equally important to search for the daily level of dosage which leads to the development, by long time exposure, of irreversible changes, including impaired growth and production, reduced reproduction, and specific pathology.

Several types of agents or emissions require rather extensive research in the context of the above discussions. Certain emissions from coal burning, and sulfur oxides from this source and others, according to epidemiologic observations, appear more toxic than past research has suggested. Carbon monoxide may have chronic disease potential which has not been revealed by the superficial investigation to date. Nitrogen oxides may have chronic synergistic pathogenic potential which has not been recognized. Accumulating evidence suggests that photochemical smog contains as yet unidentified reaction chains which may result in agents with toxic potential.

Useful practical mathematical models for the prediction of biological effects are needed. They would permit rapid analytical evaluation of experimental data based on effectively planned experiments. Models based on comparative physiology would help to define exposure conditions and exposure techniques for experimental animals which are likely to be equivalent to human exposure. Stochastic models for incidence of biological effects, based on reliable effects and population parameters, would provide for extrapolation and prediction of incidence in various specified populations living under different environmental conditions.

IV. CONCLUSION-BASIC RESEARCH NEEDS

In the foregoing review of current and needed research in the air pollution field, the justification for each project is to some extent implied in its description. There are, however, some highly important basic reasons why air pollution research must be continued through the foreseeable near future and expanded to a scale substantially greater than the prevailing one. These will be summarized here, briefly and without project details, in order to give them the emphasis which, in our opinion, they clearly deserve.

1. More research is needed in order to make possible more rational systems of control. This will involve the acquisition of: (a) more definitive knowledge of effects in relation to degrees of exposure; (b) increased knowledge of the exact contributions of specific pollutant sources; and (c) greater capability to relate quantities of emissions to prevailing concentrations in the ambient atmosphere. Corollary to these needs, we must learn a great deal more about micrometeorology and about the chemical changes in potential pollutants which occur in the open air. And we must develop mathematical models which will tie together all the principal emissions in an area with the ambient air concentrations encountered in that area.

2. More research is needed in order to acquire better control technology in certain fields where is is now deficient, as it is on motor vehicles and sulfur compounds.

3. More research is needed in order to improve the efficiency and lower the costs of control techniques which are presently available.

To achieve these three major objectives—or to further justify the total effort— various supporting elements must also be developed. These include: better means of sampling and analysis, at the sources and in the atmosphere; more complete and more exact evaluation of the damages caused by pollutants, to property as well as to human health; new means of stimulating control activity on the part of industry; evaluation of prevailing social attitudes on environmental hazards; and public education to create more enlightened attitudes.

This is not by any means an exhaustive list but it should help to put the job that lies ahead in better perspective. This report began with the statement that air pollution research has made considerable progress during the past ten years. It can well conclude with the prediction that air pollution research will make far greater progress during the next ten years. It must*** if we are to make any real headway in our quest for cleaner air against the inexorable forces that threaten in all our countries to defile it more and more.

Senator MUSKIE. You are not doing all that you should in the field of research?

Secretary GARDNER. That is right.

Senator MUSKIE. Should we provide you more money?

Secretary GARDNER. I think eventually we will need more money. The first thing we need is to mount an effectively managed research

operation. This was the purpose of putting the environmental health science center in NIH. They will be coming up very shortly with a plan for their operation. Until then we won't really know the nature of our knowledge.

Senator MUSKIE. Thank you.

Senator RANDOLPH. Mr. Chairman, I want the record to reflect at this point, as chairman of the Public Works Committee of the Senate, that increasingly the membership of this committee is going to give attention to air and water pollution abatement and control. This is a problem which is not only of major proportion, this is a problem which is of tragic importance.

Secretary Gardner, I wonder what you and your associates are doing in the possible use of the turbine engine, a report on such a facility. Secretary GARDNER. Again that is a question I would like to turn over to Mr. Coston.

Mr. COSTON. Senator, we will be glad to supply information for you on the present state of the turbine engine development. I don't know right now what it is. As you know, this has been discussed and argued and tested now for many years. My impression is at the moment that the prospects for success of the turbine engine for the private automobile are not too good. But I will be glad to look into that and we will supply for the record the present state of turbine development. Senator RANDOLPH. Thank you very much.

(Subsequently the following paper was submitted:)

A REPORT ON THE GAS TURBINE ENGINE

The gas turbine engine is one of several potential alternatives to the conventional piston engine as a power source for motor vehicles.

From the standpoint of the need to reduce motor vehicle pollution, the limited data now available on gas turbine engines suggest that they may offer some advantage over conventional engines. Few data have been released by industry, but the Chrysler Corporation, which is conducting extensive research and development in this field, made a prototype turbine car available for testing by the Division of Air Pollution of the Public Health Service for a two-week period in April and May 1965.

The tests conducted at the Taft Sanitary Engineering Center in Cincinnati— were focused mainly on the most common and best known classes of pollutants produced by internal combustion engines. They showed that hydrocarbon and carbon monoxide emissions from the turbine car were far lower than those from a comparable piston-engine model. In terms of pounds of pollutant per mile of driving, the turbine car emitted only 15 percent as much hydrocarbons and only 10 percent as much carbon monoxide. Nitrogen oxide emissions were also lower, but only slightly.

Emissions from the test car were also well within the limitations applicable to new cars, beginning with 1968 models, under the present Federal standards for the control of motor vehicle pollution. For cars with engines of 140 or more cubic inches cylinder displacement, a category which includes essentially all American-made cars, the limitations are 275 parts per million of hydrocarbons and 1.5 percent carbon monoxide by volume, averaged over a vehicle life of 100,000 miles. Emissions from the turbine car, when calculated in terms comparable to figures for piston-engine emissions, contained 80 to 90 parts per million of hydrocarbons and 0.2 percent carbon monoxide.

A potentially important advantage of the turbine car, with respect to air pollution, is its ability to burn low-grade fuels, including kerosene. In contrast, the high-compression piston engines now used in most cars require highoctane fuels. To meet this requirement, most fuel producers add tetra-ethyl lead to their gasoline; as a result, motor vehicles are now major sources of environmental lead contamination. Turbine engines present no such problem. From the standpoint of air pollution, the only marked disadvantage noted in the tests conducted by the Division of Air Pollution was that the turbine

engine, when it was fueled with kerosene, produced an odor similar to that from diesel engines; however, the odor was not severe.

It is important to note that the tests conducted by the Division of Air Pollution do not represent a full evaluation of the turbine engine's potential for contributing to community air pollution. As previously noted, the testing was focused on well known motor vehicle pollutants. No attempt was made to determine whether turbine engines produce significant amounts of lesser known or hitherto unknown classes of pollutants. In addition, because there is often a substantial degree of variation in emissions from individual cars of the same general type, the fact that only one turbine car was tested must be kept in mind. The results are believed to be representative of this type of engine, but data to confirm this are not available.

In the context of these reservations, turbine cars of the type tested by the Division of Air Pollution appear to produce less pollution than do motor vehicles now in use which are powered by piston engines. The difference is indeed marked, at least with respect to hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide. But the comparison of the prototype turbine car with motor vehicles now in use may be misleading in some degree. The apparent advantage of the turbine engine may be wiped out as improvements are made in technology for controlling air pollution from piston engines and as the Federal standards are revised to take advantage of such technical advances. For the time being, then, the benefits of the turbine car, from the standpoint of reducing motor vehicle pollution, remain uncertain.

In any event, the outlook for the future development and application of the gas turbine engine to motor vehicles depends on many factors other than its bearing on the air pollution problem. Though such engines provide the motive power for jet aircraft, their practicability for automobiles has not been firmly established.

Insofar as can be determined from available information, the outlook for the use of turbine engines-at least in trucks and buses-is essentially the same as it was in 1962 when, in a report to the Congress, the Surgeon General of the Public Health Service said: "There is no doubt that the turbine will find application for a number of purposes where its advantages are clear-cut. This includes fire engines and other emergency vehicles. For pulling one or several heavy trailers over turnpikes and interstate highways, turbines are unquestionably superior power plants." Both the Ford Motor Company and General Motors Corporation are known to be actively engaged in the development of turbine-powered trucks. The prospects for using gas turbine engines in passenger cars have generally been considered less promising, principally because of their relatively high fuel consumption and their lag in providing acceleration from a standing start. In recent weeks, however, the Chrysler Corporation has taken a more hopeful view, at least in its statements to stockholders and the public. Chrysler is the only major automobile manufacturer known to be involved, to any appreciable degree, in efforts to develop turbine-powered passenger cars.

Chrysler has already completed a two-year survey in which 50 prototype turbine cars were tested by more than 200 motorists for periods of up to three months; it was one such car that was furnished for testing by the Division of Air Pollution. Test drivers reportedly were dissatisfied with the fuel consumption and acceleration lag but pleased by the turbine car's vibration-free ride and the fact that the engine required little maintenance. On April 19, Chrysler announced development of a second-generation turbine engine which will serve as the basis for its future work in this area. The new model was said to overcome, to an unspecified degree, the disadvantages of the earlier prototype. Air pollution data for the new model have not been released.

The problem of fuel consumption has always been a major obstacle in the development of turbine engines for use in passenger cars. The 1962 report of the Surgeon General noted that turbine cars had been shown to provide reasonably good fuel mileage in cross-country driving but only poor mileage in urban driving. Exact figures have not been released by the automobile industry, but trade journals have reported that turbine cars ran 15 miles per gallon of fuel in proving-grounds tests covering a wide range of operating conditions. This is equal to, perhaps better than, the fuel consumption of some American cars now in use; however, there is considerable question as to whether turbine cars will provide such mileage in ordinary use.

To be sure, turbine engines can be fueled with kerosene, which is currently much less expensive than gasoline. But it is important to note that a major portion of the difference is accounted for by Federal and State gasoline taxes;

such taxes would probably be applied to kerosene if it were used as a fuel for motor vehicles. In addition, the economics of large-scale kerosene production are unknown. As a consequence, it is not possible to predict whether, or to what extent, the higher fuel consumption of turbine engines would be offset by a lower cost per gallon of fuel.

The fact that turbine engines require less maintenance than is needed by piston engines is a distinct advantage. Other advantages, in addition to the vibration-free ride provided by turbine cars, include the lighter weight of turbine engines compared to piston engines of comparable performance capabilities, and their longer operating life. On the other hand, turbine engines tend to be bulkier, and they are poorer in retarding a motor vehicle once the accelerator pedal is released.

In summary, there is some evidence that turbine engines constitute an automotive power source with less inherent capacity for polluting the air than is the case with piston engines. On the other hand, there are numerous technological and economic problems standing in the way of routine production and marketing of turbine-powered motor vehicles, particularly passenger cars; some of these problems have already been discussed. The cost of such cars is still another problem. Estimates have been made which indicate that the cost of a turbine car may, initially, be well in excess of the cost of a comparable pistonengine model, but it is not unreasonable to expect the difference to be narrowed by continuing production of turbine cars. The need for a substantial capital investment to enter mass production is another problem. In all likelihood— barring any radical and presently unforesen technological breakthroughs—if turbine engines are used to any appreciable extent in the next few years, their use will be limited to prestige cars and large trucks.

Senator RANDOLPH. Mr. Chairman, I want to stress again and again that this committee, through its Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution which you so capably chair, is going into in depth and scope these problems as we have never gone into them before. I do not disparage what we have achieved in degree, but all any American citizen has to do is to travel throughout this country and to see and sense and feel what is happening and know that we must purify our air and clean our water. This is a challenge which we legislatively here must accept.

Senator MUSKIE. Thank you, Senator Randolph.

May I express the appreciation of the subcommittee for the unreserved support which you have always given the subcommittee. I think I would like to echo the sentiments which you have just expressed about the mood of the country. I think the mood of the country with respect to these problems is ahead of our capacity at the moment to provide the leadership and the will to act.

There still seems to be some reluctance in some quarters to respond to the mood of the country as I think the mood of the country exists today. We want you fellows to be pushing us for action. This has not been the posture in the last 3 or 4 years.

I am delighted, Mr. Secretary, with your commitment and dedication to this objective. So we are going to begin to look to you to push us. If you don't, we are going to push you to push us.

Secretary GARDNER. We will try to be equal to both those roles. Senator MUSKIE. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary.

We will go into the various questions which you have raised in your statement more exhaustively next week when Mr. McKenzie and others come before us.

Secretary GARDNER. Very good. Thank you, sir.

Senator MUSKIE. I would now like to welcome an old friend who is chairman of the Mayor's Task Force on Air Pollution, New York City, Mr. Norman Cousins.

We appreciate your interest, Mr. Cousins, in coming down to testify to us and to present the program of the city of New York. I know it is a labor of love with you. We are most appreciative of your interest and your cooperation.

STATEMENT OF NORMAN COUSINS, CHAIRMAN, TASK FORCE ON AIR POLLUTION OF THE MAYOR OF NEW YORK, NEW YORK CITY, AND EDITOR, SATURDAY REVIEW

Mr. COUSINS. Thank you very much, Senator Muskie.

First of all, I would like to thank Chairman Muskie for the invitation to appear before this body, although, Senator, when you said before that your committee came here to be educated I must say that I feel somewhat in the position of a man who answered the doorbell summons and found a representative of the Salvation Army waiting there and the Salvation Army gentleman said, "Sir, what do you do with your old clothes?" He said, "Well, to tell you the truth, I hang them up very carefully at night and I wear them the next day."

I don't think I have any new clothes to offer, Mr. Chairman. Senator MUSKIE. You know, I can not resist telling a good Maine story on the subject of being educated. This is the story of the traveling salesman who was trying to sell the mink farmer an encyclopedia on mink farming. The mink farmer said, "Hell, Mister I'm only farming half as well as I know how now."

Mr. COUSINS. I do thank the chairman for the invitation to appear and I congratulate the committee for its leadership in initiating vitally important legislation and focusing the attention of the American people on the need to develop a truly national program to combat the steady poisoning of the natural environment, that is, the natural environment that is the most important resources of this Nation.

Incidentally, I should also like to thank Secretary Gardner for the cooperation of the officials of the U.S. Public Health Service in particular, Vernon McKenzie, and Thomas Williams, in the study we have conducted in New York City and preparation of our report. Their help has been invaluable.

The situation in New York City, as you know, and as Senator Douglas emphasized, is probably the most serious of any large metropolitan area in the country. More poisons per square mile are pumped into the air in New York than anywhere else in the United States. We have undertaken a study of the sources of these poisons and they come from a variety of places.

I will identify very briefly a few of them.

No. 1, they come from New York City's 11 municipal refuse-disposal stations. They come from New York City's own housing authority projects, with 2,600 incinerators and 2,500 heating furnaces. They come from privately owned apartment houses and office buildings.

They come from approximately 600,000 private residences, many of which use fuel oil in heating furnaces. They come from Consolidated Edison's 11 power generating stations inside the city. Consolidated Edison burns I think it is 10 billion pounds of coal each year and 800,000 gallons of fuel oil.

They come from 8,500 industrial manufacturing establishments. They come from demolition and construction dust. Ordinary street