Supplemental Material:
Existing resources to support an environmental justice analysis for coal fired power plants in Virginia
Health is the indicator that drives the need to ensure that equity is a part of the decisions to insure that all Persons benefit from the Clean Power Plan. While
there are several social determinants of health, the physical environment (i.e. air, water) plays a major role. The connection between adverse health outcomes
(i.e. chronic diseases such as asthma, adverse birth outcomes from PM2.5 pollution, developmental delays from Lead poisoning in children) have been proven in
numerous research studies to be a concern for certain groups of people, particularly minority populations and low income. The following exercise incorporates
the use of multiple secondary data sources that can be used to understand the disproportionate burden that certain communities might experience from
existing environmental burdens, as well as identify areas that should be targeted for emission reductions, energy efficiency measures, economic development
and enhanced climate resilience. While there are limitations to the data available at the county level, it is our hope that a similar process can be used in the
subsequent state planning process – in cooperation with impacted citizens – to address equity concerns head-on.
The data sources that were used to develop this analysis are as follows:
•
•
•
•
The Virginia Department of Health, Report on Health Equity 2012, http://www.vdh.virginia.gov/OMHHE/2012report.htm
The Environmental Public Health Tracking Network from the Centers for Disease Control, http://ephtracking.cdc.gov/showHome.action
EJSCREEN Tool, http://www2.epa.gov/ejscreen
Facility Level Information on Greenhouse Gases Tool (FLIGHT), www.ghgdata.epa.gov
Using these data sources, we are able to provide a more holistic view of the burden certain counties might be experiencing. We will briefly describe each of the
data sources and the findings.
Virginia Health Equity Report 2012
The purpose of the Virginia Health Equity Report was to identify health inequities and their root causes to promote equitable opportunities to be healthy. This
was spearheaded by the Office of Minority Health and Health Equity within the Virginia Department of Health. Some of the findings from the report (not all)
were as follows:
•
•
•
•
•
African Americans were 2.4 times as likely to live in poverty as their White counterparts.
Rural areas in southern and southwestern parts of VA, some urban areas and mixed urban areas in central VA, and urban inner city areas have the
largest concentrations in poverty.
African Americans in VA, on average, live 3-5 years fewer than Whites. African Americans and Latinos are the least likely to live in areas with high
opportunity to be healthy.
VA with the least educational attainment experience mortality rates 2.7 times higher than those with the most education.
Five major health risks among Virginians: stroke, heart disease, cancer, low birth weight, and injuries (both intentional and unintentional)
07 08 2015
Prepared by J.White-Newsome_draft
1
The Department also created a Health Opportunity Index (HOI). The HOI identifies and analyzes social and economic factors that are associated with life
expectancy in Virginia. This index was created to identify those areas and population that are the most vulnerable to adverse health outcomes. This Index is
composed of 10 indicators: education, EPA environmental hazards, affordability of transportation and housing, household income diversity, job participation,
population density, racial diversity, population churning, material deprivation and local commuting patterns. Some of the areas that were characterized as
having a significant number of census tracts having lower health opportunities were Richmond City, Hampton Roads, Roanoke, Petersburg, Prince George and
several other areas. The HOI was a starting point to understanding the landscape of the state.
While there are over 100 energy generating facilities in the Commonwealth, we focused on the energy generating facilities that used coal as a main fuel source.
Table 1 below shows the Power plant and several other variables: Total Greenhouse Gas emissions from the facility for 2013, the scoring on the Health
Opportunity Index, the number of Ozone Exceedances from 2008-2011, the deaths that could be avoided by reducing PM2.5 by 10% from baseline levels, and
blood lead levels. All of this data was available at the county level. These is not a general trend exhibited by these factors because data availability is limited to
certain years, depending on the source.
With that in mind, we can possibly focus on those areas with power plant facilities that have the lowest opportunity to be healthy (i.e. a high HOI score), as well
as the potential to avoid increased morbidity from air pollution. As an example, we will focus on one of the facilities listed, the Clover Plant in Halifax County
and use EJ SCREEN to provide data about the demographics and how this area compares to the state and national levels.
07 08 2015
Prepared by J.White-Newsome_draft
2
Table 1: Description of environmental and health factors for coal-fired power plants in the state of Virginia
Ozone Exceedances
of NAAQS
PLANT_NAME (Coal
based)
COUNTY
GHG
Emissions
from
(metric
tons CO2e)
Birchwood Power
Bremo Bluff
King
George
Fluvanna
Chesterfield
Clinch River
Deaths
Avoided by
reducing
PM 2.5 by
10%
2009
Blood lead levels
2008
2009
2010
Suppresse
d
No events
Suppressed
8
Suppressed
Suppre
ssed
No
events
7
No
events
Suppre
ssed
6
2 200
0 9
0
8
201
0
201
1
598,494
Health
Opportunity
Index
Ranking
(1=highest, 7
=lowest)
3
6 0
8
6
1
457,315
2
2 0
1
0
1
Chesterfield 6,993,707
Russell
934,517
3
4
7 0
5 0
4
1
2
0
9
2
Clover
Halifax
5,903,792
5
1 0
0
0
2
Mecklenburg
Power Station
Spruance Genco
LLC
Virginia City Hybrid
Energy Center
Yorktown
Mecklenbur
g
Richmond
512,731
4
5 0
2
0
2
7
Suppresse
d
Suppresse
d
6
1,040,412
6
7 0
5
5
1
No events
Suppressed
Wise
3,383,324
4
2 0
1
0
3
No Events
Suppressed
York
845,112
3
9 0
5
5
2
No Events
No Events
07 08 2015
Prepared by J.White-Newsome_draft
No events
Suppressed
Suppressed
No
events
No
Events
No
Events
3
The information presented below is from EPAs Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program. What is interesting to note in this particular case is the increase in emissions
from 2012 to 2013.
07 08 2015
Prepared by J.White-Newsome_draft
4
The screenshot below shows the facility (i.e. the pink cross in the middle of the screen) with each of the census tracts labeled by the number of minority’s in the
population from 2008-2010 according to the American Community Survey. (The full report is attached).
07 08 2015
Prepared by J.White-Newsome_draft
5
Additionally, EJ screen, for a specified buffer zone (in this case 5 miles) provides raw data, state averages for several selected variables on the left hand side of
the table.
07 08 2015
Prepared by J.White-Newsome_draft
6
The chart below describes an Environmental Justice Index that the EPA created to examine environmental and social factors. More explanation about these
indexes can be found at: http://www2.epa.gov/ejscreen/environmental-justice-indexes-ejscreen
07 08 2015
Prepared by J.White-Newsome_draft
7
General Conclusion
The data used above is publicly available. Community based organizations, as well as governmental agencies that will be involved in creating a plan to meet the
Clean Power Plan reduction goals, should use the available tools to help drive targeted reductions and other mitigation strategies. While there are limitations to
accessing the most recent data, it can at least provide a way of screening communities/counties across Virginia an aid in planning and implementation. In the
particular example above, the Clover facility – with high GHG emissions, a lower health opportunity score and a significant percentage of minority and low
income persons in a short radius from the facility – is an area that provides an opportunity for community engagement and planning moving forward. While
data on economic development, clean energy potential, utility costs, other releases of air toxics (i.e. TRI data) health costs avoided by reducing pollution and
various other data sets were not depicted above, these are additional pieces that should be a part of any analysis to help craft holistic, equitable solutions.
Below are some additional data pieces as well.
07 08 2015
Prepared by J.White-Newsome_draft
8
Sample data from Environmental Public Health Tracking Data
http://ephtracking.cdc.gov/portal?query=BD8EE94F-386E-960D-1BE3-AA6FB9D89AEA
Air quality: Number of days with maximum ozone concentration above the NAAQS – 2008
07 08 2015
Prepared by J.White-Newsome_draft
9
Mortality benefits associated with reducing PM2.5 concentration levels by 10% based on percent change in all-cause death rate from baseline - 2009
* County-level estimates of PM2.5 are obtained by processing modeled data, which are available by census tracts. The process of converting grid-level data to
county-level estimates using a population-weighted centroid approach may lead to potential misclassification of PM2.5 levels for some areas.
* Baseline death rates are a 3-year annual average rates based on the year queried and the two previous years and are expressed as rates per 100,000
population. Baseline mortality rates are calculated for persons over 30 years of age.
* Deaths prevented is an estimate of the reduction in baseline deaths that could result from lowering PM2.5 concentration levels.
* Percent change is an estimate of the change in baseline mortality that could result from lowering PM2.5 concentration levels.
http://ephtracking.cdc.gov/portal?query=807DFEF6-C9A6-DB27-A9E3-54A22FD39DBD
Number of children tested with blood lead levels confirmed over 10 micrograms/deciliter or greater in 2010
•
•
Data provided by CDC Lead Poisoning Prevention Program and state and local Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Programs.
Measures should not be compared across states. Childhood blood lead testing practices vary. Some states require all children be tested while other
states target high-risk children.
07 08 2015
Prepared by J.White-Newsome_draft
10
•
•
•
•
Measures are stratified by two age groups: <36 months and 36 to <72 months
Because data are not randomly sampled or representative of the population, number and percent of children tested with elevated blood lead levels
cannot be interpreted as prevalence or incidence for the population.
Blood lead levels are confirmed as >/= 10 µg/dL by either one venous test or two capillary or unknown specimen tests less than 12 weeks apart with
results >/= 10 µg/dL.
The current blood lead reference level is 5 micrograms of lead per deciliter based on National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) 2007 2008 and 2009 - 2010 data.
Sample data from EPAs Facility Level Information Greenhouse Gas Emissions Tool
07 08 2015
Prepared by J.White-Newsome_draft
11
07 08 2015
Prepared by J.White-Newsome_draft
12
07 08 2015
Prepared by J.White-Newsome_draft
13