more extended study of your comments and analysis of them than I have had an opportunity to make.

However, your comments are in the record and they will be given consideration at such time as we may consider additional legislation, but I think these points ought to be made:

One, that enforcement provisions of the Clean Air Act are patterned after the conference procedure of the water pollution faw, which has been on the books since 1956, and was modified in a way which I think the industry generally approved. The modifications were quite extensively discussed with representatives of the steel industry and representatives of the chemical manufacturing industry and they appeared to find the final rule acceptable to them.

And I think it also ought to be pointed out that what we are involved with in the conference procedure is not the question of finding somebody guilty or not guilty of anything, but rather the establishment of a basis of fact for the exercise of administrative discretion by the Secretary in establishing certain standards of performance. I think that is a far different thing and the rules of the conference take the form of recommendations for performance by the Secretary. If his recommendations are not followed, then it is for him to decide whether or not to undertake to enforce his recommendations by instituting "procedures," and once, of course, you are in court you get all of the protections that your statement suggests ought to be present.

So there is no penalty or enforcement power available to the Secretary in connection with his recommendations for performance that can be exercised in any arbitrary way and you will note in section 5 on page 6 of the act, subsection (g),

The court giving due consideration to the practicability of complying with such standards as may be applicable and the physical and economic feasibility of securing abatement of any pollution proved shall have jurisdiction to enter such judgment and orders enforcing such judgments as the public interests and equities of the case may require.

This language was included in here for the purpose of placing the burden upon the Secretary for proving, or at least establishing, a prima facie case that his recommendations are reasonable and economically and physically feasible, so I think by placing this burden upon the Secretary we eliminate the possibility of arbitrary action on his part in developing recommendations for performance as a result of the conference procedure because he is going to have to be careful that his recommendations will meet the tests that they would have to meet if he undertakes to enforce them through court action. I thought I ought to make those observations at this point in the record and we will, of course, give your suggestions considerations as we study the record later.

Mr. MORRISON. Senator, I think you make a very good point and I wouldn't wish to argue with you, particularly inasmuch as you have had a lot to do with this law and understand it better than I do.

However, it does seem to me that it might be just as well to offer these protections that are in the court procedure as early as possible in the proceeding and that is a suggestion that we think you might look

at.

Senator MUSKIE. All right; that is fair enough.

I think to try to comment any more definitely and precisely now would just be filling the record with some imprecise observations. Senator Moss, do you have questions?

Senator Moss. Do I understand that you contest that the burning of fuel oil adds any appreciable amount to the contaminants in the air?

Mr. MORRISON. We contest that; yes, sir.

Senator Moss. And, therefore, what we were hearing about earlier about the necessity of bringing in natural gas and then displacing fuel oil-you would naturally oppose?

Mr. MORRISON. Well, I have to answer that question a little bit more in detail, if you don't mind.

I represent Western Oil & Gas Association, if you note the "Oil and Gas" in the title. Now, we have intervened in this Gulf-Pacific case, which is an application on the part of the Gulf-Pacific pipeline to bring in some 800,000-some thousand cubic feet of gas daily here, but we have intervened only to contest the statements that the burning of natural gas or the substitution of natural gas for fuel oil will improve the quality of the air or the air pollution problem in Los Angeles. We are not taking a position on any other portion of that. So, "opposed" is a difficult word. We do believe, Senator, that the substitution of natural gas for fuel oil in the powerplants and the refineries and the industrial complex of Los Angeles County will not significantly affect the air pollution problem.

Now, I don't think you want me to go into it, but I will say that we have a good deal of expert evidence on our side of this caseenough to warrant us to take the position which we have which is not a popular position for an industry to take, but we do have this peculiar attitude that we'd like to have the truth and when there is a contesting of opinion we kind of think we should stand up for what we think is correct.

Senator MUSKIE. Are you saying that the burning of industrial fuels does not contribute to the air pollution problem or are you saying that it is not a significant contribution to the air pollution in Los Angeles?

Mr. MORRISON. Any burning of anything; any emission at all, except for the pure air on the mountaintop, contributes to air pollution. Now, the question here in Los Angeles is really two things, we think: No. 1, the photochemical smog process has been outlined to you at great length. Hydrocarbons, oxides of nitrogen, and sunlight. You have to have a certain amount of hydrocarbons and oxides of nitrogen to make smog.

Oxygens of nitrogen you have to have, and I am repeating, a certain number of sides of nitrogen; if you substitute-bearing in mind all of the sources automobile, natural gas, et cetera―the furnace that Senator Bayh elicited from Mr. Dorn that required no permits, if you take into consideration all of those and you change one segment of that fuel oil that is burned and shift that into natural gas, that change will not decrease the oxides of nitrogen sufficiently to change the incidence of photochemical smog.

Now, we believe it empirically, because we have taken all of the days for about 3 years-this is testimony and I am sorry-all the days for about 3 years when there would be smog, if you had a problem, you

know, the inversion, the no-wind, everything that is needed, and we plotted fuel oil burning, that is all over the map, sir.

There are days when we burned 80,000 barrels of fuel and had no eye irritation; other days we burned 80,000 barrels of fuel and you had a lot of eye irritation; days when you burned no fuel oil at all and you had eye irirtation; and, finally, days where you burned no fuel oil at all and you had no eye irritation.

We have been unable to find any significant, statistical relationship. We have done the same thing with regard to visibility. It is true that when you burn fuel oil you get a flume in certain instances, a plume from the stack smokes.

Senator, I am from Hammond, Ind., so I call them smoking stacks. When I came out here they referred to them as "plumes," and it is a nice sounding word. Anyway, you get plumes when you burn fuel oil under some circumstances.

Generally, when you burn natural gas, you do not get a plume but that plume rapidly disappears and-with respect to general visibility in the area-we have also run statistically valid studies. We have introduced them as evidence.

We find no relationship between the burning of fuel oil and general visibility in the area. We have utilized the best people that we know, high-class consultants of nationally accepted repute.

I repeat: If we didn't believe this, we wouldn't be saying it. Senator MUSKIE. What you are saying is that if we were-if Los Angeles County were able to achieve the reduction in motor vehicle exhaust emissions of one kind or another that has been hopefully expressed here today, that the burning of fuel oil would not be a significant part of the remaining pollution?

Mr. MORRISON. Yes, sir; and the record is replete with similar statements on the part of experts, not only outside the air pollution control district, but within the air pollution control district.

Senator MUSKIE. Are you saying, then, that the burning of fuel oil is a clean process?

Mr. MORRISON. Yes, sir.

Senator MUSKIE. As clean as the burning of natural gas?

Mr. MORRISON. No.

Senator MUSKIE. What is the relative positions of the two in that respect?

Mr. MORRISON. You see, natural gas contains hardly any sulfur at all.

Fuel oil contains perhaps, oh, anywhere, residual fuel oil might be as high as 1.75 percent of sulfur, 134 percent; when it burns it unites with the oxygen in the atmosphere; you get sulfur dioxide and so you get sulfur dioxide from fuel oil.

You do not get it-it is infinitesimal with the burning of natural gas.

Secondly, you get oxides from any-from both fuels; however, you get more oxides of nitrogen from the burning of fuel oil than the burning of natural gas because fuel oil burns hotter.

You recall earlier testimony, I believe Mr. Griswold talked about the device on the automobile where they cooled the chamber. Well, you have less oxides of nitrogen there because the temperature in the

cylinder was lower. Similarly natural gas burns cooler than fuel oil, so you get less oxides of nitrogen.

So you get more sulfur dioxide from the burning of fuel oil, quantitatively, from the same B.t.u. You get more oxides of nitrogen, but our position is that is insignificant to effect a change in the photochemical smog problem or visibility problem in this area.

Senator MUSKIE. Now, if all the fuel oil were to be substituted completely for natural gas now being consumed in this area, would that still be your judgment?

Mr. MORRISON. I am sorry, I don't get it.

Senator MUSKIE. I say, if fuel oil were substituted completely for all natural gas now being consumed in the area, would that still be your position?

Mr. MORRISON. I don't think I would have to study it. I don't think it would.

You would get a pretty large amount of sulfur dioxide if you burn nothing but fuel oil and we have never taken that position.

Senator MUSKIE. So that fuel oil is a contributor to undesirable air pollution but your position appears to be that because it is such a smaller portion of the total, as between natural gas and fuel oil, that its present contribution is insignificant?

Mr. MORRISON. The latter part of your statement is correct. We do not say it contributes in any way to undesirable air pollution. Senator MUSKIE. Well, would it if you burn nothing but fuel oil in that area?

Mr. MORRISON. I answered that; yes, Senator. I said that I thought it probably would, but I don't know. I'll have to study it, but I think it would.

Senator MUSKIE. So it is a matter of degree?

Mr. MORRISON. Yes, sir; and that is the difference between significant emissions and total emissions.

Senator MUSKIE. I was sure that that was your position but I wanted to try to make it clear.

Senator Bayh?

Senator BAYH. I will significantly omit any questions, if you will permit me.

Senator MUSKIE. You are excused.

Thank you for coming.

The next two witnesses are Dr. Reginald H. Smart, clinical professor of medicine, University of California School of Medicine at Los Angeles, and Dr. Arie J. Haagen-Smit, professor of biochemistry, Division of Biology, Cal Tech.

Gentlemen, would you come forward?

Do you have prepared statements?

Dr. SMART. Yes.

Senator MUSKIE. You are going to have to assume, and it is not a difficult assumption to make, that this committee knows nothing about the subject you are going to discuss.

Dr. Smart, you have a prepared statement, and Dr. Haagen-Smit has a prepared statement.

Would you proceed, Dr. Smart?

STATEMENT OF DR. REGINALD H. SMART, CLINICAL PROFESSOR OF MEDICINE, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SCHOOL OF MEDICINE AT LOS ANGELES; AND CHAIRMAN, PUBLIC HEALTH COMMITTEE, LOS ANGELES COUNTY MEDICAL ASSOCIATION

Dr. SMART. Yes.

Senator Muskie and members of the committee, my name is Reginald H. Smart. My office address is 1136 West Sixth Street, Los Angeles, Calif.

I am a doctor of medicine licensed to practice in California since 1931. Since 1950, I have been clinical professor of medicine, and from 1950 to 1959 I was coordinator of chest diseases instruction at that school. Since 1931, my private medical practice has been confined to medical diseases of the chest.

I received an M.D. degree from Rush Medical College of the University of Chicago in 1930. In 1934 and 1935 I held a Rockefeller Foundation fellowship in tuberculosis and pulmonary diseases and was assigned to the Trudeau Foundation and the Saranac Laboratory for the study of silicosis; Cornell-New York Hospital Medical Center, New York, department of pathology; and Henry Phipps Institute of the University of Pennsylvania. Since 1951 I have been the secretary, and was a cofounder, of the Cardio-Respiratory Laboratory of the University of Southern California School of Medicine.

From 1960 to 1962, inclusive, I was chairman of the department of medicine and director of the department of inhalation therapy at the Hospital of the Good Samaritan in Los Angeles. I am presently the chairman of the medical staff of that hospital. I am also attending physician at the Los Angeles County General Hospital and at the Barlow, La Vina, and Maryknoll Sanatoriums. From 1932 to 1937 I was tuberculosis epidemiologist at the Los Angeles County Health Department. I am also chief of the chest clinic of the Good Hope Medical Foundation, University of Southern California School of Medicine, and also of the Yale Street Health Center of the Los Angeles City Board of Education.

I have been a consultant for the U.S. Public Health Service and a member of the Air Pollution Medical Advisory Committee to the Public Health Service from 1958 to 1961. I am presently a consultant on air pollution to the California State Department of Health and I am chairman of the scientific advisory committee to the Los Angeles County Air Pollution Control District. I am also vice chairman of the Emergency Action Committee of the Los Angeles County Air Pollution Control District.

I am a member of Phi Beta Kappa and Sigma Xi. I also am a fellow of the American Medical Association; fellow of the American College of Physicians and of the American College of Chest Physicians; a member of the Committee on Occupational Chest Diseases of the American College of Chest Physicians; fellow of the American Thoracic Society; past president of the California Thoracic Society; past president and director of the California Sanatorium Association; fellow and past trustee of the California Society of Internal Medicine; past president of the Southern California Medical Association; fellow of the Los Angeles Academy of Medicine; fellow of the Los An