Hamilton Air Quality and Health Impacts Study - 2011

1. Hamilton Air Qualityand Health Impacts Study - 2011 Presented to: Upwind Downwind Conference Presented by: Dr. Douglas Chambers February 27, 2012 1

2. Background • Project a result of interest by Clean Air Hamilton (CAH) to update Health Impacts Assessment • Significant work undertaken by CAH and partners to lower air concentrations in Hamilton for many pollutants

3. Some Initiativesto Improve Air Quality Public Health initiatives (AQHI) Sustainable transportation initiatives (anti-idling, mobile monitoring) Improved air monitoring (Hamilton Air Monitoring Network On-line) Air Quality communication (CAH website) Emission reductions (wood burning efficiency initiative)

4. City of Hamilton Boundaries

5. Air Pollutants Considered • Fine Particulate Matter • PM10 and PM2.5 • Nitrogen Dioxide • Surrogate for NOx as NO converted rapidly to NO2 • Sulphur Dioxide • Ozone • Carbon Monoxide

6. Air Quality - PM2.5

7. Air Quality – PM10

8. Air Quality – NO2

9. Air Quality – SO2

10. Air Quality – O3

11. Air Quality – CO

12. Previous Study - 2003 Used Dr. Pengelly’s Hamilton Air Quality Initiative 1997 report as a basis Used same methodology to allow for comparison Updated the relative risk outcomes for PM10, NO2, SO2, CO and O3 Adjusted health outcomes by 42% due to errors in the derivation of the relative risks from the literature

13. Current Study • Used same methodology as 2003 study • Updated air quality data • Obtained from the MOE • Updated mortality and morbidity health data • Obtained from Hamilton Public Health Services

14. Current Study …cont’d • Updated relative risks where new studies were available • All relative risks for mortality updated • Only some for morbidity • Adopted relative risks from 2003 study • Included health outcomes for PM2.5

15. Assumptions Used in Current Study • Focus on relative risks of acute exposures • Similar to previous study • Used average relative risks values • Separate relative risks for each air pollutant • May result in double-counting • Considered representative air concentrations • No consideration of proximity to industry or major roadways

16. Health Data • Obtained Health Data from City of Hamilton Public Health Services • Mortality Data • Only available up to 2005 • Morbidity Data • Cardiovascular hospital admissions up to 2008 • Respiratory hospital admissions up to 2008

17. Mortality and Morbidity Rates for Hamilton * Approximated by Total Acute Care Hospital Discharges for Disease of the Circulatory System ** Approximated by Acute Care Hospital Discharges for Disease of the Respiratory System

18. Relative Risks Used in the Study Note: “-” no data available in the literature to determine a relative risk * relative risks obtained from Sahsuvaroglu and Jerrett (2003) as no new data available

19. Model Equation • Risk (due AQ) = ER[excess relative risk due to AQ] x [baseline rates] • =  [ERR (per unit Concentration)] x [Air concentration] x [ baseline rates]

20. NT Acute Exposure Mortality

21. Note: PM10, NO2 and O3 Respiratory Hospital Admissions Adjusted by 42% as Using RR Values from 2003 Study Respiratory HospitalAdmissions

22. Note: SO2 and CO Cardiovascular Hospital Admissions Adjusted by 42% as Using RR Values from 2003 Study Note: PM10, NO2 and O3 Respiratory Hospital Admissions Adjusted by 42% as Using RR Values from 2003 Study Cardiovascular HospitalAdmissions

23. Results Summary for Particulate Matter Note: No relative risks from literature for respiratory admissions for PM2.5

24. Results Summary for NO2 and SO2

25. Results Summary for O3 and CO Note: No relative risks from literature for respiratory admissions for CO

26. Summary of Resultsfor Current Study

27. Comparison of Relative Risks Between Current and Previous Studies

28. Comparison of Mortality Outcomes • Note: • All 1997 and 2003 study data adjusted by 42% to account for overestimation of RR values

29. Comparison of Respiratory Outcomes • Note: • All 1997 and 2003 study data adjusted by 42% to account for overestimation of RR values • PM10, NO2 and O3 current study values adjusted by 42% as no updated RR values were available

30. Comparison of Cardiovascular Outcomes • Note: • All 1997 and 2003 study data adjusted by 42% to account for overestimation of RR values • SO2 and CO current study values adjusted by 42% as no updated RR values were available

31. Alternative Models - ICAP • Details: • Developed by DSS Management Consultants for the Canadian Medical Association • PM10, PM2.5, SO2, NO2, CO, O3 • Historical census division specific air quality data from NAPS stations • Input: risk rates, air quality or trends, baseline/background air quality • Output: annual events and economic damages attributable to increase in specific parameter level from baseline/background

32. Alternative Models – ICAP… cont’d • Limitations for this application: • 2006 starting year complicates comparison with current model • Cannot easily calculate incremental benefit or savings (damages only) • For this study can only demonstrate incremental health effects and economic impact with ozone as benefits associated with other pollutants • Cannot evaluate all pollutants in one run • Output format inconvenient to work with • Evaluates total mortality only (not chronic and acute separately)

33. Comparison of Relative Risks Between Current Studyand ICAP * ICAP NT Mortality is Total While Current is Acute Only

34. Results from ICAP Model- Ozone

35. Alternative Model - AQBAT • Details: • Developed by Dave Stieb and Stan Judek, Health Canada • PM10, PM2.5 (limited), SO2, NO2, CO, O3 • Historical census division specific air quality data from NAPS stations • Input: risk rates and air quality or trends • Output: annual events and damages attributable to increase in specific parameter level from baseline • Limitations for this application: • Cannot Input Air Quality Prior to 2003 for Comparison to Baseline • Difficult to Compare to Total Events per Year

36. Comparison of Relative Risks Between Current Study and AQBAT

37. Results from AQBAT (1)

38. Results from AQBAT (2)

39. Economic Valuation - AQBAT Millions of Dollars Savings Cost

40. Summary • Updated Health Study showed improvements to health outcomes • Due to decreases in air concentrations • Ozone the exception • Due to decreases in relative risks from literature studies • Limited utility of other available models for this application • Direct comparisons difficult to make between models • Cost heavily dependent on model • Can vary widely (in this example at least 5-fold) • Should update the health study in another 5 years