Senator RANDOLPH. You are thinking of Utah and Colorado and New Mexico and Arizona?

Mr. FULLER. Yes, sir; being installed now.

Senator RANDOLPH. And that would be the same process as we have in the East, is that correct?

Mr. FULLER. That's correct.

Senator RANDOLPH. And you think then that that is an answer here? Mr. FULLER. I think to bring this into a little narrower look here, what I said was, we can allow no further expansion. The lifetime of the powerplant operation is the powerplant usually has a lifetime of about 35 years. Now, there is presently being built in the Mojave, on the Nevada side of the Colorado River, two 750-megawatt power stations which are using coal and air pollution emissions are being regulated by the Department of the Interior. They are being controlled at about 96 percent efficiency. Four Corners is being built. The Bolsa Chica plant is being built down the coast which will produce more electricity than Hoover Dam.

All I am saying is that there should not be, in this high-density population area, any further expansion of fossil-fuel fired boilers · here. At the Four Corners, in the Mojave Desert someplace-someplace where they can use slurry or mine-mouth operation-but only in that area.

I would like to see them phased out here, because even natural gas has a price tag on it. As you know, the hotter the flame, the more oxides of nitrogen. Eventually, if we keep expanding this type of operation we are going to be overcome by oxides of nitrogen. That is my point.

Senator RANDOLPH. He spoke about being on a collision course with the utilities. I mention this as factual information for the record. Senator Murphy is an old coal miner himself, he used to dig in Pennsylvania-this is true-but in West Virginia we have completedI say "we"-the Virginia Electric & Power Co. has completed a project which today costs $185 million; no Federal funds involved. The program was carried forward by that utility. They are, of course, doing exactly what is projected here in the west. We have a market for the coal. This one utility is purchasing 3 million tons of West Virginia coal annually in connection with transmission of electricity by wire to northern Virginia in the Washington metropolitan area. I mention that only because I think that you have touched so many facets of this problem and are so knowledgeable in its broader aspects that even though we are here on a specific subject it was noteworthy to call attention to what perhaps will be done here and what is already being done back east.

Mr. FULLER. Transmission by extra-high voltage lines certainly is a subject of common everyday use. So I would certainly agree with you, sir, that you could use mine-mouth operations or slurry, and you could generate electricity some distance and transmit it over highvoltage lines. This is certainly the only approach we can take, rather than expansion here in the local basin.

Senator RANDOLPH. Thank you.

Senator MUSKIE. Mr. Grant?

Mr. GRANT. I would like to make one clarification statement. That is in relation to maintenance. I would like to draw to the committee's attention the difference between maintenance and maladjustment.

On the report which was submitted to your committee of the report of the criteria committee, with the statistical data from the November emissions, you will see on the last two pages a chart which indicates the kind of emission levels that can be achieved if you have a trulyand I emphasize "truly"-sophisticated adjustment of those vehicles so they are exactly right. They are perfect. The timing is correct, carburetion is correct. You have a nice, flat curve. Where you run into problems is where people don't look after their cars.

There is a question as to whether they have competent service available. It is not such a question of maintenance, but is the vehicle set properly.

In one of our surveillance tests, which is a joint effort between the Federal Government and ourselves, this is a sponsored test where we actually bring the vehicle in, test emissions, and determine whether or not the vehicle is set to proper manufacturer's specifications, and it's appalling. The timing is off; the carburetion is haywire. They are not set the way they should be. This may or may not be a question of maintenance. It is a matter of interpretation, but they are not set correctly. This is the reason why I suggest in one of my recommendations that they have a quality control test facility at every assembly plant in the United States, make sure that the car is set right at least when it has its first exposure to the motoring public. There is a tremendous responsibility on the national level, on the State level, and in the industry to train the people to make sure that the motorist is getting a fair crack. If he gets this, you are going to get emission reduction.

Senator MUSKIE. Thank you, gentlemen, very much.

We have six more witnesses. Our next witness is Mr. W. H. Fisher, vice-president, director, Standard Oil of New Jersey.

STATEMENT OF HAROLD W. FISHER, DIRECTOR AND VICE PRESIDENT OF STANDARD OIL CO. (NEW JERSEY), ACCOMPANIED BY DR. NEIL V. HAKALA, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT OF ESSO RESEARCH & ENGINEERING CO., AND DR. NORMAN ALPERT ALSO OF ESSO RESEARCH & ENGINEERING CO.

Mr. FISHER. My name is Harold W. Fisher. I am a director and vice-president of Standard Oil Co. (New Jersey). I have been with the Jersey organization since graduating from Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1927 with a degree in chemical engineering. My main areas of responsibility concern the chemicals business, petroleum refining, and research.

I would like to introduce two colleagues, Dr. Neil V. Hakala, next to me, who is the executive vice-president of Esso Research & Engineering Co., Jersey's principal research affiliate, and Dr. Norman Alpert, who is in charge of our automotive fuels research.

I am pleased to appear before your committee. My company shares your concern that the public welfare is threatened by air pollution. We are convinced that air pollution is an important problem and that it must not be permitted to persist.

We are trying, as are you gentlemen and many others, to determine the proper things to do to solve this problem.

We are trying to separate the known from the unknown among the many causes of air pollution. We are also trying to determine an order of priorities among the possible ideas for solving the problem, to assure that the actions we take lead to real progress.

Since your specific concern in this hearing is the pollution resulting from automotive emissions, I would like to focus my remarks on this problem. My company is committed to do all we can to combat pollution caused by automobiles. As an important supplier of fuel for motor vehicles, we are concerned with the part which motor gasoline plays in air pollution. Our scientists and engineers are pursuing every clue to find the answers. It may be that changes in fuel composition will be found to be necessary. New additives may be found which are helpful. It may be necessary to reduce or eliminate some of the presently used additives if they are found to be detrimental.

Of course, one cannot consider fuel in isolation. One must also take into account the engine in which it is used. Therefore, although we do not make engines, we do engage in research to determine what changes or additions in engines may help to reduce harmful emissions. The automotive industry is doing its own research and to the extent we can facilitate such research with our skills and resources we will do so, as indeed we have already done.

In addition to what we are doing on our own, we also are supporting-along with other companies in our industry-the research activities of the American Petroleum Institute. Because the API's work already has been described to this committee in previous hearings, I will not repeat its programs today.

I am greatly encouraged by what has been learned thus far. The problem is not yet solved. But real progress has been made-sufficient progress to convince us that it will be possible for the public to have clean air and also to continue to enjoy the flexible and economical transportation provided by the present type automobile.

While we believe it will be technically possible to develop alternate and perhaps entirely nonpolluting propulsion systems, it seems highly unlikely that they can achieve the level of convenience, flexibility, and economy of the gasoline engine without making major research advances and without repeating many years of the development that have gone into our current system.

If we were willing to disregard cost and make significant sacrifices in the performance and efficiency of the present automobile, it is probably technically feasible now-or could be very soon-to reduce the harmful emissions from the gasoline engine to very low levels.

But the solution to the pollution problem should be acceptable in terms of both performance and cost-whether it is a nonpolluting gasoline engine automobile or any alternative system. The American public should not-and in our opinion need not-be forced to accept any

substantial downgrading of the automobile, which is such a vital part of our way of life.

Those of us who are working on the problem are eager that technically feasible solutions be made economically feasible before the public is asked to accept them. We believe that continued improvement of the internal combustion engine is a far more practical, more quickly realizable, and more economical way to abate automotive pollution than the development of entirely new propulsion systems.

Toward this goal, we in Jersey have in progress a number of programs which I would like to review briefly.

In our work on fuels to reduce emissions, we are conducting comprehensive studies in laboratory smog chambers to determine ways in which fuel composition contributes to the smog-forming potential of hydrocarbons emitted from vehicles. So far, we have found that the combustion process itself has a greater determining effect on the exhaust composition than any fuel changes we have been able to make. For a long time we have also been searching for fuel or engine modifications that would increase the completeness of the combustion process-that would reduce the amount of hydrocarbon that remains unburned. Recently we have turned up an encouraging new lead in this area and we are pursuing it vigorously. I should caution you, however, that we have experienced many disappointments in the past in this very difficult field.

Small amounts of deposits which form in the combustion chamber can have a substantial effect in increasing the amount of unburned hydrocarbons because the deposits quench the flame before all the fuel has burned. We are searching for ways by which changes in fuel composition might reduce or modify the effect of these deposits. To date, however, under practical test conditions, we have not found that such changes had any significant effect on emissions, but we are continuing our studies.

We have been looking for ways to optimize the performance of present emission control systems. In this work, we have developed a gasoline additive which helps to assure continued freedom from deposits and consequently improved performance of the positive crankcase ventilation valves, which are now used in all new cars to control crankcase emissions. This additive is already in use in some of our company's motor gasolines and we are making it available to other gasoline producers.

Speaking of additives, we are also developing one for diesel fuels which we hope is close to commercial reality. This additive, which can reduce diesel smoke by as much as 40 percent, is being evaluated in limited commercial field trials. I would like to emphasize that smoke and odor from diesel-powered vehicles can be held to low levels by a combination of good maintenance practices, operation in accordance with engine manufacturers' recommendations, and the use of good quality diesel fuels. These will still be the mainstays of effective control. The chief value of the additive is that it provides the operator with added flexibility in meeting smoke standards.

Returning to the gasoline engine, we recognize that engine and engine accessory modifications have so far appeared to offer the greatest promise for major emission reductions, and that the fuel effects

we have been discussing may only be able to assist in making these possible. In this connection, we have developed an evaporative loss control device. With this device it is feasible to eliminate essentially all of the hydrocarbon evaporation losses from automobile carburetors and gasoline tanks. These evaporation losses are a significant source of atmospheric hydrocarbons.

The heart of this device is a small charcoal canister which traps about 95 percent of the evaporating hydrocarbons which are otherwise lost to the atmosphere, and holds them until they can be returned to the engine at a time when they can be usefully burned without affecting the normal engineer performance or increasing harmful exhaust emissions.

We have equipped a number of cars with this system, and we loaned one to each of the major auto companies for their study and comparison with alternate approaches which they have under consideration. Details of this system were made available publicly in a presentation to the Society of Automotive Engineers last month.

We also have studied engine and equipment modification systems which we believe are ultimately capable of reducing exhaust emissions to very low levels. One of these is a new catalyst approach which has simultaneously reduced hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, and nitrogen oxides in the exhaust of gasoline engines. These laboratory studies have also identified the problems which will have to be overcome in achieving a practical system of this particular type.

Another possible method of controlling nitrogen oxides is to recirculate a portion of the exhaust gas back into the engine. This reduces the peak combustion temperature and can reduce the nitrogen oxides materially. It is not clear, however, whether this approach would be compatible with the current systems for hydrocarbon and carbon monoxide emission control. We are investigating this question under contract for the Public Health Service.

While the systems we have under study do not necessarily represent an optimum low-cost solution, we believe that a low-emission car, based on one or more of these possible approaches, can and will be demonstrated soon-and might be put into use within the next 5 to 10 years.

In our own program, we at Jersey have set a goal of developing technology which will permit reducing automotive air pollution to levels prevailing in Los Angeles County in 1940-even with the car population estimated for the year 2000.

To show where we stand on the problem in these terms, I would like to refer to a chart. It traces the effects of current and projected programs for the reduction of automotive hydrocarbon emissions in Los Angeles County. These are based on known and probably future developments in control. We have taken Los Angeles as the critical example. The same degree of control will give even better results in the rest of the Nation where meteorological problems are less severe and where car numbers are growing less rapidly.

The emission levels in this chart are based on State of California vehicle estimates to 1980, extended by us to the year 2000. We have assumed that it would require 10 years after the adoption of any control system on new cars for its effects to spread throughout the car population.

77-515 0-67-pt. 1-18