« ForrigeFortsett »
The sense of all the above is that, at tremendous cost, an extremely high percentage of all contaminant emissions are under control by the oil industry. The result is that contaminant emissions from the oil industry are insignificant.
In addition, the oil industry has a record of which we are proud involving cooperative studies. Since these have been the subject of numerous reports, we believe it is sufficient merely to list some of the more important and typical ones.
We participated in a joint study on refinery emissions with the U.S. Public Health Service, the State of California, and the Los Angeles County Air Pollution Control District. This was the definitive study on refinery emissions and set the pattern for determining how best to control them.
Using the joint project procedure, we participated in a joint study of emissions of oxides of nitrogen from stationary sources in Los Angeles County. This also included Federal, State, and county entities, along with industry.
The industry also participated in a joint project on olefin content of fuels which indicates another facet of oil industry relationship and interest in air pollution control.
This came about when certain published papers concluded that the olefin content of gasoline had a direct relationship to the olefin content of exhaust in the automobile and that if one reduced the olefin content of gasoline, one would thereby reduce the olefin content of the exhaust. This reduction in exhaust olefins presumably would reduce the smog potential of the exhaust since olefins are extremely reactive in the photochemical process.
A joint project was set up with the Los Angeles Air Pollution Control District, the U.S. Public Health Service, the U.S. Bureau of Mines, and 'the California Department of Public Health. After many months of work and many thousands of dollars, it was concluded that a decrease in olefin content below that which was currently found in Los Angeles County gasolines would not reduce the smog potential of the automotive exhaust. This work has been recognized as a benchmark in automotive exhaust smog control. Its chief finding was that olefins in the exhaust are created by the automobile engine itself, with no significant relationship to the olefins in the gasoline.
The most recent joint study is that completed late last year with the air pollution control district on losses from filling of service underground tanks. This has resulted in a determination of the characteristics of service stations and the cost of optimum control.
Through the years the oil industry carried on its own research as well and made large contributions to the Air Pollution Foundation of Southern California, which supported and coordinated separate research on related smog problems and wrote itself out of business 3 years ago when it concluded nothing more could be done about the smog problem until the automobile was controlled.
An interesting example of individual oil company research is pertinent to the current discussion that oxides of nitrogen may need to be reduced drastically in order to reduce the smog problem. It would not be surprising if devices developed by one of our member oil companies were important in reducing oxides of nitrogen from the auto
mobile. The automobile, of course, is the major source of oxides of nitrogen. Emissions from natural gas and fuel oil burning are insignificant.
Senator MUSKIE. May I ask you this?
As you know, the Clean Air Act establishes a technical committee made up of representatives of the Public Health Service and the representatives of the fuels industry, the manufacturers of exhaust devices, and the manufacturers of automobiles or motor vehicles.
Do you think this would be a useful committee in connection with this problem?
Mr. MORRISON. Yes, sir.
We have already written to Secretary Celebrezze, and have suggested, we have said, first of all, we think that this would be a very good thing to do and to do as rapidly as he thought proper.
Second, we have been so presumptuous as to suggest that the committee should be smaller, rather than larger, because we think that the smaller the committee the more work it gets done and the faster it gets it done.
Third, we have suggested that it might even be limited, let's say, to two representatives from each of those three entities, automobile people, device people, fuel manufacturers.
Fourth, we have suggested that if he finds any merit to our sug. gestion, we would be very happy to have him ask us who we think ought to be on the committee, because we have some ideas there as far as our people are concerned, the oil industry.
I might say that we think it should be persons of a vice-presidential stature or better in research or in manufacturing who would then be able to immediately obtain all the cooperation necessary at a moment's notice from the entire complex of the oil industry.
So my answer is, I think it is good and we have acted on that and, in fact, the paper which I have here today tells you this and suggests the hope that you too may carry back the word that we think it is a good idea.
Senator MUSKIE. Fine.
Mr. MORRISON. In addition, we have continuously kept all of our employees thoroughly informed on the smog problem and the importance of emission controls. This is extremely important because personal appreciation of the importance of control results in maximum control. We published a booklet on air pollution designed for industry consumption. I am filing a copy of this booklet with this statement for the committee records. We are very proud of this.
Whenever you write or publish a best seller, it makes you feel good. We thought maybe a couple of thousand copies in the industry might do it. We are now up to 8,000; we are getting requests from inside our industry and also from other agencies for this book.
We have supported in prior testimony the portions of the Clean Air Act that provide additional sums for research and research grants. We think these are necessary and that this should be the primary role of the Federal Government. We noted, however, that financing of local agencies may have a tendency to encourage unnecessary controls by providing funds for those agencies.
We also said we believe the act unnecessarily places the Federal Government in local affairs.
We realize that the direction has long since been established and that Federal activity, interest, and influence is apparently an inextricable part of local government. We continue to believe, however, that the local people, operating under local democratic procedures, are best able to find their way out of local dilemmas.
In this regard, however, perhaps some comment on the actual procedures, under section 5 of the act, would be in order. We fail to see where industry is adequately represented in the procedures which lead up to hearings which are called under section 5(e)(1). All of the conferences which lead up to this hearing procedure include only Government agencies.
There is no place for the alleged polluter to face his accuser in this instance. And there is no provision at any of these conferences for the participants to be examined under accepted rules of evidence.
Secondly, under section 5(e) and following, there is reference to evidence presented at the hearings, but there is no indication in the bill that this evidence is obtained under the normal procedures of the taking of oath and the examination of witnesses, although at this point the alleged polluter does have a chance to participate.
Section 5(i) does refer to reports from the alleged polluter and here the report must be under oath, but curiously there is no reference to reporting from any other governmental agencies being under oath.
In essence, it appears to us that air pollution and its control is currently at a state in which in many places emotions affect conclusions, and at which facts are difficult to distinguish from opinions.
Since both the physical and economic health of the community is at stake, it appears to us in this field at this time extraordinary efforts are needed to find the truth.
Therefore, we suggest that this honorable subcommittee give some serious consideration to making provision for all evidence, starting at the conference stage, to be heard under oath and with the right of cross-examination, with the alleged polluter being made a party to the proceedings from the conference stage onward. Conferences and hearings should be conducted by a person capable of ruling on the admissibility of evidence.
We have a case in point. Last week in this room the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors extended rule 62 of the air pollution control district, so that any fuel oil of a sulfur content greater than 0.5 percent by weight may not be burned in Los Angeles County at any time unless natural gas is curtailed to the user. We took strong issue with this decision.
Without attempting to belabor all of the examples in which crossexamination might well have clarified the basic issues, two examples come to mind: first, medical testimony introduced by the air pollution control officer referred to a relationship between air pollution and health and never referred to a relationship between fuel oil burning and health.
Second, the supervisors relied greatly on a statement that a consensus of their scientific advisory committee recommended extension of the rule, whereas our statement that it had never been put to a vote, and our query as to why it had not been put to a vote, was respectively neither refuted nor answered.
We submitted at prior hearings voluminous testimony we know to be admissible, persuasive, and pertinent, showing for example: (1) No relationship between fuel oil burning and eye irritation. ^ (2) No relationship between fuel oil burning and general visibility. (3) That the level of 0.3 parts per million of So, (which is the adverse state standard at 8 hours) was rarely reached, and never for 8 hours, and that SO2 levels typically were a small fraction of that level. (4) That the averages of oxides of nitrogen maxima were the same whether fuel oil was being burned or not.
This evidence was ignored. If the hearings had been in a court, or held under judicial rules of evidence, it could not have been ignored. We think you would be interested in our full testimony at the prior hearing of March 16, 1961.
You asked Mr. Maga the relationship between the standards and the permit system. Now the standards that Mr. Maga was referring to say that sulfur dioxide provides a sensory irritation and it has some effect on plant damage, but it is the first level where anything is noted to hurt anybody, at 0.3 part per million for 8 hours.
The levels around Los Angeles at 24-hour averages are about 0.04 now, 0.03 against 0.04 or 0.05. The 8-hour level of 0.3 was reached once.
We showed that this level of 0.3 part per million was rarely reached and never for 8 hours.
I have no intention of trying to redo rule 62, but my point is, here under judicial rules of evidence and adequate cross-examination, these matters could have been clarified and we believe that they would have been held to be pertinent, admissible, and persuasive.
Now, I am filing with you as an exhibit that testimony, and, incidentally, I am also filing with you this copy of this little booklet that we made for our people.
Senator Muskie. They will be received as exhibits and placed in the committee files.
Mr. MAGNUSON. We have found that in a prior instance, when the matter of fuel oil burning was brought before the Federal Power Commission examiner, the hearing of evidence under established judicial procedures brought out a true set of facts and a true relationship, and a reasonable conclusion on the part of the examiner. We suggest that a procedure of this kind in cases where the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare deems it advisable to participate in local matters would be very much in the public interest because it would determine the truth.
The above remarks are responsive to the honorable subcommittee's question as to what we think of the Clean Air Act. The subcommittee has also inquired as to any problems that we have locally. We have referred to our hearings on rule 624-fuel oil burning. These hearings also testify to the other basic problem we face in our relations with air-pollution control agencies. This is that there is most often an insistence that everything come out of the air in attempting to control air pollution instead of an insistence that only the significant kinds and amounts of contaminants are removed. The key words here, of course, are “significant” as compared to “everything."
Senator Muskie, you asked a question, I do not remember of whom, regarding this point. The question was, Will you take all of it out? and the answer-I believe you asked it of John Maga, and the answer was, "No, you can't take all of it out. Comes certain points."
We cannot take all of the sulfur dioxide out of the atmosphere, but by reasonable types of rules there can be emission levels set that will keep those levels down to a point where they can be well within the State standards.
This we think is proper, but to have a rule or approach which says, "You take everything out,” when taking it out will only cost more money to the public and not affect the smog program, we think you should take the significance out.
We think it important that in carrying out the Clean Air Act that the Secretary should be concerned with controlling the significant emissions and not all emissions.
It is, of course, impossible to remove all of the contaminants from the atmosphere and indeed it is impossible to eliminate all of the emissions of contaminants from any specific source.
These contaminants can be reduced at a cost. They should be reduced so that they do not participate significantly in any specific air pollution problem. If they are reduced to this extent, then any further reduction is uneconomical. That uneconomical operation is paid for by the public. This constitutes an unnecessary expense.
For example, in the rule 62 discussion, the control centers around sulfur dioxide. The State of California has set standards for sulfur dioxide in the atmosphere of 0.3 part per million for 8 hours. We take the position that if concentrations are generally and ordinarily well below that level, then there is no need for further control of sulfur dioxide because what is going into the air is not hurting anyone. Our local air pollution control district takes the position that this doesn't make any difference, the public should just keep on spending money to take all of it out.
This is a basic difference. It has been decided locally one way, yet in other jurisdictions it has been decided more reasonably. We think it important that in carrying out the Clean Air Act, the Secretary should be concerned with controlling significant emissions, not all emissions.
One other item: Section 6 of the act refers to a technical committee to evaluate progress in development of automotive control devices and fuels to prevent pollutants from being discharged from automobiles. We believe this committee can be of real service. We conceive it to be small, probably only two persons each from the fields of automotive vehicles, exhaust devices, and fuel manufacturers.
Members should be at an executive level in their companies so they can draw on the resources of their companies and their industry. We have so written to the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare. We shall be glad to make further recommendations if requested.
We appreciate the opportunity of appearing before you and should be glad to provide any further information we can that your honorable subcommittee desires.
Thank you very much, sir.
I might make just this observation on your comments relative to the enforcement provisions of the Clean Air Act. I won't undertake to try to do it definitively or in detail, obviously that would require