HomeMy WebLinkAbout2019-07-08 Community Health Commission AgendaAgenda
Community Health Commission
City Of Edina, Minnesota
Edina City Hall - Community Room
Monday, July 8, 2019
6:30 PM
I.Call To Order
II.Roll Call
III.Approval Of Meeting Agenda
IV.Approval Of Meeting Minutes
A.Monday, June 10th Community Health Commission Minutes
V.Community Comment
During "Community Comment," the Board/Commission will invite residents to share relevant issues
or concerns. Individuals must limit their comments to three minutes. The Chair may limit the
number of speakers on the same issue in the interest of time and topic. Generally speaking, items
that are elsewhere on tonight's agenda may not be addressed during Community Comment.
Individuals should not expect the Chair or Board/Commission Members to respond to their
comments tonight. Instead, the Board/Commission might refer the matter to sta% for
consideration at a future meeting.
VI.Reports/Recommendations
A.Appointment to Human Services Task Force
VII.Chair And Member Comments
VIII.Sta( Comments
IX.Adjournment
The City of Edina wants all residents to be comfortable being part of the public
process. If you need assistance in the way of hearing ampli-cation, an
interpreter, large-print documents or something else, please call 952-927-8861
72 hours in advance of the meeting.
Draft MINUTES
Community Health Commission
June 10, 2019 at 6:30 PM
City Hall, Community Room
I.Call To Order
II.Roll Call
Present: Amanda Herr, Julia Selleys, Greg Wright, Dena Soukup, Christy Zilka
Absent: Anushka Thorat, Om Jahagirdar, Andrew Johnson-Cowley, Britta Orr,
Alison Pence.
III.Approval Of Meeting Agenda
Motion by Greg Wright to approve meeting agenda. Seconded by Dena
Soukup. Motion Carried.
IV.Approval Of Meeting Minutes
Motion by Dena Soukup to approve meeting minutes. Seconded by Christy
Zilka. Motion .
A.May 13, 2019 Draft Community Health Commission Minutes
V.Community Comment
Freeway pollution information shared by resident Steve Lundberg, 4801 Hilltop
Lane. Article to be attached to minutes.
VI.Reports/Recommendations
A.Human Services Task Force
B.Work Plan Review & Next Steps
Review of work plan items:
-Bloomington Public Health SHIP staff to attend August meeting to discuss
options for additional tobacco/vaping prevention at City level.
-Member Soukup volunteered to contact AARP staff to get additional information
regarding City designation process.
VII.Chair And Member Comments
VIII.Staff Comments
IX.Adjournment
1
May 23, 2019
To Whom it May Concern,
This letter contains expert opinion regarding the potential impacts of heavily travelled
roadways on nearby neighborhoods in the Edina area. It contains (1) a brief summary of the
evidence that roadway pollution is associated with adverse health impacts, including a summary
of what those health impacts are, (2) and which demographic groups are most sensitive; (3) the
distances over which roadway pollutant concentrations are elevated and factors determining
which neighborhoods are impacted and when; (4) useful mitigation strategies, including sound
walls and filtration; (5) policies directed at this problem in California; and (6) a brief narrative
considering local factors in the specific areas of interest.
Roadway vehicles emit a suite of air pollutants including ultrafine (UFP/ PM0.1; particle
diameter less than 0.1 µm), fine (PM2.5; particle diameter less than 2.5 µm) and coarse (PM10-2.5;
particle diameters between 10-2.5 µm) particles; carbon monoxide (CO); carbon dioxide (CO2);
nitrogen oxides (NOx); black carbon (BC); polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and
volatile organic compounds (VOCs). Air quality studies conducted near heavily trafficked roads
show that many of these pollutant concentrations are elevated on-and near-roads. The degree of
pollutant elevation depends on emissions in comparison to the urban background of that
pollutant however, such that some pollutants are only slightly elevated (PM 2.5, volatile organic
compounds, CO2), while others are highly elevated relative to the urban or rural background
(ultrafine particles, carbon monoxide), and others fall in between (nitrogen oxides, PM10, black
carbon).1
(1) Roadway pollution is associated with adverse health impacts
Epidemiological studies have attributed a modest increase in the rates of a long list of adverse
health effects to exposures to air pollution around roadways.2 These include increased incidence
of cardiac and pulmonary events,3, 4 diabetes-associated mortality,5 asthma and other respiratory
symptoms,6-8 pre-term birth and other adverse birth outcomes9,10 and general mortality.11 The
effects of living near a roadway can be more marked in areas with better overall air quality;
recently Urman et al.8 found marked increases in bronchitic symptoms among children living
near roadways with lower regional particulate matter.
Epidemiological studies have used proximity to roadways to estimate exposure. This is
because monitoring data for specific traffic-related pollutants has not generally been available on
a sufficiently wide scale to accurately estimate exposures of the large populations required for
epidemiological studies. As a result, evidence pointing to any specific pollutant in the mix of
traffic emissions as the causative agent for health effects is inconclusive. However, ultrafine
UCLA
SANTA BARBARA SANTA CRUZ
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, LOS ANGELES
BERKELEY DAVIS IRVINE LOS ANGELES MERCED RIVERSIDE SAN DIEGO SAN FRANCISCO
SUZANNE E. PAULSON
PROFESSOR
DEPT. OF ATMOSPHERIC & OCEANIC SCIENCES
DIRECTOR, UCLA CENTER for CLEAN AIR
7127 MATH SCIENCE BLDG
BOX 95156
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90095-1565
paulson@atmos.ucla.edu
2
particles have been specifically implicated in several adverse health effects including respiratory
and cardiovascular diseases and adverse birth outcomes.12-14
(2) Demographic groups most impacted by air pollution
Significant health impacts accrue to children, the elderly and those with pre-existing
conditions including acute and chronic respiratory and cardiovascular and other conditions, such
as those recovering from cancer or other major illnesses. Children are at elevated risk because
they inhale more air per body mass due to higher levels of activity, spend more time outside, and
because developing tissues are more sensitive to toxins. While measurable physiological changes
are observed in healthy adults exposed to elevated levels of air pollution, in most cases these
changes do not result in measurable increases in illness and mortality in this demographic group.
(3) Typical distances over which roadway pollutant concentrations are elevated, and which
neighborhoods are impacted and when
The distance that is impacted by roadways varies from about 100 yards up to well over a mile.
The impact area is on the downwind side and is controlled by local meteorology, which controls
the rate at which pollutants are mixed with background air. The mixing is strongest when
windspeeds are high and the ground is strongly warmed by the sun. Mixing can be very weak
when the ground is colder than the air above it, such as at night, and when windspeeds are low.
An estimated 30-45% of people in large North American cites live within zones highly
impacted by traffic emissions, covering up to 300-500 yards from a highway or a major road.15
Impact areas can extend significantly farther, well beyond a mile depending, on local
meteorology.16
(4) useful mitigation strategies
There are four effective approaches to reducing pollutant exposures around roadways: (i)
physical barriers, including soundwalls and vegetation; (ii) filtration/air purification, for indoor
spaces in impacted buildings; (iii) changes to use schedules, such as moving physical education
classes to times of day when pollutant concentrations are lower, and (iv) cleaning up the
emissions of the vehicle fleet. Here we address the first two in more detail. (iii) Can be very
effective but is very site-specific. (iv) Tailpipe emissions are declining as newer vehicles with
lower emissions and more durable emissions controls replace older vehicles. However, turnover
is slow and very dirty vehicles can remain in service for a decade or more. The vehicle fleet and
fleet turnover is generally outside the policy purview of local or state governments and are not
discussed further here.
(i) Solid physical barriers (soundwalls) impact pollutant concentrations by increasing turbulence
and initial mixing of the emitted pollutants.17 Roadside solid sound walls force pollutants to
move up and over the barrier, creating the effect of an elevated source and enhancing vertical
dispersion of the plume. The dispersion is further enhanced by a highly turbulent shear zone
characterized by low velocities and a recirculation cavity created on the lee side of the barrier.
These effects contribute to a well-mixed zone with lower pollutant concentrations downwind
behind the barrier.18
Vegetation barriers have potential to alter flow as well, but with several differences.
Here, vegetation refers to stands of trees with significant coverage; viewed from the roadway
trees should block most or all of the view. Bushes, vines on solid barriers and bare deciduous
trees in winter have little impact. Vegetation imposes a drag on the air moving through the leaves
3
and branches. This flow obstruction causes some air to move up and around the canopy,
increasing vertical mixing and in turn reducing pollution concentrations downwind of the barrier.
Vegetation can also remove some gaseous pollutants by absorption and particulate matter by
deposition from the air flowing through the vegetation.19 On the other hand, the imposed drag on
the airflow creates a windbreak effect behind the vegetation barrier, characterized by lower wind
speeds and lower turbulence in the wake of the canopy.20 This windbreak effect decreases both
dispersion and the rate at which traffic-related pollutants can be advectively transported away,
potentially increasing the pollutant concentrations downwind of the barrier. However, most
studies indicate that that the factors that lead to reductions outweigh those that increase it,
making vegetation a moderately positive mitigation strategy.21, 22
(ii) Effective technology is available to remove the particulate component of roadway emissions.
Strategies to remove gaseous pollutants are less effective, however some evidence indicates that
the particulate component may have more health implications. Typical HVAC air handling
systems remove some particles and gasses from outdoor air, mostly as a result of deposition of
pollutants on the surfaces within the system. Effectively cleaning the tiny particles from
roadways requires the addition of high efficiency filters, rated MERV (minimum efficiency
reporting value) 11 – 16.* Filter systems should be selected carefully to minimize noise
production and energy consumption, as performance can vary widely. Readers are referred to the
report from a study conducted in several impacted schools in the Los Angeles area for a practical
discussion of effective filtration technology, listed under further reading (item i).23
(5) Policies directed at this problem in California
Recognition of the health impacts associated with exposure to emissions from roadway
emissions has led to several regulatory policies in California, briefly summarized below. In many
but not all ways, California’s roadways should have lower pollution impacts per vehicle than
those in other states. California’s roadways are characterized by having 1) a relatively clean
fleet: CA leads the nation in implementation of clean power trains such as electric and
compressed natural gas, has relatively strict emissions testing and has implemented several buy-
back programs to remove the highest emitting cars from the roads. It has also implemented an
effective clean trucks program for much of the goods transport sector associated with high
volume activity in the ports. At the same time, California has very high truck traffic due to goods
transport, and high passenger vehicle volumes on many roadways.
Guidelines and regulations specifically aimed at reducing exposures to roadway
pollutants date to at least to 2003 and have been updated several times since. Many regulations
are directed at “sensitive” uses, usually defined as homes (single- and multi-family), hospitals,
* Surprisingly, very small (ultrafine) particles are easier to filter than somewhat larger PM2.5 particles.
Coarse particles are also easier to filter than PM2.5. This is because the technique necessary to filter
ultrafine, PM2.5 and PM10 differs from conventional filtration. Particles are removed not because they are
larger than holes in a filter; rather they diffuse out of the main flow of the airstream and stick to the fibers
of the filter (most effective for ultrafine particles) or are captured when the main air flow goes around a
bend, and the particles do not make the bend due to inertia (most effective for particles, larger than ~ 1
μM in diameter). The most difficult particles to remove are ~0.4 – 0.5 μM in diameter. Particle filter
ratings are usually based on their ability to remove particles that are ~0.5 μM, and thus generally remove
ultrafine and coarse particles even more effectively.
4
daycare and other care facilities and schools. Some of the major laws, guidelines and practices
are as follows.
(i) State law prohibiting siting of new schools within 500 feet of a freeway, urban
roadways with 100,000 vehicles/day, or rural roadways with 50,000 vehicles with
some exceptions.
Section 17213 of the California Education Code and section 21151.8 of the California
Public Resources Code (2003).
(ii) Land use guideline, state of California (2005) recommends siting all sensitive uses in
accordance with the school guidelines, including residences, day care centers,
playgrounds, or medical facilities. https://www.arb.ca.gov/ch/handbook.pdf
(iii) (Various dates) Many municipalities and air pollution control agencies in California
have issued policies or guidelines against siting sensitive uses within ~500’ of
roadways with more than 50,000 to 100,000 average vehicles per day, and 164’ to
1000’ of roadways with as few as 10,000 vehicles per day.
(iv) Construction of solid soundwalls is standard for new and rebuilt highways where they
pass through residential or commercial areas although the initial intent of the
structures was to protect people nearby from noise. Implementation of the technology
is currently widespread.
(v) Los Angeles City ordinance 184245: new developments within 1000’ of a freeway
are required to install filtration rated at MERV 13 or higher.
(6) Local factors in the Edina area
Factors that tend to create pollution “hot spots” and increase impacts of roadways on nearby
communities, in general, are:
1. At-grade roadways;
2. Roadways without barriers;
3. Areas that experience low windspeeds and
4. Areas that experience temperature inversions (a layer of cold air near the ground
surface; these layers commonly form at night, persist in the early morning and on
some winter days.†)
5. Roadways that create conditions for persistent accelerations or high engine loads,
such as up hills.
6. Stop and go traffic, especially when it coincides with low windspeeds and/or
temperature inversions and experience stop-and-go conditions during sometimes of
day.
7. High levels of truck traffic. Truck emissions can be many times those of gasoline
powered vehicles
(7) Recommendations for Edina
Edina, as noted above, is crisscrossed with several roadways with high volumes of traffic,
including Highway 100, Highway 62, and Highway 169. If Edina continues to increase density
along with other outlying areas, these traffic volumes will continue to increase. Each of these
roadways are thus a growing source of air pollution that, as noted above, presents health risks to
adjoining residential areas, particularly for vulnerable segments of the population including
† † Stable, slightly stable and neutral temperature profiles are all problematic.
5
young children and the elderly. With this in mind, I recommend that Edina adopt policies and
practices such as those adopted in California, as noted above. These policies include:
1. Prohibiting siting of new sensitive uses (e.g., schools, senior housing, playgrounds,
day care centers) within ~500’ of Highways 62, 100 or 169.
2. Construction of solid soundwalls where Highways 62, 100 and 169 pass through
residential or commercial areas.
3. Requiring new developments within 1000’ of a freeway to install filtration rated at
MERV 13 or higher.
Sincerely,
Suzanne E. Paulson
Professor
Further reading:
i. https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3521470-Performance-evaluation-of-air-
filtration-devices.html
ii. https://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-freeway-pollution-what-you-can-do-
20171230-htmlstory.html
iii. https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-freeway-pollution-filters-20170709-
story.html
References
1. Karner, A.A., D.S. Eisinger, and D.A. Niemeier (2010) Near-roadway air quality: Synthesis from
real-world data. Env. Sci. Technol., 44: 5334-5344.
2. Landrigan, P.J., et al. (2018) The <em>Lancet</em> Commission on pollution and health. The
Lancet, 391(10119): 462-512. 10.1016/S0140-6736(17)32345-0.
3. Brugge, D., J.L. Durant, and C. Rioux (2007) Near-highway pollutants in motor vehicle exhaust: A
review of epidemiologic evidence of cardiac and pulmonary health risks. Environmental Health,
6: 12. 23 10.1186/1476-069x-6-23.
4. Tonne, C., S. Melly, M. Mittleman, B. Coull, R. Goldberg, and J. Schwartz (2007) A case-control
analysis of exposure to traffic and acute myocardial infarction. Environmental Health Perspectives,
115(1): 53-57. 10.1289/ehp.9587.
5. Raaschou-Nielsen, O., M. Sorensen, M. Ketzel, O. Hertel, S. Loft, A. Tjonneland, K. Overvad, and
Z.J. Andersen (2013) Long-term exposure to traffic-related air pollution and diabetes-associated
mortality: a cohort study. Diabetologia, 56(1): 36-46. 10.1007/s00125-012-2698-7.
6. Janssen, N.A.H., B. Brunekreef, P. van Vliet, F. Aarts, K. Meliefste, H. Harssema, and P. Fischer
(2003) The relationship between air pollution from heavy traffic and allergic sensitization,
bronchial hyperresponsiveness, and respiratory symptoms in Dutch schoolchildren.
Environmental Health Perspectives, 111(12): 1512-1518.
6
7. Kim, J.J., S. Smorodinsky, B. Ostro, M. Lipsett, B.C. Singer, and A.T. Hogdson (2002) Traffic-related
Air Pollution and Respiratory Health: the East Bay Children’s Respiratory Health Study. .
Epidemiol., 13(4): S100.
8. Urman, R., S. Eckel, H. Deng, K. Berhane, E. Avol, F. Lurmann, R. McConnell, and F. Gilliland
(2018) Risk effects of near-roadway pollutants and asthma status on bronchitic symptoms in
children. Environmental Epidemiology, 2(2): e012. 10.1097/ee9.0000000000000012.
9. Volk, H.E., I. Hertz-Picciotto, L. Delwiche, F. Lurmann, and R. McConnell (2011) Residential
Proximity to Freeways and Autism in the CHARGE Study. Environmental Health Perspectives,
119(6): 873-877. 10.1289/ehp.1002835.
10. Ren, C., J. Wu, J.H. Chung, R.J. Delfino, and B. Ritz (2008) Association Between Local Traffic-
generated Air Pollution and Preterm Delivery in the South Coast Air Basin of California.
Epidemiology, 19(6): S158-S159.
11. Hoek, G., B. Brunekreef, S. Goldbohm, P. Fischer, and P.A. van den Brandt (2002) Association
between mortality and indicators of traffic-related air pollution in the Netherlands: a cohort study.
Lancet, 360(9341): 1203-1209.
12. Hoek, G., et al. (2010) Concentration Response Functions for Ultrafine Particles and All-Cause
Mortality and Hospital Admissions: Results of a European Expert Panel Elicitation. Environmental
Science & Technology, 44(1): 476-482. 10.1021/es9021393.
13. Penttinen, P., K.L. Timonen, P. Tiittanen, A. Mirme, J. Ruuskanen, and J. Pekkanen (2001) Ultrafine
particles in urban air and respiratory health among adult asthmatics. European Respiratory
Journal, 17(3): 428-435.
14. Oberdörster, G., E. Oberdörster, and J. Oberdörster (2005) Nanotoxicology: An Emerging
Discipline Evolving from Studies of Ultrafine Particles. Environmental Health Perspectives, 113(7):
823-839. 10.1289/ehp.7339.
15. HEI,2010 Traffic-related Air Pollution: A Critical Review of the Literature on Emissions, Exposure, and
Health Effects, 2010, Health Effects Institute Panel on the Health Effects of Traffic-Related Air
Pollution
16. Choi, W.S., M. He, V. Barbesant, K. Kozawa, S. Mara, A.M. Winer, and S.E. Paulson (2012)
Prevalence of wide areas of air pollutant impact downwind of freeway during pre-sunrise at
several locations in Southern California. Atmos. Environ., 62 318-327. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.atmosenv.2012.07.084.
17. Hölscher, N., R. Höffer, H.-J. Niemann, W. Brilon, and E. Romberg (1993) Wind tunnel experiments
on micro-scale dispersion of exhausts from motorways. Science of The Total Environment, 134(1):
71-79. https://doi.org/10.1016/0048-9697(93)90340-C.
18. Bowker, G.E., R. Baldauf, V. Isakov, A. Khlystov, and W. Petersen (2007) The effects of roadside
structures on the transport and dispersion of ultrafine particles from highways. Atmospheric
Environment, 41(37): 8128-8139. 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2007.06.064.
19. Abhijith, K.V., P. Kumar, J. Gallagher, A. McNabola, R. Baldauf, F. Pilla, B. Broderick, S. Di
Sabatino, and B. Pulvirenti (2017) Air pollution abatement performances of green infrastructure in
open road and built-up street canyon environments – A review. Atmospheric Environment, 162:
71-86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2017.05.014.
20. Wang, H., E. S.T., and J. Shen (2001) Shelterbelts and Windbreaks: Mathematical Modeling and
Computer Simulations of Turbulent Flows. Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics, 33(1): 549-586.
10.1146/annurev.fluid.33.1.549.
21. Ranasinghe, D., E.S. Lee, Y. Zhu, I. Frausto-Vicencio, W. Choi, W. Sun, S. Mara, U. Seibt, and S.E.
Paulson (2018) Effectiveness of vegetation and sound wall-vegetation combination barriers on
pollution dispersion from freeways under early morning conditions. Sci. Tot. Env.: In Press.
doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.12.159.
22. Lee, E.S., D.R. Ranasinghe, F.E. Ahangar, S. Amini, S. Mara, W. Choi, S. Paulson, and Y. Zhu (2018)
Field evaluation of vegetation and noise barriers for mitigation of near-freeway air pollution under
variable wind conditions. Atmospheric Environment, 175: 92-99.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2017.11.060.
7
23. Polidori, A., P.M. Fine, V. White, and P.S. Kwon (2012) Pilot study of high-performance air
filtration for classroom applications. Indoor Air, 23(3): 185-195. 10.1111/ina.12013.
Date: July 8, 2019 Agenda Item #: VI.A.
To:Community Health Commission Item Type:
Report and Recommendation
From:Amanda Herr, Chair
Item Activity:
Subject:Appointment to Human Services Task Force Action
CITY OF EDINA
4801 West 50th Street
Edina, MN 55424
www.edinamn.gov
ACTION REQUESTED:
Approve Member Christy Zilka as Community Health Commission representative on Human Services Task
Force.
INTRODUCTION: