Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

-7

Typical of the comments submitted to the FDA are those from

the Environmental Protection Agency, which in its memorandum to the

FDA of January 28, 1972, pointed out that:

(EPA) studies...

..indicate

that lead paint, in excess of 0.05 % could constitute a danger to

the health of children with pica.

Our conclusion is similar to that

of the American Academy of Pediatrics, which strongly recommended

that lead paint in excess of 0.06% should not be permitted.

On August 2, 1971, I requested the Department of Health, Edu

cation and Welfare, and the Department of Housing and Urban Develop

ment to undertake a full investigation as to the lead content of

all paint manufactured in or imported into the United States.

That study, being conducted through the National Bureau of Stan

dards is now underway.

On February 16, 1972, Assistant Secretary for Research and

Technology, HUD, Harold B. Finger, provided me with the results

of the preliminary survey undertaken in the Washington, D.C. area.

This preliminary study demonstrated two things. First,

that there are some paints on the shelves which are in violation

of the self-imposed industry standard of 1 percent lead content for

household uses. And Secondly, that the vast majority of paint (72 of 97 samples analyzed) currently have a lead content less

than 0.1 percent.

What is most striking about this is that the

paint industry has endorsed the FDA proposal to lower the definitional

level to 0.5 percent, while adamantly opposing anything more stringent.

[ocr errors]

Yet only 3 of 97 samples had a lead content in excess of 0.1 perccent

and less than 0.5 percent.

From this preliminary data it would ap

pear that the great preponderance of paint currently being manu

factured is no more than 0.04 percent in excess of the definitional

[blocks in formation]

If we are to eliminate lead-based paint poisoning, we must

eliminate lead from paint.

It is my firm belief that the health

of our Nation's children is of far more import than the slight in

convenience to paint manufacturers who will be obliged to insure

quality control in the manufacture of their product.

-8

GRANTS TO STATE AGENCIES IN CERTAIN CASES

The Lead-Based Paint Poisoning Prevention Act specifies that only

"units of general local government in any State" are eligible for grants

under Titles I and II. Unfortunately, because of the administrative

set-up in two states -- Rhode Island and Delaware, this precludes

them from receiving Federal assistance under the .Act.

In an effort to coordinate health services, the State of Rhode

Island abolished all local health departments and offices and placed

all health matters under the jurisdiction of the State Department

of Health in 1966. Likewise, health programs in the State of Dela.

ware are operated on a statewide basis.

In order to permit these States to obtain much-needed Federal

funding to combat the hazards of childhood lead poisoning, my legis.

lation includes a provision absent in S. 3080

it authorizes grants

to be made to State agencies in any case where units of general

local government within a State are prevented by State law from

receiving such grants or from expending such grants in accordance

with their intended purpose.

COMIUNITY HEALTH SERVICES

I believe that it is essential that Federal funds to combat

lead-based paint poisoning be easily channeled to the community

level where they are most needed.

Therefore my legislation broadens

the definition of those eligible to receive grants to include

comprehensive health services programs withis the meaning of section

222(a)(4) of the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964. And I urge the

Subcommittee to consider this and other methods to facilitate the

flow of funds to the community level.

-9

CENTRALIZED LABORATORY FACILITIES

Finally, this legislation broadens the provisions relating to

grants for detection and treatment of childhood lead poisoning to

allow the Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare to make grants

to State agencies for the purpose of establishing centralized

laboratory facilities for analyzing environmental and biological

lead specimens obtained from local lead-based paint poisoning pre

vention programs.

The amount of any such grant cannot exceed

75 percent of the cost of such a facility

a matching require

ment identical to that under the other sections of title I of the

[blocks in formation]

crippler and killer of young children is lead-tainted paint fallen

from the dilapidated walls and ceilings of tenement housing.

If we are to eradicate this disease, we must eliminate its cause,

for it does little good to screen and treat young children for

lead poisoning and then send them back to the same conditions which

caused the disease to begin with.

Unfortunately, the elimination of lead-based paint has not

been a task which has been thoroughly undertaken by States and local

governments.

I believe that the Federal government can play a

two-fold role in changing this situation. First, it is essential

that the Congress provide adequate funding for grants under Title II

for the eradication of the lead-based paint in these dwellings.

But second, it now appears necessary that the Federal government

use whatever means necessary to force the improvement of this hous

ing.

There fore, I have introduced H.R. 12943 which provides that

Federal assistance to a State or local government or agency for

rehabilitation or renovation of housing and for enforcement of

local or State housing codes under the urban renewal program, the

public housing program, the model cities program, or under any other

[ocr errors]

program involving the provision by State or local governments of

-10

housing or related facilities, shall be made available only on

condition that the recipient submit and carry out an effective plan

for the elimination of lead-based paint poisoning.

Childhood lead poisoning is a national peril, bringing death

and affliction to thousands of young children each year.

Its con-

tinuance is a stain on our national conscience, for there is

absolutely no reason for this horrid disease to be allowed to con..

tinue.

We have the ability to eradicate the menace of lead-based

paint poisoning from the face of America.

There is no question

about that.

What must be questioned, however, is our will to do

80.

For this government has a history of sitting on its hands

when it comes to safeguarding the health of our poor citizens.

We have an obligation to assure that all children in this

[blocks in formation]

Senator KENNEDY. Our next witnesses are a panel from the paint industry. Mr. Robert A. Roland, executive vice president of National Paint and Coatings Association, a trade association which represents 1,100 members of the paint and coatings industry, will serve as the leader of the panel. Mr. Roland has been in his position since 1961, having been elected for a series of 3-year terms.

а With him, representing individual companies, are Mr. William E. Hood, chairman of the Board of Indurall Coatings, Inc.; Mr. Daniel J. Haley, Jr., president of Finnaren_and Haley, Inc.; Mr. Ralph Levine of Dutch Boy Paints; Mr. John DiGregory, president of Standard Brands; and Dr. E.C. Larsen, vice president and General Manager of PPG Industries, Inc.

If we could, I made some comments, and we are going to have Senator Pell chair this, but if we could talk about a couple of those matters I mentioned earlier, then we will put that in your statement in the appropriate place. It is out of order, but I am not going to be able to remain.

As I understand, there are some paint companies that have been able to develop a technique to go lead free, am I right in that

STATEMENT OF ROBERT A. ROLAND, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT,

NATIONAL PAINT AND COATINGS ASSOCIATION; ACCOMPANIED BY JOHN M. MONTGOMERY, GENERAL COUNSEL; ROYAL A. BROWN, TECHNICAL DIRECTOR, NATIONAL PAINT AND COATINGS ASSOCIATION; WILLIAM E. HOOD, CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD, INDURALL COATINGS, INC.; RALPH LEVINE, TECHNICAL DIRECTOR, PAINT DIVISION, N L INDUSTRIES, INC. (DUTCH BOY PAINTS); JOHN DEGREGORY, PRESIDENT, STANDARD BRANDS PAINTS CO.; DANIEL J. HALEY, PRESIDENT, FINNAREN & HALEY, INC.; AND E. C. LARSEN, VICE PRESIDENT AND GENERAL MANAGER, PPG INDUSTRIES, INC., A PANEL FROM THE PAINT INDUSTRY

Mr. ROLAND. Mr. Chairman, that is not correct in the sense of lead free. The term “lead free” would indicate no lead at all, and there are very few products which have no lead at all. In other words, "lead free." There are contaminants and other ingredients which are in them.

Some water based products have no oleoresinous ingredients at all in them.

Senator KENNEDY. Just in terms of the .06 percent, how difficult in terms of technique and how much in terms of additional cost does it take to have the paints that are used in the interior or exterior of houses, how difficult is that to achieve from a technical point of view?

Mr. RoLand. The first point is, you must make a big distinction between interior and exterior. So let's forget exterior. Here there's a much higher degree of oil based paint, and this requires lead dryer and lead pigment in many cases.

When we considered a 1 percent rule, you had some lead bearing pigments in the coatings. When you go to .05, you remove all of the pigments that are of a lead nature. When you go to .06, you remove

а

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »