VA Power Plant Case Study Pt2

Posted by Ed on June 21, 2007, 12:09 am
24.34.144.49

Archives of Environmental Health Washington, DC, with a 2004 population of 37,900,026 primarily in the mid-Atlantic region and northeastern people age 30 yr and older (see Table 1; Fig. 1). No other U.S. (Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Kentucky, counties in the continental United States showed measur-Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, able increases in PM2.5. Affected counties were located New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Table 1.—State Level Change in PM2.5 Per Year Counties Affected (n) Change PM2.5 ( g/m3) per year (median) County range Virginia 88 0.02 0.01–0.16 North Carolina 50 0.01 0.01–0.03 Pennsylvania 27 0.01 0.01–0.01 Maryland 22 0.01 0.01–0.02 New York 15 0.01 0.01–0.01 West Virginia 14 0.01 0.01–0.02 Georgia 13 0.01 0.01–0.01 New Jersey 8 0.01 0.01–0.01 South Carolina 7 0.01 0.01–0.01 Tennessee 5 0.01 0.01–0.01 Kentucky 4 0.01 0.01–0.01 Connecticut 3 0.01 0.01–0.01 Massachusetts 3 0.01 0.01–0.01 Ohio 3 0.01 0.01–0.01 New Hampshire 3 0.01 0.01–0.01 Rhode Island 2 0.01 0.01–0.01 Delaware 2 0.01 0.01–0.01 Maine 1 0.01 Vermont 1 0.01 Washington, DC 1 0.01 Total 272 0.01 0.01–0.16 Fig 1. Counties with predicted premature mortality from power plant particulate matter. October 2004 [Vol. 59 (No. 10)] Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia, and West Virginia). Changes in PM2.5 ranged from an additional 0.01 to 0.16 g/m3, with a median of 0.01 g/m3. Table 2 shows the increase in premature mortality due to PM-related illnesses with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for each state for 2004 and 2010. Premature deaths due to PM-related illnesses across the region as a whole are predicted to increase by 17.04 deaths per year (95% CI 11.93, 22.15) in 2004, with an incidence of 0.45 deaths per million people ages 30 yr and older (95% CI 0.31, 0.59). Using projected population estimates, by 2010, this number climbs to 17.91 excess premature deaths per year (95% CI 12.54, 23.28), with an incidence of 0.47 deaths per million people ages 30 yr and older (95% CI 0.33, 0.61). Hence, over a 6-yr period, cumulative excess premature deaths due to increased PM2.5 could reach 104. Discussion This study predicts a number of premature deaths due to increased PM2.5 in counties throughout Virginia and 18 other states and DC if the 29 proposed power plants are constructed and utilized. These deaths are predicted independent of pollution from existing power plants as well as road, off-road, and other sources of PM2.5. Because PM2.5 crosses state lines, critical analysis of the interstate public health impact of air pollution must be considered in the development of policies related to Table 2.—Predicted PM2.5 and Related Premature Mortality 2004 2010 Number of deaths Deaths/million Number of deaths Deaths/million (95% CI) (95% CI) (95% CI) (95% CI) Virginia 4.57 (3.20–5.94) 0.76 (0.53–0.99) 4.80 (3.36–6.19) 0.79 (0.55–1.05) Maryland 2.53 (1.77–3.29) 0.55 (0.38–0.72) 2.66 (1.86–3.43) 0.57 (0.40–0.76) South Carolina 0.14 (0.10–0.18) 0.44 (0.31–0.57) 0.20 (0.14–0.26) 0.45 (0.32–0.59) New Hampshire 0.15 (0.11–0.20) 0.44 (0.31–0.57) 0.15 (0.11–0.19) 0.45 (0.32–0.59) North Carolina 1.58 (1.11–2.05) 0.40 (0.28–0.52) 1.67 (1.17–2.15) 0.42 (0.31–0.55) Georgia 0.31 (0.22–0.40) 0.40 (0.28–0.52) 0.32 (0.22–0.41) 0.42 (0.31–0.55) New York 2.25 (1.58–2.96) 0.39 (0.28–0.50) 2.37 (1.66–3.06) 0.41 (0.30–0.53) New Jersey 0.76 (0.53–0.99) 0.38 (0.27–0.49) 0.80 (0.56–1.03) 0.40 (0.29–0.51) Maine 0.02 (0.01–0.03) 0.38 (0.27–0.49) 0.02 (0.01–0.03) 0.40 (0.29–0.51) Rhode Island 0.27 (0.19–0.35) 0.37 (0.26–0.48) 0.28 (0.20–0.36) 0.39 (0.28–0.51) Kentucky 0.04 (0.03–0.05) 0.36 (0.25–0.47) 0.04 (0.03–0.05) 0.37 (0.27–0.49) Pennsylvania 2.42 (1.69–3.15) 0.35 (0.25–0.45) 2.54 (1.78–3.28) 0.37 (0.27–0.47) Connecticut 0.68 (0.48–0.88) 0.35 (0.25–0.45) 0.71 (0.50–0.92) 0.37 (0.26–0.47) Ohio 0.28 (0.20–0.36) 0.33 (0.23–0.43) 0.30 (0.21–0.39) 0.34 (0.24–0.45) West Virginia 0.14 (0.10–0.18) 0.33 (0.23–0.43) 0.15 (0.11–0.19) 0.34 (0.24–0.45) Delaware 0.09 (0.06–0.12) 0.31 (0.21–0.41) 0.10 (0.07–0.13) 0.32 (0.23–0.41) Massachusetts 0.57 (0.40–0.74) 0.28 (0.20–0.36) 0.60 (0.42–0.77) 0.29 (0.21–0.38) Vermont 0.01 (0.01–0.01) 0.27 (0.19–0.35) 0.01 (0.01–0.01) 0.28 (0.21–0.37) Washington, DC 0.14 (0.10–0.18) 0.24 (0.17–0.31) 0.15 (0.11–0.19) 0.25 (0.18–0.32) Tennessee 0.03 (0.02–0.04) 0.20 (0.14–0.26) 0.03 (0.02–0.04) 0.21 (0.16–0.27) Total 17.04 (11.93–22.15) 0.45 (0.31–0.59) 17.91 (12.54–23.28) 0.47 (0.33–0.61) power generation. The widespread nature of the power plant pollution may have a negative impact on progress toward the national goal of decreasing the population’s exposure to air pollutants as mandated by the Healthy People 2010 initiative.1 Figure 1 shows the varying cumulative amounts of annual PM2.5 resulting from these power plants. It may appear counterintuitive that some heavily populated areas, such as certain counties in New Jersey, New York, and New England, have no measurable mortality impacts, whereas some sparsely populated areas, such as the Adirondack Forest in upstate New York, do show mortality impacts. One possible explanation for this finding is that further from the heaviest pollution concentrations in Virginia, the CRDM air quality model is reaching the lower limits of its analytical sensitivity (i.e., very close to annual PM2.5 accumulations of 0.01 g/m3). Therefore, it is possible that some slight imprecision may occur in the calculations for premature mortality at this level, resulting in slight underestimates or overestimates for individual counties. This study focused on mortality impacts of PM on the population aged 30 yr and older and did not assess the potential effect of PM on the pediatric and young adult population. It is not clear how the effects of added pollution affect these potentially more vulnerable populations. Many studies have assessed pediatric respiratory illness relative to both outdoor and indoor air pollution.25–30 It is therefore plausible that this increased morbidity may




Message Thread: VA Power Plant Case Study Pt2 - Ed June 21, 2007, 12:09 am « Back to thread

Post a Response