VOLUME IS, No. 2, MAY, 1979. PRICE $2.00
QUI GP 'Stm3 ^ a pUblication <Ca«Sory B) P
628.530994 1
: > j (
EDITORIAL
Dick Manuell 15
WERNER STRAUSS MEMORIAL ISSUE An Appreciation of Werner Strauss
A. C. Stern 16
The Clean Air Medal
Posthumous Award to Dr. Werner Strauss 21 Werner Strauss and the SCIV
N. Gillarn 31 CLEAN AIR SOCIETY OF AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND
Eleventh Annual Report 22 TECHNICAL PAPER
Air Quality Standards for Victoria
R. P. Llewellyn 24 FEATURES
IUAPPA News Book Reviews
23 31
JOURNAL OF THE CLEAN AIR SOCIETY OF AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND President: H. F. Hartmann
Secretary: R. W. Manuell, Box 191, Eastwood, N.S.W. 2122.
EDITOR Publication is quarterly in Fesri- R. G. Gillis May, August arc N'cverrber.
Annual Subscriber: rates ;ir-.c.
EDITORIAL BOARD postage! for non-rr.err.bers artd H. F. Hartmann libraries':
S. J. Mainwaring
t ?'H<5e,HiLn Austraiia 5A6.75 D D %M*\1 U.S.A. SUS12.0Q
b- H- m l e l e U.K. Six Pounds EDITORIAL OFFICE Germany DM30.00 75 Downshire Rd., Elsewhere sAS ou Elsternwick, Vic, 3185 Singie Cop:es a A ^ 3 Australia
Subscribers and s^bssr.-pticn ADVERTISING enquiries she-id be directed to Appita Cir^u'atioi Manager.
191 Royal Parade Parkville 3052 M, A C r a 3 C RC X -ig-; East'.-.DS Enquiries: Mrs Lorraine Geal N g w 2i 2 2 A-s:ra;:a
Phone: (03) 347 2377 Phone: =02. 545 0363 PRINTER
Advocate Press Pty. Ltd. 329 6588
•Clean Air" is iistea
A1 Clean Air/May, 1979
EDITORiAL
Many people will agree that the word compromise falls within the common vocabulary, but fewer will agree its meaning is constant.
In current international politics the art of compromise reaches its apogee in the field of peace negotiations. As virtually helpless onlookers, we are o c c a s i o n a l l y a m u s e d b y t h e hairsplitting checks and balances applied and explored more or less patiently by the negotiators.
At the national level of politics compromises are just as common and although the paths to mutually acceptable decisions are frequently devious and rocky, the real spirit of compromise persists.
When industrial operations become disturbed, the parties involved often declare they will stand firm and never compromise, sometimes to the discomfort of the public or to the detriment of national productivity.
Eventually, with persuasion from some quarters, arbitration from others, or even impatience from yet others, a compromise is reached and the industrial process resumed.
In our daily lives we compromise on many issues, usually in a quite subconscious manner. Most personal compromises have a strong financial component and, of course, Lord Keynes "rational m a n " always considered the economic inputs before deciding on a course of action. For most of us, however, a compromise simply means accepting something short of our desires because of financial restraints. We go on optimising life within these limits, and this is not such a bad course to follow.
Why then do so many of us reject this concept in the search for clean "air?
Why do we consider compromise as something akin to defeat? The media often communicates the polarized views of both ends of the opinion spectrum on air pollution control issues, but who speaks for the rational compromise?
Indeed, to whom can the genera!
community turn for facts to replace the conjectures and opinions of those who reject all compromise?
There are about 800 members of our Society spread through the more populated regions of Australia and New Z e a l a n d . We all have a responsibility to discover the facts on clean air issues, to communicate them to our fellow citizens and to help them develop a balanced opinion. We can and should be opinion leaders in our local communities, prepared to speak up when we perceive fallacies on clean air matters.
Our Society has provided impartial forums for the clarification of complex and contentious air pollution control problems. We should try to make the process continuous by accepting a personal responsibility to know what we arc talking about and to advise our fellow citizens without bias or prejudice.
Then compromises will be seen as progressive steps towards cleaner air for the whole community, and not in terms of victory for one group and defeat for another.
DICK MANUELL
Clean Air/May, 1979
Arthur C. Stern
AN APPRECIATION OF WERNER STRAUSS
The Inaugural Werner Strauss Memorial Lecture, 1979
Emeritus Professor,
Department of Environmental Sciences and Engineering, School of Public Health, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill NC 27514, USA
This memorial lectureship is tangible evidence of the esteem with which Werner Strauss was held by his peers.
It is an appreciation of him. His stature was great not only in this continent but also throughout the world, where he was recognized as a leader who gave form and substance to his profession. He early saw the need to give organization to concepts basic to our field of endeavor, had the initiative to do so, and the skill to do it supremely well. He was a multi- faceted man, excelling as teacher, a u t h o r , e d i t o r , i n v e n t o r and innovator; held in warm affection by his colleagues, proud of his wife's accomplishments, confident in his children's potential. His motivation was clearly expressed in the preface to one of his books:
"The increasing civilization of man unfortunately brings with it i n c r e a s i n g p o l l u t i o n of the environment. In recent years, we h a v e b e c o m e a w a r e of this pollution, and studies of the control of solid, liquid, and gaseous wastes are being undertaken by a large number of universities, research institutes, and industrial research organizations. This has led to a rapid growth in the literature on pollution and its control, and it is becoming difficult to remain aware of current work in some critical areas".
Werner not only sensed this difficulty but also did something constructive to cope with it, just as he saw the need in his later years to step back from the technical details of control technology to view more broadly the whole process by which we p l a n u r b a n g r o w t h i n a n environmentally acceptable manner.
His counsel on these matters was sought by governments here and abroad.
Our paths first crossed twenty years ago in 1959, at the University of Sheffield, the year that Werner completed his doctoral research there, and that I was sent bv mv emo'oyer]
the United States "Public Health S e r v i c e , t o a t t e n d t h e f i r s t I n t e r n a t i o n a l Air P o l l u t i o n Conference in London. A visit to the University of Sheffield to meet Professor Taring and his associates was high on my list of places tc vtstt in England to learn what was goirtii on in air pollution control research and development. Soon after that, we began to meet each other unite regularly at professional meetir^s on air pollution and its control where f r e q u e n t l y he was t h e only representative of Australia and New Zealand.
Ten years ago he was one of my hosts in visiting Melbourne, uhere I was privileged to visit his home, see his laboratories, and meet his associates. The vignette from that trip that is most sharply etched ir. - ; . mind is accompanying Dr Patrick L a t h e r of St Barihoiemew's H o s p i t a l , London, who was also your tu.es:. to the Melbourne Cricket Gro~::d to take his picture standing on it's pitch.
He said he didn't dare return home without proof that he had paid homage at what he called "the hoiy of holies" of the game.
During the years when he spent part of his time as a consultant to the Westinghouse Research Laboratories in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and as a visiting Professor a: H a r v a r d U n i v e r s i t y i n C a m b r i d g e , Massachusetts, Werner was a freouent guest at facilities with which I was associated.
Five vears ago I was able to invite him to'be Visiting Professor in my D e p a r t m e n t of Environmental Clean Air/May, 1979
16
" ™ ~ » ^ ^
Sciences and Engineering in the School of Public Health of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and to help his family find a comfortable home in Chapel Hill.
Werner occupied the office next to mine and I well remember how busy he was editing manuscript, correcting galley proof and writing the chapter he contributed to one of the volumes I edited. We were competitors in the sense that we both produced books aimed at the same audience. But this type of competition is good, keeping both of us honest and on our toes.
When he left us to go to the University of Karlsruhe he was vigorous, productive and in his prime, as he remained until he was taken from us.
During his distinguished editorship of your esteemed Journal, Clean Air, I was pleased that he saw fit to request one of my papers for publication in it.
Our final professional relationship is best stated by quoting here the complete contents of a succint letter from the editor of the periodical Atmospheric Environment, of which Werner was an Editorial Board member, forwarded to me from Chapel Hill last month. It says "Your comments on the paper "Pressure Drop Reduction in Cyclones" by Browne and Strauss will appear in the December 1978 issue of Atmospheric Environment. This may well have been Werner's last published paper.
We here memorialize a career that achieved so much, even as we realize that it had so much more to offer had it not been so untimely foreshortened.
Perhaps it will help us gain perspective of Werner to reflect on what he listed in "Who's Who in Australia" as his hobby: i.e. "Listening to Chamber Music". In his memorial lecture, I have chosen to present subject matter related to our shared concerns, as would have happened this evening were he more happily with us.
I am writing this in the Philippines during the week that the first Geothermal Power Plant was put into operation at Tiwi in Albay Province in southern Luzon. Kay and I had the o p p o r t u n i t y to visit Tiwi last D e c e m b e r a n d t h e G e y s e r s Geothermal Power Plant at the Geysers, California last April. Both these recent visits reminded me of my visit to the Wairekei Geothermal Power Plant in New Zealand in 1969, and that even this source of fuel-free power presents some real air pollution problems as evidenced by the fact that my host for that visit in New Zealand, Terry Douglas, presented a paper to the 1977 International Clean Air Congress in Tokyo entitled "A Study of H2S levels in the Geothermal areas of Rotorua."
In reviewing the program of that Tokyo meeting, 1 was pleased to see so many other'" contributions from members of your society on such diverse subjects as electrostatic precipitator research, study of acid r a i n , a n d d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f a t m o s p h e r i c benzo-a-pyrene (the pyrosynthesis of which was first elucidated by an Australian). One of t h e p a p e r s o n e l e c t r o s t a t i c precipitation research was from CSIRO, where Werner was employed while getting his Master of Science degree from the University of Melbourne.
Last year, in the course of gathering material for a history of air pollution, which is my present preoccupation, Kay and I spent some time at C o p p e r h i l l , Tennessee, in the Appalachian Mountains of the United States. It is an important location in air pollution history because last century a large area surrounding a sulfide ore copper smelter was denuded of trees by the combination of sulfur dioxide damage and the demand for wood for roasting the ore to release its sulfur content. A legal precedent was set when the adjoining state of Georgia o b t a i n e d an injunction to stop the interstate transport of air pollution from Tennessee. We were therefore most interested to read, in the literature we a c q u i r e d from the A u s t r a l i a n Embassy in Manila, the following write-up of Queenstown, Tasmania:
"Queenstown has a population of some 4500 people and the town's prosperity depends almost entirely on the Mount Lyell copper mine, which has a very promising future. The bizarre setting in which Queenstown lies is the result of uncontrolled pollution in the early days of copper smelting. This, and the demand for wood to feed the furnace, soon removed all traces of greenery from the nearby mountainsides. There is no smoke or pollution in Queenstown now and the tiny patches of greenery a r e c r e e p i n g b a c k t o t h e mountainsides. In the meantime, the s p e c t a c u l a r s u r r o u n d i n g s o f Queenstown remain to thrill the viewer with their everchanging colours".
During the past month, in the course of some library research on the history of technology (of which the history of air pollution is but a part), 1 read a paper written in 1966, by William and Helga Woodruff of Werner's University of Melbourne discussing the role of Britain and America in the development of technology in Australia and New Zealand. It notes that: " L a r g e numbers of experienced Cornish miners came out from Britain to work
the copper mines discovered in South Australia in the 1840's. Cornish techniques for underground mining, management, and smelting were firmly entrenched in the South Australian copper fields when, in the early 1850's, gold was discovered in Victoria and New South Wales".
After discussing the influence of American technology in the latter half of the last century the paper goes on to state: "The improvements introduced by a number of Australians in the early years of the present century not only made them independent of foreign technology but enabled Australia to influence, by diffusion of its own techniques, work on base metal concentration in many parts of the world". In other words, you had come of age technologically and became legitimately entitled to your own share of the world's air pollution problems.
Being from half-way around the world, I am not too familiar with the detail of your problems. Therefore, I was surprised that twice in the last two y e a r s t o h a v e r e c e i v e d communications from Australia asking for recommendations of engineers to help in solving problems.
In the first instance, it was with controlling dust from ore loading operations in Western Australia; in the second instance, with developing air pollution control policy in Victoria. In both instances, my i m m e d i a t e r e s p o n s e w a s t o recommend Werner.
In latter years, I've come to be categorized as a reactionary with respect to my expressed position on air pollution standard setting. This position is that, in the United States, we set air quality standards ten years ago, on the basis of quite sparse evidence, at levels the stringency of which has not been sustained by the additional evidence since then. Yet the governmental establishment has but rarely seen fit to relax these standards because its p h i l o s o p h y is t h a t standards must be made ever more stringent with time, but never less stringent. It was therefore a matter of great interest to me that while visiting Japan en route to the Philippines, I was given a paper from the Industrial Pollution Control Association of J a p a n entitled " R e v i e w i n g the nitrogen dioxide environmental standard". It stated that in 1978 the Japanese nitrogen dioxide air quality standard had been revised from the original value of 0.02 ppm daily average set in 1973 to a higher value of 0.04 — 0.06 ppm daily average, and t h a t t h i s w a s t h e r e s u l t o f presentations to the government by Japanese industry that:
17 Clean Air/May, 1979
1. The 1973 standard was not properly based on scientific evidence.
2. The atmospheric photochemistry of nitrogen dioxide is still not sufficiently understood.
3. A control technology adequate to achieve the 1973 standard had not yet been developed.
4. The 1973 standard was within the limits of permissible error of available air quality measurement techniques.
5 . T h e 1973 s t a n d a r d was sufficiently severe in comparison with those of other countries as to weaken the competitive position of Japanese industry because of the cost of complying with the standard.
6. The 1973 standard adversely influenced the development of the overall Japanese economy, i.e. basic industries, automotive transport, energy policy, etc.
The paper went on to state that in the five-year period during which Japanese industry was preparing its case for a relaxation of the 1973 nitrogen dioxide standard, they had spent the equivalent of twenty million Australian dollars on research on how to decrease nitrogen oxide emissions from sources, by fuel change, by development of low nitrogen oxide burners and combustion techniques, and by flue gas denitrogenation p r o c e s s e s , as well as on the d e v e l o p m e n t of t e c h n i q u e s for measuring low concentrations of nitrogen oxides, and of a practical nitrogen oxide atmospheric diffusion model.
It is apparent that the pressure applied on Japanese industry by the very severe 1973 standard has forced technology, just as the very severe United States automobile exhaust standards have forced development of a u t o m o t i v e engine t e c h n o l o g y . However, the nagging question that remains is the benefit to society as a whole of draining from the economy large sums of money and much valuable technical manpower to try to achieve a level of air quality lower than necessary to protect that society.
Purists would have us drive down pollution levels to the point of immeasureability, but, at these levels is it really pollution?
To my mind pollution is not just the presence of a measureable gas or particle which is of a kind other than the classic list of the components of
"pure" air: oxygen, nitrogen, argon, carbon d i o x i d e , neon, h e l i u m , nethane, krypton, nitrous oxide, hydrogen, xenon and water vapor. It is rather the presence in the air of an i n h a b i t e d a r e a of m o r e of a
measureable gas or particle, than would be found in a comparable uninhabited area; making sure, of course, that the uninhabited area is not the recipient of pollution from the inhabited area. We are well aware that because of transport and diffusion from inhabited areas, there is no truly unpolluted air to be found anywhere on our planet; that air in even the remotest area is diluted air. However, we can ascertain where such dilution by non-urban air is greatest, to find a norm against which to compare the air of other areas. When we make such a comparison, we find that even the c l e a n e s t air we k n o w of has appreciable levels of those gases and particles we consider pollutants.
Therefore, to my mind, the true measure of how much we need to clean the atmosphere is to the level of such non-polluted air, regardless of the results of experiments exposing plants and animals to low pollutant concentrations. I don't believe that the city dweller can demand air cleaner than that of his country cousin; nor the country cousin demand air cleaner than that which nature provides; and nature provides us with an atmosphere in which natural sources of most pollutants generally contribute more to the global environment than man- made sources. Man has evolved over the millenia in an environment recipient of spray and gaseous evolution from the sea, volcanic eruptions, wind, fumaroles, pollen, spores, bacteria, moulds, algae, and the products of biological and geological decay. Man is not intended for an atmosphere cleaner than this, or for an atmosphere whose gaseous and particulate components are at their limit of detection.
I am reminded, in this connection, of a meeting of radiation physicists held some time after the cessation of nuclear weapons atmospheric testing by the United Kingdom, the United States and the Soviet Union, and before the atmospheric testing of French and Chinese nuclear weapons.
The consensus of the participants was that the fall-out radioactivity level had fallen to a l m o s t the l i m i t of detectability. Their response was not to be thankful that the pollution had ceased, but instead to call for the development of improved methods of measurement.
There are two major classifications of pollutants — those for which the presence of the pollutant can be detected by our senses, and those for which their presence cannot. Our senses of sight and touch detect the presence of particulate matter, whether air-borne, in the form of smog, fog or haze, or deposited on surfaces. These same senses detect the
presence of those gas or vapor .-;hasc p o l l u t a n t s t h a t visibly d a m a g e vegetation, materials and structures.
Our sense of smell, and of irritation of eye, nose and throat, detect the presence of the more significant gas and vapor phase pollutants. There are, of course, situations where pollutants below the level of detectability by our senses can cause adverse effects, the most significant being c a r b o n m o n o x i d e . H o w e v e r , with t h i s exception, t h e s e s i t u a t i o n s a r e relatively few in number compared to those we can detect, and they affect relatively small numbers of people, areas of vegetation or kinds of materials. Even though hydrocarbon vapors and nitrogen oxides may exist in the air below the limit of their sensual d e t e c t a b i l i t y , t h e y are relatively innocuous below the level at which their particulate reaction products can be visually detected.
Even the archetypal pollutant, sulfur dioxide, has questionable adverse effects at levels below which its damage can be visually seen on plants.
All of this means that the world had been on the right path to air pollution control as it first sought to control the odorous trades by exiling them from centers of habitation, and in more recent times, when this became less practicable, by seeking to require them to deodorize their effluents.
Later when the world sought to abate p a r t i c u l a t e e m i s s i o n s , t h o s e substances which chemically react in the atmosphere to form particulates, and those which visually damaged vegetation and materials, it was on the right path. If the world continues to adhere to this path, its air will become clean and safe enough for our well- being until the predicated dread catastrophe of the thermal effects of its carbon dioxide build-up catches up with it. It would be well if some one made the ultimate calculation of where the carbon dioxide level would balance out when the world has burned all its known resources of fossil fuel, and predict whether this balance level would be above or below the predicated thermal catastrophe level.
Over the last several decades, millions of dollars have been poured into research to seek sub-sensual level adverse effects of all conceivable atmospheric contaminents Biological scientists with good track records of careful experimentation have not
found it difficult to obtain financial support to investigate just about any chemical substance they could name, to ascertain whether it caused sub- sensual aberrations in biochemical or neurological systems or histologically or bacteriologically recognizable abnormalities. On the basis of such
Clean Air/May, 1979 18
S findings, usually in sub-human animal J systems ranging from bacteria to 1 rodents (and usually failing of any
< evidence of human impairment of I well-being or longevity) there has been
a well-orchestrated response, from a dedicated coterie of those who now call themselves "environmentalists", to demand the limitation of use and emission of each such substance.
The usual arguments for such action are that it will be too late to restrict the emission of a substance to the atmosphere after it has caused the potential adverse effects of a lifetime of population exposure, and even if no such adverse effects were ever to occur, the risk of their occurence should be avoided. Their philosophy is that whatever is not proven safe s h o u l d be c o n s i d e r e d u n s a f e . Unfortunately, it is much more difficult to prove that absence of potential damage than to prove damage.
One example of the corner into which we have backed ourselves in air pollution is the control of motor vehicle exhaust — at least as such control has developed in the United States. The smog problem first surfaced in Los Angeles, California in the late 1940's. Its manifestations were reduction of visibility, eye irritation, plant damage, and the odor of ozone (until odor fatigue would set in). Ozone was therefore originally suspected as the principal eye irritant and phytotoxicant. When the late g r e a t A a r i e H a g e n - S m i t first elucidated the photochemical nature of smog, he showed that the reaction yielded an oxidant that would crack rubber and recognized t h a t the principal component of the oxidant was ozone. It was only a few years later that the composition of some of the other oxidants such as the peroxyacylnitrates was discovered.
After abortive attempts to establish synthetic r u b b e r m a n u f a c t u r e , petroleum refining and domestic incinerators as the source of smog, a concensus developed that automotive emissions had components sufficient to be photochemically reacted to form smog, and that a decrease in these emissions would be necessary to decrease smog intensity and frequency of occurrence. The question was how much control was necessary to accomplish this.
At this juncture, it was recognized that a mathematical model could be developed to show how m u c h reduction in carbon monoxide exhaust emission from each automobile would be necessary over a given time period to reduce the atmosphere level of carbon monoxide a given amount during the same time period. The reduction in ambient level chosen for
this computation was from the highest level measured in Los Angeles to the level adopted as the air quality standard for California. The model thus developed was called a
"rollback" model because it would return air quality to that which existed at some earlier date. This model makes considerable sense for carbon monoxide control. Its principal impediment is that it does not factor non-automotive sources into the computation. When this model was used to compute the Federal exhaust emission limit for carbon monoxide, it used Chicago rather than Los Angeles air quality data and had the aditional impediment of using a federal air quality standard which has as its critical experimental basis, data of questionable validity on the effect of carbon monoxide on the performance of certain hearing tasks.
When this model was applied to computing the automobile exhaust emission standard for nitrogen oxides and hydrocarbons it ran into complications. It was decided to roll back nitrogen oxide emissions to the level that would reduce their ambient concentration to their air quality standard. The principal impediment to this is that by fixing the nitrogen oxide emission level on a basis other than its role in the smog reaction, it allows choice of the nitrogen oxide- hydrocarbons ratio only by varying the hydrocarbon level; when, in fact, it most likely is necessary to vary both component levels to minimize smog formation. Another impediment is the use of a federal ambient air quality standard for nitrogen dioxide which has as its critical epidemiological basis a study of questionable validity of schoolchildren in Chattanooga, Tennessee.
Since hydrocarbons at the level of the smog-reaction are well below the level at which they adversely affect humans and vegetation, it was decided to roll back its automobile exhaust content to the point that would cause its ambient level to be below that at which it would react with nitrogen oxides, at the Iatter's air quality level, to produce oxidant at a levefnot in excess of its air quality standard. This necessitated the establishment of an air quality standard for oxidant (measured as ozone). The principal impediment to this procedure is that there is still no concensus on the quantities and ratios of nitrogen oxides and hydrocarbons to produce a minimal level of oxidant.
Another impediment is that the United States national ambient air quality standard for nitrogen oxides is expressed as an annual arithmetic mean, that for oxidant as a one hour
average and that for hydrocarbons as a three-hour value, while any rational u s e of t h e n i t r o g e n o x i d e - hydrocarbon-oxidant relationship in modelling or computation of an engine exhaust standard requires that all three be at the same averaging time
— an averaging time as short as possible since an exhaust standard must, of necessity, be a short-term standard. The federal regulations p r o m u l g a t i n g these air qualtiy standards give no guidance as to how the conversions should be made, even though it must be made. Last year the United States Congress directed the Environmental Protection agency to promulgate a short-term nitrogen oxides standard. Congress took no notice of the time discrepancy between the other two standards. This means that during the past decade, as automobile exhaust standards were legislated and promulgated in ever more stringent from no short-term nitrogen oxide standard has been available. In the four months since I was last in the United States, I understand that there has been a relaxation of the National ambient air quality standard for oxidant.
However, the f o r m e r federal ambient air quality standard for oxidants (which was used for the earlier rollback computations) had as its critical experimental basis a study of questionable validity of the athletic performance of schoolchildren in Los Angeles.
The need to better define the nitrogen dioxide-hydrocarbon-oxidant relationship is well recognised in the United S t a t e s and the federal government has sponsored much r e s e a r c h to h e l p r e s o l v e the matter.This research involves both studies in ambient air, and studies in what are called "smog chambers", which are enclosed systems in which such reactions can be studied. Some of these chambers are artificially irradiated with lamps. Others use natural irradiation from the sun and sky. There is a chamber of the latter type at my university at Chapel Hill.
As you can see, we have forced tremendous changes in automotive engine design and tremendous costs on rather shaky data and methodology.
We still have smog. So we obviosly still have a lot to learn and a long way to go. There is plenty of work yet to be done in air pollution control research, development, and implementation.
Recounting this story makes me wonder as to whether there were any real benefits to the United States in adopting the so-called air quality management approach to air pollution control, i.e. the approach using air quality standards, roll back and
19 Clean Air/May, 1979
meterological models. At the time, all of us had before us the example of Great Britain and its "best practicable means of control" approach. You in Australia and New Zealand were wise enough to follow that example. We in the United States made another choice. In the late 1960's, I was asked by the Office of the Secretary of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare to draft a proposal to the office of President Lyndon Johnson for Federal Air Pollution legislation.
By coincidence, the person in President Johnson's office to whom t h e s e r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s were addressed, Joseph Calif ano, is now the Secretary of the Department of Health, Education and Welfare in President C a r t e r ' s cabinet. My recommendations were for a system b a s e d upon F e d e r a l e m i s s i o n s t a n d a r d s , and without Federal ambient air quality standards. These recommendations were incorporated in the legislative package sent by the
President to the Congress. However, the Congress adopted instead an act incorporating Federal ambient air quality standards and without federal emission standards, except for the automobile. Over the years since then, Congress has gradually changed its posture so that by now our Federal Environmental Protection Agency is authorized and directed to issue emission limits for all the principal emitting processes and industries. As a result we have sort of backed into a system of air pollution control quite similar to yours, except that ours gives more responsibility to the federal government.
I do not know what Werner's position would have been on these matters but 1 presume that he would have viewed them as an engineer, because first and foremost he was a good engineer. But even more importantly he was a good man. All of us who were privileged to know Werner Strauss acclaim him thus,
good in everything he influenced, good to have been permitted to be among us.
My feelings for W e r n e r are eloquently expressed by Jennie Strauss in some lines from a poem she wrote about one of her sons and her father, they are:
I'd wish him too some aspects of your spirit
That natural grace and courtesy of life To dwell on small and unconsidered things
With loving zest and fortitude To stand against adversities' attrition, Stubborn as she-oaks in persistent wind,
I leave and do not leave you here.
Beneath the unmoving stone.
The drifting sand The cry of gulls.
Arthur Cecil Stern, the Inaugural Werner Strauss Memorial Lecturer, is Emeritus Professor, Department of E n v i r o n m e n t a l S c i e n c e s a n d Engineering, School of Public Health, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill NC. He earned his Mechanical Engineering and Master of Science degrees from the Stevens Institute of Technology, N J , which in 1975 conferred on him an Honorary Doctor of Engineering degree. For ten years Professor at Chapel Hill, he • was before that Assistant Chief of the National Air Pollution C o n t r o l Administration, US Public Health Service, after working with the New York City and S t a t e Industrial Hygiene Services. He is well known as Editor of Air Pollution (3rd edition, 5 v o l u m e s ) a n d c o - a u t h o r o f Fundamentals of Air Pollution, in addition to at least 150 technical papers. He has been a consultant to WHO, OECD and US Agency for International Development. His present research interest is the history of air pollution.
Clean Air/May, 1979
THE CLEAN AIR MEDAL -
orvs-'JUMOUS AWARD TO DR.
WERNER STRAUSS.
Following the Inaugural Memorial Lecture delivered by Professor Stern, the President (Mr. Hanns Hartmann) presented the Clean Air Medal to Mrs. Jenny Strauss. In so doing he again paid tribute to the great contribution Werner Strauss had made to both air pollution control and to the Clean Air Society. Mrs. Strauss then replied:
Mr. Hartmann, Professor Stern, members of the Clean Air Society, of the Society of Chemical Industry of Victoria, and of the University, ladies and gentlemen: It is with pride and with gratitude on behalf of all of Werner's family that I accept this medal tonight. It is also with the conviction that Werner himself, among any honours that he might have received, would have taken special pleasure in this one.
You have been his colleagues and his friends; I do not think I need to speak to you of his professional or his personal qualities. As a humanist, however, I would like to say something to you of what seemed to me to be the values he saw in a society such as yours, since it was because of those values that I was glad to share him with you.
Werner was, I think we all know, a man who liked to get things done — an applied scientist by disposition as well as by training, a pragmatist if you like. But if to have thought seriously about what things are worth doing, and to have committed oneself to those, is to be an idealist, then he was that too. He wanted to do things worth doing in the best practicable way, and his experience suggested that this way was not n e c e s s a r i l y forthcoming from the assumptions and preoccupations of a single group, oe it professional or political,
business, legal, or academic. It was in the juxtaposition, not only of different kinds of technical expertise, but perhaps even more in that of different approaches to and perspectives on the nature of problems — different kinds of imaginative grasp — that he saw a society like this as having a special value.
There is, I think, something more.
In his own life, W e r n e r had experienced the consequences of a nation that allowed itself to be d o m i n a t e d b y d i v i s i v e n e s s , exclusiveness, and intolerance. It was as a result of this that he became (and as an Australian born I may be allowed to say this freely) a part of that great migrant enrichment of Australian social and intellectual life that was a good blown to us by the ill winds of European history in the
1930s and '40s. But despite the past, he was always a man turned outwards and receptively towards the world. He was eager for Australia to share fully and actively in the intellectual life of that world, not only in its traditional connections with Britain, but with Europe in general, with America, and with Asia.
It is therefore with particular pleasure that I have seen and heard Professor Stern here tonight, not only as W e r n e r ' s g o o d friend and colleague, but also as a visible witness to the possibility that the common pursuit of an idea can bring men together across the boundaries of section, state, and nation. I thank him first, but all of you equally, for being present, and it only remains for me to wish the Society, as 1 know Werner would have done, every success in its future work.
CLEAN ASR SOCIETY OF AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND
ELEVENTH ANNUAL REPORT
(Year ending 31 December, 1978) Presented at the 13th Annual General Meeting
held in Adelaide, 10 May, 1979.
MEMBERSHIP
Membership has been essentially stable for the year. New members
T R I E N N I A L C O N F E R E N C E BRISBANE 1978
The Clean Air S o c i e t y ' s sixth Triennial Conference was held at the Crest International Hotel in Brisbane on 15 — 19 May, 1978. 270 delegates attended from all Branches of the Society in Australia and New Zealand as well as from 12 overseas countries.
Altogether 54 papers and 6 keynote addresses were presented.
The Conference was opened by the Honorable R. J. Hinze, Minister for Local Government, Queensland. The Conference keynote address was delivered by Mr. Walter Barber, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Air Quality Planning and Standards.
Other keynote a d d r e s s e s were p r e s e n t e d b y M r . R a y m o n d Robinson, Director General of Air Pollution Control, Canada, Mr.
Frank Ireland, H. M. Chief Alkali and Clean Air Inspector, Dr. Lavinus Brasser, TNQ. Research Institute, Delft, N e t h e r l a n d s , Professor Friedrich Loeffler, University of Karlsruhe, Germany, Mr. J. Lagarias, Director Environmental Quality, Kaiser Engineers, USA.
The conference was an outstanding success in every way and for this the Society's thanks are due to the following:
The Government of Queensland for its co-sponsorship and generous financial support.
were gained to replace those retiring or moving to other industries. The table indicates the position as at 28 February, 1979.
Dr. Graham Geary, Director of Air Pollution Control, Queensland for helping in every way from the very beginning.
I n d u s t r y in Q u e e n s l a n d for financial support, and especially the Queensland Branch Committee who did an outstanding job. Here, the contributions of Messrs. McFarlane, Thiele and Dr. White deserve special m e n t i o n , finally M r s . Linda McFarlane for organizing the ladies programme.
All a r r a n g e m e n t s worked so smoothly that the considerable organisation effort was not even noticed.
Last, not least, the Conference was also a financial success.
VISIT BY A D M I R A L PHILIP SHARP
The Society was honoured by the visit of Rear Admiral P. G' Sharp, Secretary General of IUAPPA, to the Brisbane Conference. Admiral Sharp addressed the annual general meeting on the work of IUAPPA.
The visit gave Society members the opportunity of establishing personal contact with a man who turned out to be d y n a m i c , distinguished and charming. We hope the relationship established in Brisbane will endure for many years.
OVERSEAS VISITORS
As on past occasions, :,,.• ~ol&
speakers visited ail Branches. Waiter Barber's limited time schedule permitted only brief visits to Canberra and Melbourne. However, Frank Ireland and Dr. Brasser as well as Professor Loeffler visited most Branches between them so as to ensure that members who could not be at Brisbane would also have a chance to hear them.
THE JOURNAL CLEAN AIR
After the untimely death of Dr.
Werner S t r a u s s , ' t h e Executive appointed Dr. R. Gillis as editor of the Journal. Dr. Gillis is a former editor of the Proceedings of the Royal Australian Chemical Institute. He took up the e d i t o r s h i p on 1st September, 1978. He is working in c o n j u n c t i o n with an e d i t o r i a l committee consisting of Dr. Sylvia Mainwaring and Messrs. O'Heare and Hartmann.
Tribute should be paid here once again to the excellent work of Dr.
Werner Strauss in raising the Journal to its present high standard and at the same time handling the business side in such a manner that costs were kept within acceptable limits at a time when i n f l a t i o n r a i s e d p r i c e s continuously and advertising was ever harder to obtain.
CLEAN AIR MEDAL
Three Branches spontaneously proposed the posthumous award of the Clean Air Medal to Dr. Werner Strauss (Victoria, NSW and ACT) and all other Branches agreed to the award.
It was further decided that the Society would institute a Werner Strauss Memorial lecture, the first to be given early in 1979 at a special function where the Clean Air Medal would be presented to Mrs. Jenny Strauss. Professor Arthur Stern was invited to give the lecture.
Thereafter, the Memorial Lecture would be delivered every three years at the Society's Clean Air Conference.
IUAPPA
A call for papers has been circulated for the 5th Clear. Air Congress to be held in Buenos Aires, Argentina in October 1980.
OVERSEAS TRAVEL
Mr. E. Svmons. President of the South Australian Branch travelled in Europe during the year and ^visited several places on behalf of the Soc:ety mainlv to discuss keynote speakers for the 1981 Conference in Adelaide.
The Society made a contribution to a US study trip by Mr. Paul Fraser, CSIRO. and received a report from him on his return.
I.M.
O.M.
S.M.
TOTAL Change (77/78)
NSW 168 54 13 235 + 8
VH 141
16 4 161 - 8
Q 52 X 1 61 +2
SA 50 4 3 57 +2
TAS 20 5 1 26 - 3
WA 48 15 0 63 +4
ACT 14 1 0 15 +2
NZ 80 12 3 95 0
Other 7 0 0 7 +6
Total 580 115 25 720 +11
Clean Air/May, 1979 22
NATIONAL EDUCATION AND PROGRAMME COMMITTEE The Council Meeting in Brisbane established a National Education and P r o g r a m m e C o m m i t t e e a s a permanent Committee under the Chairmanship of Dr. Neil Daly. It is hoped that this Committee will play a vital part in co-ordinating the Society's activities.
ACCOUNTS
The Society continues in a strong financial p o s i t i o n . However, a considerable amount of money will be needed if the Society wishes to host the 1986 International Clean Air Congress in Sydney.
PERSONAL MESSAGE
The need to control air pollution is now universally accepted in Australia as witnessed by the fact that all States have well organized regulatorybodies.
Over the last few years emission controls have been established for both mobile and stationary sources.
The r e q u i r e m e n t s for m o t o r vehicles are due to be tightened up gradually over the years to enable the motor car industry to keep pace.
The threat of a shortage of liquid fuels has given rise to demands for lowering of present emission control requirements, or at least for a postponement of the more stringent standards envisaged for later years.
As there are valid arguments on both sides the debate is likely to be highly emotional.
It can only be hoped that any decision will balance the demand for cleaner air against the need to conserve transport fuels.
HANNS HARTMANN President.
IUAPPA NEWS
GJoba! Climatic change
A recent article by Dr. John Gribbin 'New Scientist, 29 March 1979), points out that despite concern about :he environmental impact of burning
"ossil fuel, cutting down forests seems :o be the major cause of the increasing
;arbon dioxide concentration of the itmosphere.
A number of experts now hold the 'iew that the steady build-up of itmospheric carbon dioxide is a erious threat to our climate through he so-called greenhouse effect: the
;as traps infra-red radiation that vould otherwise escape, thus pushing ip the global temperature. But, says )r. Gribbin, what has surprised many leople studying this problem is that he forests, the lungs of the world, .ppear to be producing more carbon lioxide than they are breathing in.
Every year more trees are destroyed than are planted and latest analyses suggest that the net effect of man's activities is to destroy the world's plants, particularly forests, so that as much carbon dioxide is being added to the atmosphere each year from b u r n i n g wood, slash and burn agriculture, and oxidising humus as from burning fossil fuels.
The great importance of this new discovery is that even at present levels of fossil fuel consumption, the forests of the earth still control the carbon dioxide concentrations. If biomass was not destroyed on such a large scale, it might well be able to cope with the extra carbon dioxide from fossil fuel burning, removing once and for all the threat of the global greenhouse. Research undertaken by John Adams and his colleagues of the University of Sao Paulo, shows that in Brazil alone the ratio of net wood loss to net fossil fuel loss is at least 5:1, that is, 5 times as much carbon is released from forestry and agriculture as from fossil fuel each year. Adding in estimates for other regions of the globe the research indicates that fossil and non-fossil sources must now be running neck and neck as providers of carbon dioxide. The researchers say t h a t w i t h o u t the c o n c u r r e n t deforestation in this century, the build-up of atmospheric carbon dioxide "would have been very minor at best."
There is no immediate prospect of halting deforestation, so that it is become equally urgent to find out how far man's activities, both in burning fossil fuels and in cutting down forests, can go before irreparable damage is done to the remarkable system which has balanced the carbon budget for so long.
Digest of
Environmental Pollution Statistics No. 1 1978
(HMSO £3.25)
T h e U K D e p a r t m e n t o f t h e Environment has published the first e d i t i o n of the new D i g e s t of Environmental Pollution Statistics, which offers in one volume a wide variety of statistics on environmental pollution at the national and regional level with special emphasis being given to trend data.
The Digest reveals the following interesting statistics on air pollution:
Total UK emissions and average concentrations of smoke have fallen by nearly 80 per cent since I960. Total UK emissions of sulphur dioxide were fairly constant at around 5.5 to 6 million tonnes per annum throughout the 1960s, but since 1970 they have fallen by almost 20 per cent. Average urban concentrations (measured at
ground level) have fallen by about 50 per cent since the early 1960s.
The average daily level of sulphur dioxide in Greater London in 1975/76 was over twice as high as in the South W e s t R e g i o n . T h e N o r t h e r n , Yorkshire and Humberside and North West Regions recorded the highest smoke levels in 1968/69 but by 1975/76 there was much less regional v a r i a t i o n , t h e a v e r a g e d a i l y concentration in the whole of the UK having fallen by about 35 per cent.
Over the period 1974 to 1976, about 35-40 per cent of measuring sites in Greater London recorded annual mean sulphur dioxide concentrations in excess of 100 micrograms per cubic metre compared to only 1 per cent of sites in the South East and 0 per cent in East Anglia.
The total number of smoke control orders in operation in the U.K. more than doubled between 1966 and 1976, as did the total number of premises affected, whereas the total area covered more than trebled.
There were over 4,000 offences under the Clean Air Acts in England and Wales during 1976. Trend information indicates that the number of offences may have reached a peak in about 1973 or 1974 and since then numbers have declined.
The number of hours of winter sunshine at the London Weather Centre in Central London have been rising steadily since the 1940s when average hours per day were about 40 per cent less than at Kew in Outer London; the levels are now virtually the same as at Kew thereby reflecting the effectiveness of smoke control measures.
Particulate emissions of lead from lead works in England and Wales roughlv halved between 1973 and
1976. '
In general, emissions of pollutants such as carbon monoxide, lead, hydrocarbons and oxides of nitrogen from road vehicles rose by nearly 20 per cent in the case of petrol engines and about 10 per cent in the case of diesel engines between 1970 and 1976.
Levels of radioactivity from world- wide fall-out in rain were much lower in the 1970s than in the 1960s, although the cumulative effects of past deposits are still contributing to total radiation doses: cumulative deposition was highest in 1966, since when the level has fallen steadily and by 1976, was 10 per cent less than in 1966.
Levels of radioactivity from world- wide fall-out in milk (providing a good guide to contamination of the average mixed diet in the UK) have fallen considerably between 1966 and 1976, by a factor of about 5 in the case of strontium-90 and a factor of about 10 in the case of caesium-137.
3 Clean Air/May, 1979
AIR Q U A L I T Y S T A N D A R D S FOR VICTORIA
Richard P. Llewelyn
Richard Llewelyn is Principal Research Engineer, Research and Development Department of the State Electricity Commission of Victoria.
ABSTRACT: The question of setting air quality standards is addressed and it is argued that experience to date has shown that it is not practicable to set these at levels where no effect on man's health and welfare can be detected. Accepting this then the basis for setting such standards becomes one of judgement, balancing what is practicable against what is acceptable in terms of effects. The various factors entering into this judgement are identified and the way they interact illustrated. The current situation in Victoria is described and suggestions made in relation to possible courses of action available at this time.
INTRODUCTION: The requirement to specify air quality standards for V i c t o r i a i s s p e l t o u t i n t h e Environment Protection Act 1970, as one of the powers, duties and functions of the E n v i r o n m e n t Protection Authority, both directly through Section 13. (1) (g) and by implication through Section 13. (1) (c), relating to environment protection policy, and Section 18 which defines this latter term.
Standards and criteria are to be specified "for the protection of beneficial uses and the maintenance of the quality of the environment having r e g a r d to the a b i l i t y of the environment to absorb waste without detriment to its quality and other characteristics". The present paper addresses, primarily, the difficult question of how it is to be decided what constitutes an acceptable level of 'protection'. It is found that it is necessary to consider all of the factors bearing on air quality protection in order to reach conclusions and make appropriate recommendations.
The air quality standards approach is in use elsewhere, notably in the USA, but it would be wrong for Victoria to slavishly follow such an example. It will be seen that the level at which standards are set must represent a compromise between total protection against all effects, on the one hand, and an excessive economic burden, on the other.
To assume that this trade-off will be the same in both countries would be unwarranted; the distribution of available funds is different in other respects — why not in this? Also the means available for testing the legislation in the courts, and bringing about changes, are quite different.
Certainly the controversy that exists in the USA over certain aspects of the implementation of their air quality standards approach is something to be learned from and avoided, rather than emulated.
Another factor that bears on the selection of appropriate standards is the implication with respect to energy usage. The pressure to move away from highly polluting fuels is less of an embarrassment in Victoria than in most places in the world; again it would be undiscerning simply to follow practices elsewhere. The implications of the forthcoming shortages of liquid hydrocarbon fuels, with respect to emissions of pollutants and hence to what it may be possible to achieve in terms of air quality, should also not be overlooked.
OUTLINE OF THE REGULATORY PROCESS ADVOCATED
At first sight the air quality standard approach seems to be delightfully straightforward. Simply, for each air pollutant, conduct tests to determine the lowest concentration at which adverse human health or welfare effects are encountered and this, after the incorporation of a suitable safety margin, becomes the s t a n d a r d ; suitable emission limitations are then imposed to ensure that the standard is met.
Unfortunately, as will be described at greater length in subsequent sections, the above chain of reasonini>
contains a fallacy. It implicitly assumes that there is a lower limit or threshold pollutant eoncenlration below which there are no effects and which offers a sufficient margin over the natural background levels for man to introduce his own contributions without any undue penalty; in fact, investigations show tha't this is
Clean Air/May, 1979 24
incorrect, . . , . „, . The iac: :r.a: no thresnoiG or eitects e.,n"t' \~--:d. in .some instances, Tr:__ :~:. C ' h e whole of the above
'.' J. ^ - " iS t t;n 3 standards. It has to be , v.»-.e^ v>s:. "however iktie pollution
:>. tcided to the naturally occurring -ucKi-ra-nd, i: does have some .!•-•.-r<- .--"ect on some section of the cooonr..n:t<.. The- the setting of
•.torcurds" becomes a process of ':ui_sme~:. us it is evident that there is '-.: " mesne.: of eliminating man's contrinuficn emireiv. The extent and n:..2r.::..de of the adverse effects must re Weighed against the cost to the community o: stringent control
"tenures and an appropriate balance
>tr~CK,
E'. sr. in cases where, currently, a threshold concentration has been obtained, continuing studies, using rrc_re>slve'uy more sophisticated t_ehor:c_es. tend to lower the figure so that a standard decided on an absolute basis, can move into a trade-off area.
Tne cni> safe approach is to assume from the cutset that a compromise -iih huoe to be sought (the 'no adverse effects to be permitted' version is then still Included as one extreme in this prccess. bat it becomes an option v. n.re :be consequences of adopting it are understood).
The farther sections of this paper are based on this approach. The various factors bearing on the selection cf an air quality standard still include the effects of air pollution on ha—a.- health and welfare but now also include an evaluation of the consequences of these effects at v_rio.s air quality levels and estimates of the total cost to the community of ichi.iing such ieveis. !t is apparent that the matter of applying the air
__U!:*A standards can no longer be boorced from setting them, as the forme' provides a highly significant :-r_: :o the :ud_err:er:t that most be mode.
To ~e.r clarify the relationship ret v. eon the factors affecting the SE.e;::on of appropriate air qaalitv standards a flow" chart has" been :no._aea :n this paper. The upper part of toe char:, down to and including the iarge "decision" box traversing"" the diagram., is concerned solely with sett.ng the standards. 1 he lower part i..ustrutes hc^ the\ are applied in rrae:h:e:_houe'.er it is seen that there t> a teeaoaos. to tne main 'decision' _ov
. n _ s e t t i n g s t a n d a r d s t h e .-oe>t:gat:ons relating health and
-•-.rare effects to air quality 'cetern.:n;ng air quality criteria"!
proCaOe an important input. U i, to the decision rr.as.tng process. However it t> a.j-0 important to assess the -taniticanoe ot the adverse effects that are associated with less than ideal air '
Quality; this forms input (2). Finally the decision makers should be aware of the costs and delays involved should thev choose to ask for more or better information on which to base their judgement: this forms input (3).
furnine to the application of s t a n d a r d s ^ first step in this process is to compare them with the observed pollution levels as detected by an appropriate air quality monitoring svs'tem. An air quality objective is then formulated — this might be to achieve compliance within a specified time if the standards are being contravened, or otherwise, to limit the erosion of the margin to some selected amount. With this objective, used in conjunction with meteorological data, a n e m i s s i o n i n v e n t o r y a n d m a t h e m a t i c a l m o d e l s o f t h e atmospheric dispersion processes, control strategies capable of achieving it can be developed and the costs to the community assessed.
It is these costs that form the final important input. (4), to the decision makers. The remaining facets of the application of the standards involve selecting the preferred strategy: its implementation through licences, r e g u l a t i o n s , e t c ; c o m p l i a n c e monitoring; and enforcement. As the mathematical models and other information on which the preferred strategy was based are unlikely to be perfect it will be necessary, in practice, to keep going around this loop of the flow chart.
The following sections of this paper discuss the above aspects of the setting of air quality standards in more detail, outline the current situation in Victoria and put forward some tentative recommendations. The views expressed are not put forward as being in any way definitive but rather to stimulate thought and discussion in relation to this important topic. It is as the result of such informed discussion that definitive views and an appropriate course of action should emerge in the course of time.'
DEVELOPMENT OF AIR QUALITY STANDARDS
Air Quality Criteria
The quantified relationships between adverse effects of air pollution and the concentrations and exposure times producing these effects are called air quality criteria. They may relate to health effects such a s ' increased mortality, acute or chronic morbidity, impairment of performance or simply discomfort associated with olfactory or lachrymatory effects. In addition to man's health, the effects on his welfare must be included and these encompass deterioration of crops and livestock, natural fauna and flora, property and more subjective matters such as amenity and aesthetics.
In many cases it is extremely d i f f i c u l t t o o b t a i n r e l i a b l e relationships. Health effect should obviously include those occurring in the most susceptible sections of the population — the aged, the infirm and the very young — but ethical c o n s i d e r a t i o n s p r o h i b i t direct experiment in such cases. Reading over the results of experiments with animals or on healthy adults to such susceptible individuals is fraught with difficulties.
One alternative that has been extensively employed is to conduct epidemiological studies relying on pollution levels already existing to provide the stress on the susceptible sections of the population. Control populations in lightly polluted regions are used to c o m p a r e with the experimental subjects and statistical techniques used to attempt to take a d e q u a t e a c c o u n t o f r a n d o m v a r i a t i o n s in the effects being monitored. Such experiments are notoriously difficult; differences associated with smoking and drinking habits, type of employment, socio- economic status, hereditary factors, etc, are difficult to cater for adequately.
The actual exposure of the people affected is not known, it can only be inferred from the measurements at a limited number of measuring stations.
The pollutants are present as a 'mix' so that it is difficult to tie effects to a specific causal pollutant and the question of the harmful concentration and exposure period is even more formidable.
A further difficulty is thrown up by the fact that man is an adaptive c r e a t u r e ; a t w h a t s t a g e d o e s adaptation to an environment (which may be measurable even at very low levels) constitute a harmful effect?
Few of us would see any harm in the development of callouses in response to manual labour, it is familiar and even has connotations of merit.
Changes in lung tissue structure in response to air pollutant exposure has a more sinister ring to it, but is this simply due to our lack of familiarity and inherent conservatism.
There is a tendency for the healthy individual to think that any change must be bad;- doctors, also, not infrequently seem to subscribe to this view. However, this sort of facile assumption should be guarded against even though it undoubtedly increases the difficulty of relating pollution levels to harmful effects through epidemiological or other studies.
A striking example of the difficulty of conducting such epidemiological studies is given by the failure of the USEPA's Community Health and S u r v e i l l a n c e System ( C H E S S )
Clean Air/May, 1979
DEVELOPMENT AND USE OF AIR QUALITY STANDARDS - FLEW r ^ a r
H e a i t h M o r t a l i t y
M o r b i d i t y (acute, chronic) Performance impairment D i s c o m f o r t
Welfare
Crops, l i v e s t o c k Fauna, flora Property damage A m e n i t y , a e s t h e t i c s Sampling
r e l e v a n t atmospheres P o l l u t i o n
I
measurement A n a l y s i s
I
•
A i r q u a l i t y data P r o d u c t i o n of c o n t r o l l e d e x p e r i m e n t a l atmospheres
J
J
Selection of e f f e c t i n d i c a t o r s
S e l e c t i o n of s u b j e c t (s), c o n t r o l (s)
Measurement or e v a l u a t i o n of e f f e c t s -
A n a l y s i s
I
E f f e c t s data
A n a l y s i s t o e s t a b l i s h c a u s a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s A i r Q u a l i t y C r i t e r i a
Assessment of cos1
q u a n t i t a t i v e or qua factors providing a the penalties to bs standards are set : avoid all p o s s i b l e
:s ars.c otre l i t a t i v e
measure o pa:c :f nat do not e f f e c t s .
(D 1(2)
tne s e t t : n : of stancar;
Weighing of f a c t o r s bearing on air q u a l i t y standards t a k i n g a c c o u n t of the air q u a l i t y c r i t e r i a and t w h i c h they have been e s t a b l i s h e d , the p o s s i b l e need to apply a safety factor In the case of serious ef extent to w h i c h l e s s s e r i o u s e f f e c t s should be tolerated in the l i g h t of the high c o s t s associate:: . c o n t r o l m e a s u r e s .
:e s e c u n t j 'sets arc t:
,i:h str«n^i
i i
J A t m o s p h e r i c s a m p l i n g , i (general) j I P o l l u t i o n m e a s u r e m e n t !
i 1 i
, A n a l y s i s •
I T I
J A i r q u a l i t y data !
AIR Q U A L I T Y STANDARDS
Comparison to d e t e r m i n e margin of c o m p l i a n c e or c o n t r a v e n t i o n
T I'
I A i r Q u a l i t y O b j e c t i v e s
Compi l a t i o n of e m i s s i o n inventory for e x i s t i n g and
Development cf mathematical models of p o l l u t i o n I projected sources d i s p e r s i o n processes
Determina t i o n of control s t r a t e g i e s capable of achieving a i r q u a l i t y eb;est.ve.s
A s s e s s m e n t of t o t a l costs a s s o c i a t e d w i t h alternative c o n t r
: ' I
: Selection of preferred strategy -»
7
I T . . I
1 Implementation through r e g u l a t i o n s , l i c e n c e s , etc .
! I •
• Compliance monitoring ( e m i s s i o n t e s t s , etc.. j
' - ^ — E n f o r c e m e n t '
K E Y TO B O U N D A R I E S SHOWN
. Items are c u r r e n t l y implemented in V i c t o r i a .
A d d i t i o n a l items are addressed but implementation is i n c o m p l e t e .
Remaining items (not i n s i d e e i t h e r boundary) are not currently s u b s t a n f a i l y addressee
2S Clean Air/May, 1979
