We do appreciate your interest, your alertness, and your crusading spirit.

Mrs. KRAVITZ. Thank you.

May I add one more thing, Senator?

I didn't read our 17-point program, but the very first point is: 1. A coordinated program of air pollution research between private and governmental agencies. And I want to stress the fact that we do agree that we would like to see the Federal Government take a hand in research, contrary to what Mr. Maga has said.

We should like to see the two agencies, Federal and State, coordinate their programs so that we come up with a more immediate solution. Senator MUSKIE. I am sure this is an essential.

Senator Moss?

Senator Moss. I really have no questions. I do congratulate these witnesses, representing as they do private groups who have mobilized and seen the danger here and recognized the problem and therefore are urging solutions.

Thank you.

Senator MUSKIE. Thank you very much.

Our next two witnesses are Mr. John H. Smith, director of the air control and research department, Kaiser Steel Corp., and Mr. Harry Morrison of the Western Oil & Gas Association here in Los Angeles.

Would you two gentlemen come forward, please? You each have prepared statements and may present them in any way you like.

STATEMENT OF JOHN H. SMITH, DIRECTOR, AIR CONTROL AND

RESEARCH DEPARTMENT, KAISER STEEL CORP.

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee, my name is John H. Smith. I am employed by the Kaiser Steel Corp., as director of the air control and research department at its steel plant, Fontana, Calif. I am a graduate of the University of Illinois and have received both bachelor of science and master of arts degrees from that university. I have been working in the field of air pollution control since 1949. I am an active member of the Air Pollution Control Association and at present am chairman of the steel committee of that association.

I am here today to testify for the Kaiser Steel Corp. I would like to speak particularly from the position of a person actually engaged in the day-to-day solution of industrial air pollution problems.

Kaiser Steel Corp. operates a fully contained or integrated steel plant at Fontana. The steel plant includes at the one location coke ovens, blast furnaces, steelmaking furnaces, and rolling mills. The plant operates in a unique geographical area insofar as the steel industry is concerned, in that it is located in an area where wind speeds and wind directions, as well as frequent low level inversions, present conditions that are very conductive to the formation and retention of photochemical smog. Accordingly, air pollution controls were considered from the beginning in the construction of the steel plant.

In 1942, before construction of the Kaiser steel plant, consultants were retained to survey the plant area and make recommendations for the installation of air pollution control devices. These recommendations were evaluated and where practicable were incorporated in the

original designs for the coke oven, blast furnace, and steelmaking facilities of the plant. After start up of that plant, air pollution measuring instruments were installed at varying distances from the plant to monitor continuously effluents and concentrations. Pathologists and citrus experts were engaged to help round out the efforts of the company toward better air pollution control. All this took place 5 years before air pollution legislation was enacted in the State of California.

Over the years Kaiser Steel Corp. has spent many millions of dollars on air pollution control devices at its Fontana steel plant and expects in the future to continue its air control efforts through research and development of improved air control methods.

I would like to bring to your attention four problem areas in air pollution control that exist in steelmaking processes and in the steel industry generally.

First, there are some processes used in steelmaking where no practicable total air pollution control device is available. An example of such a process is found in the coke ovens. For such processes it becomes necessary to develop controls for specific parts of the process on a piecemeal basis in an effort to arrive at an overall solution. This is frequently not a satisfactory approach. My company and other members of the steel industry have spent considerable sums researching air control problems, and while substantial progress has been made, solutions to all problems have not yet been found.

Second, a most difficult and challenging source of problems is found in the rapid technological advances now being made in the steel industry. Today, a control device designed to fit a particular installation may become entirely inadequate in a few years or even months because of new technologies. An example can be cited from the recent increased use of oxygen in steelmaking. When the use of oxygen was applied to the open hearth steelmaking process, production was practically doubled, but there were many changes in grain loadings, temperatures, moisture content, particle size, and chemistry of the effluent. This, in turn, required changes in the air pollution control devices on the open hearth furnaces.

Third, another problem area has been difficulties in the use of the very practical and economical wet cleaning devices. While it is often feasible to control an air pollution problem by the use of liquids, the very use of liquids may immediately bring up an equally important water pollution problem.

Finally, and most important, our greatest problem originates in the infancy of the field of air pollution control, our need for better sharing of experiences and ideas, and our need for more research. It is in this area that the Federal Government is in a good position to help under the Clean Air Act of 1963.

I would like to suggest the following areas for investigation and research, with a view to sharing as widely as possible with industry information developed thereform to help in attaining better air pollution control:

1. Sampling methods: Determination and development of techniques assuring more representative data.

2. Analytical techniques: Quicker and more acurate analytical techniques would provide more accurate data from which to work.

3. The chemistry of air pollution: This would involve particularly the content of various effluents emitted from both stationary and moving sources.

4. Effects of various air pollutants: This research would encompass the broad area of effects on humans, animals, vegetation, and minerals. An example of this type of research is the agricultural air research program conducted at the University of California at Riverside. This program is supported by agriculture, industry, and local governments alike to the extent of almost $200,000 in expenditures annually. This study is unique and promises major contributions to our knowledge in this field.

5. Air quality standards: Determination of standards are particularly important where synergistic effects may occur.

6. Control devices: Further investigation is needed for the development of air control devices and methods. For example, investigation is needed in filter fabrics for use in high-temperature operations (above 500° F.), corrosion-resistant materials for making control devices where such are not practical due to a lack of water or because of water pollution problems.

My remarks have been brief and, I hope, helpful.

Mr. Chairman, we look forward to having you and the members of your committee visit the steel plant tomorrow.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator Moss. Thank you, Mr. Smith, for your statement.

From the recommendations you have; the points that you make, I take it that you believe that there is a great deal yet to be learned in research; we haven't learned it all by any means.

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir; we are just scratching the surface of that field.

To illustrate this best, I might state, as Mr. Maga indicated, there is a scarcity of people qualified to work in this area. It covers many fields, and at the present time the chemist coming out of the university is practically worthless until he gains insight into the complex fields. Senator Moss. Your point No. 5 was that you recommended determination of standards because this would be particularly important, you say, where synergistic effects may occur.

What are synergistic effects?

Mr. SMITH. This, sir, is where you might have one gas: you know everything about it; a second gas may be innocuous, and the two combined may produce a third product which is even more dangerous.

Senator Moss. The quality standards that have been testified here do not meet this particular problem you are talking about?

Mr. SMITH. For the most part, work in the past has been with single gases. We know the effects of carbon monoxide, per se, or NO, or NO2, or any of these other air pollutants, but when you get these and mix them in varying quantities under ideal situations, we don't know yet just what happens. We don't know the effects; no, sir.

Senator Moss. What is the location of Kaiser Steel; are you in San Bernardino County?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Senator Moss. With the county there, do you have to have any permit at the present time?

Mr. SMITH. We have an Air Pollution Control District in San Bernardino County; the rules are very much like those in Los Angeles, perhaps in some areas more stringent. We have rules and regulations. that are at the present time being studied by various committees with the idea of updating them through various types of research. I think Mr. Young spoke about the grants that the Government has given to the doctors and that they have retained a doctor to work in dust bowl measurements.

We are upgrading our knowledge in this field.

Senator Moss. Your location is still within this basin and you get that inversion phenomenon that comes here; is that right?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Senator Moss. Well, we appreciate hearing from you, Mr. Smith, and we do look forward to coming out to visit your plant tomorrow. It will be very interesting to see what you are doing there and to get some idea, firsthand, of what the problem is that remains.

Senator Muskie had to step out momentarily. He may have a few questions, and if you wouldn't mind remaining at the table, we'll wait until he comes back and we'll hear from Mr. Morrison, representing the Western Oil & Gas Association.

Mr. Morrison, you may proceed.

STATEMENT OF HARRY MORRISON, ASSISTANT GENERAL

MANAGER, THE WESTERN OIL & GAS ASSOCIATION

Mr. MORRISON. Thank you, Senator Moss. My name is Harry Morrison. I am assistant general manager of Western Oil & Gas Association. Our address is 609 South Grand Avenue, Los Angeles, Calif. We appreciate the opportunity of testifying before this honorable subcommittee.

WOGA represents about 85 percent of the production and wholesale marketing and more than 90 percent of the manufacturing of petroleum products in the six Western States of Alaska, Arizona, California, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington.

It is our understanding that you would like our observations on the Clean Air Act, and our suggestions as to its administration and its changes, if any. You would also like to hear about our role in air pollution control, and any problems we have.

We shall speak only for the oil industry in the western part of the United States. Our point of view does not necessarily represent the point of view of any other trade association in our field.

However, we should like to point out to you that we filed comments on the proposed Clean Air Act in conjunction with the American Petroleum Institute on March 18, 1963. These are in the record of the House Subcommittee on Health and Safety. We also subsequently filed with your honorable subcommittee on September 11, 1963, a similar statement relating to S. 432 and related bills.

I represent here today a group of companies that has spent more than three times as much money on air pollution control since 1948 in Los Angeles County alone than has the Federal Government everywhere. I represent a group that has spent about twice as much money on air pollution control since 1948 in Los Angeles County alone than has the Federal Government everywhere, plus the Los Angeles

Country Air Pollution Control District, which is the largest local entity in the field of air pollution control.

Our member companies have spent, in Los Angeles County alone, since 1948 the sum of $144,456,750 on air pollution control, on the operation and maintenance of those controls, and on research. In a like period the Federal Government spent $44,865,000 everywhere and the Los Angeles County Air Pollution Control District spent $35,500,000.

Our money was not spent simply because laws were passed. Our industry has been controlling its emissions for many years.

The types of controls in use relate to the type of contaminants emitted. Following are the type of contaminant and the chief conrols:

REFINING OPERATIONS

Hydrocarbons: Numerous systems and devices, including vapor recovery and floating roofs, waste heat boilers, covered water separators, blowdown systems, venting smokeless flames, direct flame burning, mechanical seals on pumps, and in-line continuous blending systems. Hydrocarbon losses from refineries in Los Angeles are now about an almost irreducible 50 tons a day. The Los Angeles County Air Pollution Control District estimates that we are keeping out of the atmosphere 695 tons a day.

Sulfur dioxide: Scavenger plants to eliminate sulfur dioxide emissions and sulfur lines and operations have been constructed as closed systems. The total sulfur dioxide emissions are 35 tons a day, and the air pollution control district estimates that 540 tons a day are prevented from reaching the atmosphere by control systems.

Dust and smoke: Optimum combustion procedures and continuous surveillance has kept smoke to a minimum and within the law. Electrostatic precipitators reduce catalyst dust to far below required standards. The refineries emit 5 tons a day of aerosols and prevent the emission of a like amount. Catalytic dust emissions at each cracking unit have been reduced to less than 40 pounds an hour as compared to a potential of 400 to 600 pounds an hour.

Carbon monoxide: Waste heat boilers have been installed throughout the refinery complex. These capture the carbon monoxide emitted as the carbon is burned off the catalyst for regeneration purposes. One hundred seventy tons a day of CO is emitted from refinery operations, but 1,465 are prevented from being emitted according to the air pollution control district.

This 170 tons compares to 8,115 tons a day that is now being emitted by the automobile in Los Angeles County.

Marketing operations: Contaminant emissions from marketing operations include only hydrocarbon losses. These are controlled by vapor recovery systems and floating roof tanks. About 80 tons a day of hydrocarbons are emitted by marketing operations in Los Angeles County excluding losses in filling the individual auto tanks. Fiftyfive tons a day are prevented from being emitted according to the air pollution control district.

Production: Here again the primary loss is from hydrocarbons. About 60 tons a day are emitted in Los Angeles County, and 225 tons a day are prevented from being emitted according to the air pollution control district.