Air Act to require the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare to set standards for the control of automobile emissions. These standards have now been promulgated, but everyone recognizes that they are at best a temporary stopgap.

The most effective and feasible abatement devices available today reduce pollution from cars by about 60 percent. If these most stringent standards were enforced immediately on all new cars, it would affect only 9 million of the estimated 77 million cars on the road in 1968. With the total increase in regis trations, this would mean an increase in the total pollution of about 2 million tons in 1968, even though the rate of increase would be slightly reduced.

Transportation experts estimate that there will be more than 100 million cars on the roads of this Nation by 1975. In the face of such increase, control devices will not even help us to hold our own.

DEADLY BY-PRODUCTS OF POLLUTION

What does the internal combustion engine contribute to our environment? Carbon monoxide, a major emission, kills by preventing the blood from absorbing and carrying oxygen. Recent studies indicate that this gas may be responsible for many of the headaches, nausea, and general impairment of bodily functions that are increasingly frequent complaints of city dwellers. There is now one authenticated case in which a number of passengers were killed when a bus driver was rendered unconscious by carbon monoxide.

The effect of concentrations of lead emissions is currently the subject of much debate. Although lead has very toxic effects on humans, we simply do not know whether the substantial emissions from the internal combustion engine reach or harm our citizens.

Another major emission is the oxides of nitrogen which convert into highly toxic nitrogen dioxide. Studies on laboratory animals demonstrate that emphysema and other respiratory ailments are promoted by high concentrations of this gas.

The most damaging byproducts of internal combustion are the unburned hydrocarbons which combine with nitrogen dioxide on warm sunny days to create that deadly new phenomenon of our metropolitan centers, photochemical smog. Smog is exceedingly unpleasant, but more unpleasant still is the related phenomenon of the thermal inversion.

Under certain conditions, the warm layer of smog-laden air, acting as a blanket, entraps all the smoke and smells-all the soot and noxious gases that an urban area produces. Unable to escape from this artificial atmospheric envelope, the air within the city becomes fouler and, in the absence of a fortuitous breeze or other beneficial act of nature, the very air becomes a lethal gas.

In London, in 1962, such a phenomenon killed 4,000 people. Similar phenomena have killed in New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles.

If there are feasible alternatives to the internal combustion engine that would reduce the pollution by 60 percent, the Federal Government has a clear duty to help develop them.

I do not propose the electric car as the only possible alternative. Many imaginative proposals have been offered recently which incorporate the use of electric vehicles. A Massachusetts company has developed a system of special small cars called the Alden StaRRcar system-which travel on regular roads or on a special automatic guideway. While on the guideway, these battery-drive vehicles travel twice as fast as ordinary cars and offer a uniquely safe method of highspeed mass transit.

A feasible "moving sidewalk" is now possible to relieve congestion and speed transportation in our cities.

Another interesting proposal is that of providing electric buses in our national parks to move large numbers of visitors in a smokeless, quiet manner within the park area.

The fact remains, however, that after more than a decade of serious study and investigation, the main thrust of scientific thought holds that electric cars are the most feasible alternative available.

A NATIONAL CRISIS

We now have the opportunity to make great strides in the development of transportation methods that will serve the needs of our modern cities and reduce the deadly tide of pollution. We have lagged badly in this development in the past, and the only way to close the gap between the potential and the reality is for the Federal Government to enter into a development and demonstration program in cooperation with American industry.

Pollution and transportation are problems for the Nation, but crises for our cities. For this reason, and because of the clear reluctance of the transportation establishment to take the lead, I believe Congress should vest the responsibility for future development in the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development. From his vantage point-free of commitment to the entrenched interests, but cooperating with industry and drawing upon the resources of all Federal agencies and departments the Secretary has both the mandate and capability to succeed.

One of the leading scientists in the battery field was explaining to me the other day the ways that inertia and indifference had impeded progress in this area. He attributed this to a reluctance to buck the entrenched interests and to a failure to realize the seriousness of the pollution danger.

In New York, he said, we are not far from the day when people start dropping dead in the streets from our impure and poisonous air. If we wait until then to start, it may be too late.

This Nation needs and can have clean air, but only if we take the initiative today. Congress can, and must, act.

Mr. OTTINGER. Thank you, Senator.

Senator GRIFFIN. The chairman has before him a letter from Senator Case, addressed to Senator Magnuson and Senator Muskie. Since Senator Case can't be here to testify, his letter will be made a part of the record.

(The letter referred to follows:)

U.S. SENATE, Washington, D.C., March 8, 1967.

Hon. WARREN G. MAGNUSON,

Chairman, Senate Commerce Committee.

Hon. EDMOND S. MUSKIE,

Chairman, Senate Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.

DEAR CHAIRMEN MAGNUSON AND MUSKIE: I am glad to join in support of the bills you have introduced to provide for a program to develop an electric car or other alternatives to the internal combustion engine.

I am especially happy to support what I take to be the main purpose of these bills, namely, to deal with the air pollution problem caused by motor vehiclesa problem that is already bad and threatens to get worse.

Congress, in 1965, authorized a program to control exhaust emissions from automobiles, beginning with the 1968 models. But, even before this program goes into effect, the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare has warned

79-607 0-67-17

that the anticipated heavy growth in the automobile population in the next 15 years "threatens to wipe out" any progress that may be made under the new system of controls.

It is clear, I believe, that we will need to develop alternative sources of automotive power with less potential, and eventually with no potential at all, for fouling the air. The necessary research ought to be started quickly, for every day of delay means greater damage to the health of our pepole.

Battery propulsion, fuel cells and any other means of power that reduces or eliminates air pollution should be looked into.

There seems to be growing support for the electric car which had its origin in the last century and was a popular predecessor of the internal combustion machine. In a recent study, the Federal Power Commission said sufficient technology presently exists for widespread production of electrically powered cars, trucks and buses.

The FPC pointed out, however, that these vehicles would be of limited speed and driving range two of the most frequently heard arguments against the electric car.

Since most family cars must serve for long distance as well as for commuter travel, these are serious drawbacks. They not only limit the applicability but also the marketability of the pure "electric," ruling it out as an immediate factor of importance in meeting our worsening air pollution problem.

If we want quickly-and surely we do a relatively pollution-free vehicle more acceptable to the public, a logical step would be to develop a "hybrid" system while research on more sophisticated batteries or fuel cells proceeds.

Mr. Morton L. Kaganowich, formerly a New Jersey resident and now a mechanical engineer in Johnson City, N.Y., has suggested one possibility. In a recent letter to a national magazine (Time), Mr. Kaganowich proposed a vehicle having both a conventional internal combustion engine and an electric engine with batteries. According to Mr. Kaganowich, it would operate this way: "In the country the car could be propelled by the internal combustion engine and at the same time charge up the batteries. At points on the highways approaching metropolitan areas, signs would warn the driver to switch to electric propulsion. He would then have enough electric power to carry him in and around the metropolitan area."

Such an approach, if it were technologically and economically feasible, might overcome the speed and distance problems which seem to militate, at least at present, against any substantial use of the wholly electric car. A combination engine system would, of course, continue to cause air pollution problems in the countryside and this would be a drawback. But as an interim system, pending development of better sources of electric power, it would seem to hold the promise of assuring greater use of electric vehicles than could reasonably be expected in the present state of the art.

This would be a fortunate development for our metropolitan areas where air pollution caused by motor vehicles is at its worst and needs to be dealt with quickly and effectively.

I urge therfore, that in your forthcoming hearings on the electric car serious consideration be given to developing a combination engine system as a first step toward providing our people with pollution-free transportation.

I ask that the text both of my letter and of Mr. Kaganowich's letter to Time Magazine be incorporated in the record of the hearings you are holding next week. Sincerely,

CLIFFORD P. CASE,
U.S. Senator.

Senator GRIFFIN. The next witness is Mr. Harry Barr, vice president for engineering, General Motors Corp.

STATEMENT OF HARRY F. BARR, VICE PRESIDENT, ENGINEERING, GENERAL MOTORS CORP., DETROIT, MICH.

Mr. BARR. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, and Senator Hartke. I am Harry F. Barr, vice president in charge of the engineering staff of General Motors Corp.

With me today are two engineering staff representatives who have een associated directly with our research and development work on

electric drive and other energy conversion programs. On my left, Mr. Steinhagen. On my right, Dr. Craig Marks. They will be available to assist me in answering questions after we have finished our prepared

statement.

We welcome this opportunity to offer our comments on the bills under consideration by your committees S. 451 and S. 453-concerning electrically powered vehicles and a study of "means of propelling vehicles so as not to contribute to air pollution." General Motors shares your interest in developing equipment and electrical power sources for possible use in modern motor cars.

While the stated purpose of these hearings is to explore the potential of electric-powered vehicles, we feel that it is important to acquaint you with the extensive work General Motors has been doing, and will continue to do, in the development of many types of energy conversion, including electric. In addition to my brief oral statement we are filing a longer statement and various scientific and other papers relating to this subject. We hope all of these materials will be helpful to you in your important study.

Senator GRIFFIN. Mr. Barr, I have consulted with the staff. It is probably not going to be possible to put all of this material in the record, but it will be filed by reference and available to the committee. But if there are parts of it that—and the decision need not be made now necessarily that you want to have in the record, we will have to approach it with some priority consideration because of the volume.

Mr. BARR. Senator, I would suggest in this case, you have the complete statement which we have here, and append attachment 1, which is our statement before the Muskie committee in Detroit last month, which is already a matter of record, and possibly attachment 2, which concerns the electric cars that we have produced.

Senator GRIFFIN. Is it exactly the same statement that was given to the Muskie committee?

Mr. BARR. It is, sir.

Senator GRIFFIN. I will delegate to the staff the task to see what portions of your prepared statement should be printed.

Mr. BARR. That will be quite all right. We do have articles that may be put in the record by reference, and they are in the bibliography, and this would be available to your staff.

The development of efficient and constantly improved systems of energy conversion is vital to the continued progress in transportation. For this reason, we will continue to pursue aggressively any method of energy conversion which offers potential for more efficiently satisfying the power requirements for automotive vehicles and other applications in our business.

We have been actively researching and developing many types of propulsion and power systems for a number of years. These include heat engines, high energy batteries and fuel cells. We also have made substantial improvements in the internal combustion engine, emphasizing expressly reduction of pollutants. In addition, we have sought technology available from other industries.

As part of our work, we have made intensive investigations of the electric car, and this research indicates that the major advantage is the reduction of air polluting emissions.

Our studies of the electric car concept developed to the point of technical feasibility, leading us to decide in 1963 to build a prototype to gain more definitive answers.

We recognized that any successful all-purpose electric car should have sufficient performance to allow it to mingle with other vehicular traffic. This would be particularly true of its use on urban expressways, turnpikes, and similar roads and highways. For this reason, we wanted to design a vehicle and a means of propulsion which would meet these performance requirements. A current model Corvair was selected as the basic vehicle from which to develop our first prototype in 1964, called Electrovair I. A second-generation electric car with improved controls was built in 1966, using another Corvair as the basic vehicle for Electrovair II.

The two vehicles were powered with silver-zinc batteries to test the battery-type of power source. Electrovan, a light delivery van-type vehicle, was also built to test the fuel cell approach to electric power. Although our primary concern has been with the electrical energy source, we have been interested also in developing an effective drive and control system. The controls have been refined, simplified, and made more reliable during the process of developing these vehicles.

Mr. Chairman, as a matter of record we have a film on these vehicles. I believe your staff would appreciate having it in the record if this could be introduced, a short film on the Electrovair II and the Electrovan, for your subsequent use.

Senator GRIFFIN. I am glad to know about its availability.

Mr. BARR. Although the problems of the electric car are many, there are broad incentives for our continued research in the general applications of electric power because advances in this technology could bring important benefits in many areas. General Motors, for example, is deeply involved in the development and manufacturing of solid state and electronic devices, as well as being a large supplier of electric motors. In addition to their use in many of our own products and programs, these electrical units are used in many fields, including the electronics, aerospace, and home appliance industries and many industrial applications. We also have major development programs in various types of batteries and are a volume producer of batteries for our own products and those of other manufacturing concerns.

Our Delco-Remy Division has been making lead-acid batteries for electrically powered golf carts since 1959. This association with successful application of electric power to golf carts and other lower output vehicles has given us valuable experience in this field.

As it applies to automotive vehicles, the potential advantages of electric power include quiet operation, efficiency not limited by the heat engine cycle, reduction of undesirable emissions and eventual use of low-cost electricity generated by nuclear reactors when fossil fuels become more scarce.

While the Electrovair program successfully produced an electric drive system meeting the technical goals which we set for these experimental vehicles, much work remains to be done regarding cost, performance, and reliability.

In addition to its work with electrical vehicles that would intermingle in today's varying traffic patterns, GM also has researched the