Air quality and health impacts of new coalfired power plants in the Tokyo-Chiba andOsaka-Hyogo regions
May 2016
Lauri Myllyvirta, coal and air pollution expert, Greenpeace International

Contents
Summary ..................................................................................................................................................... 2
Studied new coal power plants ................................................................................................................... 4
Projecting air pollutant emissions from the proposed power plants ...................................................... 6
Results ...................................................................................................................................................... 10
Air quality impacts: Tokyo-Chiba case study ........................................................................................ 10
Air quality impacts: Osaka- Hyogo case study ....................................................................................... 13
Health impacts ...................................................................................................................................... 16
Conclusions and policy recommendations ................................................................................................ 17
Materials and methods ............................................................................................................................. 171

Summary
Ambient air pollution is the largest environmental health threat in the world and in Japan, with the Global
Burden of Disease project estimating that approximately 180 premature deaths per day were caused byambient air pollution exposure in Japan in 2013 1. Furthermore, the number of deaths increased by an
estimated 40% from 1990 to 2013, as population aging, epidemiological change and urbanization
increased susceptibility of the population to health impacts of air pollution.
Yet Japan is planning a major expansion in coal-fired power generation, one of the important sources of
air pollutants, with the potential to significantly increase air pollution emissions from the power sector.
While new power plants generally emit less air pollutants per unit of electricity than older ones, due tohigher thermal efficiency and more efficient emissions control devices, their flue gases still contain highconcentrations of SO2, NOx and particle pollution. Furthermore, investment in new coal-fired generating
capacity would lock the emissions in for decades. Among advanced economies, Japan stands out as oneof the few countries that are still planning new coal-fired power plants, and as the one with by far thelargest plans among the handful that still do.
Many of the power plants are planned in the vicinity of very large population centers, which amplifies
their potential health impacts. This paper presents two case studies on the air quality and health impactsof the planned power plants around Tokyo and Chiba, and around Osaka and Hyogo. 10 projects with
7500MW of capacity are planned within 200 kilometers of Tokyo, while 15 projects with 6500MW ofcapacity are planned around Osaka and Hyogo.
Air pollutant emissions from these power plants were projected, using information on pollution
concentrations in flue gases from the project proponents themselves, whenever possible. The emission
levels used as the basis for the study are significantly below the maximum levels allowed in Japaneselegislation.
The potential air quality impacts of the pollution emissions from the planned power plants were thenstudied using the CALPUFF air pollution modeling system 2 recommended by the U.S. EPA for assessing
long range transport of pollutants and their impacts. The health impacts of the modeled air pollutant
exposure resulting from the emissions were assessed following World Health Organization
recommendations.
The projected health impacts of the new coal-fired power plants around Tokyo and Chiba, in addition to
health impacts of current air pollution levels, are 260 premature deaths per year (95% confidence interval
140 to 370), and 30 low birth weight births, if all proposed plants are built and operated. Of the premature
deaths, 180 are due to exposure to PM2.5 and 80 due to exposure to NO2. Over a typical operating life of
40 years, this would imply a total of 6,000-15,000 premature deaths and 1,200 low birthweight births.
The new coal-fired power plants around Osaka and Hyogo would be projected to cause 200 premature
deaths per year (95% confidence interval 100 to 208), and 20 low birthweight births, if all proposed plants
1

Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME). GBD Compare. Seattle, WA: IHME, University of Washington,
2015. Available from http://vizhub.healthdata.org/gbd-compare.
2
U.S. EPA: Preferred/Recommended Models. https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/scram/dispersion_prefrec.htm#calpuff

2

are built and operated. Of the premature deaths, 130 are due to exposure to PM2.5 and 70 due toexposure to NO2. If the plants operate for 40 years, this would translate to 4,000-11,000 premature
deaths and 800 low birthweight births.
The impacts were modeled over a 1500km x 1500km domain covering most of Japan and the Korean
peninsula, with the immediate vicinity of the plants covered at higher spatial resolution. There areapproximately 210 million people living within this domain.
The emissions from the power plants elevate the levels of toxic particles and NO2 in the air over the entire
large areas extending several hundred kilometers from the power plant location and beyond. SO2, NOx
and dust emissions all contribute to toxic PM2.5 particle levels, increasing the risk of diseases such as
stroke, lung cancer, heart and respiratory diseases in adults, as well as respiratory symptoms in children.
Direct exposure to NO2 increases the risk of death from a number of chronic diseases and can exacerbate
respiratory symptoms in people with pre-existing conditions. Importantly, the CALPUFF modeling system
is capable of simulating the chemical transformation of SO2 and NOx emissions into secondary PM2.5
pollution in the atmosphere, a very important impact pathway that is usually neglected in Environmental
Impact Assessments and regulatory processes.

Figure 1. Map of coal power projects and population density3

Studied new coal power plants
Power plants in the neighborhood of two Japan’s largest population centers were selected for case studies.
Nested modeling domains were set up to cover all of the new power plants included in each case study ata horizontal resolution of at least 10x10km, and the main population center at a resolution of 5x5km.

Figure 2. Map of coal-fired power plant projects in Japan and inclusion in case studies

4

Figure 3. Calpuff nested
modeling domain for the TokyoChiba case study (in red).

Figure 4. Calpuff nested
modeling domain for the OsakaHyogo case study (in red).

5

Projecting air pollutant emissions from the proposed power plants
The first step in assessing the health impacts of coal-fired power plants is estimating the emissions ofharmful pollutants. Coal combustion always generates very large amounts of the major air pollutants –SO2, NOx and dust. New coal-fired power plants have to meet emission limits set by regulators, requiring
the installation of emission control devices that remove much of the pollution from the flue gas, butremoving all of it is not physically, let alone economically, possible. Air pollutant emissions from the
proposed power plants were projected using data on pollutant concentrations in plant flue gases fromthe project proponents themselves, as far as possible.
The following basic information on the coal-fired power plant projects in the study areas was obtained
from Japan Coal Plant Tracker maintained by Kiko Network.
Table 1. Basic data on the projects included in the case studies.
Area

Plant nameCompany / Operator

Lat

Lon

Capacity (MW)

Plannedoperation

StatusTechnology type

Ichihara
ThermalPower
Generation
godo kaisha
Kashima Power

35.51

140.05

1000

2024

Assessment
processing

Ultra-supercritical
(USC)

35.94

140.67650

July 2020

Assessment
processing
Assessment
processing

Ultra-supercritical(USC)
Ultra-supercritical(USC)

Tokyo-Chiba case study
Chiba

Ichihara

Ibaraki

Kashima No.2

Chiba

Chiba
EnergySodegaura

35.47

139.98

1000

2026

Chiba
EnergySodegaura

35.45

139.97

1000

2025

Assessment
processing

Ultra-supercritical
(USC)

36.44

140.61650

1H of 2021

Chiba

Chiba
Sodegaura No.2
(tentative)
Chiba
Sodegaura No.1
(tentative)
Hitachinaka
Kyodo No.1
Unknown

35.58

140.091000

around 2020

Ultra-supercritical(USC)
Unknown

Kanagawa

YokosukaPower Plant

Tokyo Electric Power

35.21

139.72

1000

2020

Chiba

Unknown

Kansai Electric Power

35.46

140.001000

Unknown

IbarakiUnknown

Kamisu Power

36.00

140.62100

2018

Assessment
processing
Planning (without
official
announcement)
Planning (without
official
announcement)
Planning (without
official
announcement)
Planning (without
official
announcement)
Under
construction
Assessment
processing
Under
construction
Assessment
processing
Under
construction
Assessment
processing
Assessment
processing

Ultra-supercritical(USC)
Ultra-supercritical(USC)
Ultra-supercritical(USC)
Integrated
gasification
combined
cycle(IGCC)
Pulverized Coal-fired(PC) boiler
Circulating fluidizedbed (CFB) boiler

Under
construction

Steamgeneration(steam turbine)

Chiba
Ibaraki

Hitachinaka
Generation
Chugoku
PowerElectric

Shizuok SuzukawaaEnergy Center
Osaka-Hyogo case study

Suzukawa
CenterEnergy35.14

138.71100

Sep. 2016

Aichi

Taketoyo No.5

Chubu Electric Power

34.82

136.92

1070

March 2022

Hiroshima
Ehime

Takehara New
No.1
Saijo New No.1

J-Power

34.34

132.96600

June 2020

Shikoku Electric Power

33.93

133.17500

FY 2022

Hiroshima

Osaki Cool Gen

Osaki Cool Gen

34.26

132.87

166

March 2017

Mie

Unknown

34.93

136.61

112

2019

HiroshimaKaita biomass
blendfiringpower station
Nagoya No.2

MC Kawajiri Energy
Service
Hiroshima Gas

34.36

132.52112

2019

Nakayama
NagoyaKyodo Hatsuden

34.84

136.93110

2nd half of2016 FY

Aichi

6

Ultra-supercritical(USC)
Unknown
Unknown
Pulverized Coal-fired(PC) boiler

Okayama
Aichi

Mizushima
Energy Center
Unknown

Mizushima
EnergyCenterMeinan Kyodo Energy
Corporation

34.50

133.76110

34.99

136.8431

Summer2017
Jan. 2018

Hyogo

Ako No.1

Kansai Electric Power

34.74

134.38

600

2020

Hyogo

Ako No.2

Kansai Electric Power

34.74

134.37

600

2020

Hyogo

Takasago NewNo.1
Takasago NewNo.2
Kobe
Works
New-No.2
Kobe
Works
New-No.1

J-Power

34.75

134.76600

FY 2021

J-Power

34.75

134.76600

FY 2027

Kobe Steel, Ltd.

34.71

135.25650

FY 2022

Kobe Steel, Ltd.

34.71

135.25650

FY 2021

Hyogo
Hyogo
Hyogo

Under
construction
Planning(with
official
announcement)
Assessment
progressing
Assessment
progressing
Assessment
processing
Assessment
processing
Assessment
processing
Assessment
processing

Unknown
Pulverized Coal-fired(PC) boiler
Supercritical (SC)Supercritical (SC)Ultra-supercritical(USC)
Ultra-supercritical(USC)
Ultra-supercritical(USC)
Ultra-supercritical(USC)

The CALPUFF modeling system requires information on the location of the emission source, the emission
volume of each pollutant, and the characteristics of the smokestack affecting the rise of the plume (stackheight and diameter, flue gas temperature and velocity). These data were not consistently available, but
the following relevant information was compiled by Kiko Network from project documents and otherpublic sources.
Table 2. Data used to estimate air pollutant emissions and source characteristics.
Plant nameCO2
emisssion(k-tonneCO2/year)

CO2
emissionrate(g-CO2 /kWh)SOXemissionconcentra
tion
（ppm）

NOX
emissionconcentrati
on（ppm）

Dust
emissionconcentration(mg/m3)

Stackheight
(m)

25

15

5

180

25

15

5

180

Chimney
Diameter(m)

Gas
Temperature(℃)

Gas
velocity
(m/s)

7

90

30

90

30

Tokyo-Chiba case study
Ichihara

6000

Kashima No.2

3439

Chiba Sodegaura
No.2 (tentative)
Chiba Sodegaura
No.1 (tentative)
Hitachinaka Kyodo
No.1
Unknown (Kansai
Electric Power)
Yokosuka Power
Plant
Unknown (Chugoku
Electric Power)
Unknown (Ibaraki,
Kamisu)Suzukawa Energy
CenterOsaka-Hyogo case study

6000

22

15

5

200

7.25

90

30

6000

22

15

5

200

7.25

90

30

3900

22

15

5

180

90

31.5

6000

21.0625

19.1256.461538

6000

21.0625

19.1256.461538

6000

21.0625

19.1256.461538

600

19

40

10

600

19

40

10

Taketoyo No.5

6420

25

15

6.461538

Takehara New No.1

3160

200

90

35.9

Saijo New No.1

3000

Osaki Cool Gen

706

Unknown
Kawajiri)

(MC

672

767

766

692

18

20

7

21.0625

19.1256.461538

8

5

3

19

40

10

7

Kaitabiomass
blend firing power
station
Nagoya No.2

672

19

40

10

660

19

40

10

Mizushima Energy
CenterUnknown (Meinan
Kyodo Energy)
Ako No.1

660

19

40

10

187

19

40

10

3350

800

19

16

8

Ako No.2

3350

800

19

16

8

Takasago
NewNo.1
Takasago
NewNo.2
Kobe Works NewNo.2
Kobe Works NewNo.1

3600

18

22

8

180

70

20

3600

18

22

8

180

70

20

3900

13

20

5

150

90

30

3900

13

20

5

150

90

30

When needed data was not available, the median value for units of similar size and technology was usedinstead. Using these assumptions when needed, annual air pollutant emissions were calculated byestimating normalized flue gas volume from CO2 emissions and allowed stack emission concentrations.
Table 3. Emission and stack characteristics data used for the study.
Unit nameSOxasSO2, t/aNOx
asNO2, t/a

PM10, t/aPM2.5,
t/a

Chimneyheight(m)Chimney
Diameter(m)

Gas
Temperature(℃)

Gas
velocity(m/s)

Taketoyo No.5

1673.5

704.5

147.8

73.9

180.0

7.0

90.0

30.0

Takehara New No.1

730.0

569.1

78.8

39.4

200.0

7.0

90.0

35.9

Saijo New No.1

658.8

419.7

69.1

34.5

180.0

7.0

90.0

30.0

Osaki Cool Gen

243.3

170.7

7.5

3.8

80.0

6.5

120.0

31.0

MC Kawajiri / Yokkaichi city,
Miye pref.
Kaita biomass blend firing
power station
Nagoya No.2

133.1

196.6

23.9

12.0

80.0

6.5

51.0

20.0

133.1

196.6

23.9

12.0

80.0

6.5

51.0

20.0

130.7

193.1

23.5

11.8

80.0

6.5

51.0

20.0

Mizushima Energy Center

130.7

193.1

23.5

11.8

80.0

6.5

51.0

20.0

Meinan Kyodo Energy / Chita
city, Aichi pref.
Ako No.1

37.0

54.7

6.7

3.3

80.0

6.5

51.0

20.0

663.7

392.1

95.5

47.7

180.0

7.0

90.0

30.0

Ako No.2

663.7

392.1

95.5

47.7

180.0

7.0

90.0

30.0

Takasago New-No.1

750.3

640.3

102.6

51.3

180.0

7.0

70.0

20.0

Takasago New-No.2

750.3

640.3

102.6

51.3

180.0

7.0

70.0

20.0

Kobe Works New-No.2

527.3

597.6

69.5

34.7

150.0

7.0

90.0

30.0

Kobe Works New-No.1

527.3

597.6

69.5

34.7

150.0

7.0

90.0

30.0

Ichihara

1480.4

654.5

106.9

53.5

180.0

7.0

90.0

30.0

Kashima No.2

1014.0

469.5

61.3

30.6

180.0

7.0

90.0

30.0

No.2

1419.5

711.4

106.9

53.5

200.0

7.3

90.0

30.0

No.1

1419.5

711.4

106.9

53.5

200.0

7.3

90.0

30.0

892.3

441.1

69.5

34.7

180.0

7.0

90.0

31.5

Chiba
Sodegaura(tentative)
Chiba
Sodegaura(tentative)
Hitachinaka Kyodo No.1

8

Chugoku Electric Power, JFE
Steel, Tokyo Gas / Chiba city,
Chiba pref.
Yokosuka1317.7

839.5

138.2

69.1

180.0

7.0

90.0

30.0

1317.7

839.5

138.2

69.1

180.0

7.0

90.0

30.0

Kansai Electric Power / Chiba
pref.
Marubeni, Kansai ElectricPower / Kamisu, Ibaraki pref.
Suzukawa Energy Center

1317.7

839.5

138.2

69.1

180.0

7.0

90.0

30.0

118.9

175.6

21.4

10.7

80.0

6.5

51.0

20.0

118.9

175.6

21.4

10.7

80.0

6.5

51.0

20.0

Osaka case study total

7753.05958.4

940.1

470.0

Tokyo case study total

10416.4

5857.6

908.7

454.3

Due to the relatively low stack emission concentrations specified for the projects, all dust emissions wereassumed to be smaller than 10 microns in diameter (PM10) and 50% smaller than 2.5 microns (PM2.5), inline with U.S. EPA AP-42 default values for high-performance baghouses. The emissions were assumed totake place uniformly throughout the year, in the absence of more detailed operating data.
These emission data were used as the basis of modeling the plants’ air quality impacts using the CALPUFF
modeling system.

9

Results
Air quality impacts: Tokyo-Chiba case study
The studied facilities would affect air quality most significantly in central and northern Chiba, southern
Ibaraki and the Tokyo metropolitan area. Under worst-case conditions, the emissions from the power
plants could increase daily PM2.5 levels by over 20% and NO2 levels by over 10% compared with annual
average. The cities with largest projected increases in daily PM2.5 levels are Chiba city, Funabashi city,
Sagamihara city, Yokohama city and the Tokyo metropolitan area; for NO2, Chiba city is most affected.
Most significant impacts take place during summer months.

Figure 3. Projected increase in annual average PM2.5 concentration due to emissions from the studied coal-fired power plant
projects (μg/m3)

10

Figure 4. Projected maximum increase in 24-hour average PM2.5 concentration due to emissions from the studied coal-fired power
plant projects (μg/m3)

Figure 5. Projected increase in annual average NO2 concentration due to emissions from the studied coal-fired power plant
projects (μg/m3)

11

Figure 6. Projected maximum increase in 24-hour average NO2 concentration due to emissions from the studied coal-fired power
plant projects (μg/m3)

Tokyo-Chiba case study: Most affected major cities
3.5
3
µg/m3

2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0

PM2.5 24-hour max

NO2 24-hour max

Figure 7. Projected maximum increase in 24-hour concentrations due to emissions from the studied coal-fired power plant projects.

12

A significant part of the total population exposure to pollution and of the resulting health impacts takes
place due to long-range transport of the pollution across central and western Japan.

Air quality impacts: Osaka- Hyogo case study
The studied facilities would affect air quality most significantly in the Osaka-Kobe area and the Nagoya
area. Under worst-case conditions, the emissions from the power plants could increase daily PM2.5 levels
by 5% and NO2 levels by 20% compared with annual average. The cities with largest projected increases
in daily PM2.5 levels are Higashiosaka, Osaka, Kobe, Sakai, Kyoto and Nagoya; for NO2, Kobe is mostaffected.
Most significant impacts take place during summer months.

Figure 8. Projected increase in annual average PM2.5 concentrations due to emissions from the studied coal-fired power plant
projects (μg/m3)

13

Figure 9. Projected maximum increase in 24-hour average PM2.5 concentration due to emissions from the studied coal-fired power
plant projects (μg/m3)

Figure 10. Projected increase in annual average NO2 concentration due to emissions from the studied coal-fired power plant
projects (μg/m3)

14

Figure 11. Projected maximum increase in 24-hour average NO2 concentration due to emissions from the studied coal-fired power
plant projects (μg/m3)µg/m3

Osaka-Hyogo case study: Most affected major cities
1.6
1.4
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0

PM2.5 24-hour max

NO2 24-hour max

Figure 12. Projected maximum increase in 24-hour concentrations due to emissions from the studied coal-fired power plant
projects.

15

Health impacts
The health impacts resulting from the increase in PM2.5 concentrations were evaluated by assessing theresulting population exposure, based on high-resolution gridded population data for 2010 from NASA
SEDAC 3, and then applying the relationship between air pollution levels and risk of death from various
causes established by Krewski et al (2009) 4. For NO2, the updated WHO recommendations for healthimpact assessment were followed, 5 and required data for current mortality 6 was obtained from WHO
databases. For low birth weight births, the concentration-risk relationship was taken from Dadwand et al(2013)7 and the data on current percentage of low-birthweight births from World Bank data 8.
The projected health impacts from the proposed coal-fired power plants in the Tokyo-Chiba region andthe Osaka-Hyogo region respectively are 260 and 200 premature deaths per year of operation. The
projected increase in the amount of low birthweight births would be 30 and 20 births per year,
respectively. If the proposed plants are built, they will potentially be operated for 40-50 years. Over a 40year period, the health impacts would amount to approximately 10,000 and 8,000 premature deaths,
respectively.
Table 4. Projected annual premature deaths attributable to emissions from the studied power plants, cases per year.

Cause
Exposure to PM2.5
Lung cancer
Ischemic heart disease
StrokeOther cardiovascular diseases
Chronic obstructive pulmonary
diseaseOther respiratory diseases
Exposure to PM2.5 total
Exposure to NO2
All causes
Total

Tokyo-Chibacase study

Confidenc
e interval

Osaka-Hyogocase study

Confidence
interval

29
54
32
37
7

(12-46)(35-73)(19-44)(23-51)(4-10)

21
39
23
26
5

(9-33)(25-53)(14-32)(16-36)
(3-7)

24
183

(15-34)(109-258)

17
131(11-24)(78-185)115
260(45-166)(138-368)

102
199(39-146)(104-282)3

http://sedac.ciesin.columbia.edu/data/set/gpw-v3-population-count-future-estimates
Krewski D et al 2009: Extended Follow-Up and Spatial Analysis of the American Cancer Society Study Linking
Particulate Air Pollution and Mortality. HEI Research Report 140. Health Effects Institute, Boston, MA.
5
http://www.euro.who.int/en/health-topics/environment-and-health/air-quality/activities/health-aspects-of-airpollution-and-review-of-eu-policies-the-revihaap-and-hrapie-projects
6
http://www.who.int/healthinfo/global_burden_disease/estimates/en/index1.html
7“Maternal Exposure to Particulate Air Pollution and Term Birth Weight: A Multi-Country Evaluation of Effect andHeterogeneity”. Environmental Health Perspectives. http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/pdf-files/2013/Feb/ehp.1205575.pdf
8
http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.STA.BRTW.ZS
4

16

Table 5. Projected low birth weight births attributable to emissions from the studied power plants, cases per year.

Low birth weight births

Tokyo-Chibacase study
30

Confidence
interval(9-52)

Osaka-Hyogocase study
21

Confidence
interval(7-37)

Conclusions and policy recommendations
New coal-fired power plants would be an important source of air pollutant emissions, despite improved
thermal efficiency and advanced emission controls. The case studies demonstrate that planned power
plants in the Tokyo-Chiba and Osaka-Hyogo regions have potential for causing severe and previously
unassessed health impacts because of the very large planned capacity and exacerbated by the proximity
to large population centers.
•••

The air quality and health impacts of the proposed power plants are highly cumulative, with air
quality in e.g. Osaka, Chiba or Tokyo affected by multiple projects at the same time, along withexisting pollution sources. It is essential that a cumulative impact assessment be carried out,
instead of treating the projects separately.
Building new coal-fired power plants would lock Japan into the highest-emitting power generation
option, both in terms of toxic air pollutants and CO2, for decades to come. Over the operating lifeof the power plants, the air pollutant emissions alone would have the potential to cause tens of
thousands of premature deaths. The long-term health impacts should be fully assessed andfactored in when making decisions about power generation investments.
Air pollutant emissions from all large pollution sources should be disclosed in real-time and on
annual basis, like the U.S. already does.

Materials and methods
Atmospheric dispersion modeling for the case studies was carried out using version 7 (June 2015) of the
CALPUFF modeling system. CALPUFF is an advanced non-steady-state meteorological and air quality
modeling system adopted by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) in its Guideline on Air
Quality Models as the preferred model for assessing long range transport of pollutants and their impacts.
The TAPM modeling system, developed by Australia’s national science agency CSIRO, was used togenerate the hourly three-dimensional weather fields required by CALPUFF. TAPM uses as its inputs global
weather data provided for the modeling system by CSIRO. TAPM outputs were converted into formats
accepted by CALPUFF’s meteorological preprocessor, CALMET, using the CALTAPM utility, and themeteorological data were then prepared for CALPUFF execution using CALMET. CALMET generates a setof time-varying micrometeorological parameters (hourly 3-dimensional temperature fields, and hourly
gridded stability class, surface friction velocity, mixing height, Monin-Obukhov length, convective velocity
scale, air density, short-wave solar radiation, surface relative humidity and temperature, precipitation
code, and precipitation rate) for input to CALPUFF.
Terrain height and land-use data were also prepared using the TAPM system and global datasets madeavailable by CSIRO. A set of concentric nested grids with 50x50 grid cells, 30km, 10km and 5km horizontal

17

resolutions and 35 vertical levels, centered on each of the major population centres, was used for the
TAPM simulations. A separate simulation was carried out for a 30x30km grid positioned to cover most ofJapan, and the output from this run was used as the outmost domain for CALPUFF simulations, to provide
better coverage of the main population centres likely to be affected.
A full calendar year CALPUFF simulation was carried out for all the operating facilities for 2013. The
ISORROPIA II chemistry module of the CALPUFF model requires data on background concentrations ofspecies affecting secondary inorganic aerosol formation. Hourly ozone measurements obtained from thewebsites of Chiba and Hyogo prefectural governments were imported into the model. For ammonia andH2O2, appropriate measured values could not be obtained and monthly average backgroundconcentrations were retrieved from Geos-Chem simulations carried out at Harvard University.
The CALPUFF results were reprocessed using the POSTUTIL utility to repartition different nitrogen species(NO, NO2, NO3 and HNO3) based on background ammonia concentrations.
The health impacts resulting from the increase in PM2.5 concentrations were evaluated by assessing theresulting population exposure, based on high-resolution gridded population data for 2010 from NASA
SEDAC 9, and then applying the updated WHO recommendations for health impact assessment 10 in orderto project the resulting premature deaths. Required country-level data for current mortality 11 was
obtained from WHO databases.
These health impact estimates include the effects of direct NO2 exposure, in line with new WHO
recommendations. The central and low estimates only include 67% of the health impact projected basedon a single-pollutant risk model because of possible overlap with PM2.5 health impacts identified by theWHO. Only NO2 exposure to urban population was included in the impact estimates, because of the
20μg/m3 threshold for chronic health risk included in the WHO recommendations –urban populations arelikely to be exposed to average NO2 concentrations above this limit. The assessment of health impacts
from the coal-fired power plants is based on the findings of the largest study ever carried out on thechronic health impacts of air pollution, the American Cancer Society study that tracked the medical
histories and residence records of 1.2 million Americans for 18 years, and showed significant differencesin the health risks between cities with different pollution levels 12.

9http://sedac.ciesin.columbia.edu/data/set/gpw-v3-population-count-future-estimates
http://www.euro.who.int/en/health-topics/environment-and-health/air-quality/activities/health-aspects-of-airpollution-and-review-of-eu-policies-the-revihaap-and-hrapie-projects
11
http://www.who.int/healthinfo/global_burden_disease/estimates/en/index1.html
12
Krewski et al 2009: Evaluating the Effects of Ambient Air Pollution on Life Expectancy. New England Journal of
Medicine, 2009; Vol. 360, pp 413-415.
1018

Table 6. Concentration-response relationships for premature deaths– increase in risk for a 10μg/m3 increase in concentration. Central and low values for NO2 are scaled down by 1/3 to remove
possible overlap with PM2.5 impacts. 13

Risk ratio for 10μg/m3 increase in PM2.5
exposure

Central

95% CI, 95% CI, Reference
low
high

Cardiopulmonary diseases
Ischemic heart disease
Lung cancer
Low birth weight

1.128
1.287
1.142
1.100

1.077
1.177
1.057
1.030

1.182
1.407
1.234
1.180

Krewski et al 2009
Krewski et al 2009
Krewski et al 2009
Dadwand et al (2013) 14

Risk ratio for 10μg/m3 increase in NO2 exposure

Central

95% CI, 95% CI, Reference
low
high

Respiratory diseases

1.037

1.021

1.08

WHO 2013 15

Asian populations are becoming more susceptible to the health impacts of air pollution due to aging,lifestyle changes, urbanization, and improvements in health care. For projections of future health impacts,
the results take into account projected population growth and change in rates of death from different
causes, based on WHO Global Burden of Disease for 2030 16.

13

Krewski D et al 2009: Extended Follow-Up and Spatial Analysis of the American Cancer Society Study Linking
Particulate Air Pollution and Mortality. HEI Research Report 140. Health Effects Institute, Boston, MA.
14“Maternal Exposure to Particulate Air Pollution and Term Birth Weight: A Multi-Country Evaluation of Effect andHeterogeneity”. Environmental Health Perspectives. http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/pdf-files/2013/Feb/ehp.1205575.pdf
15
http://www.euro.who.int/en/health-topics/environment-and-health/air-quality/activities/health-aspects-of-airpollution-and-review-of-eu-policies-the-revihaap-and-hrapie-projects
16
http://www.who.int/healthinfo/global_burden_disease/projections/en/

19