Environmental standards A statistical approach Peter Guttorp National Research Center for Statistics and the Environment.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Introduction to Hypothesis Testing
Advertisements

Our Vision – Healthy Kansans living in safe and sustainable environments.
Earth’s Changing Environment Lecture 3 Air Quality.
Statistical Decision Making Analysts must often make decisions about some condition in the real world. Assume that you have finished your BA in Political.
Markus Amann The RAINS model: Modelling of health impacts of PM and ozone.
Critical Issues of Exposure Assessment for Human Health Studies of Air Pollution Michelle L. Bell Yale University SAMSI September 15, 2009.
Decisions, uncertainty, and the law Statistical considerations of environmental risk policy Peter Guttorp
Department of Engineering and Public Policy Carnegie Mellon University Integrated Assessment of Particulate Matter Exposure and Health Impacts Sonia Yeh.
GASP–I can't breathe! How statistics can be used to study pollution control Peter Guttorp Statistics University of Washington.
5-3 Inference on the Means of Two Populations, Variances Unknown
Air quality standards –a statistician’s perspective Peter Guttorp Northwest Research Center for Statistics and the Environment
Tests of Hypothesis [Motivational Example]. It is claimed that the average grade of all 12 year old children in a country in a particular aptitude test.
IMPLEMENTATION OF EU AQ LEGISLATION IN THE CZECH REPUBLIC J. FIALA Czech Hydrometeorological Institute Prague, Czech Republic.
Defining Air Quality: The Standard-Setting Process Chapter 10.
Ozone NAAQS – Issues with the Science Presented by: Lucy Fraiser Zephyr Environmental Corporation February 5, 2015 Air & Waste Management Association Hot.
Using Air Quality Models for Emissions Management Decisions
1 Emission and Air Quality Trends Review Washington July 2013.
Indiana Environmental Health Summit Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) June 6, 2011 Thomas W. Easterly, P.E., BCEE, QEP Commissioner,
Section 10.2: Errors in Hypothesis Testing. Test Procedure – the method we use to determine whether H 0 should be rejected. Type 1 Error: the error of.
Revisions to NAAQS –Data Handling and Interpretation NO 2 /SO 2 Update AQS Conference Colorado Springs June 2010 Rhonda Thompson US EPA, Office of Air.
1 Power and Sample Size in Testing One Mean. 2 Type I & Type II Error Type I Error: reject the null hypothesis when it is true. The probability of a Type.
Implications of the 2008 Ozone Standard Changes Deanna L. Duram, P.E., C.M. August 7, 2008 trinityconsultants.com.
Math 3680 Lecture #17 Two-Sample Inference. Two-Sample Data: Matched Pairs.
Defining Air Quality: The Standard-Setting Process
1 National Ambient Air Quality Standards and State Implementation Plans North Carolina Division of Air Quality National Ambient Air Quality Standards and.
1 Emission and Air Quality Trends Review Connecticut July 2013.
The Clean Air Act First Clean Air Act passed in 1967: 1970 Amendments established current relationship between states and federal government and required.
Economics 173 Business Statistics Lecture 4 Fall, 2001 Professor J. Petry
Analysis of Variance.
1 Emission and Air Quality Trends Review Alabama May 2013.
Lead NAAQS Review: 2 nd Draft Risk Assessment NTAA/EPA Tribal Air Call August 8, 2007 Deirdre Murphy and Zachary Pekar OAQPS.
Results and Discussion The above graph depicts FC colony plate averages for each sample site. Samples are ordered from upstream to downstream as indicated.
NAAQS and Criteria Pollutant Trends Update US EPA Region 10.
1 Emission and Air Quality Trends Review Maryland May 2013.
The Impact of Short-term Climate Variations on Predicted Surface Ozone Concentrations in the Eastern US 2020 and beyond Shao-Hang Chu and W.M. Cox US Environmental.
1 Emission and Air Quality Trends Review North Dakota July 2013.
Part 1d: Exposure Assessment and Modeling Thomas Robins, MD, MPH.
Exposure Assessment for Health Effect Studies: Insights from Air Pollution Epidemiology Lianne Sheppard University of Washington Special thanks to Sun-Young.
Opening Remarks -- Ozone and Particles: Policy and Science Recent Developments & Controversial Issues GERMAN-US WORKSHOP October 9, 2002 G. Foley *US EPA.
Network Assessment Based on Compliance Monitoring (Deviation from NAAQS) Prepared for EPA OAQPS Richard Scheffe by Rudolf B. Husar and Stefan R. Falke.
Georgia Environmental Protection Division State of Georgia’s Air Jimmy Johnston Georgia EPD – Air Protection Branch.
1 Emission and Air Quality Trends Review New Hampshire July 2013.
Nitrogen= 78% Oxygen=21% CO 2 =0.035% Total= %
Emission reductions needed to meet proposed ozone standard and their effect on particulate matter Daniel Cohan and Beata Czader Department of Civil and.
Determinant of health, pollution and regulations ( 管理 ) on health William W. Au, Ph.D.
© 2010 Pearson Prentice Hall. All rights reserved Chapter Hypothesis Tests Regarding a Parameter 10.
New Ozone NAAQS Impacts: What Happens Next with a Lower O3 Standard? Nonattainment Designation and Industry’s Opportunity to Participate New Ozone NAAQS.
Emission and Air Quality Trends Review
Statistical Methods for Model Evaluation – Moving Beyond the Comparison of Matched Observations and Output for Model Grid Cells Kristen M. Foley1, Jenise.
Combined Sewer Overflows in Seattle, WA
Representative Measurements – AQ-Workshop Bucharest, July 2008
Emission and Air Quality Trends Review
Emission and Air Quality Trends Review
Bart Ostro, Chief Air Pollution Epidemiology Unit
Air Pollutants 200 Air pollutants are recognized and assessed by the USEPA Listed in the Clean Air Act.
Emission and Air Quality Trends Review
Emission and Air Quality Trends Review
Ground-level Ozone (O3)
Emission and Air Quality Trends Review
Hypothesis Testing: The Difference Between Two Population Means
Emission and Air Quality Trends Review
WLTP CoP Procedure for CO2/FC
Emission and Air Quality Trends Review
Emission and Air Quality Trends Review
Emission and Air Quality Trends Review
Emission and Air Quality Trends Review
Emission and Air Quality Trends Review
Emission and Air Quality Trends Review
WLTP CoP Procedure for CO2/FC
Emission and Air Quality Trends Review
Presentation transcript:

Environmental standards A statistical approach Peter Guttorp National Research Center for Statistics and the Environment

Outline Some examples of environmental standards Statistical frameworks EPA rules vs. statistical rules Assumptions Network design bias

Storm sewer standard Combined sewer overflows –heavy rain –raw sewage dumped Washington state law requires “the greatest reasonable reduction of combined sewer overflows at the earliest possible date” Municipalities with CSOs must –have approved CSO reduction plans –monitor discharge volume & frequency –sample discharge

What is the problem? Hard to monitor discharges Easy to monitor rainfall Rainfall is related to discharge Look at frequency of rainfall events vs. frequency of CSO events What is a rainfall event? WA Dept of Ecology: need 48 hrs between CSO events (based on having independent rainfall events) BUT—in some places only one event per winter!

Drinking water standard Maximum microbiological contaminant levels: 1. Arithmetic mean coliform count of all standard samples examined per month shall not exceed 1/100 ml 2. The number of coliform bacteria shall not exceed 4/100 ml in (a) more than one sample when less than 20 are examined (b) more than 5% of the sample if at least 20 are examined

A statistical setup N i = #coliforms per 100 ml in sample I Y i =1(N i > 4) The criteria are then (a) (b) If n < 20 If n ≥ 20 Let

If we assume N~LN( ,  2 ) (Carbonez et al., 1999) a large n calculation yields (a)  +  2 /2 ≤ 0 (b)   ≤ 1.39 Thus, the second condition is irrelevant under these assumptions.

Clean Air Act Requires EPA to set National Ambient Air Quality Standards (1970) primary: public health secondary: public welfare States are responsible for meeting standards State Implementation Plan must be approved by EPA

Health effects of ozone Scarring lung tissue Accelerated aging of lungs Increased hospitalization for respiratory causes (e.g., asthma) Children particularly at risk 64 million people live in areas with ozone exceeding 120 ppb

Biological effects of ozone Adversely affects the ability of plants to produce and store food Leaf loss Severe forest dieback Precursors part of acid rain

Ozone standard In each region the expected number of daily maximum 1-hr ozone concentrations in excess of 120 ppb shall be no higher than one per year Implementation: A region is in violation if 120 ppb is exceeded at any monitoring site in the region more than 3 times in 3 years

A hypothesis testing framework The EPA is required to protect human health in the first instance. Hence the more serious error is to declare a region in compliance when it is not. The correct null hypothesis therefore is that the region is violating the standard.

Optimal test One station, observe Y 3 = # exceedances in 3 years Let  = E(Y 1 ) H 0 :  > 1 vs. H A :  ≤ 1 When  = 1, approximately Y 3 ~ Bin(3365,1/365) ≈ Po(3) so a UMP test rejects for small Y 3. For Y 3 = 0  = 0.05 In other words, no exceedances should be allowed.

How does the EPA perform the test? EPA wants Y 3 ≤ 3, so  = The argument is that  ≈ Y 3 / 3, so using Y 3 / 3 as test statistic, equate the critical value to the boundary between the hypotheses (!). This implementation of the standard does not offer adequate protection for the health of individuals.

More than one station Consider K independent stations. EPA uses T = max i≤K Y 3 i ; sufficiency argues use of S =  i≤K Y 3 i P(T ≤ 3) = P K (Y 3 ≤ 3) = K If K=7, P(T ≤ 3) = S ~ Po(3K), so for K=7 rejecting when S ≤ 13 is a level 0.05 test (size 0.043)

Statistical comparisons Let. For South Coast,CA,  =0.245 (0.060 ppm) and  = In order for a single station to exceed ppm with probability 1/365, we need  =0.165, or ppm. For the observed mean, the exceedance probability is For level 150 (180) ppb the probability is (0.884) 

The Barnett-O’Hagan setup Ideal standard: bound on level of pollutant in an area over a time period Realizable standard: a standard for which one can determine without uncertainty where it is satisfied Statistically verifiable standard: ideal standard augmented with operational procedure for assessing compliance

Consequences for hypothesis tests One option: set values of  and  at the design level and a “safe” level, respectively. For example, the “safe” level could be the highest level for which the relative risk of health effects on some susceptible population is not significantly different from one

A new ozone standard Summer 1997: 8-hour averages instead of 1-hour Limit 80 ppb instead of 120 increases non-attainment counties from 104 to 394 Instead of number of exceedances, limit is put on a 3-year average of fourth-highest ozone concentration

Legal challenges of the new air quality standards The new 8-hr standard for ozone, and a new standard for particulate matter, was struck down by by the US Court of Appeals, in effect declaring the Clean Air Act unconstitutional Although the 8-hr standard was left in place, it was declared “unenforcable” The court directed EPA to consider potential health effects of ground- level ozone

Spatial and temporal dependence Daily maxima of ozone show some temporal structure There is substantial spatial correlation between daily maxima at different monitors in a region Simulations indicate that 10 sites in the Chicago area behaves similar to 2 independent sites

Network design bias Data from compliance monitoring networks are often used for health effect studies Compliance monitoring looks for large values Health effects need ambient air quality where affected people are

A simplistic analysis Suppose X t =  X t-1 +  t is a stationary vector time series, mean , with  t ~ N(0,  ) and  ij = , i≠j E(X 1,t |X 1,t-1 > X 2,t-1 ) =  1 E(X 1,t-1 | X 1,t-1 > X 2,t-1 ) =  1 +  1 provided  1 =  2 Consequences for health effect estimation?

A more complete picture? Threshold model—dose-response –Often from simpler animal models –Low dose extrapolation –Uncertainty “Acceptable” dose (“Unacceptable” dose) Separate anthropogenic influence from natural variability Achievable limit