Mr. MANN. Mr. Caplan of General Motors has done a great deal of research on this. Our position essentially is we don't oppose standards in this field but we did think the committee ought to know of the state of the art right now and the difficulties affixing standards which will be meaningful until more research has been done.

Mr. Caplan will explain to us what he has done and what he thinks

about it.

Senator MUSKIE. All right.

STATEMENT OF JOHN CAPLAN, GENERAL MOTORS RESEARCH

LABORATORIES

Mr. CAPLAN. As Mr. Mann indicated, I am John Caplan, General Motors Research Laboratories, and I would like to address myself to two aspects of the oxides of nitrogen problem.

As indicated, we do not oppose standards if there is a meaningful basis for them, and toward this end the entire industry and ourselves in particular have been working on systems of control for reducing oxides of nitrogen.

As was reported about your field trip in Los Angeles, you saw a particular device to control oxides of nitrogen. The principle involved here is not new; it is not unique to that particular organization. We have had devices based on similar principles under evaluation for some time.

There are many problems that are unresolved with respect to making any one of these practical. Nevertheless, the first point I want to make clear is that we are working on devices to control oxides of nitrogen.

The other point has to do with the question as to what levels of oxides of nitrogen should we control in the atmosphere. This is a most complex area. I believe in some of the testimony in Los Angeles that became evident; it is a complex series of reactions that oxides of nitrogen become involved with in the atmosphere.

The State of California Department of Public Health has given a considerable amount of study to this particular problem and their findings to date have indicated that on a health basis, the ambient air quality in the State does not indicate any difficulty with respect to health; the standards are being met, the ambient air standard of three parts per million for 1-hour exposure.

So, on the basis of health, they were unable to find any reason for an oxides of nitrogen standard with respect to automotive exhaust. They also examined the question of and the role of oxides of nitrogen with respect to the reactions in the atmosphere and this is where things started getting complex. In other words, although the health aspect is pretty clear cut, the photochemical smog is most complex.

We are talking about the formation of smog. It is confusing in this respect that the oxides of nitrogen play a dual role. They increase the rates at which smog is formed and they also decrease the rate. This is much too technical to get into here; we will spend a little more time, hopefully, on your field trip tomorrow.

After considering all the evidence, the State of California came up with a Scotch verdict, not proven-in other words, with respect

to reducing smog, eye irritation, plant damage, and the like, they could not find any convincing evidence that it was desirable to reduce oxides of nitrogen.

So, in developing the automotive exhaust standards for oxides of nitrogen in California, the only basis that was left was coloration of the atmosphere. So, the standard, 350 parts per million, which you gentlemen are familiar with, is based simply on a coloration of the atmosphere basis.

Now, our smog chamber studies have been devoted mainly to the question of whether reducing oxides of nitrogen will indeed reduce eye irritation, ozone formation, and the various other compounds that are formed that cause irritation of the eyes and plant damage. Our results raise serious questions if this is the route to go. In fact, they indicate that a reduction in oxides of nitrogen may make smog worse. So, what we are again indicating in line with Mr. Mann's earlier statement is that before we get overly concerned with how we are going to reduce nitrogen oxides that we have some reasonable degree of agreement that they should be reduced and to what level they should be reduced and what will the consequences be.

Again, I would recommend that in this particular area of ambient air standards and vehicular standards that your committee take the opportunity to discuss this and have witnesses from the U.S. Public Health Service. They have been very active in evaluating the role of oxides of nitrogen in photochemical smog. I am certain you will find it most informative to see what their findings indicate with respect to the desirability of nitrogen oxide reduction.

That is all I had to offer.

Senator MUSKIE. Have you had an opportunity to read the testimony given to us in Los Angeles by Edward A. Shuck of the University of California at Riverside?

Mr. CAPLAN. Yes.

Senator MUSKIE. You recall he said this, and I merely put these statements in the record in your testimony so that we may have them there. He said:

The importance of oxides of nitrogen to air pollution problems can hardly be over-emphasized.

Then he went on to say that:

In Los Angeles, there are 840 tons of oxides of nitrogen admitted to the atmosphere every day, and of this total 50 to 75 percent comes from the automobile engine while electric power plants contribute about 17 per cent.

Then at another point he says:

We cannot at this time definitely attribute any specific adverse health effects to such an increase in nitrogen dioxide exposure. We do have indications that bronchial damage occurs in humans exposed to a few parts per million of nitrogen dioxide and we know for a fact that the nitrogen dioxide concentrations which are now characteristic of the Los Angeles atmosphere cause measurable decrease in the growth of vegetation. We also know that any increase in the nitrogen dioxide concentration will result in further visibility reduction because of the brownish red color of the gas. Thus it would seem that we have sufficient indication and knowledge to demand a reduction in these oxides of nitrogen. That seems to me a fairly measured evaluation of the problem. Mr. CAPLAN. I think the point, Senator, is that this is a very controversial area, the findings from the different areas are very contro

versial, and I recommend that you get additional opinions of responsible parties.

Senator MUSKIE. We will do that. We will write some letters tomorrow. I think the indications that we had in Mr. Shuck's testimony and others in California were enough to concern us and to prompt us to ask to what extent the automotive industry shares that concern, to what extent it is considering methods of controlling the emission of oxides of nitrogen connected with the automobile and what the prospects are.

Mr. Mann this morning made the point that he wished the industry might know well in advance what might be expected of it so that it could prepare for any requirements that may come. It seems to me there are enough clues here to suggest that the industry ought to be looking at the problem, and I am sure it is from what has been said this morning.

So, we simply want to get the details. First of all, your evaluation of the seriousness of the problem; secondly, what you have been able to do thus far and what its prospects are. I take it we will get into that phase of the hardware tomorrow in the field visits.

I might say in addition that we had been scheduled to have additional witnesses in Denver on this subject from the National Center for Atmospheric Research. We wish we had those witnesses before we came here but we had to cancel the Denver hearing because of the Senate floor activity. We had to cancel Denver and we will go back and have those witnesses at another time. Again, we are not rushing to hasty conclusions here.

Mr. CAPLAN. Thank you.

Senator MUSKIE. Our next witness this afternoon is Miss Olga Madar, executive board member and director, United Automobile Workers, Recreation Department, appearing for Walter Reuther, president, United Automobile Workers.

Miss Madar, it is a pleasure to welcome you this afternoon.

STATEMENT OF OLGA MADAR, EXECUTIVE BOARD MEMBER AND DIRECTOR, UNITED AUTOMOBILE WORKERS, RECREATION DEPARTMENT, APPEARING FOR WALTER REUTHER, PRESIDENT, UNITED AUTOMOBILE WORKERS

Miss MADAR. Thank you very much.

My name is Olga M. Madar, and I appear here today at the request of the president of our union, Mr. Walter P. Reuther, and on behalf of the million and one-half members of the United Automobile, Aerospace, and Agricultural Implement Workers of America.

I have looked forward to the opportunity of appearing before this subcommittee and expressing the concern and interest of the officers and the membership of our union as it relates to our living environment. I have followed closely the workings of the members of this subcommittee and of its distinguished chairman, Senator Edmund S. Muskie, and I have been impressed with your response to the American peoples' call for the abatement of the pollution of air and water. I wish to stress at this point since I am not a scientist or a technician, I will not be discussing with you the chemical and scientific data which

comprises this complex field of air pollution. Our members are not scientists or chemists either; however, they are citizens who reside in communities throughout this country and are affected daily by the air and water pollution problems which confront our Nation.

The union has a commitment to the goals of enhancing our living environment, as stated by President Reuther and supported by the delegates at the 20th UAW Constitutional Convention in Long Beach, Calif., in May 1966:

He [President Johnson] has outlined the program for warring upon blight and pollution and ugliness and has asked us to "organize for action and rebuild and reclaim the beauty we inherited."

The UAW has answered this call to action, and we intend to persevere in our efforts, in cooperation with all interested persons and groups in the United States and Canada, until together we succeed in checking the alarming deterioration of our land, water and atmosphere and restoring a wholesome living environment throughout our two nations.

In your letter to Mr. Reuther, you indicated that the prime purpose for the hearing here in Detroit is to review the progress and problems associated with automobile emission control devices and other matters he wished to bring to your attention. Therefore, I will not be limiting my remarks exclusively to the automobile.

It should be clearly understood that 1 million of our members work in the automobile industry and would be affected by the technological changes and economic consequences resultant from a stringent and high-standard automobile exhaust control program. They are nevertheless first and foremost American citizens and consumers and have to breathe the same air and drink and bathe in the same water as people who work for insurance companies, department stores, and government. Despite the fact that they work in the automobile industry, neither they nor their children develop any immunity to automobile exhaust pollutants or any other pollutants.

President Reuther expressed the opinion of the majority of our members in his statement before the Subcommittee on Executive Reorganization of the Senate Committee on Government Operations, on the problems of the cities, December 5, 1966:

And I find the notion that auto workers will fight to slow down the application of modern technology to transportation problems absurd.

The UAW has a long and consistent history of fighting for better health and safety standards in the plant, and we will continue this battle. However, we make little progress when we find that the gains in better health are negated when the worker leaves the plant and finds his community's living environment polluted from all kinds of sources. We intend to take on this community fight for better health and safety with the same vigor and tenacity as we have the plant problem.

In order that the record may be set straight, the UAW believes and supports the basic fundamental principle that no one has the right to pollute our environment. We also support the enactment of stricter legislation and the allocation of greater funds to implement and enforce this principle.

The day has long passed when we can rationalize our willful neglect and abuse of the air, water, and land by stating the false assumption that the American economy will suffer and the gross national product

will decline if we put the health and welfare of the people ahead of economic profits.

An even greater threat to the American economy is the spectre of a population suffering in epidemic proportions from illness and disease, and even death, from many more and severe catastrophes as the London killer fogs, Donora, Pa., disasters and the recent incident in New York City. I can add, we find equally absurd the statements by some people that industry cannot technically solve the problems of air pollution or that it cannot solve it without wrecking the economy. Every piece of significant social legislation throughout history, child labor laws, industrial health and safety laws, and social security, to name a few, have been resisted on the basis that the economy could not support them. History and the present affluence of our society serve as excellent witnesses to the fallacy of these claims.

Pollution cannot be treated or understood in a vacuum, so perhaps it would be wise to take a closer look at today's urban America. Here again we will be repeating many of the things that you know but I expect it is important to say them again because apparently they are not understood throughout our population.

We find ourselves in the midst of a population explosion which indicates an increase of 45 percent by the year 2000. Urban sprawl has created satellite cities as well as contributed to the deterioration of our big cities, which is highlighted by slums, blight, and ghettos.

We are the most mobile society on the face of the earth-our science and technology is the most advanced the world has ever seen, providing both abundance in material goods, as well as contributing to problems never before encountered by man. Parenthetically may I say never have we said that the technology of the automobile industry is not sufficient to combat some of the problems that we are now encountering.

The deterioration of our natural resources is not only a national problem, but also a national disgrace. And, in the midst of all of this is an air and water pollution problem of such magnitude that it has caused some of our leading social thinkers and scientists to conclude that we are in the midst of a struggle of life and death if some rapid, bold and enlightened steps are not taken immediately.

If we are to deal realistically with our Nation's air pollution problem, we must first acknowledge that it is not a problem of a local nature, restricted by the artificial governmental boundaries of cities, counties, or States, but that it is truly a national and, indeed, an international problem, to be dealt with through the cooperative efforts of all levels of government.

We in Detroit are well aware that our good neighbors in Windsor, Canada, are oftentimes affected by the pollution emanating from industry and others in our community. The downriver suburban chemical plants and steel mills oftentimes make us in Detroit aware of their presence when the wind is blowing in the right direction. For the record let me also say that the downriver suburbs are also suffering from the pollution of industry here in Detroit.

Our Nation's brief experience in water pollution rapidly brought us to the realization that local enforcement, or lack of it, was not the answer in abating and controlling water pollution. The need for