have any kind. real legal authority, however, to stop something of this Senator MUSKIE. What do you think of the registration idea that the panel recommended? Mr. MACKENZIE. I hesitate to really recommend it in the absence of what I consider to be a significant problem. I think we have perhaps a greater need for other legislation rather than registering this narrow range of specific substances for a particular use. If I may, let me broaden on this just briefly. The Public Health Service Act which authorizes most of the work that the Public Health Service does, except for categorical legislation, such as the Clean Air Act and some other Federal specific legislation in the categorical fields, is broadest with respect to authorizations for the control of communicable diseases. This dates back quite some time when major health problems were primarily associated with communicable diseases and infectious agents. The authority is far less broad to deal with contaminating substances which are noninfectious in nature but which may be toxic for one reason or another, or may otherwise have undesirable physiological effects. I would therefore suggest, rather than considering this problem on a relatively narrow basis, that it would be better to look at it in a broader context of contaminant substances in the environment other than direct infectious agents, and to evaluate the possible need for legislation in the broad area rather than the narrow one which you mentioned just now as concerned with specific fuel additives. Senator MUSKIE. Do you think it would be a good idea in the absence of legislation for oil companies which are considering additional additives to gasoline to submit them to the Public Health Service for evaluation? Mr. MACKENZIE. We would be glad to work with them. In some instances where they have not done this, we have gone to them. We would welcome it. It is a two-way street, Senator. We would be glad to have them come to us, or we would not hesitate to go to them if we have a question. Senator MUSKIE. Thank you very much, Mr. Mackenzie. I am sure that there are many other subjects in this area that we could explore profitably, but I think the time has called a halt to it. We appreciate your having been here this morning. Mr. MACKENZIE. Thank you very much. Senator MUSKIE. We had one more witness scheduled today, but with his consent, which I understand we have, because of the pressure in time, we will ask him to be the first witness tomorrow morning, Dr. Clair C. Patterson of the California Institute of Technology. Dr. Patterson will be our first witness at 9:30 tomorrow morning. I will place in the record a letter received from the office of the Governor of Montana. The accompanying material will be placed in the appendix. Senator EDMUND MUSKIE, STATE OF MONTANA. Chairman, Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution, Senate Committee on Public Works, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR MUSKIE: I have read news accounts of Senator Lee Metcalf's testimony to your subcommittee concerning air pollution control in Montana. His conclusion that the states cannot be counted on to take care of air pollution problems, at least as far as Montana is concerned, is wholly inaccurate and would present a distorted picture to the subcommittee. For that reason, I hope that you will be interested in the attached material, as well as in a short history of air pollution control efforts in Montana. It may surprise those who have viewed Montana's vast expanse of sky that we have any problem at all. Generally speaking, air pollution problems have confined themselves to mining and lumbering areas of western Montana. Meteorological and topographical conditions at certain locations, in connection with industry, have produced problem situations confined to local areas. Some of these problems have been with us for some time. In the '90's, the City Council of Butte legislated requirements for stacks on ore processing mills located in the city. By vigilant action, the people of Butte put an end to the practice of heap roasting low grade ores. Both the roasting heaps and the mills produced noxious clouds of smoke that made Butte a pretty uncomfortable place. Nearly all the timber on the surrounding hills had been cut for use in the mines, and smelter emissions finished off what was left of natural vegetation. For many years, Butte was pretty much without trees, flowers and grass. Early-day miners were not notable for any great interest in beautification, and Montana's were no exception. When the Anaconda Copper Mining Company smelter was built at about the turn of the century, the highest stack in the world, some 585 feet high, was constructed to carry emissions away from the city of Anaconda. This was undeniably done to avoid strong public resentment produced by earlier practices in the area. The lawns and gardens of both the cities of Butte and Anaconda are today among the state's most attractive, nature having long since repaired early damage. I recount these matters only for the purpose of demonstrating that Montana has a rather long history of local control of air pollution. In recent years, Montana's legislature has concerned itself with air pollution control. Problems being pretty much confined to several locations in the state, no great amount of interest was demonstrated on the part of the legislature until the 1963 session, when several bills were considered. A Joint Resolution was passed at that session, providing for the appointment of an Interim Air Pollution Investigating Committee and charging it with responsibility to study the nature, character and extent of air pollution in Montana and its various communities and report to the 1965 legislative assembly. A copy of that resolution is attached. At the same time the investigating committee was doing its work, a clean air committee at Missoula, Montana, one of the localities in the state with a problem, prepared proposed legislation. The qualifications of the drafters or the quality of their research is unknown. The result of their work, however, was House Bill 56, a copy of which is attached. The bill was approved by the House, 57-28, and after amendment, approved by the Senate by a vote of 31 to 22. Its passage was stormy and accompanied by great emotion. Proponents claimed it essential to the preservation of health, opponents objected because it ignored the local nature of air pollution in Montana and because it was too arbitrary and unreasonable for industry. Governor Babcock vetoed House Bill 56, and I have attached a copy of his veto message. In the message, you will note that the Governor asked for the passage of Senate Bill 191, introduced by 4 Democrats and 1 Republican. The bill had been approved in the Senate by a vote of 55-0, and met with approval of most people, save the proponents of tougher legislation and a few industrial interests. The bill was frankly patterned after the statute of a neighboring state, and would have provided a more gradual and less disruptive correction of air pollution problems. A copy of Senate Bill 191 is also attached. Sensing possible political advantage, the House, in response to a favorable committee report on Senate Bill 191, indefinitely postponed consideration of the bill by a vote of 50-39, including pairs. This was interpreted at the time as a move to lay the groundwork for later attack on Governor Babcock. No attempt was made to amend the bill, and the matter of its approval, after careful consideration by the House Committee on Public Health, Welfare and Safety was ignored. In a non-political context, the action of the House might be termed a fit of pique over the failure of the Governor to sign House Bill 56. In a larger sense, any blame for the lack of air pollution control in Montana must be laid to the feet of those who put narrow political interest ahead of the welfare of the state. Members of Senator Metcalf's own party in the Montana House could have readily provided air pollution control, but chose not to do so. Many thoughtful Montanans, Governor Babcock included, were disappointed when the legislative assembly adjourned without passing an air pollution control bill. Shortly after adjournment, the Governor, with advice of Dr. John S. Anderson, Executive Officer of the Montana State Board of Health, appointed a bi-partisan committee to draft a legislative proposal for the 1967 legislative session. I have attached a list of this committee to demonstrate the varied backgrounds and qualifications of the membership. Members were selected for their particular knowledge, training and interest in air pollution legislation. Many had facilities at their command to produce needed technical information and useful background material. As an example, the committee had the advice of a chemist-lawyer, who previously had worked in the area of air pollution control for both a public agency and for a large industrial concern. The committee met as a whole on 5 occasions and in eastern and western groups on 7 other occasions. Each meeting consumed from 8 to 16 hours, and much additional time was spent in subcommittee meetings. Total amount of time involved is estimated by Dr. Anderson to be in excess of 500 hours. The result of the committee's work is attached. The proposed legislation has received wide acceptance, and will almost certainly become law next year. I'm sure that you would agree that the proposal would form a good base indeed for the control of harmful and noxious pollution of the atmosphere. I would call the Committee's attention to Montana's progress in the field of water pollution control, where we have established an outstanding record. I should think this fact to be of considerable persuasion in assurances that Montana will definitely meet its responsibilities in the control of air pollution. I must appologize for the length of this letter; yet, I believe it to be of the greatest importance that the Committee understand all the circumstances in connection with Montana's efforts to control air pollution. Kind regards, JAMES B. PATTEN, Administrative Assistant. (Whereupon, at 12:15 p.m. the subcommittee recessed, to reconvene at 9:30 a.m., Wednesday, June 15, 1966.) AIR POLLUTION-1966 WEDNESDAY, JUNE 15, 1966 UNITED STATES SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON AIR AND WATER POLLUTION The subcommittee met at 9:55 a.m., pursuant to recess, in room 4200, Senate Office Building, Senator Edmund S. Muskie (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. Present: Senators Muskie and Boggs. Also present: Senator Cooper. Senator MUSKIE. The committee will be in order. Our first witness this morning, and I again wish to express my appreciation for his courtesy and cooperation in going over to today from yesterday, Dr. Clair C. Patterson from the California Institute of Technology. Dr. Patterson, it is a pleasure to welcome you this morning. STATEMENT OF DR. CLAIR C. PATTERSON, PH. D., CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY Dr. PATTERSON. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. It is a pleasure to have you invite me here to speak. I have been nudged by some of your staff to write out the presentation which I have managed to do rather early in the morning in my hotel room. It is not in very good shape. I only have one or two copies. If it is all right with you, I will read from this statement. Will it be all right? Senator MUSKIE. Yes. Dr. PATTERSON. It will take perhaps 15 minutes. Geochemical studies of lead cycles in the oceans and the atmosphere of the earth show that the chemical precipitation of dissolved lead on the bottom of the seas amounts to about 10 thousand tons of lead per year, as compared to some millions of tons of lead per year which is produced by industry. It has been observed that lead now enters the seas via rivers in amounts that exceed natural values, values that we infer existed during prehistoric times, by about an order of magnitude. It is no myth that there are only about 100,000 tons of lead in the upper mixed layers of all of the oceans of the entire earth which may be compared to industrial rates of production of millions of tons of lead, and of the storage of lead in various forms which amount to tens of millions of tons in our human environment of cities and towns. It is clear from these figures that the industrial production and utilization of lead today far exceeds the natural rates of flow of lead in geochemical cycles of the oceans and the atmosphere. The surfaces of the open ocean appear to be polluted with lead mined by man. Analysis of lead in preserved snow layers near the North Pole show that the atmosphere has become progressively more polluted with lead to a maximum today. Because of this extensive pollution, typical lead levels observed in our environment may be grossly higher than natural lead levels. It is important therefore to carefully distinguish between the typical levels of lead in our environment and those natural levels which refer to the levels of lead in body and environment which prevailed during the creation and the evolution of our physiological responses to lead. It is reasonable therefore to set aside typical observations of lead and to consider what the natural values might be by geochemical means. We can consider, for example, the abundance of certain trace elements in the earth which are similar to lead, and infer a level of lead from these values. Such elements as germanium, tin, thallium, mercury, bismuth, when considered in our environment suggest that the natural amount of lead in a 70 kilogram man should be of the order of 1 to 10 milligrams. When we consider the abundance of the alkaline earth series, calcium, strontium, barium and its relationship to lead in soil, plants, man's diet, and in man himself, we infer that the natural amount of lead in a 70 kilogram man should be about 2 milligrams. Using this natural value for the body burden of man, we can estimate that the natural concentration of lead in food should be approximately 0.01 p.p.m., 0.0005 microgram per cubic meter in air, 0.0005 p.p.m. in natural waters, and a natural concentration of lead in blood of 0.002 p.p.m. How do these values compare with typical ones observed in America today? The average body burden of lead in Americans is estimated to be about 200 mg. of lead, the average concentration of lead in food is about 0.2 p.p.m. The average concentration of lead in blood is about 0.2 p.p.m., and the average concentration of lead in city atmosphere is about 1 microgram of lead per cubic meter. What are the consequences of this discrepancy between inferred natural values of lead and observed typical values? There is clear and strong suggestion that the average resident of the United States is being subjected to severe chronic lead insult. It is possible that deleterious effects to the health of large numbers of people are being caused by these high levels of exposure. An important consideration in this matter involves not just a possible increase in mortality but the possibility that the course of human events could be perturbed by this toxic metal since the function of the central nervous system in humans may be affected. I feel an obligation to go beyond the presentation of these geochemical observations and ideas on this lead problem because the posture of the U.S. Public Health Service, the California State Department of Public Health and the teaching faculties in occupational medicine and environmental health engineering has been to defend and promote ideas that may be dangerous to the health of all Americans. I have chosen to present five points which are important to the views of a physical scientist on these matters. Point 1. At no time have persons in the above organizations distinguished explicitly and clearly between typical and natural concen |