Advancing technology now makes it possible, we think, to take approaches other than limited spot testing to ensure that each system meets such standards. Improvements in measurement techniques now permit us to achieve reasonable correlation between assembly line tests and the HEW hot cycle test. All of us— government, industry and the public-are interested in non-polluting vehicles. General Motors is endeavoring to ensure that vehicles it produces will not be polluting vehicles. (2) We support the provision in the legislation for state inspection of emission control devices on vehicles in use. Based on our experience, we feel that maintenance in accordance with the manufacturer's service recommendation would make a positive contribution. It was found in one survey of vehicles with control devices that adjusting the carburetor to the manufacturer's recommended settings decreased hydrocarbon emissions by 7 per cent and carbon monoxide by 19 per cent. Older cars that are not well maintained can become serious problems in terms of emission levels. A fouled spark plug could double the emission level. Therefore, we are conducting a program through our dealers to encourage proper vehicle maintenance among owners. Inspection would identify vehicles that need maintenance. Also, inspection would tend to discourage owners from disconnecting the emission control systems on their cars, as some of them now do. (3) We support the establishment of a national ambient air standard. This is a proper function of government. Also, it is essential, first, to determine ambient air quality desired and then, second, to set emissions standards to achieve this quality. This process, too, would give proper recognition to stationary sources as contributors to the total air pollution problem. (4) As indicated previously in our statement, General Motors announced February 15 that our 1971 model car engines will be designed to operate on unleaded fuels. This was preceded by an address by E. N. Cole, president of General Motors, January 14 to the Society of Automotive Engineers. He emphasized that benefits could be achieved by removing lead from gasoline. Mr. Cole further amplified our reasoning on the importance of removing lead in a presentation March 4 and 5 before the California Air Resources Board. A copy of his report is offered for inclusion in the record of these proceedings. At this meeting, other domestic automobile manufacturers also stated that they believed that it would be necessary to remove lead from gasoline. Subsequently, the California Air Resources Board recommended to the Governor of California that they be given authority to provide for the removal of lead from gasoline. Also, many oil companies have publicly announced their intention to have unleaded fuel available for the 1971 model engines. We are concerned with the removal of lead only because of the need to achieve the much more stringent and desirable emission control levels of the future. Research shows that without lead in gasoline, long-life exhaust catalytic converters could become technically feasible. Exhaust manifold reactors and exhaust gas recirculation systems to control oxides of nitrogen also would have longer lives. We wish to note that we have not advocated legislation or regulation limiting the use of lead or other fuel additives. We have simply reported that our data and research create serious doubt, as far as we are concerned, that future standards could be met with leaded fuel. The problems of fuel composition, availability of octane pools and distribution are complex and, we believe, require the full attention of the oil industry and presumably could be discussed more appropriately with them. However, we wish to make it clearly understood that General Motors is not in any way recommending regulation of the oil industry. (5) Noise has long been recognized by General Motors as an environmental pollutant, and we have actively worked toward noise abatement. We have established noise control techniques and equipment in our plants and in design of our products. Further, we have worked in support of noise control legislation in California and New York. The investigation of noise levels and recommendations in the legislation regarding noise abatement certainly are desirable. This concludes our comments on the legislation. As your consideration of the bills develops, we will be prepared-if you so desire to offer any technical information or any constructive comments you or your staffs may require. In closing, we wish to reassert our earlier statement that General Motors will make every effort necessary to solve the air pollution problem insofar as automobiles are concerned. We have a double approach: to find new ways to reduce further the emissions from the internal combustion engine and explore through research the potential new power sources which can be developed on a practical basis. We have committed the personnel and the funds to accomplish these objectives. Thank you for this opportunity to discuss these important issues with you today. Attachment: ATTACHMENT A Our research, engineering and manufacturing development programs have brought about significant accomplishments in reducing automotive-caused air pollution. In fact, the record shows that the peak of automotive-caused pollution from hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide is over, as shown by charts based on HEW date on Page A-2. To accomplish these gains General Motors has developed controls for blowby gases from the crankcase, exhaust gases from the tailpipe, and evaporation from the fuel tank and carburetor and for the three types of pollutants now identified with automotive air pollution control programs-hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide and oxides of nitrogen. Some of the controls have been in use since 1961. The latest-to reduce evaporative emissions-are in use on our 1970 models in California and will go nationwide in 1971. In addition, we are developing still more effective control systems for future models. The control systems developed so far have resulted in the following reductions in pollutants: Hydrocarbons Since installation of the first control devices on 1961 model cars in California, the control systems on California cars have been successful in removing 80 per cent of hydrocarbons from new automobiles. It would take five 1970 model GM cars with the latest control systems to equal the hydrocarbon output of one 1960 car. Carbon Monoxide Emission of carbon monoxide from new automobiles has been lowered by twothirds from pre-control levels. Systems to control carbon monoxide were installed on California cars starting with 1966 and nationwide on 1968 models. The greatest effect of this improvement probably is being felt in congested urban areas— particularly in central city areas of our biggest cities, such as New York-where the number of vehicles during traffic peaks has increased only slightly, if at all. Oxides of Nitrogen This pollutant has received increased attention as progress has been achieved in reducing vehicle-produced hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide. Most 1970 General Motors cars nationwide are already meeting the levels for oxides of nitrogen established for 1971 models by California. FUTURE REDUCTIONS New passenger car registrations account for 11.3 per cent of the automobile population, and we believe that our current and recent model automobiles, as we have just discussed, are making important contributions to reducing air pollution. What of the future? We anticipate that the systems approach we are taking to this problem-an approach that looks at all factors-will enable us to eliminate automobile emissions from the overall air pollution problem. Achievement of levels now being considered for 1975 would result in the elimination of 95 per cent of the hydrocarbons and the elimination of 85 per cent of the carbon monoxide as compared to uncontrolled cars of 1960. To meet these objectives, our current effort is taking us into possible modification of engine design, improved control systems and possibly fuel injection for more precise air-fuel ratios. At the same time, we are continuing intensive investigation of alternative power sources. We will not hesitate to use a power source other than the internal combustion engine if it will do the pollution control job and meet the needs of our customers at a price they can afford to pay. We have built and tested operational vehicles powered with steam, electric, Stirling, hybrid electric and gas turbine engines and we continue to evaluate the future of these power plants in the largest research program of its type in the world. ATTACHMENT B STATEMENT OF E. N. COLE BEFORE THE CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD AND ITS TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON FUEL COMPOSITION AND EMISSION CONTROL-MARCH 4 AND 5, 1970, SACRAMENTO, CALIF. VOLUME I All I can say as a former baseball player, the phrase "To get the lead out" meant not a good base runner, and I don't want you to take that literally. I know that all of you know much more than I about the engineering of this problem, but I simply echo the Governor's Statements. We think this is a problem that can be worked on jointly. Here in the Resources Agency our main job is balancing the development and use, the preservation and production of private enterprise and a minimum of bureaucracy, and with that I will pass the baton back to you, Dr. Haagen-Smit, and we will stay with you for an hour or so. Chairman HAAGEN-SMIT. Thank you, Mr. Livermore. I think it is important for you to be here because all my people are being paid through your office as you well know. We have now come to the presentations by the representatives of the automobile industry, and No. 1 on the list is Mr. Edward N. Cole, President of General Motors. Mr. Cole. Mr. EDWARD N. COLE. Thank you, Dr. Haagen-Smit. General Motors representatives are happy to respond to Governor Reagan's invitation by being here this morning to discuss the relationship of engines and fuel in controlling emissions. We believe we can be most helpful to the Air Resources Board and the Technical Advisory Committee if we cover three basic points: First, a brief technical summary of the effects of gasoline on emissions control; and Second, an outline of General Motors' current plans concerning future engine modifications which depend on fuel availability to meet these plans; and Third, a list of possible areas of regulatory action by the Air Resources Board which we believe the Board may wish to explore. While the announced purpose of this meeting is to discuss prospects for improving the quality of air in California through fuel composition and emission control, I want to give you and Governor Reagan my personal assurance that we at General Motors are directing our attention to all aspects of the overall emissions problem. In addition to our various research and development programs directed toward improving the internal combustion gasoline engine, we are continuing to work on several potential alternate powerplants. I want to emphasize that we are not wedded to the internal combustion engine. We would not hesitate to replace it if we could find a practical alternate source of power which could take us to lower emissions levels than we can reach by controlling the internal combustion engine. As to the specific subject matter of today's meeting-results of our research programs into the relationships between fuels and engines indicate there are strong reasons for having unleaded fuels available in ample quantities as soon as possible. In our opinion, there are a number of aspects of fuel composition which affect emissions from spark-ignition gasoline engines and which deserve consideration. These are: 1. Lead Alkyl Additives. 2. Aromatic Hydrocarbon Components. 4. Volatile Hydrocarbon Components. 5. Detergent/Dispersant Additives. 6. Gaseous Fuels. Now, I should like to direct my attention to the first item, the Lead Alkyl Additives. Our research indicates there are several problems which result from the presence of tetraethyl lead in gasoline : Item (a) Lead emissions to the atmosphere.-We are not medical experts, but we recognize there is considerable concern among health authorities as to the possible effects of lead on human health. Removing lead from fuels would relieve some of that concern. It would also greatly reduce the total emission of particulates from automobile engines and go a long way toward meeting the indicated HEW particulate emission requirements. We know of no way now to meet that goal with lead compounds in gasoline. Item (b) Catalytic exhaust treatment.-Reduction of hydrocarbon and carbon monoxide emissions to about the 1975 California standards appears technologically feasible with catalytic exhaust treatment, provided only unleaded gasoline is used. We know of no catalyst at this time that has a reasonable lifetime with leaded fuel. There is evidence that even one-half gram per gallon renders the catalyst ineffective in a relatively short time. Item (c) Manifold reactors.-Another approach which might be required to meet 1975 California standards is the use of an exhaust manifold reactor. Attack of lead salts in exhaust gas on ceramic-lined manifold reactors has been |