You are on page 1of 40

AIR POLLUTION AND CLIMATE SERIES

19

Health Impacts of Emissions from Large Point Sources
Second Edition

THE SWEDISH NGO SECRETARIAT ON ACID RAIN

AIR POLLUTION AND CLIMATE SERIES: No. 1 No. 2 No. 3 No. 4 No. 5 No. 6 No. 7 No. 8 No. 9 No. 11 No. 12 The Eastern Atmosphere (1993) The ”Black Triangle” – a General Reader (1993) Sulphur emissions from large point sources in Europe (1995) To clear the air over Europe (1995) Large combustion plants. Revision of the 1988 EC directive (1995) Doing more than required. Plants that are showing the way (1996) Attacking air pollution. Critical loads, airborne nitrogen, ozone precursors (1996) Better together? Discussion paper on common Nordic-Baltic energy infrastructure and policy issues (1996) Environmental space. As applied to acidifying air pollutants (1998) Economic instruments for reducing emissions from sea transport (1999) Ground-level ozone. A problem largely ignored in southern Europe (2000)

No. 10 Acidification 2010. An assessment of the situation at the end of next decade (1999)

No. 13 Getting more for less. An alternative assessment of the NEC directive (2000) No. 14 An Alternative Energy Scenario for the European Union (2000) No. 15 The worst and the best. Atmospheric emissions from large point sources in Europe (2000) No. 16 No. 17 No. 18 To phase out coal (2003) Atmospheric Emissions from Large Point Sources in Europe (2004) Status and Impacts of the German Lignite Industry (2005)

AIR POLLUTION AND CLIMATE SERIES

Health Impacts of Emissions from Large Point Sources (Second Edition).
By Mike Holland, EMRC, UK. E-mail: Mike.Holland@emrc.co.uk. Website: www.emrc.co.uk ISBN: 91-975883-1-8. ISSN: 1400-4909 Cover illustration: Lars-Erik Håkansson (Lehån). Published in March 2006 by the Swedish NGO Secretariat on Acid Rain, Box 7005, S-402 31 Göteborg, Sweden. Phone: +46-31-711 45 15. Fax: +46-31-711 46 20. E-mail: info@acidrain.org. Website: www.acidrain.org. Further copies can be obtained free of charge from the publisher, address as above. The report is also available in pdf format at www.acidrain.org The views expressed here are those of the author and not necessarily those of the Swedish NGO Secretariat on Acid Rain.

Contents
Summary and conclusions ............................................................... 5 1. Introduction................................................................................... 9 1.1 1.2 1.3 Objective Historical perspectives Scope of analysis

2. Methods and Data...................................................................... 13 2.1 2.2 Overview The SENCO database
2.2.1 2.2.2 2.2.3 Data available from the SENCO database Sources of data used by SENCO Data quality Overview of methods Inputs for the BeTa database Quantification of impacts outside the EU Data quality

2.3

Quantification of health impacts of emissions of NOx, SO2 and PM
2.3.1 2.3.2 2.3.3 2.3.4

3. Results ......................................................................................... 19 3.1 3.2 Data inputs from the BeTa database Health impacts from LPS in the SENCO database in the EU25, Norway and Switzerland
3.2.1 3.2.2 3.2.3 Total impacts Cumulative distribution of impacts Plant with the largest impacts in the EU25, Norway and Switzerland

3.3 3.4 3.5 4.

Efficiency of plant operation relative to impacts Total health impacts from LPS in the SENCO database in other European countries Estimates of damage for non-EU European LPS

Discussion .................................................................................. 33 4.1 4.2 4.3 Validation of estimates Who is affected by air pollution? Improving the models
4.3.1 4.3.2 4.3.3 Emissions and other industrial data Dispersion modelling Quantifying pollutant impacts and monetary damages

4.4

Overview of the results

5. References .................................................................................. 37

4

Correction
The methods and data used in this report are subject to regular internal review. During this process, after the release of the first edition of this report, one of the source databases used here was found to substantially overestimate NOx emissions from facilities that process or distribute gas. These plant, including two that had previously been in the top 50 for the region covering the EU, Norway and Switzerland, have thus been removed from the analysis. This problem highlights the need for future versions of the EPER database, in particular, to be far more comprehensive in their coverage with respect to plant and pollutants than at present. It also highlights a need for a true pan-European emissions database for large point sources, including data from all European countries.

Acknowledgements
This work has been funded by the Swedish NGO Secretariat on Acid Rain, and cofinanced by European Commission DG Research through the Methodex Project.

AIR POLLUTION AND CLIMATE SERIES

000 190 6. including NOx and SO2.000 750.000 6.000 74.000 130 35.000 deaths were linked to ozone exposure. A further 20. Total cases 790.000 8.100 73. Those results are included in the European IPPC (Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control) Bureau’s reference document on Economics and Cross Media Effects and form the basis of the analysis presented here.000. were not included in the assessment.500 26 16 6. Norway and Switzerland. The CAFE analysis also estimated very significant numbers for cases of ill health linked to air pollution.000 13.000 THE SWEDISH NGO SECRETARIAT ON ACID RAIN . CAFE estimated a loss of 3.75 2. This report combines the CAFE health assessment methodology with SENCO’s emissions database for European Large Point Sources to assess health related damages linked with emission of NOx and SO2 on a plant by plant basis. from each European country. including cough. ranging from lost work days to bronchitis and hospital admissions.000. Health impacts have been quantified principally against the sulphate and nitrate aerosols – so-called secondary particles that are formed in the atmosphere following the emissions of SO2 and NOx.200. population aged > 30) Chronic mortality (deaths in population aged > 30) Infant mortality (infants aged 1 . population aged > 27 Respiratory hospital admissions. among adults with chronic symptoms LRS* (including cough) among children Total (using number of life years lost) Total (using number of deaths) * Lower respiratory symptoms. and in countries further east including Turkey and some former USSR countries.2 0. the focus of this study. Another output of CAFE generated a set of figures expressing damage per tonne emission of five pollutants. which was further estimated to be equivalent to around 350. Effects of ozone formation linked to NOx emissions are also included.5 Summary and conclusions Analysis under the recent CAFE (Clean Air For Europe) programme of the European Commission highlighted substantial health impacts linked to air pollution. all ages Cardiac hospital admissions. all ages Restricted activity days (RADs) working age population Respiratory medication use by adults Respiratory medication use by children LRS*.000 59. which in some cases may be significant.000.6 million life years in the year 2000 attributable to exposure to fine particles in the European Union.500 57.000 39. linked to emissions of SO2 and NOx via the formation of sulphate and nitrate aerosols. Emissions of primary particles from large point sources.000 deaths. but these make up a very small contribution to total damage estimates.000 72.000 6.000 Economic equivalent (euro millions) 41.000 88. The SENCO database covers 7.200 1.000 plant in countries throughout Europe.12 months) Chronic bronchitis. Table (i) Estimated total health impacts of large point sources in the EU25. Health effect Chronic mortality (life years lost.

300 7. Large though these results are. they account for only 21% of the health damage quantified for air pollution emissions for the EU25 in the year 2000 according to the analysis undertaken for the EU’s CAFE programme. Results should thus be seen as broadly indicative of impact levels. and 90% by the 911 most damaging. R an k Country Plant Sector Damage (euro million/ year) Life years lost/year Deaths/ ye ar EU25 Member States.600 9.200 980 980 860 810 740 710 690 Countries outside the EU. either for operational reasons or in response to legislation.400 1. Norway and Switzerland. and the commercial. Norw ay and Sw itz erland AIR POLLUTION AND CLIMATE SERIES .000 6.300 8.000 9. relating to attribution of damage to specific types of particle (here. out of a total of 534.400 7. shipping.400 1.800 1.300 700 690 600 540 540 530 510 500 19.300 1. aviation. with estimates of annual economic damage and impacts on mortality.200 7. There are also uncertainties in the impact quantification methodology.600 7. rather than precise measures.900 7. results on a plant by plant basis show that 50% of damage is accumulated by the 120 most damaging plant.000 14. and 90% by 128.000 9. sulphate and nitrate aerosols).400 7. the EU with Norway and Switzerland.000 11. public and domestic sectors.000 per year.700 7. Norw ay and Sw itz erland 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Spain Poland Spain Poland Poland Poland UK UK UK Italy Ukraine Bulgaria Ukraine Ukraine Ukraine Ukraine Ukraine Turkey Ukraine Ukraine Puentes Belchatow Teruel Turow Adamow Patnow Longannet Cottam West Burton Porto Tolle Krivorozhskaya Maritsa East II Burshtynskaya Zmiyevskaya Lodyzhinskaya Kurakhovskaya Pridneprovskaya Seyitomer Soemtes Starobeshevskaya Zuevskaya Electricity Electricity Electricity Electricity Electricity Electricity Electricity Electricity Electricity Electricity Electricity Electricity Electricity Electricity Electricity Electricity Electricity Electricity Electricity Electricity 1. The CAFE analysis also included damage linked to emissions of ammonia (mainly from agriculture) primary particles (from a diversity of sources) and volatile organic compounds.000 18. none of which are considered in this report. out of a total of 6.000 13. etc.333 plant. When considering these results and others presented in the report. It is estimated that the total number of life years lost attributable to emissions from large point sources in the EU25 region is 790. For the EU. all countries outside this region.500 8.6 Total estimated health impacts quantified against the large point sources in the region containing the EU25.000 10. Norway and Switzerland. are shown in Table (i). Table (ii) lists the ten most damaging plant identified in the study in two regions. and secondly. Not least of these is that some plant have changed emissions since 2001.600 890 890 760 690 690 680 660 630 1. it is important to be aware of the uncertainties that are present. Table (ii) The 10 most damaging plant identified in each of the two regions considered. though the completeness of the emissions database for this region is questionable. use of country-average damage estimates.800 14.300 1. the latest reporting year for the EPER database. for which 50% of damage is estimated to be accumulated by only 20 plant. Other important sources include road transport. The situation seems even more extreme in the non-EU region.

such as facilities for manufacture of metals and chemicals. and hence the loss of life expectancy quantified here is not specific to the area around each plant. however. so no figures are given in this column for plant in the lower half of the table. The two final columns show loss of life years and the number of deaths – these are simply different ways of expressing mortality impacts rather than separate effects. not as a local phenomenon. Some commentators. but is instead spread over distances of several hundred kilometres around each source. The CAFE approach does not directly provide estimates of willingness to pay outside the EU. It is important to recognise that impacts are quantified against the formation of sulphate and nitrate aerosols in the atmosphere following the release of SO2 and NOx. Loss of life years was the metric preferred by most commentators on the CAFE work. Map showing the location of the large point sources in Europe estimated to cause the greatest health damage due to secondary particles formed from their emissions of SO2 and NOx.7 Figure (i). the analysis covered other source types. Although the table presented in this summary includes only large point sources whose main purpose is to generate electricity. The size of the circles is proportionate to the damage. and for that reason both types of result are given. The economic damage quantified in the table relates only to health impacts. etc. These particles take some time to form. cokeries. prefer to refer to ‘deaths’ instead. Impacts should thus be seen in the context of the overall European pollution climate. based on the ‘willingness to pay’ approach used in CAFE. THE SWEDISH NGO SECRETARIAT ON ACID RAIN . The focus of this report on health means that damage to ecosystems and buildings is not included in the estimates shown. The distinction is made between the two groups as results should be considerably more robust for the former than the latter for reasons given in the main text. as it can be quantified more robustly.

Norway and Switzerland region. It is also evident that there is significant variation between plant with respect to levels of damage per unit of electricity generated. AIR POLLUTION AND CLIMATE SERIES . not just those that are members of the European Union. etc. This highlights the potential for substantial benefits for the European population from continued action to reduce emissions of SO2 and NOx from these sources. Another way to rank plant based on these results involves normalisation of damage against the amount of electricity (or heat. results also showed that the plant listed above fall in the top 5% of this second ranking also. simply because of the large quantity of fuel that they use. steel. However.8 Large power plants dominate the top of the listing. 3. the database should be extended to cover all European countries. The EPER database should be updated annually. Reporting thresholds should be lowered to ensure that a more complete quantification of emissions is provided. Results provide a different ranking. The report demonstrates that large point sources of SO2 and NOx generate very significant health impacts across Europe.) produced. coke. however. Recommendations are made for improving the transparency of environmental reporting with respect to emissions as follows: 1. due in part to the use of varying levels of emission control. For this report it was not possible to quantify damage from primary particle emissions because they are provided for a relatively small number of facilities. with a number of smaller plant of apparently much lower efficiency moving to the top of the list. Given the trans-boundary nature of air pollution. 2. This type of analysis is presented for power plants in the EU.

This was typically done through controls on the burning of solid fuels and by moving large point sources of emissions away from the most populated areas. http://www.2 Historical perspectives In response to health concerns in the mid-20th century.1 Objective The objective of this work is to estimate health impacts associated with emissions of air pollutants from individual large point sources in Europe. air pollution from energy use and transport generates significant costs to society in terms of increased ill health and premature death. oxides of nitrogen (NOx) and fine particles. has led work in Europe on the development of a methodology for quantifying the health impacts of air pollutants within an economic framework. A similar exercise has been carried out by analysts in the USA. Sulphates and nitrates. These findings have 1 Information on the extent of the impacts to ecosystems in the European Union is available on the CAFE website (http://europa. fall into this latter category.cleartheair. and was unable to identify a threshold for impacts. 1. These particles may be emitted directly from combustion and other processes.9 1. damage from primary emitted particles is excluded from the results presented in the report. The limited analysis of particles that has been carried out in this report indicates that emissions of primary particles from large point sources and associated damage are likely to be relatively small compared to the other pollutants considered here. The air pollutants of most interest here are sulphur dioxide (SO2). formed following the emission of SO2 and NOx.externe. Reports issued by the programme in 1995 and since. which commenced in 1991. As data on emissions of primary particles are subject to a markedly higher level of uncertainty than the other pollutants considered. http://www. but this needs further investigation. Despite this action. Introduction 1. especially for fine particulate matter.org/dirtypower/ Externalities of Energy.int/comm/environment/air/cafe/general/keydocs. based on available knowledge. this analysis omits a number of other effects of these pollutants.info/ 2 3 THE SWEDISH NGO SECRETARIAT ON ACID RAIN . The health impact of most concern is premature mortality as a result of exposure to fine particles. for example on ecosystems and buildings1. Research programmes in Europe found very similar results to those performed in the USA. and is available interactively on the internet2.htm) in the section “Maps on Air Pollution Effects”. action was taken to reduce air pollution impacts in many countries. This research demonstrated impacts at much lower concentrations than had previously been thought relevant to health. or formed by chemical reaction in the atmosphere (‘secondary particles’). The European Commission’s ExternE Programme3. have demonstrated that. in which case they are defined as ‘primary particles’.eu. concern over the health effects of air pollution has increased significantly in the last 20 years following research originally in the USA that found relationships between daily air pollutant levels and mortality and hospital admission rates. Whilst quantifying health impacts.

1. NO2. It was developed after extensive consultation with European experts. 2001. was described in detail by Hurley et al (2005). though these were countered in detail by the CAFE-CBA team. 1999b) Waste management Draft Waste incineration directive (AEA Technology. For these countries a single set of values has been applied to all countries (in line with the methods used in the CAFE analysis). Mapping primary (emitted) pollutants to impacts.cafe-cba. Member State experts. 2000) More recently. For large point sources in other European countries (extending east to Turkey. 2005e). Table 1. 4 PM2. identifies quantified impacts. 2001) Emission Caps Gothenburg Protocol (AEA Technology. 1999a) National Emission Ceilings Directive (AEA Technology.3 Scope of analysis The analysis presented in this report is focused on the health impacts of secondary particles formed in the atmosphere following the release of SO2 and NOx. industry and NGOs (Non-Governmental Organisations). SO2 and lead (IVM and others.org AIR POLLUTION AND CLIMATE SERIES . the monetary equivalent of health impacts has been quantified based on the ‘willingness to pay’ (WTP) approach (see Hurley et al. Full details of this debate are available on the CAFECBA website4 (AEA Technology and others. various reports) and the Empire State Electric Energy Research Corporation (Rowe et al. Entec. 1997) 2nd Daughter Directive on CO and benzene (AEA Technology.5 pq pq SO2 http://www. This was critical of a number of decisions made on the methodology. The ExternE methods have found wide application in the appraisal of European environmental policy relating to air pollution and waste management in particular: Air quality directives 1st Daughter Directive on fine particles. A detailed review of the CAFE-CBA methodology was made by UNICE (Union des Industries de la Communauté Européenne). 1998a) 3rd Daughter Directive on ozone (AEA Technology. blank cells indicate no link between pollutant and impact. pq = partially quantified. including groups convened by WHO (World Health Organization). For large point sources in the EU25. Russia and the former Soviet Republics) impacts are quantified but not monetised. 2005). 1995). 1998b). analysis of this type has provided a major input to the development of the European Commission’s Thematic Strategy on Air Pollution under the costbenefit analysis (CBA) of the Clean Air For Europe (CAFE) Programme 4. Norway and Switzerland. NOx Particles: human health Ozone: human health Primary pollutants: human health Ecosystems: acidification Ecosystems: eutrophication Ecosystems: ozone effects Crops: ozone effects Materials: material degradation Materials: soiling Key: identifies impacts unquantified in this report. 4th Daughter Directive on PAHs and heavy metals (AEA Technology. The methodology for health impact assessment used by CAFE. 1997) Waste management and PVC (AEA Technology. and adopted here. intended as representative of the views of European industry on the benefits methodology.10 been reinforced by similar work in the USA performed for the Department of Energy ( ORNL/RFF.

but insignificant at the European scale Exposure-response data unavailable Negligible according to past work Negligible according to past work No information on possible chronic effects. The health impacts that have been quantified for this report are listed in detail in Table 2. typically one or more days. Health impacts quantified in the analysis undertaken for this report. Table 2. whilst ‘acute effects’ are those caused by exposure to elevated pollution levels over a shorter period. acidification and nitrogen dep. forest production. from Valuation of ecological impacts is currently too excess ozone exposure. Effect Health Ozone .11 Table 1 summarises the pollutants considered. suspected but not proven Comments CAFE analysis found that these impacts are only a few percent of health damages Effects on cultural assets. steel in re-inforced concrete Lack of stock at risk inventory and valuation data PM and building soiling Effects of ozone on paint. rubber Ecosystems Effects on biodiversity.chronic morbidity Direct effects of SO2 and NOx Agricultural production Direct effects of SO2 and NOx Direct ozone impacts on crop yield N deposition as crop fertiliser Visible damage to marketed produce Interactions between pollutants.chronic mortality Ozone . etc. The term ‘chronic effects’ relates to impacts arising from long-term exposures (for months or years). uncertain Visibility Change in visual range Drinking w ater Supply and quality Impact of little concern in Europe Limited data availability THE SWEDISH NGO SECRETARIAT ON ACID RAIN . More information on the impacts omitted from the analysis is given in Table 3. with pests and pathogens. climate… Acidification/liming Materials SO2/acid effects on utilitarian buildings Negligible according to past work Locally important for some crops.5 Acute effects on: Respiratory hospital admissions Cardiac hospital admissions Consultations with primary care physicians Morbidity Restricted activity days Use of respiratory medication Symptom days Acute effects on: Mortality Respiratory hospital admissions Morbidity Minor restricted activity days Use of respiratory medication Symptom days Human exposure to ozone Table 3. Burden Effect Chronic effects on: Adults over 30 years Mortality Infants Morbidity Bronchitis Human exposure to PM2. and highlights which impacts are and are not quantified in this report. Effects omitted from the analysis.

12 AIR POLLUTION AND CLIMATE SERIES .

industry and non-governmental organisations (NGOs). a database assembled by the IEA Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme Information from these databases has been collated for over 7. though not unanimous.000 plant from across Europe. and emissions of SO2. 2005). 2.2 Sources of data used by SENCO The main sources of data for the SENCO database are: EPER. 2. The following provides an overview of the data contained in it. The SENCO database of emissions from large point sources in Europe.info/ THE SWEDISH NGO SECRETARIAT ON ACID RAIN . the European Pollution Emission Register IEACR.2 The SENCO database The SENCO database is described more completely by Barrett (2004). It contains information on the names and locations of plant.13 2. b. NOx.2. allowing identification of the most and least polluting per unit of useful output. 2. Agreement on the methods and functions used is widespread. see http://www. 2004a. c. and were developed through extensive debate with stakeholders including representatives of the EU Member States.externe. the World Health Organization (WHO) and other experts. Analysis of health impacts performed for the cost benefit analysis of the Clean Air For Europe (CAFE) programme of European Commission Directorate General Environment (AEA Technology and others. their purpose and useful outputs. Hurley et al. This work has also fed directly into the development of the Reference document on Economics and Cross Media Effects produced by the European IPPC Bureau (2005).1 Data available from the SENCO database The SENCO database provides an extensive listing of data on emissions and performance of large industrial facilities throughout Europe. 2. b. covering most member states of UNECE. the Platts World Electric Power Plant database IEACO2. Additional data have been sought by SENCO and integrated with the 5 For further information on ExternE. d. and the quality of that information. 2005a.2. The underlying methods for this work build on the work of the long-running ExternE Project series of EC DG Research5.1 Overview The analysis presented here is based principally on two projects: 1. PM and CO2. the International Energy Agency Coal Research coal power station database Platts. 2004). This database has already been used to rank large point sources of air pollution in Europe according to their emissions (Barrett. Methods and Data 2.

including those from small sources near or in population centres. needs further examination. Some plant may have shut. It has been necessary to estimate emissions of SO2 and NOx in the SENCO database for many plant included in EPER and the other databases as a result of incomplete reporting. To fill this gap. Accordingly. SO2 and PM 2. 2005). New plant will have come on-line.5. and not at all in the others. These plant have been removed from the analysis.14 database where necessary and available to give a more complete picture of European plant than would otherwise be possible. This highlights the need for more complete reporting under EPER. Accordingly.3 Quantification of health impacts of emissions of NOx. In addition. Other changes. may have occurred. Provided that effective particle emission controls are in place at any plant this would make only a small difference to the results presented here. SO2 and VOC. PM2. In general. 2. damage associated with primary particle emissions has been excluded from quantification in this report for all but a small number of cases used for illustrative purposes. NOx. IPPC and LCPD regulation. plans may already exist at other plant for improved emission control. and these estimates are subject to a significant level of uncertainty.3. the SENCO database has estimates of particle emissions in many cases. Given the need to estimate emissions it is possible that significant errors also affect other plant. BeTa has already been used to support the development of the IPPC (Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control) Bureau’s position on ‘Economics and Cross Media Effects’ (EIPPC Bureau. As a result.2.3 Data quality The data used in this report are typically from around 2000/2001. the results presented here may therefore for some plant (but not all) paint an overly pessimistic view of health damages at the present time. particularly. such as fuel switching. With these caveats and others described below concerning the impact assessment in mind. For each country in the EU (excluding Cyprus).1 Overview of methods Analysis contained in this report follows the impact pathway methodology developed in the ExternE Project funded by EC DG Research. the results presented here should only be seen as indicative of likely levels of damage. The impact pathway described by the analysis is as follows: AIR POLLUTION AND CLIMATE SERIES . However the issue of primary emissions. Some operators may have retrofitted abatement equipment. 2. Methods for estimating the impacts and economic damage associated with emissions from the EU25 are described by AEA Technology and others (2005b) for development of the updated BeTa (Benefits Table) database. This demonstrates a need for annual updating of emission estimates in databases such as EPER. Primary particle emissions are reported for relatively few plant in the EPER database. Internal review found that the emissions data used for facilities that process or distribute gas in the first edition of this report significantly overestimated true emissions. these changes will have resulted in reductions in emission because of pressure from National Emission Ceilings. BeTa provides average damage estimates in terms of euro/tonne emission of ammonia.

2. Results were then multiplied by valuation factors to show the economic value of each impact. expressed in euro/tonne. including the reasons behind their selection for CAFE.2 Inputs for the BeTa database The dispersion modelling used in BeTa takes outputs from the EMEP model (Simpson and Wind. than the reduction in longevity expressed as LYL.15 Emission of pollutants Dispersion and physical/chemical transformation of pollutants Exposure of people Quantification of impacts Valuation of impacts The method gives two sets of useful data to add to the emission estimates contained in the SENCO database: 1.3. Some argue that it is unethical to value health in this manner. Information on the total value attached to these occurrences of ill health. The methods used here define a consistent and transparent weighting scheme. The EMEP model was run many times to quantify the change in pollution climate across the EU25 arising from a 15% change in emission of pollutants including NOx. The “population weighted pollutant concentrations” so derived for each grid cell were then summed and combined with the exposure-response functions adopted under the CAFE programme to quantify the average number of cases or events of death and ill health (following the list in Table 2) associated with the release of 1 tonne of each pollutant in each country. and summed to give a total damage per unit pollution emission. NOx and primary PM from large point sources in Europe. Further information on these factors. These changes in pollution concentrations were then combined with population (based on UN data sources) on a 50 x 50 km grid.5 and SO2 from each country in the year 2010. has been adopted in line with recommendations made under the ExternE Project. There is roughly a factor four difference between the extremes of the range. These impacts on air quality were then scaled back to estimate the change in concentration across Europe arising from emission of 1 tonne of pollutant. foreign aid and so on. The modelling includes assessment of the formation of secondary pollutants such as ozone (from NOx and VOC emissions) and nitrate and sulphate particulates (from NOx and SO2 emissions respectively). Further discussion THE SWEDISH NGO SECRETARIAT ON ACID RAIN . 2005). Although estimates of the number of deaths linked to operation of each plant are also provided. ExternE also recommends that it is most meaningful to report mortality in terms of life years lost (LYL). is provided by Hurley et al (2005). the lower estimate of euro 52. In CAFE the valuation of mortality was performed using four figures – a lower and higher estimate of the value of a life year (VOLY) and a lower and higher estimate for the value of statistical life (VSL). For this report the most conservative of these figures. these figures should be regarded as less robust. according to surveys performed using economic techniques to assess the ‘willingness to pay’ (WTP) of members of the public to a change in the risk of being ill or dying early. 2.000/VOLY. However. PM2. or necessarily reflects the views of the public. though this is rarely done in a way that transparently identifies underlying values. this argument ignores the fact that health is routinely valued by policy makers through the allocation of funds to medical services. The key parameters of response function and valuation data are shown for each effect in Table 4. Stakeholders who do not accept the values adopted in the analysis are of course free to substitute their own. Information on the number of cases of ill health and loss of life expectancy linked to exposure to emissions of SO2.

PM10 LRS (including cough) among children . However. Project (Holland.30% 1.000 38 1 Chronic mortality (LYL.30% 0.PM2.PM10 Respiratory medication use by asthmatic children . the health damage estimated to be caused by emissions from plants in remote regions of the country with a low population density will be significantly lower than that estimated in the more densely populated areas. with one exception. VOLY valuation) age >30 .500.000 980.000 2.000 2. VSL valuation) age >30 . R esp o n se functions: % or absolute change for affected population per 10µg/m3 pollutant Effect . Accordingly.PM10 Restricted activity days (RADs) ages 18-64 .000 1.ozone Respiratory hospital admissions. ages 18-64 . SO2 via sulphate aerosol and NOx via nitrate aerosol but not ozone.PM2.000 2. has shown that for the EU countries a good relationship exists between damage and population density within each country for effects of primary particles.PM10 LRS.75% 0.PM10 Chronic bronchitis.ozone 6% 6% 4% 7% 1.18 1. extrapolation has been performed by weighting against the population density of the region within which each Russian plant is contained. Data are presented in full by Holland (2006).pollutant Valuation (euro/case or event) 52.48% 0.PM10 Respiratory hospital admissions.16 Table 4. Russia. all ages . population age >27 . age >65 . 2006). and have all the uncertainty bound up in that fact.PM10 Cardiac hospital admissions.85 0.91 0. rather than the country as a whole.000 people/km2 .000 82 1 1 38 38 52.ozone Respiratory medication use by asthmatic adults . including cough. and it seems appropriate to consider Moscow within an area roughly similar to a more typical European country.30 1.000 190.PM10 Acute mortality (VOLY median valuation) . 2005).5 Chronic mortality (deaths.3. The fact that some considerable effort has been made to weight Russian emissions by surrounding population density should not be taken to suggest that the results so generated are highly accurate.PM2.5 Respiratory medication use by asthmatic adults . the method for extrapolation is based on country level data. they should be robust 6 The population density of the city of Moscow approaches 10. among symptomatic adults.11 months . That said.73 * Life years lost and the number of deaths are different ways of expressing the same impact and their results are therefore not additive. AIR POLLUTION AND CLIMATE SERIES .14% 0.3 Quantification of impacts outside the EU Country-specific results of modelling of emissions from non-EU countries are not yet available from EMEP Analysis undertaken for the EC DG Research Methodex . however.5 Infant mortality ages 1 . They are the output of an extrapolation. for example in and around Moscow or St Petersburg. all ages . Population density is extremely variable within Russia.ozone Minor restricted activity days. These relationships have therefore been applied to the non-EU countries at the national level.6% 4. 2. ranging from 362 people/km2 for the administrative subdivisions of Moscow City and Moscow Oblast combined6 to less than 1 person/km2 in regions covering more than a third of the country. Response functions and valuation data for quantification of health damages linked to PM and O3 exposure (based on Hurley et al. Given that the area of the various subdivisions of Russia is similar to the range of areas of other entire European countries. of these issues is given by Hurley et al (2005) in the report on health methodology for the CAFE-CBA assessment.

variability of the order of a factor of 2 around best estimates may be expected within a large country. This may bias results to underestimation of damage. and the advice of WHO given in answers to questions raised by the CAFE stakeholders.4 Data quality Whilst the EMEP model is widely respected in Europe.3. with the response function being linear down to a concentration of zero. Turning to the response functions used. 3. though they are not included in this analysis. That there are no separate effects arising from exposure to SO2 and NO2. A much higher degree of variability would be found for primary particles. beyond those that might be implicitly accounted for in the quantification of damages from secondary particles. the following positions have been adopted: 1. That all types of particle are equally damaging per unit mass. in common with other studies in this field. making the specificity of site less important. and a lower rate of 4% for sensitivity analysis. 2. That there is no threshold for the effects of fine particles on health. there are some caveats relating to its use in this work. If incorrect. factoring out the specificity of damage relative to the height of emission and the precise location of each plant. That ozone effects are quantified only above a concentration of 35 ppb (parts per billion). It is possible that this biases results to overestimation of damage in this study. this seems unlikely to introduce a bias to the analysis. 4.17 enough to provide an indication of the general magnitude of health damages associated with emissions from each plant. only the 6% rate has been used. These secondary pollutants take some time to form in the atmosphere. To some extent the uncertainty arising from this is reduced here because this analysis focuses on impacts of secondary pollutants (principally sulphate and nitrate aerosols) arising following the release of SO2 and NOx. Even so. Firstly. Here. Given a lack of evidence for a threshold. THE SWEDISH NGO SECRETARIAT ON ACID RAIN . WHO also recommended that impacts of particle exposure on chronic mortality be quantified using a risk rate of 6% per 10 μg/m3 for the main analysis. 2. Impacts based on this lower rate can be obtained simply by reducing the results for the number of LYL or deaths by one third. this would bias results to underestimation of damage. the results used represent an average for each country.

18 AIR POLLUTION AND CLIMATE SERIES .

000 6.) primary particles which would be considered hazardous from the time of release from a large point source. with ozone related impacts adding on average less than 3% to the damage associated with NOx and 1% to the total damage of SO2 and NOx combined. Norway and Switzerland 3.000 per year.000 59.19 3. Norway and Switzerland.000.500 57. This represents 21% of the loss of life calcuTable 5.000 88. including cough. Health effect Chronic mortality (life years lost.000 72. 3.75 2.000.200.000 Economic equivalent (euro millions) 41.000 190 6. Total cases 790. among adults with chronic symptoms LRS* (including cough) among children Total (using number of life years lost) Total (using number of deaths) * Lower respiratory symptoms. introducing additional uncertainty.000 6.000. population aged > 30) Chronic mortality (deaths in population aged > 30) Infant mortality (infants aged 1 .000 130 35.000 8.2 0.2.000 13.200 1.000 74. this is moderated through the focus on the impacts of SO2 and NOx via the formation of secondary particles in the atmosphere. The fact that the work does not consider site at a finer resolution within countries does affect the quality of outputs.1 Data inputs from the BeTa database The results in BeTa show significant variation in damage between countries.000 750. Norway and Switzerland. all ages Cardiac hospital admissions.1 Total impacts Table 5 shows total estimated health impacts and associated economic values arising from emissions of NOx and SO2 for large point sources for EU Member States. Site specificity in damage is much stronger for (e. However. all ages Restricted activity days (RADs) working age population Respiratory medication use by adults Respiratory medication use by children LRS*.2 Health impacts from LPS in the SENCO database in the EU25.000 39. Damage is mostly linked to secondary aerosol formation. Results 3. permitting the present study to take some account of site specificity. The total number of life years lost attributable to emissions from large point sources across the region is 790.000 THE SWEDISH NGO SECRETARIAT ON ACID RAIN .500 26 16 6. population aged > 27 Respiratory hospital admissions. Total health impacts and their economic equivalent for emissions of SO2 and NOx from Large Point Sources in the SENCO database for the EU25.12 months) Chronic bronchitis.g.100 73.

). The remaining 79% can be accounted for by: 1. Variation in country-average health damage linked to SO2 emissions in different EU Member States (AEA Technology and others. 2005b). 2. 3.20 Figure 1. natural sources. Emissions from other sources within the region (from transport. 2005b). Mortality valuation based on median VOLY.5. the domestic sector. Total damage is in the order 57 billion euro/year based on use of the value of a life year (VOLY) approach for mortality valuation. Mortality valuation based on median VOLY. 12000 10000 Damage €/tonne NOx 8000 6000 4000 2000 0 Mediterranean Malta Finland Estonia Greece Portugal Latvia NE Atlantic Lithuania Sweden Baltic Sea Spain Ireland Poland UK Denmark North Sea Belgium Slovakia Hungary Italy Netherlands Slovenia Czech Rep France Austria Luxembourg Germany Figure 2. Emissions from outside the countries considered in this part of the analysis. smaller industrial facilities. Variation in country-average damage linked to NOx emissions in different EU Member States (AEA Technology and others. Effects of emissions of PM 2. NH3 and VOCs. etc. and is in line with estimates based on the ExternE Project AIR POLLUTION AND CLIMATE SERIES . 14000 12000 Damage €/tonne SO2 10000 8000 6000 4000 2000 0 Greece Estonia Finland Latvia Mediterranean Malta NE Atlantic Lithuania Sweden Portugal Baltic Sea Spain Hungary Ireland Slovakia Denmark Poland Italy Slovenia UK North Sea Czech Rep France Austria Luxembourg Belgium Germany Netherlands lated for the EU in 2000 in the CAFE baseline analysis (AEA Technology and others. 2005a). This corresponds to the lower end of the CAFE range.

2. and 90% by the 911 most damaging (out of a total of 6. 88 billion euro/year.21 methodology. 2. Norway and Switzerland Table 6 lists the 200 plant in the region containing the EU25. Norway and Switzerland recorded in the SENCO database is shown in Figure 3. Methods and input variables are prone to uncertainty. Use of the mean value of statistical life (in line with the upper end of the CAFE estimates) would roughly double the VSL based estimate to 170 billion euro/year. 110% 100% % of total SO2. No account has been taken of the impacts of pollutants other than SO2 and NOx. Cumulative distribution of damage by number of plant in the EU25. Norway and Switzerland. Norway and Switzerland that generate the highest health damage. the median is regarded by a number of economists as more representative of societal preference than the mean.2. Given a highly skewed distribution of the responses. THE SWEDISH NGO SECRETARIAT ON ACID RAIN . for which 50% of damage is estimated to be accumulated by only 20 plant. and 90% by 128. based on mortality valuation using the alternative approach of value of statistical life. However. 3. Both of these estimates are based on use of median estimates from the observed distribution of responses to ‘willingness to pay’ questionnaires. The steepness of the curve in its initial phase is striking.333 plant).3 Plant with the largest impacts in the EU25. A higher value is also given. These issues of valuation of course have no effect on the number of cases or health events estimated here. including the attribution of health impacts to secondary particles formed following the release of NOx and SO2. out of a total of 534. Figure 3. A number of caveats should be considered: 1. according to the CAFE-CBA methodology and the information contained in the SENCO database. though of course it pays little regard to the views of those who proclaim a very high willingness to pay. NOX damage 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 Number of plant The situation seems even more extreme in the non-EU region.2 Cumulative distribution of impacts The cumulative distribution of damage for SO2 and NOx emissions from the LPS in EU25. the factor 10 disparity in the total number of sources identified in the two regions requires further investigation. with 50% of damage accumulated by the 120 most damaging plant. 3.

4 and 4. personal communication. for many plant included in EPER it was necessary to estimate SO2 and/or NOx emissions. Some of the plant listed may be far more efficient in terms of production per unit damage than smaller plant that are not included on this list simply because of their size. the number of life years and the corresponding number of deaths. However. where plant have been upgraded since 2001. 4. In addition. Uncertainty generally is discussed in more detail in Sections 2. Use of the mean VSL would further double damage. Fuel codes used in the tables S_ Solid fuel S_Coa S_CoaAnt S_CoaBit S_CoaHar S_CoaLig S_CoaSub S_OilSha_Estonia S_PeaMil L_ Liquid fuel L_LigDis L_FO L_FOHea G_ Gaseous fuel G_BlaFur G_Nat X unknown fuel undefined coal anthracite bituminous coal hard coal lignite subbituminous coal Oil shale Peat light distillate oil fuel oil heavy fuel oil blast furnace gas natural gas AIR POLLUTION AND CLIMATE SERIES . 2005). The fuel codes used in Table 6 are described in the box below. Shading in the tables highlights those plant not included in EPER. The economic estimates given in Table 6 are based on the median estimate of the VOLY. for example. some experts in the field argue very strongly against quantification of deaths (e. The results shown include total economic damages linked to the health impacts.22 3.3. A. and may not bear a close relation to current plant performance. noting that for some plant a variety of coals may be used.2. Use of the median estimate of the VSL would increase damage by about 50%.g.1. Rabl. Indeed. new plant may have been opened since 2001 – these will not be included in the listing. Emissions data are also prone to uncertainty. rather than a good standard of environmental control. for which emissions data are likely to be less reliable. 2. and hence link to the lower estimate shown in Table 5.3. The figures for deaths are less robust than the figures for life years lost.

800 6.300 3. Electricity Czech Rep.500 8.700 2. other fuels Electricity Electricity Electricity Czech Rep. Electricity Czech Rep. Electricity Germany Germany Italy Electricity Electricity Electricity THE SWEDISH NGO SECRETARIAT ON ACID RAIN .000 6.700 4.000 3. Damage Plant 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 Puentes Belchatow Teruel Turow Adamow Patnow Longannet Cottam West Burton A Porto Tolle Eggborough Oroszlany Drax Prunerov I Ferrybridge C Pomorzany Taranto Jänschwalde Belfast West Compostilla Matra Krakow Didcot A Meirama Ledvice II La Robla Aberthaw Schwedt Rugeley Kingsnorth Rybnik Pernis Rotterdam Ironbridge Novaky B Litvinov Lippendorf High Marnham Tisova I Moneypoint Megalopolis Fiddlers Ferry Gravenchon Grain Lynemouth Setubal Melnik III Pocerady Weisweiler Frimmersdorf San Filippo Country Spain Poland Spain Poland Poland Poland UK UK UK Italy UK Hungary UK UK Poland Italy Germany UK Spain Hungary Poland UK Spain Spain UK Germany UK UK Poland NACE sector Electricity Electricity Electricity Electricity Electricity Electricity Electricity Electricity Electricity Electricity Electricity Electricity Electricity Electricity Electricity Iron&steel Electricity Electricity Electricity Electricity Electricity Electricity Electricity Electricity Electricity Coke.100 5.300 4.600 3.000 2.700 Deaths /year 1.23 Table 6.600 890 890 760 690 690 680 660 630 570 560 540 520 480 470 470 460 460 440 430 420 420 420 400 380 370 370 360 360 350 330 320 320 310 310 310 310 300 290 290 290 280 280 280 270 260 260 250 250 1.900 3. The 200 LPS in the EU25.300 7.500 4.100 3. Shading highlights plant not included in the EPER database.500 4.900 4.600 9.200 5.300 3.400 4. other fuels Electricity Electricity Electricity Main fuel S _C oa S _C oaLi g S _C oa S _C oaLi g S _C oaLi g S _C oaLi g S _C oa S _C oa S _C oa L S _C oa S_CoaSub S _C oa S _C oaLi g S _C oa S _C oaB i t X S _C oa S _C oa S_CoaAntBit S _C oaLi g S _C oaB i t S _C oa S _C oa S _C oaLi g S_CoaBitAnt S _C oa X S _C oa S _C oa S _C oaB i t X S _C oa S_CoaLig S_CoaBit S _C oa S _C oa S _C oaLi g S _C oa S _C oa S _C oa X L S _C oa L S _C oaLi g S _C oaLi g S _C oa S _C oa L (million euro/yr) Life years lost/yr 19.900 3.200 7.800 2.000 9.100 4.000 3.100 5.800 3.300 3.000 4. Norway and Switzerland estimated to have the largest health damages from emissions of SO2 and NOx via secondary pollutant formation. Electricity Netherlands Coke.000 3.500 3.800 2.100 6.300 3. Electricity Czech Rep.000 18.800 3.100 3.400 3.200 3.900 2.300 700 700 600 540 540 530 510 500 450 440 420 410 380 370 370 360 360 350 330 330 330 330 310 300 290 290 280 280 270 260 250 250 240 240 240 240 230 230 230 220 220 220 220 210 200 200 200 190 Czech Rep.800 1.400 7.100 3.600 4.400 1. other fuels UK Slovakia Germany UK Ireland GRC UK France UK UK Portugal Electricity Electricity Electricity Electricity Electricity Electricity Electricity Coke. Electricity Czech Rep.000 5.600 5.400 7.700 5.

600 2.700 1.900 1.200 2.200 2.200 2.600 2.500 2.100 2. other fuels Electricity Electricity AIR POLLUTION AND CLIMATE SERIES . other fuels Electricity Iron&steel Electricity Coke.600 2.000 1.200 2.000 2.800 1.900 1.100 2. other fuels Electricity Electricity Electricity Electricity Electricity F ood Coke.700 1.900 1.300 2. Chemicals Electricity Electricity Iron&steel Electricity Electricity Electricity Coke.600 2. Damage Plant 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 Ratcliffe on Soar Puertollano Lodz IV Westfalen Tilbury Gonfreville Zeran Tusimice I Cockenzie Ruien Le Havre Siersza Drakelow B Kozienice Ostroleka A Elektrownia III Bergheim Konin Sines Gelsenkirchen/Scholven Skawina Gela/Ref Alberto Cordemais Chvaletice Fos Sur Mer Borsod Dunamenti Kilroot Power Station Priolo Gargallo Nord Krakow Leg Sicilia Detmarovice Amer Emil Huchet Boxberg Esso Antwerpen Tarbert Aboño Almeria Fawley Refinery Anllares Vojany I La Casella Piombino Brindisi/Federico Escucha FINA Antwerpen Tapada Guardo Country UK Spain Poland Germany UK France Poland UK Belgium France Poland UK Poland Poland Poland Germany Poland Portugal Germany Poland Italy Spain France Czech Rep.200 2.000 2. other fuels Electricity Electricity Main fuel S _C oa X S _C oaB i t X S _C oa X S _C oaB i t S _C oaLi g S _C oa S _C oa S _C oa S _C oaB i t S _C oa S _C oaB i t S _C oaB i t S _C oaB i t X S _C oaLi g S _C oa S _C oa S _C oaB i t X X S _C oa S _C oaLi g X S_CoaSub L_FuOHea S _C oa X S _C oaB i t L_LigDis/FueO S _C oaB i t S_CoaBit S_Coa S _C oa X L S _C oa S _C oa X S _C oa S_CoaHar L L X X X S _C oa S _C oaB i t (million euro/yr) Life years lost/yr 2. other fuels Electricity Electricity Electricity Electricity Electricity Electricity Electricity Electricity Electricity Electricity Electricity Electricity Electricity Electricity Coke.700 1.900 1.300 2.900 1.800 1. Norway and Switzerland estimated to have the largest health damages from emissions of SO2 and NOx via secondary pollutant formation.700 1.100 2.000 2. Electricity Netherlands Electricity France Germany Belgium Ireland Spain Spain UK Spain Slovakia Italy Italy Italy Spain Belgium Portugal Spain Electricity Electricity Coke. Electricity Czech Rep.300 2.24 Table 6 (continued). other fuels Electricity Electricity Electricity Coke.700 1.800 1. Shading highlights plant not included in the EPER database.200 2.700 1.800 1.000 2.700 Deaths /year 250 240 240 240 240 230 220 220 220 220 220 220 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 200 200 200 190 190 190 190 180 180 180 180 180 180 170 170 170 170 170 170 170 160 160 160 160 160 160 160 160 160 190 190 190 190 180 180 180 170 170 170 170 170 170 170 170 160 160 160 160 160 160 160 160 150 150 150 150 150 140 140 140 140 140 140 140 140 140 130 130 130 130 130 130 130 130 130 130 120 120 120 Czech Rep.400 2.300 2.300 2.000 2.800 1. The 200 LPS in the EU25. other fuels Inorg.300 2.300 2.900 1.300 2.800 1.500 2.800 1. France Hungary Hungary UK Italy Poland Italy NACE sector Electricity Coke.

600 1.300 1. other fuels Electricity Electricity Electricity Coke.500 1.600 1.300 1.200 1.400 1.600 1.200 1. The 200 LPS in the EU25.300 1.700 1.600 1.500 1. Norway and Switzerland estimated to have the largest health damages from emissions of SO2 and NOx via secondary pollutant formation.25 Table 6 (continued).300 1. Netherlands Belgium Italy Belgium Italy Germany Germany Spain Netherlands Poland Ireland Estonia Germany Italy NACE sector Energy Electricity Electricity Electricity Electricity Electricity Electricity Electricity Electricity Electricity Water Electricity Coke.700 1. other fuels Electricity Iron&steel Iron&steel Electricity Electricity Electricity Coke.500 1.200 1.300 1.500 1. other fuels Coke.500 1.700 1.400 1. other fuels Electricity Electricity Coke.600 1.400 1.300 1. Spain Germany France Italy Netherlands Italy Germany France Belgium SVN Italy France Czech Rep. France Italy France Spain France Germany Czech Rep. Shading highlights plant not included in the EPER database.300 1.500 1. other fuels Electricity Organic chemicals Cement Electricity Electricity Iron&steel Coke.300 1.400 1.200 1.400 1.300 1.600 1. other fuels Electricity Electricity Iron&steel Electricity Electricity Iron&steel Electricity Electricity Electricity Cement Electricity Main fuel S _C oa S _C oa S _C oa S_CoaSubHar S _C oa G_Nat S_CoaBit G_Nat S _C oaB i t S _C oa S _C oa S _C oa X S_CoaSub S _C oaB i t S _C oaB i t X S _C oa L S _C oaB i t X X X X S _C oa S _C oaLi g S _C oa X S _C oaLi g S _C oa X X S _C oa X X S _C oaLi gB i t X/G_BlaFur X X S _C oa L X S _C oa S _C oa X S _C oaB i t S_PeaMil S_OilSha_Est X S _C oa (million euro/yr) Life years lost/yr 1.400 1.400 1.500 1.600 1.500 1. Damage Plant 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 Maasvlakte Soto de Ribera Neurath Pecs Power Plant Bremen/Hafen Imola Hemweg Fort Dunlop Kosciuszko Wilhelmshaven Excatron San Martin Banhida Dolna Odra Trebovice Gibraltar Schwarze Pumpe Ajaccio Fusina Rotterdam/Darcy Venezia/Mal Dillingen Dunkerque Brugge Ljubljana Genova La Mede Opatovice Woippy Sarroch Petit Couronne Los Barrios Berre L'Etang Deuna Hodonin Ijmuiden/Laura Seraing Augusta Mol Torrevaldaliga Nord HKM Duisburg Voerde Narcea Ijmuiden/ Laura Wroclaw Rhode Eesti Mainz Monfalcone Country Netherlands Spain Germany Hungary Germany Italy Netherlands UK Poland Germany Spain Spain Hungary Poland Czech Rep.300 1.300 1.300 1.600 1.500 1.400 1.300 1.700 1.500 1.200 Deaths /year 160 160 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 140 140 140 140 140 140 140 140 140 140 130 130 130 130 130 130 130 130 130 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 110 110 110 110 110 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 110 110 110 110 110 110 110 110 110 110 110 110 110 100 100 100 100 100 99 98 97 97 95 95 94 93 93 93 93 93 92 91 91 91 89 88 87 87 85 Blenod/Pont a Mousson France THE SWEDISH NGO SECRETARIAT ON ACID RAIN .300 1.200 1. other fuels Electricity Electricity Electricity Coke.

100 1. other fuels Non-ferrous metals Electricity Electricity Electricity Electricity Electricity Electricity Electricity Electricity Electricity Electricity Coke.000 1. other fuels Coke.100 1. Shading highlights plant not included in the EPER database. other fuels Coke.000 1.100 1.100 1. Damage Plant 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 Balti Aughinish Nieuwdorp Mendonk L a cq Wesseling Cercs Meyreuil Laziska Gdansk II Donges Milazzo Tisza Donges Ensdorf Blachownia Pleinting Carregado Gent Lindsey Koln/ Godorf Tarragona Repsol Stanlow P ego Weiher Saarbrucken Priolo Gargallo Sud Feyzin Grangemouth Loon Plage Noyelles Godault Bydgoszcz II Lada Mannheim Puertollano Elektrenai Schilling Livorno Porto Torres/ Fiume Westfalen Brindisi Sud Raffinerie de Berre Ostiglia Pembroke Santurce RefinerÍa de Castellón ISPAT.000 990 990 980 980 980 980 970 960 950 950 950 950 940 940 940 930 930 910 910 890 880 880 870 870 870 870 860 Deaths /year 110 110 110 110 110 100 100 100 100 100 100 99 98 98 98 97 97 97 96 96 96 96 93 92 92 91 91 91 91 91 89 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 87 87 85 85 83 82 82 81 81 81 81 80 85 83 83 83 82 81 80 80 79 79 78 77 77 77 76 76 76 76 75 75 75 75 73 72 72 72 72 71 71 71 70 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 68 68 66 66 65 64 64 64 63 63 63 63 Netherlands Coke. other fuels Electricity Electricity Coke. other fuels Buschhaus.000 1. Norway and Switzerland estimated to have the largest health damages from emissions of SO2 and NOx via secondary pollutant formation. other fuels Coke.000 1.26 Table 6 (continued).000 1.200 1.100 1. other fuels Coke.100 1.100 1.100 1. other fuels Electricity Electricity Coke oven prods Electricity Electricity Electricity Electricity Iron&steel Coke. Duisburg Marchienne Country Estonia Ireland Belgium France Germany Spain France Poland Poland France Italy Hungary France Germany Poland Germany Portugal Belgium UK Germany Spain UK Portugal Germany Germany Italy France UK France France Poland Spain Germany Spain Lithuania Germany Italy Italy Germany Italy France Italy UK Spain Spain Germany Belgium Poland NACE sector Electricity Inorg chemicals Iron&steel Gas.100 1.100 1. oil extraction Organic chemicals Electricity Electricity Electricity Electricity Coke.000 1. The 200 LPS in the EU25.000 1. other fuels Electricity Coke.000 1. other fuels Iron&steel Iron&steel Electricity Main fuel S_OilSha_Est X X X X X S_CoaBitLig X S _C oaB i t S_CoaBit X S _C oa L_FuOHea X S _C oa S _C oaB i t L_FuOLig L X X X X X S _C oaB i t S _C oa S _C oa X X X X X S _C oaB i t S _C oa S_Coa S _C oa L_FuOHea L_FueOil L L S _C oa S _C oa X G_Nat S _C oa X L_FuOH/FueOl L X X S _C oaB i t (million euro/yr) Life years lost/yr 1.100 1. other fuels Coke. Schöningen Germany 200 Lagisza AIR POLLUTION AND CLIMATE SERIES . other fuels Electricity Electricity Energy Coke.100 1. other fuels Coke.100 1.

For consistency within the calculations it has been necessary to use emissions as well as output calculated by the SENCO database to generate the euro cent/kWh estimates.1 5. according to the estimates made for this report.0 1. A major problem for this part of the work is that production statistics are not reported in the main source databases that feed into the SENCO database. Given the inevitable uncertainty that results from the need to estimate emissions and outputs.0 7.071 12.4 10. 3.150 7. Overall. Table 7.909 6. whereas a smaller plant that is far less efficient does not appear. THE SWEDISH NGO SECRETARIAT ON ACID RAIN .6 4. The first column shows the position of each plant in the list given in Table 6. To account for this. If the list included all power plants these changes would be more significant. The ranking changes significantly.8 The following are particularly evident from this table: 1. The estimated damage in eurocent/kWh for several plants is greater than typical prices charged per kWh of electricity. for example.213 Calc eurocent /kWh 20. 2. the range in estimates per kWh would be even broader. another approach to the ranking is to consider damage per unit of useful output.4 2.5 2. outputs of the two streams have simply been added together. For plant that generate heat as well as electricity.987 27. with gas fired plant tending to have significantly lower damage per kWh. and some older plant having even higher damage per kWh.3 4. taking the 12 plant in the EU.326 21.353 10. Even though the plant listed are all amongst the most damaging according to the estimates made in this report.484 7. whilst the second column (on which the table as a whole is ordered) shows the ranking of these plant in terms of damage per unit output (eurocent/kWh).6 13.881 9. there is a factor 10 difference in cost per kWh shown in the list between the extremes – Adamow and Drax. However. Belchatow drops from 2nd to 8th. Table 7 lists only the 12 power plants that were identified above as having the highest total damage to health from emissions of SO2 and NOx via secondary pollutant formation.7 11.27 3. Comparison of ranking systems for power plants. and normalising against useful energy output.193 5.3 Efficiency of plant operation relative to impacts The results shown in Table 6 highlight the most damaging plant.894 3. it is possible for an efficient plant to feature on the list simply because of its size. R an k b y estimated damage 5 11 10 1 6 7 4 2 9 3 8 12 R an k b y eurocent /kWh 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Country Poland Hungary UK Spain Poland UK Poland Poland Italy Spain UK UK Plant Adamow Oroszlnany Eggborough Puentes Patnow Cottam Turow Belchatow Porto Tolle Teruel West Burton Drax Output (PJ) 10 11 19 38 26 25 47 100 23 25 34 76 Output (GWh) 2. Norway and Switzerland with the highest estimated damage as quantified here.6 7.315 6.

all ages Cardiac hospital admissions.400.95 75 49 300.000.000 290. Health effect Chronic mortality (life years lost.000. As was the case for plant in the region covering the EU25. Given a lack of empirical data on willingness to pay for these countries.000 Again.000 28.9 0. is shown in Table 9. including cough.3.000 2. 50% of damage is estimated to be accumulated by only 20 plant. population aged > 27 Respiratory hospital admissions. results reveal a high level of damage. Norway and Switzerland. population aged > 30) Chronic mortality (deaths in population aged > 30) Infant mortality (infants aged 1 . an economic evaluation of health damage has not been attempted. None of the plants listed in Table 9 are included in the EPER database. readers are referred to Sections 2. AIR POLLUTION AND CLIMATE SERIES .28 3.000 15.4 Total health impacts from LPS in the SENCO database in other European countries The analysis has been repeated for other European countries (those outside the EU and not including Norway and Switzerland). C ases o r events per Total cases life year lost 1. Norway and Switzerland.2. 3. Total health impacts associated with emissions of SO 2 and NOx from Large Point Sources in the SENCO database outside the region containing the EU25.12 months) Chronic bronchitis.000 49 13. Norway and Switzerland total of more than 6. among adults with chronic symptoms LRS* (including cough) among children * Lower respiratory symptoms. It is noted that the total of 534 sources seems low when compared to the EU25. 2.00016 0.000 sources. most of the total damage arises from operation of a relatively small number of sources. due to the need for extrapolation from the CAFE data.000 5. Quantification of impacts is also less robust.2). Results are shown in Table 8.093 0.5 Estimates of damage for non-EU European LPS A ranking of large point sources outside the EU.2. Fuel codes are given on page 22. with around 300. Here.044 0. and 90% by 128. contrasting with the 790. 2. Such extrapolation could be carried out. raising the possibility that a significant number of plant in this region are omitted from the databases considered during development of the SENCO database.3.4 and 4.000 life years lost annually. Economic damage estimates are not given for this set of plant. out of a total number of sources contained in the database for this region of 534. Emission estimates are likely to be less robust. all ages Restricted activity days (RADs) working age population Respiratory medication use by adults Respiratory medication use by children LRS*.017 0.000 life years lost estimated for plant in the EU. Results for these countries are reported separately for the following reasons: 1. Again. being based on extrapolation from result for the EU25. starting with that estimated to be most damaging to health. Table 8. 3.000 28.000 3.010 93 7.00 0. Norway and Switzerland. transferring valuations using purchasing power parity (PPP).000 23.1 for a discussion of the robustness of results.000. Norway and Switzerland (see Section 3.

Bulgaria Ukraine Russian Fed. Life years lost/yr 14. 33 Bobovdol 34 Lukoml 35 Novo-Moskovskaya 36 Moscow-26 37 Kostroma-Gres2 38 Varna 39 Starobeshev 40 Voskresenskcement 41 Soma 42 K i ev 5 43 Catalagzi B [Yates B] 44 Ryazanskaya 45 Kemerkoey 46 Maritsa East III Dimo Ditchev 47 Ryazan Sdeps 48 Moscow-23 49 Govora 50 Brasov THE SWEDISH NGO SECRETARIAT ON ACID RAIN . Ukraine Ukraine Ukraine Russian Fed.300 6. Turkey Bulgaria Russian Fed. Russian Fed.300 3. Turkey Ukraine Turkey Russian Fed. Russian Fed.500 3.100 4.500 1.400 2.000 3.800 1.500 1.200 980 980 870 810 740 710 690 590 570 560 530 510 500 390 390 370 360 330 330 330 320 310 290 290 290 230 220 210 210 210 200 200 190 190 180 170 170 170 160 160 160 150 150 150 140 140 130 Plant 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Krivorozhskaya Maritsa East II Burshtynskaya Zmiyevskaya Lodyzhinskaya Kurakhovskaya Pridneprovskaya Seyitomer Soemtes Starobeshevskaya Zuevskaya Mosenergo 22 Uglegorskaya Tripolskaya Zaporozhskaya Mosenergo 4 Luganskaya Craiova II Troitskaya Kostroma-1 Country Ukraine Bulgaria Ukraine Ukraine Ukraine Ukraine Ukraine Turkey Ukraine Ukraine Russian Fed. other fuels Electricity Electricity Electricity Electricity Electricity Electricity Electricity Cement Electricity Electricity Electricity Electricity Electricity Electricity Electricity Electricity Electricity Electricity Main fuel S _C oaB i t S _C oaLi g S _C oaB i t S _C oaB i t S _C oaB i t S _C oaB i t S _C oaB i t S _C oaLi g S _C oaB i t S _C oaB i t S _C oaB i t S _C oaB i t S _C oaB i t S _C oaB i t S_CoaBitAnt S _C oaB i t S _C oaLi g S_CoaSub G_Nat S _C oaLi g L_FueOil L_FueOil S _C oaLi g S _C oaLi g S _C oaLi g S _C oaB i t S _C oaB i t S_CoaAnt S _C oaLi g S _C oaLi g L_FueOil X S _C oaLi g L_FuOHea X G_Nat S _P ea S_CoaAnt L_FuOHea X S _C oaLi g L_FuOHea S _C oa S_CoaSubLig S _C oaLi g S _C oaLi g L_FuOHea G_Nat S _C oaLi g S _C oaLi g 20 Maritsa East I 21 Uglegorsk 22 24 Zaporizhzhya Turceni 23 Afsin Elbistan A 25 Drobeta-Turnu Severin 26 Cherepetskaya 27 Slavyanskaya 28 Novocherkasskaya 29 Kangal 30 Tuncbilek B Tutes B 31 Hrazdan 32 Moscow_Central Fuel Co.700 7.000 1.100 6. Romania Romania Sector Electricity Electricity Electricity Electricity Electricity Electricity Electricity Electricity Electricity Electricity Electricity Electricity Electricity Electricity Electricity Electricity Electricity Electricity Electricity Electricity Electricity Electricity Electricity Electricity Electricity Electricity Electricity Electricity Electricity Electricity Electricity Coke.200 2.600 1.400 5.300 8.100 4.600 1. Russian Fed.29 Table 9.300 4.700 1. Bulgaria Ukraine Ukraine Turkey Romania Romania Russian Fed.100 2. Russian Fed.300 1. Ukraine Romania Russian Fed.900 1.700 1.300 2. The 200 European LPS outside the EU25+Norway+Switzerland estimated to have the largest health damages from emissions of SO2 and NOx via secondary pollutant formation.300 2.300 1.000 11.100 3.500 3.000 13. Ukraine Russian Fed.600 3. Bulgaria Belarus Russian Fed.900 3.600 5.100 2.000 14.200 2.000 5.400 Deaths /year 1.200 2.000 2.800 1.800 1.000 10.000 9. Turkey Turkey Armenia Russian Fed.600 1.400 6.900 1.900 7.600 7.100 3.500 3.

The 200 European LPS outside the EU25+Norway+Switzerland estimated to have the largest health damages from emissions of SO2 and NOx via secondary pollutant formation. other fuels Cement Electricity Coke.300 1. other fuels Main fuel G_Nat S _C oaLi g X/_ G_Nat S _C oaB i t G_Nat S _C oaLi g X L_FuOHea S _C oaB i t S _C oa S _C oaLi g X X G_Nat S _C oaLi gB i t L_FuOHea S _C oaB i t G_Nat S _C oa S _C oaLi g X X X G_Nat G_Nat S _C oaB i t S _P ea S _C oaLi g X G_Nat X X L_ X X G_Nat L_FuOHea X S _C oaB i t AIR POLLUTION AND CLIMATE SERIES . other fuels Coke.Mont.100 1.100 1.200 1.000 1. Russia Ukraine Russia Romania Ukraine Moldavia Russia Romania Turkey Romania Russia Russia Romania Ukraine Ukraine Russia Bulgaria Romania Ukraine Ukraine Russia Russia Russia Bulgaria Russia Romania Ukraine Russia Russia Russia Croatia Ukraine Ukraine Ukraine Georgia Ukraine Russia Russia Russia Ukraine Bulgaria Turkey Turkey Belarus Russia Ukraine Ukraine Sector Electricity Electricity Electricity Electricity Electricity Electricity Electricity Iron and steel Electricity Electricity Electricity Electricity Iron and steel Cement Electricity Electricity Electricity Electricity Electricity Electricity Electricity Coke. Life years lost/yr 1.100 1.000 980 970 970 950 950 930 900 890 830 800 740 740 730 720 720 720 700 670 660 650 650 630 610 600 590 590 580 580 580 550 520 X X S _C oaB i t X X L_FuOHea X X X 510 500 500 500 500 500 490 490 480 Deaths /year 130 130 120 110 110 110 100 99 96 94 91 90 90 89 88 87 84 83 77 75 69 69 68 67 67 67 65 62 62 61 61 59 57 56 55 55 54 54 54 52 48 48 47 47 46 46 46 45 45 45 Plant 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 Moscow-21 Yatagan Yates Kostolac Moscow-25 Dobrotvorskaya Moscow-05 Shatura Suceava Krivorozhstal Works Tiraspol Pervomoiskaya 14 Paroseni Yenikoey Yentes Galati Shcurovsky Cement Moscow-05 Kashira Giurgiu Trypilya Kramatorskaya Novomoscovsk Gres Republica I Iasi II Kremenchug_Refinery Ilyicha Kirishi_Refinery Moscow-03 Klasson Moscow-20 Svishtov Pskov Gres Borzesti II Lisichansk_Refinery Moscow-08 Alumina Lipetskyi S i sa k Asovstal Podolsky Cement Burshytn Gardabani Balakleysky Cement Plant Vladimirskaya Nikel Kstovo_Refinery Nikolayevsky Cement Rousse Izmit_Refinery Aliaga_Refinery Polotsk 2 Smolenskaya Doncement Kherson_Refinery Country Russia Turkey Serbia . other fuels Electricity Electricity Electricity Electricity Electricity Coke.30 Table 9 (continued).400 1. other fuels Electricity Cement Iron and steel Electricity Iron and steel Cement Electricity Electricity Cement Electricity Metals Coke.200 1. other fuels Electricity Electricity Cement Coke. other fuels Iron and steel Coke.400 1.

other fuels Electricity Electricity Cement Coke. other fuels Cement Cement Electricity Coke. Romania Romania Russia Russia Belarus Albania Turkey Turkey Romania Turkey Romania Ukraine Russia Ukraine Romania Romania Bulgaria Turkey Romania Ukraine Russia Turkey Ukraine Belarus Turkey Ukraine Turkey Bulgaria Turkey Croatia Russia Russia Romania Turkey Russia Romania Bulgaria Russia Turkey Ukraine Turkey Ukraine Russia Croatia Romania Romania Russia Serbia .Mont. other fuels Electricity Cement Cement Cement Electricity Cement Electricity Electricity Electricity Electricity Cement Electricity Cement Electricity Cement Electricity Cement Electricity Electricity Electricity Iron and steel Electricity Electricity Iron and steel Electricity Electricity Electricity Electricity Electricity Electricity Cement Cement Coke. other fuels Main fuel L_Die/L_FuOHea L_FuOHea X L_FueOil G_Nat X X L_FueOil X X X S _C oaLi g X S _C oaB i t G_Nat G_Nat S _C oaLi g X S_CoaAnt X S _C oaLi g X L_FuOHea X X/_ L_FuOHea L_FuOHea X S _C oaLi g S _C oaB i t X L_FuOHea L_FuOHea G_Nat S _C oaLi gB i t L_FuOHea G_Nat X X X X G_Nat G_Nat G_Nat X X X X G_Nat X THE SWEDISH NGO SECRETARIAT ON ACID RAIN . The 200 European LPS outside the EU25+Norway+Switzerland estimated to have the largest health damages from emissions of SO2 and NOx via secondary pollutant formation. Sector Electricity Electricity Coke. Life years lost/yr 460 450 440 440 430 420 410 400 400 400 400 400 400 390 390 390 380 370 360 360 350 340 340 340 330 330 330 330 330 330 320 320 320 320 310 300 300 300 300 290 290 290 290 290 290 290 280 280 280 280 Deaths /year 43 41 41 41 40 39 38 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 36 36 35 34 34 34 32 31 31 31 31 31 31 31 31 30 30 30 30 29 29 28 28 28 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 26 26 26 26 Plant 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 Rijeka Novi Sad Ploiesti_Refinery Borzesti Moscow 12 Oskolcement Mozyr_Refinery F i er Adana Hereke Izmit TG Jiu Cayirhan A Alesd Mironovskaya Kirishi Sdeps Slavyansk Isalnita Medgidia V i di n Büyükçekmece Rovinari Zdolbunov Volgodonsk-2 Mahmudiye Belaya Tserkov Mogilev 1 Iskenderun Works Zaporozhye Orhaneli Devnya Kdz. other fuels Cement Electricity Electricity Electricity Coke.31 Table 9 (continued). Eregli Zagreb T -T e o Dzerzhinsk Novocherkassk Sdeps Oradea I Aliaga Refinery St Petersburg 05 Hoghiz Devnenski Cement Yaroslavl_Refinery Isikkent Zaporizhzhya Bursa Ovaakca Uglegorsk Ryazan_Refinery Sisak_Refinery B i ca z Deva Stavropol Sdeps Pancevo_Refinery Country Croatia Serbia . other fuels Coke.Mont.

other fuels Coke.Mont.Mont. Izmir Palas Kestel Moscow 11 Belgorodsky Cement Isparta Cherepovetskaya Hamitabat Moscow 16 Calarasi Beocinska Cimpulung Kirkkale_Refinery Bitola Iskenderun Midia_Refinery Darica Rybnitsa Novi Popovac Gaydurt Mersin_Refinery Novopolotsk_Refinery Bourgas_Refinery Minsk 2 Olshansky Cement Plant Ambarli CC Ploiesti Tekkeköyü Batumi_Refinery Moscow-17 Stupino Tiraspol Moscow 09 Yerevan Monchegorsk SeverstalWorks Rijeka_Refinery Mozyr Nesvetay Fieni Bastas Zenica Sofia-Botounetz Girne Kavkazcement Bobruysk 1&2 Nevinnomyssk Sdeps Mersin Krasnodar-3 Pitesti_Refinery Denizli Country Turkey Romania Turkey Russia Russia Turkey Russia Turkey Russia Romania Serbia . other fuels Cement Main fuel X L_FueOil X G_Nat X X S_CoaBitLig G_Nat G_Nat X X X X S _C oaLi g X X X X X X X X X G_Nat X G_Nat L_FueOil X X G_Nat G_Nat G_Nat G_Nat AIR POLLUTION AND CLIMATE SERIES . other fuels Cement Cement Cement Cement Coke. other fuels Electricity Electricity Cement Cement Iron and steel Iron and steel Electricity Cement Electricity Electricity Electricity Electricity Coke. other fuels Electricity Cement Electricity Electricity Cement Coke. other fuels Electricity Electricity Electricity Electricity Metals Electricity Coke. Bulgaria Turkey Russia Belarus Russia Turkey Russia Romania Turkey Sector Cement Electricity Cement Electricity Cement Cement Electricity Electricity Electricity Iron and steel Cement Cement Coke. The 200 European LPS outside the EU25+Norway+Switzerland estimated to have the largest health damages from emissions of SO2 and NOx via secondary pollutant formation. Turkey Turkey Belarus Bulgaria Belarus Ukraine Turkey Romania Turkey Georgia Russia Moldavia Russia Armenia Russia Russia Croatia Belarus Russia Romania Turkey Bosnia .32 Table 9 (continued). Romania Turkey Macedonia Turkey Romania Turkey Moldavia Serbia . Life years lost/yr 270 270 270 260 260 260 260 260 250 250 250 250 250 240 240 230 230 230 230 230 220 220 200 200 200 200 200 190 190 190 190 190 190 190 X/G_BlaFur X L_FuOHea S_CoaAnt X X X X L_Die/L_FuOHea X L_FuOHea G_Nat L_FuOHea G_Nat X X 180 180 180 180 180 180 180 170 170 170 170 170 170 170 160 160 Deaths /year 25 25 25 25 24 24 24 24 24 23 23 23 23 23 22 22 21 21 21 21 20 20 19 19 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 16 16 16 16 16 16 15 15 15 15 Plant 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 Bornova. other fuels Coke.Herz. other fuels Electricity Iron and steel Coke.

following release of SO2 and NOx. Direct evidence that reducing pollutant emissions reduces the incidence of ill-health is available through ‘intervention studies’ that typically examine death rates or hospital admissions in restricted areas where some specific action has suddenly been taken to reduce emissions. given that this analysis excludes emissions of primary particles and ammonia. It is also possible. for both the UNICE critique and the response). 2005e. the estimate that emissions of SO2 and NOx from large point sources in the EU. A famous example concerns the banning of coal burning in Dublin. Validation that the methods used are in line with the accepted state of the art in Europe comes through the fact that they have been widely reviewed through the CAFE process. These are compared with results from this study in Table 10 and show a high level of consistency at the aggregate level. Part of the reason for this is that the impacts described here are linked to the formation of secondary particles and ozone in the atmosphere. A critique by UNICE challenged the CAFE-CBA methodology. rather than through local air quality. Discussion 4. it must be remembered that the emissions database used is specific to data for each plant for a single year. Norway and Switzerland provide 21% of the damage quantified for the year 2000 in work carried out for the EU’s CAFE programme seems reasonable. In the context of this report. Unfortunately. and have closely followed recommendations made by WHO and expert groups convened by it. In considering validation of the results presented here. ExternE (2005) recommends a broadly similar approach.1 Validation of estimates The results presented here cannot be validated in the strict sense of measuring the number of deaths around each plant linked to operation of that plant. Recent work in the ExternE project carried out for EC DG Research provides estimates of total damage from the power plants in the EU25. and the second. perhaps in line with the fitting of additional flue gas control equipment under Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC). their application. and many sources of air pollution. Since that time it is possible that emissions will have changed. typically 2001. or that plant are missing from the SENCO database (though great effort has gone to make it as complete as possible). of course. Disaggregated results would show more significant differences – THE SWEDISH NGO SECRETARIAT ON ACID RAIN . or through plant closures. that additional plant will have been opened. including transport. it is possible at least to check that results are consistent with those quantified elsewhere. Whilst validation is not possible against direct measurements of health incidence. with the result that anticipated impacts are mediated via the overall pollution climate of Europe. These particles may form at great distances from the emission source.33 4. though this was responded to by the CAFE-CBA team (see AEA Technology and others. The first stage concerns the methods. a partial validation of the results has been carried out in two stages. In this respect. though differing in some detail (see below). these studies are useful for validation of the impact of primary pollutants only.

4% Results expressed per kWh in Table 7 also provide results that are broadly consistent with those quantified in the ExternE Project series (ExternE-Pol. 4. led to a change in views. to be sure that air quality policy is focused on the most damaging pollutants. Until recently there was a view that those likely to be affected would lose a relatively short period of life. are broadly consistent. however. it is necessary to recognise that there are uncertainties in the quantification process. 2005) for power plants in the EU25. Table 10. For ease of presentation this report has focused on best estimates of impacts and their monetary value. It is certainly an area requiring further research in the near future.000 474. 2005) whereas here they are treated as being equally harmful per unit mass. instead (implicitly) regarding them all as equally harmful. It is to be expected that emissions will affect most directly those people whose health is already compromised in some way. The evidence of the Pope et al (1995) study and others since based around the American Cancer Society cohort has. Experts convened by WHO refused to differentiate between particles. taking account of statistical uncertainty. A more fundamental issue of concern for validation of these estimates is that the basis for attribution of the effects observed in epidemiological studies to individual types of particle as opposed to the overall mix of particles in the atmosphere is relatively weak. days.34 ExternE for example treats nitrate aerosol as less damaging than sulphate and primary particles (ExternE. However.3% Economic damage (euro billion) 38 35 6.000 8. At the present time there is no empirical basis to do otherwise. Applying the results of these studies. AIR POLLUTION AND CLIMATE SERIES . These ‘extreme’ cases would really only be applicable in the event of major industrial accidents. For the results for individual plant the uncertainty in taking country-average damage factors. These are discussed in detail in AEA Technology (2004b) which indicates 95% confidence intervals around the best estimates of +/. 2005). perhaps because they are very old or young or have an existing health condition.2 Who is affected by air pollution? Other than in extreme cases it is not possible to attribute the death or ill health of any individual living around a power plant or other large point source to air pollutant emissions from the operation of that facility. Study This report Friedrich (2005) Difference Total life years lost 516.70%. rather than making original estimates based on site-specific modelling for each plant should also be considered. but it is still reassuring that the final outcomes of the two analyses. and so are outside the scope of this study which instead deals with ‘routine’ emissions from the operation of plant. as has been done in the CAFE (Clean Air For Europe) Programme suggests a much more substantial loss of longevity than indicated by the earlier work. undertaken independently. Comparison of total damage from this study and the ExternE study (Friedrich. weeks or months at worst.

etc. Heightened awareness of environmental responsibilities may have led operators to better manage their plant (e. Barrett (2004) also discusses database enhancement. Heightened regulation. enlargement). and performance properly understood. via EMAS). Consider whether it is necessary to collate information on a larger number of plant than at present. In respect of [2]. The SENCO database is supplemented by data from other sources (IEACO2. of these issues were noted in the first EPER review7. 6. In this study the paucity of data on PM emissions has largely prevented estimation of damage related to primary PM emissions.3 Improving the models 4. glass.. This is needed in order to gain a better understanding of priorities for control. Provide a better framework for extracting. but not before 2009). It may be expected that emissions from many plant will have changed in this period for various reasons: a. 2. Closure of older plant. for example under the directives on IPPC (Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control). Update information more frequently (it is understood that this will be done annually for the EPRTR.cec. in order that the efficiency of production per unit emission can be quantified. e. though not all. 7 http://www.).eper. Provide information not solely on pollutant outputs. The data used in this report are generally from 2001/2. Provide complete information on emissions from each plant. reconsider the reporting thresholds for pollutants currently used by EPER. b. Platts) in order to provide a reasonably comprehensive view of industrial emissions. The importance of small plant near populations should be accounted for. clinker. pulling together information from a number of different sources to provide a Europe-wide emission inventory extending across the European UNECE domain. 4. and including various additional information beyond that provided by EPER to describe inputs and energy or material outputs. IEACR. abatement equipment in place. etc. and hopefully will be addressed to a significant extent when 2004 data become available. NEC (National Emission Ceilings). heat. 3.1 Emissions and other industrial data Considerable effort has gone into the development of the SENCO database. but also on the quantity of useful output (electricity. d.int/eper/documents/Summary%20of%20first%20EPER%20Review%20 Report. c. 5. However. and the daughter directives on air quality. f. the European Pollutant Release and Transfer Register (EPRTR): 1. comparing and using data than is currently available directly through the internet.eu.g.35 4.pdf THE SWEDISH NGO SECRETARIAT ON ACID RAIN . there were notable limitations on the quantity and quality of data available for this exercise.3. Plant alterations (e. Fuel switching. Development of new plant.g. technologies used. The following recommendations are made for improving the EPER database and its successor (from 2009). Some. LCP (Large Combustion Plants.

36 4. 4. and better information on the incidence of ill health in the European population. Wide variation is noted in the damage per unit output in the electricity sector. Effective control will thus require action across a range of sources. 2. 2020). Ideally. These factors introduce some uncertainty to the analysis. Some of this work is already underway. For all UNECE Member States. Important issues include: 1. more than a million life years are estimated to be lost annually in Europe to emissions of SO2 and NOx from large point sources. 120 out of 6. 4. The importance of other pollutants and other sectors is also recognised.2 Dispersion modelling The analysis conducted here has used outputs from the EMEP model for the year 2010 specific to each of the EU25 Member States. such as damage to ecosystems. Closer integration of damage to health and other monetised impacts. for which a series of analyses would be preferred. to account for its large size and the extreme variability of population density within the country. with respect to PM emissions). Research on attribution of harm to specific types of particle. 4. The results presented in this report strongly suggest that substantial benefits would accrue to the European population if action were taken to reduce this variability.3.333. A broadly similar level of bias is seen in results for the second region considered in the report (i.3. with those that cannot currently be monetised. Combining results for both of the regions considered here. with many additional cases of ill health to add to this (see Table 5 and Table 8). whilst 90% of the damage can be attributed to only 911 plants. though some aspects may well take a number of years before conclusions are reached. 3. AIR POLLUTION AND CLIMATE SERIES .g. b. noting the special case of Russia. Hurley et al.g. not just those included here. Further work on the valuation of air-pollution related mortality. 2005). For other years (e. further data will be available in the near future for alternative situations: 1. but this may well be limited in contrast to other uncertainties that are present (e. reflecting in part differing standards with respect to fuel quality and the level of emission abatement adopted. 2.4 Overview of the results The results presented in this report demonstrate that large point sources still provide a significant level of damage to the European population despite the effects of legislation introduced over the last 25 years. It is particularly notable that 50% of the quantified health impact is attributable to a relatively small number of sources in the region covering the EU. European countries excluding those just mentioned).3 Quantifying pollutant impacts and monetary damages Requirements for improvement in this part of the analysis were identified in the methodology reports produced for the cost-benefit analysis of the Clean Air For Europe (CAFE) Programme (AEA Technology. 2005.e. 2000. 2004a. Establishment of a larger base of European data on air pollution epidemiology. by virtue of the results quantified for the large point sources representing only about 21% of the total damage quantified for the EU in the CAFE Programme. Norway and Switzerland.

pdf.aeat.com/ files/AFE%20CBA%20Thematic%20Strategy%20Analysis%20version%203%20%20final.europa.pdf AEA Technology (1999a) Cost-Benefit Analysis for the Protocol to Abate Acidification.aeat. Contract report to European Commission DGXI.com/files/cba_method_vol3.pdf. Hague. Contract Report for European Commission DGXI. http://cafe-cba. AEA Technology and others (1998a) Economic evaluation of air quality standards for CO and benzene. Eutrophication and Ground Level Ozone in Europe. AEA Technology (1999b) Economic Evaluation of Proposals for Emission Ceilings for Atmospheric Pollutants. http://www.com/files/CAFE%20CBA%20Baseline%20Results%20version%202g. P Box 30945.europa. NH3.doc. http://cafe-cba.pdf . http://cafe-cba.pdf AEA Technology and others (2004-2005) A series of reports on the cost-benefit analysis of the CAFE programme.int/ . NOx and VOCs from each EU25 Member State (excluding Cyprus) and surrounding seas.doc.org.europa. AEA Technology and TNO (2001) Economic evaluation of air quality standards for PAHs. AEA Technology and others (2004b) Methodology for the Cost-Benefit analysis for CAFE: Volume 3: Uncertainty in the CAFE CBA: Methods and First Analysis. Report to European Commission DG XI.int/comm/environment/enveco/air/benzene. AEA Technology and others (2005c) Cost-benefit analysis of policy option scenarios for the Clean Air For Europe Programme. Contract report for European Commission DG Environment. The Netherlands.europa. SO2. Brussels. THE SWEDISH NGO SECRETARIAT ON ACID RAIN .eu. Directorate Air and Energy.eu.5. Spatial Planning and Environment (MVROM). Belgium. AEA Technology (2000) Economic Evaluation of PVC Waste Management. http://www. and links to other CAFE activities is available via http://www. http://cafecba.eu. Report to European Commission DG ENV http://www. ipc 640.aeat.aeat. Specific reports cited in this report are given below. http://www.com/files/CAFE%20CBA%20 Methodology%20Final%20Volume%201%20v4e. AEA Technology and others (2005a) CAFE-CBA baseline report. References AEA Technology and others (1997) Economic Evaluation of the Draft Incineration Directive. August 2005. 2500 GX The .int/comm/environment/enveco/air/ tropozone-c.com/files/CAFE%20CBA%20marginal %20damage%20March%202005%20final_vsc. AEA Technology and others (2005b) Damages per tonne emission of PM2. Ministry of Housing. Report Number: Air and Energy 133. AEA Technology and others (2004a) Benefit analysis for CAFE: Volume 1: Overview of Methodology.37 5. Part C: Economic benefit assessment. Contract report for European Commission DG XI. eu. http://cafe-cba.aeat.cafe-cba.int/ comm/environment/enveco/air/benzene_annex. comm/environment/enveco/air/pah_report.doc.O.pdf AEA Technology (1998b) Economic evaluation of air quality targets for tropospheric ozone.

.info/brussels/methup05. S. Ostro. Oslo. Cowie.A. J.G.. K. M.W. and White. Latimer. Bernow. R. http://www.org IVM (1997) Economic Evaluation of Air Quality Targets for Sulphur Dioxide. ExternE-Pol (2005) ExternE-Pol – final technical report. http://www.externe. Pope.M.cgi/d1161013/18%20 Reference %20 Document%20on%20Economic%20and%20Cross%20Media%20Effects%20%201.. http://www. Air Pollution and Climate Series of the Swedish NGO Secretariat on Acid Rain. Pye. runs carried out for the CAFE process. Rae. Other presentations from the same workshop are available at http://www. published by McGraw Hill. Meteorologisk institutt (met. H. NGOs and policy makers. Thun.A. European IPPC Bureau.info/ exterpols. (1995) The New York Electricity Externality Study for the Empire State Electric Energy Research Corporation (ESEERCO). http://www. F.. (2004) Peer review of the methodology of cost benefit analysis of the Clean Air For Europe Programme. D. Internal report under the European Commission Methodex Project. D.. http:// www.eu. F..com/files/CAFE%20CBA%20 response%20to%20UNICE%20concerns%205%20May%202005. Entec (2001) Economic evaluation of air quality standards for heavy metals.J. D.externe. Presentation at the meeting “External costs of energy and their internalisation in Europe: Dialogue with industry. A.info/brussels05.jrc. Hurley.DOC. Hunt. Nitrogen Dioxide..W. Friedrich.M.html. Fine and Suspended Particulate Matter and Lead.pdf European IPPC Bureau (2005) Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control: Reference Document on Economics and Cross Media Effects.aeat. A.cafe-cba..E. and Bull. October 2005.. D.com/files/CAFE%20CBA %20Thematic%20Strategy%20Scenario%20version%204. Lang. Speizer. Krupnick.E.org. C. (2005) ExternE methodology and results. http://www.pdf .. Oceana Publications.com/files/peer%20review. D. in 2 volumes. R. P (2005) . Chestnut. http://cafe-cba. Holland. Sevilla. AEA Technology and others (2005e) Response to UNICE critique of the CAFECBA methodology. http://cafecba.pdf.S. Volume 17. and P Wind (2005): Source-receptor matrices derived from EMEP model . Rowe.38 AEA Technology and others (2005d) Cost-benefit analysis of the Thematic Strategy on Air Pollution. ORNL/RFF (1992-1995) A series of 8 reports entitled “External Costs and Benefits of Fuel Cycles”. Holland.no). C. Namboodiri. S.pdf . M.info/brussels/br0900. L. New York (1992-1995). December 2005. Heath.D. Methodology for the Cost-Benefit analysis for CAFE: Volume 2: Health Impact Assessment. 669-74.. Miller.. New York. Simpson. Watkiss. Sweden.acidrain.aeat.M. American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine 151.int/comm/envi. Oak Ridge National Laboratory and Resources for the Future. ronment/enveco/air/report_heavy_metals... (1995) Particulate air pollution as a predictor of mortality in a prospective study of US adults. AIR POLLUTION AND CLIMATE SERIES .A.es/pub/english.. B. Evans. M.externe. M. C. Barrett. B.europa.doc.aeat.externe. http://cafe-cba.. M. (2004) Atmospheric Emissions from Large Point Sources in Europe.72%20Mb ExternE (2005) ExternE Methodology 2005 update.. Contract report to EC DG XI. Report to European Commission DG ENV http://www. Spain. (2006) Updated estimates of pollution damage per tonne emission for the BeTa database. Dockery.html.. R. Brussels. Goteborg.

39 THE SWEDISH NGO SECRETARIAT ON ACID RAIN .

for instance. and researchers. info@acidrain. All are run by local environmentalist organizations.org .acidrain. It finds that the emissions from large point sources in Europe could be responsible for more than one million life years lost in Europe every year. as well as in meetings of the Convention on Long-range Transboundary Air Pollution and the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. The Swedish NGO Secretariat on Acid Rain. Since 1988. transport. Participates in the lobbying and campaigning activities of European environmentalist organizations concerning European policy relating to air quality and climate change.org. The aim is to have those emissions eventually brought down to levels – the so-called critical loads – that the environment can tolerate without suffering damage. and on the other towards the European Union and its member countries. but also for the media. Russia. primarily for European environmentalist organizations. and on the review and revision of EU air pollution control legislation in particular.AIR POLLUTION AND CLIMATE SERIES This study combines the health impact assessment methodology used by EU’s CAFE programme with an emissions database for European large point sources. to assess health damage linked to emissions of nitrogen oxides and sulphur dioxide on a plant by plant basis. activity mostly takes the form of supporting and cooperating with the local environmentalist movements. The work of the secretariat is largely directed on the one hand towards eastern Europe. As regards the eastern European countries. and air pollution. Produces information material. the Swedish Anglers’ National Association. and the World Wide Fund for Nature Sweden. to bring about the needed reductions in the emissions of air pollutants. the Baltic States. authorities. Box 7005. financial support has been given towards maintaining information centres on energy. especially Poland. and the Czech Republic. Some of the worst polluting plants may each be responsible for the annual loss of between 10. www.000 and 20. the secretariat Keeps up observation of political trends and scientific developments. and thus.000 life years. In furtherance of these aims. the Swedish Society for Nature Conservation. The Secretariat has a board consisting of one representative from each of the following organizations: Friends of the Earth Sweden. Supports environmentalist bodies in other countries in their work towards common ends. in part as a result of public pressure. Sweden. 402 31 Göteborg. Acts as an information centre. This study has been commissioned by the Swedish NGO Secretariat on Acid Rain as a contribution to the debate on European air quality policy in general. The Swedish NGO Secretariat on Acid Rain The essential aim of the Swedish NGO Secretariat on Acid Rain is to promote awareness of the problems associated with air pollution. the Swedish Youth Association for Environmental Studies and Conservation.