UBC Faculty Research and Publications

Air emissions from the Chevron North Burnaby refinery: human health impact assessment Kennedy, Susan M. 2008

You don't seem to have a PDF reader installed, try download the pdf

Item Metadata

Download

Media
burnaby8.pdf [ 144.35kB ]
burnaby8.pdf
burnaby7.pdf
burnaby7.pdf [ 222.87kB ]
burnaby7.pdf
burnaby6.pdf
burnaby6.pdf [ 1.58MB ]
burnaby5.pdf
burnaby5.pdf [ 264.56kB ]
burnaby4.pdf [ 189.09kB ]
burnaby3.pdf [ 142.88kB ]
burnaby3.pdf
burnaby2.pdf [ 1.5MB ]
burnaby2.pdf
burnaby1.pdf
burnaby1.pdf [ 112.45kB ]
Metadata
JSON: 1.0048215.json
JSON-LD: 1.0048215+ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 1.0048215.xml
RDF/JSON: 1.0048215+rdf.json
Turtle: 1.0048215+rdf-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 1.0048215+rdf-ntriples.txt
Citation
1.0048215.ris

Full Text

Air Emissions from the Chevron North Burnaby Refinery Appendix F Peer reviewers’ comments and our responses            Date: 6 July 2002     A preliminary version of this report was reviewed by two external peer reviewers in May 2002.  The reviewers were Dr. John Shortreed, Director, Institute for Risk Research, University of Waterloo and Dr. Steve Hrudey, Acting Chair, Department of Public Health Sciences, Professor and Director, Environmental Health Sciences Program.   We acknowledge the valuable contribution of these reviewers.  We reiterate that all statements, findings, and opinions in this report are solely those of the report authors.  The peer reviewers’ comments and our responses (in bold italics) are included below.     A Review of  Air Emissions from the Chevron North Burnaby Refinery  By John Shortreed, PhD, PEng.(ON), Director, Institute for Risk Research, University of Waterloo May 16, 2002    Introduction  The study report is an assessment of the health impacts of the North Burnaby Chevron Refinery based on existing air monitoring data and was specifically designed as a “risk communication” document for all stakeholders, particularly the residents of the community.  This reviewer has limited expertise in the areas of toxicology and epidemiology, which are central scientific disciplines in health risk assessment. However, the reviewer has considerable expertise in risk assessment and risk communications. On balance, having read the report and considering the objective of the report, the reviewer felt comfortable in reviewing the document.  Assessment of the Report and Its Findings  The report is comprehensive, well documented, thorough, and can be taken as a reasonable and accurate assessment of the health risks to residents of the area, given the limitations of working with existing ambient air quality data. The authors are to be congratulated on their work and in particular the informative structure of the report, with clear separation between descriptions of exposure to air pollutants, health impacts, and risk assessment. This reviewer found the following to be innovative and well done: • Explanation of possible health effects using detailed descriptions of medical conditions and also specifics from the literature. This makes for a good understanding of the risks involved. Sufficient information was provided so most people could form their own opinions. • Separation of pollutants into those with very low risks (usually not of concern) and those with risks of possible concern. This allowed for a focus on the  risks of concern. A similar approach was used for focusing on peaking of exposure. • Development of health exposure standards when there were none available. With the detail information from the literature provided in the report it made interpretation of the significance of the risks possible. • A report written for stakeholders rather than the regulator.   One “bottom line” interpretation of the findings of the report are that there are likely health risks from the refinery but that these risks are small and similar to other risks in the GRVD urban area. Relative to other refinery locations in Canada, it would appear from the limited information provided by air quality monitoring data, that this refinery does not compare well with other refineries.  The authors on pages 10-11 argue that there is a separation between “risk assessment” and “risk management”. The ISO risk terminology would use “risk treatment” for the term “risk management” and this review will use the term risk treatment to refer to the taking of action to reduce the risks.  We have now included the phrase “risk treatment” and reference to the ISO terminology in this section.   This reviewer is of the opinion that risk assessment is not done unless there is the possibility of taking some actions to reduce the risk and that risk assessment usually leads to the examination of risk treatment options to reduce the risk. This means that this risk assessment report is a part of a larger process which will consider risk treatment options. Having said this, it is noted that to do so will likely involve the collection of additional data and more studies that focus on possible risk treatments. The report would benefit, in the view of the reviewer, in an expanded discussion in section 2.1 that would more directly relate the role of the report (which is basically a scientific health risk assessment report) to the larger issue of the risk decision process in the community.  We agree and have added further comment on this in section 2.1.  The assessment of risks involves the evaluation of the risks that are estimated and this evaluation can only be done by the stakeholders involved. It is clear from the report that the structure of the Advisory Committee represents a cross section of the stakeholders and has ensured that the report is balanced and comprehensive. One example of the complex nature of evaluating risks can be found on pages 75-77 in the discussion of 1,3-Butadiene, a “probable human carcinogen” where the exposures exceed the recommended health standards and the report concludes “exposure to 1,3-butadiene may be associated with a small increase in cancer risk over that expected in other GVRD residential areas”. The report makes clear that the uncertainty factor is large (I.E. standards are likely conservative), there are limited confirming epidemiology studies (measures of observed health effects on people), outdoor exposures in North Burnaby are likely lower than indoor exposures, background levels often exceed standards, and the substance is related to automobile usage, a ubiquitous fact in the GVRD as evidenced by exposure levels in downtown being similar to those at the tank farm location. In the view of the reviewer, only the Advisory Committee can adequately evaluate this and other risks and the Advisor Committee are encouraged to write their own consensus summary of the meaning of the study results. This clearly is outside the terms of reference of this report.   We concur.  It would be useful for the advisory committee to attempt a consensus summary of the meaning of the study results, but agree that it is outside our terms of reference.  There are some communication difficulties with the draft report and these include: • The use of yellow for the results. On both the paper copy and the computer screen (appendices were provided as PDF files) this was very difficult and sometimes impossible to read.  This problem has been fixed in the current version of the report.  • In earlier tables in the report (E.G. Fables 3.5 and 3.6) the monitoring stations closest to the refinery were highlighted and this was helpful in reading the tables. In later tables this was not done.  Highlighting has been added to all tables where appropriate.  • There is inconsistency in the provision of standards, odor, and other reference lines on Figures. These were found to be useful and should be included where possible. We have added more ‘comparison’ or reference information on figures where reliable information could be found.  • Figures that plot hourly data for several years (E.G. Figure 3.9) have, to the reviewer, little information content and the authors might consider some other form of summary. It is recognized that this is a difficult task.  We could not identify an alternate format for the figures.   In order to provide information as clearly as possible, we included all summary information in tables as well as figures.  • The report needs a “city” map showing the refinery, tank farm, and monitoring stations. Even local residents may find it useful to see the arrangement and relative locations.  This has been added.  • The stakeholder comments in the Appendix B could be summarized as to the frequency of concerns. For example, a number of people indicated that the wind direction had an impact on their item of concern: this suggests that some data on dominant wind directions, speed and atmospheric stability would be useful to have in the report. On page 15, for instance, odors around the refinery are most noticeable in the early hours of the morning, which is one indication of the importance of wind speed and atmospheric stability.  These comments were not solicited as part of a systematic survey, but rather were volunteered by members of the community in response to our call for input.  We believe they provide a valuable record of community concerns, and therefore have included a qualitative summary of the comments.  However, we do not believe a quantitative summary would be appropriate.  Regarding inclusion of meterologic data, this was clearly outside our terms of reference and we have made reference to this again in the “Limitations” section of the report.       Review of  Air Emissions from the Chevron North Burnaby Refinery  Draft Final Report  Susan M. Kennedy, Ray Copes, Sarah Henderson, Sonia Na, Colin Mackay  11 April 2002    Review prepared by:  Steve E. Hrudey Acting Chair Professor of Environmental Health Sciences Department of Public Health Sciences University of Alberta Edmonton, AB T6G 2G3    General Comments  The Human Health Impact Assessment report provides a reasonable analysis of available, relevant data for the stated purpose of performing “an assessment of the potential human health impacts of current air emissions (scheduled and unscheduled) from the Chevron Burnaby refinery, tank farm, and associated facilities” (2.3. Objectives). Because there is no absolute and specific means that must be followed for performing such an assessment, it is important that the assessment be done in response to community consultation to make sure that the right questions are being addressed. Likewise, the report must be clear about how the analysis was done to ensure an accurate interpretation of the findings. Generally, these requirements have been done well and I judge the overall findings to be reasonable for the circumstances described. A number of specific comments or questions are listed below for the purposes of improving the overall understanding of the report by the various audiences you must serve.  Specific Comments  1. p. 3 I question whether the methods used justify the precision of estimating 27 days with possible SO2 – induced asthma episodes. I would have thought that estimating between 25 and 30 days would more accurately express the level of confidence in the prediction based on the available data.  .   We agree and have changed this section accordingly to include a range of values. 2. p.5 The discussion of metals that is provided in Section 6 is not mentioned in the Executive Summary. This has now been added to the Executive Summary. 3. p.5 The discussion on cancer predictions from risk assessment and those from the review of epidemiology literature could be elaborated to note that the lifetime probabilities1 among all Canadians (not those specifically exposed to refinery emissions) of developing lung cancer (males 8.8 in 100, females 5.3 in 100) and leukemia (males 1.4 in 100, females 1 in 100) are high enough to make the extremely low cancer risks that might be attributed to these monitored air emissions essentially impossible to detect by any epidemiologic study. This challenge was observed in qualitative terms, but some quantitative perspective on the degree of difficulty encountered may be useful. The futility of doing a community health survey in these circumstances was wisely noted.  We agree and are grateful to Dr. Hrudey for providing these comparative values, which have now been included in the report. 4. p.10 The Figure depicting the Health Canada risk assessment framework was far too small to be readable and thus added no value to the discussion.  fixed 5. The Table in Section 2.6 was numbered Table 0.1, an apparent typo. fixed  1 Canadian Cancer Statistics 2001. Canadian Cancer Society, National Cancer Institute of Canada, Statistics Canada, Provincial / Territorial Cancer Registries, Health Canada, p.54.  6. p.26,etc. The colour figures starting with Fig.3.5 and continuing with 3.6, 3.9, 3.11, 3.12, 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.4, 4.5, 5.1 to 5.12 all use yellow, which make those lines and symbols essentially invisible on the printed pages.  fixed 7. P.26, etc. The UBC 10 minute guideline is introduced in Tables 3.15, 3.16 and 3.17 and Figure 3.8 without any prior explanation that I can find. Because this derived criterion plays a major role in the quantitative analyses that have been done on SO2, a full explanation of where this came from and how it was developed is needed. This section has been reorganized and expanded so that the explanation of how the UBC guideline was developed precedes its use in these tables and figures. 8. p.100  The statement at the end of this page is very confusing. “This is partly because indoor sources of exposure to these substances are at least as important as outdoor source in contributing to disease risk and also partly because the health comparison value (ie the unit risk) is set deliberately at a level to be associated with very low population risk.” The intent of this statement is not clear and should be clarified.  This statement has been deleted and the section modified accordingly. 9. p.99  There is also a problem with the results summarized in Table 1.4. As defined in footnote 2 to Table 1.2, the unit risk (the U.S. EPA gave this a poor name, admittedly) is an estimate of “excess cancers per million population per µg/m3.” For 1,3 butadiene, this is a plausible upper bound estimate of the cancer risk because the unit risk factor is derived from applying the q1* slope factor derived from the linearized multistage model applied to rodent cancer bioassay results to determine a dose, which is then translated into an air concentration on the basis of typical breathing rates. The cancer risk estimates produced by the linearized multistage model and how they should be presented in risk assessments was described in the U.S. Federal Register document that established its use:2 “It should be emphasized that the linearized multistage procedure leads to a plausible upper limit to the risk that is consistent with some proposed mechanisms of carcinogenesis. Such an estimate, however, does not necessarily give a realistic prediction of risk. The true value of the risk is unknown, and may be as low as zero. The range of risks, defined by the upper limit given by the chosen model and the lower limit which may be as low as zero, should be explicitly stated.” As a result, the cancer risk estimates shown in Table 1.4 as means or medians (based presumably on mean or median air concentrations) are in fact upper bound estimates because they rely on the upper bound estimates of the slope factor, q1*. The values reported in Table 1.2 as upper 95% confidence bounds are in fact even higher extreme values. As noted in the above quote, the lower bound of zero should also be reported for this estimate of cancer risk.   The cancer risk for 1,3 butadiene was estimated using the product of the US EPA unit risk and a reasonable set of assumptions about exposures to 1, 3 butadiene in the vicinity of the Chevron refinery. The US EPA unit risk for 1, 3 butadiene is based on mathematical extrapolation from a rodent bioassay and represents a plausible upper limit for the true unit risk which may be as low as zero.  We had noted in the report that the US EPA risk estimate was an upper  2 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1986. Guidelines for carcinogen risk assessment. Federal Register. 51(185): 33,992-34,003.  bound estimate.  We have now added the comment that the risk may be as low as zero. 10. The benzene cancer risk estimate relies on extrapolation of occupational epidemiology data so that it is not as clear what the unit risk factor represents. The IRIS protocol describes the low dose extrapolation as being a maximum likelihood estimate, so the upper bound qualifier required for the butadiene cancer risk estimate does not apply to benzene.  The US EPA unit risk for benzene is based on human data for groups of benzene exposed workers. While there is uncertainty associated with this unit risk, the limitations described above for the 1, 3 butadiene unit risk do not apply. 11. p.105-108. I find no difficulty with the conclusions of this section, but I believe that the target audience might benefit from a brief elaboration of the practical limitations encountered by the available epidemiologic study designs that could be applied to search for health effects in residents attributable to a nearby a petroleum refinery. We have elaborated as suggested. 12. p.109. The report ends with a description of limitations. While I agree totally with the limitations that have been described, I believe that the audience for this report would appreciate having the report reach conclusions, even though such conclusions will necessarily be limited by the many stated, practical factors.  We agree and have added a conclusions and recommendations section.  In particular, I believe that the odour problem needs to be addressed, notwithstanding the observation that a direct linkage between odour and health effects is not established. A direct linkage between odour and nuisance is clear and concerns about health effects will never be resolved in circumstances where substantial odour nuisance prevail. Consequently, odour nuisance reduction deserves attention in its own right. We agree and have added information about the odour threshold for gasoline vapour to the final report and commented further about the issue of odour annoyance in the report and in the summary .        Air Emissions from the Chevron North Burnaby Refinery Appendix E Review of Community Based Epidemiologic Studies   Colin MacKay, Susan M. Kennedy          Date: 6 July 2002  Ju ly  6 , 2 00 2 N or th  B ur na by  R ef in er y Em is si on s Pr oj ec t U B C  S ch oo l o f O cc up at io na l a nd  E nv iro nm en ta l H yg ie ne         Pa ge  E -1    St ud y Po pu la tio n  Su sp ec te d E xp os ur e M ea su re  o f E xp os ur e H ea lth  O ut co m e Sp ec ia l Po pu la tio ns  K ey  F in di ng s R el ev an ce  to  B ur na by  S tu dy  C A N C E R  S T U D IE S Y an g C Y  e t. al ., 20 00  W om en  th at  d ie d of  lu ng  c an ce r a nd  bi rth s i n th e N an -tz u an d Ts oy in g m un ic ip al iti es  be tw ee n 19 71 -1 99 6,  co m pa re d to  th e ge ne ra l p op ul at io n in  Ta iw an ; ca se -c on tro l s tu dy   O il R ef in er y em is si on s f ro m  a  re fin er y ca pa bl e of  47 0, 00 0 ba rre ls pe r da y th at  fi rs t o pe ne d in  1 94 6;  ol de st  re fin er y in  Ta iw an  R es id en ce  in  m un ic ip al iti es  ad ja ce nt  to  a n oi l re fin er y,  n o am bi en t po llu ta nt  le ve ls pr ov id ed  lu ng  c an ce r m or ta lit y;  se x ra tio s a t b irt h  N an -tz u m un ic ip al ity  h ad  a  m ix  o f el ev at ed  a nd  d ec re as ed  S M R s f or  th e pe rio d 19 71 -1 98 4 fo llo w ed  b y el ev at ed  S M R s f or  th e pe rio d 19 84 - 19 96 ; T so yi ng  m un ic ip al ity  h ad  re du ce d SM R s f ro m  1 97 1- 19 77 , el ev at ed  S M R s 1 97 7- 19 92 , a nd  re du ce d SM R s 1 99 2- 19 96 . T he re  w as  no  si gn ifi ca nt  a ss oc ia tio n be tw ee n ex po su re  to  a ir po llu tio n an d se x ra tio s a t b irt h.  Th e re fin er y ca pa ci ty  is  m uc h gr ea te r t ha n th e B ur na by  re fin er y.  Th e hi gh  d en si ty  p op ul at io n an d ot he r p et ro ch em ic al  in du st rie s ad di ng  to  e m is si on s r ed uc e ge ne ra liz ab ili ty  to  B ur na by . T he  SM R s w er e no t a dj us te d fo r S ES , sm ok in g,  o r o cc up at io na l e xp os ur e.  W ilk in so n P et . al ., 19 99  Po pu la tio n  0 — 7. 5 km  a w ay  fr om  th e 11  oi l r ef in er ie s i n th e G re at  B rit ai n (>  2  m ill io n to nn es  o f cr ud e oi l),  c om pa re d to  th e ge ne ra l po pu la tio n  C oh or t s tu dy  / sm al l ar ea  st ud y / e co lo gi c st ud y O il re fin er y em is si on s, in cl ud in g be nz en e an d 1, 3- bu ta di en e Po st al  c od e de te rm in ed  pr ox im ity  to  o il re fin er y,  n o am bi en t po llu ta nt  le ve ls pr ov id ed  Ly m ph o- ha em at op oe tic  m al ig na nc y in ci de nc e fro m  na tio na l c an ce r re gi st er , 1 97 4- 19 91  ag e 0- 14  y rs ; al l a ge s no  a ss oc ia tio n be tw ee n pr ox im ity  to  oi l r ef in er y an d le uk ae m ia s o r n on - H od gk in ’s  ly m ph om a;   w ea k po si tiv e as so ci at io n be tw ee n pr ox im ity  (w ith in  0. 5 km  o f r ef in er y)  a nd  H od gk in ’s  di se as e (S M R  2 .1 8) ; no ne  o f t he  a ge  or  c el l t yp e sp ec ifi c su bg ro up s s ho w ed  si gn ifi ca nt ly  in cr ea se d ris k w ith in  0 -2  km  o r 0  - 7. 5 km  fr om  re fin er y.  A dj us tm en t f or  S ES  a nd  re gi on al  va ria tio n w as  d on e,  h ow ev er  th er e w as  n o ad ju st m en t f or  o cc up at io na l ex po su re . St ud y Po pu la tio n Su sp ec te d E xp os ur e M ea su re  o f E xp os ur e H ea lth  O ut co m e Sp ec ia l Po pu la tio ns  K ey  F in di ng s R el ev an ce  to  B ur na by  S tu dy   Ju ly  6 , 2 00 2 N or th  B ur na by  R ef in er y Em is si on s Pr oj ec t U B C  S ch oo l o f O cc up at io na l a nd  E nv iro nm en ta l H yg ie ne         Pa ge  E -2   Y an g C Y  e t. al ., 19 99  C as es  in cl ud ed  w om en  a ge d 50 -6 9 yr s w ho  d ie d of  lu ng  ca nc er  b et w ee n 19 91 - 94  in  T ai w an . C on tro ls w er e pa ir m at ch ed  b y se x,  y ea r of  b irt h an d ye ar  o f de at h dy in g of  re sp ira to ry  d is ea se  ex cl ud in g ne op la sm . A ll w er e ho us ew iv es  at  ti m e of  d ea th . Pe tro ch em ic al  em is si on s i nc lu di ng  vi ny l c hl or id e an d PA H s M un ic ip al ity  o f re si de nc e cl as si fie d as  p et ro ch em ic al  o r no n- pe tro ch em ic al  in du st ria l a re as  a nd  di vi de d in to  te rti le s ba se d on  th e pr op or tio n of  pe op le  e m pl oy ed  in  th e sp ec ifi c in du st ry ; a n es tim at e of  th e av er ag e an nu al  PM 10  le ve ls ba se d on  m ea su re m en ts  fro m  a  li m ite d nu m be r o f m un ic ip al iti es  a re  as  fo llo w s, hi gh es t te rti le  =  7 0 µg / m 3 , m id dl e te rti le  =  6 6. 5 µg /m 3  ,  lo w er  te rti le  = 60  µ g/  m 3 Lu ng  c an ce r m or ta lit y  W om en  li vi ng  in  m un ic ip al iti es  w ith  hi gh er  p er ce nt ag es  o f p eo pl e w or ki ng  in  th e pe tro ch em ic al  in du st ry  h ad  a  hi gh er  o dd s o f l un g ca nc er  m or ta lit y O R  1 .5 0 (9 5%  C I 1 .0 3,  2 .1 7)  a nd  1 .6 6 (9 5%  C I 1 .0 5,  2 .6 1)  fo r t he  m id dl e an d hi gh er  te rti le s r es pe ct iv el y.  A na ly si s b as ed  o n a cl as si fic at io n by  a  no n- pe tro ch em ic al  a ir po llu tio n in de x sh ow ed  a  n on -s ta tis tic al ly  si gn ifi ca nt  in cr ea si ng  lu ng  c an ce r m or ta lit y O R  w ith  in cr ea si ng  n on -p et ro ch em ic al  a ir po llu tio n in de x,  O R  1 .1 7 (9 5%  C I 0. 77 , 1 .7 7)  a nd  1 .2 4 (9 5%  C I 0 .7 9,  1. 95 ) f or  th e m id dl e an d hi gh er  te rti le s re sp ec tiv el y.  Th e 24  h ou r P M 10  le ve ls m ea su re d at  th e M A M U  si te  h ad  a n ar ith m et ic  m ea n of  2 0. 4 µg / m 3  a nd  a  g eo m et ric  m ea n of  1 7. 4 µg / m 3 , w hi ch  a re  m uc h lo w er  th an  th e av er ag es  se en  in  a ll th re e te rti le s.  T he  e xp os ur e is  du e to  th e pe tro ch em ic al  in du st ry , w hi ch  m ay  in cl ud e pe tro le um  re fin er ie s. R es ul ts  a re  a dj us te d fo r m ar ita l s ta tu s a nd  le ve l o f ur ba ni za tio n,  h ow ev er  th er e is  n o ad ju st m en t f or  sm ok in g,  E TS , o r po ss ib le  p re vi ou s o cc up at io na l ex po su re  K no x EG  a nd  G ilm an  E A , 1 99 7 C hi ld re n dy in g of  le uk em ia  o r o th er  ca nc er s i n th e U K  fro m  1 95 3- 19 80  H az ar do us  en vi ro nm en ta l em is si on s Pr ox im ity  to  ha za rd ou s e m is si on  ba se d on  P os ta l co de  o f b irt h ad dr es s a nd  d ea th  ad dr es s M or ta lit y du e to  le uk em ia  a nd  a ll ca nc er s co m bi ne d st an da rd iz ed  de ns ity  ra tio s (S D R )  C hi ld ho od  le uk em ia s a nd  so lid  tu m or  ca nc er  S D R s w er e as so ci at ed  w ith  pr ox im ity  to  c er ta in  h az ar ds , t he  as so ci at io n w as  st ro ng er  fo r b irt h po st al  c od e th an  d ea th  p os ta l c od e,  2 9 si gn ifi ca nt  h az ar d ty pe s r an gi ng  fr om  ai rfi el ds  to  z in c ca st in g,  in cl ud in g oi l re fin er ie s a nd  o il fa rm s, w er e fo un d to  be  st at is tic al ly  si gn ifi ca nt .  M ul tip le  h az ar d ty pe s w er e id en tif ie d w ith ou t i nd ic at in g if th ey  ar e in  c lo se  p ro xi m ity  to  e ac h ot he r. Th er e is  n o ad ju st m en t f or  S ES .  Y an g et . a l.,  19 97  R es id en ts  in  1 6 pe tro ch em ic al  in du st ria l c ou nt ie s (P IC ) c om pa re d w ith  16  lo w  P IC  o f s im ila r so ci od em og ra ph ic  ch ar ac te ris tic s i n Ta iw an  Pe tro le um  a nd  pe tro ch em ic al  em is si on s R es id en ce  in  a  P IC , ≥2 %  o f t he  to ta l po pu la tio n w or ks  in  th e pe tro le um  o r pe tro ch em ic al  in du st ry , r es id en ce  in  a  lo w  P IC , <  2 %  in  th e pe tro le um  o r pe tro ch em ic al  in du st ry  M ea n an nu al  ag e- ad ju st ed  m or ta lit y ra te s fo r a ll ca nc er s co m bi ne d an d 26  si te  sp ec ifi c ca nc er s f or  m en  an d 28  fo r w om en , 1 98 2- 19 91 .  R es id en ce  in  P IC  a ss oc ia te d w ith  a  st at is tic al ly  si gn ifi ca nt  in cr ea se  in  liv er  a nd  b ile  d uc t c an ce r i n m en , 1 .2 1 (9 5%  C I 1 .0 4- 1. 41 ), an d a de cr ea se  in  es op ha ge al  c an ce r i n w om en , 0 .4 2 (9 5%  C I 0 .2 1- 0. 83 ). Th er e w as  n o in cr ea se  fo r l un g ca nc er  o r l eu ke m ia .   Th e ex po su re  in cl ud es  b ot h pe tro ch em ic al  a nd  o il re fin er y ex po su re s. Th e re su lts  a re  n ot  ad ju st ed  fo r o cc up at io na l e xp os ur e an d sm ok in g.  St ud y Po pu la tio n Su sp ec te d E xp os ur e M ea su re  o f E xp os ur e H ea lth  O ut co m e Sp ec ia l Po pu la tio ns  K ey  F in di ng s R el ev an ce  to  B ur na by  S tu dy   Ju ly  6 , 2 00 2 N or th  B ur na by  R ef in er y Em is si on s Pr oj ec t U B C  S ch oo l o f O cc up at io na l a nd  E nv iro nm en ta l H yg ie ne         Pa ge  E -3   Pe kk an en  J et . al ., 19 95  In ha bi ta nt s o f t he  Po rv oo  re gi on  in  Fi nl an d,  c om pa re d to  th e po pu la tio n of  Fi nl an d O il re fin er y an d pe tro ch em ic al  em is si on s: es tim at ed  S O 2 co nc en tra tio ns  or ig in at in g fro m  th e re fin er y:   1 5- 25  µ g/  m 3 w ith in  4  k m  a nd  1 0- 15  µ g/  m 3  w ith in  4 - 8 km  M ap  c oo rd in at e de te rm in ed  pr ox im ity  to  o il re fin er y Le uk em ia  a nd  a ll ca nc er s co m bi ne d fr om  Fi nn is h C an ce r R eg is try , 1 98 3- 19 86   Th er e w as  a n in cr ea se d st an da rd iz ed  in ci de nc e ra tio  (S IR ) f or  le uk em ia  in  th e ci ty  o f P or vo o an d su rro un di ng  m un ic ip al ity  d ur in g th e pe rio d 19 83 - 19 86 , t hi s S IR  w as  n ot  in cr ea se d fro m  19 67 -1 98 2 an d 19 87 -1 99 0.  T he  in cr ea se d ra te  w as  p rim ar ily  d ue  to  a  nu m be r o f c as es  in  m en  o ve r 6 0 ye ar s ol d liv in g 8 – 12  k m  fr om  th e re fin er y.  Th er e w as  n o si gn ifi ca nt  a ss oc ia tio n be tw ee n di st an ce  fr om  th e oi l r ef in er y an d ris k of  le uk em ia  o r a ll ca nc er s co m bi ne d.   Th e 1 ho ur  S O 2 l ev el s m ea su re d at  C ap ita l H ill  h ad  a n ar ith m et ic  m ea n of  7 .8 4 µg / m 3  a nd  a  g eo m et ric  m ea n 3. 80  µ g/ m 3 , w hi ch  a re  a t l ea st  ½  o f th e es tim at ed  le ve ls  in  P or vo o.  T he re  w as  n o ad ju st m en t f or  S ES , s m ok in g or  o cc up at io na l e xp os ur e.   Sa ns  e t. al ., 19 95  11 5, 72 1 re si de nt s liv in g w ith in  7 .5  k m  of  th e pe tro ch em ic al  pl an t i n B ag la n B ay  W al es  c om pa re d to  ca nc er  in ci de nc e ra te s i n G re at  B rit ai n,  m or ta lit y ra te s i n En gl an d an d W al es , as  w el l a s t he  c ou nt y of  W es t G la m or ga n  Pe tro ch em ic al  p la nt  em is si on s, al co ho ls,  st yr en e,  o le fin s, be nz en e,  v in yl  ch lo rid e m on om er , po ly vi ny l c hl or id e D is ta nc e fro m  th e pe tro ch em ic al  p la nt . A  re fe re nc ed  re po rt in di ca te d th at  m on ito rin g in  th e ar ea  –  fo r e xa m pl e fo r b en ze ne  –  w as  no t s ug ge st iv e of  in cr ea se d le ve ls ne ar  th e pl an t. C om m un ity  sa m pl in g in di ca te d 1- 5 pp b be nz en e.  C an ce r i nc id en ce  an d m or ta lit y fo r al l c an ce rs  co m bi ne d,  le uk ae m ia s, an d ca nc er  o f t he  la ry nx . M or ta lit y fo r s ev er al  o th er  ca nc er s p os si bl y as so ci at ed  w ith  pe tro ch em ic al  in du st ry  w er e al so  st ud ie d.   Th er e w as  a n in cr ea se d in ci de nc e of  al l c an ce rs  c om bi ne d,  c an ce r o f t he  la ry nx , a nd  m ul tip le  m ye lo m a (in  w om en ) i n th e ex po se d po pu la tio n th at  w as  si m ila r t o th e ex ce ss  fo un d in  w ho le  c ou nt y.   T he re  w as  n o as so ci at io n be tw ee n an y of  th es e ca nc er s a nd  d is ta nc e fro m  th e pl an t.  A lth ou gh  th er e w as  n o ex ce ss  o f m or ta lit y ov er al l f ro m  n on -H od gk in ’s  ly m ph om a,  ra te s d ec re as ed  w ith  in cr ea si ng  d is ta nc e fro m  th e pl an t.  Th er e w as  n o in cr ea se  in  lu ng  c an ce r or  le uk em ia . Th e in cr ea se d in ci de nc e of  c an ce rs  in  w ho le  c ou nt y w as  b el ie ve d to  b e pa rtl y re la te d to  d up lic at io n of  re co rd s i n th e ca nc er  re gi st er  in  W al es . Th e ar ea  b ei ng  st ud ie d w as  on e of  p et ro ch em ic al  in du st ry , n ot  pe tro le um  re fin in g.  Th e am bi en t b en ze ne  c on ce nt ra tio ns  m ea su re d in  th e N or th  B ur na by  ta nk  fa rm  a re a ha d an  a rit hm et ic  m ea n of  1. 1 pp b an d a ge om et ric  m ea n of  0. 92  p pb , w hi ch  is  si m ila r t o th os e in  th e  a re a of  th is  st ud y.  T he re  w as  n o co nt ro l f or  o cc up at io na l e xp os ur e.   Ly on s R A  e t. al . 19 95  Pe rs on s a ge d 0- 24  ye ar s w ho  li ve d w ith in  1 .5  a nd  3  k m  of  th e pe tro ch em ic al  pl an t a t B ag la n B ay , co m pa re d to  p er so ns  in  W al es  a ge d 0- 24  ye ar s. Pe tro ch em ic al  p la nt  em is si on s Pr ox im ity  to  th e pe tro ch em ic al  p la nt  gr ou pe d as  0 -1 .5  km  a nd  0 -3 .0  k m  fro m  th e pl an t. B en ze ne  co nc en tra tio ns  ar ou nd  th e si te  h ad  be en  re po rte d to  ha ve  m on th ly  p ea k va lu es  fr om  4 -1 6 pp b.  Le uk ae m ia  a nd  ly m ph om a in  th e ye ar s 1 97 4- 19 91 .  Th er e w er e on ly  1 3 le uk ae m ia  a nd  ly m ph om a ca se s i n to ta l d ur in g th is  pe rio d.  T he  o bs er ve d nu m be rs  te nd ed  to  b e hi gh er  th an  th e ex pe ct ed  nu m be rs , a lth ou gh  th e in cr ea se s w er e no t s ta tis tic al ly  si gn ifi ca nt . Pe ak  b en ze ne  le ve ls m ea su re d at  th e ta nk  fa rm  ra ng ed  fr om  2 .5   p pb  to  3. 1 pp b,  w hi ch  a re  a  li ttl e lo w er  th an  th os e se en  a t B ag la n B ay .  St ud y Po pu la tio n Su sp ec te d E xp os ur e M ea su re  o f E xp os ur e H ea lth  O ut co m e Sp ec ia l Po pu la tio ns  K ey  F in di ng s R el ev an ce  to  B ur na by  S tu dy   Ju ly  6 , 2 00 2 N or th  B ur na by  R ef in er y Em is si on s Pr oj ec t U B C  S ch oo l o f O cc up at io na l a nd  E nv iro nm en ta l H yg ie ne         Pa ge  E -4   K no x EG , 1 99 4 C hi ld re n ag ed  0 -1 4 yr s w ho  d ie d of  le uk ae m ia s a nd  re tic ul o- en do th el ia l ca nc er  in  th e U K  fro m  1 96 6- 83  A  w id e ra ng e of  po te nt ia l h az ar ds  se le ct ed  fr om  a  ra ilw ay  a tla s a nd  id en tif ie d on  m ap s. Po st al  c od e de te rm in ed  pr ox im ity  to  ha za rd s i de nt ifi ed  on  m ap s, co m pa ris on  ra te s w er e fr om  p os ta l co de s s el ec te d ba se d on  th ei r re la tio ns hi p to  cl us te rs , o r ra nd om ly  se le ct ed  fo r c om pa ris on  to  ca se s M or ta lit y du e to  le uk ae m ia  a nd  re tic ul o- en do th el ia l ca nc er s f ro m  th e N at io na l C hi ld ho od  C an ce r R eg is te r 19 66 -1 98 3.  C an ce r c lu st er s w ith  c as es  w ith in  0. 15  k m  o f e ac h ot he r.  C lu st er s t en de d to  b e cl os er  to  se ve ra l m ap  fe at ur es : i nc lu di ng  ra ilw ay s, ch ur ch es , a nd  “ A ” ro ad s a nd  fu rth er  fro m  su rfa ce  w at er  a nd  w oo de d ar ea s.  C lu st er s a nd  c as es  o f l eu ke m ia  w er e fo un d to  b e cl os er  to  o il re fin er ie s, oi l de po ts , p ow er  st at io ns , s te el  w or ks , ce m en t w or k,  a nd  h ar bo rs  th an  co nt ro ls.  T he  a ve ra ge  d is ta nc e fro m  oi l r ef in er ie s w as  4 5. 80  k m  (c an ce r cl us te rs ) c om pa re d to  4 9. 49  k m  (c on tro ls ).  It is  n ot  p os si bl e to  d is tin gu is h am on g th e m ul tip le  h az ar ds  re vi ew ed  a nd  ri sk s i de nt ifi ed . Pa n et . a l.,  1 99 4 C hi ld re n an d ad ol es ce nt s 0 -1 9 yr  ol d in  a  re si de nt ia l ar ea  in  a nd  n ea r 3  pe tro le um  a nd  pe tro ch em ic al  co m pl ex es  in  K ao hs iu ng  C ity  co m pa re d to  th e po pu la tio n of  T ai w an  an d K ao hs iu ng  C ou nt y  O il re fin er y an d pe tro ch em ic al  em is si on s R es id en ce  in  a  pe tro ch em ic al  in du st ria l d is tri ct  (P ID ) w ith  5 0%  o f th e po pu la tio n or  50 %  o f t he  a re a w ith in  3  k m  o f o ne  of  th e 3 co m pl ex es . A m bi en t N O x,  oz on e,  a nd  V O C s w er e re po rte d "i n ex ce ss " o f t he  a ir qu al ity  st an da rd .  St an da rd iz ed  m or ta lit y ra tio s fo r a ll ca nc er s co m bi ne d an d 22  si te  sp ec ifi c ca nc er s i n bo ys  an d gi rls , 1 97 1- 19 90 .  Si gn ifi ca nt  in cr ea se d SM R  fo r b on e ca nc er  in  g irl s a nd  b la dd er  c an ce r i n bo ys  c om pa re d to  T ai w an , b ut  n ot  in cr ea se d co m pa re d to  K ao hs iu ng  C ou nt y fo r t he  p er io d 19 71 -1 99 0.   F or  19 71 -1 98 0 th er e w er e no  in cr ea se d SM R s, fo r 1 98 1- 19 90  th er e w er e in cr ea se d SM R  fo r a ll ca nc er s co m bi ne d in  b oy s 1 0- 19  y r o ld , bl ad de r c an ce r i n bo ys  0 -1 9 yr  o ld , br ai n ca nc er  in  b oy s 1 0- 19  y r o ld , bo ne  c an ce r i n gi rls  0 -1 9 an d 10 -1 9 yr  ol d,  a nd  b ra in  c an ce r i n gi rls  0 -1 9 an d 0- 9 yr  o ld . T he re  w er e no  in cr ea se d ra te s o f l un g ca nc er  o r l eu ke m ia .  Th e ex po su re  is  to  b ot h oi l r ef in er y an d pe tro ch em ic al  e m is si on s, th e au th or s h av e su gg es te d th e in cr ea se d SM R s i n th e 19 81 -1 99 0 m ay  b e re la te d to  th e st ar t u p of  th e pe tro ch em ic al  in du st rie s.  G ui do tti  T L 19 91  52 ,0 00  re si de nt s o f C ou nt y 20 , w hi ch  is  cl os e to  ‘R ef in er y R ow ’ o f e as te rn  Ed m on to n,  c om pa re d to  th e po pu la tio n of  A lb er ta  O il re fin er y an d pe tro ch em ic al  em is si on s. R es id en ce  in  C ou nt y 20 . C an ce r i nc id en ce  fo r 2 3 si te  sp ec ifi c ca nc er s an d al l c an ce rs  co m bi ne d ov er  th e pe rio d 19 79 - 19 83 , f ro m  th e A lb er ta  C an ce r R eg is try .  N o si gn ifi ca nt  in cr ea se s i n ca nc er  in ci de nc e fo r a ll ca nc er s c om bi ne d an d th e 23  si te  sp ec ifi c ca nc er s, in cl ud in g lu ng  c an ce r, br ea st  c an ce r, an d le uk em ia , c om pa re d to  A lb er ta  ge ne ra l p op ul at io n ra te s.  Th e ex po su re  is  d ue  to  b ot h pe tro ch em ic al  in du st ry  a nd  o il re fin in g.  St ud y Po pu la tio n Su sp ec te d E xp os ur e M ea su re  o f E xp os ur e H ea lth  O ut co m e Sp ec ia l Po pu la tio ns  K ey  F in di ng s R el ev an ce  to  B ur na by  S tu dy   Ju ly  6 , 2 00 2 N or th  B ur na by  R ef in er y Em is si on s Pr oj ec t U B C  S ch oo l o f O cc up at io na l a nd  E nv iro nm en ta l H yg ie ne         Pa ge  E -5   K al do r e t. al ., 19 84  C au ca si an  re si de nt s of  C on tra  C os ta  C ou nt y C al ifo rn ia  O il re fin er y an d pe tro ch em ic al  em is si on s Ex po su re  m od el  ba se d on  S O 2, N O x, an d hy dr oc ar bo n em is si on s, qu an tit ie s o f ch em ic al s u se d an d pr od uc ed , a nd  ge og ra ph ic  a nd  m et eo ro lo gi ca l d at a.  4 ex po su re  a re as  w er e id en tif ie d us in g es tim at ed  co nc en tra tio ns  to  re fin er y po llu ta nt s (e st im at es  b as ed  di sp er si on  m od el lin g) : A re a 4 (h ig he st  e xp os ur e) ; A re a 3 (m id );  A re a 2 (lo w ); A re a 1 no  ex po su re  (t hi s a re a w as  n ot  si m ila r t o th e ot he rs  de m og ra ph ic al ly )   A ve ra ge  a nn ua l ag e- ad ju st ed  ca nc er  in ci de nc e fo r 1 7 ca nc er  si te s a nd  a ll ca nc er s co m bi ne d ov er  th e pe rio d 19 69 - 19 77 ; m aj or  ca us e m or ta lit y ov er  th e pe rio d 19 68 -1 97 2   Th er e w as  a n in cr ea si ng  tr en d fro m  A re a 2 (lo w  le ve l e xp os ur e)  to  A re a 4 (h ig h le ve l e xp os ur e)  in  c an ce r in ci de nc e in  m al es  o nl y fo r b uc ca l ca vi ty  a nd  p ha ry ng ea l ( ex cl ud in g na so ph ar yn x) , c om bi ne d tra ch ea , br on ch us , a nd  lu ng ; p ro st at e;  co m bi ne d ki dn ey  a nd  u rin ar y or ga ns ; an d al l s ite s c om bi ne d;  in  fe m al es  bu cc al  c av ity  a nd  p ha ry ng ea l c an ce rs  w er e hi gh es t i n A re a 3;   a  d ec re as in g tre nd  fr om  A re a 4 to 2 w as  se en  in  fe m al es  fo r c an ce r o f t he  e so ph ag us  an d bl ad de r. Th er e w as  n ot  a n in cr ea si ng  tr en d in  lu ng  c an ce r f or  fe m al es  o r i n le uk em ia  fo r b ot h m al es  an d fe m al es . Th er e w as  a n in cr ea si ng  tre nd  fr om  A re a 2 to  4  in  a ll ca us e m or ta lit y an d ca rd io va sc ul ar  m or ta lit y fo r b ot h se xe s;  c an ce r a nd  c irr ho si s m or ta lit y in  m en ; c an ce r a nd  ce re br ov as cu la r m or ta lit y in  w om en . Th e au th or s p oi nt ed  o ut  th at  th ei r es tim at es  o f e xp os ur e sh ou ld  o nl y be  in te rp re te d as  a cc ur at e on  a  re la tiv e ba si s, no t a  q ua nt ita tiv e ba si s. Th e ex po su re  w as  d ue  to  b ot h pe tro ch em ic al  in du st ry  a nd  o il re fin er y em is si on s.   Th is  w as  a n ec ol og ic  st ud y – ie . ca nc er  ra te s i n th e 4 ar ea s w er e co m pa re d,  b ut  n o in di vi du al  in fo rm at io n w as  a va ila bl e.   T hu s di ffe re nc es  se en  a cr os s a re as  c ou ld  be  li nk ed  to  o th er  ri sk  fa ct or s.  T he  au th or s f el t t ha t t he ir re su lts  w er e pr ob ab ly  d ue  to  o cc up at io na l, no t re si de nt ia l e xp os ur es . Th ey  a lo s in te rp re te d th e fin di ng s w ith  re sp ec t to  o th er  c au se s o f d ea th  a s e vi de nc e of  im po rta nt  d iff er en ce s i n sm ok in g ra te s a nd  o th er  ri sk  fa ct or s, no t re si de nt ia l e xp os ur es . A us tin  D F et . a l. 19 84  Th e re si de nt s o f C on tra  C os ta  C ou nt y In du st ria l e m is si on s w ith  h ea vy  pe tro le um  a nd  pe tro ch em ic al  in du st ry  M od el in g ba se d on  da ta  fr om  a  se rie s o f am bi en t m on ito rs  di st rib ut ed  th ro ug h th e co un ty  p ro vi de d an  e st im at ed  ex po su re  a t t he  pl ac e of  re si de nc e.  C an ce r o f t he  lu ng , b ro nc hu s an d tra ch ea , 19 69 -1 97 8 A  c as e- co nt ro l gr ou p fro m  C on tra  C os ta  C ou nt y co m pr is ed  o f a ll ca se s ( 33 2)  o f ca nc er  o f t he  tra ch ea , b ro nc hu s, an d lu ng  di ag no se d be tw ee n M ay  8 , 1 98 0 an d Ju ly  3 1,  1 98 1 am on g re si de nt s 35  to  7 5 ye ar s o ld  an d co nt ro ls id en tif ie d by  a  ra nd om  d ig it di al in g te ch ni qu e.  Th e pr el im in ar y an al ys is  su gg es te d an  ex ce ss  o f l un g ca nc er  in  th e in du st ria l ar ea s o f t he  c ou nt y,  b ut  th e ca se - co nt ro l c om po ne nt  o f t he  st ud y su gg es te d th at  c ig ar et te  sm ok in g di ffe re nc es  a nd  o cc up at io na l ex po su re s w er e re sp on si bl e fo r t he  ex ce ss  lu ng  c an ce r r at es , a nd  th er e w as  n o as so ci at io n w ith  a ny  o f t he  m ea su re d po llu ta nt s i n th e co m m un ity . Th e ex po su re  is  d ue  to  b ot h pe tro ch em ic al  in du st ry  a nd  pe tro le um  re fin in g.  A dj us tm en t w as  m ad e fo r p ot en tia l c on fo un de rs  in  th e ca se -c on tro l s tu dy .  Th is  w as  th e sa m e po pu la tio n st ud ie d by  K al do r ( ab ov e) , a nd  su gg es ts  th at  th e K al do r r es ul ts  w er e m os t l ik el y du e to  o cc up at io na l ex po su re s.  St ud y Po pu la tio n Su sp ec te d E xp os ur e M ea su re  o f E xp os ur e H ea lth  O ut co m e Sp ec ia l Po pu la tio ns  K ey  F in di ng s R el ev an ce  to  B ur na by  S tu dy   Ju ly  6 , 2 00 2 N or th  B ur na by  R ef in er y Em is si on s Pr oj ec t U B C  S ch oo l o f O cc up at io na l a nd  E nv iro nm en ta l H yg ie ne         Pa ge  E -6   G ot lie b M S et . al . 1 98 2 R es id en ts  o f 2 0 pa ris he s i n Lo ui si an a w ho  d ie d of  lu ng  ca nc er  c om pa re d to  co nt ro ls  fr om  th e sa m e pa ris he s. Th e an al ys is  w as  re st ric te d to  th e ca se s an d co nt ro ls th at  h ad  kn ow n du ra tio n of  re si de nc e an d liv ed  w ith in  3  m ile s o f a n in du st ria l s ite  In du st ria l e m is si on s fro m  1 3 in du st ry  ty pe s, in cl ud in g th e pe tro le um  in du st ry  (c ru de  p et ro le um  ga s e xt ra ct io n,  pe tro le um  re fin in g,  co al  a nd  m is ce lla ne ou s pr od uc ts ). Pe rs on s l iv in g w ith in  1  m ile  o f a n in du st ria l s ite  w er e co ns id er ed  e xp os ed  to  it s e m is si on s fro m  th at  ty pe  o f in du st ry , r es id en ce  fro m  1 -3  m ile s w er e co ns id er ed  to  b e no t ex po se d.  Lu ng  c an ce r m or ta lit y,  1 96 0- 19 75 .  O f t he  1 3 in du st ry  ty pe s t he  p et ro le um  an d ch em ic al  in du st rie s s ho w ed  th e hi gh es t c on si st en t e le va tio ns  in  ri sk  fo r l un g ca nc er  a ss oc ia te d w ith  cl os en es s o f r es id en ce  to  in du st ry . Th is  e le va tio n in  ri sk  w as  n o lo ng er  pr es en t w he n th e oc cu pa tio na l ex po su re  o f t he  c as es  a nd  c on tro ls w as  co ns id er ed  in  th e an al ys is . Th e ex po su re  w as  n ot  sp ec ifi c to  pe tro le um  re fin in g.  H ea re y et . a l.,  19 80  K ai se r F ou nd at io n H ea lth  P la n (K FH P)  m em be rs  li vi ng  in  a n in du st ria liz ed   r eg io n of  th e Sa n Fr an ci sc o B ay  a re a co m pa re d to  K FH P m em be rs  liv in g in  th e re st  o f th e B ay  a re a.  Pe tro le um  a nd  ch em ic al  in du st ry  em is si on s R es id en ts  in  th e in du st ria liz ed  po rti on  o f no rth er n C on tra  C os ta  C ou nt y an d so ut he rn  p ar t o f So la no  C ou nt y w er e co ns id er ed  e xp os ed  an d th os e in  th e re st  of  th e B ay  a re a w er e co ns id er ed  n ot  ex po se d Es tim at ed  m ea n an nu al  a ge - ad ju st ed  c an ce r in ci de nc e fo r 4 1 si te  sp ec ifi c ca nc er s f or  m en  an d w om en , 19 71 -1 97 7.  R es id en ts  o f a  su b- ar ea , t he  so -c al le d ca nc er  b el t o f no rth er n C on tra  C os ta  C ou nt y    O f t he  1 54  c om pa ris on s m ad e th e di ffe re nc es  w er e st at is tic al ly  si gn ifi ca nt  fo r 1 0 co m pa ris on s:  in  8  co m pa ris on s c an ce r r at es  w er e lo w er  in  th e ex po se d ar ea ; i n 2 co m pa ris on s, ca nc er  ra te s w er e  h ig he r i n th e ex po se d ar ea . T he  a ut ho rs  fe lt th es e fin di ng s w er e co ns is te nt  w ith  w ha t m ig ht  b e ex pe ct ed  o n th e ba si s o f ch an ce  a lo ne . T he re  w er e no  in cr ea se s in  lu ng  c an ce r, br ea st  c an ce r, or  le uk em ia . Th e ex po su re  is  d ue  to  o il re fin er y an d pe tro ch em ic al  in du st ry  em is si on s. Th er e w as  n o ad ju st m en t fo r l en gt h of  re si de nc e,  o cc up at io n,  SE S,  o r s m ok in g.   B lo t W J a nd  Fr au m en i J F,  19 76  Pe rs on s d yi ng  o f l un g ca nc er  in  th e U ni te d St at es . In du st ria l e m is si on s C ou nt y of  re si de nc e,  c ou nt ie s ca te go riz ed  a s in du st ria l o r n on - in du st ria l a s w el l a s le ve l o f in du st ria liz at io n an d na tu re  o f i nd us try  ba se d on  e st im at ed  le ve ls of  in du st ria l em pl oy m en t i n th e co un ty  .  A ve ra ge  a nn ua l ag e- ad ju st ed  m or ta lit y du e to  lu ng  c an ce r, 19 50 -1 96 9.  W hi te  m al es , w hi te  fe m al es  a nd  no n- w hi te s St at is tic al ly  si gn ifi ca nt  e xc es s r at es  o f lu ng  c an ce r d ea th s w er e fo un d in  w hi te  m al es  in  c ou nt ie s w he re  p ap er , ch em ic al , p et ro le um , a nd  tra ns po rta tio n in du st rie s a re  lo ca te d,  no t s ee n in  fe m al es , o nl y fo un d in  co un tie s w ith  c he m ic al  in du st ry  in  no n- w hi te s. Lu ng  c an ce r p at te rn s w er e al so  re la te d to  g eo gr ap hi c re gi on , ur ba ni za tio n,  a nd  S ES .  Ex po su re s m ay  n ot  b e sp ec ifi c to  pe tro le um  re fin in g.  T he re  is  ad ju st m en t f or  u rb an iz at io n,  S ES , an d pe rc en t e m pl oy ed  in  e ac h of  1 8 m an uf ac tu rin g ca te go rie s. N ot  ad ju st ed  fo r s m ok in g.  A ll C A U SE  M O R T A L IT Y  B ac ha ro va  e t. al ., 19 96  C iti ze ns  o f B ra tis la va , c ap ita l o f Sl ov ak ia  p op ul at io n 44 2, 99 9 Su lfu r d io xi de  (S O 2) an d to ta l su sp en de d pa rti cu la te  (T SP ) pr im ar ily  fr om  th e ch em ic al  in du st ry  an d oi l r ef in in g.  A ve ra ge  a m bi en t 2 4 h.  S O 2 =  2 3 µg / m 3 (ra ng e 10 -4 90 ) a nd  TS P = 89  µ g/  m 3 (ra ng e 0- 72 0)  A ll ca us e an d ca us e sp ec ifi c m or ta lit y fo r re sp ira to ry  di se as es , ca rd io va sc ul ar  di se as es , a nd  di se as es  o f t he  di ge st iv e sy st em , 19 87 -1 99 1.   N o as so ci at io n w as  fo un d be tw ee n da ily  v ar ia tio n in  S O 2 –  2 4 hr  o r T SP  – 24  h r a nd  to ta l m or ta lit y or  th e ca us e sp ec ifi c m or ta lit ie s. Th e 24  h ou r S O 2 l ev el s m ea su re d at  C ap ito l H ill  h ad  a n ar ith m et ic  m ea n of  7 .9  µ g/  m 3  a nd  a  g eo m et ric  m ea n of  5 .0  µg / m 3 , w hi ch  is  1 /3  o f t he  B ra tis la va  le ve ls.  T he  e xp os ur e is  du e to  b ot h th e ch em ic al  in du st ry  an d oi l r ef in in g.   Ju ly  6 , 2 00 2 N or th  B ur na by  R ef in er y Em is si on s Pr oj ec t U B C  S ch oo l o f O cc up at io na l a nd  E nv iro nm en ta l H yg ie ne         Pa ge  E -7   St ud y Po pu la tio n  Su sp ec te d E xp os ur e M ea su re  o f E xp os ur e H ea lth  O ut co m e Sp ec ia l Po pu la tio ns  K ey  F in di ng s R el ev an ce  to  B ur na by  S tu dy   B IR T H  O U T C O M E S Y an g C Y  e t. al ., 20 00  B irt hs  in  pe tro ch em ic al  cl as si fie d m un ic ip al iti es  co m pa re d to  a ll bi rth s in  T ai w an . Pe tro ch em ic al  em is si on s i nc lu di ng  vi ny l c hl or id e,  PA H s, V O C s, an d en vi ro nm en ta l es tro ge ns  (n ot  m ea su re d) , a m bi en t PM 10  a nd  S O 2  m ea su re d in  so m e lo ca tio ns  R es id en ce  in  a  m un ic ip al ity  de si gn at ed  a s pe tro ch em ic al  b as ed  on  th e pe rc en ta ge  o f th e po pu la tio n em pl oy ed  in  th e in du st ry . A ve ra ge  am bi en t P M 10   in  th e st ud y m un ic ip al iti es  w as  8 4. 6 µg / m 3  a nd  68 .8  µ g/  m 3  i n th e re st  o f T ai w an . A ve ra ge  S O 2 in  th e st ud y m un ic ip al iti es  w as  1 8. 3 pp b an d 7. 2 pp b in  th e re st  of  T ai w an . Se x ra tio  a t b irt h m al e/ fe m al e fro m  1 98 7- 19 96 .  Th e se x ra tio  a t b irt h w as  st at is tic al ly  si gn ifi ca nt ly  h ig he r i n pe tro ch em ic al  m un ic ip al iti es , 1 .0 93 , f or  th e pe rio d 19 87 -1 99 6.  T he  se x ra tio  a t b irt h fo r th e re st  o f T ai w an  w as  n ot  re po rte d fo r c om pa ris on  p ur po se s.  Th e 24  h ou r P M 10   le ve ls m ea su re d at  th e M A M U  si te  h ad  a n ar ith m et ic  m ea n of  2 0. 4 µg / m 3  a nd  a  g eo m et ric  m ea n of  1 7. 4 µg / m 3 , th at  a re  m uc h le ss  th an  th os e in  T ai w an . T he  1  ho ur  S O 2 l ev el s m ea su re d at  C ap ito l H ill  h ad  a n ar ith m et ic  m ea n of  3 .0  pp b an d a ge om et ric  m ea n of  1 .5  pp b,  th at  a re  a lso  lo w er  th an  th e le ve ls in  T ai w an . T he  e xp os ur e is  no t s pe ci fic  to  o il re fin er ie s. B ho pa l R S et . a l.,  19 99  B irt hs  in  th e Te es id e ar ea  o f t he  U K  (m aj or  st ee l a nd  pe tro ch em ic al  in du st rie s)  c om pa re d to  b irt hs  in  Su nd er la nd  St ee l a nd  pe tro ch em ic al  in du st ry  e m is si on s Pr ox im ity  o f m at er na l r es id en tia l zo ne  a t b irt h to  in du st ry  b as ed  o n po st al  c od e da ta . N o am bi en t p ol lu ta nt  le ve ls w er e re po rte d.  Lo w  b irt h w ei gh t, st ill bi rth s, an d se x ra tio  fr om  19 81 -1 99 1,  fe ta l ab no rm al iti es  fro m  1 98 6- 19 93 .  Th e od ds  ra tio  fo r l ow  b irt h w ei gh t ba bi es  in cr ea se d as  d is ta nc e fro m  th e in du st ry  in cr ea se d.  T he re  w as  a n in cr ea se d pe rc en ta ge  o f l ow  b irt h w ei gh t b ab ie s i n in du st ria l z on es  co m pa re d to  n on -in du st ria l z on e.  Th er e w as  a n in cr ea se d pe rc en ta ge  o f st ill bi rth s i n th e no n- in du st ria l z on e.  N o as so ci at io n of  se x ra tio  a nd  fe ta l ab no rm al iti es  w ith  p ro xi m ity  to  in du st ry  w as  fo un d.  Th e ex po su re  w as  n ot  sp ec ifi c to  o il re fin er ie s. Th er e w as  n o ad ju st m en t fo r s m ok in g,  S ES , o r p re -n at al  c ar e.  St ud y Po pu la tio n Su sp ec te d E xp os ur e M ea su re  o f E xp os ur e H ea lth  O ut co m e Sp ec ia l Po pu la tio ns  K ey  F in di ng s R el ev an ce  to  B ur na by  S tu dy   Ju ly  6 , 2 00 2 N or th  B ur na by  R ef in er y Em is si on s Pr oj ec t U B C  S ch oo l o f O cc up at io na l a nd  E nv iro nm en ta l H yg ie ne         Pa ge  E -8   A xe lss on  G  a nd  M ol in  I,  1 98 8 Pr eg na nc y ou tc om es  of  7 00  w om en  in  St en un gs un d co m pa re d to  th os e of  70 0 w om en  in  K un ga lv , S w ed en . A ll w om en  w er e bo rn  be tw ee n 19 35  a nd  19 60 . Pr im ar ily  e th yl en e pl us  p ol ye th yl en e,  ch lo rin e,  v in yl  ch lo rid e,  p ol yv in yl  ch lo rid e,  e th yl en e ox id e,  a m in es , gl yc ol s, an d ph th al at es . R es id en ce  in  co m m un ity  w ith  pe tro ch em ic al  pl an ts , p la ce  o f re si de nc e,  oc cu pa tio n,  a nd  pl ac e of  w or k du rin g th e fir st  tri m es te r.  Es tim at ed  a m bi en t co nc en tra tio ns  in  in du st ria l co m m un ity : :  et hy le ne  1 0- 50  p pb ; pr op yl en e,  e th an e,  pr op an e,  p he no l <  6  pp b  Se lf re po rte d pr eg na nc y ou tc om es  u p to  A pr il 19 82 , co nf irm ed  th ro ug h m ed ic al  re co rd s, th e bi rth  re gi st ry , a nd  re gi st ry  o f co ng en ita l m al fo rm at io ns . Em pl oy ee s i n pe tro ch em ic al  in du st ry  N o as so ci at io n be tw ee n re si de nc e in  pe tro ch em ic al  a re a an d m is ca rri ag e,  re du ce d bi rth w ei gh t, or  c on ge ni ta l m al fo rm at io ns ; Pe tro ch em ic al  in du st ry  e m pl oy ee s h ad  in cr ea se d m is ca rri ag e ra te  O R  =  6 .6  (9 5%  C I 2 .3 — 19 .2 )  Th e ex po su re  is  d ue  to  pe tro ch em ic al  in du st ry  e m is si on s.  St ud y Po pu la tio n Su sp ec te d E xp os ur e M ea su re  o f E xp os ur e H ea lth  O ut co m e Sp ec ia l Po pu la tio ns  K ey  F in di ng s R el ev an ce  to  B ur na by  S tu dy   Ju ly  6 , 2 00 2 N or th  B ur na by  R ef in er y Em is si on s Pr oj ec t U B C  S ch oo l o f O cc up at io na l a nd  E nv iro nm en ta l H yg ie ne         Pa ge  E -9    O D O R  A N D  M E D IC A L  S Y M PT O M S Lu gi na ah  IN  e t. al . f or th -c om in g R an do m ly  se le ct ed  re si de nt s > 18  y rs  liv in g ne ar  a n O nt ar io  o il re fin er y,  39 1 pe op le  in  1 99 2 an d 42 7 in  1 99 7  O il re fin er y em is si on s i n 19 92  pr io r t o od or  re du ct io n m ea su re s, an d in  1 99 7 af te r co m pl et io n of  th e od or  re du ct io n m ea su re s.  Pr ox im ity  o f re si de nt ia l z on e to  oi l t he  re fin er y,  n o am bi en t p ol lu ta nt  le ve ls w er e pr ov id ed . T he  m ea n TR S pr e- od ou r re du ct io n ra ng ed  fro m  0 .8 3 to  1 .3 6 pp b,  a nd  p os t-o do ur  re du ct io n ra ng ed  fro m  0 .3 5 to  0 .4 9 pp b.  Se lf re po rte d ca rd in al  a nd  ge ne ra l sy m pt om s. C ar di na l sy m pt om s w er e de fin ed  a s t ho se  th at  w er e lik el y to  re su lt fro m  th e irr ita nt  p ro pe rti es  of  o do rs . P ar en ts  re po rte d on  sy m pt om s i n ch ild re n < 12  y rs  ol d.   R ed uc ed  o do ur  p er ce pt io n an d an no ya nc e,  re du ce d ad ul t c ar di na l sy m pt om  re po rti ng , a nd  re du ce d ch ild  ge ne ra l s ym pt om  re po rti ng  w as  se en  af te r o do ur  re du ct io n m od ifi ca tio ns  w er e m ad e.  In cr ea si ng  d is ta nc e fr om  th e re fin er y w as  a ss oc ia te d w ith  d ec re as ed  o do ur  pe rc ep tio n an d an no ya nc e,  in cr ea se d ad ul t c ar di na l s ym pt om  re po rti ng , a nd  de cr ea se d ad ul t g en er al  sy m pt om  re po rti ng . Th er e w as  a  p os iti ve  a ss oc ia tio n be tw ee n od ou r p er ce pt io n an d sy m pt om  re po rti ng  in  a du lts  a nd  ch ild re n.  Th e 1 ho ur  T R S at  C ap ito l H ill  h ad  an  a rit hm et ic  m ea n of  0 .7 6 pp b an d a ge om et ric  m ea n of  0 .7 5 pp b,  th es e va lu es  li e be tw ee n th e pr e-  a nd  p os t- od ou r r ed uc tio n ac tiv iti es . Lu gi na ah  IN  e t. al ., 20 00  R an do m ly  se le ct ed  re si de nt s > 18  y rs  liv in g ne ar  a n O nt ar io  o il re fin er y,  39 1 pe op le  in  1 99 2 an d 42 7 in  1 99 7  O il re fin er y em is si on s i n 19 92  pr io r t o od or  re du ct io n m ea su re s, an d in  1 99 7 af te r co m pl et io n of  th e od or  re du ct io n m ea su re s.  Pr ox im ity  o f re si de nt ia l z on e to  oi l t he  re fin er y,  n o am bi en t p ol lu ta nt  le ve ls w er e pr ov id ed . T he  m ea n TR S pr e- od ou r re du ct io n ra ng ed  fro m  0 .8 3 to  1 .3 6 pp b,  a nd  p os t-o do ur  re du ct io n ra ng ed  fro m  0 .3 5 to  0 .4 9 pp b.  Se lf re po rte d ca rd in al  a nd  ge ne ra l sy m pt om s. C ar di na l sy m pt om s w er e de fin ed  a s t ho se  th at  w er e lik el y to  re su lt fro m  th e irr ita nt  p ro pe rti es  of  o do rs . P ar en ts  re po rte d on  sy m pt om s i n ch ild re n < 12  y rs  ol d.   (1 ) N o di ffe re nc e be tw ee n th e m ea n nu m be r o f s ym pt om s r ep or te d ac ro ss  zo ne s i n re la tio n to  th e oi l r ef in er y fo r bo th  c hi ld re n an d ad ul ts . (2 ) N o di ff er en ce  in  sy m pt om  re po rti ng  p re  a nd  p os t o do r r ed uc tio n m ea su re s. (3 ) S ym pt om  re po rti ng  w as  st ro ng ly  m ed ia te d by  o do ur  p er ce pt io n an d an no ya nc e in  b ot h ye ar s. (4 ) T he  fr eq ue nc y of  o do r p er ce pt io n w as  fo un d to  b e st at is tic al ly  si gn ifi ca nt ly  re du ce d on ly  in  th e cl os es t z on e.  (5 ) T he  fr eq ue nc y of  o do r p er ce pt io n  an d od or  a nn oy an ce  sh ow ed  a  st ro ng  an d si gn ifi ca nt  a ss oc ia tio n w ith  z on al  di st an ce  fr om  th e re fin er y in  b ot h ye ar s Th e 1 ho ur  T R S at  C ap ito l H ill  h ad  an  a rit hm et ic  m ea n of  0 .7 6 pp b an d a ge om et ric  m ea n of  0 .7 5 pp b,  th es e va lu es  li e be tw ee n th e pr e-  a nd  p os t- od ou r r ed uc tio n ac tiv iti es . T he re  w as  no  a dj us tm en t f or  S ES , o cc up at io n,  ET S,  o r s m ok in g st at us . St ud y Po pu la tio n Su sp ec te d E xp os ur e M ea su re  o f E xp os ur e H ea lth  O ut co m e Sp ec ia l Po pu la tio ns  K ey  F in di ng s R el ev an ce  to  B ur na by  S tu dy   Ju ly  6 , 2 00 2 N or th  B ur na by  R ef in er y Em is si on s Pr oj ec t U B C  S ch oo l o f O cc up at io na l a nd  E nv iro nm en ta l H yg ie ne         Pa ge  E -1 0  Y an g C Y  e t. al ., 19 98  Sc ho ol  c hi ld re n liv in g in  a  pe tro ch em ic al  in du st ria l a re a co m pa re d to  th os e in  a no n- pe tro ch em ic al  ar ea  in  T ai w an . PM 10  , SO 2 , N O 2 , an d ac id  a er os ol s (m ea su re d) ; v in yl  ch lo rid e an d PA H s (n ot  m ea su re d)  R es id en ce  in  pe tro ch em ic al  in du st ria l a re a,  o r no n- pe tro ch em ic al  in du st ria l a re a.  T he  ge om et ric  m ea n va lu es  fo r t he  ex po se d ar ea  w er e:  SO 2 6 .0 4 pp b;  N O 2 12 .0 9 pp b;  P M 10  85 .8 9 µg /m 3 ;  fo r t he  c on tro l a re a:  SO 2 1 .9 4 pp b;  N O 2 8. 59  p pb ; P M 10  59 .1 9 µg /m 3  Pa re nt  re po rte d as th m a,  br on ch iti s, co ug h,  w he ez e,  an d up pe r re sp ira to ry  sy m pt om s.  In cr ea se d as th m a an d up pe r re sp ira to ry  sy m pt om s w er e ex pe rie nc ed  b y sc ho ol  c hi ld re n in  th e pe tro ch em ic al  a re a;  A st hm a O R  2 .5 3 (9 5%  C I 1 .1 7-  5 .5 0) , U pp er  re sp ira to ry  sy m pt om s O R  1 .5 6 (9 5%  C I 1 .1 8-  2 .0 8) .  Th e SO 2 a nd  N O 2 l ev el s i n N or th  B ur na by  a re  si m ila r t o th e co nt ro l ar ea  in  th is  st ud y (a nd  le ss  th an  th e ex po se d ar ea ); PM 10  le ve l i n N or th  B ur na by  is  le ss  th an  b ot h ex po se d an d co nt ro l a re a in  th is  st ud y.  Y an g C Y  e t. al ., 19 97  R an do m ly  se le ct ed  cr os s s ec tio n of  ad ul ts  a ge d 30 -6 4 ye ar s i n a pe tro ch em ic al  in du st ry  a re a (6 79  pe op le ) a nd  a  n on - pe tro ch em ic al  in du st ry  a re a (6 59  pe op le ) i n Ta iw an . V in yl  c hl or id e,  PA H s, SO 2 , N O 2 , an d PM 10  sa m e as  a bo ve  Se lf re po rte d ac ut e irr ita nt  sy m pt om s ( ey es , no se , t hr oa t, na us ea , c he m ic al  od or  p er ce pt io n)  an d ch ro ni c re sp ira to ry  sy m pt om s (c ou gh , p hl eg m , w he ez in g,  dy sp ne a,  c hr on ic  br on ch iti s)   A cu te  ir rit an t s ym pt om s a nd  p hl eg m  w er e in cr ea se d fo r r es id en ts  in  th e pe tro ch em ic al  in du st ry  a re a;  d ys pn ea  w as  re du ce d.  sa m e co m m en t a s a bo ve  D ea ne  M  a nd  Sa un de rs  G , 19 78  R es id en ts  o f C ar so n,  C al ifo rn ia  re pr es en te d by  sy st em at ic al ly  sa m pl ed  g ro up s f ro m  3 re si de nt ia l a re as  pr ov id in g 29 1 re sp on de nt s O il re fin er y an d pe tro ch em ic al  in du st ry  e m is si on s. Pr ox im ity  o f re si de nc e to  th e in du st ria l a re a.  Ex po su re  to  o do r i n th e 3 ar ea s w as  de te rm in ed  b y dy na m ic  ol fa ct om et ry  w ith  da ily  o bs er va tio ns  du rin g a 2 w ee k pe rio d in  M ar ch  19 72 . O do ur  pe rc ep tio n,  co ug h,  p hl eg m , sh or tn es s o f br ea th , p lu s a  fu rth er  li st  o f sy m pt om s.  Fr eq ue nc y of  o do r p er ce pt io n an d an no ya nc e si gn ifi ca nt ly  a ss oc ia te d w ith  d is ta nc e fro m  th e so ur ce . In  p er so ns  re po rti ng  sy m pt om s fre qu en tly  o r o cc as io na lly  th er e w as  a  po si tiv e as so ci at io n be tw ee n th e am ou nt  b ot he re d by  o do ur  a nd  di zz in es s, na us ea , o r v om iti ng , a nd  ey e irr ita tio n fo r b ot h se xe s, an d bu rn in g or  ir rit at io n of  th e no se  fo r w om en . N o si gn ifi ca nt  a re a di ffe re nc es  w er e no te d fo r i lln es s, vi si ts  to  a  d oc to r, or  ho sp ita l a dm is si on  w ith in  th e 2 w ee ks  pr ec ed in g th e in te rv ie w .  Th e ex po su re  is  d ue  to  o il re fin er y an d pe tro ch em ic al  in du st ry  em is si on s. St ud y Po pu la tio n Su sp ec te d E xp os ur e M ea su re  o f E xp os ur e H ea lth  O ut co m e Sp ec ia l Po pu la tio ns  K ey  F in di ng s R el ev an ce  to  B ur na by  S tu dy   Ju ly  6 , 2 00 2 N or th  B ur na by  R ef in er y Em is si on s Pr oj ec t U B C  S ch oo l o f O cc up at io na l a nd  E nv iro nm en ta l H yg ie ne         Pa ge  E -1 1  W ar e JH  e t a l, 19 93  C hi ld re n (3 rd  to  5 th  gr ad e)  in  K an aw ha  C ou nt y,  W es t V irg in ia  C he m ic al  m an uf ac tu rin g in du st ry  a nd  pe tro ch em ic al  in du st ry  e m is si on s Pr ox im ity  o f s ch oo l to  in du st rie s a nd  lo ca tio n in si de  o r ou ts id e th e va lle y.  St an da rd iz ed  qu es tio nn ai re  fo r re sp ira to ry  sy m pt om s (c hr on ic  lo w er  re sp ira to ry  sy m pt om s de fin ed  a s: ch ro ni c co ug h,  pe rs is te nt  w he ez in g,  ph ys ic ia n’ s di ag no si s o f as th m a)  ch ild re n C hi ld re n in  sc ho ol s i ns id e th e va lle y ha d sli gh tly  in cr ea se d ra te s o f a st hm a an d ch ro ni c re sp ira to ry  sy m pt om s (a bo ut  1 0%  h ig he r t ha n sc ho ol s ou ts id e th e va lle y) . R at es  w er e si m ila r f or  c hi ld re n in  sc ho ol s c lo se  to  pe tro ch em ic al  in du st ry  c om pa re d to  ot he r s ch oo ls . O ne  sc ho ol  (t he  o ne  cl os es t t o th e pe tro ch em ic al  si te s)  h ad  th e hi gh es t V O C  e xp os ur es  a nd  hi gh es t s ym pt om  ra te s.  Th is  st ud y w as  c on du ct ed  in  o ne  o f th e la rg es t c he m ic al  m an uf ac tu rin g ce nt re s i n th e U S.  A m bi en t V O C  ex po su re s a t t he  o ne  sc ho ol  n ea re st  to  th e pe tro ch em ic al  re fin er y w er e ab ou t 5  ti m es  h ig he r t ha n in  N or th  B ur na by .   July 6, 2002 North Burnaby Refinery Emissions Project UBC School of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene     Page E-12  References  Austin DF, Nelson VE, Swain BE, and Johnson LF. Epidemiological Study Of The Incidence Of Cancer As Related To Industrial Emissions In Contra Costa County, California. EPA Report EPA-600/1-84-008, June 1984.  Axelsson G and Molin I. Outcome of Pregnancy among Women Living near Petrochemical Industries in Sweden. International Journal of Epidemiology 1988; 17(2):363-369.  Bacharova L, Fandakova K, Bratinka J, Budinska M, Bachar J, and Gudaba M. The association between air pollution and the daily number of deaths: findings from the Slovac Republic contribution to the APHEA project. Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health 1996; 50 Suppl 1:s19-s21.  Bhopal RS, Tate JA, Foy C, Moffat S, and Phillimore PR. Residential proximity to industry and adverse birth outcomes. Lancet 1999; 354:920-921.  Bithell JF and Draper GJ. Apparent Association Between Benzene And Childhood Leukaemia: Methodological Doubts Concerning A Report By Knox. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 1995; 49:437-438.  Blot WJ and Fraumeni WJ. Geographic Patterns Of Lung Cancer: Industrial Correlations. American Journal of Epidemiology 1976; 103(6):539-550.  Deane M and Sanders G. Annoyance And Health Reactions To Odor From Oil Refineries And Other Industries In Carson, California. Environmental Research 1978; 15:119-132.  Gottlieb MS, Shear CL, and Seale DB. Lung Cancer Mortality and Residential Proximity To Industry. Environmental Health Perspectives 1982; 45:157-164.  Guidotti TL. The Cancer Non-epidemic Of County 20: Case Study Of An Epidemiological Mistake. Public Health Review 1991; 92(19):179-190.  Hearey CD, Ury H, Sledgelaub A, Ho MKP, Salomon H, and Cella RL. Lack Of Association Between Cancer Incidence and Residency Near Petrochemical Industry In The San Francisco Bay Area. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 1980; 64(6):1295-1299.  Kaldor J, Harris JA, Glazer E, Glaser S, Neutra R, Mayberry R, Nelson V, Robinson L, and Reed D. Statistical Association between Cancer Incidence and Major-Cause Mortality, and Estimated Residential Exposure To Air Emmissions from Petroleum and Chemical Plants. Environmental Health Perspectives 1984; 54:319- 332.  Knox EG. Leukaemia clusters in childhood: geographical analysis in Britain. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 1994; 48: 369-376.  Knox EG, Gilman EA. Hazard proximity of childhood cancers in Great Britain. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 1997; 51:151-159.  Luginaah IN, Taylor SM, Elliot SJ, and Eyles JD. Community Reappraisal Of The Perceived Health Effects Of A Petroleum Refinery. Social Science and Medicine, forthcoming.  Luginaah IN, Taylor SM, Elliot SJ, and Eyles JD. A longitudinal study of the health impacts of a petroleum refinery. Social Science and Medicine 2000; 50:1155-1166.  Lyons RA, Monaghan SP, Littlepage BNC, Vincent TJ, and Draper GJ. Incidence Of Leukaemia And Lymphoma In Young People In The Vicinity Of The Petrochemical Plant At Baglan Bay, South Wales, 1974 to 1991. Occupational and Environmental Medicine 1995; 52:225-228.  July 6, 2002 North Burnaby Refinery Emissions Project UBC School of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene Page E-13   Pan BJ, Hong YJ, Chang GC, Wang MT, Cinkotai FF, and Ko YC. Excess Cancer Mortality Among Children And Adolescents In Residential Districts Polluted By Petrochemical Plants in Taiwan. Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health 1994; 43:117-129.  Pekkanen J, et al. Cancer incidence around an oil refinery as an example of a small area study based on map coordinates. Environ Res 1995; 71(2):128-134.  Persson P, Skog S, and Hasenson B. Community Odours in the Vicinity of a Petrochemical Industrial Complex. JAPCA 1987; 37:1418-1420.  Sans S, Elliot P, Kleinschmidt I, Shaddick G, Pattenden S, Walls P, Grundy C, and Dolk H. Cancer Incidence And Mortality Near The Baglan Bay Petrochemical Works, South Wales. Occupational and Environmental Medicine 1995;52:217-224.  Ware JH, Spengler JD, Neas LM, Samet JM, Wagner GR, Coultas D, Ozkaynak H, Schwab M.  Respiratory and irritant health effects of ambient volatile organic compounds.  Am J. Epidemiology 1993; 137: 1287-1301.  Wilkinson P, Thakrar B, Walls P, Landon M, Falconer S, Grundy C, and Elliot P. Lymphohaematopoietic malignancy around all industrial complexes that include major oil industrial complexes that include major oil refineries in Great Britain. Occup Environ Med 1999; 56(9):577-580.  Wong O and Bailey WJ. Cancer Incidence And Community Exposure To Air Emissions From Petroleum And Chemical Plants In Contra Costa County, California: A Critical Epidemiological Assessment. Journal of Environmental Health 1993; 56(5):11-18.  Wu MT, Pan BJ, and Christiani DC. Letter to the Editor. Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, Part A 1998; 53:665-667.  (a) Yang CY, Cheng BH, Hsu TY, Tsai SS, Hung CF, and Wu TN. Female Lung Cancer Mortality And Sex Ratios At Birth Near A Petroleum Refinery Plant. Environmental Research 2000; 83(1):33-40.  (b) Yang CY, Tsai SS, Cheng BH, Hsu TY, Wu TN. Sex Ratio At Birth Associated With Petrochemical Air Pollution In Taiwan. Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 2000;65(1):126-31.  Yang CY, Cheng MF, Chiu JF, Tsai SS. Female Lung Cancer And Petrochemical Air Pollution In Taiwan. Arch Environ Health 1999; 54(3):180-185.  Yang CY, Wang JD, Chan CC, Hwang JS, and Chen PC. Respiratory Symptoms Of Primary School Children Living In A Petrochemical Polluted Area In Taiwan. Pediatr Pulmonol 1998;25(5):299-303.  Yang CY, Wang JD, Chan CC, Chen PC, Huang JS, and Cheng MF. Respiratory And Irritant Health Effects Of A Population Living In A Petrochemical-polluted Area In Taiwan. Environ Res 1997;74(2):145-149.  Yang CY, Chiu HF, Chiu JF, Kao WY, Tsai SS, and Lan SJ. Cancer Mortality and Residence Near Petrochemical Industries in Taiwan. Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health 1997; 50:265-273.   Air Emissions from the Chevron North Burnaby Refinery Appendix D Detailed Ambient Pollution Data   Susan M. Kennedy, Sarah Henderson        Date: 6 July 2002   North Burnaby Refinery Emissions Project, July 6, 2002 UBC School of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene - i - Contents  1 Continuously Monitored Pollutants................................................................ 1 1.1 Introduction to the Results .................................................................................. 1 1.2 Non-Elevated Pollutants...................................................................................... 3 1.2.1 Carbon Monoxide........................................................................................ 3 1.2.2 Nitrogen Dioxide......................................................................................... 9 1.2.3 Ozone ........................................................................................................ 15 1.2.4 Particulate Matter (PM10) .......................................................................... 24 1.3 Elevated Pollutants............................................................................................ 29 1.3.1 Sulphur Dioxide ........................................................................................ 29 1.3.2 Total Reduced Sulphur Compounds (TRS) .............................................. 36 1.4 National Comparisons ....................................................................................... 40 1.4.1 Carbon Monoxide (1-hour concentrations) ............................................... 40 1.4.2 Nitrogen Dioxide (1-hour concentrations) ................................................ 41 1.4.3 Ozone (1-hour concentrations).................................................................. 42 1.4.4 Fine Particulate Matter (24-hour averages)............................................... 43 1.4.5 Sulphur Dioxide (1-hour concentrations).................................................. 44 2 Volatile Organic Compounds ...................................................................... 45 2.1 Introduction to the Results ................................................................................ 45 2.2 Carcinogenic Compounds ................................................................................. 46 2.2.1 Benzene ..................................................................................................... 46 2.2.2 Benzylchloride .......................................................................................... 47 2.2.3 Bromodichloromethane............................................................................. 48 2.2.4 Ethylbenzene ............................................................................................. 49 2.2.5 Isoprene ..................................................................................................... 50 2.2.6 Tetrachloroethylene................................................................................... 51 2.2.7 Vinylchloride............................................................................................. 52 2.2.8 1,1-Dichloroethane.................................................................................... 53 2.2.9 1,2-Dichloroethane.................................................................................... 54 2.2.10 1,2-Dichloropropane ................................................................................. 55 2.2.11 1,3-Butadiene ............................................................................................ 56 2.2.12 1,4-Dichlorobenzene ................................................................................. 57 2.3 Other VOCs (with Published Reference Concentration Values) ...................... 58 2.3.1 Trimethylbenzene (all isomers)................................................................. 58 2.3.2 n-Hexane ................................................................................................... 59 2.3.3 Toluene...................................................................................................... 60 2.3.4 Xylene (all isomers) .................................................................................. 61 2.4 Other Volatile Organic Compound Groups ...................................................... 62 2.4.1 Non-Cyclic C5 Alkanes ............................................................................. 62 2.4.2 Branched, Non-cyclic C6 Alkanes............................................................. 63 2.4.3 n-Butane .................................................................................................... 64 2.4.4 Cyclohexane .............................................................................................. 65 2.4.5 Total Alkanes ............................................................................................ 66 2.4.6 Total Alkenes ............................................................................................ 67   North Burnaby Refinery Emissions Project, July 6, 2002 UBC School of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene - ii - 2.4.7 Total Alkynes ............................................................................................ 68 2.4.8 Total Aromatics......................................................................................... 69 2.4.9 Total Halogens .......................................................................................... 70 2.5 Calculated Mixtures of Volatile Organic Compound Groups........................... 71 2.5.1 Liquid Gasoline ......................................................................................... 71 2.5.2 Liquid Jet Fuel (JP-4)................................................................................ 72 2.5.3 Gasoline Vapour........................................................................................ 73 2.5.4 C5 to C8 Aliphatics ................................................................................... 74 2.6 National Comparisons ....................................................................................... 75 2.6.1 Benzene ..................................................................................................... 75 2.6.2 1,3-Butadiene ............................................................................................ 76 2.6.3 Liquid Gasoline ......................................................................................... 77 2.6.4 Liquid Jet Fuel (JP-4)................................................................................ 78 2.6.5 Gasoline Vapour........................................................................................ 79   North Burnaby Refinery Emissions Project, July 6, 2002 UBC School of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene Page D-1  1 Continuously Monitored Pollutants  1.1 Introduction to the Results  Summary Tables  The summary table gives overview information about each station in the data set.  It includes the following columns:  • Station identifier and location • Number of valid data points • Number of invalid data points • Number of valid data points with a value below the limit of detection (LOD) for the pollutant.  If there are no values below the LOD the minimum value in the data set is given. • Maximum value • Arithmetic mean • Arithmetic standard deviation • Geometric mean • Geometric standard deviation  Where the frequency distribution of the data set (or the log-transformed data set) was considered to be normal, the ANOVA p values comparing the station(s) in North Burnaby to all other stations are presented as a sub-text to the table.  Where it was necessary to create data subsets to make an accurate comparison between stations, summary tables are presented for both the complete data set and the data subset.  Histograms  To determine the shape of the frequency distribution of each data set a histogram was plotted using all valid data points from all stations.   If a transformation was necessary to achieve normality in the distribution a second histogram was plotted with the transformed data and both plots are shown.  Comparative Plots  All data points for every station have been plotted against time in order to show how stations compare to one another on an hour-to-hour or day-to-day basis.  Each station has been assigned a different colour to represent it throughout this report:   North Burnaby Refinery Emissions Project, July 6, 2002 UBC School of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene Page D-2   Table 1.1   Colours used in graphs to represent monitoring stations in report Station ID Station Location Colour T1 Down Town Navy Blue T2 Kitsilano Pink T4 Kensington Park Olive Green T5 Confederation Park n/a* T9 Port Moody Aqua T14 Burnaby Mountain Bright Blue T22 Burmount Lilac T23 Capitol Hill Yellow T24 Tank Farm Dark Red T26 North Vancouver Orange T52  MAMU on Capitol Hill Yellow** * Though summary information for T5 was presented in all SO2 tables, it was not plotted due to overcrowding ** Yellow was used for both T23 and T52 because both represent Capitol Hill, and they monitor for different pollutants   Reference lines showing various AQOs and health-based guidelines have been added to these plots where appropriate.  Upper Percentile Plots  As an example for those who are unfamiliar with the concept, the 95th percentile (95%ile) of a data set is a value that represents the lower bound of the top 5% of the values in the data set, when sorted in descending order.  Or, more simply, 5% of the values in the data set are higher than the 95%ile, and 95% are lower.  Upper percentile plots are used to make a comparison between the highest pollutant concentrations (top 10%) at every station.  They show the 100th percentile (maximum) down to the 90th percentile in varying increments, dependent on the number of data points analysed.  Where two or more stations are similar, the lines of this plot type of plot are very near to one another, while significant differences result in more distance between them.  If statistical analysis was run on a data subset, the values from the upper percentiles plot are drawn from the subset rather than the complete data set.             North Burnaby Refinery Emissions Project, July 6, 2002 UBC School of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene Page D-3  1.2 Non-Elevated Pollutants 1.2.1  Carbon Monoxide  CO: All 1-hour Concentrations  Table 1.2   Summary of all 1-hour CO data Station # Data Points # Missing Points # Below LOD* Max. Value (ppm) Arith. Mean (ppm) Standard Deviation Geo. Mean† (ppm) Geo. Standard Deviation T1 Downtown 19860 668 1 5.9 0.87 0.44 0.78 1.61 T2 Kitsilano 21378 495 2 5.4 0.67 0.50 0.55 1.81 T4 Kensington Park 21375 489 1 3.9 0.55 0.27 0.50 1.58 T9 Port Moody 21220 557 0 4.4 0.63 0.38 0.55 1.64 T26 North Vancouver 21180 688 1 4.7 0.54 0.31 0.48 1.55 † ANOVA test for heterogeneity with log-transformed data; all values significantly different from all other values (p<0.05) * Limit of Detection for CO = 0.1 ppm   1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 CO Concentration 0 10000 20000 30000 C ou nt 1-hour CO Data from All Stations -2.00 -1.00 0.00 1.00 ln(CO Concentration) 0 10000 20000 30000 C ou nt Log-Transformed 1-hour CO Data from All Stations  Figure 1.1 (a & b)   Frequency distribution histograms for the non-transformed and log-transformed 1-hour CO data           North Burnaby Refinery Emissions Project, July 6, 2002 UBC School of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene Page D-4  The station in Kensington Park was used to represent North Burnaby in the carbon monoxide analysis, and it will yellow rather than green in colour for all plots in this section.    Figure 1.2  Comparative plot for all 1-hour CO concentrations    Figure 1.3  Upper percentiles plot for all 1-hour CO concentrations   Federal Maximum Desirable 1-hour = 13ppm   North Burnaby Refinery Emissions Project, July 6, 2002 UBC School of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene Page D-5   CO: Daily Maximum 1-hour Concentrations  Table 1.3   Summary of daily maximum 1-hour CO data Station # Data Points # Missing Points Min. Value (ppm) Max. Value (ppm) Arith. Mean (ppm) Standard Deviation Geo. Mean† (ppm) Geo. Standard Deviation T1 Downtown 851 9 0.5 5.9 1.55 0.62 1.46 1.42 T2 Kitsilano 911 1 0.3 5.4 1.45 0.87 1.25 1.71 T4 Kensington Park 912 0 0.3 3.9 0.99 0.42 0.92* 1.46 T9 Port Moody 908 2 0.3 4.4 1.19 0.57 1.07 1.56 T26 North Vancouver 904 8 0.4 4.7 1.00 0.56 0.89 1.58 † ANOVA test for heterogeneity with log-transformed data, p<0.05 * p<0.05 comparing T4 to T1, T2 and T9; p = 0.15 comparing T4 to T26      1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 CO Concentration 0 250 500 750 C ou nt Daily Maximum 1-hour CO Data from All Stations -1.00 0.00 1.00 ln(CO Concentration) 0 250 500 750 C ou nt Log-Transformed Daily Maximum 1-hour CO Data from All Stations  Figure 1.4   Frequency distribution histograms for the non-transformed and log-transformed daily maximum 1-hour CO data          North Burnaby Refinery Emissions Project, July 6, 2002 UBC School of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene Page D-6    Figure 1.5   Comparative plot for daily maximum 1-hour CO concentrations   Figure 1.6   Upper percentiles plot for daily maximum 1-hour CO concentrations  Federal Maximum Desirable 1-hour = 13ppm   North Burnaby Refinery Emissions Project, July 6, 2002 UBC School of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene Page D-7  CO: Daily Maximum 8-hour Averages  Table 1.4   Summary of daily maximum 8-hour CO data Station # Data Points # Missing Points Min. Value (ppm) Max. Value (ppm) Arith. Mean (ppm) Standard Deviation Geo. Mean† (ppm) Geo. Standard Deviation T1 Downtown 850 9 0.40 3.85 1.17 0.42 1.06 1.39 T2 Kitsilano 911 1 0.23 3.80 0.99 0.51 0.80 1.59 T4 Kensington Park 912 0 0.16 2.20 0.71 0.24 0.66 1.38 T9 Port Moody 908 2 0.26 3.73 0.86 0.39 0.75 1.50 T26 North Vancouver 904 8 0.30 2.93 0.71 0.31 0.63 1.44 † ANOVA test for heterogeneity with log-transformed data; all values significantly different from all other values (p<0.05)      1.00 2.00 3.00 CO Concentration 0 250 500 750 Co un t Daily Maximum 8-hour CO Data from All Stations -1.00 0.00 1.00 ln(CO Concentration) 100 200 300 400 500 C ou nt Log-Transformed Daily Maximum 8-hour CO Data from All Stations  Figure 1.7 (a & b)   Frequency distribution histograms for the non-transformed and log-transformed daily maximum 8-hour CO data   North Burnaby Refinery Emissions Project, July 6, 2002 UBC School of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene Page D-8   Figure 1.8   Comparative plot for daily maximum 8-hour CO averages    Figure 1.9   Upper percentiles plot for daily maximum 8-hour CO averages  Federal Maximum Desirable 8-hour = 5ppm   North Burnaby Refinery Emissions Project, July 6, 2002 UBC School of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene Page D-9  1.2.2 Nitrogen Dioxide  NO2: All 1-hour Concentrations  Table 1.5   Summary of all 1-hour NO2 data Station # Data Points # Missing Points # Below LOD* Max. Value (ppm) Arith. Mean (ppm) Standard Deviation Geo. Mean (ppm) Geo. Standard Deviation T1 Downtown 21385 489 0 0.078 0.028 0.009 0.027 1.40 T2 Kitsilano 21235 638 0 0.068 0.023 0.011 0.020 1.81 T4 Kensington Park 21228 636 0 0.078 0.018 0.009 0.016 1.68 T9 Port Moody 21157 689 0 0.088 0.020 0.009 0.017 1.74 T26 North Vancouver 21174 694 2 0.066 0.017 0.009 0.014 1.84 T52 MAMU on Capitol Hill 3985 97 1 0.059 0.013 0.009 0.010 2.10 *Limit of Detection for NO2 = 0.001 ppm   Table 1.6   Summary of all 1-hour NO2 data in MAMU subset Station # Data Points # Missing Points Min. Value (ppm) Max. Value (ppm) Arith. Mean† (ppm) Standard Deviation Geo. Mean (ppm) Geo. Standard Deviation T1 Downtown 3974 108 0.006 0.072 0.028 0.009 0.026 1.39 T2 Kitsilano 3957 125 0.002 0.059 0.022 0.010 0.019 1.76 T4 Kensington Park 3986 96 0.001 0.069 0.017 0.009 0.015 1.68 T9 Port Moody 3878 204 0.001 0.065 0.019 0.010 0.016 1.78 T26 North Vancouver 3954 128 <LOD 0.058 0.016 0.009 0.014 1.85 T52 MAMU on Capitol Hill 3985 97 <LOD 0.059 0.013* 0.009 0.010 2.10 † ANOVA test for heterogeneity, p<0.05; 4082 1-hour time periods compared * p<0.05 comparing T52 to all other stations        Figure 1.10   Frequency distribution histogram for the non- transformed 1-hour NO2 data  0.000 0.020 0.040 0.060 0.080 NO2 Concentration 0 2500 5000 7500 10000 C ou nt 1-hour NO2 Data from All Stations   North Burnaby Refinery Emissions Project, July 6, 2002 UBC School of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene Page D-10   Figure 1.11   Comparative plot for all 1-hour NO2 concentrations    Figure 1.12   Upper percentiles plot for all 1-hour NO2 concentrations during MAMU operation    Federal Maximum Acceptable 1-hour = 0.21ppm   North Burnaby Refinery Emissions Project, July 6, 2002 UBC School of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene Page D-11  NO2: Daily Maximum 1-hour Concentrations  Table 1.7   Summary of daily maximum 1-hour NO2 data Station # Data Points # Missing Points Min. Value (ppm) Max. Value (ppm) Arith. Mean† (ppm) Standard Deviation Geo. Mean (ppm) Geo. Standard Deviation T1 Downtown 910 2 0.018 0.078 0.040 0.008 0.039 1.22 T2 Kitsilano 905 7 0.006 0.068 0.036 0.008 0.035 1.29 T4 Kensington Park 906 6 0.008 0.078 0.031 0.009 0.030 1.35 T9 Port Moody 902 10 0.012 0.088 0.033 0.009 0.032 1.33 T26 North Vancouver 902 10 0.011 0.066 0.030 0.008 0.029 1.32 T52 MAMU on Capitol Hill 167 13 0.005 0.058 0.027 0.011 0.024 1.55   Table 1.8   Summary of daily maximum 1-hour NO2 data in MAMU subset Station # Data Points # Missing Points Min. Value (ppm) Max. Value (ppm) Arith. Mean† (ppm) Standard Deviation Geo. Mean (ppm) Geo. Standard Deviation T1 Downtown 180 0 0.023 0.072 0.039 0.008 0.038 1.23 T2 Kitsilano 180 0 0.017 0.059 0.036 0.009 0.035 1.29 T4 Kensington Park 180 0 0.012 0.078 0.031 0.011 0.029 1.39 T9 Port Moody 176 4 0.014 0.070 0.033 0.011 0.031 1.39 T26 North Vancouver 178 2 0.012 0.066 0.030 0.009 0.029 1.35 T52 MAMU on Capitol Hill 167 13 0.005 0.058 0.027 0.011 0.024 1.55 † ANOVA test for homogeneity, p<0.05; 180 days compared. * p<0.05 comparing T52 to all other stations          Figure 1.13   Frequency distribution histogram for the non- transformed daily maximum 1-hour NO2 data 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 NO2 Concentration 0 200 400 600 C ou nt Daily Maximum 1-hour NO2 Data from All Stations   North Burnaby Refinery Emissions Project, July 6, 2002 UBC School of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene Page D-12    Figure 1.14   Comparative plot for daily maximum 1-hour NO2 concentrations    Figure 1.15   Upper percentiles plot for daily maximum 1-hour NO2 concentrations during MAMU operation  Federal Maximum Acceptable 1-hour = 0.21ppm   North Burnaby Refinery Emissions Project, July 6, 2002 UBC School of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene Page D-13   NO2: 24-hour Averages  Table 1.9   Summary of NO2 24-hour data Station # Data Points # Missing Points Min. Value (ppm) Max. Value (ppm) Arith. Mean (ppm) Standard Deviation Geo. Mean (ppm) Geo. Standard Deviation T1 Downtown 903 9 0.0123 0.050 0.028 0.006 0.028 1.24 T2 Kitsilano 895 17 0.0031 0.043 0.023 0.007 0.021 1.42 T4 Kensington Park 895 17 0.0055 0.039 0.018 0.005 0.017 1.34 T9 Port Moody 890 22 0.0057 0.048 0.020 0.006 0.019 1.38 T26 North Vancouver 893 19 0.0063 0.039 0.017 0.006 0.016 1.39 T52 MAMU on Capitol Hill 158 22 0.0024 0.028 0.012 0.005 0.011 1.56   Table 1.10   Summary of NO2 24-hour data in MAMU subset Station # Data Points # Missing Points Min. Value (ppm) Max. Value (ppm) Arith. Mean† (ppm) Standard Deviation Geo. Mean (ppm) Geo. Standard Deviation T1 Downtown 175 5 0.016 0.049 0.028 0.006 0.027 1.23 T2 Kitsilano 173 7 0.009 0.037 0.022 0.006 0.021 1.35 T4 Kensington Park 177 3 0.008 0.036 0.017 0.005 0.016 1.34 T9 Port Moody 172 8 0.007 0.043 0.019 0.007 0.018 1.41 T26 North Vancouver 175 5 0.007 0.037 0.017 0.005 0.016 1.38 T52 MAMU on Capitol Hill 158 22 0.002 0.028 0.012 0.005 0.011 1.56 † ANOVA test for homogeneity, p<0.05; 180 days compared. * p<0.05 comparing T52 to all other stations          Figure 1.16   Frequency distribution histogram for the non- transformed 24-hour NO2 data 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 NO2 Concentration 100 200 300 400 C ou nt 24-hour NO2 Data from All Stations   North Burnaby Refinery Emissions Project, July 6, 2002 UBC School of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene Page D-14    Figure 1.17   Comparative plot for 24-hour NO2 averages    Figure 1.18   Upper percentiles plot for 24-hour NO2 averages during MAMU operation  Federal Maximum Acceptable 1-hour = 0.11ppm   North Burnaby Refinery Emissions Project, July 6, 2002 UBC School of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene Page D-15  1.2.3 Ozone  O3: All 1-hour Concentrations  Table 1.11   Summary of all 1-hour O3 data Station # Data Points # Missing Points # Below LOD* Max. Value (ppm) Arith. Mean (ppm) Standard Deviation Geo. Mean (ppm) Geo. Standard Deviation T1 Downtown 21166 707 2791 0.060 0.008 0.008 0.004 3.44 T2 Kitsilano 21172 701 3269 0.074 0.013 0.012 0.006 4.24 T4 Kensington Park 21235 630 953 0.071 0.015 0.011 0.010 3.05 T9 Port Moody 20757 1089 2491 0.085 0.013 0.013 0.006 4.16 T14 Burnaby Mountain 21352 524 77 0.074 0.024 0.010 0.021 1.87 T26 North Vancouver 20955 913 853 0.085 0.016 0.012 0.010 3.24 T52 MAMU on Capitol Hill 3984 98 60 0.087 0.020 0.011 0.016 2.25 * Limit of Detection for O3 = 0.001 ppm  Table 1.12   Summary of all 1-hour O3 data in MAMU subset Station # Data Points # Missing Points # Below LOD Max. Value (ppm) Arith. Mean (ppm) Standard Deviation Geo. Mean† (ppm) Geo. Standard Deviation T1 Downtown 3790 292 401 0.048 0.008 0.008 0.004 3.28 T2 Kitsilano 3975 107 574 0.074 0.012 0.012 0.006 4.10 T4 Kensington Park 3996 86 165 0.071 0.015 0.011 0.010 2.90 T9 Port Moody 3961 121 344 0.085 0.013 0.013 0.006 3.93 T14 Burnaby Mountain 3994 88 12 0.074 0.023 0.010 0.020 1.84 T26 North Vancouver 3954 128 138 0.085 0.016 0.012 0.010 3.05 T52 MAMU on Capitol Hill 3984 98 60 0.087 0.020 0.011 0.016* 2.25 † ANOVA test for heterogeneity with log-transformed data, p<0.05; 4082 1-hour time periods used; T1 not included p<0.05 comparing T52 to all other stations       Figure 1.19 (a & b)   Frequency distribution histograms for the non-transformed and log- transformed 1-hour O3 data  -7.00 -6.00 -5.00 -4.00 -3.00 ln(O3 Concentration) 0 10000 20000 30000 Co un t Log-Transformed 1-hour O3 Data from All Stations 0.0200 0.0400 0.0600 0.0800 O3 Concentration 0 10000 20000 30000 Co un t 1-hour O3 Data from All Stations   North Burnaby Refinery Emissions Project, July 6, 2002 UBC School of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene Page D-16   Figure 1.20   Comparative plot for all 1-hour O3 concentrations    Figure 1.21   Upper percentiles plot for all 1-hour O3 concentrations Federal Desirable 1-hour Objective = 0.051 ppm Federal Acceptable 1-hour Objective = 0.082 ppm   North Burnaby Refinery Emissions Project, July 6, 2002 UBC School of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene Page D-17  O3: Daily Maximum 1-hour Concentrations  Table 1.13   Summary of daily maximum 1-hour O3 data Station # Data Points # Missing Points Min. Value (ppm) Max. Value (ppm) Arith. Mean (ppm) Standard Deviation Geo. Mean (ppm) Geo. Standard Deviation T1 Downtown 898 14 0.001 0.060 0.019 0.009 0.016 2.04 T2 Kitsilano 903 9 0.001 0.074 0.029 0.012 0.025 1.90 T4 Kensington Park 906 6 <LOD 0.071 0.029 0.010 0.026 1.74 T9 Port Moody 883 29 0.001 0.085 0.030 0.012 0.026 1.91 T14 Burnaby Mountain 907 5 0.007 0.074 0.034 0.009 0.033 1.32 T26 North Vancouver 893 19 0.001 0.085 0.030 0.011 0.027 1.69 T52 MAMU on Capitol Hill 167 13 0.004 0.087 0.032 0.011 0.030 1.46   Table 1.14   Summary of daily maximum 1-hour O3 data in the MAMU subset Station # Data Points # Missing Points Min. Value (ppm) Max. Value (ppm) Arith. Mean† (ppm) Standard Deviation Geo. Mean (ppm) Geo. Standard Deviation T1 Downtown 171 9 0.003 0.060 0.018 0.009 0.016 1.81 T2 Kitsilano 180 0 0.003 0.074 0.029 0.012 0.026 1.69 T4 Kensington Park 180 0 <LOD 0.071 0.029 0.011 0.026 1.75 T9 Port Moody 179 1 0.002 0.085 0.031 0.013 0.028 1.70 T14 Burnaby Mountain 180 0 0.016 0.074 0.034 0.010 0.033 1.33 T26 North Vancouver 177 3 0.001 0.085 0.030 0.012 0.027 1.67 T52 MAMU on Capitol Hill 167 13 0.004 0.087 0.032 0.011 0.030 1.46 † ANOVA test for homogeneity, p<0.05; 180 days compared; T1 not included * p<0.05 comparing T52 to T2 and T4.  p=0.08 for T52 to T26; p=0.15 for T52 to T9; p=0.22 for T52 to T14       Figure 1.22   Frequency distribution histogram for the non- transformed daily maximum 1-hour O3 data 0.020 0.040 0.060 0.080 O3 Concentration 100 200 300 400 500 C ou nt Daily Maximum 1-hour O3 for All Stations   North Burnaby Refinery Emissions Project, July 6, 2002 UBC School of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene Page D-18   Figure 1.23   Comparative plot for daily maximum 1-hour concentrations    Figure 1.24   Upper percentiles plot for daily maximum 1-hour O3 concentrations during MAMU operation   Federal Desirable 1-hour Objective = 0.051 ppm Federal Acceptable 1-hour Objective = 0.082 ppm   North Burnaby Refinery Emissions Project, July 6, 2002 UBC School of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene Page D-19  O3: Daily Maximum 8-hour Averages  Table 1.15   Summary of daily maximum 8-hour O3 data Station # Data Points # Missing Points # Below LOD Max. Value (ppm) Arith. Mean (ppm) Standard Deviation Geo. Mean (ppm) Geo. Standard Deviation T1 Downtown 899 13 11 0.044 0.013 0.008 0.010 2.33 T2 Kitsilano 903 9 5 0.065 0.022 0.011 0.017 2.25 T4 Kensington Park 907 5 9 0.059 0.023 0.010 0.020 1.91 T9 Port Moody 889 23 4 0.071 0.022 0.011 0.018 2.20 T14 Burnaby Mountain 907 5 0 0.060 0.029 0.009 0.028 1.42 T26 North Vancouver 894 18 1 0.070 0.023 0.010 0.020 1.91 T52 MAMU on Capitol Hill 179 1 0 0.073 0.026 0.010 0.023 1.70   Table 1.16   Summary of daily maximum 8-hour O3 data in MAMU subset Station # Data Points # Missing Points Min. Value (ppm) Max. Value (ppm) Arith. Mean† (ppm) Standard Deviation Geo. Mean (ppm) Geo. Standard Deviation T1 Downtown 172 8 0.001 0.044 0.013 0.008 0.010 2.18 T2 Kitsilano 180 0 0.001 0.065 0.022 0.011 0.018 2.00 T4 Kensington Park 180 0 <LOD 0.059 0.023 0.010 0.020 1.89 T9 Port Moody 180 0 0.001 0.071 0.023 0.012 0.020 1.97 T14 Burnaby Mountain 180 0 0.009 0.057 0.028 0.009 0.027 1.42 T26 North Vancouver 178 2 0.001 0.070 0.023 0.011 0.020 1.82 T52 MAMU on Capitol Hill 179 1 0.001 0.073 0.026* 0.010 0.023 1.70 † ANOVA test for homogeneity, p<0.05; 180 days compared; T1 not included * p<0.05 comparing T52 to all other stations        Figure 1.25   Frequency distribution histogram for the non- transformed daily maximum 8-hour O3 data 0.010 0.030 0.050 0.070 O3 Concentration 100 200 300 400 500 C ou nt Daily Maximum 8-hour O3 Data from All Stations   North Burnaby Refinery Emissions Project, July 6, 2002 UBC School of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene Page D-20   Figure 1.26   Comparative plot for daily maximum 8-hour O3 averages     Figure 1.27   Upper percentiles plot for daily maximum 8-hour O3 averages during MAMU operation   Proposed Canada- Wide Environmental Standard = 0 065 ppm   North Burnaby Refinery Emissions Project, July 6, 2002 UBC School of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene Page D-21  O3: 24-hour Averages  Table 1.17   Summary of 24-hour O3 data Station # Data Points # Missing Points # Below LOD Max. Value (ppm) Arith. Mean (ppm) Standard Deviation Geo. Mean (ppm) Geo. Standard Deviation T1 Downtown 897 15 30 0.028 0.008 0.005 0.006 2.23 T2 Kitsilano 898 14 16 0.040 0.013 0.007 0.010 2.21 T4 Kensington Park 898 14 10 0.038 0.015 0.007 0.013 1.95 T9 Port Moody 875 37 12 0.038 0.013 0.007 0.010 2.17 T14 Burnaby Mountain 901 11 0 0.046 0.024 0.008 0.023 1.47 T26 North Vancouver 885 27 3 0.039 0.016 0.008 0.013 1.98 T52 MAMU on Capitol Hill 158 22 0 0.044 0.020 0.008 0.018 1.62   Table 1.18   Summary of 24-hour O3 data in MAMU subset Station # Data Points # Missing Points # Below LOD Max. Value (ppm) Arith. Mean† (ppm) Standard Deviation Geo. Mean (ppm) Geo. Standard Deviation T1 Downtown 171 9 1 0.020 0.007 0.005 0.006 2.07 T2 Kitsilano 177 3 1 0.029 0.012 0.007 0.010 1.93 T4 Kensington Park 179 1 2 0.030 0.015 0.007 0.013 1.88 T9 Port Moody 177 3 2 0.033 0.013 0.006 0.011 1.93 T14 Burnaby Mountain 177 3 0 0.042 0.023 0.008 0.022 1.47 T26 North Vancouver 175 5 2 0.034 0.016 0.008 0.013 1.85 T52 MAMU on Capitol Hill 158 22 0 0.044 0.020* 0.008 0.018 1.62 † ANOVA test for homogeneity, p<0.05; 180 days compared; T1 not included * p<0.05 comparing T52 to all other stations NOTE: ANOVA with square root-transformed data produced the same result      Figure 1.28 (a & b)   Frequency distribution histograms for the non-transformed and log- transformed 24-hour O3 data  0.000 0.010 0.020 0.030 0.040 O3 Concentration 0 100 200 300 Co un t 24-hour O3 All Data from All Stations 0.000 0.050 0.100 0.150 0.200 sqrt(O3 Concentration) 0 100 200 300 Co un t Square Root-Transformed 24-hour O3 All Data from All Stations   North Burnaby Refinery Emissions Project, July 6, 2002 UBC School of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene Page D-22     Figure 1.29   Comparative plot for 24-hour O3 averages    Table 1.19   Exceedances of federal objectives in the 24-hour O3 data subset for MAMU Station Altitude (m) # of Days # of Points ≥ Desirable Objective (0.015 ppm) # of Points ≥ Acceptable Objective (0.025 ppm) T1 Downtown 56 171 16 0 T2 Kitsilano 63 177 54 11 T4 Kensington Park 133 179 84 16 T9 Port Moody <15 177 63 7 T14 Burnaby Mountain 360 177 147 70 T26 North Vancouver 80 175 88 22 T52 MAMU on Capitol Hill 200 158 112 50     Federal Acceptable 24-hour Objective  = 0.025 ppm Federal Desirable 24-hour Objective  = 0.015 ppm   North Burnaby Refinery Emissions Project, July 6, 2002 UBC School of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene Page D-23   Figure 1.30   Upper percentiles plot for 24-hour O3 averages during MAMU operation                         North Burnaby Refinery Emissions Project, July 6, 2002 UBC School of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene Page D-24  1.2.4 Particulate Matter (PM10)  PM10: All 1-hour Concentrations  Table 1.20   Summary of all 1-hour PM10 data Station # Data Points # Missing Points # Below LOD* Max. Value (µg/m3) Arith. Mean (µg/m3) Standard Deviation Geo. Mean (µg/m3) Geo. Standard Deviation T2 Kitsilano 21746 142 98 180 13.5 9.2 11.2 1.9 T4 Kensington Park 21698 181 92 143 11.2 7.8 9.1 1.9 T9 Port Moody 21083 777 160 110 13.5 9.1 10.9 2.0 T52 MAMU 3455 118 24 87 10.6 8.9 8.0 2.2 * Limit of Detection for PM10 = 1 µg/m3   Table 1.21   Summary of all 1-hour PM10 data in MAMU subset Station # Data Points # Missing Points # Below LOD* Max. Value (µg/m3) Arith. Mean† (µg/m3) Standard Deviation Geo. Mean (µg/m3) Geo. Standard Deviation T2 Kitsilano 3528 45 8 180 13.1 10.5 10.9 1.8 T4 Kensington Park 3485 88 16 99 11.1 8.8 8.8 1.9 T9 Port Moody 3354 219 25 96 13.2 9.9 10.5 2.0 T52 MAMU 3455 118 24 87 10.6* 8.9 8.0 2.2 † ANOVA test for heterogeneity with log-transformed data, p<0.05; 3573 1-hour time periods compared * p<0.05 comparing T52 to all other stations   0.000 50.000 100.000 150.000 PM10 Concentration 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 C ou nt 1-hour PM10 Data from All Stations  0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 ln(PM10 Concentration) 0 5000 10000 15000 C ou nt Log-Transformed 1-hour PM10 Data from All Stations  Figure 1.31 (a & b)   Frequency distribution histograms for the non-transformed and log- transformed 1-hour PM10 data   North Burnaby Refinery Emissions Project, July 6, 2002 UBC School of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene Page D-25   Figure 1.32   Comparative plot for all 1-hour PM10 concentrations    Figure 1.33   Upper percentiles plot for all 1-hour PM10 concentrations during MAMU operation      North Burnaby Refinery Emissions Project, July 6, 2002 UBC School of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene Page D-26  PM10: 24-hour Averages  Table 1.22   Summary of 24-hour PM10 data Station # Data Points # Missing Points Min. Value (µg/m3) Max. Value (µg/m3) Arith. Mean (µg/m3) Standard Deviation Geo. Mean (µg/m3) Geo. Standard Deviation T2 Kitsilano 911 1 1.6 49.8 13.5 5.7 12.5 1.5 T4 Kensington Park 904 8 2.0 57.4 11.2 6.0 10.0 1.6 T9 Port Moody 878 34 2.8 58.6 13.5 6.8 12.1 1.6 T52 MAMU on Capitol Hill 137 22 3.5 51.4 10.3 6.8 8.8 1.7   Table 1.23   Summary of 24-hour PM10 data in MAMU subset Station # Data Points # Missing Points Min. Value (µg/m3) Max. Value (µg/m3) Arith. Mean† (µg/m3) Standard Deviation Geo. Mean (µg/m3) Geo. Standard Deviation T2 Kitsilano 158 1 6.3 49.6 13.4 7.1 12.2 1.5 T4 Kensington Park 155 4 4.5 57.4 11.5 7.9 9.9 1.6 T9 Port Moody 148 11 4.5 58.6 13.7 8.8 11.9 1.6 T52 MAMU on Capitol Hill 137 22 3.5 51.4 10.3* 6.8 8.8 1.7 † ANOVA test for heterogeneity with log-transformed data, p<0.05; 159 days compared * p<0.05 comparing T52 to all other stations   10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 PM10 Concentration 0 250 500 750 C ou nt 24-hour PM10 Data from All Stations  1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 ln(PM10 Concentration) 100 200 300 400 500 C ou nt 24-hour PM10 Data from All Stations  Figure 1.34 (a & b)   Frequency distribution histograms for the non-transformed and log- transformed 24-hour PM10 data   North Burnaby Refinery Emissions Project, July 6, 2002 UBC School of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene Page D-27   Figure 1.35   Comparative plot for 24-hour PM10 averages    Figure 1.36   Upper percentiles plot for 24-hour PM10 averages during MAMU operation    GVRD 24-hour Objective = 50 µg/m3   North Burnaby Refinery Emissions Project, July 6, 2002 UBC School of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene Page D-28  PM10 Concentrations After Catalyst Release of April 2000  On April 6th and 7th 2000 malfunctions in the Fluid Catalytic Cracker Regenerator (FCCR) at Chevron’s North Burnaby refinery resulted in the release of approximately 1600 kg of particulate catalyst into the surrounding atmosphere.  The following plots show the 1-hour and 24-hour concentrations of PM10 at stations T2, T4 and T9 throughout April 2000. There is no evidence of elevated PM10 levels at station T4 due to the release, probably because the most of the particles (approximately 94% according to the GVRD/Simon Fraser Health Region report) were greater than 10 microns in diameter.              Figure 1.37   1-hour PM10 concentrations in April 2000                Figure 1.38   24-hour PM10 averages in April 2000      North Burnaby Refinery Emissions Project, July 6, 2002 UBC School of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene Page D-29  1.3 Elevated Pollutants  1.3.1 Sulphur Dioxide  SO2: All 1-hour Concentrations  Table 1.24   Summary of all 1-hour SO2 data Station # Data Points # Missing Points # Below LOD* Max. Value (ppm) Arith. Mean (ppm) Standard Deviation Geo. Mean (ppm) Geo. Standard Deviation T1 Downtown 21444 431 708 0.090 0.00522 0.0050 0.00356 2.44 T2 Kitsilano 21140 729 3629 0.081 0.00291 0.0031 0.00202 2.30 T4 Kensington Park 21241 624 5567 0.078 0.00221 0.0028 0.00152 2.18 T5 Confederation Park 11742 2106 2978 0.066 0.00240 0.0028 0.00165 2.22 T9 Port Moody 21086 761 5857 0.061 0.00242 0.0033 0.00154 2.30 T23 Capitol Hill 21281 569 7908 0.390 0.00299 0.0100 0.00145 2.50 T24 Tank Farm 5437 379 1361 0.050 0.00264 0.0031 0.00174 2.34 T26 North Vancouver 21109 759 5495 0.055 0.00214 0.0023 0.00153 2.12 * LOD for SO2 = 0.001 ppm     0.100 0.200 0.300 SO2 Concentration 25000 50000 75000 100000 125000 C ou nt 1-hour SO2 Data from All Stations -7.00 -5.00 -3.00 -1.00 ln(SO2 Concentration) 0 20000 40000 60000 C ou nt Log-Transformed 1-hour SO2 Data from All Stations  Figure 1.39 (a & b)   Frequency distribution histograms for the non-transformed and log- transformed 1-hour SO2 data   North Burnaby Refinery Emissions Project, July 6, 2002 UBC School of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene Page D-30   Figure 1.40   Comparative plot for all 1-hour SO2 concentrations    Table 1.25   Number of 1-hour SO2 concentrations meeting or exceeding federal objectives and health-based guidelines    # of hours greater than or equal to (≥) standard Station  Data Points % Below LOD† Federal Acceptable 1-hour Obj.  (0.34 ppm) WHO 10-minute Guideline (0.19 ppm) Federal Desirable 1-hour Obj. (0.17 ppm) UBC 10-minute Guideline (0.1 ppm) ATSDR acute MRL (0.01 ppm) T1 Downtown 21444 3.3 0 0 0 0 3089 T2 Kitsilano 21140 17.2 0 0 0 0 691 T4 Kensington Park 21241 26.2 0 0 0 0 490 T5 Confederation Park 11742 25.4 0 0 0 0 299 T9 Port Moody 21086 27.8 0 0 0 0 993 T23 Capitol Hill 21281 37.2 1 11 21 44 1044 T24 Tank Farm 5437 25.0 0 0 0 0 204 T26 North Vancouver 21109 26.0 0 0 0 0 395 † CHISQ test for heterogeneity, p<0.005   Federal Acceptable 1-hour Objective = 0.34 ppm WHO 10-minute Guideline = 0.19 ppm Federal Desirable 1-hour Objective =0.17 ppm UBC health-based 10-minute NOAEL = 0.10 ppm ATSDR acute exposure MRL = 0.01 ppm   North Burnaby Refinery Emissions Project, July 6, 2002 UBC School of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene Page D-31   Figure 1.41   Upper percentiles plot for all 1-hour SO2 concentrations     North Burnaby Refinery Emissions Project, July 6, 2002 UBC School of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene Page D-32   SO2: Daily Maximum 1-hour Concentrations  Table 1.26   Summary of daily maximum 1-hour SO2 data Station # Data Points # Missing Points # Below LOD Max. Value (ppm) Arith. Mean (ppm) Standard Deviation Geo. Mean† (ppm) Geo. Standard Deviation T1 Downtown 912 0 10 0.090 0.0139 0.009 0.0114 1.95 T2 Kitsilano 901 11 28 0.081 0.0079 0.006 0.0065 1.92 T4 Kensington Park 905 7 139 0.078 0.0063 0.007 0.0042 2.49 T5 Confederation Park 498 79 10 0.066 0.0063 0.007 0.0043 2.44 T9 Port Moody 898 14 125 0.061 0.0068 0.007 0.0044 2.61 T23 Capitol Hill 908 4 167 0.390 0.0141 0.031 0.0055* 3.62 T24 Tank Farm 232 16 7 0.050 0.0079 0.007 0.0058** 2.31 T26 North Vancouver 900 12 98 0.055 0.0060 0.005 0.0043 2.31 † ANOVA test for homogeneity with log-transformed data, p<0.05; * p<0.05 comparing T23 all other stations; T5 and T24 not included ** p<0.05 comparing T24 to all other stations  0.100 0.200 0.300 SO2 Concentration 0 2000 4000 6000 Co un t Daily Maximum 1-hour SO2 Data from All Stations -7.00 -5.00 -3.00 -1.00 ln(SO2 Concentration) 0 250 500 750 1000 C ou nt Log-Transformed Daily Maximum 1-hour SO2 Data from All Stations  Figure 1.42 (a & b)   Frequency distribution histograms for the non-transformed and log- transformed 1-hour SO2 data      North Burnaby Refinery Emissions Project, July 6, 2002 UBC School of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene Page D-33   Figure 1.43   Comparative plot for daily maximum 1-hour SO2 concentrations     Figure 1.44   Upper percentiles plot for daily maximum 1-hour SO2 concentrations   Federal Acceptable 1-hour Objective = 0.34 ppm WHO 10-minute Guideline = 0.19 ppm Federal Desirable 1-hour Objective =0.17 ppm UBC health-based 10-minute NOAEL = 0.10 ppm ATSDR acute exposure MRL = 0.01 ppm   North Burnaby Refinery Emissions Project, July 6, 2002 UBC School of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene Page D-34  SO2: 24-hour Averages  Table 1.27   Summary of 24-hour average SO2 data Station # Data Points # Missing Points # Below LOD Max. Value (ppm) Arith. Mean (ppm) Standard Deviation Geo. Mean† (ppm) Geo. Standard Deviation T1 Downtown 911 1 15 0.022 0.0052 0.0030 0.0044 1.82 T2 Kitsilano 894 18 56 0.020 0.0029 0.0018 0.0025 1.76 T4 Kensington Park 898 14 213 0.018 0.0022 0.0017 0.0018 1.90 T5 Confederation Park 493 84 109 0.012 0.0024 0.0018 0.0019 1.96 T9 Port Moody 886 26 196 0.016 0.0024 0.0020 0.0019 2.01 T23 Capitol Hill 898 14 262 0.110 0.0030 0.0057 0.0019* 2.29 T24 Tank Farm 225 23 32 0.014 0.0027 0.0020 0.0021** 1.93 T26 North Vancouver 894 18 165 0.011 0.0021 0.0014 0.0018 1.79 † ANOVA test for homogeneity with log-transformed data, p<0.05; * p<0.05 comparing T23 to T1 and T2; p=0.08 for T4; p=0.80 for T9; p=0.23 for T26; T5 and T24 not included ** p<0.05 comparing T24 to all other stations 0.0200 0.0400 0.0600 0.0800 0.1000 SO2 Concentration 0 2000 4000 6000 C ou nt 24-hour SO2 Data from All Stations -7.00 -6.00 -5.00 -4.00 -3.00 ln(SO2 Concentration) 0 200 400 600 Co un t Log-Transformed 24-hour SO2 Data from All Stations  Figure 1.45 (a & b)   Frequency distribution histograms for the non-transformed and log- transformed 24-hour SO2 data      North Burnaby Refinery Emissions Project, July 6, 2002 UBC School of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene Page D-35   Figure 1.46   Comparative plot for 24-hour SO2 averages     Figure 1.47   Upper percentiles plot for 24-hour SO2 averages  Federal Acceptable 24-hour Average = 0.115 ppm Federal Desirable 24-hour Average = 0.057 ppm   North Burnaby Refinery Emissions Project, July 6, 2002 UBC School of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene Page D-36  1.3.2 Total Reduced Sulphur Compounds (TRS)  TRS: All 1-hour Concentrations  Table 1.28   Summary of all 1-hour TRS data Station # Data Points # Missing Points # Below LOD* Max. Value (ppm) Arith. Mean (ppm) Standard Deviation Geo. Mean (ppm) Geo. Standard Deviation T4 Kensington Park 18710 3154 15176 0.003 0.00077 0.00017 0.00076 1.18 T9 Port Moody 21297 550 11351 0.015 0.00094 0.00052 0.00088 1.37 T22 Burmount 21457 419 19023 0.008 0.00074 0.00013 0.00074 1.13 T23 Capitol Hill 21242 609 15097 0.015 0.00083 0.00031 0.00080 1.26 T24 Tank Farm 5509 319 2559 0.007 0.00091 0.00035 0.00088 1.29 * LOD for TRS = 0.001 ppm   Table 1.29   Summary of all 1-hour TRS data in the Tank Farm subset Station # Data Points # Missing Points # Below LOD Max. Value (ppm) Arith. Mean (ppm) Standard Deviation Geo. Mean (ppm) Geo. Standard Deviation T4 Kensington Park 5651 252 4479 0.002 0.00080 0.00024 0.00078 1.24 T9 Port Moody 5724 162 2268 0.015 0.00106 0.00069 0.00096 1.46 T22 Burmount 5811 104 4668 0.003 0.00077 0.00012 0.00076 1.15 T23 Capitol Hill 5788 102 4799 0.003 0.00076 0.00012 0.00075 1.15 T24 Tank Farm 5509 319 2559 0.007 0.00091 0.00035 0.00088 1.29   0.0025 0.0050 0.0075 0.0100 0.0125 TRS Concentration 0 25000 50000 75000 C ou nt 1-hour TRS Data from All Stations  -7.00 -6.00 -5.00 ln(TRS Concentration) 0 20000 40000 60000 C ou nt 1-hour Log-Transformed TRS Data from All Stations  Figure 1.48 (a & b)   Frequency distribution histograms for the non-transformed and log- transformed 1-hour TRS data   North Burnaby Refinery Emissions Project, July 6, 2002 UBC School of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene Page D-37   Figure 1.49   Comparative plot for all 1-hour TRS concentrations                          GVRD Acceptable 1-hour Objective = 0.010 ppm GVRD Desirable 1-hour Objective = 0.005 ppm Limit of Detection   North Burnaby Refinery Emissions Project, July 6, 2002 UBC School of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene Page D-38  TRS: Daily Maximum 1-hour Concentrations  Table 1.30   Summary of daily maximum 1-hour TRS data Station # Data Points # Missing Points # Below LOD* Max. Value (ppm) Arith. Mean (ppm) Standard Deviation Geo. Mean (ppm) Geo. Standard Deviation T4 Kensington Park 797 115 401 0.003 0.0009 0.0003 0.0009 1.26 T9 Port Moody 906 6 132 0.015 0.0018 0.0015 0.0014 1.83 T22 Burmount 912 0 532 0.008 0.0009 0.0004 0.0008 1.27 T23 Capitol Hill 905 7 401 0.015 0.0011 0.0009 0.0009 1.49 T24 Tank Farm 235 13 15 0.007 0.0015 0.0010 0.0013 1.63 * LOD for TRS = 0.001 ppm   Table 1.31  Summary of daily maximum 1-hour TRS data in the Tank Farm subset Station # Data Points # Missing Points # Below LOD Max. Value (ppm) Arith. Mean (ppm) Standard Deviation Geo. Mean (ppm) Geo. Standard Deviation T4 Kensington Park 244 6 113 0.002 0.0009 0.0003 0.0009 1.33 T9 Port Moody 246 4 15 0.015 0.0023 0.0019 0.0018 1.91 T22 Burmount 250 0 115 0.003 0.0009 0.0002 0.0009 1.22 T23 Capitol Hill 250 0 139 0.003 0.0009 0.0003 0.0008 1.25 T24 Tank Farm 235 13 15 0.007 0.0015 0.0010 0.0013 1.63   0.0025 0.0050 0.0075 0.0100 0.0125 TRS Concentration 0 1000 2000 3000 C ou nt Daily Maximum 1-hour TRS Data from All Stations -7.00 -6.00 -5.00 ln(TRS Concentration) 0 500 1000 1500 Co un t Daily Maximum Log-Transformed 1-hour TRS Data from All Stations  Figure 1.50 (a & b)   Frequency distribution histograms for the non-transformed and log- transformed daily maximum 1-hour TRS data   North Burnaby Refinery Emissions Project, July 6, 2002 UBC School of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene Page D-39   Figure 1.51   Comparative plot for daily maximum 1-hour TRS concentrations    Figure 1.52   Upper percentiles plot for the Tank Farm subset of the daily maximum 1-hour concentrations  GVRD Acceptable 1-hour Objective = 0.010 ppm GVRD Desirable 1-hour Objective = 0.005 ppm Limit of Detection   North Burnaby Refinery Emissions Project, July 6, 2002 UBC School of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene Page D-40  1.4 National Comparisons  1.4.1 Carbon Monoxide (1-hour concentrations)  Table 1.32  Summary table for national 1-hour CO concentrations Station # Valid Points # Invalid Points # Below LOD*** Max. Value (ppm) Arith. Mean (ppm) Standard Deviation Geo. Mean† (ppm) Geo. Standard Deviation Montreal 20933 955 560 4.6 0.36 0.30 0.29 1.88 Sarnia 20214 210 11782 4.0 0.34 0.39 0.18 3.12 Edmonton 21703 185 190 2.8 0.40 0.28 0.34 1.75 North Burnaby** 21375 489 1 3.9 0.55 0.27 0.50* 1.58 † ANOVA test for homogeneity with log-transformed data, p<0.05; * p<0.05 comparing North Burnaby to all other stations ** Station T004 (Kensington Park) used *** Limit of Detection for CO = 0.1ppm     Figure 1.53  Comparative plot for national 1-hour CO concentrations      North Burnaby Refinery Emissions Project, July 6, 2002 UBC School of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene Page D-41  1.4.2 Nitrogen Dioxide (1-hour concentrations)  Table 1.33  Summary table for national 1-hour NO2 concentrations Station # Valid Points # Invalid Points # Below LOD*** Max. Value (ppm) Arith. Mean† (ppm) Standard Deviation Geo. Mean (ppm) Geo. Standard Deviation Saint John 3404 678 488 0.038 0.005 0.005 0.003 2.881 Montreal 3689 393 83 0.065 0.015 0.011 0.011 2.379 Sarnia 3588 13 14 0.122 0.017 0.012 0.013 2.229 Edmonton 4048 34 0 0.083 0.017 0.014 0.012 2.436 North Burnaby** 3985 97 1 0.059 0.013* 0.009 0.010 2.102 † ANOVA test for homogeneity, p<0.05; * p<0.05 comparing North Burnaby to all other stations ** Station T052 (MAMU) used *** Limit of Detection for NO2 = 0.001ppm     Figure 1.54  Comparative plot for national 1-hour NO2 concentrations      North Burnaby Refinery Emissions Project, July 6, 2002 UBC School of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene Page D-42  1.4.3 Ozone (1-hour concentrations)  Table 1.34  Summary table for national 1-hour O3 concentrations Station # Valid Points # Invalid Points # Below LOD*** Max. Value (ppm) Arith. Mean (ppm) Standard Deviation Geo. Mean† (ppm) Geo. Standard Deviation Saint John 4054 28 0 0.073 0.021 0.009 0.019 1.72 Montreal 4023 59 36 0.098 0.022 0.016 0.016 2.68 Sarnia 4069 13 74 0.118 0.027 0.018 0.019 2.77 Edmonton 4063 19 23 0.078 0.024 0.016 0.017 2.74 North Burnaby** 3984 98 60 0.087 0.020 0.011 0.016* 2.25 † ANOVA test for homogeneity with log-transformed data, p<0.05; * p<0.05 comparing North Burnaby to Saint John, Sarnia and Edmonton; p=0.76 for Montreal ** Station T052 (MAMU) used *** Limit of Detection for O3 = 0.001ppm    Figure 1.55  Comparative plot for national 1-hour O3 concentrations        North Burnaby Refinery Emissions Project, July 6, 2002 UBC School of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene Page D-43  1.4.4 Fine Particulate Matter (24-hour averages)   Table 1.35  Summary table for national 24-hour PM10 averages Station # Valid Points # Invalid Points Min. Value (g/m3) Max. Value (g/m3) Arith. Mean (g/m3) Standard Deviation Geo. Mean† (g/m3) Geo. Standard Deviation Saint John 108 51 5.8 39.2 18.2 7.6 16.7 1.53 Sarnia 134 20 3.1 64.5 18.8 11.4 15.6 1.88 Edmonton 142 17 2.9 77.5 21.2 13.8 17.5 1.87 North Burnaby** 137 22 3.5 51.4 10.3 6.8 8.9* 1.68 † ANOVA test for homogeneity with log-transformed data, p<0.05; * p<0.05 comparing North Burnaby to all other stations ** Station T052 (MAMU) used    Figure 1.56  Comparative plot for national 24-hour PM10 averages         North Burnaby Refinery Emissions Project, July 6, 2002 UBC School of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene Page D-44  1.4.5 Sulphur Dioxide (1-hour concentrations)  Table 1.36  Summary table for national 1-hour SO2 concentrations Station # Valid Points # Invalid Points # Below LOD** Max. Value (ppm) Arith. Mean (ppm) Standard Deviation Geo. Mean (ppm) Geo. Standard Deviation Saint John 20329 1559 4833 0.381 0.0114 0.0186 0.0036 4.61 Montreal 21285 603 2911 0.163 0.0071 0.0102 0.0038 3.06 Sarnia 21673 215 727 0.295 0.0111 0.0216 0.0048 3.12 Edmonton 21716 172 4936 0.069 0.0027 0.0032 0.0018 2.29 North Burnaby* 21281 569 7908 0.390 0.0030 0.0100 0.0015 2.50 * Station T23 (Capitol Hill) used ** Limit of Detection for SO2 = 0.001ppm    Figure 1.57  Comparative plot for national 1-hour SO2 concentrations Federal Acceptable 1-hour Objective = 0.34 ppm WHO 10-minute Guideline = 0.19 ppm Federal Desirable 1-hour Objective =0.17 ppm UBC Suggested 10-minute Guideline = 0.10 ppm ATSDR acute exposure MRL = 0.01 ppm   North Burnaby Refinery Emissions Project, July 6, 2002 UBC School of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene Page D-45  2 Volatile Organic Compounds  2.1 Introduction to the Results  Summary Tables and Histograms  The summary table gives overview information about each station in the data set, and provides ANOVA p values comparing the station in North Burnaby to all other stations as a sub-text.  Tables include the following information:  - Station identifier and location - Number of valid and invalid data points (if any) - Minimum and maximum values - Arithmetic mean and standard deviation - Geometric mean and standard deviation  Histograms of the log-transformed data sets are shown alongside the summary tables.  Comparative Plots  All data points for every station have been plotted against time in order to show how stations compare to one another. Each station has been assigned a different colour to represent it throughout this report:   Table 2.1   Colours used in graphs to represent monitoring stations in report Station ID Station Location Colour T1 Downtown Navy Blue T9  Port Moody Aqua T12 Chilliwack Pink T15 East Surrey Orange T22 Burmount Maroon T24 Tank Farm Yellow T29 Hope Green T31 YVR Royal Blue   Reference lines showing expected indoor/outdoor concentrations, reference concentrations, risk concentrations and various occupational exposure limits have been added to these plots and labelled where appropriate.    North Burnaby Refinery Emissions Project, July 6, 2002 UBC School of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene Page D-46  2.2 Carcinogenic Compounds  Analyses of the carcinogenic compounds are presented here in alphabetical order with average/expected indoor and outdoor concentrations noted where available.  2.2.1 Benzene  Table 2.2  Summary table for Benzene Station # Valid Points Min. Value (µg/m3) Max. Value (µg/m3) Arith. Mean (µg/m3) Arith. Standard Deviation Geo. Mean† (µg/m3) Geo. Standard Deviation T1 Downtown 38 1.13 4.05 2.19 0.79 2.07 1.40 T9 Port Moody 95 0.46 6.26 1.79 0.99 1.57 1.66 T12 Chilliwack 19 0.45 1.43 0.83 0.30 0.78 1.43 T15 East Surrey 40 0.25 2.01 0.85 0.37 0.77 1.55 T22 Burmount 51 0.33 3.32 1.09 0.53 0.99 1.52 T24 Tank Farm 27 0.96 10.35 3.51 2.19 2.95* 1.83 T29 Hope 21 0.24 1.98 0.59 0.38 0.52 1.64 T31 YVR 38 0.34 3.33 1.29 0.74 1.11 1.74 † ANOVA test for heterogeneity with log-transformed data, p<0.05 * p<0.05 comparing T24 to all other stations ** Includes data from all stations      Figure 2.1  Comparative plot for Benzene Benzene Log-Transformed Data -1.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 ln[Benzene] 0 20 40 60 Co un t **   North Burnaby Refinery Emissions Project, July 6, 2002 UBC School of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene Page D-47   Benzylchloride  Table 2.3  Summary table for Benzylchloride Station # Valid Points # <LOD** Max. Value (µg/m3) Arith. Mean (µg/m3) Arith. Standard Deviation Geo. Mean† (µg/m3) Geo. Standard Deviation T1 Downtown 38 0 0.11 0.05 0.02 0.05 1.36 T9 Port Moody 95 0 0.08 0.05 0.01 0.05 1.33 T12 Chilliwack 19 17 0.05 0.01 0.01 0.01 1.80 T15 East Surrey 40 0 0.06 0.04 0.01 0.04 1.39 T22 Burmount 51 0 0.09 0.05 0.02 0.04 1.41 T24 Tank Farm 27 23 0.06 0.01 0.02 0.01* 2.03 T29 Hope 21 19 0.06 0.01 0.01 0.01 1.80 T31 YVR 38 32 0.08 0.01 0.02 0.01 2.08 † ANOVA test for heterogeneity with log-transformed data, p<0.05 * p<0.05 comparing T24 to T1, T9, T15 & T22; p=0.51 for T12; p=0.45 for T29; p=0.85 for T31 ** Limit of Detection for Benzylchloride = 0.01 µg/m3 *** Includes data from all stations     Figure 2.2  Comparative plot for Benzylchloride   Benzylchloride Log-Transformed Data -4.50 -4.00 -3.50 -3.00 -2.50 ln[Benzylchloride] 0 25 50 75 Co un t ***   North Burnaby Refinery Emissions Project, July 6, 2002 UBC School of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene Page D-48  2.2.2 Bromodichloromethane  Table 2.4  Summary table for Bromodichloromethane Station # Valid Points # Missing Points <LOD** Max. Value (µg/m3) Arith. Mean (µg/m3) Arith. Standard Deviation Geo. Mean† (µg/m3) Geo. Standard Deviation T1 Downtown 34 4 1 0.22 0.12 0.04 0.11 1.76 T9 Port Moody 87 8 0 0.23 0.11 0.04 0.11 1.38 T12 Chilliwack 17 2 1 0.14 0.09 0.03 0.08 1.93 T15 East Surrey 34 6 2 0.18 0.08 0.03 0.07 1.93 T22 Burmount 45 6 1 0.2 0.09 0.03 0.09 1.64 T24 Tank Farm 27 0 0 0.53 0.18 0.14 0.14* 1.82 T29 Hope 17 4 1 0.1 0.06 0.03 0.05 2.09 T31 YVR 34 4 2 0.17 0.09 0.04 0.07 2.12 † ANOVA test for heterogeneity with log-transformed data, p<0.05 * p<0.05 comparing T24 to T9, T12, T15, T22, T29 & T31; p=0.06 for T1 ** Limit of Detection for Bromodichloromethane = 0.01 µg/m3 *** Includes data from all stations     Figure 2.3  Comparative plot for Bromodichloromethane   Bromodichloromethane Log-Transformed Data -4.00 -3.00 -2.00 -1.00 ln[Bromodichloromethane] 0 50 100 150 C ou nt ***   North Burnaby Refinery Emissions Project, July 6, 2002 UBC School of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene Page D-49  2.2.3 Ethylbenzene  Table 2.5  Summary table for Ethylbenzene Station # Valid Points Min. Value (µg/m3) Max. Value (µg/m3) Arith. Mean (µg/m3) Arith. Standard Deviation Geo. Mean† (µg/m3) Geo. Standard Deviation T1 Downtown 38 0.46 3.81 1.47 0.77 1.32 1.60 T9 Port Moody 95 0.26 7.42 1.97 1.42 1.55 2.04 T12 Chilliwack 19 0.13 0.73 0.38 0.20 0.33 1.72 T15 East Surrey 40 0.09 1.38 0.49 0.31 0.41 1.88 T22 Burmount 51 0.15 2.46 0.67 0.42 0.56 1.83 T24 Tank Farm 27 0.53 5.54 1.82 1.24 1.49* 1.89 T29 Hope 21 0.07 0.44 0.18 0.10 0.16 1.65 T31 YVR 38 0.15 2.82 0.81 0.59 0.65 1.95 † ANOVA test for heterogeneity with log-transformed data, p<0.05 * p<0.05 comparing T24 to T12, T15, T22, T29 & T31; p=0.44 for T1; p=0.76 for T9 ** Includes data from all stations     Figure 2.4  Comparative plot for Ethylbenzene   Ethylbenzene Log-Transformed Data -2.00 -1.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 ln[Ethylbenzene] 10 20 30 40 50 Co un t **   North Burnaby Refinery Emissions Project, July 6, 2002 UBC School of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene Page D-50  2.2.4 Isoprene  Table 2.6  Summary table for Isoprene Station # Valid Points Min. Value (µg/m3) Max. Value (µg/m3) Arith. Mean (g/m3) Arith. Standard Deviation Geo. Mean† (µg/m3) Geo. Standard Deviation T1 Downtown 38 0.16 0.88 0.40 0.20 0.36 1.57 T9 Port Moody 95 0.08 1.51 0.33 0.25 0.27 1.93 T12 Chilliwack 19 0.06 0.48 0.16 0.11 0.14 1.83 T15 East Surrey 40 0.04 1.64 0.27 0.37 0.16 2.57 T22 Burmount 51 0.05 1.46 0.27 0.28 0.18 2.28 T24 Tank Farm 27 0.10 2.29 0.65 0.52 0.47* 2.35 T29 Hope 21 0.02 1.05 0.23 0.30 0.12 2.92 T31 YVR 38 0.04 0.47 0.19 0.10 0.17 1.72 † ANOVA test for heterogeneity with log-transformed data, p<0.05 * p<0.05 comparing T24 to T9, T12, T15, T22, T29 & T31; p=0.17 for T1 ** Includes data from all stations    Figure 2.5  Comparative plot for Isoprene     Isoprene Log-Transformed Data -3.00 -2.00 -1.00 0.00 ln[Isoprene] 0 20 40 60 Co un t **   North Burnaby Refinery Emissions Project, July 6, 2002 UBC School of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene Page D-51  2.2.5 Tetrachloroethylene  Table 2.7  Summary table for Tetrachloroethylene Station # Valid Points Min. Value (µg/m3) Max. Value (µg/m3) Arith. Mean (µg/m3) Arith. Standard Deviation Geo. Mean† (µg/m3) Geo. Standard Deviation T1 Downtown 38 0.23 2.35 0.73 0.44 0.63 1.70 T9 Port Moody 95 0.13 4.92 0.89 0.71 0.71 1.95 T12 Chilliwack 19 0.09 0.65 0.19 0.14 0.16 1.66 T15 East Surrey 40 0.08 0.48 0.21 0.10 0.19 1.53 T22 Burmount 51 0.14 1.15 0.38 0.20 0.33 1.65 T24 Tank Farm 27 0.13 1.10 0.43 0.30 0.35* 1.93 T29 Hope 21 0.06 0.18 0.11 0.03 0.10 1.34 T31 YVR 38 0.14 1.36 0.45 0.32 0.37 1.88 † ANOVA test for heterogeneity with log-transformed data, p<0.05 * p<0.05 comparing T24 to T1, T9, T12, T15 & T29; p=0.78 for T22; p=0.65 for T31 ** Includes data from all stations    Figure 2.6  Comparative plot for Tetrachloroethylene   Tetrachloroethylene Log-Transformed Data -2.00 -1.00 0.00 1.00 ln[Tetrachloroethylene] 0 20 40 60 Co un t **   North Burnaby Refinery Emissions Project, July 6, 2002 UBC School of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene Page D-52  2.2.6  Vinylchloride  Table 2.8  Summary table for Vinylchloride Station # Valid Points <LOD** Max. Value (µg/m3) Arith. Mean (µg/m3) Arith. Standard Deviation Geo. Mean† (µg/m3) Geo. Standard Deviation T1 Downtown 38 1 0.04 0.02 0.01 0.02 1.54 T9 Port Moody 95 3 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.02 1.42 T12 Chilliwack 19 2 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.02 1.58 T15 East Surrey 40 3 0.04 0.02 0.01 0.02 1.49 T22 Burmount 51 2 0.04 0.02 0.01 0.02 1.51 T24 Tank Farm 27 0 0.05 0.02 0.01 0.02* 1.36 T29 Hope 21 3 0.04 0.02 0.01 0.02 1.69 T31 YVR 38 3 0.04 0.02 0.01 0.02 1.58 † ANOVA test for heterogeneity with log-transformed data, p<0.05 * p<0.05 comparing T24 to T15, T29 and T31; p=0.22 for T1, p=0.25 for T9; p=0.26 for T12; p=0.16 for T22 ** Limit of Detection for Vinylchloride = 0.01 µg/m3 *** Includes data from all stations    Figure 2.7  Comparative plot for Vinylchloride   Vinylchloride Log-Transformed Data -4.50 -4.00 -3.50 -3.00 ln[Vinylchloride] 0 50 100 150 Co un t ***   North Burnaby Refinery Emissions Project, July 6, 2002 UBC School of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene Page D-53  2.2.7 1,1-Dichloroethane  Table 2.9  Summary table for 1,1-Dichloroethane Station # Valid Points <LOD** Max. Value (µg/m3) Arith. Mean (µg/m3) Arith. Standard Deviation Geo. Mean† (µg/m3) Geo. Standard Deviation T1 Downtown 38 7 0.07 0.03 0.02 0.03 2.08 T9 Port Moody 95 12 0.06 0.04 0.01 0.03 1.83 T12 Chilliwack 19 3 0.06 0.04 0.02 0.03 2.04 T15 East Surrey 40 8 0.06 0.03 0.01 0.03 2.01 T22 Burmount 51 8 0.06 0.03 0.01 0.03 1.95 T24 Tank Farm 27 3 0.26 0.06 0.06 0.04* 2.46 T29 Hope 21 6 0.05 0.03 0.02 0.02 2.29 T31 YVR 38 7 0.06 0.03 0.02 0.03 2.02 † ANOVA test for heterogeneity with log-transformed data, p<0.05 * p<0.05 comparing T24 to T1, T9, T15, T22, T29 & T31; p=0.15 for T12 ** Limit of Detection for 1,1-Dichloroethane = 0.01 µg/m3 *** Includes data from all stations    Figure 2.8  Comparative plot for 1,1-Dichloroethane   1,1-Dichloroethane Log-Transformed Data -4.00 -3.00 -2.00 ln[1,1-Dichloroethane] 0 25 50 75 Co un t ***   North Burnaby Refinery Emissions Project, July 6, 2002 UBC School of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene Page D-54  2.2.8 1,2-Dichloroethane  Table 2.10  Summary table for 1,2-Dichloroethane Station # Valid Points Min. Value (µg/m3) Max. Value (µg/m3) Arith. Mean (µg/m3) Arith. Standard Deviation Geo. Mean† (µg/m3) Geo. Standard Deviation T1 Downtown 38 0.06 3.49 0.24 0.55 0.14 2.07 T9 Port Moody 95 0.06 0.49 0.12 0.07 0.10 1.55 T12 Chilliwack 19 0.04 0.1 0.07 0.01 0.07 1.22 T15 East Surrey 40 0.05 0.11 0.08 0.02 0.07 1.22 T22 Burmount 51 0.05 0.2 0.09 0.03 0.08 1.30 T24 Tank Farm 27 0.08 0.55 0.18 0.11 0.16* 1.67 T29 Hope 21 0.05 0.1 0.07 0.01 0.07 1.22 T31 YVR 38 0.05 0.38 0.08 0.05 0.08 1.36 † ANOVA test for heterogeneity with log-transformed data, p<0.05 * p<0.05 comparing T24 to T9, T12, T15, T22, T29 & T31; p=0.17 for T1 ** Includes data from all stations     Figure 2.9  Comparative plot for 1,2-Dichloroethane   1,2-Dichloroethane Log-Transformed Data -3.00 -2.00 -1.00 0.00 1.00 ln[1,2-Dichloroethane] 0 50 100 150 Co un t **   North Burnaby Refinery Emissions Project, July 6, 2002 UBC School of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene Page D-55  2.2.9  1,2-Dichloropropane  Table 2.11  Summary table for 1,2-Dichloropropane Station # Valid Points # Missing Points <LOD** Max. Value (µg/m3) Arith. Mean (µg/m3) Arith. Standard Deviation Geo. Mean† (µg/m3) Geo. Standard Deviation T1 Downtown 37 1 10 0.06 0.033 0.017 0.026 2.186 T9 Port Moody 91 4 19 0.07 0.037 0.017 0.031 2.027 T12 Chilliwack 18 1 6 0.06 0.032 0.018 0.025 2.303 T15 East Surrey 38 2 16 0.06 0.031 0.020 0.022 2.509 T22 Burmount 49 2 17 0.07 0.032 0.019 0.024 2.341 T24 Tank Farm 27 0 3 0.29 0.050 0.051 0.038* 2.181 T29 Hope 20 1 8 0.05 0.025 0.016 0.019 2.235 T31 YVR 37 1 16 0.06 0.026 0.017 0.019 2.370 † ANOVA test for heterogeneity with log-transformed data, p<0.05 * p<0.05 comparing T24 to T15, T22, T29 & T31; p=0.07 for T1; p=0.27 for T9; p=0.08 for T12 ** Limit of Detection for 1,2-Dichloropropane = 0.01 µg/m3 *** Includes data from all stations     Figure 2.10  Summary plot for 1,2-Dichloropropane  1,2-Dichloropropane Log-Transformed Data -4.00 -3.00 -2.00 ln[1,2-Dichloropropane] 25 50 75 100 125 Co un t ***   North Burnaby Refinery Emissions Project, July 6, 2002 UBC School of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene Page D-56  2.2.10 1,3-Butadiene  Table 2.12  Summary table for 1,3-Butadiene Station # Valid Points Min. Value (µg/m3) Max. Value (µg/m3) Arith. Mean (µg/m3) Arith. Standard Deviation Geo. Mean† (µg/m3) Geo. Standard Deviation T1 Downtown 38 0.23 0.94 0.45 0.16 0.43 1.40 T9 Port Moody 95 0.08 1.62 0.32 0.22 0.27 1.80 T12 Chilliwack 19 0.07 0.35 0.14 0.07 0.13 1.54 T15 East Surrey 40 0.04 0.34 0.13 0.07 0.11 1.62 T22 Burmount 51 0.05 0.62 0.17 0.11 0.15 1.64 T24 Tank Farm 27 0.10 1.52 0.45 0.43 0.32* 2.24 T29 Hope 21 0.03 0.36 0.09 0.07 0.07 1.81 T31 YVR 38 0.07 0.82 0.27 0.20 0.22 1.93 † ANOVA test for heterogeneity with log-transformed data, p<0.05 * p<0.05 comparing T24 to T1, T12, T15, T22, T29 & T31; p=0.15 for T9 ** Includes data from all stations     Figure 2.11  Comparative plot for 1,3-Butadiene   1,3-Butadiene Log-Transformed Data -3.00 -2.00 -1.00 0.00 ln[1,3-Butadiene] 10 20 30 40 50 Co un t **   North Burnaby Refinery Emissions Project, July 6, 2002 UBC School of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene Page D-57  2.2.11 1,4-Dichlorobenzene  Table 2.13  Summary table for 1,4-Dichlorobenzene Station # Valid Points Min. Value (µg/m3) Max. Value (µg/m3) Arith. Mean (µg/m3) Arith. Standard Deviation Geo. Mean† (µg/m3) Geo. Standard Deviation T1 Downtown 38 0.15 1.86 0.33 0.29 0.28 1.64 T9 Port Moody 95 0.04 0.26 0.10 0.04 0.09 1.41 T12 Chilliwack 19 0.14 2.89 0.41 0.61 0.30 1.88 T15 East Surrey 40 0.05 0.45 0.26 0.08 0.24 1.44 T22 Burmount 51 0.04 15.22 0.63 2.12 0.25 2.84 T24 Tank Farm 27 0.18 1.70 0.40 0.35 0.32* 1.85 T29 Hope 21 0.14 0.88 0.30 0.17 0.27 1.61 T31 YVR 38 0.06 6.88 0.35 1.09 0.16 2.25 † ANOVA test for heterogeneity with log-transformed data, p<0.05 *p<0.05 comparing T24 to T9 & T31; p=0.36 for T1; p=0.67 for T12; p=0.7 for T15; p=0.10 for T22; p=0.33 for T31 ** Includes data from all stations     Figure 2.12  Comparative plot for 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 1,4-Dichlorobenzene Log-Transformed Data -3.00 -2.00 -1.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 ln[1,4-Dichlorobenzene] 0 25 50 75 100 Co un t **   North Burnaby Refinery Emissions Project, July 6, 2002 UBC School of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene Page D-58   2.3 Other VOCs (with Published Reference Concentration Values)  2.3.1 Trimethylbenzene (all isomers)  Table 2.14  Summary table for Trimethylbenzene (all isomers) Station # Valid Points Min. Value (µg/m3) Max. Value (µg/m3) Arith. Mean (µg/m3) Arith. Standard Deviation Geo. Mean† (µg/m3) Geo. Standard Deviation T1 Downtown 38 0.83 7.72 2.44 1.34 2.17 1.62 T9 Port Moody 95 0.44 5.92 2.19 1.26 1.84 1.85 T12 Chilliwack 19 0.26 1.13 0.60 0.27 0.55 1.61 T15 East Surrey 40 0.16 1.73 0.62 0.38 0.52 1.79 T22 Burmount 51 0.21 3.01 0.87 0.52 0.75 1.74 T24 Tank Farm 27 0.83 7.24 2.72 1.68 2.27* 1.85 T29 Hope 21 0.12 0.74 0.31 0.17 0.27 1.71 T31 YVR 38 0.22 4.25 1.29 0.93 1.02 2.00 † ANOVA test for heterogeneity with log-transformed data, p<0.05 * p<0.05 comparing T24 to T12, T15, T22, T29 & T31; p=0.77 for T1; p=0.11 for T9 ** Includes data from all stations    Figure 2.13  Comparative plot for Trimethylbenzene (all isomers) -2.00 -1.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 logtri 10 20 30 40 Co un t Trimethylbenzene (all isomers) Log-Transformed Data **   North Burnaby Refinery Emissions Project, July 6, 2002 UBC School of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene Page D-59  2.3.2 n-Hexane  Table 2.15  Summary table for n-Hexane Station # Valid Points Min. Value (µg/m3) Max. Value (µg/m3) Arith. Mean (µg/m3) Arith. Standard Deviation Geo. Mean† (µg/m3) Geo. Standard Deviation T1 Downtown 38 0.66 37.75 2.44 5.93 1.46 2.01 T9 Port Moody 95 0.32 4.46 1.51 0.84 1.29 1.77 T12 Chilliwack 19 0.20 1.32 0.55 0.31 0.48 1.76 T15 East Surrey 40 0.13 1.77 0.49 0.29 0.43 1.64 T22 Burmount 51 0.28 2.88 1.12 0.59 0.98 1.69 T24 Tank Farm 27 1.07 47.77 10.03 9.60 6.88* 2.52 T29 Hope 21 0.15 0.79 0.28 0.16 0.25 1.57 T31 YVR 38 0.14 2.38 0.84 0.53 0.70 1.86 † ANOVA test for heterogeneity with log-transformed data, p<0.05 * p<0.05 comparing T24 to all other stations ** Includes data from all stations    Figure 2.14  Comparative plot for n-Hexane    n-Hexane Log-Transformed Data -2.00 -1.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 ln[n-Hexane] 0 20 40 60 Co un t **   North Burnaby Refinery Emissions Project, July 6, 2002 UBC School of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene Page D-60  2.3.3 Toluene  Table 2.16  Summary table for Toluene Station # Valid Points Min. Value (µg/m3) Max. Value (µg/m3) Arith. Mean (µg/m3) Arith. Standard Deviation Geo. Mean† (µg/m3) Geo. Standard Deviation T1 Downtown 38 2.60 39.97 9.39 8.63 7.40 1.87 T9 Port Moody 95 1.64 38.75 8.84 5.86 7.30 1.87 T12 Chilliwack 19 0.67 5.31 2.36 1.40 1.97 1.91 T15 East Surrey 40 0.55 9.33 2.88 2.03 2.33 1.93 T22 Burmount 51 0.96 13.18 3.26 2.13 2.78 1.76 T24 Tank Farm 27 2.74 29.42 10.15 6.76 8.36* 1.88 T29 Hope 21 0.33 2.69 1.09 0.78 0.89 1.89 T31 YVR 38 0.85 18.30 5.34 3.74 4.27 2.00 † ANOVA test for heterogeneity with log-transformed data, p<0.05 * p<0.05 comparing T24 to T12, T15, T22, T29 & T31; p=0.44 for T1; p=0.33 for T9 ** Includes data from all stations     Figure 2.15  Comparative plot for Toluene   Toluene Log-Transformed Data -1.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 ln[Toluene] 0 20 40 60 Co un t **   North Burnaby Refinery Emissions Project, July 6, 2002 UBC School of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene Page D-61  2.3.4 Xylene (all isomers)  Table 2.17  Summary table for Xylene (all isomers) Station # Valid Points Min. Value (µg/m3) Max. Value (µg/m3) Arith. Mean (µg/m3) Arith. Standard Deviation Geo. Mean† (µg/m3) Geo. Standard Deviation T1 Downtown 38 2.23 17.95 6.69 3.52 5.97 1.60 T9 Port Moody 95 1.18 35.22 9.21 6.75 7.16 2.08 T12 Chilliwack 19 0.46 3.14 1.52 0.85 1.30 1.80 T15 East Surrey 40 0.38 6.28 2.05 1.40 1.66 1.94 T22 Burmount 51 0.6 11.19 2.87 1.97 2.36 1.88 T24 Tank Farm 27 2.39 22.44 8.21 5.42 6.75* 1.89 T29 Hope 21 0.22 1.83 0.70 0.48 0.58 1.82 T31 YVR 38 0.57 12.63 3.54 2.66 2.77 2.04 † ANOVA test for heterogeneity with log-transformed data, p<0.05 * p<0.05 comparing T24 to T12, T15, T22, T29 & T31; p=0.46 for T1; p=0.68 for T9 ** Includes data from all stations     Figure 2.16  Comparative plot for Xylene -1.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 logxy 10 20 30 40 Co un t Xylene (all isomers) Log-Transformed Data **   North Burnaby Refinery Emissions Project, July 6, 2002 UBC School of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene Page D-62  2.4 Other Volatile Organic Compound Groups 2.4.1 Non-Cyclic C5 Alkanes  Table 2.18  Summary table for non-cyclic C5 Alkanes Station # Valid Points Min. Value (µg/m3) Max. Value (µg/m3) Arith. Mean (µg/m3) Arith. Standard Deviation Geo. Mean† (µg/m3) Geo. Standard Deviation T1 Downtown 38 4.7 48.61 11.00 7.59 9.64 1.60 T9 Port Moody 95 2.76 49.42 13.93 10.21 11.03 1.98 T12 Chilliwack 19 1.08 11.33 4.30 2.94 3.47 1.98 T15 East Surrey 40 0.92 14.70 3.53 2.22 3.10 1.65 T22 Burmount 51 2.81 22.67 9.66 5.11 8.40 1.72 T24 Tank Farm 27 11.11 378.71 148.58 100.23 109.73* 2.47 T29 Hope 21 1.09 5.85 2.06 1.36 1.79 1.65 T31 YVR 38 1.29 16.84 6.43 3.77 5.50 1.77 † ANOVA test for heterogeneity with log-transformed data, p<0.05 * p<0.05 comparing T24 to all other stations ** Includes data from all stations     Figure 2.17  Comparative plot for non-cyclic C5 Alkanes  0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 logc5 0 20 40 60 Co un t Non-Cyclic C5 Alkanes Log-Transformed Data **   North Burnaby Refinery Emissions Project, July 6, 2002 UBC School of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene Page D-63  2.4.2 Branched, Non-cyclic C6 Alkanes  Table 2.19  Summary table for branched, non-cyclic C6 Alkanes Station # Valid Points Min. Value (µg/m3) Max. Value (µg/m3) Arith. Mean (µg/m3) Arith. Standard Deviation Geo. Mean† (µg/m3) Geo. Standard Deviation T1 Downtown 38 2.22 27.97 6.57 4.73 5.65 1.67 T9 Port Moody 95 1.22 22.49 6.30 4.18 5.14 1.92 T12 Chilliwack 19 0.63 5.00 2.08 1.23 1.78 1.76 T15 East Surrey 40 0.51 4.96 1.74 0.93 1.53 1.68 T22 Burmount 51 0.96 12.36 3.76 2.27 3.23 1.73 T24 Tank Farm 27 3.55 170.00 53.14 42.60 36.51* 2.66 T29 Hope 21 0.52 3.39 1.03 0.68 0.90 1.62 T31 YVR 38 0.54 8.22 3.05 1.86 2.56 1.85 † ANOVA test for heterogeneity with log-transformed data, p<0.05 * p<0.05 comparing T24 to all other stations ** Includes data from all stations     Figure 2.18  Comparative plot for branched C6 Alkanes  0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 logc6 0 20 40 60 Co un t Non-Cyclic C6 Alkanes Log-Transformed Data **   North Burnaby Refinery Emissions Project, July 6, 2002 UBC School of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene Page D-64  2.4.3 n-Butane  Table 2.20  Summary table for n-Butane Station # Valid Points Min. Value (µg/m3) Max. Value (µg/m3) Arith. Mean (µg/m3) Arith. Standard Deviation Geo. Mean† (µg/m3) Geo. Standard Deviation T1 Downtown 38 3.05 60.55 11.06 9.89 8.97 1.80 T9 Port Moody 95 1.87 73.47 15.96 13.96 11.62 2.24 T12 Chilliwack 19 1.22 9.58 3.48 2.24 2.95 1.77 T15 East Surrey 40 0.7 9.98 3.59 2.19 3.00 1.86 T22 Burmount 51 3.21 57.40 13.09 10.15 10.32 1.99 T24 Tank Farm 27 13.29 219.40 104.16 57.63 86.32* 1.99 T29 Hope 21 0.78 5.82 1.80 1.30 1.51 1.75 T31 YVR 38 1.12 28.99 6.44 5.67 4.80 2.14 † ANOVA test for heterogeneity with log-transformed data, p<0.05 * p<0.05 comparing T24 to all other stations ** Includes data from all stations     Figure 2.19  Comparative plot for n-Butane   n-Butane Log-Transformed Data 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 ln[n-Butane] 10 20 30 40 Co un t **   North Burnaby Refinery Emissions Project, July 6, 2002 UBC School of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene Page D-65  2.4.4 Cyclohexane  Table 2.21  Summary table for Cyclohexane Station # Valid Points Min. Value (µg/m3) Max. Value (µg/m3) Arith. Mean (µg/m3) Arith. Standard Deviation Geo. Mean† (µg/m3) Geo. Standard Deviation T1 Downtown 38 0.22 1.66 0.63 0.35 0.56 1.60 T9 Port Moody 95 0.10 1.97 0.55 0.37 0.44 1.94 T12 Chilliwack 19 0.07 0.53 0.20 0.12 0.17 1.81 T15 East Surrey 40 0.04 0.48 0.16 0.10 0.14 1.72 T22 Burmount 51 0.11 1.34 0.39 0.24 0.34 1.75 T24 Tank Farm 27 0.47 32.80 6.45 7.70 3.33* 3.41 T29 Hope 21 0.04 1.22 0.15 0.25 0.10 2.13 T31 YVR 38 0.06 0.85 0.30 0.20 0.25 1.90 † ANOVA test for heterogeneity with log-transformed data, p<0.05 * p<0.05 comparing T24 to all other stations ** Includes data from all stations     Figure 2.20  Comparative plot for Cyclohexane  -3.00 -1.00 1.00 3.00 ln[Cyclohexane] 0 20 40 60 Co un t Cyclohexane Log-Transformed Data **   North Burnaby Refinery Emissions Project, July 6, 2002 UBC School of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene Page D-66  2.4.5 Total Alkanes  Table 2.22  Summary table for Total Alkanes Station # Valid Points Min. Value (µg/m3) Max. Value (µg/m3) Arith. Mean (µg/m3) Arith. Standard Deviation Geo. Mean† (µg/m3) Geo. Standard Deviation T1 Downtown 38 32.26 207.03 68.88 36.83 62.09 1.55 T9 Port Moody 95 14.68 249.39 72.84 45.06 60.74 1.85 T12 Chilliwack 19 9.61 48.35 22.88 11.55 20.38 1.64 T15 East Surrey 40 5.86 47.98 20.84 9.36 18.95 1.56 T22 Burmount 51 18.25 147.68 53.18 30.53 46.07 1.71 T24 Tank Farm 27 53.61 920.69 457.45 257.58 371.55* 2.09 T29 Hope 21 7.29 29.27 12.43 6.60 11.28 1.52 T31 YVR 38 9.42 115.61 37.41 23.61 31.57 1.79 † ANOVA test for heterogeneity with log-transformed data, p<0.05 * p<0.05 comparing T24 to all other stations ** Includes data from all stations    Figure 2.21  Comparative plot for Total Alkanes  2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 ln[Total Alkanes] 0 20 40 60 Co un t Total Alkanes Log-Transformed Data **   North Burnaby Refinery Emissions Project, July 6, 2002 UBC School of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene Page D-67  2.4.6 Total Alkenes  Table 2.23  Summary table for Total Alkenes Station # Valid Points Min. Value (µg/m3) Max. Value (µg/m3) Arith. Mean (µg/m3) Arith. Standard Deviation Geo. Mean† (µg/m3) Geo. Standard Deviation T1 Downtown 38 10.05 39.53 17.67 7.24 16.52 1.43 T9 Port Moody 95 3.30 42.75 14.50 8.77 12.29 1.78 T12 Chilliwack 19 2.84 10.55 5.71 2.22 5.34 1.46 T15 East Surrey 40 1.73 11.63 5.13 2.28 4.69 1.52 T22 Burmount 51 2.73 24.73 7.64 4.35 6.76 1.62 T24 Tank Farm 27 7.70 422.16 143.90 125.75 90.76* 2.97 T29 Hope 21 1.55 12.75 3.84 2.94 3.20 1.76 T31 YVR 38 2.85 29.69 9.97 6.55 8.30 1.83 † ANOVA test for heterogeneity with log-transformed data, p<0.05 * p<0.05 comparing T24 to all other stations ** Includes data from all stations     Figure 2.22  Comparative plot for Total Alkenes   ** 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 ln[Total Alkenes] 0 25 50 75 Co un t Total Alkenes Log-Transformed Data   North Burnaby Refinery Emissions Project, July 6, 2002 UBC School of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene Page D-68  2.4.7 Total Alkynes  Table 2.24  Summary table for Total Alkynes Station # Valid Points Min. Value (µg/m3) Max. Value (µg/m3) Arith. Mean (µg/m3) Arith. Standard Deviation Geo. Mean† (µg/m3) Geo. Standard Deviation T1 Downtown 38 2.30 15.04 5.70 2.40 5.29 1.47 T9 Port Moody 95 0.91 17.13 4.76 3.13 3.94 1.86 T12 Chilliwack 19 0.85 4.27 1.85 0.80 1.72 1.49 T15 East Surrey 40 0.34 5.08 1.77 1.07 1.52 1.76 T22 Burmount 51 0.54 9.45 2.32 1.53 2.02 1.65 T24 Tank Farm 27 1.02 11.10 2.89 2.16 2.41* 1.78 T29 Hope 21 0.48 3.01 1.06 0.57 0.96 1.57 T31 YVR 38 0.78 14.35 3.70 3.17 2.83 2.05 † ANOVA test for heterogeneity with log-transformed data, p<0.05 * p<0.05 comparing T24 to T1, T9, T12, T15 & T29; p=0.19 for T22; p=0.25 for T31 ** Includes data from all stations     Figure 2.23  Comparative plot for Total Alkynes    ** -1.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 ln[Total Alkynes] 0 20 40 60 Co un t Total Alkynes Log-Transformed Data   North Burnaby Refinery Emissions Project, July 6, 2002 UBC School of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene Page D-69  2.4.8 Total Aromatics  Table 2.25  Summary table for Total Aromatics Station # Valid Points Min. Value (µg/m3) Max. Value (µg/m3) Arith. Mean (µg/m3) Arith. Standard Deviation Geo. Mean† (µg/m3) Geo. Standard Deviation T1 Downtown 38 8.76 65.72 25.65 15.20 22.43 1.65 T9 Port Moody 95 5.74 83.78 28.22 16.57 23.65 1.85 T12 Chilliwack 19 2.85 13.90 7.17 3.38 6.42 1.64 T15 East Surrey 40 1.88 26.85 8.48 5.39 7.17 1.79 T22 Burmount 51 2.99 37.86 10.36 6.01 9.05 1.68 T24 Tank Farm 27 9.29 76.87 30.29 18.45 25.47* 1.83 T29 Hope 21 1.58 9.21 3.68 1.99 3.29 1.59 T31 YVR 38 2.80 47.58 14.49 9.91 11.82 1.91 † ANOVA test for heterogeneity with log-transformed data, p<0.05 * p<0.05 comparing T24 to T12, T15 T22, T29 & T31; p=0.38 for T1; p=0.55 for T9 ** Includes data from all stations     Figure 2.24  Comparative plot for Total Aromatics   ** 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 ln[Total Aromatics] 0 20 40 60 Co un t Total Aromatics Log-Transformed Data   North Burnaby Refinery Emissions Project, July 6, 2002 UBC School of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene Page D-70  2.4.9 Total Halogens  Table 2.26  Summary table for Total Halogens Station # Valid Points Min. Value (µg/m3) Max. Value (µg/m3) Arith. Mean (µg/m3) Arith. Standard Deviation Geo. Mean† (µg/m3) Geo. Standard Deviation T1 Downtown 38 10.03 61.41 14.98 8.31 13.99 1.37 T9 Port Moody 95 9.10 32.63 12.41 3.05 12.14 1.21 T12 Chilliwack 19 9.43 23.58 11.90 3.45 11.55 1.27 T15 East Surrey 40 8.91 12.58 10.49 0.97 10.44 1.10 T22 Burmount 51 8.20 28.48 10.55 2.87 10.32 1.21 T24 Tank Farm 27 9.65 17.52 12.12 1.85 11.99* 1.15 T29 Hope 21 9.39 12.62 10.17 0.88 10.13 1.09 T31 YVR 38 8.81 18.99 11.97 2.13 11.80 1.18 † ANOVA test for heterogeneity with log-transformed data, p<0.05 * p<0.05 comparing T24 to T1, T15, T22 & T29; p=0.77 for T9; p=0.51 for T12; p=0.74 for T31 ** Includes data from all stations     Figure 2.25  Comparative plot for Total Halogens   ** 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 ln[Total Halogens] 25 50 75 100 125 Co un t Total Halogens Log-Transformed Data   North Burnaby Refinery Emissions Project, July 6, 2002 UBC School of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene Page D-71  2.5 Calculated Mixtures of Volatile Organic Compound Groups  2.5.1 Liquid Gasoline  Table 2.27  Summary table for Liquid Gasoline Station # Valid Points Min. Value (µg/m3) Max. Value (µg/m3) Arith. Mean (µg/m3) Arith. Standard Deviation Geo. Mean† (µg/m3) Geo. Standard Deviation T1 Downtown 38 41.95 296.87 100.46 55.05 89.97 1.57 T9 Port Moody 95 20.93 356.90 106.72 63.65 89.44 1.85 T12 Chilliwack 19 12.07 67.36 31.24 16.08 27.65 1.67 T15 East Surrey 40 7.47 75.99 30.16 15.32 26.85 1.64 T22 Burmount 51 20.15 188.25 65.32 37.15 56.97 1.68 T24 Tank Farm 27 93.19 1199.43 637.84 311.77 547.31* 1.88 T29 Hope 21 7.87 41.35 16.47 9.69 14.61 1.59 T31 YVR 38 10.95 173.16 54.72 35.76 45.50 1.85 † ANOVA test for heterogeneity with log-transformed data, p<0.05 * p<0.05 comparing T24 to all other stations ** Includes data from all stations     Figure 2.26  Comparative plot for Liquid Gasoline ** Total Gasoline Hydrocarbons Log-Transformed Data 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 ln[Total Gasoline Hydrocarbons] 0 20 40 60 C ou nt   North Burnaby Refinery Emissions Project, July 6, 2002 UBC School of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene Page D-72  2.5.2 Liquid Jet Fuel (JP-4)  Table 2.28  Summary table for Liquid Jet Fuel (JP-4) Station # Valid Points Min. Value (µg/m3) Max. Value (µg/m3) Arith. Mean (µg/m3) Arith. Standard Deviation Geo. Mean† (µg/m3) Geo. Standard Deviation T1 Downtown 38 31.68 258.02 80.70 48.84 70.96 1.62 T9 Port Moody 95 16.98 301.63 88.54 53.59 73.68 1.87 T12 Chilliwack 19 8.48 56.25 24.69 13.80 21.34 1.75 T15 East Surrey 40 5.64 64.78 23.94 12.83 21.05 1.68 T22 Burmount 51 11.79 130.11 42.36 25.46 36.20 1.76 T24 Tank Farm 27 52.77 917.43 450.26 257.56 365.04* 2.09 T29 Hope 21 5.57 30.10 12.17 7.01 10.81 1.60 T31 YVR 38 7.94 139.87 42.96 28.74 35.42 1.88 † ANOVA test for heterogeneity with log-transformed data, p<0.05 * p<0.05 comparing T24 to all other stations ** Includes data from all stations     Figure 2.27  Comparative plot for Liquid Jet Fuel (JP-4)   ** 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 ln[Total Jet Fuel Hydrocarbons] 0 20 40 60 Co un t Total Jet Fuel Hydrocarbons Log-Transformed Data   North Burnaby Refinery Emissions Project, July 6, 2002 UBC School of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene Page D-73  2.5.3  Gasoline Vapour  Table 2.29  Summary table for Gasoline Vapour Station # Valid Points Min. Value (µg/m3) Max. Value (µg/m3) Arith. Mean (µg/m3) Arith. Standard Deviation Geo. Mean† (µg/m3) Geo. Standard Deviation T1 Downtown 38 31.62 222.37 73.30 41.97 65.17 1.59 T9 Port Moody 95 14.74 283.66 80.41 49.76 66.70 1.88 T12 Chilliwack 19 8.07 51.28 22.77 12.60 19.76 1.74 T15 East Surrey 40 5.13 58.29 21.93 11.35 19.41 1.66 T22 Burmount 51 16.62 152.51 52.43 30.92 45.24 1.72 T24 Tank Farm 27 52.48 1045.19 494.63 285.44 397.05* 2.14 T29 Hope 21 6.17 30.77 11.67 7.18 10.27 1.61 T31 YVR 38 8.10 129.59 39.84 26.44 32.98 1.86 † ANOVA test for heterogeneity with log-transformed data, p<0.05 * p<0.05 comparing T24 to all other stations ** Includes data from all stations     Figure 2.28  Comparative plot for Gasoline Vapour    ** 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 ln[Gasoline Vapour] 10 20 30 40 50 Co un t Gasoline Vapour Log-Transformed Data   North Burnaby Refinery Emissions Project, July 6, 2002 UBC School of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene Page D-74  2.5.4 C5 to C8 Aliphatics  Table 2.30  Summary table for all C5 to C8 aliphatic compounds Station # Valid Points Min. Value (µg/m3) Max. Value (µg/m3) Arith. Mean (µg/m3) Arith. Standard Deviation Geo. Mean† (µg/m3) Geo. Standard Deviation T1 Downtown 38 32.26 207.03 68.88 36.83 62.09 1.55 T9 Port Moody 95 14.68 249.39 72.84 45.06 60.74 1.85 T12 Chilliwack 19 9.61 48.35 22.88 11.55 20.38 1.64 T15 East Surrey 40 5.86 47.98 20.84 9.36 18.95 1.56 T22 Burmount 51 18.25 147.68 53.18 30.53 46.07 1.71 T24 Tank Farm 27 53.61 920.69 457.45 257.58 371.55* 2.09 T29 Hope 21 7.29 29.27 12.43 6.60 11.28 1.52 T31 YVR 38 9.42 115.61 37.41 23.61 31.57 1.79 † ANOVA test for heterogeneity with log-transformed data, p<0.05 * p<0.05 comparing T24 to all other stations ** Includes data from all stations     Figure 2.29  Comparative plot for all C5 to C8 aliphatic compounds     2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 ln[C5 to C8] 10 20 30 40 50 C ou nt Regional C5 to C8 Aliphatics Log-Transformed Data   North Burnaby Refinery Emissions Project, July 6, 2002 UBC School of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene Page D-75   2.6 National Comparisons  2.6.1 Benzene  Table 2.31  Summary table for national Benzene data Station # Valid Points Min. Value (µg/m3) Max. Value (µg/m3) Arith. Mean (µg/m3) Arith. Standard Deviation Geo. Mean† (µg/m3) Geo. Standard Deviation Saint John 73 0.23 2.2 0.88 0.4 0.79 1.63 Montreal 114 0.59 27.71 4.62 4.44 3.34 2.24 Sarnia 111 0.3 11.13 1.7 1.59 1.26 2.09 Edmonton 115 0.48 8.29 1.81 1.21 1.53 1.77 North Burnaby 27 0.96 10.35 3.51 2.19 2.95* 1.83 † ANOVA test for heterogeneity with log-transformed data, p<0.05 * p<0.05 comparing T24 to all other stations ** Includes data from all stations      Figure 2.30  Comparative plot for national Benzene data   ** -1.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 ln[Benzene] 0 20 40 60 Co un t National Benzene Log-Transformed Data   North Burnaby Refinery Emissions Project, July 6, 2002 UBC School of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene Page D-76   2.6.2 1,3-Butadiene  Table 2.32  Summary table for national 1,3-Butadiene data Station # Valid Points Min. Value (µg/m3) Max. Value (µg/m3) Arith. Mean (µg/m3) Arith. Standard Deviation Geo. Mean† (µg/m3) Geo. Standard Deviation Saint John 73 0.03 0.23 0.09 0.05 0.08 1.57 Montreal 114 0.08 1.11 0.27 0.18 0.23 1.69 Sarnia 111 0.04 2.23 0.35 0.40 0.21 2.72 Edmonton 115 0.03 0.73 0.18 0.13 0.14 1.92 North Burnaby 27 0.10 1.52 0.45 0.43 0.32* 2.24 † ANOVA test for heterogeneity with log-transformed data, p<0.05 * p<0.05 comparing T24 to all other stations ** Includes data from all stations     Figure 2.31  Comparative plot for national 1,3-Butadiene data      ** -3.00 -2.00 -1.00 0.00 ln[1,3-Butadiene] 0 20 40 60 Co un t National 1,3-Butadiene Log-Transformed Data   North Burnaby Refinery Emissions Project, July 6, 2002 UBC School of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene Page D-77  2.6.3  Liquid Gasoline  Table 2.33  Summary table for national Liquid Gasoline data set Station # Valid Points Min. Value (µg/m3) Max. Value (µg/m3) Arith. Mean (µg/m3) Arith. Standard Deviation Geo. Mean† (µg/m3) Geo. Standard Deviation Saint John 73 6.9 248.7 68.9 56.7 47.6 2.53 Montreal 114 14.7 391.4 110.0 69.5 89.1 1.99 Sarnia 111 9.5 282.5 66.4 55.6 47.2 2.33 Edmonton 115 28.2 1466.9 210.4 180.7 169.5 1.87 North Burnaby 27 65.8 1365.7 600.2 373.2 472.2* 2.18 † ANOVA test for heterogeneity with log-transformed data, p<0.05 * p<0.05 comparing T24 to all other stations ** Includes data from all stations     Figure 2.32  Comparative plot for national Liquid Gasoline data set       ** 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 ln[Liquid Gasoline Hydrocarbons] 0 25 50 75 Co un t National Liquid Gasoline Log-Transformed Data   North Burnaby Refinery Emissions Project, July 6, 2002 UBC School of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene Page D-78  2.6.4 Liquid Jet Fuel (JP-4)  Table 2.34  Summary table for national Liquid Jet Fuel (JP-4) data set Station # Valid Points Min. Value (µg/m3) Max. Value (µg/m3) Arith. Mean (µg/m3) Arith. Standard Deviation Geo. Mean† (µg/m3) Geo. Standard Deviation Saint John 73 4.8 213.6 54.5 45.1 37.2 2.58 Montreal 114 11.3 295.7 90.8 56.9 73.5 2.00 Sarnia 111 7.0 215.1 51.4 43.8 36.2 2.36 Edmonton 115 23.4 1264.8 161.8 141.9 132.2 1.82 North Burnaby 27 52.8 917.4 450.3 257.6 365.0* 2.09 † ANOVA test for heterogeneity with log-transformed data, p<0.05 * p<0.05 comparing T24 to all other stations ** Includes data from all stations     Figure 2.33  Comparative plot for national Liquid Jet Fuel (JP-4) data set       ** 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 ln[Liquid Jet Fuel Hydrocarbons] 0 25 50 75 Co un t National Liquid Jet Fuel Log-Transformed Data   North Burnaby Refinery Emissions Project, July 6, 2002 UBC School of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene Page D-79  2.6.5  Gasoline Vapour  Table 2.35  Summary table for national Gasoline Vapour data set Station # Valid Points Min. Value (µg/m3) Max. Value (µg/m3) Arith. Mean (µg/m3) Arith. Standard Deviation Geo. Mean† (µg/m3) Geo. Standard Deviation Saint John 73 4.5 199.4 54.4 46.2 36.9 2.60 Montreal 114 10.4 330.5 83.7 55.0 66.8 2.04 Sarnia 111 5.8 228.4 50.3 43.2 35.0 2.41 Edmonton 115 21.3 1358.2 184.6 167.7 145.9 1.93 North Burnaby 27 52.48 1045.19 494.63 285.44 397.05* 2.14 † ANOVA test for heterogeneity with log-transformed data, p<0.05 * p<0.05 comparing T24 to all other stations ** Includes data from all stations     Figure 2.34  Comparative plot for national Gasoline Vapour data set ** 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 ln[Gasoline Vapour Hydrocarbons] 0 25 50 75 Co un t National Gasoline Vapour Log-Transformed Data Air Emissions from the Chevron North Burnaby Refinery Appendix C Detailed Description of Methods for Analysis of Ambient Air Concentration Data   Susan M. Kennedy, Sarah Henderson        Date: 6 July 2002  July 6, 2002 North Burnaby Refinery Emissions Project UBC School of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene - i - Contents  1 Continuously Monitored Pollutants................................................................ 1 1.1 Data requested from GVRD and Environment Canada ...................................... 1 1.2 Preliminary data handling ................................................................................... 3 1.3 Estimation of SO2 10 minute averages ................................................................ 5 1.4 Data analysis:  comparisons by monitoring station............................................. 7 1.5 Data analysis:  comparisons by time of day........................................................ 7 1.6 National Comparisons ......................................................................................... 8 2 Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) ........................................................... 9 2.1 Introduction to the VOC monitoring network and data received........................ 9 2.2 Data analysis:  VOC groups, by chemical structure.......................................... 12 2.3 Individual VOCs - initial comparisons across monitoring stations................... 12 2.4 Analysis of VOC Mixtures................................................................................ 13    Tables  Table 1.1   Data received from the GVRD for stations considered relevant to the study... 2 Table 1.2   MAMU’s operating schedule on Capitol Hill................................................... 2 Table 1.3   Other petrochemically influenced monitoring stations for which data were received from Environment Canada............................................................................ 3 Table 1.4   Transformations needed to establish normality in data sets.............................. 5 Table 1.5   Days included in the data subsets for TRS........................................................ 7 Table 1.6   Stations used in national comparisons for continuously monitored pollutants. 8 Table 2.1   Number of VOC samples taken each year at GVRD air quality monitoring stations between 1989 and 2000.................................................................................. 9 Table 2.2   Details about each station used for comparison against T24 in North Burnaby ................................................................................................................................... 10 Table 2.3   Categories of VOCs measured in the GVRD.................................................. 10 Table 2.4  List of VOCs measured in the GVRD sorted by molecular structure.............. 11 Table 2.5  Compounds included in gasoline vapour ......................................................... 14 Table 2.6  Groups of compounds analyzed ....................................................................... 14    Figures  Figure 1.1  Raw data as they were received from the GVRD............................................. 3 Figure 1.2  Raw data as they were received from Environment Canada ............................ 4 Figure 1.3  Mathematical model relating upper percentile values to averaging period for SO2 data at station T23 on Capitol Hill....................................................................... 6  July 6, 2002 North Burnaby Refinery Emissions Project UBC School of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene Page C- 1   1 Continuously Monitored Pollutants  1.1 Data requested from GVRD and Environment Canada  The GVRD monitors ambient concentrations of several smog-causing pollutants on a continuous basis at a number of fixed locations throughout the lower mainland.  These pollutants include sulphur dioxide (SO2), Ozone (O3), Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2), Carbon Monoxide (CO), particles with diameters 10 microns or less (PM10), and reduced sulphur compounds (TRS).  Concentrations for each pollutant are averaged once per minute at the point of measurement, and the result is logged to a central computer via dedicated phone line.  Minute-by-minute values are averaged once per hour and the result is stored in the GVRD’s long-term archive.  All monitors and monitoring methodologies are in compliance with accepted Environment Canada practices and/or US EPA requirements.  All available continuously monitored data were requested from the GVRD for eleven monitoring stations.  The stations requested included all stations in North Burnaby, including those close to the neighbourhood of interest (T4, T5, T24, T52) and two stations on Burnaby Mountain (T14, T22), as well as a selection of other stations representing a range of expected pollution levels.  These included residential areas (T26 in North Vancouver, T2 in Kitsilano) and industrial and traffic intensive areas (T1 downtown, T9 Port Moody).  Table 1.1 summarizes the information received for each of these stations.  A check mark indicates the receipt of a complete data set, including values from January 01/98 through June 30/00.  A dash indicates that the pollutant is not monitored at that station.  Monitoring at T5 was discontinued in May of 1999 to make possible the introduction of T24 in September of the same year, for the express purpose of monitoring emissions from the nearby refinery tank farm.  Also, in an effort to address concerns of North Burnaby residents, the GVRD’s Mobile Air Monitoring Unit (MAMU) was periodically stationed on Capitol Hill (near T23) from April 1998 through March 2000.  The objective was to have MAMU operating for three weeks of every quarter.  Table 1.2 gives more information about MAMU’s schedule as part of the GVRD’s special monitoring project on Capitol Hill.  July 6, 2002 North Burnaby Refinery Emissions Project UBC School of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene Page C- 2  Table 1.1   Data received from the GVRD for stations considered relevant to the study Stn. Address SO2 TRS NO2 CO O3 PM10 T1 Robson Square – Robson and Hornby, Vancouver a - a a a - T2 Kitsilano - 2550 W 10th Ave. Vancouver  a - a a a a T4 Kensington Park - 6400 E. Hastings St. North Burnaby a a a a a a T5 Confederation Park, Pandora St. and Alpha Ave, North Burnaby to 05/99  - - - - - T9 Rocky Point Park, Moody St and Esplanade, Port Moody  a a a a a a T14 Burnaby Mountain, Ring Road, SFU, Burnaby  - - - - a - T22 Burmount - 7815 Shellmont St.  Burnaby - a - - - - T23 Capitol Hill,  Grosvenor Cres, North Burnaby  a a - - - - T24 Chevron Tank Farm Area – Eton and Madison, North Burnaby from 09/99 from 09/99 - - - - T26 Mahon Park – 16th St and Jones Av. North Vancouver  a - a a a - T52 Mobile Air Monitoring Unit (MAMU), near T23 on Capitol Hill - - partial - partial partial   Table 1.2   MAMU’s operating schedule on Capitol Hill Operation Cycle # # Days in Operation Start Date Stop Date 1 25 April 6, 1998 April 30, 1998 2 21 July 9, 1998 July 29, 1998 3 21 October 1, 1998 October 21, 1998 4 22 January 25, 1999 February 15, 1999 5 19 June 11, 1999 June 29, 1999 6 9 August 18, 1999 August 26, 1999 7 11 November 15, 1999 November 25, 1999 8 10 December 14, 1999 December 23, 1999 9 21 March 7, 2000 March 27, 2000   Environment Canada’s National Air Pollution Surveillance (NAPS) Network monitors the same pollutants shown in Table 1.1 across Canada (with the exception of TRS), and hourly information is stored in a national database.  For the purpose of comparing results from North Burnaby to those of other urban Canadian neighbourhoods influenced by the petrochemical industry, data for the same period were requested from stations in Saint John, Montreal, Sarnia and Edmonton located in close proximity to oil refineries.  Table 1.3 summarizes information about the stations and the data received:   July 6, 2002 North Burnaby Refinery Emissions Project UBC School of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene Page C- 3  Table 1.3   Other petrochemically influenced monitoring stations for which data were received from Environment Canada NAPS ID# Location Nearby Petrochemical Sources SO2 TRS NO2 CO O3 PM10 40203 Saint John Irving Oil a - a - a a 50103 Montreal Petro-Canada, Shell a - a a a - 61004 Sarnia Imperial Oil a - a a a a 90121 Edmonton Esso, Gulf, Texaco a - a a a a   Information received from Environment Canada about the location of each of the NAPS stations suggested that station 90121 in Edmonton is the most similar to stations T23 and T24 with respect to distance from active refineries and tank farms.  1.2 Preliminary data handling  Data were received from the GVRD in comma-delimited ASCII files.  Figure 1.1 shows a sample of the raw data, which included nine columns of information for every observation. Columns 1,3,4,7 and 8 were either blank or contained unnecessary records, and they were discarded.  In the original data most invalid values were set to -999.00 (column 6) for easy identification and all were marked with a character flag (column 9) to identify the type of error that had occurred.  All negative and/or flagged values were converted to missing values for the purposes of this study.  All zero values were converted to the limit of detection for the method (LOD) divided by the square root of two.  Concentrations were expressed in parts per million (ppm) for all gaseous pollutants, and in µg/m3 for particulate matter.  Figure 1.1  Raw data as they were received from the GVRD   Data from Environment Canada were received in non-delimited ASCII files as shown in Figure 1.2 on the following page.  In each row, characters 1 through 4 refer to the pollutant code (0050 for CO in this case); characters 5 through 9 refer to the station’s NAPS Network code (50103 or Montreal in this case); and characters 10 through 17 (199806--) refer to the 1       2      3       4                       5                     6     7   8   9  July 6, 2002 North Burnaby Refinery Emissions Project UBC School of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene Page C- 4  date.  The first column of values shows the day’s 24-hour average, the second shows the day’s minimum 1-hour average, and the third shows the day’s maximum 1-hour average. The fourth column shows the first 1-hour average of the day (midnight to 01:00), the fifth column shows the second 1-hour average (01:00 to 02:00) etc., all the way to the twenty- seventh column (not shown), which shows the twenty-fourth 1-hour average (23:00 to midnight).  Concentrations were expressed in parts per billion for all gaseous pollutants, and in µg/m3 for particulate matter.  All unnecessary information was discarded and invalid values were converted to missing values.   Figure 1.2  Raw data as they were received from Environment Canada   Data file manipulation and analysis were carried out using Microsoft Excel 2000 and SAS System for Windows, Release 8.01 (SAS Institute Inc, Cary NC).  As the health effects of these pollutants depends on both the intensity of exposure (exposure level) and the time period over which the exposure extends (duration), it was necessary to compute exposure averages over several different time periods, in order to compare the results to relevant health and regulatory standards.  Data sets were created only for those averaging periods for which health or regulatory standards or comparison values were available:  a)  all 1-hour averages (original data) b)  daily maximum 1-hour averages (all pollutants except PM10)  The SAS UNIVARIATE procedure was used to create this data set by returning maximum values by date for all days with 18 or more valid data points (75% complete).  c)  daily maximum 8-hour averages (for CO and O3)  This data set was created using the SAS EXPAND procedure in combination with the UNIVARIATE procedure.  All backward-moving 8-hour averages were calculated by date, and the maximum daily values were included in the data set.  Averages calculated with fewer than eight data points (100% complete) were not considered.   July 6, 2002 North Burnaby Refinery Emissions Project UBC School of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene Page C- 5  d)  24-hour averages  These were created by using the SAS MEANS procedure to return daily averages for all dates having 18 or more (75% complete) valid data points.  Frequency distributions were plotted for all data sets and the transformations necessary to ensure normality were determined and applied.  The following Table 1.4 summarizes the transformations used.  A log transformation implies that the natural logarithm of each data point was taken.  A dash in the table indicates that no comparison standard was available for the averaging period; therefore no data set was created.   Table 1.4   Transformations needed to establish normality in data sets  Transformation Pollutant All 1-hour Daily Maximum 1-hour Daily Maximum 8-hour 24-hour CO Log Log Log - NO2 None None - None O3 Log None None None PM10 Log* - - Log SO2 ** Log - Log TRS ** ** - Log * Although there is no 1-hour standard for PM10, the1-hour data set was analysed to ensure thorough characterization of the pollutant using raw data. ** Data too skewed for transformation, see discussion below   1.3 Estimation of SO2 10 minute averages  In order to compare the 1-hour GVRD data to 10-minute health based guidelines, the US EPA’s Mathematical Model for Relating Air Quality Measurements to Air Quality Standards (Larsen, 1971) was referenced.  The complete 2½-year data set (consisting of 21281 valid data points) from station T23 on Capitol Hill was used to generate a model for North Burnaby.  The ¾-year data set (consisting of 5442 valid data points) from station T24 near the Chevron tank farm was used to verify the results.  An overview of the methodology follows:  • The 1-hour data set was used to create 2, 4, 8, 12, 24, 48, 96, and 168-hour data sets with backward-running averages in SAS. • SAS was used to generate upper percentile values (100, 99.9 to 99.5, 95 and 90) for each data set. • The percentile values were tabulated according to averaging period in Excel. • The logarithms of the percentile values were plotted against the logarithms of the averaging time (in hours) for each percentile.    July 6, 2002 North Burnaby Refinery Emissions Project UBC School of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene Page C- 6  • Excel’s trend line function was used to find the least squares line of best-fit equation for each percentile. • The equations were used to extrapolate 10-minute (0.167-hour) averaging period values for each percentile. • These values were plotted against the percentile values to produce a smooth curve showing the relationship.  Figure 1.3 shows the results of this model.    Figure 1.3  Mathematical model relating upper percentile values to averaging period for SO2 data at station T23 on Capitol Hill   Each coloured line represents a percentile, and shows the relationship between the logarithm of the percentile’s value and the logarithm of the data’s averaging period (in hours).  These relationships are numerically defined by the equations shown at the right- hand side of the figure and, in general, it can be seen that a shorter averaging period results in higher values in the upper percentiles (99% to 100%).  These equations were use to interpolate the upper percentile values for a 10-minute (0.167 hour) averaging period.      July 6, 2002 North Burnaby Refinery Emissions Project UBC School of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene Page C- 7  1.4 Data analysis:  comparisons by monitoring station  For each pollutant data set, the minimum, maximum, arithmetic mean and standard deviation, and geometric mean and geometric standard deviation were computed for each monitoring station and displayed in tabular form.  For normally distributed data (and for data that could be ‘normalized’ with log transformation) average results at the different monitoring stations were compared statistically using the SAS GLM (General Linear Model) procedure.  For highly skewed data sets (ie. SO2 and TRS), statistical comparison of results across different monitoring locations was carried out by comparing the proportion of values above the relevant guidelines or health based comparison values, using the SAS FREQ procedure (and chi- squared test).  Where comparisons were made with data from the mobile monitoring station T52 (MAMU), only those days for which MAMU was operational were considered in the analysis.   For comparisons of TRS values measured at station T24 (operational only since Sept 99), a data subset was created and analysed for only those days on which T24 was operational.  Table 1.5 summarizes this information.   Table 1.5   Days included in the data subsets for TRS # Days in Operation Start Date Stop Date 171 September 1, 1999 February 18, 2000 23 March 6, 2000 March 28, 2000 30 April 1, 2000 April 30, 2000 30 June 1, 2000 June 30, 2000   Results for each pollutant from each station were also compared graphically by plotting the data over time and, because the health effects connected to these pollutants tend to be associated with peak levels, by plotting the upper percentile values (100 to 90) for each data set.  Upper percentile plots were not prepared for the TRS data sets because they were rendered difficult to interpret by the high number of concentrations below the detection limit.   1.5 Data analysis:  comparisons by time of day  In response to the UBC research team’s request for community input, several North Burnaby residents stated that odours around the refinery are most noticeable in the early hours of the morning.  In response, the time of day trends were investigated for the pollutants considered most likely to contribute to odour complaints (SO2 and TRS).  As this analysis was for descriptive purposes, no statistical testing was carried out.  July 6, 2002 North Burnaby Refinery Emissions Project UBC School of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene Page C- 8   To characterize time of day peaks of SO2 all 1-hour concentrations of 100 ppb or higher at station T23 (Capitol Hill) were sorted by the time of day at which they occurred, and a bar chart showing the number of exceedances during each time period was prepared.  In order to compare station T23 to others in the GVRD, the average value for each 1-hour time interval was computed for stations T23, T9, T2 and T26.  The results from T23 and T9 were plotted together to give a comparison of sites that can be considered “industrial” and T2 and T26 were plotted together to compare sites that can be considered “residential”.  Because of the very large number of TRS values below the limit of detection, a different approach was necessary to investigate time of day peaks for TRS.  Peak values of TRS greater than 3 ppb at stations T9, T23 and T24 were sorted according to time of day.  The value of 3 ppb was chosen as it is the approximate mid-point of the odour threshold range at which it is estimated that 50% of the population will detect hydrogen sulphide odours (Amoore, 1985).  The percent contribution of every hour to the total number of values exceeding the 3 ppb cut-off was computed for each station.  For example, 322 of the 21297 1-hour TRS concentrations at station T9 were equal to or greater than 3 ppb.  26 of these exceedances occurred between 0:00 and 1:00 in the morning, so the percent contribution of this 1-hour period is: %1.8%100 322 26 =×  Thus, the proportion of all values above 3 ppb that occurred during each 1-hour time interval was plotted for each station.   1.6 National Comparisons  To compare the levels of continuously monitored pollutants in the North Burnaby areas against what could be considered “typical” for a petrochemically influenced site in Canada, data from North Burnaby were compared to data from NAPS stations located near refineries in Saint John, Montreal, Sarnia and Edmonton.  1-hour averages were compared for CO, NO2, O3 and SO2, and 24-hour averages were compared for PM10.  Analytical methods were the same as those described in the above sections.  The stations used for each comparison are shown in Table 1.6.   Table 1.6   Stations used in national comparisons for continuously monitored pollutants Pollutant North Burnaby Saint John Montreal Sarnia Edmonton CO T4 (Kensington Park) - a a a NO2 T52 (MAMU) a a a a O3 T52 (MAMU) a a a a PM10 T52 (MAMU) a - a a SO2 T23 (Capitol Hill) a a a a  July 6, 2002 North Burnaby Refinery Emissions Project UBC School of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene Page C- 9   2 Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs)  2.1 Introduction to the VOC monitoring network and data received  VOC monitoring in Greater Vancouver is conducted by Environment Canada (EC) with the assistance of the GVRD’s Air Quality Department.   The GVRD is responsible for collecting samples and sending them to the Environmental Technology Centre (ETC) in Ottawa, where the samples are analyzed by EC technicians.  Up to 153 individual VOCs are analysed (24 hour averaged values), and the data are archived in national and regional databases.  Details concerning the sampling and testing methodology employed by EC can be found in a summary report written by Dann and Wang, 2001.  A general overview is provided here. Before shipment to the GVRD, 6L stainless steel collection canisters are cleaned and evacuated at the ETC.  When the canisters reach the sampling sites they are fitted onto whole air samplers programmed to draw ambient air into the containers at a flow rate of 1 to 2 L/min for a period of 24 hours (midnight to midnight).  When the sampling cycle is complete the canisters are returned to the ETC for analysis using a high-resolution gas chromatograph and quadropole mass-selective detector.  VOC samples are collected approximately every six days in the GVRD. The number of canisters available from Environment Canada limits sampling frequency at each location. On each sampling day, one of the allotted canisters is located at station T9 in Port Moody; the remaining canisters are rotated among the other GVRD monitoring stations.  Table 2.1 shows the number of samples collected at various stations each year between 1989 and 2000.   Table 2.1   Number of VOC samples taken each year at GVRD air quality monitoring stations between 1989 and 2000   YEAR Station Location 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 T1 Downtown 8 10 7 7 4 8 7 8 9 14 18 20 T2 Kitsilano - - - - 6 - - - - - - - T4 Kensington Park - 13 9 10 5 9 9 9 9 2 - - T9 Port Moody 40 59 48 93 58 45 73 58 50 41 43 52 T12 Chilliwack Airport - - - - - - - - - 7 10 9 T15 East Surrey 9 9 7 7 5 9 9 10 9 15 21 19 T17 South Richmond 9 9 7 - 7 8 7 10 8 12 - 20 T22 Burmount - 16 12 20 29 27 29 26 23 16 24 27 T24 Chevron Tank Farm - - - - - - - - - - 10 17 T26 North Vancouver - 7 10 6 2 9 7 9 10 3 - - T27 Central Langley - - - - 7 9 9 10 9 4 - - T29 Hope Airport - - - - - - - - - 5 12 9 T31 YVR - - - - - - - - - 10 18 20  July 6, 2002 North Burnaby Refinery Emissions Project UBC School of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene Page C- 10    In 1999 the GVRD restructured its surveillance network and station T24 was introduced in North Burnaby for the express purpose of monitoring emissions from the nearby Chevron tank farm.  The results from T24 will be compared to those from other GVRD stations to characterize VOC concentrations in North Burnaby.  All VOC data from 1999 and 2000, from station T24 and the 7 other stations with data for both years (T1, T9, T12, T15, T22, T29, T31) were requested for analysis.  Valid data were received for 142 individual VOCs.  Table 2.2 gives information about the location of each of these stations and the factors likely to influence VOC concentrations at each station.   Table 2.2   Details about each station used for comparison against T24 in North Burnaby Station Exact Location Factors likely to influence VOC Concentrations T1 Robson Square, Vancouver • High general traffic density • High diesel traffic density T9 Rocky Point Park, Moody St and Esplanade, Port Moody • Heavy industry • Marine traffic T12 Chilliwack Airport, Chilliwack • TransCanada Highway • Military, small commercial and private aircraft T15 Surrey East.  72nd Ave. and 192nd St, Surrey • Port Kells industrial park • Fraser Highway T22 Burnaby Mountain, 7815 Shellmont Street, • Trans-Mountain pipeline and tank farm T29 Hope Airport, 62715 Airport Road, Hope • Private aircraft • Agricultural activity T31 Vancouver International Airport, 3153 Templeton St. Richmond • Commercial aircraft   Data were received from the GVRD in Microsoft Excel files that grouped the individual compounds according to their molecular structure.  Table 2.3 describes the structure molecules in each category.   Table 2.3   Categories of VOCs measured in the GVRD Category Structure Alkanes All carbon atoms form a single bond with all other atoms. Alkenes Some carbon atoms form double bonds with other carbon atoms. Alkynes Some carbon atoms form triple bonds with other carbon atoms. Aromatics All molecules in this category contain a benzene ring, in which six carbon atoms are attached by a single bond to one neighbour, and by a double bond to the other (as shown here):   Halogens Any alkane, alkene, alkyne or aromatic compound that contains one or more halogen atoms such as bromine, fluorine and/or chlorine.  July 6, 2002 North Burnaby Refinery Emissions Project UBC School of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene Page C- 11   The 142 individual compounds are listed in Table 2.4 according to their molecular structure.   Table 2.4  List of VOCs measured in the GVRD sorted by molecular structure Alkanes Alkenes Alkynes Aromatics Halogens 2,2,3-Trimethylbutane 1,3-Butadiene 1-Butyne 1,2,3-Trimethylbenzene 1,1,1-Trichloroethane 2,2,4-Trimethylpentane 1-Butene/Isobutene 1-Propyne 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 2,2,5-Trimethylhexane 1-Decene Ethyne  (Acetylene) 1,2-Diethylbenzene 1,1,2-Trichloroethane 2,2-Dimethylbutane 1-Heptene  1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene 1,1-Dichloroethane 2,2-Dimethylhexane 1-Hexene  1,3-Diethylbenzene 1,1-Dichloroethylene 2,2-Dimethylpentane 1-Methylcyclohexene  1,4-Diethylbenzene 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 2,2-Dimethylpropane (Neopentane) 1-Methylcyclopentene  2-Ethyltoluene 1,2-Dibromoethane 2,3,4-Trimethylpentane 1-Nonene  3-Ethyltoluene 1,2-Dichlorobenzene 2,3-Dimethylbutane 1-Octene  4-Ethyltoluene 1,2-Dichloroethane 2,3-Dimethylpentane 1-Pentene  Benzene 1,2-Dichloropropane 2,4-Dimethylhexane 2-Ethyl-1-Butene  Ethylbenzene 1,3-Dichlorobenzene 2,4-Dimethylpentane 2-Methyl-1-Butene  Hexylbenzene 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 2,5-Dimethylhexane 2-Methyl-2-Butene  Indane 1,4-Dichlorobutane 2-Methylheptane 3-Methyl-1-Pentene  iso-Butylbenzene Benzylchloride 2-Methylhexane 4-Methyl-1-Pentene  iso-Propylbenzene Bromodichloromethane 2-Methylpentane cis-2-Butene  m and p-Xylene Bromoform 3,6-Dimethyloctane cis-2-Heptene  n-Butylbenzene Bromomethane 3-Methylheptane cis-2-Hexene  n-Propylbenzene Carbon Tetrachloride 3-Methylhexane cis-2-Pentene  o-Xylene Chlorobenzene 3-Methylpentane cis-3-Methyl-2-Pentene  p-Cymene Chloroethane 4-Methylheptane cis-4-Methyl-2-Pentene  sec-Butylbenzene Chloroform Butane Cyclohexene  Styrene Chloromethane cis-1,2-Dimethylcyclohexane Cyclopentene  tert-Butylbenzene cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene cis-1,3-Dimethylcyclohexane Ethene  (Ethylene)  Toluene cis-1,3-Dichloropropene cis-1,4-Dimethylcyclohexane Isoprene   Dibromochloromethane Cyclohexane Propylene   Dibromomethane Cyclopentane trans-2-Butene   Dichloromethane Decane trans-2-Heptene   Ethylbromide Dodecane trans-2-Hexene   Freon11 Ethane trans-2-Pentene   Freon113 Heptane trans-3-Heptene   Freon114 Hexane trans-3-Methyl-2-Pentene   Freon12 Isobutane trans-4-Methyl-2-Pentene   Freon22 Isopentane    Hexachlorobutadiene Methylcyclohexane    Tetrachloroethylene Methylcyclopentane    trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene Nonane    trans-1,3-Dichloropropene Octane    Trichloroethylene Pentane    Vinylchloride Propane trans-1,2-Dimethylcyclohexane trans-1,4-Dimethylcyclohexane Undecane   The concentrations of individual compounds are measured in µg/m3.  Concentrations will be expressed in ppm (parts per million) where the conversion between the two units can be accomplished with the following formula:  ppm = 1000 (g/mol) compound  theofweight molecular 45.24g/min ion concentrat 3 × ×µ    July 6, 2002 North Burnaby Refinery Emissions Project UBC School of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene Page C- 12  Nationally archived data from monitoring stations in Saint John, Montreal, Sarnia and Edmonton were requested for the purpose of comparing VOC concentrations in North Burnaby to those in other urban, petrochemically affected areas.  Data for January 1998 through December 2000 were received from EC in Microsoft Excel files with slightly different formatting than those received from the GVRD.  To ensure that local and national files were analysed with the same algorithms, the data from EC were re-organized to match those from the GVRD.   2.2 Data analysis:  VOC groups, by chemical structure  Daily ambient concentrations for each individual compound in each of the 5 structural groups were summed to generate 24-hour average concentrations for total alkanes, total alkenes, total alkynes, total aromatics, and total halogenated compounds.  Frequency distributions were plotted for each of these 5 data sets and natural log transformations necessary to ensure normality were applied.  Data file manipulation and analysis were carried out using Microsoft Excel 2000 and SAS System for Windows, Release 8.01 (SAS Institute Inc, Cary NC).  For each combined data set, the minimum, maximum, arithmetic mean and standard deviation, and geometric mean and geometric standard deviation were computed for each monitoring station and displayed in tabular form.  For the log transformed data average results at the different monitoring stations were compared statistically using the SAS GLM procedure.  Results for each pollutant group from each station were also compared graphically by plotting the data over time.   2.3 Individual VOCs - initial comparisons across monitoring stations  As an initial screen for the 142 individual VOCs, the 1999 and 2000 annual average values for each compound from the North Burnaby station (T24) were compared to the annual averages from each of the rest of the GVRD stations to determine whether there were groups of compounds not elevated (compared to other stations) that could be excluded from further review.  For the purposes of this comparison, an ‘expected’ background residential outdoor concentration was computed as the 2-year average value (for each compound) from the following three monitoring stations: Chilliwack (T12), East Surrey (T15), and Hope (T29). (In the analysis for grouped compounds described in section 2.2 above, average ambient concentrations at these three stations were typically the lowest values and did not differ significantly from one another).  July 6, 2002 North Burnaby Refinery Emissions Project UBC School of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene Page C- 13   2.4 Analysis of VOC Mixtures  In order to compare the available ambient monitoring data to health based comparison values for gasoline and light jet fuel mixtures, it was necessary to estimate the total vapour concentrations of gasoline and jet fuel mixtures in the North Burnaby area (at station T24). This was accomplished using two sources: one based on the constituents of liquid petroleum mixtures and one for gasoline vapour.  Data for the major individual constituents (by mean percent weight) of petroleum product mixtures, including 146 compounds found in liquid gasoline and 70 found in liquid jet fuel were obtained from Appendix D of the Toxicological Profile for Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (ATSDR).  Comparison of the ATSDR lists to the GVRD list showed that concentrations of compounds accounting for approximately 85% and 80% (by weight) of liquid gasoline and jet fuel, respectively, are measured in the GVRD.  Data regarding the major constituents of gasoline vapour was taken from a research study carried out by McDermott and Killiarny (Quest for a Gasoline TLV - see references in main report) in which percent contributions to vapour composition (by volume) and standard deviations were calculated from 95 samples that were collected and analysed for the express purpose of estimating an appropriate gasoline occupational exposure limit.  Table 2.5 lists the 21 compounds included in gasoline vapour (from this paper), their respective boiling points and proportionate contribution to gasoline vapour.  All compounds with mean volumetric contributions less than 0.5% were omitted from this list [McDermott & Killiarny, 1978].  These 21 compounds accounted for 92% of total gasoline vapour and each of these compounds is included in the monitoring data available.  Although this research was carried out before the benzene content of gasoline was regulated in Canada, the average contribution of benzene (by volume) in the gasoline mixtures measured in the study was 1%, with a maximum of 3.5%.  Canadian regulations currently restrict gasoline content to 1% on average, with a maximum of 1.5% (CEPA, Benzene in Gasoline Regulations, 1999), and to a yearly pool average concentration of less than 0.95% benzene by volume (Waste Management Act Cleaner Gasoline Regulation).   July 6, 2002 North Burnaby Refinery Emissions Project UBC School of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene Page C- 14   Table 2.5  Compounds included in gasoline vapour    Gasoline Vapour Composition  Compound Boiling Point (ºC) Mean Volume (%) Standard Deviation Alkanes  Propane -42.1 0.8 1.1  n-Butane -0.5 38.1 5.7  Isobutane -11.7 5.2 1.9  Isopentane 27.9 22.9 6.1  n-Pentane 36.1 7.0 4.0  Cyclopentane 49.3 0.7 0.7  2,3-Dimethylbutane 58.0 0.7 0.5  2-Methylpentane 60.3 2.1 1.3  3-Methylpentane 63.3 1.6 0.9  n-Hexane 68.7 1.5 0.9  Methylcyclohexane 71.8 1.3 0.4  2,4-Dimethylpentane 80.3 0.4 0.5  2,3-Dimethylpentane 89.8 0.7 0.5  2,2,4-Trimethylpentane 99.2 0.5 0.5 Alkenes Isobutene -6.9 1.1 1.5  2-Methyl-1-butene 31.2 1.6 2.1  cis-2-Pentene 37.0 1.2 1.7  2-Methyl-2-butene 38.6 1.7 1.8 Aromatics Benzene 80.1 0.7 0.4  Toluene 110.6 1.8 1.3  Xylene (all isomers) 142.0 0.5 0.6 TOTAL volume   92.1%   The North Burnaby (T24) ambient concentrations for all compounds contributing to liquid gasoline, liquid jet fuel and gasoline vapour were summed across measurement dates, and the results were assumed to approximate the ambient concentrations of those mixtures. Table 2.6 summarizes information about each VOC mixture analysed for this report.   Table 2.6  Groups of compounds analyzed Group Description Total of Compounds in Liquid Gasoline Includes 42 alkanes (ethane omitted), 28 alkenes (ethene and propene compounds omitted) and 24 aromatic compounds.  These represent approximately 85% of liquid gasoline by weight. Total of Compounds in Liquid Jet Fuel Includes 41 alkanes (ethane and propane compounds omitted) and 24 aromatic compounds.  These represent approximately 80% of liquid JP-4 by weight. Total of Compounds in Gasoline Vapour Includes 14 alkanes, 4 alkenes and 3 aromatics, which represent approximately 92% of gasoline vapour by volume.  Refer to Table 2.5 for further details.   For each of these three ‘petroleum fuel mixtures’ combined data sets, statistical and graphical analysis was carried out using procedures identical to those described in section 2.2 above.  July 6, 2002 North Burnaby Refinery Emissions Project UBC School of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene Page C- 15   References  Amoore JE. (1985). The perception of hydrogen sulfide odor in relation to setting an ambient standard. Olfacto-Labs, Berkeley, CA: prepared for the California Air Resources Board.  Dann, T. & Wang, D. (2001). Speciated VOC Trends in Canada 1992-1999.  Proc. of the AWMA Annual Conference, Orlando, FL, June 2001.   Air Emissions from the Chevron North Burnaby Refinery Appendix B Comments and Suggestions from Community Residents             Date: 6 July 2002  July 6, 2002 North Burnaby Refinery Emissions Project UBC School of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene Page B-1  Summary:  We received 165 responses to our request for community input via mail, email and fax.  The majority of respondents chose to make comments and/or suggestions about the study, and these are shown below in their entirety.  Names, phone numbers, and other similar information has been removed to ensure privacy.  The comments spanned a wide range of opinion with most expressing some degree of concern about refinery emissions.  Comments were useful to the researchers by providing observations about when emissions from the refinery, especially those resulting in odour, were felt to be worst.  Other comments were helpful by mentioning specific health outcomes that concerned neighbours.  The most frequently expressed concern was about potential impacts on respiratory health and allergies. Many people commented on deposits on their vehicles and elsewhere on their property that they believe had originated from the refinery.  Community comments (verbatim):  1. It smells around here a lot of the time!  We take our dog for walks down the inlet and often see what looks like oil seeping from the ground on the path.  Have you ever thought of checking air quality in the middle of the night?  We can be awakened by the stink.  2. I am a senior who has lived in this area since 1956.  Things are better now than they used to be, but I don't like to hear about this last MBTE spill and the water.  I often feel that they are emitting small amounts of SO2.  It has become worse for residents since smoke stacks were raised.  Often on weekends in the evening they burn off something that burns with a bright pink flame.  What are the health risks of continued long-term exposure to low levels of SO2 in the air?  3. There is one permanent emissions monitoring station at Harbour View Park and another mobile station around.  Who monitors these?  I would like to see it analyzed and monitored by an independent source.  Not the refinery.  Not the municipal government.  I have experienced headaches from the smells created by Chevron.  It's particularly bad early in the morning.  I cannot open the window to let in fresh air.  I believe someone should take a close look at the ecology around and in the site.  4. It's disgusting how the GVRD, Environment Canada, Van Port Commission and Burnaby municipal government have ignored this problem and put money ahead of the health of Burnaby citizens.  The air has a funny odour, like leaded gas, especially at nights and very early in the morning.  It doesn't smell as strong in the daytime, which makes us suspicious if the refinery is release emission into the atmosphere at nights when everyone is indoors and asleep.  5. Maybe you should do a study to see how many people who live in the area suffer from diseases indirectly related to air emission.  E.g. asthma, cancer, other respiratory problems and compare it to other places that don't have a refinery.  Just curious to see if there is a higher incident of disease in this area compared to like West Van.  Who is on committee? Deadline for report?  What will be done with the report?  Will the refinery make things  July 6, 2002 North Burnaby Refinery Emissions Project UBC School of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene Page B-2  better? (eliminate - not delay)  6. Often a smell of rotten eggs or oil in the air.  Once there was a shower of dust that came into the whole neighbourhood.  I would like to see all the area cleaned for better environment of water, animals, etc.  7. From what I have learned Chevron has never met air emissions regulations for clean air. They should move to the USA border or better still Texas.  8. A refinery in a residential neighbourhood makes no sense.  They're going to clean up their MTB's by polluting Burrard Inlet.  9. There have been reports of leaks of chemicals in the oil refinery.  Certainly these chemicals are hazardous and lethal to the environment, animals and human beings.  We also catch foul smells when breathing, every now and then.  And feel discomfort in the respiratory system.  10. We hope the GOVERNMENT will introduce special laws to control air emission and operations of the oil refinery.  We just ask for cleaner air and good health.  11. During daylight hours smoke from their stack is white - after dark smoke is very dark - why?  Is there emission coming out at might that are not during the day?  12. Greasy air substances necessitate every 6 months power washing out vinyl outdoor decks. Even this cannot remove the substance.  We are one block from the refinery.  I have (several times) seen an oily surface on the water in the ditch along Penzance Avenue - which carries quite fast flowing water off the slopes of Capitol Hill and Confederation Park.  Since moving to this area 8 years ago I have had many recurrent eye-nose allergies - intense irritation and blockages - these frequently begin to occur around 3am.  No previous problem.  No confirmation of the cause but I'm suspicious of the circumstances.  Infrequent but strong smells seem to originate from the refinery.  "Bad gas" odour untraceable to any other known source.  Often worse in the summer Thanks for your concern.  13. This is what comes with over population I guess!  I have lived 4 blocks from the refinery for 40 years.  I used to dust my patio furniture (normal dust) - now and in the last 2 decades it is black soot, which we are breathing in.  Whether this has to do with emissions of other pollutants or both who knows.  14. You should check out the wind patterns.  It also blows in around Capitol Hill and it is foggy east and west of the hill and clear to the south.  We have lived here on Capitol Hill since 1971 and very, very rarely have smelled or heard anything.  15. I have absolutely "NO" concerns with regard to possible health effects from this refinery!  16. I have resided at the same address for 49 years - raised my family of six healthy children  July 6, 2002 North Burnaby Refinery Emissions Project UBC School of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene Page B-3  there and have toured the refinery.  I feel some individuals are making unnecessary noises about emission for public attention!  I am sure the management of the refinery are aware of the rules in this municipality.  17. How long is the study?  Do you need input from people living in this area re: health problems?  Where are you getting your info?  I haven’t been asked anything and I've been here for 26 years.  18. Rhododendrons (some species) in my garden have spots that appear to be pollution-caused rather than organic.  I have problems with congestion (in sinuses?) that disappear when I leave the hill.  19. Spend time on vehicle emissions instead of a single oil refinery.  If you don't like the area move out.  The refinery has been here since 1935.  20. There is a lot of soot/dust that collects on our deck and roof and skylights.  There are a lot of emissions from the asphalt plant across the inlet in North Vancouver and near the 2nd narrows bridge.  I have called the GVRD many times about bad air quality and black smoke emissions from Chevron and the asphalt plant.  You should check the GVRD air quality complaints here for this area for the past five years.  We have lived here 10 years  21. The communications strategy needs less "spin" and more honest responsibility expressed to have credibility.  Let's fact it - the place is old and they have no idea what will break next. Does the project remain separate from the other pollution measuring projects being undertaken by the company and the local government?  Is there project intercommunications and record keeping?  22. I am interested to know what the volume of spent catalyst that is released in the air. Whether the Nickel contained in it is biologically absorbent.  As well if the volume has been reduced say from 5 years ago - before they claim to have upgraded the stack and the ability to remove particulate.  Because there are many long time residents in this area - if any there are releases that are accumulative if so your study needs to tell us what the effects are and what symptoms if any should be watched for.  23. Lived in Nbyb - Very close to the refinery for around 15 years.  4 adults.  Health issues for 3 suffer from repeated depression.  All seem to suffer A LOT from forgetfulness.  May or may not be related BUT - I wonder how many people would THINK to tell about forgetfulness.  I think a more specific questionnaire further down the line may be more helpful.  I am now a stay home mom of 2 children ages 22 months and 5 years.  As young people are USUALLY MORE susceptible to things and since all 3 of us spent 99% of our time only blocks from the refinery we'd be MOST INTERESTED in ANY and ALL proven or unproven suspicions to health concerns.  Please keep us informed.  Good luck and thank you.  24. They may be polluting under the cover of darkness.  My friend lives higher up the hill on  July 6, 2002 North Burnaby Refinery Emissions Project UBC School of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene Page B-4  Delta Street and says that it stinks more at night whenever she sleeps with the windows open.  We lived here since 1993 December and it seems to me that they don't small as frequently as they used to.  We are a family of 5 and we are all in good health.  My main concern is for my 9 year old boy with (mild) asthma…how bad or dangerous will it be for him if the refinery were to have a big accident?  Thank you for doing this project.  25. Chevron is simply the wrong business to have in a residential neighbourhood.  They do try to fit into the neighbourhood, but the result (bad pollution) of their business upsets the people.  They probably don't realize it, but the appear secretive and as money moguls to the people of North Burnaby.  26. As a life long resident I'm not concerned with the health risks from this refinery.  27. Chevron should be checked for the air quality and safety to the neighbourhood more often. These check-ups should be done unannounced to chevron (surprise check-ups) so we can find out what else they (Chevron and Government) are trying to cover up!  (Re: water contamination found by two high school students in May 2001)  28. We live right above the chevron refinery and we get all the smells and noises.  H2S smells and nitrate gas fumes.  They smell worse on foggy days.  The big flame from the stack vibrates our house and black smoke from it goes with the prevailing air currents.  We were here when the refinery was built and over the years as they have expanded the pollution has become worse; as long as they are here there is no solution.  29. Chevron is the best thing in our area.  We have lived here for a long time, no complaints.  I think a lot of the people have been misled by BRACE.  You could not ask for better neighbours.  Go bother someone else.  Why chevron is being picked on is just political. Someone wants points.  Get a life.  It’s the same old thing; a few people want to make a name for themselves, like now we have (Drs) from UBC.  This is the best place to live because of Chevron.  Can't you find a better cause (e.g. drugs, poverty).  You could live in my home and you would never know they were here.  30. When we moved to Burnaby over 30 years ago we were aware of the refinery.  There were times the odour was bad but it has improved.  We are not complaining.  The people making complaints are ALL new residents that also knew of the refinery.  Why did they choose to stay?  Some of these people are barbequing with a stench that is greater than the refinery. The refinery was here first and I feel they are doing whatever they can to improve the air quality.  The complainers should move.  I'd rather have the refinery than high rises that block our view.  31. How polluted is the ground water?  Tank farm area inclusive.  How often do they vent the storage tanks or refinery?  I live nearby the tank farm and I can small rotten eggs and other odours.  Are the tanks leaking?  Is MTBE still used as an additive?  32. Glad to see research is being done.  We need to be sure industry does what is necessary to  July 6, 2002 North Burnaby Refinery Emissions Project UBC School of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene Page B-5  make this a liveable community.  33. Don't know enough about this matter to be able to comment intelligibly!  I am a retired person, but I am interested in the results of your research.  34. Should research hybrid vehicles (gas and fuel cells).  Encourage more biking. Have small competitions for biking/walking around Nbyb to boost community support.  35. I have noticed several days where cars and everything else are covered by fine yellow powder.  Only once was there any acknowledgement of these emissions from Chevron.  36. The frequent odour coming from the refinery has been causing us nausea and headaches. We are forced to keep our windows closed tight even on beautiful warm summer nights (or days).  We seem to find the odour stronger at night?!  I know people and friends who lived in this area that died from lung cancer (never smoked) and suffered from Parkinson's disease.  We are worried the emissions are toxic and slowly poisoning us.  Especially affecting ours lungs and brain. We would like to see the Nbyb refinery relocated to a less populated area as soon as possible before more damage is done to our health and environment.  We understand the refinery was here before us, but people's health is more important.  The refinery should be compensated to relocate.  37. More and more young families are moving into the area - how will these air emissions affect the kids?  I am concerned.  Prime waterfront property in the centre of the lower mainland is used as a refinery - this area should be publicly owned and used as park/beach land by the public.  If offered the right price would Chevron move? We need to hear solutions and ways we can contribute to positive change in this area.  What can we, the average concerned resident do to help against the fight for a better future?  38. I am not sure if the emissions relate to the smell but the strongest smells happen at about 3am.  39. We live across from Chevron.  2 long time residents died of cancer.  Our cat who used to go down to Chevron died of cancer.  The frogs who used to be in our yard every year disappeared last year.  That's all I know except that I get an awful lot of colds.  40. Sometimes the air smells bad, sometimes no.  Once there was a "yellow cloud" on the road. My brother complains when he cuts the hedge.  He says there's some residue of something that makes him sneeze and eye itchy.  41. My neighbours and I can smell something in the air, something different and not very pleasant from the refinery whenever the air pressure around us changes.  Since this place is populated and the numbers continue to increase I would like to see this refinery move to a less inhabited place.  42. There seems to be little cooperation between Chevron and Burnaby Municipal Council re  July 6, 2002 North Burnaby Refinery Emissions Project UBC School of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene Page B-6  spills, leakages, etc.  Talk to the City's department to get info on spill history and disclosure problems.  Chevron sends out a PR letter to neighbours every few months and is a major funder in the local school (Gilmore Elementary - computers etc).  You should check on what they are telling residents about your project.  Federal MP Sven Robinson has also conducted inquiries and public meetings and met with local advocacy group.  43. Is there any way that a local, daily public testing system can be set up to warn resident about harmful emission levels as they happen (for asthmatics, etc).  Please make all your findings public.  44. We are concerned about the impact.  Since I came to North Burnaby I have regularly swept a film of black soot off the patio.  My first compliant to Burnaby City Health Dept. was met with "that just goes with living in a city with industrial production".  45. We smelled some strange smell outside my house most of the time.  I think that smell may come from the refinery.  I think we need someone to talk to the refinery company to do something to reduce this air emission.  46. We love this beautiful land.  Keep it clean and protect our health.  Refineries should have pollution control in place.  The air is hard to breathe in this area.  47. The refinery is safe enough or not?  In case of fire on it is it easy to extinguish the fire and not affect adjacent residents? The air emissions from the oil refinery are harmful to humans and pets or not?  48. There are times (which is often) when I go out in the morning I see yellow coloured dust on the cars surfaces.  Other times. Late at night, there is a strong gasoline odour in the air.  I wonder if there is anyone out there who monitors these emissions.  Please check and investigate these emissions before any serious health problems occur.  49. We have lived on Capitol Hill for the past 21 years.  Every Friday evening we can small something noxious and unbearable coming from the hill on the north side where the Chevron refinery is located.  Many neighbours complain of the same thing.  No one complains on weekends, though.  But the pattern starts again on Mondays.  The monitors that GVRD set up seemed not to have any effect on improving the situation.  50. I live in the area mentioned and walk the scenic and confederation trails nearly every day to get away from the exhaust emissions of automobiles.  Quite often we are disturbed by strong refinery emissions.  We suggest that the refineries are required to upgrade the filtration system of the air and ground.  51. Would you put the information in relation to other industry emission from Chevron, whatever you are measuring.  Vs Canadian Oxy Vs Burrard Thermal Plant Vs Autos/Trucks in the lower mainland.  Are you going to be doing any historical health trends on citizens in the area vs. other areas?  July 6, 2002 North Burnaby Refinery Emissions Project UBC School of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene Page B-7   52. The smell is strong and it seems that when I walk near the tanks (McGill Park) I can smell it all the time - every day.  The smell is often strongest at night.  The city of Burnaby, the province and the Feds should have some control - not just "make recommendations'.  The latest MTBE still is a classic chevron move.  Thanks for this.  53. Living on Capitol Hill I see only 1 air monitoring station.  Is there any way to track the Chevron emission to see where they land according to season and the prevailing winds? Chevron's arrogance and persistence on hanging on in this area is intolerable to the majority of residents.  Their noise pollution is almost deafening.  They simply need to move!  54. Just one question: The oil refinery has been in place for many years, how come the sudden interest?  Also, what will be done if there is a health risk?  This is a great way to involve people in their interests around the neighbourhood!! Thank you!  55. I have often had occasion to get up in the middle of the night and have noticed emission from the refinery.  After I had my car covered in small glass-like particles over a year ago (apparent they were cleaning out a holding tank and these particles escaped) I have been very sceptical of anything that they release.  This of course is worsened by the environmental agency in Victoria apparently working hand in hand with Chevron to give them time to clean up this groundwater mess.  We don’t have time for being sick.  56. The smell of gasoline/diesel fumes are often in the neighbourhood.  Hope you will also consider the impact on animals.  57. Occasionally the air in the neighbourhood stink bad! Usually late at night.  I think that is very sneaky.  We know where the stink comes from.  We're not stupid!  They will never get the public's trust by pulling this crap.  I wish they would move.  I know they are polluting the air and the water.  For the last year I have boiled all my drinking water.  Corporations like Chevron will never get public support, trust or sympathy, no when they treat the public like unimportant nobodies.  I believe they think they are God.  58. Air quality is very poor in the North Burnaby Area.  I cannot do Taiji outdoors because I can smell gas lead.  Once I even phone BC Hydro and said my house has gas leak but they cannot find leakage and said it must be from Chevron Refinery. I don not think Chevron refinery should expand if they cannot fix the air quality problem.  59. There should not be any further expansion of this refinery.  60. Air quality seems to me to be worsening i.e. I can smell gasoline where I live (a kilometre away) more often - especially in the early morning.  Smells are stronger closer to Chevron.  61. We have been subjected to strong odours in the night time, strong enough to be awakened from sleep.  This would happen periodically, there have been more in the last 2-3 months.  July 6, 2002 North Burnaby Refinery Emissions Project UBC School of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene Page B-8  In the past we could call and report incidence of air quality.  This has been eliminated as services to people are cut.  62. The cleaner the air, the happier I am as I have allergies and asthma.  With all the extra cars on the road because of the bus strike the air is more polluted.  I have not noticed too much of a problem from shell oil - only Chevron and Imperial Oil.  63. My son developed an asthmatic cough after we moved into the neighbourhood…after extensive isolations of the variables (the 5 causes of asthma) we've concluded that his cough was related to air pollution.  Also - all residents in this neighbourhood cannot grow tomatoes out in the open.  The leaves are too tender for the rain - the turn yellow and die. But if you grow them under a frame (Poly or glass - no rain) they thrive.  Also there exists a study of the Port Alberni pulp mill and asthma occurrence in children in proximity that may be of interest.  64. People have to go to work and you know how inadequate the public transit is.  Therefore people need to use their cars and we hear nothing but the terrible contribution cars are making to air pollution.  We are told to cut down on the use of our cars.  Do car-pools, air- care testing, fuss, fuss.  Does anyone know how much air pollution is the oil refinery causing?  Can you measure the air emission from their chimneys, storage tanks, loading docks?  Each car is driven perhaps one hour of the day.  The Chevron operation is on 24 hours a day.  Cars need to be tested annually - how often is the refinery tested?  When they don't meet the required standard do we suspend their license?  And I get a terrible headache whenever the wind blows my way from the refinery.  65. There have been reports of leaks of chemical in the oil refinery.  Certainly these chemicals are hazardous and lethal to the environment, animals and human beings.  We also catch foul smells when breathing every now and then, and feel discomfort in the respiratory system.  We have heard government will introduce special laws to control air emissions and operation of the oil refinery.  We just ask for cleaner air and good health.  66. Why does the refinery always emit nauseating smells between midnight and early morning?  We cannot have our windows open because of the odour during those times.  I live […] literally 3 houses from the refinery tanks.  I would like more info mailed to us when any changes or information comes available.  67. Whether the population is affecting health.  When we go out for a walk in the Confederation Park we can smell the "rotten egg" all the time, both in the mornings and evenings.  Long-term solution - the refinery should be re-located in somewhere where less people are affected.  Move to a remote area.  68. We can even smell the "rotten egg" smell as far as Brentwood Mall area.  We are tired of hearing problems/accidents all the time.  The refinery should be re-located to some remote areas.  It seems that they only fix the problems when accidents occur.  Wonder about the long-term affect on health to the residents.  The bad smell is noticed even really early in the  July 6, 2002 North Burnaby Refinery Emissions Project UBC School of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene Page B-9  morning or late at night.  69. Why don't you leave Chevron alone?  Do you realize it is the only operating refinery in the lower mainland?  I have lived in North Burnaby since 1928 (2 blocks from the refinery). Burnaby "Now" is in my opinion.  Seems to pick on Chevron for a cheap headline.  70. Clouds of water vapour from the refinery cooling towers constantly pour over the Capitol Hill area.  Is this water treated or does it contain microorganisms detrimental to health and environment?  We have lived on the Hill for 50 years.  Our house is white.  We originally had to wash and repaint every 10 years.  We now have to wash with bleach every year and repaint every 5 years.  Is this caused by refinery emissions?  71. Sometimes we smell gas along with the wind.  There are a lot of dusts and a mixture of powder of yellow and black colour along in the air.  72. We often smell the stink of Chevron in our neighbourhood.  I also walk in the trails near Chevron's refinery and it always smells of gas.  We live just on the Vancouver side of Burnaby.  73. To the "Project Team": thank you very much.  74. I was not concerned about the refinery, except for the smell. That all changed when the refinery recently admitted to contaminating the soil with MTBE. Until independent studies revealed the contamination, the refinery did not, and would not own up to anything that appeared controversial or would cause them to accept responsibility for their actions.  I do not trust the refinery, and I believe that they must be monitored by an independent agency (and a non-governmental body - the various levels of government have shown that they are incapable of monitoring or policing the refinery).  75. We want to know more as to how does it affect our health and life of being so close to it.  If it'll lead to long-term health problems what should we do?  76. Several times in the past 2-3 years (late at night) there have been large blow offs - some form of emission.  These are mostly a noise problem for us.  We have on a somewhat regular basis smelled in the morning.  Burnaby city has not been stringent enough with each new expansion permit - Chevron is still flaring a lot of tail gases, etc.  77. What about other businesses on Burrard Inlet that are located further West on the North Shore and on the East side of the Inlet.  What pollution comes from them?  Is the plant at the end of Penzance Drive contribution to the overall picture of pollutants?  If so, how much and what are they?  78. Are you aware of the noise pollution that the refinery makes?  The sound of this refinery is like a dishwasher running 24 hours a day for 7 days a week.  We live right in the line of the refinery on top of Capital Hill.  We have lived here since 1956 and the refinery is getting  July 6, 2002 North Burnaby Refinery Emissions Project UBC School of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene Page B-10  louder.  We also get (once in a while) soot on our sundeck from the refinery and we wonder how healthy can this be?  We live by a green belt and a lot of trees seem to be dying. Could this be because of the refinery?  79. The microclimatology of the region is variable, especially between the top of Capitol Hill and its Ease side.  The top of the hill often remains clear of pollution while the slopes are subjected to higher amounts due to a variety of factors: 1 - The katabatic-type winds that flow out of Indian Arm are usually channelled between Capital Hill and Burnaby Mountain.  This causes pollutants to move southward across Hastings Street.  This movement, if it occurs during the early morning, sometimes develops a fog over the land.  I don't think this is cause by advection, but probably by mixing.  2 - I've also seen fog spiral along the bottom slopes of Capital Hill in an almost 360 degree pattern.  This usually occurs on clear fall nights and probably during radiation inversions/.  This air pattern moves pollution from one side of the hill to the other (I'm not sure which direction).  3 - As the refinery on the East side of Capital Hill has reduced its productivity the number of days with fog has dropped.  I hope you will position enough monitors to establish a true picture of the local climate patterns, both horizontally and vertically.  There are many retired homeowners in the Capitol Hill area.  You might consider training some of them to make daily weather observations.  80. I would like to see regular monitoring of not only air emissions, but the soil and water environment surrounding the area used by Chevron refinery.  We commend any work that will focus attention upon activities which may have a negative impact upon our health and environment. Thank you.  81. Kindly be advised that the refinery often released sickening and smell gases at night into the atmosphere.  The water around the refinery in Burrard Inlet was often found to be contaminated.  We do not think the Refinery is effective in controlling air and water contamination to the environment around it.  82. I am a 23 year resident of the neighbourhood. I would like to be part of the study and receive any information available on a regular basis as to the progress of the team.  83. Living here since 1963 on the North side of Capitol Hill at the end of clearing leading down towards the refinery the noise and emission of the plant hit us before everyone else. Lately we have to move our bedroom into the basement or be leaving the house completely.  The pollution of the plant is so strong that we have trouble breathing and tears in our eyes.  Noise and emissions have greatly increased in the last few years.  Noise and emissions mainly start at 9pm lasting until daybreak.  Weekends very little, indicating a different refining process.  Monitor on top of Capitol Hill.  Wrong locations - should be around Harbour View Road.  Our house acts as a noise barrier.  We are afraid of increasing the production of this plant because the conditions are worsening.  I phoned the supervisors at night about  (?) times at night.  For instance last night (23 July 2001) the shift supervisor even listened at shortly after 12 o'clock to the noise at our bedroom window and admitted the noise comes from the refinery and is too loud.  For years we heard the answer of our  July 6, 2002 North Burnaby Refinery Emissions Project UBC School of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene Page B-11  complaints "WE ARE WORKING ON IT".  84. Air often has an odour, especially in the early morning and evenings.  Many Capitol Hill children have nosebleeds.  Concerned about poor communication - hiding facts from the public.  My children are at risk for health issues.  Refinery should not be in such a populated area.  I work and live in this community.  Something MUST be done.  85. Maybe more accurate reports.  No fudging of facts by refinery.  We live here.  86. It is good to see an independent team looking at the issue.  87. We suspect Chevron has been discharging very fine (<<1mm) oily particulates into the air as cars in our neighbourhood have been covered with tiny blackish-brown spots.  These spots smear into a brown oily streak when scrubbed.  They cannot be removed easily and must be mechanically buffed off of the cars.  I know Chevron has been discharging large amounts of CO gas into the atmosphere when the quantity of gas is over the design limit of the CO boilers of when the CO boilers are off-line.  It was evident by the humming and whistling noises heard by Capitol Hill residents at night during 1995/996.  Chevron has admitted to discharging very find sand  (claimed to be clean) into the atmosphere.  This left cars in the North Burnaby/Capitol Hill neighbourhood covered in sand.  The Naphtha smell is much worse at night.  This may be due to atmospheric effects but it could also be due to Chevron venting their tanks at night.  This should be investigated.  Our experience with Chevron has shown them to be evasive and irresponsible. What are the expected results of the fuel additive, soil and water table, contamination clean up?  What levels of contamination are irreversible?  In which areas?  We would like to know how our health, long-term and short-term, is being affected by all Chevron's discharges-into the atmosphere, on local properties, in the soil and water table, and into Burrard Inlet. How did the soil/water table in Confederation Park get contaminated with Chevron's controversially cancer-causing fuel additive when it is uphill to the storage tanks?  Since water never travels uphill, how did it contaminate the soil in Confederation Park?  Diffusion?  We would like to know ALL the chemicals, especially chlorinated organics that Chevron has released into the environment, their toxicity and the exact amounts that have been released. Further, what is the safe exposure level of each, if any? What level of exposure will children be subjected to by playing on the contaminated soil in Confederation Park?  What potential impacts can such exposure have on those with weakened immune systems, including allergies? With regards to soil contamination, we would like to know whether plants, grown for good, could contain or even concentrate these contaminants.  What impact will Chevron's effluent discharge have on local marine pollution?  In terms of air quality and soil contamination what is the radius, from Chevron, affected by such contamination?  An exact specification by street and block would be appreciated.  88. I believe the study should also consider the hydrocarbon and other emissions from the trucks (tankers) travelling the corridor to the refinery.  All takers are vented to allow fumes to escape as the fuel heats up in the tank (particularly of interest in the summer).  Good luck.  July 6, 2002 North Burnaby Refinery Emissions Project UBC School of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene Page B-12    89. Contact Pietro Calendiro (former NDP MCA) and Svend Robinson (former MP).  Also, there is a team of residents who have formed an action group to address problems with the air quality and ground pollution.  Advice Chevron to stop the "good neighbour" approach - it's demeaning to residents who realize that Chevron cannot control the chemical pollution caused by all but a perfect refinery, which doesn't exist… Given that Chevron's storage tanks have not been regularly checked, what steps will be taken in the future to prevent another such undetected spillage?  Which arms-length entities will be responsible for ensuring that Chevron conducts business in an environmentally and socially sound manner? A period report, at least twice annually to the community would be a minimal expectation.  90. My car is covered with dust/ash in the mornings and my swimming pool is always needing cleaning because there is a silt on the bottom that is so fine it goes through my pool filter, even when I vacuum the pool.  I'm sorry, but this CANNOT be a good thing.  91. To whom it may concern:  I have lived in the North Burnaby/Capitol Hill area since 1956 […] I note two things about this area: 1 - It lies directly South of the Shell Refinery (now inactive, but operation during the time I lived there and well into the 80's I think).  The area is in a valley between Capitol Hill and Burnaby Mountain.  2 - Up to the late 80's to early 90's I know of 6 women in a 1 block radius of my home who developed breast cancer. That coincidence seems rather high to me.  Is this is the sort of "possible health effect" that you might be interested in?  Call me if you need more information…  92. My father died in 1997 from cancer. He was a smoker. My mother passed away last month, she did not smoke but the strange thing was the way their cancer spread was so similar that it makes me wonder how environment played a part. I moved into my parents house in October 22,2000 and shortly after my one year old daughter developed asthma related symptoms, she needed an inhaler. We moved out in March 2001 and she has not needed the inhaler since.  I truly believe it was due to the environment.  93. There is a lot of grit that settles on our patio and lawn furniture.  94. I have often noticed a gas/oil type of smell which seems quite localized to the area of Penzance Drive, next to the miniature railway.  Sometimes it is over a much larger area, but it is if often present at that one location.  Is this for academic purposes or because someone feels existing regulations are inadequate or not enforced?  95. I have lived in this neighbourhood for almost 50 years.  There has been a definite improvement in fewer odours.  There continues to be unpleasant doors (especially) at night. Respiratory problems were prevalent in family members who lived here in the past. C.O.P.D, asthma and bronchitis.  96. Check the night emission.  Check the grounds within 1/2 miles of the refinery - at certain times (when it's hot for a few days) smells come up through the ground and sewer.  Even in  July 6, 2002 North Burnaby Refinery Emissions Project UBC School of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene Page B-13  the house.  97. We definitely do not want Chevron to expand their refinery in this beautiful neighbourhood, particularly if there are any health concerns.  We would like to have as much info as possible.  They do not belong here.  98. There is often a smell and/or a thick haze late at night or early in the morning.  We tell our young people to be responsible.  Chevron is telling us "not us".  We need more responsible corporate companies.  99. Has the BC Cancer Agency conducted a survey to indicate the number of people affected by cancer and where they reside?  Is there higher incidence in North Burnaby?  100. Regular foul smell in the area.  Gasoline-like seepage from ground at junction of Penzance trail and neighbourhood trail behind the miniature steam railway. (map included). We welcome your study.  101. My husband and I moved here in the fall of 2000.  We have been sick ever since with colds, bronchitis, sore throats, chest pains and (myself) anxiety attacks.  We lived in Coquitlam and would get a cold maybe twice a year.  Please keep us updated on the clean- up and water/air quality.  Thank you.  Please look up information of MCS (Multiple Chemical Sensitivity) and environmental diseases as we feel we may have developed this since our move.  102. In the past few years since I've lived in this area, my husband and I have both developed odd coughs, intermittent.  Mine sometimes wakes me at night.  I never have it anywhere else.  I had thought it must be the house (I had the dust cleaned, etc) but no real changes. Now I wonder if there's any connection to the refinery?  103. There is a nauseating smell emitted from Chevron every now and then.  Any flyers/mail- outs delivered to the door should be bilingual (English and Chinese).  There is an increasing concentration of new Chinese immigrants in North Burnaby.  104. While I am concerned with air quality I am also concerned with dangers from environmental damage through negligence and mismanagement.  As well, where is the power and accountability of regulatory bodies?  105. Your survey is about air quality and emissions; I assume this includes particulate emissions. I have a vegetable garden at my house about a dozen blocks from the Chevron refinery - I have often wondered whether my garden is contaminated by airborne pollutants from Chevron and the other refineries along the waterfront. Will you be testing the soil?  I have lived in this area since 1992. Some nights, especially in summer, there is a bad smell (like cat pee) that I believe comes from the stacks when they turn up the heat to clean them out. I'm told this is usual for refineries. However, other nights (not often) I walk outside and there is a quality to the air that gives me a light headache within minutes. It's not a  July 6, 2002 North Burnaby Refinery Emissions Project UBC School of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene Page B-14  smell exactly, but I am aware that something unusual is in the air. It doesn't become hard to breathe, but I'm aware of the process of my breathing during this time. Sometimes I just leave the neighbourhood until it clears. I have no idea what this is and I've never found anyone else who knows what I'm talking about. I am wondering whether your study will uncover other people who have this reaction, and whether it is related to something at the refinery.  106. I am 45 years old, and was born and raised in the Capitol Hill area, where I still live. My son (age 20) has autism and my daughter (age 17) has epilepsy. I obviously have no idea if this is related to anything in the environment, but the fact that both my children suffer from a neurological disorder makes me wonder.  107. During the summer months, I often wash my van in the driveway.  The following morning I find a thin film of yellow dust on the windows sufficient to write my initials in it.  I presume that this dust collects as result of a sulphur emission from a refinery.  108. Our large patio for the last few years has so much dirt on it we have to paint it every year. We are on Capital Hill. We face the west side. I do not know if it has anything to do with Chevron refinery. Or it is coming for the sky. It is very costly to do every year as we are pensioners.  109. It's a turn-off! It smacks of racism! Why do you print your Community Response Form in one additional (seemingly Asian) language? Burnaby has a sizeable Italian-Canadian population, all integrated (NOT assimilated), and mostly fully bilingual italian-english. Without a common language--English in this province--it's a racial timebomb! The solution is not--and academics from a university surely know this--to cater to those unwilling to immerse, but rather stimulate the wish to integrate lingually as well.  What you are doing is resented by many that have otherwise no racial axe to grind!  And it all distracts from your objective: soliciting input!  110. Frequent emissions at night. On a perfectly clear night there will be a cloud over Chevron. Cloud is always accompanied by odour. Odorous emissions occur frequently at night. Often commented on by our guests.  Provide us with a Phone # or web site that we can report such incidences right away.  111. There are certain areas in the neighbourhood where the odour is much stronger than others. We don't often smell it very strongly at our house, but it is sometimes very strong in Confederation Park and certainly on the trails north of the park (by the miniature railway) and the trails near the tank farm. We have occasionally called the phone number provided by BRACE (Burnaby Citizens Against Chevron Expansion) to report the smell when it has been strong at our house.  Network with the various other community groups who have been working long and hard on this issue.  I'm very concerned about air quality in my neighbourhood, for myself and my children. Thanks.  112. THERE IS ALWAYS SOME SMELL OF GAS DURING EVENING THERE MAY BE  July 6, 2002 North Burnaby Refinery Emissions Project UBC School of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene Page B-15  SOME SET OF IN THE RESDIENTAL AREA TO COLLECT TO UNDERSTAND THE IMPACT TO HUMAN LIVES.  113. I have lived in this area for 12 years: Typically twice every year I experience the following: 1) A yellow sulphur like substance covering our home and decks.  Sometimes an apology letter from the Chevron refinery comes too but this now has little meaning given the repetition of the problem; 2) Odours that are oil like in nature.  I have a request, rather than a suggestion.  I would like you to find out how to stop the yellow substances being emitted and to provide this to residents of the area and to Chevron, with costs, etc.  I would like this to be in the form of a more "bullet proof" plan rather than what they can attempt to do.  I assume that Chevron is attempting to avoid this but not with any real or solid plan (perhaps because they don't want to pay the money).  Of next importance I would want to see the odours discontinue.  No other comments, just a question.  I wonder how independent your group is - i.e. who is funding your project. I realise the funding source does not have to influence the outcome but in my experience it often does.  114. Yes, I have lived in this area for 5 years and am one of the victims of the toxic emission. Here is some info you might be interested in:  1. A couple of residents near our neighbour died by cancer (including my landlord- lung cancer). I had severe headache when the emission smell come to my window when I am sleeping. My throat was very sore, too.  2. The emission sometimes happened in the midnight or early morning, when people in the sound sleep and were not aware of.  Suggestions: 1. Recruit me as one of your research members since I have 20 years of experience of toxicology and human health. I have medical education and obtained a Ph.D. in environmental science from SFU in 1998. I was thinking about this project for very long time and am glad it is happening. I would like to send you a resume if you are considering this possibility.  2. There are a group of people regularly walking in the Confederation Part, in the morning, or walking the trail along the refinery site in the evening. Morning is the time most emission happens and evening some spots have stronger smell than other place. I believe some health research should be done from this group.  3. Monitoring the emission very carefully, specially in the midnight and early morning. Analyse the chemicals that may cause the cancer, such as MTBE, PAH, PCB and other VOS, not just the dust, SO2 & NO2. Start as soon as possible. The problems are:  1. Local residents are very naive about the toxicity of the emission and some of them are not very sensitive of the smell, which might be the potential risk for them.  2. The company (in Richmond?) doing the routine test does not test the carcinogens like PAH and so on.  3. The government and company fool each other and them together fool the residence about the truth. 4. We need to set up some kind of alarm system to warn neighbourhood to shut off the window if the toxic air coming out of the factory, if this situation will continue. I have to shut off my window all night.  115. The response form is too general to be of any use.  Do you want information about the health of people living in this area or about what emissions people may have noticed (seen, heard or smelled?).  I'd like to help but I'm not clear on the purpose of your study.  Is it to warn people about potential health risks?  To advise the municipal and provincial government on risks to the people of North Burnaby because of the Chevron Refinery?  Or  July 6, 2002 North Burnaby Refinery Emissions Project UBC School of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene Page B-16  is it a report for Chevron to show its interest in being a more responsible neighbour?  116. Is there a possibility that Chevron is releasing "whatever" into the air in the wee hours of the night/morning when most people would be unaware of it?  We have smelled something in the early morning on occasion but have not called the GVRD environmental line about it.  We have called GVRD during the day or earlier in the evenings when we have smelled noxious doors.  Suggestions: Check the GVRD files for people who have called regarding smells in the air and follow up with calls to them.  I've not been happy with the way the GVRD environmental 24hour phone line works and would be willing to discuss this with your project team if you think it may pertain to your study.  117. There is often a smell of gasoline around the trails that run by the refinery and the tanks. Many in the neighbourhood believe that the refinery pollutes more at night. It would be interesting to know if this is true.  118. 1. I have a very sensitive nose and when the wind is unfavourable the fumes/emissions bother me quite a bit. I normally sleep with the bedroom window open and sometimes the smell of the fumes awakens me usually very early in the morning. I immediately get up and shut the window, then return to sleep.  2. My landlord living in this house died of cancer last January. A neighbour a few doors down also died of cancer a while ago.  Suggestions: 1. The team should conduct air quality measurements further away from the plant - say 500 metres or more, dependant on prevailing wind, of course.  2. A thorough study of health histories and statistics including a survey of area resident’s health should be included (note cancer stats above mentioned). 3. Perhaps the effects of the emissions/fumes from Chevron are more serious than anyone imagined and a far more extensive, thorough and longer term study should be funded.  Personally it seems totally obvious to me that a petroleum refinery is completely incompatible with residential land use and such industrial use should never be located anywhere near residential neighbourhoods, especially near children and pregnant women!  Other comments: It is high time this situation is looked into by credible researchers.  Perhaps I should mention that one of my housemates is an Environmental Toxicologist with a PhD in Environmental Biology and a Masters in Aquatic Toxicology as well as a medical degree. She would be happy to participate in your study if her skills would be useful.  119. Congratulations on this excellent initiative.  120. In the past Chevron has been less-than forthcoming about any issues to do with air quality. Occasionally they have issued advisories, and in one recent instance they offered to clean the cars of North Burnaby residents after emission of some air-borne pollutant by the refinery.   Any data supplied by them is likely to be suspect. Strategic placement of air- quality monitoring stations in the Capitol Hill area is necessary in order to obtain objective data.   There is an active group of Burnaby residents under the banner C.A.R.E. (Citizens Against Refinery Expansion) that may be able to provide you with information.  We are very pleased to see this initiative and will support it in any we can.   July 6, 2002 North Burnaby Refinery Emissions Project UBC School of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene Page B-17  121. Air currents are such that there seems to be a sulphurous smell fairly frequently in the "Heights" area West of Capitol Hill. I have only experienced very occasional odours. One is a smell similar to burning wax (like a paraffin candle) which occurs only during the nighttime - (under cover of dark when most residents are sleeping). I have also noticed a smell like diesel fuel on a couple of occasions. I have lived here for 5 years and would say that I have personally smelled the waxy smell about ten times and the diesel smell three or four times.  Thanks, I have two toddlers. It is reassuring to know that the Chevron oil refinery, the Shell Depot and the Tran Mountain Terminal are under observation and analysis.  122. Could you please provide a description of the research in progress, and include the reason for it?  Then one can know better how one can be of help.  123. I have never had allergies in my life and I'm 54 years old.  Now I'm always having problems with my eyes watering and nose running and nose bleeds. I have lived in the area since December of 1999.  Suggestions: I don't know enough about the emissions to make an informed suggestion for the problems that may exist.  124. I believe you have all the required information by now.  Suggestions: Will you set up a monitoring station to track the air emissions from the refinery?  There have been major and minor problems arising from this refinery. I am not happy that the refinery company plays down the possible danger and risk on North Burnaby residents. We should do something to prevent a major disaster.  125. Too new here to have much of use.  Often notice 'petroleum smell' while out running beside tank farm.  Suggestions: I am very wary of any data provided by Chevron.  They have not shown themselves to be forthcoming with accurate data recently!  They withheld positive test results of MTBE, and even told the media that their tests produced negative results.  I see no reason why they would choose to provide accurate data for what could be a potentially damaging report for them.  I hope they are not providing the bulk of the data, or that you have some way of verifying it.  I'm VERY much looking forward to your results.  126. Hello. I live in North Burnaby area for last two years. Prior to this I was living in east Vancouver for 10 years. In both neighbourhoods with the wind blowing from right direction, we get this foul smell similar to the smell of fumes escaping from gas tank when I fill up my car at the gas station (I use chevron gas stations). Some times it was so intensive almost choking. If you need more input please contact me.  127. I was diagnosed with hyperthyroidism, Graves Disease and Thyroid Eye Disease in September 1999. The doctors didn't know what caused it and said that I had had it for some time. I've often wondered if the refinery could have had a part in it. My neighbour down the road, who has recently passed away, also had thyroid disease. His house is directly across from the refinery.  He had lived there for years.  I have lived here since 1973. Suggestions: Is there a high rate of thyroid disease in the area or downwind from the  July 6, 2002 North Burnaby Refinery Emissions Project UBC School of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene Page B-18  refinery?  I read that MTBE is known to specifically affect the thyroid.  128. Be glad to answer any questions you may have. I've lived in North Burnaby for over 10 years now.  129. I hope that one day soon the refinery will be shut down before we have a major disaster happen or an earthquake that could cause an explosion at the plant causing severe environmental damage and the loss of lives in and around the refinery.  The recent information that came out about the spills of dangerous chemicals (benzene and MTBE) and Chevron's attempt to cover-up the spill and downplay its impact.  Their continual attitude of disregard for the environment and the people of North Burnaby is troublesome. I hope that your study is non-biased and will be made public and brought to the attention of the print and television media so that more people can become aware of these issues.  130. I have experienced nausea and headache at times when emissions are most noticeable. I think that anecdotal information needs to be gathered from residents to help serve as markers for possible refinery related health problems.  Suggestions: Don't get sucked in to Chevron-speak. When they say incident it means accident, they say smell, I say emission. When communicating with public don't call a toxic waste dump a land farm. It would be helpful for you to make a questionnaire for residents asking specific questions you need to have answered to fulfill your mandate. Finally if you have any influence at all get that idiot Miles of the chevron commercials. Good luck with your project.  131. There appears to be more fumes in the summer.  Suggestions: To study the effects of the emissions on human bodies, such as lungs, skin, etc. To study the effects of the emissions on other wildlife.  132. The fumes are often their worst in the morning between 5 and 7 in the area to the West of the Willingdon Chevron facility.  People who are out during these hours may have more exposure.  Suggestions: Just a wish, do a good job.  133. While my family and I do not live within the project boundaries, we spend a lot of time inside of them.  And notwithstanding the occasional press about the refinery, I have never noticed the existence of the refinery.  My other comment is if people are so concerned about their health and living near the refinery, why are they living there in the first place? If they feel it is a health hazard, then they should move. Personally, I feel that the so-called "high-occupancy lanes" on Hastings Street are more of a health hazard than the Chevron refinery.  134. I power walk several times a week along the Trans Canada Trail between Willingdon and Boundary.  Most days I can smell something near the plant, sometimes more, sometimes less. I know that if there's a smell, there are molecules in the air that my nose is perceiving. What I don't know is whether any of those molecules at however many parts per billion are harmful.  If so, breathing deeply at an elevated rate might be causing more harm than benefit.  I assume you folks know what you're doing.  I certainly wouldn't!  I'll be very  July 6, 2002 North Burnaby Refinery Emissions Project UBC School of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene Page B-19  interested to see what you find.  135. We often notice odd smells when we're in the area of the Chevron plant. Although the emissions may be officially safe, it's still pretty obvious that there are hydrocarbon molecules in the air.  Don't rely on pollution report data from the GVRD! When we called to report a particularly noxious, acrid door, we were we were told that no one else had reported anything (implication: it's all in your head; go away and stop bothering us).  We live right on the border of Vancouver and Burnaby.  However, we are more oriented toward North Burnaby than Vancouver. We do most of our local shopping in North Burnaby, and my husband's jogging route takes him past the Chevron plant. We just bought a house in New West and are moving next month, but we've been in the Vancouver Heights area for more than four years and would still like to participate in your survey, if you think we have information you could use.  136. I can't say I notice a refinery smell all that often, although sometimes it's very apparent. At night you can smell the NV dump too, which is way more obnoxious. But I'm glad to hear that this is being looked into, as most people that live in the city are not always aware that the smells of the city directly affect our health. I get my share of smog since I bike to BCIT 5 days a week. I'm interested to hear of the results of your research.  137. Over the nearly six year period of our residency in the effected area we have smelled several very strong odours, occurring about 6 – 10 times per year. The odours can be described as: "sulphurous"; "acidic"; "sour-methane". The absence of prevailing wind conditions seems to be a factor. Also, we report an increase in respiratory infections and complaints among the family of two adults and two children as compared to our previous residence in East Vancouver. Residents of the effected area as defined by the committee, should be offered the opportunity to voluntarily keep a family health log with a particular focus on respiratory and bronchial complaints.  138. I have lived in this house for 15 years. I have been home all day since mid 1995. When I had to go downtown to work all week, I didn't notice much. But now, I find that there are many days when I can't go outside. In 1997 during the 3 months of dry weather, I had a cough that lasted from July to Sept. I ended up getting chest x-rays at Burnaby General. There was nothing wrong with me, just the bad air here.  Suggestions: Send out a questionnaire. I'm sure that people would like to speak out.  139. The oil refinery smell emanates constantly in our neighbourhood. Also, there is a terrible odour of rotting garbage that is prevalent in the evenings. It may, however, be coming from a different source. I can't keep the windows open.  140. I live near Willingdon and Hastings. I have found that the odour in my neighbourhood is a maximum in the very early morning.  Say 4-5am. In fact I cannot sleep with my window open because the smell wakes me up.  I think that Chevron intentionally releases as much as it can at that time to get away with big emissions while people sleep. During the day, the smell can only be detected a block or so from the plant.  Suggestions: If you want to detect  July 6, 2002 North Burnaby Refinery Emissions Project UBC School of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene Page B-20  air emissions get up early!  I consider your research area to be very important. Personally I think Chevron should be boycotted.  Thank you.  141. I will forward some material to you. Suggestions - do sample personal interviews, interview doctors in the area (Hastings; Gilmore), Longitudinal studies of asthma in schools in North Burnaby compared to schools elsewhere (Gilmore; Confederation park, for example). We are very concerned about the long term effects on health from the emissions from the oil refinery; we are also concerned about accidental emissions, fire, earthquake and lack of emergency preparedness in case of serious accidents; we would like to know what the health consequences are for those who live in the vicinity of a refinery; we would also like to know how the refinery could reduce health risks.  142. We live west of the tank farm/refinery, one block east of Boundary Road.  While looking for a house in North Burnaby in 1989, we consciously made a decision to live west of the refinery (upwind) rather than living on Capitol Hill (too close to or downwind of the refinery) or further east (e.g. east of the, now, mothballed Shell Refinery).  On occasion (not very often) we do get the odd door smell from the refinery especially if the prevailing winds are coming from the east...they get reported to City of Burnaby Environmental Health Department.   This tends to happen during the winter when we get the bad winter storms coming from the northeast. We know friends who live closer the tank farm...a couple of blocks to the south and west who tend to get stronger vapour smells...this has been an issue in the past. We have 3 female children ranging in age from 6 to 11. We have not noticed any overt health issues related to living in proximity of the refinery. Suggestions: **what is the impact of Chevron's flare stack.  I understand from news articles from Alberta that flare stack gases are an issue and that Alberta's regulations are not as tough as Texas.  **what will be the scope of the area's residents health assessment be? Other than a survey....will blood/hair samples be collected from a random sample of residents in the study area?  **suggest trying to match any "immediate" resident health issues/complaints with Chevron's problem events that have happened over the past 12 months.  **some senior citizens have been long time residents of this area...suggest you focus on them (a work colleague who was brought up in North Burnaby and whose parents still live here told me story's – circa 60's and 70's -- about area residents having to wash their cars numerous times during the week to keep the particulate matter from the refinery off the cars.  Other than getting this via e-mail from a co-worker who lives in the neighbourhood and whose husband works at TRIUMF...this is the first I have heard of this study.  143. The chevron refinery often emits terrible odours into the air.  We are not sure whether it is harmful.  Some mornings my husband and I wake with mild headaches.  When we open the door, we often smell odours from the refinery.  Chevron has not been upfront with their neighbours in North Burnaby.  We also have a lot of sooty dust deposited on our house and porch.  144. Good luck...I'm hoping for a fair, objective assessment!   July 6, 2002 North Burnaby Refinery Emissions Project UBC School of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene Page B-21    145. It seems that every time Chevron blends gas or moves gas at the tank farm, the gas doors are very noticeable. Apparently, Chevron can slow down these processes to reduce the vapours emission - why can't they do this automatically rather than waiting for complaints? Can you research this aspect? I hope the air pollution is not as harmful as it is obnoxious to smell and inhale.  146. We need to have a written commitment from whatever level of government of how Chevron will be monitored for its emissions and how Chevron will be forced to comply with acceptable health standards.  I am so pleased that you are researching the potential health effects. Thank you.  147. At certain times, you can smell a strong door from the Refinery / Tank Farm through out the neighbourhood.  I would be interested in knowing how long it will take before the report will be available.  148. Monitor refinery emissions at night!  Over the last 25 years I have observed that the smell and obnoxious odours are most intense in the early hours after midnight when most people are asleep and I have just returned from late shift work.  Try to convince refinery management that honesty is the best policy.  I know they (management) would view that last line as a joke.  I assure you I am not joking.  Thank you.  Air Emissions from the Chevron North Burnaby Refinery Appendix A Terms of Reference    Susan M. Kennedy, Ray Copes         Date: 6 July 2002   July 6, 2002 North Burnaby Refinery Emissions Project UBC School of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene  Page A-1   T  H  E    U  N  I  V  E  R  S  I  T  Y    O  F    B  R  I  T  I  S  H     C  O  L  U  M  B  I  A  School of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene          Faculty of Graduate Studies         3rd Floor, 2206 East Mall         Vancouver, B.C. Canada V6T 1Z3          Tel: (604) 822-9595         FAX: (604) 822-9588   Air Emissions from the Chevron Burnaby Refinery Human Health Impact Assessment Terms of Reference  January 17, 2001  Investigators: Susan Kennedy, PhD, Professor    Ray Copes, MD, Adjunct Professor    UBC School of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene Introduction  UBC researchers will undertake a human health risk assessment focusing on the potential impact of current air emissions from the Chevron Burnaby refinery on the health of north Burnaby residents.  These terms of reference have been developed by the UBC research team and approved by a project advisory committee consisting of representatives from MELP, Environment Canada, GVRD, Simon Fraser Health Region, Chevron Canada, the City of Burnaby, Burnaby School Board, and community members.   The project advisory committee's role is to provide input and advice to the UBC research team, to approve the terms of reference for the project, to provide one vehicle for obtaining stakeholder input into the project as it develops, and to receive the final report.  Project Goal  The overall goal of the project is to perform an assessment of the potential human health impact of current air emissions (scheduled and unscheduled) from the Chevron Burnaby refinery, tank farm, and associated facilities, based on health and exposure information available in the scientific literature and existing exposure data in and around the Chevron Burnaby facility and the surrounding community.  If the initial assessment indicates that further data need to be collected in order to characterize some of the risks to human health, a proposal outlining the specifics of such work will be prepared for review by the project advisory committee.   July 6, 2002 North Burnaby Refinery Emissions Project UBC School of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene Page A-2 General Approach  Conventional risk assessment methods will be used, as recently elaborated in the Risk Estimation component of the consensus guideline, CSA - Q850 Framework for Risk Management(1).  These methods are based on the 1983 US National Research Council report "Risk Assessment in the Federal Government:  Managing the Process"(2).   This approach is also essentially the same as that recommended by Health Canada in their 1999 draft document, Canadian Handbook on Health Impact Assessment.(3)  Exposure assessment will be based primarily on existing site-specific monitoring data, augmented by information available in the scientific literature on similar operations.  Health information will be obtained through a comprehensive literature review (using MEDLINE, TOXLINE, NIOSHTIC, Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management, and publicly accessible government databases such as the US DOE Risk Assessment Information Systems, and EPA Integrated Risk Information Systems), meetings with stakeholders, public agencies, and others who may have data or site-specific information relevant to the study.  Information sources will be clearly identified in all reports.  It is expected that the final comments on potential human health impact will take one or more of the following forms:  • estimates of the expected extra number of affected persons (for a given disease or symptom), compared to what would be expected for a similar community without a refinery • the probability that a local resident would develop a specific disease or symptom over and above that expected for a similar community without a refinery • estimates of the size of the "margin of safety" between current exposures and those known to be linked to disease or symptoms.  Sources of uncertainty and the possible range of the risk estimates will also be identified. Limited probabilistic modeling of exposures will be carried out to create 'best estimates' of exposure and health risks as well as the range of risk estimates (ie. 'worst case' and 'best case' estimates).    Findings will be summarized as much as possible in non-technical language, and general recommendations made where appropriate.  Process  In order to carry out the risk assessment, the UBC research team proposes to undertake the following specific work:  1. Review data from all ambient and personal air monitoring conducted in the community surrounding the Chevron North Burnaby plant and inside the plant gates in the past 5 years.   July 6, 2002 North Burnaby Refinery Emissions Project UBC School of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene Page A-3 The members of the project advisory committee agree that all available original monitoring data will be made available to UBC for this review (including that from the GVRD, Chevron, MELT, Environment Canada).  2. Review relevant ambient and personal air monitoring data from the published scientific literature based on studies of refineries or other similar facilities and make an assessment of the relevance of these data for the current project.  To facilitate the evaluation of data obtained in this step, UBC researchers will review detailed information about specific products (received, processed, shipped), processes, emissions, and site-specific activities of the Chevron Burnaby operation.    The project advisory committee members agree to make this information available to the research team.  3. Review existing toxicology and epidemiology information from the published scientific literature with specific reference to SOx, volatile organic compounds, total reduced sulfur, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, ozone, and other substances (esp. additives and by- products) that may become apparent during the review of products and site-specific activities.  4. Combine and interpret information gathered from the review of health literature review and exposure data to do the following:  a) comment on the anticipated added human health impact of exposures to the selected air contaminants at the levels currently present, and / or b) identify what additional information needs to be collected locally in order to determine whether or not there are likely health impacts.  Scope  This project focuses on current air emissions of relevance to residents located in close proximity to the Chevron refinery and storage facility.   Priority will be given to those substances and processes associated with the highest levels of community and regional health department concerns.   Scheduled and unscheduled emissions refer to planned and fugitive emissions that occur in the course of day to day operations and includes accidental emissions that could reasonably be foreseen based on past occurrences.  The project does not address potential soil or water contamination nor significant accidental air emissions from catastrophic events.   Further, it does not cover the social, economic, or general health benefits associated with the Chevron Burnaby refinery operations.  Reporting  At the conclusion of the project, a draft report will be issued by UBC to the advisory committee and input sought.   UBC will consider the input from the project advisory committee; however, the contents of the final report will be controlled by the UBC researchers.   Peer review will be obtained by UBC on the report prior to its release as a public document.   The final report will  July 6, 2002 North Burnaby Refinery Emissions Project UBC School of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene Page A-4 remain the property of the UBC investigators.   The final report will be released by UBC to all stakeholder groups represented on the advisory committee.   Research Team Members  Sarah Henderson, Research Engineer Sonia Na, Research Scientist Anne-Marie Nicol, Risk Communication Scientist Colin MacKay, MD, Community Medicine Resident   References   (1)  Canadian Standards Association. CAN/CSA-Q850-97.  Risk Management:  Guidelines for Decison Makers. Etobicoke: Canadian Standards Association, 1997.  (2)  US National Research Council. Risk Assessment in the Federal Government:  Managing the Process. Washington DC: National Academy Press, 1983.  (3)  Health Canada. Canadian Handbook on Health Impact Assessment (Draft Dec 1999). Health Canada.  Advisory Committee Members  Name Organization Judy Marshall Burnaby Residents Against Chevron Expansion (BRACE) Guenther Krueger Community Resident Peter Borwein N Capital Hill Neighbourhood Association Bob Innis Chevron Canada Ltd, Manager Supply Division Dipak Dattani City of Burnaby, Manager, Environmental Engineering Nancy Harris City of Burnaby, Councilor Mondee Redman Burnaby School Board, Trustee Adam LaRusic Environment Canada, Pacific and Yukon Region Silvano Padovan Greater Vancouver Regional District, Air Quality Department Ray Robb (Chair) MWLAP, Head, Environmental Management Section Lloyd Phillips MWLAP, Environmental Protection Compliance Officer Nadine Loewen Simon Fraser Health, Medical Health Officer  Air Emissions from the Chevron North Burnaby Refinery Human Health Impact Assessment: Final Report   Susan M. Kennedy, Ray Copes, Sarah Henderson, Sonia Na, Colin MacKay          Date:  6 July 2002  North Burnaby Refinery Emissions Project Final Report, July 6, 2002 UBC School of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene              -  i  - Contents   1 Executive Summary ...................................................................................... 1 2 Introduction ................................................................................................... 7 2.1 Context ................................................................................................................ 7 2.2 Development of Terms of Reference - Project Advisory Committee................. 7 2.3 Objectives............................................................................................................ 8 2.4 Background:  What is Risk Assessment?............................................................ 9 2.5 Issue Identification ............................................................................................ 12 2.6 Estimation of the Population at Risk................................................................. 13 3 Pollutants Monitored Continuously (PM10, SO2, O3, NO2, CO, TRS)........... 14 3.1 Exposure Evaluation Methods .......................................................................... 14 3.1.1 Data Requested from GVRD and Environment Canada........................... 14 3.1.2 Data Analysis ............................................................................................ 16 3.1.3 National Comparisons ............................................................................... 17 3.2 Health Assessment Methods ............................................................................. 18 3.3 Pollutants not Elevated in North Burnaby:  PM10, NO2, O3, CO ...................... 19 3.3.1 Carbon Monoxide...................................................................................... 19 3.3.2 Nitrogen Dioxide....................................................................................... 20 3.3.3 Particulate Matter (PM10) .......................................................................... 21 3.3.3.1 PM10 Concentrations After Catalyst Release of April 2000.................. 21 3.3.4 Ozone ........................................................................................................ 23 3.3.5 PM10,O3,NO2,CO:  Summary.................................................................... 25 3.4 Sulphur Dioxide ................................................................................................ 27 3.4.1 SO2 Exposure Guidelines or Objectives.................................................... 27 3.4.2 SO2 Exposure Evaluation .......................................................................... 27 3.4.2.1 All 1-hour Concentrations..................................................................... 27 3.4.2.2 Daily Maximum 1-hour Concentrations ............................................... 30 3.4.2.3 24-hour Averages .................................................................................. 31 3.4.2.4 Time of Day Comparisons .................................................................... 33 3.4.2.5 National Comparison - 1 hour Average Concentrations ....................... 34 3.4.3 SO2 Health Impact..................................................................................... 36 3.4.3.1 Health Assessment Methods ................................................................. 36 3.4.3.2 Results:  Review of Findings from the Scientific Literature................. 37 3.4.4 SO2 - Risk Assessment.............................................................................. 48 3.4.4.1 Critical Effect Relevant to North Burnaby Residents ........................... 48 3.4.4.2 Quantitative Estimate of the Impact of Short-Term SO2  Peaks............ 48 3.5 Total Reduced Sulphur Compounds (TRS) ...................................................... 53 3.5.1 TRS Exposure Evaluation ......................................................................... 53 3.5.1.1 All 1-hour Concentrations..................................................................... 53 3.5.1.2 Daily Maximum 1-hour Concentrations ............................................... 54 3.5.1.3 Time of Day Analysis ........................................................................... 56 3.5.2 TRS Health Impact.................................................................................... 57 3.5.2.1 Methods................................................................................................. 57 3.5.2.2 Results ................................................................................................... 57  North Burnaby Refinery Emissions Project Final Report, July 6, 2002 UBC School of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene              -  ii  - 4 Volatile Organic Compounds: Exposure Data............................................. 60 4.1 Methods............................................................................................................. 60 4.1.1 Introduction to the VOC Monitoring Network ......................................... 60 4.1.2 Data Analysis: ........................................................................................... 61 4.2 Results ............................................................................................................... 63 4.2.1 Groups and Mixtures of Compounds ........................................................ 63 4.2.2 Individual Compounds .............................................................................. 68 4.2.3 National Comparisons ............................................................................... 68 5 Volatile Organic Compounds: Health Impact .............................................. 69 5.1 Methods – Review of Existing Health Information .......................................... 69 5.1.1 Individual Volatile Organic Compounds .................................................. 69 5.1.2 Mixtures of Volatile Organic Compounds ................................................ 70 5.2 Results – Potential Health Effects of VOC Exposures ..................................... 71 5.2.1 Individual VOCs – Overview.................................................................... 71 5.2.2 Compounds with Ambient Levels Above Health Comparison Values..... 77 5.2.2.1 Trimethylbenzene (all isomers)............................................................. 78 5.2.2.2 1,3-Butadiene ........................................................................................ 80 5.2.2.3 Benzene ................................................................................................. 83 5.2.2.4 Bromodichloromethane......................................................................... 86 5.2.2.5 1,2-Dichloroethane................................................................................ 88 5.2.2.6 1,4-Dichlorobenzene ............................................................................. 90 5.2.3 Other Individual VOCs of Concern to the Community ............................ 92 5.2.3.1 Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (MTBE) ................................................... 92 5.2.3.2 Iso-octane (2,2,4 Trimethylpentane) ..................................................... 94 5.2.4 VOC Mixtures ........................................................................................... 95 5.2.4.1 C5-C8 Aliphatic Fraction ...................................................................... 97 5.2.4.2 C9 –C16 Aliphatic Fraction .................................................................. 98 5.2.4.3 C6-C8 Aromatic Fraction...................................................................... 98 5.2.4.4 Gasoline Vapour.................................................................................... 98 5.2.4.5 Other Petroleum Mixtures................................................................... 102 5.3 Quantitative Risk Estimate: Cancer Risks from Benzene and 1,3-Butadiene. 103 6 Metals Potentially Associated with Petroleum Plants................................ 106 6.1 Manganese....................................................................................................... 106 6.2 Vanadium ........................................................................................................ 107 7 Health Impact of Refinery Emissions in Other Communities..................... 109 7.1 Methods........................................................................................................... 109 7.2 Results ............................................................................................................. 110 7.2.1 Studies Examining Cancer Outcomes ..................................................... 110 7.2.2 Studies Examining Other Health Outcomes............................................ 111 7.2.3 Summary of Findings from Other Community Studies .......................... 112 8 Limitations................................................................................................. 114 9 References................................................................................................ 116   North Burnaby Refinery Emissions Project Final Report, July 6, 2002 UBC School of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene              -  iii  - Tables  Table 2.1  Population of the study area............................................................................. 13 Table 3.1  Data received from the GVRD for stations considered relevant to the study.. 14 Table 3.2   MAMU’s operating schedule on Capitol Hill................................................. 16 Table 3.3  All 1-hour CO data........................................................................................... 19 Table 3.4   Daily maximum 8-hour CO data..................................................................... 19 Table 3.5   All 1-hour NO2 data ........................................................................................ 20 Table 3.6   24-hour NO2 data ............................................................................................ 20 Table 3.7   All 1-hour PM10 data....................................................................................... 21 Table 3.8   24-hour PM10 data ........................................................................................... 21 Table 3.9   All 1-hour O3 data ........................................................................................... 23 Table 3.10   Daily maximum 8-hour O3 data .................................................................... 23 Table 3.11   24-hour O3 data ............................................................................................. 24 Table 3.12   Summary of 24-hour O3 data ........................................................................ 24 Table 3.13   Environment Canada and GVRD air quality objectives ............................... 26 Table 3.14   SO2 - Published air quality guidelines or health comparison values by averaging period........................................................................................................ 27 Table 3.15   Summary of all 1-hour SO2 data ................................................................... 28 Table 3.16   Number of 1-hour SO2 concentrations meeting or exceeding federal objectives and health-based guidelines ..................................................................... 29 Table 3.17   Daily maximum 1-hour SO2 concentrations meeting or exceeding federal objectives and health-based guidelines ..................................................................... 30 Table 3.18   Dates of exceedances at station T23 (Capitol Hill)....................................... 31 Table 3.19   Summary of 24-hour average SO2 data......................................................... 31 Table 3.20   24-hour SO2 averages meeting or exceeding federal objectives ................... 32 Table 3.21  Summary table for national 1-hour SO2 concentrations ................................ 35 Table 3.22  Number of national 1-hour SO2 concentrations meeting or exceeding federal objectives and health-based guidelines ..................................................................... 36 Table 3.23 Controlled human experiments examining pulmonary effects of exposure to SO2 ............................................................................................................................ 41 Table 3.24  Epidemiologic studies of community air pollution (24 hour average levels) with reference to SO2 impacts on health ................................................................... 44 Table 3.25  Epidemiologic studies of community air pollution (long term average levels) with reference to SO2 impacts on health ................................................................... 46 Table 3.26  Expected number of persons with asthma* in study area .............................. 50 Table 3.27   Number of 1-hour TRS concentrations that meet or exceed various criteria 54 Table 3.28   Number of 1-hour TRS concentrations that meet or exceed various criteria, comparing only those days when station T24 was operating.................................... 54 Table 3.29   Number of Daily maximum 1-hour TRS concentrations that meet or exceed various standards ....................................................................................................... 55 Table 3.30   Number of 1-hour TRS concentrations that meet or exceed various criteria, comparing only those days when station T24 was operating.................................... 55 Table 3.31   AQOs for TRS in British Columbia and Alberta .......................................... 57 Table 4.1   GVRD / EC VOC monitoring stations, 1999 and 2000.................................. 60 Table 4.2  Groups of compounds analyzed ....................................................................... 62  North Burnaby Refinery Emissions Project Final Report, July 6, 2002 UBC School of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene              -  iv  - Table 4.3  Summary table for Total Alkanes .................................................................... 63 Table 4.4  Summary table for Total Alkenes .................................................................... 64 Table 4.5  Summary table for Total Alkynes .................................................................... 65 Table 4.6  Summary table for Total Aromatics................................................................. 66 Table 4.7  Summary table for Total Halogens .................................................................. 67 Table 4.8  Elevated compounds by structural category .................................................... 68 Table 5.1  Volatile Organic Compounds: comparison of North Burnaby ambient concentrations to health comparison values.............................................................. 72 Table 5.2   Health comparison values, compounds elevated in North Burnaby ............... 77 Table 5.3  Summary table for Trimethylbenzene (all isomers)......................................... 78 Table 5.4  Summary table for 1,3-Butadiene – Regional Comparison ............................. 80 Table 5.5  Summary table for national 1,3-Butadiene – National comparison................. 82 Table 5.6  Summary table for Benzene ............................................................................. 83 Table 5.7  Summary table for Benzene – national comparison ........................................ 85 Table 5.8  Summary table for Bromodichloromethane..................................................... 86 Table 5.9  Summary table for 1,2-Dichloroethane............................................................ 88 Table 5.10  Summary table for 1,4-Dichlorobenzene ....................................................... 90 Table 5.11  Summary table for Methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE)................................ 92 Table 5.12  Approaches to evaluating health impact of VOC mixtures ........................... 96 Table 5.13  Summary table for all C5 to C8 aliphatic compounds ................................... 97 Table 5.14  Summary table for Gasoline Vapour.............................................................. 99 Table 5.15  Summary table for national Gasoline Vapour data set................................. 101 Table 5.16  Input values for quantitative risk estimations .............................................. 104 Table 5.17  Excess cancers attributable to benzene ........................................................ 104 Table 5.18  Excess cancers attributable to 1,3-butadiene ............................................... 104  Figures  Figure 3.1   Location of monitoring stations used anywhere in this report (excluding those closest to the refinery) ............................................................................................... 15 Figure 3.2   Location of monitoring stations in North Burnaby near the refinery ............ 15 Figure 3.3   1-hour PM10 concentrations in April 2000..................................................... 22 Figure 3.4   24-hour PM10 averages in April 2000 ............................................................ 22 Figure 3.5   Comparative plot for 24-hour O3 averages .................................................... 25 Figure 3.6   Average levels of Ozone, CO, NO2, PM10, comparing residential monitoring stations (values of CO are too low to appear on the chart) ....................................... 26 Figure 3.7  Comparative plot for all 1-hour SO2 concentrations....................................... 29 Figure 3.8   Comparative plot for 24-hour SO2 averages.................................................. 32 Figure 3.9 (a & b)  Comparison of the time of day averages at residential and industrial stations....................................................................................................................... 33 Figure 3.10  Number of times the 1-hour SO2 concentrations at station T23 exceeded the UBC suggested 10-minute guideline during each hour of the day ........................... 34 Figure 3.11  Comparative plot for national 1-hour SO2 concentrations............................ 35 Figure 3.12  Estimated upper percentile values for SO2 for a 10-minute averaging period at station T23 on Capitol Hill.................................................................................... 49 Figure 3.13   Comparative plot for all 1-hour TRS concentrations................................... 53  North Burnaby Refinery Emissions Project Final Report, July 6, 2002 UBC School of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene              -  v  - Figure 3.14   Comparative plot for daily maximum 1-hour TRS concentrations ............. 55 Figure 3.15   Time of day trends in the 1-hour TRS data at stations T9, T23 and T24 .... 56 Figure 4.1  Comparative plot for Total Alkanes ............................................................... 63 Figure 4.2  Comparative plot for Total Alkenes ............................................................... 64 Figure 4.3  Comparative plot for Total Alkynes ............................................................... 65 Figure 4.4  Comparative plot for Total Aromatics............................................................ 66 Figure 4.5  Comparative plot for Total Halogens ............................................................. 67 Figure 5.1  Comparative plot for Trimethylbenzene (all isomers).................................... 78 Figure 5.2  Comparative plot for 1,3-Butadiene ............................................................... 80 Figure 5.3  Comparative plot for national 1,3-Butadiene data.................................................. 82 Figure 5.4  Comparative plot for Benzene ........................................................................ 83 Figure 5.5  Comparative plot for national Benzene data .................................................. 85 Figure 5.6  Comparative plot for Bromodichloromethane................................................ 86 Figure 5.7  Comparative plot for 1,2-Dichloroethane....................................................... 88 Figure 5.8  Comparative plot for 1,4-Dichlorobenzene .................................................... 90 Figure 5.9  Comparative plot for regional MTBE............................................................. 92 Figure 5.10  Comparative plot for the C5 to C8 aliphatic fraction..................................... 97 Figure 5.11  Comparative plot for Gasoline Vapour......................................................... 99 Figure 5.12  Comparative plot for national Gasoline Vapour data set............................ 102       North Burnaby Refinery Emissions Project Final Report, July 6, 2002 UBC School of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene              -  vi  -  Abbreviations  ACGIH – American Conference of Industrial Hygienists ATSDR – Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry CCOHS – Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety CO – Carbon Monoxide EC – Environment Canada EPA – Environmental Protection Agency GVRD – Greater Vancouver Regional District HSDB – Hazardous Substances Data Bank IARC – International Agency for Research on Cancer IPCS – International Program on Chemical Safety IRIS – Integrated Risk Information System LOAEL – Lowest Observed Adverse Effect Level LOEL – Lowest Observed Effect Level MRL – Minimum Risk Level MSDS – Material Safety Data Sheet NAPS – National Air Pollution Surveillance Network NIOSH – National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health NOEL – No Observed Effect Level NOx – Nitrogen Oxides OEL – Occupation Exposure Limit OSHA – Occupational Safety and Health Administration PEL – Permissible Exposure Limit PM10 – Particulate Matter ≤ 10µm in diameter REL – Reference Exposure Level RfC – Reference Concentration RTECS – Registry of Toxic Effects of Chemical Substances SO2 – Sulphur Dioxide TLV – Threshold Limit Value TWA – Time-Weighted Average UF – Uncertainty Factor VOC – Volatile Organic Compound WCB – Workers Compensation Board WCBBC – Workers Compensation Board of British Columbia   North Burnaby Refinery Emissions Project Final Report, July 6, 2002 UBC School of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene Page 1  1 Executive Summary  Background  Residents of the community of North Burnaby, British Columbia have expressed concern about the possible health impact of air emissions from the Chevron Burnaby oil refinery located adjacent to the community.  In response to the community concerns, the BC Ministry of Water, Land, and Air Protection (MWLAP) committed to an assessment.  Because of the complexity of the assessment and the need for an impartial approach, researchers from the School of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene at the University of British Columbia (UBC) were approached to conduct the assessment.  Terms of reference were developed by the UBC research team and approved by a project advisory committee consisting of representatives from MWLAP, Environment Canada, Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD), Simon Fraser Health Region, Chevron Canada, the City of Burnaby, and community members.   Input was also sought from residents directly by way of a brochure with a mail back response form distributed to all households.  A website was also established to receive input from community members.   Objectives  The overall objective of the project (approved by the advisory committee) was to perform an assessment of the potential human health impacts of current air emissions (scheduled and unscheduled) from the Chevron Burnaby refinery, tank farm, and associated facilities. It was agreed that the assessment would be based on health and exposure information available in the scientific literature and existing data on ambient air pollutant concentrations near the Chevron Burnaby facility and the surrounding community.  Emissions modelling was not carried out.  Evaluating risks to nearby residents from sources other than breathing air pollutants from the operation of the refinery or tank farm was outside the scope of the study.  Evaluation of possible causes for elevated pollution levels and discussion of risk management options were also outside the scope.  Another objective was to answer, as best as possible, questions that came from the community rather than those posed by regulators or the researchers.   Methods  Standard risk assessment procedures were followed, modified by the need to address community concerns, not regulatory objectives.    North Burnaby Refinery Emissions Project Final Report, July 6, 2002 UBC School of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene Page 2  Ambient concentrations of air pollutants monitored by the GVRD and Environment Canada were reviewed for 1998, 1999, and 2000.  These data consisted of daily monitoring results (stored as 1-hour averages) for particulate matter, nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide, and ozone and less frequent 24-hour average values on a 6-day rotation for each of 142 volatile organic compounds.  Concentrations at two monitoring stations in North Burnaby, T24, located adjacent to the Chevron Burnaby refinery tank farm, and T23, located on Capitol Hill, overlooking the refinery process facility, were compared to average concentrations at other residential neighbourhoods in the GVRD, and to concentrations found at monitoring locations close to other petrochemical facilities in Canada.  Where data were not available for either T23 or T24 stations, concentrations at Kensington Park, station T4, about 20 blocks from the refinery boundary were used instead.  Where the air monitoring data indicated elevated concentrations of pollutants in North Burnaby compared to elsewhere in the GVRD, we carried out detailed reviews of existing scientific literature to identify potential health impacts of exposure to the pollutants at the levels seen in this community.  In direct response to community questions, we also carried out a comprehensive review of previously published epidemiological studies that evaluated the health of residents in other communities adjacent to oil refining facilities.   Particulate Matter, Nitrogen Dioxide, Carbon Monoxide, Ozone  North Burnaby ambient concentrations of fine particulate matter, nitrogen dioxide, and ozone (all monitored at Capitol Hill) and carbon monoxide (at Kensington Park) were not elevated compared to other GVRD residential locations.  This was true for concentrations averaged over 1 hour, for the maximum 1-hour concentration during each day, and for concentrations averaged over longer periods.  Concentrations for all these pollutants were also below GVRD, Environment Canada, and US guidelines.  Based on the similarity of ambient levels in North Burnaby to other residential areas in the GVRD, we would not expect that residents of North Burnaby would experience additional health consequences because of exposure to these compounds, compared to other GVRD residents.   Sulphur Dioxide  North Burnaby ambient concentrations of sulphur dioxide (SO2) (monitoring at Capitol Hill and the tank farm area), averaged over each 24-hour period, were not significantly elevated compared to other areas in the GVRD.  However, the proportion of days during which SO2 1- hour peaks were detected was considerably higher at the Capitol Hill monitoring location than   North Burnaby Refinery Emissions Project Final Report, July 6, 2002 UBC School of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene Page 3  any other monitoring location, including downtown Vancouver and the Port Moody industrial area.  During the 2.5-year review period, there was 1 excursion over the GVRD acceptable 1- hour air quality objective and 21 excursions (on 6 different days) over the GVRD 1-hour desirable air quality objective at Capitol Hill.  No excursions over either value were seen elsewhere.  Compared to monitoring data from four other refinery locations in Canada, the frequency of peak SO2 concentrations in North Burnaby is higher than in two, but lower than the other two.  We carried out a comprehensive review of the scientific literature to evaluate the potential health impact of peak exposures to SO2.  A total of 46 relevant articles were retrieved and summarized.  We concluded that 10 minute excursions over 100 ppb would likely be associated with exacerbations of respiratory symptoms among a subset of asthmatics engaged in moderate activity outdoors.  Applying a US Environmental Protection Agency method to the ambient monitoring data, we estimated that 140 10-minute peak concentrations occur each year (on 54 different days) in excess of this health based comparison value.   The ‘time of day’ profile of SO2 peaks suggests that about 50% of these occur during daytime hours.  We used Statistics Canada population data for two geographic areas: the neighbourhoods bounded by Burrard Inlet, Hastings Street, Boundary Road, and Fell Street; and the North Burnaby areas within a 2 km radius of the refinery; together with Canadian and GVRD asthma prevalence rates to predict the expected impact of these SO2 peaks on area residents.  Based on a rough calculation, we estimated that about 15 to 35 North Burnaby residents might experience exacerbations of asthma on any of about 25 to 30 days each year as a result of SO2 peaks in the Capitol Hill neighbourhood.   Total Reduced Sulphur Compounds  Total reduced sulphur (TRS) compounds are monitored only in locations where there is a potential source.  Average levels were low throughout the GVRD.  Of the 5 GVRD monitoring locations reviewed, the frequency of TRS peaks was highest at the industry intensive Port Moody monitoring location (with 70% of values above the detectable level) and second highest at the North Burnaby station adjacent to the tank farm (55% of values detectable).  At the other locations, only 20% of values were detectable.  TRS compounds were elevated over the GVRD 1-hour acceptable air quality objective on 3% of all monitoring days at the tank farm location and 1.2% of days at Capitol Hill (compared to 4.5% of days at Port Moody and less than 1% on Burnaby Mountain and Kensington Park). On 11.5% of days at the tank farm monitoring location and 3.6% of days on Capitol Hill, the characteristic unpleasant odour of TRS compounds was present, for at least 1-hour, at levels likely to be noticed by at least 50% of the population.  This is compared to 18.4% of days at Port Moody, and less than 1% of days elsewhere.    North Burnaby Refinery Emissions Project Final Report, July 6, 2002 UBC School of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene Page 4  We reviewed the literature on epidemiological studies in communities exposed to ambient TRS compounds.  There is evidence that higher concentrations (average levels about 10 times higher than in North Burnaby) may contribute to increased respiratory, nose, and eye irritation.  Based on very limited evidence, it appears that TRS levels as seen in North Burnaby are unlikely to contribute directly to the development of irritant symptoms, but they are sufficiently high to contribute to odour annoyance.  We are not able to determine whether this odour annoyance contributes to symptom perception or exacerbation.   Volatile Organic Compounds  Monitoring data for 142 volatile organic compounds (VOC) were reviewed for 1999 and 2000 from the Environment Canada network of monitoring stations, including one location near the Chevron Burnaby tank farm.  Average ambient concentrations of the VOCs characteristic of petroleum fuels were significantly elevated (over 5 times higher) in the area near the tank farm compared to other locations.   This included all 44 alkanes tested, 29 of 33 alkenes, 22 of 24 aromatic compounds, and the mixture of individual compounds representative of gasoline vapour. Alkynes and halogenated compounds tended not to be elevated compared to other locations. Gasoline vapour concentrations were also significantly higher in North Burnaby compared to monitoring stations located in other Canadian communities with oil refineries.  The ambient concentrations of gasoline vapour were below levels shown to be linked to respiratory and eye irritation in animals, but the size of the margin of safety for humans is unclear from the information available in the scientific literature.  In contrast, more often than not, the ambient concentration of gasoline vapour was higher than the level at which gasoline can be detected by smell, indicating a significant potential for odour annoyance.  Detailed review was also carried out for all individual compounds.  The average or maximum ambient concentration was at or near health based comparison values for six compounds.  Of these, only two (benzene and 1,3 butadiene) were found at levels that may result in a real health impact in the population.  Benzene is a known human carcinogen and 1,3-butadiene is classified as a probable human carcinogen.  Based on the ambient monitoring data (for outdoor concentrations) and estimated indoor concentrations for these pollutants from the scientific literature, we calculated the predicted number of cancers among area residents that could be attributable to these exposures.  This number was estimated as very low: less than one excess cancer over a period of about 70 years among all residents of the area combined.  We also reviewed ambient concentrations data for the current gasoline additive, methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE), and its proposed substitute, isooctane.  MTBE data were   North Burnaby Refinery Emissions Project Final Report, July 6, 2002 UBC School of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene Page 5  available for between 3 and 13 days of monitoring for the various locations; isooctane data were available for the full 2-year period.  Average MTBE concentrations were significantly higher near the tank farm compared to other locations (2 x higher than near the Trans Mountain tank farm on Burnaby Mountain, and 4-6 x higher than at other locations). However, the average values at the Chevron tank farm location was 6 times lower than the California EPA 1 in 100,000 upper bound cancer risk estimate.  This suggests that the cancer risk to North Burnaby residents, associated with exposure to MTBE, if any, is likely to be extremely small (even smaller than that identified for benzene and 1,3 butadiene).  In keeping with the general increase in all alkanes measured, ambient isooctane concentrations were elevated compared to elsewhere in the GVRD, but the levels were 50-100 times lower than the health based comparison value derived from our literature review. We did not attempt to estimate the change in ambient concentrations of isooctane that may accompany the increased volume to be stored and transferred on the Chevron site.  However, the levels would have to increase considerably before the isooctane concentration would reach a level of concern.  Metals  Two metals associated with petroleum processing elsewhere were considered (manganese and vanadium); however, no neighbourhood monitoring data were available.  Based on our review of other studies, we felt that ambient monitoring data for manganese would be helpful to rule this out as a health concern.  Review of Results of Petrochemical Community Epidemiology Studies  Our review of results from 25 epidemiology studies from other refinery communities provided results completely consistent with the results of this risk assessment.  Lung cancer rates were elevated in some communities, but only in the most highly polluted petrochemical industry areas or among workplace populations.   There was little if any evidence of a link between leukemia and community exposure to oil refinery emissions or between cancers at other sites and oil refinery emissions. The results were not consistent across studies and no convincing evidence of excess cancers of any particular type emerges from the studies.  The studies with the strongest methodologies did not find associations with community residence and either lung cancer or leukemia. These finding are consistent with the very small number of predicted excess cancers estimated from our risk assessment.  There was no evidence of an association between residence in a community near to petrochemical industry and adverse pregnancy outcomes.  A small number of studies did find an increase in odour complaints and, to a lesser extent, irritative symptoms, in association with residence nearby to oil refineries.  These findings are   North Burnaby Refinery Emissions Project Final Report, July 6, 2002 UBC School of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene Page 6  consistent with the conclusions presented earlier in this report with respect to SO2 and TRS exposures in North Burnaby.   Key Conclusions  1) Peak concentrations of sulphur dioxide (lasting 10 minutes or less) are likely contributing to exacerbations of symptoms among North Burnaby residents with asthma. 2) Although our conclusions about volatile organic compounds are limited by relatively scanty data, a) VOC concentrations are considerably higher than elsewhere in the lower mainland and other Canadian refinery locations, and are likely contributing to odour annoyance. b) It is unlikely that excess cancers among North Burnaby residents are attributable to VOCs from refinery or tank farm. c) Gasoline vapour concentrations were below levels linked to respiratory and eye irritation in animals, but the size of the margin of safety is unclear. 3) Peak levels of reduced sulphur compounds are sufficiently high to contribute to odour annoyance in North Burnaby neighbourhoods.  Recommendations  Based on our findings, we make the following recommendations with respect to monitoring and reporting contaminants in order to facilitate future assessments of health impacts.  1) We suggest that, since the GVRD already collects SO2 data on a minute-by-minute basis, this information be reported and stored as 10-minute average values, to facilitate future assessments of health impacts. 2) If MTBE continues to be present at the refinery site, it would be useful to add MTBE to the panel of VOCs monitored regularly, in order to determine more fully the potential for an impact on health. 3) Given the elevated VOC concentrations, continuation of the VOC monitoring will be useful for future assessments. 4) Given the presence of manganese in gasoline and the high gasoline vapour concentrations near the tank farm, we believe it would be useful to perform some ambient monitoring for manganese (24 hour averages) at GVRD monitoring stations, in order to compare North Burnaby concentrations with those elsewhere in the GVRD.   This should be done for a full year to be useful for health assessment purposes.   We have no data to suggest that manganese exposure is a concern in this community; however, it would be useful to rule this out with monitoring data.  We have not made recommendations regarding strategies for managing emissions or for acceptable concentrations in neighbourhood air.  We believe that management and policy decisions such as these should incorporate social factors in addition to scientific ones, and should be made in consultation with stakeholders and the community.  In this regard, our report is available in its entirety on our website: www.soeh.ubc.ca/research.  We also suggest that the city of Burnaby make print copies available in public libraries.   North Burnaby Refinery Emissions Project Final Report, July 6, 2002 UBC School of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene Page 7   2 Introduction  2.1 Context  The Chevron refinery has been operating in Burnaby since the 1930s.  Originally one of three refineries built on the shores of Burrard Inlet, it is now the only refinery left operating in the Lower Mainland.  The refinery has two distinct areas, the oil processing complex and a tank farm located approximately 1 km away. A residential neighbourhood is located immediately adjacent to the tank farm site. A buffer of parkland is present between the refinery and neighbouring residential areas.  The residential area dates from the 1930s.  Over the years, there has been some redevelopment and a general enhancement of the neighbourhood. Although emission control technology used at the refinery and tank farm has improved over the years, recent increases in refinery capacity have led to concerns from neighbours about increases in overall emissions and the effect that may have on neighbourhood air quality.  A number of recent events at the refinery and tank farm, including a spill of methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) and a release of catalyst have served to increase neighbourhood concerns about emissions from the refinery and their impact on neighbourhood air quality. There have also been complaints about odour from people living close to the tank farm.  Persistent concerns by neighbours over air emissions from the refinery and their potential risk to the health of neighbouring residents led to a commitment by a local Member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA) and Minister of Environment that a study would be carried out to assess the potential health impacts of air emissions from the refinery and tank farm.  Funding for the health impact assessment and responsibility for ensuring that the assessment was completed was given to the Ministry of Water, Land, and Air Protection (MWLAP, then Ministry of Environment Lands and Parks). Because of the complexity of the assessment and the need for an impartial approach to the assessment, researchers from the School of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene at the University of British Columbia (UBC) were approached to take on the task of carrying out the assessment.  It was anticipated that the finding of this assessment could be used in subsequent decision- making processes, for example, in determining need for additional monitoring, control strategies, health or exposure guidelines.   2.2 Development of Terms of Reference - Project Advisory Committee  Terms of reference were developed by the UBC research team and approved by a project advisory committee consisting of representatives from MWLAP, Environment Canada,   North Burnaby Refinery Emissions Project Final Report, July 6, 2002 UBC School of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene Page 8  Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD), Simon Fraser Health Region, Chevron Canada, the City of Burnaby, Burnaby School Board, and community members (see Appendix A). The project advisory committee's role was to provide input and advice to the UBC research team, to approve the terms of reference for the project, to provide one vehicle for obtaining stakeholder input into the project as it develops, and to receive the final report.  To receive additional input from the community a flyer (in English and Cantonese) asking for comments and suggestions was distributed around the neighbourhood.  A web site was set up where residents could learn more about the project and provide input and insight to the research team.  It was anticipated that local residents would be in the best position to identify and provide information on the nature of any air quality concerns around the refinery and tank farm. The flyer and website offered a means of direct communication between the researchers and the community.  Prior to the start of the health impact assessment, representatives from the research team attended a public meeting organized by community groups to explain the goals of the assessment and receive feedback from residents at the meeting.  This confirmed the importance of the health impact assessment for the community and the usefulness of the flyer and website as a means of contacting the community.  The responses from the flyer and website are provided in Appendix B.   2.3 Objectives  The overall goal of the project was to perform an assessment of the potential human health impacts of current air emissions (scheduled and unscheduled) from the Chevron Burnaby refinery, tank farm, and associated facilities. The assessment was based on health and exposure information available in the scientific literature and existing data on ambient air pollutant concentrations near the Chevron Burnaby facility and the surrounding community. Risks to nearby residents from anything other than breathing air pollutants from the operation of the refinery or tank farm was outside the scope of the study.  While the health impact assessment was based on information similar to that used in many regulatory compliance risk assessments, this assessment differed from the standard regulatory risk assessment in a number of important respects.  First, the intent was to answer, as best as possible, questions that came from the community rather than those posed by regulators or researchers. Second, the researchers were not confined to risk assessment methods and procedures prescribed by the regulatory authority but were free to select methods and procedures based on technical merit, applicability to the available data and relevance to the questions to be answered.  Third, the intended audience for   North Burnaby Refinery Emissions Project Final Report, July 6, 2002 UBC School of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene Page 9  the report was community members rather than technical staff from a government or industrial organization.  As such, the results of the assessment and the report itself were intended to be understandable by the public.  Further, it was understood that if the initial assessment indicated the need to collect additional data in order to characterize some of the risks to human health, recommendations would be prepared for review by the project advisory committee.   2.4 Background:  What is Risk Assessment?  Making decisions about risks that may affect entire communities is complex. The process becomes especially difficult when we do not have complete information about the possible health impacts of substances in our community environment.  Unfortunately, this is a relatively common problem because the health of individuals and communities are influenced by many factors working together at the same time, including environmental, genetic, and lifestyle factors.  When we are trying to evaluate the risk to a community from a substance in the environment, we need to consider two issues.  First, we need to know whether people in the community will actually be exposed to the substance, and if so, to how much will they be exposed.  Second, we need to know what consequences are likely to occur at that amount of exposure.  "Risk Assessment" is the term given by scientists and policy makers to that part of the risk evaluation / management process concerned with making the best possible estimates of the potential health impact of specific substances (e.g. chemicals in the air, water, food etc) in a given community.   Risk assessment is a first step in the risk evaluation and management process - it is the step in which science-based information and analysis tools are used to describe the types of harm that may occur and how widespread the harm may be in the community - i.e. the nature and extent of a health impact in the community.  A structured approach to scientific risk assessment for environmental health was formulated in 1983 by the US National Research Council and modified in 1996.1;2  This approach has been adapted to the needs of specific countries and settings including the US Environmental Protection Agency, and has formed the basis for much of the environmental risk evaluation work carried out since that time.   Both Health Canada and the Canadian Standards Association have risk management guidelines that incorporate a risk assessment step modelled on National Research Council approach.  The steps in this process are shown in the following box.    North Burnaby Refinery Emissions Project Final Report, July 6, 2002 UBC School of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene Page 10    Risk Assessment - Typical Steps in the Process  1. Hazard identification:  an overview of the possible health consequences  • exploring the scope of the problem • deciding where to focus (e.g. which contaminants?)  2. Exposure assessment:  how much of each contaminant is present in the community and who is most likely to be exposed?  • what do we know about exposure levels, duration, and patterns over time? • are there some people who are likely to be exposed to more or less of the substance than others in the community?  3. Dose-Response assessment:  what do we know about the relationship between the contaminant and the potential health consequences (dose-response relationship)?  • what diseases or disorders have been linked to the contaminant (based on previous research)? • how much disease or symptoms would be predicted for a given level of exposure?  4.   Risk Characterization:  putting it all together to summarize the risks to the community  • combines the information above • what is the likelihood of each disease or symptom occurring in this community, given the levels of exposures expected in this community? • or:  if the exposure levels in this community are below the 'harmful' level, how large is the margin of safety? • what is the uncertainty associated with the risk estimates?   Steps 1 and 3 in this process are generally based on existing scientific information (e.g. epidemiology, toxicology studies); step 2 is usually based on measurements taken in the community, in similar communities, or on estimates from exposure modelling.  There is more to risk management than risk assessment  Risk assessment is only one part of the whole process of evaluating and managing environmental risks in communities.  A comprehensive framework for environmental risk management is used by Health Canada (Health Canada Decision-Making Framework for   North Burnaby Refinery Emissions Project Final Report, July 6, 2002 UBC School of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene Page 11  Identifying, Assessing, and Managing Health Risks, August 2000).3  A diagram of the process is shown here.   The risk assessment component of this framework (the circles labelled "identify the issue and its context" and "assess risk and benefits") Health Canada describes the framework as "a series of interconnected steps, which may be grouped into three phases: issue identification (identify the issue and put it in context); risk assessment (assess risk and benefits): and risk management (identify and analyze options; select a strategy; implement the strategy; and monitor and evaluate the results)."3 Note the central position allocated to 'involve interested and affected parties'.  The Canadian Standards Association has also recently formulated a guidance document that also incorporates the same principles for risk assessment and management:  CAN/CSA-Q850- 97 Risk Management:  Guideline for Decision-Makers.   The CSA Guideline also emphasizes the importance of communication between stakeholders and risk assessors / managers at every stage of the process.  Other guidance documents for Environmental Risk Assessment (primarily for contaminated sites) in Canada and elsewhere have been developed, including frameworks elaborated by the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment, Environment Canada (CEPA), Ontario Ministry of the Environment, and the US Environmental Protection Agency for Superfund Sites.  These were compared recently by Dyck and colleagues of the Network for Environmental Risk Assessment and Management (U. Waterloo).4 All agree that, despite   North Burnaby Refinery Emissions Project Final Report, July 6, 2002 UBC School of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene Page 12  standardized frameworks, Environmental Risk Assessments need to be individually adapted to the specific situation being evaluated.  Where does this report fit within these various guidelines?  This report focuses on Issue Identification and Risk Assessment (i.e. steps 1 and 2 of the Health Canada framework or the first three steps of the CSA-Q850 framework).  This is consistent with the scope of work determined in advance by the Project Advisory committee (see Appendix A).  In developing the terms of reference for this work and in carrying out the assessments described in this report, we have been mindful of the specific needs of the North Burnaby community for a timely response with the resources available.  Where, in our opinion, further review of health literature or additional exposure estimation (through modeling, sampling, or estimation via other means) would be informative we have so noted.  What is not included in this report?  The full process of Environmental Risk Management includes assessing the level of risk (risk assessment) and deciding how the risks could best be reduced (risk treatment, in the terminology of the International Standards Organization).  While assessment and treatment cannot be completely divorced, it is useful to draw a distinction between these two activities. A good risk assessment should inform risk managers, it does not tell risk managers what they have to decide (or even that they have to make a decision).  Risk management requires consideration of information contained in the risk assessment as well as consideration of social, political, economic, and technical information about benefits and consequences of management options and consideration of community views.   2.5 Issue Identification  In keeping with the terms of reference established for this project, the following decisions were made with respect to the specific compounds or mixtures that would be examined in this review. GVRD and Environment Canada air quality information was available from monitoring stations in North Burnaby for the following compounds or groups of compounds:  • particulate matter (PM10) • sulphur dioxide • ozone • nitrogen dioxide • carbon monoxide • total reduced sulphur compounds • volatile organic compounds (142  individual compounds)   North Burnaby Refinery Emissions Project Final Report, July 6, 2002 UBC School of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene Page 13   It was agreed that if there were evidence that exposures to any of these substances are elevated in locations in North Burnaby, compared to elsewhere in the Greater Vancouver Regional District, they would be retained for review in this study.  Information on concentrations of other substances (not elevated) would be included only for reference purposes.  This decision was consistent with the goal of assessing only the health impact of air pollution that could reasonably be thought to be added to the environment near the refinery because of refinery operations.  In response to community concerns expressed at public meeting, we also carried out a review of relevant epidemiological studies conducted in other communities nearby to oil refineries or petrochemical complexes and a brief review of exposure to selected metals in refinery communities.  2.6 Estimation of the Population at Risk  In order to make quantitative estimates of the number of people expected to experience some of the health outcomes being investigated, we obtained population data for Burnaby from the 1996 Census, the most available from Statistics Canada.  For this project, the population at risk was defined as the population of Burnaby that resided in proximity to the Chevron Refinery.  Two definitions of ‘proximity’ were used. The first based on enumeration areas in the region bounded by the following major streets: Boundary Road to the west, Fell Street to the east, Hastings Street to the south, and Burrard Inlet to the north.  The population of this area was just over 13,000 (see below). This was the area initially identified by the advisory committee as the ‘area of concern’ in the community.  We also identified the population living in enumeration areas within a 2 km radius of the refinery production area and south of Burrard Inlet.   This included about the same residential neighbourhoods to the west and east, but a much larger area south of Hastings Street.  Table 2.1 below summarizes the population characteristics of the population at risk in each of these two proximity regions by age and gender groups. Table 2.1  Population of the study area   within 2 km radius of refinery within the area bounded by Hastings, Boundary, and Fell Age group Total Male Female Total Male Female 0-4 1430 770 660 635 350 285 5-19 5315 2770 2545 2040 1085 955 20-44 12555 6310 6245 5630 2840 2790 45-64 6870 3465 3405 2970 1510 1460 65+ 3735 1695 2040 1815 765 1050 TOTAL 29905 15010 14895 13090 6550 6540   North Burnaby Refinery Emissions Project Final Report, July 6, 2002 UBC School of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene Page 14  3 Pollutants Monitored Continuously (PM10, SO2, O3, NO2, CO, TRS)  3.1 Exposure Evaluation Methods  A detailed description of the methods used to analyse the ambient monitoring data is contained in Appendix C.  A summary is presented here.  3.1.1 Data Requested from GVRD and Environment Canada  The GVRD monitors ambient concentrations of several smog-causing pollutants on a continuous basis at fixed locations throughout the lower mainland.  These pollutants include sulphur dioxide (SO2), Ozone (O3), Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2), Carbon Monoxide (CO), particles with diameters 10 microns or less (PM10), and reduced sulphur compounds (TRS). Levels are recorded on a continuous basis, but stored as 1-hour average values.  All available continuously monitored data were requested from the GVRD for all stations in North Burnaby, including those close to the neighbourhood of interest and two stations on Burnaby Mountain, as well as a selection of other stations representing a range of expected pollution levels.  These included two residential areas (North Vancouver, Kitsilano) and two industrial and traffic intensive areas (downtown Vancouver, Port Moody).  Table 3.1 below summarizes the information received for each of these stations. Figure 3.1 and Figure 3.2 show the location of the monitoring stations in the GVRD and North Burnaby areas.   Table 3.1  Data received from the GVRD for stations considered relevant to the study STN ADDRESS SO2 TRS NO2 CO O3 PM10 Burnaby locations T5 Confederation Park, Pandora St. and Alpha Ave, North Burnaby to 05/99 - - - - - T24 Chevron Tank Farm Area – Eton and Madison, North Burnaby  from 09/99 from 09/99 - - - - T23 Capitol Hill, Grosvenor Cres, North Burnaby  a a - - - - T52 Mobile Air Monitoring Unit (MAMU), near T23 on Capitol Hill - - partial - partial partial T4 Kensington Park - 6400 E. Hastings St. North Burnaby a a a a a a T14 Burnaby Mountain, Ring Road, SFU, Burnaby - - - - a - T22 Burmount - 7815 Shellmont St.  Burnaby - a - - - - Other residential locations T2 Kitsilano - 2550 W 10th Ave. Vancouver  a - a a a a T26 Mahon Park – 16th St and Jones Av. North Vancouver  a - a a a - Industrial / traffic intensive locations T1 Robson Square – Robson and Hornby, Vancouver a - a a a - T9 Rocky Point Park, Moody St and Esplanade, Port Moody  a a a a a a A check mark indicates the receipt of a complete data set, including values from January 01/98 through June 30/00.  A dash indicates that the pollutant is not monitored at that station.    North Burnaby Refinery Emissions Project Final Report, July 6, 2002 UBC School of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene Page 15    Figure 3.1   Location of monitoring stations used anywhere in this report (excluding those closest to the refinery)   Figure 3.2   Location of monitoring stations in North Burnaby near the refinery     North Burnaby Refinery Emissions Project Final Report, July 6, 2002 UBC School of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene Page 16  Monitoring at the Confederation Park station (T5) was discontinued in May of 1999 to make possible the introduction of a new monitoring station closer to the tank farm area (T24) in September of the same year.  Also in response to concerns of North Burnaby residents, the GVRD’s Mobile Air Monitoring Unit (MAMU) was periodically stationed on Capitol Hill (near T23) from April 1998 through March 2000.  The objective was to have MAMU operating for three weeks of every quarter.  Table 3.2 gives more information about MAMU’s schedule as part of the GVRD’s special monitoring project on Capitol Hill.  Table 3.2   MAMU’s operating schedule on Capitol Hill Operation Cycle # # Days in Operation Start Date Stop Date 1 25 April 6, 1998 April 30, 1998 2 21 July 9, 1998 July 29, 1998 3 21 October 1, 1998 October 21, 1998 4 22 January 25, 1999 February 15, 1999 5 19 June 11, 1999 June 29, 1999 6 9 August 18, 1999 August 26, 1999 7 11 November 15, 1999 November 25, 1999 8 10 December 14, 1999 December 23, 1999 9 21 March 7, 2000 March 27, 2000 Note these dates differ slightly from those shown in the GVRD’s Capitol Hill Special Monitoring Project report, as we have included only those days with valid data for these particular contaminants.  3.1.2 Data Analysis  Determination of relevant averaging periods  For each pollutant, we calculated average values over the averaging periods for which regulatory standards or health-based comparison values were available:  a)  all 1-hour averages (original data) b)  daily maximum 1-hour averages (all pollutants except PM10) c)  daily maximum 8-hour averages (for CO and O3) d)  24-hour averages  Frequency distributions were plotted for all data sets and transformations necessary to ensure normality were determined and applied.  For SO2, in order to compare the 1-hour GVRD data to 10-minute health based guidelines, we used the procedure outlined in the US EPA’s Mathematical Model for Relating Air Quality Measurements to Air Quality Standards.5 Details of this method are described in Appendix C.     North Burnaby Refinery Emissions Project Final Report, July 6, 2002 UBC School of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene Page 17  Comparisons by monitoring station  For each pollutant data set, the minimum, maximum, arithmetic mean (and standard deviation), and geometric mean (and geometric standard deviation) were computed for each monitoring station.    Average results were compared across monitoring stations using analysis of variance.  For highly skewed data sets, we compared the proportion of values above the relevant guidelines or health based comparison values, using chi-squared tests for proportions.  Where comparisons were made with data from the mobile monitoring station T52 (MAMU), only those days for which MAMU was operational were considered in the analysis.   For comparisons of TRS values measured at station T24 (operational only since Sept 99), a data subset was created and analysed for only those days on which T24 was operational.  Results for each pollutant from each station were also compared graphically by plotting the data over time and by plotting the upper percentile values (100 to 90) for each data set.  The objective of all these analyses was to identify those pollutants in the North Burnaby area that were present at higher concentrations than elsewhere in the GVRD.  Comparisons by time of day  In response to the UBC research team’s request for community input, several North Burnaby residents stated that odours around the refinery are most noticeable in the early hours of the morning.  Therefore, we carried out graphical analysis of time of day trends for pollutants considered most likely to contribute to odour complaints (SO2 and TRS) by plotting average values against time of day.  In addition, for SO2, the number of 1-hour concentrations that exceeded a reference value was plotted against the time of day at which they occurred. As this analysis was for descriptive purposes, no statistical testing was carried out.   3.1.3 National Comparisons  To compare the levels of pollutants in the North Burnaby areas against what could be considered “typical” for a site influenced by petrochemical industry in Canada, the 1-hour average data from North Burnaby were compared to similar data from Environment Canada's National Air Pollution Surveillance (NAPS) network stations located near refineries in Saint John, Montreal, Sarnia and Edmonton.     North Burnaby Refinery Emissions Project Final Report, July 6, 2002 UBC School of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene Page 18   3.2 Health Assessment Methods  Two approaches were used for the review of scientific information about the potential health effects of air pollutants that may be linked to the North Burnaby oil refinery.  For several of the monitored compounds, recommended air quality standards for ambient concentrations exist, and in most cases, these are based on comprehensive reviews of toxicology and epidemiology studies by groups of medical and scientific experts.  In these cases, we did not consider it appropriate or necessary to carry out a comprehensive review of the same literature that gave rise to the recommended standards.  Therefore, our review was limited to searching for standards (and their supporting documentation) from a range of jurisdictions and considering results from recently published research that may not have been considered by previous reviewers.  For compounds or mixtures lacking a recommended air quality standard a more comprehensive review of toxicology and epidemiology sources was carried out.  This search was conducted mainly using secondary sources (e.g. reviews, abstracting services, and toxicology data bases).   Details of the methods are provided in each section below.    North Burnaby Refinery Emissions Project Final Report, July 6, 2002 UBC School of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene Page 19   3.3 Pollutants not Elevated in North Burnaby:  PM10, NO2, O3, CO  Detailed tables and figures describing and displaying all the ambient monitoring data for these pollutants are included in Appendix D.  Summary information is included here.  3.3.1 Carbon Monoxide  Carbon monoxide monitoring is not carried out at all stations.  The station in North Burnaby closest to the refinery is at Kensington Park.  Ambient concentrations here were the same as those seen in North Vancouver (at Mahon Park – in a similar residential neighbourhood), and lower than seen at other monitoring stations.  This was the case for 1 hour averaged data, the maximum 1-hour data (not shown), and the maximum 8-hour average on each day.    Values were well below the GVRD and EC desirable air quality objectives of 13 ppm (1-hour) and 5 ppm (8-hour).   Table 3.3  All 1-hour CO data Station # Data Points # Missing Points # Below LOD* Max. Value (ppm) Arith. Mean (ppm) Standard Deviation Geo. Mean (ppm) Geo Standard Deviation T1 Downtown 19860 668 1 5.9 0.87 0.44 0.78 1.61 T2 Kitsilano 21378 495 2 5.4 0.67 0.50 0.55 1.81 T4 Kensington Park 21375 489 1 3.9 0.55 0.27 0.50 1.58 T9 Port Moody 21220 557 0 4.4 0.63 0.38 0.55 1.64 T26 North Vancouver 21180 688 1 4.7 0.54 0.31 0.48 1.55 * Limit of Detection for CO = 0.1 ppm   Table 3.4   Daily maximum 8-hour CO data Station # Data Points # Missing Points # Below LOD Max. Value (ppm) Arith. Mean (ppm) Standard Deviation Geo. Mean (ppm) Geo Standard Deviation T1 Downtown 850 9 0.40 3.85 1.17 0.42 1.06 1.39 T2 Kitsilano 911 1 0.23 3.80 0.99 0.51 0.80 1.59 T4 Kensington Park 912 0 0.16 2.20 0.71 0.24 0.66 1.38 T9 Port Moody 908 2 0.26 3.73 0.86 0.39 0.75 1.50 T26 North Vancouver 904 8 0.30 2.93 0.71 0.31 0.63 1.44    North Burnaby Refinery Emissions Project Final Report, July 6, 2002 UBC School of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene Page 20   3.3.2 Nitrogen Dioxide  Nitrogen dioxide was monitored using the GVRD’s mobile monitoring station (MAMU), located on Capitol Hill.  NO2 concentrations at this station were lower than those seen at all the other monitoring locations reviewed for 1-hour and 24-hour averaging periods.  Results were the same when comparisons were made only for those days when MAMU was operating, and for comparisons using 1-hour maximum values (not shown).  Concentrations at all stations were also well below the 1-hour GVRD acceptable air quality objective is 0.210 ppm.    Table 3.5   All 1-hour NO2 data Station # Data Points # Missing Points # Below LOD* Max. Value (ppm) Arith. Mean (ppm) Standard Deviation Geo. Mean (ppm) Geo Standard Deviation T1 Downtown 21385 489 0 0.078 0.028 0.009 0.027 1.40 T2 Kitsilano 21235 638 0 0.068 0.023 0.011 0.020 1.81 T4 Kensington Park 21228 636 0 0.078 0.018 0.009 0.016 1.68 T9 Port Moody 21157 689 0 0.088 0.020 0.009 0.017 1.74 T26 North Vancouver 21174 694 2 0.066 0.017 0.009 0.014 1.84 T52 MAMU on Capitol Hill 3985 97 1 0.059 0.013 0.009 0.010 2.10 *Limit of Detection for NO2 = 0.001 ppm   Table 3.6   24-hour NO2 data Station # Data Points # Missing Points Min. Value (ppm) Max. Value (ppm) Arith. Mean (ppm) Standard Deviation Geo. Mean (ppm) Geo Standard Deviation T1 Downtown 903 9 0.0123 0.050 0.028 0.006 0.028 1.24 T2 Kitsilano 895 17 0.0031 0.043 0.023 0.007 0.021 1.42 T4 Kensington Park 895 17 0.0055 0.039 0.018 0.005 0.017 1.34 T9 Port Moody 890 22 0.0057 0.048 0.020 0.006 0.019 1.38 T26 North Vancouver 893 19 0.0063 0.039 0.017 0.006 0.016 1.39 T52 MAMU on Capitol Hill 158 22 0.0024 0.028 0.012 0.005 0.011 1.56          North Burnaby Refinery Emissions Project Final Report, July 6, 2002 UBC School of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene Page 21   3.3.3 Particulate Matter (PM10)  Average concentrations of fine particulate matter (PM10) at the MAMU monitoring location were similar to those seen in Kitsilano, the only other similar residential neighbourhood reviewed.  This was the case for 1-hour average concentrations, 1-hour maximum concentrations (not shown), and 24- hour average concentrations.  Results were similar when comparisons were limited to only the days when MAMU was operating.  Table 3.7   All 1-hour PM10 data Station # Data Points # Missing Points # Below LOD* Max. Value (µg/m3) Arith. Mean (µg/m3) Standard Deviation Geo. Mean (µg/m3) Geo Standard Deviation T2 Kitsilano 21746 142 98 180 13.5 9.2 11.2 1.9 T4 Kensington Park 21698 181 92 143 11.2 7.8 9.1 1.9 T9 Port Moody 21083 777 160 110 13.5 9.1 10.9 2.0 T52 MAMU on Capitol Hill 3455 118 24 87 10.6 8.9 8.0 2.2 * Limit of Detection for PM10 = 1 µg/m3  Table 3.8   24-hour PM10 data Station # Data Points # Missing Points # Below LOD Max. Value (µg/m3) Arith. Mean (µg/m3) Standard Deviation Geo. Mean (µg/m3) Geo Standard Deviation T2 Kitsilano 911 1 1.6 49.8 13.5 5.7 12.5 1.5 T4 Kensington Park 904 8 2.0 57.4 11.2 6.0 10.0 1.6 T9 Port Moody 878 34 2.8 58.6 13.5 6.8 12.1 1.6 T52 MAMU on Capitol Hill 137 22 3.5 51.4 10.3 6.8 8.8 1.7    3.3.3.1 PM10 Concentrations After Catalyst Release of April 2000  On April 6th and 7th 2000 malfunctions in the Fluid Catalytic Cracker Regenerator at the refinery resulted in the release of approximately 1600 kg of particulate catalyst into the surrounding atmosphere.   We were unable to determine if this resulted in an increase in particles in the air nearby as the MAMU monitoring station was not operating on those days. However, we did examine whether an increase in airborne particles was seen at the next closest monitoring station, namely T4 in Kensington Park.    North Burnaby Refinery Emissions Project Final Report, July 6, 2002 UBC School of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene Page 22  The plots below show the 1-hour and 24-hour concentrations of PM10 at this station, compared to values seen in Kitsilano and Port Moody throughout April 2000.    Figure 3.3   1-hour PM10 concentrations in April 2000    Figure 3.4   24-hour PM10 averages in April 2000   There is no evidence of elevated PM10 levels at station T4 due to the release.  This is most likely because the relatively large size of the particles released would have resulted in their rapid settling.  (According to information provided by the GVRD, approximately 94% of particles were greater than 10 microns in diameter, and thus, not in the range likely to be inhaled).     North Burnaby Refinery Emissions Project Final Report, July 6, 2002 UBC School of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene Page 23  3.3.4 Ozone  Average concentrations for ozone (all averaging times) were slightly higher in North Burnaby, compared to other residential areas where GVRD monitors are located.  Results were similar when comparisons were made for only the days when MAMU was operating and when 1-hour peak values were compared (not shown).   Table 3.9   All 1-hour O3 data Station # Data Points # Missing Points # Below LOD* Max. Value (ppm) Arith. Mean (ppm) Standard Deviation Geo. Mean (ppm) Geo Standard Deviation T1 Downtown 21166 707 2791 0.060 0.008 0.008 0.004 3.44 T2 Kitsilano 21172 701 3269 0.074 0.013 0.012 0.006 4.24 T4 Kensington Park 21235 630 953 0.071 0.015 0.011 0.010 3.05 T9 Port Moody 20757 1089 2491 0.085 0.013 0.013 0.006 4.16 T14 Burnaby Mountain 21352 524 77 0.074 0.024 0.010 0.021 1.87 T26 North Vancouver 20955 913 853 0.085 0.016 0.012 0.010 3.24 T52 MAMU on Capitol Hill 3984 98 60 0.087 0.020 0.011 0.016 2.25 * Limit of Detection for O3 = 0.001 ppm   Table 3.10   Daily maximum 8-hour O3 data Station # Data Points # Missing Points # Below LOD Max. Value (ppm) Arith. Mean (ppm) Standard Deviation Geo. Mean (ppm) Geo Standard Deviation T1 Downtown 899 13 11 0.044 0.013 0.008 0.010 2.33 T2 Kitsilano 903 9 5 0.065 0.022 0.011 0.017 2.25 T4 Kensington Park 907 5 9 0.059 0.023 0.010 0.020 1.91 T9 Port Moody 889 23 4 0.071 0.022 0.011 0.018 2.20 T14 Burnaby Mountain 907 5 0 0.060 0.029 0.009 0.028 1.42 T26 North Vancouver 894 18 1 0.070 0.023 0.010 0.020 1.91 T52 MAMU on Capitol Hill 179 1 0 0.073 0.026 0.010 0.023 1.70        North Burnaby Refinery Emissions Project Final Report, July 6, 2002 UBC School of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene Page 24  Table 3.11   24-hour O3 data Station # Data Points # Missing Points # Below LOD* Max. Value (ppm) Arith. Mean (ppm) Standard Deviation Geo. Mean (ppm) Geo Standard Deviation T1 Downtown 897 15 30 0.028 0.008 0.005 0.006 2.23 T2 Kitsilano 898 14 16 0.040 0.013 0.007 0.010 2.21 T4 Kensington Park 898 14 10 0.038 0.015 0.007 0.013 1.95 T9 Port Moody 875 37 12 0.038 0.013 0.007 0.010 2.17 T14 Burnaby Mountain 901 11 0 0.046 0.024 0.008 0.023 1.47 T26 North Vancouver 885 27 3 0.039 0.016 0.008 0.013 1.98 T52 MAMU on Capitol Hill 158 22 0 0.044 0.020 0.008 0.018 1.62   As indicated above, the 24-hour average ozone levels are highest on Burnaby Mountain and next highest on Capital Hill.  As concentrations of naturally occurring atmospheric ozone increase with altitude, Table 3.12 below shows the altitude of the monitoring station compared to the average and maximum concentrations.  When we compared the values at the different monitoring stations, taking altitude differences into account, there were no significant differences in levels among the locations.   Table 3.12   Summary of 24-hour O3 data Station # Data Points Altitude (m) Max. Value (ppm) Arith. Mean* (ppm) T1 Downtown 897 56 0.028 0.008 T2 Kitsilano 898 63 0.040 0.013 T4 Kensington Park 898 133 0.038 0.015 T9 Port Moody 875 <15 0.038 0.013 T14 Burnaby Mountain 901 360 0.046 0.024 T26 North Vancouver 885 80 0.039 0.016 T52 MAMU on Capitol Hill 158 200 0.044 0.020 * mean values were not different when altitude differences were taken into account    Figure 3.5 on the following page shows that the same seasonal variation in ozone levels is evident at all monitoring locations and there is no indication of any point source contribution to the concentrations in North Burnaby.    North Burnaby Refinery Emissions Project Final Report, July 6, 2002 UBC School of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene Page 25   Figure 3.5   Comparative plot for 24-hour O3 averages   3.3.5 PM10,O3,NO2,CO:  Summary  As described above, compared to other residential areas, average peak concentrations for PM10, NO2, and CO were all below values seen elsewhere in the GVRD (see Appendix D for details), and ozone levels were not significantly different from other areas.  This was true for all averaging periods.   This suggests that refinery emissions are not adding significantly to ambient levels of these pollutants.  This is not unexpected, as the main source for these compounds in all communities is motor vehicle exhaust.  Comprehensive scientific reviews of these four air pollutants have been performed in recent years and environmental air quality standards (recommended or desirable ambient concentrations) have been proposed by many jurisdictions and agencies.   It is not our intent to repeat these reviews.  Canadian (federal) and local (GVRD) air quality objectives are listed in Table 3.13 on the following page for each of these pollutants, according to various averaging periods.  A summary chart showing the average ambient concentrations in North Burnaby for each pollutant, compared to other residential monitoring stations in the GVRD, and compared to the GVRD guidelines is also shown in Figure 3.6.    Federal Acceptable 24-hour Objective  = 0.025 ppm Federal Desirable 24-hour Objective  = 0.015 ppm   North Burnaby Refinery Emissions Project Final Report, July 6, 2002 UBC School of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene Page 26  Table 3.13   Environment Canada and GVRD air quality objectives Pollutant  federal (Canada) (desirable /acceptable) GVRD US EPA Carbon Monoxide (CO) 1 hour 8 hour 13 / 30 ppm   5 / 13 ppm same as federal same as federal 35 ppm 9 ppm Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) 1 hour annual --- /210 ppb --- same as federal --- --- 53 ppb Ozone (O3) 1 hour 8 hour 24 hour* 51 / 82 ppb    --  / 65 ppb 15 / 25 ppb all same as federal 120 ppb 80 ppb* --- Particulate Matter (PM10) 24 hour annual --- --- 50 ug/m3 --- 150 ug/m3 50 ug/m3 * * proposed   Figure 3.6   Average levels of Ozone, CO, NO2, PM10, comparing residential monitoring stations (values of CO are too low to appear on the chart)   Based on the foregoing, we would not expect that residents of North Burnaby would experience additional health consequences as a result of exposure to these compounds compared to residents of other areas in the GVRD. 0 50 100 150 200 1 hour 8 hour 24 hour 1 hour 8 hour 1 hour 24 hour 1 hour 24 hour O 3 (p pb ) C O  (p pm ) N O 2 (p pb ) PM 10  (u g/ m 3) guideline (acceptable) N.Vancouver Kitsilano N.Burnaby   North Burnaby Refinery Emissions Project Final Report, July 6, 2002 UBC School of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene Page 27  3.4  Sulphur Dioxide  3.4.1 SO2 Exposure Guidelines or Objectives  For the protection of human and environmental health, Environment Canada has set desirable and acceptable objectives for 1-hour and 24-hour SO2 concentrations.  Similarly, the World Health Organization (WHO) in Geneva has reviewed international literature and set guidelines for 10-minute, 24-hour, and 1 year SO2 concentrations based on exacerbation of respiratory symptoms in sensitive human populations.  The US Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry has also published a ‘Minimum Risk Level’ that incorporates a 10-fold ‘uncertainty’ or ‘safety’ factor.  These values are shown below and included on the figures in this section.  Table 3.14   SO2 - Published air quality guidelines or health comparison values by averaging period  Desirable in Canada1 (ppm) Acceptable in Canada1 (ppm) WHO Guideline2 (ppm) ATSDR3 Minimum Risk Level (ppm) 10-minutes - - 0.190 1-hour 0.172 0.334 - 0.01 24-hours 0.570 0.115 0.480 annual 0.110 0.230 0.190 1 National Ambient Air Quality Objectives6 2 Guidelines for Air Quality, WHO, Geneva, 20007 3. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry8  3.4.2 SO2 Exposure Evaluation  3.4.2.1 All 1-hour Concentrations  Average concentrations of ambient SO2  (average of all 1-hour values) were not consistently higher at the North Burnaby stations compared to downtown or other residential areas. These results are shown below.    In fact, the proportion of extremely low 1-hour values (i.e. values below the limit of detection for the method) was highest at the Capital Hill station (see column labelled '% below LOD' in Table 3.15 below).   North Burnaby Refinery Emissions Project Final Report, July 6, 2002 UBC School of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene Page 28   Table 3.15   Summary of all 1-hour SO2 data Station # Data Points # Missing Points % Below LOD* Max. Value (ppm) Arith. Mean (ppm) Standard Deviation Geo. Mean (ppm) Geo. Standard Deviation T1 Downtown 21444 431 3.3 0.090 0.00522 0.0050 0.00356 2.44 T2 Kitsilano 21140 729 17.2 0.081 0.00291 0.0031 0.00202 2.30 T4 Kensington Park 21241 624 26.2 0.078 0.00221 0.0028 0.00152 2.18 T5 Confederation Park 11742 2106 25.4 0.066 0.00240 0.0028 0.00165 2.22 T9 Port Moody 21086 761 27.8 0.061 0.00242 0.0033 0.00154 2.30 T23 Capitol Hill 21281 569 37.2 0.390 0.00299 0.0100 0.00145 2.50 T24 Tank Farm 5437 379 25.0 0.050 0.00264 0.0031 0.00174 2.34 T26 North Vancouver 21109 759 26.0 0.055 0.00214 0.0023 0.00153 2.12 * LOD for SO2 = 0.001 ppm   However, when the values were examined on an hour-to-hour basis, and plotted against time as shown in Figure 3.7 below, numerous SO2 peaks at the Capital Hill station were evident. Similar peaks were not seen elsewhere.  These peaks do not show up in the average values because between the peaks, SO2 levels are usually very low (often non-detectable) on Capital Hill; thus, the overall average is low.  Figure 3.7 also shows the Canadian and international air quality objectives or guidelines mentioned above, as well as health-based guidelines that emerged from our review of the scientific literature.  A detailed discussion of these various health guidelines and information supporting the derivation of the UBC health-based “No observed adverse effect” level (NOAEL) is included in section 3.4.3 below.   North Burnaby Refinery Emissions Project Final Report, July 6, 2002 UBC School of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene Page 29   Figure 3.7  Comparative plot for all 1-hour SO2 concentrations   Table 3.16 shows this same information in a slightly different way.  Here results are expressed as the number of times (i.e. the number of 1 hour periods) in which SO2 concentrations at the various stations exceeded various air quality objectives and guidelines over the 2½-year period.  Table 3.16   Number of 1-hour SO2 concentrations meeting or exceeding federal objectives and health-based guidelines    # of hours greater than or equal to (≥) standard Station  Data Points % Below LOD* Federal Acceptable 1-hour Obj.  (0.34 ppm) WHO 10-minute Guideline (0.19 ppm) Federal Desirable 1-hour Obj. (0.17 ppm) 10-minute NOAEL (UBC) (0.1 ppm) ATSDR acute MRL (0.01 ppm) T1 Downtown 21444 3.3 0 0 0 0 3089 T2 Kitsilano 21140 17.2 0 0 0 0 691 T4 Kensington Park 21241 26.2 0 0 0 0 490 T5 Confederation Park 11742 25.4 0 0 0 0 299 T9 Port Moody 21086 27.8 0 0 0 0 993 T23 Capitol Hill 21281 37.2 1 11 21 44 1044 T24 Tank Farm 5437 25.0 0 0 0 0 204 T26 North Vancouver 21109 26.0 0 0 0 0 395 * Limit of Detection for SO2 = 0.001 ppm   Federal Acceptable 1-hour Objective = 0.34 ppm WHO 10-minute Guideline = 0.19 ppm Federal Desirable 1-hour Objective =0.17 ppm UBC health-based 10-minute NOAEL = 0.10 ppm ATSDR acute exposure MRL = 0.01 ppm   North Burnaby Refinery Emissions Project Final Report, July 6, 2002 UBC School of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene Page 30  3.4.2.2 Daily Maximum 1-hour Concentrations  Similar results were found when we restricted the analysis to the maximum 1-hour concentration on each day.  Summary tables and figures for these results are included in Appendix D.  The daily maximum 1-hour results were used to construct Table 3.17, below, which shows the number of days on which the various air quality objectives and guidelines were met or exceeded at each station.   Table 3.17   Daily maximum 1-hour SO2 concentrations meeting or exceeding federal objectives and health-based guidelines  # of days with maximum 1-hour concentration greater than or equal to (≥) standard Station  Data Points % Below LOD* Federal Acceptable 1-hour Obj.  (0.34 ppm) WHO 10-minute Guideline (0.19 ppm) Federal Desirable 1-hour Obj. (0.17 ppm) 10-minute NOAEL (UBC) (0.1 ppm) ATSDR acute MRL (0.01 ppm) T1 Downtown 912 1.1 0 0 0 0 593 T2 Kitsilano 901 3.1 0 0 0 0 251 T4 Kensington Park 905 15.4 0 0 0 0 173 T5 Confederation Park 498 2.0 0 0 0 0 97 T9 Port Moody 898 13.9 0 0 0 0 219 T23 Capitol Hill 908 18.4 1 6 7 17 287 T24 Tank Farm 232 3.0 0 0 0 0 67 T26 North Vancouver 900 10.9 0 0 0 0 170 * Limit of Detection for SO2 = 0.001 ppm   Comparing these results to those from Table 3.16, above, it is evident that several of the exceedances occurred on the same day.  For example, the federal desirable 1-hour objective was exceeded during 21 1-hour periods and these occurred on 7 different days.  Dates for each exceedance at the Capitol Hill monitoring stations are shown in Table 3.18 on the following page.   North Burnaby Refinery Emissions Project Final Report, July 6, 2002 UBC School of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene Page 31  Table 3.18   Dates of exceedances at station T23 (Capitol Hill)  # of 1-hour concentrations greater than or equal to (≥) standard Date Federal Acceptable 1-hour Objective  (0.34 ppm) WHO 10-minute Guideline (0.19 ppm) Federal Desirable 1-hour Objective (0.17 ppm) 10-minute NOAEL (UBC) (0.1 ppm) 17 March 1998 0 0 0 2 19 March 1998 0 0 0 2 31 August 1998 0 0 1 1 20 October 1998 0 0 0 1 21 October 1998 0 1 1 1 23 May 1999 0 1 1 1 08 September 1999 0 0 0 1 13 September 1999 0 0 0 2 01 October 1999 0 0 0 1 03 November 1999 0 0 0 1 22 December 1999 0 1 1 3 23 December 1999 1 1 3 7 26 December 1999 0 3 4 5 27 December 1999 0 4 10 12 29 January 2000 0 0 0 1 03 February 2000 0 0 0 2 25 June 2000 0 0 0 1 TOTAL 1 11 21 44   3.4.2.3 24-hour Averages  Table 3.19 below summarizes the data for SO2 values averaged over 24 hours.  As for the 1- hour average results, the highest values were seen downtown; North Burnaby values were no different from other residential locations in the GVRD.   Table 3.19   Summary of 24-hour average SO2 data Station # Data Points # Missing Points # Below LOD Max. Value (ppm) Arith. Mean (ppm) Standard Deviation Geo. Mean† (ppm) Geo. Standard Deviation T1 Downtown 911 1 15 0.022 0.0052 0.0030 0.0044 1.82 T2 Kitsilano 894 18 56 0.020 0.0029 0.0018 0.0025 1.76 T4 Kensington Park 898 14 213 0.018 0.0022 0.0017 0.0018 1.90 T5 Confederation Park 493 84 109 0.012 0.0024 0.0018 0.0019 1.96 T9 Port Moody 886 26 196 0.016 0.0024 0.0020 0.0019 2.01 T23 Capitol Hill 898 14 262 0.110 0.0030 0.0057 0.0019* 2.29 T24 Tank Farm 225 23 32 0.014 0.0027 0.0020 0.0021** 1.93 T26 North Vancouver 894 18 165 0.011 0.0021 0.0014 0.0018 1.79 † ANOVA test for homogeneity with log-transformed data, p<0.05; * p<0.05 comparing T23 to T1 and T2; p=0.08 for T4; p=0.80 for T9; p=0.23 for T26; T5 and T24 not included ** p>0.05 comparing T24 to all other stations combined   North Burnaby Refinery Emissions Project Final Report, July 6, 2002 UBC School of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene Page 32  The frequency of 24-hour SO2 peaks was considerably lower than the frequency of 1-hour peaks, as shown in Figure 3.8 and Table 3.20 below.  Over the 2½-year period, the federal desirable objective was exceeded on 3 consecutive days and a few smaller peaks were also evident.    Figure 3.8   Comparative plot for 24-hour SO2 averages   Table 3.20   24-hour SO2 averages meeting or exceeding federal objectives  # of days having 24-hour average greater than or equal to (≥) standard Station Data Points % Below LOD Federal Acceptable 24-hour Objective (0.115 ppm) Federal Desirable 24-hour Objective (0.057 ppm) T1 Downtown 911 1.6 0 0 T2 Kitsilano 894 6.3 0 0 T4 Kensington Park 898 23.7 0 0 T5 Confederation Park 493 22.1 0 0 T9 Port Moody 886 22.1 0 0 T23 Capitol Hill 898 29.2 0 3* T24 Tank Farm 225 14.2 0 0 T26 North Vancouver 894 18.5 0 0 * The three days exceeding the federal desirable 24-hour air quality objective at station T23 were December 23rd, 26th and 27th 1999. Federal Acceptable 24-hour Average = 0.115 ppm Federal Desirable 24-hour Average = 0.057 ppm   North Burnaby Refinery Emissions Project Final Report, July 6, 2002 UBC School of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene Page 33  3.4.2.4 Time of Day Comparisons  Time of day average concentrations for SO2 were calculated for stations at Capital Hill, Port Moody, Kitsilano, and North Vancouver. The upper figure shows Capitol Hill and Port Moody, both of which are affected by industrial operations; the lower figure shows Capitol Hill, Kitsilano and North Vancouver, all of which can be considered residential areas.     Figure 3.9 (a & b)  Comparison of the time of day averages at residential and industrial stations The average values appear to have a temporal pattern with lowest average values at Capitol Hill in the late afternoon.  A similar trend, although not as pronounced, was seen at the other residential monitoring stations.  Limit of Detection Limit of Detection   North Burnaby Refinery Emissions Project Final Report, July 6, 2002 UBC School of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene Page 34  Examination of the number of SO2 peaks exceeding 0.10 ppm plotted against time of day shows as similar pattern:  the majority of SO2 peaks occurred during the night; approximately 40% occurring during the hours 7 am to 9 pm.    Figure 3.10  Number of times the 1-hour SO2 concentrations at station T23 exceeded the UBC suggested 10-minute guideline during each hour of the day   3.4.2.5 National Comparison - 1 hour Average Concentrations  To compare the SO2 levels in North Burnaby to values seen in other Canadian communities with nearby petrochemical refineries, we compared the Capitol Hill data to data from Environment Canada's National Air Pollution Surveillance (NAPS) network stations located near refineries in Saint John, Montreal, Sarnia and Edmonton.  Information received from Environment Canada about the location of each of the NAPS stations suggested that station 90121 in Edmonton is the most similar to the North Burnaby stations with respect to distance from active refineries and tank farms.  We did not compare any measures of refinery size or number as this was beyond the scope of this project.  Therefore, these results cannot be interpreted as providing comparative information about refinery operations, or stack / fugitive emissions, rather only about community ambient concentrations.    North Burnaby Refinery Emissions Project Final Report, July 6, 2002 UBC School of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene Page 35  Comparison of average values, as shown in Table 3.21 indicate that the average SO2 levels in North Burnaby are lower than those seen in Saint John, Montreal, and Sarnia and similar to those seen in Edmonton.  The same trend evident in the regional comparison is seen here in the national comparison.  On the one hand, the North Burnaby SO2 concentrations tend to be extremely low (i.e. below detectable) on more occasions than elsewhere, but the maximum value was highest.   Table 3.21  Summary table for national 1-hour SO2 concentrations Station # Valid Points # Invalid Points # Below LOD** Max. Value (ppm) Arith. Mean (ppm) Standard Deviation Geo. Mean (ppm) Geo. Standard Deviation Saint John 20329 1559 4833 0.381 0.0114 0.0186 0.0036 4.61 Montreal 21285 603 2911 0.163 0.0071 0.0102 0.0038 3.06 Sarnia 21673 215 727 0.295 0.0111 0.0216 0.0048 3.12 Edmonton 21716 172 4936 0.069 0.0027 0.0032 0.0018 2.29 North Burnaby* 21281 569 7908 0.390 0.0030 0.0100 0.0015 2.50 * Station T23 (Capitol Hill) used ** Limit of Detection for SO2 = 0.001ppm      Figure 3.11  Comparative plot for national 1-hour SO2 concentrations  Federal Acceptable 1-hour Objective = 0.34 ppm WHO 10-minute Guideline = 0.19 ppm Federal Desirable 1-hour Objective =0.17 ppm UBC Suggested 10-minute Guideline = 0.10 ppm ATSDR acute exposure MRL = 0.01 ppm   North Burnaby Refinery Emissions Project Final Report, July 6, 2002 UBC School of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene Page 36   Table 3.22  Number of national 1-hour SO2 concentrations meeting or exceeding federal objectives and health-based guidelines    # of hours greater than or equal to (≥) standard Station  Data Points % Below LOD Federal Acceptable 1-hr (0.34ppm) WHO 10-minute (0.19ppm) Federal Desirable 1-hr (0.17ppm) UBC 10-minute  (0.1ppm) ATSDR acute MRL (0.01ppm) Saint John 20329 23.8 1 1 8 102 6356 Montreal 21285 13.7 0 0 0 23 4504 Sarnia 21673 3.4 0 9 29 360 4885 Edmonton 21716 22.9 0 0 0 0 630 North Burnaby 21281 37.2 1 11 21 44 1044   3.4.3 SO2 Health Impact  Because the monitoring data showed increased frequency of SO2 peaks in the North Burnaby area, compared to other locations in the GVRD, we examined in detail the evidence supporting various exposure guidelines and air quality objectives for SO2.  3.4.3.1 Health Assessment Methods  We focused on the scientific literature on the health impacts of SO2 exposures in the range seen in North Burnaby, with particular emphasis on the potential impact of short-term peaks of exposure.  Our review included retrieval and review of the summary documents describing guidelines from other agencies (e.g. Health Canada, World Health Organization, US Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry), examination of the key source studies giving rise to these guidelines, and a search for scientific studies published after the summary documents were prepared.  This search was carried out using the electronic databases PUBMED and MEDLINE and the following keywords: any of: SO2, sulphur dioxide, sulphur dioxide (and limited to: human studies).  We also searched electronic sources for other scientific documents not indexed by PUBMED or MEDLINE but which had been subject to external review.  This search led to a recent review of the California Air Quality standard for SO2 carried out by respected experts in this field from the University of Washington.9 In addition, we examined the comprehensive review carried out by the US Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.10  The initial search resulted in 947 scientific articles retrieved.  Titles for all of these were examined and abstracts retrieved for the 213 articles that described original research focusing on the health effects of SO2 exposure in humans.  The abstracts were reviewed for relevance to this project (i.e. either experimental or epidemiological studies examining levels of exposure near to those seen here).  Copies of 56 articles were obtained and reviewed in detail.  Of these   North Burnaby Refinery Emissions Project Final Report, July 6, 2002 UBC School of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene Page 37  articles, 21 were not cited in any of the review documents on which the exposure guidelines were based (i.e. they were published after the guideline reviews were carried out).  3.4.3.2 Results:  Review of Findings from the Scientific Literature  Sulphur dioxide is a colourless, pungent, water-soluble gas at ambient temperatures.  The two major sources of SO2 in urban air are motor vehicle and industrial emissions.  The effects on human health from inhalation of sulphur dioxide have been studied extensively.  In the 1980's, several investigators carried out experimental studies with human volunteers to examine the effect of short-term exposures (i.e. hours or minutes).  More recently, large epidemiologic studies have been carried out looking at the health effects of daily (24 hour) average SO2 concentrations in communities.   These studies have been reviewed in detail and summary information is provided in Table 3.23, Table 3.24, and Table 3.25 below.  The relevant findings from these studies are summarized below.  Short-term exposure (< 1 hour):  Inhalation of low concentrations of sulphur dioxide causes bronchoconstriction, which manifests itself as shortness of breath and wheeze.  This effect has been demonstrated in the numerous controlled experimental studies with human subjects (in which persons are exposed in an exposure chamber).  Symptoms are seen within two to three minutes after the initiation of exposure; continuing the exposure does not result in additional response.  The response to sulphur dioxide is highly dependent on conditions such as temperature, humidity, route of inhalation, and presence of other pollutants, such as ozone. In addition, an individual's response to the same concentration of sulphur dioxide under the same experimental conditions can vary widely from time to time and responses vary between individuals.  The severity of the response is dose dependent (i.e. the higher the SO2 concentration, the more symptoms will be felt).  The threshold for bronchoconstriction and increased airway resistance (tightening of the airways leading to wheezing and chest tightness) is much lower for persons with asthma than for healthy subjects. For example, non-asthmatic adults did not show a physiologic change in their airways when exposed for 10 minutes to 3 ppm (3000 ppb) of SO2 administered directly by a mouthpiece11 or when exposed for 40 minutes (with 10 minutes of exercise) to 1 ppm (1000 ppb) of SO2 in an exposure chamber,12 whereas asthmatic subjects did experience bronchoconstriction in these experiments.  In a random sample of residents from a West German city, only 2 of 679 subjects who had normal measures of non-specific airway responsiveness (i.e. likely to be non-asthmatic) responded to a 3 minute exposure of SO2 of 2 ppm, whereas 22% of hyper-responsive residents (i.e. likely to have asthma) responded.13  In many of the experimental studies with asthmatic subjects, the lowest concentration used was 500 ppb.  In most studies, this exposure level produced little or no response when the   North Burnaby Refinery Emissions Project Final Report, July 6, 2002 UBC School of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene Page 38  subject was at rest, but when ventilation rate and volume was increased, e.g. from exercise, most subjects experienced increased bronchoconstriction and/or airway resistance.  This finding is consistent across most studies.  We reviewed ten studies in which asthmatic subjects were exposed to SO2 levels below 500 ppb (0.5 ppm).   In 4 of these studies, subjects were tested while at rest.12-15  All were studies of young to mid-aged adults.  The SO2 concentrations at which no measurable response was seen ranged from 250 to 1000 ppb (the lowest concentrations used in each study for subjects at rest) for exposure times from 10 minutes to 6 hours.  In the studies in which asthmatic adults were examined after experimental exposure to SO2 during exercise, responses were seen at considerably lower SO2 concentrations. Sheppard and colleagues14 exposed asthmatics to 250 and 500 ppb for 10 minutes with moderate exercise and found a significant increase in airway resistance in all 7 subjects at 500 ppb and 3 of 7 subjects at 250 ppb.  In the 2 most responsive subjects, exposure to 100 ppb for 10 minutes resulted in significant increases in airway resistance, although to a lesser degree than at 250 or 500 ppb.  Linn and colleagues16 examined the exposure-response relationship, with 23 asthmatics exposed to 200, 400, and 600 ppb SO2 during heavy exercise.  Physiologic changes in airway calibre were seen starting with small (but not statistically significant) changes at 200 ppb and increasing at the higher concentrations.   In a subsequent study, the same investigators found significant response in 8 asthmatics when exposed to 400 ppb but no response to 200 ppb.17  In a similar study, Schachter and colleagues12 found a significant airway response to 250 ppb SO2 exposure for 10 minutes in 2 of 10 asthmatic subjects.  The changes were transient, returning to normal within 10 minutes after exercise ceased. In a series of studies, Roger, Horstman and colleagues also studied exposure-response relationships and found no significant airway response, on average, among asthmatics exposed to 250 ppb SO2 for 75 minutes;18 however, when they investigated the distribution of individual responses, they found that 6 of 27 male asthmatics had a significant increase in airway resistance (defined as 100% increase in resistance compared to breathing clean air) at concentrations less than 500 ppb with the minimum response at 280 ppb.19 Among asthmatics, the extent of an individual's response to sulphur dioxide cannot be predicted based on the severity of his or her asthma or degree of non-specific bronchial responsiveness.13;19  Two recent experimental studies have examined the response to low levels of SO2 exposure when combined with ozone.  In one, 41 children (5 with a history of asthma) were exposed to a mixture of 100 ppb SO2, 100 ppb ozone, and sulphuric acid aerosol (varying, but with average of 100 ug/m3) for 4 hours, with intermittent exercise.  Measures of airflow were recorded after 2 hours and 4 hours of exposure and symptoms were recorded during and after the exposure period.  Results were compared to a similar experiment with clean air in the chamber. As a group, no significant changes were found when the responses on the pollution- exposure day were compared to responses on the clean air day.  Because the sulphuric acid dose varied somewhat, it was possible to examine the relationship between acid dose and response.  Among subjects with a history of allergy or asthma, more symptoms were reported when sulphuric acid dose was highest.    North Burnaby Refinery Emissions Project Final Report, July 6, 2002 UBC School of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene Page 39  Another recent study of the interaction of SO2 and ozone responsiveness among asthmatics was carried out by Trenga and colleagues.20 These investigators exposed 13 adult asthmatics to 100 and 250 ppb SO2 for 10 minutes with and without prior exposure to ozone (45 minutes at 120 ppb, with intermittent exercise).  They found a significant decrease in air flow (FEV1) after exposure to 100 ppb SO2 when the subjects had been previously exposed to ozone, but no significant response without prior ozone exposure.  We were able to find only one epidemiologic study in which the effect of very short term exposure to SO2 levels were examined.   This was a study carried out in an Australian copper and lead smelter town.  Emergency room visits and hospitalizations for asthma were compared to the daily maximum 5 minute SO2 concentration.  Concentrations ranged from 0 to 3300 ppb (with over 50% of days having a 5 minute peak over 300 ppb).  No relationship was seen between SO2 peaks and hospital or emergency room visits for asthma.  Medium-term exposure (~24 hours):  The health effects of changes in the 24-hour average ambient concentration of sulphur dioxide have been examined in community air pollution epidemiological studies.  Almost by definition, in these studies, the exposure consists of a mixture of pollutants; therefore, results reflect the effect of sulphur dioxide in the presence of particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, and ozone.  These studies indicate that increased 24-hour average exposure to levels of SO2 in ambient air is independently, but weakly, associated with increased daily mortality.  Although in most studies it has been difficult to separate the effect of SO2 from the effect of other air pollutants, a recent combined analysis of air pollution levels and total mortality from 12 European cities found an independent effect of SO2 pollution.21  The study results indicated that each increase of 50 ug/m3 (19 ppb) increased daily mortality by 3% in Western European cities and 1% in Eastern European cities.  The average 24-hour ambient SO2 levels in the cities studied ranged from 11 to 125 ppb (compared to an average of 3 ppb, at the North Burnaby monitoring stations).  Several epidemiological studies have shown significant associations between 24-hour ambient sulphur dioxide levels and acute exacerbations of symptoms among persons with asthma.22-27 Of these studies, the one with the lowest SO2 adverse effect level was the UK study of Buchdahl et al.  In this study, a 12% increase in emergency room visits for wheezy episodes was associated with an incremental increase in SO2 exposure of 5.4 ppb, over an average level of approximately 8 ppb.  In the other studies cited, adverse effects were associated with higher 24-hour average exposures levels.  Although daily average SO2 concentrations have been linked to asthma exacerbations in these studies, there does not appear to be any evidence suggesting that SO2 concentrations in the levels seen in community studies is linked to the development of new asthma.  In a study comparing the prevalence of asthma and respiratory symptoms among 8th and 9th grade children resident in several small towns in a petrochemical region in France to children in   North Burnaby Refinery Emissions Project Final Report, July 6, 2002 UBC School of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene Page 40  other towns with low air pollution, no association was seen between the symptoms or asthma ambient SO2 levels.28 In the petrochemical industry towns, 24-hour average ambient SO2 concentrations ranged from 6.6 to 22 ppb.  Long-term, chronic exposure (months, years):  The long-term effects of chronic exposure to sulphur dioxide in ambient air have also been examined in epidemiological studies.  Here again, the human health effects of sulphur dioxide are difficult to separate from the effects of other pollutants.  In general, these studies indicate that chronic exposure to ambient sulphur dioxide is not likely to be associated with an increased incidence or prevalence of asthma or asthma-like conditions. However, chronic exposure may increase the airway response to other allergens.  Chronic exposures are associated with an increased prevalence of respiratory complaints and COPD.  In most studies, these effects have not been clearly shown to be independent of other pollutants.  Summary and justification for UBC health based comparison value  Based on this review of the scientific literature, the ‘lowest adverse effect level’ seen for persons with asthma was in the range of 8 ppb in the Buchdahl study described above.23  As this value is higher than the 24-hour average levels seen in North Burnaby, and as concentrations in North Burnaby were not elevated over other GVRD residential areas, a further review of 24-hour average SO2 guidelines was not warranted.  In contrast, the results from this literature review suggest that the lowest adverse effect level for short-term peaks of SO2 (as short as 10 minutes) is in the range of 100 ppb.  At concentrations in the 1000 ppb (1 ppm) range, no adverse effects were seen among persons without asthma.  However, at concentrations in the 250-300 ppb range consistent changes in lung function were seen among asthmatics; in two studies, exacerbation of asthma symptoms were seen in some subjects at concentrations in the 100 pbb range.  In one of these studies, responses were seen in 2 of 7 subjects; in the other, responses were seen only when ozone was included in the exposure chamber.   Based on the first of studies, and applying a 10 fold ‘safety or uncertainty factor’ the US Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry identified 10 ppb as a Minimal Risk Level.   For the purposes of this report, we have indicated 100 ppb as a “UBC health based comparison value” to provide readers with a point of reference based on the health findings we have reviewed.  Short-term SO2 peaks near this level may contribute to exacerbations of asthma among some residents with asthma.  Short-term SO2 peaks above this level (in the 200-300 ppb range) may affect a greater proportion of asthmatic residents.   N or th  B ur na by  R ef in er y Em is si on s Pr oj ec t F in al  R ep or t, Ju ly  6 , 2 00 2 U B C  S ch oo l o f O cc up at io na l a nd  E nv iro nm en ta l H yg ie ne   Pa ge  4 1   Ta bl e 3. 23  C on tro lle d hu m an  e xp er im en ts  e xa m in in g pu lm on ar y ef fe ct s of  e xp os ur e to  S O 2 R ef er en ce  Su bj ec ts  Ex po su re  H ea lth  E ffe ct  M ea su re d Th re sh ol d D os e K ey  F in di ng s 19 80  11  7 as th m at ic s,  7  a to pi cs  7 no rm al s,  a du lts  a ge  23 -3 7 ye ar s 1,  3  a nd  5  p pm  S O 2 b y m ou th pi ec e,  10  m in  Sp ec ifi c Ai rw ay s R es is ta nc e N O AE L:  3 pp m  (n on - as th m at ic s)   - Br on ch oc on st ric tio n in  a st hm at ic s at  a ll co nc en tra tio ns , w he re as  n or m al  a nd  a to pi c su bj ec ts  re sp on de d on ly  a t 5  pp m . 19 81 14  13  n on -s m ok in g as th m at ic  a du lts , 2 0- 30  ye ar s - 2 50  p pb , 5 00  p pb  S O 2, 10  m in  w ith  an d w ith ou t m od er at e ex er ci se , - 1 00  p pb  S O 2, 10  m in  w ith  a nd  w ith ou t e xe rc is e in  2  re sp on de rs  a t 25 0 pp b - 1  p pm  S O 2 f or  5  m in  w ith  e xe rc is e or  h yp er ve nt ila tio n - M ou th pi ec e ex po su re  Sp ec ifi c Ai rw ay s R es is ta nc e LO AE L:  10 0 pp b (a st hm at ic s ) - Si gn ifi ca nt  in cr ea se  in  S R aw  w ith  b ot h 25 0 (3  o f 7  su bj ec ts ) a nd  5 00  p pb  (a ll 7 su bj ec ts ) w ith  e xe rc is e (n o re sp on se  a t r es t).  - In  2  s ub je ct s ex po se d to  1 00  p pb  –  s ig ni fic an t i nc re as e in  SR aw . - R es po ns e to  h yp er ve nt ila tio n si m ila r s tre ng th  to  re sp on se  to  e xe rc is e,  b ut  m or e su dd en  in  o ns et . 19 82  29  6 as th m at ic  a du lts  50 0 pp b SO 2 5  m in , v ia  fa ce m as k (o ro na sa l a nd  n as al  b re at hi ng ) a nd  vi a m ou th pi ec e w hi le  e xe rc is in g.  Sp ec ifi c Ai rw ay s R es is ta nc e < 50 0 pp b - Br ea th in g 50 0 pp m  o f S O 2 t hr ou gh  a  m ou th pi ec e vi a fa ce m as k du rin g ex er ci se  s ig ni fic an tly  in cr ea se d sp ec ifi c ai rw ay s re si st an ce  in  a ll si x su bj ec ts . - N as al  b re at hi ng  c au se d in cr ea se  in  s pe ci fic  a irw ay s re si st an ce  in  5  o ut  o f 6  s ub je ct s.  19 83  30  9 ad ol es ce nt  a st hm at ic s - 5 00  p pb  a nd  1  p pm  o f S O 2 w ith  N aC l i n dr op le ts ; 1 0 m in  w ith  m od er at e ex er ci se ; m ou th pi ec e ex po su re . - 5 00  p pb  S O 2 w ith  N aC l; 10  m in  w ith  m od er at e ex er ci se ; f ac e pi ec e ex po su re . FE V I , V m ax 50 , V m ax 75 , FR C , R T < 50 0 pp b - C ha ng es  in  p ul m on ar y fu nc tio n no t s ee n at  re st . - C ha ng es  m or e co ns is te nt  w he n ex po su re  th ro ug h m ou th pi ec e th an  th ro ug h fa ce m as k.  - 0. 5p pm  S O 2 X  2 -3 m in  –  R T i nc re as ed  b y 47 % ; F EV I, Vm ax 50  a nd  V m ax 75  d ec re as ed  b y 15 , 3 0 an d 35 % , re sp ec tiv el y - 1. 0p pm  S O 2 X  2 -3 m in  –  R T i nc re as ed  b y 71 % ; F EV I, Vm ax 50  a nd  V m ax 75  d ec re as ed  b y 23 , 5 1 an d 61 % , re sp ec tiv el y.  19 83 16  23  a st hm at ic  a du lts , 1 9- 31  y ea rs  20 0 pp b,  4 00  p pb  a nd  6 00  p pb  S O 2 du rin g 5 m in  h ea vy  e xe rc is e,  ch am be r e xp os ur e.  Sp ec ifi c Ai rw ay s R es is ta nc e,  F EV 1, FE V 2 , FE V 3 , F VC , V m ax 25 , 5 0  &  75  a nd  re sp ira to ry  sy m pt om  q ue st io nn ai re  LO AE L:  20 0 pp b  - Ph ys io lo gi c ch an ge s in  d os e- re sp on se  fa sh io n st ar tin g w ith  s m al l ( no t s ig ni fic an t) ch an ge s at  2 00  p pb  a nd  in cr ea si ng  a t h ig he r d os es . - Si gn ifi ca nt   i nc re as e in  s ym pt om s at  a ll ex po su re s,  w ith  do se -re sp on se  tr en d.  19 83  31  10  n on sm ok in g as th m at ic  a du lts , 2 2- 36  ye ar s  0. 5p pm  S O 2, 5 m in  +  m od /h ea vy  ex er ci se , e xp os ur e ch am be r Sp ec ifi c Ai rw ay s R es is ta nc e  < 50 0 pp b - Si gn ifi ca nt   i nc re as e in  s pe ci fic  a irw ay s re si st an ce  19 83  32  9 as th m at ic  a du lts  Ex po su re  to  0 .5 pp m  S O 2 v ia  fa ce m as k w hi le  e xe rc is in g at  2 50 , 50 0 an d 75 0 ki lo po nd  m /m in  fo r f iv e m in ut es  Sp ec ifi c Ai rw ay s R es is ta nc e As th m at ic s < 50 0 pp b - Br on ch oc on st ric tio n oc cu rre d at  7 50  k ilo po nd  m /m in , b ut  no t a t 5 00  a nd  2 50  w he n in ha lin g or on as al ly . - Br on ch oc on st ric tio n oc cu rre d at  7 50  a nd  5 00  w he n in ha lin g by  m ou th pi ec e.    N or th  B ur na by  R ef in er y Em is si on s Pr oj ec t F in al  R ep or t, Ju ly  6 , 2 00 2 U B C  S ch oo l o f O cc up at io na l a nd  E nv iro nm en ta l H yg ie ne   Pa ge  4 2  R ef er en ce  Su bj ec ts  Ex po su re  H ea lth  E ffe ct  M ea su re d Th re sh ol d D os e K ey  F in di ng s 19 83 33  23  n on -s m ok in g yo un g ad ul t a st hm at ic s,  75 0 pp b SO 2 d ur in g he av y ex er ci se  on ce  w hi le  b re at hi ng  fr ee ly  (c ha m be r) an d on ce  b y m ou th pi ec e br ea th in g Sp ec ifi c Ai rw ay s R es is ta nc e Sy m pt om  qu es tio nn ai re s pu lm on ar y fu nc tio n te st s As th m at ic s < 75 0 pp b - Si gn ifi ca nt  re sp on se  to  7 50  p pb  S O 2 u nd er  a ll co nd iti on s,  in cr ea se d w ith  fo rc ed  m ou th  b re at hi ng  19 84 12  10  a st hm at ic  a nd  1 0 no n- as th m at ic  a du lts   25 0 pp b,  5 00  p pb , 7 50  p pb  a nd  1  pp m  fo r 4 0 m in , w ith  1 0 m in  m ild  ex er ci se , 1  p pm  S O 2 f or  4 0 m in  a t re st ; C ha m be r e xp os ur e FE V I , V m ax 50 , M EF  40 % , R aw  im m ed ia te ly  an d  5 , 1 0,  1 5,  2 5,  4 0,  50  a nd  6 0 m in  a fte r ex er ci se  As th m ai tc s LO AE L:  25 0 pp b N o as th m a:  N O AE L:  1p pm  - N or m al  s ub je ct s ha d no  s ig ni fic an t r es po ns e - As th m at ic s no  re sp on se  a t r es t t o 1. 0p pm  S O 2 - As th m at ic s co ns is te nt  c ha ng es  a t 0 .7 5p pm  - Al l g ro up  c ha ng es  w er e tra ns ie nt , r et ur ni ng  to  n or m al  1 0 m in  a fte r e xe rc is e - 2 of  1 0 su bj ec ts  re sp on de d to  2 50  p pb  19 84 34  8 ad ul t a st hm at ic s,  1 8- 30  y ea rs  20 0 pp b,  4 00  p pb , 6 00  p pb  S O 2, 5 m in  +  h ea vy  e xe rc is e,  a t l ow  a nd  hi gh  h um id ity ; 60 0 pp b SO 2, in  c ol d an d w ar m  a ir;  C ha m be r e xp os ur e Ph ys io lo gi c m ea su re s sy m pt om s (im m ed . a fte r ex po su re  a nd  1  d ay  a nd  1 w k la te r) As th m at ic s N O AE L:  20 0 pp b - Ph ys io lo gi c m ea su re s an d sy m pt om s si gn ifi ca nt ly  in cr ea se d af te r 4 00  p pb  (b ut  n ot  2 00  p pb ), un de r b ot h hu m id ity  c on di tio ns  - R es po ns e si m ila r t o 60 0 pp b in  b ot h te m pe ra tu re  co nd iti on s - Ef fe ct  re ve rs ib le  w ith in  2 4 ho ur s 19 85  18  28  m al e as th m at ic s,  1 9- 34  y ea rs  25 0 pp b,  5 00  p pb , a nd  1  p pm  S O 2 fo r 7 5 m in , w ith  3  1 0 m in  p er io ds  o f m od er at e ex er ci se , c ha m be r ex po su re  Sp ec ifi c Ai rw ay s R es is ta nc e m ea su re d af te r e ac h ex er ci se  pe rio d As th m at ic s N O AE L:  25 0 pp b - Ai rw ay  re si st an ce  in cr ea se d af te r 5 00  p pb  a nd  1  p pm  co m pa re d to  c le an  a ir.  - R es po ns e gr ea te st  a fte r 1 st  e xe rc is e pe rio ds . 19 86 19  27  m al e as th m at ic  ad ul ts  25 0 pp b,  5 00  p pb , a nd  1  p pm  S O 2 fo r 1 0 m in , w ith  m od er at e ex er ci se ; C ha m be r e xp os ur e Sp ec ifi c Ai rw ay s R es is ta nc e (re sp on si ve ne ss : 10 0% in cr ea se  co m pa re d to  c le an  a ir)  As th m at ic s LO AE L:  28 0 pp b - 6 su bj ec ts  h ad  1 00 %  in cr ea se  in  S AR  a t S O 2 co nc en tra tio n le ss  th an  5 00  p pb  (m in im um : 2 80  p pb ) 19 87 35  8 no n- sm ok in g as th m at ic  a du lts  50 0 pp b an d 1 pp m  o f S O 2 f or  1 , 3  an d 5 m in , v ia  m ou th pi ec e  Sp ec ifi c Ai rw ay s R es is ta nc e (S R aw ) As th m at ic s < 50 0 pp b - Fo r e xp os ur es  a t 1 , 3 , a nd  5  m in ut es : - 50 0 pp b –  3 4% , 1 73 %  a nd  2 34 %  in cr ea se  in  S R aw  - 1 pp m  –   9 3% , 3 95 %  a nd  5 80 %  in cr ea se  in  S R aw  - 7 pe rs on s de ve lo pe d w he ez in g,  c he st  ti gh tn es s an d dy sp ne a af te r 5 00  p pm  fo r 3 -5  m in  19 88 36  12  m al e as th m at ic  ad ul ts , k no w n to  b e hy pe rs en si tiv e to  S O 2 5 m in . e xe rc is e th en  1  p pm  S O 2 w ith  co nt in ue d ex er ci se  fo r 0 .5 , 1 , 2  a nd  5  m in ; C ha m be r e xp os ur e Sp ec ifi c Ai rw ay s R es is ta nc e an d ra tin gs  of  re sp ira to ry  s ym pt om s w ith  a st hm a As th m at ic s,  th re sh ol d fo r b ro nc ho - co ns tri ct io n to  1  p pm : 2  m in  - Si gn ifi ca nt  b ro nc ho co ns tri ct io n af te r 2  m in  o f e xp os ur e to  1. 0p pm  o f S O 2 i n as th m at ic s kn ow n to  b e hy pe rs en si tiv e to  S O 2 19 90 37  14  n on -s m ok in g m ild  as th m at ic  a du lts  25 0 pp m  N O 2 o r 5 00  p pb  S O 2 ,  3 0 m in , f ol lo w ed  b y te st  o f S O 2 re sp on si ve ne ss  (h yp er ve nt ila tio n w ith  7 50  p pb  S O 2);  M ou th pi ec e ex po su re  Sp ec ifi c Ai rw ay s R es is ta nc e an d re sp on si ve ne ss  to  S O 2 n/ a - Ti da l b re at hi ng  o f N O 2 i nc re as ed  a irw ay  re sp on se  to  su bs eq ue nt  h yp er ve nt ila tio n to  S O 2, bu t t id al  b re at hi ng  o f SO 2 ha d no  s ig ni fic an t e ffe ct  o n su bs eq ue nt  S O 2 re sp on si ve ne ss .   N or th  B ur na by  R ef in er y Em is si on s Pr oj ec t F in al  R ep or t, Ju ly  6 , 2 00 2 U B C  S ch oo l o f O cc up at io na l a nd  E nv iro nm en ta l H yg ie ne   Pa ge  4 3  R ef er en ce  Su bj ec ts  Ex po su re  H ea lth  E ffe ct  M ea su re d Th re sh ol d D os e K ey  F in di ng s 19 94 15  10  m ild  a to pi c as th m at ic  ad ul ts , 1 8- 45  y ea rs  20 0 pp b SO 2  a nd  4 00  p pb  N O 2 si ng ly  a nd  c om bi ne d fo r 6  h ou rs , a t re st  fo llo w ed  b y an  a lle rg en  ch al le ng e (h ou se  d us t m ite ) 10  m in  af te r e xp os ur e;  C ha m be r e xp os ur e FE V I , F VC  a nd  cu m ul at iv e br ea th  u ni ts  of  a lle rg en  re qu ire d to  pr od uc e a 20 %  d ro p in  FE V I  N O AE L  as th m at ic s,  at  re st : 4 00  pp m  - N o si gn ifi ca nt  d iff er en ce  in  re sp on se  to  a ir co m pa re d to  SO 2 o r N O 2. - SO 2 a nd  N O 2 c om bi ne d de cr ea se d am ou nt  o f a lle rg en  re qu ire d to  c au se  2 0%  re du ct io n in  F EV I b y ab ou t 6 0% . 19 97 38  41  c hi ld re n,  9 -1 2 ye ar s --5  w ith  a st hm a --2 1 w ith  a lle rg y --1 5 he al th y M ix tu re  o f 1 00  p pb SO 2 a nd  1 00  p pb  oz on e + su lp hu ric  a ci d,  fo r 4  h ou rs , w ith  in te rm itt en t e xe rc is e;  C ha m be r ex po su re  Sy m pt om  d ia rie s,  h ou rly  re co rd in g PE FR , F VC , FE V I  N O AE L as th m at ic s:  10 0 pp b  - N o si gn ifi ca nt  re sp on se  to  e xp os ur e to  S O 2.  - As th m at ic s ha d in cr ea se d sy m pt om s re la te d to  e st im at ed  su lp hu ric  a ci d do se . 19 97 13  R an do m  s am pl e of  re si de nt s of  H am bu rg , G er m an y,  a ge d 20 -4 4 (n =7 90 ) C on se cu tiv e 3- m in ut e ex po su re s to  in cr ea si ng  c on ce nt ra tio ns  o f S O 2 b y m ou th pi ec e (2 50 , 5 00 , 1 00 0,  2 00 0 pp b) , a t r es t. Sy m pt om s by  qu es tio nn ai re , l un g fu nc tio n te st s,  te st  o f br on ch ia l h yp er - re sp on si ve ne ss  to  S O 2 N O AE L as th m at ic s:  25 0 pp b no n- as th m at ic s:  1 pp m  - Pr ev al en ce  o f S O 2 h yp er -re sp on si ve ne ss  (2 0%  d ro p in  FE V 1  w ith  2  p pm  S O 2 o r l es s)  2 .5 %  m en / 4 .6 %  w om en  (a nd  o nl y 1 of  th es e w as  n ot  re sp on si ve  to  m et ha ch ol in e)  - N o su bj ec ts  re sp on de d at  2 50  p pb ; 2  a st hm at ic s re sp on de d at  5 00  p pb . - N o as so ci at io n be tw ee n SO 2 r es po ns iv en es s an d m et ha ch ol in e re sp on si ve ne ss . 19 99 39  47  a st hm at ic  a du lts , 1 8- 39  y ea rs  50 0 pp b fo r 1 0 m in ut es  d ur in g m od er at e ex er ci se , m ou th pi ec e ex po su re  D ro p in  F EV 1 –  if  8 %  o r m or e,  re sp on si ve ; bl oo d le ve ls  o f an tio xi da nt s pr e-  a nd  po st -e xp os ur e.  As th m at ic s < 50 0 pp b - 53 %  re sp on si ve  (m ea n FE V 1  d ro p:  1 7. 2% ) - R es po ns e no t r el at ed  to  s ev er ity  o f a st hm a 20 00  40  62  a st hm at ic  a du lts , 1 8- 55  y ea rs  50 0 pp b fo r 1 0 m in ut es  d ur in g m od er at e ex er ci se , m ou th pi ec e ex po su re  D ro p in  F EV 1 –  if  1 2%  o r m or e,  re sp on si ve  bu cc al  c el ls  a na ly se d fo r ge ne tic  p ol ym or ph is m s.  As th m at ic s < 50 0 pp b - 21 %  re sp on si ve  - Si gn ifi ca nt  a ss oc ia tio n be tw ee n re sp on si ve ne ss  to  S O 2 an d ho m oz yg ou s w ild  ty pe  (T N F- 1)  a lle le  fo r T N F al ph a 20 01 20  13  a st hm at ic  a du lts  10 0 pp b an d 25 0 pp b SO 2 a lo ne  a nd  af te r 4 5 m in  o f e xp os ur e to  1 20  p pb  oz on e C ha ng e in  F EV 1 As th m at ic s LO AE L:  10 0 pp b af te r o zo ne  - Af te r e xp os ur e to  o zo ne , s ig ni fic an t r ed uc tio n in  F EV 1 af te r e xp os ur e to  1 00 pp b of  S O 2.  - N o si gn ifi ca nt  c ha ng e is  s ee n w ith ou t p rio r e xp os ur e to  oz on e.     N or th  B ur na by  R ef in er y Em is si on s Pr oj ec t F in al  R ep or t, Ju ly  6 , 2 00 2 U B C  S ch oo l o f O cc up at io na l a nd  E nv iro nm en ta l H yg ie ne   Pa ge  4 4   Ta bl e 3. 24   E pi de m io lo gi c st ud ie s of  c om m un ity  a ir po llu tio n (2 4 ho ur  a ve ra ge  le ve ls ) w ith  re fe re nc e to  S O 2 im pa ct s on  h ea lth  R ef  Ty pe  Su bj ec ts  Ex po su re  M ea su re  O ut co m e M ea su re  K ey  F in di ng s 19 94 22  R et ro - sp ec tiv e,  tim e se rie s Al l r es id en ts  o f Bi rm in gh am , U K , a ll ag es  Am bi en t S O 2 a nd  s m ok e 24  h ou r a ve ra ge  le ve ls  H os pi ta l a dm is si on s fo r as th m a an d ac ut e re sp ira to ry  di se as e - 10 0µ g/ m 3  ( 38  p pb ) i nc re as e in  S O 2 – as so ci at ed  w ith  4  (0  to  7 ) m or e as th m a ad m is si on s an d 15 .5  (6  to  2 5)  m or e re sp ira to ry  ad m is si on s ea ch  d ay . 19 95 41  C oh or t Em er ge nc y vi si ts  to  a  m aj or  p ae di at ric  h os pi ta l i n M ex ic o C ity , J an -J un  1 99 0 Am bi en t a ir po llu ta nt  le ve ls  N um be r o f e m er ge nc y vi si ts  fo r a st hm a - Le ve ls  o f o zo ne  a nd  s ul ph ur  d io xi de  w er e si gn ifi ca nt ly  re la te d to  th e nu m be r o f e m er ge nc y vi si ts  fo r a st hm a 19 96  23  Pr os pe ct iv e tim e se rie s 10 25  c hi ld re n at te nd in g th e ac ci de nt  a nd  e m er ge nc y de pa rtm en t w ith  a cu te  w he ez y ep is od es ; 4 28 5 ch ild re n w ith  o th er  co nd iti on s as  c on tro ls  Am bi en t S O 2, N O 2 a nd  o zo ne  (2 4 ho ur  av er ag e)  Em er ge nc y ro om  v is its  fo r ac ut e w he ez y ep is od es  - N o si gn ifi ca nt  a ss oc ia tio n be tw ee n ai r p ol lu tio n an d em er ge nc y ro om  a tte nd an ce  in  c on tro l gr ou p.  - St ro ng es t a ss oc ia tio n fo r o zo ne . - W ea ke r a ss oc ia tio n fo r S O 2 - R R  fo r e m er ge nc y ro om  v is it fo r w he ez y ep is od es  w as  1 .1 2 fo r e ac h 14 .1  µ g/ m 3  ( 5. 4 pp b)  in cr ea se  in  S O 2.  19 96 42  C oh or t 15 5 ch ild re n w ith  a st hm a an d 10 2 ad ul ts  w ith  as th m a H ig h le ve ls  o f a m bi en t S O 2, m od er at e pa rti cu la te  m at te r a nd  lo w  a ci di ty  Pe ak  E xp ira to ry  F lo w  - PE F de cr ea se d an  a ve ra ge  o f 0 .9 0%  (1 .3 5 to  0. 46 ) i n as so ci at io n w ith  a n in cr ea se  o f 12 8µ g/ m 3 (5 0 pp b)  o f S O 2.  19 97 21  Po pu la tio n ba se d,  ti m e se rie s st ud y  R es id en ts  o f 1 2 Eu ro pe an  ci tie s  Am bi en t S O 2 a nd  P M 10   (2 4 ho ur  a ve ra ge  v al ue s)  R el at iv e ris k of  d ea th  fr om  an y ca us e,  a ll ag es  - Sh ow ed  a n ef fe ct  o f S O 2 o n da ily  m or ta lit y in de pe nd en t o f T SP  - Ef fe ct  is  s ho rt- te rm  - Fo r e ac h 50 µg /m 3  ( 19  p pb ) i nc re as e in  S O 2   3%  in cr ea se  in  m or ta lit y in  W . E ur op ea n ci tie s;  1%  in  E . E ur op ea n ci tie s 19 98 43  Ti m e- se rie s 11  C an ad ia n ci tie s,  1 98 0- 19 91  Am bi en t O 3, N O 2, C O , S O 2 24  h ou r a ve ra ge  v al ue s,  c ity w id e av er ag es . S O 2 r an ge : 0 .7  –  1 0. 5 pp b D ea th s fro m  a ll no n- ac ci de nt al  c au se s - 1. 4%  in cr ea se  in  m or ta lit y as so ci at ed  w ith  S O 2 ex po su re  c om pa rin g th e m ea n va lu e to  0  ex po su re  (o ve r a ll ci tie s)  - Va nc ou ve r r es ul ts  –  n o as so ci at io n be tw ee n SO 2 a nd  m or ta lit y 19 98 44  Pa ne l st ud y,  1  ye ar  10 76  c hi ld re n pr es en tin g at  em er ge nc y ro om  w ith  w he ez in g or  a st hm a,  T el  Av iv  Am bi en t N O 2, SO 2, O 3, pa rti cl es , al le rg en s;  2 4 ho ur  a ve ra ge  v al ue s  - N o de ta ile d an al ys is  c ar rie d ou t ( co rre la tio ns  on ly ) - ER  v is it fre qu en cy  (w ee kl y av er ag es ) c or re la te d w ith  S O 2 a nd  N O 2 l ev el s  19 98 45  Pa ne l st ud y,  1 0 w ks  38  a st hm at ic  s ub je ct s,  La nd sk ro na , S w ed en  Am bi en t N O 2, SO 2 24  h ou r a ve ra ge  v al ue s SO 2: m ea n 13 .6  u g/ m 3  ( 5. 2 pp b) , r an ge  5. 2- 65  u g/ m 3  ( 2- 25  p pb ) D ai ly  d ia rie s:  s ym pt om s,  m ed ic at io n us e,  p ea k flo w  va ria bi lit y  - Pr ev al en ce  o f s ev er e as th m a sy m pt om s as so ci at ed  w ith  N O 2 b ut  n ot  w ith  S O 2. 19 98 24  Pr os pe ct iv e ob se rv at io n al  s tu dy  84  a st hm at ic  c hi ld re n in  Pa ris  c la ss ifi ed  in to  tw o gr ou ps  o f s ev er ity  Ai r p ol lu ta nt  le ve ls  (b la ck  s m ok e,  P M 10 , N O 2, SO 2);  2 4 ho ur  a ve ra ge  v al ue s SO 2 m ea n:  2 1. 7 ug /m 3  ( 8. 2 pp b) / r an ge : 4. 4 – 83 .8  u g/ m 3  ( 1. 7 – 32  p pb ) In ci de nc e an d pr ev al en ce  o f as th m a at ta ck s;  s ym pt om s an d us e of  b et a- 2 ag on is ts , PE F va lu e an d va ria bi lit y - Fo r a  5 0µ g/ m 3  ( 19  p pb ) i nc re as e in  S O 2: O R  o f as th m a at ta ck  o n sa m e da y 2. 86    N or th  B ur na by  R ef in er y Em is si on s Pr oj ec t F in al  R ep or t, Ju ly  6 , 2 00 2 U B C  S ch oo l o f O cc up at io na l a nd  E nv iro nm en ta l H yg ie ne   Pa ge  4 5  R ef  Ty pe  Su bj ec ts  Ex po su re  M ea su re  O ut co m e M ea su re  K ey  F in di ng s 19 99 25  C oh or t, tim e se rie s R es id en ts  o f L on do n,  a ll ag es , 1 99 2- 19 94  Ai r p ol lu ta nt  le ve ls  in  L on do n,  SO 2: 24  h ou r a ve ra ge  v al ue s;  m ea n = 21 .2  u g/ m 3  ( 88  p pb ), ra ng e = 7. 4 – 82 .2  ug /m 3 (3 -3 1 pp b)  Ac ci de nt  a nd  e m er ge nc y vi si ts  fo r a ll re sp ira to ry  co m pl ai nt s an d as th m a - In cr ea se  in  v is its  c om pa re d to  1 0t h  t o 90 th  % ile  ch an ge  in  p ol lu ta nt  le ve l ( fo r S O 2: fro m  1 3 to  3 1 ug /m 3  o r 5  to  1 2 pp b) . - 2. 8%  in cr ea se  in  v is its  fo r a ll re sp ira to ry  sy m pt om s (6 %  in  c hi ld re n,  2 .7 %  in  a du lts  a ge d 15 -6 4,  n o ch an ge  in  e ld er ly ). - 4. 9%  in cr ea se  in  v is its  fo r a st hm a (1 0%  in  ch ild re n,  4 .2 %  in  a du lts  a ge d 15 -6 4) . - R es ul ts  s lig ht ly  lo w er  (b ut  s til l s ig ni fic an tly  el ev at ed ) w he n ot he r p ol lu ta nt s w er e ta ke n in to  ac co un t. 19 99 26  R et ro - sp ec tiv e tim e se rie s O ve r 2 50 ,0 00  re gi st er ed  pa tie nt s in  4 5- 47  L on do n G P’ s pr ac tic es  Am bi en t a ir po llu tio n m ea su re s 24  h ou r a ve ra ge  v al ue s G P co ns ul ta tio ns  fo r a st hm a an d lo w er  re sp ira to ry  di se as es  - R es ul ts  s ig ni fic an t i n ch ild re n on ly  - SO 2 i nc re as e fro m  1 3. 4 to  2 8. 4 ug /m 3  ( 5- 11  pp b)  a ss oc ia te d w ith  9 %  in cr ea se  in  a st hm a co ns ul ta tio ns  (w ar m  m on th s on ly ) a nd  5 .8 %  in cr ea se  in  c on su lta tio n fo r o th er  lo w er  re sp ira to ry  d is ea se s.  19 99 46  Ti m e se rie s R es id en ts  o f S ea ttl e,  a ge  65  a nd  y ou ng er  Am bi en t a ir po llu tio n m ea su re s 24  h ou r a ve ra ge  v al ue s SO 2: 10 th  –  9 0t h