One, meteorological conditions. Los Angeles is likely to get heavier concentrations of pollutants more often due to inactive conditions than New York.

Secondly, Los Angeles has done a lot more about controlling socalled stationary sources of pollution than has New York. It controls industries, it controls private utilities, it even controls the smudge pots in the Los Angeles orange groves. The orange growers now use huge fans to attack the frost problem rather than the smudge pots. So they have gone to considerable lengths in Los Angeles to deal with stationary sources. As a result the remaining air pollution problem understandably is greatly different from the relatively uncontrolled New York air pollution problem. The Los Angeles area is not likely to have sulfur dioxide pollution which comes largely from stationary sources and can cause death.

So there are differences. But I want to emphasize, the pollution produced by the automobile, is going to be the same in either place. The contribution that this makes to the total air pollution problem of an area depends upon the nature of the rest of the air pollution problem in that area. I think that distinction needs to be made.

Senator COTTON. That is very clear. I thank the Senator. I am glad to know that at least they breathe the same air we do. [Laughter.]

Cochairman MAGNUSON. The next witness is Dean Coston, Deputy Under Secretary for HEW. We will be glad to hear from you at this time.

Senator COTTON. Mr. Chairman, I am sorry I have an appointment and I must go in a moment. I don't want to disrupt the witness' testimony. Would he be willing to take just 1 minute before he starts his

statement?

Cochairman MAGNUSON. Surely.

Senator COTTON. And illuminate my poor fogged and besmogged mind about whether the same automobile could be bad for California and good for New York, or vice versa ?

STATEMENT OF DEAN W. COSTON, DEPUTY UNDER SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH EDUCATION, AND WELFARE; ACCOMPANIED BY DR. JOHN MIDDLETON, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL CENTER FOR AIR POLLUTION CONTROL; ARTHUR STERN, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, NATIONAL CENTER FOR AIR POLLUTION CONTROL; AND DR. JOHN T. GRUPENHOFF, SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR LEGISLATION

Mr. COSTON. Senator, I was most impressed with Senator Muskie's analysis of the problem. I think it is our objective in controlling pollution to set a standard which establishes the lowest possible level of pollution which we can establish under the state of the art. I see no reason at all why an automobile should be permitted to pollute any more in Kansas as than it does in the city of Los Angeles. Our objective is to reduce pollution from automobiles wherever those automobiles are operated.

Senator COTTON. I understand that and agree with it. I think Senator Muskie's statement was very lucid that if there is a difference in

the area, the atmosphere in Los Angeles and New York, it was because of the presence or absence, because of pollutants from other sources than automobiles.

Mr. COSTON. Surely.

Senator COTTON. But it was at least intimated that there is a school of thought that the fundamental difference in the air between California and New York is such that the same degree of precaution in the same automobile might even be good for one and bad for the other. I couldn't quite comprehend that. Is there anything to that? Mr. COSTON. I understand your thought.

Cochairman MUSKIE. I think this will get at the problem that you are trying to expose. Present emission standards control carbon standards and carbon monoxide.

Senator Cotton, it troubled Senator Baker and me a while ago, before I had as much exposure to it as I have had-whether or not the devices which control hydrocarbons generate nitrogen oxide which is itself harmful, which might more than offset in some localities the benefits gained from control of hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide.

Mr. COSTON. It is a highly technical area and I am not competent to go into the scientific aspects of it. It is my understanding that the higher the compression of the engine that you are operating, the greater the percentage of nitrogen oxides that are produced. So that the emissions of oxides of nitrogen are not really a function of the pollution control systems. I will have to check with my technical experts to be sure that answer is fully accurate. This is my understanding. Cochairman MUSKIE. There is another point that was made, both in Los Angeles and Detroit, and that is that the methods used to burn up more of the hydrocarbons, either through exhaust ports or cylinders or manifolds, produce high temperatures which themselves generate nitrogen oxides.

The questions are No. 1, whether or not this increases the total emission of hydrogen oxides from automobiles; and No. 2, if it does, what is the impact upon health; and No. 3, can that impact vary between Los Angeles and New York, for example, to make controls for hydrocarbons undesirable in one place and desirable in another?

Mr. COSTON. I would prefer on that very complicated scientific issue to supply a statement for the record which I think will clear up whatever differences there may be among scientists on what exactly is happening inside the engine. It is an extremely complicated physical, chemical reaction that goes on.

Cochairman MUSKIE. We would like to have that for the record. It would supplement the testimony we already have from Los Angeles and Detroit. I won't guarantee to Senator Cotton that when he has read all three sources of information, that he will have a satisfactory answer when he is through.

I will try to explain it to you.

Senator BAKER. May I ask one question of Mr. Coston in the same field, which may clarify my thinking and help us reach some conclusion on this question of the necessity for different techniques in different areas of the country. It has been pointed out in testimony that as we attempt to control hydrocarbons we almost inevitably produce more oxides of nitrogen.

But oxides of nitrogen by themselves as I understand it are in themselves innocuous. It is only when oxides of nitrogen are exposed to photochemical changes by a high degree of sunshine, prolonged sunshine or certain climatic conditions, that they break down into aerosols and other irritants to the eyes and to the respiratory system. That gives rise to the proposition that this byproduct of our good intentions, nitrogen oxides, may be distinctly harmful in one area of the country and entirely innocuous in another area of the country. If we could have some elaboration of this theory, which was put by witnesses in previous testimony, I think it would be most helpful to this Senator and I think

to the committee.

Mr. COSTON. May I include that in the statement which we will file for the record?

Senator BAKER. Thank you.

(Subsequently the following information was submitted:)

With reference to the questions concerning nitrogen oxide emissions from motor vehicles, an assessment of this problem was provided by Mr. Vernon G. MacKenzie in testimony presented June 14, 1966, in hearings before the Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution of the Senate Committee on Public Works. The following is an excerpt of the testimony:

"Mr. MACKENZIE. There is no question that the current systems of pollution control which are being initially installed on new automobiles for California at the present time, and for experimental evaluation in a few places elsewhere, by reason of increased combustion efficiency in the engines, and the higher temperatures associated therewith, will produce an increase in emission of the oxides of nitrogen.

"The State of California, and we also, have been concerned about this aspect of the problem. We are currently conducting evaluations of the extent to which this does occur. We expected it to occur and we felt that we had a sufficient margin of safety to deal with the problem. Examination of the cars to date operating in a number of cities in the United States, as being conducted through a joint project between the Public Health Service and General Services Administration, has shown that there is some increase in the oxides of nitrogen, and preliminary data from California indicate the same thing.

"On the other hand, we do not think that this will detract in any major way from the value of the current systems. We had earlier examined the question of the decrease in the photochemical smog development that would occur by reducing hydrocarbons as one approach and oxides of nitrogen as another.

"We found that the greater degree of control of the photochemical pollution could be effected by, and would be almost directly proportional with a reduction in, hydrocarbon emission that might be effected.

"On the other hand, reduction of oxides of nitrogen emission would have little effect on photochemical smog development without proportionately a much greater reduction in oxides of nitrogen. This is not to say that we dismiss the oxides of nitrogen problem, because we do not.

"We think that control of this class of pollutant also will be necessary, and we are scheduling research hopefully with a target that controls for automobiles might be made applicable to the 1970 model vehicles.

"We feel that we have a little leeway here, time to work this matter out. "Only one State has adopted standards with respect to nitrogen dioxide in the open atmosphere and this is the State of California, or for emissions of oxides of nitrogen from motor vehicles, and again that is by the State of California. "With respect to the levels the State of California has adopted for ambient air: One is an initial level of concern related to the development of colored haze in the atmosphere. It has a yellowish-brown color, which is considered objectionable. The standard adopted in this instance was 0.25 of a part per million as an average for 1 hour which should not be exceeded. The State adopted a further standard of three parts per million for protection of human health.

"Oxides of nitrogen have been regularly monitored in a number of American cities through the continuous air monitoring program, conducted by the Public Health Service, and also by a number of local agencies as well.

"In examining the records of nitrogen dioxide, concentrations disclosed by such monitoring over a period of years, the only place that one might consider where the nitrogen dioxide level has exceeded the lower standards, namely that concerned with the development of color in the atmosphere and not the one concerned with human health, is in Los Angeles where about 2 percent, as I remember the figures, of the hourly measurements over a 2- or 3-year period have indicated figures in excess of the 0.25 of a part per million range. We feel, therefore, that we have some time here to work this problem out.

"Senator MUSKIE. What are the ill effects of the oxides of nitrogen in the atmosphere?

"Mr. MACKENZIE. First, they react with the hydrocarbons in the development of oxidant-type pollution, which is irritating to people and damaging to vegetation. It contributes to lack of visibility or interference with visibility in the atmosphere. This is the so-called photochemical smog.

"Second, nitrogen dioxide if present in significant quantities can give the atmosphere an undesirable coloration.

"Third, nitrogen dioxide is a respiratory irritant when present in sufficient concentration than can adversely interfere with respiratory functions and is suspected of contributing to the development of chronic disease. It has been shown also to interfere with the body protective mechanisms with respect to respiratory infection, and to increase the susceptibility, at least of experimental animals preconditioned by exposure to nitrogen dioxide, when later challenged with an infectious agent.

"Senator Muskie. And oxides of nitrogen are in part of the combustion processes in gasoline?

"Mr. MacKenzie. What happens in any combustion process is that the air participating in the burning process is elevated in temperature. A part of the nitrogen in the air combines with a part of the oxygen in the air and produces oxides of nitrogen. Initially, it is primarily nitrous oxide. If the combustion gases are cooled gradually, these oxides of nitrogen will dissociate into elemental nitrogen and oxygen. But if the temperature is quenced quickly the dissociation does not occur and a certain amount of nitrogen then appears as oxides of nitrogen in the combustion effluent.

"Senator Muskie. What techniques to eliminate oxides of nitrogen from exhaust are being explored?

"Mr. MacKenzie. There are two principal methods being explored for automobiles. One method involves recirculation of a small proportion of the exhaust products back through the engine. Essentially this is thought to work because it decreases the temperature of the combustion inside the engine. It has been demonstrated that this can reduce oxides of nitrogen emission from an automobile engine by a very large percentage.

"There is also involved, however, some loss of power if this process is carried on at peak power load. This needs to be still evaluated fully to determine, first, its practicability, and; secondly, to insure that it will have no adverse effect on the existing pollution control systems for reduction of hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide in the exhaust from the engines.

"The second general approach which has been considered to reduce oxides of nitrogen is by catalysis, in other words, to promote a reaction of dissociation of the combined substances back into the elemental forms of nitrogen and oxygen. This has been less well developed for application to the automobile engine."

Cochairman MUSKIE. One other point.

California is sufficiently concerned about the oxides of nitrogen so that it is imposing, if it has not already done so, standards with respect to emissions of oxides of nitrogen. So that in California three kinds of emissions will have to be controlled: Hydrocarbons, carbon monoxides, and oxides of nitrogen.

Senator BAKER. Under the doctrine of preemption, California could not do this.

Cochairman MUSKIE. That question has not been resolved. The Department could not give us a legal answer on that question and suggested we would have to solve the question of preemption. I may say

with respect to kinds of pollution other than the automobile, that the position of the Congress and the administration is that standards will have to be pretty much adjusted to local conditions.

Senator PROUTY. Mr. Chairman, if I could express what I think is the hope of the committee, it is to find out if a car which is operating with reasonable safety in New York can be driven across the country without creating pollution problems in the various States through which it has to travel.

Senator COTTON. That is easy. This committee in its majesty will structure the industry to put out either a sunshine car or rainy-day car, or else turn out a car on which you will turn on the switch on sunny days in the sunshine, and turn it back again when you are in the dower climate of Vermont.

Senator PROUTY. I disagree with the latter statement.

Cochairman MUSKIE. I may say to my colleagues, in my judgment the problem is complex but it is not as complex as the discussion of the last 20 or 25 minutes.

Senator COTTON. I hope not. I am sorry I started that.

Cochairman MUSKIE. I think it is very useful, may I say to the Senator. This is not a question that periodically arises, and I think discussion of it ought to have a place in the record of these hearings. I think it is fine.

Mr. Coston, would you like to proceed?

Mr. COSTON. Thank you, Senator.

Let me first introduce the members of the Department at the table. Dr. John Grupenhoff, assistant to the Assistant Secretary for Legislation; Dr. John Middleton, Director of the National Center for Air Pollution Control; and Mr. Arthur Stern, Assistant Director for the National Center.

We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the bills you have under consideration at these hearings-bills to authorize Federal research and development activity for the purpose of investigating and developing new propulsion systems for motor vehicles.

In the past several months, this subject has been getting a great deal of attention from news media, scientists, industry, and the general public. There is increasing discussion of electric power, turbine engines, fuel cells, and other potentially feasible propulsion systems.

For the first time in the Nation's long history of rising dependence on automobiles for transportation, we have, in effect, begun asking ourselves whether the car of the past and the present should also be the car of the future.

There can be no doubt, Mr. Chairman, that the single most important reason this question is being raised is that the types of motor vehicles now in use are major contributors to a problem that threatens public health and welfare in all parts of the country-the problem of air pollution.

This fact was cited by President Johnson in his January 30 message to the Congress on protecting our natural heritage, in which he said: Many sources of air pollution cannot be economically or effectively controlled by our present technology. The sheer number of motor vehicles may, within a decade or two, defy the best pollution control methods we can develop. If this proves true, surely we cannot continue to use the type of internal combustion engine now in service. New types of internal combustion engines or indeed, new propulsion systems-may be required.