May I say that I agree completely with you, that our first effort must always be to identify the problem and establish that it is a problem, and then we must develop solutions that are economical and related in a reasonable way to the dimensions of the problem itself. I could not agree more with you on that point. I am sure that is the view of this committee. So I do appreciate your support of the research aspects of S. 306.

I think you have made a useful suggestion in urging that it be extended to cover the botanical, physiological, and health aspects of the emission of sulfur dioxide.

May I ask you this question? You speak of the low sulfur content of the Los Angeles area. Is this in any way attributable to the fact that Los Angeles has pretty much, I think, gotten away from the residual fuels and coal, and is concentrating on gas, which has a relatively low content of sulfur.

Mr. WILLIAMSON. I do not know that I am fully qualified to answer that, Senator Muskie, but it would be my belief that that is a factor in the low sulfur content of the atmosphere.

Senator MUSKIE. I am not sure that elimination of sulfur oxides from the air has been a major objective of the Los Angeles effort. Senator MURPHY. I was going to ask a question, if I may, Mr. Chairman.

Senator MUSKIE. Yes.

Senator MURPHY. Living in Los Angeles and having seen days when the air, for example, at 8,000 feet is perfectly clear, and you drop down to the area of 4,000, 3,000, 2,000 feet, you will find air about the color of that wall, I would be very interested in knowing as a nonscientist what it is that makes smog, and what it is.

Now, I agree that it may not be very harmful, but I assure you there are days when one cannot go downtown without eyes watering, it can be tasted, as one approaches in an aircraft, and I know that millions of dollars have been spent in trying to eliminate it, and find out what it is.

We have talked a great deal about sulfur dioxide and sulfur trioxide. There must be something else sneaking into the air out there, and I wonder if any of you experts can tell me what it is.

Mr. WILLIAMSON. Senator Murphy, I will try to answer that. I do not know if I qualify as an expert, certainly not in Los Angeles, but the authorities attribute it to a compound "X" which is a combination of many things which causes the trouble.

One of the great difficulties in solving our air pollution troubles is this so-called synergistic situation, something by itself not being harmful, something else by itself not being harmful, but when the two are mixed, they possibly are.

Senator MURPHY. May I say that it was conceived in the beginning, a few years ago, that this was a condition that was unique to Los Angeles. Now we understand, because of the character of topography there, that this creates a problem to a greater extent, but I have noticed in my travels, and I have traveled a great deal, that other cities around the Nation are now gradually picking up this same characteristic. It is beginning to show up now in cities where I never noticed it 10 or 12 or 15 years ago.

This is one of the great concerns I know of the oil industry. I have had some experience with some of these things they are doing in California. I would think this would be one of the most important reasons, if I may say, Mr. Chairman, for a completely concentrated assembly of all the knowledge and all the skills and brains we have in such a committee to find out exactly what constitutes this problem, and how we can eliminate it, because there is no question in Los Angeles it has to be eliminated, and, if other towns are going to have the same problem, it is going to be a major one.

Senator MUSKIE. I think we would all agree that intensive and stepped up research is a terribly important part of this whole effort. I think it is well, not only from the point of view of the citizens of Los Angeles, but as a country as a whole, we have a Los Angeles problem, to identify the dangers, and we would "raise a red flag."

I was a little disturbed yesterday in Detroit by testimony to the effect that, "Well, as of this moment, we don't have a Los Angeles problem in Detroit, so why should we worry about it?"

Los Angeles points up the fact that such a problem can develop. It may be that because of the peculiar topography and meteorological conditions of Los Angeles that the Los Angeles situation may not be duplicated 100 percent in other cities, but that there is a problem which is going to increasingly affect other cities I think is a foregone conclusion. I do not see how anybody can seriously argue otherwise.

I think we are fortunate that we are able to approach this problem at an earlier stage of evolution than in the case of water. In water we face the problem of applying surgical techniques to deal with the problem, rather than preventive medicine.

Here in the case of air, we are in a fortunate position of being able to apply preventive medicine, instead of surgeons' knives.

I appreciate the constructive attitude all of you gentlemen have. Even though you do not agree with all of S. 306, a little encouragement is a good thing after day before yesterday.

I would like to ask Mr. Cortelyou this question: You spoke of the expensive efforts undertaken in Los Angeles to control air pollution. You describe it as a misdirected effort. Were there no benefits from it at all?

Mr. CORTELYOU. I am sure there were, Mr. Chairman. I did not mean to imply that there were not. But it is felt that much of what was done was not constructive in the elimination of smog which is still present.

Senator MURPHY. Mr. Chairman?

Senator MUSKIE. Yes, Senator Murphy.

Senator MURPHY. I will add one thing, for the benefit of the committee, that they may not know.

In Los Angeles it was customary to burn refuse, and practically every house had an incinerator in the backyard. This was considered to be the main source of the creation of this smog. These were all eliminated. It became illegal, and the smog has increased.

We have another strange characteristic that no one seems to be able to explain. Smog will move from place to place. It will appear one day over the concentration of burning of motor fuels, and another day it will move over the part of the valley where there are orange groves, and where there is practically no burning of motor fuels.

It varies from time to time, always increasing in scope and content. Someday it will go over the pass and into the valley into Palm Springs. It is quite serious. It is much more serious to me, because as I go back and forth, and I realize the benefits of the usual clean air in Washington, as opposed to that of Los Angeles.

I say I have seen it increasing over other cities, even San Francisco, where they have all the advantages of the air currents over the water of the bay, but you find similar characteristics beginning to show up there.

Senator MUSKIE. There is one State where I am sure it has not appeared yet.

I think the significance of this testimony this morning is that it highlights again the need to deal with this problem by dealing with it before the massive discharges into the air takes place.

There is no manmade way of cleaning up the air after it has become dirty. Nature has some means of ventilating it and washing it out. In areas like Los Angles, they are not adequate, and in other areas they are more adequate.

So the whole approach we have taken is to prevent the discharges. They are highly difficult, technical, complex, and expensive.

May I ask Mr. Perry to respond to a point made by Mr. Garvey. Mr. Garvey makes the point that these demonstrations can be terribly expensive and the industry may not be able to bear them. To what extent is your industry able to conduct some pilot projects that the coal industry may not be able to afford?

Mr. PERRY. From his figures, not mine, the most promising process is the one we have developed. The idea is of those of the research people in the Bureau of Mines. The financial support came largely from the Public Health Service, and still does.

We have gone through the first bench-scale step. We will have by the end of this calendar year a larger scale pilot plant in operation to test the engineering and economics on the next scale.

We have had preliminary talks with the Public Health Service about one of these larger plants Mr. Garvey described. We have given cost estimates that fall in that order of magnitude, and we have even looked at plant sites for the 1967 budget.

Senator MUSKIE. Is this something within the financial resources of HEW, now?

Mr. PERRY. I cannot answer that. They have asked us to explore this with them in a preliminary way.

Senator MUSKIE. I think I will take this means to ask the staff of the subcommittee to get some testimony from the Department of HEW on this point, and also on the point of the significance of the sulfur oxide problem as a contributing factor to the overall air pollution problem.

(The information was later presented under the statement by Vernon MacKenzie.)

There seems to be some disagreement here among you gentlemen, based on your very real and honest doubts about it, I am sure, and I think we ought to have some testimony from HEW on that point, as well.

May I ask, Mr. Williamson, what is the cost of these dust collectors?

Mr. WILLIAMSON. Senator Muskie, the customary way of reporting them is in the dollars per kilowatt of plant capacity that can be from $3 to $5 per kilowatt for a plant costing from $100 to $120 per kilowatt to build.

Then there is some cost, of course, in operating and maintaining them, and testing them, and hauling away the material they collect. The first cost, however, is the more significant of the two.

Senator MUSKIE. You suggest they are almost 100 percent efficient now?

Mr. WILLIAMSON. Very close to that, sir. The typical efficiency that we strive for is between 98 and 99 percent on our new plants. What can be achieved will depend somewhat on the nature of the ash. Different kinds of ash are more difficult to collect efficiently than others.

Generally speaking, the figures of 98 to 99 percent are achievable with most ashes.

Senator MUSKIE. There are large metropolitan areas in the country where dust collectors are not now used by the electric utility companies. Is that not so?

Mr. WILLIAMSON. I am sure there are precipitators and collectors used by other industries. We are the major users of the hydrostatic, which is the highly efficient one for collecting fine material.

Senator MUSKIE. Yes, I have seen those in operating off and on. It is a remarkable demonstration to watch them operate.

Here is something you feel that is economic in terms of its results? Mr. WILLIAMSON. We think it is economic from the viewpoint of the prosperity of the communities which we serve, and what those communities wish.

Senator MUSKIE. In a plant such as Consolidated Edison in New York, this involves the expenditure of a few million dollars, does it not?

Mr. WILLIAMSON. Yes, sir, it adds up to many, many million dollars for each company, with no direct return for the investment or the experience.

Senator MUSKIE. Is there any tax advantage given on a local or State basis for the installation of equipment of this kind?

Mr. WILLIAMSON. I know of no tax benefit, locally or on a State basis. There is, of course, some nationally, I believe.

Senator MUSKIE. It has been my feeling that equipment of this kind ought to be exempt from local taxation, and from a use tax on a State level, because it is not deducted and it is a contributor to the public interest. It would seem to me that that is the least contribution that the government ought to make to that kind of a burden. Is that kind of exemption given in any area of the country that you know of?

Mr. WILLIAMSON. I do not know of any, sir, but that is not too conclusive. I have not really made a study of that particular thing. I would say that I heartily support your belief that it is something that would be encouraged if there were some economic advantages associated with it from a tax basis.

Senator MUSKIE. I think Maine has such an exemption for water pollution equipment that is installed. Of course, since we do not

have the air pollution problem yet, in this sense, why the statute does not cover it.

I direct this to each of you gentlemen in industry. How do you feel about the Ribicoff bill for relief of accelerated depreciation? Would this be useful?

Mr. WILLIAMSON. If I may speak, I think it would be useful. Senator MUSKIE. Do the rest of you have any feeling about it? Mr. CORTELYOU. To the best of my knowledge, the American Petroleum Institute has not taken a position on this, Mr. Chairman. Senator MUSKIE. We would be receptive to any suggestions you might have on this point, whether it is the accelerated depreciation approach or some other approach, because we realize that this can be a burdensome problem.

You do not think we ought to make the expenditure until it is needed in terms of the problem, but when it is, we realize that solutions can be expensive and burdensome, and we ought to begin thinking about ways of dealing with that problem, as well as the technological ones.

Senator Boggs?

Senator BOGGS. Mr. Chairman, I have been very much impressed indeed this morning with the help and the testimony given by these gentlemen representing industry.

I, as a nonscientist myself, as Senator Murphy said, have been terrifically impressed with the progress made in the last 20 years, since World War II. I want to certainly compliment the industry on it, and the suggestions which you have made in the course of your testimony will be very helpful to the committee.

Mr. Chairman, I join you in expressing appreciation as well as commendation on the cooperative spirit expresseed by the witnesses this morning, the cooperation with the committee, but more importantly, cooperation in recognizing the objective we are all seeking, and your willingness and help toward making progress on that objective, eliminating not only things which may be harmful, but even things which may be unpleasant in the air.

I very much also appreciate the fact that Mr. Williamson brought out, as well as others, that it is important, to define the problem and find out where it is harmful to health, and to go into the matter more deeply. I think that is an important consideration.

Specifically, however, as I can understand industry's testimony, you are in general accord with the spirit of this proposal, increased research, the appointment of a technical committee to bring a closer and more definite cooperation between industry and the Government agencies involved. You are in favor of the laboratory.

The main suggestion would be not to set criteria by statute at this time, or standards, by statute at this time. Is that it?

Mr. WILLIAMSON. I would agree with that fully, Senator Boggs. Mr. CORTELYOU. I, also.

Senator BOGGS. Thank you.

Senator MUSKIE. Mr. Garvey?

Mr. GARVEY. I just had a note handed to me.

As I pointed out, I represent the research agency of the National Coal Association, and I have been informed that the National Coal Association has already taken a position on the Ribicoff bill, which you raised, and approve it, and believe it deserves full support.