Page images

Senator MUSKIE. Let me ask you one or two questions about this joint project with the Bureau of Mines.

The membership of the API includes some major industries which provide the lead used in gasoline.

Would it be possible for the findings of this research program to be adverse to their interests, and, if such findings were adverse, would you be in a position to agree to publication of those findings?

Mr. GAMMELGARD. There would be no question there whatever.
Senator MUSKIE. They wouldn't chew you out in private for agree-
ing to it?
Mr. GAMMELGARD. I doubt it.

Senator Muskie. Could you provide the committee a list of all similar contracts between API and Government agencies, their subjects, and the amounts of money involved, both for the past and the present? Mr. GAMMELGARD. Yes, sir.

Senator MUSKIE. I think the Surgeon General, when he appeared, made this statement: "It has been said that 70 to 80 percent of the lead in gasoline is eventually emitted into the air.”

Does research performed by API substantiate that figure or not? Mr. GAMMELGARD. API as such, to my knowledge, has not performed any research to check that figure out.

Senator Muskie. So you have no conclusion of your own on that point?

Mr. GAMMELGARD. No, sir.
Senator Muskie. Thank you very much.
Mr. GAMMELGARD. Thank you, sir.

(Subsequently the American Petroleum Institute submitted its following communication :)


Washington, D.C., June 24, 1966.
Hon. Eovund S. MUSKIE,
Chairman, Special Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution, Committee on

Public Works, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: During the hearings on air pollution held by your Subcommittee from June 7-15, it appeared to me that certain facts were not fufficiently stressed, and I would appreciate the opportunity of having the following added to the transcript of the hearings. Extimated lead hazard to the public There appeared to be a reluctance on the part of some witnesses to use the experience of lead workers in assessing the hazard to the general public. Howerer, this is a valid procedure for the following reasons :

The Threshold Limit Value for lead established by the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) is 200 micrograms per cubic meter of air. This means that if a worker is exposed not more than 40 hours per week to atmoshperic concentrations not in excess of 200 micrograms per

cubic meter, blood lead levels will not exceed 0.08 mg/100 gms. whole blood, 1 and urinary excretion levels will not exceed 0.10 mg/liter of urine.

Many thousands of men in industry have been followed by competent clinicians for from thirty to forty years with no evidence of any effect on their health when these levels have not been exceeded. Moreover, among these men have been some who, as a result of aging and natural causes, have suffered from heart disease, kidney disease, anemias, and neurological disorders. There is no reason to believe that the course of their disease has been adversely affected.

Finally, the Tri-City Study showed that the general public is exposed to lear concentrations in the ambient air which averaged on an annual basis from 1 to 3 micrograms per cubic meter. Although peak levels in tunnels and

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

heavy traffic may exceed these levels, for this discussion as well as for occupational exposures, peak levels have no significance. Rather, average levels are the significant ones. The Tri-City level of 1 to 3 micrograms is, of course, the concentration to which lead workers are exposed during their non-working hours (i.e., 128 hours a week). Simple calculation of the worst situation, therefore, suggests that the total exposure factor for lead uorkers is 200 micrograms per cubic meter x 40 working hours plus 3 micrograms per cubic meter x 128 non-working hours, or 8,384 micrograms. This contrasts with a total exposure factor for the general public of 3 micrograms per cubic meter x 168 hours working and non-working hours per week, or 504 micrograms.

It thus should be evident that the general public has an exposure at least one order of magnitude less than the lead worker group, yet the latter group (at or below the 200 microgram per cubic meter level) has shown no evidence of adverse effects.

This is undoubtedly due to the fact that the ACGIH builds into its Threshold Limit values an additional safety factor. It is because of such safety factors and the order of magnitude difference that industrial physicians believe there is no hazard from atmospheric lead to the general population and that the occupational experience does have relevance to the general population question. Dr. Prindle's comments on blood Icad lerels

Much emphasis was placed by Dr. Prindle on the significance of 11 men in the Tri-City Study who had blood lead levels in excess of 0.06 mg/100 gms. whole blood. In fact, in his prepared statement he calculated that if the figures from the Tri-City were “generalizable" to the total population, we could then expect that 500,000 to 1 million people in the general population would have blood lead levels in excess of 0.06 mg.

The fact is that such a generalization cannot be supported because these 11 men were in occupations where excessive lead exposure could be anticipated. In addition, 7 of these 11 men, as pointed out by Dr. Kehoe, have been traced and their blood lead levels repeated. On repeat, all 7 showed blood lead levels of about 0.02 mg/100 gms. whole blood. Although this information was avail. able to the U.S. Public Health Service, it was not incorporated in Dr. Prindle's testimony, nor was it brought out in subsequent questioning of Dr. Prindle. Dr. Hardy's comments on eraluation lead intoxication in industry

Dr. Hardy emphasized at the lead symposium of December 1965 that men without frank lead poisoning may nonetheless have increased red blood cell ragility. It is important to point out, however, that these men had urinary Azad excretions of 0.17–0.58 mg/liter. This is far in excess of the level of 9.10 mg/liter which is used as a control in industry. In other words, the men to whom Dr. Hardy referred obviously had excessive lead exposure by presently accepted industrial standards, and their increased red cell fragility was evidence of lead intoxication. They should not, therefore, be used to compare with the general population. Rather, the lead workers referred to in the first section of this letter should be used for this purpose. Dr. Patterson's comments on response to toxic agents

Dr. Patterson stated, during the questioning period following his prepared statement, that there is a continuum of response to toxic agents. Physicians know, however, from their experience with the administration of drugs that one level will have no effect, a slightly higher level will have a therapeutic effect. and a still higher level will have a toxic effect. A good exampe of such a drug is digitalis, one of the physician's oldest and most useful drugs. I have seen situations in which a dose of 100 milligrams given four times a week has no effect, the same dose given six times a week has the desired beneficial result, whereas the same dose given seven times a week produced toxic effects.

Therefore, Dr. Patterson's contention that lead or any other material has a continuum of response to dosage increase is not biologically sound. In addition, many foods contain toxic materials which if taken in excess may cause trouble, but if taken in the amounts usually consumed have no deleterious effects. For example, rhubarb contains oxalic acid and if eaten to excess has been known to make people sick. Yet, in the usually consumed quantities it is considered a desirable and tasty addition to our food supply. In the absence of data to the contrary, it is necessary, therefore, to contend that from a biological standpoint there is not a continuum of response to toxic agents.

I trust that these few comments will assist in clarifying the record and will help explain why the API, as well as the Committee on Occupational Toxicology of the American Medical Association does not believe that the general public now faces any lead hazard from the atmosphere. Very truly yours,


Medical Adviser. Senator Muskie. Our next witness will be Mr. Vernon Mackenzie, Chief, Division of Air Pollution, Public Ilealth Service.

STATEMENT OF VERNON MACKENZIE, CHIEF, DIVISION OF AIR POLLUTION, PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE Mr. MACKENZIE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator MUSKIE. Mr. Mackenzie, before you begin, Senator Randolph has to leave and he would like to put something to you before you begin your statement. Senator RANDOLPH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Mackenzie, I think the members of this subcommittee and the members of the Public Works Committee, and Members of the Congress generally, who are working on the subject of the abatement and control of air and water pollution, were gratified that the President of the United States, on May 26, issued an Executive Order 11282, and that Executive order was titled "Prevention, Control, and Abatement of Iir Pollution by Federal Activities."

As you know, it was a directive to the heads of all of the Federal agencies to more or less lead, certainly to dramatize through leadership, the administration's efforts to bring to the attention of the country the need, the imperative need, to improve the quality of the air.

Mr. Chairman, I do not believe that Executive order has been
introduced in your subcommittee.
I should like permission to introduce that order and have it printed
Senator Muskie. Without objection, it will be included in the record

at this point.

at this point.

(Subsequently the following exhibit was submitted :)


By virtue of the authority yested in me as President of the United States and in furtherance of the purpose and policy of the Clean Air Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 1877), it is ordered as follows:

SECTION 1. Policy.---The heads of the departments, agencies, and establisbments of the Executive Branch of the Government shall provide leadership in the nationwide effort to improve the quality of our air through the prevention, control, and abatement of air pollution from Federal Government activities in the I'nited States. In order to achieve these objectives,

(1) Emissions to the atmosphere from Federal facilities and buildings shall not be permitted if such emissions endanger health or welfare, and emissions which are likely to be injurious or hazardous to people, animals, vegetation, or property, shall be minimized. The procedures established in section 3 of this Order shall be followed in minimizing pollution from existing facilities and

(2) New Federal facilities and buildings shall be constructed so as to meet the objectives prescribed by this Order and the standards established pursuant to section 5 of this Order.

[ocr errors]
[merged small][ocr errors]

(3) The Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare shall, in administering the Clean Air Act, as amended, provide technical advice and assistance to the heads of other departments, agencies, and establishments in connection with their duties and responsibilities under this Order. The head of each department, agency, and establishment shall establish appropriate procedures for securing advice from, and consulting with, the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare.

(4) The head of each department, agency, and establishment shall ensure compliance with section 107(a) of the Clean Air Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 1857f (a)), which declares it to be the intent of Congress that Federal departments and agencies shall, to the extent practicable and consistent with the interests of the United States and within available appropriations, cooperate with the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare and with any air pollution control agency in preventing and controlling pollution of the air.

SEC. 2. Procedures for new Federal facilities and building8.—A request for funds to defray the cost of designing and constructing new facilities and buildings in the United States shall be included in the annual budget estimates of a department, agency, or establishment only if such request includes funds to defray the costs of such measures as may be necessary to assure that the new facility or building will meet the objectives prescribed by this Order and the standards established pursuant to section 5 of this Order. Air pollution control needs shall be considered in the initial stages of planning for each new installation.

Sec. 3. Procedures for existing Federal facilities and buildings. (a) In order to facilitate budgeting for corrective and preventive measures, the head of each department, agency, and establishment shall provide for an examination of all existing facilities and buildings under his jurisricition in the United States and shall develop and present to the Director of the Bureau of the Budget, by July 1, 1967, a phased and orderly plan for installing such improvements as may be needed to prevent air pollution, or abate such air pollution as may exist, with respect to such buildings and facilities. Subsequent revisions needed to keep any such plan up to date shall be submitted to the Director of the Bureau of the Budget with the annual report required by paragraph (b) of this section. Future construction work at each such faciliy and the expected future use of the facility shall be considered in developing such a plan. Each such plan, and any revision therein, shall be developed in consultation with the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare in order to ensure that adoption of the measures proposed thereby will result in the prevention or abatement of air pollution in conformity with the objectives prescribed by this Order and the standards pre'scribed pursuant to section 5 of this Order.

(b) The head of each department, agency, and establishment who has existing facilities and buildings under his jurisdiction in the United States shall present to the Director of the Bureau of the Budget, by July 1, 1968, and by the first of each fiscal year thereafter, an annual report describing progress of his department, agency, or establishment in accomplishing the objectives of its air pollution abatement plan.

SEC. 4. Objectives for Federal facilities and buildings. (a) Except for discharges of radioactive emissions which are regulated by the Atomic Energy Commission. Federal facilities buildings shall conform to the air pollution standards prescribed by the State or community in which they are located. If State or local standards are not prescribed for a particular location, or if the State or local standards are less stringent than the standards established pursuiant to this Order, the standards prescribed pursuant to section 5 of this Order shall be followed.

(b) The emission of flyash and other particulate matter shall be kept to : minimum.

(c) Emission of sulfur oxides shall be minimized to the extent practicable.

(d) Wherever appropriate, tall chimneys shall be installed in order to reduce the adverse effects of pollution. The determination of chimney height shall be based on air quality criteria, land use, and meteorological, topographical, aesthetic, and operating factors,

(e) Solid fuels and ash shall be stored and handled so as not to release to the atmosphere dust in significant quantities. Gasoline or any volatile petroleum distillate or organic liquid shall be stored and handled so as not to release to the atmosphere vapor emissions in significant quantities.

(f) In urban areas refuse shall not be burned in open fires and in rural areas it shall be disposed of in such a manner as to reasonably minimize pollution.

[ocr errors]

Refuse shall not be left in dumps without being covered with inert matter within a reasonably short time. Whenever incinerators are used they shall be of such design as will minimize emission of pollutant dusts, fumes, or gases.

(g) Pollutant dusts, fumes, or gases (other than those for which provision is made above) shall not be discharged to the atmosphere in quantities which will endanger health or welfare.

(h) The head of each department, agency, and establishment shall, with respect to each installation in the United States under his jurisdiction, take, or cause to be taken, such action as may be necessary to ensure that discharges of radioactive emissions to the atmosphere are in accord with the rules, regulations, or requirements of the Atomic Energy Commission and the policies and guidance of the Federal Radiation Council as published in the Federal Register.

(i) In extraordinary cases where it may be required in the public interest, the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare may exempt any Federal facility or building from the objectives of paragraphs (a) through (g) of this section.

SEC. 5. Standards. (a) The Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare shall prescribe standards to implement the objectives prescribed by paragraphs (a) through (g) of section 4 of this Order. Such standards may modify these objectives whenever the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare shall determine that such modifications are necessary in the public interest and will not significantly conflict with the intent of this Order. Prior to issuing any changes in such standards, the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare shall consult with appropriate Federal agencies and shall publish the proposed changes in the Federal Register thirty days prior to their issuance. All such standards prescribed by the Secretary shall be published in the Federal Register.

(b) The permits authorized by section 107 (b) of the Clean Air Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 1857f (b)), may be used to carry out the purposes of this Order as the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare may deem appropriate.

Sec. 6. Prior Executive Order superseded. Executive Order No. 10779 of August 20, 1958, is hereby superseded.


May 26 1966. Senator RANDOLPH. The order, Mr. Mackenzie, is similar to the one the President signed last November, I believe, directing the Federal agencies to provide leadership in combating water pollution.

The order requires that plans for new Federal facilities and buildings in the United States include provisions for air pollution control measures necessary to comply wtih the standards issued by the Department of Health, Éducation, and Welfare.

That was done on June 3d, as you will recall. In addition, the President has directed the head of each agency to examine existing installations and to present to the Bureau of the Budget by July 1, 1967, an orderly schedule for bringing all such installations to the required standards.

The President has noted that a major difficulty in writing the order was the lack of an economically feasible technology for controlling emissions of sulfur. The Congress has already called attention to the problem in last year's amendments, Mr. Chairman, as you will recall, to the Clean Air Act.

The President has directed the Secretaries of the Interior and of Health, Education, and Welfare, to explore with the Bureau of the Budget the feasibility of increasing still further the Federal effort to determine a solution of the sulfur emission problem.

However, as President Johnson also has pointed out, a major part of the responsibility for sulfur research rests with the utilities, the coal and oil industries and other groups which feel the economic efforts of the more stringent air pollution regulations. I believe, Mr. Chairman, the intent and even the language of the President's order has not yet been fully discussed and fully studied.

[ocr errors]
« PreviousContinue »