Sunday Forum; The Control Of Auto Emissions

From the campus of Brown University in Providence Rhode Island. This is Frank Fitzmaurice welcoming you to National Public Radio's coverage of the Brown University symposium on the control of auto emissions recorded on the brown to campus in Providence Rhode Island on March 28 one thousand seventy three. The statistics on vehicular pollution are available and they're frightening. Nationwide automobiles are responsible for 66 percent of the manmade carbon monoxide in the air. Forty eight percent of the hydrocarbons 40 percent of the nitrogen oxides and 90 percent of the lead emissions. These four car generated pollutants add up to one hundred forty three million tons a year infesting the air we breathe. Those figures are national averages in areas like Los Angeles or New York City. Auto pollution concentrations are obviously much higher. If something is not done to curtail the emission output from automobiles the cost of only in terms of human health will eventually be catastrophic. It's a classic dilemma one which

involves the future of two mammoth industries the auto industry and the petroleum industry. The quality of our life. Hundreds of thousands of individual jobs. And it will have a pronounced effect on our overall economy. This symposium on the control of auto emissions was moderated by Douglas Edwards commentator for CBS News New York. Douglas Edwards also functioned as one of the interviewers the other interviewers at the symposium were E-W Kenworthy of the Washington bureau of The New York Times Mr. Kenworthy is an expert on the legislative aspects of auto emissions. Dr. Alan v the director of the quality of the environment for resources for the future incorporated of Washington DC was the third interview or resources for the future as a nonprofit organization funded by the Ford Foundation. It's a group which places heavy emphasis on environmental problems. The five panelists for the symposium were

Mr. Eric stork. Mr. Stork is the director of Mobile sources of pollution control for the Environmental Protection Agency in Washington DC. Storch is the key aide on the matters of air pollution. Other panelists included Mr. Herbert L. Miche. Mr. Mishra is vice president for environment and safety engineering of the Ford Motor Company. Mr. Sidney L. Terry vice president for environmental and safety relations for the Chrysler Corporation. Mr. P. N. gamble Gard senior vice president for Public and Environmental Affairs at the American Petroleum Institute Dr. Steven Ayres director of the cardio pulmonary laboratory at St. Vincent's Hospital in New York City. This symposium on the control of auto emissions from Brown University is being sponsored jointly by Brown the Rhode Island tuberculosis and respiratory disease Association and the New England Consortium on environmental protection a collection of 14 New

England colleges and universities committed to environmental study. And now here is Brown University President Donald Hornig to open the proceedings idees and gentlemen. Good evening. Welcome to the Brown University symposium on the control of auto emission. Every one of us has a stake in this controversial problem as automobile owners. We contribute to it. And you and I breathe the air that we ourselves help to pollute. Tonight we will hear what can be done about it. This evening's televised discussion is co-sponsored by the Rhode Island respiratory disease Association and the New England Consortium on environmental protection which is provided support in making this evening's broadcast possible. Tonight experts from the automobile and petroleum industries the federal government. The media. Medicine and a public interest group will examine this nationwide issue.

It is a privilege to welcome to Brown tonight the moderator the distinguished commentator from CBS News in the York Douglas Edwards. My. Thank you very much Dr. Holaday because this subject we're to discuss auto emission is so divisive. Let me as moderator first set down certain general information on which we're all pretty well agreed as background for our discussion. The story of auto pollution control began in Los Angeles in the early 1940s. That's when the gray smog with which we've now become so familiar was first evident reducing visibility and causing. There were local efforts at that time to cut down both the dust and fume emissions from stationary sources but they were as unsuccessful as later efforts.

Meanwhile Professor Haagen Smit was at work on the problem at the California Institute of Technology and within a decade he demonstrated that the smog resulted from the release of large quantities of hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides which underwent a photochemical reaction before they were fully dispersed and formed oxidants in small but hazardous amounts. It was found that the automobile was the dominant source of these gases in the Los Angeles basin. It was then it still is today and Los Angeles remains the American city with the worst photochemical smog problem due to its high traffic density its stable atmosphere and its sunny climate. In addition to hydro carbons a nitrogen oxides the automobile or more precisely the internal combustion engine also is responsible for the discharge of carbon monoxide and lead into our air. In fact it is the major

source of these products in our urban atmosphere. We do know the kind of health hazards posed by excess carbon monoxide. Heart lung and brain disorders. But it's still a matter of controversy whether lead emissions from cars are harmful. With rising levels of auto pollution the federal government imposed its first nationwide emission standards on one thousand sixty eight model cars. These standards were based on three basic premises that ambient concentrations of carbon monoxide hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides in our major urban areas should be substantially reduced. That because there are only a few major manufacturers of cars control is best carried out at the source on new vehicles and that control should be at the federal and not the state level because cars are sold nationwide. There is still General Agreement on those premises but not much else. And that

brings us to the next step in federal efforts at emission control. The now famous Clean Air Act of 1970 just briefly because most of you I imagine are familiar with it. It requires a 90 percent emission reduction based on one thousand seventy one thousand seventy one cars in new cars manufactured for the 1975 76 model year and thereafter. That would mean about a 97 percent reduction for carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons over control uncontrolled cars. This of course mandated some kind of control system and for a variety of reasons principally because of the relatively short time allowed it meant working with a conventional spark ignition engine instead of an alternative. Not among the alternatives. Engines powered by a compressed natural gas which it is said emit 80 to 90 percent fewer hydrocarbons and less carbon monoxide and half as many

nitrogen oxides. Another alternative. Car engines fueled from water by using hydrogen which it is said converts to mostly pollution free water vapor such an engine was developed by the Brookhaven National Laboratories applied sciences department. Still another and more often mentioned alternative a pollution less family car powered by electricity a subsidiary of Lockheed aircraft has developed a kind of super battery. They say that delivers 10 to 100 times more electricity than ordinary lead acid automobile batteries. It's pointed out that in Britain some 60000 short haul trucks are used for delivering milk bread and produce have electric motors. Just last week a development outside our shores which may have a bearing on future EPA decisions. The Honda Motor Company of Japan was quoted as saying it had developed an auto pollution system for conventional piston engines

that would meet the 1975 American emissions standards for two major pollutants hydro carbons and carbon monoxide. And later another Japanese concern Toyo Kagekiyo said their Mazda car powered by a Wankel rotary engine and equipped with a thermal reactor which burns carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons after leaving the combustion combustion chamber had also met the 975 standards over 50000 miles. In a sense the Clean Air Act was the Emancipation Proclamation of the auto pollution war. It sharply divided the two sides the auto industry and the federal government as represented by the Environmental Protection Agency. The industry insisted and insists that it is as concerned about air quality as the EPA but it regards the new standards as too much too soon and too expensive. It's asked for more time and less rigidity. Meantime working energetically to

comply by devising add on smog converters that the industry says may push car costs up as much as 13 hundred dollars over a five year period. Further it's pointed up anti-pollution devices spell low mileage per gallon of gasoline which means millions of extra barrels of crude oil a year would be needed at a time of increasing shortage and impending energy crisis in the United States. One estimate is that for the 1973 cars there has been a 10 percent decline in fuel economy with a similar drop off in car performance. The EPA listen to the industry's complaints but remained firm in its requirements. Last spring it rejected the industry's request for a one year extension. The industry turned to the courts and won an important concession that the EPA must hold new hearings on the 1975 deadline. Those hearings as you know got underway in Washington earlier this month. About a year ago to

add further spark to the controversy the White House Office of Science and Technology released a report that came down on the side of the auto industry. It said in effect that the means would not justify the end. Costly smog control devices would exceed the measurable savings for cleaner healthier air. A later report by the prestigious National Academy of Sciences on request by the federal government suggested that the auto industry could indeed meet the standards and took the OSP report to task. This report was released within the last month or so. The EPA disagreed strongly saying there are a lot of uncertainties in the report's assumptions. Ralph Nader was even more caustic. He called the report a mockery of scientific integrity and competence. The White House emphasized that the report merely represented one government study group's thinking and did not have Administration indorsement what the report recommended specifically among other things was that the federal government

adopt a so-called two car strategy. This would mean that automakers could sell lower cost higher emission cars in areas where the air is comparatively clean and low emission cars in areas with dirty air such as Southern California. In one of its latest moves the EPA has recommended an 80 percent reduction in auto travel in the Los Angeles area through gas rationing. A recommendation that even the EPA recognizes is probably not feasible. So far it's been useful mainly for nightclub and TV comedians now Mary already isn't the only subject for jokes in Los Angeles. It also ought to be noted at this point that California alone among the states has its own auto emission standards to be realized hopefully in one thousand eighty. The goal being to restore atmospheric quality in the L.A. area to its 1940 level in their fight against the Clean Air Act the automakers have an important ally in the petroleum

industry which will have to build new refineries and distribution systems for the unleaded gas required by cars equipped with catalytic converters. The estimated cost five billion dollars the petroleum industry feels that the cost is not only unjustified by the possible returns but that we will greatly increase the drain on our already dwindling natural resources. Before concluding let me mention one other aspect of the problem health. We all agree I think that auto pollution is not good for you. But whether it's as bad for you as some experts think is a matter of conjecture. There are perhaps two assumptions on which we can expect unanimity that auto emission is only one of many sources of air pollution in this country and that its effect either long term or short term on a person's health is yet to be determined with exactitude and that pretty much brings us up to date. I've tried in this brief introduction to touch on the high spots of this most significant

national issue. Leaving the details for the interviewers and for the experts and for you and the audience here at Brown University later on will be calling on you for your questions too. Joining me as interviewers in the first part of our program our E-W Kenworthy of the New York Times Washington bureau and a specialist in environmental subjects and Dr. Allen. Director of quality of the environment resources for the future Washington D.C. to answer our questions we have. Mr. Herbert L. Miche vice president for environmental and safety engineering. The Ford Motor Company. Mr. Eric stark deputy assistant administrator for mobile sources air pollution control the Environmental Protection Agency. Mr. PM Gammel Gard senior vice president for Public and Environmental Affairs the American Petroleum Institute. Dr. Steven Eyre is director of the cardiopulmonary laboratory St Vincents Hospital in New York Dr.

errors by the way in June moved to the University of Massachusetts in Worcester where he will join the teaching staff of the Medical College. And Mr. Sidney L. Terry vice president environmental and safety relations Chrysler Corporation. Gentlemen welcome. First of all we're going to get right to the questions and ask Mr. Kenworthy to be our lead on those questions. You were the lead witness. And at the outset of the last two and a half weeks of court ordered hearings in Washington on the postponed for a year of the 1975 standards. In the report last month by the National Academy of Sciences the academy said that the American industry had elected to to develop the most dissent and bad

pages. Its words were system for controlling emissions. This isn't bad take just said on the cost and fuel economy and maintainability and your ability. And that said further that. The On The System was the most promising. Therefore the. And I guess. Committee suggested that it would be prudent to give the American industry the years delay. That it sought. So that it could use this year to develop alternative methods. But when Mr. Ruggles I was asked you whether Ford would use this year and you really asked for two years you wanted the Act amended. To develop an alternative system you said no you know aren't you getting locked into a system unlocking the American auto purchaser into a system which you say yourself

priceless as in General Motors as an American Motors says is not satisfactory. Well Mr. Kenworthy. I think we we should make the complete statement. No it was a little bit abrupt. I think I said. That if we were given a suspension a lot would depend upon what was done so far as the federal government is concerned during the time the P.C. the suspension prevailed. And I think I tried to make perfectly clear that the dilemma that the industry and. The EPA finds themselves in as a result of the Clean Air Act and then 1970 is the specific ness of the AAT which established a time frame that by itself. Precluded are considering.

Many of the approaches to emission control that we would otherwise consider Let me elaborate on that slightly. To the best of my knowledge many of the engine modification approaches we call one of the stratified charge approaches a pro-coal is programmed combustion we've been working on it. And President Nixon came to our fair town of Detroit one point in time and declared that the Environmental Protection Agency had told him that our engine would meet the standards. We were glad to hear that. By that route. But it was a similar kind of an approach in some ways. In other words it was a stratified charge combustion process. The Honda process is a stratified charge pre combustion chamber type of approach. Neither of these in and of themselves. Are satisfactory systems to meet the 976 oxides of nitrogen requirement. So long as we have facing us a requirement in 1076 that makes completely different requirements relative to systems than is required for

optimizing the 975 controls. We are in this dilemma so we have said we need to be urged by the law itself and by the regulations to meet at the earliest possible date which is like it was one hundred seventy five. The control of hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide to do this and in order also to show the good faith. That the law insists that we show and rightly so. We had to pick a system that could in fact meet it in time. And at the same time b b be. Amenable to the considerations of the future of vehicles and one thousand seven hundred six and beyond. So I didn't say no that we wouldn't work on them. I said for goodness sakes Mr Ruckelshaus now that you've made a public statement saying that you have reason to believe that the oxides of nitrogen control may be an overkill as a result of the measurement techniques that were used in the Chaconne Chattanooga study that supports that oxides of nitrogen now that you have

reason to believe this is probably not an appropriate control. And you said so to Congress. We'd like to say get with it. Tell us what it is going to be so that we can look at every approach possible for the controls that you will step which you link very interesting. Two or three very interesting points Mr Mr Honda when it testified and answer the questions said that they had an arrangement with both the. Ford and General Motors under which as I understand that they could look at that stratified charge engine or examine it and protect their confidentiality and their proprietary interests and Honda was then asked whether. They could make the engine heads I believe and the manifolds I mean for light weight American cars to meet the 75 standards and they said they could up to a certain limit. Now

yesterday General Motors testified that that they were examining with possibly whether they could supply these parts that could be fitted to American engines is for doing that also you know like General Motors that since Honda had done some. Preliminary work with regard to one of the General Motors vehicles the Vega that they were asking them whether or not they had some unique approach to providing the new factory capacity manufacturing facilities that could in time provide the specific parts. Ford is not at the moment approaching a similar arrangement with Honda. Ha ha Christ your history on the ISM maker does say that they can come up with something that would make the 75 76 standard. We've had 100 people come in and say they have the answer over the last three or four years and so far nobody's been able to deliver. I think the thing that everybody really is forgetting when they talk about meeting the 75 76 standards

is that it's one thing to be able to certify a vehicle which means under EPA procedures you can get a vehicle lined up in your engineering laboratories that will pass the test and allow you to manufacture cars. But it's quite something else to manufacture that same car in volume production and put it in the hands of the customer and have the Mission Control stay at those levels for five years or fifty thousand miles. This is something that Honda hasn't done. Toyota hasn't done and no one else has done. There just hasn't been time to develop hardware that will go that length of time. So that's the first thing we've got to keep in mind it's one thing to certify that we have rules which means they say you can meet the standards but it's quite another thing to be able to put them in customer service and have them last. Yes I'd like to ask Mr. Storch I understand that an EPA laboratory did some testing on. The Honda vehicles. Could you tell us anything about that.

I'll be glad to. Can I say I think Mr. Terry is quite right. The woods are full of people who come around telling us that they have the solution to pollution and wearily do they have that. Last fall we received a letter from the Honda company telling us that the Honda company would not ask for a suspension of the 1975 standards. Shortly thereafter a representative of the Honda company was in my office and I said to him you know that's a very interesting letter you've got but I'd like to see some vehicles like Testament and he said I was so I will call Tokyo and the next day he came back and he said Mr. Hunter says yes and I said when and he said please weeks and I said fine. And so we did test the vehicles and our laboratory and they passed they passed me handily emission levels of H C and C O well below the 1975 levels emission levels for you know X where not quite as slow as the

1976 levels but very encouraging and far below the 1975 levels. So on this Honda people started telling us that they've done some more playing around they've taken a couple of Vegas that they bought on the market and put their own hands on them and they said those Vegas met the standards and they showed us the test results. And then they said they were doing some computer studies on 350 cubic inch V-8 engines which represented a different kind of problem and they said they thought they could make those meet the standards too. I was going to tell you suggest we heard a lot of stories like that. We would tend to discount those stories except from people who've done it. And since that time the Honda people have modified the 350 and they've shown us the test data. So. I think the Honda people have. Taken a step which is extremely significant they've demonstrated that emission control technology can be made to work without catalysts and it remains to be seen what is done with that

demonstration of technology. We have incidentally never thought otherwise. Our approach at Chrysler has always been that we would like to do the job in the engine itself. And this is the way we started out with the mission control. And this is the way we got the 80 percent reduction of hydrocarbons in the 70 percent reduction of carbon monoxide that has been achieved in the cars the engines coming down the line today. The problem with the 975 standards is that they require that over and above the 70 percent and the 80 percent reductions that we reduce 90 percent of what's left. On a timetable. And it was recognized at the time that the act was passed that this would require invention. Now. Everyone of course is not familiar with the lead time problems that we have in the automobile industry. However it did come out in the hearings that were recently held in Washington for machine tool manufacturers not just from automobile manufacturers that

even if there were an engine that suddenly became available and let's call it a Honda for lack of anything else that would meet all the mission requirements. If such an engine were there to convert the entire productive capacity of United States industry to this new engine it meets the emission control requirements would take 12 years. I think that's somewhat of an exaggeration but the point is that we don't have enough machine tool capacity in this country and other types of capacity either to make wholesale changes to new types of engines in very very short periods of time like three four years. So even if we had an engine and like like the Honda that would meet these requirements we still couldn't make that conversion in the amount of time that we have. So sure we're going to use this time to work on alternate engines because we want to do the best possible job we can. The problem is that we're pushing too fast. Too far and there just isn't time enough to do the kind of job that we want to do.

Mr. Mishra I know you have a comment on that but you did make the comment and then tell tell us all exactly how a catalytic converter works. What you're really looking for simply and so I'd like to make comment on this other point of the alternate engine such as a Honda However I think that most of us here after hearing Mr. Stork make his last remarks would conclude that Honda has in fact been certified to meet the 975 requirements. And I'd like to ask Mr. Stuart whether Honda has been searched as has completed the requirements to his satisfaction indicate that they're certified. I'm glad you straightened me out on that Mr. Mayor. If I left any doubt you know Honda's vehicle has not been certified neither has anybody else's. However the tests that have been learned our laboratory and I would give a technical staff basic confidence that the vehicles that we tested the hundred vehicles as well as the toy you could deal vehicles

would if on the certification test meet the certification standards that's going to be proven but has not yet been proven. But we have every confidence that they will meet without any difficulty I want to make one other point and that is to my knowledge. Neither Honda nor Clint or any other manufacturer has indicated that he can meet the 975 standards with any significant percentage of his total volume of production. He can do it with what he ships to this country but in order to in order to make the changeover there is no company in the world has said that they can do it with a significant portion of their total production and we feel we have an obligation not only to our stockholders to our employees but to the health of the general economy. To indicate to our government that it is necessary that we satisfy the basic transportation requirements and that we operate our plants if possible in doing so.

Well now how does the catalytic converter work a lot of people know that they have their they're getting new pollution pollution attachments. How would the ideal one work. What is the principle. Well to start with I'd like to clarify one point that was made in your opening statement when you alluded to the catalytic converters being a hang on device when in fact it is part of a total system. And what's upstream from that catalytic converter is that at least as important as the catalytic converter itself. But. I've had difficulties since my freshman chemistry trying to understand what a catalyst in fact is and I didn't feel too badly until every chemist I've talked with since. That's all right we don't understand it either and that's the reason it's a catalyst. But to oversimplify it I've tried to learn that is something that promotes a reaction without actually physically or chemically taking part in that reaction.

Now. If we use an oxidation catalyst to oxidize the unburned hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide we need to have of course sufficient air or oxygen supply so that chemical oxidation can take place. In order to assure that we have the lowest possible unburned hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide left coming out of the catalyst we have to be very careful about the gas levels going into the catalyst. Generally speaking you'd like them as low as possible that isn't entirely true but getting technical. Try to get them as low as you possibly can so that the catalyst has less of these to do. Then you add air due to the to the catalyst and the and the burn gases and complete the complete oxidation process now. This brings up an important point because there also are reducing catalysts that might be used for the reduction of oxides of

nitrogen. And there are lots of problems with them some of them are kind of like to make ammonia with which is oxygen or nitrogen hydrogen. But what we'd like to have them do is reduce the oxides of nitrogen to actually 2 to nitrogen and water. Now you know order to use a catalyst for the control of oxides of nitrogen. You can't have an excess of air you have to have a reducing atmosphere in other words you have to have it starved for oxygen. And this gets back to the point I made relative to the the the really the the demands of the law the way they are now. If we're looking to 1976 and the control of oxides of nitrogen with a reducing catalyst then it's going to be kind of difficult to say how do we use a catalyst an oxidizing callus and reducing gas were the only way you can do that of course is in the proper sequence of things. What I really wanted to say was simply that something like this that the

platinum relieves $15 worth of it $50 worth of it properly attached will speed up a process by which the carbon monoxide which is the big baddie in there is reduced to something relatively harmless called carbon dioxide. Right that's right. That's the way you have to explain that sort of thing to me as a layman. Now I'd like to ask Dr Dr Ayres. A question sounds like lame duck Ionic. I have I've been told that there are some who believe that one of the reasons New York cops and taxi drivers are rather surly not all of them but a great many of them is because they are getting a big hunk of carbon monoxide. Is this true and what is that. Would you comment on that what is the carbon monoxide really do to it. I was first going to say Mr Edwards that I think you're probably a pretty good example of a catalyst for some of the reactions that you may see take place here. That's kind of that's the hope. There's a great suspicion that carbon

monoxide at certain levels may interfere with some of the judge mental processes. Now whether being surly as a judge mental process is a moot point I suspect some of the cops and cab drivers I've met are congenitally surly. But. But I do think there is some evidence that air pollution in general has a great impact on the emotions. And it may work physiologically by depriving the brain of oxygen or it may just act emotionally or maybe that dirty ring around your collar makes you less happy as you're standing in city traffic. I'm told I'm surly once in a while I drive home about about an hour's worth on the highway to Connecticut from New York City. How might I be harmed by pollution on that trip. You know while the nervous system affects have been speculated on for some time I think we're on considerably firmer ground

if we discuss the cardiac the heart manifestations. And I think that probably the two systems that are. Most. Acutely involved in air pollution would be the heart and the loans. Now the major problem in terms of carbon oxide appears to be the heart of an individual who has coronary artery disease. Unfortunately a higher percentage of men over the age of 40 you know on occasion a woman as we move into the field of ladies liberation a number of people have coronary disease. Now if you have coronary disease or in an automobile and your blood car Boxee hemoglobin rises and so multi-factorial world so if you're a little upset and your heart rate goes faster this might predispose to a heart problem. So I would say that for you and perhaps for me the cardiac problem would be the most significant one from what immobile or pollution. Doctor can I say yes I'm struck by the fact how many amazing mites and such are

in your statement. Now it's been argued that in the establishment of the standards from which finally the autonomy of emission standards are derived. Very extreme assumptions were made about possible health effects. I'd like to ask both doctors and Mr. Stuart do they believe that the standards which are being imposed. On the automobile emissions can be justified on the basis of what is known about health effects of emissions at lower levels than we now have. But not necessarily as low as standards call for. I think the reason for the Mays and mights are that Mr. Edwards asked a specific question about himself and I wouldn't want to say that he would definitely drop dead as this happened that's so it's a it's a statistical risk that we're talking about. Let me just very quickly say that I think physicians today would rather prevent disease than treated. And the image of the physician giving the

pills and giving the injections is beginning to fade and we think that if. People would not smoke cigarettes and would not be explored exposed to air pollution that health would measurably increase. Now I happen to believe we can go into details later that the standards which are dedicated in keeping the car Boxee hemoglobin level below 5 percent are reasonable. And I think that the standards should be applied on a nationwide basis. I think it's much more likely that a city dweller would have concentrations above 5 percent than a country dweller so I must admit there is some validity in the two car strategy. MR. Be glad to. I'm. Very glad doc is here because I'm not a doctor not in a position to talk directly about the health effects of carbon monoxide. Yet we do have available to us the advice of many doctors treating doctors as

doctors under the auspices of the National Academy of Sciences doctors on staff and they advised administrator on the potential health effects of carbon monoxide and all of the help. All of the air pollutants of concern. Now we've got to take a look at the law that the administrators are obligated to enforce the Clean Air Act provides that the administrator has to establish national ambient air quality standards. These national ambient air quality standards are to be put tech to look at health. With an adequate margin of safety. It doesn't say what is an adequate margin of safety. Certainly in the Food and Drug field adequate margin of safety is pretty extreme you figure out effects level and you figure out the no effect level and you divide that by 100 and that's the tolerance for margin of safety is no way is needed is great and the air pollution field yet. Carbon monoxide. Air quality standard 9 parts per million for 8

hours and 35 parts per million for one hour maximum not to be exceeded more than once a year and all this numerical gobbledygook based on the best scientific advice. If the administration was able to obtain from within and outside of the Environmental Protection Agency. Now when you said a number like that. And then when you measure ambient air quality in the most degraded is when it comes to carbon monoxide. Those are the downtown congested urban areas. Yes. Then there is some techniques not entirely beyond dispute but nevertheless some techniques that can be used to try to figure out how much emissions of carbon monoxide have to be reduced if the ambient air quality standard is to be met. And this basically is the coach that was used. If there are errors in the techniques that were used to figure out how much emissions need to be reduced if there are errors in the advice that the medical profession gave the administrator these need to be re-examined and considered.

But for the moment we're satisfied that the best possible techniques were used and that therefore the ambient air quality standards are valid and that the emission standards for CEO NHC are valid as regards the two car strategy. That's such a complex separate subject. I think I'll pass on that for them. You know we haven't heard from Mr Gamel garden I'd love you have I have one too. Are about are you a doctor. Can I see the gamma gun in the full page ads that Philips Petroleum has been running in the New York Times and The Washington Post and other papers. The company speaks about a 30 percent feeling penalty from these cavernous converter. I'm not sure where the 30 percent comes from because I don't say what is the base year. I suppose it is 3 1968 Greek controlled because

the EPA says that up to the 73 model is a 7 percent fuel penalty and that may be another 7 or 8 percent on top of that when if they use they convert it. But what I seem to find missing in these ads are other fuel penalties. Some of the gadgets on cars now according to EPA. There was a 5 to 6 percent fuel penalty from automatic transmissions and a penalty ranging from 9 to 20 percent. On air can do some math conditionals. And when we get to wait there is. From a £5000 down to a two thousand one hundred fifty percent fuel penalty. Now why didn't you mention that and why doesn't the industry mention that in the ads.

Well I thought I was going to be off grid here. Look what I have for a while but after all this was a Philips ad and I won't try to respond and be happy. Phillips I don't think I'd be proper. I will agree with you that there are few Opana least for such things as automatic transmissions when they came and 15 years ago we all knew that we weren't going to get as good mileage from those as with the stick shift. We also know that air conditioning isn't free to run a compressor and when you're running you're conditioning depending on circumstances I think you now have a fuel penalty up to maybe as high as close to 20 percent. But you don't run your air conditioning all the time you're running your car. Other things like power windows power steering power brakes all that energy do this has to come out of your fuel tank and these are all families and I would think that. To put out a real good clear complete story that these penalties should be

put into focus with the fuel badly they'll come from the emission controls. I think that the family that is really going to be the crunch on the catalytic system comes not so much with the 75 CEO on hydrocarbon deal which is probably 7 percent or so over a 1973 car. And any of you that have 973 cars I think will agree that you're not getting as much as many MPG as you did from a one hundred sixty eight or nine hundred seventy car. I think the 1976 and 0 x Dales will kick up this field family of this 70 percent or so that's more or less been talked about. My problem is in predicting something. That is going to happen. I like to base it on facts we don't know what system is going to be used.

We don't know really until we know what system is going to be used for sure. What it's going to cost until we know that we don't know what the fuel pally is going to be stored sort of a never never land where you're kind of guessing things and I think you can have it educated guesses but they are still the educated guess. That Phillips gives a let's add is that the use of converters will cost the United States two point eight billion a year and the balance of payments. At a time when we're facing a fuel crisis and we will have to import Middle East oil. Now if we were in such a polished condition as this on the balance of payments don't you think we ought to reduce the size of automobiles and get rid of some of these extra weight and extra power that extra cylinder get down to a reasonable cost so we can save. Gasoline. Again where the I couldn't agree with you more. I think. That we are going to have smaller cars in this country in the future. I think it's going to be pretty much on the

same basis as they've done in Europe it's going to be sure economics. We are going to be importing more oil in the United States to make up the gap in our current production capabilities in this country. Versus our demand factors this is going to increase the cost of motor fuels and people are going to look at smaller cars. I would point out that you have another government department Department Transportation saying let's build in safety features side bars and so forth and the cars 100 more pounds for a bumper they'll stand a 5 mile head on crash. This takes more fuel too. I'm not trying to say is this shouldn't be done. I do think that we are going to come to smaller cars in this country on the average. Mr. Turley I couldn't really agree with you less. Get. In the way that you posed the question. I think Mr.

Gammon Gar you actually got around to what I believe is the proper way to settle these things but there is a big fundamental philosophical difference between a fuel plan which is put on top of every car that's manufactured by government mandate for a purpose. It's put on top whether it is air conditioning or not. It's a factor that goes on everyone and it's a requirement. And having options on cars that people can buy at their choice which they know is going to cost a fuel plant when they buy it but which is still something they can take or leave alone. I think anything that interferes with the basic freedom of people to buy what they want is in the wrong direction. I was just always seem to be warming up chafing at the bit. Well I think philosophy is a fun subject and philosophy is great. How do you feel about compulsory garbage collection. It will. Be you know Mr. Turner

about the requirement that your children be inoculated for smallpox before they can attend school. How do you feel about traffic class etc etc.. It isn't a question of freedom or lack of freedom it's fundamentally a question of what the society chooses to put its values on and I just don't think one can put it as simply. I've heard you put it you may not put it that way I may have hurt badly in terms of what people want but trading and protecting our environment is going to cost a lot. It's going to cost an awful lot. But it isn't just going to cost dollars dollars we are important in this that just the way we keep score we don't have any better way of keeping score. The trading environment is going to cost in terms of what people will no longer be able to do that they've become accustomed to doing like to do will cost in terms of what people will not be able to do in the future that they've looked forward to doing for

long time. There's no point kidding ourselves. The last analysis these are political issues public policy issues of the greatest magnitude and people all of us finally are going to have to make up our minds as to whether clean air is worth having was not whether we've done a great deal for clean air as fun as far as automobiles are concerned already in fact a great deal has been done by other sources of pollution too. But the question really gets down to a matter of how clean is clean and how much is needed. Now I from the Environmental Protection Agency's own study which was a report to Congress EPA reported that the cost of controlling mobile sources in a typical year 977 is going to be eight point five billion dollars. And then the benefits ascribed to that control are under a billion dollars. So that what they're saying is that as far as EPA knows at this time and I

understand that there's an asterisk there that says there are no benefits. Ascribed to. Improvement in health. For mobile sources because no research has yet been and is yet been developed which shows that there is a financial advantage that we can dollar rise. On the other hand when you go down to the bottom of the of the score. And you include the stationary source control and the manufacturing source control and the other sources then you end up with a total of 14 billion dollars worth of benefit and 12 billion dollars worth the cost of that to come out on the cost side of the ledger. The point is though that as far as the what's known today. The mobile sources show an eight to one disadvantage from a cost benefit standpoint whereas the stationary sources and the other things are being controlled for a 5 to 1. Balanced on the other side. So it just is not that much known about mobile source control to where we

should be going into it with the degree of control that's required by the 1975 standards. Yeah but the hang up is to turn in the last week. Well you just don't know the value of human life. Oh you find it difficult you say human lives on the other. We find out difficult to put a price on morbidity. What are the health stories where the health benefits come from the stationary sources if not for morbidity and human life. There are. I understand from the docs agency that it data on the health effects of some of the other pollutants. But then there are 4 s.o. for a chemical accident I think I can illustrate that for you. I smoke a pipe and I get all the stuff put out by Consumers Union. How much money I'd save by smoke stop smoking and all the things the TB Association says about how much longer I live. And that sounded pretty good to me but I didn't stop there I wanted to complete this cost benefit analysis. So I also figured out what it would cost me

to live those extra years it really wipes it out. I am of a. I. Know My point is the cost benefit equation is a very difficult one to use to prove anything so long as we have to ask. That doesn't that tells us that we don't know the health. I'm glad you're not quitting. Mr Stork Mr mensch. Well I think Mr Stork is excellent with all the cliches but there you go. But I don't think this was putting dealing with the equations as difficult as any of us the right to ignore them. Now I think it's very easy to say and do you want clean air or do you want a big car. Because you know that tells me I know nothing else about it. It's one or the other and it isn't. Or do you want to let people have their own private choice. Or do you want government regulation that tells them they've got to have

small cars. They say that that's one choice or the other. And it isn't I submit that we just built our our millions Pinto and it's not a big car it's a little fella guess it and we'd like to build some more of that and we're perfectly well willing to sell every one of you will take your pick. I will take your big car in on trade and that's what I don't want. But let me make just one point and I think that I think that you know you would think that most of us here are different on different sides of this issue and we really are. We're just as concerned about clean air because we breathe it and we raise families just as everyone else. And we're just as concerned about about the environment but we maybe look we may be looking at the window if you will through a little or the when the world through a little different portal simply because of the vantage point we have as compared to the vantage point Mr. Stork and so on. But I want to make just one point. What I'm

concerned but I'm not going to argue with Dr. Ayres about whether nine parts per million does or doesn't create 5 percent to hemoglobin you know it better than I do. But what I really want to know is if we're going to ask the public to spend three billion dollars annually for the next five years is that where the public wants that three billion dollars of the incremental improvement in health care. And I really believe that somebody in this country ought to start establishing priorities. Do we have all of the Medicare services we need. Are we putting everything we need into the in the other areas of research and health care that we that we should. Are the priority stablished someone ought to be doing it. Who's doing it. Everyone agreed on what should be done with regard to air pollution. If there's even reasonable agreement as to what the priorities are in this whole area and I don't think we can deal with it as intelligent people if we continue to deal with it with cliches and

either ors it's actually very simple all we have to do is put the money that we spend on cigarettes in a mission control devices and Health with a measure I help you on that I quit four years ago. Mr. Goble guard you had a comment. Yes I'd like to point out this priorities thing it just recently I had occasion to get a group and I said I think we should have priorities. We want things in the good life such as good school systems we want police protection. We want all the things that make up for a good life. I think there's only so much money we can span and I feel that the 97 96 93 percent reductions on the tailpipe emissions from cars and I've said this before this senator's musky Senator Muskie's Committee last year just about a year ago today and before Paul Rogers committee in the house that I thought we should examine an 80 percent emission control in the tailpipe and a 90

percent level the use of the air quality that would result. And see whether that isn't enough and if that wouldn't save the public countless billions of dollars in both car cost car maintenance and upkeep and in fuel costs and still achieve good clean air. How this hasn't really been done. This law that the 1970 Clean Air Act amendments was passed in a rather an emotional situation and I won't go into all the details of it but they're fairly arbitrary standards set. And I can say this and it's in the record. When I testified last year on the House side and I talked about this 97 percent reduction 96 93 one member of the committee that passed this out onto the floor of the house. Said Where do you get those figures Mr. Gamble guard. We passed a 90 percent law. You passed a 90 percent

on top of what are already been achieved. He said Are you sure of that. Yes I'm quite sure of it. The record is very clear is why I didn't realize that's what we're doing. Now I point this out because this is how some of the laws in this country are being passed. Making a very arbitrary. Standard that can be extremely costly to the American public. I still think that we have a obligation to point out when we think it's going too far and going to cost the public more than the benefit. Mr. Stork can you make a comment on that and say a minute and a half for us. Technical Writing. The legislative history sketched by the camel guard that it's not quite as I remember it. Congress. And the Congress surely needs no defense from a poor bureaucrat. But the Congress.

Sought the best advice it was able to get on the degree of inductions necessary to achieve ambient air quality standards. It was provided this advice by the National Air Pollution Control administration at that time in AGW. Now in EPA the methodology used to provide this advice is published. It can be argued about. Yet nevertheless the Congress and certainly the clean musky committee knew quite exactly what it was doing and why it was doing it. When the Clean Air Act of 1970 was passed. Yeah I agree with you Eric on the fact that the musky committee did know and did have a basis for this but I'm pointing out that a member of a committee that is considering legislation on the other side did not. And I think that this is typical of numbers of people.

Well I think that one of the point is that if the oxygen nitrogen levels that were established are now suspect. I think all we're saying is on a continuing basis these requirement should be reviewed to be certain that they're optimized in the interest of public and we agree completely and are making those reviews and I do believe that the law goes on to say that the administrator does not have just the obligation of carrying out the law as it exists but he also has an obligation to make recommendations to Congress with regard to changes in the laws are required. Mr. Kenworthy a quick one. Well I think Mr. Garrott of God is really talking about averages because the industry says quote with the reductions already achieved there's no scientific evidence showing the threat to help from emissions in the normal average you breathe but we're not dealing with normality. We're doing the dealing with very difficult situations in metropolitan centers.

I'd like to just speak to that and then ask a question. At least in New York City there's been no reduction in carbon monoxide levels since 1966. Sulfur dioxide has gone down. Particulates have gone down but at least as of the 1972 yearly average there's been no reduction indeed an increase in carbon dioxide concentration. So whatever has been done at least as of 1972 it's not been effective in New York City. I'd like to ask a question of all my engineering colleagues here. What I can understand not as a poor physician but as a poor bureaucrat interested in medicine. Why. Since the internal combustion engine is wasteful to start with. While we then develop a pollution control device that is even more wasteful. And then tell the American public outspends of it is. I'm curious to know what the cost of the Honda system would be. And it seems to me that it ought to be possible to develop a system that would combust the fuel more efficiently in the first place.

While we ponder the answer to that we've got to break here because we have as I'm sure you've all heard a very avid and interested audience here at Brown University and I think that they are entitled to some questions. Perhaps we can get a quick answer to that if it's possible. Dr. Eris we're going to our audience here for their questions so let's open mike number one question from this gentleman sir. I think slowly and distinctly please so we can hear. I throw this one up to either gentleman from the audit of the auto industry. You said that people don't want to spend 3 billion dollars to. Control emissions and to change to small cars. I feel you're underestimating the concern of the nation and public as a whole. The pollution problem. You'll have to do is walk around the big city on a heavily polluted day and you'll find out that people rubbing their eyes can't breathe and what's the question. Why do you. Don't you think you're underestimating the concern of the nation on this pollution problem. By saying that they wouldn't want to get small cars and have less pollution problems and the volunteers

on the loose diminish the more cars are available right now that's the point I want to make and every end and we hope that we're tapping the sense of the market in the sense of the people we're just as concerned as anyone else with that there is a pollution problem we don't necessarily feel that the national concern for it has reached its apogee at all. There's another important point here too and that is any anything that you see in the air that makes your eyes burn in any city other than perhaps Los Angeles is not from automobiles. That's particulate and sulfur dioxide and those are the pollutants that have been identified with health problems. And that's where we get the dollar rise health advantages of reducing pollution. But those don't happen to be two of the pollutants that come from automobiles. So when you see the stuff in the air in the city and when you are eyes are irritated and so on in New York City you're in these things. This is not from automobiles carbon monoxide which Dr. Ayres has discussed is colorless odorless and tasteless and there's a lot of discussion about what levels of

carbon monoxide are harmful to human health and what ones aren't. And that really is the question we come down to not the carbon monoxide coming out of automobiles today is about a fifth or sixth what it was back in the 30s. Only a small fraction of that. And in fact it's 70 percent reduced over what they were before nine hundred sixty eight. And everybody agrees to these numbers now. Downtown city traffic. In New York City or the Chicago Loop is really no different today from what it was 20 years ago or 30 years ago you can't get any more cars in than they get a jam. And so it's hard to believe that the levels of carbon monoxide are actually not improved a great deal in every city in the world. Or every city in the United States. Now then we have. Done a lot of research to on car back to hemoglobin levels or finance the research actually and we find that car back to hemoglobin levels on the average of non smokers

in New York City are well below the levels that EPA and and the doctor areas here says are. Desirable. They're below 2 percent. Now the minute you smoke the levels go up to 5 to 12 percent and there's a different kind of ball game. But the card box the hemoglobin levels which measures the carbon monoxide content in the blood. Average people exposed to downtown urban situation it is well below the safe average today. And carbon monoxide is going down all these crowded areas as a result of new cars replacing old cars on the city streets. Let's get another question. Go to our microphone number two in the audience. OK. I'd like to ask this of either of the automobile industry man isn't it true that the air conditioning is now becoming very popular even up in the north because the convertibles are not being made as much as they were before because of auto safety experts saying that convertibles are very dangerous if you roll over. And it seems

like that the big cars have the air conditioning and all this other stuff on it to make things comfortable to make up for the convertible tops that are not being made anymore. And that is one reason why there is more luxuries on a car to go along with that. And then the small car. To perform as well as the big car with the big engine as let's say a Buick with a 455 cubic inch engine runs on regular gas and has all the smog control on it that a 55 cubic gauge 850 spite A has. It has a smog pump. The canister the research relation of the gas tank fumes and all that garbage you have here. Let's get down to the question Well the question is. It seems that people think that the smaller cars pollute less than big cars. But to get the small cars to. Perform. They have to put out they have to be high strong like high compression engines and things like

that. And don't those high compression engines in a very small engine put out just as much if not more as a big engine loafing. How about that Mr Measures. Well let me see if I can take let's take the air conditioning question in the convertible first. Actually convertible become less and less popular simply because the public no longer demands it whether or not they've been influenced by. And I hope maybe I have by by everything that they've heard about highway safety and the fact that convertible vehicles are not as safe as a matter of fact they were excluded from the safety standards simply because they couldn't be made to be safe. That may be one reason convertible going out the picture but before they did were out of the picture. The usage of air conditioning on convertibles was going up and up and up. So just the fact Jetter and convertibles wouldn't mean that you weren't going to have air conditioning as a matter of fact. It's kind of a status symbol not to ride around with your windows down you know. But that's more the other thing is I don't

think that any of us here were indicating that a big car necessarily pollutes any more than a small car in fact they do not. I think you meant that but I think the audience doesn't realize that while they do not the controls are based upon grams per mile regardless of the size of the vehicles they want to meet the same standard. But I think what we were addressing was the fact that a big car does consume more energy than a small car. And to the degree that it has implications with regard to energy resources I think that the big cars are certainly more demanding. It does use more fuel but I did what I was trying to bring out that it doesn't pollute as much as the small cars with people with thinking off. Before this oil shortage came up they were thinking of just the pollution and not the amount of fuel. You are correct and you're correct they were wrong and the other thing is that the big guys as they say if everybody has a small car it's fine because it's safe for a small car hits a small car. That's terrific but what happens when you get a nice big wind blows your little

car off the road into the gutter. I don't think anybody here can answer that question at last. Let's go another microphone one on the young lady. Sure a lot of talk about cost benefit analysis. We spend money on extended care facilities for example air pollution control and I'd like to know how he justifies that when you consider number one that all the research have indicated that it's more cost beneficial to control the social causes of disease i.e. air pollution and to put more money into health care. And when you consider secondly that what you're doing when you're building extended care facilities is merely sending somebody back to the environment. Well I think. Let me let me just. Clarify my point all I said was that there certainly are priorities that should be agreed to. I'm not making a case one way or the other but I will say this. Let's be sure that the people who

need the extended care facilities get a vote. Next question from microphone to one constantly hears I'd like those times to go on guard from the petroleum industry one constantly hears rumors to the effect that the oil industry has not done its best to promote the concept of more efficient engines. I'd like you to comment on developments within the industry in the area of engine efficiency. I'm reminded I'm not being facetious haven't as a society of automotive engineering meaning a couple years ago in Detroit where some professor selling a wrangle between the auto industry said I think the probably greatly simplified the auto industry designed the cars and the car industry designed the gasoline. I give that as sort of an answer. I think that we're coming up very seriously against a energy crunch. Where we're going to have to import more and more liquid fuel from abroad. That we can

partly alleviate this by offshore drilling which is not popular on the East Coast and I know it as well as anybody. We can also alleviate it by more imports from abroad. This is going to be a seller's market from here on out. In oil in this world. And that means primarily the Arabian in the North African countries. And I think the price is going to be forced up. I think this is going to cause the public to demand more efficient and smaller cars so they get more miles per gallon. Very much like in Europe Mr. Storch has an answer for them too. It's really not my role to defend either the oil or the auto industry. Yet I'd like to suggest that this conspiracy. Theory of hiding the carburetor the double gas mileage is to the best of my knowledge not a nonsense. The competitive pressures in the industry is such that anybody could get a hold of it and keep it from their competitors. Boy I was watching

in our lab an an hour but. We evaluate countless solutions under the law. This is one of the obligations and if we found such a thing you just betcha we'd If you a press release about as quickly as we issued press releases about the Honda and the toy you could go on about Ford more accurately. I mean at least as flamboyantly I'm addressing my comments to this conspiracy conspiracy theory which to the best of my knowledge is just one of those things that makes no sense at all. Let's get a question from microphone one my question is for Mr. Terry I missed the gamble got I was interested in the cost factor for a nine hundred seventy three six cylinder as compared to a nine hundred seventy three eight cylinder cylinder automobile if with a manual transmission and no additional gadgets on the

car. These moralists eight cylinders and the largest six cylinder and I'd like to know how much if I drive I caught 10000 miles per year with a combination of city and highway. I don't ad like to know how much it would cost me plus how much amount of gas I would have to use with the admission standards and without the admission standards. Did you bring your computer Mr. Hamil going to know it isn't a point to know they are. The more gasoline you're going to need with the admission standards. The higher the cost of running that car will be. So it's important to know how much it will cost an individual using a specific car over a specific distance. You come up with a lot of figures but you don't say how much the individual have to pay. I as an

individual would like to know using a situation of this. Or something comparable. I think you have a very valid point. I don't know the answer to your question. I'll be frank to admit it. I know all this that if you have a heavier car obviously with all the powers as you had it's going to take more fuel per mile. I'd like to have an absolutely fantastically efficient engine and a large car and a very poor engine the small but I'm saying other things mean equal. These factors are going to go for more fuel consumption. These extras and so are the emission control unless. As was pointed out by someone here if you can burn the fuel patiently in the engine and not have to put on a bunch of add on gadgets to get the catalytic system frankly in my book is not the way to go and I hope that we get off it here in the near future. But I do think that it's not going catalytic will require a

relaxation in these 97 96 percent reductions that I that's not my question. All right what I have. I have a six large six cylinder engine caught manufactured by mist The Terrys cooperation and a small allied 6 and a small 8 973. And I'd like to know how much more gasoline I would need with that admission standard on this because the more I need them the more it's going to cost me. If I have a manual transmission without any additional gadgets. You know the barest necessities on a cop. If your question I and I'd like to know you do it you're manufacturing a six cylinder Mr Tyrie. If you're a liar sick let me see if I can answer your question the difference that we get in our tests between our six cylinder engine which is two hundred twenty five cubic inches on our smallest eight which is three hundred eighteen cubic inches for the same car is on the

order of a mile or a mile point one point two miles per gallon. We have a number of different results on different cars for the fuel penalty that we are sacrificing on 73 cars compared to uncontrolled cars. And that's of the order of 7 percent but it varies and I'm not sure which it is for each of those. That's what how much more you're paying for fuel economy on your 73 cars and you were for pre 68 cars. I think that answers your question. Let's switch over and get a question from microphone too. I've a question for Mr. Kerry from Chrysler earlier on in the talk you said that lots of manufacturers claim they can meet the 975 standards but they can't deliver the engines for on the road use. It's my understanding that right now a diesel engine a Mercedes car sold in the country today can already meet the 1975 standards without any modifications.

My question to you is why haven't the American manufacturers done more for diesels the diesel engine is inherently clean engine as far as hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide are concerned which of the two elements that have to be controlled very strangely in one thousand seventy five. However the day zero so far has not been able to pass the 976 requirements and therefore it would not be a good thing to retool all your lines and make diesel engines for that reason alone until it's been determined whether they can pass now even more importantly is the fact that the diesel engine is noisy and it's heavy. And it puts out other kinds of pollutants including smoke and particulate and odors which get which smell in very very small small quantities. If we converted to diesel engines it would be a very short time before we'd find we had a much more knoxy is product on our hands in the downtown city streets than they are. And then the gasoline engines they replaced. Then there'd be new regulations or require that we control those emissions and nobody knows how to do that yet. So the problem is the moving target that we have.

Another question now from microphone 1. I have a question first for the government. They've been getting on course industry to clean up their cars. But what about their job in keeping the cars running efficiently. Just in the past. The cars the check ups of the government do are just not sufficient. And what are they going to do to keep these cars running efficiently or to start getting the cars we even have now running efficiently. It's a very fair question. We're hard at work trying to develop. Techniques for making quick and valid inspections of the missions of cars. We've made some progress on that. We expect to learn some pilot programs. If the technology for this can be developed as we think it can be developed we can foresee the widespread application in our urban areas of motor vehicle emission inspection programs. Now you say what's the government doing the government is going to basically put a lead good Jack sticker on

your car. And it's going to be up to you to maintain your car in proper order. The Clean Air Act. Makes the manufacturer responsible to warranty the performance of his vehicle for 50000 miles a five year is subject to proper maintenance and operation. If we're going to have clean in this country and especially as far as the emissions that come from automobiles are concerned each and every citizen is going to have to exercise more responsibility than citizens have on average been exercising in the past. As regards the proper maintenance of their cars. Another question this time from the other side. Microphone two question for Mr. Gamble guard. It's been shown if nowhere else than with the urban vehicle design competition summer of seventy two that propane fuel. Can give you a lot better place to start in cleaning up emissions it's an inherently cleaner fuel. And I'm aware that the propane reserves are.

Fairly small and that the American propane industry has repeatedly disclaimed any possibility of supplying fuels for widespread vehicular use. My question is Has the petroleum industry done any investigation of the possibility of converting to widespread propane use. And if so what are the estimated costs. Propane has been used for quite a few years that I'm aware of. Buspar leaves Chicago for example where I live had a pretty substantial number of their buses on propane does associate with the companies supplied the propane to the bus company. It is as you say a clean burning fuel. There are some problems with it as in so far as automobiles using it. I think it has a pressure around 75 core engine or normal temperature conditions which is fairly satisfactory for fleet

operations where you're under pretty controlled conditions. As far as the typical service station in a typical car owner I would have some reservations about propane being used. It was also used in the cab fleets in Chicago on an experimental basis shortly after World War 2 and given up on the basis that they expected better maintenance lower cost maintenance I should say and. Fewer worn parts and so forth did not prove to be a standoff. The equipment that was needed. The tanks and so forth took up the luggage space that the people would normally like to have their luggage space for. And now on the availability of it. Propane is produced partly in refineries and partly out in the fields where oil and gas are produced and the greater part of it is used in chemical manufacturing and so on what is used for space heating camps and so forth to

make propane would require could be done chemically you can take any of these hydrocarbon mixture you want and make frankly any other hydrocarbon mixture. If you're willing to put the processing and the money into it I don't think that the economy of propane if we had to make propane out of gasoline out of diesel fuel not a heavier fractions would compare with gasoline as a fuel and cause I'm quite sure that's true. It doesn't come close to meeting the standards. Which is one that we have to consider not even close. I'm sorry but I think we've just about run out of our allotted time I want to thank all of you in the audience for your interest and your excellent questions. And many thanks also to our panel Mr. Herbert Miche vice president for environmental and safety engineering for the Ford Motor Company. Mr. Eric stork. Who has spoken for the government side he's the deputy assistant

administrator for mobile sources air pollution control of the Environmental Protection Agency. Mr. Williams the EPA is to make that big decision next month. There are some who believe he may relent and loosen the standards so that the new levels will still be above those the industry says it can meet. Now it seems apparent the whole matter might wind up in the Congress or in the courts. I'd like also to thank Mr. Gard senior vice president for Public and Environmental Affairs American Petroleum Institute Dr. Steven Ayres director of the cardiopulmonary laboratories St Vincents Hospital in New York. And Mr. Sidney L. Terry vice president environmental and safety relations of the Chrysler Corporation. Thanks also to Mr. E-W Kenworthy of the Washington bureau of The New York Times Dr. Alan V can I said director of quality of the environment resources for the future for their excellent probing questions and comments. Special appreciation goes to the New England Consortium on

environmental protection and the Rhode Island tuberculosis in respire Ohtori Disease Association for joining with Brown University as co-sponsors of the program. It's hoped that this discussion has helped put in finer focus our understanding of a major problem and the challenge to solve it. Good day. Regardless of how certain specifics regarding emissions standards are worked out larger questions still loom. What for instance will the role of public transportation be auto when fuel prices skyrocket as a result of emissions enforcement. Will new laws controlling the production of other gasoline powered products such as motorcycles many bikes chainsaws snowmobiles and power boats eventually be written. All of it's possible in the final report of the ad hoc committee on the cumulative regulatory effects on the cost of automotive transportation prepared for the White House Office of Science and Technology was the following statement. Despite the imposition of harsh laws and stern controlled agencies most

of the ambient air standards are not attainable in most suburban areas in the time specified non-technical measures some of which may involve serious social changes may ultimately be required to cope with the air pollution problem effectively. So I symposium from Brown University in Providence Rhode Island was sponsored jointly by Brown the Rylan tuberculosis and respiratory disease Association and the England Consortium on environmental protection. Tonight's moderator was Douglas Edwards commentator for CBS News New York. Other interviewers were E-W Kenworthy of the Washington bureau of The New York Times Dr. Alan Deacon director of the quality of the environment for resources for the future incorporated Washington D.C.. The five panelists were Mr. Eric stork director of Mobile sources pollution control for the Environmental Protection Agency in Washington D.C. Mr. Herbert L. Miche vice president for environment and safety engineering for the Ford Motor

Company. Mr. Sidney L. Terry vice president for environmental and safety relations for the Chrysler Corporation. Mr. P. N. Gemmell Guard senior vice president for Public and Environmental Affairs at the American Petroleum Institute and Dr. Steven Ayres director of the cardio pulmonary laboratory at St. Vincent's Hospital in New York City. This program was recorded March 28 1973 on the Brown University campus in Providence Rhode Island. Technical supervision for this broadcast was by John Moran. This program has come to you through the facilities of WGBH radio Boston and national distribution was made possible in part by funds provided by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. This is Frank Fitzmaurice speaking and this is NPR National Public Radio.