that this is so because of some of the statements which they made. The second point I would like to make is that it is extremely unusual in medical research that there is only one small group in one place in the country in which research in the specific area of knowledge is exclusively done. There needs to be repetition and extension of the fine work which has been done at the Kettering Laboratory with regard to the metabolism and the balanced experiments which have been done on lead. It needs to be repeated in many other places and be extended. There needs to be in my opinion an extension and improvement of the work which was done by the Public Health Service in its tri-city study of lead body burden of people in communities. There needs to be a carefull study of the figures I have given as the safe ones at which lead toxicity will not probably occur. I say specifically. It is our experience in medicine that to use a single figure on the safe one beyond which poisoning will probably occur and below which poisoning will not occur is a most unusual kind of situation in public health and in medicine. I believe there needs to be careful study of the figures which I used. Would you want to react to that, Doctor? Dr. KEHOE. Yes. I believe first of all that the observations outside of those of the balance experiments-this balance work has not been done by anybody else up to the present time. It may be that some of it should be repeated for the sake of confirmation. It will be confirmed, I can assure you. It may be that these experiments should be done in somewhat the same manner. I should argue against that. I should argue against that because, first of all, these are very expensive experiments and they should not be carried out recklessly without regard to the money that it takes to obtain this kind of information. The methods that have been used in our observation, which to me are crucial in this whole situation, are being used at the present time on a worldwide basis. They have been used now over a period of years and there is simply no question, I think-perhaps I am prejudiced, but I think there is no question in the minds of a very considerable body of experienced people in industrial hygiene that these results are valid. They have been checked by experts in other countries. There is a report that is given here after a translation that has been obtained, that was reported here, that was obtained by our Swiss colleagues a matter of a few years ago who have used substantially the same methods, who have followed out comprehensive observations, I mean with respect to the field surveys, and have come out with precisely the same results. Now Heiman is right with respect to the need for confirmation of experiments that are crucial. The methods that have been used in these experiments that have been checked by British investigators, by Swiss investigators, by a number of others, as being the crucial points in the determination of whether the information that had been obtained in our observations was correct. This means only one aspect that is left open and that is whether I, myself, and my investigators in the Kettering Lab are clever enough to be dishonest about this and get away with it. Frankly, I don't think we have that kind of clever ness. Senator MUSKIE. I don't think that question is involved. Senator MUSKIE. The only question involved is the interpretation you place upon it. I will be frank to say that it is unusual for me-I am not a scientific man-to find such certainty in the field of scientific inquiry in a subject such as this. The questions so far as we are concerned are: first, what are the effects, or do we know enough about them, of low-level subtotal exposure to lead in the atmosphere and, secondly, how will the present answer to that question be affected as the number of automobiles in this country and the consumption of gasoline with lead content increases in the future? These are the two questions we are concerned about. On the question of the subclinical effects, Dr. Hardy, who testified earlier this morning, had this to say in the symposium. [Reading:] I have to protest briefly that there is evidence of lead related damage not identifiable as classic lead poisoning. I have listed the following: Lane's Studies on Mortality of Lead Workers. Henderson's Australian Work on the Relationship Between Lead and Renal Disease. Doctor Jensen's work and, more modestly, mine, on the assymptomatic lead workers difficulty with his hemalogical abnormalities, and then the large body of work on children without identifiable lead poisoning who through well documented evidence have experienced harmful lead effects either in-I am sure I am not pronouncing these medical terms correctly-hematological abnormalities or mental retardation. Dr. Hardy apparently, and I might ask her to comment on this this morning, says that there is evidence of subclinical effects that she feels are of concern as relates to health. You apparently have less doubt on that point. Dr. KEHOE. No, I don't, because I know that there are residual effects of exposure of a significant degree of severity. What we are talking about here is not the residual effects of one-time serious exposures which do exist, but the effects of a situation in which we are at a very low level of intake, which has never historically been known to result in a single case of illness in child or adult. This is the difference. We are not talking here about the residual effects of a one-time intoxication. We are talking about whether signs of intoxication come into existence under the conditions that exist in the community at the present time. I submit to you, sir, that there is not the slightest evidence that that is the case in medical literature or in case material. Senator MUSKIE. We are talking about a condition here Dr. KEHOE. We are talking about a condition which may occur. Senator MUSKIE. We are talking about something physically that is occurring that may be producing a different situation. We talk about growing concentrations of lead in the atmosphere and what that may produce. This is a kind of low-level, long-term exposure that we have not had in the same degree in the past, that we will have in an increasing degree in the future given a continuation of the present methods of transportation by automobiles and the present use of gasoline for fuel. Dr. KEHOE. Let me put it this way. We have had experience with the situation that exists at the present time, with respect to the level of lead absorption in the American population. We have had experience with this over a period of 30 years or so during which we have been looking for effects in the general population and have failed to find them. Now, this does not tell us one thing about what will happen 5 years, 10 years, 15 years from now if, as and when the concentration of lead in the atmosphere goes above a point with which we have had previous experience. Senator MUSKIE. That is bound to happen, is it not? Dr. KEHOE. What I am prepared to say at this point is that this is something which, just like the food of the country and the beverages of the country, has to be watched, to make sure that we know where we are. This will take time, this will take trouble, this will probably continue and should continue after I am no longer around to be looking at this problem at all. But I can say very definitely that in my view it is essential that these observations be made. We must know and not have to guess about it. Now I am only saying, with respect to the things that might happen, that we have no experience of their happening and I simply am not so constituted to go on the basis-in the present world in which we live, which is full of dangers-I am not so constituted that I can be very anxious about a situation that has been with us for 30 years and in which nothing has happened. What might conceivably happen years from now, is something different. In the situation in which we are living at the present time we are confronted with many dangers; the dangers of contamination of the water of the country, the dangers of contamination of the atmosphere with a varity of things are much more imminent than this particular one. Whereas this one must be investigated, it must be followed, and we must know what we are about, we have no reason at the present time to fear what is "under the bed." Senator MUSKIE. Having listened to all your testimony, Dr. Kehoe, I would say that that last pretty well summarizes my impression of your position and I do appreciate your coming and taking the time to listen to our questions and to answer them. The work of this committee is intended to be educational for the committee as well as for the public. So we do appreciate your contribution this morning. Dr. KEHOE. Thank you. Senator MUSKIE. I wonder if Dr. Hardy would be interested in commenting upon the question that we just discussed. Dr. HARDY. You read from my comments. That is really the heart of what I have to offer. Thank you. Senator MUSKIE. Thank you very much. The remaining two witnesses on our schedule this morning have been kind enough to agree to come back next Tuesday because of the time limitation this morning. I understand that it will not be an inconvenience to either of them to do so. I want to make sure of that. Therefore, Mr. Felix Wormser, consultant and former president of the Lead Industries Association, Inc., and Mr. Gammelgard, of the American Petroleum Institute, will be the first witnesses when we meet next Tuesday at 9:30. I appreciate that courtesy very, very much. There are several statements and communications which I will place in the record at this point. (The material is as follows:) OIL, CHEMICAL AND ATOMIC WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION, Hon. EDMUND S. MUSKIE, Chairman, Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution, Committee on Public Works, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR MUSKIE: OCAW is concerned about the possible dangers of lead in the atmosphere that you are now investigating. We are particularly concerned about the relatively high levels of lead in the blood of service station mechanics and parking lot attendents, reported in the Public Health Service's Tri-City study of lead in blood. It's commendable that you are trying to bring out the facts in this area of public health and we would like to know whether present levels of lead in the air are dangerous. If not, are the levels of lead in the blood of employees beyond the safe point? Is the petroleum industry acting to protect its marketing and production employees from the risk of lead in gasoline? Sincerely yours, ANTHONY MAZZOCCHI, Director. STATEMENT OF DAVID SHEFFRIN, CHAIRMAN, BOARD OF DIRECTORS, CITIZENS FOR CLEAN AIR, INC. I am David Sheffrin, Chairman of the Board of Directors of Citizens for Clean Air, Inc., a group representing several thousand citizens in the greater New York metropolitan area. These doctors, engineers, lawyers, housewives and businessmen share one common problem-breathing what has been labeled "the world's dirtiest air." Air Pollution Chief Vernon MacKenzie has said that our megalopolis could not sustain life if it had the same topographical conditions as Los Angeles. Therefore, perhaps more than any other segment of the population, we applaud the leadership of this Committee in tackling the growing national air pollution problem and we commend you for not resting on your excellent achievements. However, the Committee's failure to propose the removal of the 122 percent limitation of financial aid suggests that you may not have fully appreciated the proportions of an air pollution problem like New York's. The growth of the problem in all urban areas requires the replacement of old principles with a new realism. We feel that the elements of our contaminated air-sulfur dioxide, automotive exhaust, solid waste disposal, interstate pollution—are common to every growing urban area in the nation, only in greater severity in New York. We have, in fact, all the ingredients of a disaster area. Our city's air pollution foreshadows the blight of cities across the nation. Therefore, we urge the Committee to designate New York as a pilot project in the control of air pollution. Since mobile sources of pollution seem to be the immediate concern of this Committee, we plead a particular urgency in the development of solutions for automotive congestion. We commend your interest in the reports of the alarming rise in the amount of lead in the atmosphere and we are heartened by your many-sided approach to the automotive problem in considering the disposal of junked cars. However, we hope that you will not neglect the development of pollution free surface mass transit. Diesel vehicles, so far an uncontrolled source of New York pollution, have been shown to emit toxic as well as noxious fumes. New York City, as the largest single purchaser of diesel buses, could exercise great leverage in the development of pollution free surface transit. We have pressed the City to apply for a Federal demonstration grant to develop alternatives to the diesel bus, with the electric storage battery bus a possible candidate. And we hope that this Committee, as well as Senators Jacob Javits and Robert Kennedy, will use their good offices in support of this grant. We would also like to see the accomplishments of this Committee in establishing national standards for automotive exhaust on 1968 model cars be augmented by extending the standards to include used cars and by insuring the maintenance of these standards through annual inspection programs. Gentlemen, I can assure you that the residents of New York are not willing to wait a decade before seeing an alleviation of the automotive exhaust problem. I respectfully remind you, gentlemen, that while we in New York are hemmed in by and saturated with automotive congestion, it is only one aspect of our air pollution problem. On behalf of Citizens for Clean Air, Inc., and all New Yorkers, I urge that you make the New York metropolitan area the crucible in which to forge your clean air standards. Standards which fall short of the needs of New York City will soon fall short of the needs of our growing urban nation. NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES, Hon. EDMUND MUSKIE, Chairman, Subcommittee on Water and Air Pollution Control, DEAR SENATOR MUSKIE: On behalf of the National Association of Counties, I should like to offer our endorsement of those provisions of S. 3112 which would consolidate the appropriation authority under Titles I and II, extend that authority to 1973 and eliminate the 20% limitation on total appropriations for program grants. We believe these provisions are both necessary and desirable to ensure the needed flexibility in the use of funds for the variety of activities authorized under the existing legislation, including the federal program of financial assistance to state localities. We feel these provisions will provide the necessary federal authority to strengthen and continue its program of financial support to state and local control agencies which have the primary responsibility for controlling the growing problems of air pollution. Therefore we strongly urge approval of S. 3112 by your Committee and its enactment by Congress. With respect to the proposal to provide federal financial support in the form of maintenance grants, our association must remain silent inasmuch as we have not taken a formal action on that concept. Although, many of our counties have expressed their individual support of this idea, we have not formally brought to our association for approval or disapproval, however, it is anticipated that it will be opposed to support this concept at our coming meeting, in July of this year and we will be pleased to forward to you and your Committee, the results of our action. Very truly yours, W. W. DUMAS, President. UNITED STATES CONFERENCE OF MAYORS, Hon. EDWARD S. MUSKIE, Chairman, Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution, Committee on Public Works, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR MUSKIE: The United States Conference of Mayors supports the provisions of S. 3112, a bill to amend the Clean Air Act. Air pollution in our urban areas continues to be a serious threat to community health and welfare. The many factors contributing to the air pollution problem are increasing, and the challenge facing our control agencies is becoming more critical each day. The United States Conference of Mayors believes that the provisions of the Clean Air Act are designed to assist the cities of this nation in carrying out the front-line responsibility for the control of air pollution. Since the passage of the Act, many cities have received financial and technical assistance under the program. Many others have submitted requests for financial assistance and are presently awaiting the availability of additional Federal funds. This assistance has provided a real stimulus to the initiation and improvement of local control programs. However, the short-term financial assistance now provided by the Clean Air Act does not satisfy the need for the continuing, longer-range effort required for the prevention and abatement of growing air pollution problems. We believe that the provision of grant support for the maintenance of effective control programs, as contained in S. 3112, will contribute directly to the effort needed now and in the future. The United States Conference of Mayors believes that subsection (b) of Section 104 of the Clean Air Act, a narrow maintenance of effort concept, should not apply to maintenance grants authorized in S. 3112. Long-range control activities cannot be fully effective if they are not maintained at a reasonable and necessary level of support. Within the matching requirements prescribed in S. 3112, we believe that this grant authority should be flexible enough to allow Federal supplementary financial assistance for the maintenance of the level of effort required for an effective control program regardless of the availability of local matching funds. We strongly support, too, the provision of S. 3112 that would delete that portion of Section 104(a) of the Clean Air Act which limits the total of grants for |