The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Our next witness is the Honorable Russell E. Train.

Russ, we are glad to have you with us again.

STATEMENT OF HON. RUSSELL E. TRAIN, CHAIRMAN, COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY, EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE

PRESIDENT

Mr. TRAIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Council on Environmental Quality is pleased to have the opportunity to affirm to you our wholehearted support for the administration's proposed legislation to tax lead additives to gasoline. It is well known that lead in sufficient quantities is toxic. Historically, cases have been documented for deaths traceable to this element in certain situations such as occupational exposure in lead mines and in instances where children have eaten paint containing lead. Experts tell us that in all probability there is no requirement for lead in the human body, although due to natural sources there is a certain minimum lead content present. The exposure to the lead wastes placed into the environment by man adds to this content and raises the concentration toward that level above which short-term adverse effects could result.

There is no definitive evidence that the current lead level in the atmosphere by itself, causes clinical human illnesses. However, there appears to be evidence that lead borne by air, such as the submicron size lead salt particles generated by motor exhausts is absorbed by the body in greater proportions than that absorbed from other means. For example, although there is a variance of opinion, some published results state that over 50 percent of the inhaled lead is absorbed as compared to less than 10 percent of that ingested by food and water.1 Airborne lead also enters the body indirectly. It can come to rest on edible plants and even in fish which consume the washoffs from the adjoining land. These products are then ingested by man.

When the lead source to the body is cut off, the lead concentrations absorbed into some body constituents, such as the blood, are gradually reduced. However, some experts tell us that lead may have a long term. detrimental effect on other constituents such as the red blood cellsan effect that cannot be reversed.

I am not a medical doctor. But as an environmentalist I am deeply concerned by the warnings in the professional literature. We are all well aware of other substances which man has placed in the environment in large quantities without first taking the precaution to determine if they had any detrimental effects. We are now paying the price for some of these-notably DDT and mercury.

I do not feel we should take this chance with lead transmitted through the air, of which automobile exhausts are a major source. There is no necessity that these exhausts contain lead, only a convenience factor. Additional research needs to be conducted to ascertain the effects, particularly the long-term ones, of atmospheric lead on human health. This research takes time. In the interim the advantages in safeguarding human health far outweigh the conveniences

1 Stokinger, Herbert E., Amer. Ind. Hygiene Assn. Journal, 30, May-June 1969.

50-374-70- 5

such as more power in our automobiles. Lead must be removed from gasoline. The proposed tax on lead additives should be a major inducement to accomplish this.

Automobile exhaust is one of the major sources of air pollution, particularly in urban areas, and the threat posed by auto exhausts was made amply clear by the recent wave of pollution episodes across the country. The high levels of smog in these episodes, in many cases, were due to the automobile.

The National Air Pollution Control Administration of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare has issued, and is continuing to make more stringent, emission standards to minize these pollutants. The efforts to meet these standards can be divided into two general categories:

1. Cleaning up the emissions of the present internal combustion engine.

2. Developing a low emission power system other than the internal combustion engine.

The latter approach may well be necessary in the long run and we must take steps now to clean up the internal combustion engine since it probably will be with us for some time.

We have seen evidence where hydrocarbon emissions can be reduced 7 to 20 percent by using lead-free gasoline in both existing and new automobiles. Thus, even without the new emission control devices, the removal of lead from gasoline yields significant results toward smog reduction.

A panel of experts, chaired by Dr. David Ragone under the aegis of the Department of Commerce, has made a detailed study of the need to remove the lead additive from gasoline and the means for doing so.

In their preliminary report, issued in July, they concluded that lead has a deleterious effect on potentially important emission control devices needed to meet the increasingly stringent future emission standards and that the development of a variety of these devices depends on the assurance that a low and eventually an unleaded fuel will be generally available when needed, I refer to a low leaded gasoline as containing around 0.5 grams of lead per gallon. The present lead content in most gasolines ranges from 2 to 3 grams per gallon.

Many of the potential devices which might be used to reduce gaseous emissions are rendered ineffective by lead after relatively short mileage has been accumulated. Some are poisoned by just one tankful of leaded gas; others after only a few thousand miles. The goal is to obtain a device which will last for at least 100,000 miles before replacement is required.

It takes time and investment by industry to develop and test these devices to the point where we have assurance as to their performance when produced under high volume conditions and when operated and maintained under conditions pertaining to normal American driving habits and car care. The commitment to remove lead from gasoline will increase the chances that these devices will be effective under these conditions and thus should be an incentive to industry to intensify their development.

It takes time for the petroleum industry to convert in an orderly and economical manner to the production of large quantities of low and unleaded gasolines. Hence, we must declare in no uncertain terms

our intent that a low leaded and eventually a nonleaded gasoline will be made available so as to encourage industry to rapidly initiate the changes which must be made. The tax on the lead additive is a means to accomplish this, since it allows the low and nonleaded fuels to compete economically with those containing lead.

We have in this instance a good example of one of the major causes of our environmental problems-the failure of our economic system to fully take into account all of the social costs that result from productive or consumptive activities. A portion of the costs of using, in this case, leaded gasolines are costs in environmental degradation and are not now taken adequately into account by consumers because the prices they pay for alternative fuels do not reflect these costs.

It is our feeling that while regulation will be necessary, corrections must be made in our system of economic incentives and restraints by having prices, which guide decisions, more adequately take pollution costs into account. The pervasive impacts of market forces can be utilized in dealing with environmental problems but we must more fully insure that prices include all of the relevant costs.

The proposed taxation of the lead additive is an example of bringing environmental effects into the market or price system.

At this time I would like to read one short paragraph from the first annual Environmental Quality Report which the President transmitted to the Congress a couple of weeks ago.

The quotation is from page 12:

Our price system fails to take into account the environmental damage that the polluter inflicts on others. Economists calls these damages-which are very real— external social costs. They reflect the ability of one entity, for example, a company, to use water or air as a free resource for waste disposal while others pay the cost in contaminated air or water.

If there were a way to make the price structure shoulder these external coststaxing the firm for the amount of discharge, for instance then the price for the goods and services produced would reflect these costs.

Failing this, goods whose production spawns pollution are greatly underpriced because the purchaser does not pay for pollution abatement that would prevent environmental damage.

Not only does this failure encourage pollution but it warps the price structure. A price structure that took environmental degradation into account would cause a shift in prices, hence a shift in consumer preferences and, to some extent, would discourage buying pollution-producing products.

The tax on lead additives should assist in reducing the lead content in gasolines. This will substantially reduce the possible human health hazard from atmospheric lead particles and will help in developing devices to reduce the gaseous automotive emission pollutants. Hence, this tax will contribute in a positive manner toward improving the quality of our environment.

Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, environmental quality is rapidly becoming a broad desire of the American people. It is a goal to which both parties express their commitment. We should all recognize that environmental quality is not going to be achieved for nothing.

We are going to have to pay for it. The tax on lead additives in gasoline proposed by the administration represents the first clear call upon our Nation to face up to such costs.

I urge this committee and the Congress to support this important step.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Train.

Secretary Veneman, are you the next witness?

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN G. VENEMAN, UNDER SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE; ACCOMPANIED BY DR. JOHN T. MIDDLETON, COMMISSIONER, NATIONAL AIR POLLUTION CONTROL ADMINISTRATION; AND ERIC O. STORK, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER FOR MOBILE SOURCE POLLUTION CONTROL

Mr. VENEMAN. Yes, Mr. Chairman.

It is as always a pleasure to appear before you. Though my testimony today deals with a subject quite different from those I have discussed with you on previous occasions, it, too, has a direct bearing on public health and welfare.

That subject, of course, is the environmental health problem arising from the use of lead additives in gasoline. It is a complex problem, but one whose solution is well within our grasp.

Adding lead compounds is the cheapest way of producing the highoctane gasoline required by many of today's cars; however, a substantial portion of the lead is released into the air in automobile exhausts.

Total emissions of lead into the Nation's air are now about 200,000 tons per year, up from 130,000 tons 10 years ago. Nearly all of it, approximately 95 percent, results from the use of lead in gasoline. Thus, if the use of lead at present levels continues, lead emissions will continue to increase in almost direct proportion to increases in the Nation's use of motor vehicles.

The impact of lead emissions on air quality can be and has been measured. Lead levels in the air are highest in urban areas and along heavily traveled highways.

There can be no doubt that lead in the air can and does enter the human body; indeed lead emitted from motor vehicles consists primarily of particles whose small size permits them to penetrate deeply down into the lungs and to be absorbed into the blood. Food and beverages also contain lead, partly because lead is a naturally occurring element in soil and water but also because of the impact of lead emitted from motor vehicles and analysis of precipitation samples has indicated that their lead content was correlated with gasoline consumption in the area where the samples were taken.

From the standpoint of public health, the use of lead additives in gasoline is a matter of substantial concern. Early next year an air quality criteria document summarizing available knowledge of the effects of lead on human health will be published under provisions of the Clean Air Act.

That document currently is being prepared by the National Air Pollution Control Administration with the assistance of the National Academy of Sciences and various expert advisory groups.

Even without that document in hand, however, it is clear that human exposure to lead is hazardous to health.

There is no evidence that lead is necessary to sustain human life; on the contrary, man has known for centuries that lead is poisonous. The effects of acute lead poisoning are well known, they range from physical disabilities and mental retardation to death. While exposure to present levels of lead in the air has not been shown to be the direct cause of lead poisoning or other identifiable illnesses, many scientists are concerned about effects of a more subtle nature.

There is evidence, for example, that lead may affect the formation of red blood cells and hemoglobin, the oxygen carrying material in the blood; such effects may occur even while lead levels in the body are below those associated with acute lead poisoning.

There is also concern as to whether present lead levels in man are sufficiently below the levels associated with acute lead poisoning to provide an adequate safety margin. Persons living in urban areas and having no unusual exposure to lead now may have levels as high as 30 micrograms of lead per 100 grams of blood.

In comparison, symptoms of acute lead poisoning have been observed repeatedly in children whose blood levels were as low as 60 micrograms of lead per 100 grams of blood.

From the standpoint of prudent concern for human health, such figures suggest that this safety margin is not adequate, particularly if lead emissions are destined to continue increasing.

It should be emphasized that many persons, such as traffic policemen, automobile mechanics, and parking garage attendants, have unusual exposure to lead emitted from motor vehicles and have higher lead levels in their blood than is the case among persons not so exposed.

Finally, it is also known that blood levels in urban children are double those in rural children. These higher lead levels may be due to inhalation of atmospheric lead, or to the inhalation and swallowing of street dirt, which has shown great increases in lead contents since the introduction of leaded gasolines.

Since the body burden of lead is made up of lead absorbed from a variety of sources in addition to lead from the air, higher levels of lead in the air may pose a special problem by increasing susceptibility to lead poisoning among children ingesting lead-based paint and putty. In summary, while our scientific knowledge of the health effects of lead certainly is not as complete as we would like it to be, it is sufficient to suggest that failure to act now may result in serious health problems in years to come.

Taking such a risk would be unjustifiable under any circumstances; it is particularly unjustifiable in this case, since there is no compelling reason for continuing to use lead additives in gasoline.

On the other hand, there are reasons beyond those I have already cited, for taking lead out of gasoline. Exhaust emissions from motor vehicles contain substantial amounts of carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, and nitrogen oxides, all of which contributes significantly to the Nation's air pollution problems.

In accordance with the Clean Air Act, the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare has established national standards for the control of emissions of these pollutants from new motor vehicles and we expect to tighten these standards over the next few years.

From information now available, it appears that some automobile manufacturers are likely to employ catalytic devices to meet the motor vehicle emission standards scheduled to take effect in the 1975 model year.

Such devices contain a chemical catalyst designed to transform pollutants into harmless substances. The trouble is that lead either damages or destroys the many catalysts on which experiments have been conducted; indeed some catalysts can be ruined by a single tankful of leaded gasoline.