rather than by the process of reasoning that the problem is here and has to be dealt with now.

I do not mean that this ought to force us to be precipitate or illconsidered on premature action before we are ready to act. On this scale I am most interested in getting your testimony-and this is why I am here on exactly how fast we can move and how far and how quickly. But that we must move, I have no doubt about it.

It seems to me that your statement indicated a doubt. It is hard for me to believe that you really have that doubt and I thought it might be useful to have this little colloquy on it.

Mr. WILLIAMS. As we have indicated in several places, our interest is in the need for this quality air standard, the ambient air standard on which then measurements can be made and actions can be taken. We think this is a vital need. As I understand it, it shouldn't be too difficult to get to. Is that correct, George?

Mr. DELANEY. It seems so to me.

Senator MUSKIE. On this question of national ambient air standards, this is something that clearly is going to take time unless we are going to arbitrarily establish a national standard that ignores the differences, variations, and metrological conditions in various parts of the country.

The same is true, of course, of the water quality standards. The initial proposal there was that we establish a national water quality standard. We were convinced after the hearings that that proposal was completely unrealistic, that they have to be established on a river basin by river basin basis and even on sections of basins in order to take into consideration differences of water volume available, the nature of the streams, whether they are slow moving or fast moving, and so on.

Air standards are going to require, first of all, a tooling up. First, I assume in the great metropolitan areas, establishment of monitoring systems and so on before we can really establish standards. I would not think it necessary for us to get that job done before we begin to deal with automotive sources of pollution and the stationary sources of pollution.

I would not think we would have to do that. Not that we should push for unwarranted expensive solutions. I think we have to be realistic.

Were you going to comment on that?

Mr. DELANEY. No; I had no comment, Senator.

Senator MUSKIE. Please feel free to indulge in an exchange here. I think we can go on to the others, but I want to sort of set the tone and climate. You feel free to take issue with me and I will feel free to take issue with you.

Mr. WILLIAMS. Thank you. We will freewheel up here.

Next, Senator, we would like to ask Mr. Harry Barr, vice president of engineering, General Motors Corp., to present his statement.

STATEMENT OF HARRY F. BARR, VICE PRESIDENT OF
ENGINEERING, GENERAL MOTORS CORP.

Mr. BARR. Mr. Chairman and members of the Special Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution, as Mr. Williams said, I am Harry F. Barr, vice president in charge of the engineering staff, General Motors Corp.

46-378-65-9

In response to your invitation, I am pleased to speak on behalf of General Motors concerning the automotive vehicle emission aspects of Senate bill 306.

I would like to begin by briefly reviewing our early efforts in air pollution control as a prelude to a description of the present status of our developments.

General Motors has been investigating motor vehicle emissions and their control since 1952. These investigations have covered not only the development of emission control systems but also the fundamentals of the chemistry of smog itself, and the factors which contribute to its formation. This study of smog chemistry has led to the development of several basic facilities. Most important of these is the General Motors Research Laboratories smog chamber.

The dual approach of chemical research and practical engineering of emission controls has produced a number of significant developments for emission control. The first major contribution was our discovery of the importance of crankcase blowby emissions. AMA member companies substantiated this development and the positive crankcase ventilation system which grew out of these studies eliminates 30 percent to 40 percent of unburned hydrocarbons from total automobile emissions.

It was introduced on 1961 models in California, and after a 2-year trial period of experience in that State, the control was extended to 1963 models nationwide. Importantly, as older model cars are retired from registration, the percentage of cars with this control will increase until the entire General Motors car population will have achieved the emission reduction noted for our new cars.

In the second area of study, as early as 1957, General Motors had exhaust emission control programs underway to evaluate catalytic converters and direct flame afterburners. These projects led to extensive developments on the application of such devices-particularly catalytic converters.

Our studies over the period of 6 years to 1963 were devoted to achieving a satisfactory exhaust emission control system at the lowest possible cost to our customers. These studies indicated that an expensive catalyst renewal was required at 12,000 miles or on a yearly basis; that other engine changes and added components were required to extend life of the catalyst to this point; and that a warmup period was necessary before the system could function. Such considerations led us to concentrate our efforts on more practical engineering solutions to the problem.

As a result of our work on catalytic converters and afterburners. we obtained a better understanding of reactions and temperature requirements for reactions in the exhaust system. It was determined that air introduced into the hottest part of the exhaust system would materially reduce the unburned hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide of an engine without other devices downstream in the exhaust system. In 1961, an active engineering development program was initiated using this approach.

The General Motors air injection reactor system, which has grown out of this earlier work, will be on our high-volume 1966 model cars and light trucks that are produced for sale in California.

The General Motors divisions and staffs involved are now engaged in a major engineering, tooling and production equipment program. Over 3 million vehicle test miles are involved in the completion of this program for our 1966 models. Thousands of laboratory hours have also been accumulated in testing components of the system.

This system is an integral part of the engine, since many components must be engineered and modified to fit the particular requirements of each specific engine. Its heart is an air injection pump which forces clean air into the engine exhaust ports immediately behind each exhaust valve head. The excess air at this point helps burn hydrocarbon emissions and carbon monoxide as the hot exhaust gases are expelled from the cylinder.

The system requires carburetors, distributors, and other components which are specifically designed and engineered to meet the performance and maintenance standards established for the rest of the vehicle. We feel that it is necessary to have a carefully engineered system so that it will be tolerant of mass production variables and still be within the limits of 275 parts per million unburned hydrocarbons and 1.5 percent carbon monoxide maximum values established by the State of California. The system requires only normal type engine maintenance.

As Mr. Williams has stated, meeting the California requirement for 1966 model year cars necessitated a greatly accelerated program for our industry. In the case of General Motors, our engineering and tooling programs were concentarted on the 55 engine combinations which constitute approximately 98 percent of the cars and light trucks sold in California. The remaining 35 low-volume engine combinations account for approximately 2 percent of California sales.

We must now add this low-volume exemption list to our production engineering and tooling program for the 1967 model year, in the State of California.

We support Mr. Williams' statement concerning S. 306, but wish to emphasize a few points:

1. The proposed standards and effective dates should be set by administrative rather than legislative decisions.

2. In the 2-year leadtime for exhaust control compliance referred to by Mr. Williams, we must assume that a national standard rather than diverse State or regional standards could be established and that any such national standard would be no more stringent than that now required in California. We would need 1 year for field experience on volume-produced vehicles in California incorporating our system, and a second year for expanded tooling to provide national compliance. 3. Because diesel emissions are not a problem with respect to unburned hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide, any proposed criteria must be based on other factors than discussed here in relation to gasoline engines.

We feel that the education of the motoring public as to the need for emission control measures on a national basis must be a most important part of the entire program. We must be sure they understand that the decisions made by regulatory bodies are sound. If this is accomplished, the need for mandatory inspection and good vehicle maintenance practices will be more acceptable to the owners of our vehicles. In conclusion, General Motors will continue to cooperate with any agencies that may be involved in establishing standards for air pollution control.

Senator MUSKIE. Would it be better, Mr. Williams, to continue with the rest of the statements?

Mr. WILLIAMS. I think it might be worthwhile, sir.

Next we will call on Mr. Bogan, vice president and director of engineering, Chrysler Corp.

(There follows a description of General Motors air injection system :)

DESCRIPTION OF THE GENERAL MOTORS AIR INJECTION REACTOR SYSTEM

The system which General Motors will use on 1966 vehicles sold in California is not a hang-on-type device. Instead, it has been designed as an integral part of the vehicle, a system which should given General Motors customers the same performance and satisfaction as they have received in the past. It consists of several modifications to the basic engine design, plus injection of secondary air directly into the exhaust manifold, very close to the exhaust valves.

As can be seen from the attached schematics, the secondary air is supplied by an engine-driven air pump, is manifolded through small diameter tubes, and is directed to impinge immediately upon the hot exhaust valve. By injecting air at this point, it mixes with the hot exhaust gases as they discharge from the engine cylinders, and oxidizes the unburned hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide into carbon dioxide and water vapor. We have found, however, that in order to make air injection effective, it is necessary to modify several of the basic engine parameters in order to insure that the mixture at the exhaust valve will promote adequate combustion. These engine design changes consist primarily of different carburetor metering characteristics and changes to the ignition timing.

Two additional items are needed in the system: check valves, and anti-backfire valve. The check vales are utilized to protect the air pump from backflow of exhaust gas in the event of a pump belt failure. The anti-backfire valve is needed to prevent backfires under certain operating conditions, and especially during warmup.