ilsizs
PROPOSED INTERNATIONAL SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE FOR THE
ASSESSMENT OF THE HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

OF ENERGY PRODUCTION AND USE

INTRODUCTION

Energy production and use are today a major source of
environmental problems in many countries; many perceive it as the
problem. Each existing and new energy technology -- from coal
gasification to solar, electric and thermonuclear fusion -- will
exact a health and environmental price. The demand for energy in
industrialized and developing countries entails a hard balancing
of acceptable risk and biological cost. Quantitative data are
therefore important as to biomedical and environmental effects of
energy production and use, and will be even more important in
determining the balance between energy needs and health and
environmental concerns.

Health and environmental consequences of energy production and
use have important world impacts; e.g., sulfur dioxide and
sulfates from fossil fuel combustion move in the atmosphere across
national boundaries. This problem now causes intense anxiety
among European nations. Carbon dioxide from fossil fuels may have
long-term global, and particulates from fossil fuels may have
regional effects on climate of concern to all countries. Decisions
on health and environmental risks in one country may strongly
affect other countries. For example, an American decision to
restrict nuclear power on health and environmental grounds would

affect nuclear power development through the world; similarly, an
American decision to restrict coal development would also, through
the increased reliance on other energy sources, have an impact on
natural gas, oil and uranium for all countries. In general,
national decisions on environmental standards for energy production
and use will affect the terms of trade not only for energy products,
but also for many other commodities requiring substantial energy
inputs.

Comprehensive assessment of health and environmental costs is
thus important for setting energy policies nationally and
internationally. Each link in an energy system (see Figure 1),
from extraction of energy resources to final end-use, may have health
and environmental impacts. A decision to generate electricity by
burning coal rather than by using a nuclear reactor, for example,
involves health and environmental trade-offs throughout the entire
fuel cycle. Quantitatively these trade-offs are important in setting
research and development priorities and regulatory measures.

For nuclear power, we have extensive--though in some areas still
controversial--assessments of health and environmental risks.

Largely as a result of concern with nuclear weapons, much effort was
expended in reaching international consensus on quantitative
assessments of the sources, pathways, levels, effects, and risks

of radiation exposure. Summarized in the reports of the United
Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation
(UNSCEAR) and in the reports of various national committees, this
knowledge of radiation effects and risks may figure importantly in

debates over nuclear power.
What is lacking is an authoritative international consensus
on the hazards of the fuel cycles and on parts of the nuclear fuel
cycle. We lack an international consensus that will realistically
compare direct and indirect costs of different fuel cycles. Such
assessments offer great advantages: internationally they would
provide a common data base for energy-related decisions requiring
international agreements; nationally international consensus
assessments would provide an authoritative basis for government

decisions.

SCOPE

 

The proposed international activity would aim at developing
a systematic assessment of the health and environmental costs
world wide of energy production and use. All forms of energy
including new or adapted technologies, would be considered.
Starting with a compliation of residuals from the energy system,
the various pathways to man would be traced. This task would
entail definition of transport mechanisms of pollutants including
chemical conversions and various links through the biosphere to man.
An evaluation would then be made of effects. The initial focus
would be on biomedical effects (occupational and public) and
environmental effects on animals, crops, and other vegetation and
on land, known to affect man. The assessment would rely on available
information; epidemiological data, field and laboratory studies
carried out on appropriate animals and vegetation; and basic
biomedical research designed to elucidate molecular and cellular

mechanisms underlying biological responses to various residuals.
-4-

By taking account of the magnitude of energy flow through the
system and of the populations exposed, total effects would be
calculated.

A simplified version of the reference energy framework provides
a logical approach toward quantitative assessments (Figure 1) and
provides an essential principle of the proposed activity: health
and environmental effects of individual energy technologies (for
industrially developed countries as well as for LDC's) can be
assessed only through assessment of the entire energy system. The
framework would break down the energy system into production,
distribution, and utilization activities, thereby permitting
analysis of costs and hazards at each stage. The framework includes
(1) hydro-power; (2) nuclear fuel; (3) coal; (4) oil; (5) natural
gas; and (6) future energy sources: Processing of these energy
sources entails: (1) exploration and extraction; (2) refining and
conversion; (3) transport; (4) central station conversion; |
(5) transmission and distribution; (6) decentralized conversion;
and (7) conversion by final energy uses. Most of these steps
present biomedical, environmental, and other costs, e.g., release of
pollutants into air, water, and thence into food-chains. The
residuals (including pollutants) arising from various process steps
have direct biomedical effects and environmental effects on animals,
vegetation, aesthetics, soiling, land use, resource depletion, and
materials. With experience gained from these assessments, other
environmental effects would be included in the assessment. These
could include long-term ecological dislocations that may subject
man to new health hazards or may deprive him of "natural biological

services" (provision of food-stuffs, recycling of wastes, fixation
-5-

of nitrogen and generation of oxygen, stabilization and building
of soil, etc., etc.), as well as physical environmental changes of
long-range nature (climatological or hydrological effects, etc.)
and other physical/ecological changes primarily of aesthetic or
recreational concern.

The first task of the Committee would be to define the scope
of the priorities for analysis. What are the methods of comparing
the different energy sources? At an early stage, the Committee
will provide a catalogue and summary of methods currently in use
and an evaluation of these.

The proposed international assessment will thus entail the
integration of the best available information into an assessment
of the total health (occupational and public) and environmental
consequences of energy production and use. These data will be
assembled into quantitative models which will allow comparison of
the health and environmental effects of present and of alternative
patterns of energy development for different regions of the world
including both industrially developed countries and LDCs. We
recognize that at present this assessment can be made only in
preliminary form. By recognizing uncertainties in each impact,
however, the areas most in need of refinement would be identified.
Such an international assessment would provide information on
the health and environmental consequences required for policy
regarding alternative energy systems, R & D priorities and guide
allocation of resources for programs of health and environmental

research, nationally and internationally. Quantification of
~6-

health and environmental trade-offs throughout the entire fuel

cycle combined with trade-offs of social and economic impacts is
important in setting research and development priorities and
regulating measures. The proposed international assessment activity
would thus be of use in the development (by appropriate groups )

of international codes and standards for environmental protection

for energy production and use.

IMPLEMENTATION

The assessment of the health and environmental impacts of
energy production and use would be made by an international
Committee operating in a way analogous to although not identical
with the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of
Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR). This Committee of the United Nations,
established by the General Assembly by its resolution 913(x) of
3 December 1955, entrusted with the compilation and wide distribution
of all scientific data on the short-term and long-term effects upon
man and his environment of ionizing radiation, originally consisted
of representatives (mostly experts on various radiation fields)
from Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Czechoslovakia,
Egypt, France, India, Japan, Mexico, Sweden, the USSR, the UK, and
the USA. As a result of the decision of the General Assembly by
its resolution 3154C (XXVIII) of 14 December, 1973, that the size
of the Committee be increased by up to 5 additional members, the
Committee currently consists of one scientist, with alternates and

advisors as appropriate, designated by each of 20 Member States.
-7-

The Committee operates with the assistance of a Secretary and
Scientific Staff appointed by the Secretary General of the United
Nations. Thus, the Committee works with a small core of
whole-time personnel -~ in this case, one Secretary (the only
long-term continuing professional staff member) who recruits other
working scientists as full-time consultants for a period of three
months to one or two years. These are recognized specialists in
their fields and are therefore usually able to produce a good
working draft for review. : The drafts are then considered by the
Committee. The demonstrated effectiveness of this Committee makes
this mechanism a useful model and it is this way of operating that
is being proposed for the International Scientific Committee for
the Assessment of the Health and Environmental Consequences of
Energy Production and Use (ISCAHECEPU).

Members of the Scientific Committee would be leading
scientists in the various fields related to the assessment of
health and environmental impacts of energy production and use. As
with UNSCEAR, membership on the Committee should correspond
primarily to the scientific background and competence of individual
scientists in the area to be assessed. As what is being proposed
is a Scientific Committee, membership of the Committee need not be
restricted to members of OECD. Since the scope of the scientific
assessment to be undertaken by the Committee would include
consideration of the health and environmental effects of energy

technologies existing, new and adapted, membership of the Committee

would include scientists with appropriate competence in these areas.
The crucial point about the proposed mechanism is that the
Seientific Committee would be supported and operated with only a
small core of full-time scientific personnel who would recuit
other working scientists to work for three months to one-two years
to produce realistic working drafts for review by the Committee.
As with UNSCEAR, the Committee's secretariat would assemble and
tabulate the information in a form suitable for the Committee's
consideration and provide supporting services to the Committee
during its sessions. The actual membership at the Sctlentific
Committee meetings could change depending on the scientific area
under review, e.g., if meteorology and climate considerations were
to be reviewed, the Committee would include outstanding
meteorologists and experts on climate. Similarly, if health
effects were to be considered, the Committee would include
epidemiologists, toxicologists, and other appropriate health

scientists.
 

TRANSMISSION }

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ty,

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

 

 

CONSUMPTION = 122.4 X 10'8 JOULES 1, FLOWS IN to! JOULES ;
2. SOLID LINE INDICATES REAL PROCESS

4

o
. 4
’
a

: ql
., FIGURE 1:

*
3f

 

 
  
 

3, SEE TABLE IV FOR END USE FUEL MIX

"ENERGY SYSTEM NETWORK (1985 Baso Caso Projection)

REFINING | —
7. Ee .
S eaneTiON . AND TRANSPORT | CONVERSION AND , uriizns END USE
‘ CONVERSION DISTRIBUTION : ~ ‘
NUCLEAR
15.8 _ = oo,
>o— by DD mr Ganrnnene>t} MISC. ELECTRIC
GEOTHERMAL ANO HYDROPOWER ao ALUMINUM 4,
6.3 :
— Sor YG bo— uP Ee tectric} Greets [RON & STEEL
11.6
COAL ee retenenrrnenmmh oh
19.1 8.4
a >o-~ b> ¢ po AIR-CONDITIONING
: PaeeemnreennLnnseemnnntoty SPACE & WATER HEAT
NATURAL GAS
27.2
™ P (Solid) j
o~ Ds as LL, PROCESS HEAT
co 8 LT, oe.
_ CRUDE OIL poe 2 PETROCHEMICALS
54.0 (Liquid) . 50.6
Po YG po one ene oom I; > AUTOMOBILE
TOTAL RESOURCE ° NOTES: Sos Sq BUS, TRUCK, RAIL & SHI

AIRCRAFT

J
\O
|