Senator DOMENICI. You say you don't see any reason to relax it. Then, do we assume you will set it as 90 or higher if we give you that authority?

Mr. RUCKELSHAUS. No. I am saying I don't see any reason to relax the standard where it is now; not where it will be in 1976 because if you are going to achieve a standard by 1976 given the HC and CO requirements that are also going to be necessary in that time frame, they need to know now or shortly what they have to shoot for technologically in order to continue the momentum to achieve that standard. Senator DOMENICI. So what is your best notion of what it is going to be for 1976 if you set it with reference to the nitrogen cleanup part? Mr. RUCKELSHAUS. The Congress could agree with what I am saying and decide there was no reason to retreat from where we now are and leave the standard there statutorily just as you have done in setting the 90 percent reduction standard, if that is of concern to the Congress. Senator DOMENICI. That isn't the question. What if we do agree with your suggested amendment which you say you are going to ask the committee to consider giving you the authority? I am asking you, do you have enough information now to say whether you would set it at 90?

Mr. RUCKELSHAUS. No. I can't set it at 90. What I am saying is what we ought to do in my judgment is leave it where it is now and we get continued control over nitrogen oxide. It is not as though nitrogen oxide is going to start going back up. On the contrary, it will continue now, just not as steep a curve as otherwise. Until we get this analysis completed, the research completed from which we can make a firmer projection, I can't tell you at this time where that number ought to be.

Senator DOMENICI. So the auto industry, if this is what we conclude, will have the leadtime because they do know what will be expected of them. Is that correct?

Mr. RUCKELSHAUS. Yes. I think the kind of leadtime consideration would be the same thing the Congress took into account when it set the standard to begin with.

Senator DOMENICI. I have no further questions at this time. Thank

you.

Senator MUSKIE. To make that clear, your recommendation would not mean that the nitrogen oxide emissions would be uncontrolled? Mr. RUCKELSHAUS. No. It would not be that.

Senator MUSKIE. If additional controls were not applied, that would mean for the time being until you set new standards that the standard. for nitrogen oxide would level off at, say, 3.1?

Mr. RUCKELSHAUS. Yes; Mr. Chairman.

Senator MUSKIE. Until we act again or until you act again on the authority we give you, what you mean by continuing present controls is setting the standard at 3.1?

Mr. RUCKELSHAUS. That is right. Yes. I, by no means, can give you a solid reason why that is what we ought to do. I think what we are Suggesting to the committee is the necessity of looking very carefully at this 90-percent-reduction standard that is in the law and coming up with what should be done in the meantime until we get a better idea of where it ought to be.

What I have suggested here is that the setting of the standard be in effect given to the administrator of this Agency. If the Congress felt there was a necessity to maintain a certain level of control while this analysis was going on, again, I think that is somewhat of an open question.

Senator MUSKIE. I think what troubles the committee and it seems to me obviously troubles Senator Domenici, is that we must be clear about what it is that is being proposed, that we may in fact be encouraging the industry to relay its concern about NO, emissions, relax and, on the record, it requires very little encouragement to relax its drive toward technological breakthroughs and, indeed, it may settle into a technological rut focused on HC and carbon monoxide in a way that would make it even more difficult later to focus on the NOx problem at such point as policy becomes crystallized.

Have I made my concern clear?

Mr. RUCKELSHAUS. Yes. I understand your concern. I think that what we have to do in order to develop a sound public policy is in addition to being very firm on the desirability and need to meet the

and

standard, that where new evidences or new developments occur that indicate there may not be any benefit, public benefit, to achieving a given level of pollution reduction, that we be very careful in determining what levels of reduction we necessitate if it turns out 4 or 5 years from now we have caused enormous societal expenditure and it is the consumer who is going to end up paying for this, without any benefit to him.

That is what we are trying to do, is to be sure that what we are requiring is in fact going to result in a health benefit and environmental benefit to the country.

Senator MUSKIE. If we should adopt the policy you are recommending which would mean relaxing the 90 percent cutback on NOx for 1976, is it conceivable that after having done that, when we had the benefit of the research, the results of the research program that your associates have described this morning, is it conceivable that the public interest may require reimposition of the 90 percent cutback for 1977, 1978 or 1979 or 1980?

Dr. GREENFIELD. Maybe I can answer it this way, Senator. We are, in addition to the research we are doing on trying to determine what the number should be in terms of ambient air quality standards, we are also trying to look very hard at what this means in terms of the auto emissions standards. You have got to look at both, obviously. If I ask myself from the analysis made, what is the range of possible values right now that bracket where our knowledge currently stands, and sort of give a worse case analysis, in terms of the annual arithmetic means, it might run somewhere between 94 micrograms per cubic meter, up to maybe 188. That is about the range of annual value that you might say might be important.

Or in the short term issue, it might range between 200 micrograms per cubic meter up to 376. That is the shorter term, 10 percent value. If I now ask, say, in the Los Angeles area, where you have probably the worse problem, what does this mean using one of the rollback analyses, in terms of the number of grams per mile that you have to reduce the automotive emissions to, it ranges from 3.2 at the upper end, at the

more optimistic end, down toward the order of 1.1 gram per mile at the lower end.

So you see that within the range of uncertainty we currently have, with the type of analytical techniques we have available to us today, using a worse case analysis, starting where we currently are, 3.1, we might indeed in the long run want to push it down to the order of 1, maybe even closer to .4. We just don't know right now. We have got to wait until we have that number to allow us to set it in a more intelligent manner.

Senator MUSKIE. How long will it be before we get that number?

Mr. RUCKELSHAUS. 18 to 24 months is our current estimates, based on the research activities we laid out for you.

Senator MUSKIE. If you were to advise the automobile industry, which has an elastic standard as to the amount of leadtime it requires to meet the requirements of public policy, as to how much attention they ought to give the nitrogen oxide problem as they plan their hardware for the next 5 years, what would you advise them to focus on, the lower end of that range or on the higher end of that range?

Dr. GREENFIELD. If I can draw on the experience we have seen in the other health rehabilitated standards, almost every one of the standards that have been set as we get more research seems to push it Larder and harder, push it into more stringent needs. The NO standard may be in exactly the same position. As we get more information, as we see what the multitude of problems really are, as we move down toward the cardiovascular problem, we may indeed want a more stringent standard. If I was going to visit the automotive industry, I certainly would advise them to move toward the lower end rather than the upper end. I think prudent would demand that.

Senator MUSKIE. On the question of Senator Randolph, you focused on another aspect of this problem, that is, it is visibility. It is what produces so much of the unpretty aspects of the Los Angeles air basin. I assume the California standards are related to this question. At what levels is it necessary to set NO, standards to eliminate that esthetic concern?

Dr. GREENFIELD. Of course, they are claiming 1.5 as the value they get to, which is within that range we are talking about as well, 3.1 down

to 1.

Senator MUSKIE. Let me read you something from part 3 of our hearings of 1972. This is from Mr. James M. Pitts, Jr., Statewide Air Pollution Research Center of the University of California at Riverside. He had something to say about the NO, standard. He said:

The EPA auto emission standard for 1976 of four grams per mile of NOx took into account, or at least attempted to, the total air burden and included emissions from powerplants. This is a major reason for their very strict auto emission standards. The value of one and a half grams per mile of NOx for 1976, in my opinion, is simply not strict enough when one considers the additional NO、 that will be produced because of the energy demands that are being made by the residents of our air basin and the critical shortage of gaseous fuels for powerplants. When liquid fuels are burned, the NOx burden in the atmosphere will go up by at least a factor of two and this is not taking into account the growth in power needs.

In short, I regard a motor vehicle emission standard of .4 grams per mile of NO, in 1976 as being absolutely essential in the South Coast Air Basin, in the New York area, and in most every major urban area with a serious smog problem.

What he says there, ties the auto emission standard very closely, of course, to the stationary sources. I wonder if you would want to comment on that?

Dr. GREENFIELD. I think what Dr. Pitts is saying is probably very true in the south coast basin area where the automotive pollution plays such a large role. It is not at all clear that this is not also true in places like New York, Chicago, and other areas where the auto doesn't play that large a role.

Senator MUSKIE. I raise this testimony because of Mr. Ruckelshaus' suggestion earlier this morning that these policy recommendations be included in the Federal Register for comment. Unless Dr. Pitts is persuaded by the kind of presentation you have made to us, we are going to get adverse comments upon your recommendations.

Dr. GREENFIELD. Dr. Pitts remarks were also made before we noted the problem with the measurement and reclassified those areas.

Senator MUSKIE. I understand. But I say unless he was persuaded by the Presentation you made this morning and your position doesn't change, then we are going to hear a lot about this. So I am simply putting this before you this morning so we can begin to get the dialog started and the issue drawn for the purpose of enabling you to make your case in the face of possibly contrary opinion.

Mr. GREENFIELD. That is exactly why, Senator, that at the administrators insistence we are going to put this analysis in the Federal Register and invite public comment to give us and the others a chance. to examine the validity of the analysis that we have made and the implications of it.

Senator MUSKIE. What is the nature of NO, control in today's technology and in the technology that will be applied for the purpose of dealing with other pollutions? Is it just an incidental control, incidental to the catalyst that would be installed on the automobile to control HC and carbon monoxide? What is the nature of NO, control in the present technology?

Mr. RUCKELSHAUS. The primary control in the automotive emission is an exhaust recirculation valve which in effect recirculates exhaust gases for further reduction in nitrogen oxide. So that there is a specific control mechanism being used on the present automobiles for control of NOx.

Senator MUSKIE. It will be continued?

Mr. RUCKELSHAUS. Yes. Again, it doesn't seem to me to make sense to go back and start all over again, particularly in light of the HC and CO increased reductions that would push the NO, up if there were no controls.

Senator MUSKIE. Will the hardware you have just described eliminate that possibility?

Mr. RUCKELSHAUS. Either that hardware or some other. If we leave the standard where it is, we have to continue to control it at that level. If they can find a better way to do it, we would encourage that.

Senator MUSKIE. Do you have any indication of the extent to which the NO, problem will be aggravated as the control on hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide are tightened? To what extent is that a technological problem?

Mr. RUCKELSHAUS. It is a problem clearly of controlling two, HC and CO at the same time. As you tightened the controls on both of them, it becomes more difficult to do that.

Senator MUSKIE. The hydrocarbons standard for 1973-74 I gather is 3.4 parts, grams per mile and the 1976 law will require reducing that to 0.41. Carbon monoxide is at 39 grams per mile and it will have to be reduced to 3.4. That suggests that the pressure, upward pressure on NO,, will be considerable. Did the companies present testimony to you that they are going to effectively continue that upward pressure to hold NO, emissions at 3.1 if your policy recommendations on NOx is adopted?

Mr. RUCKELSHAUS. I don't have any testimony from the companies to that effect, Mr. Chairman.

Senator MUSKIE. You have not made that proposal?

Mr. RUCKELSHAUS. No. I never proposed to them that we do this. I have made the proposal several times in the hopes that if Dr. Pitts or whoever thought this proposal was ridiculous would say so. What I am suggesting today is that we get this out in the public now and let the dialog start.

Senator MUSKIE. The reason I raised this question is I was sure that would be your answer because the issue was not raised in the hearing, that we now pose a different technological problem or issue for them and we need a response. It is conceivable, for example, that in order to meet a NO, problem of that dimension that they would still have to consider the other catalysts?

Mr. RUCKELSHAUS. Our technology assessment that is in the decision itself and in the appendix assumes that they would meet a 3.1 NOx standard for 1975 without the catalyst, without any production catalyst. In fact, our technical people think that they can go down to 1.5 without the use of the additional catalyst.

Senator MUSKIE. If they can do that, shouldn't they be required to in light of the other implications of the NO, pollutants or studies and so on?

Mr. RUCKELSHAUS. I think that is certainly a legitimate question for the committee to consider. With the increased exhaust gas recirculation need, there is presently a substantial fuel penalty in the neighborhood of 15 percent to get down to 1.5.

Senator MUSKIE. I think my time is up. Senator Buckley has been very patient.

Senator BUCKLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Ruckelshaus, the testimony this morning indicates, I gather, that even if there is a reduction in the NO, emission standards, we would still have at least two areas in the country where the ambient. NO, would be above the levels mandated.

Mr. RUCKELSHAUS. There are two areas of the country where they violate the 100 micrograms.

Senator BUCKLEY. The requirement as to ambient standards in accordance with the present law?

Mr. RUCKELSHAUS. Yes.

Senator BUCKLEY. You, of course, had the miserable duty of having to propose a Draconian approach to meeting the standard in the Los Angeles basin. This brings to mind two statements you made yesterday