Senator BUCKLEY. A member of my staff advised me she has driven an Opel diesel located in this country and says in her expert opinion it is a splendid car except for acceleration.

I just mention this because I wonder if it does not illustrate some of the factors that you have found in coming up with your own

decisions.

Presumably, we could either through law or regulation so sculpt the process as to force a given manufacturer to actually produce a

diesel.

I am not sure we could force the consumer to buy it if in fact its performance is inferior to other comparably priced cars, at least until such time as fuel is a lot more expensive than it is today.

Mr. RUCKELSHAUS. I think the performance is one of the assumptions the domestic companies make in indicating an unwillingness to market the diesel in this country.

The Mercedes people testified that while their diesel had a good deal of acceptance in some European countries, particularly where the gasoline price was very high, that they did not feel it has the same degree of acceptance here. Although I am not satisfied in my own mind that some of that doesn't have to do with advertising techniques and just what kind of acceptability is built into the American public's mind by what they are told through advertising they ought to buy. Senator BUCKLEY. I suppose it might also relate to the scarcity of diesel pumps in different areas.

Mr. RUCKELSHAUS. It might, although I think you can get diesel fuel with some imagination on the part of the driver.

Senator BUCKLEY. With that extra effort.

If we were to move in the direction of trying to encourage the utilization of the Honda-type engine or a diesel, are there certain of the major manufacturers that would just not be capable of putting them on stream as soon as others? In other words, wouldn't we be forcing an uneven production on the part of the automobile industry

as it exists today?

Mr. RUCKELSHAUS. It would depend on the amount of leadtime involved. If you provided sufficient leadtime you could obviate that problem. Obviously, if you made it very short, you probably would give an advantage to one manufacturer over another. It is my opinion, in fact, that what we are doing is encouraging a very strong look at the Honda system and the diesel system by our decision.

Senator BUCKLEY. We will wait to see on that one in the marketplace.

Mr. Chairman, I have no further questions.

Senator MUSKIE, Senator Domenici?

Senator DOMENICI. Just a couple, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Ruckelshaus, I understand you announced heretofore at a press conference that you would soon promulgate the regulations for diesels. When will these regulations be ready?

Mr. SANSOM. I think what to promulgate is a new test procedure for diesel. I think it is about 6 months is the date on when that will be out. Mr. RUCKELSHAUS. The emission standard is the same. It is the test procedure that is different.

Senator DOMENICI. Let me share with you a concern of the group of scientists that looked at the present status of things for me in New

Mexico. They would say with reference to the leadtime and the thrust that we are now imposing on the industry to get on with new technology, that the controls are forcing new technologies with reference to cleaning up the emissions. The scientific group that gave me a report says they have another concern that is very serious. That concern is that they don't see any real thrust toward economizing energy that we as an institution, or in Congress, are forcing on industry. They have no immediate suggestion, but they have a very serious concern. But they don't see any of that in what we are doing at this point, that we seem to have our eyes rather firmly fixed on cleaning up emissions and we are going to force this great industry in America to move in that direction.

The suggestion is we should all together be looking at what can we do to force some energy savings, even if it is not directed at the same thing right now.

Do you have any observation, the economists or you on that concern? Mr. RUCKELSHAUS. That is in general true. It is clear that we are pushing toward cleaner emissions as a society from the automobile to achieve a given social benefit, healthy air. In this thrust, at least in the systems that are being adopted for the achievement of these standards by the domestic companies, we are causing some fuel penalties.

So to that extent we are not as concerned with fuel consumption and the emission devices impact on the consumption as maybe we ought to be.

On the other hand, I think these two problems are not necessarily related, that if as a society we decide that it is important enough to conserve fuel because it is in short supply or the cost is going to be going up or for whatever reason we say that is important and therefore we are going to impose regulations to do that, then I think that should be viewed separately from the problem of emissions because there are a number of things related to the present day automobile and its use and its relationship to mass transit, for instance, that cause a very inefficient use of energy.

Even in the automobile itself, where you have a comparable fuel penalty with the automatic transmission and the air conditioner with emission control system, the enormous gap is between a 2,000- and 5.000-pound car of 150 percent fuel penalty, all of those things it seems to me should be looked at first because there is no particular social benefit except convenience associated with the use of those devices on the automobile as opposed to the emission device for which we are saving one man's right to use his automobile is not to be exercised at the expense of another man's right to breathe healthy air which seems to me is a social purpose that overrides the conveniences associated with some of the other things that cause a fuel penalty.

Senator DOMENICI. I think the concern that they express is legitimate and you would say, you have agreed here that it is a legitimate concern? You would just say they are not necessarily to be sought after at the same time? They may not be?

Mr. RUCKELSHAUS. Yes; I have sort of a personal resentment at delaying the whole energy crisis at the fee of the emission devices in the automobile when there are so many other things that cause fuel penalties that we are not paying any attention to.

Mr. SANSOM. Plus the fact some of these technologies that could achieve the standard could have a very substantial fuel savings associated with them.

Senator DOMENICI. One further comment that this same group gave to me with reference to the engines that meet standards without catalytic mechanisms. They state you tested three engines that met the 30.000-mile durabiliy requirement for the emission standards. The Honda meets the requirement through the vortex combustion, with a small engine displacement, provides 65-horsepower which limits its use to 1,600-pound automobiles. The Mazda rotary engine which meets the standards is small and also requires a thermoreactor for exidation of carbon monoxide and unburned hydrocarbons, even these engines will require additional development to be suitable for standardized and larger cars. The Mercedes diesel is a fairly large engine, they say, but it emits fumes also and is noisy. Both characteristics are objectionable but not covered by current standards.

In summary, have they taken the heart of your tests on engines that meet the Federal standards?

Mr. RUCKELSHAUS. Yes; except I think we have been over some of these problems before with the other technology, except it does appear now that Honda has been able to go on beyond the small automobile that its engine was associated with. If their recent statements are correct, they have adapted their system to larger engines which might be used on larger automobiles.

Senator DOMENICI. I have no further questions, Mr. Chairman. Senator MUSKIE. I have simply one observation on the question of leadtime. I have before me the technical appendix, appendix B to your decision, and on page-we have discovered a new numbering technique here on page 00055, I don't know whether that is just an exclamation, but anyway, there is this paragraph that bears upon our

earlier discussion:

GM's position that alternative technology is not available to allow achievement of the 1975 standards is somewhat puzzling, considering the fact that a GMned company, Opel, is currently mass producing a diesel-powered automobile which has been tested by EPA and has achieved emission levels below the Federal 1975 requirements with less than 12 grams per mile of NO. Stratified charge engines are also being studied by GM.

The level of effort on these engines is, however, rather low.

With that last sentence, may I say that we will meet again tomorrow at 10a.m. and two areas that we want to touch upon definitely are: (1) the health questions bearing upon EC and carbon monoxide; and (2) the good faith question which we haven't really gotten into, and then we will try to find enough time to touch on all of the wrapup questions the committee may have in mind.

Thank you very much.

[Whereupon, at 12:25 p.m., the hearing was recessed, to reconvene at 10a.m., Wednesday, April 18, 1973.]

DECISION OF THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGARDING SUSPENSION OF THE 1975 AUTO EMISSION STANDARDS

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 18, 1973

U.S. SENATE,

COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AIR AND WATER POLLUTION,

Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met at 10 a.m., pursuant to recess, in room 4200, Dirksen Office Building, Hon. Edmund S. Muskie (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Present: Senators Muskie, Randolph, Biden, Buckley, and Dome

nici.

Senator MUSKIE. The committee will be in order.

I understand that Mr. Ruckelshaus will be delayed 45 minutes this morning and that he will be with us a little later. In the meantime, we will take the opportunity to get into some of these emission-health questions in which we are interested.

We have with us this morning again Dr. Greenfield, Assistant Administrator for Research, and his associates.

Would you present them for the record, Dr. Greenfield, and then proceed? Do you have a formal presentation to make first?

STATEMENT OF HON. WILLIAM D. RUCKELSHAUS, ADMINISTRATOR, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, ACCOMPANIED BY DR. STANLEY GREENFIELD, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR RESEARCH AND MONITORING; DR. JOHN FINKLEA, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH CENTER; DR. DAVIS SHEARER, SURVEILLANCE DIVISION; GEORGE V. ALLEN, JR., DEPUTY ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR GENERAL ENFORCEMENT; AND ERIC STORK, MOBILE SOURCES POLLUTION CONTROL PROGRAM

Dr. GREENFIELD. We might have a small statement to make just to paper to your staff. It describes the pyramidial approach

clarify the

in determining the adverse health effects. We might go through that. Senator MUSKIE. Why don't you proceed and introduce your colleagues.

Dr. GREENFIELD. On my right once again is Dr. Finklea, who is Director of the National Environmental Research Center at Research Triangle Park, N.C. On his right is Dr. Davis Shearer, head of our

Surveillance Division.

(155)