the Atlantic coast the topography and meteorological conditions here are such that periods of low air movement at ground level accompanied by inversions are relatively shortlived, existing for only a few hours to a day or two at a time. A report by Wanta of the U.S. Weather Bureau and Heggestad of the USDA (28) indicates that ozone occasionally reaches concentration 0.3-0.5 p.p.m. between 10 a.m. and 5 p.m. in the air at Beltsville, Md., that are well within the range of vegetation damage. During this study on the 5 days of highest ozone concentration a high pressure ridge occurred to the southeast not far from Washington, D.C., with a trough of low pressure to the northwest. On all days the wind for the 2 hours preceding the ozone high came from the direction of Washington, with the velocity varying from 3 to 9 miles per hour, and the convection layer was bounded by an inversion layer or by a layer of considerable stability. Such conditions accompanied by high solar radiation could be expected to result in ozone accumulations.

Source of oxidants.-Identification of the air pollutants present in smog that are responsible for plant damage has presented a most difficult problem. The early work of Haagen-Smit and associates (6) demonstrated that gasoline as such was not phytotoxic even in concentrations of several hundred parts per million of air nor was nitrogen oxide in reasonable concentrations. However, when vapors of gasoline were mixed with ozone or NO2 in the presence of sunlight, a phytotoxic oxidant was formed which caused injury to the lower leaf surface. Studies of these mixtures revealed that the fraction boiling between 39°-69° C., was the most damaging. It has since been learned that all gasoline vapors, whether olefins or not, can in the presence of ozone or NO2 and sunlight produce plant damage if given sufficient exposure time. In later work (14) ozone (03) concentrations as low as 0.1 p.p.m. were demonstrated to be phytotoxic producing chlorosis, silvering, and spotting of upper leaf surfaces. The sources of the hydrocarbon vapors, NO2, and ozone responsible for the plant damage is of particular interest. Hydrocarbons that are not completely burned reach the free air from all types of combustion. An article in the Oil & Gas Journal of February 16, 1959, states that of the 1,411 tons of hydrocarbons lost daily to the air in Los Angeles County, automobiles contribute 1,000 tons. Refineries add another 103 tons, and without controls they would add 800 tons daily. Crude oil-producing activities add 60 more tons daily while marketing adds 43 tons. Other industrial and commercial sources contribute another 205 tons. NO2 is produced from oxygen and nitrogen in the air by any hot combustion source such as open fires, home furnaces, and in automobile combustion chambers. Motorcars contribute 430 tons daily, refineries 56 tons, and industrial and commercial sources 215 tons.

Haagen-Smit (6, 7) and Middleton (16) reported that ozone is produced in the air by the action on NO2 of the ultra violet light in sunshine. This reversible reaction might be illustrated as follows: NO2+O+sunlight=NO+03. The ozone (Os) formed may react with the nitric oxide (NO) to produce nitrogen oxide (NO2). If a hydrocarbon radical is present to remove the nitric oxide from the air, a buildup of ozone occurs. According to Scott, Stephens, Hanst and Doer (21) peroxyacyl nitrite is formed in the atmosphere from a reaction involving an oxidized hydrocarbon radical and nitric oxide while Darley and associates (4) suggest the formation of a zwitter ion from reactions involving ozone and certain hydrocarbons. Although the exact compounds responsible for plant damage have not been definitely ascertained, these compounds are thought to be likely offenders. Such reaction products are responsible for the undersurface oxidant injury to the youngest fully expanded leaves, while ozone per se is responsible for the upper-surface injury to the older leaves. Peroxyacyl nitrite on decomposing produces nitrogen oxide which in turn is acted upon by the rays of the sun to produce additional ozone and nitric oxide. In this way the ozone concentration builds up in urban and industrial areas under appropriate environmental conditions. Middleton reports that during smoggy periods in Los Angeles, the ozone concentration becomes 10 to 20 times as great as that naturally occurring in clean air (0.03 parts per million). This puts it well within the plant damaging range.

DISCUSSION

While injury to vegetation from acid gases appears to be decreasing in New Jersey and 2,4-D herbicides no longer pose a problem, injury from ozone and other oxidants is increasing in frequency by virtue of greater population concentration. Ozone injury has now reached the point of seriously threatening the continued commercial production of spinach and possibly endive, chicory, and

some varieties of petunias in many areas. Although photochemically produced compounds other than ozone which are responsible for oxidant injury do not at present represent as great a threat to as many crops in New Jersey as ozone, damage has been observed on celery, spinach and a few greenhouse crops from these compounds. As our population grows further increase in sources of emission of the constituents responsible for the production of ozone and other oxidants can be expected in urban areas, especially during this age of automobile travel, rendering the air pollution problem especially serious near large cities. Since the solution of the problem by the use of controls seems most discouraging, emphasis must be placed on breeding new plant varieties that will tolerate the air in our increasingly urbanized State. In addition the use of protective chemical sprays for sensitive plants should be investigated.

In a letter dated November 20, 1959, from Ellis Darley, chairman of the air pollution research group at Riverside, Calif., the following statement is made. "In general, from irradiated mixtures of auto exhausts, ozone formation can be expected in less than an hour after the required ingredients viz, oxides of nitrogen and hydrocarbons reach bright sunlight. Also from our experiments, oxidants (mixture that is toxic to under leaf surface) from the same type of reaction seem to be produced in adequate amounts after a 30-minute irradiation. Since the principal sources of the raw materials are themselves rather diffuse, I would expect that the damage resulting from the final products would also be widely disrtibuted rather than confined to a local area."

With the sources of contamination, cars, home, and industrial fires, refineries, etc., being so numerous both in and bordering New Jersey, it is not surprising that test tobacco plants, placed in 14 different locations in New Jersey during the growing season just past, showed injury from ozone in every location. appears therefore that this is a problem, which, while being most serious near such cities as Philadelphia and New York, can be expected to affect sensitive plants in all areas of the State.

LITERATURE CITED

It

1. Bobrov, Ruth Ann. 1954. The leaf structure of Poa Annua with observations on its smog sensitivity in Los Angeles county. Am. Jour. Botany. 42: 467-474.

2. Daines, Robert H., Ida Leone and Eileen Brennan. 1952. The effect of Fluorides on plants as determined by soil nutrition and fumigation studies. Proc. of the U.S. Technical Conference on Air Pollution. Air Pollution. McGrawHill Publ. Co., Inc., New York, Chapter 9, pp. 97–104.

3. Daines, Robert H. 1952. 2,4-D as an air pollutant and its effect on various species of plants. Proc. of the U.S. Technical Conference on Air Pollution. Air Pollution (Book), McGraw-Hill Publ. Co., Inc., New York, Chapter 14, pp. 140-143.

4. Darley, Ellis, Edgar R. Stephens, John T. Middleton and Phil L. Hanst. 1958. Oxidant plant damage from Ozone-Olefin reactions. 23rd. Mid-year. Meeting of American Petroleum Division of Refining.

5. Erickson, L. C. and R. T. Wedding, 1956. Effects of ozonated hexene on photosynthesis and respiration of Lemna Minor. Amer. Jour. of Botany, 43: 32-36.

6. Haagen-Smit, A. J., Ellis, F. Darley, Milton Zaltlin, Herbert Hull and Wilfred Noble. 1952. Investigations of Injury to plants from air pollution in the Los Angeles area. Plant Physiol. 27: 18-34.

7. Haagen-Smit, A. J. 1952. Chemistry and Physiology of the Los Angeles Smog. Industrial and Engineering Chem. 4:1342-1346.

Ozone in high con

8. Heggestad, Howard F., and John T. Middleton. 1959. centrations as cause of tobacco leaf injury. Science 129: 208-210.

9. Hill, A. C., M. R. Pack, L. G. Transtrum, and W. S. Winters. 1959. Effects of atmospheric fluorides and various types of injury on the respiration of leaf tissue Plant Physiol. 34: 11-16.

10. Katz, M. and D. C. Pasternack. 1938. Effect of sulfur dioxide on vegetation. Nat. Research Council Can., Ottawa. Chapter 14, pp. 369–392.

11. Kendrick, J. B., Jr., E. F. Darley, John T. Middleton, and A. O. Paulus. Aug. 1956 Plant response to polluted air Calif Agr. No. 8, 9-10.

12. Leone, Ida A., E. Brennan and R. H. Daines. 1956. Atmospheric fluoride. Its uptake and distribution in tomato and corn plants. Plant Physiol. 31: 329-333. 13. Middleton, John T., J. B. Kendrick, Jr., and E. F. Darley. 1953. Air pollution injury to crops. Calif. Agr. 7: No. 11, 11-12.

14. Middleton, John T., J. B. Kendrick, Jr., and E. F. Darley. 1955. Air-borne oxidants as plant damaging agents. Proc. Third Nat'l Air Poll Symp. pp. 191198.

15. Middleton, John T., A. S. Crafts, R. F. Brewer and O. C. Taylor. 1956. Plant damage by air pollution. Calif. Agr. 10: No. 6, 9-12.

16. Middleton, John T., June 1958. Clean air essential for good citrus. Western Fruit Grower.

17. Middleton, John T. 1956. Response of plants to air pollution. J. Air Pollution Control Assoc. 6: No. 1, 1-4.

18. Noble, W. M. 1959. Smog damage to plants. Air Pollution Control District County of Los Angeles.

19. Prince, A. L., F. E. Bear, E. G. Bear, E. G. Brennan, I. A. Leone and R. H. Daines. 1948. Fluorine: Its toxicity to plants and its control in soils. Soil Science 67: 269–277.

20. Richards, B. L., John T. Middleton, and W. B. Hewitt, 1958. Air Pollution with relation to agronomic crops: V. Oxidant stipple of grapes. Agronomy Journal 50:559–561.

21. Scott, W. E., E. R. Stephens, P. L. Hanst, and R. C. Doerr. 1957. Further development in the chemistry of the atmosphere. Proc. API 37 (III): 71-83. 22. Thomas, M. D. and G. R. Hill. 1937. Relation of sulfur dioxide in the atmosphere to photosynthesis and respiration of alfalfa. Plant Physiol. 12: 309-383.

23. Thomas, Moyer D. 1955. Effect of ecological factors on photosynthesis. Annual Rev. of Plant Physiol. 6: 135-156.

24. Todd, Glenn W., John T. Middleton, and Robert F. Brewer. 1956. Effects of air pollutants. Calif. Agr. 10:7-8.

25. Todd, Glenn W. 1957. Physiological responses of plants to air pollutants. Jour. of Applied Nutrition. 10.

26. Todd, Glenn W. 1958. Effect of ozone and ozonated 1-Hexene on respiration and photosynthesis of leaves. Plant Physiol. 33: 416-420.

27. Todd, Glenn W. and Morris J. Garber. 1958. Some effects of air pollutants on the growth and productivity of plants. The Botanical Gazette. 120: 75-80. 28. Wanta, R. C., and Howard E. Heggestad. 1959. Occurence of high ozone concentrations in the air near metropolitan Washington. Science 130: No. 3367, 103-104.

Mr. SPRINGER. Mr. Secretary, I understood him to say it makes it impossible to grow there. Now, let me say this. I don't know what is happening in my area but the corn crop is getting bigger every year and the surplus greater. The same is true of soybeans. I just want to see if I can find out where the real demand is. I am not trying to be impertinent or trying to contradict you but I don't have any demand. I have yet to have a letter from anybody in my district. I have two towns of more than 50,000 but I haven't had a request from anybody for this legislation. I have talked with a lot of Congressmen all over the country. I will admit that there is a demand and they may very truly have it in New York and Philadelphia and Los Angeles and Chicago, and I have been in those cities and I think they have problems. The question arises in my mind should this of necessity be a Federal program? This is the part which I am trying to resolve in my mind, is whether or not the demand is sufficient that this should be a Federal program operated by the Federal Government. Now, that is the quandry in which I find myself.

Mr. QUIGLEY. I think this is a judgment the members of this committee and the full committee, eventually the Members of the Congress, have to make.

I would point out that in connection with the State of California, which has been in the vanguard, a pioneer in this area among the States, I would point out that the kind of situation which you just described in parts of rural Pennsylvania or parts of Illinois or Indiana is equally valid in parts of California.

You could get up into the Sierras, get up around Lake Tahoe and might very well say why should the cars in this part of the State be required to cost an extra $25 or $35! This I think is a judgment where you have to decide what is in the common good.

Mr. SPRINGER. All right. Now let's come back to California, and I think our committee has gone into that. We realize that there are physical problems in connection with the great populated areas of California. You have fog that rolls in. All of this combines with this thing that you are talking about in this bill but the pure question of emissions from gasoline motors isn't the sole cause of smog and anyone who has been in the Los Angeles area knows this merely compounds the smog problems which they are involved in.

Now, I come back to that. You can take other cities along the eastern seaboard. They don't have the same problem. But I will admit this, that California—I am talking about the area that reaches from the ocean up to the first range of mountains-has a peculiar problem. I understand why the California government went after this problem as they did. If I lived there I might have done the same thing for California.

But it is just this question of whether or not this is a Federal program and the demand of this should be that we deliver a program into your hands for 50 States when as a matter of fact there may not be more than 7 or 8 States that are affected by it.

Mr. CARTER. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. SPRINGER. Yes, sir.

Mr. CARTER. To me as a fisherman, certainly this presents a great problem and actually we don't have to go into large cities to find this problem. I will read from Mr. Green's statement this morning He didn't read this:

In Donora, Pa., in 1948, there occurred one of the most dramatic illustrations of this fact; a trick in the weather one day trapped a blanket of smog in the town and held it there for days. People went about their business as usual at firstuntil they became sickened. In a few days 6,000 were ill and 20 had died.

This is a quite generalized thing and most of our people now live in urban areas. We notice that lung cancer in urban areas also has increased and as far as we can tell, it is from nothing more than increased air pollution.

Certainly I think it is a great problem and we should do something about it.

Mr. SPRINGER. Mr. Secretary, the problem we have run into year after year with Mr. Roberts' bill is actually experience in knowing what this is all about. What is wrong with the chairman's bill, H.R. 7429, to take this up at the Federal level and deal with it to find out what our experience is in this field?

This is exactly what he has done in H.R. 7429 which he introduced on April 13, 1965, and that would amend the Clean Air Act to provide for improved control of air pollution for Federal installations, facilities, and automotive vehicles.

Now you are getting started, you are getting some experience with the program so that we know rather than trying to wander over into many things which you and your associates have testified you are not sure about yet.

Mr. QUIGLEY. Well, I think our basic position is that we do not have to know all the answers to all the problems before we do something about some of them.

Now, we recognize that the Federal Government has a special and particular responsibility in this area not only to talk a good fight but to set a good example and that we ought to do in the Federal installations what we are urging industries and municipalities to do.

In addition, as we indicated in our testimony, Mr. MacKenzie's more detailed statement, through an arrangement with GSA the automobiles, some 20,000 or 25,000 automobiles, 1966 models, which the Federal Government will purchase next year for use throughout the country, will meet the California standard. We intend to-we plan to survey and service and keep a running account on these autos so that we will then know whether they work as effectively in Buffalo as they do in Miami, whether there are any special problems that might be encountered in a cold climate that you do not run into in the South.

This is all part of adding to our store of knowledge.

Now, what we are suggesting here is that the automobile industry has indicated that it can have available by the 1968 models, which would be the fall of 1967, cars that will meet California standards. What we are saying is that on the basis of the California experience and on the basis of our experience with the Federal cars for the next years, we will then be in a position to make a judgment as to whether these standards should be set and should be fixed in all parts of the country.

Now, this is why I think we are urging flexibility. This is why in my testimony here and on the Senate side we did not want to put the Secretary in a straitjacket where he had to do this. If there are some changes and some variations that our experience dictates should be allowed, we think the Secretary should have authority to grant such an exception. I don't know what it would be, but I think he should have that authority.

Mr. SPRINGER. I would like to turn to the question of solid waste for just a moment.

May I ask your assistant, where is the demand for this legislation? Mr. GILBERTSON. Mr. Congressman, I believe in my statement I did mention that almost every city has experienced some problems in this field and this we find from our experience in dealing with cities, communities across the whole Nation. There have been a number of bills introduced in the Congress addressing themselves to the solid waste problem generally indicating that certainly in a number of States throughout the country, including Illinois, California, and Michigan-totally from some 9 or 10 States-Congressmen have introduced bills on this problem. We have found in our work that the health and nuisance situations developing in many communities are causing court cases, placing city governments and local governments in impossible situations. They really have nowhere to go, you might

say.

A number of illustrations have come out in the last 3 or 4 years showing instances where the effective discharge of this public function is literally prevented by the injunctions and other legal actions that have been instituted by communities which surround the central

51-707 0-65—11