Document e7Qzao42Jem0yOEK41zv3oKkE

LIA15536 m i^otesaatfiiaMMiu imw i i i.n.iw .wnifmip.ipii i y i 1!1njj..Iw |.n* iMw-^ay it :i* r'>* ' * ^ .v*i i|P^ P|gy F g ^ r Load Induttriea Association, Inc. Zinc Institute, Inc. Xtt Madison Avenue, New Yofk, N.V. 10017 Philip E. Robinson In mVM tiowUr $( 19T3 SUBJECT: LEAD H OASOLHS MOUIftnOSB <u TO: Nabn of Load Industries AiMcUtloa, Zm. Ob Wednesday, SorsBber 28, 1973, tbo EarlrocBantal Protection Afency announced "final refulatlncs to protect poblie hoaltb by reduelnf tba aoount of load la all fradeo of faaollao." Tho roatrletloBS eo load ooetoat of faaollao trill ova free 1.7 fraaa par falloe by January 1, 1975 down to 0.5 fraaa par falloe by January 1, 1979- On tbo day of tba anaouncearnt, tba Load Induatriaa Aaaoelatloa vrota Ituasall E. Train, EPA Adalalatralor, protastlnf tbo lasuanea of tbaaa rafulatloea, cltlnf tbo lack of orldanca of adraraa baaltb affacta from load in fssollno, and notlcf ZPA'e ovn itataaant that tba reflations vould raault la a penalty of at loaat 100 alllloo barrali of oil annually. A copy of tbla lattor lo aoelooad. Tour aaaoelatloo baa losf taken tba poaltleo, 4oeuaantad by aany atodlca, that load oaiaalooa do not poao a baaltb baiard to tba fanaral public. EPA alfnlfieantly rarltad ite baaltb docusant prior to - and aa a aupport for tba nav regulations. Tat, our atudy of tba aaterial convinces us once afaln tbat EPA hat not boon able to establish a baaltb Justification for rastrlctinf lead content la fasollao. Because of tbo aodiflcatlons la tba doeuaantotloB as vail as tba ebanfas la tbo allowable content of load la fasollna, LXA bas urfed tba Alainistrator of EPA to prorldo ( a raaaonabla period for public cn--snt on all aspects of tbo rsfulatloBO. i L .* LI A 15537 IP UipiiJWIWPi^PWIWli LIA155B8 'i' TiifBlgTMTl' ft Lead Industries Association, Inc. . m M<m wu NOVM.M.Y. 1M1T TWlm: pig WWW* # November 21, 1272 Mr. Russell E. Train Administrator Environmental Protection Agenqy 401M Street, 8.W. Washington, D.C. 20400 .. / - . DtuHr. Trite ' '*4 Ob behalf of the Lead lndnatrlea Association, lac., I wish to formally protest the un necessary and wasteful final regulations announced by the Environmental Protection Agency this afternoon for the reduction of the lead content la gasoline. We are l--> extremely disturbed that no opportunity Is to be provided for the general public and non-govemmcntal experts to comment on the health basis, costs sad energy penalty of these regulations. Because the regulations are, in our opinion, suffidentiy different from those proposed by the EFA. Is February 1972 and again In January 1973, we feel it is unjust and improper to prohibit comments cn this Important Issue that can have a major detrimental Impact on the general public and affected Industries. There continues to be no health basis for requiring the restrictions for lead in gasoline. Despite numerous revisions of Its health document on lead, the EPA has not been able to establish scientifically that restrictions of the lead content in gas will reduce the incidence of lead poisoning or that continued use of lead additives will result in a deterioration of the environment with subsequent adverse health effects on the general In view of the serious energy crisis facing the country today, we question the wisdom of a measure that will result in s serious wastage of valuable and scarce crude olL EPA's own studies predict a minimum wastage of well over 100 million barrels annually. Estimates from responsible sources outside EPA and government predict a more alarming drain on cur critical energy resources from the implementation cf fle regulations. It Is difficult to understand how such an enormous energy wresting 'measure can be countenanced at this time, especially Inasmuch as no commensurate public health benefit has been established. We urge you therefore to undertake a thorough reevaluation of the decision announced this afternoon and, as a first step, provide for a reasonable tlmo period In which tho public may be permitted to comment on all aspects of the regulations. In view of the admitted complexity of this issue and Us potential social and economic cost without compensatory health benefit, we believe such a reevaluation to be entirely justified and necessary. PER:idd dm. Philip E. Robinson Executive Vice President wwi'g mj w -IWJ1. "IM ... "W'WH'SH mm N 3539.01 M 1 PPUP ilwpilWliWpiJ 'JJPIPWI . . _ .'. .._. . *: , <* PRIlPRSpRP LIA15539 ------------------- . - ... * ................ International Lead Zinc Rimrch Orfact tattoo, Sser Lead Industries Association, Inc. EPA Load in Caaoliwa Regulations The following review and recommendations on the above subject ara respectfully submitted to tba Admlniatrator of tha U, S. Environmental Protection Agency. I. Htatorr Sine a tba introduction of tetraethyllead aa an antiknock additive in 1923, tba possible affecta of tba production and uaa of lead alkyl antiknock compounda on health bare been centlnuoualy and exhaustively atudled. It la probably juatlfled to conclude that more data cxlat on tba health affecta, or lack of them, of lead than on any other environ* menial conatltuent at iaaue. Theaa data have been reviewed and dlacuaaed by numeroua acleatlfic bodlea and at conferencea and aym* poala over the yeara. Tha moat recent of theae in Amaterdam, ia 1972, and la Raleigh, thla week, were coeponaored by EPA. Tha poealble haaard poaed by lead in tba environment haa been the eubject of dlacuaalon, but one fact remaina. Thla fact waa stated in 1972 by tba National Academy of Science a, which conducted an exhaustive review of the literature on lead for the EPA: "... lead attributable to emlaaloa and dlaperaion into general ambient air haa no known harmful effects"* During tha paat three yeara, the EPA haa attempted to juatify a health caae against lead to support proposed regulation* aimed at restricting or eliminating the use of lead alkyl antiknock compounda. A brief chrooology of events la ae follows: 1. January SO, 1971 - Announcement of Advance Notice of Propped Rule Making 2, February 23, 1972 - Announcement of propped regulations calling for the general availability of lead free gasoline and a phase-down of the permlssable concentration of lead in leaded gasolines. The purpose of the requirement of general availability of lead free gasoline was to protect anticipated automotive emission control devlcea, l.s. catalysts. The phase down regulations were proposed oa the assumption that they were needed to protect the public health. It waa stated by EPA that the proposed regulations atin^M.,.1. ________________________________________ N 3539.02  TilrflhfM Oi i i^itr'nVi -UdiiBar LIA 155A0 . gteiriiiai m dulpid to effect t 60% removal of lead from the atmosphere In order to attain an airborne concentration of no greater than 2 ug Pb/m* air In all urban areae. The baele for the choice of the 2 ug/m* goal waa an EPA document, baled on the "available evidence" entitled, "Health Ha tarda of Lead. " Public hearing! and a 90-day comment period followed and an additional document "Atmoepherlc Lead and Public Health" wai leeued ae a eupplement to the original document. Both document* were critically reviewed by the medical and aclentlflc community. The baela of the 2 ug/m* goal waa aeveraly criticised. S. June 14, 1972 - Announcement of a request for additional Information from the medical and iclentlflc community on eeven questions relating to the health effect! of lead In the environment. A 30-day comment period enaued during which EPA aollclted and received a great amount of Information 4. January 10, 1973 Promulgation of regulation! requiring the general availability of lead-free gaiollne and repropoaal of regulation! aimed at a "phaae down" of the permlsssble concentration of lead In gaiollne regulation!. A totally new document. "EPA'i Poe It Ion on the Health Effect* of Airborne Lead, " wa* then cited ae the baala for EPA'a poaltton for repropoalng eeeentlally the earn# regulation# 5 which were propoaed on February 23, 1972. Recognizing the aubetantlve change in the health justification, the Admlnlitrator called for comment from the public and aclentlflc community on the new document. Mr. Ruckelahaua also atated: " However, becauie of the controvcray that exist*, not only outside the Government but within the Government, Government health people themselves. It seems to me necessary to get a full public airing of this standard, this regulation relating to the health effect* of lead. LIA1554 1 ' _____________ _ ___ - -______ _____________ _____ ] " And I mu*t say that, while we Inn mad* a lot of decisions alnca the formation - of this agency, 1 have never been Involved In one around which eo much controversy ewlrled. " There la deep and, I believe, honeet dleagreement relating to the Health effect* of lead In gaaollne, " And for that reason I believe that there le a need to give a full public airing to the question of the public* health Impact of lead In gaaollne, The comment period which followed again produced critical review of the new health document. Much of the scientific data and Interpretations submitted to EPA did not support Us position vis. lead must be removed from gaaollne to protect the public heaUh. 5. Presently, there exists yet a new draft health document. "EPA's Posttlon on the Health Implications of Airborne Lead (July Z5, 1973)" which we understand will serve as EPA's health basis for the pro* mulgatlon of final rules on leaded grade* of gasoline. Our reviow of this document has led us to conclude that, although there are new sections and, to some extent, a new approach to the Issues, EPA ha* again failed to give objective consideration to valid scientific data. Interpretations, and conclusions which did not support Us basic position vie. lead must be removed from gasoline to protect the public health. It t* clear from the history above that EPA has not given adequate consideration to the weight of scientific and medical information which does not support Us position. IL Current Issues in the Health Debate Basically, the EPA's position Is that airborne lead can either be absorbed directly through the lungs or settle out of the air to contaminate dirt which may be consumed by children. It Is believed by EPA that through these routes airborne lead contributes to excessive lead exposure s In urban adults and children. I F  JKk W., ' L IA15 54 ^ Environmental scientists recognise pretence ef a eubttance in the environment doe* not necettardy establish (1) that it it a hamard, nor (2) doet It necettarlly ettabllth It* aource. Witb regard to theee a pointt. EPA hat expressed serious concern about the lead content of dutt and dirt in and near bomtt with tmall children. In fact, this hat become a major point In EPA'e argument that the lead content of gatollne mutt be reduced - on the assumptions that (1) children ingeet algnlflcaat quantities of such dutt, (2) tuch dutt It biologically available to a slgnlflcant extent and (3) tuch dutt arltet from automobile exhauet. The questionable validity of these points was clearly shown at tho recent EPA-NIEHS Conference on Low Level Lead Toxicity held on October 1st and 2nd, 1973. Data In one showed that reeidence la an area of high level lead in dirt and dust had a minimal effect on the absorption of lead by children. * Other information presented demonstrated that (1) lead In dust from airborne sources Is not Ingested to any greater extent in children with lead poisoning than without lead poisoning and (2) that lead-containing dust In older housing arises from old lead paint. * A third author confirmed that the aource of high lead-containing duct In homes Is old lead paint by showing that such dust Is not present In newer homes In the same area.* In his conclusions on the Conference, Dr. Emil Pfltser stated: " The preponderance of evidence also Identifies lead in paint plaster and dutt In older housing as the major sources related to current health problems although substantial efforts are being made to identify and control other sources. One implication is clear -- efforts to eliminate lead in gasoline will do nothing to assist In controlling the pediatric lead problem. It is clear that this most recent information raises additional questions about the validity of EPA's lead In gasoline dust theory. In addition, respected authorities, both Inside and outside of government, have expressed grave reservations that EPA's position on lead In gasoline is likely to result In any benefit to public health. A document prepared by EPA - a so-called "Devils Advocacy" position - Is the evidence that such opinion exists. QL Consequences of the Removal of Lead from Gasoline Before making a decision with such far-reaching Implications, the Administrator should weigh the postulated health benefit to be attained by s phase-down of the lead content of gasoline against the adverse consequences of such action. Serious concern has been expressed by knowledgeable Individuals A and groups over the following: ^ 1. The environmental and public health Implications .of changes In fuel composition likely to result from the removal of lead from gasoline. 2. Higher gasoline refining costs which must eventually be borne by the consumer. 3, The unnecessary wastage of crde oil. sssyu Ajiw.ij.i'sipsswM iu"seg)i..e umui.nuiHH.I.JUIIUI I.HUJI iii isnm mmmmmmmmrnmmmmm VUPffP itfif-nMi wmmmmm LIA155A3 --"~^iiffir*-ff^- r S- . Serious expressions of concern about tha affact of lead restrictions on point 1 have coma from tha Department of Health, Education and Welfars. The viewi of tha Office ofScitnca and Technology, and tha Department of Interior hava been quite unfavorable toward EPA'a position because of the tremendoue costa to the consumer and the wastage of erode oil during the current shortage. Most recently, the Senate Committee on Public Works has expressed its concern regarding the cost/benefit implications of any required changes in fuel. Chairman Jennings Randolph has requested that the National Academy of Sciences include such considerations in the coet/benefit studies which his committee hae requested. ** Recommendation The Administrator hae the somewhat unenviable task of making a judgment, baaed on the beet available information, of whether the riak to public health from the continued use of lead in gasoline at current levels, outweighs the environmental risks and cost in both terms of dollars and energy wastage. The results of research programs of the lead industry have convinced us that the continued use of lead in gasoline poses no health risk and, therefore, the proposed "phase-down" regulations represent only penalties with no consequent benefit to public health. Our view has been buttressed by the views of many objective scientific and medical experts with whom we have consulted. Certainly, we have shared our data with EPA and expressed our views on this issue at every available opportunity. . : We feel that the Administrator recognises that strong feelings on this issue exist both in the lead industry and in tha EPA. Therefore, to insure that the Administrator receives objective and expert opinions on this matter, we strongly urge that he personally seek out and consider the views of those out side EPA and the lead industry who are recognized experts on the health effects of lead. Those with expertise and experience in pediatric lead poisoning are in a position to place in perspective the contribution, if any, of lead from automobile exhaust to the childhood lead problem. We suggest that the Adminis trator seek the counsel of recognized experts in this field. We recommend ; that the Administrator also personally seek out the views of recognized, objec tive medical scientists dealing with environmental matters. We respectfully request the opportunity to submit the names of individuals who meet the above criteria. In summary, since the decision regarding the lead phase-down regula tions must rest on the Administrator's conclusions regarding the health effect* of lead, we sincerely feel that he should personally avail himself of the best and most objective advice be can obtain. W Baijfaigi^ft^aifliiiwi>iirwarwififii>i'iiM^ia' iSi^ 4 L IA15544 rwi:*'"'"*'*'................. .. We would hop* that he will look for such advice outride the laad lndaetrf and outalda the EPA. Jarom# T. Cola, Sc. D. Dtpuly Director' Manager, Environmental Health International Lead Zinc Racearch Organisation. Inc. Director, Environmental Health Lead Industrie* Aeeociatloa, Inc. October I, 197S .imuiim'iajwanw^ amam m mm mmm BSP mm m i * r ir kriWnfrliiWiiil^*!" `jr***1f*--*---- - p -^ LIA15545 ^-aMlirirrimHfr t r f REFERENCES ------- - 1. Committee on Biological Effects of Atmosphere PoUuUata: Airborne Lead la Perspective, National Academy of Science*, Waahtz^to*, mi, pg. t iu . 1. Sacbbluai, W. D. i Press Britfluf, Decnabtr 17, U71 1. Strehlow, C. i Tbs significance of high soil lead concentrations to chtMhnpd load burdens. Presented at EPA-NEERS Conference of Lo t Level Lead Toxicity, Raleigh, N. C., October 1 sad 1, 1*71. 4. Ter Haar, 0. i New Information on lead In dirt sad dust as related to (be childhood lead problem. Presented at EPA-NTEHS Conference of Lo t Level Lead Toxicity, Raleigh, N.C., October 1 sad 2. 1*78. 8. Voetal, J. i Lead containing bouse dusti Another eouroe of leml eapoeurs In Inner city children. Presented at EPA-NIEHS Conference of Lo t Level Lead Toxicity, Raleigh, N.C., October 1 and X, 1*78. 8. Pfitxer, E. t Orervlew. Presented at EPA-NIEHS Conference of Lor Level Lead Toxicity, Raleigh, N.C., October 1 and 1, 1*73. 7. Lsffsr, 11. sad Klvel, i. j "Devils Advocacy", Position, EPA, My 8, 1*71. 8. Richardson, E. L. t Letter to Honorable J. V. Ttemey, January 8*. 1*78. *. David, E. E.t Memorandum to Mr. D. E. CrablH (OMB), November 1, 1*78. X). Dole, H. M.i Letter to Dr. J. Middleton, May 22, 1*71. 11. Randolph, J.i Letter to Dr. P. Randier, September SO, 1*78. WWwmmrnrnm mm