5,-iM - QUTdigitalcollections.qut.edu.au/1649/171/Clean_Air_Vol.30... · 2013-11-06 · financial...

COMPANY AND INDUSTRY NEWS

technological developments, have enabled the design and manufacture of a wide range of highly efficient appliances which meet or better regulatory environmental requirements across a wide spectrum of residential, commercial, industrial, power generation and transport applications.

• Underground pipelines deliver natural gas over long distances safely, reliably and efficiently with minimal environmental impact. Gas is delivered to households by local underground reticulation pipelines, thereby reducing environmental land visual impact.

• Natural gas is viewed as the bridge to a cleaner energy future.

For further information:

Malcolm Grieve ATA Public Affairs AGA Canberra Office Teb (06) 247 3955

(Source: National Greenhouse Gas Inventory Committee, Workbook 1.11996)

THERMAL TREATMENT IS THE FASTEST GROWING AIR POLLUTION CONTROL SEGMENT

T he destruction of volatile (organic compounds (VOCs) by combustion is now a

billion dollar business and is the fastest growing segment of the worldwide air pollution control industry.

Thermal/Catalytic Fume Incineration Orders

The Mcllvaine Company in a new report entitled Thermal/ Catalytic World Markets 1997-2001 forecasts

that orders for thermal and catalytic fume incinerators will exceed $2.1 billion in 2001. Nearly 25 percent of the total will be purchased by the chemical industry. European chemical companies alone in 2001 will place orders for thermal and catalytic incinerators worth more than $191 million.

The forest products industry led by the United States will increase fume incineration purchases from $100 million in 1995 to $490 million in 2001.

Electronics is a fast growing segment. Semiconductor manufacturers are using thermal and catalytic incinerators to destroy solvent fumes. In the fast growing Asian semiconductor industry, purchases of thermal and catalytic fume incinerators will exceed $80 million in 2001. There are many other applications. The automotive industry is eliminating paint fumes with this technology. Thermal and catalytic fume incinerators are widely used by

All your clean air needs in one stop HLA-Envirosciences' specialist scientists, engineers and town planners will help you negotiate with government and make sure you fulfil your legal responsibilities to the environment. HLA-Envirosciences' services include:

• Stack testing

• High volume air sampling - particulates, metals, PAH

• Installation and operation of air monitoring stations

• Indoor air quality analysis and control

• Confined space testing

• NATA registered laboratory - constituents of the environment

• Preparation of Environmental Impact Statements and Environmental Studies

Sydney Office & Laboratory Ph (02)9988 4422 Fax (02) 9988 4441

Newcastle Office & Laboratory Ph (049)680 044 Fax (049) 680 005

Brisbane Office & Laboratory Ph (07)3279 4000 Fax (07) 3279 4111

Gladstone Office & Laboratory Ph (079)726 120 Fax (079) 726 201

Mackay Office & Laboratory Ph (079)530 866 Fax (079) 530 868

Melbourne Office

Ph (03)9347 7200 Fax (03) 9347 7255

Clean Air Volume 30 NO.4. November 1996 Page 21

COMPANY AND INDUSTRY NEWS

printers, coffee roasters, bakeries, petroleum refineries, and soil remediation companies.

The Asian market expansion will be led by Japan which has adopted an ambitious reduction strategy.

Technical developments have greatly reduced the energy costs to incinerate fumes and have made pollution reduction cost effective, new catalysts provide a reliable means to incinerate fumes with little additional fuel. Direct heat recovery through regenerative thermal oxidation has proved beneficial in many applications. In the last few years catalysts and regeneration have been combined for even greater fuel savings.

More than 500 companies around the world manufacture systems, catalysts, burners and thermal transfer media. U.S. companies developed the first regenerative thermal oxidisers but European companies have been quicker to utilize the catalytic regenerative oxidizer technology. Some of the world's largest chemical companies supply the catalysts and also supply complete systems. But most of the suppliers are small private companies or divisions of companies providing pollution generating equipment such as paint finishing systems.

Themal/Catalytic World Market 1997-2001 is a two-volume, 1,000 page report. Present and future regulations in major countries are described in detail. Forecasts are provided for each of the next five years in each region. Segmentation by equipment type and application results in thousands of specific forecasts. Detailed financial information and market shares are provided for hundreds of companies.

For more information contact:

The McIlvaine Company 2970 Maria Avenue Northbrook, EL 60062 Tel: 847/272 0010 Fax: 847/272 9673

INSTRUMENTS FROM LEAR SIEGLER

The New Oxitec® Cenelec Certified Oxygen Probe is a Direct Replacement for the Westinghouse Model 218 or is a 'Stand-Alone' Unit in Hazardous Locations

The New ENOTEC Ex probe, is fully Certified to the CENELEC International Safety Standards incorporating the recently ratified 2nd Editions of the EN50014 and EN50018 to comply with EExd HB T2 for hazardous area use. The Enotec Electronics package is also certified for EExd IIC T6 areas. The recently ratified 2nd editions replace the former standard issued in 1977.

The ENOTEC Ex probes are available in 3 lengths; 18", 3ft and 6ft (0.5m, lm, 2m) and can be installed directly into the existing former Westinghouse mounting protection shield and bolted in place. The existing cable can also be used to connect the ENOTEC Ex probe to the existing Westinghouse electronics package with complete compatibility.

All ENOTEC EX oxygen probes have their key-component user friendly field replaceable feature as standard - even the Zirconium Oxide measuring cell. Other key components include the Heater, T/C, full-length Platinum Signal Wire, Ceramic Rods, and Flange Sleeve Assembly.

The new ENOTEC EX probe has be certified safe for use in hazardous areas where potential explosive mixtures of gases can exist, either inside or outside, of the processes typically found in Refineries and Petro-Chemical plant zone 1 areas.

For Further economy and to eliminate the need for costly kits, all components and parts of the New Ex probe are individually available as spare parts. ENOTEC also offer a complete Service, Repair and Upgrade facility.

Hi Volume Sampler with a Difference

For many years Hi-Volume Samplers have been used to collect ambient dust samples for TSP or PM-10 dust loads.

Lear Siegler Australasia, with the help of Metford Laboratory, have developed a unit from the ground up. The 'Clean Piece of Paper' approach has paid rich dividends for the end users.

Advantages include the quietest unit on the market, most accurate flow within 0.5%, lowest power requirement, temperature and pressure compensation round TSP head to ensure wind direction does not affect sample intake flow.

The filter transfer method is outstanding, eliminating the need to remove filter in the field where wind and rain can create HAVOC].

There units are available with TSP, PM-10 and also the new PM 2.5 sampling heads.

For further information contact-

Lear Siegler Australasia Pty Ltd

Tel: (02) 9548 1322

Fax: (02) 9548 1323

Page 22 Clean Air Volume 30 NO.4. November 1996

ENVIRONMENTAL RISK SEMINAR

Environmental Risk and Industry

A one-day seminar jointly sponsored by CSIRO and the Clean Air Society of

Australia and New Zealand. Held Thursday, 28 March 1996 at

CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research, Station Street, Aspendale, Victoria

ENVIRONMENTAL RISK: Seminar Report

SEMINAR REPORT

Tom Beer C S I R O AUSTRALIA

INTRODUCTION

The one-day seminar on Environmental Risk and Industry was jointly sponsored by the

CSIRO and the Clean Air Society of Australia and New Zealand. The topic attracted considerable interest and discussion, with the 74 participants providing a full-house.

The organising committee of Mr Paul Holper, Mr Sandy Doull, Mr David Collins, Mr Paul Clarey and Dr Tom Beer invited speakers representing science, industry, and the community. The seminar brought scientists together with industry and community representatives to see how the tools of risk analysis and risk assessment can be applied to determine environmental priorities.

Scientists are familiar with many of the analytical tools needed to undertake risk assessments. These include applied

statistics, computer modelling, and risk-cost-benefit studies. Community and industry are familiar with the risks that need to be managed and the process of consultation for successful risk management.

Following an overview of environmental risk by Dr Tom Beer, of the CSIRO Environmental Consulting and Research Unit, the meeting addressed three key themes: risk to workers, risk to the community, and risk to the environment.

RISK TO WORKERS

Sandy Doull, Health and Safety Officer for CSIRO, started this session with a brief history of the occupational risks of chemicals, and then focused specifically on the case of benzene for which it is 100

years since the first report of haemotological toxicity in workers. Sandy pointed out that CSIRO can assist in industrial risk management through production process and plant design, through health, safety and environmental audits, and through industrial chemical control strategies.

Adrian Simonetta, of the Health and Safety Organisation of Victoria (HSOV) summarised the role of his organisation which administers the Occupational Health and Safety Act (1985), the Dangerous Goods Act (1985.) and the Equipment (Public Safety) Act (1995). He emphasised that the modern approach is an integrated health and safety monitoring system. Such a system needs to apply hazards management for on-site risks which include: I. activities related to the use and

transport of hazardous materials, II. activities related to the use and


ENVIRONMENTAL RISK: Seminar Report

transport of non-hazardous materials, and

III.occupational incidents.

Adrian finished with a brief example using the Altona Petrochemical Complex where a 1986 study found off-site risks to be too high in certain areas. The risk consultants devised a population density policy to manage the situation, and this was implemented using town planning

. systems. Bruce Richards of Sedgwick

Environmental reviewed the role that the insurance industry has in dealing with workers' compensation and with risks to the public. He shared the platform with Andrew Mearman of Noel Arnold and Associates, who gave an overview of the ISO 4000 series of environmental management systems standards. These establish a framework for achieving sound environmental performance.

The final presentation in this session was from Mike O'Sullivan of Ampol. He pointed out that for success in risk management there needs to be legislative acceptance, worker acceptance, community acceptance and board acceptance of the analysis, the assessment and the treatment. Ampol values risk management because it enables the company to attain use a uniform viewpoint in evaluating its activities. Links to people and organisations outside of the company are needed to:

I. educate industry to consider risk in all areas.

II. introduce the concept and design a study of the appropriate size, and

III. establish a system of risk management that will enable the company to demonstrate due diligence.

RISK TO THE COMMUNITY

Nick Styant-Browne of the legal firm Slater & Gordon gave an overview of legal issues in this area which he illustrated with three case studies: the Melbourne Grand Prix; a development application for a McDonalds; and the Ok Tedi situation. His firm obtained documents using the Freedom of Information Act to argue that the Melbourne Grand Prix development needed an environmental effects statement. As a result, the Victorian Government amended the relevant bill to exempt the Grand Prix from the Environmental Effects Act. The second

study related to the insistence of a local council that a proposed McDonalds restaurant implement a rubbish recycling regime before operation. The final study discussed concerned the Ok Tedi mine, which is operated by BHP in Papua New Guinea, and is the subject of continuing litigation in Victorian courts. This illustrates the vulnerability that multi-national firms face in their home country while working overseas.

A second legal perspective was provided by Robin Shute of Phillips-Pox who concentrated on the liability of a consultant if a risk assessment goes wrong. He emphasised the importance of public liability insurance and the need to have a 'standard form of engagement' or, at the very least, for the consultant to put on paper the understanding of the requirements of the job. Robin suggested that adequate protection for a professional requires the professional to insist that the company with which there is a contract include the professional on their insurance policy as a precondition to working for them. Robin highlighted these needs with a case .study of groundwater contamination from a factory that required Cambridge Water (in the UK) to build a new waste treatment plant. When the water company took the factory owner to court, the owner had no choice but to sue any professionals who gave him advice in the past. The owner was forced to take this course of action because his liability exceeded his (and his insurer's) capacity to pay. The court action provided an avenue for sharing the potential financial burden.

Theo Cahun of Hoechst, representing the Altona Petrochemical Complex, provided a history of risk management operations at the complex. He also provided details of the 1986/87 study that had been referred to previously. The benefits of this comprehensive risk study were that it provided: a means to manage risk better; a rational method to compare risks and allocate resources; a tool for cost-benefit decisions on risk mitigation measures; and a common basis for dialogue between the members of the Complex and the community. The limitations of the 1986/87 study related to the cost, availability of data, and the ability to adequately communicate the results. The jargon terms used by risk analysts (parts per billion, micrograms) are distrusted by the public. Risk analysts should use non-technical English when talking to the public, relating probabilities

and risks in dollar terms. Theo saw six future directions for risk analysis:

I. Higher predictability as a result of greater technical sophistication

II. Greater use of risk assessment in legislation

III. National uniformity of methodology and criteria

IV. Better public education of the implications and limitation of risk

V. A move to recognise multi-level risk assessment

VI.Harmonisation of international risk assessment methodologies.

Prof. Medley Peach of the I )epartment of Public Health and Community Medicine at the University of Melbourne provided a community medicine perspective. Prof. Peach recently reviewed the gaps in the links between air quality and health, as part of the Commonwealth State of the Environment process. He believes that no further research on epidemiology related to this should be undertaken until agreement has been reached on:

I. the population to be studied (e.g. urban/rural, adults/children, etc.)

II. the aspects of the study factors to be examined (e.g. single or multiple air pollutants) and

III. the measurements of the study factors (e.g. mean or maximum concentrations)

IV. the health effects to study (e.g. mortality, morbidity, hospital admissions, etc.)

V. the study type (e.g. correlational, cross-sectional, etc.)

He urged that instead of convincing the public of our view, we should let them know the issues so they could decide what was important.

Mariann Grinter of the Toxics Network presented the community view, as represented by her network of 250 to 300 community groups. She stressed the need to review decisions made in secrecy and isolation and emphasised that, in fact, a decision will be a better one if it incorporates community knowledge into the decision-making process. The excuse of commercial-in-confidence data is being used to deny the community access to data and information. Alternatively, funds could (and should) be provided to enable the community to build its capacity to undertake investigations to produce independent data and information. Finally, all projects that attract the attention of the


ENVIRONMENTA L RISK: Seminar Report

community need follow-up monitoring and feedback.

RISK TO THE ENVIRONMENT

Graham Johnson of the CSIRO Division of Coal and Energy Technology described some recent experiences in Sydney, examining industrial emissions of smog precursors so as to be able to actively manage the risks of adverse ozone impacts. The problem is that there is no single emitter of photochemical smog. Smog precursors are emitted by industry and also by motor vehicles. Thus it needed a commission of inquiry to determine whether a proposed paper plant in Smithfield (which is a NOx emitter) could go ahead. It needed a major air quality study (MAQS - the Metropolitan Air Quality Study) to examine the regional and motor vehicle issues.

Howard Lister of Technica/ DNV spoke about industrial risk assessment. There are two major classes of these. In the first class, the initiating event is known (e.g. an industrial plant's emissions). In the second class, the initiating event is probabilistic (e.g. an industrial plant fire). Environmental risk assessment is new and fraught with difficulties. Howard indicated the importance of cost-benefit analysis with the cost-benefit ratio (i.e. the cost divided by the risk reduction achieved) being used to measure cost-effectiveness so as to prioritise options and determine those with which to proceed. The ratio needs to be compared with the implied cost of averting a fatality, known as the ICAF. There is a need for society to generate its own criteria for the cost of saving lives.

Peter Nadebaum of CMPSF spoke on risk assessment and contaminated land. The problem faced by the owner of a contaminated site is to determine whether any remedial action can, or should, be taken. The answer to this is determined by the nature of the contaminants, and the use to which the land is put. A simplified risk assessment determines site management requirements, determines the need for a clean-up for specific uses; and provides site guidelines. There is little government guidance on appropriate risk factors. Hazardous operations use 10-6 per year as a criterion. Contaminated lands are subject to a criterion of 10-6 per lifetime. Environmental auditors have agreed that 10-5 is more appropriate.

Neil Marshman of Minenco reviewed the risk management strategy that CRA has adopted towards the greenhouse effect. The company's objectives are to maximise abatement of emissions, to pursue cost-effectiveness of emission abatement strategies, to report publicly on progress, and to promote industry-wide initiatives. The means of achieving these objectives start with a greenhouse gas inventory so as to identify areas of concern and action. In the CRA case it led to attention being directed towards improvement projects at their aluminium smelters.

Dave Collins of Alcoa (on secondment to the Commonwealth EPA) concluded the formal presentations with an industrial overview that stressed that there are competitive advantages in going beyond mere compliance because - as in the case of contaminated sites - today's compliance is tomorrow's liability. Best practice environmental management requires risk assessment steps to be incorporated into the development of environmental management systems. Dave Collins stressed the importance of differentiating between perceived risk, and quantitatively computed risk. It is important to determine whether a perceived risk is confirmed by quantitative risk assessment (QRA). If the problem is confirmed by QRA then there is a real risk, in which case risk management needs to be done. If the perceived risk is not confirmed by QRA, then the problem is one of perception, and is best handled through risk education.

FORUM

The workshop and forum; chaired by Paul Clarey, generated considerable discussion and questions which ranged from the technical (e.g. why are most risk assessments done for 70 kg males instead of for asthmatic children); to the social (the only way that the community can stop - or slow - proposed developments is to concentrate on uncertainties in the project).

Following the discussion, the forum agreed on the following:

There is a need for collaborative research that brings together scientists, environmental health specialists, the community, industry, regulators and sociologists.

Such research needs to be directed towards:

I. Determining useful measures to link air quality and health outcomes, as well as air quality and environmental impact

II. Determining a process to undertake the studies required to find the useful measures mentioned above

III. Defining risk acceptability.

AUTHOR

Dr Tom Beer is Coordinator, CSIRO Environmental Risk Network, CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research, Private Bag No 1, Mordialloc Vic 3195.

PUBLICATION OF RISK ANALYSIS PAPERS

The Clean Air Society has run a number of seminars on Risk Analysis and associated topics over the past few years. A number of articles have also appeared in CLEAN AIR.

It is intended to collect the papers presented or published in a single stand alone publication early next year.

For further information contact Geoff Angus, CASANZ Executive Officer Tel & Fax (03) 9872 5111.


ENVIRONMENTAL RISK: An Overview

ENVIRONMENTAL RISK - AN OVERVIEW

Tom Beer

C S I R O AUSTRALIA

INTRODUCTION

During 1995 I was Science Adviser to the KPA in Canberra. My task was to undertake a risk

assessment review of national environmental priorities. The first part of the task was to prepare a review of the Australian perspective on risk analysis and risk assessment. This review (Beer& Ziolkowski, 1995) was then presented as a discussion document to a Fenner Conference on Risk and Uncertainty in Environmental Management (Norton et al., 1996). This article briefly discusses some of the issues raised by Beer & Ziolkowski (1995), particularly those issues that may be of relevance to those with an interest in air quality.

WHAT IS ENVIRONMENTAL RISK?

In 1985, the US Society of Risk. Analysts set up a committee to define risk. After two years they produced a list of thirteen possible definitions but failed to agree on a single definition. Australia fared somewhat better. The Australian/New Zealand Standard on Risk Management (AS/NZS 4360:1995) of November 1995 defines risk as follows:

the chance of something happening that will have an impact upon objectives. It is measured in terms of consequences and likelihood.

Hazard is defined as a source of potential harm or a .situation with a potential to cause loss. Hazard is an intrinsic property of a substance, which is activated upon an event. Consider the risks associated with diving into shallow water. The shallow water itself constitutes a hazard. The act of diving is the event that precipitates the risk. The consequences can range from severe, such as head

injury or death by drowning, to mild consequences such as cuts and scratches.

A hazard that is never encountered presents no risk. Hazard becomes a risk only when there is a finite probability of a manifestation of the hazard. Different disciplines use different definitions of risk. Toxicologists define risk as the product of a hazard and its likelihood of occurrence.

RISK ANALYSIS AND RISK ASSESSMENT

Environmental risk analysis considers the risks to human health, welfare and to ecosystems that result from potentially

adverse developmental impacts on the environment. When risk analysis is built into a framework that allows one to identify and characterise potential adverse effects of exposure to environmental hazards then the term risk assessment is used. Because so much has been done, especially in the United States, on risks to human health from hazardous chemicals, the concepts from this area have driven much of the thinking about environmental risk assessment.

American English and Australian English reverse the meanings of the words risk assessment and risk analysis.

Figure 1 The generic Australian environmental risk management framework.



In the United States, risk assessment refers to the component of the overall process that is devoted to the calculations, whereas risk analysis is the overall process which includes risk assessment, risk management, risk perception and risk communication. In Australia, risk analysis is widely used to describe the component that is devoted to calculations, whereas risk assessment, as defined by the Australian Standard, is the process of comparing the risk analysis against some criterion. The overall process, according to the Standard, is to be called risk management - as depicted in Figure 1.

There are many examples of risk assessments. The environmental impact assessment (EIA) process as undertaken in Australia is itself a form of environmental risk assessment, albeit in general a qualitative rather than a quantitative risk assessment (Environment Protection Agency, 1994). An Australian EIA starts with a scoping study that determines the issues and concerns that will need to be addressed by consultation and further studies. The environmental impact statement that is produced should address the consequences arising from the identified issues and concerns. This type of scoping is also an essential part of the risk analysis process. Environmental impact assessments often also incorporate a hazard analysis which quantifies these consequences. The essential extra step involved in converting a hazard analysis to a risk analysis is the introduction of the probabilistic element by finding an answer to the question: what is the likelihood of this hazard causing an effect? The answer to such a question involves some form of uncertainty analysis.

Figure 1 summarises the above ideas into a generic framework that was agreed upon at the Fenner Conference on Risk and Uncertainty in Environmental Management (Norton et al., 1996). The seven steps involved in undertaking risk analysis, risk assessment and risk treatment are shown on the outer perimeter of a circle. Risk assessment requires some determination as to the acceptability, or otherwise, of the numbers produced by the risk analysis. Finally, in practice, one wishes to introduce actions to control risks, and to communicate these actions as part of risk treatment. The circular form emphasises the continuous nature of the process. Even when risk treatments are in place, they need to be re-evaluated to ensure their continued effectiveness.

SETTING ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARDS

Risk assessment involves evaluating alternative policy options and selecting among them. The United States risk assessment framework (National Research Council, 1983) separates risk treatment from risk analysis (using the agreed Australian terminology). Once risk assessment moves out of the toxicological area, it is difficult, to maintain such a neat distinction. Cox et al. (1994) point out that:

The separation of science (risk analysis) and economic and social welfare policy (risk management) on the basis that science deals with facts while economics deals with values is unrealistic and illusory. A clean separation is not possible. The recognition and acknowledgment that facts and values are often inseparable gives a human perspective to the technical nature of risk assessment.

Consequently, the risk management framework depicted in Figure 1 envisages risk analysis as an integral component of overall risk management.

Standards comprise one of the major mechanisms used to regulate, and hopefully to avoid, risk. They are a centralised process of setting permissible levels of an environmental hazard with the incentive for compliance being avoidance of a penalty. Cox et al. (1994) review the mechanisms that regulators use to manage risk. In addition to standards, other possible means of regulating risk are:

(i) taxes and charges, (ii) using cost effectiveness studies to find

the least costly method of achieving a pre-determined risk reduction target (the target may be set on some other basis, usually through the political process),

(iii) cost-benefit analysis, (iv)or information programs through

hazard warnings, labelling and risk communication.

RISK COMMUNICATION

Risk communication is an interactive process of exchange of information and opinion among individuals, groups and institutions (National Research Council, 1989). For example, Australia is the continent most subject to hydrological extremes. The risks associated with these extremes are continually being monitored and the Bureau of Meteorology has in place a sophisticated system of risk communication based on weather forecasts and alerts. These systems have been set up to deal with hazards that have occurred before and are, to a certain extent, familiar.

The views of the Australian public on environmental issues have been researched by different groups on a number of occasions (Lothian, 1994). One recent survey was conducted by ANOP in 1993- This firm had previously conducted a similar poll in 1991. The respondents' ranking of the priorities that they believe that the Federal Government should adopt are given in Table 1. Polling is one method of researching the opinions of the

Tablet Desired Federal Government priorities for the most important envi ronmenta l issues (ANOP, 1993)

December 1991

Disposal of chemicals and industrial waste

Water pollution

Land degradation

Recycling

Air pollution

Depletion of ozone layer

Greenhouse effect

Endangered plants and animals

Energy conservation

National parks and heritage areas

Rank

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

September 1993

Disposal of chemicals and industrial waste

Water pollution

Air pollution

Recycling

Protection of native forests

Depletion of ozone layer

Land degradation

Endangered plants and animals

Protection of coastlines

Greenhouse effect



public, but it has numerous drawbacks. There is no agreement on how to ascertain the opinions of the public in such a way that they can be reliably used as the basis for risk evaluation. Layfield (1987) states that: 'As in other complex aspects of public policy where there are benefits and detriments to different groups, Parliament is best placed to represent the public's attitude to risk.'

PERCEIVED RISK VERSUS ACTUAL RISK

The historical antecedents of risk assessment are in operations research. The field thus has a long history of quantifying industrial operations to determine the probability of an untoward consequence (Rasmussen, 1981). When such calculations are based on data, such a risk is called the actual risk. The perceived risk, or subjective risk, is the risk estimate obtained by surveying the public for their estimate of the risk .

People do not perceive risk solely as the expected number of deaths or injuries per unit time. People also rank risks based on how well the process is understood, how equitably the danger is distributed, how well individuals can control their exposure and whether risk is voluntarily assumed. These aspects can be combined into three major factors. The first is an event's degree of dreadfulness, as determined by features such as the scale of its effects and the degree to which it affects innocent bystanders, the second is a measure of how well the risk is understood, and the third is the number of people exposed. (Morgan, 1993; Slovic, 1994).

The problems encountered with the Sydney 3rd runway, which are detailed by Beer & Ziolkowski (1995) illustrate the discrepancy between the perceived risk and the actual risk, as analysed using the tools of engineering risk analysis as they presently stand. A disturbing aspect of the technical risk assessment that formed part of the Environmental Impact Statement is that the mortality risk to populations immediately to the north of the airport as a result of aircraft crashes, far exceeded the levels deemed acceptable for industrial risks as specified by the NSW Department of Planning. The public perceives the risk of the airport, and in particular the 3rd runway, to be one of excessive noise, not one of excessive mortality.

There are many hypotheses that could be advanced to explain the apparent paradox noted above. There is public concern about noise from Sydney airport, which technical calculations indicate should be within acceptable levels, yet there is insouciance about the risk of aircraft accidents, which technical calculations indicate to be above acceptable levels. One possible explanation is that the Australian public trust the airlines and the regulatory authorities to have taken appropriate steps to protect them from an aircraft crashing in residential districts.

SOCIAL TRUST

Earle it Cvetkovich (1994) distinguish two types of trust. Interpersonal trust and social trust. Social trust, which is a trust in abstract systems and institutions, determines the success or failure of risk communication. The reason for this is that most members of the public lack the means to assess risky technologies. They therefore have to assess the institutions which appear to control technology. Questions of public trust, credibility, openness and the past track record in these respects, become the key features in framing social attitudes. (Wynne, 1980: p. 186).

Earle & Cvetkovich (1994) argue that social trust is a risk judgement based on cultural values, rather than on notions of competency. Their ideas are governed by the United States and United Kingdom experience of community groups' opposition to hazardous projects.

DECISION MAKING

Layfield (1987) has been quoted as believing that Parliament is best placed to represent the public's attitude to risk. This presupposes social trust in the institution of Parliament. There is also an assumption of political consistency. Few express surprise when the public in 1991 consider land degradation to be the third most important environmental issue, yet only two years later rank it only as the seventh most important environmental issue. (See Table 1). But if the government, or one of the departments implementing government policy, lacks consistency then there are complaints (Coleman, 1994).

One means of ensuring consistency in government decision making is to develop National Strategies which provide a coherent set of goals,

objectives, guiding principles and actions. The National Strategy for Ecologically Sustainable Development (Commonwealth of Australia, 1992) lists three core objectives. These are: to enhance individual and community well-being and welfare by following a path of economic development that safeguards the welfare of future generations; to provide for equity within and between generations; and to protect biological diversity and maintain essential ecological processes and life-support systems. These may be .summarised as economic efficiency, environmental integrity, and equity.

The concept of a risk-benefit analysis, or even a risk-cost-benefit analysis is designed to provide a tool with which to examine issues in terms of the three objectives of:

• Economic efficiency • Environmental integrity • Equity.

According to Young (1993) economic efficiency can be assessed through conventional cost-benefit analysis. Environmental integrity can lie tested by environmental impact assessment, or environmental risk assessment. Equity seeks to distribute the burden of the risk based on some weighting of individual welfare. The risk can be distributed evenly across the whole population or can be distributed based on some other parameter. The issue of appropriate inter-generational equity tests - as required for a formal assessment of climate change - has not yet been determined. The hope is that a combined risk-benefit-cost analysis can provide a sound basis for more informed decision making.

REFERENCES

ANOP, Community attitudes to environmental issues: ANOP report on 1993 national research program, Department of Environment, Sport & Territories, Canberra, 1993 Beer, T. & F. Ziolkowski, Environmental Risk Assessment: an Australian perspective. Report 102, Supervising Scientist, Barton, ACT, 1995 Coleman, L, The risks of uncertain environmental policy, Clean Air (Aust.), 28, 22-26, 1994. Commonwealth of Australia, National Strategy for Ecologically Sustainable Development, AGPS, Canberra. December 1992.

Page 28 Clean Air Volume 30 NO 4. November 1996

ENVIRONMENTAL RISK: Tire Chemical Industry

Cox, A., Beil S. & M. Neck, The OECD risk reduction strategy for lead, ABARE Research Report 94.12, Australian Bureau of Agricultural & Resource Economics, Canberra, 1994. Earle, T.C. & G. Cvetkovich, Risk communication: the social construction of meaning and trust in Brehmer, B. & N. Sahlin (eds.), Future risks and risk management, 141-181, Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, 1994 Environment Protection Agency, Public review of the Commonwealth Environmental Impact Assessment Process - main discussion paper, EPA, Canberra, 1994 Layfield, Sir Frank, Sizewell B public enquiry: summary of conclusions and recommendations, HMSO, London, 1987 Lothian, J.A., Attitudes of Australians towards the environment: 1975 to 1994, Aust.J. Em: Management, 1, 78-99.

Morgan, M.G., Risk analysis and management, Scientific American, 269, 32-42. National Research Council, National Academy Press, Washington DC, 1983 National Research Council, Improving risk communication, National Academy Press, Washington DC, 1989 Norton, T.W., Beer, T. & S.R. Covers, Risk and Uncertainty in Environmental Management, CRES, Australian National University, Canberra, ACT, 1996 Morgan, M.G. Risk analysis and management, Scientific American, 269, 32-42, 1993 Rasmussen, N.C. The application of probabilistic risk assessment techniques to energy technologies, in Ann. Review Energy. 6, 123-138. Slovic, P. Perceptions of risk: paradox and challenge, in Brehmer, B. & N. Sahlin (eds.) Future risks and risk management,

63-78, Kluwer, Dordrecht, 1994 Wynne, B. Discussion paper on society and risk - an attempt at interpretation, in J. Conrad, (ed.) Society, technology and risk assessment, Academic Press, London., 1980 Young, M. For our children s children: some practical implications of inter-generational equity and the precautionary principle. Occasional Publication No. 6, Resource Assessment Commission, AGPS, Canberra, 1993

AUTHOR

Dr Tom Beer is Coordinator, CSIRO Environmental Risk Network, CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research, Private Bag No 1, Mordialloc Vic 3195.

ENVIRONMENTAL RISK ASSESSMENT AND THE CHEMICAL INDUSTRY

C S I R O AUSTRALIA

T. Cehun

Dear Reader, with your indulgence and some journalistic liberty I would

like to begin with a fairy tale. 'Once upon a time there were 3

little pigs who decided to make their way in life. The first little pig decided to build himself a house of straw, which, as you know, collapsed when the big bad wolf began to blow. The second little pig knowing the consequence of having a straw house, built his in sticks. Again the wolf came and blew it down. The third little pig knowing the consequence of using straw or sticks and that there was a high probability that the wolf would come after him, built his house of bricks. And it worked !'

The point of this story is that the third little pig, unbeknown to him, used the classic method of Risk Management: • Identify the hazard (wolf blowing his

house down)

• assessing the risk (experience of his two brothers and the likely outcome of using straw and sticks).

• controlling the risk (using bricks which, in the hierarchy of risk control, is in second place, falling in the general category of substitution / engineering control.

The preferred control would be the elimination of the risk, which would mean getting rid of the wolf. A highly unlikely feat for the 3 little pigs. So risk assessment is all about protecting the piggery whilst keeping the wolf from the door.

In the chemical industry, by the very nature of our products and processes, Risk Assessment has been an inherent, integral feature of our daily lives. Starting with the alchemists of the Middle Ages who, through bitter experience of many incidents in their

labs, learned the hard way the benefits of assessing the risk of their actions. These precursors of the modern chemical industry could get away with hiding themselves in their dungeons with their chemicals. After all, if anything happened there was a lot of stone between them and anyone else. The societal risk was minimum. Today this is no longer the case. The size of our operations, the complexities of our processes demand that a more systematic approach is taken towards Risk Assessment. Not only in refining the technique to produce more accurate results, but also in helping to shape the views of the public and our law givers.

The chemical industry has always practised some form of Risk Assessment. Starting with qualitative techniques such as check lists, risk matrix, HAZOP / HAZAN, to full blown QRA. These


ENVIRONMENTAL RISK: The Chemical Industry

Figure 1 Form of Risk Assessment used by the Altona Chemical Complex

Qualitative

'What If Analysis

- Check lists - Risk matrix (Hi/Med/Low) - HAZOP - Relative Ranking

(FEL/CEI) - HAZAN

Quantitative Risk Assessment (QRA)

simple on site immediate

t complex off site if systematic

techniques are being used for very simple Risk Assessment involving individuals and their immediate surroundings, to the very complex 'far-field risks', involving society outside the boundary of our facility. HAZOP / HAZAN techniques have gained considerable use in the chemical industry in the last 25-30 years. Dow's Fire & Explosive Index (FED, introduced in 1964, is a leading hazard index recognised by the chemical industry.

It provides a relative value to the risk of individual process unit losses, due to potential fires and explosions. Its purpose is to serve as a guide to the selection of fire protection methods. Another technique is the Chemical Exposure Index (CEI) which provides a simple method of rating the relative acute health hazard potential to people in neighbouring plants or communities from possible chemical release incidents. And last, the full QRA which has now become a 'science'. This method is based on mathematical modelling and uses industry equipment reliability data to calculate a probability factor. Use of this method has numerous merits :

• the process is more thorough and the approach more disciplined

• it provides ranking of risk contributions

• it is capable of generating risk contours.

• it is useful in determining the most cost effective approach to risk management and can be used in land planning for determining required separation distances.

This method does, however, require an awareness of its limitations :

• event probability and failure frequency calculations are based on a number of assumptions.

• equipment reliability and failure rate data from data banks may not necessarily be fully applicable to the facility being assessed.

• resource requirements can be intensive and we must be sure that the cost matches the benefits of reducing risk.

• information from data banks is often not comprehensive enough or does not have a large enough database to inspire complete confidence. Indeed doubts by the community on the accuracy of these assumptions is the cause of some distrust of the industry and this method of assessment. Provided it is accepted (with all its strength and limitations) QRA is also a meaningful way of expressing risk to the community.

In 1986, as part of a review of planning controls in and around the Altona Petrochemical Complex, the State Government commissioned an independent firm of risk consultants, Technica Ltd, to carry out a study of industries within the Complex. This was the first time that a formal QRA on that scale was undertaken in Victoria.

At Altona there are residential areas quite close to parts of the Petrochemical Complex. There are also vacant lands surrounding the Petrochemical Complex, which could be developed for other uses. Requests for various land uses to be approved in the near neighbourhood of the Complex led to a realisation that land use management in Altona needed to be updated and that the issue of 'RISK' associated with the Complex was a major consideration in such a review.

Table 1 Risk Assessment of The Altona Petrochemical Complex and Environs For The Government of Victoria by Technica Ltd., March 1987

Purpose

-

-

Participants -

Hazards

Results

-

-

-

Measures to reduce risk

-

To estimate level of individual risk at all points on the surrounding land, including adjacent residential areas. Measure the impact on the community in terms of the scale of accident which could occur. Recommend risk reduction measures.

Altona Petrochemical Co Ltd Australian Synthetic Rubber Co Ltd Commercial Polymers P/L BASF Australia Limited Dow Chemical (Aust) Ltd Hoechst Australia Limited BF Goodrich Chem. Ltd Government of Victoria

Fire Explosion Chemical Release

All complex companies are well run Risk to community not unduly high. Comparable with similar industries elsewhere. Slight risk (10-5P.A.) for some residents close to complex.

Removal of inventory Provide a vapour barrier Require a risk assessment for potentially hazardous developments.

The Risk Study was therefore commissioned by the Government to provide guidance on :

1. The estimated level of individual risk at all points on the surrounding land including adjacent residential areas.

2. A measure of the community impact



which could be experienced in terms of the scale of accident which could occur.

3. Undertake risk reduction measures where necessary.

The Complex, represented by the seven companies shown, provided a high level of cooperation by supplying full details of their operations.

The main Government Departments involved at the time were the DLI and Planning & Environment. The DLI now operates as 'The Health and Safety Organisation'.

I should mention that the first 3 companies shown are now part of Kemcor Australia and BF Goodrich is now known as Auseon Limited.

In general, the results showed file risk was below the criteria of one death per million per year, with a slight exception for a small residential area close to the S.E. end of the Complex, which was exposed to individual risk levels around 10-5 p.a. (equivalent to 1 chance in 100,000 years). Nevertheless, the Chemical Complex undertook some remedial measures by removing some inventory, i.e. chlorine at Hoechst Australia Limited and Kemcor, and by building an earth mound with trees as a vapour dispersion barrier between the close residents and the Complex.

Whilst not attributable directly to the Technica Ltd study, other benefits, flowing out of the study were a refinement of the whole Emergency Planning and Communication Systems on the Complex and continuing improvement of individual company Safety Management Systems.

However, the measure that subsequently presented some difficulty was the requirement by the Government that a Risk Assessment be conducted for all new developments which could increase the levels of risk for residential areas. The difficulty arose in agreeing as to when such an assessment was necessary. Not only was the type of project requiring a Risk Assessment questioned, but also the level of Risk Assessment that was considered appropriate. Subsequently, with the benefit of experience and some cooperative initiatives between the Complex and Government, this is no longer the case.

The recently published 'Risk Assessment Guidelines' exemplifies this cooperative development. This project, jointly sponsored by the Altona Chemical Complex and the Victorian Government with DMV Technica as consultants, drew

tip a set of Guidelines consistent with the requirements of the pending National Standard for Control of Major Hazards Facilities. These are generic in nature and meant to be adoptive to individual companies' circumstances.

Table 2 Risk Analysis Overview

Benefits

• Provides a means to better manage risk

• Rational means of comparing risks and allocating resources

• Tool for cost-benefit decision on risk mitigation measures

• Provides common basis for dialogue

Limitations

• Cost • Data -

Source/Reliability/Quantity/etc. • Criteria 'How safe is safe?' • Changing standards - public

acceptance/perception • Public understanding of data • Media focus - 'Worst case scenario'

Risk management in the chemical industry is good sense and good business. We would agree that the benefits far outweigh the limitations.

Risk Assessment is not an exact science, and so some subjectivity is inherent in the process, however, it is a rational means of comparing risks, which allows us to prioritise risk reduction measures.

To make good business sense, management options in risk reduction measures must:

• be cost-effective and take into account the results of cost-benefit analysis. A feat that is sometimes very difficult if socio/economic factors are considered.

• be commensurate with the gravity of risk and in particular differentiate between products and by-products.

• encourage regulatory and non-regulatory measures such as voluntary agreements and programs.

• be designed to achieve an acceptable level of risk, considering available technology, i.e. ALARP (as low as is reasonably practicable).

The limitations experienced by the Chemical Complex can be divided into

three areas : cost, data and communication. Let me deal with each one.

COST

Two actual case studies experienced by the Complex companies illustrate this aspect:

Unclear Criteria for Risk Assessment

In order to obtain planning scheme approval for a project, a company was required to submit a QRA to a Government Department in a form which would allow comparison with previous risk assessments. This effectively locked the company into using the consultants Technica. Technica's performance for this study was unacceptable, resulting in the company having to use much more of its manpower than planned and having to use an additional consultant.

The overall result was a delay of 8 months from submission of data and a cost overrun of some $30,000. This does not include the cost of the 8 month delay on implementing the project.

Over-reliance on independent consultants to satisfy Government Departments

In order to reduce exposure to its operators and the environment, a company wanted to change the storage of a chemical from drums to bulk tanks. On approaching the appropriate Government Department, it was suggested that the company engage Technica to conduct a Risk Assessment. The cost was $50,000. The company felt this was not justifiable as the company had been handling this material for many years and was fully conversant with the risks. Bulk cylinders of this material are routinely transported around the world. After the project was held up within the Government Department, the company decided to let Technica conduct a worst-case scenario at a cost of $10,000. The Government Department was not satisfied. The project was given final approval only after an exchange with the Minister of the Department. The process took 12 months.

I give these examples as illustrations of the potential costs to companies when QRA is requested that is ill-defined and ignores some of the basic-tenets of good risk management practices. I also hasten to add that these cases arose at a time when risk regulation in Victoria was in its infancy.



Today, with the benefit of experience and a great deal of cooperative work between Government and our Industry, these cases would not arise.

DATA

The source of data, its reliability, accuracy and quantity is and will continue to be a serious limitation. This has particular relevance to environmental Risk Assessments where synergistic effects of compounds, the so-called 'chemical cocktails', are not well known or defined. Data tends not to be updated often enough to reflect the increase in the number of new plants/facilities and improvement in technology.

COMMUNICATION

However, all the analysis and risk management strategies are meaningless unless we can communicate them and use them as a basis for discussion. There is a large body of literature on how people perceive risk and how best to communicate technical Risk Assessment -see Vincent Covello (eg Covello et.al.,1989) & Peter Sandman (e.g. Chess et.al.,1989.) - to name only a few disciples. It is not good enough to merely explain technical data, good communications must address perceptions.

It must be couched in a language that the public can understand. Jargon like ppb, microgram/m3 10-6, etc. very often evokes mistrust rather than clarity. Inappropriate risk comparisons between voluntary and involuntary risk can lead to serious credibility damage.

The public perception of the term 'safe' is, inevitably, a moving target. As more data becomes available and measurement techniques are refined, the public view of what is safe / unsafe will become more focussed and demanding. This is very evident in relation to the environment and in the area of OHS. It is unfortunate, but perhaps a fact of life, that, in trying to combat poor communication, the media tends to hinder the process by emphasising the worst-case scenarios under the motto : 'Good news is no news'. Industry, particularly the chemical industry, has a great deal of work ahead in educating our media to approach incidents in a balanced way.

In the end it is our performance that counts, not what we say. Here the management of risk is a critical factor, and the tools of Risk Assessment, despite their limitations, judiciously used and properly

communicated are a powerful means of improving our performance.

Where do we go from here ?

Table 3 Risk Assessments - Future Directions

Greater technical sophistication higher predictability Greater use of risk assessment in legislation National uniformity of methodology and criteria Better public education of risk implication/limitations Move towards recognition of multilevel risk assessment Harmonisation of international risk assessment methodology

There is no doubt that the tool of Risk Assessment will be used more extensively both in the private sector as well as by Government Departments. Already we see the concept and techniques of Risk Assessment being applied to a broad cross section of economic and commercial decisions. As an Industry we welcome this trend. It is only by embedding the requirements for Risk Assessment, such as in the recent Plant Regulations, that we can ensure comparable performance throughout an industry and between industries. Risk Assessment will become increasingly more prevalent in legislation as Regulations and Codes of Practice become more performance orientated and less prescriptive. We see this already in the emerging EPA and current HS+O legislation.

We expect the methodology of Risk Assessment to be refined with greater use of the computer, sourcing ever increasing data banks on an international basis, Risk Assessment will become more reliable and predictable.

Perhaps the greatest challenge to practitioners of Risk Assessment in the future is the question of communication. The level of understanding by the general public of acceptable technical risks is still limited. We would see the philosophy and teaching of Risk Assessment becoming part of our national curriculum. Starting with our undergraduates and spreading to our high schools and eventually to primary schools. I am glad to see this process has already started in some universities. It is only through a better understanding of the scope and limitations of risk management that we

can effectively communicate, based on mutual respect.

An area that requires attention is in gaining some national uniformity or standard on the whole question of the use of Risk Assessment evaluations. A harmonisation of methods and criteria, the acceptance of different levels of Risk Assessment and when Risk Assessment should be applied, are essential if we are to retain competitiveness and raise the level of performance in USE risk minimisation.

While the science of some current environmental risks, i.e. global warming, ozone depletion, fine particles in the air, is uncertain, more efficient and equitable uses of scarce resources could be achieved by the rigorous application of science-based risk assessment, risk-ranking methods, and cost-benefit analysis.

The challenge for Australia is to lead in cost-effectiveness as well as intellectual development in this arena.

REFERENCES

Chess, C, Hance, B.J. and Sandman, P. 1989. Planning dialogue with communities: a risk communication workbook. Environmental Communication Research Programme. Rutgers University. New Jersey.

Covello, V.T., McCallum, DB. And Pavlova, M.T. (Eds) 1989. Effective risk communications. Plenum Press, New-York.

AUTHOR

Theo Cehun is a Director of Hoechst Australia and General Manager of Technology and Works, Hoechst Australia Ltd., P.O. Box 4300, Melbourne VIC 3001


ENVIRONMENTAL RISK: The Community View

ENVIRONMENTAL RISK AND INDUSTRY: THE COMMUNITY VIEW CSIRO

M. Grinter AUSTRALIA

INTRODUCTION

Members of the National Toxic Network, have been involved in the issue of risk

assessment and risk communication for over a decade. Over this time the 250 groups and campaigners in our network have dealt with the issues of risk assessment, perception and communication in many arenas, ranging from contaminated land and species protection, to the siting of industrial facilities. I present this paper from an unashamedly community perspective.

To focus this talk I would like to start with a quote from the US National Research Council 1989:

To remain democratic, a society must find ways to put specialised knowledge into the service of public choice and keep it from becoming the basis of power for an elite.'

In many cases, the community's perception of the risk assessment process is far from positive. It is often perceived as a powerful tool used by industry and government 'after the event', to dismiss community concerns. There is often little trust in either the proponent or the process. There is little understanding of the actual risk analysis and what there is, is coloured by a basic resentment of yet another

imposed risk, however small. There is also anger at the difficulties the community experiences in both accessing and understanding the full range of relevant information. This is then compounded by a total mistrust of the risk assessment's scientific 'experts'. For the community the traditional view of science as a rational, value free, objective and a socially neutral search for truth has been seriously undermined in recent years. The highly political debate surrounding the nuclear industry has left the bulk of the community confused and unwilling to readily accept the word of science.

So how do we move forward ? As community groups we are aware that risk assessment in some form is here to stay and we are also aware that without concerted action on all sides, the debate will not progress, the situation will remain adversarial and we will not reach the 'socially equitable negotiated agreement' that must be the basis for any effective risk management and mitigation.

To understand the breadth of community concerns, it is worthwhile examining some of the preconceptions and assumptions underpinning the risk assessment and communication process. This may suggest some ways forward.

THE LAY/THE EXPERT

The concept of the 'expert' in the risk assessment process particularly EIA has inspired hostility and mistrust. Despite statements about regulatory environmental toxicology now being multidisciplinary, in our experience, the experts in the risk assessment process that the community meets, are usually discipline specific, from outside the area in which they are

working for government or business. For the community this perception of the 'expert' is strongly coloured by concerns of 'conflict of interest', put bluntly, the community always asks, 'Who pays the expert?'

Even when experts are drawn from the regulatory agencies, there is mistrust as community groups have watched regulatory 'experts' criss cross the professional ladder, from government to

industry and back again. This is particularly so in the area of toxicology. The mistrust is further compounded by the utilisation of overseas 'experts' who can return there after their job is done.

At the same time 'lay knowledge' is usually dismissed, ignored and in the worst cases, ridiculed. Fortunately in more recent times, the growth in community monitoring has done much to return credibility to 'lay knowledge' and at least in the case of Koori groups, there has been some recognition by government and industry of the deep understanding of the lay community who know their 'backyard' intimately.

So often, I have seen valuable community generated data, surveys and advice ignored in an assessment process only to be validated years later. In the area of toxicology it has constantly been the general community who have alerted authorities to health and environmental impacts of chemical agents.

The terms 'expert' and 'lay' do little to assist the risk assessment debate and I would suggest that we accept a 'continuum' of knowledge and information in assessing risks, from the scientific to the experience based. This would provide not only access to a much wider range of relevant data but would go a long way in building a sense of community involvement and ownership in the process.

THOSE THAT HAVE POWER/ THOSE WHO DO NOT.

The issue of 'lay' versus 'expert' is closely tied to the issue of power and control and these must also be addressed in a socioeconomic framework.

Risks are often accepted as being inevitable due to financial constraints such as employment or the inability to buy a house in less polluted area, or on a macro level, inability to change world events,(eg., French nuclear testing.)



Acceptance of risk in this context is far from a success for risk communication, rather a response to disempowerment.

I have lost count of the number of times that government or industry reps frustrated at the repeated concerns of the community have responded with, 'Well if you don't like it, why don't you move!' Although said in the heat of the moment, the underlying assumption is that people always have a choice. It is well to remember many Australians do not have the economic freedom to choose where they live or work. We must understand that risk assessment should fully take into account social equity.

But power and control for the community are also linked to education, computer skills and the ability to understand the real 'nitty gritty' of risk analysis. The complaint so often heard is that the community is emotional and unable to grasp complex concepts particularly in relation to statistics yet are still unwilling to accept on face value the word of government or the RA proponent.

At an international level, we accept that we must 'capacity build' and transfer technology to our developing neighbours, yet, we do not offer our own community the same privilege. If we wish an informed debate on risk analysis then we must put some effort into capacity building our own community. The US provides community groups with access to software and expertise, why can't Australia.

Power also influences the notion of acceptability and while the preferred approach to risk communication is a 'dialogue reflecting a mix of interests, knowledge and values prevailing in the community' (Gay&Heath,1994), this is rare, and what usually occurs was well put by Fiscchoff s, 'each definition of risk makes a distinct political statement regarding what society should value' (Fischhoff, 1985). Often it is those in power and influential positions who define what is of value and consequently what is considered 'acceptable risk'.

THOSE WHO HAVE INFORMATION/THOSE WHO DON'T.

Closely related to the issue of power is the problem of community access to data and relevant information. Community restrictions to information can be caused by a variety of factors but the ones that prompt the most hostile response are the

claims by industry and government of 'Commercial in Confidence' and the government policy of cost recovery in regards to spatial data. This point was illustrated in the recent community involvement in the Deferred Forest Assessment procedure (an environmental risk assessment process for future logging verses reserve status). This process clearly highlighted the inequitable access to the electronic data and basemaps that were essential if community groups were to participate equally in the risk assessment process. Similarly, the continual claims of 'Commercial Confidence' for chemical products, analytical testing standards, factory storage and processes, places the community at a distinct disadvantage.

While we hear much about communities as equal stakeholders in the RA process, until they are provided with equal access to data and relevant information, this remains rhetoric. We also consider legislated 'community right to know' is a prerequisite for successful participation in the risk assessment process.

The issue of data access is complicated by the lack of quality data for the Australian context. If one accepts Scala's definition of 'risk assessment in toxicology as a process whereby relevant biological, dose response and exposure data are combined to produce a qualitative or quantitative estimate of adverse outcomes ', then Australia is significantly 'behind the eight ball'. While we may have biological or hazard assessment data that is relevant, ambient levels, human exposure data or specific information on dose responses for our native wildlife is sadly lacking.

As was recently made pertinently clear in a the Regulatory Impact Assessment for the PCB Management Plan (National Advisory Body on Scheduled Waste 95), [RIA are a legislatively required cost/benefit assessments for modifications and new Acts], Australia still does not have the basic data on contaminants in the environment, or exposure data for its human and wildlife population.

The discussion of data acquisition is often described in risk perception terms of involvement, uncertainty and desire to exert control, yet experience had shown us that despite the motivation for information acquisition, a key element in any successful community participation in risk assessment programs is the provision of easily understood and accessible information.

In 1993 after much lobbying, the NSW Regional Agriculture sponsored our

research group to create the Dipsite Community Access Information System.

The issues relating to the assessment, management, remediation and liability of over 1600 contaminated cattle dip sites (DDT, Arsenic) in Northern NSW, required a well informed public that both understood the issues and felt some involvement in the management of the problem. This required access to information on site history, the toxicity of the contaminants and current chemicals involved, exposure pathways and the environments at risk. The information repository concept had already proven to be an essential component in USEPA conflict resolution over polluted sites.

In the dipsites case, the provision of accurate up to date information promoted informed decision-making on behalf of the community, and facilitated community involvement and ownership of the contaminated sites affecting their area. With accessible information, community groups such as Landcare became actively involved in managing the sites and the mitigation of environmental damage. For affected residents, the information system

, provided the source of much of the relevant information including the results of sampling of their backyard.

THOSE WHO TAKE THE RISK/ THOSE WHO GAIN THE BENEFIT

There is an inherent unfairness in the risk assessment process that is often subjugated or explained away by arguing general benefits to the community, 'we all need development.' etc., but in reality it is often those that take the risk and pay the cost that do not gain a direct benefit. Nowhere is this more obvious than in the management of contaminated land. While it may be an industry that polluted the land in the process of making profits, it is often an unrelated community who must live on the land, assess the risks and in some case even pay the costs of cleanup. At the very least, financial security is lost due to chemical contamination and the resident is left to deal with stress and disempowerment.

While the much touted Polluter Pays Principle is just that, a principle with no legislative backing, risk assessment must address the issues of liability. It would be naive of us not to acknowledge the use of the risk assessment process in the political and commercial estimates of costs and benefits and the justification of actions or more often no action.



Nowhere was this more obvious than in the review of standards for DDT and Arsenic in soil. Residents living on contaminated sites went to bed one night with an investigation level for Arsenic of 30ppm in soil and woke up to a new level of lOOppm. Soon after the investigation level for DDT was raised from around 1ppm to 5Oppm. The ramifications for buy-out, compensation and health concerns were immense yet there were no real attempts at community involvement in the risk assessment.

The argument that the community in general benefited from the industry's products often rings hollow, particularly in the case of chemical agents. Consideration of whether a society needed these products, never involved the community in the first place nor does it today.

In the assessment of the risk, often the only clearly recognised end point is death. The issue of quality of life and ongoing good health is ignored. There is no doubt that asthma is on the rise and the incidence of some cancers have increased substantially. Yet RA proponents still continue to present risk using death as the endpoint measure.

NTN works with an action parent group in a NSW rural town. The children involved carry 'body load' of nonmethanic hydrocarbons like benzene, toluene, chlorinated solvents and organochlorine compounds. The children have ongoing health problems and are constantly in and out of hospital. Over the last 6 years the parents have called for air monitoring and health investigations. After years of lobbying the Regional Health Department carried out air monitoring for a particular pesticide. It did not monitor for the hydrocarbons of concern but it did detect chemicals used for termite control. The chosen pesticide tested for was not detected (and probably could not have been due to the sampling equipment) and assurances were given that all was well. To this day no one has seriously investigated a connection between these children's illnesses and the contaminants they carry their small bodies.

For those suffering environmental health problems, risk assessment provides little comfort. I have never seen data on existing chemical body load factored into a risk analysis nor have 1 seen chemical sensitivities, particularly in children, built in to the equation. In the case of environmental health, risk assessment is a blunt tool!

'OLD LUGGAGE' VS 'NEW BROOM'DEBATE

The role of trust in risk perception and communication should never be underestimated. So often I have heard the comment from regulators and industry, 'Why don't you trust us ?' Yet, NTN's database is full of incidences highlighting misinformation and misrepresentation of products, secrecy regarding processes, the withholding of data etc. Most importantly, when the assessments of the past are proven to be wrong, the only response is the excuse of 'old science'.

This brings us to the jargon of 'old luggage versus new broom'. There is no doubt that the community brings with it our old luggage of mistrust and suspicion based on years of experience. The response by legislators and industry is 'but we're a new broom, we'll run a transparent open process, full of meaningful consultation and information distribution'.

Yet community groups have heard this all before and it will take a great deal of action to demonstrate that the game has really changed.

To change things around and build the good faith that is essential to the RA process, it will require a review of many of the old decisions made in secrecy and isolation that are still affecting people today. It will also require a cultural change in attitude where community knowledge is valued and incorporated into the decision making process. Most importantly, equal access to the data and relevant information will have to be assured for community stakeholders. Industry and government will have to stop hiding behind 'Commercial in Confidence' claims. The community will need resources to 'capacity build' those who wish to be equal players in the game. Further requirements include an accessible decision audit as part of the publicly accessible information system to ensure trust in the 'open transparent process'; guaranteed provision for follow up monitoring; feed back to check the original risk assessment.

Certainly, the recent consumer response to the risk from mad cow disease in the UK has illustrated the strength of community outrage and its refusal in this situation to accept any risk whatsoever. The issue of what defines 'acceptable risk' is as topical today as it was a decade ago. I'm sure the figures for contracting Creutzfeldt-Jacob Disease

would be well within the most stringent formal definition of 'acceptable risk' yet once aware of the possibility of hazard from consuming affected beef, the general population considered that the only 'acceptable' risk was no risk.

REFERENCES

ACA. (1995). Australian Academy of Science Fenner Conference on the Environment. Risk and Uncertainty in Environmental Management, Background Papers. Australian Chemical Trauma Alliance (1995). Social Impact of Toxic Hazards. Transcript of the Blackmores/ACTA 1995 Conference

Beer, T., Ziolkowski, E, (1995). Environmental Risk Assessment : An Australian Perspective, Supervising Scientist Refx>rt. Simpson, R., & London, J,. (1995). An Economic Evaluation of the Health Impacts of Air Pollution in the BCC Area, faculty of Environmental Sciences, Griffith University. Ewan, E., Young, A., Bryant, E., Calvert, D.,(1992). National Framework for Health Impact Assessment in EIA Vol 2, Background Document., University of Wollongong. Fischhoff, B., (1985). Managing Risk Perceptions, issues in Science & Technology, 2, 83-96

Gay, CD., Heath, RJL, (1994). Risk Communication : Involvement, Uncertainty, and Control's Effect on Information Seeking & Monitoring by Expert Stakeholders in SARA Title 111., International Communication Association Convention, Sydney, Aust. Nelson, P., (1994). Measurements of Toxic-Organic Compounds in Sydney's Atmosphere. Air Toxics Conference Proceedings Vol. I., Clean Air Society of 'Australia &N.Z. and CSIRO Centre for Pollution Assessment and Control. Risk Assessment, Practical Air Quality Applications: Summaries of Papers presented at a Seminar. Clean Air, The journal of Clean Air and Environmental Quality, Vol. 29, May 1995 Rohrmann, B., (1995). Technological Risks, Perception, Evaluation. Communication. Integrated Risk Assessment: Current practice and new directions; Rotterdam: Balkema.

THE AUTHOR

Mariann Grinter is Cordinator of the National Toxics Network, she is also ACT Smogbuster Project Officer. 47 Eugenia Street, Rivett, ACT, 2611.

Clean Air Volume 30 N0.4. November 1996 Page 35

ALTONA CONSULTATIVE GROUP

Altona Complex Neighbourhood Consultative Group N. Ryan

INTRODUCTION

The suburb of Altona is 13km south west of the centre of Melbourne. The Altona Chemical Complex is the largest production centre for petrochemicals, synthetic rubbers and plastics in Australia, and consists of five separate companies: BASF; Dow; Auseon (formerly Geon/BF Goodrich); Hoechst; and Kemcor (comprising the former Altona Petrochemical Company; Australian Synthetic Rubber and Commercial Polymers).

The Altona Complex Neighbourhood Consultative Group (ACNCG) was formed in February 1989. It provides an effective forum for consultation between the local community and the Altona Chemical Complex on. matters of mutual interest.

MEMBERSHIP

For the year 1996-97 the ACNCG consists of eleven residents of Altona or other community representatives; three representatives of the Hobsons Bay City Council; the General Managers of the five Complex Companies, senior officers from the EPA Victoria and the Victorian Workcover Authority. The monthly meetings, held in the evening, are chaired by the Hobsons Bay City Council. They are open to the public and generally attract up to thirty people including local residents, Company personnel, visitors and local news media. The meetings provide a forum for the discussion of matters of mutual interest or concern to the local residential community and the General Managers of the Complex Companies.

ROLE OF THE ACNCG

The role of the group is to promote mutual understanding between local residents and the Complex through improved plant performance and satisfactorily addressing residents concerns. The ACNCG focuses each year on different major themes, such as the reduction of plant odours; licence compliance; waste reduction; the provision of a more effective response to community

environmental complaints; and the emergency preparedness. Complex Companies bring details of proposed site developments to the ACNCG for discussion.

Each year the ACNCG visits each of the manufacturing sites wit.hin the Altona Chemical Complex for a plant tour followed by a related presentation by the host Company.

EFFECT ON COMPANIES

As awareness of the ACNCG's activities has spread through the Complex Companies, there has been a growing sense of environmental responsibility at all levels within the Companies. Activities which may have an impact on the local community due to odour, noise, flare activity, etc., are planned and implemented to minimise such effects. This represents a significant change in corporate culture.

SPECIFIC PROJECTS

Apart from the ongoing consultation process, the ACNCG has undertaken some significant projects: • Establishment of a 24 hour 1800 number

for community environmental complaints, a service provided by operators and shift supervisors who can call on management backup if required;

• A Household Chemical Collection to mark World Environment Day 1991 collected, classified and prepared for disposal some 6.5 tonnes of sump oil, old paint and household chemicals;

• A landscaping project for a major Altona access road which passes through the Complex;

• A quarterly newsletter is prepared by a subcommittee and distributed to over

Page 36 Clean Air Volume 30 N0.4. November 1996

7,000 local homes and 2,000 Complex employees;

• Promotion of consultation between industry and local communities by welcoming delegations from elsewhere in Victoria and South Australia, and by sending representatives to assist other groups to get started;

• The appointment of a resident member to a National Community Advisory Panel which is developing Responsible Care Codes of Practice for the Australian chemical industry.

LOOKING TO THE FUTURE

Continuous improvements in environmental performance need commitment at all levels of a Company. Step changes can be achieved through capital projects, but the effectiveness of such projects depends largely on how they are operated. The Altona experience has been win-win-win for the Companies, the employees and the local community.

The ACNCG has been a force for cultural change, and it is cultural change which brings continuous improvement. Only by working together at all levels within Companies, maintaining open and effective consultation with our residential neighbours, local governments and regulatory authorities, can we expect to meet the challenges which lie ahead.

If you would like more information about the ACNCG, please contact Megan Smith at the Hobsons Bay City Council Tel: (03) 9316 1212.

Noel Ryan is Complex Environmental Officer at the Altona Chemical Complex.

AUSPLUME and AUSPUFF

A US PL UME and A USPUFF An Investigation... Peter Manins, Coordinator, CASANZ Modelling Special Interest Group

USPLUME version 3.2 is available from Environment Protection Authority of

Victoria (EPAV). With its new building-wake algorithms and a Windows Graphical User Interface (GUI) developed by Monash University, it is easy to use.

After a long gestation period AUSPUFF with its GUI, developed by Earth-Tech, has at last been delivered to EPAV in final form. It should by now (November) have finished its three month in-house testing.

Note that: the source-code for AUSPLUME is no longer routinely supplied (there have been too many

uncontrolled 'special' versions developed). Documentation is in the on-line help. A revision of the old user manual is in preparation.

Nor will source code for AUSPUFF be routinely distributed. Several pre-release versions of the program were circulated to about 20 groups for testing. Many experiences have been reported and these are reflected in the much-changed and improved release version.

There has been a lot of interest in AUSPUFF by SIG members. But, as emphasised by Dennis Hearn of EPAV, more than 90% of licensing applications may continue to be satisfactorily undertaken using AUSPLUME. AUSPUFF will be useful for cases that include large or unusual sources such as major odour emitters or aluminium smelters, and in conditions of complex meteorology as occur in coastal regions, or areas of moderately complex terrain.

A much more complex meteorological file is required for AUSPUFF than for AUSPLUME to take full advantage of its advanced meteorological physics in complex geographies, reflecting the changes in wind with position, height and time. The AUSPUFF package includes AUSMET: a micro-meteorological preprocessor for the overwater and overland boundary layer, and a wind field, generator. For the latter, one option is to use the supplied prognostic Pielke sea-breeze mesoscale model to predict the winds throughout the region of interest. For a year-long meteorological file this will be found to require a prohibitive amount of work. The other is to employ as much measured data as

possible in one of two diagnostic windfield models - the CALMET version, or NUATMOS from Monash University. A GUI shields the user from some of the complexity of these models. Again, a large amount of work will be required to develop a suitable year-long meteorological file. For Melbourne, EPAV is making it easy: they are preparing a 3D yearlong meteorological data file covering 200 km at 3 km resolution with five levels in the vertical up to an altitude of 5 km.

ADVANTAGES AND OTHERWISE

AUSPUFF has several advantages: • It gives the user access to modern

dispersion and down-wash algorithms and more advanced complex terrain procedures.

• It handles low wind speeds, speeds below 0.5 ms-1 where AUSPLUME does not work at all; and speeds somewhat above this, where AUSPLUME is applied but it does badly (where wind direction varies greatly from hour to hour).

• In my opinion the single biggest improvement to be obtained by using AUSPUFF over AUSPLUME for some problems has also been made the easiest to implement: assume the winds only vary in time but not location. Then, in the release version of AUSPUFF, an unmodified AUSPLUME meteorological file can be used and the movement of the AUSPUFF 'slugs' will reflect wafting of odours in light winds and the large-scale recirculation of pollutants that have been found

Page 37 Clean Air Volume 30 N0.4. November 1996


for many coastal cities using much more complex modelling (Manins et al., 1994). This is simply impossible in a Gaussian plume model.

Application of AUSPUFF does require care: • Particle deposition is simulated,

but there is no influence on the elevated plume dynamics of the heavy particles. At least in AUSPLUME the centreline of the plume could be tilted downwards to account for subsidence of the plume.

• There is an interim algorithm describing coastal fumigation but it will be replaced soon, based on recent" Australian studies.

• There is no odour module in AUSPUFF, but this will be included after EPAV testing.

• A major omission, given its expected applications to tall stacks, is the lack of a skewed PDF convective mixing approach along the lines of Weil'(1988), included in the CTDM+ model. EPAV plans inclusion of this for the future, but until then it will mean that near-stack ground level concentrations in strong daytime convection will continue to be underestimated by up to 80%, as occurs in AUSPLUME.

• Because of the huge amount of work required to prepare yearlong 3D input files, AUSPUFF will probably mostly be used for case studies rather than statistical predictions in complex regions. This is going to cause concerns about validation, since the meteorological data requirements are much greater than most SIG members are used to! But then again, AUSPLUME often does poorly in such circumstances.

• While it may be feasible to use AUSPUFF as a screening tool, AUSPLUME is the program of choice. In the absence of any measured data, AUSPLUME can be run using the screening meteorological file METSAMP.MET to test conditions likely to include the worst case. If the predicted

impacts are well below guidelines, that may be the end of the matter. Otherwise, the expense in assembling a full meteorological file and running AUSPUFF (or AUSPLUME) may then be justified.

EARLY EXPERIENCES WITH AUSPUFF AND THE NEW AUSPLUME

For most applications the modelling of plumes influenced by building wakes is very important. AUSPLUME now has a choice of two building downwash algorithms: the Huber-Snyder scheme and the more advanced Schulman-Scire scheme, or a hybrid of both. I have reports, however, that as the building height is raised, the predictions give jumps in ground level concentrations using the latter code. EPAV advises that you stick with the Huber-Snyder code until the problem is resolved.

Some testers have reported that they are unable to get AUSPUFF to work satisfactorily on anything other than the simplest of problems. However, this may simply reflect the considerable extra effort required to become familiar with the model, especially the requirements of the meteorological and complex-terrain descriptions. The release version of AUSPUFF is much easier to use than earlier versions that testers worked with.

As reported at the 1996 Clean Air Conference in Adelaide, Graeme Ross of Monash University has obtained excellent case-study results with AUSPUFF for a deep open-cut coal mine at Mae Moh, Thailand. Dust emissions from 169 road sources were simulated on an 86x87x9 grid of diagnostic wind fields from a special version of AUSMET (NUATMOS). Comparisons of wind fields and mixing heights showed good agreement with observations, as did GLCs for the one monitoring station.

AUSPUFF is being compared with AUSPLUME and observations by Mr Scott Hamilton of EPAV in a study of major S0 2 sources in the western

suburbs of Melbourne. Emissions from a mix of high and low stacks are being modelled. Preliminary findings are that the 99.9% ground level concentrations predicted by both AUSPUFF and AUSPLUME at a receptor 1 km away are in good agreement with observations. Mr Hamilton reports that AUSPUFF runs rather slower than AUSPLUME, but the turnaround time is 'reasonable' on a 100 MHz Pentium PC.

AUSPUFF predictions of 99.9% GLCs of SO2 (ug nr3) near Whangarei, New Zealand.

In New Zealand, Jenny Godfrey and Gavin Fisher of NIWA have compared AUSPLUME, AUSPUFF and CTDM+ with a year of observations for a complex region near Whangarei where there are three significant S0 2 sources and five monitors, three of which were located in elevated terrain rising several hundred metres to the north. At the 1996 Adelaide Clean Air Conference they indicated that AUSMET (NUATMOS) performed well in developing the necessary year-long 3D meteorological data set from the extensive observations. Maximum ground level concentrations from AUSPUFF, CTDM+ and observations all agreed within a few tens of percent for receptors on the hills. AUSPLUME substantially underpredicted the impacts there. AUSPLUME and AUSPUFF gave similar lower results on the nearer flat areas than predicted by CTDM+, but



with no observations so close to the sources no judgement can be made. In my opinion, the discrepancies in results for near-field ground level concentrations point to the current inadequacy of AUSPUFF, like AUSPLUME, to correctly describe convective mixing conditions: CTDM+ was specifically designed for such conditions.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, it is still too early to say just how AUSPUFF will be accepted. However, il is essential that the planned extensions occur to include an odour module and a PDF algorithm expressing current

understanding of highly convective conditions so important in much of Australia and north New Zealand. There is also a pressing need for validation studies (but these cannot be done overnight), as well as provision of insightful] training. However, we should keep in mind that AUSPLUME will continue to dominate regulatory applications for the foreseeable future.

Thanks to the following, amongst others, for their comments, and my apologies if I have incorrectly interpreted them: Dennis Hearn, Scott Hamilton, Graeme Lorimer, Gavin Fisher, Jenny Godfrey, Graeme Ross, and David Collins.

REFERENCES

Manins, P. C, Physick, W. L., Hurley, P. J., and Noonan, J. A. (1994). The role of coastal terrain in the dispersion of pollutants from Australia's major cities. In: Clean Air '94: proceedings of the Clean Air Society of Australia and New Zealand 12th International Conference: Perth. ppl79-188. Weil, J.C. (1988). Dispersion in the convective boundary layer, In: A. Venkatram and J.C. Wyngaard, editors: Lectures on Air Pollution Modeling, American Meteorological Society, Boston, Ch.4. pp!67-227.

LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT: Design of a Kettle

LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT ON THE BOIL

Using LCA to design a new kettle

D. Greene & H. Lewis

INTRODUCTION

Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is a systematic way of calculating the environmental impacts associated with a product, process or service. It can therefore be useful in attempts to measure and reduce air emissions, pollution and other environmental impacts. These are assessed across the entire life cycle, from extraction or harvesting of raw materials through to processing, transport, use, disposal or recycling.

This article describes the use of LCA to help design an electric kettle with reduced environmental impact, As with most electrical appliances, the largest impacts of the kettle occur as a result of the energy consumed during use.



BACKGROUND TO THE PROJECT

The Centre for Design at RMIT is working with Kambrook on a collaborative research

program to redesign small appliances to reduce their environmental impact (Program funded by the Australian Research Council). The first product completed under this program was the Axis electric kettle, which was launched in early 1996. An LCA was needed at the beginning of the design process to help identify the major environmental impacts associated with previous Kambrook kettles. Data from the assessment was also needed to provide a baseline against which the impacts of potential improvements could be compared. Work on the assessment was carried out by Deni Greene Consulting Services in January 1993-The LCA identified a lack of information on how people use kettles, so market research was undertaken in May 1996 to provide further input to the design process.

METHODS USED IN THE LCA OF THE KAMBROOK KETTLE

The basic steps in a Life Cycle Assessment are:

• a decision about the purpose and conduct of the analysis

• designation of the environmental parameters to be studied

• collection of data on the environmental parameters of the systems to be analysed

• computation of environmental impacts for each process and for the entire life cycle of the product or functional unit

• aggregation of the data • evaluation of the results.

The product assessed in this study was the kettle itself together with all other associated products, including the base on which it stands (through which it receives power), and the packaging with which the kettle is sold. The function (or functional unit) for which the analysis was conducted

was the heating of water in the kettle 7 times a day over a 5 year lifetime for the kettle.

Stages and systems examined for the kettle were: • production of materials and

components • materials packaging and transport • assembly and testing of the kettle • kettle packaging and transport • operation and use of the kettle

- standby operation - use of the kettle to heat water - use of water in the kettle - wiping off the outside of the

kettle - cleaning the inside of the kettle - water treatment

• disposal of the kettle.

ASSUMPTIONS

The conduct and results of an LCA will always rest heavily on a range of assumptions made about the product and the way in which it is used. In the case of the kettle, the frequency of use was assumed, because at that time no-one had actually determined how often kettles were used. We assumed 1 litre of water heated 7 times a day, an estimate which was later confirmed by Blaikie and Drysdale (1993). It was assumed that the power base would be in standby mode at all other times. The estimate of a 5 year lifetime for the kettle was based on the manufacturer's best estimate.

A number of other assumptions were made about the frequency and methods of cleaning. These were that the kettle would be wiped with 100 millilitres of water every second day. The inside would be cleaned every 2 months with 1 litre of water containing 30 ml of vinegar, and rinsed with three litres of water. The temperature of water used in the kettle was assumed to be 20 degrees. Half the water supplied was assumed to be fully treated and half only disinfected.

Transport impacts were based on assumptions about the average distance travelled in delivering

components to Kambrook and kettles to retailers, the mode of transport, and the fuel consumption of trucks and ships.

This assessment did not go to the extent of contacting the manufacturer of each material and component in the kettle, but instead relied upon information in a data base previously developed by Deni Greene Consulting Services. This data base includes environmental effects of a range of materials and processes, and to the extent possible, relies on Australian data (Australian data was used for emissions from electricity use). This was supplemented by publicly available international ciata.

ENVIRONMENTAL PARAMETERS EXAMINED

The following environmental parameters were determined for each activity over the lifetime of the kettle:

• air emissions (of 12 different pollutants)

• waterborne emissions (10 parameters)

• amount of water discharged • energy consumption (oil, electricity,

natural gas, coal) • solid waste produced • greenhouse gas emissions resulting

from energy use (including methane emissions from coal mining and natural gas production and distribution).

CALCULATION OF EMISSIONS AND IMPACTS

To begin the assessment, all of the materials in the kettle and its packaging were identified and separately weighed. The kettle contained 8 different plastics, 6 different metals, and rubber. The packaging contained 4 types of paper, cardboard and corrugated products and 3 types of plastics.

Electricity consumption by the power base was measured. The time involved in boiling water in the kettle was tested in the manufacturer's

Page 40 Clean Air Volume 30 NO A. November 1996


laboratory. Measurements were made to estimate the amount of this time that is required for heating the kettle (that is, the thermal lag of the kettle).

Based on the information about materials and operations, as well as the assumption about kettle use and cleaning, calculations were made for each of the environmental parameters for each of the stages and systems over the lifetime of the kettle. This produced a large quantity of data which does not, in itself, provide a meaningful picture of the impacts of the product. Many researchers in LCA are now attempting to translate this data into impacts such as:

• depletion of raw materials • potential effects on human health • acidification (i.e., contribution to

acid rain)

• greenhouse effect • ozone layer depletion • volume of waste.

In the assessment of the kettle, greenhouse impacts and volume of waste were calculated. Depletion of raw materials and potential effects on human health were considered too difficult to determine with current data.

Air and water emissions were aggregated to calculate units of polluted air and units of polluted water by dividing actual emissions by maximum legally permitted concentrations. At the time the original assessment was conducted, there were no emissions standards in Australia for many of the air and water pollutants identified. The standard values chosen for use in the

air pollution calculations w e r e the Dutch Maximum Acceptable Concentrations. They are n o t really ideal for the purpose because they are intended to regulate maximum acceptable concentrations in a workplace, not in the total environment, but they have been used in a number of LCAs conduc t ed in The Netherlands.

The values used for t h e water pollution calculations were the Dutch requirements for maximum levels permitted at the inlet of dr inking water purification plants. Although it would be preferable to b a s e the analyses on an accepted international standard, the consistent u s e of a single chosen set of values throughout the study provides a basis for comparison of different products and life cycle stages.


Figures 1 - 4 Units of pol luted water and sol id wastes and energy consumption at each stage of a kettle's life


RESULTS OF THE LCA

The life cycle assessment showed that the operation of the kettle produced impacts well above those of any other stage. This situation prevails for most products requiring inputs of energy, water, or materials over their lifetime, such as photocopiers, clothes washers, houses, and even gardens. Such results come as a surprise to many industrial designers, who have traditionally focused on the materials from which a product is made.

Figures 1-3 show units of polluted air, units of polluted water and solid wastes generated at each stage of the product life cycle. Energy consumption for different aspects of kettle operation is shown in Figure 4.

THE USE OF LCA IN THE DESIGN OF THE KETTLE

The main priority identified through the LCA was the need to reduce energy consumption during use. The lid was designed with an integrated spout and filter to reduce evaporative losses, and a more rapid auto cut-off was installed to avoid wasting energy after the water has boiled. The water level indicator at the side of the kettle was found to be an important source of heat loss, so this was replaced with a small dial at the top. Energy consumption can be minimised if the user only adds the required amount of water rather than overfilling the kettle. It is hoped that the new indicator will be easier to use and will encourage more accurate filling.

Consumer research undertaken for the project revealed that many people reboil the kettle more than once, resulting in a considerable amount of wasted energy (Blaikie and Drysdale 1993). As a result the kettle was designed with a double walled body and lid, which helps to keep the water hot for a longer period of time. A temperature-

sensitive indicator was added to the top of the kettle to show whether the water is still hot enough to use for tea or coffee.

The LCA did not show disposal to be a significant environmental issue for the kettle relative to other impacts. The design team felt however that the product should be designed for recycling to ensure that it was able to meet European recycling regulations. Specific improvements to assist recycling were:

• design for easy disassembly; • a reduction in the number of

different plastics used; and • the use of international codes to

identify the different plastics. The design team also reduced the amount of material used by around 50g, mindful that legislation requiring product take-back and recycling of appliances is unlikely to be introduced in Australia in the short term. Source reduction was therefore considered an appropriate waste minimisation strategy.

CONCLUSIONS

Life cycle assessments such as the one described above make it clear that efforts to reduce environmental impact for products consuming energy and other inputs should give highest priority to the operation and use stage. This does not mean that other stages should be ignored, because they may also provide opportunities for reducing environmental impact.

The interdisciplinary approach used in the design of the kettle was very important. While the LCA helped to identify environmental priorities, a survey of kettle users was critical in identifying behavioural issues. The need to design for disassembly and recycling emerged from a review of international policy trends and initiatives. Other issues associated with production and materials were identified in a study by the Polymer Technology Centre at RMIT (Koshir et al 1993). While LCA is a useful

design tool, other sources of information can be equally important in determining the most appropriate design strategies to reduce energy consumption, air emissions and other environmental impacts.

REFERENCES

Blaikie, N and Drysdale, M , Electric Kettles: Consumer Behaviour and Environmental Issues. Centre for Design at RMIT, June 1993

Koshir, F., Kosior, E and Cheung, E., Environmental., Production and Material Properly Considerations for an EcoReDesign Electric Kettle, Centre for Design at RMIT, March 1993

AUTHORS

Deni Greene is Director of Deni Greene Consulting Services, energy and environmental consultants.

Helen Lewis works as a Project Manager - EcoReDesign for the Centre for Design at RMIT.


SOME THOUGHTS ON AIR POLLUTION

SOME THOUGHTS ON AIR POLLUTION: An after dinner speech Phillip Adams

/

was looking at the very elegant brochure that NSW Health put out for this conference and discovered

that this dinner is optional. In other words, you're not here under any form of compulsion. Moreover you've had to cough up $65 per person which includes a three-course meal, drinks excluding spirits, coffee and mints. And me. I'm therefore an optional extra, a sort of after-thought to go with the after dinner mints. And to make matters worse I'm expected to provide a keynote address on the theme of Air Quality when I'm surrounded by a pantheon of professors like Michael Hensley, Stephen Leeder, Ann Woolcock, people who know their stuff. Whereas all I know about air is that I've been breathing it for over half a century.

In recent years a couple of creatures have become very useful in social and technical metaphor. One is the butterfly somewhere whose beating wings, according to chaos theory, can cause a typhoon somewhere else. The other is the famous frog who sits, more or less happily, in a saucepan of hot water and is slowly boiled to death.

I can neither confirm nor deny the claims for the butterfly but I believe in the frog metaphor. You see it everywhere and have seen it in many eras. Look at the Jews in Germany in the 2().s and, increasingly, in the 30s, turning a blind eye to the swastikas, a deaf ear to Hitler's rantings. For many Jews it was more comforting to stay on in Berlin or Munich or wherever convincing themselves that the troubles would blow over, rather than to hop out of the slowly heating water. And we can

observe similar behaviour with the citizens of Los Angeles in regard to the noxious fumes they use to inflate their lungs. Like the alienation around them, like the soaring incidence of racial hostility, the growing crisis in the air was imperceptible, incremental, growing day by day until, like microcosmic cancer cells producing some vast malignancy, the condition was terminal.

The very stuff that makes life possible is ignored until we're on the verge of asphyxiation, if not extinction. If we are frogs in water approaching the boil, there are many factors that are turning up the gas. Principally our own fecundity. I recognise that the equation linking population with pollution is a multifactorial one, the latter not so much a function of the former as it is of affluence. Nonetheless a vast number of problems on our planet that threaten not only humanity but flora and fauna are, finally, produced by the most dangerous weapon of all -neither H-Bomb nor cruise missile but the human penis. Forgive me bringing up this idea, this image while you're eating but it isn't hand guns in the US or the semi-automatic rifles in Australia that pose the greatest danger - it's the male dick, firing those countless billions of tadpoles at their hapless targets every night - at very short range. Even as we speak, or eat as the case may be, I'm sure another international conference on population is being planned and that His Holiness the Pope is on the blower to his new friends in Iran, of all places, having the agenda declared blasphemous.

That planets may be g o i n g to hell in a hand basket - or m o r e accurately a cradle - but t h e Pope will not countenance phallic disarmament, the bolstering of the dong. And if he has to do a dea l with the world of Islam to keep t h e numbers not only up but up and up, he'll certainly do it.

And we'll cop it. Until t he entire planet is as crowded as a Ne i l Diamond concert or DJ's lift on sale day.

So how do you get t h e entire community on side in your grea t work? How do you get m o r e air-time for air? How do you get air an airing? You're faced with a number of obvious problems and some subtle ones. Let me deal with the sub t l e ones next.

I was invited to a d i n n e r -with the heavies of the Australian Academy of Science who h a v e that rather old-fashioned geodesic dome in Canberra. And there I f o u n d myself sitting at a long table surrounded by Nobel laureates for this and that, the creme de la creme of our scientific community. And because it looked like the Last Supper I asked them a ques t ion . H o w will the world end? With b a n g or whimper?

What followed was an intriguing experience. Everyone had a different Doomsday scenario. First up, a bloke at one end of t h e table said 'Ah, the giant mouse'. T h e giant mouse? Heads nodded sagely. 'Surely you've heard of the giant mouse? ' I confessed that I hadn't. H e a d s shook sadly. It was explained to me that the giant mouse had just been p roduced in a lab here, there or somewhere , as a result of gene splicing a n d that this



clearly had apocalyptic implications for humanity. Because it followed, as light followed day, that we would invent a new species in the lab. Humans would create a race of supermen who would be bigger, taller, stronger, far more intelligent and long-lived and, of course, disease resistant. And these dazzling Frankensteins would, very quickly, take over from the human beings that created them. The myth of Frankenstein on a grand, grand scale.

This was pooh-poohed by another who felt that flesh and. blood didn't pose a threat. It would be artificial intelligence, based on a different material. We would undoubtedly create a master race, a species who would treat us, at best, like pets. But they wouldn't be humans. They'd be machines. 'No', said another, 'they'd be hybrids, a bionic blend.'

Next up was someone who was more worried about war. Not so much nuclear, oddly enough, as he considered that many of the bombs would fail to explode to simply detonate in the silos. Or miss their target. He was more concerned with the use of biological weapons.

Anyway, you get the picture. On and on it went as various scientists came up with mutually exclusive notions of how the world would end. Or rather, humanity's involvement in the world.

But the one that struck me most powerfully, the one that chilled me to the bone, was the scenario espoused by the last bloke at the table. And after he'd spoken, there was a silence. And you got the feeling that almost all the scientists in the room were agreeing with him. And he talked of what would later become, notorious as the greenhouse effect. He talked of the figures he could read on the dials in his lab every day, at the inexorable increase of carbon dioxide and concurrently, the increase in temperatures. And extrapolating from the figures as he knew them from colleagues around the world, he predicted that the temperature on Earth would rise not by one or two degrees but by a

hundred. That we were well on the way to baking ourselves to death.

Horrified by this - or perhaps inspired -I decided to put the focus of our work on the Greenhouse Effect and the ozone hole, terms that at the time were virtually unknown in Australia and certainly unknown to the media. And a year later we organised a satellite conference across Australia, involving large numbers of people in various halls, linked by a sort of off-road, four-wheel drive version of the information superhighway. And we freighted out a number of international experts to tell us the worst.

Trouble is, a couple of the experts declined that invitation. Oh, they turned up and they revealed what their modelling was telling them. But it wasn't the worst. It simply wasn't bad enough for my audience. They wanted to hear that the planet would burn to a frizzle. They were like religious zealots who wanted to believe that the end was decidedly nigh, that judgement day was upon us. They wanted Apocalypse Now - to hear that the oceans would rise two or three metres until all the waterfront houses in Sydney were flooded and had sharks swimming through Susan Renouf's bedroom. And they wildly applauded anyone who spoke in those apocalyptic terms, whilst sitting on their hands for the scientists who were temperate, cautious, non-alarmist.

And looking at the audience I suddenly realised that whilst this was ostensibly a scientific subject, my audience was approaching it in a religious frame of mind. They wanted disaster, they wanted catastrophe, they wanted the end of the bloody world. They didn't want answers or solutions: they wanted horror stories, and they also wanted the right enemies. They liked to hiss and boo whenever the motorcar or a multinational corporation was mentioned . They're the enemies that they deemed appropriate. But. when it was pointed out that contributing factors to greenhouse included

emissions from termite mounds and the burping of cattle, or methane rising from Asian rice paddies, they were somewhat disgruntled. In short, they were gruntled when the problem could be attributed to capitalism but disgruntled if you had to factor in termites, cows, rice paddies or volcanoes.

Now, that's one of the problems you have out there. It may be subtle and understated - but it is a factor. There are plenty of people who want the world to be punished for our sins. They're made up of luddites, hardline greens and people more afflicted with guilt than common sense. And because they beat their breasts and ululate and cry out like characters fleeing Sodom and Gomorrah, because they're absurdly old testamental, they tend to give the environmental movement a bad name.

On the other side of the picture are those who are not only frogs in boiling water but happy to be frogs in boiling water. Because make no mistake - there are countless thousands and millions of people out there who actually like things they're not meant to like. They like chocolate rather than spinach. They like sex rather than abstinence. They like smoking rather than salads. And they like all the things they're not meant to like. They're the sort of people who like scunge and grunge, who see glamour in the illicit, in the perverse, in the pornographic.

And in this context, you blokes are trying to do the impossible. You're trying to galvanise politicians and fellow scientists and the wider community into concern for the air. For this invisible membrane that surrounds our planet.

Now, I'm on your side. There's nothing more important, more urgent, more desperately needed.

How to best air your grievances? Well, people are interested in air bags. But the trouble with that - if you'll forgive the pun -air just isn't apparent. It might look filthy on the horizon or when looking down from a plane at a city. But in close-up, the bit you're actually



walking through is okay, in that it's invisible. Of course the same applies to water. A stream can be filthy but scoop up an individual glassful and it usually looks okay.

So even when you've managed to get a blockbuster media response, as happened last week, and is happening as a consequence of this conference, don't expect that to last very long.

1 remember discovering that there was a direct link between cigarette smoking and thumb sucking. Indeed, all forms of oral stimulant - sucking thumbs or sucking pencils - are substitutes for the nipple. So I remember making a mock commercial for the early days of This Day Tonight, which had a Marlboro man, complete with stetson and tattoo, sitting on the back of his proud steed, sucking his thumb. And we ran the line that 'Smoking is for suckers'. By deglamorising cigarettes, and by persuading governments to up the ante, to make them progressively more expensive, we managed to turn the tide.

But with air pollution, or course, everyone makes a contribution. And because everyone's guilty, nobody's guilty. Moreover there's not, as far as I know, a visible spokesman, one media operator to focus the fight and summarise the issues. And in my experience, media isn't much good at dealing with

issues unless they're (a) entirely visible, (b) grossly over-simplified and (c) energetically presented by a spokesperson who can handle him or herself on everything from the 7.30 Report to The Midday Show.

Perhaps the air pollution industry needs a marketing device, a red-nose day approach. I've just joined the board of Greenpeace which shows that my attitude on these issues has been rapidly evolving. I can no longer see an argument for soft peddling, for sotto voce, for apologetic, polite campaigns. We are entering an era when increasingly the tactics seem to involve a degree of eco-terrorism. Or at the very least, the creation of high-profile photo opportunities for a media that's reluctant to think things through.

There has to be horror and hope. A pincer movement.

Trouble is, you're competing with so many Damoclean swords. There are too many catastrophes and disasters fighting for public attention and political action. There's a whole menagerie of viruses, there's the spectre of economic rationalism behaving like some Godzilla stomping all over universities, the CSIRO and the ABC - there are the problems of chemicals in food, of mad cow disease, of polluted waterways. There's a classic case, I guess - do you remember those

horrifying images of green algae advancing down through the Murray-Darling? If ever there was an image of Apocalypse, of the end being decidedly nigh, it was there and then .

But years have passed and still the attempts to deal with that problem are best half-hearted. Today's nightmare is tomorrow's yawn. People adjust to horror as t he Londoners did to bomb raids, as Germans did to crimes being carried out in their name by the Nazis. Our citizens are expected to worry about AIDS, interest rates, balance of payments, old-growth forests, obesity, street kids, boat people, soil erosion, salinity, the possibility of t he planet being clobbered by an asteroid or comet, unemployment, Aboriginal reconciliation, and gun laws.

You have an immense job and the odds are stacked against you. Let me conclude by simply saying that my newspaper columns and radio programmes - such as they are -stand ready to help. So if there's any way I can help clear the air, don't hesitate to get in touch.

[Editor's note: The above is an abridged version of the original presented Monday 3 June , 1996, at the Gazebo Hotel Parramatta, NSW for which I am indebted to Peter Manins.]

CONFERENCES

Second International Conference on Environmental Management (ICEM2)

to be held at the University of Wollongong (New South Wales, Australia)

10-13 February 1998 FIRST ANNOUNCEMENT & CALL FOR PAPERS

OBJECTIVE This Conference will aim to provide a forum for academics, researchers and scientists working in the area of environmental management and sustainable development to exchange ideas and learn about recent advances. The conference themes will embrace 21st century solutions to problems within the fields of Environmental Engineering, Geotechnology and Mining Engineering.

Further details: James Cook (Conference Manager), ICEM2, University Union, University of Wollongong, WOLLONGONG NSW 2522 AUSTRALIA Tel: +61 42 297 833 Fax: +61 42 264 250 E-mail [email protected]


mailto:[email protected]

AUSTRALIAN CHAMBER OF MANUFACTURES NEWS

AUSTRALIAN CHAMBER OF MANUFACTURES

HIGH COST OF HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT

The results of ACM's survey on hazardous waste management in the Sydney area suggest industry spends about $76 million per annum on disposal of hazardous wastes.

The survey was conducted in March 1996 to inquire about costs of both internal and external management of hazardous wastes. The survey showed the average cost was around $425 per tonne, a significant incentive to minimise protection of these wastes.

The ACM survey, comprising 48 responses, found:

• companies surveyed spent about $12.5 million managing hazardous waste. This represents approximately $261,000 per company, $1,290 per employee and is the equivalent of more than 400 jobs.

• Direct charges constituted 53-65% of the compliance costs paid by the 48 companies in 1995. - off-site treatment was 36.45% of

the total compliance costs - transport made up 17.2% of the

total compliance costs. • On-site costs constituted 46.35% of

the compliance costs paid by companies surveyed, or $3.88 million. - costs associated with plant and

equipment constituted 12.7% of the costs, or $1.56 million per annum.

- costs associated with the operation and management of hazardous wastes constituted 33-7% of the compliance costs, or $2.81 million.

Hazardous wastes include a large range of liquid wastes unacceptable to sewer and wastes requiring treatment (e.g. fixation) to gain acceptance to Sydney Landfills. Results of the survey

have been forwarded to the EPA as part of ACM's submission on the Waste Minimisation and Management Regulation.

The EPA is developing new landfill acceptance criteria which may further inflate the costs of hazardous waste management. An EPA discussion paper on this is expected in September.

Members interested in the results of the survey should contact Andrew Doig, Manager NSW, Environment and Technical Services, on (02) 9372 0423 to obtain copies.

NSW WASTE REGULATIONS

ACM has made a submission to the NSW EPA concerning its 'Waste Minimisation and Management Regulations and RIS' document. The proposed regulation covers the licensing of waste generators, transporters and treatment/disposal facilities. Generators of more than 10 tonnes of hazardous waste per annum will require licences. Previously, licences were required by organisations which employed 20 or more people. The licensing will cover all NSW, rather than just the Sydney Region.

ACM's major findings and recommendations included:

• The EPA to list the types of waste facilities requiring licences. Their proposal was too vague and open to ad hoc decision.

• The EPA's estimation of the costs of managing hazardous wastes was considered too low. Revised costs need to be taken into account.

• Transporters of all wastes to be licensed and hazardous waste vehicles individually licensed.

• ACM considers the waste levy as a tax with about two thirds going to internal revenue.

The levy should not increase and all funds to environmental projects.

The submission includes results of ACM's survey on hazardous waste management costs which estimates expenditure by industry of about $76 million per annum for managing these wastes.

For copies of the submission or more information, please contact Andrew Doig, Manager, NSW Environment and Technical Services in Sydney on (02) 9372 0423.

NSW CONTAMINATED LAND BILL UPDATE

ACM has responded to the NSW EPA's discussion paper, 'Managing Contaminated Land in NSW. The discussion paper and responses will be used to form a new Bill dealing with contaminated land.

The paper discusses many issues including the EPA's role in dealing only with 'risk' sites, adoption of the Victorian accredited site auditor scheme and information gathering on land contamination by Governments.

Major recommendations to the EPA include:

• Taking a leading role in the management of 'non-risk' sites (contaminated sites that don't pose a danger to health or the environment)

• Support the use of risk assessment to determine clean-up criteria, rather than allowing the continued use of 'Dutch B' as limits

• Developing its own data base from compilation of risk assessments and enable these to be used as limits.

• Allowing the right of appeal on enforced clean-up for risk sites.

For copies of the submission or more information, please contact


AUSTRALIAN CHAMBER OF MANUFACTURES NEWS

Andrew Doig, NSW Manager, Environment and Technical Services, on (02) 9372 0423

GENEVA GREENHOUSE UPDATE

Members of Australia's delegation to the international Greenhouse Conference in Geneva provided an update for industry at a recent ACM Environment Breakfast Briefing in Melbourne.

Mr Tony Beck, Assistant Director, Business Council of Australia and Mr Ian Carruthers, Assistant Secretary, Climate Change Branch, Department of Environment Sport & Territories, presented information at the Briefing. They discussed Australia's case at the Geneva Conference which articulated the dependence of our energy economy on coal for power generation and oil for motor transport over extensive distances.

Environmental Breakfasts are held regularly by ACM to ensure member companies are kept up to date on issues and news relevant to industry and manufacturing.

NSW MINISTER TO ALLOW PRIVATE SEWAGE PLANTS

The Hon. Craig Knowles, MP, Minister for Planning, Minister for Housing, announced at ACM's recent Industrial Sewer and Water Supply Conference that sewage treatment for towns of Gerringong and Genoa will be put up for tender. Private companies are welcome to tender for the Build Own Operate (BOO) contract.

The Minister said this was the start of many BOO schemes. He said 'I do not mind if I have two or twenty-two (water) operating licences'. Currently only Sydney and Hunter Water hold operating licences.

The Minister indicated a strong commitment to sewage re-use and was looking for industry to tackle this challenge better.

Members interested in the outcome of ACM's Industrial Sewer and Water Supply Conference or more details on the Minister's

Allan Handherg, ACM National Chief Executive Officer with delegates to the Geneva Conference-. (L to R) Ian Carruthers, Department of Environment, Sport & Territories, Tony Beck, Business Council of Australia, and Dr Brian Robinson, Environment Protection Authority, Victoria.

comments should contact Andrew Doig, NSW Manager, Environment and Technical Services, on (02) 9372 0423-

ENERGY SMART COMPANIES CAMPAIGN

Over 120 companies have joined the Energy Smart Companies Campaign, a program to encourage Victorian companies to reduce their energy consumption through energy efficiency.

The program is operated by Energy Victoria, the State Government agency responsible for energy efficiency and renewable energy'.

Participating organisations undertake a corporate commitment to introduce energy efficient policies and strategies.

On joining the program, companies receive an energy management advisory visit to identify problem items and solutions. This covers lighting, airconditioning, manufacturing equipment and refrigeration.

Manufacturers are urged to join the Energy Smart Companies Campaign to learn about ways to reduce their energy consumption, reduce their environmental impact and save money for the benefit of their shareholders and owners.

ACM supports the Energy Smart Campaign.

For more information contact Robert Lorenzon at ACM Environment & Technical Services in Melbourne on (03) 9698 4389-

NSW GOVERNMENT REQUIRES ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE ON PRODUCTS

Companies selling to the NSW Government will need to prepare a brief statement on the environmental effects of the product under proposed changes announced recently.

Tenderers are being asked to supply environmental information covering: • amount of raw materials used,

recycled inputs, and source of those raw materials

• emission to air, water and solid waste • recommendations for disposal,

recycling or re-use methods • the nature of the preferred disposal

method used for waste disposal contracts.

ACM is concerned these proposed changes may impose greater administrative costs on industry.

Members interested in further information regarding the NSW Government's tender requirements, should contact Andrew Doig, Environment and Technical Services Manager, NSW, on (02) 9372 0423.


BOOK REVIEW

INCINERATION OF HAZARDOUS WASTE 2: TOXIC COMBUSTION BY-PRODUCTS, edited by W.R. Seeker and C.P. Koshland, Gordon and Breach Science Publishing - from Fine Arts Press, East Sydney, Tel: (02) 94171033. Price A$182.00

This hook is based on the Proceedings of the Second International Congress on

Toxic Combustion By-products: Formation and Control, held at the University of Utah, 26-29 March 1991. The proceedings consist of 37 contributed research papers for the congress. The emphasis is very much on research approaches to problems of toxic waste combustion such as modelling and prediction of the detailed chemistry of the destruction of chlorinated hydrocarbons, numerical simulation of incinerator mixing, and pilot scale studies of dioxin and furan formation and control in municipal waste combustion systems. Apart from a brief preface provided by the editors explaining the background to the congress, there is no attempt to provide an overview of the incineration of hazardous waste.

A large number of the papers

report fundamental studies in laboratory combustors of the destruction and product formation from single component systems, usually chlorinated hydrocarbon species. The experimental results are usually interpreted in terms of computational models including detailed chemical reaction schemes. There has been considerable progress in this area in recent years, and the results could conceivably be used in design of toxic waste treatment processes.

Characterisation of the nature of the emissions from both full-scale incinerators and from laboratory-scale reactors is the subject of several studies reported at the congress. Among the subjects covered are characterisation of soot deposits and organic extracts of particulate emissions, and measurements of hydrocarbon and formaldehyde emissions from the combustion of pulverised wood waste. Related to these studies are attempts to improve methods for the analysis of the trace toxic by-products of waste combustion. The emphasis here is on continuous emission monitors and on in situ detection of the relevant species. The techniques investigated include various chromatographic and

spectroscopic techniques, such as laser induced fluorescence and photofragmentation. Application of these techniques ranges from full scale facilities to research studies of the feasibility of using idealised combustion systems.

There are also some studies relating to the inorganic aspects of hazardous waste incinerators, as opposed to the organic aspects so far described. These include studies of metal capture in a fluidised bed, and a technique for mercury removal from flue gases.

It would be difficult to recommend this book as a general text for those interested in incineration. The format is very much that of a collection of state of the art research papers; the high cost would also preclude most individuals from purchasing the text. It is also worth pointing out that all but eight of the papers from the Congress were also published in the journal Combustion Science and Technology; access to this journal may be the best way to obtain the results of these studies.

Dr Peter Nelson CSIRO Division of Coal & Energy Technology

CONFERENCES

GRIFFITH UNIVERSITY

Waste Management Research Unit Conference

Environmental Management Beyond 2000 - the ISO 14000 Approach 5 and 6 December 1996 Brisbane Hilton Please note the date change. Now 5 and 6 Dec 1996 The 2 day conference will focus on environmental management .systems using the new ISO 14000 series of Australian Standards. Topics to be covered include:

• Environmental Auditing • Software for Environmental Management Systems • Certification of Auditors • Due Diligence • States Legislation • Local Council Approaches

• Workplace Health and Safely • Life Cycle Assessment • Integrated Environmental Management Systems -

The Queensland Approach. ORGANISED BY: Waste Management Research Unit, School of Environmental Engineering, Griffith University. Further details: Dr David Moy ( 0 7 ) 3875 5506 or Mr Peter Neeve ( 0 7 ) 3875 5507 or Fax ( 0 7 ) 3875 5288 or E-mail: [email protected]

Water in the Balance Australian Water and Wastewater Association's 17th Federal Convention, World Congress Centre Melbourne 16-21 March 1997 Conference themes include total urban water, public health and amenity, the water business, and innovation in regulation. A call for papers has been made.

Further information contact AWWA: (02) 9413 1288 Fax (02) 9413 1047.

1st Asia-Pacific Forum on Engineering and Technology Education, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia Organised by the UNESCO Supported International Centre for Engineering Education (USICEEJ.

Further details: The Secretariat, USICEE, Faculty of Engineering, Monash University, Clayton, Melbourne VIC 3168 Australia. Fax: +61 3 990 51547. E-mail: [email protected]




Author Index Volume 30, 1996 Adams, P. Some thoughts on Air Pollution: An after dinner speech. 30/4, pp43-45 Angelino, E., Bedogni, M, Bravetti, E., Gauldi, R., Lanzani, G., Lavecchia, C., Musitelli, A. and Valentini, M. Ozone in the North of Italy. 30/3, pp22-26 Azzi. M., Johnson, G.M., Quigley, S. and Duc, H. Interpretation of the Airtrack Data from Liverpool Monitoring Station using the Integrated Empirical Rate (IER) Model. 30/3, pp27-30 Baillie, C.P. See Ramsdale, S.L. and Baillie, C.P. Bardsley T.B. Evaluation of an Opsis Differential Optical Absorption Spectrometer for Ambient Air Monitoring. 30/2, pp31-36 Barnett, J.R. See Johnson, G.T., Cleugh, L.J., Hunter, L.J. and Barnert, J.R. Bedogni, M. See Angelino, E., Bedogni, M., Bravetti, E., Gauldi, R., Lanzani, G., Lavecchia, C., Musitelli, A. and Valentini, M. Beer, T. Environmental Risk - An Overview: Environmental Risk and Industry. 30/4, pp26-29 Beer, T. Seminar Report: Environmental Risk and Industry. 30/4, pp23-25 Bravetti, E. See Angelino, E., Bedogni, M., Bravetti, E., Gauldi, R., Lanzani, G., Lavecchia, C., Musitelli, A. and Valentini, M. Bridgeman, H.A. Guest Editorial: Modelling the Atmospheric Environment. 30/3, p6 Burden, F.R. and Ellis, P.S. Air Pollution Indices for Victoria. 30/2, pp26-30 Carbon, B. Guest Editorial: Clearing the Air a Priority at the Environment Protection Agency. 30/2, P5 Cehun, T. Environmental Risk Assessment and the Chemical Industry. 30/4, pp29-32 Cleugh, L.J. See Johnson, G.T., Cleugh, L.J., Hunter, L.J. and Barnett, J.R. Connell, D.W. See Miiller, J.F., Hawker, D.W, Wermuth, U.D. and Connell, D.W. Court, J. Rounding out the Workshop Process -The Next Steps. 30/1, p45 Court, J. Summary of Workshop Part B: Odour Measurement. 30/1, pp4l-45 Due, H. See Azzi. M., Johnson, G.M., Quigley, S. and Due, H. Ellis, P.S. See Burden, F.R. and Ellis, P.S. Freeman, K. Standards & Guidelines. 30/1, pp39-40 Gauldi, R. See Angelino, E., Bedogni, M., Bravetti, E., Gauldi, R., Lanzani, G., Lavecchia, C, Musitelli, A. and Valentini, M. Greene, D. and Lewis, H. Life Cycle Assessment on the Boil - Using LCA to design a new kettle. 30/4, pp39-42 Grinter, M. Environmental Risk and Industry: The Community View. 30/4, pp33-35 Hawker, D.W. See Miiller, J.R, Hawker, D.W., Wermuth, U.D. and Connell, D.W. Holmes, K.T. Interaction of Odour Measurement and Odour Modelling. 30/1, p38

Hunter, L.J. See Johnson, G.T., Cleugh, L.J., Hunter, L.J. and Barnett, J.R. Johnson, G.M. See Azzi. M., Johnson, G.M., Quigley, S. and Duc, H. Johnson, G.T., Cleugh, L.J., Hunter, LJ. and Barnett, J.R. Field Evaluation of an Urban Canyon Airflow and Scalar Disperson Model. 30/3, pp31-37 Lanzani, G. See Angelino, E., Bedogni, M., Bravetti, E., Gauldi, R., Lanzani, G., Lavecchia, C, Musitelli, A. and Valentini, M. Lashmar, M. The Regional Pollution Index - A Background Paper. 30/1, pp23-28 Lavecchia, C. See Angelino, E., Bedogni, M., Bravetti, E., Gauldi, R., Lanzani, G., Lavecchia, C, Musitelli, A. and Valentini, M. Lewis, H. See Greene, D. and Lewis, H. Lunney, C. Methods for Investigating Odour from Cattle Feedlots in Queensland. 30/1, pp32-34 Manins, P. AUSPLUME and AUSPUFF - An Investigation. 30/4, pp37-39 Miiller, J.F., Hawker, D.W, Wermuth, U.D. and Connell, D.W. Field Evaluation of Sampling Artefacts for the separate Collection of Vapour and Particle Phase PAHs with a Filter Adsorbent Type Sampling System. 30/2, pp37-4l Musitelli, A. See Angelino, E., Bedogni, M., Bravetti, E., Gauldi, R., Lanzani, G., Lavecchia, C, Musitelli, A. and Valentini, M. O'Heare, J. Editorial: Would Bernardino Ramazzini have joined the Clean Air Society? 30/1,

P5, . O'Sullivan, M. Guest Editorial: Environmental Risk and Industry. 30/4, p5 Prokop, W.H. Odour Sensory Measurement in North America. 30/1, pp29-30 Quigley, S. See Azzi. M., Johnson, G.M., Quigley, S. and Due, H. Ramsdale, S.L. and Baillie, C.P. Interlaboratory Test Program: Odour Detection Threshold for Hydrogen Sulfide. 30/1, pp36-37 Ryan, N. Altona Complex Neighbourhood Consultative Group. 30/4, p36 Schulz, T. and van Harreveld, T. Status of European Methods of Odour Measurement. 30/1, pp31-32 Stephenson, P.W. Difficulties in Odour Source Strength Sampling. 30/1, pp40-4l Stone, D. Chemical Fingerprinting of Odours and Gaseous Emissions. 30/1, p35 Valentini, M. See Angelino, E., Bedogni, M., Bravetti, E., Gauldi, R., Lanzani, G., Lavecchia, C, Musitelli, A. and Valentini, M. van Harreveld, T. See Schulz, T. and van Harreveld, T. Wermuth, U.D. See Miiller, J.F., Hawker, D.W, Wermuth, U.D. and Connell, D.W.

Ambient Monitoring = INSTRUMENTS

Wedding & Assoc ia tes High Volume Air S a m p l e r s

• For TSPandPM10

• Low maintenance Critical Flow Device and Size Selective Inlet for PM10

• Meets US EPA and Australian Standards

• Also available "Equivalence Approved" automated particulate samplers

Model: "WindObserver* Gill Ul trasonic A n e m o m e t e r s

• 3 Axis & 2 Axis Models • Research & General Grades • Resolution 0.01 m/s, 1° • Analog & RS485 Outputs • Sample rates to 168Hz • Thresholds from 0.02m/s

Model: "WindMaster"

R.M. Young Wind Moni tors

• Research, AQ, Marine & General Models • Thresholds from 0.2m/s • Matching signal conditioners for outputs in analog,

RS232 & RS485 • Matching universal input programmable translator

for statistical analysis and data storage

Model: HVAS PM10

BEP Instruments 25A South Street

Rydalmore

NSW 2116

Tel: (02)9341 2345

• Fax; (02) 9638 0014

Branches throughout

Australia and New Zealand

BEP - A subsidiary of

Atkins Carlise Ltd

5,-iM - QUTdigitalcollections.qut.edu.au/1649/171/Clean_Air_Vol.30... · 2013-11-06 · financial...

Documents

Transcript of 5,-iM - QUTdigitalcollections.qut.edu.au/1649/171/Clean_Air_Vol.30... · 2013-11-06 · financial...