CAH
b/3/7P

INTERNATIONAL SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE ON ENERGY

HEALTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT

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 review
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,
environmental concerns, and other relevant factors.

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. In general, national
decisions on environmental standards for energy production and use

will affect the terms of trade not only for energy products, but
w
} san

iso for many other commodities requiring substantial energy inputs.

hy

or example, an American décision to restrict nuclear power on

realth and environmental grounds would affect nuclear power

»

gevelopment 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.

The comprehensive assessment of health and environmental costs
is thus an important element for setting energy policies nationally
and internationally. Each link in an energy system (see Figure 1),
from exploration, and 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

~

re imvoortant in setting research and development priorities and
in preparing 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

wD

xvended in reaching international consensus on quantitative

rey)

ssessments of the sources, pathways, levels, effects, and risks

of?
of

radiation exposure. Summarized in the reports of the United
“Neations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation
(WNSCEAR) and in the reports of various national committees, this

“mouledge of radiation effects and risks may figure importantly in

42
AD
er

ates over nuclear power.
What is lacking is an authoritative international consensus
assessment on the hazards of the fossil fuel cycles and on varts
of the nuclear fuel cycle, i.e., realistic comparisons between
direct and indirect costs of different fuel evcles. Such
assessments offer great advantages: internationally they would
provide a common data base for energy-related decisions requiring
international agreements; nationally international consensuc
assessments would provide an authoritative basis for government

decisions.

SCOPE,
The proposed international activity would aim at developing a

systematic assessment world wide of the health and environmental

costs of energy production and use. All forms of energy including

new or adapted technologies, would be considered. Starting with a

compilation 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

earried out on appropriate animals and vegetation; and basic

biomedical research designed to elucidate molecular and cellular

mechanisms underlying biological responses to various residuals.
he

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) o113; (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" (orovision of food-stuffs, recycling of wastes, fixation
of nitrogen and generation of oxygen, stabilization and building
of soil, etce., etc.), as well as physical environmental changes of
long-range nature (climatological or hydrological effects, etc.)
and other vhysical/ecological changes primarily of aesthetic or
recreational concern.

The first task of the Committee would be to define the scope
and the priorities for analysis. What are the methods of comparing
effects of risks of 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
health and environmental trade-offs throughout the entire fuel
eycle 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 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
Scientific Committee operating in a way analogous to although not
institutionally identical with the United Nations Scientific
Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR).* The
Committee operates with the assistance of a Secretary and
Seientific 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

*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.
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 on
Energy, Health, and the Environment (ISCEHE).

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 any potential sponsoring international
organizations, e.g., OECD and WHO. 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 Scientific Committee would be supported and operated with
only a small core of full-time scientific personnel who would
recruit 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 anc tabulate the information in a form suitable for the
Committee's consideration and provide supporting services to the
Committee during its sessions. The actual attendance at Scientific
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.
EXPLORATION

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TOTAL RESOURCE °

CONSUMPTION = 122.4 X 10° JOULES 1, FLOWSIN 1012 JOULES *

}

» FIGURE i

.
.

  

NOTES:

2, SOLID LINE INDICATES NEAL PROCESS
3, SEE TABLE IV FOR END USE FUEL MIX

"ENERGY SYSTEM NETWORK (1985 Baso Case Projection)

 

 
 

AND |
REFINING TRANSMISSION
Qe io .
ceraagton [AND TRANSPORT | CONVERSION] — AND = |. UTILIZING END USE
wees" | CONVERSION : DISTRIBUTION SN
NUCLEAR
15.8 7 co
- Po bo po PG Prnninnminnnnn>é} MISC, ELECTRIC
GEOTHERMAL AND HYDROPOWER Pomme ALUMINUM p00 ”
6.3 : ;
. a fot be : mY (Electric) Pmrennantnnramnaetoi} TRON & STEEL
11.6
COAL . poreaneinennnnnnnntsnenn dS >)
19.4 8.4
. an Do mb Te Do AIR-CONDITIONING
Q—— typ SPACE & WATER HEAT ©
NATURAL GAS
27,2 -
vrctmmnerenrennsener i> (Solid) 8, an i
. Jag. PROCESS HEAT
(Gol. a8, A 205
CAUDE OIL po wy xy oe PETROCHEMICALS
84.0 _ (Liquid) . Zz
>o ye s- we a sew BOD oo pe 9 AUTOMOBILE

SG BUS, TRUCK, RAIL & SHI

AIRCRAFT