« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »
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:
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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
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
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
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
program involving the provision by State or local governments of
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.
tinuance is a stain on our national conscience, for there is
absolutely no reason for this horrid disease to be allowed to con..
We have the ability to eradicate the menace of lead-based
paint poisoning from the face of America.
There is no question
What must be questioned, however, is our will to do
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
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