Men, Money, and Responsibility in Pollution Control

Abstract

A proper balance in the use of men, money, material, and regulation - based on good planning - is needed for a successful pollution abatement program. If efforts to achieve this balance are exerted promptly, we shall all be rewarded by a greatly improved environment. Introduction We all have heard many comments on how polluted our environments are becoming, and demands that something be done about it. References frequently were made to pollution due to sulfur dioxide in Donora, London, New York, the Meuse Valley and Poza Rica (although the last was due to hydrogen Poza Rica (although the last was due to hydrogen sulfide). These episodes furnished strong support to extensive research and to the promulgation of regulations to control the ambient levels of sulfur dioxide in the air. In many cases controls over sulfur were accompanied by controls over particulate matter emitted into the air. More recently we have read or heard about oil pollution of our seas and beaches as the result of pollution of our seas and beaches as the result of marine tanker disasters, such as those of the Torrey Canyon and the Ocean Eagle, or the blowout of the drilling well in the Santa Barbara Channel. Events such as these have a tremendous impact on legislation. The Torrey Canyon and the Santa Barbara channel incidents both happened while Senator Muskie's committee was holding hearings on oil pollution control legislation, and the Ocean Eagle went aground in San Juan, Puerto Rico, when President Johnson was visiting there. These highly charged emotional events are impressive. Black pictures are painted pictures of beaches and ecology ruined for centuries pictures of beaches and ecology ruined for centuries to come. The facts are that in the case of the Torrey Canyon the vacationers were back the following summer to the once-again white sands of the Cornwall Beaches; and in the case of the Santa Barbara Channel, a select team of marine scientists chosen by President Nixon's science advisor could find little or President Nixon's science advisor could find little or no damage done to the ecology of marine life in the Santa Barbara Channel environment. Similar results were reported by W. J. North, who listed one dead pismo clam, kelp beds unharmed, a few dead scallops pismo clam, kelp beds unharmed, a few dead scallops around a platform, most marine life in 15 to 40 ft of water normal. About 3,500 birds died, but it is reported that the bird population should be back to normal within a year. Also, H. M. Dobie, Assistant Secretary of the Interior, reports: "Except for fowl, damage to wildlife has been exaggerated and misunderstood by many people. Plankton and fish are back. Marine life has not been greatly affected. It is thus important, when pollution control is being considered by legislators, regulatory officials, municipal officials, industrial management and the engineers who must make this control possible, that realistic definitions of pollution be developed. These definitions may be made by examining the criteria that pertain to any given contaminant. Since the use of the pertain to any given contaminant. Since the use of the words "criteria" and "standards" tends at times to be confusing, it should be noted that criteria, as they pertain to pollution control, are scientific statements pertain to pollution control, are scientific statements of fact that cite the effect of specific concentrations of contaminants on life, vegetation, materials, etc. JPT P. 47