policy analysis t ools f or air quality and healthirr.uwaterloo.ca/about/may 19 workshop/policy...

Policy Analysis Tools for Air Quality and Health

Pollution Probe/NERAM 43


Report from the May 19, 2005 Workshop

Prepared by Stephanie Gower, John Shortreed and Quentin Chiotti

August 2005

Network for Environmental RiskAssessment and Management

SPONSORS:

Health SantéCanada Canada


Pollution Probe/NERAM44

On May 19, 2005, the workshop “PolicyAnalysis Tools for Air Quality and Health”was held in Toronto, Ontario. The workshopgathered expert stakeholders from a varietyof backgrounds including health andenvironment departments of municipal,provincial, and federal government, academia,consulting firms, industry, and NGOs. Theworkshop asked these experts to considerthree questions:

1. What is the public health significance ofair pollution?

2. Are there available models and analysesto inform policy at some level?

3. What are the key policy questions thatshould be addressed by models andanalyses?

While poor air quality does have an impacton human health, many uncertaintiescomplicate achieving a clear understanding ofthe relationship. Evaluation of health impactsshould consider a variety of health outcomesand should be done in a manner thatconsiders social and interactive effects.

There are a variety of policy analysis toolsavailable to inform policy at a variety oflevels, and the most useful are those thataddress multiple pollutants or effects.However, there are still significant barrierswhich limit the use of these tools, particularlyin the local context. These barriers includethe complexity and inaccessibility ofcomputer-based models, the limitations inavailable data, and the limitations imposed bythe multiple, overlapping governmentaljurisdictions in which air quality issues areconsidered.

Participants desired models that are able toidentify good policy options, and are efficientand cost-effective to use. They were interestedin tools that maximized the integration ofinformation in a comprehensive way. Supportfor continuous improvement and continuedstakeholder dialogue was also indicated.

Recommendation

A second, longer workshop should be held(tentatively in Fall 2005) to continuestakeholder dialogue and enable more in-depth exploration of policy analysis tools.This workshop would be national in scope,drawing from stakeholders and policy toolsfrom different regions of the country. Thisworkshop might also consider specifying thecontent/needs for a guidance document forthe appropriate use of policy analysis tools,the possibility of a common analysis tool foruse by municipalities, and the capabilities ofthe current model set.

The second workshop should includeopportunities for health and environmentalstakeholders to have direct interaction withmodelers, and have hands-on experience withthe suite of available policy analysis tools.

ExExExExExecutivecutivecutivecutivecutive Summare Summare Summare Summare Summaryyyyy



Pollution Probe and NERAM thank thefollowing workshop sponsors:

Canadian Petroleum Products InstituteDofascoEnvironment CanadaHealth CanadaLakes EnvironmentalOntario Ministry of EnvironmentRWDIToronto Public Health

The venue for the workshop “Policy AnalysisTools for Air Quality and Health” — TorontoMetro Hall — was made available by the Cityof Toronto through the efforts of TorontoPublic Health.

The conference was organized by NERAM andPollution Probe under the direction of a multi-stakeholder Planning Committee:

Jay Barclay, Environment CanadaMonica Campbell, Toronto Public HealthWalter Chan, Ontario Ministry of EnvironmentQuentin Chiotti, Pollution ProbeAnton Davies, RWDIMurray Finkelstein, McMaster Institute of

Environment and HealthGeoff Granville, Canadian Petroleum Products

InstituteEric Miller, University of TorontoGlen Okrainetz, Ministry of Water Land andAir Protection, BCKim Perrotta, Ontario Public Health AssociationJohn Shortreed, NERAMDave Stieb, Health CanadaJesse Thé, Lakes Environmental

This document reflects the conferencepresentations and discussions and is notnecessarily endorsed by the conferencesponsors.

Further information on the workshop isavailable at www.irr-neram.ca andwww.pollutionprobe.org/Happening/events.htm.

AcknowledgementsAcknowledgementsAcknowledgementsAcknowledgementsAcknowledgements



TTTTTable of Contable of Contable of Contable of Contable of Contentsentsentsentsents

BackgroundBackgroundBackgroundBackgroundBackground 1Introduction 1Workshop Objectives 1

Workshop StatementWorkshop StatementWorkshop StatementWorkshop StatementWorkshop Statement 2

Workshop ParticipantsWorkshop ParticipantsWorkshop ParticipantsWorkshop ParticipantsWorkshop Participants 10

Workshop ProgramWorkshop ProgramWorkshop ProgramWorkshop ProgramWorkshop Program 13

Presentation SummariesPresentation SummariesPresentation SummariesPresentation SummariesPresentation Summaries 14Workshop Framework 14�The Basics� � Air Pollution Levels and Health Effects 15Analysis Examples and Issues 21

Poster AbstractsPoster AbstractsPoster AbstractsPoster AbstractsPoster Abstracts 29

AppendicesAppendicesAppendicesAppendicesAppendicesAppendix A: Supporting Statements for Workshop Statement 33Appendix B: Comments on Draft Statement and Actions Taken 41Appendix C: Background Materials 42



Introduction

It is now universally recognized that poor airquality has adverse impacts on human health,and research confirms that residents in someareas of Canada are exposed to levels of airpollutants that are associated with morbidityand mortality. However, the total impact ofcurrent levels and trends of air pollutionalongside current policies and those slated tobe implemented in the near future is not wellknown. Many questions remain about howbest to integrate policy options and how wellbroad policy initiatives perform compared totargeted regulations. In general, it is necessaryto confirm that air pollution reductionmeasures have resulted in decreases inexposure and adverse health effects.Additionally, it is beneficial to be able toquantify the magnitude of change in healthimpacts and predict the effects of future policyinitiatives. This information is also helpful inidentifying where future policy initiatives needto be focused, including measures directed atmultiple air issues (e.g. smog, acid rain,climate change).

This workshop can be considered as astarting point for discussing policy analysistools. The intention of NERAM and PollutionProbe has been that with support and interestof the participants at this workshop, a secondnational event may be held in the Fall 2005 topermit a broader treatment of the issues andmore in-depth examination of specific aspectsof available policy analysis tools.

Workshop Objectives

The primary purpose of the workshop is tofacilitate communication between policymakers,scientists, modelers, and other stakeholdersto identify critical policy needs, key issues,and gaps in knowledge for policy analysis.Broadly, the workshop objective is to exploreparticipants’ views on the followingquestions:

1. What is the public health significance ofair pollution?

2. Are there available models and analysesadequate to inform policy at some level?


Pollution Probe and NERAM have endeavouredto provide a neutral and independent forum toconsider the specification of analysiscomponents (including emission sources,effects of emissions from all sources [andatmospheric chemistry during transport] onambient air quality for specific locations,population exposures, health effects, andpolicy evaluation criteria).

Policy analysis is, of course, only one inputinto decisions on designing and implementingpolicies for improving air quality and health.Decision-makers also consider financing,fairness, equity, enforceability, publicacceptance, technical feasibility, uncertainties,and other decision-making criteria besidescost effectiveness and efficiency based on theresults of policy analysis tools.

Background



The objective of the Statement is to provideguidance from the perspective of a group ofscientists, regulators, industries and interestgroups on a path forward to improve theinterface between science and clean air policystrategies to protect public health. Thisworkshop summary represents the mainfindings of three breakout group discussionsessions, supported by the perspectives ofexpert speakers. NERAM and Pollution Probeundertook a review process to ensure that thesummary would accurately reflect the

conference discussions, includingdocumentation of supporting comments fromthe proceedings and inviting delegates’comments on a draft version of the summary.The comments received were editorial ratherthan substantive. The summary however, isnot a consensus document and may notreflect the views of all conference delegates.Nonetheless, this documentation providesinsight into stakeholder perspectives onissues underlying the development ofstrategies for clean air and health.

Workshop Statement

1. What is the public health significanceof air pollution?

While consensus exists that poor airquality has an impact on human health,assessing the degree of its significance iscomplicated by uncertainties and requiresknowledge about endpoints other thanmortality. Evaluation of the impact of airpollution on health must occur within thebroad context of public health andconsider social and interactive effects.

2. Are there available models andanalysis to inform policy at some level?

There is agreement that tools andapproaches are available which can informpolicy at various levels; the mostsuccessful of these are broadly applicable.However, aspects of model formulationand the political context in which policy iscreated and put into effect generatebarriers for appropriate, meaningful use ofthese approaches and implementation oftheir results.


Models and analyses should be able toidentify good policy options that areeffective and cost-efficient. Interest wasexpressed in approaches that maximizethe integration of relevant information.

4. Next Steps

Continued stakeholder dialogue and amore in-depth exploration of the issue ofpolicy analysis tools for air quality andhealth will be beneficial. A broader nationaland more interactive meeting to be held inthe Fall 2005 will be able to build onconclusions from this workshop and is areasonable next step forward.



A. While consensus exists that poor airquality has an impact on human health,assessing the degree of its significance iscomplicated by uncertainties and requiresknowledge about endpoints other thanmortality.

The health effects of poor air quality onmortality and morbidity have beenconsistently documented. Although the risksappear to be relatively small, the impact issignificant when considered on a populationbasis.

Understanding the significance of air qualityis complicated by various uncertainties.These include (i) data limitations such as thelack of appropriate monitoring data at thelocal level, particularly for communitiesoutside large urban areas, and lags in dataavailability; (ii) the relative impact of risks onchildren, the elderly and health compromisedpeople; (iii) lack of knowledge aboutexposure; and (iv) limited understanding ofthe causal attributes of pollution, includingsynergistic effects. With respect to particulatematter (PM) specifically, the role of varioussize fractions including ultrafines and thecoarse fraction (with respect to asthma) isstill unclear. There is still uncertainty aboutspecific chemical constituents of particles,including metals and organic matter as wellas air toxics that may adhere to particlesurfaces.

1. What is the public health significance of air pollution?

While consensus exists that poor air quality has an impact on human health,assessing the degree of its significance is complicated by uncertainties andrequires knowledge about endpoints other than mortality. Evaluation of theimpact of air pollution on health must occur within the broad context of publichealth and consider social and interactive effects.

There is a need to be aware of endpointsother than mortality to ascertain the full levelof impact on a community, especially at thelocal level, where mortality numbers may berelatively small. The pyramid of health effectsindicates that many more people may beaffected by air pollution for less severeoutcomes; however, most research to datehas focused on mortality and hospitalizationrates. Evidence for alternate endpoints suchas low birth weight is emerging but stilllimited.

B. Evaluation of the impact of air pollution onhealth must occur within the broad context ofpublic health and consider social andinteractive effects.

Air quality must be considered within thebroader context of public health rather thanas a pollution control issue. Considerationmust be given to social impacts such ascommuting time, road rage, or quality of life,and interactive health effects, such as thesignificance of air quality episodes forphysical activity, the combined impacts ofheat and air quality, and the relativeimportance of outdoor and indoor air quality.The involuntary nature of exposure to airpollution may be considered as a social issue.More broadly, it is recognized that theimportance of air quality as a public healthissue should be considered within the contextof other health issues facing Canadians.



A. There is agreement that tools andapproaches are available which can informpolicy at various levels; the most successfulof these are broadly applicable.

Various tools exist to help inform on therelationship between air quality and health.Those which link emissions to ambient airquality are increasingly able to make gooduse of available monitoring data, andinventories are improving over time withintegration of technology such as GeographicalInformation Systems (GIS). Tools that linkambient air quality to health impacts (such asICAP and AQBAT) are also available. As well,“one-off” tools have been created to answer avariety of specific questions which furtherdemonstrate that the capacity for creatinguseful tools exists. Although situation-specifictools can be helpful, the most useful modelsare broadly applicable and identify “win-win”situations. Targeting sources with multiplepollutants and sources with the greatestpotential for reduction is attractive, and mostagencies and decision-makers are becomingmore comfortable implementing policies thataffect a broad range of pollutants or activities.

BBBBB. Barriers to meaningful use of availablepolicy analysis approaches include

(i) complexity and inaccessibility — there isa need for a guidance document;

(ii) limitations inherent in data inputs,including emissions inventories andmonitoring data;

(iii) inability to address the effects of airquality in a manner that reflects thedifferent levels of policy and decision-making within and across the variousjurisdictions that deal with air quality inCanada;

(iv) limited capacity to identify cross-cuttingco-benefits; and

(v) procedural limitations inherent in movingfrom modeling output to the application ofpolicy including difficulties interpretingendpoints.

(i) Complexity and inaccessibility � need for aguidance document

There is a desire for integrated models thatcan be manipulated and applied by peopleworking to influence policy. However, thecomplexity and inaccessibility of mostapproaches limits their usefulness to non-experts. Understanding the tools iscomplicated by the wide variety of approaches,assumptions, and valuations used. There is alack of knowledge and capacity for conductingappropriate analysis and interpreting theresults, including what level of certainty isrequired to implement a policy based onmodeling output. Furthermore, there are noestablished criteria for when to applymodeling.

There is a need for a guidance documentguidance documentguidance documentguidance documentguidance document toprovide “best practices” to guide non-experts,providing advice on health impacts,interpretation of monitoring results, selection

2. Are there available models and analysis to inform policy atsome level?

There is agreement that tools and approaches are available which can informpolicy at various levels; the most successful of these are broadly applicable.However, aspects of model formulation and the political context in which policy iscreated and put into effect generate barriers for appropriate, meaningful use ofthese approaches and implementation of their results.



of models and appropriate analysis, use ofmodel results with other decision criteria, andtreatment of uncertainty, particularly forsmall municipalities. Examples of issuesfacing municipalities include how to planschools, roads, and trees in relation toresidential neighbourhoods, how to assessresidential land use decisions in relation totransportation emissions, and how to look atsource-receptor relationships on a finer scale.

(ii) Limitations inherent in data inputs,including emissions inventories andmonitoring data

The quality of input data remains animportant limitation. While the advancedgraphic capabilities and extensive built-incomplexities of computer models make themappear to be sophisticated tools, the accuracyand usefulness of tools depends in large parton the input data used (or available). There isstill broad uncertainty inherent in many of themodel inputs. For example, manymunicipalities do not have access to adequatemonitoring data, emissions inventories, orambient air quality data at the resolutionnecessary to obtain relevant information fromthe models. Monitoring remains an importantaspect of assessing air quality status, andcriteria for interpreting monitoring results,including emission inventories, should beestablished. More monitoring of bestpractices is required both as a trigger toinitiate policy interventions and to monitorpolicies that have been implemented,particularly for cumulative health effects.

(iii) Inability to address the effects of airquality in a manner that reflects the differentlevels of policy and decision-making withinand across the various jurisdictions that dealwith air quality in Canada.

Air quality issues encompass multiplejurisdictions, from municipal, to regional,provincial, national, and international.However, decision-making typically occursdiscreetly within each of these jurisdictions.

Most models are not equipped to deal withthe various levels of policy and decision-making that occur within and across thesejurisdictions. In general, the creation ofmodels to date has been driven by a need atthe national level (such as internationalconventions and agreements) and thereforedoes not address finer-scale/local problems.Specific issues include (i) ownership of data;(ii) authority to manage air quality problemsand develop rules and standards; (iii) varyingneeds at different scales; and (iv) limitationson influencing actions in externaljurisdictions.

(iv) Limited capacity to identify cross-cuttingco-benefits

Many actions taken to mitigate the effects ofpoor air quality could also affect greenhousegas (GHG) emissions. Conversely, manymeasures that reduce GHG emissions alsoreduce the release of other air pollutantscontributing to smog, acid deposition and airtoxics. Tools that link public health to climatechange, energy policy, and decisions on land-use to identify cross-cutting co-benefits willbe more attractive to decision-makers.

(v) Procedural limitations inherent in movingfrom output to application of policy includingdifficulties interpreting endpoints

The capacity of public health to respond to airpollution health impacts is limited by a lack ofcriteria for policy interventions, resources,and knowledge as well as the lag time for thedevelopment of new policies, theirimplementation and the monitoring/evaluationof outcomes. Mechanisms for linking airquality and health are improving to the pointwhere health interpretation is adequate toinform policy formulation for many situationsand cases. However, more information doesnot necessarily make it easier to implementpolicy — it is important that the output oftools be relevant to specific policy needs, andthat the ability to interpret model output isadequate.



3. What are the key policy questions that should be addressedby models and analyses?

Models and analyses should be able toidentify good policy options that are efficientand cost-effective. Interest was expressed inapproaches that (i) are comprehensive;(ii) are integrated, especially multi-government;(iii) identify barriers to existing options;(iv) are subject to continuous improvement;and (v) result from stakeholder dialogue.

(i) Development of comprehensiveapproaches

The relationship between air quality andhealth is multidimensional, andcharacterizing it requires an understanding ofcomplex relationships between manyvariables. A comprehensive approach mayevaluate multiple sources and pollutantsincluding those from the transportation sectorand residential emissions, which are oftenneglected in emissions inventories. It wouldexamine both short- and long-term effects ofexposure, and assess the implications ofusing threshold and non-thresholdapproaches to determine health risks. Inaddition, behavioural patterns and socialtrends should be incorporated. Increases inenergy use will likely coincide with continuedpopulation and economic growth, and thenumber of vehicles per family and the numberof vehicle kilometres travelled are projected torise in many major urban centres, leading tofurther increases in transportation-relatedemissions. Currently, many tools assessbenefits primarily in the context of fiscalcompetitiveness, ignoring the broadermonetary costs associated with air pollution.

A comprehensive approach would alsoconsider the many social benefits of improvedair quality and incorporate alternate methodsof valuing the impacts of air pollution.

Analytical approaches should be able toevaluate the effectiveness of past and currentpolicies that have been implemented, as wellas those that are proposed or beingdeveloped. The latter may also includeestimating the enforceability of a new policy.Approaches that are most effective are thosethat also help decision-makers communicatethe projected/simulated impact of policychoices over the long-term in a clear andunderstandable manner. Finally, acomprehensive approach should be adequatefor recognizing policy options that have beenimplemented elsewhere with success, e.g. theban on two-stroke engines.

(ii) Development of multi-government(integrated) approaches

Because of the complexity of the relationshipbetween air quality and health, many policy-related issues are connected with aspects ofour physical and social environment, and thusmust be considered within a broaderintegrated context. Air quality is an issue thatcan operate at various geopolitical scalesincluding international, national, regional/provincial, and local. Air sheds do notrecognize geopolitical boundaries, and thereis growing evidence to suggest that airpollution and the trajectory between sourceand receptor is becoming global in scope,

Models and analyses should be able to identify good policy options that areefficient and cost-effective. Interest was expressed in approaches that maximizethe integration of relevant information.



requiring binational and international policyresponses. Conversely, some air qualityissues are highly localized in nature, andrequire a municipal or regional/provincialpolicy response.

The complexity of both the physical/socialnature of the problem and jurisdictionalcontrol makes it difficult to identify at whatlevel (scale) policies might be most effectiveor efficient. A multi-government approach(see Question 2) may improve integration andthe effectiveness of policy implementationacross regulatory jurisdictions. Componentsof multi-government might includemanagement from an airshed perspective, or(to overcome uncertainty) deriving a nationalconsensus on issues such as pollutants ofimportance, relative health impacts includinguse of value measures such as QALYs, andtreatment of the elderly and other sensitivesubpopulations. A multi-governmentapproach could also look at non-traditionalsolutions including land use andtransportation policy decisions, as well as thetype and scale of energy supply, etc.

Integration across departments or ministrieswithin specific levels of government shouldalso be encouraged. Planning andinfrastructure decisions for new urban areasor redevelopment of pre-existing areas canaffect emissions, health risk exposure andambient air quality in important ways. In thiscase government departments responsible fortransportation, land use, municipalinfrastructure, source water protection,agricultural production, etc. would need to beengaged. Valuation from both social andeconomic perspectives may act as a usefulintegrative tool that cuts across and bindstogether the different departmental andjurisdictional perspectives.

(iii) Identification of barriers to existingoptions

Useful policy analysis can help identifybarriers to adopting existing cost-effectiveoptions, such as the failure of anti-idlingcampaigns. This may require consideration ofavailable policy response options, public andpolitical acceptability, communication ofinformation, and different perspectives ofvarious stakeholders (which may includedifferences due to the scale of stakeholder’sactivities — i.e., local versus international).There is a need to ensure that existingprocedures and processes do not limit theeffectiveness of policies considered.Approaches must also consider the capabilityof smaller municipalities and healthdepartments, who need tools that can beunderstood and used within existing (andmore limited) resources.

The output must be in a format that is usefulto convince the public of the benefits ofpolicies, and that the cost of implementationis reasonable and worthwhile. Policy decisioncriteria should guide the choice of healthmetrics (choice of metric influences theoutcome). Policy objectives and appropriatepolicy response can guide implementation;multiple options can be used simultaneously.



(iv) Continuous improvement of modelingmethods, including incorporation of newtechnologies, improved exposureassessment, and characterization ofuncertainty

While current approaches are useful in manycontexts, some areas needing improvement inthe models were identified. As moreinformation and technology becomesavailable (such as the improved spatialresolution that accompanies the use of GISmethods), they should be integrated intoanalytical methods or used to developadditional approaches.

Current methodological deficiencies includeinadequate methods for exposure assessment.Most models rely on results from monitorslocated at various places in a communitywhich may not be representative of theambient concentrations that are actuallyexperienced by members of the community.Further, the correlation between personalexposure to specific air pollutants withambient levels is low.

Model outputs may appear inaccuratelyrobust if they are presented withoutinformation about assumptions that weremade in arriving at their output, and theuncertainties associated with various inputs.Methods are available and should be used toconsider uncertainty in policy evaluations.

(v) Continued stakeholder dialogue

There is a need for continued interactionbetween policy makers, scientists, andrepresentatives of different jurisdictions.Currently, information that may be highlyrelevant for developing key questions andidentifying policy needs, such as a clearunderstanding the abilities, limitations andunderlying assumptions of available models isnot being effectively communicated.Continuous communication of clear andunderstandable information, as well as thesharing of knowledge, resources, andcapacity should facilitate the development ofnew and useful models, and also ensure thatmodels are not misused.

Finally, continued dialogue further requiresthat questions of interest to specificstakeholders will be asked in an open andtransparent forum, and under conditionswhere sufficient resources will be allocated tothe tasks at hand.



Building on the key issues identified in thefirst workshop, a second workshop should beheld in Fall 2005 which will address healthimpacts of air pollution and related policyissues from a broader perspective. The secondworkshop should include opportunities forhealth and environmental stakeholders tohave direct interaction with modelers andhave hands-on experience with the suite ofavailable policy analysis tools. The workshopwill be planned as a two-day event, allowingfor increased dialogue between stakeholdersand opportunities for detailed assessments ofavailable models, policy needs. In addition,the event may explore the viability andrequirements for developing some type ofcomprehensive framework to assess thehealth impacts of policies. Components of the

Continued stakeholder dialogue and a more in-depth exploration of the issue ofpolicy analysis tools for air quality and health will be beneficial. A broadernational and more interactive meeting to be held in Fall 2005 will be able tobuild on conclusions from this workshop and is a reasonable next step forward.

4. Identification of Next Steps

event might include (i) specification ofcontents/needs of the guidance documentdescribed in 2B, (ii) assessing capabilities ofthe available model set, and (iii) specificationof transparency requirements, including rulesof application and evaluation.

In order to maintain an interactive dialogueamong all stakeholders, the specific formatand content of the workshop will bedetermined with guidance from a small multi-stakeholder advisory committee. The advisorycommittee will be selected with the intent ofengaging a high level of expertise across awide range of interests and perspectives. (Aswas done for the “Policy Analysis Tools for AirQuality and Health” workshop held on May 19).



Louise AubinRegion of Peel

Shaun AuroraMinistry of Energy

Jay BarclayEnvironment Canada

Alex BasijiHealth Canada

Sarah BasmaUniversity of Toronto

Al BelevskiMinistry of Energy

Ronald BellMinistry of the Environment

Melynda BitzosOntario Ministry of the Environment

Philip BlagdenMeterological Service

Robert BloxamMinistry of the Environment

Jeffrey BrookEnvironment Canada

Kathleen BusetUniversity of Toronto

Monica CampbellToronto Public Health

Walter ChanMinistry of the Environment

Rachel ChangUniversity of Toronto

Chad Shouqua ChengMSC-OR, Environment Canada

Christina ChengOntario Ministry of the Environment

Quentin ChiottiPollution Probe

Karen ClarkCity of Toronto

Steve ClarksonHealth Canada

Ed CocchiarellaDofasco Inc

Lorraine CraigNERAM — University of Waterloo

Ryan D’SouzaUniversity of Toronto

Paula Dall’OstoRegion of Peel

Anton DaviesRWDI

Ciara DeJongGolder Associates Limited

Elisabeth DeMarcoMacLeod Dixon LLP

Angelune DesLauriersMinistry of Municipal Affairs and Housing

Michael DonohueEnvironment Canada

Greg EvansUniversity of Toronto

Workshop Participants



Peggy FarnsworthEnvironment Canada

Michael FilaUniversity of Toronto

Murray FinkelsteinMcMaster University

Sarah GingrichToronto Public Health

Stephanie GowerUniversity of Waterloo

Geoff GranvilleShell Canada Ltd.

Lorna GreyOntario Ministry of The Environment

Doug HarperConsultant

Ines HavetOntario Ministry of Energy

Burgess HawkinsHalton Region

Dennis HerodEnvironment Canada

John HicksNERAM

Mike Jammer

Cheol-Heon JeongUniversity of Toronto

Julio LagosCanadian Electricity Association

Stephanie LaneClean Air Partnership

Richard LaszloPollution Probe

Eva LigetiClean Air Partnership

Mike LePageRWDI AIR Inc.

Qian LiMSC-OR, Environment Canada

William LiUniversity of Toronto

Laurie MacDonaldNERAM — University of Waterloo

Ronald MacfarlaneToronto Public Health

Stephanie McCallumKuntz Electroplating Inc

Stephen McCollUniversity of Waterloo

Carol MeeToronto Public Health

Addy MitchellNERAM — University of Waterloo

Christopher MorganCity of Toronto

Ken NakaharaMinistry of Energy

Neena NandaPollution Probe

Brian O’ConnorPaprican

Mark PayneYork Region Health Services

Amy PeersUniversity of Toronto



Kim PerrottaOPHA

Steven RebellatoYork Region Health Services

Martha RobinsonCity of Ottawa

David RoewadeRegion of Waterloo Public Health

Patrice RotherRWDI Air Inc.

Kelly SabaliauskasUniversity of Toronto

Pierre SadikDavid Suzuki Foundation

Talar SahsuvarogluMcMaster University

Gemma SherrettInternational Joint Commission

John ShortreedNERAM – University of Waterloo

Rakesh SinghUniversity of Waterloo

Andrew SniderOntario Ministry of the Environment

Dave StiebHealth Canada

Fleur Storace-HoganCity of Burlington

Akos SzakolcaiMinistry of the Environment

Jesse ThéLakes Environmental

Cindy TothTown of Oakville

Lin (Elki) TsangUniversity of Toronto

Natty UrquizoCity of Ottawa

Lisa-Marie Vaccaro

Jessica VirdoUniversity of Toronto

Bruce WalkerSTOP

Marina WhelanSimcoe Muskoka District Health Unit

Kyle WivcharukRegion of Peel



8:30 IntrIntrIntrIntrIntroduction — oduction — oduction — oduction — oduction — John Shortreed, Executive Director, NERAM and Quentin Chiotti, AirProgramme Director, Pollution Probe

Session 1: The Basics — Air PSession 1: The Basics — Air PSession 1: The Basics — Air PSession 1: The Basics — Air PSession 1: The Basics — Air Pollution Lollution Lollution Lollution Lollution Leeeeevvvvvels and Health Effectels and Health Effectels and Health Effectels and Health Effectels and Health EffectsssssChair: Louise Aubin, Peel Region Health8:45 National PNational PNational PNational PNational Perererererspectivspectivspectivspectivspective — e — e — e — e — Steve Clarkson, Director, Environmental Contaminants Bureau,

Health Canadawith Peggy Farnsworth, Director, Transboundary Air Issues, EnvironmentCanada

9:15 LLLLLocal Pocal Pocal Pocal Pocal Perererererspectivspectivspectivspectivspective: Te: Te: Te: Te: Torororororontontontontonto and Ro and Ro and Ro and Ro and Region —egion —egion —egion —egion — Monica Campbell, Toronto Public Health9:45 Measuring the Health ImpactMeasuring the Health ImpactMeasuring the Health ImpactMeasuring the Health ImpactMeasuring the Health Impacts in Ts in Ts in Ts in Ts in Torororororontontontontonto and Hamilto and Hamilto and Hamilto and Hamilto and Hamilton — on — on — on — on — Murray Finkelstein,

McMaster Institute of Environmental and Health9:55 A FA FA FA FA Frrrrrameameameameamewwwwwork fork fork fork fork for the Wor the Wor the Wor the Wor the Workorkorkorkorkshop: Apprshop: Apprshop: Apprshop: Apprshop: Approaching the Throaching the Throaching the Throaching the Throaching the Three Questions — ee Questions — ee Questions — ee Questions — ee Questions — Jay Barclay,

Senior Policy Advisor, Environment Canada, Quentin Chiotti, Pollution Probe, JohnShortreed, and Stephanie Gower, University of Waterloo

10:10 DiscussionDiscussionDiscussionDiscussionDiscussion

10:20 Coffee Break and Discussion of DisplaysCoffee Break and Discussion of DisplaysCoffee Break and Discussion of DisplaysCoffee Break and Discussion of DisplaysCoffee Break and Discussion of Displays

Session 2: AnalySession 2: AnalySession 2: AnalySession 2: AnalySession 2: Analysis Exsis Exsis Exsis Exsis Examples and Issues — Health Impactamples and Issues — Health Impactamples and Issues — Health Impactamples and Issues — Health Impactamples and Issues — Health Impactsssss, Analy, Analy, Analy, Analy, Analysis Capacity and Psis Capacity and Psis Capacity and Psis Capacity and Psis Capacity and PolicolicolicolicolicyyyyyIssuesIssuesIssuesIssuesIssuesChair: Eva Ligeti, Clean Air Partnership10:50 GGGGGTTTTTA InitiativA InitiativA InitiativA InitiativA Initiative/Le/Le/Le/Le/Larararararge Urban Arge Urban Arge Urban Arge Urban Arge Urban Areas — eas — eas — eas — eas — Anton Davies, RWDI11:05 Minnesota Analysis — Minnesota Analysis — Minnesota Analysis — Minnesota Analysis — Minnesota Analysis — Jesse Thé, Lakes Environmental11:20 Source Apportionment — JSource Apportionment — JSource Apportionment — JSource Apportionment — JSource Apportionment — Jeff Brook, Environment Canada11:35 AAAAAQBQBQBQBQBAAAAAT — T — T — T — T — Dave Stieb, Air Health Effects Division, Health Canada11:50 AAAAAQI — QI — QI — QI — QI — Phil Blagden, Meteorological Service of Canada, Environment Canada12:00 DiscussionDiscussionDiscussionDiscussionDiscussion

12:10 LunchLunchLunchLunchLunch

Session 3: PSession 3: PSession 3: PSession 3: PSession 3: Policolicolicolicolicy Py Py Py Py Perererererspectivspectivspectivspectivspectives — What ares — What ares — What ares — What ares — What are the Analye the Analye the Analye the Analye the Analysis Needs?sis Needs?sis Needs?sis Needs?sis Needs?Chair: Kim Perrotta, OPHA1:10 StStStStStatementatementatementatementatements os os os os of Analyf Analyf Analyf Analyf Analysis Issues Rsis Issues Rsis Issues Rsis Issues Rsis Issues Related telated telated telated telated to Sto Sto Sto Sto Stakakakakakeholder Peholder Peholder Peholder Peholder Policolicolicolicolicy Py Py Py Py Perererererspectivspectivspectivspectivspectiveseseseses1:45 DiscussionDiscussionDiscussionDiscussionDiscussion

Session 4: Breakout/Discussion GroupsSession 4: Breakout/Discussion GroupsSession 4: Breakout/Discussion GroupsSession 4: Breakout/Discussion GroupsSession 4: Breakout/Discussion GroupsChairs: Anton Davies, RWDI, Jay Barclay, Environment Canada and Bruce Walker, STOPRapporteurs: Stephanie Gower, University of Waterloo and Richard Laszlo, Pollution Probe

3:30 Coffee Break and Discussion of DisplaysCoffee Break and Discussion of DisplaysCoffee Break and Discussion of DisplaysCoffee Break and Discussion of DisplaysCoffee Break and Discussion of Displays

Session 5: Health ImpactSession 5: Health ImpactSession 5: Health ImpactSession 5: Health ImpactSession 5: Health Impactsssss, Analy, Analy, Analy, Analy, Analysis Capacity and Psis Capacity and Psis Capacity and Psis Capacity and Psis Capacity and Policolicolicolicolicy Issues — Ney Issues — Ney Issues — Ney Issues — Ney Issues — Next Stepsxt Stepsxt Stepsxt Stepsxt StepsChairs: Quentin Chiotti, Pollution Probe and John Shortreed, NERAM4:00 BrBrBrBrBreakeakeakeakeakout Session Rout Session Rout Session Rout Session Rout Session Reporteporteporteporteportsssss4:20 Discussion of Three QuestionsDiscussion of Three QuestionsDiscussion of Three QuestionsDiscussion of Three QuestionsDiscussion of Three Questions4:45 NeNeNeNeNext Steps — Fxt Steps — Fxt Steps — Fxt Steps — Fxt Steps — Fall Wall Wall Wall Wall Workorkorkorkorkshopshopshopshopshop

4:55 Closing CommentsClosing CommentsClosing CommentsClosing CommentsClosing Comments

Workshop Program



Workshop Framework

Jay Barclay, Environment Canada (Presenter),Quentin Chiotti (Pollution Probe), JohnShortreed (NERAM), Stephanie Gower(University of Waterloo)

The framework for this one-day workshop isdefined by three questions:

Workshop Questions

1. What is the public health significance of air pollution?

2. Are the available models and analysis tools adequate to inform policy at some level?

3. What are the key policy questions that should be addressed by models?

A policy analysis framework that was used inthe NERAM Mexico 2005 colloquium toaddress the same issue at the internationallevel may be useful:

C u rr e n t A m b i e n t A i r Q u a l it y

U nc e rta in ty•A ir qu a l it y

•H ea lt h i mp a ct

A n a ly s isC a p a c i t y

E c o n o m icIm p a c t s

In te r n a t io n a lC o n v en t i o n s

S t a k e h o ld e rP a r tic ip at io n

P O L IC Y E N V IR O N M E N T

S c i e n t if i c E v id e n c e o n H e a lth E ffe c t s

W H O , C A F É , U S E P A e tc . a n a l ys e s

N e w P o l ic y O p ti o n s• r e g u la to r y a n d v o l u n ta ry

• L o c al R e gi o n a l G l o b a l• F i xe d so u rc e s

•M o b i le s ou rc es•A re a so u r c e s

P o l ic y A n a l y s is•He a lt h B e ne fi ts

•E c on om ic C ost s

In s ti t u tio n a l C a p a c i t y

G ov e r n m e n t C o m m itm e nt

H e a lt h P r i o r i t ie s

A IR Q U A L I T Y P O L I C Y•E m is s ion R e d uc t io n ( lo c a l / m o b ile , fix e d / re gio n a l )

•A ir Q ua li t y s ta n da r ds

C u ltu ra l / S o c ia l c o n d i tio n s

H e a lt h Im p a c t a n d A ir Q u a l i ty

2 0 0 5 2 0 1 0 20 1 5

Tr e n d s

P o li c y Im pa c t

T ar g e t

C r i t e r ia

L o c al

R e g i o n a l

G lo b a l

F i xe d M o b i le A r e a

S o u rc e

A p p o r tio n m e n t

Basic Elements and Terminology for Policy Development

There are many challenges associated withexploring the availability of good policyanalysis tools: pollution occurs on a varietyof scales from local to international, and atany given location may be attributed to avariety of sources. Areas of uncertaintyinclude identification of key pollutants, sourceapportionment, trends (in emissions, policyimpact, targets, and climate change impacts),health effects, vulnerable subgroups, therelative importance of indoor and outdoor airquality, and economic and environmentalimpacts. However, uncertainty does notjustify inaction.

Broadly, we may need to consider howeconomic activity ultimately affects humanwelfare. There are a variety of relationshipsthat can affect each other.

Emissions – Pollution – Health Effects Relationships and Policy Interventions

Economic Activity, Fuel/Energy Use

Ambient Air Quality

Health Impacts (e.g. mortality, morbidity)Environmental Effects

Changes in Welfare

Emissions (SOx, NOx, etc.)Economy-Energy Relationship

Economy-Energy-Emissions

Emissions – Ambient Air Quality

Ambient Air Quality –Health/Environment

Policy Interventione.g. promote fuel switching, energy

efficiency, reduced emissions intensity

Policy Interventione.g. voluntary and/or legislated emissions reduction

Policy Interventione.g. AQ advisories

Policy interventions can occur at points in thecausal chain where these relationships maybe affected or altered.

A detailed list of generic interventions wasprepared for the NERAM 2005 Mexicocolloquium. It categorizes sources as global,regional and local sources (categories

Presentation Summaries(Note: Slides are extracted from the full presentation slide sets, which are available atwww.irr-neram)



represent both a class of governmentintervention that is possible, as well as thegeneral structure of the source apportionmentanalysis modes which happen to have asimilar structure) and also as fixed, mobile,and area sources — a classification whichhas proved useful in formulating policyinterventions.

Some challenges faced for development ofpolicy analysis tools may include predictinghow changes in policy may influenceindividual and corporate behaviour andpractices with respect to energy andmaterials use, particularly fossil fuelcombustion, considering compliance withregulations, considering speed andeffectiveness of policy adoption, andconsidering how policies on air quality mayimpact health in unexpected ways.This workshop is intended to encouragethinking about and identification of attributesof useful policy analysis tools as well as gapsin current analysis capacity. It will alsoexplore the need for further discussion ofthese issues in a broader context, perhaps ata longer workshop to be held in Fall 2005.

�The Basics� � Air Pollution Levelsand Health Effects

Peggy Farnsworth, Environment Canada

Smog, which is composed primarily of PM(particulate matter) and ground-level ozone,affects human health, the environment, andthe economy. A sustainable economy requiresclean environments and healthy people.

Clean air is a priority for Canadians: in June2000 the Canada-Wide Standards (CWS) forPM and Ozone were endorsed by federal,provincial and territorial governments (exceptQuebec*). Recognized as a first step towardsreducing smog levels and environmentaleffects and thereby improving human health,these standards established numeric targetsfor ambient levels to be achieved by 2010 of30 µg/m3 (24-hour average) for PM and 65ppb (8-hour average) for ozone.

5Environment CanadaEnvironnement Canada

��

��

� ��

� ��

� ��

� !��

� �� " ��

��#� �� $

� %�� " �� &��'��

Environment Canada has taken the lead onthe CWS, preparing multiple guidancedocuments and being involved in many jointinitial actions under the CCME such as multi-pollutant emissions reduction strategies and

* Although Québec has not endorsed the CWS,Québec is committed to act in coherence with otherjurisdictions in relation to the CWS.



alternative transportation. The federalgovernment has invested over $210 million inair priorities, including establishing a CleanAir Agenda and a 10-year Vehicles and FuelsAgenda to reduce vehicle-related emissions.

Environment Canada actions to date includedeclaring PM and Ozone and their precursorstoxic and listing them on CEPA Schedule 1,publishing the federal implementation plan,negotiating the ozone annex to the Canada-US Air Quality Agreement, developing andimplementing the 10-year agenda for vehiclesand fuels, developing the VOC agenda,enhancing the air monitoring network,improving emissions inventories, collaboratingon analytic pilot projects with provinces, andpreparing annual reports on PM and ozonelevels and trends. While concentrations ofsome pollutants including SO

x, NO

x, CO, and

VOC appear to have declined recently, groundlevel ozone trends are variable.


Concentrations of Some Air Pollutants Concentrations of Some Air Pollutants Have Declined (1985Have Declined (1985--2001)2001)

0.01.02.03.04.05.06.07.0

1984 1988 1992 1996 2000

SOx

(ppb

) &

CO

(p

pm) C

once

ntra

tions

0102030405060

NO

x &

VOC

C

once

ntra

tion

(ppb

)

SOx CO NOx VOC

Based on the most recent air qualityinformation (2001–2003), one in every threeCanadians lived in communities with three-year averages above the PM

2.5 Standard and

one in every two Canadians lived incommunities with three-year averages abovethe ozone Standard. Since achievement of theStandards will be based on three-yearaverages, the 2010 metric will be calculatedusing 2008, 2009 and 2010 levels. In order forreductions to be in place by 2008, remainingjurisdictional implementation plans should bepublished as soon as possible.

The first five-year reports on progresstowards CWS achievement are due over thenext two years. The scope of the 2010 CWSreview will be set by CCME, and EnvironmentCanada looks forward to improvedunderstanding of air pollution on acontinental and hemispheric scale and theopportunity to maximize clean air benefitsfrom major new policies/programs — bothdomestically and internationally.


��

��

�#� ��( ��) � �%�*��*�� +��, �� +� ��

�!�" ��-� ��

�� " ��. '�/ ��0��

�) �1�� $� �� / ��) 0��

� #� �� " �� " ��

� !��" ��

��/ ��2��1& ' � 3 ��

�'�� 4'#�& ��- �" ��

��


40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1989 1992 1995 1998 2001

3 y

ear

run

nin

g a

vera

ge

4th

H

igh

est

Dm

ax

8h O

zon

e

B C Prairie and Northern ONS outhern Ontario Eastern ON & QuebecA tlantic

��

� ��



Steve Clarkson, Health Canada

Air quality has been a concern since the firstsevere pollution episodes occurred in the1930s–1960s in several urban centresincluding London, UK. Introduction oflegislation occurred over time in manycountries, and significant reduction ofambient concentrations occurred. Since then,a great deal of research has been completedinvestigating the relationship between airquality and health, with more informationbeing available about short-term effects.Findings include significant respiratory andcardiovascular effects with more people dyingand being admitted to hospital for heart andlung problems on days with elevated levels ofair pollution.

http://www.epa.gov/airnow//health-prof/EPA_poster-final_lo-res.pdf

These effects are now thought to representthe “tip of the iceberg” relative to other,milder effects, and effects have also beenfound at levels previously thought to be safe.A variety of biological mechanisms have beenidentified for these effects.

A recent study in Germany found thatexposure to traffic could be a trigger for heartattack. In another study, people exposed toair collected in Toronto were found toexperience narrowing of blood vesselssufficient to cause angina in someone withpre-existing coronary disease.

Methodological problems do arise: forexample, three years ago a problem wasfound with the statistics package used foranalyzing time-series studies.

• Impact of statistical problem varied from study to study

• In many cases size of effect smaller and less precise

• Signifi cant associations persisted in most studies

Many studies were reanalyzed as a result andwhile the effect of the error varied betweenstudies, the significant association of thehealth effects with AP remained. As well, it isrecognized that findings have been replicatedusing widely varying study designs: fromlarge scale population studies to controlledlaboratory studies in humans/animals.Research continues into effects of specificsources, biological mechanisms, and longterm effects.

While less in known about long-term effectsof exposure to air pollution, evidence showsthat people do not live as long in cities withhigh levels of air pollution, and trafficexposure has been of particular concern. ADutch study indicated that people living nearmajor roads were twice as likely to die fromcardiopulmonary causes.



Other work found that exposure to PM2.5

to berelated to arthrosclerosis in the carotidartery, and a recent review of studies lookingat air pollution and pregnancy outcomesfound evidence was strong enough to supporta causal link with low birth weight butweaker with other outcomes.

Related policy initiatives in Canada includelow sulphur gasoline, the Canada-Widestandards (CWS) for PM, O

3, benzene, etc.,

the Canada-US air quality agreement, theKyoto Protocol (reductions in greenhousegases will also have air quality improvements),and a health risk-based air quality index.

An Irish example indicates that implementedcontrols can have an impact: banning of coalsales and distribution in Dublin in 1991 — adramatic reduction in exposures — resultedin measurable decrease in death rates.

Monica Campbell, Toronto Public Health

Healthy public policy is fundamental forpublic health, especially for environmentalhealth threats which require advocacy forpolicy shifts to be addressed. Local publichealth departments need to be able to providegood advice to medical officers and municipalrepresentatives on a variety of air qualityissues.

Areas of Activity in Influencing Policies Related to Air

� Exposure assessment and health risk

� Risk communication� Broad determinants of health (e.g.

social aspects)

Exposure analysis of both point sources andambient air as well as evaluation of healthrisk is an important activity at Toronto PublicHealth (TPH). A new crematorium of concernto the community concern was evaluatedusing a combination of stack testing,monitoring, dispersion modeling, andemissions were found to be very lowcompared to both air quality standards andhealth benchmarks. Modeling of emissionsfrom the Lakeview power plant indicated thatan increase in power production using coalwould increase NOx and SO2 emissions andenlarge the area of impact.

The Air Pollution Burden of Illness Report wasable to estimate the impact of air quality in acost-effective manner, provide health statusinformation on which to base public healthprograms, communicate health risk, andinfluence decision makers.



Risk communication is also an importantactivity at TPH. Mixed messages can easilyarise using evidence and tools currentlyavailable: while the AQI indicates that airquality is “good” on most days in Toronto,the burden of illness study predicted 1,000premature deaths and 5,500 hospitalizationseach year from air pollution.

Broad determinants of health including socialaspects must be considered when evaluatingimpacts of air quality. A study of theAshbridges bay incinerator indicated the needto evaluate cumulative exposure from allsources and also to account for environmentaljustice concepts.

Environmental Justice Aspects

� Should consider integrating social dimensions such as environmental justice concepts when developing public policy

� Environmental justice concepts can lead to an examination of spatial distribution of pollution sources and correlations with community characteristics such as income levels, minority status or ethnicity.

� Can take into account that people of lower income are more likely to be exposed to air pollution and likely more susceptible to adverse effects from air pollution

Health Impact Assessment (HIA) may be away to include a qualitative assessment ofsocial aspects.

TPH would benefit from a “ready-made”integrated tool that incorporates policyoptions, health burden (from the perspectiveof the pyramid of health), air emissions andambient levels.

Integration of Assessment Tools

Policy Options

Air Emissions

Health Burden

Ambient Levels

This would help to address policy questionsof local significance such as: how does theburden of health shift with the introduction ofdesignated transit lanes or road congestionpricing, creation of a bicycle network,required retirement of older vehicles, zoningchanges to reduce urban sprawl, orreplacement of coal-fired power plants.

Impact of 2000 BOI Study

� Gave rise to first Smog Summit in June 2000� Catalyzed creation of 20/20 The Way to

Clean Air� Initiated low-sulphur fuel purchases by City� Gave rise to further research – Condition

Critical: Fixing our Smog Alert Warning System

� Increased participation in policy discussions� Facilitated NGOs in advocating for clean air



Murray Finkelstein, McMaster Institute ofEnvironment and Health

Historical evidence indicates that high levelsof air pollution such as smog and SO

2 are

linked to death. However, current researchmust address the lower levels that currentlyoccur in Ontario.

A review of Ontario research into acute effectsof air pollution suggest that a 0.2 ppmincrease in CO and a 7 mg/m3 increase inPM

2.5 are related to 30 per cent and 20 pre

cent increases in disability days, that the five-day average of daily maximum ozone levels isrelated to a 35 per cent increase in thehospitalization of children under two yearsfor respiratory problems, and that PM and COwere significantly associated with mortalityin Toronto in the period 1980–1994.

Summary of Acute StudiesSummary of Acute Studies

• Studies of short term excursions in air pollution levels in Toronto over the past 20 years find associations with feelings of ill-health, hospitalization for respiratory and cardiovascular diseases, and mortality from cardiopulmonary diseases.

In order to investigate chronic effects of airpollution, the Hamilton/Toronto Cohort studyfollows 110,000 people assembled fromrespiratory and medical clinics in the twocities. Findings indicated that pollution affectsdifferent parts of the city differently, wherepeople living in poorer neighborhoods appearto have higher exposures to PM

2.5, and a

higher concentration of TSP occurs indowntown Hamilton.

Traffic exposure also affected health —residing within 50 metres of a major road or100 metres of a highway increased thepossibility of heart disease and death.

p < 0.01

0

.05

.1

.15

.2

.25

Pro

babi

lity C

ircul

ator

y D

eath

0 2 4 6 8 10Years Since Entry

Near Major RoadFurther from Major Road

CCirculatory Mortality in the Firestone Cohort

Income and Particles in HamiltonIncome and Particles in HamiltonSubjects from Firestone ClinicSubjects from Firestone Clinic

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

# #

# #

#

#

##

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

# #

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

# #

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

# #

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

# #

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

## #

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

###

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

# #

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

##

#

##

#

#

# #

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

##

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

##

##

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

# #

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

# #

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

# #

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

# #

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

###

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

# #

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

##

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

# #

#

#

###

#

#

###

##

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

# #

#

#

#

##

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

# #

##

#

#

#

#

# #

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

# #

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

##

##

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

##

##

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

# #

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

# ###

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

# #

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

##

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

# #

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

# #

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

# #

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

# #

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

## #

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

# #

#

# #

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

# #

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

# ##

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

# #

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

# #

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

# #

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

# #

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

# #

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

# #

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

# #

##

#

#

#

##

#

##

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

# #

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

# #

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

# #

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

# #

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

##

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

# #

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

# #

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

# #

#

#

# #

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

# #

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

# #

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

# #

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

# #

###

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

# #

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

## #

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

# #

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

# #

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

# #

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

##

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

##

#

# ##

#

#

#

#

#

#

# #

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

# #

#

#

#

#

#

#

# #

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

# #

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

# #

#

#

#

#

#

# ##

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

##

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

# #

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

###

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

# #

#

#

#

#

# #

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

# #

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

# #

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

###

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

# #

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

# #

#

# #

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

# #

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

##

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

##

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

# #

#

#

#

#

##

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

###

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

# #

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

##

#

## #

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

## #

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

# #

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

# #

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

# #

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

# #

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

##

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

## #

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

# #

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

# #

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

# #

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

# ##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

# #

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

# #

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

##

#

# #

#

#

###

# #

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

###

#

#

#

# #

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

## #

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

# #

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

# #

# #

# # #

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

# #

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

##

##

# #

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

# #

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

##

#

##

#

# #

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

## #

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

# #

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

# #

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

# #

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

# #

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

# #

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

# #

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

# #

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

###

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

## #

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

## #

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

# ##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

# #

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

###

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

# #

#

#

#

#

#

# ##

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

# #

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

##

#

#

# #

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

# #

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

##

# #

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

# #

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

# #

#

#

#

# #

##

##

#

#

##

#

# #

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

## #

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

# #

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

# #

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

# #

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

# #

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

##

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

##

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

# #

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

# #

#

# #

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

# #

#

# #

#

#

#

#

#

#

###

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

# #

#

#

#

#

#

# ##

#

##

# #

#

#

#

#

#

## #

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

# #

#

#

#

###

#

#

#

#

# #

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

## #

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

##

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

# #

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

# #

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

# #

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

###

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

# #

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

# ##

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

# #

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

# #

#

##

###

#

#

#

#

# #

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

# #

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

# ##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

###

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

# #

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

# #

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

###

#

#

###

##

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

# #

#

# #

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

# #

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

# #

#

## #

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

###

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

# #

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

###

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

# ##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

# #

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

# #

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

# #

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

###

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

##

##

##

#

##

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

# #

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

# #

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

# #

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

# #

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

##

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

# #

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

# #

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

##

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

# #

#

# #

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

###

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

# #

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

# #

#

#

#

##

#

##

#

#

##

##

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

# #

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

# #

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

##

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

# #

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

# ##

#

#

##

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

# ##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

##

# ##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

# ##

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

# ##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

# #

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

# #

# #

#

#

#

#

#

#

###

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

# ##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

## #

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

# #

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

# #

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

Hamilton Harbour

Lake Ontario

Õ

50 - 77#

44 - 50#

39 - 44#

32 - 39#

20 - 32#

Subjects (TSP ug/m3)

Joseph'sspital

N

TSP Exposures of Firestone SubjectsTSP Exposures of Firestone Subjects



Among Toronto asthma clinic subjects, peopleliving near major roads had a higher responserate for circulatory mortality and NO

2

exposure.

Mortality among Toronto Clinic Mortality among Toronto Clinic SubjectsSubjects

1.00(0.97 - 1.04)

1.05(1.02 – 1.08)

NO2 per ppb

1.04(0.65 – 1.68)

1.55(1.02 – 2.35)

Residence Near Major Road or Highway

Relative Risk of Respiratory

Mortality

Relative Risk of Circulatory Mortality

However, there was no observed difference forrespiratory outcomes in either study.

p = 0.8

0

.05

.1

.15

.2

Pro

babi

lity o

f Res

pira

tory

Dea

th

0 2 4 6 8 10Years Since Entry

Near Major RoadFurther from Major Road

Respiratory Mortality in the Firestone Cohort

Analysis Examples and Issues

Anton Davies, RWDI

Recognizing that poor air quality whichoccurs in urban areas and near busy roadshas impacts on both mortality and morbidityin southern Ontario today, it is clear thatpredictions of future impacts must considerthe substantial population growth that isforecast to occur in coming years. Commutetimes will increase, with concomitantemissions increases.

Despite the complexity of related planningissues there is a lack of a coordinatedapproach, and the region’s current analyticaltools have not integrated transportation,environment, health, economic, and socialrelationships in a comprehensive manner.

“SMOKE” is one model able to incorporatehour-by-hour emissions, merge with hour-by-hour meteorology, and incorporate chemistryto calculate ambient levels. High resolution isachieved and spatial distribution andgradients of air pollutants (such as thelocalized ozone deficit created by theNanticoke plume) can be observed.

SO2 Emissions Over Southern Ontario Using SMOKE (July 13 - 16, 1999)

Public policy is linked to each component ofmany “inter-relationships”, and these need tobe considered together.



“ReFSoRT” is a simplified source-receptormodel for estimating the air quality impactsof policy measures. It is able to account forsome nonlinearities and for background.ReFSoRT numbers for ozone reduction aresimilar to predictions from other models suchas CMAQ. However while ReFSoRT takes onlyseconds to run, the others take days. Theparametric relationships used in ReFSoRTallow for significantly reduced cost to achievehigh resolution information.

A Simplified Source-Receptor Model for Estimating Air Quality Impacts of Policy Measures

ReFSoRT

Emission Inventories

Prepared by: Mike Lepage & Bob Caton, RWDI

November 18 & 21, 2003

The next step will be to consider subregionssuch as what is happening within Toronto.

It is also important to be able to integrateeffects on health and on the economy.

Economics Component

Infrastructure Perspective Social Perspective

• Capital

• Operating

• Financing

• Replacement

How much does it cost?

How to pay for it?

• Health

• Productivity

• Quality of Life

What are we willing to pay to enhance

these values?

Economics is about clarifying choice from a financial and social perspective:

Inter-Relationships

Public Policy is Linked to Each

Component

��

��

��

�� ! ��

"��

"��#��

��

��

Cost of Decisions

��$� ��%

CMAQ Model Domain, ReFSoRTSubregions and Micro-subregions



Jesse Thé, Lakes Environmental

Appropriate Risk assessment must includemulti-pathway assessment of fate andtransport, account for emissions from allrelevant facilities and consider all sources,including traffic, which is an important sourcebut has been neglected in previous large-scalestudies developed for the US context.

Lakes Environmental has developed the MPCA(Minnesota Pollution Control Agency) view, asophisticated tool to comprehensively assessrisks from emissions in the state of Minnesota.Minnesota is a state containing several largeurban centres as well as rural areas, andecosystem variations exist across the state asa result of the wet northeast regions and thedry southwest.

MPCA view integrates several modulesincluding GIS, MOBILE6, calculators, non-road, and other functions which operate as asystem on state-specific data acquired from acombination of internal and web-basedsystems.

The GIS (geographic information Systems)component incorporates information such asland use, terrain and elevation, locations ofwater bodies, railways, facilities and othersources. The emissions inventory, which maybe one of the most advanced inventoriesglobally, accounts for source-specific

parameter values, speciated emission rates,addresses issues of allowable vs. actualemissions and the sensitivity of emissionslocation. While the tool accounts for 9,000point sources and 2,700 area sourcesincluding airports, roads and even fast-foodrestaurants, it is recognized that betterspatial allocation and temporal resolution ofdata would improve the inventory.

As well, many sources are located outside thestate, which increases the uncertainty of theinventory. The air dispersion modelingcomponent uses hourly meteorological data,and site-specific vapour, particle, particle-bound, and mercury levels alongside ISCST3technology to predict delivered concentrationsacross the state.

The risk modeling components allows forsimultaneous calculation and tracking ofrisks from 205 substances from multiplesources and pathways. The tool incorporatescommon US default information to determinedirect and indirect exposure, and toxicity datafrom a variety of sources including IRIS,HEAST, and MPCA. These methods allow forevaluation and visualization of risks (i.e.,cancer) from specific substances or sourcesfor various age groups within the population.



Using data from thousands of sourcescombined with sophisticated technology, thisscalable tool is able to identify risks, focusresources through risk-based prioritization,track progress toward risk-reduction goals,and support monitoring activities. Themethods are defensible, time and costefficient, flexible, and solution-oriented. It isdesigned to be flexible for incorporation ofnew information, and generates reports andanalysis for easy use.

Jeff Brook, Environment Canada

The goals of air quality research includeimproving understanding of health effects(through identification of pollutants andsources of concern, and development ofconcentration response functions) andidentifying main sources contributing to theproblem through source apportionmentmethods and the development of predictive airquality models. Because many issuescomplicate the relationship between airquality and health problems, we want todevelop predictive and integrative modelswhich include cost-benefit analysis.

The air quality-health issue is complicated byuncertainties, incomplete information, andresistance to change.

Although there are always new researchquestions, it is important to consider practicalsolutions for the near-term and the future.Detailed measurement data can provideinsights: “receptor methods” bring these datatogether with models and knowledge ofemissions to learn/inform policy analysis.

Examples of recent analysis of PM2.5

datainform air quality management: an analysis ofPM

2.5 concentrations in the Toronto region

(Simcoe, Hamilton, Etobicoke, Toronto North)with different wind directions indicated thehighest concentrations in Etobicoke for thesoutherly direction.

��

��Toronto area 1998-2001 warm season concentrations all matched in time

Med

ian

six-

hour

PM

2.5

( µµ µµg/

m3 )



Transsects indicate that emissions fromToronto add about 4 mg/m3 to the regional airmass as it moves northward. Trajectoriesindicate that many warm-season episodes insouthern Ontario are linked to the Ohio valley.

Receptor models, which use fingerprints/profiles to identify sources, indicate that themain sources of PM

2.5 in Toronto are

secondary: transport of sulfate from coalcombustion and ammonium nitrate.

��

1.2 1.12.1

23

13

35

21

3.3 2.31.36

2.0

8

17

50

13

2.2 1.61.3

15

810

26

36

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Secondary

Coal

Ammonium

Nitrate

Vehicle /

Road dust

Vehicle /

NaCl

Organic

Acids

PMprimary-1 Smelter PMprimary-2

Ma

ss

%

Summer Winter Annual

Coal Combustion Ammonium Nitrate Motor Vehicles

Sec. org.

Identifying source types and quantifying theircontribution to PM is still a complex procedure.

Since policies to improve outdoor air qualityshould be trying to maximize health benefitsit is important to think about exposureproperties. Personal and ambient exposuresmay not be well-correlated, depending onhow people spend their time.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

2001

0723

2001

0813

2001

0903

2001

0918

2001

1022

2001

1101

2001

1105

2001

1112

2001

1119

2001

1129

Date (YYYYMMDD)

PM

2.5 C

onc

entr

atio

n (u

g/m

3 )

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Out

doo

r P

M2

.5 C

onc

entr

atio

n

(ug/

m3 )

PM2.5 Outdoor PM2.5

rs pear man = -0.10

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

2001

0723

2001

0813

20010

903

2001

0918

2001

1022

2001

1101

2001

1105

2001

1112

2001

1119

2001

1129

Date (YYYYMMDD)

PM

2.5 C

onc

ent

rati

on (u

g/m

3 )

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Su

lfate

Co

nce

ntra

tion

(ug

/m3 )

PM2.5 Sulfate

rs pear man = -0.07

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

2001

0723

20010

813

2001

0903

2001

0918

20011

022

20011

101

2001

1105

2001

1112

2001

1119

2001

1129

Date (YYYYMMDD)

PM

2.5

Con

cen

trat

ion

(ug/

m3 )

0

1

1

2

2

3

3

4

4

5

EC

Co

nce

ntra

tion

(ug

/m3)

PM2.5 EC

rsp earman = 0.7 2

0

1 0

2 0

3 0

4 0

5 0

6 0

7 0

8 0

9 0

2001

0723

2001

0813

20010

903

2001

0918

20011

022

2001

1101

2001

1105

20011

112

2001

1119

20011

129

Date (YYYYMMDD)

PM

2.5

con

cen

trat

ion

(ug/

m3 )

0.0

0.1

0.1

0.2

0.2

0.3

0.3

0.4

Cal

ciu

m C

onc

ent

rati

on (u

g/m

3 )

PM2.5 Calcium

rsp earman = 0.31

Profile plots of personal PM2.5 exposures, outdoor PM2.5 levels (a), and personal exposures to SO4

2- (b), EC (c), and Ca2+ (d). This subject spent an average of 4 hours in a car each day for the duration of the study. The rest of the time was spent mostly in an office (7 hours) and at home (13 hours). The Spearman’s correlation coefficient is largest for the association between personal exposures to PM2.5 and EC.

a b

c d

For example, traffic appears to play a largerrole in influencing personal exposure thanambient PM

2.5 does, and the carbon

component is more important for people whospend time commuting. Sixty per cent ofpersonal exposure to PM

2.5 could not be

linked to the three main source categories(haze and sulphate, combustion sources, andlocal dust) and is likely related to indoorexposures or specific individual activities.

Specific properties of PM may also beimportant: the organic carbon fraction (whichcomes from transportation) may be moreacutely toxic. Ultrafine particle levels arevariable and linked to traffic exposure.

Research is important in informing policy, butnew policies to manage air quality oftenresult from opportunity — we need to createan opportunity and then have the evidence —based information available.



Dave Stieb, Health Canada

Quantifying health benefits involvesestimating the value to society of makingsome change that alters emissions andtherefore exposure.

3

Quantifying Health Benefits

Cleaner fuel

Reduced vehicle emissions

Sulphates ↓↓↓↓SO2 ↓↓↓↓NOX ↓↓↓↓VOCs↓↓↓↓CO ↓↓↓↓

Improved ambientair quality

Reduced population exposure

$/QALYValue to society

Air Pollution

20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Hea

lthO

utco

me

108

110

112

114

116

118

120

Air Pollution

20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Hea

lthO

utco

me

108

110

112

114

116

118

120

Improved public health

There is a large amount of informationavailable to inform upon the relationshipsinvolved. Choosing specific parameter valuescould be done based on expert judgment,which is flexible and streamlined but can beviewed as arbitrary, or through systematicapproaches, which are rigorous andcomprehensive but also rigid and cumbersome.An alternative is to use a “structuredconsensus” approach.

Chosen parameters are associated withuncertainty. The “what if” questions thatarise from the possibility of various inputvalues for a given parameter can be addressedthrough sensitivity analysis. Probabilisticanalysis allows for multiple iterations of themodel with inputs spanning specifieddistributions. This allows for output in theform of a distribution, which allows for thecharacterization of uncertainty associatedwith model predictions.

The Air Quality Valuation Model (AQVM) is amodel which quantifies health benefits.Developed in 1996, it was peer-reviewed andhas been applied in various contexts including

analysis of Acidifying emissions, Air QualityObjectives, Sulphur in gas, Canada-WideStandards, and Climate change co-benefits.

An example of a specific application issulphur in gasoline: Canadian gasoline hadlevels ranging from <10 to 1,000 ppm with anational average of 340 ppm. In 1999 afederal regulation was enacted to reduceaverage sulphur content of gasoline to 30ppm by 2005. Analysis of the cost/benefit ofreducing sulphur content indicated thatalthough modest reductions in adverse healthimpacts were predicted, conservativelyestimated health benefits outweighedcompliance costs.

11

Findings of Health Panel for seven cities only, in 2001- Reducing sulphur to 30 ppm improves the health of Canadians

ESTIMATED*CASES

AVOIDED

53

60

168

82,300

39,000

281,400

2,300

187

prematuremortali ty

emergency room visits

restricted activity days

acute respiratory symptoms

asthma symptom days

hospitaladmissions

bronchitis in children

chronic bronchit is

incr

ease

d se

veri

ty o

f eff

ect

Ma rch 23, 1998

However, a regional difference was found inhow benefits and costs compared.

14

Health Benefits vs. Refinery CostsHealth Benefits vs. Refinery Costs

7.4

0.61.9 1.6

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

S Ont &SW Que &

SW BC

Rest

Net

Pre

sent

Val

ue ($

Bill

ions

)(2

001-

2020

)

BenefitsCosts

Benefits and costs based on 30 ppm (total population)

( 45% of Canadian

Population )



There was a desire to update the capacity ofthe AQVM which included many objectivessuch as updating baseline air quality dataand risk coefficients, allowing risk coefficientsand baseline morbidity and mortality rates todiffer by geographic area, including a moreflexible approach to uncertainty analysis, andlooking at alternatives to monetary valuation.As a result, the Air Quality BenefitsAssessment Tool (AQBAT) is being developedwith various capabilities. The functionality ofthe model allows different averaging periods,regression types, and probabilitydistributions to be selected for the input bythe user.

Other available models include the OntarioMedical Association’s Illness Costs of AirPollution (ICAP) model, which was released inOntario in 2000 and has similar functionalityto AQVM/AQBAT, and BenMAP, which is usedby the USEPA.

Phil Blagden, Environment Canada

It is important to explore the concept of a“policy tool”. Air Policy tools inform on manycomplex issues which have significantinformation requirements. Although data onindividual pollutants is required to understandair quality issues, this alone cannot easily beused to guide decision-making.

The Air Quality Indicator (AQI) is a singlenumber that applies to individual pollutants,and is not intended to characterize the healthimpacts of air quality. Neither can it help todetermine causes for poor air quality.

The AQI is designed for short-term publichealth decisions. It is a communications toolfor the short-term, providing a picture of airquality at a specific time. Examples ofappropriate use of the AQI are to informsensitive people about poor air quality or toindicate air pollution trends in a givencommunity. Using the AQI, it is possible toindicate potential actions (such as stayingindoors) or to demonstrate that air quality isan issue across the country.

It must be noted that air quality is morerelated to weather than to any reductionsstrategies used.

Limitations exist for time-series studies (suchas correlation and multiple-pollutant) andother methods used to assess health impactsof air quality. Variation occurs with inputsand outcome selected. However, an overallidea of the relationship is obtainable, andindividual pollutants such as PM can act asuseful indicators.

The “old AQI”, uses the pollutant whoseconcentration is highest relative to a standardto provide the indicator. It is a good basicsystem: often high levels of several pollutantsoccur together.



A “new AQI” is being formulated based onshort and long-term health impacts usingcombined pollutants. This AQI will still begenerated based on ambient monitoringinformation. Initially, the AQI formulation wasto include CACs (PM

2.5, CO, NO

2, O

3), but CO

was dropped since (a) it has no health effectsand (b) issues with monitoring such asinstrument sensitivity and spatial locationrelative to roadways was problematic. It isnoted that NO

2 and CO are strongly

correlated. Other pollutants were addedbased on risk factors based on mortality.

This “new” AQI relies on the pyramid ofhealth effects and uses combined datasets ofrecent and long-term information. Theformulation will be pilot tested this summer inBritish Columbia.

This AQI should also be viewed as acommunications tool. Communicationincluding appropriate community messages iscritical. Messages much reach sensitiveindividuals without causing alarm to thecommunity at large.

Within the public health context, air qualityadvice needs to recognize that there arevarious risk factors. Air pollution cannot beaddressed on its own.



Local residents of South Riverdale and theBeaches have been concerned about effects oflocal industries on the local environment andtheir health. While many large industrialfacilities have either closed or relocated bythe end of the 1990s, the residents of thesecommunities remain concerned about whatthey expressed as the “cumulative effects” ofprevious and current exposures to pollutantsfrom these industries. Today the AshbridgesBay Treatment Plant (ABTP) is one of the fewlarge scale industrial plants remaining at thewaterfront bordering these two communities.

The ABTP has undergone significant processchanges since 1995 including thediscontinuation of incineration, the addition ofa pelletizer, and the addition of biofilters.These past changes as well as proposedchanges alter the emission profile of thefacility. Toronto Public Health (TPH)commissioned an evaluation of the ABTPimpact on air quality in South Riverdale and

the Beaches (the two (2) study areas). Themodelling analysis evaluated the past,present and future potential concentrations ofvarious chemicals in the two study areasresulting from the ABTP against the OntarioPoint of Impingement (POI) standard, AmbientAir Quality Criteria (AAQCs) and varioushealth benchmarks provided by TPH.

To evaluate the past, present and futureemissions from the ABTP, four (4) emissionscenarios were developed based on availableemission testing data, literature informationand engineering knowledge of the plant withthe aid of the CALPUFF modelling system. Aprotocol to select 17 Chemicals of Concern(COC) from the 186 chemicals for airdispersion modelling was developed. Thisprotocol took into account the quantity ofemission, potential health impacts,persistence in the environment, accumulationin the biota, availability to humans andcommunity’s input.

Poster Abstracts(Summaries Only: Full posters are available at www.irr-neram.ca)

Change in Air Quality Around the Ashbridges Bay Treatment PlantAnthony Ciccone1,2, Dr. Angela Li-Muller3, Mark Rupke4, Jean Yves Urbain5, Diane Michelangeli6

1 Golder Associates, 2 Principal Investigator, 3 Toronto Public Health, 4 City of Toronto, 5 Earth Tech (Canada) Inc.,6 York University



Initiatives to improve human health byreducing air pollution will also result insignificant environmental benefits. Reductionsin PM & Ozone (smog) will have numerousenvironmental benefits, in addition toimproving human health. Many of the samepollutants that are responsible for thecreation of PM and ozone, also contribute toacid rain. Reducing these emissions will alsoreduce acid rain which will have a wide rangeof environmental benefits.

This poster will identify some of theenvironmental benefits of taking action toimprove human health by reducing smogand/or reducing the emissions responsible forsmog.

Benefits will be discussed qualitatively andwherever possible quantitatively. Thequantitative assessment of the benefits willinclude both quantification of the physicalimpacts and the monetization of theseimpacts. That is, where possible, impacts onthe environment, economy, and social wellbeing will be expressed in dollar valueequivalents. This poster will also discusssome of the tools and models used to quantifyand monetize the environmental benefits ofair quality improvements.

Some of the environmental benefits to beexamined will include the following:

Smog• Improved visibility• Increased agricultural production• Increased forest growth and health• Reduced material soiling• Improved environmental health

Acid Rain• Increased tree growth• Reduced building corrosion• Commercial fishing industry benefits• Recreational fishing benefits• Improved wildlife and natural health

Environmental Benefits of Improved Air QualityMichael Donohue1

1 Environmental Economics Branch, Environment Canada



In Canada, the CCME (Canadian Council ofMinisters for the Environment) is currentlyengaged in a process to determine how bestto reduce air emissions from oil refineries.The NFPRER (National Framework forPetroleum Refineries Emissions Reduction) isbeing developed with the input ofstakeholders including NGOs, industry, andregulatory jurisdictions. One component ofthis framework is the development of a tool toprioritize emissions for reduction based onestimated health impacts. HEIDI II (HealthEffects Indicators Decision Index II) is aspreadsheet-based model that prioritizes aseries of carcinogenic and non-carcinogenicair toxics and criteria air contaminantscommonly emitted from Canadian oilrefineries. A generic meteorologicaldispersion model is applied to reportedannual emissions data for each of Canada’s20 refineries. Photodegradation rates andambient levels of each substance areaccounted for, and air concentrations are

calculated for 20 geographic zones aroundeach refinery. These are coupled to toxicitydata derived mainly from Health Canada andthe USEPA, and applied to target populationsof children, adults and seniors. HEIDI IIpredicts incidence of relevant diseaseendpoints from each substance emitted,except for BTEX and PAH, which are treatedas chemical mixtures. Rankings are based onpredicted case incidence or the application ofa common health impact metric, Disability-Adjusted Life Years, (DALYs) to the predictedincidence. Using the DALY approach, priorityrankings can be made within each of thechemical classes, or across all three classestogether. HEIDI II incorporates severalswitches that allow the user to investigatealternate scenarios based on stack height,average daily sunlight hours (for calculatingphotodegradation), and the possibility ofemissions below regulatory reportingthresholds.

Development of a Health Effects-based Priority Ranking System for AirEmissions Reductions from Oil Refineries in CanadaStephanie Gower1, John Hicks2, John Shortreed2, Lorraine Craig2, and Stephen McColl1,2

1 Dept. Health Studies and Gerontology, University of Waterloo, 2 Institute for Risk Research



The MOBILE emission model (developed bythe US EPA) used in Canada to estimatevehicle emissions at national, provincial, andlocal level is not suitable to provide emissionrequirements of air quality models at microscale. Waterloo Centre for AtmosphericSciences has developed a new emission factormodel for Canadian motor vehicle fleet toprovide a high degree of temporal and spatialemissions information. This model developmentwill support provincial/municipal planners tomake accurate assessments of humanexposure to determine the adverse healtheffects of motor vehicle traffic in urban areasand in understanding PM and ozoneformation in Southern Ontario, Canada.

This poster presents a strategic partnershipbetween WCAS and the local health unit. Theproject focus and purpose includes researchconsiderations such as emissions from

A New Microscale Motor Vehicle Emission Model: Determination ofNeighbourhood Air Pollution for Human Exposure AssessmentRakesh Singh1,2, James Sloan1,2, and David Roewade3

transport sector, MOBILE emission model,need for micro scale emission model and localexposure data, MicroFac model and it’sperformance for site-specific vehicle fleet andcomparison with MOBILE results,demonstration of MicroFac and CALINE4roadway dispersion model in WaterlooRegion, hospitalizations vs. locations of majorroads, schools and daycare, per cent use ofcommute and hours spent in outdoorenvironment in Waterloo Region.

Finally, it is concluded that a site-specificreal-time emissions are needed for modelingair transport/dispersion and human exposurein various roadway microenvironments.MicroFac models will provide emissions atfine resolution critical for the assessment andprediction of traffic related exposureconditions and potential health impacts.

1 Waterloo Centre for Atmsopheric Sciences, 2 University of Waterloo, 3 Region of Waterloo � EnvironmentalHealth



1A. While consensus exists that poor airquality has an impact on human health,assessing the degree of its significance iscomplicated by uncertainties and requiresknowledge about endpoints other thanmortality.

Breakout group 1 (Bruce Walker, Chair)

• The health impacts of air pollution arerelatively low; and may be confined tothose with pre-existing medicalconditions, the elderly, etc.

• While mortality may be higher withimpacts such as car-accidents, the lostperson-years is greater with air pollution

Breakout group 2 (Anton Davies, Chair)

• There is evidence to show effects on bothmorbidity and mortality, particularly forcardiorespiratory outcomes. Although therisks are relatively small, when examinedon a population basis, large numbers areaffected

• Need to be aware that focusing on endpoints for which we have evidence nowmay be limiting. Recent studies showimpacts on birth outcomes (low birthweight, chromosomal damage), lungfunction deficits among teenagers(California study), lung cancer (ACSstudy) and childhood cancers (ACS study)

• Which particles sizes contribute most tohealth impacts? Studies indicate that thefine fraction is most harmful, howeverthere is evidence to show that the coarsefraction is associated with triggeringasthma episodes. It is not clear what thetoxic component of the coarse fraction is.The evidence is unclear on the healthsignificance of ultrafines. There is evidenceof linkages with cardiopulmonary and

respiratory symptoms but the biologicalmechanism is not clear. U of T is doingwork in this area. The health impacts ofultrafines would be on a very local level

Breakout group 2 (Jay Barclay, Chair)

• At the broad level it is clear that there arehealth effects

• It is hard to get a sense of how significantair pollution is on a “small scale”/at alocal level

• The pyramid of health effects can beuseful for influencing decision-makers atthe local level even when you don’t havethat many “bodies”

• There is a big lag on data availability i.e.for hospitalizations at the national level

• There is still a great deal we don’t know(i.e., what about some of the constituents ofvehicle exhaust including metals, ultrafineparticles). Also what about various airtoxics and their ability to “stick” to PM

Presentations

• Peggy Farnsworth: one in every threeCanadians lived in areas with three-yearaverages above the PM

2.5 standard (2001–

2003); one in every two Canadians lived inareas with three-year averages above the0

3 standard (2001–2003)

• Steve Clarkson: “More people die and areadmitted to hospital for heart and lungproblems on days with elevated levels ofair pollution”; “Effects found at levelspreviously thought to be safe”; “People donot live as long in cities with high airpollution”; “Air pollution may contributeto adverse pregnancy outcomes,atherosclerosis the development of lungcancer and chronic lung disease”

Appendix A: Supporting Statements forWorkshop Statement



• Monica Campbell: Toronto’s air pollutionleads to 1,000 premature deaths and5,500 hospitalizations each year; airpollution affects health year round

• Murray Finkelstein: Studies of short termexcursions in air pollution levels inToronto over the past 20 years findassociations with feelings of ill-health,hospitalization for respiratory andcardiovascular diseases, and mortalityfrom cardiopulmonary diseases; There isan association between traffic-relatedpollution in Hamilton and Toronto andincreased rates of circulatory diseasehospitalization and mortality

• Jeff Brook: Size of acute cardiovascularresponse is most-related to organiccarbon

• Quentin Chiotti: [Evidence indicates] Therecould be 2300+ deaths attributable to airpollution in Ontario that is not caused bytransboundary sources or from theprovince’s coal-fired power plants

1B. Evaluation of the impact of air pollutionon health must occur within the broadcontext of public health and consider socialand interactive effects.


• There may be more potential benefits tospending money in other areas of publichealth

• Exposure (both chronic and acute) isinvoluntary

• There are also other issues to considerwith air quality: those of aesthetics andnon-mortality effects


• Health impacts need to be consideredwithin the broader context of publichealth. For example, what is thesignificance of air quality episodes onphysical activity? Air quality needs to beviewed as a public health issue ratherthan a pollution control issue

• Traditional quantitative health impactassessment needs to be broadened toinclude social impacts (i.e. commutingtime/road rage, quality of life)

Presentations

• Monica Campbell: Should considerintegrating social dimensions such asenvironmental justice concepts whendeveloping public policy

• Murray Finkelstein: Poorer neighbour-hoods in Hamilton have higher levels ofpollutants

• Anton Davies: Economics is aboutclarifying choice from a financial andsocial perspective

2A. There is agreement that tools andapproaches are available which can informpolicy at various levels; the most successfulof these are broadly applicable.


• Inventories are improving over time withintegration of tools such as GIS

• Models are reasonable for making use ofmonitoring data

• Need to target sources with multiplepollutants and sources with the greatestpotential for reduction


• Models are a useful policy informing tool,but need to take into considerationpeople’s experience/other factors inmaking decisions. Their usefulness issituation-specific


• There are tools that relate emissions toambient AQ (i.e., RWDI, Jesse Thé) … andtools that relate ambient AQ to healthimpacts (i.e., AQBAT, ICAP)

• Approach of linking sophisticated modelswith impacts is welcomed



• Yes — there has been a lot of work doneby the city of Toronto, Jerrett etc.

• There are good “one-off” models — i.e.,we have the capability to answer specificquestions

• We are capable of doing environmentalevaluation

• There are models to separately evaluateenvironmental and health effects (AQBATan example for health effects)

• Most agencies are more comfortableimplementing policies that affect a broadrange of pollutants or actions — related to aneed to implement actions at regional level

Presentations

• Anton Davies: descriptions of “SMOKE”and “ReFSOrt”

• Jesse Thé: description of MPCA view• Dave Stieb: descriptions of AQVM, AQBAT,

ICAP, mention of BenMAP

B. Barriers to meaningful use of availablepolicy analysis approaches include

(i) complexity and inaccessibility — there isa need for guidance document

(ii) limitations inherent in data inputs,including emissions inventories andmonitoring data

(iii) inability to address effects of air quality ina manner that reflects the various levels ofpolicy and decision-making within andacross the various jurisdictions that dealwith air quality in Canada

(iv) limited capacity to identify cross-cuttingbenefits

(v) procedural limitations inherent in movingfrom output to application of policyincluding difficulties interpretingendpoints or outputs

2B(i) (complexity and inaccessibility)


• Criteria for applying (and not applying)modeling are not established

• Public health capacity with regard to AQis lacking


• Need to compare models in terms ofapproach and inputs. How do they dovaluation, what are the exposureassumptions etc.?

• Policy makers/health planners at thelocal/municipal/regional level needgreater capacity to use and interpretmodeling tools including guidance on howto conduct an appropriate analysis andhow much certainty is needed toimplement a policy based on modelingresults (NEED FOR A PRIMER). Need toolsto assess the impacts of development onthe airshed and human health to guideplanning of schools, roads, trees inrelation to residential neighbour-hoods.The public is asking serious questions onthese issues and answers are not alwaysreadily available


• Want to have integrated models that canbe used and manipulated by those whoresearch policy and try to influence localdecision-makers (i.e., local health units)

• Accessibility to tools to “make the case”is an issue at the local level

• A need to be able to create models/toolsthat can be used by non-experts. Also thatare not too expensive/draining onresources

• Models are “arcane” — understood byonly those who create them — need to beable to extract concepts to take them todecision-makers

• Models must be transparent; but notnecessarily available for change by users(it is then not the same model)

• Local municiplaities have different specificquestions that they are currently unableto answer:



• Small-scale S-R• Urban design• Residential sources — these can be

important sources (i.e. biomasscombustion in your backyard)

• Local/small-scale smog forecasting• Impact of biodiesel• Education as a policy tool (i.e. wrt

residential emissions)

Presentations

• Monica Campbell: Mixed messages canarise when using currently available toolssuch as AQI

2B(ii) (limitations inherent in data inputs)


• More monitoring, ambient levels,especially within municipalities

• There is a gap between health departmentneeds and monitoring information

• Routine monitoring cannot be done on avery fine resolution (is this important?)

• The cumulative impact is crucial• Spot monitoring on an as-needed basis

may be effective• Local(community)-based ambient levels

are based on Toronto average levels. Isthis adequate?

• Modeling is dependent on emissionsinventories. Do we have adequatemodeling/inventory tools?

• Passive monitoring may be useful but isstill not down to “block level

• Change in different methodologies,standards; comparing of differentmonitoring methods


• There is a lot of focus on models and it iseasy to be seduced by the graphic output.How useful they are depends on thequality of data inputs


• Previously, different agencies have comeout with different estimates — there wouldbe more confidence if there was aconvergence of estimates; this is nowstarting to be observed

Presentations

• Monica Campbell: The cumulative impactsis: Total impact of all emission sources

• Jay Barclay: Areas of uncertainty includeidentification of key pollutants, sourceapportionment, trends (in emissions,policy impact, targets, and climate changeimpacts), health effects, vulnerablesubgroups, the relative importance ofindoor and outdoor air quality, andeconomic and environmental impacts

• Jesse Thé: Emissions inventories as sourceof uncertainty

• Jeff Brook: Capability to identify sourcesand characterize AQ could be out-stripping health knowledge

• Phil Blagden: The Air Quality Indicator(AQI) is not intended to characterize thehealth impacts of air quality

2B(iii) (multiple jurisdictions)


• Data is managed by various agencies/ministries in various jurisdictions

• Question of municipal authority tomanage urban pollution problem

• Important to have an integrated (multi-juristictional) approach to AQmanagement

• How can we influence action at pollutionsource outside of managerial jurisdiction(i.e., Ohio, PN)


• GTA Clean Air Council has been workingfor two years on a joint GTA model acrosswith all regions, City of Toronto, lower tier



municipalities. There are issues of whoowns the data, how to get the data, howto develop models to suit various needs.There are issues of governance andauthority and various sensitivities. Whohas jurisdiction to develop rules andstandards? Municipalities have informationat a fine level of detail but it is difficult toundertake analyses on a local andregional basis to assist with decisions onnew development applications.Jurisdictional and governance complexityadds to the complexity


• Many tools are created based on a needat the national level (i.e., internationalconventions)

• A diversity of approaches may be useful

Presentations

• Peggy Farnsworth: Federal governmentcommitted to pursue reductions intransboundary flow into Canada from theUnited States; Renewed federal/provincialcooperation

• Jay Barclay: pollution occurs on a varietyof scales from local to international, andat any given location may be attributed toa variety of sources

• Jeff Brook: 30–37 per cent of fine particleconcentrations in Toronto are locallyproduced

2B(v) (cross-cutting benefits)


• The biggest gap is the inability to linkclimate change and air quality modeling.Need to identify win-win actions.Decisions on land use have impacts on airquality and climate change issue. Need tolook at issues from an energy demandperspective. Work on modeling climatechange impacts on air quality has

primarily been through back of envelopecalculations. There are many science gaps

Presentations

• Peggy Farnsworth: Federal governmentwill focus on taking full advantages oflinkages to climate change, acid rain,Project Green and other major initiatives

2B(v) (procedural limitations )


• Just because there is more informationdoes not mean that gov’t will be able tomake changes to policy and management

• There may never be enough monitoring• Mechanisms for linking air quality and

health are improving to the point wherethe heal

• th interpretation is more than adequatefor informing policy formulation

• Long lag time for new policies to beintroduced

• Is our ability to interpret the model outputadequate?


• Previously, different agencies have comeout with different estimates — there wouldbe more confidence if there was aconvergence of estimates; this is nowstarting to be observed

Presentations

• Ed Cocchiarella: Re: approvals process inOntario and other areas — it iscomplicated — it is hard to know whetheryou have met all the requirements/doneeverything before even proposing newprojects or new industry



3. Models and analyses should be able toidentify good policy options that are effectiveand cost-efficient. Interest was expressed inapproaches that (i) are comprehensive(ii) are integrated, especially multi-government(iii) identify barriers to existing options(iv) are subject to continuous improvement,and (v) result from stakeholder dialogue

(i) Development of comprehensiveapproaches


• Not sure of the effects of currentlyimplemented policies — how can wemodel effects of potential policies?

• Inventories do not account for residential,transportation sectors, etc.

• Models must communicate the predicted/simulated impacts of choices over thelong-term

• “low hanging fruit” are often the cheapestoptions

• We have been working on these issues forsome time — low-hanging fruit may notbe the issue

• Need to consider policy objectives and theappropriate policy response — can usemultiple options simultaneously

• Option of limiting two-stoke engines• Suggested approach: take the approaches

for the top 10 cities in SW Ontario andlump all solutions together for the SWcorridor; see what happens to AQ


• We need policy decision criteria to guidethe choice of health metrics. Shouldpremature mortality be the endpoint forvaluation? If we move to Quality AdjustedLife Years the emphasis shifts from olderpeople to youth. The metric will influencethe outcome and this has societalimplications. Should the emphasis beplaced on poor health among the elderly?


• The EC is currently trying to develop toolsthat look at the benefits to Canadians inmore than just a fiscal sense

• Uncertainty is still a big issue;conclusions being drawn may not berobust enough

• Some models (i.e., AQBAT) have usedstatistical approached to incorporateuncertainty

• While the application of hard science hasbeen useful, modelers need to look at the“softer side”

• Quantifying social benefits of air quality• Benefits of improving AQ should be

defined in terms of more than justfinancial/”competitiveness”

• There is a need to bring together allfactors — economic and social

Presentations

• Monica Campbell: TPH would benefit froma ‘ready-made’ tool that incorporatespolicy options, health burden (from theperspective of the pyramid of health), airemissions and ambient levels

• Jay Barclay: Broadly, we may need toconsider how economic activity ultimatelyaffects human welfare. There are a varietyof relationships that can affect each other.

• Jeff Brook: Traffic played a larger relativerole in influencing personal exposurescompared to ambient PM

2.5

• Dave Stieb: Quantifying health benefitsincludes estimating value to society, notjust predicted incidence

• Phil Blagden: Within the public healthcontext, air quality advice needs torecognize that there are various riskfactors. Air pollution cannot be addressedon its own.

• John Shortreed: We need to design modelsthat address the “weakest link” in thelong list of links

• Quentin Chiotti: how do we address landuse, behaviour, etc?



(ii) Development of multi-government(integrated) approaches


• Different jurisdictions have diversecapacity and resources. Need increasedinformation-sharing and analysis of easysteps to take

• Need political commitment on a long-termbasis

• Need management on an airshed basis,not a source basis. Can then look at moreflexible tools such as ET Modeling canhelp in this regard. Using airshed modelswould require involvement of multiplejurisdictional governments


• This is like “arranging deck chairs on thetitanic”. We are really trying to workwithin the existing paradigm and are nottackling fundamental issues such as canwe continue with business as usual,continued growth, subdivisions withthousnads of homes in GTA. Who islooking at these issues? Ultimately theseissues have to be addressed within theclimate change file

• It is difficult to divorce other aspects ofenvironment from air. How can weresponsibility plan new development (newurbanism), high density residential areasaround transportation corridors inwalkable quadrants? Should roads bepaved or use trees as buffers? We don’thave the integrative regional scale modelsand tools to compare the various options?Who pays for these analyses, thedeveloper, the region? There is theexpectation that municipalities are keyactors in the solution but that’s the piecethat is missing

• Need to think about scale for policymaking. In the case of new power plantswould we require plant to be built as co-generation facility? In thinking aboutstrategies for siting and considering

tradeoffs should we tie policies in to urbanstrategies rather than focusing on theprovincial level?


• Should there be a national consensusabout the pollutants of interest? Althoughexperts rarely agree, if an expert panel orsubgroup was formed, there is possibilityof reaching an agreement

• There is a disconnect between plannersand builders

• Want to have integrated models that canbe used and manipulated by those whoresearch policy and try to influence localdecision-makers (i.e., local health units)

Presentations

• Anton Davies: The regions’ currentanalytical tools have not integratedtransportation, environment, health,economic, and social relationships in acomprehensive manner; Public policy islinked to each component of many “inter-relationships”, and these need to beconsidered together.

• Quentin Chiotti: Will emissions trading leadto hotspots i.e., in Ontario or elsewhere?

(iii) Identification of barriers to existingoptions


• Do our models indicate which policystrategies offer the most effective options?

• Policies are not necessarily enforced, i.e.,anti-idling is not always easy — think ofdrive-thrus, exempted vehicles; hard tomake people comply


• Economic barrier — citizens must bearthe cost, and therefore public must beconvinced that there is a benefit(*Education, especially children)



(iv) Continuous improvement of modelingmethods including incorporation of newtechnologies, improved exposureassessment, and characterization ofuncertainty


• Unclear how accurate modeling outputsare; depends on inputs!

• To understand health impacts, need toknow real exposure, beyond ambientlevels — allows targeting of emissionsreductions in the most impactful way


• Exposure assessments are still veryinaccurate

• Want to be able to zero in on policies thataffect receptors (related to Brook’s infothat 60 per cent of personal exposurecannot be linked to ambient)

• In many places the monitoring is notappropriate, i.e. monitors high above thebreathing level; not enough urbanmonitors

Presentations

• Jeff Brook: 60 per cent of personalexposure to PM2.5 could not be linked tothe three source categories

• Dave Stieb; can incorporate sensitivityanalysis and probabilistic analysis

• Dave Stieb: AQBAT as an improvement onAQVM; both AQVM and ICAP underwent/undergo periodic reviews and updates

• Phil Blagden: A “new AQI” is beingformulated based on short and long-termhealth impacts using combined pollutants.

• Greg Evans: The relationship betweenindividual exposure and ambient exposureis not close

(v) Continued stakeholder dialogue


• What are the implications of consideringambient and acute pollution versus thePOI method?


• There is a need for continued interactionbetween policy makers and scientists. Sopolicy people can clarify there decisionneeds and scientists can explain themodel limitations and assumptions. Thisis important to ensure that the modelresults are not misused


• Perhaps the biggest gap identified was agap of communication betweenstakeholders. Information about therelevant questions and the availability ofmodels or of methods to address thosequestions is not being transferredeffectively. Information about what modelsare available does not appear to bereaching people involved in policy-makingat the local level in an efficient way. Thisworkshop was seen as a good start to thisprocess; however there needs to becontinued fostering of communicationbetween these stakeholder groups

Presentations

• Phil Blagden: Communication includingappropriate community messages iscritical

• Ed Cocchiarella: Stakeholder dialogueshould be ongoing — it creates anatmosphere of mistrust when it occursonly for specific issues.

• John Shortreed: Stakeholder buy-in: wewant to “get on with” most cost-effectiveoptions



Appendix B: Comments on DraftStatement and Actions Taken

A process was followed to seek comments and feedback from workshop participants. Althoughsome editorial changes were suggested, no comments altering the substance of the workshopsummary were received.



Appendix C: Background Materials(This list is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a starting point for furtherresearch)

Environment Canada (Last update 2002). The Corporate Smog Action Plan: Smog Alert. AFederal Response Guide for Federal Facilities in Ontario. Retrieved June 15, 2005 fromwww.on.ec.gc.ca/pollution/fpd/csap/7000-e.html

FAQs on the Health Effects of Air Pollution: A Resource for Health Professionals. Canadian PublicHealth Association. Retrieved June 15, 2005 from www.cpha.ca/cleanair/FAQ.pdf

The Illness Cost of Air Pollution: Ontario Medical Association 2005–2026 Health and EconomicDamage Estimate.s June 2005. Retrieved June 15, 2005 from www.oma.org/phealth/smogmain.htm

NERAM III CONFERENCE STATEMENT Strategies for Clean Air and Health. Rome, Italy 2003.Retrieved June 15, 2005 from www.irr-neram.ca/rome/Rome%20Statement.pdf

NERAM IV Colloquium Framework Document. International Perspectives on Air Quality: RiskManagement Principles for Policy Development — Global perspective on the development andimplementation of air quality management policies at the international, national, regional,state, and local levels. Retrieved June 15, 2005 from www.irr-neram.ca/about/Colloquium%20Framework.pdf

NERAM IV COLLOQUIUM STATEMENT. International Perspectives on Air Quality: RiskManagement Principles for Policy Development. National Institute for Public Health —Cuernavaca, Mexico. January 31–February 1, 2005. Retrieved June 15, 2005 from www.irr-neram.ca/pdf_files/Mexico_Statement.pdf

Ontario Ministry Programs and Initiatives Publications. Various. Available for download fromwww.ene.gov.on.ca/programs/index.htm#AIR

Pollution Probe. Smog Primer. Retrieved June 15, 2005 from www.pollutionprobe.org/Reports/smogprimer.pdf

Provincial Health Officer’s Annual Report 2003. Air Quality in British Columbia, a Public HealthPerspective. Retrieved June 15, 2005 from www.healthservices.gov.bc.ca/pho/pdf/phoannual2003.pdf

Toronto Public Health. Curbing Transboundary Air Pollution: Protecting Health through LegalAction. A report from Dr. David McKeown, Medical Officer of Health. Toronto, Ontario: 2005.Retrieved June 15, 2005 from www.city.toronto.on.ca/health/hphe/pdf/boh_curbing_transboundary_air_pollution_full.pdf

policy analysis t ools f or air quality and healthirr.uwaterloo.ca/about/may 19 workshop/policy...

Documents