&EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Particulate Matter Health Risk Assessment
for Selected Urban Areas
-------
EPA 452/R-05-007A
December 2005
Particulate Matter Health Risk Assessment
For Selected Urban Areas
By:
Ellen Post
Kristina Watts
Ed Al-Hussainy
Emily Neubig
Abt Associates, Inc.
Bethesda, MD
Prepared for:
Nancy Riley, Project Officer
Harvey Richmond, Work Assignment Manager
Air Quality Strategies and Standards Division
Contract No. 68-D-03-002
Work Assignments 1-15 and 2-22
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Air Quality Strategies and Standards Division
Health and Ecosystems Effects Group
Research Triangle Park, NC
-------
DISCLAIMER
This report is being furnished to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) by
Abt Associates Inc. in partial fulfillment of Contract No. 68-D-03-002, Work Assignment Nos.
1-15 and 2-22. Some of the preliminary work for this report was completed under Contract No.
68-D-98-001, Work Assignments 1-36, 2-46, 3-51, and 4-65 and Contract No. 68-D-03-002,
Work Assignment No. 0-04. The opinions, findings, and conclusions expressed are those of the
authors and are not necessarily those of the EPA. Earlier drafts of this report were circulated for
review by the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee and the general public. All inquiries
concerning this report should be addressed to Mr. Harvey Richmond, U.S. EPA, Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, C539-01, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711.
Any analyses, interpretations, or conclusions presented in this report based on
hospitalization and mortality data obtained from outside sources, are credited to the authors and
not the institutions providing the raw data. Furthermore, Abt Associates expressly understands
that the Michigan Health and Hospital Association has not performed an analysis of the
hospitalization data obtained or warranted the accuracy of this information and, therefore, it
cannot be held responsible in any manner for the outcome.
-------
PREFACE TO DECEMBER 2005 EDITION
The purpose of this December 2005 revised edition is to include a number of technical
corrections to the June 2005 final report. An errata sheet that lists the revisions made to the June
2005 report is included after the List of Figures.
11
-------
Table of Contents
1. Introduction 1
2. Overview of Methods 8
2.1 Basic structure of the risk assessment 8
2.2 Air quality inputs 13
2.2.1 Estimating policy relevant background PM levels 13
2.2.2 Characterizing "as is" PM air quality 13
2.3 Simulating PM levels that just meet specified PM standards 14
2.4 Baseline health effects incidence data 19
2.5 Calculating health effects incidence 20
2.5.1 General approach 20
2.5.2 Short- and long-term exposure endpoints 21
2.5.3 Cutpoints and slope adjustment 23
2.5.4 Calculating incidence on an annual basis 27
2.6 Characterizing uncertainty and variability 29
2.7 Summary of key assumptions and sensitivity analyses 31
3. Health Endpoints, Urban Areas, and Studies Selected 34
3.1 Health endpoints 34
3.2 Urban areas 36
3.2.1 Additional considerations: the PM25 risk assessment 37
3.2.2 Additional considerations: the PM10_25 risk assessment 38
3.3 Studies 39
3.4 A summary of health endpoints, urban areas, and studies selected 39
4. Selecting Concentration-Response Functions 44
4.1 Single and multi-city functions 44
4.2 Single and multi-pollutant models 45
4.3 Single, multiple, and distributed lag functions 46
4.4 Alternative approaches to estimating short-term exposure C-R functions 47
4.5 Long-term exposure mortality C-R functions 48
4.6 Summary 50
5. Baseline Health Effects Incidence Rates 51
6. Sources of Uncertainty and Variability 62
6.1 Concentration-response functions 66
6.1.1 Uncertainty associated with the appropriate model form 66
in
-------
6.1.2 Uncertainty associated with the estimated concentration-response
functions in the study locations 67
6.1.3 Applicability of concentration-response functions in different locations
68
6.1.4 Extrapolation beyond observed air quality levels 69
6.2 The air quality data 70
6.2.1 Use of PM as the indicator 70
6.2.2 Adequacy of PM air quality data 71
6.2.3 Simulation of reductions in PM25 and PM10_25 concentrations to just meet
the current and alternative standards 72
6.3 Baseline health effects incidence rates 73
6.3.1 Quality of incidence data 74
6.3.2 Lack of daily health effects incidence rates 75
7. Assessment of the Health Risks Associated with "As Is" PM25 Concentrations in Excess
of Specified Levels 76
7.1 Base case analysis 76
7.2 Sensitivity analyses 90
8. Assessment of the Reduced Health Risks Associated with Just Meeting the Current and
AlternativePM25 Standards 106
8.1 Base case analysis 106
8.2 Sensitivity analyses 128
8.2.1 The effect of alternative rollback methods 128
8.2.2 The effect of using different, location-specific C-R functions vs. a single
C-R function in all locations 131
8.2.3 Comparison of risk estimates based on annual standard design values
calculated from maximum versus average of monitor-specific averages
133
9. Assessment of the Health Risks Associated with "As Is" PM10_25 Concentrations and the
Reduced Risks Associated with Just Meeting Alternative PM10_2 5 Standards 144
9.1 Base case analysis 144
9.2 Sensitivity Analyses 152
References 155
Appendix A. Air Quality Assessment: The PM Data A
A.I. ThePM25 data A-2
A.2. The PM10.2 5 data A-7
IV
-------
Appendix B. Linear Trends in Historical PM2 5 Data in Philadelphia and Los Angeles B-l
Appendix C. Study-Specific Information for the PM2 5 and PM10_2 5 Risk Assessments C-0
C.I. ThePM25 data C-l
C.2. The PM10.2 5 data C-19
Appendix D. Estimated Annual Health Risks Associated with "As Is" PM2 5 Concentrations
D-
D.l. Primary analysis D-l
D.2. Sensitivity analyses D-20
Appendix E. Estimated Annual Reduced Risks Associated with PM2 5 Concentrations When the
Current and Alternative Standards Are Just Met E-0
E.I. Primary analysis E-l
E.2. Sensitivity analyses E-64
Appendix F. Estimated Annual Health Risks Associated with PM10_2 5 Concentrations F-0
F.I. Primary Analysis F-l
F.2. Sensitivity analyses F-7
Appendix G. Estimated Annual Health Risks Associated with "As Is" PM10 Concentrations
G-0
G.I. Relevant Population Sizes G-l
G.2. Baseline Incidence Rates G-2
G.3. The PM10 data G-6
G.4. Results G-10
-------
List of Exhibits
Exhibit 2.1 Major Components of Particulate Matter Health Risk Analyses 9
Exhibit 2.2. Flow Diagram of Risk Analyses for Short-Term Exposure Studies 11
Exhibit 2.3. Flow Diagram of Risk Analyses for Long-Term Exposure Studies 12
Exhibit 2.4 EPA Design Values for Annual and 98th and 99th Percentile Daily PM2 5 Standards
16
Exhibit 2.5 EPA Design Values for 98th and 99th Percentile Daily PM10.25 Standards 16
Exhibit 2.6 Sensitivity Analyses 33
Exhibit 3.1 The PM25 Risk Assessment: Mortality Associated with Short-Term Exposure .... 40
Exhibit 3.2 The PM25 Risk Assessment: Mortality Associated with Long-Term Exposure .... 41
Exhibit 3.3 The PM25 Risk Assessment: Morbidity Associated with Short-Term Exposure ... 42
Exhibit 3.4 The PM10_25 Risk Assessment: Morbidity Associated with Short-Term Exposure . 43
Exhibit 5.1 Relevant Population Sizes forPM25 Risk Assessment Locations 52
Exhibit 5.2 Relevant Population Sizes forPM10_25 Risk Assessment Locations 53
Exhibit 5.3 Baseline Mortality Rates for 2001 for PM25 Risk Assessment Locations 55
Exhibit 5.4 ICD-9 Codes used in Epidemiological Studies and Corresponding ICD-10 Codes
58
Exhibit 5.5 Baseline Hospitalization Rates for PM25 Risk Assessment Locations 60
Exhibit 5.6 Baseline Hospitalization Rates for PM10_25 Risk Assessment Locations 61
Exhibit 6.1 Key Uncertainties in the Risk Assessment 63
Exhibit 7.1. Estimated Annual Mortality Associated with Short-Term Exposure to "As Is" PM25
Concentrations, Assuming Various Cutpoint Levels 83
Exhibit 7.2. Estimated Annual Mortality Associated with Long-Term Exposure to "As Is" PM2 5
Concentrations, Assuming Various Cutpoint Levels 84
Exhibit 7.3. Estimated Annual Health Risks Associated with "As Is" PM25 Concentrations:
Detroit, MI, 2003 85
Exhibit 7.4. Estimated Annual Mortality Associated with Short-Term and Long-Term Exposure
to "As Is" PM2 5 Concentrations Assuming Alternative Cutpoint Levels: Detroit, MI, 2003
87
Exhibit 7.5 Summary of Sensitivity Analyses Associated with the "As Is" Part of the Risk
Assessment for PM25 91
Exhibit 7.6. Sensitivity Analysis: Estimated Annual Health Risks Associated with Short-Term
Exposure to "As Is" PM2 5 Concentrations, Using Different Estimates of Policy Relevant
Background Level: Detroit, MI, 2003 92
Exhibit 7.7 Sensitivity Analysis: Estimated Annual Health Risks of Short-Term Exposure
Mortality Associated with "As Is" PM2 5 Concentrations With Adjustments for the
Estimated Increases in Incidence if Distributed Lag Models Had Been Estimated: Detroit,
MI, 2003 93
VI
-------
Exhibit 7.8 Sensitivity Analysis: The Effect of Assumptions About Historical Air Quality on
Estimates of Long-Term Exposure Mortality Associated with "As Is" PM2 5
Concentrations: Detroit, MI, 2003 94
Exhibit 7.9 Sensitivity Analysis: Estimated Annual Health Risks Associated With "As Is" PM2 5
Concentrations Using a Constant Background Level Versus Different Daily Background
Levels: Detroit, MI, 2003 95
Exhibit 7.10. Comparison of PM25 Concentrations in Boston, MA in 2002 With and Without
Monitor-Days Flagged as "Exceptional/Natural Event Episodes" 96
Exhibit 7.11 Sensitivity Analysis: Estimated Annual Health Risks Associated With "As Is" PM2 5
Concentrations, With and Without "Exceptional/Natural Event Episodes": Boston, MA,
2002 97
Exhibit 7.12a Sensitivity Analysis: Estimated Annual Mortality Risks Associated With Short-
Term Exposure to "As Is" PM2 5 Concentrations, Using Alternative Model Specifications:
Los Angeles, CA, 2003 99
Exhibit 7.12b Sensitivity Analysis: Estimated Annual Morbidity Risks Associated With Short-
Term Exposure to "As Is" PM2 5 Concentrations, Using Alternative Model Specifications:
Los Angeles, CA, 2003 101
Exhibit 8.1 Alternative Sets of PM25 Standards Considered in the PM25 Risk Assessment . . . 106
Exhibit 8.2. Estimated Annual Mortality Associated with Short-Term Exposure to PM2 5 When
the Current Annual Standard of 15 |ig/m3 and the Current Daily Standard of 65 |ig/m3
Are Just Met, Assuming Various Cutpoint Levels 110
Exhibit 8.3. Estimated Annual Mortality Associated with Long-Term Exposure to PM25 When
the Current Annual Standard of 15 |ig/m3 and the Current Daily Standard of 65 |ig/m3
Are Just Met, Assuming Various Cutpoint Levels Ill
Exhibit 8.4. Estimated Annual Mortality Associated with Short-Term Exposure to PM25 When
Alternative Standards Are Just Met, Assuming Various Cutpoint Levels: Detroit, MI,
2003 112
Exhibit 8.5. Estimated Annual Mortality Associated with Long-Term Exposure to PM2 5 When
Alternative Standards Are Just Met, Assuming Various Cutpoint Levels: Detroit, MI,
2003 116
Exhibit 8.6. Estimated Annual Cardiopulmonary Mortality Associated with Long-Term
Exposure to PM2 5 When Alternative Standards Are Just Met, Assuming Various Cutpoint
Levels: Detroit, MI, 2003 120
Exhibit 8.7 Estimated Annual Lung Cancer Mortality Associated with Long-Term Exposure to
PM2 5 When Alternative Standards Are Just Met, Assuming Various Cutpoint Levels:
Detroit, MI, 2003 124
Exhibit 8.8 Summary of Sensitivity Analyses Associated with the Second Part of the Risk
Assessment for PM2 5 (Just meeting the Current and Alternative PM2 5 Standards) ... 128
Exhibit 8.9. Sensitivity Analysis: Estimated Annual Reductions of Short-Term and Long-Term
Exposure Mortality Associated with Rolling Back PM2 5 Concentrations to Just Meet the
vn
-------
Current Annual Standard of 15 ug/m3 and the Current Daily Standard of 65 ug/m3 Using
an Alternative Rollback Method : Detroit, MI, 2003 130
Exhibit 8.10. Estimated Annual Mortality Associated with Short-Term Exposure to PM2 5 When
the Current Annual Standard of 15 jig/m3 and the Current Daily Standard of 65 jig/m3
Are Just Met, Assuming Various Cutpoint Levels — Using Different, Location-Specific
Concentration-Response Functions vs. the Same Concentration-Response Function in All
Urban Areas 132
Exhibit 8.11 Air Quality Adjustments Required to Just Meet the Current Annual PM2 5 Standard
of 15 |ag/m3 Using the Maximum vs. the Average of Monitor-Specific Averages .... 133
Exhibit 8.12. Sensitivity Analysis: Estimated Annual Mortality Associated with Short-Term
Exposure to PM2 5 When Alternative Standards Are Just Met, Assuming Various Cutpoint
Levels — Rollbacks to Meet Annual Standards Using Design Values Based on Maximum
vs. Average of Monitor-Specific Averages: Detroit, MI, 2003 134
Exhibit 8.13. Sensitivity Analysis: Estimated Annual Mortality Associated with Long-Term
Exposure to PM2 5 When Alternative Standards Are Just Met, Assuming Various Cutpoint
Levels — Rollbacks to Meet Annual Standards Using Design Values Based on Maximum
vs. Average of Monitor-Specific Averages: Detroit, MI, 2003 137
Exhibit 9.1. Estimated Annual Health Risks Associated with Short-Term Exposure to "As Is"
PMio-2.5 Concentrations: Detroit, MI, 2003 147
Exhibit 9.2. Estimated Annual Health Risks Associated with "As Is" PM10_2 5 Concentrations,
Assuming Various Cutpoint Levels: Detroit, MI, 2003 148
Exhibit 9.3. Alternative PM10_25 Standards Considered in the PM10_25 Risk Assessment 149
Exhibit 9.4. Estimated Annual Hospital Admissions for Ischemic Heart Disease Associated with
Short-Term Exposure to PM10_2 5 When Alternative Standards Are Just Met, Assuming
Various Cutpoint Levels: Detroit, MI, 2003 150
Exhibit 9.5. Sensitivity Analysis: Estimated Annual Health Risks Associated with Short-Term
Exposure to "As Is" PM10_2 5 Concentrations, Using Different Estimates of Policy
Relevant Background Level: Detroit, MI, 2003 153
Exhibit A. 1. Number of Days on which PM2 5 Concentration Data are Available, by Monitor and
by Quarter, and PM2 5 Concentrations. Boston, 2003 A-2
Exhibit A.2. Number of Days on which PM25 Concentration Data are Available, by Monitor and
by Quarter, and PM2 5 Concentrations. Detroit, 2003 A-3
Exhibit A.3. Number of Days on which PM25 Concentration Data are Available, by Monitor and
by Quarter, and PM2 5 Concentrations. Los Angeles, 2003 A-3
Exhibit A.4. Number of Days on which PM25 Concentration Data are Available, by Monitor and
by Quarter, and PM2 5 Concentrations. Philadelphia, 2003 A-4
Exhibit A. 5. Number of Days on which PM25 Concentration Data are Available, by Monitor and
by Quarter, and PM25 Concentrations. Phoenix, 2001 A-4
Exhibit A.6. Number of Days on which PM25 Concentration Data are Available, by Monitor and
by Quarter, and PM2 5 Concentrations. Pittsburgh, 2003 A-5
Vlll
-------
Exhibit A.7. Number of Days on which PM25 Concentration Data are Available, by Monitor and
by Quarter, and PM2 5 Concentrations. San Jose, 2003 A-5
Exhibit A. 8. Number of Days on which PM25 Concentration Data are Available, by Monitor and
by Quarter, and PM2 5 Concentrations. Seattle, 2003 A-6
Exhibit A.9. Number of Days on which PM25 Concentration Data are Available, by Monitor and
by Quarter, and PM2 5 Concentrations. St. Louis, 2003 A-7
Exhibit A. 10. Number of Days on which PM10_25 Concentration Data are Available, by Monitor
and by Quarter, and PM10_2 5 Concentrations. Detroit, 2003 A-8
Exhibit A. 11. Number of Days on which PM10_2 5 Concentration Data are Available, by Monitor
and by Quarter, and PM10_2 5 Concentrations. Seattle, 2003 A-8
Exhibit A. 12. Number of Days on which PM10_25 Concentration Data are Available, by Monitor
and by Quarter, and PM10_2 5 Concentrations. St. Louis, 2003 A-9
Exhibit B.I. Average PM2 5 Concentrations (|ig/m3) in Each Decile of Earlier Year and Year
2000 Distributions at Composite Monitors in Philadelphia and Los Angeles B-3
Exhibit B.2 B-4
Exhibit B.3 B-4
Exhibit B.4. Results of Regressions of Year 2000 Average PM25 Concentrations over
Background on Earlier Year Average PM2 5 Concentrations over Background B-6
Exhibit C.I. Study-Specific Information for PM25 Studies in Boston, MA C-l
Exhibit C.2. Study-Specific Information for PM25 Studies in Detroit, MI C-3
Exhibit C.3. Study-Specific Information for PM25 Studies in Los Angeles, CA C-5
Exhibit C.4. Study-Specific Information for PM25 Studies in Philadelphia, PA C-10
Exhibit C.5. Study-Specific Information for PM25 Studies in Phoenix, AZ C-l 1
Exhibit C.6. Study-Specific Information for PM25 Studies in Pittsburgh, PA C-12
Exhibit C.7. Study-Specific Information for PM25 Studies in San Jose, CA C-13
Exhibit C.8. Study-Specific Information for PM25 Studies in Seattle, WA C-15
Exhibit C.9. Study-Specific Information for PM25 Studies in St. Louis, MO C-16
Exhibit C. 10. Study-Specific Information for Long-Term Exposure Mortality C-l8
Exhibit C. 11. Study-Specific Information for PM10_25 Studies in Detroit, MI C-l9
Exhibit C.12. Study-Specific Information for PM10_25 Studies in Seattle, WA C-20
Exhibit C.13. Study-Specific Information for PM10_25 Studies in St. Louis, MO C-21
Exhibit D. 1. Estimated Annual Health Risks Associated with "As Is" PM2 5 Concentrations:
Boston, MA, 2003 D-l
Exhibit D.2a. Estimated Annual Health Risks Associated with "As Is" PM2 5 Concentrations:
Los Angeles, CA, 2003 D-3
Exhibit D.2b. Estimated Annual Health Risks Associated with "As Is" PM25 Concentrations:
Los Angeles, CA, 2003 D-4
Exhibit D.3. Estimated Annual Health Risks Associated with "As Is" PM25 Concentrations:
Philadelphia, PA, 2003 D-5
Exhibit D.4. Estimated Annual Health Risks Associated with "As Is" PM25 Concentrations:
Phoenix, AZ, 2001 D-6
IX
-------
Exhibit D.5. Estimated Annual Health Risks Associated with "As Is" PM25 Concentrations:
Pittsburgh, PA, 2003 D-7
Exhibit D.6. Estimated Annual Health Risks Associated with "As Is" PM2 5 Concentrations: San
Jose, CA, 2003 D-8
Exhibit D.7. Estimated Annual Health Risks Associated with "As Is" PM2 5 Concentrations:
Seattle, WA, 2003 D-9
Exhibit D.8. Estimated Annual Health Risks Associated with "As Is" PM25 Concentrations: St.
Louis, MO, 2003 D-10
Exhibit D.9. Estimated Annual Mortality Associated with Short-Term and Long-Term Exposure
to "As Is" PM25 Concentrations, Assuming Various Cutpoint Levels: Boston, MA, 2003
D-12
Exhibit D. 10. Estimated Annual Mortality Associated with Short-Term and Long-Term
Exposure to "As Is" PM2 5 Concentrations, Assuming Various Cutpoint Levels: Los
Angeles, CA, 2003 D-13
Exhibit D. 11. Estimated Annual Mortality Associated with Short-Term and Long-Term
Exposure to "As Is" PM2 5 Concentrations, Assuming Various Cutpoint Levels:
Philadelphia, PA, 2003 D-14
Exhibit D. 12. Estimated Annual Mortality Associated with Short-Term and Long-Term
Exposure to "As Is" PM2 5 Concentrations, Assuming Various Cutpoint Levels: Phoenix,
AZ, 2001 D-15
Exhibit D. 13. Estimated Annual Mortality Associated with Short-Term and Long-Term
Exposure to "As Is" PM2 5 Concentrations, Assuming Various Cutpoint Levels:
Pittsburgh, PA, 2003 D-16
Exhibit D. 14. Estimated Annual Mortality Associated with Short-Term and Long-Term
Exposure to "As Is" PM2 5 Concentrations, Assuming Various Cutpoint Levels: San Jose,
CA, 2003 D-17
Exhibit D. 15. Estimated Annual Mortality Associated with Short-Term and Long-Term
Exposure to "As Is" PM25 Concentrations, Assuming Various Cutpoint Levels: Seattle,
WA, 2003 D-18
Exhibit D. 16. Estimated Annual Mortality Associated with Short-Term and Long-Term
Exposure to "As Is" PM2 5 Concentrations, Assuming Various Cutpoint Levels: St. Louis,
MO, 2003 D-19
Exhibit D. 17. Sensitivity Analysis: Estimated Annual Health Risks Associated with Short-Term
Exposure to "As Is" PM2 5 Concentrations, Using Different Estimates of Policy Relevant
Background Level: Boston, MA, 2003 D-20
Exhibit D. 18a. Sensitivity Analysis: Estimated Annual Mortality Associated with Short-Term
Exposure to "As Is" PM2 5 Concentrations, Using Different Estimates of Policy Relevant
Background Level: Los Angeles, CA, 2003 D-21
Exhibit D. 18b. Sensitivity Analysis: Estimated Annual Morbidity Associated with Short-Term
Exposure to "As Is" PM2 5 Concentrations, Using Different Estimates of Policy Relevant
Background Level: Los Angeles, CA, 2003 D-22
-------
Exhibit D. 19. Sensitivity Analysis: Estimated Annual Health Risks Associated with Short-Term
Exposure to "As Is" PM2 5 Concentrations, Using Different Estimates of Policy Relevant
Background Level: Philadelphia, PA, 2003 D-23
Exhibit D.20. Sensitivity Analysis: Estimated Annual Health Risks Associated with Short-Term
Exposure to "As Is" PM2 5 Concentrations, Using Different Estimates of Policy Relevant
Background Level: Phoenix, AZ, 2001 D-24
Exhibit D.21. Sensitivity Analysis: Estimated Annual Health Risks Associated with Short-Term
Exposure to "As Is" PM2 5 Concentrations, Using Different Estimates of Policy Relevant
Background Level: Pittsburgh, PA, 2003 D-25
Exhibit D.22. Sensitivity Analysis: Estimated Annual Health Risks Associated with Short-Term
Exposure to "As Is" PM2 5 Concentrations, Using Different Estimates of Policy Relevant
Background Level: San Jose, CA, 2003 D-26
Exhibit D.23. Sensitivity Analysis: Estimated Annual Health Risks Associated with Short-Term
Exposure to "As Is" PM2 5 Concentrations, Using Different Estimates of Policy Relevant
Background Level: Seattle, WA, 2003 D-27
Exhibit D.24. Sensitivity Analysis: Estimated Annual Health Risks Associated with Short-Term
Exposure to "As Is" PM2 5 Concentrations, Using Different Estimates of Policy Relevant
Background Level: St. Louis, MO, 2003 D-28
Exhibit D.25. Sensitivity Analysis: Estimated Annual Health Risks of Short-Term Exposure
Mortality Associated with "As Is" PM25 Concentrations With Adjustments for the
Estimated Increases in Incidence if Distributed Lag Models Had Been Estimated: Boston,
MA, 2003 D-29
Exhibit D.26. Sensitivity Analysis: Estimated Annual Health Risks of Short-Term Exposure
Mortality Associated with "As Is" PM25 Concentrations With Adjustments for the
Estimated Increases in Incidence if Distributed Lag Models Had Been Estimated: Los
Angeles, CA, 2003 D-30
Exhibit D.27. Sensitivity Analysis: Estimated Annual Health Risks of Short-Term Exposure
Mortality Associated with "As Is" PM25 Concentrations With Adjustments for the
Estimated Increases in Incidence if Distributed Lag Models Had Been Estimated:
Pittsburgh, PA, 2003 D-31
Exhibit D.28. Sensitivity Analysis: Estimated Annual Health Risks of Short-Term Exposure
Mortality Associated with "As Is" PM25 Concentrations With Adjustments for the
Estimated Increases in Incidence if Distributed Lag Models Had Been Estimated: San
Jose, CA, 2003 D-32
Exhibit D.29. Sensitivity Analysis: Estimated Annual Health Risks of Short-Term Exposure
Mortality Associated with "As Is" PM25 Concentrations With Adjustments for the
Estimated Increases in Incidence if Distributed Lag Models Had Been Estimated: St.
Louis, MO, 2003 D-33
Exhibit D.30. Sensitivity Analysis: The Effect of Assumptions About Historical Air Quality on
Estimates of Mortality Associated with Long-Term Exposure to "As Is" PM25
Concentrations: Boston, MA 2003 D-34
XI
-------
Exhibit D.31. Sensitivity Analysis: The Effect of Assumptions About Historical Air Quality on
Estimates of Mortality Associated with Long-Term Exposure to "As Is" PM25
Concentrations: Los Angeles, CA, 2003 D-35
Exhibit D.32. Sensitivity Analysis: The Effect of Assumptions About Historical Air Quality on
Estimates of Mortality Associated with Long-Term Exposure to "As Is" PM25
Concentrations: Philadelphia, PA, 2003 D-36
Exhibit D.33. Sensitivity Analysis: The Effect of Assumptions About Historical Air Quality on
Estimates of Mortality Associated with Long-Term Exposure to "As Is" PM25
Concentrations: Phoenix, AZ, 2003 D-37
Exhibit D.34. Sensitivity Analysis: The Effect of Assumptions About Historical Air Quality on
Estimates of Mortality Associated with Long-Term Exposure to "As Is" PM25
Concentrations: Pittsburgh, PA, 2003 D-38
Exhibit D.35. Sensitivity Analysis: The Effect of Assumptions About Historical Air Quality on
Estimates of Mortality Associated with Long-Term Exposure to "As Is" PM25
Concentrations: San Jose, CA, 2003 D-39
Exhibit D.36. Sensitivity Analysis: The Effect of Assumptions About Historical Air Quality on
Estimates of Mortality Associated with Long-Term Exposure to "As Is" PM25
Concentrations: Seattle, WA, 2003 D-40
Exhibit D.37. Sensitivity Analysis: The Effect of Assumptions About Historical Air Quality on
Estimates of Mortality Associated with Long-Term Exposure to "As Is" PM25
Concentrations: St. Louis, MO, 2003 D-41
Exhibit E. 1. Estimated Annual Mortality Associated with Short-Term Exposure to PM2 5 When
Alternative Standards Are Just Met, Assuming Various Cutpoint Levels: Boston, MA,
2003 E-l
Exhibit E.2. Estimated Annual Mortality Associated with Short-Term Exposure to PM2 5 When
Alternative Standards Are Just Met, Assuming Various Cutpoint Levels: Los Angeles,
CA, 2003 E-3
Exhibit E.3. Estimated Annual Mortality Associated with Short-Term Exposure to PM25 When
Alternative Standards Are Just Met, Assuming Various Cutpoint Levels: Philadelphia,
PA, 2003 E-5
Exhibit E.4. Estimated Annual Mortality Associated with Short-Term Exposure to PM2 5 When
Alternative Standards Are Just Met, Assuming Various Cutpoint Levels: Phoenix, AZ,
2001 E-7
Exhibit E.5. Estimated Annual Mortality Associated with Short-Term Exposure to PM25 When
Alternative Standards Are Just Met, Assuming Various Cutpoint Levels: Pittsburgh, PA,
2003 E-9
Exhibit E.6. Estimated Annual Mortality Associated with Short-Term Exposure to PM2 5 When
Alternative Standards Are Just Met, Assuming Various Cutpoint Levels: San Jose, CA,
2003 E-ll
xn
-------
Exhibit E.7. Estimated Annual Mortality Associated with Short-Term Exposure to PM2 5 When
Alternative Standards Are Just Met, Assuming Various Cutpoint Levels: Seattle, WA,
2003 E-13
Exhibit E.8. Estimated Annual Mortality Associated with Short-Term Exposure to PM2 5 When
Alternative Standards Are Just Met, Assuming Various Cutpoint Levels: St. Louis, MO,
2003 E-15
Exhibit E.9. Estimated Annual Mortality Associated with Long-Term Exposure to PM2 5 When
Alternative Standards Are Just Met, Assuming Various Cutpoint Levels: Boston, MA,
2003 E-17
Exhibit E. 10. Estimated Annual Mortality Associated with Long-Term Exposure to PM2 5 When
Alternative Standards Are Just Met, Assuming Various Cutpoint Levels: Los Angeles,
CA, 2003 E-19
Exhibit E. 11. Estimated Annual Mortality Associated with Long-Term Exposure to PM2 5 When
Alternative Standards Are Just Met, Assuming Various Cutpoint Levels: Philadelphia,
PA, 2003 E-21
Exhibit E. 12. Estimated Annual Mortality Associated with Long-Term Exposure to PM2 5 When
Alternative Standards Are Just Met, Assuming Various Cutpoint Levels: Phoenix, AZ,
2001 E-23
Exhibit E.13. Estimated Annual Mortality Associated with Long-Term Exposure to PM25 When
Alternative Standards Are Just Met, Assuming Various Cutpoint Levels: Pittsburgh, PA,
2003 E-25
Exhibit E. 14. Estimated Annual Mortality Associated with Long-Term Exposure to PM2 5 When
Alternative Standards Are Just Met, Assuming Various Cutpoint Levels: San Jose, CA,
2003 E-27
Exhibit E.I5. Estimated Annual Mortality Associated with Long-Term Exposure to PM25 When
Alternative Standards Are Just Met, Assuming Various Cutpoint Levels: Seattle, WA,
2003 E-29
Exhibit E. 16. Estimated Annual Mortality Associated with Long-Term Exposure to PM2 5 When
Alternative Standards Are Just Met, Assuming Various Cutpoint Levels: St. Louis, MO,
2003 E-31
Exhibit E. 17. Estimated Annual Cardiovascular Mortality Associated with Long-Term Exposure
to PM2 5 When Alternative Standards Are Just Met, Assuming Various Cutpoint Levels:
Boston, MA, 2003 E-33
Exhibit E. 18. Estimated Annual Cardiovascular Mortality Associated with Long-Term Exposure
to PM2 5 When Alternative Standards Are Just Met, Assuming Various Cutpoint Levels:
Los Angeles, CA, 2003 E-35
Exhibit E. 19. Estimated Annual Cardiovascular Mortality Associated with Long-Term Exposure
to PM2 5 When Alternative Standards Are Just Met, Assuming Various Cutpoint Levels:
Philadelphia, PA, 2003 E-37
Xlll
-------
Exhibit E.20. Estimated Annual Cardiovascular Mortality Associated with Long-Term Exposure
to PM2 5 When Alternative Standards Are Just Met, Assuming Various Cutpoint Levels:
Phoenix, AZ, 2001 E-39
Exhibit E.21. Estimated Annual Cardiovascular Mortality Associated with Long-Term Exposure
to PM2 5 When Alternative Standards Are Just Met, Assuming Various Cutpoint Levels:
Pittsburgh, PA, 2003 E-40
Exhibit E.22. Estimated Annual Cardiovascular Mortality Associated with Long-Term Exposure
to PM2 5 When Alternative Standards Are Just Met, Assuming Various Cutpoint Levels:
San Jose, CA, 2003 E-42
Exhibit E.23. Estimated Annual Cardiovascular Mortality Associated with Long-Term Exposure
to PM2 5 When Alternative Standards Are Just Met, Assuming Various Cutpoint Levels:
Seattle, WA, 2003 E-44
Exhibit E.24. Estimated Annual Cardiovascular Mortality Associated with Long-Term Exposure
to PM2 5 When Alternative Standards Are Just Met, Assuming Various Cutpoint Levels:
St. Louis, MO, 2003 E-46
Exhibit E.25. Estimated Annual Lung Cancer Mortality Associated with Long-Term Exposure
to PM2 5 When Alternative Standards Are Just Met, Assuming Various Cutpoint Levels:
Boston, MA, 2003 E-48
Exhibit E.26. Estimated Annual Lung Cancer Mortality Associated with Long-Term Exposure
to PM2 5 When Alternative Standards Are Just Met, Assuming Various Cutpoint Levels:
Los Angeles, CA, 2003 E-50
Exhibit E.27. Estimated Annual Lung Cancer Mortality Associated with Long-Term Exposure
to PM2 5 When Alternative Standards Are Just Met, Assuming Various Cutpoint Levels:
Philadelphia, PA, 2003 E-52
Exhibit E.28. Estimated Annual Lung Cancer Mortality Associated with Long-Term Exposure
to PM2 5 When Alternative Standards Are Just Met, Assuming Various Cutpoint Levels:
Phoenix, AZ, 2001 E-54
Exhibit E.29. Estimated Annual Lung Cancer Mortality Associated with Long-Term Exposure
to PM2 5 When Alternative Standards Are Just Met, Assuming Various Cutpoint Levels:
Pittsburgh, PA, 2003 E-56
Exhibit E.30. Estimated Annual Lung Cancer Mortality Associated with Long-Term Exposure
to PM2 5 When Alternative Standards Are Just Met, Assuming Various Cutpoint Levels:
San Jose, CA, 2003 E-58
Exhibit E.31. Estimated Annual Lung Cancer Mortality Associated with Long-Term Exposure
to PM2 5 When Alternative Standards Are Just Met, Assuming Various Cutpoint Levels:
Seattle, WA, 2003 E-60
Exhibit E.32. Estimated Annual Lung Cancer Mortality Associated with Long-Term Exposure
to PM2 5 When Alternative Standards Are Just Met, Assuming Various Cutpoint Levels:
St. Louis, MO, 2003 E-62
Exhibit E.33. Sensitivity Analysis: Estimated Annual Reductions of Short-Term and Long-
Term Exposure Mortality Associated with Rolling Back PM2 5 Concentrations to Just
xiv
-------
Meet the Current Annual Standard of 15 ug/m3 and the Current Daily Standard of 65
ug/m3 Using an Alternative Rollback Method: Los Angeles, CA, 2003 E-64
Exhibit E.34. Sensitivity Analysis: Estimated Annual Reductions of Short-Term and Long-
Term Exposure Mortality Associated with Rolling Back PM2 5 Concentrations to Just
Meet the Current Annual Standard of 15 ug/m3 and the Current Daily Standard of 65
ug/m3 Using an Alternative Rollback Method: Philadelphia, PA, 2003 E-65
Exhibit E.35. Sensitivity Analysis: Estimated Annual Reductions of Short-Term and Long-
Term Exposure Mortality Associated with Rolling Back PM2 5 Concentrations to Just
Meet the Current Annual Standard of 15 ug/m3 and the Current Daily Standard of 65
ug/m3 Using an Alternative Rollback Method: Pittsburgh, PA, 2003 E-66
Exhibit E.36. Sensitivity Analysis: Estimated Annual Reductions of Short-Term and Long-
Term Exposure Mortality Associated with Rolling Back PM2 5 Concentrations to Just
Meet the Current Annual Standard of 15 ug/m3 and the Current Daily Standard of 65
ug/m3 Using an Alternative Rollback Method: St. Louis, MO, 2003 E-67
Exhibit E.37. Sensitivity Analysis: Estimated Annual Mortality Associated with Short-Term
Exposure to PM2 5 When Alternative Standards Are Just Met, Assuming Various Cutpoint
Levels — Rollbacks to Meet Annual Standards Using Design Values Based on Maximum
vs. Average of Monitor-Specific Averages: Pittsburgh, PA, 2003 E-68
Exhibit E.38. Sensitivity Analysis: Estimated Annual Mortality Associated with Long-Term
Exposure to PM2 5 When Alternative Standards Are Just Met, Assuming Various Cutpoint
Levels — Rollbacks to Meet Annual Standards Using Design Values Based on Maximum
vs. Average of Monitor-Specific Averages: Pittsburgh, PA, 2003 E-71
Exhibit E.39. Sensitivity Analysis: Estimated Annual Mortality Associated with Short-Term
Exposure to PM2 5 When Alternative Standards Are Just Met, Assuming Various Cutpoint
Levels — Rollbacks to Meet Annual Standards Using Design Values Based on Maximum
vs. Average of Monitor-Specific Averages: St. Louis, 2003 E-74
Exhibit E.40. Sensitivity Analysis: Estimated Annual Mortality Associated with Long-Term
Exposure to PM2 5 When Alternative Standards Are Just Met, Assuming Various Cutpoint
Levels — Rollbacks to Meet Annual Standards Using Design Values Based on Maximum
vs. Average of Monitor-Specific Averages: St. Louis, 2003 E-77
Exhibit F.I. Estimated Annual Health Risks Associated with Short-Term Exposure to "As Is"
PM10_25 Concentrations: Seattle, WA, 2003 F-l
Exhibit F.2. Estimated Annual Health Risks Associated with Short-Term Exposure to "As Is"
PM10_2 5 Concentrations: St. Louis, MO, 2003 F-2
Exhibit F.3. Estimated Annual Health Risks Associated with Short-Term Exposure to "As Is"
PM10_2 5 Concentrations, Assuming Various Cutpoint Levels: Seattle, WA, 2003 .... F-3
Exhibit F.4. Estimated Annual Health Risks Associated with Short-Term Exposure to "As Is"
PM10_2 5 Concentrations, Assuming Various Cutpoint Levels: St. Louis, MO, 2003 . . F-4
Exhibit F.5. Estimated Annual Hospital Admissions for Asthma (Age < 65) Associated with
Short-Term Exposure to PM10_2 5 When Alternative Standards Are Just Met, Assuming
Various Cutpoint Levels: Seattle, WA, 2003 F-5
xv
-------
Exhibit F.6. Estimated Annual Days of Cough Among Children Associated with Short-Term
Exposure to PM10-2.5 When Alternative Standards Are Just Met, Assuming Various
Cutpoint Levels: St. Louis, MO, 2003 F-6
Exhibit F.7. Sensitivity Analysis: Estimated Annual Health Risks Associated with Short-Term
Exposure to "As Is" PM10_2 5 Concentrations, Using Different Estimates of Background
Level: Seattle, WA, 2003 F-7
Exhibit F.8. Sensitivity Analysis: Estimated Annual Health Risks Associated with Short-Term
Exposure to "As Is" PM10_2 5 Concentrations, Using Different Estimates of Background
Level: St. Louis, MO, 2003 F-8
Exhibit G.I. Relevant Population Sizes for PM10 Risk Assessment Locations G-l
Exhibit G.2. Baseline Mortality Rates for 2001 for PM10 Risk Assessment Locations G-2
Exhibit G.3. Baseline Hospitalization Rates for PM10 Risk Assessment Locations G-5
Exhibit G.4. Number of Days on which PM10 Concentration Data are Available, by Monitor and
by Quarter, and PM10 Concentrations. Boston, 1999 G-6
Exhibit G.5. Number of Days on which PM10 Concentration Data are Available, by Monitor and
by Quarter, and PM10 Concentrations. Detroit, 2002 G-6
Exhibit G.6. Number of Days on which PM10 Concentration Data are Available, by Monitor and
by Quarter, and PM10 Concentrations. Los Angeles, 2002 G-7
Exhibit G.7. Number of Days on which PM10 Concentration Data are Available, by Monitor and
by Quarter, and PM10 Concentrations. Philadelphia, 2002 G-7
Exhibit G.8. Number of Days on which PM10 Concentration Data are Available, by Monitor and
by Quarter, and PM10 Concentrations. Phoenix, 2002 G-8
Exhibit G.9. Number of Days on which PM10 Concentration Data are Available, by Monitor and
by Quarter, and PM10 Concentrations. Pittsburgh, 2002 G-8
Exhibit G.10. Number of Days on which PM10 Concentration Data are Available, by Monitor
and by Quarter, and PM10 Concentrations. San Jose, 1999 G-9
Exhibit G. 11. Number of Days on which PM10 Concentration Data are Available, by Monitor
and by Quarter, and PM10 Concentrations. Seattle, 2002 G-9
Exhibit G.12. Number of Days on which PM10 Concentration Data are Available, by Monitor
and by Quarter, and PM10 Concentrations. St. Louis, 2002 G-9
Exhibit G. 13. Estimated Annual Health Risks Associated with "As Is" PM10 Concentrations:
Boston, MA, 1999 G-10
Exhibit G. 14. Estimated Annual Health Risks Associated with "As Is" PM10 Concentrations:
Detroit, MI, 2002 G-l 1
Exhibit G. 15. Estimated Annual Health Risks Associated with "As Is" PM10 Concentrations: Los
Angeles, CA, 2002 G-13
Exhibit G. 16. Estimated Annual Health Risks Associated with "As Is" PM10 Concentrations:
Philadelphia, PA, 2002 G-15
Exhibit G. 17. Estimated Annual Health Risks Associated with "As Is" PM10 Concentrations:
Phoenix, AZ, 2002 G-16
xvi
-------
Exhibit G. 18. Estimated Annual Health Risks Associated with "As Is" PM10 Concentrations:
Pittsburgh, PA, 2002 G-17
Exhibit G. 19. Estimated Annual Health Risks Associated with "As Is" PM10 Concentrations: San
Jose, CA, 1999 G-18
Exhibit G.20. Estimated Annual Health Risks Associated with "As Is" PM10 Concentrations:
Seattle, WA, 2002 G-19
Exhibit G.21. Estimated Annual Health Risks Associated with "As Is" PM10 Concentrations: St.
Louis, MO, 2002 G-20
xvn
-------
List of Figures
Figure 2.1. Relationship Between Estimated Log-Linear Concentration-Response Function and
Hockeystick Model With Threshold C 25
Figure 7. la. Estimated Annual Percent of Total (Non-Accidental) Mortality Associated with
Short-Term Exposure to PM2 5 Above Background: Single-Pollutant, Single-City Models
77
Figure 7.1b. Estimated Annual Cases of Total (Non-Accidental) Mortality per 100,000 General
Population Associated with Short-Term Exposure to PM2 5 Above Background: Single-
Pollutant, Single-City Models 77
Figure 7.2a. Estimated Annual Percent of Health Effects Associated with Short-Term Exposure
to PM2 5 Above Background: Results Based on Single-Pollutant versus Multi-Pollutant
Models 78
Figure 7.2b. Estimated Annual Cases of Health Effects per 100,000 General Population
Associated with Short-Term Exposure to PM2 5 Above Background: Results Based on
Single-Pollutant versus Multi-Pollutant Models 78
Figure 7.3a. Estimated Annual Percent of Health Effects Associated with Short-Term Exposure
to PM2 5 Above Background: Results Based on Single-City versus Multi-City Models
79
Figure 7.3b. Estimated Annual Cases of Health Effects per 100,000 General Population
Associated with Short-Term Exposure to PM2 5 Above Background: Results Based on
Single-City versus Multi-City Models 79
Figure 7.4a. Estimated Annual Percent of Mortality Associated with Short-Term Exposure to
PM25 Above Background: Effect of Different Lag Models 80
Figure 7.4b. Estimated Annual Cases of Mortality per 100,000 General Population Associated
with Short-Term Exposure to PM25 Above Background: Effect of Different Lag Models
80
Figure 7.5a. Estimated Annual Percent of Mortality Associated with Long-Term Exposure to
PM25 Above 7.5 |ig/m3: Single-Pollutant Models 81
Figure 7.5b. Estimated Annual Cases of Mortality per 100,000 General Population Associated
with Long-Term Exposure to PM2 5 Above 7.5 |ig/m3: Single-Pollutant Models 81
Figure 7.6a. Estimated Annual Percent of Mortality Associated with Long-Term Exposure to
PM25 Above 7.5 |ig/m3: Single-Pollutant and Multi-Pollutant Models 82
Figure 7.6b. Estimated Annual Cases of Mortality per 100,000 General Population Associated
with Long-Term Exposure to PM25 Above 7.5 |ig/m3: Single-Pollutant and Multi-
Pollutant Models 82
Figure 8. la. Estimated Annual Percent of Non-accidental Mortality Associated with Short-Term
Exposure to PM25 Above Background When the Current Annual Standard of 15 |ig/m3
and the Current Daily Standard of 65 |ig/m3 Are Just Met 108
Figure 8.1b. Estimated Annual Cases of Non-accidental Mortality per 100,000 General
Population Associated with Short-Term Exposure to PM2 5 Above Background When the
xvin
-------
Current Annual Standard of 15 |ig/m3 and the Current Daily Standard of 65 |ig/m3 Are
Just Met 108
Figure 8.2a. Estimated Annual Percent of Mortality Associated with Long-Term Exposure to
PM2 5 Above 7.5 |ig/m3 When the Current Annual Standard of 15 |ig/m3 and the Current
Daily Standard of 65 |ig/m3 Are Just Met 109
Figure 8.2b. Estimated Annual Cases of Mortality per 100,000 General Population Associated
with Long-Term Exposure to PM25 Above 7.5 |ig/m3 When the Current Annual Standard
of 15 jig/m3 and the Current Daily Standard of 65 jig/m3 Are Just Met 109
Figure 9. la. Estimated Annual Percent of Hospital Admissions Associated with Short-Term
Exposure to PM10_2 5 Above Background 145
Figure 9.1b. Estimated Annual Cases of Hospital Admissions per 100,000 General Population
Associated with Short-Term Exposure to PM10_25 Above Background 145
Figure 9.2a. Estimated Annual Percent of Respiratory Symptoms Associated with Short-Term
Exposure to PM10_2 5 Above Background 146
Figure 9.2b. Estimated Annual Cases of Respiratory Symptoms per 100,000 General Population
Associated with Short-Term Exposure to PM10_25 Above Background 146
xix
-------
ERRATA
Corrections made to the Exhibits:
The baseline incidence rate for (non-accidental) mortality in Philadelphia was removed from
Exhibit 5.3 (p. 56), because that health endpoint was not included for Philadelphia in the final
analysis.
In Exhibits 7.1 (p. 84) and D.12 (p. D-15), corrections were made to the results for short-term
exposure cardiovascular mortality (Mar (2003)) in Phoenix, AZ, using cutpoints of 10, 15, and
20 |ag/m3.
The 14 i-ig/m3 annual and 65 |ig/m3 daily 98th percentile alternative set of standards was added to
Exhibits E.3, E. 11, E. 19, and E.27. [This alternative set of standards was relevant only in
Philadelphia.]
In Exhibit F.4, "Hospital Admissions" was changed to "Respiratory Symptoms"in the "Health
Effects" column.
In Exhibit E.3, corrections were made in the right-most column of results (for cutpoint = 20
|ig/m3), beginning with the 14 |ig/m3 annual standard and 65 |ig/m3 98th percentile value daily
standard.
xx
-------
PARTICIPATE MATTER RISK ASSESSMENT FOR SELECTED URBAN AREAS
1. Introduction
As required by the Clean Air Act, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
periodically reviews the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for particulate matter
(PM). As a result of the last review of the PM NAAQS completed in 1997 (62 FR 38652, July
18, 1997), EPA added new standards for PM25, referring to particles with a mean aerodynamic
diameter less than or equal to 2.5 |im, in order to address concerns about the fine fraction of
inhalable particles. The existing PM10 standards, referring to particles with a mean aerodynamic
diameter less than or equal to 10 |im, were originally adopted in 1987. The U.S. Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit found "ample support" for EPA's decision to
regulate coarse particle pollution, but vacated the Agency's 1997 revisions to the PM10 standards,
concluding in part that PM10 is a "poorly matched indicator for coarse particle pollution" because
it includes fine particles. (American Trucking Association v. EPA., 175 F. 3d 1027, 1053-55
(D.C. Cir. 1999). The 1987 PM10 standards remain in effect. The new primary (health-based)
PM25 standards included: an annual standard of 15 i-ig/m3, based on the 3-year average of annual
arithmetic mean PM2 5 concentrations from single or multiple community-oriented monitors; and
a 24-hour standard of 65 i-ig/m3, based on the 3-year average of the 98th percentile of 24-hour
PM2 5 concentrations at each monitor in an area. These standards were based primarily on a large
body of epidemiological evidence relating ambient PM concentrations to various adverse health
effects.
As part of its last review, EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS)
sponsored a risk assessment for two urban areas, Philadelphia County and Los Angeles County,
to assess the risks associated with then-current PM levels and the effects of alternative PM
standards on reducing estimated health risks attributable to PM (Abt Associates Inc., 1996; and
Abt Associates Inc., 1997a,b. See also Deck et al., 2001 and Post et al., 2001 for published
articles describing the risk assessment methodology used in the 1996-1997 analyses). Results
were presented and discussed as part of the OAQPS Staff Paper (U.S. EPA, 1996b), that
presented factors relevant to the evaluation of the then-current primary (health-based) NAAQS,
as well as staff conclusions and recommendations of alternative standards for the EPA
Administrator to consider.
The next periodic review of the PM NAAQS is now underway. EPA's final assessment
of the available PM health effects literature is contained in the October 2004 final report, Air
Quality Criteria for Particulate Matter (U.S. EPA, 2004) (hereafter 2004 PM CD). This final
report underwent extensive review and comment by the Clean Air Scientific Advisory
Committee's (CASAC) PM Review Panel and the general public. The 2004 PM CD includes an
evaluation of the scientific evidence on the health effects of PM, including information on
exposure, physiological mechanisms by which PM might damage human health, and an
Abt Associates Inc. p. 1 June 2005
-------
evaluation of the epidemiological evidence including reported concentration-response (C-R)
relationships.
At the time of the last PM CD (U.S. EPA, 1996a), a number of health studies indicated
differences in health effects between fine and coarse fraction particles, and suggested that serious
health effects, such as premature mortality, were more closely associated with fine fraction
particles. The new studies, summarized in Chapter 8 of the 2004 PM CD continue to show
associations between serious health effects, including premature mortality, and ambient PM2 5
concentrations. In both the last and current PM NAAQS review, there were a greater number of
studies assessing the relationship between PM10 and various health effects than any other PM
indicator. In the past review, there were only a limited number of studies that assessed the
relationship between ambient PM2 5 and various health effects, and even fewer that assessed the
relationship between ambient PM10_2 5 and health effects. As shown in Exhibits C. 1 through C. 10
in Appendix C, for the current review there are significantly more studies available that address
the relationship between ambient PM2 5 levels and significant health effects, including increased
mortality associated with short- and long-term exposures, increased hospital admissions, and
increased respiratory symptoms. As discussed more fully in Sections 3 and 4, these new studies
include single-city studies in a variety of locations across the United States and Canada, as well
as some multi-city studies. The health effects evidence summarized in Chapter 8 of the 2004 PM
CD also now includes a relatively smaller set of studies that assess the relationship between
ambient PM10_2 5 and various health effects.
An initial draft report, "Proposed Methodology for Particulate Matter Risk Analyses for
Selected Urban Areas,"was submitted to the CASAC for review and was made available to the
public in January 2002. In that draft report, we proposed to focus on assessing risk associated
with PM25 and, to the extent appropriate, PM^j.1 We received both written public comments
and comments made by members of the CASAC during and subsequent to an advisory
teleconference review of this initial draft report. Among its comments, the CASAC suggested
carrying out an additional health risk assessment employing PM10 as an indicator to complement
the PM2 5 risk assessment, since many health studies used PM10 as the indicator and PM10 air
quality data are available (Hopke, 2002). Risks associated with PM10 ambient levels are likely to
reflect the contribution of PM2 5, PM10_25, or some combination of both depending on the relative
composition of PM in various urban areas within the United States and Canada.
Many time-series studies, especially those carried out in recent years, involved use of
generalized additive models (GAMs). In late May 2002, EPA was informed by the Health
Effects Institute (HEI) of a generally unappreciated aspect in the use of S-Plus statistical
Coarse particle concentrations have been measured directly using a dichotomous sampler or by subtraction
of particles measured by a PM25 sampler from those measured by a co-located PM10 sampler. This measurement is
an indicator for the fraction of coarse-mode thoracic particles (i.e., those capable of penetrating to the tracheo-
bronchial and the gas-exchange regions of the lung).
Abt Associates Inc. p. 2 June 2005
-------
software often employed to fit these models. Using appropriate modifications of the default
convergence criteria code in the S-Plus software and a correct approach to estimating the
variance of estimators will change the estimated C-R functions and could change the results of
tests of significance of estimates, although it is not possible to predict a priori how estimates and
significance tests will change. Many but not all of the C-R functions that were originally
estimated using the S-Plus software for fitting GAMs have since been re-estimated using revised
methods. In May 2003, HEI published a special peer-reviewed panel report describing the issues
involved and presenting the results of the re-analyzed studies (HEI, 2003). Among the panel's
general conclusions was that:
The impact of using more appropriate convergence criteria on the estimates of PM effect
in the revised analyses varied greatly across the studies. In some studies, stricter
convergence criteria had little impact, and in a few the impact was substantial. In no
study were conclusions based on the original analyses changed in a meaningful way by
the use of stricter criteria. Explanations for this variability considered by the Panel
include the degree of temporal smoothing used in the original analyses, the number of
smoothed terms in the models, and the degree of nonlinear collinearity (concurvity)
among the smoothed terms. The relative importance of these and other explanations
remains unclear, (p. iii)
A draft memorandum (Post, April 8, 2003) was made available to the CASAC and the
public describing changes in the recommended methodology and scope for the PM10_2 5 and PM10
risk assessments in light of the re-analyzed study results and the CASAC and public comments.
In August 2003 a second draft report presented preliminary results from risk assessments for
three PM indicators - PM25, PM10, and PM10_25 - and provided a description of the methodology
initially discussed in the January 2002 draft report, taking into account comments received from
the CASAC and the public, as well as changes made in light of studies re-analyzed as a result of
the S-Plus/GAM issue. The August 2003 draft report (Abt Associates Inc., 2003) presented
assessments of the health risks associated with "as is" concentrations of each of the three PM
indicators in excess of their policy relevant background (PRB) levels, as well as an assessment of
the risk reductions associated with just meeting the current PM25 standards. In January 2005, the
precursor to the current final report (Abt Associates Inc., 2005) presented results based on air
quality data and baseline incidence rates for mortality that were updated from those in the
previous (August 2003) draft report.
The risk assessment described in this report focuses on the two PM indicators for which
EPA now anticipates making decisions - PM2 5 and PM10_2 5. The report provides a description
of the methodology used, taking into account comments received from the CASAC (Hopke,
2004; Henderson, May 2005) and the public on the August 2003 and January 2005 draft reports.
The report also presents the assessments of the health risks associated with "as is" concentrations
of PM2 5 and PM10_2 5 in excess of their PRB levels and various specified cutpoints, as well as an
Abt Associates Inc. p. 3 June 2005
-------
assessment of the reduced health risks associated with just meeting the current and alternative
standards for PM2 5, and alternative standards for PM10_2 5. In addition, in an appendix, we
present an assessment of the health risks associated with "as is" concentrations of PM10 in excess
of PRB levels. The risk assessment is based on the health effects evidence assessed in the 2004
PM CD, which includes the re-analyzed studies presented in the HEI special report (HEI, 2003).
The goals of the PM risk assessment are: (1) to provide estimates of the potential
magnitude of mortality and morbidity associated with current PM25 and PM10_25 levels and with
attaining the current suite of PM25 NAAQS (as well as the reduced effects associated with
attaining alternative PM25 and PM10_25 standards identified as part of this review) in specific
urban areas,2 (2) to develop a better understanding of the influence of various inputs and
assumptions on the risk estimates (e.g., choice of PRB levels, and consideration of various
cutpoints below which effects are assumed not to occur), and (3) to gain insights into the nature
of the risks associated with exposures to ambient PM (e.g., patterns of reduced risks associated
with meeting alternative annual and daily standards). As discussed in the June 2005 Staff Paper,
Review of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter: Policy Assessment
of Scientific and Technical Information - OAQPS Staff Paper, (U.S. EPA, 2005b) (hereafter
2005 PM SP), the risk assessment in this standards review must take into consideration
significant uncertainties associated with the assessment, as discussed in Section 6 below.
As discussed in Chapter 9 of the 2004 PM CD (p. 9-79), "the new evidence from
mechanistic studies suggesting plausible biological response pathways, and the extensive body
of epidemiology evidence on associations between short- and long-term exposures to ambient
thoracic particles (typically indexed by PM10) and a range of health effects, supports the general
conclusion that ambient thoracic particles, acting alone and/or in combination with gaseous co-
pollutants, are likely causally related to cardiovascular and respiratory mortality and morbidity."
The 2004 PM CD (p.9-79) also concludes that "a growing body of evidence both from
epidemiological and toxicological studies also supports the general conclusion that PM2 5 (or one
or more PM2 5 components), acting alone and/or in combination with gaseous co-pollutants are
likely causally related to cardiovascular and respiratory mortality and morbidity." With respect
to PM10_25, the 2004 PM CD (pp.9-79 to 9-80) finds that there is "a much more limited body of
evidence ... suggestive of associations between short-term (but not long-term ) exposures to
ambient coarse-fraction thoracic particles... and various mortality and morbidity effects observed
at times in some locations." The 2004 PM CD (p. 9-80) concludes that "the strength of the
evidence varies across endpoints, with somewhat stronger evidence for coarse-fraction particle
associations with morbidity (especially respiratory) endpoints than for mortality." The PM2 5
risk assessment described in this draft report is premised on the assumptions that PM2 5 is
causally related to the mortality, morbidity, and symptomatic effects (alone and/or in
2Risk estimates associated with current PM10 levels also have been included in an appendix to this report for
those urban areas where PM2 5 risks have been estimated to provide additional context.
Abt Associates Inc. p. 4 June 2005
-------
combination with other pollutants) observed in the epidemiological studies and that PM10_2 5 is
causally related to the morbidity and symptomatic effects observed in the epidemiology studies.
We recognize, as discussed in the PM CD (p.8-327), that "the apparent differences in PM25
and/or PM10_2 5 effect sizes across different regions should not be attributed merely to possible
variations in measurement error or other statistical artifact(s). Some of these differences may
reflect: real regional differences in particle composition or co-pollutant mix; differences in
relative human exposures to ambient particles or other gaseous pollutants; sociodemographic
differences (e.g., percent of infants or elderly in regional population); or other important, as of
yet unidentified PM effect modifiers."
Given the availability of additional urban locations with recent and sufficient PM2 5 and
PM10_2 5 air quality data, and additional health effect studies in various locations in different
regions of the United States, and consistent with the advice of the CAS AC, EPA expanded the
scope of its PM risk assessment from the last review to several additional urban areas, consistent
with the goals of the assessment. Philadelphia and Los Angeles Counties, which were the only
areas included in the prior risk assessment, are included. As discussed in greater detail in
Section 3, additional areas included for short- and/or long-term exposure mortality in the PM25
risk assessment are as follows: Boston, Detroit, Phoenix, Pittsburgh, San Jose, Seattle, and St.
Louis. In addition, increased hospital admissions associated with PM2 5 were estimated for
Detroit, Los Angeles, and Seattle, and increased respiratory symptoms were estimated for Boston
and St. Louis. Inclusion of these additional areas allows EPA to explore potential geographic
differences in risk estimates.
The PM10_25 risk assessment is more limited because of the more limited air quality data
(requiring co-located PM2 5 and PM10 monitors) as well as the smaller number of studies and
health effects for which there is sufficient evidence. While a few studies have reported positive
statistically significant associations in some locations between PM10_2 5 and non-accidental total
mortality and cause-specific mortality (due to short-term exposure), the majority of studies
investigating these relationships have not reported statistically significant results. Therefore,
EPA does not believe the weight of the evidence supports including short-term exposure
mortality in the quantitative PM10_2 5 health risk assessment (see 2005 PM SP, Chapter 3) for
further discussion of the evidence relating PM10_25 and short-term exposure mortality). The areas
included in the PM10_2 5 risk assessment are Detroit and Seattle (where an association has been
shown between PM10_2 5 and hospital admissions) and St. Louis (where an association has been
shown between PM10_2 5 and respiratory symptoms).
The PM risk assessment has two parts. The first part considers health risks under "as is"3
PM concentrations in the selected locations. The basic question addressed in the first part is of
the following form:
3 "As is" PM concentrations are defined here as a recent year of air quality.
Abt Associates Inc. p. 5 June 2005
-------
For a given human health endpoint (mortality, hospital admissions, etc.),
what is the estimated annual incidence of the health endpoint that may
be associated with "as is" PM concentrations in these locations?
The second part of the risk assessment considers health risks if the current PM25
standards (15 |ig/m3 for the annual standard and 65 |ig/m3 for the daily standard) or alternative
PM2 5 or PM10_25 standards were just met in the selected locations. The basic question addressed
in this part of the risk assessment is of the following form:
For a given human health endpoint (mortality, hospital admissions, etc.),
what is the estimated annual incidence of the health endpoint that may
be associated with the reduced PM concentrations that would be
expected to result if the current or alternative sets of PM standards were
just met?
As described in more detail in Section 2.5 below, in both parts of the risk assessment
only those PM levels in excess of specified "cutpoint" concentrations are considered. For health
effects associated with short-term exposures to PM, the lowest of these cutpoints is the estimated
PRB concentration for the location.4
The methods used to estimate risks associated with "as is" PM concentrations and PM
concentrations that would be expected to result if the current or alternative sets of PM standards
were just met in the selected urban areas in this risk assessment are similar to the methods used
in the previous PM risk assessment. An overview of these methods is presented in Section 2.
Section 3 discusses the selection of health endpoints and urban areas from a broader list of
candidate health endpoints and locations to include in the risk assessment, as well as the
selection of studies estimating C-R functions. Section 4 describes the approach to selecting and
using C-R functions from the broader candidate pool of C-R functions available. Section 5
presents baseline health effects incidence rates (i.e., the health effects incidence rates associated
with "as is" PM levels) for each of the assessment locations. Because the risk assessment was of
necessity carried out with incomplete information, several assumptions were made at several
points in the analysis process. These assumptions and the various sources of uncertainty in the
analyses are discussed briefly in Section 2.6 and in greater detail in Section 6. The results of the
4 Consistent with the approach taken in the prior PM risk assessment, estimates of risks associated with PM
concentrations above background are judged to be more relevant to policy decisions about the level of ambient air
quality standards than estimates that include risks potentially attributable to uncontrollable background PM
concentrations. Thus, risks are estimated only for concentrations exceeding "background" levels or above various
higher cutpoints that reflect possible population thresholds, where "background" is defined as the PM concentrations
that would be observed in the U.S. in the absence of anthropogenic, or man-made, emissions of primary PM and
precursor emissions of volatile organic compounds, nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, and ammonia in the U.S.,
Canada, and Mexico. Therefore, "background" for the purposes of the PM risk assessment includes PM from
natural sources and transport of PM from sources outside of the U.S., Canada, and Mexico.
Abt Associates Inc. p. 6 June 2005
-------
base case and sensitivity analyses for PM2 5 from the first - recent air quality/"as is" - part of
the risk assessment are discussed in Section 7, and the results of the base case and sensitivity
analyses from the second part -just meeting the current and alternative standards - are discussed
in Section 8. The results of the base case and sensitivity analyses for PM10_2 5 from both parts of
the risk assessment are discussed in Section 9. Appendix A discusses the air quality data used in
the analyses. Appendix B describes an analysis of historical air quality data relevant to the
choice of air quality adjustment procedures for simulating attainment of current and alternative
PM2 5 and PM10_2 5 standards. Appendix C summarizes relevant study-specific information used
to carry out the base case risk assessment and sensitivity analyses. Because the PM risk
assessment covers PM25 and PM10_25 and a substantial number of urban locations, there are many
exhibits of results. The results for both PM indicators are summarized in figures in Sections 7, 8,
and 9. Most of the exhibits containing quantitative results are presented in the main body of the
report for only one location (Detroit) for illustrative purposes. Results exhibits for PM2 5 for the
other locations are presented in Appendix D for base case and sensitivity analyses from the first
- recent air quality/"as is" - part of the risk assessment, and Appendix E for base case and
sensitivity analyses from the second -just meeting the current and alternative PM25 standards -
part of the risk assessment. All results exhibits for PM10_2 5 for locations other than Detroit are
presented in Appendix F. Finally, Appendix G presents the results of a PM10 "as is" air quality
risk assessment for locations and health endpoints for which results are presented in the PM2 5
risk assessment.
Abt Associates Inc. p. 7 June 2005
-------
2. Overview of Methods
This section gives an overview of the methods used in the risk assessment. Section 2.1
presents the basic structure of the risk assessment, distinguishing between its two parts - i.e.,
risk associated with "as is" PM levels (defined as a recent year of air quality) and risks
associated with just meeting the current and potential alternative PM standards - and identifying
the basic information elements needed for the analyses. Section 2.2 discusses air quality inputs.
Section 2.2.1 discusses the estimation of PM25 and PM10_25 PRB levels; Section 2.2.2 discusses
the characterization of "as is" PM levels. Section 2.3 discusses the simulation of PM
concentrations that just meet specified PM standards. A brief discussion of issues surrounding
baseline incidence rates is given in Section 2.4. The calculation of health effects incidence and
incidence reductions is described in Section 2.5. Section 2.6 gives an overview of the
characterization of uncertainty and variability in the PM risk assessment. Finally, sensitivity
analyses are discussed in Section 2.7.
2.1 Basic structure of the risk assessment
The general approach used in both the prior and the current PM risk assessment relies
upon C-R functions which have been estimated in epidemiological studies. Since these studies
estimate C-R functions using ambient air quality data from fixed-site, population-oriented
monitors, the appropriate application of these functions in a PM risk assessment similarly
requires the use of ambient air quality data at fixed-site, population-oriented monitors. The
general PM health risk model combines information about PM air quality for specific urban
areas with C-R functions derived from epidemiological studies and baseline health incidence
data for specific health endpoints and population estimates to derive estimates of the annual
incidence of specified health effects attributable to ambient PM concentrations. The analyses are
conducted for both "as is" air quality and for air quality simulated to reflect attainment of current
and alternative PM ambient standards.
An overview of the major components of the risk assessment discussed in this report is
presented in Exhibit 2.1. The points in the risk assessment at which sensitivity analyses were
carried out are represented by diamonds. The sensitivity analyses (labeled in Exhibit 2.1 as sk's)
are described in Exhibit 2.6 below.
In the first part of the risk assessment, we estimate health effects incidence associated
with "as is" PM levels. In the second part of the risk assessment, we estimate the reduced health
effects incidence associated with those PM concentrations that would result if the current or
alternative PM standards were just met in the assessment locations, as well as the percent
reductions in incidence from incidence under the current standards (for PM2 5) or "as is"
concentrations (for PM10_25). Both parts of the risk assessment consider only the incidence of
health effects associated with PM concentrations in excess of specified cutpoint levels
Abt Associates Inc. p. 8 June 2005
-------
Exhibit 2.1 Major Components of Particulate Matter Health Risk Analyses
Air Quality
Ambient Population-
oriented Monitoring
and Estimated
Background Levels for
Selected Cities
Air Quality Adjustment
Procedures
Alternative Proposed
Standards
Recent Air
Quality Analysis
Changes in
Distribution
of PM Air
Quality
Concentration-Response
Human Epidemiological
Studies (various health
endpoints)
Concentration
Response
Relationships
Estimates of City-specific
Baseline Health Effects
Incidence Rates
(various health
endpoints) and
Population Data
Health
Risk
Model
Risk Estimates:
• Recent Air
Quality
• Alternative
Scenarios
= kth Sensitivity Analysis (See Exhibit 2.6): Analysis of effects of alternative assumptions, procedures or data
occurs at these points.
Abt Associates Inc.
p. 9
June 2005
-------
(see Section 2.5). Both parts may be viewed as assessing the change in incidence of the health
effect associated with a change in PM concentrations from some upper levels to a specified
(lower) cutpoint level. The important operational difference between the two parts is in the
upper PM levels. In the first part, the upper PM levels are "as is" concentrations. In contrast,
the upper PM levels in the second part of the risk assessment are the estimated PM levels that
would occur when the current PM25 or alternative PM2 5 or PM10_25 standards are just met in the
assessment locations. The second part therefore requires that a method be developed to simulate
just meeting the specified standards.
To estimate the change in the incidence of a given health effect resulting from a given
change in ambient PM concentrations in an assessment location, the following analysis inputs
are necessary:
• Air quality information including: (1) "as is" air quality data for PM from population-
oriented monitors in the assessment location, (2) estimates of PRB PM concentrations
appropriate to this location, and (3) a method for adjusting the "as is" data to reflect
patterns of air quality change estimated to occur when the area just meets the specified
standards. (These air quality inputs are discussed in more detail in Section 2.2).
• Concentration-response function(s) which provide an estimate of the relationship
between the health endpoint of interest and PM concentrations (preferably derived in the
assessment location, although functions estimated in other locations can be used at the
cost of increased uncertainty — see Section 6.1.3). For PM2 5, C-R functions are available
from epidemiological studies for both short- and long-term exposures. For PM10_2 5, only
short-term exposure studies are included in the risk assessment. (Section 2.5 describes
the role of C-R functions in estimating health risks associated with PM).
• Baseline health effects incidence rate and population The baseline incidence rate
provides an estimate of the incidence rate (number of cases of the health effect per year,
usually per 10,000 or 100,000 general population) in the assessment location
corresponding to "as is" PM levels in that location. To derive the total baseline incidence
per year, this rate must be multiplied by the corresponding population number (e.g., if the
baseline incidence rate is number of cases per year per 100,000 population, it must be
multiplied by the number of 100,000s in the population). (Section 2.4 summarizes
considerations related to the baseline incidence rate and population data inputs to the risk
assessment).
The risk assessment procedure described in more detail below is diagramed in Exhibit 2.2
for analyses based on short-term exposure studies and in Exhibit 2.3 for analyses based on long-
term exposure studies.
Abt Associates Inc. p. 10 June 2005
-------
Exhibit 2.2. Flow Diagram of Risk Analyses for Short-Term Exposure Studies
Air Quality Data
Compute daily
average PM
concentrations
for available days
Compute change in PM
above background
or cut point
on each day
PM concentration
is available
Concentration-Response Functions
Select Cutpoints
Ident
locati
spec
stud
ify
on-
ific
es
fc.
W
Identify
Relative Risk
(RR) or slope
coefficents (6)
, J«
1
' L'l
Identify
functional form
Convert RR '
toB h
I (if necessary) I
Compute % change
in health effects
associated with
change in PM for
each day on which
PM concentration
is available
Baseline Health Incidence
Compute total %
change in health effects
by summing daily
results, with missing
day corrections
Compute
annual
#
of cases
associated
with
change in PM
Specify rollback |
method
1 (for certain .
I analyses)
Estimate of
percent change in
total incidence
Estimate of
PM-associated
incidence
Abt Associates Inc.
p. 11
June 2005
-------
Exhibit 2.3. Flow Diagram of Risk Analyses for Long-Term Exposure Studies
Air Quality Data
Specify rollback |
method i
(for certain i
analyses) .
Concentration-Response Functions
Convert RR '
to B
I (if necessary) I
Baseline Health Incidence
Compute #
of cases
associated
with
change in PM
Estimate of
percent change in
total incidence
Estimate of
PM-associated
incidence
Abt Associates Inc.
p. 12
June 2005
-------
2.2 Air quality inputs
2.2.1 Estimating policy relevant background PM levels
One of the outpoint concentrations considered in the risk assessment for health endpoints
associated with short-term exposure is the PRB level. Therefore estimates of PRB PM
concentrations in the assessment locations are needed to calculate risk at "as is" concentrations
in excess of PRB and for reduced risks associated with just meeting the current PM25 ambient
standards and just meeting alternative PM25 and alternative PM10_25 ambient standards.
Consistent with the prior PM CD, the 2004 PM CD estimates background annual average
PM2 5 concentrations to be in the range of 1 to 4 jig/m3 in the Western United States and 2 to 5
l-ig/m3 in the Eastern United States (p.3-82, p. 3-105). We use the midpoints of these ranges for
the base case analysis. Thus PRB PM2 5 concentrations in the base case analysis are estimated to
be 3.5 jig/m3 in Boston, Detroit, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, and St. Louis; and 2.5 jig/m3 in Los
Angeles, Phoenix, San Jose, and Seattle. In sensitivity analyses, we examine the impact of
assuming (1) a constant background set at the lower and upper end of the range of estimated
background levels provided in the 2004 PM CD for the Eastern and Western United States,
depending on the assessment location (see s2 in Exhibit 2.1), and (2) varying daily PM25
background, using distributions whose means are equal to the values used in the base case
analysis and whose distributions are based on an analysis of PM25 data from relatively remote
sites with the sulfate component removed, (see Sj in Exhibit 2.1). Section 7.2 provides a more
detailed discussion of the sensitivity analyses performed, including the different daily
background sensitivity analysis.
The 2004 PM CD (p. 3-83) estimates background annual average PM10_2 5 to be
approximately <1 to 9 |ig/m3 in the East and <1 to 7 |ig/m3 in the West. We use 4.5 |ig/m3 as the
estimated PRB for PM10_2 5 in the base case analysis for the Eastern coarse risk assessment
locations (i.e., Detroit, and St. Louis) and 3.5 |ig/m3 for Seattle. In a sensitivity analysis, we
examine the impact of assuming a constant background set at the lower and upper end of the
range of estimated background levels based on the 2004 PM CD (see s2 in Exhibit 2.1).
2.2.2 Characterizing "as is" PM air quality
As discussed earlier, a major input to the PM risk assessment is ambient PM air quality
data for each assessment location. In order to be consistent with the approach generally used in
the epidemiological studies that estimated PM C-R functions, the average ambient PM
concentration on each day for which measured data are available is deemed most appropriate for
the risk assessment. Consistent with the approach used in the prior PM risk assessment, a
composite monitor data set was created for each assessment location based on a composite of all
monitors eligible for comparison with the annual standard with at least 11 observations per
Abt Associates Inc. p. 13 June 2005
-------
quarter.5 At the time of the prior PM risk assessment, there was no established PM25 monitoring
network and data sets from special studies conducted in Philadelphia and Los Angeles had to be
used. There are now substantial PM25 air quality data in EPA's Air Quality System (AQS)
beginning with the year 1999. There were sufficient PM2 5 data in AQS for the year 2003 for all
of the assessment locations except Phoenix, for which we used year 2001 data.
For the PM10_2 5 risk assessment there were sufficient data from co-located monitors in the
year 2003 for Detroit, St. Louis, and Seattle. As noted above, PM10_2 5 air quality was calculated
from PM2 5 and PM10 concentrations at co-located monitors by subtracting the former from the
latter. Because of measurement error, some of the PM10_25 concentrations that were calculated
were negative. In Detroit, 10.4 percent of the days (12 days) for which PM10_2 5 concentrations
were calculated were negative6; in St. Louis, 1.7 percent (1 day) of the days were negative.
There were no negative PM10_2 5 concentrations calculated in Seattle.
The negative PM10_2 5 values in a location will result in a slightly lower calculated annual
average PM10_2 5 concentration in that location. However, annual averages were not used in the
calculation of risks and risk reductions associated with PM10_25 concentrations, because all C-R
functions included in the PM10_2 5 risk assessment are short-term (daily) C-R functions. In
addition, because values below background concentration don't contribute to risks from
anthropogenic (above background) PM, such values aren't considered in the PM risk assessment.
Because negative values are below background concentration, they too are not considered.
Appendix A summarizes the PM2 5 and PM10_2 5 air quality data that were used in each of
the assessment locations, including quarterly and annual counts, annual averages, and the 98th
and 99th percentiles of the daily (24-hour) averages. Because the air quality data are not
uniformly complete, annual averages were calculated as the average of quarterly averages to
minimize the possible bias resulting from differential amounts of missing data in different
quarters of the year.
2.3 Simulating PM levels that just meet specified PM standards
This section describes the methodology used to simulate ambient PM levels in an area
upon just meeting specified PM standards. The form of the PM25 standards promulgated in 1997
requires that the 3-year average (rounded to the nearest 0.1 |ig/m3) of the annual means from
single monitors or the average of multiple monitors must be at or below the level of the annual
5 Based on a review of the monitoring sites included by State air pollution agencies in the
classification/designation process for PM2 5, which follow the guidance set forth in Part 58 of the CFR, 1 monitoring
site in St. Louis and 1 monitoring site in Boston were excluded from consideration for the PM2 5 risk assessment.
6 Based on a review of the monitoring sites used in the Ito (2003) study in Detroit, we selected the two
PM10_2 5 sites that were closest to those used in the original health effects study.
Abt Associates Inc. p. 14 June 2005
-------
standard and the 3-year average (rounded to the nearest 1 i-ig/m3) of the ninety-eighth percentile
values at each monitor cannot exceed the level of the daily standard. In determining attainment
of the annual average standard, an area may choose to use either the spatially averaged
concentrations across all population-oriented monitors, subject to meeting certain criteria
detailed in Part 58 of the CFR, or it may use the highest 3-year average based on individual
monitors. The most realistic simulation of just meeting both the annual and the daily PM2 5
standards in a location would require changing the distribution of daily PM25 concentrations at
each monitor separately. This would require extensive analysis and assumptions about the
nature of future control strategies that was considered beyond the scope of the previous risk
assessment and is similarly considered beyond the scope of the current risk assessment.
Consistent with the approach used in the prior PM risk assessment, just meeting the
current PM2 5 standards was simulated by changing daily PM2 5 concentrations at a "composite
monitor," which represents the average of the monitors in a location. The PM25 concentration at
the composite monitor on a given day is defined as the average of the PM25 concentrations of
those monitors reporting on that day. The percent reduction of the PM25 concentration at the
composite monitor each day resulting from just meeting current and alternative standards is
determined by the PM2 5 annual and daily design values. The annual design value (in |ig/m3) was
calculated as follows:
3. At each monitor, the annual average PM25 concentration was calculated for each
of the years 2001, 2002, and 2003, and these three annual average concentrations
were then averaged.
4. The maximum of these monitor-specific 3-year averages of annual averages is the
annual design value, denoted dvannual;
The 98th (99th) percentile design value (in |ig/m3) was similarly calculated as follows:
5. At each monitor, the 98th (99th) percentile PM2 5 concentration was calculated for
each of the years 2001, 2002, and 2003, and these three 98th (99th) percentile
concentrations were then averaged.
6. The maximum of these monitor-specific 3-year averages of 98th (99th) percentile
concentrations is the daily 98th (99th) percentile design value, denoted dvdaily98
(dvdaily99).
Although the design values are based on monitor-specific values, the changes in PM2 5 to
simulate just meeting the specified standards are made at the composite monitor rather than at
the individual monitors.
The method used to simulate just meeting alternative PM2 5 or PM10_25 standards was
analogous to the method used to simulate just meeting the current PM25 standards. Daily PM25
Abt Associates Inc. p. 15 June 2005
-------
or PM10_25 concentrations were changed at a "composite monitor." The percent reduction of the
PM25 concentration at the composite monitor each day resulting from just meeting an alternative
PM2 5 standard is determined by the PM2 5 annual and daily design values. Because only daily
standards are being considered for PM10_25, the percent reduction of the PM10_25 concentration at
the composite monitor each day resulting from just meeting an alternative PM10_25 standard is
determined by the daily design values for PM10_2 5, which were calculated in the same way as the
PM2 5 daily design values. The annual, daily 98th percentile, and daily 99th percentile design
values used in assessing the current and alternative standards for PM2 5 are given in Exhibit 2.4.
The daily 98th and 99th percentile design values used in assessing alternative standards for PM10.
25 are given in Exhibit 2.5.
Exhibit 2.4 EPA Design Values for Annual and 98th and 99th Percentile Daily PM2 5
Standards*
Location
Boston
Detroit
Los Angeles
Philadelphia
Phoenix
Pittsburgh
St. Louis
San Jose
Seattle
Annual
14.4
19.5
23.6
16.4
11.5
21.2
17.5
14.6
11.1
98th Percentile Daily
44
44
62
51
35
63
42
47
41
99th Percentile Daily
60
48
96
89
41
70
46
53
48
*The calculation of design values is explained in Section 2.3 above. All design values are in i-ig/m3. While the
current daily standard is specified as a 98th percentile form, the 99th percentile form also is included to allow
consideration of alternative standards with this alternative form.
Abt Associates Inc.
p. 16
June 2005
-------
Exhibit 2.5 EPA Design Values for 98th and 99th Percentile Daily PM10 2 5 Standards
Location
Detroit
St. Louis
Seattle
98th Percentile Daily
70
33
31
99th Percentile Daily
77
47
39
*The calculation of design values is explained in Section 2.3 above. All design values are in
There are many possible ways to create an alternative distribution of daily concentrations
that just meets specified PM2 5 (or PM10_25) standards. The prior PM risk assessment used a
proportional rollback of all PM concentrations exceeding the estimated background
concentration for its base case estimates. This choice was based on analyses of historical PM25
data which found that year-to-year reductions in PM2 5 levels in a given location tended to be
roughly proportional. That is, both high and low daily PM25 levels decreased proportionally
from one year to the next (see Abt Associates Inc., 1996, Section 8.2). This suggests that, in the
absence of detailed air quality modeling, a reasonable method to simulate the PM25 reductions
that would result from just meeting a set of standards would be proportional rollbacks - i.e., to
decrease PM2 5 levels on all days by the same percentage. Appendix B describes an analysis of
historical air quality data for Philadelphia and Los Angeles which continues to support the
hypothesis that changes in PM25 levels that would result if a PM25 standard were just met are
reasonably modeled by using a proportional rollback approach. We recognize that the historic
changes in PM2 5 have not been the result of a PM2 5 control strategy, but likely result from
control programs for PM10 and control programs for other pollutants (especially sulfur and
nitrogen oxides). The pattern of changes that have occurred in the past, therefore, may not
necessarily reflect the changes that will result from future efforts to attain PM2 5 standards.
However, it is interesting to note that reductions in ambient PM2 5 concentrations are reasonably
modeled by proportional rollbacks in both Philadelphia and Los Angeles, which likely had very
different reductions in terms of types of emissions over this period.
Based on the above considerations, we simulated just meeting the current and alternative
PM2 5 standards by use of a proportional rollback procedure for the base case estimates. That is,
average daily PM2 5 concentrations at the composite monitor were reduced by the same
percentage on all days. The PM10_2 5 historical air quality data are substantially more sparse and
are insufficient to support an analysis analogous to that carried out for PM2 5. In the absence of a
clearly preferable alternative, we used the same proportional rollback method to simulate just
meeting alternative PM10_2 5 standards. The uncertainty introduced by this approach in the
absence of empirical evidence supporting it is discussed more fully in Section 6.
Abt Associates Inc. p. 17 June 2005
-------
The percent reduction required to meet a standard (annual, ninety-eighth percentile daily
or ninety-ninth percentile daily) was determined by comparing the design value for that standard
with the level of the standard. Because pollution abatement methods are applied largely to
anthropogenic sources of PM25 and PM10_25, rollbacks were applied only to PM25 and PM10_25
above estimated background levels. The percent reduction was determined by the controlling
standard. For example, suppose both an annual and a ninety-eighth percentile daily PM2 5
standard are being simulated. Suppose pa is the percent reduction required to just meet the
annual standard (i.e., the percent reduction of daily PM25 above background necessary to get the
annual design value down to the annual standard). Suppose pd is the percent reduction required
to just meet the ninety-eighth percentile daily standard (i.e., the percent reduction of daily PM25
above background necessary to get the ninety-eighth percentile daily PM2 5 design value down to
the ninety-eighth percentile daily standard). If pd is greater than pa, then all daily average PM2 5
concentrations above background are reduced by pd percent. If pa is greater than pd, then all daily
average PM2 5 concentrations are reduced by pa percent.
The method of rollbacks to meet a set of annual and daily PM standards is summarized as
follows:
1. The percent by which the above-background portion of all daily PM
concentrations (at the composite monitor) would have to be reduced to just meet
the annual standard (denoted stda) is
(stda - b)
-
annual
where b denotes background.
2. The percent by which the above-background portion of all daily PM
concentrations (at the composite monitor) would have to be reduced to just meet
the daily (e.g., 98th percentile) standard (denoted stdd98) is
_ , (stdd98 - b)
Pd98 ~ L , , , x
Let pmax = maximum of (maximum of paand pd98) and zero.7
7 If the percent rollback necessary to just meet the annual standard and the percent rollback necessary to
just meet the daily standard were both negative ~ i.e., if both standards were already met ~ then the percent rollback
applied in the risk assessment was zero. That is, PM values were never increased.
Abt Associates Inc. p. 18 June 2005
-------
3. Then, if PM0 denotes the original PM value on a given day (at the composite
monitor), the rolled back PM value on that day, denoted PMrb, is
Since an area could potentially use the spatial average of the population-oriented
monitors to determine whether or not it met the annual average standard, the risk assessment
report also presents the results of a sensitivity analysis for 3 urban areas based on the percent
rollbacks that would have resulted from using this alternative approach (see Section 8).
As noted earlier, proportional rollback is only one of many possible ways to create an
alternative distribution of daily concentrations to meet new PM2 5 standards. One could, for
example, reduce the high days by one percentage and the low days by another percentage,
choosing the percentages so that the new distribution achieves the new standard. At the opposite
end of the spectrum from proportional rollbacks, it is possible to meet a daily standard by "peak
shaving." The peak shaving method would reduce all daily PM2 5 concentrations above a certain
concentration to that concentration (e.g., the standard) while leaving daily concentrations at or
below this value unchanged. While a strict peak shaving method of attaining a standard is
unrealistic, it is illustrative of the principal that patterns different from a proportional rollback
might be observed in areas attempting to come into compliance with revised standards. Because
the reduction method to attain a daily standard could have a significant impact on the risk
assessment results, a sensitivity analysis was conducted using an alternative rollback method
(see S2 in Exhibit 2.1). As with the sensitivity analysis performed for the prior risk assessment,
this sensitivity analysis used a rollback method in which the upper 10% of the PM25 air quality
distribution was rolled back to a greater extent than the remaining 90% of the distribution. In
particular, the percentage by which the upper 10% of the PM2 5 air quality distribution was rolled
back was 1.6 times the percentage by which the rest of the distribution was rolled back. See
Section 8 for a more detailed discussion of the alternative rollback sensitivity analysis.
2.4 Baseline health effects incidence data
As noted in Section 2.5 below, the form of C-R function most commonly used in
epidemiological studies on PM, shown in equation (1), is log-linear. To estimate the change in
incidence of a health endpoint associated with a given change in PM concentrations using this
form of C-R function requires the baseline incidence rate of the health endpoint, that is, the
number of cases per unit time (e.g., per year) in the location before a change in PM air quality
(denoted y in equations 3 and 4).
Incidence rates express the occurrence of a disease or event (e.g., asthma episode, death,
hospital admission) in a specific period of time, usually per year. Rates are expressed either as a
value per population group (e.g., the number of cases in Philadelphia County) or a value per
Abt Associates Inc. p. 19 June 2005
-------
number of people (e.g., the number of cases per 10,000 residents in Philadelphia County), and
may be age and sex specific. Incidence rates vary among geographic areas due to differences in
population characteristics (e.g, age distribution) and factors promoting illness (e.g., smoking, air
pollution levels).
Incidence rates are available for mortality and for specific communicable diseases which
state and local health departments are required to report to the federal government. In addition
to the required federal reporting, many state and local health departments collect information on
some additional endpoints. These most often are restricted to hospital admission or discharge
diagnoses, which are collected to assist in planning medical services. None of the morbidity
endpoints in the risk assessment are required to be reported to the federal government.
Although federal agencies collect incidence data on many of the endpoints covered in the
PM risk assessment, their data are often available only at the national level, or at the regional or
state level. One important exception is mortality rates, which are available at the county level.
Because baseline incidence rates can vary from one location to another, location-specific
baseline incidence information was obtained. Because hospital admission rates are available for
some locations and not others, this was a consideration in the selection of locations for which to
conduct the PM risk assessment. For respiratory symptom health endpoints, the only estimates
of baseline incidence rates available are typically from the studies that estimated the C-R
functions for those endpoints. However, because risk assessment locations for these endpoints
were selected partly on the basis of where studies were carried out, baseline incidence rates
reported in the studies should be appropriate to the risk assessment locations to which they are
applied. A more detailed discussion of baseline health effects incidence data is presented in
Section 5.
2.5 Calculating health effects incidence
2.5.1 General approach
The C-R functions used in the risk assessment are empirically estimated relations
between average ambient concentrations of PM and the health endpoints of interest (e.g., short-
and long-term exposure mortality or hospital admissions) reported by epidemiological studies for
specific locales. This section describes the basic method used to estimate changes in the
incidence of a health endpoint associated with changes in PM, using a "generic" C-R function of
the most common functional form.
Although one epidemiological study estimated linear C-R functions and one estimated
logistic functions, most of the studies used a method referred to as "Poisson regression" to
Abt Associates Inc. p. 20 June 2005
-------
estimate exponential (or log-linear) C-R functions in which the natural logarithm of the health
endpoint is a linear function of PM:8
y = B e** , (1)
where x is the ambient PM level, y is the incidence of the health endpoint of interest at PM level
x, p is the coefficient of ambient PM concentration, and B is the incidence at x=0, i.e., when
there is no ambient PM. The relationship between a specified ambient PM level, x0, for example,
and the incidence of a given health endpoint associated with that level (denoted as y0) is then
y0 = Be** . (2)
Because the log-linear form of C-R function (equation (1)) is by far the most common form, the
discussion that follows assumes this form.
2.5.2 Short- and long-term exposure endpoints
C-R functions that use as input annual average PM levels (or some function of these)
relate these to the annual incidence of the health endpoint. C-R functions that use as input daily
average PM levels relate these to the daily incidence of the health endpoint. There are several
variants of the short-term (daily) C-R function. Some C-R functions were estimated by using
moving averages of ambient PM to predict daily health effects incidence. Such a function might,
for example, relate the incidence of the health effect on day t to the average of PM
concentrations on days t and (t-1). Some C-R functions consider the relationship between daily
incidence and daily average PM lagged a certain number of days. For example, a study might
estimate the C-R relationship between mortality on day t and average PM on day (t-1). The
discussion below does not depend on any particular averaging time or lag time and assumes only
that the measure of health effect incidence, y, is consistent with the measure of ambient PM
concentration, x.
The difference in health effects incidence, Ay = y0 - y, from y0 to the baseline incidence
rate, y, corresponding to a given difference in ambient PM levels, Ax = x0 - x, can be derived by
dividing equation (2) by equation (1), which yields:
Ay = y[e^ - 1] . (3)
Poisson regression is essentially a linear regression of the natural logarithm of the dependent variable on
the independent variable, but with an error structure that accounts for the particular type of heteroskedasticity that is
believed to occur in health response data. What matters for the risk assessment, however, is simply the form of the
estimated relation, as shown in equation (1).
Abt Associates Inc. p. 21 June 2005
-------
Alternatively, the difference in health effects incidence can be calculated indirectly using
relative risk. Relative risk (RR) is a measure commonly used by epidemiologists to characterize
the comparative health effects associated with a particular air quality comparison. The risk of
mortality at ambient PM level x0 relative to the risk of mortality at ambient PM level x, for
example, may be characterized by the ratio of the two mortality rates: the mortality rate among
individuals when the ambient PM level is x0 and the mortality rate among (otherwise identical)
individuals when the ambient PM level is x. This is the RR for mortality associated with the
difference between the two ambient PM levels, x0 and x. Given a C-R function of the form
shown in equation (1) and a particular difference in ambient PM levels, Ax, the RR associated
with that difference in ambient PM, denoted as RR^, is equal to epAx . The difference in health
effects incidence, Ay, corresponding to a given difference in ambient PM levels, Ax, can then be
calculated based on this RR:
Ay = y(RR^ - 1) . (4)
Equations (3) and (4) are simply alternative ways of expressing the relationship between a given
difference in ambient PM levels, Ax, and the corresponding difference in health effects
incidence, Ay. These equations are the key equations that combine air quality information, C-R
information, and baseline health effects incidence information to estimate ambient PM health
risk.
Given a C-R function and air quality data (ambient PM values) from an assessment
location, then, the difference in the incidence of the health endpoint (Ay = y0 - y) corresponding
to a difference in ambient PM level of Ax = x0 - x can be determined. This can either be done
with equation (3), using the coefficient, P, from a C-R function, or with equation (4), by first
calculating the appropriate RR from the C-R function.
Because the estimated difference in health effect incidence, Ay, depends on the particular
difference in PM concentrations, Ax, being considered, the choice of PM concentration
difference considered is important. In the first part of the risk assessment, these differences in
PM concentrations are differences between the current levels of PM ("as is" levels) and some
alternative, lower level(s). In the second part, these differences in PM concentrations are
differences between the levels under the current or alternative standards and some alternative,
lower level(s). In both parts of the risk assessment, both Ax = (x0 - x) and Ay = (y0 - y), as
defined in equation (3), are negative (or zero). We could have alternatively defined Ax to be
positive (i.e., the change from a higher PM level to a lower one), in which case Ay would also
have been positive, and the relationship between Ax and Ay would be slightly different from the
relationship shown in equation (3). The results, however, would be the same.9
9 If Ax and Ay are defined to be negative, we interpret Ay as the number of cases of the health effect that
would be avoided by reducing PM levels to lower levels; if Ax and Ay are defined to be positive, we interpret Ay as
Abt Associates Inc. p. 22 June 2005
-------
Most daily time-series epidemiological studies estimated C-R functions in which the PM-
related incidence on a given day depends only on same-day PM concentration or previous-day
PM concentration (or some variant of those, such as a two-day average concentration). Such
models necessarily assume that the longer pattern of PM levels preceding the PM concentration
on a given day does not affect mortality on that day. To the extent that PM-related mortality on
a given day is affected by PM concentrations over a longer period of time, then these models
would be mis-specified, and this mis-specification would affect the predictions of daily
incidence based on the model.
A few studies estimated distributed lag models, in which health effect incidence is a
function of PM concentrations on several days - that is, the incidence of the health endpoint on
day t is a function of the PM concentration on day t, day (t-1), day (t-2), and so forth. Such
models can be reconfigured so that the sum of the coefficients of the different PM lags in the
model can be used to predict the changes in incidence on several days. For example,
corresponding to a change in PM on day t in a distributed lag model with 0-day, 1-day, and 2-
day lags considered, the sum of the coefficients of the 0-day, 1-day, and 2-day lagged PM
concentrations can be used to predict the sum of incidence changes on days t, (t+1) and (t+2).
The extent to which time-series studies using single-day PM concentrations may
underestimate the relationship between short-term PM exposure and mortality is unknown;
however, there is some evidence, based on analyses of PM10 data, that mortality on a given day is
influenced by prior PM exposures up to more than a month before the date of death (Schwartz,
2000b). The extent to which short-term exposure studies (including those that consider
distributed lags) may not capture the full impact of long-term exposures to PM is similarly not
known. Currently, there is insufficient information to adequately adjust for the impact of longer-
term exposure on mortality associated with PM2 5 exposures, and this is an important uncertainty
that should be kept in mind as one considers the results from the short-term exposure PM risk
assessment.
2.5.3 Cutpoints and slope adjustment
For mortality and morbidity outcomes associated with short-term exposure to PM2 5 and
PM10_2 5, the initial base case applies the linear or log-linear C-R functions from the
epidemiological studies down to the estimated PRB concentration. Generally, the lowest
measured concentrations in the short-term exposure studies were relatively near or below the
estimated PRB levels such that little or no extrapolation of the C-R function is required beyond
the range of data in the studies. Among the studies of mortality associated with long-term
the number of cases of the health effect that exist that are associated with PM levels at the higher level above the
lower level. The number of cases is the same, however, in both cases.
Abt Associates Inc. p. 23 June 2005
-------
exposure to PM25that have been included in the risk assessment, the lowest measured long-term
levels were in the range 7.5 to 11 i-ig/m3. For mortality associated with long-term exposure to
PM2 5, the initial base case applies C-R functions down to 7.5 i-ig/m3, which is the lowest of the
lowest measured levels in these long-term studies. Going down to an estimated PRB level for
short-term exposure studies and to 7.5 |ig/m3 for long-term studies provides a consistent
framework which facilitates comparison of risk estimates across urban locations within each
group of studies and avoids significant extrapolation beyond the range of concentrations
included in these studies.
In addition to the initial base case models, we applied various alternative "cutpoint"
models. While there are likely biological thresholds in individuals for specific health responses,
the available epidemiological studies do not support or refute the existence of thresholds at the
population level for either long-term or short-term PM exposures within the range of air quality
observed in the studies. It may therefore be appropriate to consider health risks estimated not
only with the reported linear or log-linear C-R functions, but also with modified functions that
approximate non-linear, sigmoidal-shaped functions that would better reflect possible population
thresholds. We approximated such sigmoidal functions by "hockeystick" functions based on the
reported linear or log-linear functions. This approximation consisted of (1) imposing a cutpoint
(i.e., an assumed threshold) on the original C-R function, that is intended to reflect an inflection
point in a typical sigmoidal shaped function, below which there is little or no population
response, and (2) adjusting the slope of the original C-R function above the cutpoint.
If the researchers in the original study fit a log-linear or a linear model through data that
actually better support a sigmoidal or "hockeystick" form, the slope of the fitted curve would be
smaller than the slope of the upward-sloping portion of the "true" hockeystick relationship, as
shown in Figure 2. la. The horizontal portion of the data below the cutpoint would essentially
cause the estimated slope to be biased downward relative to the "true" slope of the upward-
sloping portion of the hockeystick. The slope of the upward-sloping portion of the hockeystick
model should therefore be adjusted upward (from the slope of the reported C-R function), as
shown in Figure 2. la. This rationale applies equally in the case of mortality associated with
long- and short-term exposure to PM. In each case, under the threshold hypothesis a log-linear
curve has been fit to data that are better characterized by a hockeystick model. In the case of a
short-term exposure mortality or morbidity study, the curve represents the relationship between
daily PM and daily mortality or morbidity; in the case of a long-term exposure mortality study,
the curve represents the relationship between annual average PM and annual mortality. In both
cases, however, if the "true" relationship looks like a hockeystick, then the log-linear curve fitted
to the data would understate the impact of increases in PM (either daily, in the case of a short-
term study, or annual average, in the case of a long-term study) on mortality or morbidity at PM
levels above the cutpoint.
Abt Associates Inc. p. 24 June 2005
-------
If the data used in a study do not extend down below the outpoint or extend only slightly
below it, then the extent of the downward bias of the reported PM coefficient will be minimal.
This is the case, for example, when the cutpoint is 10 |ig/m3 or 12 |ig/m3 for long-term exposure
mortality, given that the lowest measured PM2 5 levels in the long-term exposure mortality
studies were 7.5, 10, or 11 |ig/m3. In this case, the data in the study provided hardly any
information about the relationship between PM2 5 and mortality at levels below the cutpoints and
would have biased an estimate of the slope of the upward-sloping portion of a hockey stick only
minimally if at all, as illustrated in Figure 2.1b.
Abt Associates Inc. p. 25 June 2005
-------
Figure 2.1. Relationship Between Estimated Log-Linear Concentration-Response Function
and Hockeystick Model With Threshold C
Figure 2.1a. General Case
."True"
hockeystick
model
• Estimated C-R
function
LML
HML
Figure 2.1b. LML Close to Hypothetical Threshold
."True"
hockeystick
model
. Estimated C-R
function
LML C
PM
HML
Abt Associates Inc.
p. 26
June 2005
-------
We used a simple slope adjustment method based on the idea discussed above - that, if
the data in the study were best described by a hockeystick model with a cutpoint at c, then the
slope estimated in the study using a log-linear model would be approximately a weighted
average of the two slopes of the hockeystick - namely, zero and the slope of the upward-sloping
portion of the hockeystick. If we let
• LML denote the lowest measured PM level in the study,
c denote the cutpoint,
• HML denote the highest measured PM level in the study,
• /3est denote the slope (the PM coefficient) estimated in the study (using a log-
linear model), and
/3T denote the "true" slope of the upward-sloping portion of the hockeystick,
then, assuming the estimated coefficient reported by the study is (approximately) a weighted
average of the slope below the cutpoint (0) and the slope above the cutpoint,
(c-LML) T (HML-c)
a** = o * —- — + BT * — —
P (HML-LML) P (HML-LML)
and, solving for J3T,
, (HML-LML}
BT = ff« *± J-
P P (HML-c)
That is, the "true" slope of the upward-sloping portion of the hockeystick would be the slope
estimated in the study (using a log-linear model rather than a hockeystick model) adjusted by the
inverse of the proportion of the range of PM levels observed in the study that was above the
cutpoint. Note that if the LML was below the estimated PRB (or if it was not available for the
study), the estimated PRB was substituted for LML in the above equation. We believe that this
slope adjustment method is a reasonable approach to estimating health effects under various
assumed cutpoint models. A more definitive evaluation of the impact of alternative cutpoints
and non-linear models is a subject that should be explored in further research.
A cutpoint of 20 jig/m3 was selected as the highest value for base case scenarios for
short-term exposure mortality for PM2 5 and short-term exposure morbidity for PM10_2 5. Two
additional alternative cutpoints, 10 and 15 i-ig/m3, also were selected to be included in base case
scenarios for these short-term exposure health outcomes, so as to span the range between the
initial cutpoint (i.e., estimated policy-relevant background) and the upper cutpoint value at
roughly 5 |ig/m3 intervals.
Abt Associates Inc. p. 27 June 2005
-------
For mortality associated with long-term exposure to PM2 5, EPA staff selected 12 |ig/m3
as the highest value for an alternative cutpoint based on the following two considerations: 1) the
confidence intervals in the ACS extended study (Pope et al., 2002) begin to expand significantly
starting around 12 to 13 i-ig/m3, indicating greater uncertainty about the shape of the reported C-
R relationship at and below this level and 2) it is unlikely that the relationship is non-linear near
the reported mean concentration levels in the long-term exposure studies (e.g., 14 |ig/m3 in the
ACS extended study). An additional alternative cutpoint of 10 |ig/m3 is included, representing
an approximate midpoint value between the cutpoints already selected
2.5.4 Calculating incidence on an annual basis
The risk assessment estimated health effects incidence, and changes in incidence, on an
annual basis. For mortality, both short-term and long-term exposure studies have reported
estimated C-R functions. As noted above, most short-term exposure C-R functions estimated by
daily time-series epidemiological studies relate daily mortality to same-day PM concentration or
previous-day PM concentration (or some variant of those).
To estimate the daily health impacts of daily average ambient PM levels above
background or above the levels necessary to just meet the current or alternative PM25 standards
(or alternative PM10_2 5 standards), C-R functions from short-term exposure studies were used
together with estimated changes in daily ambient PM concentrations to calculate the daily
changes in the incidence of the health endpoint. (Alternative assumptions about the range of PM
levels associated with health effects were explored in sensitivity analyses. Where a minimum
concentration for effects (i.e., a cutpoint) was considered, reductions below this concentration
did not contribute attributable cases to the calculation. Only reductions down to this
concentration contributed attributable cases to the calculation.)
After daily changes in health effects were calculated, an annual change was calculated by
summing the daily changes. However, there are some days for which no ambient PM
concentration information was available. The predicted annual risks, based on those days for
which air quality data are available, were adjusted to take into account the full year. If days with
missing air quality data occur randomly or relatively uniformly throughout the year, a simple
adjustment can be made to the health effect incidence estimate - the incidence estimate based on
the set of days with air quality data can be multiplied by the ratio of the total number of days in
the year to the number of days in the year for which direct observations were available, to
generate an estimate of the total annual incidence of the health effect.10 However, if the missing
data are not uniformly distributed throughout the year, such a simple adjustment could lead to a
biased estimate of the total annual incidence change. To reduce such possible bias, adjustments
10 This assumes that the distribution of PM concentrations on those days for which data are missing is
essentially the same as the distribution on those days for which we have PM data.
Abt Associates Inc. p. 28 June 2005
-------
were made on a quarterly basis. If Q;is the total number of days in the ith quarter, and n; is the
number of days in the ith quarter for which there are air quality data, then the predicted incidence
change in the ith quarter, based on those days for which there are air quality data, was multiplied
by Qj/iij. The adjusted quarterly incidence changes were summed to derive an estimate of the
annual incidence change.
Some short-term exposure C-R functions are based on average PM levels during several
days. When such C-R functions were used, the air quality data were averaged for the same
number of days. For example, a function based on two-day averages of PM was used in
conjunction with two-day averages of PM in the assessment location to predict the incidence of
the health effect in that location. In some cases, intervals of two or three consecutive days in a
given location may be missing data, and so no multi-day average is available for use with multi-
day C-R functions. These cases were treated by multi-day functions just as individual missing
days were treated by single-day functions: they contributed no incidence change to the risk
assessment, and incidence changes were adjusted for the days on which multi-day averages were
missing.
C-R functions from long-term exposure studies (see Exhibit C. 10) were used to assess the
annual health impacts of changes in annual average ambient PM concentrations. Once again, to
minimize the chance of bias due to differential amounts of missing data in different quarters of
the year, quarterly averages were calculated based on the days in each quarter for which air
quality data were available, and the "as is" annual average concentration was then calculated as
an average of the four quarterly averages.
The mortality associated with long-term exposure is likely to include mortality related to
short-term exposures as well as mortality related to longer-term exposures. As discussed
previously, estimates of daily mortality based on the time-series studies also are likely influenced
by prior PM exposures. Therefore, the estimated annual incidences of mortality calculated based
on the short- and long-term exposure studies are not likely to be completely independent and
should not be added together.
While we can characterize the statistical uncertainty surrounding the estimated PM
coefficient in a reported C-R function, there are other sources of uncertainty about the C-R
functions used in the risk assessment that are addressed via sensitivity analyses. The sources of
uncertainty and how they are addressed in the risk assessment are discussed briefly below in
Section 2.6 and in more detail in Section 6. Sensitivity analyses, which consider the impact of
one assumption or source of uncertainty at a time, are listed in Section 2.7. Most of the
sensitivity analyses, described more fully in Section 7, focus on mortality.
Abt Associates Inc. p. 29 June 2005
-------
2.6 Characterizing uncertainty and variability
Any estimation of "as is" risk and reduced risks associated with just meeting specified
PM standards should address both the variability and uncertainty that generally underlie such an
analysis. Uncertainty refers to the lack of knowledge regarding the actual values of model input
variables (parameter uncertainty) and of physical systems or relationships (model uncertainty -
e.g., the shapes of C-R functions). The goal of the analyst is to reduce uncertainty to the
maximum extent possible. Uncertainty can be reduced by improved measurement and improved
model formulation.
Variability refers to the heterogeneity in a population or parameter. Even if there is no
uncertainty surrounding inputs to the analysis, there may still be variability. For example, there
may be variability among C-R functions describing the relationship between PM and mortality
across urban areas. This variability does not imply uncertainty about the C-R function in any of
the urban areas, but only that these C-R functions are different in the different locations,
reflecting differences in the populations and/or the PM. In general, it is possible to have
uncertainty but no variability (if, for instance, there is a single parameter whose value is
uncertain) or variability but little or no uncertainty (for example, people's heights vary
considerably but can be accurately measured with little uncertainty).
The current risk assessment incorporates some of the variability in key inputs to the
analysis by using location-specific inputs (e.g., location-specific C-R functions, baseline
incidence rates, and air quality data). Although spatial variability in these key inputs across all
U.S. locations has not been fully characterized, variability across the selected locations is
imbedded in the analysis by using, to the extent possible, inputs specific to each urban area.
Temporal variability is more difficult to address, because the risk assessment focuses on some
unspecified time in the future. To minimize the degree to which values of inputs to the analysis
may be different from the values of those inputs at that unspecified time, we have used the most
current inputs available - for example, year 2003 air quality data for most of the urban locations,
and the most recent available mortality baseline incidence rates (from 2001). However, we have
not tried to predict future changes in inputs (e.g., future population levels or possible changes in
baseline incidence rates).
There are a number of important sources of uncertainty that were addressed where
possible. The following are among the major sources of uncertainty in the risk assessment:
• Uncertainties related to estimating the C-R functions, including the following:
- There is uncertainty about the extent to which the association between PM and
the health endpoint actually reflects a causal relationship.
Abt Associates Inc. p. 30 June 2005
-------
- There is uncertainty surrounding estimates of PM coefficients in C-R functions
used in the analyses.
- There is uncertainty about the specification of the model (including the shape of
the C-R relationship), particularly whether or not there are thresholds below
which no response occurs.
- There is uncertainty related to the transferability of PM C-R functions from study
locations and time periods to the locations and time periods selected for the risk
assessment.11 A C-R function in a study location may not provide an accurate
representation of the C-R relationship in the analysis location(s) and time periods
because of
• variations in PM composition across cities or over time,
• the possible role of associated co-pollutants, which vary from location to
location and over time, in influencing PM risk,
variations in the relationship of total ambient exposure (both outdoor and
ambient contributions to indoor exposure) to ambient monitoring in
different locations (e.g, due to differences in air conditioning use in
different regions of the U.S. or changes in usage over time),
differences in population characteristics (e.g., the proportions of members
of sensitive subpopulations) and population behavior patterns across
locations or over time in the same location.
• Uncertainties related to the air quality adjustment procedure that was used to simulate
just meeting the current PM standards, and uncertainties about estimated background
concentrations for each location.
• Uncertainties associated with use of baseline health effects incidence information that is
not specific to the analysis locations.12
The uncertainties from some of these sources — in particular, the statistical uncertainty
surrounding estimates of the PM coefficients in C-R functions — were characterized
quantitatively. It was possible, for example, to calculate confidence intervals around risk
11 The risk assessment locations were selected partly on the basis of where C-R functions were estimated,
specifically to reduce this important source of uncertainty. Therefore, possible differences due to location is a source
of uncertainty in the risk assessment only when C-R functions from multi-city studies or from another location are
applied to a risk assessment location.
12 Location-specific baseline incidence rates were obtainable for most health endpoints. The only health
endpoints for which this was not the case are respiratory symptoms, for which baseline incidence rates were reported
in the studies. For those studies carried out in a single location, this provides location-specific baseline incidence
rates. For Schwartz and Neas (2000), the rates were based on six cities combined. Boston and St. Louis, the two
assessment locations where these endpoints are evaluated, were two of the six cities.
Abt Associates Inc. p. 31 June 2005
-------
estimates based on the uncertainty associated with the estimates of PM coefficients used in the
risk assessment. These confidence intervals express the range within which the risks are likely
to fall if the uncertainty surrounding PM coefficient estimates were the only uncertainty in the
analysis. There are, of course, several other uncertainties in the risk assessment, as noted above.
If there were sufficient information to quantitatively characterize these sources of uncertainty,
they could be included in a Monte Carlo analysis to produce confidence intervals that more
accurately reflect all sources of uncertainty.
We handled uncertainties in the risk assessment in several ways:
Limitations and assumptions in estimating risks and risk reductions are clearly stated and
explained.
• The uncertainty resulting from the statistical uncertainty associated with the estimate of
the PM coefficient in a C-R function was characterized by confidence intervals around
the corresponding point estimate of risk. As noted above, such a confidence interval
expresses the range within which the true risk is likely to fall if the uncertainty
surrounding the PM coefficient estimate were the only uncertainty in the analysis. It
does not, for example, reflect the uncertainty concerning whether the PM coefficients in
the study location and the assessment location are the same.13
• The uncertainty about possible population thresholds was addressed by applying
"hockeystick" models, using various cutpoints, in addition to the original models
estimated in the epidemiological literature.
• Sensitivity analyses were conducted to illustrate the effects of changing key default
assumptions on the results of the assessment.
2.7 Summary of key assumptions and sensitivity analyses
In summary, the key assumptions on which the PM risk assessment is based include the
following:
• The relationship between PM components examined and health endpoints is causal;
The range of C-R models used in the risk assessment (including the original models and
the models incorporating cutpoints) reasonably captures the possible range of functional
relationships between PM and the health endpoints considered;
• Baseline incidence rates have not changed appreciably from those used in the risk
assessment;
13 This is not an uncertainty, of course, if the C-R function has been estimated in the assessment location.
Abt Associates Inc. p. 32 June 2005
-------
• Population sizes and age distributions have not changed appreciably from those used in
the risk assessment;
• The distribution of PM concentrations on missing days is essentially the same as the
distribution of PM concentrations on days for which we have PM data;
• The estimated background concentration for each component is appropriate for each
urban area in the analysis;
The background concentration for each component is essentially constant across the days
in a year;
• A single year of air quality data is appropriate to characterize risks associated with as is
and just meeting specified standards,
Proportional rollback of concentrations over estimated background appropriately
represents how standards would be just met;
Sensitivity analyses are used to illustrate the sensitivity of analysis results to different
possible input values or to different assumptions or procedures that may affect these input
values. Although a sensitivity analysis is not as comprehensive as an uncertainty analysis,
selecting only a few possible alternative values of an input component rather than characterizing
the entire distribution of these values, it is precisely the simplicity of a sensitivity analysis that
makes it preferable for illustrating the impact on results of using different input component
values. Exhibit 2.6 lists the sensitivity analyses that were conducted.
Abt Associates Inc. p. 33 June 2005
-------
Exhibit 2.6 Sensitivity Analyses
Analysis
Number
(Exhibit 2.1)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
PM
Indicator
PM25,
PM10.2.5
PM25
PM25
PM25
PM25
PM25
PM25
Component of
the Risk
assessment
Air Quality
Air Quality
Air Quality
Air Quality
Concentration-
Response
Concentration-
Response
Concentration-
Response
Sensitivity Analysis
Sensitivity analyses of the effect of assuming different
(constant) background PM levels
Sensitivity analyses of the effect of assuming a
constant background PM level versus a distribution of
daily background levels
Sensitivity analyses of the effect of just meeting the
current and alternative annual PM2 5 standards using
the maximum versus the average of monitor-specific
averages
A sensitivity analysis of the effect of an alternative air
quality adjustment procedure on the estimated risk
reductions resulting from just meeting the current 24-
hr and annual PM2 5 standards
A sensitivity analysis using an approach to estimate the
possible impact of using a distributed lag C-R function
A sensitivity analysis of the impact on mortality
associated with long-term exposure of different
assumptions about the role of historical air quality
concentrations in contributing to the reported effects
Sensitivity analysis of the impact on mortality
associated with short-term exposure of using a multi-
city C-R function compared to location-specific C-R
functions from single-city studies
Abt Associates Inc.
p. 34
June 2005
-------
3. Health Endpoints, Urban Areas, and Studies Selected
As discussed in the 2004 PM CD, a significant number of epidemiological studies
examining a variety of health effects associated with ambient PM concentrations in various
locations throughout the United States and Canada have been published since the prior NAAQS
review. As a result of the availability of additional health effects studies and air quality
information, EPA expanded the geographic scope of the PM risk assessment to include several
additional urban areas beyond the two (Philadelphia and Los Angeles Counties) analyzed for the
prior review, consistent with the goals of the assessment. The approaches that were used to
select health endpoint categories, urban areas, and studies to include in the PM risk assessment
are discussed below.
3.1 Health endpoints
OAQPS staff carefully reviewed the evidence evaluated in the 2004 PM CD (see Chapter
3 of the 2005 PM SP). Tables 8-A and 8-B in Appendices 8 A and 8B of the 2004 PM CD
summarize the available U.S. and Canadian short-term exposure studies that provide effect
estimates for PM (i.e., PM2 5, PM10, and PM10_2 5) for mortality and morbidity, respectively.
Section 8.2.3 of the 2004 PM CD summarizes the available U.S. and Canadian studies that
provide effect estimates for PM2 5 and other PM indicators for long-term exposure. As discussed
in the 2005 PM SP (Section 4.2.1), given the large number of endpoints and studies addressing
PM effects, OAQPS included in the quantitative PM risk assessment only the more severe and
better understood (in terms of health consequences) health endpoint categories. In addition,
OAQPS included only those health endpoints for which the overall weight of the evidence from
the collective body of studies supports the CD conclusion that there is likely to be a causal
relationship or that the scientific evidence is sufficiently suggestive of a causal relationship that
OAQPS staff judges the effects to be likely causal between PM and the effects category. Finally,
OAQPS included only those categories for which there were studies that satisfy the study
selection criteria (see Section 3.3 below).
For those health effect categories included, the risk assessment is predicated on the
assumption that a causal relationship exists. As discussed in more detail in the 2004 PM CD (see
Section 9.2.2 ), for the relationship between PM and various health outcomes
"...considering results from studies conducted both within and outside the U.S. and
Canada, the epidemiological evidence is strong for associations between PM10 and PM2 5 and
mortality, especially for total and cardiovascular mortality. The magnitudes of the associations
are relatively small, especially for the multi-city studies. However, there is a pattern of positive
and often statistically significant associations across studies for cardiovascular and respiratory
health outcomes, including mortality and hospitalization and medical visits for cardiovascular
and respiratory diseases, with PM10 and PM2 5. The few available PM10_2 5 studies also provide
Abt Associates Inc. p. 35 June 2005
-------
some evidence for associations between hospitalization for cardiovascular and respiratory
diseases with PM10_25. ... For PM10_2 5, the evidence for association with mortality is more
limited." (U.S. EPA, 2004, p.9-32)
With respect to the relationship between long-term exposure to PM2 5 and increased mortality,
the 2004 PM CD placed the greatest weight on the results of the ACS and Six Cities cohort
studies and concluded that "the results of these studies, including the reanalyses results for the
Six Cities and ACS studies and the results of the ACS study extension, provide substantial
evidence for positive associations between long-term ambient (especially fine) PM exposure and
mortality" (p.9-33). The 2004 PM CD (p. 9-34) finds no evidence for associations between
long-term exposure to PM10_2 5 and either morbidity or mortality health outcomes.
The 2004 PM CD(pp. 9-50 - 9-79) contains an extensive discussion considering both the
extent to which the available epidemiological evidence shows associations in the same location
with a range of logically linked health endpoints and the extent to which the available
toxicological evidence and mechanistic information provides support for the plausibility of the
observed epidemiological associations. Based on that review, the 2004 PM CD concludes that,
"A growing body of evidence both from epidemiologic and toxicologic studies also
supports the general conclusion that PM2 5 (or one or more PM2 5 components), acting
alone and/or in combination with gaseous co-pollutants, are likely causally related to
cardiovascular and respiratory mortality and morbidity. The strength of the evidence
varies across such endpoints, with relatively stronger evidence of associations with
cardiovascular than respiratory endpoints, potentially due to reduced statistical power
where respiratory outcomes are seen less frequently than cardiovascular outcomes. In
addition, mortality associations with long-term exposures to PM2 5, in conjunction with
evidence of associations with short-term exposures, provide strong evidence in support of
a causal inference." (U.S. EPA, 2004, p. 9-79)
Based on its review of the evidence evaluated in the 2004 PM CD, OAQPS included in
both the PM25 and PM10_25 risk assessments the following broad categories of health endpoints
associated with short-term exposures:
• hospital admissions for cardiovascular and respiratory causes;14 and
• respiratory symptoms not requiring hospitalization.
In addition, non-accidental, cardiovascular, and respiratory mortality due to short-term exposure,
as well as total, cardiopulmonary, and lung cancer mortality due to long-term exposure are also
14 The category of emergency room visits was also considered, but there is evidence that baseline incidence
rates vary considerably across locations, and location-specific rates were not available. Therefore this health effect
was not included in the risk assessment.
Abt Associates Inc. p. 36 June 2005
-------
included in the PM2 5 risk assessment. Other effects reported to be associated with PM, such as
decreased lung function and changes in heart rate variability, are discussed in the 2005 PM SP.
3.2 Urban areas
In the prior risk assessment the selection of urban areas to include was determined largely
by the very limited availability of recent and sufficiently complete PM25 ambient air quality data.
For the current PM risk assessment, there was a significantly greater number of candidate
locations in which epidemiological studies have reported C-R relationships and for which there
are sufficient PM ambient air quality data. Recent evidence from the National Mortality and
Morbidity Air Pollution Study (NMMAPS) (Samet et al., 2000) suggests there may be
geographic variability in C-R relationships across many U.S. urban areas. In light of the
evidence from NMMAPS, which examined C-R relationships across the 90 largest U.S. cities,
we identified candidate areas for the PM risk assessment emphasizing geographically varied
urban areas in the United States in which C-R relationships have been estimated.
An urban area in the United States was included in the PM risk assessment only if it
satisfied the following criteria:
It has sufficient air quality data for a recent year (1999 or later). A city was considered to
have sufficient PM25 air quality data if it had at least one PM25 monitor at which there
were at least 11 observations per quarter for a one year period and there were at least 122
observations per year (1 in 3 day monitoring). Sufficient air quality data for PM10_2 5 was
defined as a one year period with at least 11 daily values per quarter based on data from
co-located PM10 and PM2 5 monitors.15
It is the same as or close to the location where at least one C-R function for one of the
recommended health endpoints (see above) has been estimated by a study that satisfies
the study selection criteria (see below).16
15 We excluded from consideration a few monitors sited in industrial areas that are intended to characterize
local conditions near major point sources and which met the EPA criteria contained in Part 58 of the CFR for
exclusion from consideration when evaluating whether an area meets the current annual average PM2 5 standard .
16 Urban locations for which C-R functions were estimated sometimes include several counties. (For
example, in Klemm et al., 2000, the urban area labeled "Boston" consists of three counties: Middlesex, Norfolk, and
Suffolk counties.) To the extent possible, in the PM risk assessment we tried to include the specific counties used in
the urban location in the original epidemiological studies.
Abt Associates Inc. p. 37 June 2005
-------
• For the hospital admission effects category, relatively recent area-specific baseline
incidence data, specific to International Classification of Disease (ICD) codes, are
available.17
3.2.1 Additional considerations: the PM25 risk assessment
The largest data base for health effects associated with short-term (i.e., 24-hour) ambient
PM2 5 concentrations, in terms of number of studies in different locations, is for non-accidental
total and cause-specific mortality. Therefore, OAQPS focused on selecting urban areas for the
PM2 5 risk assessment primarily on this health effect category supplemented by consideration of
morbidity endpoints. We first reviewed the studies listed in Table 8-A of the 2004 PM CD that
estimated C-R functions for short-term exposure mortality in U.S. locations and used measured
PM2 5 or PM2 5 estimated by nephelometry as the air quality indicator. A candidate pool of
sixteen urban areas in the U.S. was represented among those studies.
We next considered the precision of the effect estimates from those short-term exposure
mortality studies identified in the first step.18 In general, the relative precision of a study
increases as the number of its observations increases. The number of observations depends not
only on the number of days on which mortality counts were obtained, but also on the size of the
mortality counts. The 2004 PM CD describes the use of the natural logarithm of the mortality-
days (i.e., the natural log of the product of the number of study days and the average number of
deaths per day) as a surrogate or indicator reflecting the relative weight of short-term exposure
mortality epidemiological studies as an indicator of likely increasing precision for study effect
estimates. We considered only those urban areas in which studies with relatively greater
precision were conducted - specifically, studies that have a natural log of mortality-days greater
than or equal to 9.0 for total non-accidental mortality.19 This criterion excluded 6 urban areas
(Camden, NJ; Coachella Valley, CA; Elizabeth, NJ; Newark, NJ; Steubenville, OH; and Topeka,
KS).
We next considered which of those study locations also have sufficient PM25 monitoring
data to support a PM2 5 risk assessment. Using the completeness criterion defined above for
PM2 5, 2 additional areas (Knoxville, TN and Portage, WI) were excluded based on the air quality
17 The absence of hospital admissions baseline incidence data does not necessarily mean that we cannot use
an urban area in the risk assessment, only that we cannot use it for the hospital admissions endpoint.
1 8
Tolbert et al. (2000) was excluded from consideration because it presented only preliminary results, and
the 2004 PM CD urged caution in interpreting these preliminary results.
19 Most of the epidemiological studies reporting total non-accidental mortality also report on one or more
cause specific mortality categories; in such studies the natural log of mortality days is often less than 9.0 because
there are fewer deaths from a specific cause. We included the cause-specific mortality C-R relationships reported in
such studies as long as the natural log of total mortality days was greater than or equal to 9.0.
Abt Associates Inc. p. 38 June 2005
-------
data available in 2003, leaving eight cities in which epidemiological studies reported C-R
relationships for PM2 5 and mortality associated with short-term exposures and which had
sufficient air quality data in a recent year.
The following urban areas satisfied the criteria of availability of C-R functions for short-
term exposure mortality, study precision, and availability of sufficiently recent and complete air
quality data to be included in the PM25 risk assessment for short-term exposure mortality:
Boston, MA
Detroit, MI
Los Angeles, CA
Philadelphia, PA
• Phoenix, AZ
Pittsburgh, PA
San Jose, CA
St. Louis, MO
Because baseline mortality incidence data are available at the county level, this was not a
limiting factor in the selection of urban areas for any portion of the PM2 5 risk assessment.
The long-term exposure C-R functions used in the PM2 5 risk assessment are based on
studies involving multiple cities across the United States, and the estimated C-R functions are
based on differences in long-term averages observed across the various cities. The issue of
matching a risk assessment location with the specific location in which a C-R function was
estimated therefore does not arise for long-term exposure mortality in quite the way it does for
short-term exposure mortality. We carried out the PM2 5 risk assessment for long-term exposure
mortality in all the urban locations listed above that are included in the PM2 5 risk assessment.
Most of the urban locations in which C-R functions were estimated for health endpoints
other than mortality are included in the set of locations available for mortality. A primary
consideration in selecting urban locations for these other health endpoints, as with the PM2 5 risk
assessment for mortality, was that the assessment locations be the same as or close to the study
locations where C-R functions were estimated. Second, studies with relatively greater precision
were considered preferable. In addition, for the hospital admission effect category, we limited
our selection of urban areas to those for which the necessary baseline incidence data were
available.
3.2.2 Additional considerations: the PM10_25 risk assessment
We wanted to include urban areas in the PM10_2 5 risk assessment for which we were also
conducting a PM2 5 risk assessment, if there are epidemiological studies reporting associations
for PM10_2 5 in these locations. Because the PM10_2 5 risk assessment requires air quality data for
Abt Associates Inc. p. 39 June 2005
-------
PM10 and PM25 at co-located monitors, the criterion of sufficient air quality data is significantly
more limiting in the selection of urban areas for the PM10_25 risk assessment than for the PM25
risk assessment.
Based on these considerations, we included Detroit, Seattle, and St. Louis in the PM10_2 5
risk assessment. While sufficient air quality data are also available for Los Angeles, the
relevant epidemiological study used the S-Plus/GAM procedure but has not yet been re-
analyzed.
3.3 Studies
A study that has estimated one or more C-R functions for a health endpoint in an urban
location to be used for the PM2 5 or PM10_2 5 risk assessment had to satisfy the following criteria:
It is an acceptable, published, peer-reviewed study that has been evaluated in the 2004
PM CD and judged adequate by EPA staff for purposes of inclusion in this risk
assessment based on that evaluation.
It directly measured PM using PM2 5 or PM10_2 5 as the indicator or for PM2 5 was
estimated using nephelometry data.20
• It either did not rely on GAMs using the S-Plus software to estimate C-R functions or has
appropriately re-estimated them using revised methods.
3.4 A summary of health endpoints, urban areas, and studies selected
Based on applying the criteria and considerations discussed above, the health endpoints
and the urban locations that were selected, as well as the studies that estimated the C-R functions
used in the PM risk assessment are given in Exhibits 3.1 - 3.3 for PM25, and Exhibit 3.4 for
PM10_2 5. More detailed information on the studies used is given in Appendix C.
20 Consistent with advice received from members of the CAS AC PM Panel, we have included studies that
used nephelometry to estimate PM2 5 concentrations where gravimetric measurements were not available.
Abt Associates Inc. p. 40 June 2005
-------
Exhibit 3.1 The PM2S Risk Assessment: Mortality Associated with Short-Term Exposure
Urban Location
Boston, MA
Detroit, MI
Los Angeles, CA
Philadelphia, PA
Phoenix, AZ
Pittsburgh, PA
San Jose, CA
St. Louis, MO
Total (non-accidental)
Schwartz etal. (1996)A *
Lippmann et al. (2000)°
Moolgavkar (2000a)D
Chock et al. (2000)
Fairley (1999)F
Schwartz etal. (1996)A
Cardiovascular
Klemm et al. (2000)B - ischemic
heart disease *
Moolgavkar (2000a)D
Lipfert et al. (2000) *
Mar et al. (2000)E
Fairley (1999)F
Klemm et al. (2000)B - ischemic
heart disease *
Circulatory
Lippmann et al. (2000)°
Respiratory
Klemm et al. (2000)B - COPD *,
pneumonia *
Lippmann et al. (2000)°
Fairley (1999)F
Klemm et al. (2000)B - COPD *,
pneumonia *
* Includes a multi-city or multi-county C-R function
A Reanalyzed in Schwartz (2003b)
B Reanalyzed in Klemm and Mason (2003)
c Reanalyzed in Ito (2003)
D Reanalyzed in Moolgavkar (2003)
E Reanalyzed in Mar et al. (2003)
F Reanalyzed in Fairley (2003)
Abt Associates Inc.
p. 41
June 2005
-------
Exhibit 3.2 The PM2 s Risk Assessment: Mortality Associated with Long- Term Exposure
Urban Location
Boston, MA
Detroit, MI
Los Angeles, CA
Philadelphia, PA
Phoenix, AZ
Pittsburgh, PA
San Jose, CA
Seattle, WA
St. Louis, MO
Total
Krewski et al. (2000) - 6 cities
Krewski et al. (2000) - ACS
Pope et al. (2002) - ACS extended
Krewski et al. (2000) - ACS
Pope et al. (2002) - ACS extended
Krewski et al. (2000) - ACS
Pope et al. (2002) - ACS extended
Krewski et al. (2000) - ACS
Pope et al. (2002) - ACS extended
Krewski et al. (2000) - ACS
Pope et al. (2002) - ACS extended
Krewski et al. (2000) - ACS
Pope et al. (2002) - ACS extended
Krewski et al. (2000) - ACS
Pope et al. (2002) - ACS extended
Krewski et al. (2000) - ACS
Pope et al. (2002) - ACS extended
Krewski et al. (2000) - 6 cities
Krewski et al. (2000) - ACS
Pope et al. (2002) - ACS extended
Cardiopulmonary
Krewski et al. (2000) - 6 cities
Krewski et al. (2000) - ACS
Pope et al. (2002) - ACS extended
Krewski et al. (2000) - ACS
Pope et al. (2002) - ACS extended
Krewski et al. (2000) - ACS
Pope et al. (2002) - ACS extended
Krewski et al. (2000) - ACS
Pope et al. (2002) - ACS extended
Krewski et al. (2000) - ACS
Pope et al. (2002) - ACS extended
Krewski et al. (2000) - ACS
Pope et al. (2002) - ACS extended
Krewski et al. (2000) - ACS
Pope et al. (2002) - ACS extended
Krewski et al. (2000) - ACS
Pope et al. (2002) - ACS extended
Krewski et al. (2000) - 6 cities
Krewski et al. (2000) - ACS
Pope et al. (2002) - ACS extended
Lung Cancer
Pope et al. (2002) - ACS extended
Pope et al. (2002) - ACS extended
Pope et al. (2002) - ACS extended
Pope et al. (2002) - ACS extended
Pope et al. (2002) - ACS extended
Pope et al. (2002) - ACS extended
Pope et al. (2002) - ACS extended
Pope et al. (2002) - ACS extended
Pope et al. (2002) - ACS extended
Abt Associates Inc.
p. 42
June 2005
-------
Exhibit 3.3 The PM2 5 Risk Assessment: Morbidity Associated with Short-Term Exposure
Urban Location
Boston, MA
Detroit, MI
Los Angeles, CA
Seattle, WA
St. Louis, MO
Cardiovascular Hospital Admissions
Lippmann et al. (2000)A - ischemic heart
disease, congestive heart failure,
dysrhythmias
Moolgavkar (2000b)B
Respiratory Hospital Admissions
Lippmann et al. (2000)A - pneumonia,
COPD
Moolgavkar (2000c)B- COPD
Sheppard et al. (1999)° - asthma
Respiratory Symptoms
Schwartz and Neas (2000) - cough, lower
respiratory symptoms (LRS)
Schwartz and Neas (2000) - cough, LRS
A Reanalyzed in Ito (2003)
B Reanalyzed in Moolgavkar (2003)
c Reanalyzed in Sheppard (2003)
Abt Associates Inc.
p. 43
June 2005
-------
Exhibit 3.4 The PM10_2 s Risk Assessment: Morbidity Associated with Short-Term Exposure
Urban Location
Detroit, MI
Seattle, WA
St. Louis, MO
Cardiovascular Hospital Admissions
Lippmann et al. (2000)A -
Congestive heart disease,
Ischemic heart disease
Dysrhythmias
Respiratory Hospital Admissions
Lippmann et al. (2000)A - Pneumonia,
COPD
Sheppard et al. (1999)B - asthma
Respiratory Symptoms
Schwartz and Neas (2000) - LRS, cough
* Includes multi-city, regional, or national C-R function
A Reanalyzed in Ito (2003)
B Reanalyzed in Sheppard (2003)
Abt Associates Inc.
p. 44
June 2005
-------
4. Selecting Concentration-Response Functions
For the most part, the selection of studies from which to draw C-R relationships for the
PM risk assessment was determined by the choice of health endpoints to include in the analyses
and by the process used to select the urban areas, discussed in the previous section. C-R
functions from studies judged suitable for inclusion in the risk assessment were not excluded
because of lack of statistical significance. As discussed in Section 3.2.1 above, one of the
criteria for inclusion of studies in the risk assessment is that studies have enough sample size to
provide a sufficient degree of precision. Effect estimates that are not statistically significant are
used from studies judged suitable for inclusion in this assessment to avoid introducing bias into
the estimates of the magnitude of the effects.
The C-R functions of interest for the PM risk assessment are from epidemiological
studies investigating the relations between PM and a variety of health endpoints. Both single-
pollutant, and where available, multi-pollutant C-R functions used in the PM risk assessment
were obtained for the studies listed in Tables 8A and 8B in Appendices 8A and 8B of the 2004
PM CD that met the criteria discussed previously in Section 3. Some of these studies were used
in the prior (1996) PM risk assessment (Abt Associates Inc, 1996).
Studies often report more than one estimated C-R function for the same location and
health endpoint. Sometimes models including different sets of co-pollutants are estimated in a
study; sometimes different lags are estimated. In some cases, two or more different studies
estimated a C-R function for PM and the same health endpoint (this is the case, for example,
with PM2 5 and long-term exposure mortality).
4.1 Single and multi-city functions
All else being equal, a C-R function estimated in the assessment location is preferable to
a function estimated elsewhere since it avoids uncertainties related to potential differences due to
geographic location. That is why the urban areas selected for the PM risk assessment were those
locations in which C-R functions have been estimated. There are several advantages, however,
to using estimates from multi-city studies versus studies carried out in single cities. Multi-city
studies are applicable to a variety of settings, since they estimate a central tendency across
multiple locations. When they are estimating a single C-R function based on several cities,
multi-city studies also tend to have more statistical power and provide effect estimates with
relatively greater precision than single city studies due to larger sample sizes, reducing the
uncertainty around the estimated coefficient. In addition, there is less likelihood of publication
bias or exclusion of reporting of negative findings or findings that are not statistically significant
with multi-city studies. Because single-city and multi-city studies have different advantages, if a
single-city C-R function has been estimated in a risk assessment location and a multi-city study
which includes that location is also available for the same health endpoint, the results from both
were used for that location and reported in the base case risk assessment.
Abt Associates Inc. p. 45 June 2005
-------
4.2 Single and multi-pollutant models
For several of the epidemiological studies from which C-R relationships for the PM risk
assessment were obtained, C-R functions are reported both for the case where only PM levels
were entered into the health effects model (i.e., single pollutant models) and where PM and one
or more other measured gaseous co-pollutants (i.e., ozone, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide,
carbon monoxide) were entered into the health effects model (i.e., multi-pollutant models). To
the extent that any of the co-pollutants present in the ambient air may have contributed to the
health effects attributed to PM in single pollutant models, risks attributed to PM might be
overestimated where C-R functions are based on single pollutant models. However, the 2004
PM CD (p. 9-37) finds that associations for various PM indices with mortality or morbidity are
robust to confounding by co-pollutants. As shown in figures 8-16 through 8-19 of the 2004 PM
CD, effect estimates for PM10, PM2 5, and PM10_2 5 were little changed in multi-pollutant models,
as compared with single pollutant models. As stated in the 2005 PM SP (p. 3-46), "This
indicates that effect estimates from single-pollutant models can be used to represent the
magnitude of a concentration-response relationship, though there will remain uncertainty with
regard to potential contributions from other pollutants."
The findings from NMMAPS, which characterized the effects of PM10 and each of the
gaseous co-pollutants, alone and in combination, also are relevant to the potential role of gaseous
pollutants in modifying the effects associated with PM2 5. An important finding of the
NMMAPS analyses was "the weak influence of gaseous co-pollutants on the PM10 effect size
estimates" (2004 PM CD, p.8-35). The authors concluded that their finding "suggests that the
effect of PM10 is robust to the inclusion of other pollutants" (Samet et al., 2000, p. 19).
For some of the gaseous co-pollutants, such as carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, and
sulfur dioxide, which tend to be highly correlated with ambient PM2 5 concentrations in some
cities, it is difficult to sort out whether these pollutants are exerting any independent effect from
that attributed to PM25. As discussed in the 2004 PM CD, inclusion of pollutants that are highly
correlated with one another can lead to misleading conclusions in identifying a specific causal
pollutant. When collinearity exists, inclusion of multiple pollutants in models often produces
unstable and statistically insignificant effect estimates for both PM and the co-pollutants (U.S.
EPA, 2004, p.8-339). The CD also notes, on the other hand, that omission of potentially-
contributing pollutants may incorrectly attribute some of their independent effects to PM (U.S.
EPA, 2004, p. 8-339) Given that single and multi-pollutant models each have both potential
advantages and disadvantages, with neither type clearly preferable over the other in all cases, we
report risk estimates based on both single and multi-pollutant models where both are available.
Abt Associates Inc. p. 46 June 2005
-------
4.3 Single, multiple, and distributed lag functions
The question of lags and the problems of correctly specifying the lag structure in a model
is discussed extensively in the 2004 PM CD (Section 8.4.4) and 2005 PM SP ( Sections 3.6.5.1
and 4.3). The 2004 PM CD points out that
In considering the results of models for a series of lag days, it is important to
consider the pattern of results that is seen across the series of lag periods. If there
is an apparent pattern of results across the different lags, ... then selecting the
single-day lag with the largest effect from a series of positive associations is
reasonable, although it is, in fact, likely to underestimate the overall effect size
(since the largest single-lag day results do not fully capture the risk also
distributed over adjacent or other days).(U.S. EPA 2004, p.8-270)
As discussed in the 2004 PM CD, a number of the PM25 short-term exposure mortality
studies reported stronger associations with shorter lags, with a pattern of results showing larger
associations at the 0- and 1-day lag period that taper off with successive lag days for varying PM
indicators. These included the following studies which are used in the PM2 5 risk assessment
presented in this report: Moolgavkar (2003) and Mar et al. (2000), reanalyzed in Mar et al.
(2003). Several studies included in the PM2 5 risk assessment used only 0- and 1-day lags in the
analyses for PM2 5 (for example, Schwartz et al., 1996; Lipfert et al., 2000; Klemm et al., 2000).
When a study reports several single lag models, unless the study authors identify a "best
lag," we selected both 0- and 1-day lag models for mortality (both total and cause-specific) based
on the assessment in the 2004 PM CD and Section 3.6.5.1 of the 2005 PM SP. Based on a
review of the U.S. and Canadian studies reporting mortality effects associated with PM
exposure, the 2004 PM CD states, "These studies reported stronger associations with shorter
lags, with a pattern of results showing larger associations at the 0- and 1-day lag period that taper
off with successive lag days for varying PM indicators ..." ( p.8-273). For hospital admission
endpoints, unless the author specified an optimal lag, we selected both 0- and 1-day lag models
for cardiovascular admissions since the 2004 PM CD indicates that recent evidence from time
series studies strongly suggests maximal effects at 0-day lag with some carryover to 1-day lag
and little evidence for effects beyond 1-day for this health endpoint (2004 PM CD, p. 8-279).
Since many of the time-series studies addressing COPD hospital admissions report effects at
somewhat longer lags, we selected 0-, 1- and 2-day lag models (if all three were available) for
this health endpoint category.
There is recent evidence (Schwartz, 2000b) that the relationship between PM and health
effects may best be described by a distributed lag (i.e., the incidence of the health effect on day n
is influenced by PM concentrations on day n, day n-1, day n-2 and so on). The 2004 PM CD
makes the point that "if one chooses the most significant single-lag day only, and if more than
one lag day shows positive (significant or otherwise) associations with mortality, then reporting
Abt Associates Inc. p. 47 June 2005
-------
a RR for only one lag would also underestimate the pollution effects" (U.S. EPA 2004, p.8-279).
Because of this, a distributed lag model is considered preferable to a single lag model where
there is a consistent pattern of effects shown across several days. Unfortunately, distributed lag
models have been estimated in only a few cases and only for PM10 (e.g., Schwartz, 2000b for
PM10). Consequently, we conducted a sensitivity analysis examining the potential impact of
using a distributed lag approach for short-term exposure mortality associated with PM2 5, based
on the distributed lag analysis of PM10 and short-term exposure mortality by Schwartz (2000b).
This sensitivity analysis has been included to provide a very rough sense of the possible
underestimation of risk due to use of single-day lag models in this assessment.
4.4 Alternative approaches to estimating short-term exposure C-R functions
As noted in Sections 1 and 3, many studies that originally relied on GAMs using the S-
Plus software to estimate short-term exposure C-R functions were subsequently reanalyzed.
Many researchers used not just one but several alternative estimation approaches. In addition to
GAMs with a more stringent convergence criterion, generalized linear model (GLM) approaches
(with differing numbers of degrees of freedom, and different types of splines) were also used to
reanalyze C-R functions. Thus, corresponding to a single log-linear C-R function with a single
lag structure, there were often several different PM coefficients, each resulting from a different
estimation approach.
Including all the alternative C-R functions in all the urban locations in the PM risk
assessment would result in a prohibitively large set of results. Instead, for all urban locations,
we included only GAM with a more stringent convergence criterion (denoted "GAM
(stringent)"), to provide a consistent basis for comparison across studies and locations.21
Although this approach does not address the issue of understated standard errors of coefficient
estimates, this is probably not a significant drawback. The 2004 PM CD concludes that "the
extent of downward bias in standard error reported in these data (a few percent to -15%) also
appears not to be very substantial, especially when compared to the range of standard errors
across studies due to differences in population size and numbers of days available" (p. 9-35).
In those cases in which more than one lag model was estimated with each estimation
approach, we followed the same procedure described in Section 4.3 above: where the best lag
was identified by the study authors, we used this lag in the risk assessment. Where several lags
were presented and the authors did not identify a best lag, we selected both 0- and 1-day lag
models for mortality (both total and cause-specific), 0- and 1-day lag models for both
cardiovascular and respiratory hospital admissions, and 0-, 1-, and 2-day lag models (if all three
21 In some cases (e.g., Moolgavkar, 2000a) two different versions of the "GAM (stringent)" approach were
used - one with 30 degrees of freedom (df) and the other with 100 df. In those cases, we included only the version
with 30 df in the base case results.
Abt Associates Inc. p. 48 June 2005
-------
were available) for COPD hospital admissions, based on the discussion of lags in the 2005 PM
SP.
In Los Angeles, Moolgavkar (2003) used several alternative estimation approaches and
lag structures. We included a much wider array of models for this urban location in a sensitivity
analysis for "as is" PM2 5 concentrations in Section 7 (see Exhibit 7.11) to show the effects of
different estimation approaches, for a given lag structure, and the effects of different lag
structures, for a given estimation approach. First, for total non-accidental mortality, using the
"GAM stringent" approach (with 30 degrees of freedom), we included the same lag models
noted above. Next, we included all of the estimation approaches for each of the lag models listed
above for the different endpoints: both 0- and 1-day lag models for mortality (both total and
cause-specific); and 0- and 1-day lag models for both cardiovascular and respiratory hospital
admissions. Given the inconsistent pattern observed for different lags for COPD mortality in
this study, we did not include risk estimates for this endpoint in Los Angeles in either the base
case or sensitivity analyses.
4.5 Long-term exposure mortality C-R functions
There are far fewer long-term exposure studies than short-term exposure studies cited in
the 2004 PM CD. The available long-term exposure mortality C-R functions are all based on
cohort studies, in which a cohort of individuals is followed over time. As discussed in the 2005
PM SP (Section 3.3.1.2), based on the evaluation contained in the 2004 PM CD and the OAQPS
staffs assessment of the complete data base, two cohorts that have been studied are particularly
relevant for the purposes of this risk assessment. One cohort, in six U.S. cities, was originally
followed in a study referred to as the Six Cities study. The other cohort, of participants enrolled
by American Cancer Society (ACS) volunteers, was composed of a much larger sample of
individuals from many more cities. It was originally followed in a study referred to as the ACS
study. There have been reanalyses of both the Six Cities study and the ACS study by Krewski et
al. (2000), referred to here as Krewski et al. (2000) - Six Cities and Krewski et al. (2000) -
ACS. Both of these reanalyses are included in the PM2 5 risk assessment.
More recently, Pope et al. (2002) extended the follow-up period for the ACS cohort to
sixteen years and published findings on the relationship of long-term exposure to PM25 and all-
cause mortality as well as cardiopulmonary and lung cancer mortality. As discussed more fully
in Section 8.2.3.2.2 of the 2004 PM CD, the 2002 study has a number of advantages over
previous analyses, including: doubling the follow-up time and tripling the number of deaths,
expanding the ambient air pollution data to include two recent years of PM25 data, improving the
statistical adjustment for occupational exposure, incorporating data on dietary factors believed to
be related to mortality, and using more recent developments in nonparametric spatial smoothing
and random effects modeling. Recently, the Health Effects Subcommittee (HES) of the Science
Advisory Board's (SAB) Clean Air Act Compliance Council indicated its preference that EPA
use the results from this study rather than the results from the Krewski et al. (2000) ACS and/or
Abt Associates Inc. p. 49 June 2005
-------
Six Cities analyses to represent base case estimates for long-term exposure mortality associated
with PM25 concentrations for the purposes of benefits analyses (SAB, 2004). Two periods of
PM25 measurements were considered in the ACS-extended study. The first, from 1979 through
1983, was the period considered in the original ACS study as well as in the Krewski reanalysis.
The second was 1999-2000. The authors also report results based on an average of the two
periods. The HES recommended that EPA use the results based on the average of the two
periods from this study as representing the best estimates. The HES stated that this choice "may
serve to reduce measurement error" (SAB, 2004). We therefore selected the corresponding C-R
functions based on PM2 5 measurements averaging the air quality data from the two periods to be
included in the current PM2 5 risk assessment. We note that the relative risks reported by Pope et
al. (2002) corresponding to the earlier period (1979-1983) were somewhat smaller (RR = 1.04)
than the relative risk reported for either the 1999-2000 or average of the two periods (RR =
1.06). We note also that in the ACS cohort, the strongest associations between PM25 and
mortality were among the less educated participants who form a relatively small portion of the
total study cohort. If the education distribution were adjusted to reflect the education distribution
in the general U.S. population, the summary effect estimate would increase.
Two other PM cohort studies that are discussed in the 2004 PM CD are not included in
the PM risk assessment. The Adventist Health Study of Smog (AHSMOG) followed 6,338 non-
smoking non-Hispanic white Seventh day Adventist residents of California. The other study, the
EPRI-Washington University Veteran's study, followed a cohort of 26,000 middle-aged male
veterans who were, at the time of recruitment, mildly to moderately hypertensive and having a
very high percentage of prior smoking. The 2004 PM CD presents a comparison of the study
designs and results (see Section 8.2.3.2.5) and concludes:
In considering the results of these studies together, statistically significant associations
are reported between fine particles and mortality in the ACS and Six Cities analyses,
inconsistent but generally positive associations with PM were reported in the AHSMOG
analyses, and distinctly inconsistent results were reported in the VA study. Based on
several factors, the larger study population in the ACS study, the larger air quality data
set in the Six Cities study, the more generally representative study populations used in
the Six Cities and ACS studies, and the fact that these studies have undergone extensive
reanalyses - the greatest weight should be placed on the results of the ACS and Six Cities
cohort studies in assessing relationships between long-term PM exposure and
mortality.(U.S. EPA 2004, pp.8-120 to 8-121)
Based on this assessment, for purposes of the quantitative risk assessment, only the results of the
ACS and Six Cities cohort studies have been included. The Veteran's study, which did not find
any positive associations between indicators of long-term exposures to PM, and the Seventh Day
Adventist study, which reported some positive but not statistically significant associations for
males with long-term exposure to PM2 5 are discussed in greater detail in the 2004 PM CD and
the 2005 PM SP.
Abt Associates Inc. p. 50 June 2005
-------
4.6 Summary
To summarize, the basic approach to selecting C-R functions was as follows:
• if a single-city C-R function has been estimated in a risk assessment location and
a multi-city study on the same health endpoint which includes that location is also
available, risk and risk reduction estimates based on both are reported in the base
case analysis; and
• if both single-pollutant and multi-pollutant C-R functions are available, risk and
risk reduction estimates based on both are reported;
• based on the evaluation of the issue of selecting appropriate lags in the 2005 PM
SP, if only single lag models were available, we selected both 0- and 1-day lag
models for mortality (both total and cause-specific), 0- and 1-day lag models for
both cardiovascular and respiratory hospital admissions, and 0-, 1-, and 2-day lag
models (if all three were available) for COPD hospital admissions, where there
was a consistent pattern across these lags. If the study authors did identify a best
lag, however, we focused on the lag they identified as best.
• For short-term exposure studies that were reanalyzed in light of the GAM/S-Plus
issue, if more than one alternative estimation approach was used, we selected the
GAM approach with a more stringent convergence criterion; if more than one lag
model was estimated, we followed the procedure we used for all studies,
described above.
For one city (Los Angeles), we included alternative approaches to estimating the
C-R function (e.g., use of GLM) in combination with the preferred lags discussed
above to illustrate the effects of these alternative model specifications on the risk
estimates.
For long-term exposure mortality, the most recently published C-R functions are
used in the PM25 risk assessment. Two of these are based on reanalyses of
original cohort data; one (Pope et al., 2002) is an extension of the original study.
Abt Associates Inc. p. 51 June 2005
-------
5. Baseline Health Effects Incidence Rates
Most of the epidemiology studies used in the PM risk assessment directly estimate the
percentage change in incidence (i.e., the RR), rather than the absolute number of cases for an
endpoint. To estimate the annual number of PM-associated cases using these studies, it is
necessary to know the annual baseline incidence, that is, the annual number of cases in a location
before a change in PM air quality.
Incidence rates express the occurrence of a disease or event (e.g., asthma episode,
hospital admission, premature death) in a specific period of time, usually per year. Rates are
expressed either as a value per population group (e.g., the number of cases in Philadelphia
County) or a value per number of people (e.g., number of cases per 10,000 residents), and may
be age and sex specific. Incidence rates vary among geographic areas due to differences in
population characteristics (e.g, age distribution) and factors promoting illness (e.g., smoking, air
pollution levels).22 The sizes of the populations in the assessment locations that are relevant to
the risk assessment (i.e., the populations for which the PM C-R functions are estimated and to
which the baseline incidences refer) are given in Exhibits 5.1 and 5.2 for the PM2 5 and PM10_2 5
risk assessments, respectively.
Incidence rates are available for mortality (death rates) and for specific communicable
diseases which state and local health departments are required to report to the federal
government. None of the morbidity endpoints included in the risk assessment are required to be
reported to the federal government. In addition to the required federal reporting, many state and
local health departments collect information on some additional endpoints. These most often are
restricted to hospital admission or discharge diagnoses, which are collected to assist in planning
medical services. Data may also be collected for particular studies of health issues of concern.
Although federal agencies collect incidence data on many of the endpoints included in
the risk assessment, their data are often available only at the national level (national averages), or
at the regional or state level. We contacted state and local health departments and hospital
planning commissions to obtain location-specific rates of cause-specific hospital admissions.
22 Incidence rates also vary within a geographic area due to the same factors; however, statistics regarding
within-city variations are rarely available and are not necessary for this analysis.
Abt Associates Inc. p. 52 June 2005
-------
Exhibit 5.1 Relevant Population Sizes for PM2 5 Risk Assessment Locations
City
Boston1
Detroit2
Los Angeles3
Philadelphia4
Phoenix5
Pittsburg6
San Jose7
Seattle8
St. Louis9
Population3
Total
2,806,000
2,061,000
9,519,000
1,518,000
3,072,000
1,281,666
1,683,000
1,737,000
2,518,000
Ages 7-14
283,000 (10%)
307,000 (12%)
Ages ^25
1,903,000 (68%)
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
1,637,000 (65%)
Ages ^30
1,673,000 (60%)
1,153,000(56%)
5,092,000 (53%)
852,000 (56%)
1,684,000 (55%)
814,000 (64%)
965,000 (57%)
1,044,000 (60%)
1,475,000 (59%)
Ages <65
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
1,555,000 (90%)
—
Ages £ 65
249,000 (12%)
927,000 (10%)
—
359,000 (12%)
—
—
—
—
Ages <75
—
—
—
—
—
1,166,000(91%)
—
—
—
Ages ^75
—
—
—
—
—
116,000(9%)
—
—
—
a Total population and age-specific population estimates taken from the CDC Wonder website are based on 2000 U.S. Census data. See
http://factfmder.census.gov/. Populations are rounded to the nearest thousand. The urban areas given in this exhibit are those considered in the studies used in
the PM2 5 risk assessment. The percentages in parentheses indicate the percentage of the total population in the specific age category.
1 Middlesex, Norfolk, and Suffolk Counties. 2 Wayne County. 3 Los Angeles County. 4 Philadelphia County.
5 Maricopa County. 6 Allegheny County. 7 Santa Clara County. 8 King County.
9 St. Louis, Franklin, Jefferson, St. Charles, Clinton (IL), Madison (JL), Monroe (IL), and St. Clair (IL) Counties and St. Louis City.
Abt Associates Inc.
p. 53
June 2005
-------
Exhibit 5.2 Relevant Population Sizes for PM10_2 5 Risk Assessment Locations
City
Detroit1
Seattle2
St. Louis3
Population3
Total
2,061,000
1,737,000
2,518,000
Ages 7-14
—
—
307,000 (12%)
Ages z 65
249,000 (12%)
—
—
Ages <65
—
1,555,000 (90%)
—
a Total population and age-specific population estimates are based on 2000 U.S. Census data. See
http://factfmder.census.gov/. Populations are rounded to the nearest thousand. The urban areas given in this exhibit
are those considered in the studies used in the PM10_2 5 risk assessment. The percentages in parentheses indicate the
percentage of the total population in the specific age category.
1 Wayne County.
2 King County.
3 St. Louis, Franklin, Jefferson, St. Charles, Clinton (IL), Madison (IL), Monroe (IL), and St. Clair (IL) Counties and
St. Louis City.
We obtained estimates of location-specific baseline mortality rates for each of the PM25
risk assessment locations for 2001 from CDC Wonder, an interface for public health data
dissemination from the Centers for Disease Control (CDC).23 The mortality rates are derived
from U.S. death records and U.S. Census Bureau post-censal population estimates, and are
reported in Exhibit 5.3 per 100,000 general population. In all cases, the incidence rates listed
correspond to the ages of the populations studied in the relevant epidemiology studies (e.g.,
individuals over 65 years of age). National rates are provided for 2001 from CDC Wonder for
comparison. The epidemiological studies used in the risk assessment reported causes of
mortality using the ninth revision of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-9) codes.
However, the tenth revision has since come out, and baseline mortality incidence rates for 2001
shown in Exhibit 5.3 use ICD-10 codes. The groupings of ICD-9 codes used in the
epidemiological studies and the corresponding ICD-10 codes used to calculate year 2001
baseline incidence rates is given in Exhibit 5.4.
Baseline incidence rates for both cardiovascular and respiratory hospital admissions were
obtained for those locations in which hospital admissions C-R functions were estimated: Detroit,
Los Angeles, and Seattle. Year 2000 hospitalization data were obtained for Wayne County
(Detroit) from the Michigan Health and Hospital Association. Year 1999 hospitalization data
were obtained for Los Angeles County from California's Office of Statewide Health Planning
and Development - Health Care Information Resource Center. Finally, year 2000
hospitalization data were obtained for King County (Seattle) from the State of Washington
23
See http://wonder.cdc.gov/.
Abt Associates Inc.
p. 54
June 2005
-------
Department of Health, Center for Health Statistics, Office of Hospital and Patient Data Systems.
These data are presented in Exhibits 5.5 and 5.6. The data from these counties are actually
annual hospital discharge data, which are used as a proxy for hospital admissions. Hospital
discharges are issued to all people who are admitted to the hospital, including those who die in
the hospital. By using the annual discharge rate, we assume that the admissions at the end of the
year (e.g. 2000) that carry over to the beginning of the next year (e.g. 2001), and are therefore
not included in the discharge data are offset by the admissions in the previous year (e.g. 1999)
that carry over to the beginning of the current year (e.g. 2000).
For respiratory symptoms the only available estimates of baseline incidence rates are
from the studies that estimated the C-R functions for those endpoints. Schwartz and Neas (2000)
is the only respiratory symptom study included in the PM risk assessment. This study estimated
multi-city C-R functions using six cities, including Boston and St. Louis. The baseline incidence
rates in this study are likewise based on all six cities combined. The C-R functions and the
baseline incidence rates (for lower respiratory symptoms and cough) were used in Boston and St.
Louis.
Abt Associates Inc. p. 55 June 2005
-------
Exhibit 5.3 Baseline Mortality Rates for 2001 for PM25 Risk Assessment Locations*
Health Effect
Boston1
Detroit2
Los
Angeles3
Philadelphia4
Phoenix5
Pittsburgh6
San
Jose7
St.
Louis8
Seattle9
National
Average
Mortality3:
A. Mortality Rates Used in Risk Analysis for Short-Term Exposure Studies'3 (deaths per 100,000 general population/year)
Non-accidental (all
ages): ICD-9 codes < 800
Non-accidental (75+):
ICD-9 codes < 800
Non-accidental (<75):
ICD-9 codes < 800
Cardiovascular (all ages):
ICD-9 codes: 390-459
Cardiovascular (all ages):
ICD-9 codes: 390-448
Cardiovascular (65+):
ICD-9 codes: 390-448
Cardiovascular (all ages):
ICD-9 codes: 390-429
Ischemic Heart Disease
(all ages): ICD-9 codes:
410-414
Respiratory (all ages):
ICD-9 codes: 11,35,472-
519,710.0,710.2,710.4
776
—
—
—
—
—
—
122
—
916
—
—
416
—
—
—
—
—
581
—
—
—
—
—
207
—
—
—
—
—
—
418
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
211
—
—
—
—
761
399
—
—
—
—
—
—
494
—
—
206
—
—
—
—
51
869
—
—
—
—
—
—
206
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
791
469
322
328
324
273
252
152
80
Abt Associates Inc.
p. 56
June 2005
-------
Health Effect
Ischemic Heart Disease
(all ages): ICD-9 codes:
410-414
Respiratory (all ages):
ICD-9 codes: 11,35,472-
519,710.0,710.2,710.4
Respiratory (all ages):
ICD-9 codes: 460-5 19
COPD without Asthma
(all ages): ICD-9 codes:
490-492, 494-496
COPD with Asthma (all
ages): ICD-9 codes: 490-
496
Pneumonia (all ages):
ICD-9 codes: 480-487
Boston1
122
—
—
36
—
26
Detroit2
—
—
72
—
—
—
Los
Angeles3
—
—
—
—
30
—
Philadelphia4
—
—
—
—
—
—
Phoenix5
—
—
—
—
—
—
Pittsburgh6
—
—
—
—
—
—
San
Jose7
—
51
—
—
—
—
St.
Louis8
206
—
—
39
—
27
Seattle9
—
—
—
—
—
—
National
Average
152
80
79
42
43
22
B. Mortality Rates Used in Risk Analysis for Long-term Exposure Studies'" (deaths per 100,000 general population/year)
Total mortality (25+):
ICD-9 codes: all
803
—
—
—
—
—
—
905
—
822
Abt Associates Inc.
p. 57
June 2005
-------
Health Effect
Total mortality (30+):
ICD-9 codes: all
Cardiopulmonary
Mortality (25+): ICD-9
codes: 400-440, 485-495
Cardiopulmonary
Mortality (30+): ICD-9
codes: 40 1-440, 460-519
Lung Cancer Mortality
(30+): ICD-9 code: 162
Boston1
797
297
347
55
Detroit2
937
—
468
64
Los
Angeles3
591
—
313
33
Philadelphia4
1100
—
489
72
Phoenix5
676
—
313
42
Pittsburgh6
1189
—
573
78
San
Jose7
499
—
247
30
St.
Louis8
897
391
439
61
Seattle9
637
—
287
44
National
Average
814
341
391
55
*The epidemiological studies used in the risk assessment reported causes of mortality using the ninth revision of the International Classification of Diseases
(ICD-9) codes. However, the tenth revision has since come out, and baseline mortality incidence rates for 2001 shown in this exhibit use ICD-10 codes. The
groupings of ICD-9 codes used in the epidemiological studies and the corresponding ICD-10 codes used to calculate year 2001 baseline incidence rates is given
in Exhibit 5.4.
a Mortality figures were obtained from CDC Wonder for 2001. See http://wonder.cdc.gov/.
b Mortality rates are presented only for the locations in which the C-R functions were estimated. All incidence rates are rounded to the nearest unit. Mortality
rates for St. Louis may be slightly underestimated because some of the mortality counts in the smaller counties were reported as missing in CDC Wonder.
1 Middlesex, Norfolk, and Suffolk Counties. 2 Wayne County. 3 Los Angeles County. 4 Philadelphia County.
5 Maricopa County. 6 Allegheny County. 7 Santa Clara County.
8 St. Louis, Franklin, Jefferson, St. Charles, Clinton (IL), Madison (IL), Monroe (IL), and St. Clair (IL) Counties and St. Louis City.
9 King County.
Abt Associates Inc.
p. 58
June 2005
-------
Exhibit 5.4 ICD-9 Codes used in Epidemiological Studies and Corresponding ICD-10 Codes
Causes of Death
ICD-9 Codes
ICD-10 Codes
A. Causes of Death used in Short-Term Exposure Studies
Non-accidental
Cardiovascular
Cardiovascular
Cardiovascular
Ischemic Heart Disease
Respiratory
Respiratory
COPD without Asthma
COPD with Asthma
Pneumonia
<800
390-459
390-448
390-429
410-414
11,35,472-519,710.0,710.2,
710.4
460-519
490-492, 494-496
490-496
480-487
AOO-R99
G45.0-G45.2, G45.4,G45.9, G54.0, G90.3, G93.6, G93.8, G95.1, IOO-I13.9, 120.0-I22.9,
I24.1-I64, 167.0-I87.9, 189.0-I95.9, 199, K66.1, K92.2, M21.9, M30.0-M31.9, ROO.l,
R00.8, R01.2, R58
G45.0-G45.2, G45.4-G45.9, G54.0, G93.6, G93.8, G95.1, IOO-I13.9, 120.0-I22.9,
I24.1-I64, 167.0-I78.9, M21.9, M30.0-M31.9, ROO.l, R00.8, R01.2
100-113. 9, 120.0-I22.9, 124.1-I51.9, 171.9, M21.9, ROO.l, R00.8, R01.2
I20.0-I22.9, 123.6, 124.0-I24.9, 125. 1-125.9, M21.9
A16.2, A16.4, A16.9, A46, A48.1, B05.2, B90.9, J65, J02.9, J03.9, J05.0, J10.0-J16.8,
J18.0-J18.9, J20.9, J30.0-J32.9, J33.9-J34.1, J34.3-J39.8, J40-J64, J66.0-J94.9,
J98.0-J98.9, M32.0-M32.9, M35.0, M33.2, P28.8, R09.1
JOO-J01.9, J02.8-J02.9, J03.8-J64, J66.0-J94.9, J98.0-J98.9, P28.8, R06.5, R09.1
J20.9, J40-J44.9, J47, J67.0-J67.9, J98.0
J20.9, J40-J47, J67.0-J67.9 J98.0
A48.1, B05.2, J10.0-J18.9, J99.8
B. Health Effects used in Long-term Exposure Studies
Total Mortality
all
all
Abt Associates Inc.
p. 59
June 2005
-------
Causes of Death
Cardiopulmonary Mortality
Cardiopulmonary Mortality
Lung Cancer Mortality
ICD-9 Codes
400-440, 485-495
401-440,460-519
162
ICD-10 Codes
G45.0-G45.2, G45.4-G45.9, G93.6, G93.8, G95.1, 110-170.9, 172.9, M21.9, ROO.l, R00.8,
R01.2, J10.0-J11.8, J18.0, J18.2-J18.9, J20.9, J40-J43.9, J44.1-J44.8, J45.0-J47,
J67.0-J67.9, J98.0
G45.0-G45.2, G45.4-G45.9, G93.6, G93.8, G95.1, 110-170.9, 172.9, M21.9, ROO.l, R00.8,
R01.2, A48.1, B05.2, JOO-J01.9, J02.8-J02.9, J03.8-J64, J66.0-J94.9, J98.0-J98.9, P28.8,
R06.5,R09.1
C33-C34.9, C39.8, C45.7
Abt Associates Inc.
p. 60
June 2005
-------
Exhibit 5.5 Baseline Hospitalization Rates for PM2 5 Risk Assessment Locations'
Health Effect
Detroit1
Los Angeles2
Seattle3
Hospital Admissions (per 100,000 general population/year)
Pneumonia admissions (65 and over): ICD codes 480-486
COPD and asthma admissions (all ages): ICD codes 490-496
COPD and asthma admissions (65 and over): ICD codes 490-496
Asthma (<65): ICD code 493
Cardiovascular admissions (65 and over): ICD codes: 390-429
Ischemic heart disease (65 and over): ICD codes 410-414
Dysrhythmias (65 and over): ICD code 427
Congestive heart failure (65 and over): ICD code 428
250
—
192
—
—
487
161
341
—
318
—
—
728
—
—
—
—
—
—
92
—
—
—
—
a Hospitalization rates are presented only for the locations in which the C-R functions were estimated. For each
location, the number of discharges was divided by the location's population from the 2000 U.S. Census estimates to
obtain rates. All incidence rates are rounded to the nearest unit.
1. Wayne County. Year 2000 hospitalization data were obtained from the Michigan Health and Hospital
Association.
2. Los Angeles County. Year 1999 hospitalization data were obtained from California's Office of Statewide Health
Planning and Development - Health Care Information Resource Center.
3. King County. Year 2000 hospitalization data were obtained from the State of Washington Department of Health,
Center for Health Statistics, Office of Hospital and Patient Data Systems.
Abt Associates Inc.
p. 61
June 2005
-------
Exhibit 5.6 Baseline Hospitalization Rates for PM10_2 5 Risk Assessment Locations'
Health Effect
Detroit1
Seattle2
Hospital Admissions (per 100,000 general population/year)
Pneumonia admissions (65 and over): ICD codes 480-486
COPD with asthma (65 and over): ICD codes 490-496
Asthma (<65): ICD code 493
Ischemic heart disease (65 and over): ICD codes 410-414
Dysrhythmias (65 and over): ICD code 427
Congestive heart failure (65 and over): ICD code 428
250
192
—
487
161
341
—
—
92
—
—
—
a Hospitalization rates are presented only for the locations in which the C-R functions were estimated. For each
location, the number of discharges was divided by the location's population from the 2000 U.S. Census estimates to
obtain rates. All incidence rates are rounded to the nearest unit.
1. Wayne County. Year 2000 hospitalization data were obtained from the Michigan Health and Hospital
Association.
2. King County. Year 2000 hospitalization data were obtained from the State of Washington Department of Health,
Center for Health Statistics, Office of Hospital and Patient Data Systems.
Abt Associates Inc.
p. 62
June 2005
-------
6. Sources of Uncertainty and Variability
The PM health risk models that were used in the risk assessment combined information
about PM for specific urban areas to derive estimates of the annual incidence of specified health
effects associated with "as is" PM concentrations and the reduction in incidence that would
result upon just meeting the current PM2 5 standards in those areas. The three main inputs to
such analyses - air quality information, C-R information, and baseline incidence and population
information - all vary from one time and location to another time and location. In addition,
there are uncertainties associated with each of these three main inputs to the health risk
assessment.
We were able to obtain air quality information for many, but not all days in the year for
each assessment location. Some uncertainty surrounding the results of the analyses therefore
arises from the incompleteness of the air quality data. Even if the air quality data were complete,
there is always some degree of measurement error with any monitoring data, including that of
PM. We also recognize that for any given assessment location there is year to year variability in
the distribution of daily PM ambient concentrations and annual average concentrations. The
current health risk assessment focuses on a single year and does not incorporate year-to-year
variability, except in its use of design values which were based on the most recent three-year
period available. Annual risk estimates in an area just meeting a set of standards would be
expected to vary from year to year. If PM levels in the most recent year are the lowest of the
three most recent years in a location, applying a design value based on the most recent three-year
period available will result in greater reductions in risk and lower remaining risk than would be
the case if the design value were based only on the single most recent year.
We were able to obtain baseline incidence rates specific to each assessment location
(specifically, for all counties included in each assessment location). However, the available
information was not specific to the exact analysis period, although it was possible to obtain
baseline incidence rates from quite recent years (e.g., mortality rates were obtained for 2001).
The risk assessment also does not reflect any year-to-year variability that may exist in baseline
incidence rates. These factors result in some additional uncertainty surrounding the results of the
risk assessment, although this uncertainty component is likely to be small.
Finally, even if the input values were from the same times and locations as the analysis
periods and locations, they are only estimates, and therefore have statistical uncertainty,
including sampling error, surrounding them. The specific sources of uncertainty in the PM risk
assessment are described in detail below and are summarized in Exhibit 6.1.
Abt Associates Inc. p. 63 June 2005
-------
Exhibit 6.1 Key Uncertainties in the Risk Assessment
Uncertainty
Comments
Causality
Statistical association does not prove causation. However, the risk assessment considers only health
endpoints for which the overall weight of the evidence supports the assumption that PM25 is likely
causally related or, for PM10_25 that the evidence is suggestive of a causal relationship.
Empirically estimated
C-R relations
Because C-R functions are empirically estimated, there is uncertainty surrounding these estimates.
Omitted confounding variables could cause bias in the estimated PM coefficients. However, including
potential confounding variables that are highly correlated with one another can lead to unstable estimators.
Both single- and multi-pollutant models were used where available.
Functional form of C-R
relation
Statistical significance of coefficients in an estimated C-R function does not necessarily mean that the
mathematical form of the function is the best model of the true C-R relation. Several "hockeystick"
models, using various alternative cutpoints, were applied alongside the original log-linear or linear models
to assess the risks under a range of models incorporating different potential population thresholds.
Lag structure of C-R
relation
There is some evidence that a distributed lag might be the most appropriate model for PM effects
associated with short-term exposures. Most studies, however, included only one lag in their models.
Omitted lags could cause downward bias in the predicted incidence associated with a given reduction in
PM concentrations. A sensitivity analysis using an approach to estimate the possible impact of using a
distributed lag C-R function was carried out.
Transferability of C-R
relations
C-R functions may not provide an adequate representation of the C-R relationship in times and places
other than those in which they were estimated. For example, populations in the analysis locations may
have more or fewer members of sensitive subgroups than locations in which functions were derived,
which would introduce additional uncertainty related to the use of a given C-R function in the analysis
location. However, in the majority of cases, the risk assessment relies on C-R functions estimated from
studies conducted in the same location.
Abt Associates Inc.
p. 64
June 2005
-------
Uncertainty
Comments
Extrapolation of C-R
relations beyond the
range of observed PM
data
A C-R relationship estimated by an epidemiological study may not be valid at concentrations outside the
range of concentrations observed during the study. To partially address this problem, in the initial base
case (1) risks associated with long-term exposures were not calculated for PM2 5 levels below 7.5 i-ig/m3,
which is the lowest of the lowest measured levels in the long-term exposure studies; and (2) risks
associated with short-term exposures were not calculated for PM2 5 levels below PRB, which was
generally close to or above the lowest measured levels in the short-term exposure studies.
Truncation of risk
estimates at the lowest
PM concentration
observed in a study
As noted above, mortality associated with long-term exposures to PM2 5 was not calculated for PM2 5 levels
below 7.5 |-ig/m3, the lowest of the lowest measured levels in the long-term exposure studies. If there is
any positive relationship between PM2 5 and mortality below this level, this procedure will understate the
PM25 impact. (This is less of an issue for risks associated with short-term exposures, since the lowest
measured levels in the short-term exposure studies were generally close to or below the PRB.)
Adequacy of PM
characterization
Only size differentiated particle mass per unit volume has been explicitly considered, and not, for
example, chemical composition. However, in the majority of cases, the risk assessment relies on C-R
functions estimated from studies conducted in the same location as the assessment location. Therefore
differences in PM between the study location in which a C-R function was estimated and the assessment
location to which it is applied are, in general, minimal (arising only from possible temporal changes).
Accuracy of PM mass
measurement
Possible differences in measurement error, losses of particular components, and measurement method
between the assessment locations and the study locations would be expected to add uncertainty to
quantitative estimates of risk.
Adequacy of ambient
PM monitors as
surrogate for
population exposure
Possible differences in how the spatial variation in ambient PM2 5 levels across each urban area are
characterized in the original epidemiological studies compared to the more recent ambient PM2 5 data used
to characterize current air quality would contribute to uncertainty in the health risk estimates. This would
be expected to add even more uncertainty in the case of the PM10_25 risk assessment where greater spatial
variability in ambient monitoring data within an urban area has been observed.
Abt Associates Inc.
p. 65
June 2005
-------
Uncertainty
Comments
Adjustment of air
quality distributions to
simulate just meeting
current PM2 5 standards
or alternative PM2 5 or
PM10_2 5 standards
The pattern and extent of daily reductions in PM2 5 concentrations that would result if current or alternative
PM2 5 standards were just met is not known. Although the assumption that PM2 5 concentrations would be
reduced by the same percentage on all days appears reasonable given the patterns observed based on
historical data, there remains uncertainty about the shape of the air quality distribution of daily levels upon
just meeting alternative PM2 5 standards which will depend on future air quality control strategies. There
is much greater uncertainty about the use of a proportional air quality adjustment procedure to simulate the
daily distribution of ambient PM10_25 concentrations upon just meeting alternative PM10_25 standards due to
the lack of sufficient PM10_2 5 air quality data over time to evaluate the reasonableness of this assumption.
Background PM
concentrations
The calculation of PM risk associated with "as is" air quality and of risk reductions that would result if
current standards were just met requires as inputs the background PM concentrations in each of the
assessment locations. Background concentrations were estimated for the eastern and western regions of
the country, but not specifically for the assessment locations. In addition, a constant value is used for the
estimated background, which does not take into account seasonal or daily variability in background
concentrations. Sensitivity analyses were conducted, however, exploring the impact of assuming both a
constant background level at the lower and upper end of the ranges estimated in the 2004 PM CD for
PM25 and PM10_25 and of allowing daily PM25 background levels to vary day by day.
Baseline health effects
data
Data on baseline incidence is uncertain for a variety of reasons. For example, location- and age-group-
specific baseline rates may not be available in all cases. Baseline incidence may change over time for
reasons unrelated to PM.
Abt Associates Inc.
p. 66
June 2005
-------
Although the PM risk assessment considered mortality as well as several morbidity
health effects, not all health effects which may result from PM exposure were included. Only
those for which there was sufficient epidemiological evidence from studies which met the study
selection criteria (see Section 3) were included in the risk assessment. Other possible health
effects reported to be associated with short- and/or long-term exposures to PM are considered
qualitatively in the 2005 PM SP. Thus, the PM risk assessment does not represent all of the
health risks associated with PM exposures.
In addition, we limited application of a C-R function to only that portion of the
population on which estimation of the function was based. For example, lower respiratory
symptoms were examined in Schwartz and Neas (2000) for children ages 7-14. It is likely that
the effect of PM on lower respiratory symptoms does not begin at age 7 and end at age 14;
however, data are not available to estimate the number of cases avoided for other age groups.
Therefore, a substantial number of potentially avoided health effects were likely not captured in
this analysis.
6.1 Concentration-response functions
The C-R function is a key element of the PM risk assessment. The quality of the risk
assessment depends, in part, on (1) whether the C-R functions used in the risk assessment are
good estimates of the relationship between the population health response and ambient PM
concentration in the study locations, (2) how applicable these functions are to the analysis
periods and locations, and (3) the extent to which these relationships apply beyond the range of
the PM concentrations from which they were estimated. These issues are discussed in the
subsections below.
6.1.1 Uncertainty associated with the appropriate model form
The relationship between a health endpoint and PM can be characterized in terms of the
form of the function describing the relationship - e.g., linear, log-linear, or logistic - and the
value of the PM coefficient in that function. Although most epidemiological studies estimated
PM coefficients in log-linear models, there is still substantial uncertainty about the correct
functional form of the relationship between PM and various health endpoints - especially at the
low end of the range of PM values, where data are generally too sparse to discern possible
thresholds. While there are likely biological thresholds in individuals for specific health
responses, the available epidemiological studies do not support or refute the existence of
thresholds at the population level for either long-term or short-term PM exposures within the
range of air quality observed in the studies. We addressed this uncertainty by assessing risks
based on several "cutpoint" models that were designed to approximate non-linear, sigmoidal-
shaped functions that would better reflect possible population thresholds, as described more fully
in Section 2.5.3.
Abt Associates Inc. p. 67 June 2005
-------
It should also be noted that there is increasing uncertainty surrounding risks associated
with progressively lower PM levels approaching the lowest measured levels and with
progressively higher levels approaching the highest measured levels. This increased uncertainty
is not reflected in the confidence intervals for the risk estimates presented in this report, which
are based on the standard errors for the PM coefficient in the log linear or linear C-R models
reported in the published studies and do not vary by concentration level. As illustrated in a
series of figures included in Pope et al. (2002) (Figure 3-4 in the 2005 PM SP), when
nonparametric smoothed C-R relationships are plotted, there are increasingly wider pointwise
confidence intervals, reflecting the smaller amount of data available, at the lower and upper ends
of the range of measured PM concentrations.
6.1.2 Uncertainty associated with the estimated concentration-response functions
in the study locations
The uncertainty associated with an estimate of the PM coefficient in a C-R function
reported by a study depends on the sample size and the study design. The 2004 PM CD has
evaluated the substantial body of PM epidemiological studies. In general, critical considerations
in evaluating the design of an epidemiological study include the adequacy of the measurement of
ambient PM, the adequacy of the health effects incidence data, and the consideration of
potentially important health determinants and potential confounders and effect modifiers such as:
• other pollutants;
exposure to other health risks, such as smoking and occupational exposure; and
demographic characteristics, including age, sex, socioeconomic status, and access to
medical care.
The selection of studies included in the PM risk assessment was guided by the
evaluations in the 2004 PM CD. One of the criteria for selecting studies addresses the adequacy
of the measurement of ambient PM. This criterion was that PM was directly measured using
PM2 5 or, for PM10_2 5, PM2 5 and PM10 at co-located monitors, as the indicator or, for PM2 5, was
estimated using nephelometry data where direct PM2 5 measurement data were not available.
This criterion was designed to minimize error in the estimated PM coefficients in the C-R
functions used in the risk assessment.
To the extent that a study did not address all relevant factors (i.e., all factors that affect
the health endpoint), there is uncertainty associated with the C-R function estimated in that
study, beyond that reflected in the confidence interval. It may result in either over- or
underestimates of risk associated with ambient PM concentrations in the location in which the
study was carried out. Techniques for addressing the problem of confounding factors and other
study design issues have improved over the years, however, and the epidemiological studies
currently available for use in the PM risk assessment provide a higher level of confidence in
study quality than ever before.
Abt Associates Inc. p. 68 June 2005
-------
When a study is conducted in a single location, the problem of possible confounding co-
pollutants may be particularly difficult, if co-pollutants are highly correlated in the study
location. Single-pollutant models, which omit co-pollutants, may produce overestimates of the
PM effect, if some of the effects of other pollutants (omitted from the model) are falsely
attributed to PM. With regard to gaseous co-pollutants as potential confounders in short-term
exposure studies, a new multi-city study (NMMAPS; Samet et al., 2000; Dominici et al., 2003)
has evaluated the effects of PM10 alone and in combination with each of the monitored gaseous
co-pollutants across the 90 largest U.S. cities and reported that associations found between PM10
and mortality were not confounded by the presence of the gaseous co-pollutants (2004 PM CD,
p. 9-36). It is likely that this is true for PM2 5 as well, although there is no equivalent PM2 5 study
like the NMMAPS. Statistical estimates of a PM effect based on a multi-pollutant model can be
more uncertain, and even statistically insignificant, if the co-pollutants included in the model are
highly correlated with PM. This means that, although the expected value of the estimated PM
coefficient is correct, the estimate based on any particular sample may be too low or too high.
As a result of these considerations, we report risk estimates based on both single-pollutant and
multi-pollutant models, when both are reported by a study.
With respect to the PM10_2 5 health risk assessment, the locations used in the risk
assessment are not representative of urban areas in the U.S. that experience the most significant
24-hour peak PM10_2 5 concentrations, and thus, observations about relative risk reductions
associated with alternative standards may not be as relevant to the areas expected to have the
greatest health risks associated with elevated ambient PM10_2 5 levels. In considering the PM10_2 5
risk estimates it also is important to recognize that there is a much smaller health effects database
from which to obtain the C-R relationships used in this portion of the risk assessment, compared
to that available for PM2 5 and, thus, there is significantly greater uncertainty associated with the
PM10_2 5 risk estimates.
6.1.3 Applicability of concentration-response functions in different locations
As described in Section 3, risk assessment locations were selected on the basis of where
C-R functions have been estimated, to avoid the uncertainties associated with applying a C-R
function estimated in one location to another location. However, multi-county, multi-city, and/or
regional C-R functions were also applied to any risk assessment location contained in the set of
locations used to estimate the C-R function. The accuracy of the results based on a multi-
location C-R function rests in part on how well this multi-location C-R function represents the
relationship between ambient PM and the given population health response in the individual
cities involved in the study.
The relationship between ambient PM concentration and the incidence of a given health
endpoint in the population (the population health response) depends on (1) the relationship
between ambient PM concentration and personal exposure to ambient-generated PM and (2) the
Abt Associates Inc. p. 69 June 2005
-------
relationship between personal exposure to ambient-generated PM and the population health
response. Both of these are likely to vary to some degree from one location to another.
The relationship between ambient PM concentration and personal exposure to ambient-
generated PM will depend on patterns of behavior, such as the amount of time spent outdoors, as
well as on factors affecting the extent to which ambient-generated PM infiltrates into indoor
environments. The relationship between personal exposure to ambient-generated PM and the
population health response will depend on both the composition of the PM and on the
composition of the population exposed to it.
The composition of PM (e.g., the chemical constituents of the PM) is known to differ
from one location to another. As discussed in the 2004 PM CD (see Section 8.2.2.4), growing
evidence indicates that there are numerous potentially toxic PM components and some
components may act in combination.
Exposed populations also differ from one location to another in characteristics that are
likely to affect their susceptibility to PM air pollution. For instance, people with pre-existing
conditions such as chronic bronchitis are probably more susceptible to the adverse effects of
exposure to PM, and populations vary from one location to another in the prevalence of specific
diseases. Also, some age groups may be more susceptible than others, and population age
distributions also vary from one location to another. Closely matching populations observed in
studies to the populations of the assessment locations is not possible for many characteristics (for
example, smoking status, workplace exposure, socioeconomic status, and the prevalence of
highly susceptible subgroups).
Other pollutants may also play a role in either causing or modifying health effects, either
independently or in combination with PM (see Section 8.1.3.2 in the 2004 PM CD). Inter-
locational differences in these pollutants could also induce differences in the C-R relationship
between one location and another.
In summary, the C-R relationship is most likely not the same everywhere. Even if the
relationship between personal exposure to ambient-generated PM and population health response
were the same everywhere, the relationship between ambient concentrations and personal
exposure to ambient-generated PM differs among locations. Similarly, even if the relationship
between ambient concentrations and personal exposure to ambient-generated PM were the same
everywhere, the relationship between personal exposure to ambient-generated PM and
population health response may differ among locations. In either case, the C-R relationship
would differ.
Abt Associates Inc. p. 70 June 2005
-------
6.1.4 Extrapolation beyond observed air quality levels
Although a C-R function describes the relationship between ambient PM and a given
health endpoint for all possible PM levels (potentially down to zero), the estimation of a C-R
function is based on real ambient PM values that are limited to the range of PM concentrations in
the location in which the study was conducted. Thus, uncertainty in the shape of the estimated C-
R function increases considerably outside the range of PM concentrations observed in the study.
In its initial base case analysis, the PM risk assessment assumes that the estimated C-R
functions adequately represent the true C-R relationship down to PRB PM levels in the
assessment locations, in the case of short-term exposures, and down to 7.5 |ig/m3 in the case of
long-term exposures. Because we are interested in the effects of anthropogenic PM, this is not a
problem for estimating short-term exposures. For long-term exposures, however, while this
procedure avoids extrapolating C-R functions below the lowest of the lowest measured levels in
the long-term exposure studies, it will tend to understate the impact of long-term exposures to
PM2 5 if there is actually a C-R relationship below 7.5 |ig/m3.
The C-R relationship may also be less certain towards the upper end of the concentration
range being considered in a risk assessment, particularly if the PM concentrations in the
assessment location exceed the PM concentrations observed in the study location. Even though
it may be reasonable to model the C-R relationship as log-linear over the ranges of PM
concentrations typically observed in epidemiological studies, it may not be log-linear over the
entire range of PM levels at the locations considered in the PM risk assessment.24
6.2 The air quality data
6.2.1 Use of PM as the indicator
PM is often measured in units of mass per unit volume, and typically reported in
micrograms per cubic meter (|j,g/m3). The PM risk assessment used PM size classes - PM2 5 and
PMio-2.5 - and the chemical composition of PM was not considered explicitly (as it was not in
most of the epidemiological studies used in these analyses). As summarized in Chapter 9 of the
2004 PM CD, recent studies provide new evidence for health effects associations with many
different PM components. Recognizing that ambient PM exposure has been associated with
increases in numerous health indices, the evidence is still too limited to allow identification of
24 Although most of the C-R functions reported in the published studies are log-linear, they are practically
linear. It is still unlikely, however, that a linear function is appropriate over a very wide range of PM concentrations.
Although the base case analyses include alternative non-linear C-R functions developed using a hockey-stick model
approach, as discussed in Section 2.5.3, these models do not address possible non-linearity at the high end of the PM
range. This is unlikely to be a problem, however, when assessing remaining risks when alternative, more stringent
standards are just met.
Abt Associates Inc. p. 71 June 2005
-------
which PM components or sources might be more toxic than others, and growing evidence
indicates that there are numerous potentially toxic PM components and some components may
act in combination (see 2004 PM CD, Section 8.2.2.4). It is possible that PM risks may differ
from one area to another with differing PM composition, but this potential source of uncertainty
cannot be tested in this risk assessment. However, because the risk assessment primarily uses C-
R functions estimated from studies conducted in the same location as the analysis location, the
C-R functions already capture to some extent the potential impact of differential composition.
To the extent that composition differentially affects toxicity and if future control strategies alter
the composition in an area, then this introduces an additional uncertainty into the risk estimates
associated with just meeting the current or any alternative PM standards.
6.2.2 Adequacy of PM air quality data
The method of averaging data from monitors across a metropolitan area in the risk
assessment is similar to the methods used to characterize ambient air quality in most of the
epidemiology studies. Ideally, the measurement of average daily ambient PM concentrations in
the study location is unbiased. In this case, unbiased risk predictions in the assessment location
depend, in part, on an unbiased measurement of average daily ambient PM concentrations in the
assessment location as well. If, however, the measurement of average daily ambient PM
concentrations in the study location is biased, unbiased risk predictions in the assessment
location are still possible if the measurement of average daily ambient PM concentrations in the
assessment location incorporates the same bias as exists in the study location measurements.
Because this is not known, however, the errors in the PM measurements in the assessment
locations are a source of uncertainty in the risk assessment.
As discussed in the 2005 PM SP (see Section 5.4.4.1), the uncertainly related to exposure
measurement error in epidemiologic studies linking health effects to PM10_2 5 is potentially quite
large, and this contributes to much larger uncertainty surrounding the PM10_2 5 risk estimates
included in this report. For example, as discussed in the 2005 PM SP (p. 5-64),
in looking specifically at the Detroit study the staff notes that the PM10_2 5 air quality
values were based on air quality monitors located in Windsor, Canada. The study authors
determined that the air quality values from these monitors were generally well correlated
with air quality values monitored in Detroit, where the hospital admissions data were
gathered, and thus concluded that these monitors were appropriate for use in exploring
the association between PM10_25 air quality and hospital admissions in Detroit. Staff has
observed, however, that the PM10_2 5 levels reported in this study are significantly lower
than the PM10_25 levels measured at some of the Detroit monitors in 2003 - an annual
mean level of 13.3 |ig/m3 is reported in the study, based on 1992 to 1994 data, as
compared to an average annual mean level of 21.7 |ig/m3 measured at two urban-center
monitors in 2003 (which is used as the basis for the risk assessment).
Abt Associates Inc. p. 72 June 2005
-------
As discussed in Section 5.4.4.1 of the 2005 PM SP, OAQPS staffs evaluation
comparing Windsor and Detroit monitoring data has shown that in recent years the Windsor
monitors used in this study typically have recorded PM10_2 5 levels that are generally less than
half the levels recorded at urban-center Detroit monitors. OAQPS staff have concluded that the
association observed in the Detroit study likely reflects population exposure levels that may be
appreciably higher in the central city area than those reported in that study (2005 PM SP, p. 5-
65). Thus, there are concerns that the current PM10_2 5 levels measured at ambient monitoring
sites in recent years may be quite different from the levels used to characterize exposure in the
original PM10_2 5 epidemiologic studies based on monitoring sites in different locations, thus
possibly over- or underestimating population risk levels.
PM air quality data were not available for all days of the year chosen for the risk
assessment in many of the assessment locations.25 The change in the incidence of a health effect
over the course of the year corresponding to a given change in daily PM levels is calculated
based on the assumption that PM levels on those days with PM data are representative of levels
on those days without PM data (see Section 2.6 for an explanation of the method of extrapolating
changes in health effects incidence to an entire year). If there are seasonal differences in average
PM levels and in monitoring frequencies, a simple annual adjustment for missing data could
result in a biased estimate of total annual incidence change. To minimize the presence of bias
due to an uneven distribution of missing data throughout the year, incidence changes in different
quarters of the year were scaled separately, and the scaled quarterly results were added.
Because the PM data in each assessment location were limited to a specific year (usually
2003), the results of the risk assessment are generalizable to the present only to the extent that
ambient PM levels in the available data are similar to current ambient PM levels in those
locations. A substantial difference between PM levels in the year used in the risk assessment
and current PM levels could imply a substantial difference in predicted incidences of health
effects. This is not expected to be a large problem for the PM2 5 risk assessment, however,
because adequate PM25 monitoring data were available for all but one of the assessment
locations in the year 2003, which is quite recent; PM2 5 monitoring data were available in 2001
for Phoenix, AZ.
6.2.3 Simulation of reductions in PM2 5 and PM10_2 5 concentrations to just meet the
current and alternative standards
The pattern of daily PM25 concentrations that would result if the current PM25 standards
were just met in any of the assessment locations is, of course, not known. The assumption that
25 PM2 5 monitor data were available for all days in the year for two of the locations in the PM2 s risk
assessment, and almost complete data were available for most of the other locations; monitor data were substantially
more sparse, however, forPM10_25.
Abt Associates Inc. p. 73 June 2005
-------
PM2 5 concentrations will be reduced by the same percentage on all days is believed to be a
reasonable approximation based on an evaluation of how PM25 concentration distributions have
changed historically in some areas (see Appendix B). There is, however, some uncertainty
surrounding the predicted daily changes in PM25 concentrations that would result if the current
or alternative standards were just met, and consequently there is some uncertainty surrounding
the associated daily changes in population health response. With respect to the PM10_2 5 health
risk estimates, there is much greater uncertainty about the reasonableness of the use of
proportional rollback to simulate attainment of alternative PM10_2 5 daily standards in any urban
area due to the limited availability of PM10_2 5 air quality data over time. This is one of several
factors that contributes to the greater uncertainty associated with the PM10_2 5 risk estimates.
As noted above, the current health risk assessment focuses on a single year and does not
incorporate year-to-year variability, except in its use of design values which were based on the
most recent three-year period available. If PM levels in the most recent year are the lowest of
the three most recent years in a location, applying a design value based on the most recent three-
year period available will result in a greater percent reduction in PM and greater reductions in
risk and lower remaining risk than would be the case if the design value were based only on the
single most recent year.
6.3 Baseline health effects incidence rates
Most of the C-R functions used in the PM risk assessment are log-linear (see equations 1
through 3 in Section 2.5).26 Given this functional form, the percent change in incidence of a
health effect corresponding to a change in PM depends only on the change in PM levels (and not
the actual value of either the initial or final PM concentration). This percent change is multiplied
by a baseline incidence in order to determine the change in health effects incidence, as shown in
equation (3-1) in Section 2.5:
Ay = y[e^ - 1] . (3-1)
in which e x is the RR, and [ e - 1] is the percent change associated with a change in PM of
Ax. If there has been an increase in PM (i.e., if Ax positive), then the RR will be greater than
1.0. If, for example, the RR associated with a change in PM of Ax is 1.05, then the percent
change in incidence of the health effect is 0.05 (5%). The change in incidence of the health
effect associated with a change in PM of Ax is, then, 5 percent of the baseline incidence, y.
Predicted changes in incidence therefore depend on the baseline incidence of the health effect.
26 The exceptions to this are Lipfert et al. (2000), which reports linear C-R functions for cardiovascular
mortality, and Schwartz and Neas (2000), which reports logistic functions for respiratory symptoms.
Abt Associates Inc. p. 74 June 2005
-------
6.3.1 Quality of incidence data
County-specific incidence data were available for mortality for all counties. We have
also obtained hospital admissions baseline incidence data for all the urban areas for which we
have hospital admissions C-R functions for one or more of the PM indicators ( Detroit, Los
Angeles, and Seattle). This is clearly preferable to using non-local data, such as national
incidence rates. As with any health statistics, however, misclassification of disease, errors in
coding, and difficulties in correctly assigning residence location are potential problems. These
same potential sources of error are present in most epidemiological studies. In most cases, the
reporting institutions and agencies utilize standard forms and codes for reporting, and quality
control is monitored.
Data on hospital admissions are actually hospital discharge data rather than admissions
data. Because of this, the date associated with a given hospital stay is the date of discharge
rather than the date of admissions. Therefore, there may be some hospital admissions in an
assessment location in the year of interest (e.g., 2000) that are not included in the baseline
incidence rate, if the date of discharge was after the year ended, even though the date of
admissions was within the year. Similarly, there may be some hospital admissions that preceded
the year of interest that are included in the baseline incidence rate because the date of discharge
was within the year of interest. This is a very minor problem, however, partly because the
percentage of such cases is likely to be very small, and partly because the error at the beginning
of the year (i.e., admissions that should not have been included but were) will largely cancel the
error at the end of the year (i.e., admissions that should have been included but were not).
Another minor uncertainty surrounding the hospital admissions baseline incidence rates
arises from the fact that these rates are based on the reporting of hospitals within each of the
assessment counties. Hospitals report the numbers of ICD code-specific discharges in a given
year. If people from outside the county use these hospitals, and/or if residents of the county use
hospitals outside the county, these rates will not accurately reflect the numbers of county
residents who were admitted to the hospital for specific illnesses during the year, the rates that
are required for the risk assessment. Once again, however, this is likely to be a very minor
problem because the health conditions studied tend to be acute events that require immediate
hospitalization, rather than planned hospital stays.
Incidence rates for respiratory symptoms were obtained from the study reporting the C-R
functions for those endpoints (Schwartz and Neas, 2000). Schwartz and Neas (2000) considered
six cities, and the baseline incidence rates reported in that study were based on all six locations
combined. Therefore there is some uncertainty associated with applying it to the individual
locations (Boston and St. Louis) that are in both the study and the PM risk assessment. In
addition, because this study is a reanalysis of data collected earlier, changes in baseline
incidence rates over time could have introduced additional uncertainty into the analysis.
Abt Associates Inc. p. 75 June 2005
-------
Regardless of the data source, if actual incidence rates are higher than the incidence rates
used, risks will be underestimated. If incidence rates are lower than the incidence rates used,
then risks will be overestimated.
Both morbidity and mortality rates change over time for various reasons. One of the
most important of these is that population age distributions change over time. The old and the
extremely young are more susceptible to many health problems than is the population as a
whole. The most recent available data were used in the risk assessment. However, the average
age of the population in many locations will increase as post-World War II children age.
Consequently, the baseline incidence rates for some endpoints may rise, resulting in an increase
in the number of cases attributable to any given level of PM pollution. Alternatively, areas
which experience rapid in-migration, as is currently occurring in the South and West, may tend
to have a decreasing mean population age and corresponding changes in incidence rates and risk.
Temporal changes in incidence are relevant to both morbidity and mortality endpoints.
However, the most recent available data were used in all cases, so temporal changes are not
expected to be a large source of uncertainty.
6.3.2 Lack of daily health effects incidence rates
Both ambient PM levels and the daily health effects incidence rates corresponding to
ambient PM levels vary somewhat from day to day. Those analyses based on C-R functions
estimated by short-term exposure studies calculate daily changes in incidence and sum them over
the days of the year to predict an annual change in health effect incidence. However, only
annual baseline incidence rates are available. Average daily baseline incidence rates, necessary
for short-term daily C-R functions, were calculated by dividing the annual rate by the number of
days in the year for which the baseline incidence rates were obtained.27 To the extent that PM
affects health, however, actual incidence rates would be expected to be somewhat higher than
average on days with high PM concentrations; using an average daily incidence rate would
therefore result in underestimating the changes in incidence on such days. Similarly, actual
incidence rates would be expected to be somewhat lower than average on days with low PM
concentrations; using an average daily incidence rate would therefore result in overestimating
the changes in incidence on low PM days. Both effects would be expected to be small, however,
and should largely cancel one another out.
27 This is 365, unless the baseline incidence data were obtained from the year 2000, which is a leap year,
and therefore has 366 days.
Abt Associates Inc. p. 76 June 2005
-------
7. Assessment of the Health Risks Associated with "As Is" PM2 5 Concentrations in
Excess of Specified Levels
7.1 Base case analysis
The results of the first part of the risk assessment, assessing the health risks associated
with "as is" PM25 concentrations (representing levels measured in 2003 for most of the
assessment locations) in excess of various cutpoints, are summarized across urban areas in
figures and, for mortality associated with short-term and long-term exposures, in Exhibits 7.1
and 7.2, respectively. The percent of total incidence that is PM2 5-related is shown in Figures
7. la through 7.6a; the incidence per 100,000 general population is shown in Figures 7.1b
through 7.6b.
Although we carried out the base case analysis in each of the assessment locations, to
reduce the number of exhibits in this section of the report, we selected one location (Detroit) to
include here for illustrative purposes. Exhibit 7.3 shows results in Detroit for health endpoints
associated with short-term exposure to "as is" PM25 concentrations in excess of the estimated
PRB concentration, and for mortality associated with long-term exposure to "as is" PM2 5
concentrations in excess of 7.5 |ig/m3 (see Section 2.5). Exhibit 7.4 shows results in Detroit for
mortality associated with short-term and long-term exposures to PM25 in excess of each of the
specified cutpoint concentrations (see Section 2.5). Results for the other locations corresponding
to those shown for Detroit in Exhibits 7.3 and 7.4 are shown in Appendix D, in Exhibits D.I
through D.8 and D.9 through D.I6, respectively.
The central tendency estimates in all of the figures and in Exhibits 7.3 and D. 1 through
D.8 are based on the PM25 coefficients estimated in the studies, and the ranges are based on the
95 percent confidence intervals (CIs) around those estimates. In Exhibits 7.4 and D.9 through
D.16, for results based on cutpoints in excess of the initial base case levels (PRB and 7.5 |ig/m3
for health endpoints associated with short-term and long-term exposures, respectively) the
central tendency estimates and 95 percent CIs are based on the adjusted PM2 5 coefficients
estimated in the studies, as described in Section 2.5.3.
In all portions of the risk assessment, all estimated incidences were rounded to the
nearest whole number, except respiratory symptoms, which were rounded to the nearest 100. All
percentages were rounded to one decimal place. These rounding conventions are not intended to
imply confidence in that level of precision, but rather to avoid the confusion that can result when
a greater amount of rounding is used (for example, when the central tendency estimate rounds to
the same number as the lower and/or upper bound of the 95 percent confidence interval).
Abt Associates Inc. p. 77 June 2005
-------
Figure 7.1a. Estimated Annual Percent of Total (Non-Accidental) Mortality Associated with Short-Term
Exposure to PM25 Above Background: Single-Pollutant, Single-City Models
6 '
5 '
O
m
o>
T3
g 3 '
o> i
D> t^.
5^ 00~ °> -
CO 0 JS
? S >> ^- —
o £i to ^S °>
-o co ™
-,A Jr I
o H,
L
Moolgavkar
J
(2003)
0
" a
|
!>
r
CO
0
O *-"
csj_ ^S
£ f?
CD V
S o
o
CO
^^
CO
O O)
£S-^
>- CD
— "O
.— o
1 i £
Chock et al. (2000)
0-day lag
I | iii i i i i i i i
Boston
Detroit
Los Angeles
Pittsburgh
San Jose
St. Louis
Figure 7.1b. Estimated Annual Cases of Total (Non-Accidental) Mortality per 100,000 General Population
Associated with Short-Term Exposure to PM25 Above Background: Single-Pollutant, Single-City Models
o
LO
cn
c
o
Z)
Q.
O
CL
CU
O
a
o
CD
o"
O
8-
U)
2
o
CO
Chock et al. (2000)
0-day lag
1 1 CO
o en —
* S CO -Q
CO
co Moolgavkar (2003)
ir
r~
a
c
c1
L „' "
"S O> V
_ra _CD qj
6
>, >
3 cr
CO
-0 "O "
O T-,
>^ co o en
CD "O CM fO
|6 ^s-
^ ro ?
5 o
XI
o
CO
Boston
Detroit
Los Angeles
Pittsburgh
San Jose
St. Louis
Abt Associates Inc.
p. 78
June 2005
-------
Figure 7.2a. Estimated Annual Percent of Health Effects Associated with Short-Term Exposure to PM2 5
Above Background: Results Based on Single-Pollutant versus Multi-Pollutant Models
Chock et al. (2000) non-accidental mortality
0-day lag
tupu nospnai i ^ i
cardiovascular admissions
I
hospital admissions 0-day lag JJ]
non-accidental " " ^
g % o ^
mortality ^ ' S ^
1-day lag a "
i
o
icy
C*J
S
o_
1 cardiovascular "
mortality E
0-day lag
. ,
.a-
0
"1 o
2 o
0 °~ \
0 } t
^ S
•*j D_ oj
E
L.
O
t
J
^ r-j
CL. o
O
^
i
c
t
3
n
i
age <75
Moolgavkar (2003)
t*~> O cej
csi O -
CM' SO
O
o
in [
i i
Fairley (2003)
non-accidental mortality
0-day lag
I
age 75+
O
in
c
^D_
8
C
0)
'o
1 0
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
- 0
c
1 "1
S -2
-3
-4
Los Angeles
Pittsburgh
San Jose
Figure 7.2b. Estimated Annual Cases of Health Effects per 100,000 General Population Associated with
Short-Term Exposure to PM2 5 Above Background: Results Based on Single-Pollutant versus Multi-Pollutant
Models
1 0 •
9 •
.- — .
0 8 '
£ 7 -
if)
S 6 -
c
TO r
• — - D
4—
2 o -
c
§ -1 -
0)
Q- .2 -
-3 •
-4 '
Chock et al. (2000) non-accidental mortality
0-day lag
uupunospiiai ! ^ i
cardiovascular admissions
5
hospital admissions 0-day lag JQ
non-accidental
day It
mortality ' >,
1 -day lag S
i 1 cardiovascular "
f mortality c
0-day lag
i "§
1 1 8
o - 1
1 ° } t
sg r
i f
EjO
CSJ
~i
5^
S
§- S 9 f=
' ^: up
M Q_ C-J
^ *sK . r
I
8
°- O
O ^
*£
I
o
en
i
age <75
Moolgavkar (2003)
j
Los Angeles
Abt Associates Inc.
_j i
"? 0 5
CM" gS
O
z
8" 1
c •
s 1
Fairley (2003)
non-accidental mortality
0-day lag
i
age 75+
i i 1
Pittsburgh San Jose
p. 79
June 2005
-------
Figure 7.3a. Estimated Annual Percent of Health Effects Associated with Short-Term Exposure to PM2 5
Above Background: Results Based on Single-City versus Multi-City Models
o
^p
0~-
in
en
ci
S-
8
CD
•a
'o
_
1
O
c
i
V> c:
O
,_ ,
'9
t
"S g
i
s "E co -i
3 .£ ro
O o CD
5
i
'G
"1
s
1
•"S
.Jg
"O
CO
I
4
1 ^
CO
CD ._
CD JS*
CM 1=
^ C
8 i
03 c-
^g .CO
Klemm and Mason (2003) i |
COPD mortality
-4
i
C 0>
i -
5
Boston
St. Louis
Figure 7.3b. Estimated Annual Cases of Health Effects per 100,000 General Population Associated with
Short-Term Exposure to PM2 5 Above Background: Results Based on Single-City versus Multi-City Models
^4
22 '
20 '
1 8 •
16 '
1 4 '
1 2 '
1 0 '
8 '
6 '
4
2 -
o •
IT Schwartz (2003b)
•§> non-accidental mortality _£,
"* ^ 1 ^^ "ro
>, eo co t:
-f :| g o
^, _^ QQ . (JJ
C> .£ ^ m
c^T" c CD H 5^
*" c5 ^ ^ "C ^^ i>^
•^3 CZ3 J^ *^™ O f\j ^fa
^ 5^1- >~> •§; hisf E ~~™^ ^3
§1 ?i 1 11
^ § £ .g S 1 . to
CD k"- tz -j=s CD c *s
CN£_ "g '£5 'o I 'u> 'O
M cn { {*-' » i
fe -w 1 'It
11 I ' t
^ T3
T3 t: ^^
c n\ <^>
^ ^ O
8 & i E 1" 1
§ ^ ^£ _C ^C
-— H, CO O rn ^
s_3 cZ3 CI ,z? "JS CD
S s ,r _ 'E
E Q, ^ § E
So ' V J E 5
2 -* '0 Eg.
g1 to CD
i 1 'a ^
t „ V
4 -S 'v 8
"* "" .S* CD
1 1 * t
o^ l^ !
o
O
in
O)
c
--
c
o
Q.
O
CL
"E
OJ
0>
o
o
o
o"
o
0)
Q.
en
0)
en
CD
O
Boston
St. Louis
Abt Associates Inc.
p. 80
June 2005
-------
Figure 7.4a. Estimated Annual Percent of Mortality Associated with Short-Term Exposure to PM2 5 Above
Background: Effect of Different Lag Models
1 5 '
1 4 -
sQ 1 i
0?
15 1 1 •
O) I 1
E 10 •
CD
CD 9 •
o
C o •
CD °
E 7 •
c
"CD
^_>
,2 5 •
0 4 •
5 3 '
2
Q) *)
Q. L
1 •
0
-1 •
Mar (2003)
cardiovascular mortality
i i
JS
ra
•O
D>
«
>»
Moolgavkar (2003) "?
Moolgavkar (2003) cardiovascular mortality
*n
iiwii'awiuciiiai [
mortality
i
en c»
J5 JS o ,1
I1 js
c
t"
Los Angeles
Phoenix
Figure 7.4b. Estimated Annual Cases of Mortality per 100,000 General Population Associated with Short-
Term Exposure to PM2 s Above Background: Effect of Different Lag Models
__ 30 •
^ 28 '
in 26 '
en
•a 24 •
S 22 -
C
•B 20 •
JS
Q.
S. 16 '
CD ! 4 .
0)
c 1 , ,
CU 1 2
o
o 8 •
o
° 6 •
Q) 4 •
Q.
U) i
(U ^
o °
-2 '
Moolgavkar (2003)
non-accidental
mortality
i
cm en
Mar (2003)
cardiovascular mortality
i i
en
ro
n
O)
rg
>*
ra
T-l
-s -^ Moolgavkar (2003) 5
•S 4
0 ^
I cardiovascular mortality
i
3) «
1
3*
re
-------
Figure 7.5a. Estimated Annual Percent of Mortality Associated with Long-Term Exposure to PMiS Above 7.5
Hg/m3: Single-Pollutant Models
1 6
1 5 '
1 4 '
1 3 '
12 •
1 1 -
1 0 '
9 -
8 -
7 '
6 '
5 '
4 '
3 '
2 -
1 •
-1 •
-2 •
,— ».
o &
OT 2! S S Krewski etal. (2000)
S
C3
OJ
|cg
£
<»<£ S s-p Sixc
sr §•!§ S 8 11
f 8 § 1 I °" ? 1st
i
w c^T S * w -$?
<| 1 |f^ 1
O "j= *»* &
s s «
S Ct co ®
CL — O to
ro < O
01 "QJ ^ o> o „ —
O. C3 fsl
JC 0 0 0
s °- ^ S
I 5 J
,ities
« S -0
o S »
< aE
. Q>
o" ro "x
O -£"• 0>
S&8
— o •<
c
C Q
1
OJ
i
(1^ ^
1 (/> Q>
5 g.
I £
» t
O
T3
C
0>
o
&
£
t«~
o
c
8
fe
D.
Boston
Detroit
L. A. Philadelphia Phoenix Pittsburgh San Jose Seattle
St. Louis
Figure 7.5b. Estimated Annual Cases of Mortality per 100,000 General Population Associated with Long-
Term Exposure to PM2 s Above 7.5 ng/m3: Single-Pollutant Models
140-
=^130
S12°
I 110
"c 1 00
"^ 90
o
§ 80
a. 70 •
5; eo
S 50 '
030
o
§20
° 1 0
1 o
S -10
U3
CD n A
o -20
-30
1
o
1 ll
fi^i CJ -s: S
^ f < s| Krewski et al. (2000)
o"
t
_ co _ Sf^ Six Cities
^"C1 "^IT<»COO ^"^Tqi 5^
|| ~-2g^S s £ 3 -1
Is il<§! t li 1 I
^co< "B11- §,8_ "^ -S ^
ii i
g CNJ |t
o - £
d ro ^
— - "eg
*
1
15
1
i
^1
> (
\ °
>
€.
LI
i.
3
TO Q. ^
"aj g
"s ^
2
^
o>
co to
S1^"^" oT
« 1
s §,
"ro ^
f,.
« §•
"S
•g
s
$ "S
„ to E
o ° S
*f CO V
0 g < 0
§ s • <
CM CL Q" '
5" "» i i*
^ o> "T csj
1SS S co ,
go oj ro
CO CM
< 11
g ^5 -K
ati
5 £ •*
QJ
^
£ CL .Z --:
•^ CD jx; ^^
^ 1 1 s.
^
» t
Boston
Detroit
L. A. Philadelphia Phoenix Pittsburgh San Jose Seattle
St. Louis
Abt Associates Inc.
p. 82
June 2005
-------
Figure 7.6a. Estimated Annual Percent of Mortality Associated with Long-Term Exposure to PMiS Above 7.5
u,g/m3: Single-Pollutant and Multi-Pollutant Models*
1 6 '
1 5 -
1 4 '
=3 13 -
^o 1 2 '
s~>
o> ' 1
"g 1 0 -
-S 9 -
8 8 -
,
- g
O °"
O
(T>
0
1 !
csj
O '
C
*1^
m o
S
CL
}
c
3
r
1
o >.0§
go ig
? 1 i 1
"-If
flit
t
3
fl
O
z
8
5
?
<
T
D
O ^
^U °
CM S
O S
CO g CL f
f8 s 1
2| Is ,
t t OT f
4 + ??,8
Boston Detroit L. A. Philadelphia Phoenix Pittsburgh San Jose Seattle St. Louis
Figure 7.6b. Estimated Annual Cases of Mortality per 100,000 General Population Associated with Long-
Term Exposure to PM2 5 Above 7.5 p,g/m3: Single-Pollutant and Multi-Pollutant Models*
1 6 U
O~ 1 40 •
^P
&~
in
01 1 20 '
~o
c
03
s= 1 00 •
O
03
g_ 80 •
o
Q.
"55 60 '
o3
cz
0)
CD 40 '
o
o
o" 20 '
0
in
Q)
(8 -20 •
0
A A -
01
o
o -,
0 O
>.
§
S ^
C
c.
5
8 • „ £
|8zs s
SI
u. i . f^j
i t S
|t
s
3
.)
3
?
r
c
O
5
!
O
O
O
^
CL
S
CO
8
CJ
C
o
}
1
C*l
"f i
^1??
}HI&
o
2:
o
u
"c
o
2
Q.
O
o
O O c*>
a? >,0 O
1
o
' §
§O§.~1
| j ^o^og
1 T
Boston Detroit L. A. Philadelphia Phoenix Pittsburgh San Jose Seattle St. Louis
*Based on Krewski et al. (2000) - ACS
Abt Associates Inc.
p. 83
June 2005
-------
Exhibit 7.1. Estimated Annual Mortality Associated with Short-Term Exposure to "As Is" PM25
Concentrations, Assuming Various Outpoint Levels*
Urban Area
Boston
Detroit
Los Angeles
Philadelphia
Phoenix
Pittsburgh
San Jose
St. Louis
Study
Schwartz (2003b) [reanalysis
of Schwartz etal. (1996)]
Ito (2003) [reanalysis of
Lippmann et al. (2000)]
Moolgavkar (2003)
[reanalysis of Moolgavkar
(2000a)]
Lipfert et al. (2000) - 7
counties
Mar (2003) [reanalysis of
Mar (2000)]
Chock etal. (2000)
Fairley (2003) [reanalysis of
Fairley(1999)]
Schwartz (2003b) [reanalysis
of Schwartz etal. (1996)]
Type
Non-accidental
Non-accidental
Non-accidental
Cardiovascular
Cardiovascular
Non-accidental
Non-accidental
Non-accidental
Ages
all
all
all
all
65+
75+
all
all
Lag
mean of lag
0 & 1 day
3 day
Oday
1 day
1 day
Oday
Oday
mean of lag
0 & 1 day
Incidence Associated with PM2.5 Assuming Various Cutpoint Levels
(95% Confidence Interval)
Incidence per 100,000 General Population
(95% Confidence Interval)
Percent of Total Incidence
(95% Confidence Interval)
Policy Relevant
Background**
=2.5 or 3.5 ug/m3
390
(265-514)
14
(9-18)
1.8%
(1 .2% - 2.4%)
170
(-170-501)
8
(-8 - 24)
0.9%
(-0.9% - 2.7%)
494
(-62-1038)
5
(-1-11)
0.9%
(-0.1% -1.9%)
412
(197-628)
27
(13-41)
2.5%
(1 .2% - 3.9%)
323
(97 - 536)
11
(3-17)
5.0%
(1 .5% - 8.3%)
77
(-166-311)
6
(-13-24)
0.8%
(-1.7% -3.2%)
218
(45 - 387)
13
(3 - 23)
2.6%
(0.5% - 4.7%)
233
(86 - 379)
9
(3-15)
1.1%
(0.4% -1.7%)
Cutpoint***
=10 ug/m3
173
(118-228)
6
(4-8)
0.8%
(0.5% -1.1%)
99
(-99 - 293)
5
(-5-14)
0.5%
(-0.5% - 1 .6%)
308
(-38 - 647)
3
(0-7)
0.6%
(-0.1% -1.2%)
231
(110-352)
15
(7 - 23)
1.4%
(0.7% - 2.2%)
115
(35-190)
4
(1-6)
1.8%
(0.5% - 2.9%)
48
(-103- 193)
4
(-8-15)
0.5%
(-1.1% -2.0%)
80
(17-141)
5
(1-8)
1.0%
(0.2% -1.7%)
114
(42-185)
5
(2-7)
0.5%
(0.2% - 0.8%)
Cutpoint***
=15 ug/m3
82
(56-109)
3
(2-4)
0.4%
(0.3% - 0.5%)
62
(-62-184)
3
(-3 - 9)
0.3%
(-0.3% - 1 .0%)
212
(-26 - 445)
2
(0-5)
0.4%
(-0.1% -0.8%)
141
(67-215)
9
(4-14)
0.9%
(0.4% - 1 .3%)
67
(21 -109)
2
(1-4)
1.0%
(0.3% - 1 .7%)
31
(-67-125)
2
(-5-10)
0.3%
(-0.7% - 1 .3%)
44
(9 - 77)
3
(1-5)
0.5%
(0.1% -0.9%)
55
(20 - 89)
2
(1 -4)
0.3%
(0.1% -0.4%)
Cutpoint***
=20 ug/m3
(28 - 53)
1
(1-2)
0.2%
(0.1% -0.2%)
37
(-38-110)
2
(-2 - 5)
0.2%
(-0.2% - 0.6%)
146
(-18-306)
2
(0-3)
0.3%
(0.0% - 0.6%)
83
(40-127)
5
(3-8)
0.5%
(0.2% - 0.8%)
43
(13-69)
1
(0-2)
0.7%
(0.2% -1.1%)
20
(-43 - 80)
2
(-3 - 6)
0.2%
(-0.4% - 0.8%)
28
(6 - 50)
2
(0-3)
0.3%
(0.1% -0.6%)
23
(8 - 38)
1
(0-1)
0.1%
(0.0% - 0.2%)
*AII results are for single pollutant, non-accidental mortality models, unless otherwise specified.
"Policy relevant background is 2.5 |jg/m3 in the West (Los Angeles, Phoenix, and San Jose) and 3.5 |jg/m3 in the East (Boston, Detroit, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, and St.
Louis).
"For the cutpoints above policy relevant background, the slope of the C-R function has been modified based on a simple hockeystick model (see discussion in section 2.5).
Abt Associates Inc.
p. 84
June 2005
-------
Exhibit 7.2. Estimated Annual Mortality Associated with Long-Term Exposure to
"As Is" PM2.s Concentrations, Assuming Various Cutpoint Levels*
Urban Areas
Boston
Detroit
Los Angeles
Philadelphia
Phoenix
Pittsburgh
San Jose
Seattle
St. Louis
Incidence Associated with PM2.5 Assuming Various Cutpoint Levels
(95% Confidence Interval)
Incidence per 100,000 General Population
(95% Confidence Interval)
Percent of Total Incidence
(95% Confidence Interval)
Cutpoint**
= 7.5 ug/m3
594
(204-1053)
21
(7-38)
2.7%
(0.9% - 4.7%)
906
(313-1592)
44
(15-77)
4.7%
(1 .6% - 8.2%)
3684
(1280-6426)
39
(13-68)
6.6%
(2. 3% -11. 4%)
650
(224-1146)
43
(15-76)
3.9%
(1 .3% - 6.9%)
349
(119-620)
11
(4-20)
1.7%
(0.6% - 3.0%)
816
(282-1430)
64
(22-112)
5.4%
(1 .9% - 9.4%)
172
(59 - 306)
10
(4-18)
2.1%
(0.7% - 3.6%)
50
(17-89)
3
(1-5)
0.5%
(0.2% - 0.8%)
842
(290-1486)
33
(12-59)
3.7%
(1 .3% - 6.6%)
Cutpoint**
=10 ug/m3
309
(106-551)
11
(4 - 20)
1.4%
(0.5% - 2.5%)
713
(245-1259)
35
(12-61)
3.7%
(1.3% -6.5%)
3267
(1132-5715)
34
(12-60)
5.8%
(2.0% -10.2%)
466
(160-825)
31
(11-54)
2.8%
(1.0% -4.9%)
55
(19-98)
2
(1-3)
0.3%
(0.1% -0.5%)
678
(234-1193)
53
(18-93)
4.5%
(1.5% -7.8%)
58
(20-104)
3
(1-6)
0.7%
(0.2% - 1 .2%)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0.0%
(0.0% - 0.0%)
587
(201 - 1041)
23
(8-41)
2.6%
(0.9% - 4.6%)
Cutpoint**
=12 ug/m3
20
(7-36)
1
(0-1)
0.1%
(0.0% - 0.2%)
519
(178-920)
25
(9-45)
2.7%
(0.9% - 4.8%)
2846
(984 - 4994)
30
(10-52)
5.1%
(1 .8% - 8.9%)
280
(96 - 497)
18
(6 - 33)
1.7%
(0.6% - 3.0%)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0.0%
(0.0% - 0.0%)
539
(185-951)
42
(14-74)
3.5%
(1 .2% - 6.2%)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0.0%
(0.0% - 0.0%)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0.0%
(0.0% - 0.0%)
330
(113-587)
13
(4-23)
1.5%
(0.5% - 2.6%)
"Based on Pope et al. (2002) - ACS extended, all cause mortality among adults age 30 and older.
"For the outpoints above policy relevant background, the slope of the C-R function has been modified based on a simple
hockeystick model (see discussion in section 2.5).
AbtAssociates Inc.
p. 85
June 2005
-------
Exhibit 7.3. Estimated Annual Health Risks Associated with "As Is" PM25 Concentrations
Detroit, Ml, 2003
Health
Effects*
Short-Term
Exposure
Mortality
Long-Term
Exposure
Mortality
Study
Type
Ages
Lag
Other Pollutants
in Model
Health Effects Associated with PM2.5 Above Specified Levels**
Incidence
Incidence per 100,000 General
Population
Percent of Total Incidence
Single Pollutant Models (Total Mortality)
Ito (2003) [reanalysis of
Lippmann et al. (2000)]
Non-accidental
all
3 day
170
(-170-501)
8
(-8 - 24)
0.9%
(-0.9% - 2.7%)
Single Pollutant Models (Cause-Specific Mortality)
Ito (2003) [reanalysis of
Lippmann et al. (2000)]
Ito (2003) [reanalysis of
Lippmann et al. (2000)]
Circulatory
Respiratory
all
all
1 day
0 day
91
(-139-311)
16
(-83-106)
4
(-7-15)
1
(-4 - 5)
1.1%
(-1 .6% - 3.6%)
1.1%
(-5.6% -7.1%)
Single Pollutant Models
Krewski et al. (2000) -
ACS
Krewski et al. (2000) -
ACS
Popeetal. (2002) -ACS
extended
Popeetal. (2002) -ACS
extended
Popeetal. (2002) -ACS
extended
All cause
Cardiopulmonary
All cause
Cardiopulmonary
Lung cancer
30+
30+
30+
30+
30+
722
(375-1098)
721
(469 - 990)
906
(313-1592)
661
(232-1110)
135
(42 - 207)
35
(18-53)
35
(23-48)
44
(15-77)
32
(11-54)
7
(2-10)
3.7%
(1.9% -5.7%)
7.5%
(4.9% -10.3%)
4.7%
(1.6% -8.2%)
6.9%
(2.4% -11. 5%)
10.2%
(3.2% -15. 7%)
Multi-Pollutant Models
Krewski et al. (2000) -
ACS
Krewski et al. (2000) -
ACS
Krewski et al. (2000) -
ACS
Krewski et al. (2000) -
ACS
All cause
All cause
All cause
All cause
30+
30+
30+
30+
CO
N02
03
S02
1046
(609-1492)
1250
(666-1767)
1046
(609-1492)
191
(-336 - 778)
51
(30-72)
61
(32 - 86)
51
(30-72)
9
(-16-38)
5.4%
(3.2% - 7.7%)
6.5%
(3.5% - 9.2%)
5.4%
(3.2% - 7.7%)
1.0%
(-1.7% -4.0%)
Abt Associates Inc.
p. 86
June 2005
-------
Health
Effects*
Hospital
Admissions
Study
Type
Ages
Lag
Other Pollutants
in Model
Health Effects Associated with PM2.5 Above Specified Levels**
Incidence
Incidence per 100,000 General
Population
Percent of Total Incidence
Single Pollutant Models
Ito (2003) [reanalysis of
Lippmann et al. (2000)]
Ito (2003) [reanalysis of
Lippmann et al. (2000)]
Ito (2003) [reanalysis of
Lippmann et al. (2000)]
Ito (2003) [reanalysis of
Lippmann et al. (2000)]
Ito (2003) [reanalysis of
Lippmann et al. (2000)]
Pneumonia
COPD
Ischemic heart
disease
Congestive heart
failure
Dysrhythmias
65+
65+
65+
65+
65+
1 day
3 day
2 day
1 day
1 day
241
(46 - 425)
56
(-143-241)
173
(-101 -439)
256
(47 - 457)
50
(-114-201)
12
(2-21)
3
(-7-12)
8
(-5-21)
12
(2 - 22)
2
(-6-10)
4.7%
(0.9% - 8.3%)
1 .4%
(-3. 6% -6.1%)
1 .7%
(-1.0% -4.4%)
3.7%
(0.7% - 6.5%)
1.5%
(-3.5% -6.1%)
"Health effects are associated with short-term exposure to PM2.5 unless otherwise specified.
**For the short-term exposure studies, incidence was quantified down to the estimated policy relevant background level of 3.5 pg/m3 . For the long-term exposure studies, incidence was quantified down to 7.5 ug/m3, which was
the lowest of the lowest measured levels in the long-term exposure studies. Incidences are rounded to the nearest whole number; percents are rounded to the nearest tenth.
Note: Numbers in parentheses are 95% confidence intervals based on statistical uncertainty surrounding the PM2.5 coefficient.
Abt Associates Inc.
p. 87
June 2005
-------
Exhibit 7.4. Estimated Annual Mortality Associated with Short-Term and Long-Term Exposure to "As Is"
PM2.s Concentrations, Assuming Various Outpoint Levels*
Detroit, Ml, 2003
Health
Effects
Short-
Term
Exposure
Mortality
Long-
Term
Exposure
Mortality
Study
Type
Ages
S
Ito (2003) [reanalysis of
Lippmann et al. (2000)]
Non-accidental
all
Lag
ngle P
3 day
Other
Pollutants
in Model
Incidence Associated with PM2.5 Assuming Various Outpoint Levels**
(95% Confidence Interval)
Percent of Total Incidence
(95% Confidence Interval)
Policy Relevant
Background
=3.5 ug/m3
Cutpoint
=10 ug/m3
Cutpoint
=15 ug/m3
Cutpoint
=20 ug/m3
ollutant Models (Total Mortality)
Single Pol
Krewski et al. (2000) - ACS
Pope et al. (2002) - ACS
extended
All cause
All cause
30+
30+
170
(-170-501)
0.9%
(-0.9% - 2.7%)
Cutpoint
= 7.5 ug/m3
99
(-99 - 293)
0.5%
(-0.5% - 1 .6%)
Cutpoint
=10 ug/m3
62
(-62-184)
0.3%
(-0.3% - 1 .0%)
Cutpoint
=12 ug/m3
37
(-38-110)
0.2%
(-0.2% - 0.6%)
utant Models
722
(375-1098)
3.7%
(1 .9% - 5.7%)
906
(313-1592)
4.7%
(1 .6% - 8.2%)
551
(285 - 839)
2.9%
(1 .5% - 4.3%)
713
(245-1259)
3.7%
(1 .3% - 6.5%)
388
(201 - 593)
2.0%
(1.0% -3.1%)
519
(178-920)
2.7%
(0.9% - 4.8%)
Multi-Pollutant Models
Krewski et al. (2000) - ACS
Krewski et al. (2000) - ACS
Krewski et al. (2000) - ACS
Krewski et al. (2000) - ACS
All cause
All cause
All cause
All cause
30+
30+
30+
30+
CO
NO2
O3
SO2
1046
(609-1492)
5.4%
(3.2% - 7.7%)
1250
(666-1767)
6.5%
(3.5% - 9.2%)
1046
(609-1492)
5.4%
(3.2% - 7.7%)
191
(-336 - 778)
1 .0%
(-1 .7% - 4.0%)
799
(464-1143)
4.1%
(2.4% - 5.9%)
956
(508-1356)
5.0%
(2.6% - 7.0%)
799
(464-1143)
4.1%
(2.4% - 5.9%)
145
(-255 - 593)
0.8%
(-1.3% -3.1%)
564
(327-810)
2.9%
(1 .7% - 4.2%)
676
(358 - 962)
3.5%
(1 .9% - 5.0%)
564
(327-810)
2.9%
(1 .7% - 4.2%)
102
(-178-418)
0.5%
(-0.9% - 2.2%)
*For the short-term exposure studies, incidence was quantified down to policy relevant background level of 3.5 ug/m3, as well as down to each of the alternative cutpoints. For
the long-term exposure studies, incidence was quantified down to 7.5 ug/m3, the lowest of the lowest measured levels in the long-term exposure studies, as well as down to
each of the alternative cutpoints. For the cutpoints above policy relevant background, the slope of the C-R function has been modified based on a simple hockeystick model
(see discussion in section 2.5).
"Incidences are rounded to the nearest whole number; percents are rounded to the nearest tenth.
Abt Associates Inc.
June 2005
-------
As discussed in Chapter 3, assessment locations were chosen in part on the basis of
whether an acceptable C-R function had been reported for that location. As a result, risks were
estimated in a given assessment location only for those health endpoints for which there is at
least one acceptable C-R function reported for that location. The set of health effects shown in
Exhibits 7.3 and 7.4 and Exhibits D. 1 through D. 16 therefore varies from one location to
another. For example, mortality associated with short-term and long-term exposure to PM2 5 and
respiratory symptoms are included in Exhibit D. 1 for Boston, but hospital admissions are not
included because there was no study that met the selection criteria that reports a C-R function for
hospital admissions reported in the PM2 5 epidemiological literature for Boston evaluated in the
2004 PM CD. For total non-accidental mortality associated with short-term exposure to PM2 5,
Figure 7.1 displays estimates for only six of the nine risk assessment locations because
acceptable C-R functions for this health outcome were not available for the other three locations.
There is substantial uncertainty surrounding all estimates of incidence associated with "as
is" PM25 concentrations in any location. We tried to minimize the extent of this uncertainty by
avoiding the application of a C-R function estimated in one location to another location as much
as possible. As discussed in Section 6, however, there are other sources of uncertainty. The
uncertainty surrounding risk estimates resulting from the statistical uncertainty of the PM25
coefficients in the C-R functions used is characterized by ninety-five percent confidence
intervals around incidence estimates and estimates of the percent of total incidence that PM25-
related incidence comprises. In some cases, the lower bound of a confidence interval falls below
zero. This does not imply that additional exposure to PM has a beneficial effect, but only that
the estimated PM2 5 coefficient in the C-R function was not statistically significantly different
from zero. Lack of statistical significance could mean that there is no relationship between PM2 5
and the health endpoint or it could mean that there wasn't sufficient statistical power to detect a
relationship that exists.
Figure 7.2 shows estimated mortality and morbidity effects associated with short-term
exposure to PM25 based on C-R functions in which PM25 was the only pollutant in the model
versus C-R functions in which there was at least one additional pollutant included. There was no
consistent pattern. For example, in Los Angeles the addition of CO to the model substantially
decreased the PM2 5 effect estimates for non-accidental mortality, cardiovascular hospital
admissions, and COPD hospital admissions but increased the PM2 5 effect estimate for
cardiovascular mortality. In Pittsburgh and San Jose, the addition of single co-pollutants or a
combination of co-pollutants only had a modest impact on the PM2 5 effect estimates.
Figure 7.3 compares single vs. multi-city models. Only two assessment locations
(Boston and St. Louis) had available PM coefficients based on both single and multi-city models,
from the Six Cities study. In all cases, the confidence intervals for the estimates from the multi-
city model were tighter than those for the single-city model estimates. In most, but not all cases,
the central estimates for the single vs. multi-city models did not vary greatly.
Abt Associates Inc. p. 89 June 2005
-------
Figure 7.4 shows the effect of different lag structures in the C-R function. Based on the
discussion of selection of lags earlier in this report (see Section 4.3), estimates are shown for
alternative lags dependent on the type of health endpoint. For non-accidental mortality in Los
Angeles there is little difference in effect estimates considering lags ranging from 0 to 2 days and
also little difference in effect estimates for cardiovascular mortality in this same location
between 0-day and 1-day lags. For cardiovascular mortality in Phoenix the effect estimate from
a 1-day lag model is larger than that from a 0-day lag model. However, this is insufficient
evidence upon which to base any general conclusion about the lag structure between PM2 5 and
this health endpoint.
As would be expected, there were substantial differences across cities, at least in part
reflecting differences in air quality and populations exposed. For example, using Pope et al.
(2002) - ACS extended, 6.6 percent of premature mortality was associated with long-term
exposure to PM2 5 in excess of background levels in Los Angeles, which has the highest PM2 5
levels among the assessment locations; in contrast, using the same study, only 2.0 percent of
premature mortality was associated with long-term exposure to PM2 5 in excess of background
levels in San Jose, which has much lower levels of PM2 5. The corresponding incidences of
premature mortality using that same study (about 3,700 cases in Los Angeles versus about 170
cases in San Jose) reflect not only differences in PM2 5 levels in the two locations but also
differences in population size (Los Angeles has a population of over 9.5 million whereas San
Jose's population is only about 1.7 million). However, a comparison of the rates per 100,000
general population - 39 in Los Angeles versus only 10 in San Jose - adjusts for this difference
in population sizes, reflecting only the differences in levels of PM25 in the two locations (see
Appendix D).
The incidence and the percent of total incidence of long-term exposure mortality was
generally greater, and sometimes substantially greater than that of short-term exposure mortality
in most assessment locations. This varied significantly, however, from one location to another
(and may have depended on the particular short-term exposure mortality studies used in the
different locations). For example, in Los Angeles, 0.9 percent of short-term exposure non-
accidental mortality was associated with "as is" PM2 5 concentrations in excess of background
(Moolgavkar (2003) [using the GAM (stringent) model with 30 df and 0-day lag]) compared
with anywhere from 5.2 percent (Krewski et al., 2000 - ACS) to 6.6 percent (Pope et al., 2002 -
ACS extended) of long-term exposure mortality. In San Jose, however, 2.6 percent of short-term
exposure non-accidental mortality was associated with "as is" PM2 5 concentrations in excess of
background (Fairley, 2003) [0-day lag, single pollutant model], compared with 1.6 percent
(Krewski et al., 2000 - ACS) to 2.1 percent (Pope et al., 2002 - ACS extended) of long-term
exposure total mortality cases.
Figure 7.6 shows the effect of having only PM2 5 in the model (single pollutant model) vs.
having other pollutants in the model as well (multi-pollutant model), using the effect estimates
for long-term exposure mortality based on Krewski et al. (2000) - ACS study. The bars labeled
Abt Associates Inc. p. 90 June 2005
-------
"PM only" represent the effect on mortality associated with PM2 5 exposures estimated by a
model in which PM25 is the only pollutant in the model. The bars labeled with other pollutants
(e.g., CO, NO2, SO2) represent the effect on mortality associated with PM2 5 exposures estimated
when other pollutants are also included in the health effects model. The PM2 5 effect estimates
are generally increased with the addition of CO, NO2, or O3 in two-pollutant models and are
substantially decreased with the addition of SO2 in such models.
7.2 Sensitivity analyses
Several sensitivity analyses were carried out to assess the sensitivity of the results of the
first ("as is") part of the risk assessment to various assumptions underlying the analyses. In
general, we carried out each sensitivity analysis listed for PM25 in each of the assessment
locations (see Exhibit 2.6). However, to reduce the number of exhibits in this section of the
report, we selected one location (Detroit) to include here for illustrative purposes. Exhibits of
the results of location-specific sensitivity analyses that are not presented here are given in
Appendix D. To reduce the quantity of numbers reported, with the exception of the sensitivity
analysis of alternative constant background concentrations we focused the PM25 sensitivity
analyses on total (or non-accidental) mortality. The sensitivity analyses in this section and the
exhibits presenting their results are summarized in Exhibit 7.5. The results of the sensitivity
analyses for Detroit are shown in Exhibits 7.6 through 7.9.
In addition to the sensitivity analyses carried out in all locations included in the PM2 5
risk assessment, we carried out two sensitivity analyses in single locations. In 2002, natural fires
in Quebec, Canada resulted in several days of exceptionally high levels of PM in the
Northeastern United States. Exhibit 7.10 shows the impact of these "exceptional event episodes"
on air quality in Boston, MA in 2002, and Exhibit 7.11 shows the impact on the estimated annual
health risks associated with "as is" PM2 5 concentrations.
Finally, using Moolgavkar (2003), we examined the effect of different model
specifications on estimated annual health risks associated with "as is" PM2 5 concentrations in Los
Angeles. The results are shown in Exhibits 7.12a (for mortality) and 7.12b (for morbidity).
Abt Associates Inc. p. 91 June 2005
-------
Exhibit 7.5 Summary of Sensitivity Analyses Associated with the "As Is" Part of the Risk
Assessment for PM-,,
Sensitivity Analysis*
Applied to
Exhibit
Estimated annual health risks associated with "as is"
PM2 5 concentrations above background, using three
different background levels
all health endpoints
Exhibit 7.6
Exhibits D. 17
D.24
Estimated annual health risks associated with "as is"
PM concentrations with adjustments for the estimated
increases in incidence if distributed lag models had
been estimated
mortality associated with short-
term exposure
Exhibit 7.7
Exhibits D.25
D.29
The effect of assumptions about historical air quality on
estimates associated with "as is" PM2 5 concentrations
mortality associated with long-
term exposure
Exhibit 7.8
Exhibits D.30
D.37
Estimated annual health risks associated with "as is"
PM2 5 concentrations using a constant background level
versus different daily background levels
non-accidental mortality
associated with short-term
exposure - Detroit, and St. Louis
Exhibit 7.9
The effect of exceptional event days on estimated
annual health risks associated with "as is" PM2 5
concentrations - Boston, MA, 2002
mortality and respiratory
symptoms associated with short-
term exposure - Boston only
Exhibits 7.10
and 7.11
Estimated annual health risks associated with short-term
exposures, using alternative model specifications - Los
Angeles only
health risks associated with short-
term exposures - Los Angles only
Exhibit 7.12
* Sensitivity analyses presented in this section are for Detroit, MI, unless otherwise stated.
Abt Associates Inc.
p. 92
June 2005
-------
Exhibit 7.6. Sensitivity Analysis: Estimated Annual Health Risks Associated with Short-Term Exposure to "As Is" PM2.5 Concentrations, Using
Different Estimates of Policy Relevant Background Level
Detroit, Ml, 2003
Health
Effects
Short-Term
Exposure
Mortality
Hospital
Admissions
Study
Type
Ages
Lag
Other
Pollutants
in Model
Health Effects Associated with PM2.5 Above Policy Relevant Background of: *
2 ug/m3
Incidence
Percent of Total
Incidence
3.5 ug/m3
Incidence
Percent of Total
Incidence
5 ug/m3
Incidence
Percent of Total
Incidence
Single Pollutant Models (Total Mortality)
Ito (2003) [reanalysis
of Lippmann et al.
(2000)]
Non-accidental
all
3 day
190
(-191 -562)
1.0%
(-1.0% -3.0%)
170
(-170-501)
0.9%
(-0.9% - 2.7%)
150
(-150-442)
0.8%
(-0.8% - 2.3%)
Single Pollutant Models (Cause-Specific Mortality)
Ito (2003) [reanalysis
of Lippmann et al.
(2000)]
Ito (2003) [reanalysis
of Lippmann et al.
(2000)]
Circulatory
Respiratory
all
all
1 day
Oday
102
(-156-349)
18
(-94-119)
1 .2%
(-1.8% -4.1%)
1 .2%
(-6.3% - 8.0%)
91
(-139-311)
16
(-83-106)
1.1%
(-1 .6% - 3.6%)
1.1%
(-5. 6% -7.1%)
80
(-123-274)
14
(-73 - 94)
0.9%
(-1 .4% - 3.2%)
1.0%
(-4.9% - 6.3%)
Single Pollutant Models
Ito (2003) [reanalysis
of Lippmann et al.
(2000)]
Ito (2003) [reanalysis
of Lippmann et al.
(2000)]
Ito (2003) [reanalysis
of Lippmann et al.
(2000)]
Ito (2003) [reanalysis
of Lippmann et al.
(2000)]
Ito (2003) [reanalysis
of Lippmann et al.
(2000)]
Pneumonia
COPD
Ischemic heart
disease
Congestive heart
failure
Dysrhythmias
65+
65+
65+
65+
65+
1 day
3 day
2 day
1 day
1 day
270
(52 - 476)
63
(-160-270)
194
(-113-492)
287
(53-511)
56
(-128-225)
5.3%
(1.0% -9. 3%)
1 .6%
(-4.1% -6.8%)
1.9%
(-1.1% -4.9%)
4.1%
(0.8% - 7.3%)
1 .7%
(-3.9% - 6.8%)
241
(46 - 425)
56
(-143-241)
173
(-101 -439)
256
(47 - 457)
50
(-114-201)
4.7%
(0.9% - 8.3%)
1 .4%
(-3.6% -6.1%)
1 .7%
(-1.0% -4.4%)
3.7%
(0.7% - 6.5%)
1.5%
(-3. 5% -6.1%)
212
(41 - 376)
49
(-126-213)
153
(-89 - 387)
226
(41 -403)
44
(-100-177)
4.1%
(0.8% - 7.3%)
1.3%
(-3.2% - 5.4%)
1.5%
(-0.9% - 3.9%)
3.2%
(0.6% - 5.8%)
1.3%
(-3.0% - 5.4%)
"Incidences are rounded to the nearest whole number; percents are rounded to the nearest tenth.
Note: Numbers in parentheses are 95% confidence intervals based on statistical uncertainty surrounding the PM2.5 coefficient.
Abt Associates Inc.
p. 93
June 2005
-------
Exhibit 7.7. Sensitivity Analysis: Estimated Annual Mortality Associated with Short-Term Exposure to
"As Is" PM2.5 Concentrations, With Adjustments for the Estimated Increases in Incidence if Distributed Lag Models
Had Been Estimated
Detroit, Ml, 2003
Health
Effects
Short-
Term
Exposure
Mortality
Study
Type
Ages
Lag
Other
Pollutants
in Model
Health Effects Associated with PM2.5 Above Policy Relevant Background*
Single Lag
Incidence
Percent of Total
Incidence
Adjusted for Distributed Lag
Incidence
Percent of Total
Incidence
Single Pollutant Models (Total Mortality)
Ito (2003) [reanalysis
of Lippmann et al.
(2000^1
Non-accidental
all
3 day
170
(-170-501)
0.9%
(-0.9% - 2.7%)
334
(-339-971)
1 .8%
(-1 .8% - 5.2%)
'Health effects incidence was quantified down to estimated policy relevant background level of 3.5 ug/m3. Incidences are rounded to the nearest whole number; percents are rounded to the
nearest tenth.
Note: Numbers in parentheses are 95% confidence intervals based on statistical uncertainty surrounding the PM2.5 coefficient.
Abt Associates Inc.
p. 94
June 2005
-------
Exhibit 7.8. Sensitivity Analysis: The Effect of Assumptions About Historical Air Quality on Estimates of
Mortality Associated with Long-Term Exposure to "As Is" PM2.5 Concentrations
Detroit, Ml, 2003
Health Effects
Long-Term
Exposure
Mortality
Study
Type
Ages
Other
Pollutants
in Model
Percent of Total Incidence*
Base Case: Assuming
AQ as Reported
Assuming relevant AQ
50% higher
Assuming relevant AQ
twice as high
Single Pollutant Models
Krewski et al. (2000) -
ACS
Krewski et al. (2000) -
ACS
Pope et al. (2002) - ACS
extended
Pope et al. (2002) - ACS
extended
Pope et al. (2002) - ACS
extended
All cause
Cardiopulmonary
All cause
Cardiopulmonary
Lung cancer
30+
30+
30+
30+
30+
3.7%
(1 .9% - 5.7%)
7.5%
(4.9%- 10.3%)
4.7%
(1 .6% - 8.2%)
6.9%
(2.4% - 1 1 .5%)
10.2%
(3.2% -15.7%)
2.5%
(1 .3% - 3.8%)
5.1%
(3.3% - 7.0%)
3.2%
(1.1% -5. 6%)
4.6%
(1 .6% - 7.8%)
7.0%
(2.1% -10.8%)
1 .9%
(1 .0% - 2.9%)
3.8%
(2.5% - 5.3%)
2.4%
(0.8% - 4.2%)
3.5%
(1 .2% - 5.9%)
5.3%
(1 .6% - 8.2%)
Multi-Pollutant Models
Krewski et al. (2000) -
ACS
Krewski et al. (2000) -
ACS
Krewski et al. (2000) -
ACS
Krewski et al. (2000) -
ACS
All cause
All cause
All cause
All cause
30+
30+
30+
30+
CO
N02
O3
S02
5.4%
(3.2% - 7.7%)
6.5%
(3.5% - 9.2%)
5.4%
(3.2% - 7.7%)
1 .0%
(-1 .7% - 4.0%)
3.6%
(2.1% -5. 2%)
4.4%
(2.3% - 6.2%)
3.6%
(2.1% -5. 2%)
0.7%
(-1 .2% - 2.7%)
2.8%
(1 .6% - 3.9%)
3.3%
(1 .7% - 4.7%)
2.8%
(1 .6% - 3.9%)
0.5%
(-0.9% - 2.0%)
* For the long-term exposure studies, health effects incidence was quantified down to 7.5 ug/m3, which was the lowest of the lowest measured levels in the long-term exposure studies.
Percents are rounded to the nearest tenth.
Note: Numbers in parentheses are 95% confidence intervals based on statistical uncertainty surrounding the PM2.5 coefficient.
Abt Associates Inc.
p. 95
June 2005
-------
Exhibit 7.9. Sensitivity Analysis: Estimated Annual Mortality Associated with Short-Term Exposure to "As Is" PMj 5
Concentrations, Using a Constant Policy Relevant Background Level Versus Different Daily Policy Relevant Background Levels
Detroit, Ml, 2003
Health
Effects
Short-Term
Exposure
Mortality
Study
Type
Ages
Lag
Other
Pollutants
in Model
Health Effects Associated with PM2.5
Above Background*
Constant Background Level
Incidence
Percent of Total
Incidence
Different Daily Background Levels
Incidence
Percent of Total
Incidence
Single Pollutant Models (Total Mortality)
Ito (2003) [reanalysis of
Lippmann et al. (2000)]
Non-accidental
all
3 day
170
(-170-501)
0.9%
(-0.9% -2. 7%)
153
(-153-451)
0.8%
(-0.8% -2.4%)
'Health effects incidence was quantified down to estimated policy relevant background level of 3.5 ug/m3. Incidences are rounded to the nearest whole number; percents are rounded to the nearest tenth.
Note: Numbers in parentheses are 95% confidence intervals based on statistical uncertainty surrounding the PM2.5 coefficient.
Abt Associates Inc.
p. 96
June 2005
-------
Exhibit 7.10. Comparison of PM25 Concentrations in Boston, MA in 2002 With and Without Monitor-Days Flagged as
"Exceptional/Natural Event Episodes"
Monitor:
number of monitor days
mean (|ig/m3)
75th percentile (ng/m3)
90th percentile (|ig/m3)
95th percentile (|ig/m3)
98th percentile (|ig/m3)
maximum value (ng/m3)
number of days above
30 |ig/m3
number of days above
50 |ig/m3
250170008881011
Including
All Days
103
10.8
12.5
21.1
27.5
29.2
65.1
2
1
Excluding
Exceptional
Event Days
102
10.3
12.3
20.8
23.8
28.5
30.6
1
0
250210007881011
Including
All Days
118
12.2
15.5
23.0
27.7
48.1
66.9
5
2
Excluding
Exceptional
Event Days
117
11.7
14.8
22.6
26.2
33.8
66.9
4
1
250250042881011
Including
All Days
264
11.4
14.0
21.2
24.9
33.0
59
6
3
Excluding
Exceptional
Event Days
261
11.1
13.7
20.4
23.8
26.4
52.4
4
2
250250043881011
Including
All Days
86
13.9
17.5
25.1
27.1
29.8
63.1
1
1
Excluding
Exceptional
Event Days
85
13.3
17.4
24.4
26.4
28.2
29.8
0
0
composite
Including
All Days
299
11.5
14.3
21.2
25.2
33.0
63.1
6
2
Excluding
Exceptional
Event Days
296
11.2
14.2
20.4
24.0
27.4
51.2
4
1
Abt Associates Inc.
p. 97
June 2005
-------
Exhibit 7.11. Sensitivity Analysis: The Effect of Exceptional Event Days on Estimated Annual Health Risks Associated with "As Is" PM,5 Concentrations
Boston, MA, 2002
Health Effects*
Short-Term
Exposure
Mortality
Long -Term
Exposure
Mortality
Study
Type
Ages
Lag
Other
Pollutants
in Model
Health Effects Associated with PM-2.5 Above Policy Relevant
Background: Including All Days
Incidence**
Percent of Total Incidence**
Health Effects Associated with PM-2.5 Above Policy Relevant
Background: Excluding Exceptional Event Days
Incidence**
Percent of Total Incidence**
Single Pollutant Models (Total Mortality)
Schwartz (2003b) [reanalysis of
Schwartz et al. (1996)1
Schwartz (2003b) [reanalysis of
Schwartz et al. (1996)1 - 6 cities
Non-accidental
Non-accidental
all
all
mean of
lag 0 & 1
mean of
lag 0 & 1
356
(242 - 469)
238
(170-305)
1.6%
(1.1% -2.2%)
1.1%
(0.8% - 1 .4%)
345
(235 - 455)
231
(165-296)
1.6%
(1.1% -2.1%)
1.1%
(0.8% - 1 .4%)
Single Pollutant Models (Cause-Specific Mortality)
Klemm and Mason (2003) [reanalysis
of Klemmetal. (2000)]
Klemm and Mason (2003) [reanalysis
of Klemmetal. (2000)]
Klemm and Mason (2003) [reanalysis
of Klemmetal. (2000)]
Klemm and Mason (2003) [reanalysis
of Klemm et al. (2000)] - 6 cities
Klemm and Mason (2003) [reanalysis
of Klemm et al. (2000)] - 6 cities
Klemm and Mason (2003) [reanalysis
of Klemm et al. (2000)1 - 6 cities
COPD
Ischemic heart
disease
Pneumonia
COPD
Ischemic heart
disease
Pneumonia
all
all
all
all
all
all
Oday
Oday
Oday
Oday
Oday
Oday
22
(-11-51)
72
(40- 102)
33
(15-49)
18
(1 - 35)
48
(30 - 67)
23
(11-34)
2.2%
(-1.1% -5.1%)
2.1%
(1 .2% - 3.0%)
4.4%
(2.0% - 6.6%)
1.8%
(0.1% -3.4%)
1.4%
(0.9% - 2.0%)
3.2%
(1 .5% - 4.7%)
22
(-10-50)
70
(39 - 99)
32
(14-47)
18
(1 - 34)
47
(29 - 65)
22
(1 1 - 33)
2.1%
(-1 .0% - 4.9%)
2.0%
(1.2% -2.9%)
4.3%
(2.0% - 6.4%)
1.8%
(0.1% -3.3%)
1.4%
(0.9% - 1 .9%)
3.1%
(1 .5% - 4.5%)
Single Pollutant Models
Krewski et al. (2000) - Six Cities
Krewskietal. (2000) -ACS
Krewski et al. (2000) - Six Cities
Krewskietal. (2000) -ACS
Pope et al. (2002) - ACS extended
Pope et al. (2002) - ACS extended
Pope et al. (2002) - ACS extended
All cause
All cause
Cardiopulmonary
Cardiopulmonary
All cause
Cardiopulmonary
Lung cancer
25+
30+
25+
30+
30+
30+
30+
121
(40 - 202)
148
(76 - 227)
61
(20- 100)
131
(84-182)
507
(1 73 - 899)
324
(112-552)
77
(24-120)
0.5%
(0.2% - 0.9%)
0.7%
(0.3% - 1 .0%)
0.7%
(0.2% - 1 .2%)
1.3%
(0.9% - 1 .9%)
2.3%
(0.8% - 4.0%)
3.3%
(1 .2% - 5.7%)
5.0%
(1 .5% - 7.8%)
56
(19-93)
124
(64-190)
28
(9 - 46)
110
(71 -152)
477
(163-847)
305
(106-520)
73
(22-114)
0.3%
(0.1% -0.4%)
0.6%
(0.3% - 0.9%)
0.3%
(0.1% -0.6%)
1.1%
(0.7% - 1 .6%)
2.1%
(0.7% - 3.8%)
3.1%
(1.1% -5.3%)
4.7%
(1 .4% - 7.4%)
Abt Associates Inc.
p. 98
June 2005
-------
Health Effects*
Respiratory
Symptoms***
Study
Type
Ages
Lag
Other
Pollutants
in Model
Health Effects Associated with PM-2.5 Above Policy Relevant
Background: Including All Days
Incidence**
Percent of Total Incidence**
Health Effects Associated with PM-2.5 Above Policy Relevant
Background: Excluding Exceptional Event Days
Incidence**
Percent of Total Incidence**
Multi-Pollutant Models
Krewskietal. (2000) -ACS
Krewskietal. (2000) -ACS
Krewskietal. (2000) -ACS
Krewskietal. (2000) -ACS
All cause
All cause
All cause
All cause
30+
30+
30+
30+
CO
NO2
03
SO2
216
(124-311)
259
(136-370)
216
(124-311)
39
(-67-159)
1.0%
(0.6% - 1 .4%)
1.2%
(0.6% - 1 .7%)
1.0%
(0.6% - 1 .4%)
0.2%
(-0.3% - 0.7%)
181
(104-260)
217
(114-310)
181
(104-260)
32
(-56-134)
0.8%
(0.5% - 1 .2%)
1.0%
(0.5% - 1 .4%)
0.8%
(0.5% - 1 .2%)
0.1%
(-0.3% - 0.6%)
Single Pollutant Models
Schwartz and Neas (2000) - 6 cities
Schwartz and Neas (2000) - 6 cities
Lower respiratory
symptoms
Cough
7-14
7-14
1 day
Oday
7800
(3900-14700)
12500
(-900-24100)
15.0%
(7.6% - 28.4%)
8.3%
(-0.6% -15.9%)
7400
(3800-14300)
11800
(-900 - 22900)
14.2%
(7.2% - 27.5%)
7.8%
(-0.6% -15.1%)
Multi-Pollutant Models
Schwartz and Neas (2000) - 6 cities
Schwartz and Neas (2000) - 6 cities
Lower respiratory
symptoms
Cough
7-14
7-14
1 day
Oday
PM10-2.5
PM10-2.5
7100
(2300-14600)
6000
(-10100-18800)
13.6%
(4.3% - 28.0%)
3.9%
(-6.7% -12.4%)
6700
(2100-14100)
5600
(-9400 - 1 7800)
12.9%
(4.1% -27.1%)
3.7%
(-6.2% -11. 7%)
"Health effects are associated with short-term exposure to PM2.5 unless otherwise specified.
"For the short-term exposure studies, incidence was quantified down to the estimated policy relevant background level of 3.5 |jg/m3 . For the long-term exposure studies, incidence was quantified down to 7.5 ug/m3, which was the lowest of the lowest
measured levels in the long-term exposure studies. Incidences are rounded to the nearest whole number, except for respiratory symptoms, which are rounded to the nearest 100; percents are rounded to the nearest tenth.
"The C-R functions for lower respiratory symptoms and cough were calculated for the summer period April 1 through August 31.
Note 1: Numbers in parentheses are 95% confidence intervals based on statistical uncertainty surrounding the PM2.5 coefficient.
Note 2: Multi-city short-term exposure C-R functions were applied only to urban areas included among the cities used to estimate the function.
Abt Associates Inc.
p. 99
June 2005
-------
Exhibit 7.12a. Sensitivity Analysis: Estimated Annual Mortality Associated with Short-Term Exposure to "As Is"
PM2.5 Concentrations, Using Alternative Model Specifications
Los Angeles, CA, 2003
Health
Effects
Short-Term
Exposure
Mortality
Study
Type
Ages
Model
Lag
Other
Pollutants
in Model
Health Effects Associated with PM2.5 Above
Policy Relevant Background*
Incidence
Percent of Total
Incidence
Single Pollutant Models (Total Mortality)
Moolgavkar (2003) [reanalysis
of Moolgavkar (2000a)]
Moolgavkar (2003) [reanalysis
of Moolgavkar (2000a)]
Moolgavkar (2003) [reanalysis
of Moolgavkar (2000a)]
Moolgavkar (2003) [reanalysis
of Moolgavkar (2000a)]
Moolgavkar (2003) [reanalysis
of Moolgavkar (2000a)]
Moolgavkar (2003) [reanalysis
of Moolgavkar (2000a)]
Moolgavkar (2003) [reanalysis
of Moolgavkar (2000a)]
Moolgavkar (2003) [reanalysis
of Moolgavkar (2000a)]
Moolgavkar (2003) [reanalysis
of Moolgavkar (2000a)]
Moolgavkar (2003) [reanalysis
of Moolgavkar (2000a)l
Non-accidental
Non-accidental
Non-accidental
Non-accidental
Non-accidental
Non-accidental
Non-accidental
Non-accidental
Non-accidental
Non-accidental
all
all
all
all
all
all
all
all
all
all
log-linear, GAM
(stringent), 30 df
log-linear, GAM
(stringent), 30 df
log-linear, GAM
(stringent), 30 df
log-linear, GLM, 30
df
log-linear, GAM
(stringent), 100df
log-linear, GLM,
100df
log-linear, GAM
(stringent), 30 df
log-linear, GLM, 30
df
log-linear, GAM
(stringent), 100df
log-linear, GLM,
100df
Oday
1 day
Oday
Oday
Oday
Oday
1 day
1 day
1 day
1 day
494
(-62-1038)
540
(2-1067)
494
(-62- 1038)
367
(-314-1030)
294
(-208 - 786)
275
(-395 - 929)
540
(2-1067)
503
(-154-1145)
92
(-427-601)
-9
(-928 - 879)
0.9%
(-0.1% -1.9%)
1 .0%
(0.0% - 1 .9%)
0.9%
(-0.1%- 1.9%)
0.7%
(-0.6% - 1 .9%)
0.5%
(-0.4% - 1 .4%)
0.5%
(-0.7% - 1 .7%)
1 .0%
(0.0% - 1 .9%)
0.9%
(-0.3% -2.1%)
0.2%
(-0.8%- 1.1%)
0.0%
(-1 .7% - 1 .6%)
Abt Associates Inc.
p. 100
June 2005
-------
Health
Effects
Study
Type
Ages
Model
Lag
Other
Pollutants
in Model
Health Effects Associated with PM2.5 Above
Policy Relevant Background*
Incidence
Percent of Total
Incidence
Single Pollutant Models (Cause-Specific Mortality)
Moolgavkar (2003) [reanalysis
of Moolgavkar (2000a)]
Moolgavkar (2003) [reanalysis
of Moolgavkar (2000a)]
Moolgavkar (2003) [reanalysis
of Moolgavkar (2000a)]
Moolgavkar (2003) [reanalysis
of Moolgavkar (2000a)]
Moolgavkar (2003) [reanalysis
of Moolgavkar (2000a)]
Moolgavkar (2003) [reanalysis
of Moolgavkar (2000a)]
cardiovascular
Cardiovascular
Cardiovascular
Cardiovascular
Cardiovascular
Cardiovascular
all
all
all
all
all
all
log-linear, GAM
(stringent), 30 df
log-linear, GAM
(stringent), 100df
log-linear, GLM,
100df
log-linear, GAM
(stringent), 30 df
log-linear, GAM
(stringent), 100df
log-linear, GLM,
100df
Uday
Oday
Oday
1 day
1 day
1 day
321
(33-601)
315
(47 - 575)
315
(-5 - 624)
334
(52 - 608)
260
(-10-523)
225
(-105-543)
1 .6%
(0.2% -3.1%)
1 .6%
(0.2% - 2.9%)
1 .6%
(0.0% - 3.2%)
1 .7%
(0.3% -3.1%)
1 .3%
(-0.1% -2.7%)
1.1%
(-0.5% - 2.8%)
Multi-Pollutant Models (Total Mortality)
Moolgavkar (2003) [reanalysis
of Moolgavkar (2000a)]
Moolgavkar (2003) [reanalysis
of Moolgavkar (2000a)]
Moolgavkar (2003) [reanalysis
of Moolgavkar (2000a)]
Non-accidental
Non-accidental
Non-accidental
all
all
all
log-linear, GAM
(stringent), 30 df
log-linear, GAM
(stringent), 100df
log-linear, GLM,
100df
1 day
1 day
1 day
CO
CO
CO
-492
(-1235-232)
-305
(-984 - 356)
-305
(-1100-466)
-0.9%
(-2.2% - 0.4%)
-0.6%
(-1 .8% - 0.6%)
-0.6%
(-2.0% - 0.8%)
Multi-Pollutant Models (Cause-Specific Mortality)
Moolgavkar (2003) [reanalysis
of Moolgavkar (2000a)]
Moolgavkar (2003) [reanalysis
of Moolgavkar (2000a)]
Moolgavkar (2003) [reanalysis
of Moolgavkar (2000a)]
Moolgavkar (2003) [reanalysis
of Moolgavkar (2000a)]
cardiovascular
Cardiovascular
Cardiovascular
Cardiovascular
all
all
all
all
log-linear, GAM
(stringent), 100df
log-linear, GLM,
100df
log-linear, GAM
(stringent), 100df
log-linear, GLM,
100df
Uday
Oday
1 day
1 day
CO
CO
CO
CO
572
(249 - 884)
603
(223 - 969)
296
(-40 - 620)
296
(-113-687)
2.9%
(1 .3% - 4.5%)
3.1%
(1.1% -4.9%)
1 .5%
(-0.2% -3.1%)
1 .5%
(-0.6% - 3.5%)
'Health effects incidence was quantified down to estimated policy relevant background level of 2.5 ug/m3. Incidences are rounded to the nearest whole number; percents are rounded to the
nearest tenth.
Note: Numbers in parentheses are 95% confidence intervals based on statistical uncertainty surrounding the PM2.5 coefficient.
Abt Associates Inc.
p. 101
June 2005
-------
Exhibit 7.12b. Sensitivity Analysis: Estimated Annual Morbidity Associated with Short-Term Exposure to "As Is"
PM2.5 Concentrations, Using Alternative Model Specifications
Los Angeles, CA, 2003
Health
Effects
Hospital
Admissions
Study
Type
Ages
Model
Lag
Other
Pollutants
in Model
Health Effects Associated with PM2.5 Above
Policy Relevant Background*
Incidence
Percent of Total
Incidence
Single Pollutant Models
Moolgavkar (2003) [reanalysis
of Moolgavkar (2000b)]
Moolgavkar (2003) [reanalysis
of Moolgavkar (2000b)]
Moolgavkar (2003) [reanalysis
of Moolgavkar (2000b)]
Moolgavkar (2003) [reanalysis
of Moolgavkar (2000b)]
Moolgavkar (2003) [reanalysis
of Moolgavkar (2000b)]
Moolgavkar (2003) [reanalysis
of Moolgavkar (2000b)]
Moolgavkar (2003) [reanalysis
of Moolgavkar (2000c)]
Moolgavkar (2003) [reanalysis
of Moolgavkar (2000c)]
Moolgavkar (2003) [reanalysis
of Moolgavkar (2000c)]
Moolgavkar (2003) [reanalysis
of Moolgavkar (2000c)]
Moolgavkar (2003) [reanalysis
of Moolgavkar (2000c)]
Moolgavkar (2003) [reanalysis
of Moolgavkar (2000c)]
Moolgavkar (2003) [reanalysis
of Moolgavkar (2000c)]
Moolgavkar (2003) [reanalysis
of Moolgavkar (2000c)]
Cardiovascular
Cardiovascular
Cardiovascular
Cardiovascular
Cardiovascular
Cardiovascular
COPD+
COPD+
COPD+
COPD+
COPD+
COPD+
COPD+
COPD+
65+
65+
65+
65+
65+
65+
all
all
all
all
all
all
all
all
log-linear, GAM
(stringent), 30 df
log-linear, GAM
(stringent), 100df
log-linear, GLM,
100df
log-linear, GAM
(stringent), 30 df
log-linear, GAM
(stringent), 100df
log-linear, GLM,
100df
log-linear, GAM
(stringent), 30 df
log-linear, GAM
(stringent), 100df
log-linear, GLM,
100df
log-linear, GAM
(stringent), 30 df
log-linear, GAM
(stringent), 100df
log-linear, GLM,
100df
log-linear, GAM
(stringent), 30 df
log-linear, GAM
(stringent), 100df
Oday
Oday
Oday
1 day
1 day
1 day
Oday
Oday
Oday
1 day
1 day
1 day
2 day
2 day
1787
(1042-2516)
1319
(583 - 2039)
1431
(521 -2315)
1576
(795 - 2339)
1285
(537-2017)
1364
(447 - 2255)
824
(346-1286)
683
(262-1092)
737
(210-1244)
591
(115-1050)
374
(-54 - 790)
384
(-136-885)
911
(417-1387)
566
(110-1008)
2.6%
(1.5% -3.6%)
1.9%
(0.8% -2. 9%)
2.1%
(0.8% -3. 3%)
2.3%
(1.2% -3.4%)
1.9%
(0.8% -2. 9%)
2.0%
(0.7% -3. 3%)
2.7%
(1.1% -4. 3%)
2.3%
(0.9% -3.6%)
2.4%
(0.7% -4.1%)
2.0%
(0.4% -3.5%)
1 .2%
(-0.2% - 2.6%)
1.3%
(-0.5% -2.9%)
3.0%
(1.4% -4.6%)
1.9%
(0.4% -3.3%)
Abt Associates Inc.
102
June 2005
-------
Health
Effects
Study
Moolgavkar (2003) [reanalysis
of Moolgavkar (2000c)]
Type
COPD+
Ages
all
Model
log-linear, GLM,
100df
Lag
2 day
Other
Pollutants
in Model
Health Effects Associated with PM2.5 Above
Policy Relevant Background*
Incidence
512
(-56-1059)
Percent of Total
Incidence
1.7%
(-0.2% - 3.5%)
Multi-Pollutant Models
Moolgavkar (2003) [reanalysis
of Moolgavkar (2000b)]
Moolgavkar (2003) [reanalysis
of Moolgavkar (2000b)]
Moolgavkar (2003) [reanalysis
of Moolgavkar (2000b)]
Moolgavkar (2003) [reanalysis
of Moolgavkar (2000b)]
Moolgavkar (2003) [reanalysis
of Moolgavkar (2000c)]
Moolgavkar (2003) [reanalysis
of Moolgavkar (2000c)]
Moolgavkar (2003) [reanalysis
of Moolgavkar (2000c)]
Cardiovascular
Cardiovascular
Cardiovascular
Cardiovascular
COPD+
COPD+
COPD+
65+
65+
65+
65+
all
all
all
log-linear, GAM
(stringent), 100df
log-linear, GLM,
100df
log-linear, GAM
(stringent), 100df
log-linear, GLM,
100df
log-linear, GAM
(stringent), 100df
log-linear, GAM
(stringent), 100df
log-linear, GAM
(stringent), 100df
Oday
Oday
1 day
1 day
Oday
1 day
2 day
CO
CO
CO
CO
N02
N02
N02
448
(-512-1380)
664
(-473-1763)
276
(-755 - 1276)
310
(-874 - 1453)
210
(-464 . 855)
-20
(-833 - 750)
176
(-524 - 842)
0.7%
(-0.7% -2.0%)
1.0%
(-0.7% -2.5%)
0.4%
(-1.1% -1.8%)
0.5%
(-1.3% -2.1%)
0.7%
(-1.5% -2.8%)
-0.1%
(-2.8% -2.5%)
0.6%
(-1.7% -2.8%)
"Health effects incidence was quantified down to estimated policy relevant background level of 2.5 ug/m3. Incidences are rounded to the nearest whole number; percents are rounded to the nearest
tenth.
Note: Numbers in parentheses are 95% confidence intervals based on statistical uncertainty surrounding the PM2.5 coefficient.
Abt Associates Inc.
103
June 2005
-------
The first sensitivity analysis, shown in Exhibit 7.6, examines the effect of alternative
assumptions about PRB concentration on the estimated effect of short-term exposures to PM2 5
concentrations above background in Detroit. The results for the other assessment locations are
shown in Appendix D. In many cases, changing the assumed background concentration had a
noticeable effect. For example, changing from the midpoint estimate of 3.5 |ig/m3 for PM25
background in the Eastern U.S. to the lower end of the range for PM2 5 background (2 |ig/m3)
increased the estimated percent of total incidence that is PM2 5-related using Schwartz (2003b) in
Boston by about 17 percent (from 1.8 percent to 2.1 percent). Similarly, changing from the
midpoint estimate to the upper end of the range for PM2 5 (5 |ig/m3) decreased the percent of total
incidence that is PM2 5-related using that same study by about 17 percent (from 1.8 percent to 1.5
percent). Because all three background levels in both the East and the West are lower than 7.5
l-ig/m3, the initial base case cutpoint used for the long-term exposure mortality studies, changing
background levels had no effect on the risk estimates based on these studies. Therefore only
health effects associated with short-term exposures were included in this sensitivity analysis.
The second sensitivity analysis attempts to estimate how different the results would be if
the C-R functions used had been distributed lag models rather than single lag models, using the
results of a study by Schwartz (2000b). Schwartz (2000b) estimated constrained and
unconstrained distributed lag C-R functions for PM10 and daily deaths of persons 65 years and
older in 10 U.S. cities. Using an unconstrained distributed lag model, he estimated a 1.29%
increase in mortality associated with an increase of 10 |ig/m3 PM10. Using a constrained model
(which assumed that the effect all occurs in one day) he estimated a 0.65% increase associated
with a 10 i-ig/m3 increase in PM10 (see Schwartz, 2000b, Table 3). The PM10 coefficient
corresponding to the constrained model result is 0.00065. The PM10 coefficient corresponding to
the unconstrained model (i.e., the value that a single lag coefficient would have to be to result in
a relative risk of 1.013) is 0.00128. The ratio of those coefficients is 1.98. That is, a distributed
lag model predicted the same relative risk that a single lag model would have predicted if the
coefficient were 1.98 times what it was estimated to be. To simulate what the results might have
been had a distributed lag model been estimated instead of a single lag model, we multiplied the
PM25 coefficients for total mortality by 1.98. The results are shown for Detroit in Exhibit 7.7
(and for the other urban areas in Exhibits D.25 - D.29 in Appendix D). As would be expected,
the results are almost double using the distributed lag approximation.
An important source of uncertainty in applying the long-term exposure studies in a risk
assessment is what the relevant period of exposure is and the extent, if any, of a lag period
between exposure and effects. If air quality was historically 50 percent higher than the levels
measured in the long-term exposure mortality studies, and if the historical air quality levels were
the relevant levels, then the PM2 5 coefficients that would have been estimated using the
historical PM25 levels would have been two-thirds (=1/1.5) the coefficients that were actually
estimated in the studies. Similarly, if air quality was historically twice the levels measured in the
long-term exposure mortality studies, and if the historical air quality levels were the relevant
levels, then the PM2 5 coefficients that would have been estimated using the historical PM2 5
Abt Associates Inc. p. 104 June 2005
-------
levels would have been half (=1/2.0) the coefficients that were actually estimated in the studies.
The impact of varying assumptions about historical air quality on estimates of long-term
exposure mortality associated with "as is" PM2 5 concentrations is shown for Detroit in Exhibit
7.8 (and for the other urban areas in exhibits D.30 - D37 in Appendix D).
The impact of using different daily background PM25 concentrations (versus a constant
background concentration) on the estimates of risk associated with "as is" PM25 concentrations
in excess of background was assessed in Detroit and St. Louis. Daily background values were
generated first assuming no correlation between the anthropogenic portion of "as is"
concentrations and background concentrations, and then assuming a moderate correlation of 0.4.
The method of generating daily background concentrations is described in detail in Langstaff
(2004). Using different daily background PM2 5 concentrations had only a minimal effect on the
estimates of risk reduction. The estimated percent of total non-accidental mortality associated
with short-term exposure to PM25 in excess of background levels in Detroit decreased from 0.9
percent (170 cases) to 0.8 percent (153 cases) when different daily background concentrations
(assuming zero correlation with the anthropogenic portion of "as is" concentrations) were
substituted for a constant PRB (Exhibit 7.9). The changes in percent of total non-accidental
mortality in St. Louis (assuming a 0.4 correlation of background and anthropogenic
concentrations) were not sufficiently large to be detected when results were rounded to one
decimal place. The results for St. Louis are therefore not shown.
As noted earlier, a sensitivity analysis was conducted examining the impact on PM risk
estimates of a large natural fire that occurred in July 2002 in Quebec that resulted in unusually
high PM25 concentrations being reported at ambient monitors in the northeastern portions of the
U.S. The exclusion of "exceptional event episodes" in Boston in 2002 resulted in three fewer
days at the composite monitor (296 vs. 299 days with composite monitor values), a decrease in
the maximum PM25 value from 63.1 to 51.2 i-ig/m3, and a decrease in the annual average PM25
concentration from 11.5 to 11.2 |ig/m3 (see Exhibit 7.10). The corresponding decreases in
mortality associated with short-term exposure to PM2 5 were quite modest (see Exhibit 7.11).
The incidence of PM-related non-accidental mortality estimated using Schwartz (2003b), for
example, decreased from 356 to 345; the corresponding change in the estimated percent of total
incidence was not sufficiently large to be detected when results were rounded to one decimal
place. Decreases in long-term exposure mortality were somewhat larger. The incidence of PM-
related mortality estimated using Pope et al. (2002) - ACS extended decreased from 507 to 477;
the estimated percent of total incidence decreased from 2.3 percent to 2.1 percent.
The impact of using different model specifications and C-R functions with different lag
structures on mortality and morbidity risks in Los Angeles is shown in Exhibits 7.12a and 7.12b,
respectively. As noted in Section 1 above, many time-series studies which reported log-linear C-
R functions based on generalized additive models (GAMs) estimated using the S-Plus software
had to re-estimate those C-R functions using appropriate modifications of the default
convergence criteria code. In re-estimating C-R functions for PM2 5 and mortality and morbidity
Abt Associates Inc. p. 105 June 2005
-------
in Los Angeles, Moolgavkar (2003) presented three different model specifications - GAMs with
more stringent convergence criteria with 30 degrees of freedom (df) and with 100 df, as well as a
generalized linear model (GLM) with 100 df. Results are shown based on each of these model
specifications in combination with both 0-day and 1-day lags for all health endpoints, and with a
2-day lag in addition for hospital admissions for COPD.
Estimated mortality and morbidity risks varied substantially with model specification and
lag structure, although there was no obvious pattern across all health endpoints. GLM estimates
were generally higher than GAM estimates with the same number of df for both cardiovascular
and COPD hospital admissions, but lower for non-accidental and cardiovascular mortality. Not
surprisingly, increasing the df generally lowered the estimated incidence. The highest non-
accidental mortality risk estimate (540 PM-related deaths associated with "as is"PM2 5
concentrations, or 1.0 percent of total incidence) was produced by the GAM with 30 df and a 1-
day lag, and the lowest (-9 PM-related deaths, or 0.0 percent of total incidence) was produced by
the GLM with 100 df and a 1-day lag. Cardiovascular mortality exhibited the same pattern as
non-accidental mortality across model specifications and lag structures. For cardiovascular
hospital admissions, PM-related incidence estimates ranged from 1787 (2.6 percent of total
incidence) produced by the GAM with 30 df and a 0-day lag to 1285 (1.9 percent of total
incidence) produced by the GAM with 100 df and a 1-day lag. For COPD hospital admissions,
PM-related incidence estimates ranged from 911 (3.0 percent of total incidence) produced by the
GAM with 30 df and a 2-day lag to 374 (1.2 percent of total incidence) produced by the GAM
with 100 df and a 1-day lag.
Abt Associates Inc. p. 106 June 2005
-------
8. Assessment of the Reduced Health Risks Associated with Just Meeting the Current
and Alternative PM2 5 Standards
8.1 Base case analysis
The second part of the risk assessment estimates the reduced risks that would result if the
current PM25 standards or alternative PM25 standards were just met in the assessment locations.
(Note that the current standards are already met in Boston, Phoenix, San Jose, and Seattle based
on 2001 - 2003 air quality data.) In addition to the current set of standards, annual standards of
15, 14, 13, and 12 |ig/m3 were each combined with ninety-eighth percentile daily standards of
40, 35, 30, and 25 i-ig/m3, and ninety-ninth percentile daily standards at the same levels. In
addition, an annual standard of 15 |ig/m3 was combined with a ninety-ninth percentile daily
standard of 65 |ig/m3. Among those locations that did not meet the current PM25 standards based
on 2001 - 2003 air quality data (Detroit, Los Angeles, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, and St. Louis),
there was no difference in the percent rollback required to just meet any of the alternative annual
standards (14, 13, and 12 |ig/m3) in combination with the current ninety-eighth percentile daily
standard of 65 |ig/m3 versus the percent rollback required to just meet any of these annual
standards in combination with the more stringent ninety-eighth percentile daily standard of 40
l-ig/m3 - except in Philadelphia, where just meeting the 14 |ig/m3 annual standard combined with
the ninety-eighth percentile daily standard of 40 |ig/m3 requires a 23.2% rollback compared with
an 18.6% rollback necessary to just meet the 14 |ig/m3 annual standard combined with the
ninety-eighth percentile daily standard of 65 |ig/m3. Because of this, the 14 |ig/m3 annual
standard was combined with the ninety-eighth percentile daily standard of 65 |ig/m3 only in
Philadelphia. The combinations of annual and daily standards used in the PM25 risk assessment
are summarized in Exhibit 8.1.28
Exhibit 8.1 Alternative Sets of PM-,, Standards Considered in the PM-,, Risk Assessment*
Annual
Standard
15
14
13
12
98th Percentile Daily Standard
65
v^ ^
v^ ^ ^
40
X
X
X
X
35
X
X
X
X
30
X
X
X
X
25
X
X
X
X
99th Percentile Daily Standard
65
X
40
X
X
X
X
35
X
X
X
X
30
X
X
X
X
25
X
X
X
X
*A11 standards are in
**Current standards.
standards.
Abt Associates Inc.
See Chapter 5 of U.S. EPA( 2005a) for a discussion of the rationale for selecting these alternative
p. 107 June 2005
-------
***Only in Philadelphia.
Estimated annual mortality associated with short-term and long-term exposure to PM2 5
when the current standards are just met, assuming various cutpoints, are shown for all locations
in Figures 8. la and b and 8.2a and b, respectively, and in Exhibits 8.2 and 8.3, respectively.
Estimated annual incidence, as well as the percent reduction from incidence under the current
standards, of short-term exposure mortality, and all-cause, cardiovascular, and lung cancer
mortality associated with long-term exposure to PM25, when alternative standards are just met,
assuming various cutpoint levels, are given for Detroit in Exhibits 8.4, 8.5, 8.6, and 8.7,
respectively. The corresponding exhibits for the other locations are given in Exhibits E.I - E.36
of Appendix E.
Abt Associates Inc. p. 108 June 2005
-------
Figure 8.1a. Estimated Annual Percent of Non-accidental Mortality Associated with Short-Term Exposure to
PM25 Above Background When the Current Annual Standard of 15 jig/m3 and the Current Daily Standard of
65 ng/m3 Are Just Met
o
ih
3
,2-
I 2
cu
T3
O
CU
o
-1
-2
Chock etal. (2000)
0-day lag
8"
CO >*
CD TO
T3
04, ,1
Detroit
Los Angeles
Pittsburgh
St. Louis
Figure 8.1b. Estimated Annual Cases of Non-accidental Mortality per 100,000 General Population Associated
with Short-Term Exposure to PM2 s Above Background When the Current Annual Standard of 15 ng/m3 and
the Current Daily Standard of 65 |ig/m3 Are Just Met
2 8 '
:=- 26 '
o 24'
| 22 -
"J2 20 '
CD 1 fl .
I 0
f —
.2 16'
•=* 14'
Q- . -
0 12"
Q_
— 10-
CD
CU 8 •
c
0 4 -
CD
°- 2 -
o
5 0
Q.
en -4 -
CU
en c -
CD "°
° ^8 -
* n
CO
CD
CD
CD
_ro
^^
CD
CD
C\l
-jg
CD
_CT)
Chock etal. (2000)
0-day lag
i i Schwartz (2003b)
£? mean of 0&1-day lag
qj ' '
*~" ' o aj
4 fe
ur>
f I5 s>
3
n
t
r %
J T3
s, £
c
-------
Figure 8.2a. Estimated Annual Percent of Mortality Associated with Long-Term Exposure to PMiS Above 7.5
jig/m3 When the Current Annual Standard of 15 ng/m3 and the Current Daily Standard of 65 jig/m3 Are Just
Met
1 4 '
13 '
012 •
°^ 1 1 •
O)
-010-
d
co
— 9 '
0)
o
c e •
c
CD
110"
100-
o
o
o
o"
o
Q)
CL
C/)
CU
co
co
O
70 "
o
J3
Q.
O
Q.
2 60 •
(D
0)
o
40 '
30 '
20 '
1 0
S s
Jr Q 0
f?
0 0 -B
•* s 1 ^
s- ° « - 2
O * — - f ^ — = r
8 «j < S a
CM ™ < r\T ""
13 S 8 § "1
,- CL O CL 3
<3J O CM CD
2 °" " "5 ^
5
2
y:
1
"5
3i
u
= "53
- Q.
f. o
0 n
g "-
a
i
3
"f
O
o
o
_• co
3Z (D
? S I
3 o" ^T
0 ^
j" CL "53
"S Q.
„ O
CD CL
™
en
>
ii
CO
O —•
< s
^ o
o "~r
o ^
CL ™
" "53
CO
-------
Exhibit 8.2. Estimated Annual Mortality Associated with Short-Term Exposure to PIV^ 5 When the Current Annual
Standard of 15 ug/m3 and the Current Daily Standard of 65 ug/m3 Are Just Met, Assuming Various Cutpoint Levels*
Urban Area
Detroit
Los Angeles
Philadelphia
Pittsburgh
St. Louis
Study
Ito (2003) [reanalysis of
Lippmann et al. (2000)]
Moolgavkar (2003)
[reanalysis of Moolgavkar
(2000a)]
Lipfert et al. (2000) - 7
counties
Chock et al. (2000)
Schwartz (2003b) [reanalysis
of Schwartz et al. (1996)]
Type
Non-accidental
Non-accidental
Cardiovascular
Non-accidental
Non-accidental
Ages
all
all
all
75+
all
Lag
3 day
Oday
1 day
Oday
mean of lag
0 & 1 day
Incidence Associated with PM2.5 Assuming Various Cutpoint Levels
(95% Confidence Interval)
Incidence per 100,000 General Population
(95% Confidence Interval)
Percent of Total Incidence
(95% Confidence Interval)
Policy Relevant
Background**
=2.5 or 3.5 ug/m3
122
(-123-358)
6
(-6-17)
0.7%
(-0.7% - 1 .9%)
292
(-37-612)
3
(0-6)
0.5%
(-0.1%- 1.1%)
367
(175-560)
24
(12-37)
5.8%
(2.8% - 8.8%)
50
(-108-200)
4
(-8-16)
0.5%
(-1.1% -2.1%)
191
(70-311)
8
(3-12)
0.9%
(0.3% - 1 .4%)
Cutpoint***
=10 ug/m3
54
(-55-159)
3
(-3 - 8)
0.3%
(-0.3% - 0.8%)
115
(-14-240)
1
(0-3)
0.2%
(0.0% - 0.4%)
189
(90 - 288)
12
(6-19)
3.0%
(1 .4% - 4.5%)
22
(-48 - 87)
2
(-4 - 7)
0.2%
(-0.5% - 0.9%)
75
(28-122)
3
(1-5)
0.3%
(0.1% -0.6%)
Cutpoint***
=15 ug/m3
26
(-27 - 77)
1
(-1 - 4)
0.1%
(-0.1% -0.4%)
58
(-7-121)
1
(0-1)
0.1%
(0.0% - 0.2%)
106
(51 - 162)
7
(3-11)
1 .7%
(0.8% - 2.6%)
10
(-23 - 41)
1
(-2 - 3)
0.1%
(-0.2% - 0.4%)
29
(11-46)
1
(0-2)
0.1%
(0.1% -0.2%)
Cutpoint***
=20 ug/m3
12
(-12-35)
1
(-1 - 2)
0.1%
(-0.1% -0.2%)
29
(-4 - 61)
0
(0-1)
0.1%
(0.0% -0.1%)
57
(27 - 87)
4
(2-6)
0.9%
(0.4% - 1 .4%)
5
(-11-18)
0
(-1 - 1)
0.1%
(-0.1% -0.2%)
9
(3-14)
0
(0-1)
0.0%
(0.0% -0.1%)
*AII results are for single pollutant, non-accidental mortality models, unless otherwise specified.
"Policy relevant background is 2.5 |jg/m3 in the West (Los Angeles) and 3.5 |jg/m3 in the East (Detroit, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, and St. Louis).
"For the cutpoints above policy relevant background, the slope of the C-R function has been modified based on a simple hockeystick model (see discussion in section 2.5).
Abt Associates Inc.
p. Ill
June 2005
-------
Exhibit 8.3. Estimated Annual Mortality Associated with Long-Term Exposure to
PM2.5 When the Current Annual Standard of 15 ug/m3 and the Current Daily
Standard of 65 ug/m3 Are Just Met, Assuming Various Cutpoint Levels*
Urban Areas
Detroit
Los Angeles
Philadelphia
Pittsburgh
St. Louis
Incidence Associated with PM2.5 Assuming Various Cutpoint Levels
(95% Confidence Interval)
Incidence per 100,000 General Population
(95% Confidence Interval)
Percent of Total Incidence
(95% Confidence Interval)
Cutpoint**
= 7.5 ug/m3
522
(181 -910)
25
(9 - 44)
2.7%
(0.9% - 4.7%)
1507
(531 - 2587)
16
(6 - 27)
2.7%
(0.9% - 4.6%)
536
(185-943)
35
(12-62)
3.2%
(1.1% -5.7%)
403
(141 -699)
31
(1 1 - 55)
2.7%
(0.9% - 4.6%)
596
(206-1047)
24
(8 - 42)
2.6%
(0.9% - 4.6%)
Cutpoint**
=10 ug/m3
282
(98 - 494)
14
(5 - 24)
1 .5%
(0.5% - 2.6%)
823
(290-1415)
9
(3-15)
1 .5%
(0.5% - 2.5%)
338
(116-597)
22
(8 - 39)
2.0%
(0.7% - 3.6%)
215
(75 - 373)
17
(6 - 29)
1 .4%
(0.5% - 2.5%)
311
(107-548)
12
(4 - 22)
1 .4%
(0.5% - 2.4%)
Cutpoint**
=12 ug/m3
41
(14-72)
2
(1-3)
0.2%
(0.1% -0.4%)
138
(48 - 237)
1
(1-2)
0.2%
(0.1% -0.4%)
137
(47 - 244)
9
(3-16)
0.8%
(0.3% - 1 .5%)
25
(9 - 43)
2
(1-3)
0.2%
(0.1% -0.3%)
23
(8 - 40)
1
(0-2)
0.1%
(0.0% - 0.2%)
'Based on Pope et al. (2002) — ACS extended, all cause mortality among adults age 30 and older.
"For the outpoints above policy relevant background, the slope of the C-R function has been modified based on a simple
hockeystick model (see discussion in section 2.5).
Abt Associates Inc.
p. 112
June 2005
-------
Exhibit 8.4. Estimated Annual Mortality Associated with Short-Term Exposure to PM2 5 When Alternative
Standards Are Just Met, Assuming Various Outpoint Levels*
Detroit, Ml, 2003
Alternative Standards
Annual (ug/m3)
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
Daily (ug/m3)
65, 98th percentile value***
40, 98th percentile value
35, 98th percentile value
30, 98th percentile value
25, 98th percentile value
65, 99th percentile value
40, 99th percentile value
35, 99th percentile value
30, 99th percentile value
Incidence Associated with PM2.5
(95% Confidence Interval)
Percent Reduction in Incidence from Current Standards
Policy Relevant
Background
=3.5 ug/m3
122
(-123-358)
0.0%
122
(-123-358)
0.0%
122
(-123-358)
0.0%
111
(-112-325)
9.0%
90
(-91 - 263)
26.2%
122
(-123-358)
0.0%
122
(-123-358)
0.0%
120
(-121 -352)
1 .6%
101
(-102-296)
17.2%
Cutpoint**
=10 ug/m3
54
(-55-159)
0.0%
54
(-55-159)
0.0%
54
(-55-159)
0.0%
45
(-45-131)
16.7%
28
(-29 - 82)
48.1%
54
(-55-159)
0.0%
54
(-55-159)
0.0%
53
(-53-154)
1 .9%
37
(-37-107)
31 .5%
Cutpoint**
=15 ug/m3
26
(-27 - 77)
0.0%
26
(-27 - 77)
0.0%
26
(-27 - 77)
0.0%
20
(-20 - 58)
23.1%
10
(-10-28)
61.5%
26
(-27 - 77)
0.0%
26
(-27 - 77)
0.0%
25
(-26 - 74)
3.8%
15
(-15-42)
42.3%
Cutpoint**
=20 ug/m3
12
(-12-35)
0.0%
12
(-12-35)
0.0%
12
(-12-35)
0.0%
8
(-9 - 24)
33.3%
3
(-4-10)
75.0%
12
(-12-35)
0.0%
12
(-12-35)
0.0%
11
(-12-33)
8.3%
6
(-6-16)
50.0%
Abt Associates Inc.
p. 113
June 2005
-------
Alternative Standards
Annual (ug/m3)
15
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
13
13
Daily (ug/m3)
25, 99th percentile value
40, 98th percentile value
35, 98th percentile value
30, 98th percentile value
25, 98th percentile value
40, 99th percentile value
35, 99th percentile value
30, 99th percentile value
25, 99th percentile value
40, 98th percentile value
35, 98th percentile value
Incidence Associated with PM2.5
(95% Confidence Interval)
Percent Reduction in Incidence from Current Standards
Policy Relevant
Background
=3.5 ug/m3
82
(-83 - 239)
32.8%
111
(-112-326)
9.0%
111
(-112-326)
9.0%
111
(-112-325)
9.0%
90
(-91 - 263)
26.2%
111
(-112-326)
9.0%
111
(-112-326)
9.0%
101
(-102-296)
17.2%
82
(-83 - 239)
32.8%
101
(-101 -295)
17.2%
101
(-101 -295)
17.2%
Cutpoint**
=10 ug/m3
22
(-23 - 65)
59.3%
45
(-46-132)
16.7%
45
(-46-132)
16.7%
45
(-45-131)
16.7%
28
(-29 - 82)
48.1%
45
(-46-132)
16.7%
45
(-46-132)
16.7%
37
(-37-107)
31 .5%
22
(-23 - 65)
59.3%
36
(-37-106)
33.3%
36
(-37-106)
33.3%
Cutpoint**
=15 ug/m3
7
(-7-19)
73.1%
20
(-20 - 58)
23.1%
20
(-20 - 58)
23.1%
20
(-20 - 58)
23.1%
10
(-10-28)
61.5%
20
(-20 - 58)
23.1%
20
(-20 - 58)
23.1%
15
(-15-42)
42.3%
7
(-7-19)
73.1%
14
(-15-42)
46.2%
14
(-15-42)
46.2%
Cutpoint**
=20 ug/m3
2
(-2 - 6)
83.3%
8
(-9 - 24)
33.3%
8
(-9 - 24)
33.3%
8
(-9 - 24)
33.3%
3
(-4-10)
75.0%
8
(-9 - 24)
33.3%
8
(-9 - 24)
33.3%
6
(-6-16)
50.0%
2
(-2 - 6)
83.3%
6
(-6-16)
50.0%
6
(-6-16)
50.0%
Abt Associates Inc.
114
June 2005
-------
Alternative Standards
Annual (ug/m3)
13
13
13
13
13
13
12
12
12
12
12
Daily (ug/m3)
30, 98th percentile value
25, 98th percentile value
40, 99th percentile value
35, 99th percentile value
30, 99th percentile value
25, 99th percentile value
40, 98th percentile value
35, 98th percentile value
30, 98th percentile value
25, 98th percentile value
40, 99th percentile value
Incidence Associated with PM2.5
(95% Confidence Interval)
Percent Reduction in Incidence from Current Standards
Policy Relevant
Background
=3.5 ug/m3
101
(-101 -295)
17.2%
90
(-91 - 263)
26.2%
101
(-101 -295)
17.2%
101
(-101 -295)
17.2%
101
(-101 -295)
17.2%
82
(-83 - 239)
32.8%
90
(-91 - 264)
26.2%
90
(-91 - 264)
26.2%
90
(-91 - 264)
26.2%
90
(-91 - 263)
26.2%
90
(-91 - 264)
26.2%
Cutpoint**
=10 ug/m3
36
(-37-106)
33.3%
28
(-29 - 82)
48.1%
36
(-37-106)
33.3%
36
(-37-106)
33.3%
36
(-37-106)
33.3%
22
(-23 - 65)
59.3%
28
(-29 - 82)
48.1%
28
(-29 - 82)
48.1%
28
(-29 - 82)
48.1%
28
(-29 - 82)
48.1%
28
(-29 - 82)
48.1%
Cutpoint**
=15 ug/m3
14
(-15-42)
46.2%
10
(-10-28)
61.5%
14
(-15-42)
46.2%
14
(-15-42)
46.2%
14
(-15-42)
46.2%
7
(-7-19)
73.1%
10
(-10-28)
61.5%
10
(-10-28)
61.5%
10
(-10-28)
61.5%
10
(-10-28)
61.5%
10
(-10-28)
61.5%
Cutpoint**
=20 ug/m3
6
(-6-16)
50.0%
3
(-4-10)
75.0%
6
(-6-16)
50.0%
6
(-6-16)
50.0%
6
(-6-16)
50.0%
2
(-2 - 6)
83.3%
3
(-4-10)
75.0%
3
(-4-10)
75.0%
3
(-4-10)
75.0%
3
(-4-10)
75.0%
3
(-4-10)
75.0%
Abt Associates Inc.
p. 115
June 2005
-------
Alternative Standards
Annual (ug/m3)
12
12
12
Daily (ug/m3)
35, 99th percentile value
30, 99th percentile value
25, 99th percentile value
Incidence Associated with PM2.5
(95% Confidence Interval)
Percent Reduction in Incidence from Current Standards
Policy Relevant
Background
=3.5 ug/m3
90
(-91 - 264)
26.2%
90
(-91 - 264)
26.2%
82
(-83 - 239)
32.8%
Cutpoint**
=10 ug/m3
28
(-29 - 82)
48.1%
28
(-29 - 82)
48.1%
22
(-23 - 65)
59.3%
Cutpoint**
=15 ug/m3
10
(-10-28)
61.5%
10
(-10-28)
61.5%
7
(-7-19)
73.1%
Cutpoint**
=20 ug/m3
3
(-4-10)
75.0%
3
(-4-10)
75.0%
2
(-2 - 6)
83.3%
This analysis used a C-R function from Ito (2003).
"For the outpoints above policy relevant background, the slope of the C-R function has been modified based on a simple hockeystick model (see discussion in section 2.5).
"""Current standards.
Note: Incidences are rounded to the nearest whole number; percents are rounded to the nearest tenth.
Abt Associates Inc.
p. 116
June 2005
-------
Exhibit 8.5. Estimated Annual Mortality Associated with Long-Term Exposure to PM2.5 When
Alternative Standards Are Just Met, Assuming Various Outpoint Levels*
Detroit, Ml, 2003
Alternative Standards
Annual ((jg/m3)
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
Daily ((jg/m3)
65, 98th percentile value***
40, 98th percentile value
35, 98th percentile value
30, 98th percentile value
25, 98th percentile value
65, 99th percentile value
40, 99th percentile value
35, 99th percentile value
30, 99th percentile value
Incidence Associated with PM2.5
(95% Confidence Interval)
Percent Reduction in Incidence from Current Standards
Cut point**
=7.5 ug/m3
522
(181 -910)
0.0%
522
(181 -910)
0.0%
522
(181 -910)
0.0%
435
(151 -757)
16.7%
270
(94 - 468)
48.3%
522
(181 -910)
0.0%
522
(181 -910)
0.0%
507
(176-884)
2.9%
356
(124-619)
31 .8%
Cutpoint**
=10 ug/m3
282
(98 - 494)
0.0%
282
(98 - 494)
0.0%
282
(98 - 494)
0.0%
185
(64 - 323)
34.4%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
282
(98 - 494)
0.0%
282
(98 - 494)
0.0%
266
(92 - 465)
5.7%
97
(34-168)
65.6%
Cutpoint**
=12 ug/m3
41
(14-72)
0.0%
41
(14-72)
0.0%
41
(14-72)
0.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
41
(14-72)
0.0%
41
(14-72)
0.0%
23
(8 - 40)
43.9%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
Abt Associates Inc.
p. 117
June 2005
-------
Alternative Standards
Annual ((jg/m3)
15
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
13
13
Daily (ug/m3)
25, 99th percentile value
40, 98th percentile value
35, 98th percentile value
30, 98th percentile value
25, 98th percentile value
40, 99th percentile value
35, 99th percentile value
30, 99th percentile value
25, 99th percentile value
40, 98th percentile value
35, 98th percentile value
Incidence Associated with PM2.5
(95% Confidence Interval)
Percent Reduction in Incidence from Current Standards
Cutpoint**
=7.5 ug/m3
207
(72 - 358)
60.3%
438
(152-762)
16.1%
438
(152-762)
16.1%
435
(151 -757)
16.7%
270
(94 - 468)
48.3%
438
(152-762)
16.1%
438
(152-762)
16.1%
356
(124-619)
31 .8%
207
(72 - 358)
60.3%
354
(123-615)
32.2%
354
(123-615)
32.2%
Cutpoint**
=10 ug/m3
0
(0-0)
100.0%
188
(65 - 328)
33.3%
188
(65 - 328)
33.3%
185
(64 - 323)
34.4%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
188
(65 - 328)
33.3%
188
(65 - 328)
33.3%
97
(34-168)
65.6%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
94
(33- 164)
66.7%
94
(33-164)
66.7%
Cutpoint**
=12 ug/m3
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
Abt Associates Inc.
p. 118
June 2005
-------
Alternative Standards
Annual ((jg/m3)
13
13
13
13
13
13
12
12
12
12
12
Daily (ug/m3)
30, 98th percentile value
25, 98th percentile value
40, 99th percentile value
35, 99th percentile value
30, 99th percentile value
25, 99th percentile value
40, 98th percentile value
35, 98th percentile value
30, 98th percentile value
25, 98th percentile value
40, 99th percentile value
Incidence Associated with PM2.5
(95% Confidence Interval)
Percent Reduction in Incidence from Current Standards
Cutpoint**
=7.5 ug/m3
354
(123-615)
32.2%
270
(94 - 468)
48.3%
354
(123-615)
32.2%
354
(123-615)
32.2%
354
(123-615)
32.2%
207
(72 - 358)
60.3%
271
(94 - 469)
48.1%
271
(94 - 469)
48.1%
271
(94 - 469)
48.1%
270
(94 - 468)
48.3%
271
(94 - 469)
48.1%
Cutpoint**
=10 ug/m3
94
(33-164)
66.7%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
94
(33-164)
66.7%
94
(33-164)
66.7%
94
(33- 164)
66.7%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-1)
100.0%
0
(0-1)
100.0%
0
(0-1)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-1)
100.0%
Cutpoint**
=12 ug/m3
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
Abt Associates Inc.
p. 119
June 2005
-------
Alternative Standards
Annual ((jg/m3)
12
12
12
Daily (ug/m3)
35, 99th percentile value
30, 99th percentile value
25, 99th percentile value
Incidence Associated with PM2.5
(95% Confidence Interval)
Percent Reduction in Incidence from Current Standards
Cutpoint**
=7.5 ug/m3
271
(94 - 469)
48.1%
271
(94 - 469)
48.1%
207
(72 - 358)
60.3%
Cutpoint**
=10 ug/m3
0
(0-1)
100.0%
0
(0-1)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
Cutpoint**
=12 ug/m3
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
This analysis used a C-R function from Pope et al. (2002) - ACS extended.
"For the outpoints above 7.5 |jg/m3, the slope of the C-R function has been modified based on a simple hockeystick model (see discussion in section 2.5).
'"Current standards.
Note: Incidences are rounded to the nearest whole number; percents are rounded to the nearest tenth.
Abt Associates Inc.
p. 120
June 2005
-------
Exhibit 8.6. Estimated Annual Cardiopulmonary Mortality Associated with Long-Term Exposure
to PM2.5 When Alternative Standards Are Just Met, Assuming Various Outpoint Levels*
Detroit, Ml, 2003
Alternative Standards
Annual ((jg/m3)
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
Daily ((jg/m3)
65, 98th percentile value***
40, 98th percentile value
35, 98th percentile value
30, 98th percentile value
25, 98th percentile value
65, 99th percentile value
40, 99th percentile value
35, 99th percentile value
30, 99th percentile value
Incidence Associated with PM2.5
(95% Confidence Interval)
Percent Reduction in Incidence from Current Standards
Cut point**
=7.5 ug/m3
379
(134-630)
0.0%
379
(134-630)
0.0%
379
(134-630)
0.0%
316
(112-523)
16.6%
195
(70 - 322)
48.5%
379
(134-630)
0.0%
379
(134-630)
0.0%
368
(131 -612)
2.9%
258
(92 - 427)
31 .9%
Cutpoint**
=10 ug/m3
205
(73 - 343)
0.0%
205
(73 - 343)
0.0%
205
(73 - 343)
0.0%
134
(48 - 224)
34.6%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
205
(73 - 343)
0.0%
205
(73 - 343)
0.0%
193
(68 - 323)
5.9%
70
(25-116)
65.9%
Cutpoint**
=12 ug/m3
30
(1 1 - 50)
0.0%
30
(1 1 - 50)
0.0%
30
(1 1 - 50)
0.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
30
(1 1 - 50)
0.0%
30
(1 1 - 50)
0.0%
17
(6 - 28)
43.3%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
Abt Associates Inc.
p. 121
June 2005
-------
Alternative Standards
Annual ((jg/m3)
15
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
13
13
Daily (ug/m3)
25, 99th percentile value
40, 98th percentile value
35, 98th percentile value
30, 98th percentile value
25, 98th percentile value
40, 99th percentile value
35, 99th percentile value
30, 99th percentile value
25, 99th percentile value
40, 98th percentile value
35, 98th percentile value
Incidence Associated with PM2.5
(95% Confidence Interval)
Percent Reduction in Incidence from Current Standards
Cutpoint**
=7.5 ug/m3
149
(53 - 246)
60.7%
318
(113-526)
16.1%
318
(113-526)
16.1%
316
(112-523)
16.6%
195
(70 - 322)
48.5%
318
(113-526)
16.1%
318
(113-526)
16.1%
258
(92 - 427)
31 .9%
149
(53 - 246)
60.7%
256
(91 - 424)
32.5%
256
(91 - 424)
32.5%
Cutpoint**
=10 ug/m3
0
(0-0)
100.0%
137
(48 - 227)
33.2%
137
(48 - 227)
33.2%
134
(48 - 224)
34.6%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
137
(48 - 227)
33.2%
137
(48 - 227)
33.2%
70
(25-116)
65.9%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
68
(24- 113)
66.8%
68
(24-113)
66.8%
Cutpoint**
=12 ug/m3
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
Abt Associates Inc.
p. 122
June 2005
-------
Alternative Standards
Annual ((jg/m3)
13
13
13
13
13
13
12
12
12
12
12
Daily (ug/m3)
30, 98th percentile value
25, 98th percentile value
40, 99th percentile value
35, 99th percentile value
30, 99th percentile value
25, 99th percentile value
40, 98th percentile value
35, 98th percentile value
30, 98th percentile value
25, 98th percentile value
40, 99th percentile value
Incidence Associated with PM2.5
(95% Confidence Interval)
Percent Reduction in Incidence from Current Standards
Cutpoint**
=7.5 ug/m3
256
(91 - 424)
32.5%
195
(70 - 322)
48.5%
256
(91 - 424)
32.5%
256
(91 - 424)
32.5%
256
(91 - 424)
32.5%
149
(53 - 246)
60.7%
196
(70 - 323)
48.3%
196
(70 - 323)
48.3%
196
(70 - 323)
48.3%
195
(70 - 322)
48.5%
196
(70 - 323)
48.3%
Cutpoint**
=10 ug/m3
68
(24-113)
66.8%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
68
(24-113)
66.8%
68
(24-113)
66.8%
68
(24- 113)
66.8%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-1)
100.0%
0
(0-1)
100.0%
0
(0-1)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-1)
100.0%
Cutpoint**
=12 ug/m3
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
Abt Associates Inc.
p. 123
June 2005
-------
Alternative Standards
Annual ((jg/m3)
12
12
12
Daily (ug/m3)
35, 99th percentile value
30, 99th percentile value
25, 99th percentile value
Incidence Associated with PM2.5
(95% Confidence Interval)
Percent Reduction in Incidence from Current Standards
Cutpoint**
=7.5 ug/m3
196
(70 - 323)
48.3%
196
(70 - 323)
48.3%
149
(53 - 246)
60.7%
Cutpoint**
=10 ug/m3
0
(0-1)
100.0%
0
(0-1)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
Cutpoint**
=12 ug/m3
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
This analysis used a C-R function from Pope et al. (2002) - ACS extended.
"For the outpoints above 7.5 |jg/m3, the slope of the C-R function has been modified based on a simple hockeystick model (see discussion in section 2.5).
'"Current standards.
Note: Incidences are rounded to the nearest whole number; percents are rounded to the nearest tenth.
Abt Associates Inc.
p. 124
June 2005
-------
Exhibit 8.7. Estimated Annual Lung Cancer Mortality Associated with Long-Term Exposure to
PM2.5 When Alternative Standards Are Just Met, Assuming Various Outpoint Levels*
Detroit, Ml, 2003
Alternative Standards
Annual ((jg/m3)
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
Daily ((jg/m3)
65, 98th percentile value***
40, 98th percentile value
35, 98th percentile value
30, 98th percentile value
25, 98th percentile value
65, 99th percentile value
40, 99th percentile value
35, 99th percentile value
30, 99th percentile value
Incidence Associated with PM2.5
(95% Confidence Interval)
Percent Reduction in Incidence from Current Standards
Cut point**
=7.5 ug/m3
77
(24-116)
0.0%
77
(24-116)
0.0%
77
(24-116)
0.0%
64
(20 - 96)
16.9%
39
(13-59)
49.4%
77
(24-116)
0.0%
77
(24-116)
0.0%
75
(24-113)
2.6%
52
(17-79)
32.5%
Cutpoint**
=10 ug/m3
42
(13-64)
0.0%
42
(13-64)
0.0%
42
(13-64)
0.0%
27
(9-41)
35.7%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
42
(13-64)
0.0%
42
(13-64)
0.0%
39
(12-60)
7.1%
14
(5-21)
66.7%
Cutpoint**
=12 ug/m3
6
(2-9)
0.0%
6
(2-9)
0.0%
6
(2-9)
0.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
6
(2-9)
0.0%
6
(2-9)
0.0%
3
(1-5)
50.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
Abt Associates Inc.
p. 125
June 2005
-------
Alternative Standards
Annual ((jg/m3)
15
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
13
13
Daily (ug/m3)
25, 99th percentile value
40, 98th percentile value
35, 98th percentile value
30, 98th percentile value
25, 98th percentile value
40, 99th percentile value
35, 99th percentile value
30, 99th percentile value
25, 99th percentile value
40, 98th percentile value
35, 98th percentile value
Incidence Associated with PM2.5
(95% Confidence Interval)
Percent Reduction in Incidence from Current Standards
Cutpoint**
=7.5 ug/m3
30
(10-45)
61 .0%
64
(20 - 97)
16.9%
64
(20 - 97)
16.9%
64
(20 - 96)
16.9%
39
(13-59)
49.4%
64
(20 - 97)
16.9%
64
(20 - 97)
16.9%
52
(17-79)
32.5%
30
(10-45)
61 .0%
52
(17-78)
32.5%
52
(17-78)
32.5%
Cutpoint**
=10 ug/m3
0
(0-0)
100.0%
28
(9 - 42)
33.3%
28
(9 - 42)
33.3%
27
(9-41)
35.7%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
28
(9 - 42)
33.3%
28
(9 - 42)
33.3%
14
(5-21)
66.7%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
14
(4-21)
66.7%
14
(4-21)
66.7%
Cutpoint**
=12 ug/m3
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
Abt Associates Inc.
p. 126
June 2005
-------
Alternative Standards
Annual ((jg/m3)
13
13
13
13
13
13
12
12
12
12
12
Daily (ug/m3)
30, 98th percentile value
25, 98th percentile value
40, 99th percentile value
35, 99th percentile value
30, 99th percentile value
25, 99th percentile value
40, 98th percentile value
35, 98th percentile value
30, 98th percentile value
25, 98th percentile value
40, 99th percentile value
Incidence Associated with PM2.5
(95% Confidence Interval)
Percent Reduction in Incidence from Current Standards
Cutpoint**
=7.5 ug/m3
52
(17-78)
32.5%
39
(13-59)
49.4%
52
(17-78)
32.5%
52
(17-78)
32.5%
52
(17-78)
32.5%
30
(10-45)
61 .0%
40
(13-59)
48.1%
40
(13-59)
48.1%
40
(13-59)
48.1%
39
(13-59)
49.4%
40
(13-59)
48.1%
Cutpoint**
=10 ug/m3
14
(4-21)
66.7%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
14
(4-21)
66.7%
14
(4-21)
66.7%
14
(4-21)
66.7%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
Cutpoint**
=12 ug/m3
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
Abt Associates Inc.
p. 127
June 2005
-------
Alternative Standards
Annual ((jg/m3)
12
12
12
Daily (ug/m3)
35, 99th percentile value
30, 99th percentile value
25, 99th percentile value
Incidence Associated with PM2.5
(95% Confidence Interval)
Percent Reduction in Incidence from Current Standards
Cutpoint**
=7.5 ug/m3
40
(13-59)
48.1%
40
(13-59)
48.1%
30
(10-45)
61 .0%
Cutpoint**
=10 ug/m3
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
Cutpoint**
=12 ug/m3
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
This analysis used a C-R function from Pope et al. (2002) - ACS extended.
"For the outpoints above 7.5 |jg/m3, the slope of the C-R function has been modified based on a simple hockeystick model (see discussion in section 2.5).
'"Current standards.
Note: Incidences are rounded to the nearest whole number; percents are rounded to the nearest tenth.
Abt Associates Inc.
p. 128
June 2005
-------
8.2 Sensitivity analyses
Several sensitivity analyses were carried out to assess the sensitivity of the results of the
second (just meeting the current and alternative standards) part of the risk assessment to various
assumptions underlying the analyses. In general, we carried out each sensitivity analysis listed
for PM2 5 in each of the assessment locations (see Exhibit 2.6). However, to reduce the number
of exhibits in this section of the report, as in the first part of the risk assessment we selected one
location (Detroit) to include here for illustrative purposes. Exhibits of the results of location-
specific sensitivity analyses that are not presented here are given in Appendix E. To reduce the
quantity of numbers reported, we focused the PM25 sensitivity analyses on total (or non-
accidental) mortality. The sensitivity analyses in this section and the exhibits presenting their
results are summarized in Exhibit 8.8.
Exhibit 8.8 Summary of Sensitivity Analyses Associated with the Second Part of the Risk
Assessment for PM2 5 (Just meeting the Current and Alternative PM2 5 Standards)
Sensitivity Analysis*
Applied to
Exhibit
Effect of alternative rollback method on estimated
annual reductions in mortality associated with just
meeting the current standards
mortality associated with short-
and long-term exposure
Exhibit 8.9
Exhibits E.33
E.36
Effect of using different, location-specific C-R
functions vs. the same C-R function in all urban areas
on estimated mortality associated with just meeting the
current standards
mortality associated with short-
term exposure
Exhibit 8.10
Effect of using design values based on the maximum vs.
the spatial average of monitor-specific averages on
estimates of mortality associated with exposure to PM2 5
concentrations when current standards are just met.
mortality associated with short-
and long-term exposure
Exhibits 8.11-
8.13; Exhibits
E.37-E.40
* Sensitivity analyses presented in this section are for Detroit, MI, unless otherwise stated.
8.2.1 The effect of alternative rollback methods
The plausibility of proportional rollbacks to simulate the pattern by which daily PM2 5
concentrations would change if an urban area just met the current PM25 standards is discussed
briefly in Section 2.4 and in more detail in Appendix B. Although an examination of the
evidence suggests that proportional rollbacks are a reasonable way to simulate the change in
daily PM2 5 concentrations, there are other patterns of changes that are also plausible. We
examined one such pattern, in which the highest PM2 5 concentrations are reduced more than the
Abt Associates Inc.
p. 129
June 2005
-------
rest of the PM2 5 concentrations. In particular, in this sensitivity analysis, we hypothesized that
the top 10 percent of the distribution of PM25 concentrations is reduced by 1.6 times as much as
the lower 90 percent of concentrations. We examined the effects of this hypothesis on incidence
reductions that would result from meeting the annual standard because it was the controlling
standard in all five study areas that do not meet the current PM2 5 standards based on 2001 - 2003
air quality data.
To meet the annual standard, the annual average must not exceed the annual standard of
15 ng/m3. If
• pa denotes the percent rollback necessary to just meet the annual standard if all
days are rolled back the same proportion,
aa denotes the annual average
• b denotes background level,
• a09 denotes the average of the lower 90 percent of concentrations,
aol denotes the average of the upper 10 percent of concentrations,
and x denotes the percent rollback that would be applied to the lower 90 percent
of the distribution of concentrations, if 1.6x is the percent rollback applied to the
upper 10 percent of the concentrations, so that the resulting rolled back annual
average just attains the annual standard, then
x=pa*(aa-V)l (0.9 * (a09 - b) + 0.1 * 1.6 * (a0, - ft)) .
The results of this sensitivity analysis are shown for Detroit in Exhibit 8.9. The results for
the other assessment locations that do not meet the current standards are shown in Appendix E.
The results are based on the controlling standard, which, in all cases, is the annual standard of 15
l-ig/m3. In general, this alternative hypothetical adjustment procedure, which reduces the highest
days more than the rest of the distribution, shows only a small difference (less than 1%) in the
percent change in PM-associated incidence. In Detroit, for example, there is no difference in the
estimated percent change in mortality associated with short-term exposure to PM2 5 between the
two alternative air quality adjustment scenarios used to adjust "as is" levels to just meet the
current PM2 5 standards (see Exhibit 8.9). For mortality associated with long-term exposure to
PM2 5, the estimated reduction in PM-associated incidence in Detroit corresponding to reducing
"as is" levels to just meet current PM25 standards, using Pope et al. (2002) - ACS extended, was
42.4% for the proportional rollback scenario vs. 42.5% for the rollback involving greater
reductions of the top 10% of the PM25 daily concentrations (see Exhibit 8.9).
Abt Associates Inc. p. 130 June 2005
-------
Exhibit 8.9. Sensitivity Analysis: Estimated Annual Reductions of Short-Term and Long-Term Exposure Mortality
Associated with Rolling Back PM25 Concentrations to Just Meet the Current Annual Standard of 15 ug/m3 and the
Current Daily Standard of 65 ug/m3 Using an Alternative Rollback Method
Detroit, Ml, 2003
Health
Effects
Short-
Term
Exposure
Mortality
Long-
Term
Exposure
Mortality
Study
Type
Ages
Lag
Other
Pollutants
in Model
Annual and Daily
Standards
Percent Change in PM-Associated Incidence*
All PM
concentrations
rolled back
equally
Percent rollback of upper 10%
of AQ distribution = 1.6 x
percent rollback of lower 90%
of AQ distribution
Portion of
Proportional
Rollback Incidence
Reduction Achieved
by Alternative
Rollback Method
Single Pollutant Models (Total Mortality)
Ito (2003) [reanalysis
of Lippmann et al.
(2000)1
Non-accidental
all
3 day
15 ug/m3 annua
65 ug/m3 daily
28.3%
0.0%
28.3%
0.0%
100.0%
Single Pollutant Models
Krewskietal. (2000)-
ACS
Pope etal. (2002)-
ACS extended
All cause
All cause
30+
30+
15 ug/m3 annua
65 ug/m3 daily
15 ug/m3 annua
65 ug/m3 daily
42.2%
0.0%
42.4%
0.0%
42.4%
0.0%
42.5%
0.0%
100.5%
100.2%
Multi-Pollutant Models
Krewskietal. (2000)-
ACS
Krewskietal. (2000)-
ACS
Krewskietal. (2000)-
ACS
Krewskietal. (2000)-
ACS
All cause
All cause
All cause
All cause
30+
30+
30+
30+
CO
NO2
O3
SO2
15 ug/m3 annua
65 ug/m3 daily
15 ug/m3 annua
65 ug/m3 daily
15 ug/m3 annua
65 ug/m3 daily
15 ug/m3 annua
65 ug/m3 daily
42.5%
0.0%
42.6%
0.0%
42.5%
0.0%
41.9%
0.0%
42.6%
0.0%
42.7%
0.0%
42.6%
0.0%
42.0%
0.0%
100.2%
100.2%
100.2%
100.2%
*For the short-term exposure studies, health effects incidence was quantified down to estimated policy relevant background level of 3.5 ug/m3. For the long-term exposure studies, health effects
incidence was quantified down to 7.5 ug/m3, which was the lowest of the lowest measured levels in the long-term exposure studies. Percents are rounded to the nearest tenth.
Note: Only those C-R functions for which rollbacks are predicted to result in a positive number of cases avoided are included.
Abt Associates Inc.
131
June 2005
-------
8.2.2 The effect of using different, location-specific C-R functions vs. a single C-R
function in all locations
Differences in results across locations may be due to a number of factors, including
differences in air quality, baseline incidence rates, population, and C-R functions. The extent to
which differences in results are due to the last factor can be assessed by comparing results across
urban areas when different, location-specific C-R functions are used versus using a single C-R
function everywhere. Exhibit 8.10 shows this comparison for mortality associated with short-
term exposure to PM2 5, using a multi-city C-R function estimated in Schwartz (2003).
As would be expected, given the generally larger PM2 5 coefficient estimated in Schwartz
(2003), the estimated incidence and deaths per 100,000 general population are somewhat larger
in four of the five locations when the multi-city C-R function estimated in Schwartz (2003) is
used. The range of risk estimates across the five locations also narrows considerably when the
same C-R function is used in all five locations. For example, deaths per 100,000 general
population range from 3 to 24 when the separate single-city C-R functions are used, whereas the
range is from 8 to 14 when a single multi-city C-R function is used everywhere. While there are
a number of reasons why risk estimates in the different cities would be expected to differ, some
of the observed differences are probably a result of differences in study design and model
specifications. This sensitivity analysis suggests that the actual differences in risks across
different locations may be somewhat less than might be suggested by a comparison of the results
based on the location-specific C-R functions.
Abt Associates Inc. p. 132 June 2005
-------
Exhibit 8.10. Estimated Annual Mortality Associated with Short-Term Exposure to PM2.5 When the Current Annual
Standard of 15 ug/m3 and the Current Daily Standard of 65 ug/m3 Are Just Met, Assuming Various Cutpoint Levels*
Urban Area
Detroit
Los Angeles
Philadelphia
Pittsburgh
St. Louis
Study
Ito (2003) [reanalysis of
Lippmann et al. (2000)]
Schwartz (2003b) [reanalysis
of Schwartz et al. (1996)]
Moolgavkar (2003)
[reanalysis of Moolgavkar
(2000a)]
Schwartz (2003b) [reanalysis
of Schwartz et al. (1996)]
Lipfert et al. (2000) -- 7
counties
Schwartz (2003b) [reanalysis
of Schwartz et al. (1996)]
Chock et al. (2000)
Schwartz (2003b) [reanalysis
of Schwartz et al. (1996)]
Schwartz (2003b) [reanalysis
of Schwartz et al. (1996)]
Schwartz (2003b) [reanalysis
of Schwartz et al. (1996)]
Type
Non-accidental
Non-accidental
Non-accidental
Non-accidental
Cardiovascular
Non-accidental
Non-accidental
Non-accidental
Non-accidental
Non-accidental
Ages
all
all
all
all
all
all
75+
all
all
all
Lag
3 day
mean of lag
0 & 1 day
Oday
mean of lag
0 & 1 day
1 day
mean of lag
0 & 1 day
Oday
mean of lag
0 & 1 day
mean of lag
0 & 1 day
mean of lag
0 & 1 day
Incidence Associated with PM2.5 Assuming Various Cutpoint Levels
(95% Confidence Interval)
Incidence per 100,000 General Population
(95% Confidence Interval)
Percent of Total Incidence
(95% Confidence Interval)
Policy Relevant
Background**
=2.5or3.5ug/m3
122
(-123-358)
6
(-6-17)
0.7%
(-0.7%- 1.9%)
224
(160-286)
11
(8-14)
1.2%
(0.9% -1.5%)
292
(-37-612)
3
(0-6)
0.5%
(-0.1%- 1.1%)
731
(526 - 935)
8
(6-10)
1.3%
(1.0% -1.7%)
367
(175-560)
24
(12-37)
5.8%
(2. 8% -8.8%)
213
(153-273)
14
(10-18)
1.3%
(0.9% -1.7%)
50
(-108-200)
4
(-8-16)
0.5%
(-1.1% -2.1%)
174
(125-223)
14
(10-17)
1.2%
(0.8% -1.5%)
191
(70-311)
8
(3-12)
0.9%
(0.3% -1.4%)
256
(183-328)
10
(7-13)
1.2%
(0.8% -1.5%)
Cutpoint***
=10ug/m3
54
(-55-159)
3
(-3 - 8)
0.3%
(-0.3% - 0.8%)
87
(62-111)
4
(3-5)
0.5%
(0.3% -0.6%)
115
(-14-240)
1
(0-3)
0.2%
(0.0% -0.4%)
270
(194-344)
3
(2-4)
0.5%
(0.4% -0.6%)
189
(90 - 288)
12
(6-19)
3.0%
(1.4% -4.5%)
103
(74-132)
7
(5-9)
0.6%
(0.5% -0.8%)
22
(-48 - 87)
2
(-4 - 7)
0.2%
(-0.5% - 0.9%)
68
(49 - 87)
5
(4-7)
0.5%
(0.3% -0.6%)
75
(28- 122)
3
(1-5)
0.3%
(0.1% -0.6%)
97
(69 - 1 24)
4
(3-5)
0.4%
(0.3% -0.6%)
Cutpoint***
=15ug/m3
26
(-27 - 77)
1
(-1 - 4)
0.1%
(-0.1% -0.4%)
34
(25 - 44)
2
(1-2)
0.2%
(0.1% -0.2%)
58
(-7-121)
1
(0-1)
0.1%
(0.0% - 0.2%)
123
(89- 157)
1
(1-2)
0.2%
(0.2% - 0.3%)
106
(51 - 162)
7
(3-11)
1.7%
(0.8% -2. 6%)
50
(36 - 65)
3
(2-4)
0.3%
(0.2% - 0.4%)
10
(-23-41)
1
(-2 - 3)
0. 1 %
(-0.2% - 0.4%)
27
(19-34)
2
(1-3)
0.2%
(0.1% -0.2%)
29
(11 -46)
1
(0-2)
0. 1 %
(0.1% -0.2%)
36
(25 - 46)
1
(1-2)
0.2%
(0.1% -0.2%)
Cutpoint***
=20 ug/m3
12
(-12-35)
1
(-1 - 2)
0. 1 %
(-0.1% -0.2%)
15
(11-19)
1
(1-1)
0. 1 %
(0.1% -0.1%)
29
(-4-61)
0
(0-1)
0. 1 %
(0.0% -0.1%)
55
(40 - 70)
1
(0-1)
0. 1 %
(0.1% -0.1%)
57
(27 - 87)
4
(2-6)
0.9%
(0.4% - 1 .4%)
24
(17-31)
2
(1-2)
0.2%
(0.1% -0.2%)
5
(-11-18)
0
(-1 - 1)
0. 1 %
(-0.1% -0.2%)
11
(8-14)
1
(1-1)
0. 1 %
(0.1% -0.1%)
9
(3-14)
0
(0-1)
0.0%
(0.0% -0.1%)
10
(7-13)
0
(0-1)
0. 1 %
(0.0% -0.1%)
*AII results are for single pollutant models.
"Policy relevant background is 2.5 |jg/m3 in the West (Los Angeles) and 3.5 |jg/m3 in the East (Detroit, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, and St. Louis).
***For the cutpoints above policy relevant background, the slope of the C-R function has been modified based on a simple hockeystick model (see discussion in
section 2.5).
Abt Associates Inc.
p. 133
-------
8.2.3 Comparison of risk estimates based on annual standard design values
calculated from maximum versus average of monitor-specific averages
The percent rollback necessary to just meet the annual standards depends on whether the
maximum or the spatial average of the monitor-specific annual averages is used. Exhibit 8.11
shows the percent rollbacks that would be required to just meet the current annual standard using
four of the assessment locations which do not currently meet the annual standard and which meet
the minimum criteria for use of spatial averaging.29 The three-year period from 2001-2003 was
used to determine the amount of rollback required to meet the current annual standard.
Exhibit 8.11 Air Quality Adjustments Required to Just Meet the Current Annual PM25
Standard of 15 ng/m3 Using the Maximum vs. the Average of Monitor-Specific Averages
Assessment Location
Detroit
Philadelphia
Pittsburgh
St. Louis
Percent Rollback Necessary to Just Meet the Annual PM2 5
Standard
Using Maximum of Monitor-
Specific Annual Averages
28.1%
10.9%
35.0%
17.9%
Using Average of Monitor-
Specific Annual Averages*
11.5%
-0.9%
22.8%
13.5%
*The design values based on the maximum of monitor-specific annual averages are given in Exhibit 2.4. The design
values based on the spatial average of the monitor-specific annual averages are 16.5 for Detroit, 14.9 for
Philadelphia, 18.4 for Pittsburgh, and 16.8 for St. Louis.
The results shown in Exhibits 8.4 - 8.7 and E. 1 - E.32 are based on percent rollbacks
calculated from annual and daily standard design values that used the maximum of monitor-
specific values. If the design values had been based on the average, rather than the maximum, of
monitor-specific values, the estimated mortality would have been, in many cases, greater than
the estimates shown in those exhibits.
Exhibits 8.12 and 8.13 show the effect of using an annual standard design value based on
the maximum versus the average of monitor-specific averages (while keeping the design values
for the daily standards as they were, based on the maximum of monitor-specific values). Exhibit
8.12 shows estimated mortality associated with short-term exposures to PM25 in Detroit; Exhibit
8.13 shows estimated mortality associated with long-term exposures. Both exhibits present the
29 ,
The Los Angeles area does not meet the minimum EPA criteria for considering the use of spatial
averaging and, thus is not included in Exhibit 8.11.
Abt Associates Inc.
p. 134
June 2005
-------
Exhibit 8.12. Sensitivity Analysis: Estimated Annual Mortality Associated with Short-Term Exposure to P(V2.5
When Alternative Standards Are Just Met, Assuming Various Outpoint Levels - Rollbacks
to Meet Annual Standards Using Design Values Based on Maximum vs. Average of Monitor-Specific Averages*
Detroit, Ml, 2003
Alternative Standards
Annual (ug/m3)
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
14
14
Daily (ug/m3)
65, 98th percentile value***
40, 98th percentile value
35, 98th percentile value
30, 98th percentile value
25, 98th percentile value
65, 99th percentile value
40, 99th percentile value
35, 99th percentile value
30, 99th percentile value
25, 99th percentile value
40, 98th percentile value
35, 98th percentile value
Incidence Associated with PM2.5 Using an Annual Design Value Based on the
Maximum of Monitor-Specific Averages**
(95% Confidence Interval)
Percent Reduction in Incidence from Current Standards
Policy Relevant
Background
=3.5 ug/m3
122
(-123-358)
0.0%
122
(-123-358)
0.0%
122
(-123-358)
0.0%
111
(-112-325)
9.0%
90
(-91 - 263)
26.2%
122
(-123-358)
0.0%
122
(-123-358)
0.0%
120
(-121 -352)
1 .6%
101
(-102-296)
17.2%
82
(-83 - 239)
32.8%
111
(-112-326)
9.0%
111
(-112-326)
9.0%
Cutpoint**
=10ug/m3
54
(-55-159)
0.0%
54
(-55-159)
0.0%
54
(-55-159)
0.0%
45
(-45-131)
16.7%
28
(-29 - 82)
48.1%
54
(-55-159)
0.0%
54
(-55-159)
0.0%
53
(-53-154)
1 .9%
37
(-37-107)
31 .5%
22
(-23 - 65)
59.3%
45
(-46-132)
16.7%
45
(-46-132)
16.7%
Cutpoint**
=15 ug/m3
26
(-27 - 77)
0.0%
26
(-27 - 77)
0.0%
26
(-27 - 77)
0.0%
20
(-20 - 58)
23.1%
10
(-10-28)
61.5%
26
(-27 - 77)
0.0%
26
(-27 - 77)
0.0%
25
(-26 - 74)
3.8%
15
(-15-42)
42.3%
7
(-7-19)
73.1%
20
(-20 - 58)
23.1%
20
(-20 - 58)
23.1%
Cutpoint**
=20 ug/m3
12
(-12-35)
0.0%
12
(-12-35)
0.0%
12
(-12-35)
0.0%
8
(-9 - 24)
33.3%
3
(-4-10)
75.0%
12
(-12-35)
0.0%
12
(-12-35)
0.0%
11
(-12-33)
8.3%
6
(-6-16)
50.0%
2
(-2 - 6)
83.3%
8
(-9 - 24)
33.3%
8
(-9 - 24)
33.3%
Incidence Associated with PM2.5 Using an Annual Design Value Based on the
Average of Monitor-Specific Averages**
(95% Confidence Interval)
Percent Reduction in Incidence from Current Standards
Policy Relevant
Background
=3.5 ug/m3
150
(-151 -442)
0.0%
150
(-151 -442)
0.0%
132
(-133-388)
12.0%
111
(-112-325)
26.0%
90
(-91 - 263)
40.0%
150
(-151 -442)
0.0%
139
(-140-409)
7.3%
120
(-121 -352)
20.0%
101
(-102-296)
32.7%
82
(-83 - 239)
45.3%
137
(-138-403)
8.7%
132
(-133-388)
12.0%
Cutpoint**
=10ug/m3
80
(-81 - 236)
0.0%
80
(-81 - 236)
0.0%
63
(-64-186)
21.3%
45
(-45-131)
43.8%
28
(-29 - 82)
65.0%
80
(-81 - 236)
0.0%
70
(-70 - 206)
12.5%
53
(-53-154)
33.8%
37
(-37-107)
53.8%
22
(-23 - 65)
72.5%
68
(-68 - 200)
15.0%
63
(-64-186)
21.3%
Cutpoint**
=15 ug/m3
46
(-47-137)
0.0%
46
(-47-137)
0.0%
33
(-33 - 97)
28.3%
20
(-20 - 58)
56.5%
10
(-10-28)
78.3%
46
(-47-137)
0.0%
38
(-39-112)
1 7.4%
25
(-26 - 74)
45.7%
15
(-15-42)
67.4%
7
(-7-19)
84.8%
37
(-37-108)
19.6%
33
(-33 - 97)
28.3%
Cutpoint**
=20 ug/m3
25
(-26 - 75)
0.0%
25
(-26 - 75)
0.0%
16
(-17-47)
36.0%
8
(-9 - 24)
68.0%
3
(-4-10)
88.0%
25
(-26 - 75)
0.0%
20
(-20 - 58)
20.0%
11
(-12-33)
56.0%
6
(-6-16)
76.0%
2
(-2 - 6)
92.0%
19
(-19-55)
24.0%
16
(-17-47)
36.0%
Abt Associates Inc.
p. 135
June 2005
-------
Alternative Standards
Annual (ug/m3)
14
14
14
14
14
14
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
Daily (ug/m3)
30, 98th percentile value
25, 98th percentile value
40, 99th percentile value
35, 99th percentile value
30, 99th percentile value
25, 99th percentile value
40, 98th percentile value
35, 98th percentile value
30, 98th percentile value
25, 98th percentile value
40, 99th percentile value
35, 99th percentile value
30, 99th percentile value
25, 99th percentile value
Incidence Associated with PM2.5 Using an Annual Design Value Based on the
Maximum of Monitor-Specific Averages**
(95% Confidence Interval)
Percent Reduction in Incidence from Current Standards
Policy Relevant
Background
=3.5 ug/m3
111
(-112-325)
9.0%
90
(-91 - 263)
26.2%
111
(-112-326)
9.0%
111
(-112-326)
9.0%
101
(-102-296)
17.2%
82
(-83 - 239)
32.8%
101
(-101 -295)
17.2%
101
(-101 -295)
17.2%
101
(-101 -295)
17.2%
90
(-91 - 263)
26.2%
101
(-101 -295)
17.2%
101
(-101 -295)
17.2%
101
(-101 -295)
17.2%
82
(-83 - 239)
32.8%
Cutpoint**
=10ug/m3
45
(-45-131)
16.7%
28
(-29 - 82)
48.1%
45
(-46-132)
16.7%
45
(-46-132)
16.7%
37
(-37-107)
31 .5%
22
(-23 - 65)
59.3%
36
(-37-106)
33.3%
36
(-37-106)
33.3%
36
(-37-106)
33.3%
28
(-29 - 82)
48.1%
36
(-37-106)
33.3%
36
(-37-106)
33.3%
36
(-37-106)
33.3%
22
(-23-65)
59.3%
Cutpoint**
=15 ug/m3
20
(-20 - 58)
23.1%
10
(-10-28)
61.5%
20
(-20 - 58)
23.1%
20
(-20 - 58)
23.1%
15
(-15-42)
42.3%
7
(-7-19)
73.1%
14
(-15-42)
46.2%
14
(-15-42)
46.2%
14
(-15-42)
46.2%
10
(-10-28)
61 .5%
14
(-15-42)
46.2%
14
(-15-42)
46.2%
14
(-15-42)
46.2%
7
(-7-19)
73.1%
Cutpoint**
=20 ug/m3
8
(-9 - 24)
33.3%
3
(-4-10)
75.0%
8
(-9 - 24)
33.3%
8
(-9 - 24)
33.3%
6
(-6-16)
50.0%
2
(-2 - 6)
83.3%
6
(-6-16)
50.0%
6
(-6-16)
50.0%
6
(-6-16)
50.0%
3
(-4-10)
75.0%
6
(-6-16)
50.0%
6
(-6-16)
50.0%
6
(-6-16)
50.0%
2
(-2 - 6)
83.3%
Incidence Associated with PM2.5 Using an Annual Design Value Based on the
Average of Monitor-Specific Averages**
(95% Confidence Interval)
Percent Reduction in Incidence from Current Standards
Policy Relevant
Background
=3.5 ug/m3
111
(-112-325)
26.0%
90
(-91 - 263)
40.0%
137
(-138-403)
8.7%
120
(-121 -352)
20.0%
101
(-102-296)
32.7%
82
(-83 - 239)
45.3%
124
(-125-364)
1 7.3%
124
(-125-364)
1 7.3%
111
(-112-325)
26.0%
90
(-91 - 263)
40.0%
124
(-125-364)
1 7.3%
120
(-121 -352)
20.0%
101
(-102-296)
32.7%
82
(-83 - 239)
45.3%
Cutpoint**
=10ug/m3
45
(-45-131)
43.8%
28
(-29 - 82)
65.0%
68
(-68 - 200)
15.0%
53
(-53-154)
33.8%
37
(-37-107)
53.8%
22
(-23 - 65)
72.5%
56
(-57-165)
30.0%
56
(-57-165)
30.0%
45
(-45-131)
43.8%
28
(-29 - 82)
65.0%
56
(-57-165)
30.0%
53
(-53-154)
33.8%
37
(-37-107)
53.8%
22
(-23-65)
72.5%
Cutpoint**
=15 ug/m3
20
(-20 - 58)
56.5%
10
(-10-28)
78.3%
37
(-37-108)
19.6%
25
(-26 - 74)
45.7%
15
(-15-42)
67.4%
7
(-7-19)
84.8%
28
(-28 - 81)
39.1%
28
(-28 - 81)
39.1%
20
(-20 - 58)
56.5%
10
(-10-28)
78.3%
28
(-28 - 81)
39.1%
25
(-26 - 74)
45.7%
15
(-15-42)
67.4%
7
(-7-19)
84.8%
Cutpoint**
=20 ug/m3
8
(-9 - 24)
68.0%
3
(-4-10)
88.0%
19
(-19-55)
24.0%
11
(-12-33)
56.0%
6
(-6-16)
76.0%
2
(-2 - 6)
92.0%
13
(-13-38)
48.0%
13
(-13-38)
48.0%
8
(-9 - 24)
68.0%
3
(-4-10)
88.0%
13
(-13-38)
48.0%
11
(-12-33)
56.0%
6
(-6-16)
76.0%
2
(-2 - 6)
92.0%
Abt Associates Inc.
p. 136
June 2005
-------
Alternative Standards
Annual (ug/m3)
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
Daily (ug/m3)
40, 98th percentile value
35, 98th percentile value
30, 98th percentile value
25, 98th percentile value
40, 99th percentile value
35, 99th percentile value
30, 99th percentile value
25, 99th percentile value
Incidence Associated with PM2.5 Using an Annual Design Value Based on the
Maximum of Monitor-Specific Averages**
(95% Confidence Interval)
Percent Reduction in Incidence from Current Standards
Policy Relevant
Background
=3.5 ug/m3
90
(-91 - 264)
26.2%
90
(-91 - 264)
26.2%
90
(-91 - 264)
26.2%
90
(-91 - 263)
26.2%
90
(-91 - 264)
26.2%
90
(-91 - 264)
26.2%
90
(-91 - 264)
26.2%
82
(-83 - 239)
32.8%
Cutpoint**
=10ug/m3
28
(-29 - 82)
48.1%
28
(-29 - 82)
48.1%
28
(-29 - 82)
48.1%
28
(-29 - 82)
48.1%
28
(-29 - 82)
48.1%
28
(-29 - 82)
48.1%
28
(-29 - 82)
48.1%
22
(-23 - 65)
59.3%
Cutpoint**
=15 ug/m3
10
(-10-28)
61.5%
10
(-10-28)
61 .5%
10
(-10-28)
61 .5%
10
(-10-28)
61 .5%
10
(-10-28)
61 .5%
10
(-10-28)
61 .5%
10
(-10-28)
61 .5%
7
(-7-19)
73.1%
Cutpoint**
=20 ug/m3
3
(-4-10)
75.0%
3
(-4-10)
75.0%
3
(-4-10)
75.0%
3
(-4-10)
75.0%
3
(-4-10)
75.0%
3
(-4-10)
75.0%
3
(-4-10)
75.0%
2
(-2 - 6)
83.3%
Incidence Associated with PM2.5 Using an Annual Design Value Based on the
Average of Monitor-Specific Averages**
(95% Confidence Interval)
Percent Reduction in Incidence from Current Standards
Policy Relevant
Background
=3.5 ug/m3
111
(-112-325)
26.0%
111
(-112-325)
26.0%
111
(-112-325)
26.0%
90
(-91 - 263)
40.0%
111
(-112-325)
26.0%
111
(-112-325)
26.0%
101
(-102-296)
32.7%
82
(-83 - 239)
45.3%
Cutpoint**
=10ug/m3
45
(-45-131)
43.8%
45
(-45-131)
43.8%
45
(-45-131)
43.8%
28
(-29 - 82)
65.0%
45
(-45-131)
43.8%
45
(-45-131)
43.8%
37
(-37-107)
53.8%
22
(-23 - 65)
72.5%
Cutpoint**
=15 ug/m3
20
(-20 - 58)
56.5%
20
(-20 - 58)
56.5%
20
(-20 - 58)
56.5%
10
(-10-28)
78.3%
20
(-20 - 58)
56.5%
20
(-20 - 58)
56.5%
15
(-15-42)
67.4%
7
(-7-19)
84.8%
Cutpoint**
=20 ug/m3
8
(-9 - 24)
68.0%
8
(-9 - 24)
68.0%
8
(-9 - 24)
68.0%
3
(-4-10)
88.0%
8
(-9 - 24)
68.0%
8
(-9 - 24)
68.0%
6
(-6-16)
76.0%
2
(-2 - 6)
92.0%
"This analysis used a C-R function from Ito (2003).
**For the outpoints above policy relevant background, the slope of the C-R function has been modified based on a simple hockeystick model (see discussion in section 2.5).
***Current standards.
Note: Incidences are rounded to the nearest whole number; percents are rounded to the nearest tenth.
Abt Associates Inc.
p. 137
June 2005
-------
Exhibit 8.13. Sensitivity Analysis: Estimated Annual Mortality Associated with Long-Term Exposure to
When Alternative Standards Are Just Met, Assuming Various Outpoint Levels - Rollbacks
to Meet Annual Standards Using Design Values Based on Maximum vs. Average of Monitor-Specific Averages*
Detroit, Ml, 2003
Alternative Standards
Annual (ug/m3)
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
Daily (ug/m3)
65, 98th percentile value***
40, 98th percentile value
35, 98th percentile value
30, 98th percentile value
25, 98th percentile value
65, 99th percentile value
40, 99th percentile value
35, 99th percentile value
30, 99th percentile value
Incidence Associated with PM2.5 Using an Annual Design Value
Based on the Maximum of Monitor-Specific Averages**
(95% Confidence Interval)
Percent Reduction in Incidence from Current Standards
Cutpoint**
=7.5 ug/m3
522
(181 -910)
0.0%
522
(181 -910)
0.0%
522
(181 -910)
0.0%
435
(151 -757)
16.7%
270
(94 - 468)
48.3%
522
(181 -910)
0.0%
522
(181 -910)
0.0%
507
(1 76 - 884)
2.9%
356
(124-619)
31 .8%
Cutpoint**
=10ug/m3
282
(98 - 494)
0.0%
282
(98 - 494)
0.0%
282
(98 - 494)
0.0%
185
(64 - 323)
34.4%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
282
(98 - 494)
0.0%
282
(98 - 494)
0.0%
266
(92 - 465)
5.7%
97
(34 - 1 68)
65.6%
Cutpoint**
=12ug/m3
41
(14-72)
0.0%
41
(14-72)
0.0%
41
(14-72)
0.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
41
(14-72)
0.0%
41
(14-72)
0.0%
23
(8 - 40)
43.9%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
Incidence Associated with PM2.5 Using an Annual Design Value
Based on the Average of Monitor-Specific Averages**
(95% Confidence Interval)
Percent Reduction in Incidence from Current Standards
Cutpoint**
=7.5 ug/m3
747
(259 - 1 309)
0.0%
747
(259 - 1 309)
0.0%
602
(209 - 1 051 )
19.4%
435
(151 -757)
41 .8%
270
(94 - 468)
63.9%
747
(259 - 1 309)
0.0%
659
(229-1153)
1 1 .8%
507
(176-884)
32.1%
356
(124-619)
52.3%
Cutpoint**
=10ug/m3
535
(185-941)
0.0%
535
(185-941)
0.0%
372
(129-652)
30.5%
185
(64 - 323)
65.4%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
535
(185-941)
0.0%
437
(151 -766)
18.3%
266
(92 - 465)
50.3%
97
(34 - 1 68)
81 .9%
Cutpoint**
=12ug/m3
322
(1 1 1 - 568)
0.0%
322
(1 1 1 - 568)
0.0%
140
(48 - 247)
56.5%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
322
(1 1 1 - 568)
0.0%
212
(73 - 374)
34.2%
23
(8 - 40)
92.9%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
Abt Associates Inc.
138
June 2005
-------
Alternative Standards
Annual (ug/m3)
15
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
13
13
Daily (ug/m3)
25, 99th percentile value
40, 98th percentile value
35, 98th percentile value
30, 98th percentile value
25, 98th percentile value
40, 99th percentile value
35, 99th percentile value
30, 99th percentile value
25, 99th percentile value
40, 98th percentile value
35, 98th percentile value
Incidence Associated with PM2.5 Using an Annual Design Value
Based on the Maximum of Monitor-Specific Averages**
(95% Confidence Interval)
Percent Reduction in Incidence from Current Standards
Cutpoint**
=7.5 ug/m3
207
(72 - 358)
60.3%
438
(1 52 - 762)
16.1%
438
(1 52 - 762)
16.1%
435
(151 -757)
16.7%
270
(94 - 468)
48.3%
438
(1 52 - 762)
16.1%
438
(1 52 - 762)
16.1%
356
(124-619)
31 .8%
207
(72 - 358)
60.3%
354
(123-615)
32.2%
354
(123-615)
32.2%
Cutpoint**
=10 ug/m3
0
(0-0)
100.0%
188
(65 - 328)
33.3%
188
(65 - 328)
33.3%
185
(64 - 323)
34.4%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
188
(65 - 328)
33.3%
188
(65 - 328)
33.3%
97
(34 - 1 68)
65.6%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
94
(33 - 1 64)
66.7%
94
(33 - 1 64)
66.7%
Cutpoint**
=12 ug/m3
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
Incidence Associated with PM2.5 Using an Annual Design Value
Based on the Average of Monitor-Specific Averages**
(95% Confidence Interval)
Percent Reduction in Incidence from Current Standards
Cutpoint**
=7.5 ug/m3
207
(72 - 358)
72.3%
642
(223-1123)
14.1%
602
(209 - 1 051 )
19.4%
435
(151 -757)
41 .8%
270
(94 - 468)
63.9%
642
(223-1123)
14.1%
507
(176-884)
32.1%
356
(124-619)
52.3%
207
(72 - 358)
72.3%
538
(187-939)
28.0%
538
(187-939)
28.0%
Cutpoint**
=10 ug/m3
0
(0-0)
100.0%
418
(144-733)
21 .9%
372
(129-652)
30.5%
185
(64 - 323)
65.4%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
418
(144-733)
21 .9%
266
(92 - 465)
50.3%
97
(34 - 1 68)
81 .9%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
301
(104-526)
43.7%
301
(104-526)
43.7%
Cutpoint**
=12 ug/m3
0
(0-0)
100.0%
191
(66 - 336)
40.7%
140
(48 - 247)
56.5%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
191
(66 - 336)
40.7%
23
(8 - 40)
92.9%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
61
(21 -107)
81.1%
61
(21 -107)
81.1%
Abt Associates Inc.
139
June 2005
-------
Alternative Standards
Annual (ug/m3)
13
13
13
13
13
13
12
12
12
12
12
Daily (ug/m3)
30, 98th percentile value
25, 98th percentile value
40, 99th percentile value
35, 99th percentile value
30, 99th percentile value
25, 99th percentile value
40, 98th percentile value
35, 98th percentile value
30, 98th percentile value
25, 98th percentile value
40, 99th percentile value
Incidence Associated with PM2.5 Using an Annual Design Value
Based on the Maximum of Monitor-Specific Averages**
(95% Confidence Interval)
Percent Reduction in Incidence from Current Standards
Cutpoint**
=7.5 ug/m3
354
(123-615)
32.2%
270
(94 - 468)
48.3%
354
(123-615)
32.2%
354
(123-615)
32.2%
354
(123-615)
32.2%
207
(72 - 358)
60.3%
271
(94 - 469)
48.1%
271
(94 - 469)
48.1%
271
(94 - 469)
48.1%
270
(94 - 468)
48.3%
271
(94 - 469)
48.1%
Cutpoint**
=10 ug/m3
94
(33 - 1 64)
66.7%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
94
(33 - 1 64)
66.7%
94
(33 - 1 64)
66.7%
94
(33 - 1 64)
66.7%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-1)
100.0%
0
(0-1)
100.0%
0
(0-1)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-1)
100.0%
Cutpoint**
=12 ug/m3
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
Incidence Associated with PM2.5 Using an Annual Design Value
Based on the Average of Monitor-Specific Averages**
(95% Confidence Interval)
Percent Reduction in Incidence from Current Standards
Cutpoint**
=7.5 ug/m3
435
(151 -757)
41 .8%
270
(94 - 468)
63.9%
538
(187-939)
28.0%
507
(176-884)
32.1%
356
(124-619)
52.3%
207
(72 - 358)
72.3%
435
(151 -756)
41 .8%
435
(151 -756)
41 .8%
435
(151 -756)
41 .8%
270
(94 - 468)
63.9%
435
(151 -756)
41 .8%
Cutpoint**
=10 ug/m3
185
(64 - 323)
65.4%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
301
(104-526)
43.7%
266
(92 - 465)
50.3%
97
(34 - 1 68)
81 .9%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
184
(64 - 322)
65.6%
184
(64 - 322)
65.6%
184
(64 - 322)
65.6%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
184
(64 - 322)
65.6%
Cutpoint**
=12 ug/m3
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
61
(21 -107)
81.1%
23
(8 - 40)
92.9%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
Abt Associates Inc.
140
June 2005
-------
Alternative Standards
Annual (ug/m3)
12
12
12
Daily (ug/m3)
35, 99th percentile value
30, 99th percentile value
25, 99th percentile value
Incidence Associated with PM2.5 Using an Annual Design Value
Based on the Maximum of Monitor-Specific Averages**
(95% Confidence Interval)
Percent Reduction in Incidence from Current Standards
Cutpoint**
=7.5 ug/m3
271
(94 - 469)
48.1%
271
(94 - 469)
48.1%
207
(72 - 358)
60.3%
Cutpoint**
=10 ug/m3
0
(0-1)
100.0%
0
(0-1)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
Cutpoint**
=12 ug/m3
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
Incidence Associated with PM2.5 Using an Annual Design Value
Based on the Average of Monitor-Specific Averages**
(95% Confidence Interval)
Percent Reduction in Incidence from Current Standards
Cutpoint**
=7.5 ug/m3
435
(151 -756)
41 .8%
356
(124-619)
52.3%
207
(72 - 358)
72.3%
Cutpoint**
=10 ug/m3
184
(64 - 322)
65.6%
97
(34 - 1 68)
81 .9%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
Cutpoint**
=12 ug/m3
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
This analysis used a C-R function from Pope et al. (2002) -- ACS extended.
"For the outpoints above 7.5 ug/m3, the slope of the C-R function has been modified based on a simple hockeystick model (see discussion in section 2.5).
""Current standards.
Note: Incidences are rounded to the nearest whole number; percents are rounded to the nearest tenth.
Abt Associates Inc.
141
June 2005
-------
results based on annual standard design values calculated from the maximum of monitor-specific
values (see Exhibit 2.4) alongside the corresponding results based on design values calculated
from the average of monitor-specific values. The corresponding comparisons for Pittsburgh, PA
and St. Louis, MO (the other two locations that do not meet the current standards and for which
both the maximum-based and the average-based annual standard design values result in positive
percent rollbacks) are given in Exhibits E.37 - E.40.
Changing the basis of the annual standard design value from the maximum to the average
of monitor-specific averages reduces the percent rollback necessary to just meet an annual
standard. If the daily standard had previously been the controlling standard (i.e., requiring a
greater percent rollback than the annual standard), then reducing the percent rollback necessary
to just meet the annual standard will have no effect. If, however, the annual standard had
previously been the controlling standard, the new (smaller) percent rollback necessary to just
meet the annual standard using an average-based annual standard design value will result in a
larger estimated mortality associated with any set of alternative standards. The new smaller
percent rollback may still exceed the percent rollback necessary to meet the daily standard. In
this case, the annual standard will still be the controlling standard, but the incidence reduction
achieved by just meeting the alternative standards will be smaller than it would be if the
maximum-based annual standard design value were used. Alternatively, the new (smaller)
percent rollback necessary to just meet the annual standard may be less than the percent rollback
necessary to meet the daily standard. In this case, the daily standard would become controlling,
and the incidence reduction achieved by just meeting the alternative standards would be smaller
than it had previously been. However, the incidence reduction, in this case, would be larger
than it would be if the new annual standard based on the average of monitor-specific averages
were controlling.
Exhibits 8.12 and 8.13 provide examples of each possibility. To meet an annual standard
of 15 jig/m3 requires a 28.1% rollback when the annual standard design value is based on the
maximum of monitor-specific averages, and an 11.5% rollback when it is based on the average
of monitor-specific averages. To meet a daily standard of 25 |ig/m3 based on the 98th percentile
value, however, requires a 46.9% rollback (using a daily design value based on the maximum of
monitor-specific values). In this case, the daily standard is controlling, whichever of the two
annual standard design values is used, so the reduced incidences associated with just meeting the
15 i-ig/m3 annual standard and 25 |ig/m3 daily standard combination are the same, regardless of
whether the annual standard design value is based on the maximum or the spatial average of
monitor-specific averages (although the percent reductions from current standards are different).
The combination of an annual standard of 15 |ig/m3 and a daily standard of 35 |ig/m3
based on the 98th percentile value presents a different situation. To just meet this daily standard
(using the maximum of monitor-specific values) requires a 22.2% rollback. As noted above, the
required rollbacks to just meet the annual standard are 28.1% and 11.5% when the annual
standard design value is based on the maximum and average, respectively, of monitor-specific
Abt Associates Inc. p. 142 June 2005
-------
averages. In this case, the change from maximum-monitor based to averaged-monitors based
annual standard design value changes the controlling standard from the annual to the daily
standard. The estimated mortality associated with short-term exposures to PM2 5 in Detroit
correspondingly increases from 122 to 132 when, for example, the cutpoint is PRB (see Exhibit
8.12). If the averaged-monitors based annual standard had been controlling, the estimated
mortality associated with short-term exposure would have been 150 (as it is whenever the
averaged-monitors based annual standard of 15 |ig/m3 is controlling - for example, when
combined with daily standards of 65 or 40 jig/m3 based on the 98th percentile value).
The change from a maximum-monitor based to an averaged-monitors based annual
standard design value induces a change not only in the estimated mortality associated with just
meeting alternative more stringent standards, but also in the estimated mortality associated with
just meeting the current standards. Because of this, there does not appear to be any clear pattern
to the impact on the percent reduction achieved by just meeting alternative more stringent
standards. For example, using a cutpoint of 7.5 i-ig/m3, mortality associated with long-term
exposure to PM25 in Detroit when the current standards are just met is estimated to be 522 using
a maximum-monitor based annual standard design value, and 747 using an annual standard
design value that is averaged-monitors based. The percent reduction in incidence when the more
stringent 14 |ig/m3 annual and 40 |ig/m3 daily 98th percentile standards are just met is greater
when the maximum-monitor based annual standard design value is used - a 16 percent (= (522-
438)7522) reduction in mortality using the maximum-monitor based annual standard design value
versus a 14 percent (= (747 - 642)7747) reduction using the averaged-monitors based annual
standard design value. In contrast, the percent reduction in incidence when the more stringent 14
l-ig/m3 annual and 35 jig/m3 daily 99th percentile standards are just met is greater when the
averaged-monitors based annual standard design value is used - a 32 percent (= (747-507)7747)
reduction in mortality using the averaged-monitors based annual standard design value vs. a 16
percent (= (522-438)7522) reduction using the maximum-monitor based annual standard design
value.
Higher cutpoints tend to accentuate the impact of the change from a maximum-monitor
based to an averaged-monitors based annual standard design value in the estimation of mortality
when alternative standards are just met. As noted above, using an averaged-monitors based
annual standard design value will result in mortality estimates that are at least as large as those
calculated using the maximum-monitor based annual standard design value, and in many cases
(whenever the annual standard was the controlling standard) mortality estimates will be larger.
In almost all cases, the percent increase (from one estimate to the other) is larger when a cutpoint
of 10 |ag/m3 is used than when a cutpoint of 7.5 |ig/m3 is used, and it increases with increasing
cutpoints. For example, when a 15 |ig/m3 annual standard and a 40 |ig/m3 98th percentile daily
standard are just met, estimated mortality associated with long-term exposure to PM25 in Detroit
in excess of 7.5 |ig/m3 calculated using an averaged-monitors based annual standard design value
is 747; using a maximum-monitor based annual standard design value it is 522. The percent
Abt Associates Inc. p. 143 June 2005
-------
increase is therefore 43.2% (=(747-522)/522).30 The corresponding mortality estimates using a
cutpoint of 10 |ig/m3 are 535 and 282, resulting in a percent increase of 89.6% (=(535-282)7282).
The corresponding percent increase using a cutpoint of 12 |ig/m3 is 684.3% (=(322-41)741).
The pattern is the same for mortality associated with short-term exposure to PM2 5. For
example, estimated mortality associated with short-term exposure to PM25 in excess of the PRB
of 3.5 jig/m3 in Detroit when a 15 jig/m3 annual standard and a 65 jig/m3 98th percentile daily
standard are just met, calculated using an averaged-monitors based annual standard design value
is 150; using a maximum-monitor based annual standard design value it is 122. The percent
increase is therefore 23.0% (=(150-122)7122). The corresponding mortality estimates using a
cutpoint of 10 jig/m3 threshold are 80 and 54, resulting in a percent increase of 47.5% (=(80-
54)754). The corresponding percent increases using cutpoints of 15 jig/m3 and 20 jig/m3 are
75.9% and 109.8%, respectively.
Measured in terms of percent increase (from the maximum-monitor based to the
averaged-monitors based mortality estimate), there was substantial variability in the impact of
using an averaged-monitors based annual standard design value versus one that is maximum-
monitor based. For mortality associated with short-term exposure to PM2 5 in Detroit in excess
of the PRB of 3.5 i-ig/m3, for example, positive percent increases ranged from 0.0% to about
23.4%.31 Using a cutpoint of 20 i-ig/m3, positive percent increases ranged from 0.0% to about
167%.
Incidence numbers shown in Exhibits 8.12, 8.13, and E.37 - E.40 are rounded to the nearest whole
number; the percentages shown here are based on the rounded incidence numbers.
31 Whenever the daily standard had been the controlling standard, the change from maximum-monitor
based to averaged-monitors based annual standard design value had no impact - i.e., the percent increase was zero.
Abt Associates Inc. p. 144 June 2005
-------
9. Assessment of the Health Risks Associated with "As Is" PM10_2 5 Concentrations and
the Reduced Risks Associated with Just Meeting Alternative PM10_2 5 Standards
9.1 Base case analysis
In this section we present the results of the risk assessment for PM10_2 5. Only three
locations - Detroit, Seattle, and St. Louis - had both C-R functions for health endpoints
associated with PM10_2 5 and sufficient PM10_2 5 air quality data to be included in the risk
assessment. The results of the first part of the risk assessment, assessing the health risks
associated with "as is" PM10_2 5 concentrations (representing levels measured in 2003 for all three
locations) in excess of various cutpoints, are summarized across the three urban areas in figures
and, for Detroit, in Exhibits 9.1 and 9.2. Exhibit 9.1 shows incidence, incidence per 100,000
general population, and percent of total incidence of hospital admissions in Detroit associated
with short-term exposure to "as is" PM10_25 concentrations in excess of an estimated PRB
concentration of 4.5 |ig/m3. Exhibit 9.2 shows incidence and percent of total incidence of
hospital admissions in Detroit associated with short-term exposure to "as is" PM10_2 5
concentrations in excess of various cutpoints. Results for the other locations corresponding to
those shown for Detroit in Exhibits 9.1 and 9.2 are shown in Exhibits F. 1, F.3, and F.5 for
Seattle, and Exhibits F.2, F.4, and F.6 for St. Louis.
In the second (just meeting alternative standards) part of the risk assessment for PM10_2 5,
only daily standards were considered. One set of standards was based on the ninety-eighth
percentile daily value, and another set was based on the ninety-ninth percentile value. The
alternative daily PM10_25 standards considered in this part of the risk assessment are given in
Exhibit 9.3.32 The design values used to calculate percent rollbacks necessary to just meet
alternative PM10_2 5 standards were given in Exhibit 2.5. The results of the second part of the risk
assessment for PM10_2 5 are shown in Exhibit 9.4 for Detroit, and in Exhibits F.5 and F.6 for
Seattle and St. Louis, respectively. These exhibits show the reduced incidence, and the percent
reduction from incidence under "as is" PM10_2 5 concentrations, when each of several alternative
standards is just met, assuming various cutpoint levels.
The central tendency estimates in both figures and in Exhibits 9.1, F. 1 and F.2 are based
on the PM10_2 5 coefficients estimated in the studies, and the ranges are based on the 95 percent
CIs around those estimates. In Exhibits 9.2 and 9.4, and Exhibits F.3 - F.6, for results based on
cutpoints in excess of the estimated PRB level, the central tendency estimates and 95 percent CIs
are based on the adjusted PM10_2 5 coefficients estimated in the studies, as described in Section
2.5. All estimated incidences were rounded to the nearest whole number, except respiratory
symptoms, which were rounded to the nearest 100. All percentages were rounded to one decimal
place.
32 See U.S. EPA (2005a) for a discussion of the rationale for selecting these alternative standards.
Abt Associates Inc. p. 145 June 2005
-------
Figure 9.1a. Estimated Annual Percent of Hospital Admissions Associated with Short-Term Exposure to
PM10_2 5 Above Background
1 9 '
1 7 '
1 5 '
1 3 '
1 1 '
9 -
7 '
5 '
3 '
1 '
-1 '
-3 •
-5 '
-7 '
-9 '
-11-
_C6
,-U S c _L S. £ | |
to .e Q vo "C o OT -—
III 111 §H I Is
S I "S S 0 "£g §. j| ™ .-L I £ . ^ -|
1 "
ii •= ,-e o g -s H r TO •= c
— Ed. o •" ^ o o> C o
Q) vj d^-p o x; T? ,'55
'u Jc ^^-o 2i^_^ --«- ,a
i =it 12
8
II
03 E
a
™
O
LO
en
T3
C
-S-
0)
o
C
0)
.2
H_
O
O)
OJ
CL
Detroit
Seattle
Figure 9.1b. Estimated Annual Cases of Hospital Admissions per 100,000 General Population Associated with
Short-Term Exposure to PM10_2 s Above Background
0
~-§
S^ 60 '
O)
-a
c
3, 50 '
g
"ro 40 •
3
CL
O
°- 30 •
2
CD
£ 20 •
o
8 10 •
o"
o
(U
a.
W)
0) < n -
co ' ' u
ro
O
-20 •
Ito (2003) •
ischemia heart disease
hospital admissions
C
-i. 1
si 1 xl
^ 03 '35 C? TO
SP It
c "c"
o
o
13 irt
^ ro o
.a ~ c 8
i/i co ra '?
'c § -c "o
•0 Ci- QJ ra
ro o -^ ro
o '5. CT o
^ -1 § ^ OT
O m
'E
"&
€
"O
'I
^'1
o "°
Ci —
it
||
00 §
CD
\
i 111
Detroit Seattle
4bt Associates Inc. p. 146 June 2005
-------
Figure 9.2a. Estimated Annual Percent of Respiratory Symptoms Associated with Short-Term Exposure to
PM10_2 5 Above Background
o
3;
in
"O
c:
03
0
CU
13
'o
C
15
jo
1 —
"o
c
CD
CJ
Q.
45 \
4 1 :
•
37 :
33;
29j
25;
-
2 1 :
1 7 ":
•
1 3;
•
9 :
,
5 :
! :
-3 :
Schwartz and Neas (2000) - 6 cities
Lower respiratory symptoms
Schwartz and Neas (2000) - 6 cities
Cough
i 1
St. Louis
Figure 9.2b. Estimated Annual Cases of Respiratory Symptoms per 100,000 General Population Associated
with Short-Term Exposure to PM10_2 s Above Background
. — .
O
gO
m
CD
T3
-5E-
c
o
CO
3
Q.
O
Q.
"ro
Q)
O
O
O
o
o"
o
0)
Q.
CO
Q)
-------
Exhibit 9.1. Estimated Annual Health Risks Associated with Short-Term Exposure to "As Is" PM10.2.5 Concentrations
Detroit, Ml, 2003
Health Effects
Hospital
Admissions
Study
Type
Ages
Lag
Other
Pollutants
in Model
Health Effects Associated with PM10.2 5 Above Policy Relevant Background*
Incidence
Incidence per 100,000
General Population
Percent of Total Incidence
Single Pollutant Models
Ito (2003) [reanalysis of Lippmann et al.
(2000)]
Ito (2003) [reanalysis of Lippmann et al.
(2000)]
Ito (2003) [reanalysis of Lippmann et al.
(2000)]
Ito (2003) [reanalysis of Lippmann et al.
(2000)]
Ito (2003) [reanalysis of Lippmann et al.
(2000)]
Pneumonia
COPD+
Ischemic heart
disease
Dysrhythmias
Congestive
heart failure
65+
65+
65+
65+
65+
1 day
3 day
2 day
Oday
Oday
327
(-40 - 635)
223
(-148-521)
654
(169-1083)
3
(-363 - 290)
211
(-214-585)
16
(-2-31)
11
(-7 - 25)
32
(8 - 53)
0
(-18-14)
10
(-10-28)
6.4%
(-0.8% -12.4%)
5.6%
(-3.8% -13.2%)
6.5%
(1.7% -10.8%)
0.1%
(-11.0% -8. 8%)
3.0%
(-3.1% -8. 4%)
"Health effects incidence was quantified down to the estimated policy relevant background level of 4.5 ug/m3. Incidences are rounded to the nearest whole number; percents are rounded to the nearest tenth.
Note: Numbers in parentheses are 95% confidence intervals based on statistical uncertainty surrounding the PM 10.2 5 coefficient.
A bt Associates Inc.
p. 148
June 2005
-------
Exhibit 9.2. Estimated Annual Health Risks Associated with Short-Term Exposure to "As Is" PM10.2.5 Concentrations,
Assuming Various Cutpoint Levels*
Detroit, Ml, 2003
Health Effects
Hospital
Admissions
Study
Type
Ages
Lag
Other
Pollutants
in Model
Incidence Associated with PM10_25 Assuming Various Cutpoint Levels**
(95% Confidence Interval)
Percent of Total Incidence
(95% Confidence Interval)
Policy Relevant
Background
=4.5 ug/m3
Cutpoint
=10 ug/m3
Cutpoint
=15 ug/m3
Cutpoint
=20 ug/m3
Single Pollutant Models
Ito (2003) [reanalysis of Lippmann
et al. (2000)]
Ito (2003) [reanalysis of Lippmann
et al. (2000)]
Ito (2003) [reanalysis of Lippmann
et al. (2000)]
Ito (2003) [reanalysis of Lippmann
et al. (2000)]
Ito (2003) [reanalysis of Lippmann
et al. (2000)]
Pneumonia
COPD+
Ischemic heart
disease
Dysrhythmias
Congestive heart
failure
65+
65+
65+
65+
65+
1 day
3 day
2 day
Oday
Oday
327
(-40 - 635)
6.4%
(-0.8% -12.4%)
223
(-148-521)
5.6%
(-3.8% -13.2%)
654
(169-1083)
6.5%
(1.7% -10. 8%)
3
(-363 - 290)
0.1%
(-11.0% -8.8%)
211
(-214-585)
3.0%
(-3.1% -8.4%)
284
(-35 - 547)
5.5%
(-0.7% -10.7%)
194
(-131 -448)
4.9%
(-3.3% -11. 3%)
569
(149-934)
5.7%
(1.5% -9. 3%)
2
(-326-251)
0.1%
(-9.9% - 7.6%)
185
(-190-507)
2.6%
(-2.7% - 7.2%)
244
(-31 - 463)
4.8%
(-0.6% - 9.0%)
167
(-116-379)
4.2%
(-3.0% - 9.6%)
489
(129-794)
4.9%
(1.3% -7. 9%)
2
(-296-215)
0.1%
(-9.0% - 6.5%)
160
(-168-434)
2.3%
(-2.4% - 6.2%)
213
(-28 - 396)
4.2%
(-0.5% - 7.7%)
147
(-106-323)
3.7%
(-2.7% - 8.2%)
426
(115-682)
4.3%
(1.2% -6.8%)
2
(-279-186)
0.1%
(-8.4% - 5.6%)
142
(-152-376)
2.0%
(-2.2% - 5.4%)
"Incidence was quantified down to policy relevant background level of 4.5 ug/m3, as well as down to each of the alternative cutpoints. For the cutpoints above policy relevant background, the slope of the C-R
function has been modified based on a simple hockeystick model (see discussion in section 2.5).
"Incidences are rounded to the nearest whole number; percents are rounded to the nearest tenth.
A bt Associates Inc.
p. 149
June 2005
-------
Exhibit 9.3. Alternative PM,n,, Standards Considered in the PM,n ,, Risk Assessment*
l!0-2.5
10-2.5
Daily
Standards Based on the 98th Percentile
Value
80
65
50
30
25
Daily Standards Based on the 99th Percentile
Value
100
80
60
35
30
*A11 standards are in
Abt Associates Inc.
p. 150
June 2005
-------
Exhibit 9.4. Estimated Annual Hospital Admissions for Ischemic Heart Disease Associated with Short-Term
Exposure to PM10.25 When Alternative Standards Are Just Met, Assuming Various Outpoint Levels*
Detroit, Ml, 2003
(2003 As Is Levels = 21.7 ug/m3 Annual Average; 105.9 ug/m3 98th Percentile Daily Value)
"As Is" PM10_25 Concentrations and Alternative
Daily Standards (ug/m3)
"As is" PM10_2 5 concentrations
80 ug/m3 daily 98th percentile value
65 ug/m3 daily 98th percentile value
50 ug/m3 daily 98th percentile value
30 ug/m3 daily 98th percentile value
25 ug/m3 daily 98th percentile value
100 ug/m3 daily 99th percentile value
80 ug/m3 daily 99th percentile value
60 ug/m3 daily 99th percentile value
Incidence Associated with PM10.2.5
(95% Confidence Interval)
Percent Reduction in Incidence from "As Is" PM10.2.5 Concentrations
Policy Relevant
Background
=4.5 ug/m3
654
(169-1083)
0.0%
654
(169-1083)
0.0%
600
(156-989)
8.3%
443
(117-719)
32.3%
242
(65 - 386)
63.0%
193
(52 - 307)
70.5%
654
(169-1083)
0.0%
654
(169-1083)
0.0%
491
(129-801)
24.9%
Cutpoint**
=10 ug/m3
569
(149-934)
0.0%
569
(149-934)
0.0%
508
(134-829)
10.7%
334
(90 - 532)
41.3%
125
(36-190)
78.0%
81
(24-120)
85.8%
569
(149-934)
0.0%
569
(149-934)
0.0%
387
(104-621)
32.0%
Cutpoint**
=15 ug/m3
489
(129-794)
0.0%
489
(129-794)
0.0%
425
(114-683)
13.1%
248
(69 - 384)
49.3%
65
(20-91)
86.7%
39
(13-52)
92.0%
489
(129-794)
0.0%
489
(129-794)
0.0%
301
(83 - 472)
38.4%
Cutpoint**
=20 ug/m3
426
(115-682)
0.0%
426
(115-682)
0.0%
360
(99 - 567)
15.5%
183
(54-271)
57.0%
44
(15-57)
89.7%
25
(9 - 30)
94.1%
426
(115-682)
0.0%
426
(115-682)
0.0%
233
(67 - 353)
45.3%
Abt Associates Inc.
151
June 2005
-------
"As Is" PM10_25 Concentrations and Alternative
Daily Standards (ug/m3)
35 ug/m3 daily 99th percentile value
30 ug/m3 daily 99th percentile value
Incidence Associated with PM10.2.5
(95% Confidence Interval)
Percent Reduction in Incidence from "As Is" PM10.2.5 Concentrations
Policy Relevant
Background
=4.5 ug/m3
262
(70-419)
59.9%
218
(59 - 347)
66.7%
Cutpoint**
=10 ug/m3
144
(41 -221)
74.7%
103
(30-154)
81.9%
Cutpoint**
=15 ug/m3
79
(24-113)
83.8%
51
(16-70)
89.6%
Cutpoint**
=20 ug/m3
53
(18-68)
87.6%
34
(12-43)
92.0%
This analysis used a C-R function from Ito (2003).
"For the outpoints above policy relevant background, the slope of the C-R function has been modified based on a simple hockeystick model (see discussion in section 2.5).
Note: Incidences are rounded to the nearest whole number; percents are rounded to the nearest tenth.
Abt Associates Inc.
152
June 2005
-------
As noted in Section 2, estimated reduced risks are determined by changes only at the
composite monitor for a location and only for a single year (2003, in the case of PM10_2 5). The
percent reduction of PM10_25 concentrations at the composite monitor to just meet a standard,
however, is determined by the design value for that location based on data from 2001 - 2003.
(EPA design values for 98th and 99th percentile daily PM10_25 standards are given in Exhibit 2.5.)
In Detroit, the design value for the 98th percentile daily PM10_2 5 standards is 70 |ig/m3 whereas
the 98th percentile daily value in 2003 based on the measured PM10_25 values is 105.9 |ig/m3.
Because the design value is lower than 80 ug/m3, the highest 98th percentile daily PM10_2 5
standard, zero risk reductions were estimated to result from this standard, even though the 98th
percentile daily value at the composite monitor in 2003, 105.9 i-ig/m3, is well above the standard
level. Similarly, the design value for the 99th percentile daily PM10_2 5 standards is 77 jig/m3 for
Detroit, whereas the 99th percentile daily value at the composite monitor in Detroit in 2003 is
substantially greater than 100 i-ig/m3, the highest 99th percentile daily PM10_2 5 standard level. So
zero risk reductions were similarly estimated to result from this standard. In general, estimated
reduced risks decrease and the confidence intervals around them become more narrow as the
daily standards become more stringent.
9.2 Sensitivity Analyses
As with PM2 5, we carried out sensitivity analyses to examine the impact of different
assumed PRB levels on estimated risks associated with short-term exposure to PM10_2 5. The
results of these sensitivity analyses for Detroit are shown in Exhibit 9.5. The results for the other
two locations are shown in Appendix F.
Abt Associates Inc. p. 153 June 2005
-------
Exhibit 9.5. Sensitivity Analysis: Estimated Annual Health Risks Associated with Short-Term Exposure to "As Is" PM10.2.5
Concentrations, Using Different Estimates of Policy Relevant Background Level
Detroit, Ml, 2003
Health
Effects
Hospital
Admissions
Study
Type
Ages
Lag
Other
Pollutants
in Model
Health Effects Associated with PM10.2.5 Above Policy Relevant Background of: *
1 ug/m3
Incidence
Percent of Total
Incidence
4.5 ug/m3
Incidence
Percent of Total
Incidence
9 ug/m3
Incidence
Percent of Total
Incidence
Single Pollutant Models
Ito (2003) [reanalysis of
Lippmann et al. (2000)]
Ito (2003) [reanalysis of
Lippmann et al. (2000)]
Ito (2003) [reanalysis of
Lippmann et al. (2000)]
Ito (2003) [reanalysis of
Lippmann et al. (2000)]
Ito (2003) [reanalysis of
Lippmann et al. (2000)]
Pneumonia
COPD+
Ischemic heart
disease
Dysrhythmias
Congestive heart
failure
65+
65+
65+
65+
65+
1 day
3 day
2 day
0 day
0 day
380
(-46 - 738)
260
(-173-606)
761
(197-1258)
3
(-422 - 337)
246
(-249 - 680)
7.4%
(-0.9% -14.4%)
6.6%
(-4.4% -15.3%)
7.6%
(2.0% -12.6%)
0.1%
(-12. 8% -10.2%)
3.5%
(-3.6% - 9.7%)
327
(-40 - 635)
223
(-148-521)
654
(169-1083)
3
(-363 - 290)
211
(-214-585)
6.4%
(-0.8% -12.4%)
5.6%
(-3.8% -13.2%)
6.5%
(1.7% -10. 8%)
0.1%
(-11.0% -8.8%)
3.0%
(-3.1% -8. 4%)
265
(-32-516)
181
(-121 -423)
531
(138-879)
2
(-295 - 235)
171
(-174-475)
5.2%
(-0.6% -10.0%)
4.6%
(-3.1% -10.7%)
5.3%
(1.4% -8.8%)
0.1%
(-8.9% -7.1%)
2.5%
(-2.5% - 6.8%)
"Incidences are rounded to the nearest whole number; percents are rounded to the nearest tenth.
Note: Numbers in parentheses are 95% confidence intervals based on statistical uncertainty surrounding the PM 10.2.5 coefficient.
Abt Associates Inc.
p. 154
June 2005
-------
The same patterns can be observed in the results for PM10_2 5 as were observed in the
10-2.5
results for PM25. For example, changing from the midpoint estimate of 4.5 |ig/m for PM
background in the Eastern U.S. to the lower end of the range for PM10_2 5 background (1 i-ig/m3)
increased the estimated percent of total incidence of hospital admissions for pneumonia in
Detroit that is PM10_2 5-related using Ito (2003) by about 16 percent (from 6.4 percent to 7.4
percent). Similarly, changing from the midpoint estimate to the upper end of the range for PM10.
2.5 (9 jig/m3) decreased the percent of total incidence that is PM2 5-related using that same study
by about 19 percent (from 6.4 percent to 5.2 percent).
Abt Associates Inc. p. 155 June 2005
-------
References
Abt Associates Inc. 1996. A Particulate Matter Risk Assessment for Philadelphia and Los
Angeles. Prepared for the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Contract No. 68-W4-0029. July 3 (Revised November). Available
electronically on the web at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/pm/s_pm_pr_td.html .
Abt Associates Inc. 1997a. Revision of Mortality Incidence Estimates Based on Pope et al.
(1995) in the Abt Particulate Matter Risk Assessment Report. Memorandum from Ellen Post
and John Voyzey, Abt Associates Inc. to John Bachmann, Allyson Siwik, Michele McKeever,
and Harvey Richmond, U.S. EPA/OAQPS. June 5.
Abt Associates Inc. 1997b. Revision of Mortality Incidence Estimates Based on Pope et al.
(1995) in the December 1996 Supplement to the Abt Particulate Matter Risk Assessment Report.
Memorandum from Ellen Post, Abt Associates Inc. to John Bachmann, Allyson Siwik, Michele
McKeever, and Harvey Richmond, U.S. EPA/OAQPS. June 6.
Abt Associates Inc. 2003. Particulate Matter Health Risk Assessment for Selected Urban Areas:
Draft Report. Prepared for the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Contract No. 68-D-03-002. August Draft.
Abt Associates Inc. 2005. Particulate Matter Health Risk Assessment for Selected Urban Areas:
Draft Report. Prepared for the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Contract No. 68-D-03-002. January Draft. Available
electronically on the web at:
http ://www. epa. gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/pm/data/pmri sk2dreport. pdf
Chock, D., S. Winkler, and C. Chen. 2000. A Study of the Association between Daily Mortality
and Ambient Air Pollutant Concentrations in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Journal of the Air and
Waste Management Association, 50:1481-1500.
Deck, L. B., E. S. Post, E. Smith, M. Wiener, K. Cunningham, and H. Richmond. 2001
Estimates of the Health Risk Reductions Associated with Attainment of Alternative Particulate
Matter Standards in Two U.S. Cities. Risk Analysis Vol. 21(5): 821-835.
Dominici, F., et. al. 2003. National Morbidity and Mortality Air Pollution Study, Updated
City-Specific Estimates of PM10 Relative Risks. Available electronically on the internet at:
http ://www.biostat.j hsph.edu/biostat/research/web. est.xls.
Fairley, D. 1999. Daily mortality and air pollution in Santa Clara County, California: 1989-
1996. Environmental Health Perspectives. Vol. 107(8): 637-41.
Abt Associates Inc. p. 156 June 2005
-------
Fairley, D. 2003. Mortality and Air Pollution for Santa Clara County, California, 1989-1996.
Health Effects Institute, Cambridge, MA.
HEI, May 2003. Revised Analyses of Time-Series Studies of Air Pollution and Health. Special
Report. Health Effects Institute, Cambridge, MA.
Henderson, R. 2005. EPA's Review of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for
Particulate Matter (Second Draft PM Staff Paper, January 2005): A review by the Particulate
Matter Review Panel of the EPA Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee. June 6, 2005.
Available: http://www.epa.gov/sab/pdf/casac-05-007.pdf.
Hopke, P., 2002. Letter from Dr. Phil Hopke, Chair, Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee
(CASAC) Particulate Matter Review Panel, to Honorable Christine Todd Whitman,
Administrator, U.S. EPA. Final advisory review report by the CASAC Particulate Matter
Review Panel on the proposed particulate matter risk assessment. EPA-SAB-CASAC-ADV-02-
002. May 23. Available electronically on the internet at:
http://www.epa.gov/sab/pdf/casacadv02002.pdf
Hopke, P., 2004. Letter from Dr. Phil Hopke, Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee
(CASAC) Particulate Matter (PM) Review Panel, to Honorable Michael O. Leavitt. CASAC
PM Review Panel's Ongoing Peer Review of the Agency's Fourth External Review Draft of
Air Quality Criteria for Particulate Matter (June 2003); and Peer Review of the Review of the
National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter: Policy Assessment of Scientific
and Technical Information (OAQPS Staff Paper - First Draft) (August 2003) and a Related
Draft Technical Report, Particulate Matter Health Risk Assessment for Selected Urban Areas
(DraftReport) (August 2003). EPA-SAB-CASAC-04-004. February 18. Available
electronically on the internet at: http://www.epa.gov/sab/pdf/
Ito, K. 2003. Associations of Particulate Matter Components with Daily Mortality and
Morbidity in Detroit, Michigan. Health Effects Institute, Cambridge, MA.
Ito, K., P. L. Kinney, and G.D. Thurston 1995. Variations in PM-10 Concentrations Within
Two Metropolitan Areas and Their Implications For Health Effects Analyses. Inhalation
Toxicology 7(5): 735-745.
Kinney, P. L.; Ito, K.; and G.D. Thurston. 1995. A sensitivity analysis of mortality/PM-10
associations in Los Angeles. Inhalation Toxicology. 7:59-69.
Klemm, R. J., R. M. Mason, C. M. Heilig, L. M. Neas, and D. W. Dockery. 2000. Is Daily
Mortality Associated Specifically with Fine Particles? Journal of the Air Waste Management
Association, 50:1215-1222.
Abt Associates Inc. p. 157 June 2005
-------
Klemm, R. J., and R. Mason, 2003. Replication of Reanalysis of Harvard Six-City Study. Health
Effects Institute, Cambridge, MA.
Krewski, D., R.T. Burnett, M.S. Goldberg, K. Hoover, J. Siemiatycki, M. Jerrett, M.
Abrahamowicz, and W.H. White. 2000. Reanalysis of the Harvard Six Cities Study and the
American Cancer Society Study of Parti culate Air Pollution and Mortality. Special Report.
Health Effects Institute, Cambridge, MA. July Pre-print.
Langstaff, J. 2004. OAQPS Staff Memorandum to PM NAAQS Review Docket
(OAR-2001-0017). Subject: A Methodology for Incorporating Short-term Variable
Background Concentrations in Risk Assessments. December 17. Available electronically on the
internet at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/pm/s_pm_cr_sp.html
Linn, W. S., Y. Szlachcic, H. Gong, Jr.; P.L. Kinney; and K.T. Berhane. 2000. Air pollution
and daily hospital admissions in metropolitan Los Angeles. Environmental Health Perspectives.
108: 427-434.
Lipfert, F.W., S.C. Morris and R.E. Wyzga. 2000. Daily mortality in the Philadelphia
metropolitan area and size-classified parti culate matter. Journal of the Air and Waste
Management Association. Vol. 50(8): 1501-13.
Lippmann, M., K. Ito, A. Naadas, and R.T. Burnett. 2000. Association of Parti culate Matter
Components with Daily Mortality and Morbidity in Urban Populations. Research Report 95.
Health Effects Institute, Cambridge, MA.
Mar, T.F., G.A. Norris, J.Q. Koenig and T.V. Larson. 2000. Associations between air pollution
and mortality in Phoenix, 1995-1997. Environmental Health Perspectives. Vol. 108(4): 347-53.
Mar, T. F., G. A. Norris, T. V. Larson, W. E. Wilson, and J. Q. Koenig. 2003. Air Pollution and
Cardiovascular Mortality in Phoenix, 1995-1997. Health Effects Institute, Cambridge, MA.
Moolgavkar, S.H. 2000a. Air Pollution and Daily Mortality in Three U.S. Counties.
Environmental Health Perspectives. Vol. 108(8): 777-784.
Moolgavkar, S.H. 2000b. Air pollution and hospital admissions for diseases of the circulatory
system in three U.S. metropolitan areas. Journal of the Air and Waste Management Association.
Vol. 50(7): 1199-206.
Moolgavkar, S.H. 2000c. Air Pollution and Hospital Admissions for Chronic Obstructive
Pulmonary Disease in Three Metropolitan Areas in the United States. Inhalation Toxicology.
Vol. 12(Supplement4): 75-90.
Abt Associates Inc. p. 158 June 2005
-------
Moolgavkar, S. H. 2003. Air Pollution and Daily Deaths and Hospital Admissions in Los
Angeles and Cook Counties. Health Effects Institute, Cambridge, MA.
Pope, C. A., Ill; D.W. Dockery, J.D. Spengler, and M.E. Raizenne. 1991. Respiratory Health
and PM10 Pollution. Am Rev. Respir Dis 144:668-674.
Pope, C. A., R. T. Burnett, M. J. Thun, E. E. Calle, D. Krewski, K. Ito, and G. D. Thurston.
2002. Lung Cancer, Cardiopulmonary Mortality, and Long-term Exposure to Fine Particulate
Air Pollution. Journal of the American Medical Association, vol 287, no 9: 287:1132-1141.
Post, E., L. Deck, K. Larntz, and D. Hoaglin. 2001. An Application of an Empirical Bayes
Estimation Technique to the Estimation of Mortality Related to Short-Term Exposure to
Particulate Matter. Risk Analysis Vol. 21(5): 837-842.
Post, E. April 8, 2003. "Preliminary Recommended Methodology for PM10 and PM10_25 Risk
Analyses in Light of Reanalyzed Study Results." Draft memorandum to Harvey Richmond, U.S.
EPA/OAQPS. Available electronically on the internet at:
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/pm/s_pm_cr_td.html
SAB, 2004. Advisory on Plans for Health Effects Analysis in the Analytical Plan for EPA's
Second Prospective Analysis - Benefits and Costs of the Clean Air Act, 199-2020; Advisory by
the Health Effects Subcommittee of the Advisory Council for Clean Air Compliance Analysis.
EPA SAB Council - ADV-04-002. March. Available electronically on the internet at:
http://www.epa.gov/sciencel/pdf/council_adv_0402.pdf
Samet, J.M., S.L. Zeger, F. Dominici, F. Curriero, I. Coursac, D.W. Dockery, J. Schwartz, and
A. Zanobetti. 2000. The National Morbidity, Mortality, and Air Pollution Study, Part II:
Morbidity, Mortality, and Air Pollution in the United States. Research Report 94, Part II.
Health Effects Institute, Cambridge, MA. June.
Schwartz, J. 2000a. Assessing Confounding, Effect Modification, and Thresholds in the
Association between Ambient particles and Daily Deaths. Environmental Health Perspectives.
108 (6): 563 - 568.
Schwartz, J. 2000b. The distributed lag between air pollution and daily deaths. Epidemiology
11(3): 320-326.
Schwartz, J. 2003a. Airborne Particles and Daily Deaths in 10 US Cities. Health Effects
Institute, Cambridge, MA.
Schwartz, J. 2003b. Daily Deaths Associated with Air Pollution in Six US Cities and
Short-Term Mortality Displacement in Boston. Health Effects Institute, Cambridge, MA.
Abt Associates Inc. p. 159 June 2005
-------
Schwartz, I, D.W. Dockery, L.M. Neas, D. Wypij, J.H. Ware, J.D. Spengler, P. Koutrakis, F.E.
Speizer and E.G. Ferris. 1994. Acute Effects of Summer Air Pollution On Respiratory
Symptom Reporting in Children. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. Vol. 150(5): 1234-1242.
Schwartz, J. and R. Morris. 1995. Air Pollution and Hospital Admissions for Cardiovascular
Disease in Detroit, Michigan. American Journal of Epidemiology, vol 142, no 1, 142:23-35.
Schwartz, J., D.W. Dockery and L.M. Neas. 1996. Is Daily Mortality Associated Specifically
With Fine Particles. Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association. Vol. 46(10): 927-
939.
Schwartz, J. and L.M. Neas. 2000. Fine particles are more strongly associated than coarse
particles with acute respiratory health effects in schoolchildren [see comments]. Epidemiology.
Vol. 11(1): 6-10.
Sheppard, L. 2003. Ambient Air Pollution and Non-Elderly Asthma Hospital Admissions in
Seattle, Washington, 1987-1994. Health Effects Institute, Cambridge, MA.
Sheppard, L., D. Levy, G. Norris, T.V. Larson, and J.Q. Koenig. 1999. Effects of ambient air
pollution on nonelderly asthma hospital admissions in Seattle, Washington, 1987-1994.
Epidemiology 10: 23-30.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 1996a. Air Quality Criteria for Particulate
Matter, (EPA 600/P-95/001aF), 3v, National Center for Environmental Assessment, Office of
Research and Development, Research Triangle Park, NC. Available electronically on the
internet at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/pm/s_pm_pr_cd.html
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) 1996b. Review of the National Ambient Air
Quality Standards for Particulate Matter: Policy Assessment of Scientific and Technical
Information - OAQPS Staff Paper, (EPA/452/R-96-013), Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711. July. Available from: NTIS, Springfield, VA;
PB97-115406REB or electronically on the internet at:
http ://www. epa. gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/pm/s_pm_pr_sp. html
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) 2001. Review of the National Ambient Air
Quality Standards for Particulate Matter: Policy Assessment of Scientific and Technical
Information - OAQPS Staff Paper, Preliminary Draft, Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC. June. Available electronically on the internet at:
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/pm/s_pm_cr_sp.html
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) 2003. Review of the National Ambient Air
Quality Standards for Particulate Matter: Policy Assessment of Scientific and Technical
Abt Associates Inc. p. 160 June 2005
-------
Information - OAQPS Staff Paper, Draft, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards,
Research Triangle Park, NC. August. Available electronically on the internet at:
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/pm/s_pm_cr_sp.html
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) 2004. Air Quality Criteria for Particulate
Matter, Fourth External Review Draft (EPA 600/P-99/002bF), 2v, National Center for
Environmental Assessment, Office of Research and Development, Research Triangle Park, NC.
October. Available electronically on the internet at:
http://www.epa. gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/pm/s_pm_cr_cd.html
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) 2005a. Review of the National Ambient Air
Quality Standards for Particulate Matter: Policy Assessment of Scientific and Technical
Information - OAQPS Staff Paper - Second Draft, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards,
Research Triangle Park, NC. January. Available electronically on the internet at:
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/pm/s_pm_cr_sp.html
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) 2005b. Review of the National Ambient Air
Quality Standards for Particulate Matter: Policy Assessment of Scientific and Technical
Information - OAQPS Staff Paper, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research
Triangle Park, NC. June. Available electronically on the internet at:
http://www.epa. gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/pm/s_pm_cr_sp.html
Zanobetti, A. and J. Schwartz. 2003. Airborne Particles and Hospital Admissions for Heart and
Lung Disease. Health Effects Institute, Cambridge, MA.
Abt Associates Inc. p. 161 June 2005
-------
Appendix A. Air Quality Assessment: The PM Data
Abt Associates Inc. June 2005
-------
Appendix A. Air Quality Assessment: The PM Data
This Appendix describes the PM data for the urban counties used in the risk assessment
(see Section 3 for selection of locations). The average ambient PM concentration in an
assessment location on a given day is represented by the average of 24-hour average PM levels
at the different monitors in that location that reported on that day. This approach is consistent
with what has been done in epidemiological studies estimating PM C-R functions. Also, because
people are often quite mobile (e.g., living in one part of a county and working in another), an
area-wide average PM level may be a more meaningful measure of ambient PM concentration
than PM levels at individual monitors. Ito et al. (1995), for example, found that averaging PM10
concentrations reported at monitors in different places generally improved the significance of the
association between PM10 and mortality in Chicago, compared with using individual monitors.
In order for an urban area to be included in the PM2 5 or PM10_2 5 risk assessment the
location must contain at least one monitor (for the PM10_2 5 risk assessment, at least one pair of
co-located PM10 and PM2 5 monitors) with 11 or more observations per quarter. Because there
are substantially more monitoring data for PM2 5 than for PM10, we added the additional criterion
for the PM2 5 risk assessment that there be at least 122 observations per year (1 in 3 day
monitoring). Once the criteria for inclusion were met, all monitors with at least 11 observations
per quarter were used for each location. The cutoff of 11 observations per quarter is based on
EPA guidance on measuring attainment of the daily and annual particulate matter standards
outlined in Appendix N of the July 18, 1997 Federal Register Notice (available on the web at
www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/tlpfpr.html). The guidance requires that at least 75 percent of the
scheduled sampling days for each quarter have valid data. Based on a one in six day sampling
protocol, the minimum required number of observations would be 11 per quarter.
The numbers of days of observations by monitor and at the composite monitor, by quarter
and for the year, along with annual averages and 98th and 99th percentile concentrations, are
given in the exhibits below. In these exhibits the first five digits, which denote the FIPS code
designation, are omitted in the legends. The annual average at each monitor, and at the
composite monitor, is the average of the four quarterly averages at the monitor. The 98th and 99th
percentiles at each monitor, and at the composite monitor, are calculated using the method used
by EPA, as described in Appendix N of the July 18, 1997 Federal Register Notice (available on
the web at www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/tlpfpr.html). The only difference between the method used
in calculating the monitor-specific annual averages and 98th and 99th percentile values shown in
the exhibits in this appendix and the standard EPA convention in calculating annual averages and
98th and 99th percentile values is that the EPA convention uses three years of data whereas the
calculations here are based on only a single year of data.
Abt Associates Inc. A-l June 2005
-------
A.l. The PM?< data
-2.5
PM2 5 data for each of the urban areas identified in Section 3 for the PM2 5 risk assessment
(Boston, Detroit, Los Angeles, Philadelphia, Phoenix, Pittsburgh, San Jose, Seattle, and St.
Louis) were obtained for the years 1999 through 2003 from EPA's Air Quality System (AQS).
For all urban areas except Phoenix, year 2003 data were used. For Phoenix there were no
monitors in 2003 and only two monitors in 2002 that met the inclusion criterion. The number of
days covered by the two 2002 monitors in Phoenix is 178 compared with 362 days covered in
2003. Because the annual averages in those two years in Phoenix were comparable and the 2001
data provided much better coverage of the year, we used the year 2001 data. The numbers of
days of observations by monitor and at the composite monitor, by quarter and for the year, along
with annual averages and 98th and 99th percentile concentrations, are given in Exhibits A. 1
through A. 9.
EPA design values (described in Section 2.3 of the report) are used to determine the
percent rollback necessary to just meet annual, 98th percentile daily, and 99th percentile daily
standards. Although the composite monitor is not used in determining the percent rollback in the
PM risk assessment, the percent rollback to simulate just meeting alternative standards is applied
to the composite monitor.
Exhibit A.I. Number of Days on which PM25 Concentration Data are Available, by
Monitor and by Quarter, and PM25 Concentrations. Boston, 2003*
Monitor
AQS 25025002788 10 11
AQS 25025004288 10 11
AQS 250250043881011
Composite1
Design Values**
Ql
17
47
22
62
-
Q2
12
49
30
63
-
Q3
22
91
25
91
-
Q4
24
83
29
86
-
Year
Total
75
270
106
302
-
Annual
Avg.
12.0
11.4
13.6
12.1
14.4
98th
Percentile
41.3
30.6
35.5
34.1
44
99th
Percentile
53.7
39.6
42.5
41.1
60
*A11 concentrations are in i-ig/m3; includes Middlesex, Norfolk and Suffolk Counties.
The calculation of design values is described in Section 2.3 of this report.
1. The number of days at the composite monitor is the number of days on which at least one of the monitors
reported.
Abt Associates Inc.
June 2005
-------
Exhibit A.2. Number of Days on which PM2 5 Concentration Data are Available, by
Monitor and by Quarter, and PM25 Concentrations. Detroit, 2003*
Monitor
AQS 261630001881011
AQS 261630015881011
AQS 261630016881011
AQS 261630019881011
AQS 261630025881011
AQS 261630033881011
AQS 261630036881011
Composite1
Design Values**
Ql
80
27
85
27
27
29
25
88
-
Q2
86
27
85
30
28
27
24
90
-
Q3
80
30
86
30
31
27
28
90
-
Q4
80
27
71
29
27
28
29
89
-
Year
Total
326
111
327
116
113
111
106
357
-
Annual
Avg.
15.2
16.6
15.8
14.6
14.1
19.1
16.3
15.7
19.5
98th
Percentile
40.5
33.6
46.2
37.1
38.1
42.8
34.8
41.5
44.0
99th
Percentile
48.3
34.3
50.4
39.2
38.5
44.1
36.0
48.5
48
*A11 concentrations are in ng/m3; includes Wayne County.
The calculation of design values is described in Section 2.3 of this report.
1. The number of days at the composite monitor is the number of days on which at least one of the monitors
reported.
Exhibit A.3. Number of Days on which PM2 5 Concentration Data are Available, by
Monitor and by Quarter, and PM2 5 Concentrations. Los Angeles, 2003*
Monitor
AQS 060370002881011
AQS 060371002881011
AQS 060371 103881011
AQS 060371201881011
AQS 060371301881011
AQS 060371601881011
AQS 060372005881011
AQS 060374002881011
AQS 060379033881011
Composite1
Design Values**
Ql
87
30
80
29
29
29
29
81
30
90
-
Q2
79
23
85
30
29
27
28
84
30
91
-
Q3
80
28
85
31
31
27
29
78
31
92
-
Q4
68
11
75
25
28
28
24
81
29
92
-
Year
Total
314
92
325
115
117
111
110
324
120
365
-
Annual
Avg.
19.3
22.1
21.4
16.5
20.3
20.5
18.6
18.0
9.4
19.1
23.6
98th
Percentile
55.5
60.1
61.3
44.7
52.4
50.4
48.4
46.5
17.0
55.0
62.0
99th
Percentile
63.9
120.6
68.9
45.0
53.3
51.1
51.3
51.4
21.0
60.4
96
*A11 concentrations are in ng/m3; includes Los Angeles County.
The calculation of design values is described in Section 2.3 of this report.
1. The number of days at the composite monitor is the number of days on which at least one of the monitors
reported.
Abt Associates Inc.
A-3
June 2005
-------
Exhibit A.4. Number of Days on which PM2 5 Concentration Data are Available, by
Monitor and by Quarter, and PM25 Concentrations. Philadelphia, 2003*
Monitor
AQS 421010004881011
AQS 421010014881011
AQS 421010020881011
AQS 421010024881011
AQS 421010047881011
AQS 421010136881011
Composite1
Design Values**
Qi
12
11
24
21
15
63
82
-
Q2
76
15
28
24
18
69
89
-
Q3
82
26
27
23
23
81
86
-
Q4
92
21
29
40
14
83
92
-
Year
Total
322
73
108
108
70
296
349
-
Annual
Avg.
14.8
13.3
13.7
13.2
16.1
14.0
14.3
16.4
98th
Percentile
39.9
39.3
39.3
38.7
42.3
35.6
38.4
51.0
99th
Percentile
40.7
60.7
39.9
40.9
56.5
44.9
42.2
89
*A11 concentrations are in ng/m3; includes Philadelphia County.
The calculation of design values is described in Section 2.3 of this report.
1. The number of days at the composite monitor is the number of days on which at least one of the monitors
reported.
Exhibit A.5. Number of Days on which PM2 5 Concentration Data are Available, by
Monitor and by Quarter, and PM25 Concentrations. Phoenix, 2001*
Monitor
AQS 040130019881011
AQS 040139990881011
AQS 040139992881011
AQS 040139997881011
Composite1
Design Values**
Ql
50
27
77
75
88
-
Q2
85
31
87
75
90
-
Q3
91
28
85
91
92
-
Q4
86
30
87
73
92
-
Year
Total
312
116
336
314
362
-
Annual
Avg.
10.9
9.4
10.9
9.2
10.4
11.5
98th
Percentile
30.4
22.7
35.3
25.0
28.9
35.0
99th
Percentile
36.5
25
40.5
28.2
36.4
41
*A11 concentrations are in ng/m3; includes Maricopa County.
The calculation of design values is described in Section 2.3 of this report.
1. The number of days at the composite monitor is the number of days on which at least one of the monitors
reported.
Abt Associates Inc.
A-4
June 2005
-------
Exhibit A.6. Number of Days on which PM2 5 Concentration Data are Available, by
Monitor and by Quarter, and PM25 Concentrations. Pittsburgh, 2003*
Monitor
AQS 420030008881011
AQS 420030021881011
AQS 420030064881011
AQS 420030067881011
AQS 420030095881011
AQS 420030116881011
AQS 42003 1008881011
AQS 42003 1301881011
AQS 420033007881011
AQS 420039002881011
Composite1
Design Values**
Qi
84
23
86
26
12
26
25
20
15
13
89
-
Q2
90
29
91
28
12
27
27
28
14
13
91
-
Q3
88
26
90
19
15
28
29
30
16
16
91
-
Q4
90
30
92
26
14
27
30
26
15
15
92
-
Year
Total
352
108
359
99
53
108
111
104
60
57
363
-
Annual
Avg.
15.2
14.6
20.2
13.2
15.7
15.3
15.5
16.8
12.0
16.0
16.9
21.2
98th
Percentile
35.9
30.7
66.6
42.1
38.6
42.9
41.9
38.3
58.8
33.4
43.9
63.0
99th
Percentile
39.5
40.0
76.1
52.0
53.7
45.9
44.5
50.4
59.3
58.6
55.1
70
*A11 concentrations are in ng/m3; includes Allegheny County.
The calculation of design values is described in Section 2.3 of this report.
1. The number of days at the composite monitor is the number of days on which at least one of the monitors
reported.
Exhibit A.7. Number of Days on which PM2 5 Concentration Data are Available, by
Monitor and by Quarter, and PM25 Concentrations. San Jose, 2003*
Monitor
AQS 6085000588 10 11
AQS 60852003881011
Composite1
Design Values**
Ql
87
85
89
-
Q2
14
19
19
-
Q3
17
18
19
-
Q4
87
79
91
-
Year
Total
205
201
218
-
Annual
Avg.
11.7
10.1
11.1
14.6
98th
Percentile
40.1
36.9
37.6
47.0
99th
Percentile
45.5
37.5
41
53
*A11 concentrations are in ng/m3; includes Santa Clara County.
The calculation of design values is described in Section 2.3 of this report.
1. The number of days at the composite monitor is the number of days on which at least one of the monitors
reported.
Abt Associates Inc.
A-5
June 2005
-------
Exhibit A.8. Number of Days on which PM2 5 Concentration Data are Available, by
Monitor and by Quarter, and PM25 Concentrations. Seattle, 2003*
Monitor
AQS 530330017881011
AQS 530330024881011
AQS 530330037881011
AQS 530330057881011
AQS 530330080881011
AQS 530332004881011
Composite1
Design Values**
Qi
18
30
17
34
88
29
89
-
Q2
15
28
12
30
85
30
87
-
Q3
16
30
14
31
92
29
92
-
Q4
14
29
15
28
92
28
92
-
Year
Total
63
117
58
123
357
116
360
-
Annual
Avg.
10.3
10.8
7.8
8.3
8.6
10.3
8.3
11.1
98th
Percentile
10.9
28.2
17.6
28.4
20.5
28.4
21.7
41.0
99th
Percentile
12.6
31.7
30.7
28.6
22.9
30.2
23.8
48
*A11 concentrations are in ng/m3; includes King County.
The calculation of design values is described in Section 2.3 of this report.
1. The number of days at the composite monitor is the number of days on which at least one of the monitors
reported.
Abt Associates Inc.
A-6
June 2005
-------
Exhibit A.9. Number of Days on which PM2 5 Concentration Data are Available, by
Monitor and by Quarter, and PM25 Concentrations. St. Louis, 2003*
Monitor
AQS 171191007881011
AQS 171192009881011
AQS 171193007881011
AQS 171630010881011
AQS 171634001881011
AQS 290990012881011
AQS 29183 1002881011
AQS 291890004881011
AQS 291892003881011
AQS 295100007881011
AQS 295100085881011
AQS 295100086881011
AQS 295100087881011
Composite1
Design Values**
Ql
29
29
29
26
29
85
30
29
88
88
90
90
82
90
-
Q2
30
29
29
28
22
87
29
28
89
87
91
91
91
91
-
Q3
26
30
30
31
31
88
31
30
82
86
89
88
90
92
-
Q4
28
29
29
25
30
88
30
29
89
90
92
86
90
92
-
Year
Total
113
117
117
110
112
348
120
116
348
351
362
355
353
365
-
Annual
Avg.
17.5
14.0
14.0
14.8
14.3
13.9
14.0
13.0
13.6
14.4
14.1
13.5
14.7
14.0
17.5
98th
Percentile
40.8
31.5
31.6
32.6
34.2
34.2
35.5
30.5
31.5
33.2
32.0
31.5
33.2
30.6
42
99th
Percentile
41.7
36.1
32.7
32.9
36.2
36.3
37.9
36.2
32.4
34.8
33.5
33.8
34.5
33.7
46
*A11 concentrations are in ng/m3; includes St. Louis (MO), Franklin (MO), Jefferson (MO), St. Charles (MO),
Clinton (IL), Madison (IL), Monroe (IL), and St. Clair (IL) Counties and St. Louis City (MO).
The calculation of design values is described in Section 2.3 of this report.
1. The number of days at the composite monitor is the number of days on which at least one of the monitors
reported.
A.2. The PM10 2 5 data
PM10_25 data for each of the urban areas identified in Section 3 for the PM10_25 risk
assessment (Detroit, Seattle, and St. Louis) were calculated based on data obtained from EPA's
Air Quality System (AQS) for 1999-2003. PM10 and PM25 monitoring data collected on the
same day at the same site were used to calculate PM10_2 5 levels. Year 2003 data were used for all
three locations because not only is this the most recent year for which we have data, but data in
2003 were more complete for each location than in any of the other years.
In the AQS database, PM25 data is collected and reported at local temperature and
pressure. In order to calculate PM10_2 5 levels using comparable data, PM10 local condition data
were obtained, when available, and PM10 standard condition data were converted to PM10 local
condition data using site-specific algorithms.
Abt Associates Inc.
A-7
June 2005
-------
The numbers of days of observations by monitor and at the composite monitor, by
quarter and for the year, along with annual averages and maximum concentrations, are given in
Exhibits A. 10 through A. 12 for each of the urban locations in the PM10_2 5 risk assessment. Since
PM10_2 5 data are based on co-located monitors at a single site, the data are presented by site,
rather than by monitor. As with the PM2 5 data, the annual average at each site, and at the
composite site, is the average of the four quarterly averages at the site.
Exhibit A.10. Number of Days on which PM10_25 Concentration Data are Available, by
Monitor and by Quarter, and PM10_25 Concentrations. Detroit, 2003*
Monitor
AQS 261630015
AQS 261630033
Composite1
Design Values**
Ql
13
29
30
-
Q2
12
27
27
-
Q3
16
27
29
-
Q4
12
28
29
-
Year
Total
53
111
115
-
Annual
Avg.
12.3
25.0
21.7
-
98th
Percentile
40.2
105.9
105.9
70.0
99th
Percentile
48.7
122.4
122.4
77.0
*A11 concentrations are in ng/m3; includes Wayne County.
**The calculation of design values is described in Section 2.3 of this report.
1. The number of days at the composite monitor is the number of days on which at least one of the monitors
reported.
Exhibit A.11. Number of Days on which PM10_25 Concentration Data are Available, by
Monitor and by Quarter, and PM10_25 Concentrations. Seattle, 2003*
Monitor
AQS 530330057
AQS 530332004
Composite1
Design Values**
Ql
15
14
15
-
Q2
14
15
16
-
Q3
16
14
16
-
Q4
13
13
14
-
Year
Total
58
56
61
-
Annual
Avg.
12.6
10.0
11.4
-
98th
Percentile
30.3
25.4
26.2
31.0
99th
Percentile
45.0
30.1
30.3
39.0
*A11 concentrations are in ng/m3; includes King County.
**The calculation of design values is described in Section 2.3 of this report.
1. The number of days at the composite monitor is the number of days on which at least one of the monitors
reported.
Abt Associates Inc.
A-8
June 2005
-------
Exhibit A.12. Number of Days on which PM10_25 Concentration Data are Available, by
Monitor and by Quarter, and PM10_25 Concentrations. St. Louis, 2003*
Monitor
AQS 171193007
AQS 295100086
AQS 295100087
Composite1
Design Values**
Ql
13
15
15
15
-
Q2
15
15
15
15
-
Q3
15
16
15
16
-
Q4
15
14
15
15
-
Year
Total
58
60
60
61
-
Annual
Avg.
10.6
10.1
14.9
12.0
-
98th
Percentile
24.2
24.7
33.3
24.1
33.0
99th
Percentile
42.8
34.9
47.0
41.6
47.0
*A11 concentrations are in ng/m3; includes St. Louis (MO), Franklin (MO), Jefferson (MO), St. Charles (MO),
Clinton (IL), Madison (IL), Monroe (IL), and St. Clair (IL) Counties and St. Louis City (MO).
**The calculation of design values is described in Section 2.3 of this report.
1. The number of days at the composite monitor is the number of days on which at least one of the monitors
reported.
Abt Associates Inc.
A-9
June 2005
-------
Appendix B. Linear Trends in Historical PM2 5 Data in Philadelphia and Los Angeles
Abt Associates Inc. June 2005
-------
memorandum
Environmental Research Area
4800 Montgomery Lane, Suite 600 • Bethesda, MD 20814-5341 • (301) 913-0500
Abt Associates Inc.
Date May 8, 2002
To Harvey Richmond, U.S. EPA/OAQPS
From Ellen Post, Abt Associates Inc.
Subject Linear Trends in Historical PM2 s Data in Philadelphia and Los Angeles: Revision of
November 26, 2001 Memo
The method used to simulate just meeting a standard in the 1995/96 PM risk analysis and
proposed for the current risk analysisis to "roll back" the anthropogenic portion of PM levels (i.e., the
portion above background level) by the same percentage on each day. This method assumes that, all else
held constant:
(yt-B-)= p*(xt- B)
where1
x; is the ith PM2 5 concentration in a location before the standard is met,
y; is the ith PM2 5 concentration in that location when the standard is just met,
• B is the background concentration in that location, and
1 We first examined the plausibility of this assumption in preparation for the PM risk
analysis carried out in 1995/1996. At that time, we examined pairs of years of PM25 data in
several locations, but none of the data reflected efforts to meet PM25 standards, because this
exercise (and the data it used) preceded the setting of PM2 5 standards. That investigation,
however, found that the change in the distribution of PM2 5 concentrations from one year to
another year in the same location tended to be linear. This is described in Section 8.2 of Abt
Associates Inc., 1996. "A Particulate Matter Risk Assessment for Philadelphia and Los
Angeles."
Abt Associates Inc. B-l June 2005
-------
We don't have data on PM25 concentrations in any location before and after the PM25 standards have just
been met, so we cannot directly test whether this "rollback" assumption accurately models how PM2 5
concentrations would change if a standard were just met. We can, however, examine historical changes
in PM2 5 concentrations for any location for which we have sufficient data to determine if the proportional
rollback model is consistent with these historical changes. We currently have sufficient data in each of
two locations, Philadelphia and Los Angeles, to compare the distribution of daily PM25 concentrations in
the year 2000 with the distribution in an earlier year. In each location, we compared the two distributions
to see if the change was well described as proportional. The method and results are described below.
In Philadelphia we have 353 days of observations in a year which crosses calendar years 1992 and 1993,
and 296 days of observations in the year 2000. In Los Angeles we have 214 days of observations in 1995
and 357 days of observations in 2000. We first grouped the PM25 concentrations in each distribution into
deciles and averaged the concentrations within each decile.2 These average concentrations within deciles
are shown in Exhibit B. 1 and in graph form in Exhibits B.2 and B.3, for Philadelphia and Los Angeles,
respectively.
2 We considered using the decile points themselves rather than the averages within
deciles. However, the decile points would be expected to be less stable from one year to another
than the averages of the concentrations within deciles. A comparison of the averages within
deciles from one year to another is therefore likely to give a more accurate picture of how the
distribution has changed from one year to another. This is the method that was used in the
earlier comparison for the 1995/96 PM risk assessment.
Abt Associates Inc. B-2 June 2005
-------
Exhibit B.I. Average PM25 Concentrations (jAg/m3) in Each Decile of Earlier Year and Year 2000
Distributions at Composite Monitors in Philadelphia and Los Angeles*
Decile*
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Philadelphia
1992/93
5.91
7.94
9.71
11.19
13.07
14.87
17.23
20.67
25.34
37.90
2000
4.62
6.58
8.82
10.25
12.07
13.72
16.01
19.4
23.77
32.58
Los Angeles
1995
10.02
14.62
18.50
21.06
24.19
28.40
32.96
39.72
54.77
87.12
2000
6.67
10.19
12.39
14.59
16.59
18.55
21.27
24.22
28.27
50.50
*The first decile is the tenth percentile, the second decile is the twentieth percentile, and so on. The average
concentration in the nth decile is the average of those values that are greater than the (n-l)st decile point and less
than or equal to the nth decile point.
Abt Associates Inc.
B-3
June 2005
-------
Exhibit B.2
'o
(1)
a
c
CT
o
o
o
es
Los Angeles: 1995 vs. 2000 Distributions of PM2.s Over
Background
60 _.
cn
40
„„
on
10
n
•
^
+
.*» *
^ ~
™
0 20 40 60 80 100
1995 Avg in Deciles
Abt Associates Inc.
B-4
June 2005
-------
To examine how reasonable the proportional rollback hypothesis is we estimated the following
regression equation separately for Philadelphia and for Los Angeles:
(y,- B-)=a+ p*(xt- B-)+st
where now,
Yi is the average PM25 concentration in the ith decile of the distribution of PM25
concentrations in the location in the year 2000,
• x; is the average PM25 concentration in the ith decile of the distribution of PM25
concentrations in that location in an earlier year (1995 for Los Angeles and 1992/93 for
Philadelphia),
• B is the background concentration in that location (2.5 |ig/m3 in Los Angeles and 3.5
l-ig/m3 in Philadelphia), and
• 8; is an error term.
If the change in PM25 concentrations from the earlier year to the year 2000 is consistent with a
proportional rollback model, we would expect
the linear fit to be good,
• the slope (P) to be less than one, and
• the intercept (a) to be close to zero
The results of the regressions in Philadelphia and Los Angeles do support the hypothesis
underlying the proportional rollback method, as shown in Exhibit B.4. In both cases, the linear
fit is very good (R2 = 0.992 in Philadelphia and 0.986 in Los Angeles), the slopes are less than
1.0, and the intercepts are close to zero.3 This supports the hypothesis that, at least in these two
locations, the change in daily PM25 concentrations that would result if a PM25 standard were just
met is reasonably modeled as a proportional rollback.
3 Because decile points are not independent observations, the usual test of statistical
significance are not valid. What is most important, however, is that the linear relationship is
very good and the intercept is near zero.
Abt Associates Inc. B-5 June 2005
-------
Exhibit B.4. Results of Regressions of Year 2000 Average PM25 Concentrations over
Background on Earlier Year Average PM2 5 Concentrations over Background.
Intercept
Slope
R2
Philadelphia
-0.136
0.886
0.992
Los Angeles
1.387
0.537
0.986
Abt Associates Inc.
B-6
June 2005
-------
Appendix C. Study-Specific Information for the PM2 5 and PM10_2 5 Risk Assessments
-------
C.I. The PM2 5 data
Exhibit C.1. Study-Specific Information for PM2.5 Studies in Boston, MA
Study
Health Effect
ICD-9
Codes
Ages Model
Other Observed
Pollutants Concentrations Lag
in Model min. max.
Exposure PM2.5 Lower
Metric Coeff. Bound
Upper
Bound
Short-Term Exposure Total Mortality - Single Pollutant Models
Schwartz (2003b)
reanalysis of Schwartz et
al. (1996)]
Schwartz (2003b)
reanalysis of Schwartz et
al. (1996)] -6 cities
Non-accidental
Non-accidental
<800
<800
log-linear,
all GAM
(stringent)
log-linear,
all GAM
(stringent)
. _. . mean of
none 0 70.8 . n „ .
lag 0 & 1
. ._. mean of
0 174 lagO&1
2-day avg 0.00206 0.00139
2-day avg 0.00137 0.00098
0.00273
0.00176
Short-Term Exposure Cause-Specific Mortality — Single Pollutant Models
Klemm and Mason (2003)
reanalysis of Klemm et al.
(2000)]
Klemm and Mason (2003)
reanalysis of Klemm et al.
(2000)]
Klemm and Mason (2003)
reanalysis of Klemm et al.
(2000)]
Klemm and Mason (2003)
reanalysis of Klemm et al.
2000)] -- 6 cities
Klemm and Mason (2003)
reanalysis of Klemm et al.
(2000)] - 6 cities
Klemm and Mason (2003)
reanalysis of Klemm et al.
2000)] -- 6 cities
COPD
Ischemic heart
disease
Pneumonia
COPD
Ischemic heart
disease
Pneumonia
490-492,
494-496
410-414
480-487
490-492,
494-496
410-414
480-487
log-linear,
all GAM
(stringent)
log-linear,
all GAM
(stringent)
log-linear,
all GAM
(stringent)
log-linear,
all GAM
(stringent)
log-linear,
all GAM
(stringent)
log-linear,
all GAM
(stringent)
none 0 70.8 0 day
none 0 70.8 0 day
none 0 70.8 0 day
none 0 174 0 day
none 0 174 0 day
none 0 174 0 day
2-day avg 0.00276 -0.00131
2-day avg 0.00266 0.00149
2-day avg 0.00573 0.00257
2-day avg 0.00227 0.00010
2-day avg 0.00178 0.00109
2-day avg 0.00402 0.00188
0.00658
0.00383
0.00871
0.00440
0.00247
0.00602
Abt Associates Inc.
C-1
June 2005
-------
Study
Health Effect
ICD-9
_ . Ages
Codes a
Model
Other
Pollutants
in Model
Respiratory Symptoms and Illnesses*
Schwartz and
6 cities
Schwartz and
6 cities
Schwartz and
6 cities
Schwartz and
6 cities
Neas (2000)
Neas (2000)
Neas (2000)
Neas (2000)
Lower
respiratory
symptoms
Cough
Lower
respiratory
symptoms
Cough
n/a 7-14
n/a 7-14
Respiratory
n/a 7-14
n/a 7-14
logistic
logistic
none
none
Observed
Concentrations Lag
min. max.
Exposure
Metric
PM2.5
Coeff.
Lower
Bound
Upper
Bound
- Single Pollutant Models
N/A N/A
N/A N/A
1 day
0 day
1-day avg
3-day avg
0.01901
0.00989
0.00696
-0.00067
0.03049
0.02050
Symptoms and Illnesses* - Multi-Pollutant Models
logistic
logistic
Long-Term Exposure
Krewski et al.
Cities
Krewski et al.
(2000) - Six
(2000) - ACS
Pope et al. (2002) - ACS
extended
Krewski et al.
Cities
Krewski et al.
(2000) - Six
(2000) - ACS
Pope et al. (2002) - ACS
extended
Pope et al. (2002) - ACS
extended
All cause
All cause
All cause
Cardiopulmonary
Cardiopulmonary
Cardiopulmonary
Lung cancer
all 25+
all 30+
all 30+
400-440,
485-495 ^
401-440,
460-519 JU
401-440,
460-519 -30
162 30+
log-linear
log-linear
log-linear
log-linear
log-linear
log-linear
log-linear
Long-Term Exposure
Krewski et al.
Krewski et al.
Krewski et al.
Krewski et al.
(2000) - ACS
(2000) - ACS
(2000) - ACS
(2000) - ACS
All cause
All cause
All cause
All cause
all 30+
all 30+
all 30+
all 30+
log-linear
log-linear
log-linear
log-linear
PM10-2.5
PM10-2.5
N/A N/A
N/A N/A
Mortality — Single Pollutant
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
Mortality —
CO
NO2
O3
SO2
11 29.6
10 38
7.5 30
11 29.6
10 38
7.5 30
7.5 30
Multi-Pollutant
10 38
10 38
10 38
10 38
1 day
0 day
Models
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Models
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
1-day avg
3-day avg
annual
mean
annual
mean
annual
mean
annual
mean
annual
mean
annual
mean
annual
mean
annual
mean
annual
mean
annual
mean
annual
mean
0.01698
0.00451
0.01243
0.00463
0.00583
0.01693
0.00943
0.00862
0.01310
0.00676
0.00812
0.00676
0.00121
0.00388
-0.00702
0.00414
0.00238
0.00198
0.00561
0.00606
0.00296
0.00392
0.00389
0.00426
0.00389
-0.00209
0.03007
0.01541
0.02071
0.00710
0.01044
0.02789
0.01315
0.01484
0.02070
0.00976
0.01164
0.00976
0.00499
The C-R functions for lower respiratory symptoms and cough were calculated for the summer period April 1 through August 31.
Abt Associates Inc.
C-2
June 2005
-------
Exhibit C.2. Study-Specific Information for PM2.5 Studies in Detroit, Ml
Study
Ito (2003) [reanalysis of
Lippmann et al. (2000)]
Health Effect
Non-accidental
ICD-9
Codes AgeS
Short-Term
<800 all
Other
Model Pollutants
in Model
Exposure Total Mortality -
log-linear,
GAM none
(stringent)
Observed
Concentrations
min. max.
-Single Pollutant
4
Short-Term Exposure Cause-Specific Mortality -
Ito (2003) [reanalysis of
Lippmann et al. (2000)]
Ito (2003) [reanalysis of
Lippmann et al. (2000)]
Circulatory
Respiratory
390-459 all
460-519 all
log-linear
GAM none
(stringent)
log-linear,
GAM none
(stringent)
Hospital Admissions - Single
Ito (2003) [reanalysis of
Lippmann et al. (2000)]
Ito (2003) [reanalysis of
Lippmann et al. (2000)]
Ito (2003) [reanalysis of
Lippmann et al. (2000)]
Ito (2003) [reanalysis of
Lippmann et al. (2000)]
Ito (2003) [reanalysis of
Lippmann et al. (2000)]
Pneumonia
COPD
Ischemic heart
disease
Congestive heart
failure
Dysrhythmias
480-486 65+
490-496 65+
410-414 65+
428 65+
427 65+
log-linear
GAM none
(stringent)
log-linear
GAM none
(stringent)
log-linear
GAM none
(stringent)
log-linear
GAM none
(stringent)
log-linear,
GAM none
(stringent)
4
4
86
Lag
Models
3 day
Exposure PM2.5 Lower
Metric Coeff. Bound
1-day avg 0.00074 -0.00073
Upper
Bound
0.00221
Single Pollutant Models
86
86
1 day
0 day
1-day avg 0.00087 -0.00131
1-day avg 0.00090 -0.00438
0.00305
0.00618
Pollutant Models
4
4
4
4
4
86
86
86
86
86
1 day
3 day
2 day
1 day
1 day
1-day avg 0.00398 0.00074
1-day avg 0.00117 -0.00287
1-day avg 0.00143 -0.00082
1-day avg 0.00307 0.00055
1-day avg 0.00125 -0.00274
0.00725
0.00523
0.00371
0.00561
0.00523
Abt Associates Inc.
C-3
June 2005
-------
Study Health Effect
ICD-9
Codes
Ages
Model
Other Observed
Pollutants Concentrations Lag
in Model min. max.
Exposure
Metric
PM2.5
Coeff.
Lower
Bound
Upper
Bound
Long-Term Exposure Mortality —Single Pollutant Models
Krewski et al. (2000) -
ACS Allcause
Popeetal. (2002) -ACS ^
extended
Krewski et al. (2000) - „ ,.
v ' Cardiopulmonary
AL/o
Popeetal. (2002) -ACS „ ,.
t j j Cardiopulmonary
Popeetal. (2002) -ACS .
. , , Lung cancer
extended
all
all
401-440
401-440
162
30+
30+
30+
30+
30+
log-linear
log-linear
log-linear
log-linear
log-linear
Long-Term Exposure
Krewski et al. (2000) -
ACS Allcause
Krewski et al. (2000) -
ACS Allcause
Krewski etal. (2000)- A|| cause
AL/o
Krewski etal. (2000)- A|| ^
AL/o
all
all
all
all
30+
30+
30+
30+
log-linear
log-linear
log-linear
log-linear
none
none
none
none
none
Mortality —
CO
NO2
O3
SO2
10
7.5
10
7.5
7.5
38
30
38
30
30
Multi-Pollutant
10
10
10
10
38
38
38
38
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Models
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
annual
mean
annual
mean
annual
mean
annual
mean
annual
mean
annual
mean
annual
mean
annual
mean
annual
mean
0.00463
0.00583
0.00943
0.00862
0.01310
0.00676
0.00812
0.00676
0.00121
0.00238
0.00198
0.00606
0.00296
0.00392
0.00389
0.00426
0.00389
-0.00209
0.00710
0.01044
0.01315
0.01484
0.02070
0.00976
0.01164
0.00976
0.00499
Abt Associates Inc.
C-4
June 2005
-------
Exhibit C.3. Study-Specific Information for PM2.5 Studies in Los Angeles, CA
Study
Health Effect
ICD-9
Codes
Ages
Short-Term
Moolgavkar (2003)
reanalysis of Moolgavkar
(2000a)]
Moolgavkar (2003)
reanalysis of Moolgavkar
(2000a)]
Moolgavkar (2003)
reanalysis of Moolgavkar
(2000a)]
Moolgavkar (2003)
reanalysis of Moolgavkar
(2000a)l
Moolgavkar (2003)
reanalysis of Moolgavkar
(2000a)]
Moolgavkar (2003)
reanalysis of Moolgavkar
(2000a)]
Moolgavkar (2003)
reanalysis of Moolgavkar
(2000a)]
Moolgavkar (2003)
reanalysis of Moolgavkar
(2000a)]
Moolgavkar (2003)
reanalysis of Moolgavkar
(2000a)]
Moolgavkar (2003)
reanalysis of Moolgavkar
(2000a)]
Non-accidental
Non-accidental
Non-accidental
Non-accidental
Non-accidental
Non-accidental
Non-accidental
Non-accidental
Non-accidental
Non-accidental
<800
<800
<800
<800
<800
<800
<800
<800
<800
<800
all
all
all
all
all
all
all
all
all
all
Model
Other
Pollutants
in Model
Observed
Concentrations Lag
min. max.
Exposure Total Mortality - Single Pollutant
log-linear,
(stringent)
log-linear,
(stringent)
log-linear,
(stringent)
log-linear,
df
log-linear,
(stringent)
log-linear,
100df
log-linear,
(stringent)
log-linear,
df
log-linear,
(stringent)
log-linear,
100df
GAM
100df
GAM
100df
GAM
30 df
GLM, 30
GAM
100df
GLM,
GAM
30 df
GLM, 30
GAM
100df
GLM,
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
Models
0 day
1 day
Oday
0 day
0 day
0 day
1 day
1 day
1 day
1 day
Exposure PM2.5 Lower
Metric Coeff. Bound
1-day avg 0.00032 -0.00023
1-day avg 0.00010 -0.00046
1-day avg 0.00054 -0.00007
1-day avg 0.00040 -0.00034
1-day avg 0.00032 -0.00023
1-day avg 0.00030 -0.00043
1-day avg 0.00059 0.00000
1-day avg 0.00055 -0.00017
1-day avg 0.00010 -0.00046
1-day avg -0.00001 -0.00099
Upper
Bound
0.00086
0.00066
0.00114
0.00113
0.00086
0.00102
0.00117
0.00126
0.00066
0.00097
Abt Associates Inc.
C-5
June 2005
-------
Study
Health Effect "C°"9 Ages
Codes a
Other Observed
Model Pollutants Concentrations Lag
in Model min. max.
Exposure PM2.5 Lower
Metric Coeff. Bound
Upper
Bound
Short-Term Exposure Cause-Specific Mortality - Single Pollutant Models
Moolgavkar (2003)
reanalysis of Moolgavkar
(2000a)]
Moolgavkar (2003)
reanalysis of Moolgavkar
(2000a)]
Moolgavkar (2003)
reanalysis of Moolgavkar
(2000a)]
Moolgavkar (2003)
reanalysis of Moolgavkar
(2000a)]
Moolgavkar (2003)
reanalysis of Moolgavkar
(zOOOa)J
Moolgavkar (2003)
reanalysis of Moolgavkar
(2000a)l
Moolgavkar (2003)
reanalysis of Moolgavkar
(2000a)]
Moolgavkar (2003)
reanalysis of Moolgavkar
/onnn^M
(zuuua)j
Moolgavkar (2003)
reanalysis of Moolgavkar
(2000a)]
Cardiovascular 390-429 all
Cardiovascular 390-429 all
Cardiovascular 390-429 all
Cardiovascular 390-429 all
Cardiovascular 390-429 all
Cardiovascular 390-429 all
Short-Term
Non-accidental <800 all
Non-accidental <800 all
Non-accidental <800 all
log-linear, GAM
, L • ^ oo jr none
(stringent), 30 df
log-linear, GAM
... .. .„„ ., none
(stringent), 100 df
log-linear, GLM,
ioodf none
log-linear, GAM
... _„ none
(stringent), 30 df
log-linear, GAM
/ L • L^ *nn -ir nOn6
(stringent), 100 df
log-linear, GLM,
ioodf none
Exposure Total Mortality -
log-linear, GAM
(stringent), 30 df
log-linear, GAM
(stringent), 100 df
log-linear, GLM,
100df
4 86 0 day
4 86 0 day
4 86 0 day
4 86 1 day
4 86 1 day
4 86 1 day
Multi-Pollutant Models
4 86 1 day
4 86 1 day
4 86 1 day
1-day avg 0.00099 0.00010
1-dayavg 0.00097 0.00014
1-day avg 0.00097 -0.00002
1-dayavg 0.00103 0.00016
1-dayavg 0.00080 -0.00003
1-dayavg 0.00069 -0.00032
1-dayavg -0.00053 -0.00132
1-dayavg -0.00033 -0.00105
1-dayavg -0.00033 -0.00118
0.00187
0.00179
0.00195
0.00189
0.00162
0.00169
0.00025
0.00039
0.00051
Abt Associates Inc.
C-6
June 2005
-------
Study
Health Effect
ICD-9
Codes
Ages
Model
Other
Pollutants
in Model
Short-Term Exposure Cause-Specific Mortality
Moolgavkar (2003)
reanalysis of Moolgavkar
(2000a)]
Moolgavkar (2003)
reanalysis of Moolgavkar
(2000a)]
Moolgavkar (2003)
reanalysis of Moolgavkar
(2000a)l
Moolgavkar (2003)
reanalysis of Moolgavkar
(2000a)l
Cardiovascular
Cardiovascular
Cardiovascular
Cardiovascular
390-429
390-429
390-429
390-429
all
all
all
all
log-linear, GAM
(stringent), 100df
log-linear, GLM,
100df
log-linear, GAM
(stringent), 100df
log-linear, GLM,
100df
Hospital Admissions -
Moolgavkar (2003)
reanalysis of Moolgavkar
(2000b)]
Moolgavkar (2003)
reanalysis of Moolgavkar
(2000b)]
Moolgavkar (2003)
reanalysis of Moolgavkar
(2000b)]
Moolgavkar (2003)
reanalysis of Moolgavkar
(2000b)]
Moolgavkar (2003)
reanalysis of Moolgavkar
(2000b)]
Moolgavkar (2003)
reanalysis of Moolgavkar
(2000b)l
Moolgavkar (2003)
reanalysis of Moolgavkar
(2000c)]
Cardiovascular
Cardiovascular
Cardiovascular
Cardiovascular
Cardiovascular
Cardiovascular
COPD+
390-429
390-429
390-429
390-429
390-429
390-429
490-496
65+
65+
65+
65+
65+
65+
all
log-linear, GAM
(stringent), 30 df
log-linear, GAM
(stringent), 100 df
log-linear, GLM,
100df
log-linear, GAM
(stringent), 30 df
log-linear, GAM
(stringent), 100 df
log-linear, GLM,
100df
log-linear, GAM
(stringent), 30 df
CO
CO
CO
CO
Observed
Concentrations
min. max.
Lag
Exposure PM2.5 Lower
Metric Coeff. Bound
Upper
Bound
- Multi-Pollutant Models
4 86
4 86
4 86
4 86
0 day
Oday
1 day
1 day
1-dayavg 0.00178 0.00076
1-dayavg 0.00188 0.00068
1-dayavg 0.00091 -0.00012
1-dayavg 0.00091 -0.00034
0.00279
0.00306
0.00193
0.00215
Single Pollutant Models
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
4 86
4 86
4 86
4 86
4 86
4 86
4 86
Oday
0 day
Oday
1 day
1 day
1 day
0 day
1-dayavg 0.00158 0.00091
1-dayavg 0.00116 0.00051
1-dayavg 0.00126 0.00045
1-dayavg 0.00139 0.00070
1-dayavg 0.00113 0.00047
1-dayavg 0.00120 0.00039
1-dayavg 0.00167 0.00069
0.00224
0.00181
0.00206
0.00208
0.00179
0.00200
0.00264
Abt Associates Inc.
C-7
June 2005
-------
Study
Moolgavkar (2003)
reanalysis of Moolgavkar
(2000c)]
Moolgavkar (2003)
reanalysis of Moolgavkar
(2000c)]
Moolgavkar (2003)
reanalysis of Moolgavkar
(2000c)]
Moolgavkar (2003)
reanalysis of Moolgavkar
(2000c)]
Moolgavkar (2003)
reanalysis of Moolgavkar
(2000c)l
Moolgavkar (2003)
reanalysis of Moolgavkar
(2000c)]
Moolgavkar (2003)
reanalysis of Moolgavkar
(2000c)]
Moolgavkar (2003)
reanalysis of Moolgavkar
(2000c)l
Health Effect "C°"9
Codes
COPD+ 490-496
COPD+ 490-496
COPD+ 490-496
COPD+ 490-496
COPD+ 490-496
COPD+ 490-496
COPD+ 490-496
COPD+ 490-496
Ages
all
all
all
all
all
all
all
all
Hospital
Moolgavkar (2003)
reanalysis of Moolgavkar
(2000b)]
Moolgavkar (2003)
reanalysis of Moolgavkar
(2000b)]
Moolgavkar (2003)
reanalysis of Moolgavkar
(2000b)]
Moolgavkar (2003)
reanalysis of Moolgavkar
(2000b)]
Cardiovascular 390-429
Cardiovascular 390-429
Cardiovascular 390-429
Cardiovascular 390-429
65+
65+
65+
65+
Model
log-linear,
(stringent)
log-linear,
100df
log-linear,
(stringent)
log-linear,
(stringent)
log-linear,
100df
log-linear,
(stringent)
log-linear,
(stringent)
log-linear,
100df
GAM
100df
GLM,
GAM
30 df
GAM
100df
GLM,
GAM
30 df
GAM
100df
GLM,
Other
Pollutants
in Model
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
Observed
Concentrations
min. max.
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
Admissions - Single City, Multi-Pollutant
log-linear,
(stringent)
log-linear,
100df
log-linear,
(stringent)
log-linear,
100df
GAM
100df
GLM,
GAM
100df
GLM,
CO
CO
CO
CO
4
4
4
4
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
Lag
0 day
Oday
1 day
1 day
1 day
2 day
2 day
2 day
Exposure PM2.5 Lower
Metric Coeff. Bound
1-day
1-day
1-day
1-day
1-day
1-day
1-day
1-day
avg 0.00138 0.00052
avg 0.00149 0.00042
avg 0.00119 0.00023
avg 0.00075 -0.00011
avg 0.00077 -0.00027
avg 0.00185 0.00084
avg 0.00114 0.00022
avg 0.00103 -0.00011
Upper
Bound
0.00223
0.00255
0.00214
0.00160
0.00180
0.00285
0.00205
0.00216
Models
86
86
86
86
0 day
0 day
1 day
1 day
1-day
1-day
1-day
1-day
avg 0.00039 -0.00044
avg 0.00058 -0.00041
avg 0.00024 -0.00065
avg 0.00027 -0.00075
0.00121
0.00156
0.00112
0.00128
Abt Associates Inc.
Co
-O
June 2005
-------
Study
Moolgavkar (2003)
reanalysis of Moolgavkar
(2000c)]
Moolgavkar (2003)
reanalysis of Moolgavkar
(2000c)]
Moolgavkar (2003)
reanalysis of Moolgavkar
(2000c)l
Health Effect
COPD+
COPD+
COPD+
ICD-9
Codes
490-496
490-496
490-496
Ages
all
all
all
Other
Model Pollutants
in Model
log-linear, GAM
(stringent), 100 df
log-linear, GAM
(stringent), 100df
log-linear, GAM
(stringent), 100 df
Long-Term Exposure Mortality
Krewski et al. (2000) - ACS
Pope et al. (2002) - ACS
extended
Krewski et al. (2000) - ACS
Pope et al. (2002) - ACS
extended
Pope et al. (2002) - ACS
extended
All cause
All cause
Cardiopulmonary
Cardiopulmonary
Lung cancer
all
all
401-440
460-519
401-440
460-519
162
30+
30+
30+
30+
30+
log-linear
log-linear
log-linear
log-linear
log-linear
Long-Term Exposure Mortality
Krewski et al. (2000) - ACS
Krewski et al. (2000) - ACS
Krewski et al. (2000) - ACS
Krewski et al. (2000) - ACS
All cause
All cause
All cause
All cause
all
all
all
all
30+
30+
30+
30+
log-linear
log-linear
log-linear
log-linear
N02
NO2
N02
-Single
none
none
none
none
none
Observed
Concentrations Lag ExP°sure
a Metric
mm. max.
4
4
4
Pollutant
10
7.5
10
7.5
7.5
- Multi-Pollutant
CO
NO2
03
SO2
10
10
10
10
86 0
86 1
86 2
Models
38
30
38
30
30
Models
38
38
38
38
day 1-dayavg
day 1-dayavg
day 1-dayavg
, annual
n/a
mean
, annual
n/a
mean
, annual
n/a
mean
annual
n/a
mean
annual
n/a
mean
annual
n/a
mean
annual
n/a
mean
, annual
n/a
mean
annual
n/a
mean
PM2.5
Coeff.
0.00042
-0.00004
0.00035
0.00463
0.00583
0.00943
0.00862
0.01310
0.00676
0.00812
0.00676
0.00121
Lower
Bound
-0.00091
-0.00162
-0.00103
0.00238
0.00198
0.00606
0.00296
0.00392
0.00389
0.00426
0.00389
-0.00209
Upper
Bound
0.00173
0.00152
0.00171
0.00710
0.01044
0.01315
0.01484
0.02070
0.00976
0.01164
0.00976
0.00499
Abt Associates Inc.
C-9
June 2005
-------
Exhibit C.4. Study-Specific Information for Studies PM2 5 in Philadelphia, PA
Study*
Health Effect
ICD-9
Codes
Short-Term
Lipfert et al. (2000) - 7
counties
Cardiovascular
390-448
Ages
Model
Other
Pollutants
in Model
Observed
Concentrations
min. max.
Lag
Exposure Cause-Specific Mortality - Single Pollutant
all
Long -Term
Krewskietal. (2000) -ACS
Pope etal. (2002) -ACS
extended
Krewskietal. (2000) -ACS
Pope etal. (2002) -ACS
extended
Pope etal. (2002) -ACS
extended
All cause
All cause
Cardiopulmonary
Cardiopulmonary
Lung cancer
all
all
401-440,
460-519
401-440,
460-519
162
30+
30+
30+
30+
30+
Long -Term
Krewskietal. (2000) -ACS
Krewskietal. (2000) -ACS
Krewskietal. (2000) -ACS
Krewskietal. (2000) -ACS
All cause
All cause
All cause
All cause
all
all
all
all
30+
30+
30+
30+
linear
Exposure
log-linear
log-linear
log-linear
log-linear
log-linear
Exposure
log-linear
log-linear
log-linear
log-linear
none
Mortality -
none
none
none
none
none
Mortality -
CO
NO2
O3
SO2
-0.6 72.6
Single Pollutant
10 38
7.5 30
10 38
7.5 30
7.5 30
1 day
Models
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Exposure
Metric
Models
1 -day avg
annual
mean
annual
mean
annual
mean
annual
mean
annual
mean
PM2.5 Coeff.
0.10440
0.00463
0.00583
0.00943
0.00862
0.01310
Lower Bound
0.04983
0.00238
0.00198
0.00606
0.00296
0.00392
Upper
Bound
0.15897
0.00710
0.01044
0.01315
0.01484
0.02070
Multi-Pollutant Models
10 38
10 38
10 38
10 38
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
annual
mean
annual
mean
annual
mean
annual
mean
0.00676
0.00812
0.00676
0.00121
0.00389
0.00426
0.00389
-0.00209
0.00976
0.01164
0.00976
0.00499
The Lipfert et al. (2000) study does not provide the statistical uncertainties surrounding the PM2.5 non-accidental mortality coefficients and the cardiovascular mortality multi-pollutant coefficient.
Abt Associates Inc.
C-10
June 2005
-------
Exhibit C.5. Study-Specific Information for PM2.5 Studies in Phoenix, AZ
Study
Health Effect
ICD-9
Codes
Short-Term
Mar (2003) [reanalysis of
Mar (2000)]
Mar (2003) [reanalysis of
Mar (2000)]
Cardiovascular
Cardiovascular
390-
448.9
390-
448.9
Ages Model
Other Observed
Pollutants Concentrations Lag
in Model min. max.
Exposure
Metric
PM2.5
Coeff.
Lower
Bound
Upper
Bound
Exposure Cause-Specific Mortality - Single Pollutant Models
log-linear,
65+ GAM
(stringent)
log-linear,
65+ GAM
(stringent)
Long-Term Exposure
Krewski etal. (2000)-
ACS
Pope etal. (2002) -ACS
extended
Krewski etal. (2000)-
ACS
Pope etal. (2002) -ACS
extended
Pope etal. (2002) -ACS
extended
All cause
All cause
Cardiopulmonary
Cardiopulmonary
Lung cancer
all
all
401-440,
460-519
401-440,
460-519
162
30+ log-linear
30+ log-linear
30+ log-linear
30+ log-linear
30+ log-linear
Long-Term Exposure
Krewski etal. (2000)-
ACS
Krewski etal. (2000)-
ACS
Krewski etal. (2000)-
ACS
Krewski etal. (2000)-
ACS
All cause
All cause
All cause
All cause
all
all
all
all
30+ log-linear
30+ log-linear
30+ log-linear
30+ log-linear
none
none
Mortality —
none
none
none
none
none
Mortality -
CO
NO2
O3
SO2
0
0
42
42
Single Pollutant
10
7.5
10
7.5
7.5
38
30
38
30
30
Multi-Pollutant
10
10
10
10
38
38
38
38
0 day
1 day
Models
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Models
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
1 -day avg
1 -day avg
annual
mean
annual
mean
annual
mean
annual
mean
annual
mean
annual
mean
annual
mean
annual
mean
annual
mean
0.00371
0.00661
0.00463
0.00583
0.00943
0.00862
0.01310
0.00676
0.00812
0.00676
0.00121
-0.00101
0.00193
0.00238
0.00198
0.00606
0.00296
0.00392
0.00389
0.00426
0.00389
-0.00209
0.00843
0.01129
0.00710
0.01044
0.01315
0.01484
0.02070
0.00976
0.01164
0.00976
0.00499
A bt Associates Inc.
C-11
June 2005
-------
Exhibit C.6. Study-Specific Information for PM2.5 Studies in Pittsburgh, PA
Study
Health Effect
ICD-9
Codes
Ages Model
Other Observed
Pollutants in Concentrations Lag
Model min. max.
Exposure
Metric
PM2.5
Coeff.
Lower
Bound
Upper
Bound
Short-Term Exposure Total Mortality - Single Pollutant Models
Chock et al. (2000)
Chock et al. (2000)
Non-accidental
Non-accidental
<800
<800
<75 log-linear
75+ log-linear
none
none
Short-Term Exposure Total Mortality ~
Chock et al. (2000)
Chock et al. (2000)
Non-accidental
Non-accidental
<800
<800
<75 log-linear
75+ log-linear
Long-Term Exposure
Krewski et al. (2000) -
ACS
Pope etal. (2002) -ACS
extended
Krewski et al. (2000) -
ACS
Pope etal. (2002) -ACS
extended
Pope etal. (2002) -ACS
extended
All cause
All cause
Cardiopulmonary
Cardiopulmonary
Lung cancer
all
all
401-440,
460-519
401-440,
460-519
162
30+ log-linear
30+ log-linear
30+ log-linear
30+ log-linear
30+ log-linear
Long-Term Exposure
Krewski et al. (2000) -
ACS
Krewski etal. (2000)-
ACS
Krewski etal. (2000)-
ACS
Krewski etal. (2000)-
ACS
All cause
All cause
All cause
All cause
all
all
all
all
30+ log-linear
30+ log-linear
30+ log-linear
30+ log-linear
CO, O3, SO2,
NO2, PM10-
2.5
CO, O3, SO2,
NO2, PM10-
2.5
3
3
86
86
0 day
0 day
1-day avg
1-day avg
0.00101
0.00059
-0.00079
-0.00125
0.00281
0.00243
Multi-Pollutant Models
3
3
86
86
Mortality - Single Pollutant
none
none
none
none
none
10
7.5
10
7.5
7.5
38
30
38
30
30
Mortality - Multi-Pollutant
CO
NO2
O3
SO2
10
10
10
10
38
38
38
38
0 day
0 day
Models
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Models
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
1 -day avg
1 -day avg
annual
mean
annual
mean
annual
mean
annual
mean
annual
mean
annual
mean
annual
mean
annual
mean
annual
mean
0.00130
0.00040
0.00463
0.00583
0.00943
0.00862
0.01310
0.00676
0.00812
0.00676
0.00121
-0.00086
-0.00178
0.00238
0.00198
0.00606
0.00296
0.00392
0.00389
0.00426
0.00389
-0.00209
0.00346
0.00258
0.00710
0.01044
0.01315
0.01484
0.02070
0.00976
0.01164
0.00976
0.00499
A bt Associates Inc.
C-12
June 2005
-------
Exhibit C.7. Study-Specific Information for PM2 5 Studies in San Jose, CA
Study
Health Effect
ICD-9 Codes
Ages
Model
Other Observed
Pollutants Concentrations Lag
in Model min. max.
Exposure Lower
,, . . PM2.5 Coeff. „ .
Metric Bound
Upper
Bound
Short-Term Exposure Total Mortality - Sinale Pollutant Models
Fairley (2003) [reanalysis
of Fairley (1999)]
Fairley (2003) [reanalysis
of Fairley (1999)]
Fairley (2003) [reanalysis
of Fairley (1999)]
Fairley (2003) [reanalysis
of Fairley (1999)]
Non-accidental
Non-accidental
Respiratory
Cardiovascular
<800
<800
Short-Term
1 1 , 35, 472-
519,710.0,
710.2,710.4
390-459
all
all
log-linear,
GAM
(stringent)
log-linear,
GAM
(stringent)
none
none
2
2
105
105
Oday
1 day
1-dayavg 0.00314 0.00064
1-dayavg -0.00153 -0.00380
0.00567
0.00071
Exposure Cause-Specific Mortality - Single Pollutant Models
all
all
log-linear,
GAM
(stringent)
log-linear,
GAM
(stringent)
Short-Term Exposure Total
Fairley (2003) [reanalysis
of Fairley (1999)]
Fairley (2003) [reanalysis
of Fairley (1999)]
Fairley (2003) [reanalysis
of Fairley (1999)]
Non-accidental
Non-accidental
Non-accidental
<800
<800
<800
all
all
all
Long-Term
Krewskietal. (2000)-
ACS
Pope etal. (2002) -ACS
extended
Krewskietal. (2000)-
ACS
Pope etal. (2002) -ACS
extended
Pope etal. (2002) -ACS
extended
All cause
All cause
Cardiopulmonary
Cardiopulmonary
Lung cancer
all
all
401-440,
460-519
401-440,
460-519
162
30+
30+
30+
30+
30+
log-linear,
GAM
(stringent)
log-linear,
GAM
(stringent)
log-linear,
GAM
(stringent)
none
none
2
2
105
105
Mortality - Multi-Pollutant
NO2
CO
O3 - 8hr
Exposure Mortality - Single
log-linear
log-linear
log-linear
log-linear
log-linear
none
none
none
none
none
2
2
2
105
105
105
0 day
0 day
Models
0 day
Oday
Oday
1-dayavg 0.00446 -0.00416
1-dayavg 0.00248 -0.00168
1-dayavg 0.00402 0.00106
1-dayavg 0.00363 0.00085
1-dayavg 0.00340 0.00085
0.01307
0.00666
0.00698
0.00636
0.00594
Pollutant Models
10
7.5
10
7.5
7.5
38
30
38
30
30
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
annual 0.00463 0.00238
mean
annual 0.00583 0.00198
mean
annual 0.00943 0.00606
mean
annual 0.00862 0.00296
mean
annual 0.01310 0.00392
mean
0.00710
0.01044
0.01315
0.01484
0.02070
Abt Associates Inc.
C-13
June 2005
-------
Study
Health Effect
ICD-9 Codes Ages
Model
Other
Pollutants
in Model
Observed
Concentrations
min. max.
Lag
Exposure
Metric
PM2.5 Coeff.
Lower
Bound
Upper
Bound
Long-Term Exposure Mortality - Multi-Pollutant Models
Krewskietal. (2000)-
ACS
Krewskietal. (2000)-
ACS
Krewskietal. (2000)-
ACS
Krewskietal. (2000)-
ACS
All cause
All cause
All cause
All cause
all
all
all
all
30+
30+
30+
30+
log-linear
log-linear
log-linear
log-linear
CO
NO2
O3
SO2
10
10
10
10
38
38
38
38
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
annual
mean
annual
mean
annual
mean
annual
mean
0.00676
0.00812
0.00676
0.00121
0.00389
0.00426
0.00389
-0.00209
0.00976
0.01164
0.00976
0.00499
Abt Associates Inc.
C-14
June 2005
-------
Exhibit C.8. Study-Specific Information for PM2.5 Studies in Seattle, WA
Study
Health Effect 'C°'9
Codes
Ages
Model
Other Observed
Pollutants Concentrations
in Model min. max.
Lag
Er«r
PM2.5
Coeff.
Lower
Bound
Upper
Bound
Hospital Admissions - Single Pollutant Models
Sheppard (2003)
reanalysis of Sheppard et Asthma 493
al. (1999)]*
<65
Long-Term
Pope et al. (2002)
extended
Pope et al. (2002)
extended
Pope et al. (2002)
extended
-ACS
-ACS
-ACS
All cause all
401-440,
Cardiopulmonary 460_519
Lung cancer 162
30+
30+
30+
log-linear,
GAM
(stringent)
none 2.5
96
1 day
1-day avg
0.00332
0.00084
0.00494
Exposure Mortality - Single Pollutant Models
log-linear
log-linear
log-linear
none 7.5
none 7.5
none 7.5
30
30
30
n/a
n/a
n/a
annual
mean
annual
mean
annual
mean
0.00583
0.00862
0.01310
0.00198
0.00296
0.00392
0.01044
0.01484
0.02070
'Sheppard (2003) [reanalysis of Sheppard et al. (1999)] used daily PM2.5 values obtained from nephelometry measurements rather than from air quality monitors.
Abt Associates Inc. C-15 June 2005
-------
Exhibit C.9. Study-Specific Information for PM2.5 Studies in St. Louis, MO
Study
Health Effect
ICD-9
Codes
Other Observed
Ages Model Pollutants Concentrations Lag
in Model min. max.
Short-Term Exposure Total Mortality
Schwartz (2003b)
reanalysis of Schwartz et
al. (1996)]
Schwartz (2003b)
reanalysis of Schwartz et
al. (1996)] -6 cities
Non-accidental
Non-accidental
<800
<800
log-linear,
all GAM none
(stringent)
log-linear,
all GAM none
(stringent)
- Sinale Pollutant Models
0.9 88.9 ,mef /I
lag 0 & 1
„ .-,. mean of
° 174 lagO&1
Exposure PM2.5 Lower
Metric Coeff. Bound
2-day avg 0.00102 0.00037
2-day avg 0.00137 0.00098
Upper
Bound
0.00167
0.00176
Short-Term Exposure Cause-Specific Mortality ~ Single Pollutant Models
Klemm and Mason (2003)
reanalysis of Klemm et al.
(2000)]
Klemm and Mason (2003)
reanalysis of Klemm et al.
(2000)]
Klemm and Mason (2003)
reanalysis of Klemm et al.
(2000)]
Klemm and Mason (2003)
reanalysis of Klemm et al.
(2000)] - 6 cities
Klemm and Mason (2003)
reanalysis of Klemm et al.
2000)] -- 6 cities
Klemm and Mason (2003)
reanalysis of Klemm et al.
2000)] -- 6 cities
COPD
Ischemic heart
disease
Pneumonia
COPD
Ischemic heart
disease
Pneumonia
490-492,
494-496
410-414
480-487
490-492,
494-496
410-414
480-487
Log-linear,
all GAM none
(stringent)
Log-linear,
all GAM none
(stringent)
Log-linear,
all GAM none
(stringent)
Log-linear,
all GAM none
(stringent)
Log-linear,
all GAM none
(stringent)
Log-linear,
all GAM none
(stringent)
Respiratory Symptoms and Illnesses*
Schwartz and Neas (2000) -
- 6 cities
Schwartz and Neas (2000) -
- 6 cities
Lower respiratory
symptoms
Cough
n/a
n/a
7-14 logistic none
7-14 logistic none
0.9 88.9 0 day
0.9 88.9 0 day
0.9 88.9 0 day
0 174 Oday
0 174 Oday
0 174 Oday
- Single Pollutant Models
N/A N/A 1 day
N/A N/A 0 day
2-day avg 0.00060 -0.00294
2-day avg 0.00129 0.00030
2-day avg 0.00109 -0.00253
2-day avg 0.00227 0.00010
2-day avg 0.00178 0.00109
2-day avg 0.00402 0.00188
1 -day avg 0.01901 0.00696
3-day avg 0.00989 -0.00067
0.00411
0.00237
0.00459
0.00440
0.00247
0.00602
0.03049
0.02050
Abt Associates Inc.
C-16
June 2005
-------
Study
Health Effect
ICD-9
Codes
Ages Model
Other Observed
Pollutants Concentrations Lag
in Model min. max.
Exposure
Metric
PM2.5
Coeff.
Lower
Bound
Upper
Bound
Respiratory Symptoms and Illnesses* - Multi-Pollutant Models
Schwartz and Neas (2000) -
- 6 cities
Schwartz and Neas (2000) -
- 6 cities
Lower respiratory
symptoms
Cough
n/a
n/a
7-14 logistic
7-14 logistic
Long-Term Exposure
Krewski et al. (2000) - Six
Cities
Krewski etal. (2000) -ACS
Pope et al. (2002) - ACS
extended
Krewski et al. (2000) - Six
Cities
Krewski etal. (2000) -ACS
Pope et al. (2002) - ACS
extended
Pope et al. (2002) - ACS
extended
All cause
All cause
All cause
Cardiopulmonary
Cardiopulmonary
Cardiopulmonary
Lung cancer
all
all
all
400-440,
485-495
401-440,
460-519
401-440,
460-519
162
25+ log-linear
30+ log-linear
30+ log-linear
25+ log-linear
30+ log-linear
30+ log-linear
30+ log-linear
Long-Term Exposure
Krewski etal. (2000) -ACS
Krewski etal. (2000) -ACS
Krewski etal. (2000) -ACS
Krewski etal. (2000) -ACS
All cause
All cause
All cause
All cause
all
all
all
all
30+ log-linear
30+ log-linear
30+ log-linear
30+ log-linear
PM10-2
PM10-2
Vlortality ~
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
Mortality -
CO
NO2
O3
SO2
5 N/A
5 N/A
N/A
N/A
Single Pollutant
11
10
7.5
11
10
7.5
7.5
29.6
38
30
29.6
38
30
30
1 day
Oday
Models
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
1 -day avg
3-day avg
annual
mean
annual
mean
annual
mean
annual
mean
annual
mean
annual
mean
annual
mean
0.01698
0.00451
0.01243
0.00463
0.00583
0.01693
0.00943
0.00862
0.01310
0.00388
-0.00702
0.00414
0.00238
0.00198
0.00561
0.00606
0.00296
0.00392
0.03007
0.01541
0.02071
0.00710
0.01044
0.02789
0.01315
0.01484
0.02070
• Multi-Pollutant Models
10
10
10
10
38
38
38
38
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
annual
mean
annual
mean
annual
mean
annual
mean
0.00676
0.00812
0.00676
0.00121
0.00389
0.00426
0.00389
-0.00209
0.00976
0.01164
0.00976
0.00499
The C-R functions for lower respiratory symptoms and cough were calculated for the summer period April 1 through August 31.
Abt Associates Inc.
C-17
June 2005
-------
Exhibit C.10. Study-Specific Information for Studies on Mortality Associated with Long-Term Exposure to PM2.
Study
Health Effect 'C°'9
Codes
Ages
Other
Model Pollutants
in Model
Observed
Concentrations
min. max.
Lag
Exposure
Metric
PM2.5
Coeff.
Lower
Bound
Upper
Bound
Long-Term Exposure Mortality - Single Pollutant Models
Krewski et al. (2000) - Six
Cities
Krewski et al. (2000) -
ACS
Pope et al. (2002) - ACS
extended
Krewski et al. (2000) - Six
Cities
Krewski et al. (2000) -
ACS
Pope et al. (2002) - ACS
extended
Pope et al. (2002) - ACS
extended
All cause all
All cause all
All cause all
_ .. . 400-440,
Cardiopulmonary 485_4Q5
_ , . 401-440,
Cardiopulmonary 460_519
_ , . 401-440,
Cardiopulmonary 460_519
Lung cancer 162
25+
30+
30+
25+
30+
30+
30+
Long-Term
Krewski et al. (2000) -
ACS
Krewski et al. (2000) -
ACS
Krewski et al. (2000) -
ACS
Krewski et al. (2000) -
ACS
All cause all
All cause all
All cause all
All cause all
30+
30+
30+
30+
log-linear
log-linear
log-linear
log-linear
log-linear
log-linear
log-linear
Exposure
log-linear
log-linear
log-linear
log-linear
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
11
10
7.5
11
10
7.5
7.5
29.6
38
30
29.6
38
30
30
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
annual
mean
annual
mean
annual
mean
annual
mean
annual
mean
annual
mean
annual
mean
0.012425
0.004626
0.005827
0.016925
0.009433
0.008618
0.013103
0.004138
0.002378
0.001980
0.005611
0.006058
0.002956
0.003922
0.020713
0.007100
0.010436
0.027892
0.013146
0.014842
0.020701
Mortality — Multi-Pollutant Models
CO
N02
03
S02
10
10
10
10
38
38
38
38
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
annual
mean
annual
mean
annual
mean
annual
mean
0.006756
0.008116
0.006756
0.001206
0.003890
0.004260
0.003890
-0.002094
0.009756
0.011640
0.009756
0.004988
Abt Associates Inc.
C-18
June 2005
-------
C.2. The PM10_2 5 data
Exhibit C.11. Study-Specific Information for PM10.25 Studies in Detroit, Ml
Study
Health Effect
ICD-9
Codes
Ages
Model
Short-Term Exposure
Ito (2003) [reanalysis
of Lippmann et al.
(2000)]
Non-
accidental
<800
all
log-linear,
GAM
(stringent)
Other Observed
Pollutants Concentrations
in Model min. max.
Total Mortality -
none
Lag
Exposure PM Coarse Lower
Metric Coefficient Bound
Upper
Bound
- Single Pollutant Models
1
Short-Term Exposure Cause-Specific Mortality -
Ito (2003) [reanalysis
of Lippmann et al.
(2000)]
Ito (2003) [reanalysis
of Lippmann et al.
(2000)]
Circulatory
Respiratory
390-
459
460-
519
all
all
log-linear,
GAM
(stringent)
log-linear,
GAM
(stringent)
none
none
Hospital Admissions - Single
Ito (2003) [reanalysis
of Lippmann et al.
(2000)]
Ito (2003) [reanalysis
of Lippmann et al.
(2000)]
Ito (2003) [reanalysis
of Lippmann et al.
(2000)]
Ito (2003) [reanalysis
of Lippmann et al.
(2000)]
Ito (2003) [reanalysis
of Lippmann et al.
(2000)]
Pneumonia
COPD+
Ischemic
heart disease
Dysrhythmias
Congestive
heart failure
480-
486
490-
496
410-
414
427
428
65+
65+
65+
65+
65+
log-linear,
GAM
(stringent)
log-linear,
GAM
(stringent)
log-linear,
GAM
(stringent)
log-linear,
GAM
(stringent)
log-linear,
GAM
(stringent)
none
none
none
none
none
1
1
50
1 day
1-day
avg 0.0012721 -0.0007568
0.0032838
Single Pollutant Models
50
50
1 day
2 day
1-day
1-day
avg 0.0025848 -0.0004188
avg 0.0027021 -0.0039754
0.0055690
0.0093975
Pollutant Models
1
1
1
1
1
50
50
50
50
50
1 day
3 day
2 day
0 day
0 day
1-day
1-day
1-day
1-day
1-day
avg 0.0037814 -0.0004188
avg 0.0033223 -0.0019622
avg 0.0038954 0.0009475
avg 0.0000416 -0.0052791
avg 0.0017142 -0.0016142
0.0079769
0.0085917
0.0068258
0.0053863
0.0050924
Abt Associates Inc.
C-19
June 2005
-------
Exhibit C.12. Study-Specific Information for PM10.25 Studies in Seattle, WA
Study
Health
Effect
ICD-9
Codes
Ages
Model
Other
Pollutants
in Model
Observed
Concentrations
min. max.
Lag
Exposure
Metric
PM Coarse
Coefficient
Lower
Bound
Upper
Bound
Hospital Admissions - Single Pollutant Models
Sheppard (2003)
[reanalysis of Sheppard et
al. (1999)]*
Asthma
493
<65
log-linear,
GAM
(stringent)
none
N/A 88
1 day
1 -day avg
0.0021293
0.0000000
0.0052463
'Sheppard (2003) [reanalysis of Sheppard et al. (1999)] used daily PM2.5 values obtained from nephelometry measurements rather than from air quality monitors.
Abt Associates Inc. C-20 June 2005
-------
Exhibit C.13. Study-Specific Information for Studies in St. Louis, MO
Study
[reanalysis of
Schwartz et al.
(1996)]
Health Effect
Mon-accidental
ICD-9 . .. . ,
Codes AgeS M°del
Short-Term Exposure Total
log-linear,
penalized spline
< 800 all model
Other Observed _ _.. _
™:r c™r - =e -=
Mortality - Single Pollutant Models
none -2.3 102.6 0 day 2-day avg 0.0001090
Lower Upper
Bound Bound
-0.0008632 0.0010812
Respiratory Symptoms and Illnesses* -Single Pollutant Models
Schwartz and Neas,
2000 - 6 cities
Schwartz and Neas,
2000 - 6 cities
Schwartz and Neas,
2000 - 6 cities
Schwartz and Neas,
2000 - 6 cities
Lower
respiratory
symptoms
Cough
Lower
respiratory
symptoms
Cough
N/A 7-14 logistic
N/A 7-14 logistic
Respiratory Symptoms and
N/A 7-14 logistic
N/A 7-14 logistic
none 0 121 0 day 3-day avg 0.0163785
none 0 121 0 day 3-day avg 0.0227902
Illnesses* - Multi-Pollutant Models
PM2.5 0 121 0 day 3-day avg 0.0060988
PM2.5 0 121 0 day 3-day avg 0.0206893
-0.0025253 0.0633522
0.0084573 0.0375131
-0.0131701 0.0258768
0.0049026 0.0365837
The C-R functions for lower respiratory symptoms and cough were calculated for the summer period April 1 through August 31.
Abt Associates Inc.
C-21
June 2005
-------
Appendix D. Estimated Annual Health Risks Associated with "As Is" PM2 5
Concentrations
Abt Associates Inc. June 2005
-------
D.I Primary analysis
Exhibit D.1. Estimated Annual Health Risks Associated with "As Is" PM2.5 Concentrations
Boston, MA, 2003
Health Effects*
Short-Term
Exposure
Mortality
Long-Term
Exposure
Mortality
Study
Type
Ages
Lag
Single Pol
Schwartz (2003b) [reanalysis of
Schwartz etal. (1996)]
Schwartz (2003b) [reanalysis of
Schwartz et al. (1996)] - 6 cities
Non-accidental
Non-accidental
all
all
Sing
Klemm and Mason (2003) [reanalysis
of Klemm et al. (2000)]
Klemm and Mason (2003) [reanalysis
of Klemm et al. (2000)]
Klemm and Mason (2003) [reanalysis
of Klemm et al. (2000)]
Klemm and Mason (2003) [reanalysis
of Klemm et al. (2000)] - 6 cities
Klemm and Mason (2003) [reanalysis
of Klemm et al. (2000)] - 6 cities
Klemm and Mason (2003) [reanalysis
of Klemm et al. (2000)] - 6 cities
(JUHU
Ischemic heart
disease
Pneumonia
COPD
Ischemic heart
disease
Pneumonia
all
all
all
all
all
all
mean of
lag 0 & 1
mean of
lag 0 & 1
Other
Pollutants
in Model
Health Effects Associated with PM2.5 Above Specified Levels**
Incidence
Incidence per 100,000
General Population
Percent of Total Incidence
utant Models (Total Mortality)
390
(265-514)
261
(186-334)
14
(9-18)
9
(7-12)
1 .8%
(1 .2% - 2.4%)
1 .2%
(0.9% - 1 .5%)
e Pollutant Models (Cause-Specific Mortality)
0 day
Oday
Oday
Oday
Oday
Oday
24
(-12-56)
79
(44-112)
36
(16-53)
20
(1 - 38)
53
(33 - 73)
25
(12-37)
1
(0-2)
3
(2-4)
1
(1-2)
1
(0-1)
2
(1-3)
1
(0-1)
2.4%
(-1 .2% - 5.6%)
2.3%
(1 .3% - 3.3%)
4.9%
(2.2% - 7.3%)
2.0%
(0.1% -3.8%)
1 .6%
(1.0% -2.1%)
3.5%
(1.6% -5.1%)
Single Pollutant Models
Krewski et al. (2000) - Six Cities
Krewski etal. (2000) -ACS
Krewski et al. (2000) - Six Cities
Krewski etal. (2000) -ACS
Pope et al. (2002) - ACS extended
Pope et al. (2002) - ACS extended
Pope et al. (2002) - ACS extended
All cause
All cause
Cardiopulmonary
Cardiopulmonary
All cause
Cardiopulmonary
Lung cancer
25+
30+
25+
30+
30+
30+
30+
1258
(427 - 2058)
473
(245 - 722)
626
(213-1007)
415
(269 - 574)
594
(204-1053)
380
(132-645)
91
(28-141)
45
(15-73)
17
(9 - 26)
22
(8 - 36)
15
(10-20)
21
(7 - 38)
14
(5 - 23)
3
(1-5)
5.6%
(1.9% -9.1%)
2.1%
(1.1% -3.2%)
7.5%
(2.6% -12.1%)
4.3%
(2.8% - 5.9%)
2.7%
(0.9% - 4.7%)
3.9%
(1 .4% - 6.6%)
5.9%
(1.8% -9.1%)
Abt Associates Inc.
D-1
June 2005
-------
Health Effects*
Respiratory
Symptoms***
Study
Type
Ages
Lag
Other
Pollutants
in Model
Health Effects Associated with PM2.5 Above Specified Levels**
Incidence
Incidence per 100,000
General Population
Percent of Total Incidence
Multi-Pollutant Models
Krewski et al. (2000) - ACS
Krewskietal. (2000) -ACS
Krewski etal. (2000) -ACS
Krewskietal. (2000) -ACS
All cause
All cause
All cause
All cause
30+
30+
30+
30+
CO
NO2
O3
SO2
688
(399 - 986)
824
(436-1172)
688
(399 - 986)
124
(-217-510)
25
(14-35)
29
(16-42)
25
(14-35)
4
(-8-18)
3.1%
(1 .8% - 4.4%)
3.7%
(2.0% - 5.2%)
3.1%
(1 .8% - 4.4%)
0.6%
(-1 .0% - 2.3%)
Single Pollutant Models
Schwartz and Neas (2000) - 6 cities
Schwartz and Neas (2000) - 6 cities
Lower respiratory
symptoms
Cough
7-14
7-14
1 day
Oday
7900
(3800-14500)
12500
(-900 - 24300)
300
(100-500)
400
(0 - 900)
15.1%
(7.3% - 27.9%)
8.3%
(-0.6% -16.1%)
Multi-Pollutant Models
Schwartz and Neas (2000) - 6 cities
Schwartz and Neas (2000) - 6 cities
Lower respiratory
symptoms
Cough
7-14
7-14
1 day
Oday
PM10-2.5
PM10-2.5
7100
(2200-14300)
5900
(-9900-18900)
300
(100-500)
200
(-400 - 700)
13.7%
(4.2% - 27.6%)
3.9%
(-6.5% -12.5%)
"Health effects are associated with short-term exposure to PM2.5 unless otherwise specified.
"For the short-term exposure studies, incidence was quantified down to the estimated policy relevant background level of 3.5 ug/m3. For the long-term exposure studies, incidence was quantified down to 7.5 ug/m3, which was the
lowest of the lowest measured levels in the long-term exposure studies. Incidences are rounded to the nearest whole number, except respiratory symptoms incidences which are rounded to the nearest 100; percents are rounded to the
nearest tenth.
***The C-R functions for lower respiratory symptoms and cough were calculated for the summer period April 1 through August 31.
Note 1: Numbers in parentheses are 95% confidence intervals based on statistical uncertainty surrounding the PM2.5 coefficient.
Note 2: Multi-city short-term exposure C-R functions were applied only to urban areas included among the cities used to estimate the function.
Abt Associates Inc.
D-2
June 2005
-------
Exhibit D.2a. Estimated Annual Health Risks Associated with "As Is" PM2.5 Concentrations
Los Angeles, CA, 2003
Health Effects*
Short-Term
Exposure
Mortality
Long-Term
Exposure
Mortality
Study
Type
Ages
Model
Lag
Single Pollutant Models (1
Moolgavkar (2003) [reanalysis of
Moolgavkar (2000a)]
Moolgavkar (2003) [reanalysis of
Moolgavkar (2000a)]
Non-accidental
Non-accidental
all
all
S
Moolgavkar (2003) [reanalysis of
Moolgavkar (2000a)]
Moolgavkar (2003) [reanalysis of
Moolgavkar (2000a)]
Cardiovascular
Cardiovascular
all
all
log-linear, GAM
(stringent), 30 df
log-linear, GAM
(stringent), 30 df
Oday
1 day
Other
Pollutants
in Model
Health Effects Associated with PM2.5 Above Policy Relevant Background or
Lowest Measured Level**
Incidence
Incidence per 100,000
General Population
Percent of Total
Incidence
otal Mortality)
ingle Pollutant Models (Cause-Specific 1
log-linear, GAM
(stringent), 30 df
log-linear, GAM
(stringent), 30 df
Uday
1 day
Multi-Pollutant Models (Total Morta
Moolgavkar (2003) [reanalysis of
Moolgavkar (2000a)]
Non-accidental
all
log-linear, GAM
(stringent). 30 df
1 day
CO
494
(-62-1038)
540
(2-1067)
5
(-1-11)
6
(0-11)
0.9%
(-0.1% -1.9%)
1 .0%
(0.0% -1.9%)
Mortality)
321
(33-601)
334
(52 - 608)
3
(0-6)
4
(1-6)
1 .6%
(0.2% -3.1%)
1.7%
(0.3% -3.1%)
ity)
-492
(-1235-232)
-5
(-13-2)
-0.9%
(-2.2% - 0.4%)
Multi-Pollutant Models (Cause-Specific Mortality)
Moolgavkar (2003) [reanalysis of
Moolgavkar (2000a)]
Moolgavkar (2003) [reanalysis of
Moolgavkar (2000a)]
Cardiovascular
Cardiovascular
all
all
log-linear, GAM
(stringent), 100df
log-linear, GAM
(stringent), 100df
Uday
1 day
CO
CO
572
(249 - 884)
296
(-40 - 620)
6
(3-9)
3
(0-7)
2.9%
(1.3% -4.5%)
1 .5%
(-0.2% -3.1%)
Single Pollutant Models
Krewski et al. (2UUU) - ACS
Krewski et al. (2000) - ACS
Pope et al. (2002) - ACS extended
Pope et al. (2002) - ACS extended
Pope et al. (2002) - ACS extended
All cause
Cardiopulmonary
All cause
Cardiopulmonary
Lung cancer
30+
30+
30+
30+
30+
log-linear
log-linear
log-linear
log-linear
log-linear
Multi-F
Krewski et al. (2000) - ACS
Krewski etal. (2000) -ACS
Krewski etal. (2000) -ACS
Krewski etal. (2000) -ACS
All cause
All cause
All cause
All cause
30+
30+
30+
30+
log-linear
log-linear
log-linear
log-linear
2945
(1534-4456)
3097
(2028 - 4225)
3684
(1280-6426)
2842
(1007-4725)
450
(142-681)
31
(16-47)
33
(21 - 44)
39
(13-68)
30
(11 -50)
5
(1-7)
5.2%
(2.7% - 7.9%)
10.4%
(6.8% -14.2%)
6.6%
(2.3% -11. 4%)
9.5%
(3.4% -15.9%)
14.1%
(4.5% -21. 4%)
'ollutant Models
CO
NO2
O3
SO2
4249
(2487-6031)
5065
(2718-7119)
4249
(2487-6031)
783
(-1386-3169)
45
(26 - 63)
53
(29 - 75)
45
(26 - 63)
8
(-15-33)
7.6%
(4.4% -10.7%)
9.0%
(4.8% -12.7%)
7.6%
(4.4% -10.7%)
1 .4%
(-2.5% - 5.6%)
*Health effects are associated with short-term exposure to PM2.5 unless otherwise specified.
** For the short-term exposure studies, health effects incidence was quantified down to the estimated policy relevant background level of 2.5 ug/m3. For the long-term exposure studies, health effects incidence was quantified down to 7.5 ug/m3,
which was the lowest of the lowest measured levels in the long-term exposure studies. Incidences are rounded to the nearest whole number; percents are rounded to the nearest tenth.
Note: Numbers in parentheses are 95% confidence intervals based on statistical uncertainty surrounding the PM2.5 coefficient.
Abt Associates Inc.
D-3
January 2005
-------
Exhibit D.2b. Estimated Annual Health Risks of Hospital Admissions Associated with "As Is" PM2.5 Concentrations
Los Angeles, CA, 2003
Health
Effects
Hospital
Admissions
Study
Type
Ages
Model
Lag
Other
Pollutants
in Model
Health Effects Associated with PM2.5 Above Policy Relevant
Background*
Incidence
Incidence per 100,000
General Population
Percent of Total
Incidence
Single Pollutant Models
Moolgavkar (2003) [reanalysis
of Moolgavkar(2000b)]
Moolgavkar (2003) [reanalysis
of Moolgavkar (2000b)]
Moolgavkar (2003) [reanalysis
of Moolgavkar (2000c)]
Moolgavkar (2003) [reanalysis
of Moolgavkar (2000c)]
Moolgavkar (2003) [reanalysis
of Moolgavkar (2000c)]
Cardiovascular
Cardiovascular
COPD+
COPD+
COPD+
65+
65+
all
all
all
log-linear, GAM
(stringent), 30 df
log-linear, GAM
(stringent), 30 df
log-linear, GAM
(stringent), 30 df
log-linear, GAM
(stringent), 30 df
log-linear, GAM
(stringent), 30 df
U day
1 day
Oday
1 day
2 day
1787
(1042-2516)
1576
(795 - 2339)
824
(346-1286)
591
(115-1050)
911
(417-1387)
19
(11 -26)
17
(8 - 25)
9
(4-14)
6
(1-11)
10
(4-15)
2.6%
(1.5% -3.6%)
2.3%
(1.2% -3.4%)
2.7%
(1.1% -4. 3%)
2.0%
(0.4% - 3.5%)
3.0%
(1.4% -4.6%)
Multi-Pollutant Models
Moolgavkar (2003) [reanalysis
of Moolgavkar (2000b)]
Moolgavkar (2003) [reanalysis
of Moolgavkar (2000b)]
Moolgavkar (2003) [reanalysis
of Moolgavkar (2000c)]
Moolgavkar (2003) [reanalysis
of Moolgavkar (2000c)]
Moolgavkar (2003) [reanalysis
of Moolgavkar (2000c)]
Cardiovascular
Cardiovascular
COPD+
COPD+
COPD+
fcib+
65+
all
all
all
log-linear, GAM
(stringent), 100 df
log-linear, GAM
(stringent), 100 df
log-linear, GAM
(stringent), 100df
log-linear, GAM
(stringent), 100df
log-linear, GAM
(stringent), 100df
U day
1 day
0 day
1 day
2 day
CU
CO
NO2
NO2
NO2
448
(-512-1380)
276
(-755-1276)
210
(-464 - 855)
-20
(-833 - 750)
176
(-524 - 842)
5
(-5-14)
3
(-8-13)
2
(-5 - 9)
0
(-9 - 8)
2
(-6 - 9)
0.7%
(-0.7% - 2.0%)
0.4%
(-1.1% -1.8%)
0.7%
(-1.5% -2.8%)
-0.1%
(-2.8% - 2.5%)
0.6%
(-1.7% -2.8%)
"Health effects are associated with short-term exposure to PM2.5 unless otherwise specified.
"Health effects incidence was quantified down to the estimated policy relevant background level of 2.5 pg/m3. Incidences are rounded to the nearest whole number; percents are rounded to the nearest tenth.
Note: Numbers in parentheses are 95% confidence intervals based on statistical uncertainty surrounding the PM2.5 coefficient.
Abt Associates Inc.
D-4
June 2005
-------
Exhibit D.3. Estimated Annual Health Risks Associated with "As Is" PM2.5 Concentrations
Philadelphia, PA, 2003
Health Effects
Short-Term
Exposure
Mortality
Long-Term
Exposure
Mortality
Study
Type
Ages
Lag
Other
Pollutants
in Model
Health Effects Associated with PM2.5 Above Specified Levels*
Incidence
Incidence per 100,000
General Population
Percent of Total Incidence
Single Pollutant Models (Cause-Specific Mortality)
Lipfert et al. (2000) - 7 counties
Cardiovascular
all
1 day
S
Krewski et al. (2000) - ACS
Krewski et al. (2000) - ACS
Pope et al. (2002) - ACS extended
Pope et al. (2002) - ACS extended
Pope et al. (2002) - ACS extended
All cause
Cardiopulmonary
All cause
Cardiopulmonary
Lung cancer
30+
30+
30+
30+
30+
412
(1 97 - 628)
27
(13-41)
2.5%
(1 .2% - 3.9%)
inqle Pollutant Models
518
(268 - 789)
462
(300 - 636)
650
(224 - 1 1 46)
424
(148-714)
94
(29-144)
34
(1 8 - 52)
30
(20 - 42)
43
(15-76)
28
(1 0 - 47)
6
(2-10)
3.1%
(1 .6% - 4.7%)
6.2%
(4.1% -8.6%)
3.9%
(1 .3% - 6.9%)
5.7%
(2.0% - 9.6%)
8.6%
(2.6% -13.2%)
Multi-Pollutant Models
Krewski et al. (2000) - ACS
Krewski et al. (2000) - ACS
Krewski et al. (2000) - ACS
Krewski et al. (2000) - ACS
All cause
All cause
All cause
All cause
30+
30+
30+
30+
CO
NO2
O3
SO2
751
(437-1074)
899
(478-1273)
751
(437-1074)
137
(-240 - 558)
50
(29-71)
59
(31 - 84)
50
(29-71)
9
(-1 6 - 37)
4.5%
(2.6% - 6.4%)
5.4%
(2.9% - 7.6%)
4.5%
(2.6% - 6.4%)
0.8%
(-1 .4% - 3.3%)
*For the short-term exposure studies, incidence was quantified down to the estimated policy relevant background level of 3.5 ug/m3. For the long-term exposure studies, incidence was quantified down to 7.5 ug/m3, which was the lowest of
the lowest measured levels in the long-term exposure studies. Incidences are rounded to the nearest whole number; percents are rounded to the nearest tenth.
Note 1: Numbers in parentheses are 95% confidence intervals based on statistical uncertainty surrounding the PM2.5 coefficient.
Note 2: Multi-county short-term exposure C-R functions were applied only to counties included among those used to estimate the function.
Abt Associates Inc.
D-5
June 2005
-------
Exhibit D.4. Estimated Annual Health Risks Associated with "As Is" PM2.5 Concentrations
Phoenix, AZ, 2001
Health
Effects
Short-
Term
Exposure
Mortality
Long-
Term
Exposure
Mortality
Study
Type
Ages
Lag
Other
Pollutants in
Model
Health Effects Associated with PM2.5 Above Specified Levels*
Incidence
Incidence per 100,000
General Population
Percent of Total Incidence
Single Pollutant Models (Cause-Specific Mortality)
Mar (2003) [reanalysis of Mar
(2000)]
Mar (2003) [reanalysis of Mar
(2000)]
Cardiovascular
Cardiovascular
65+
65+
0 day
1 day
185
(-52 - 407)
323
(97 - 536)
6
(-2-13)
11
(3-17)
2.9%
(-0.8% - 6.3%)
5.0%
(1.5% -8.3%)
Single Pollutant Models
Krewskietal. (2000) -ACS
Krewskietal. (2000) -ACS
Pope etal. (2002) -ACS
extended
Pope etal. (2002) -ACS
extended
Pope etal. (2002) -ACS
extended
All cause
Cardiopulmonary
All cause
Cardiopulmonary
Lung cancer
30+
30+
30+
30+
30+
277
(143-424)
259
(167-360)
349
(119-620)
237
(82 - 405)
48
(14-74)
9
(5-14)
8
(5-12)
11
(4 - 20)
8
(3-13)
2
(0-2)
1.3%
(0.7% - 2.0%)
2.7%
(1.7% -3. 8%)
1 .7%
(0.6% - 3.0%)
2.5%
(0.9% - 4.2%)
3.7%
(1.1% -5.8%)
Multi-Pollutant Models
Krewskietal. (2000) -ACS
Krewskietal. (2000) -ACS
Krewskietal. (2000) -ACS
Krewskietal. (2000) -ACS
All cause
All cause
All cause
All cause
30+
30+
30+
30+
CO
NO2
03
SO2
404
(233 - 580)
484
(255 - 690)
404
(233 - 580)
73
(-127-299)
13
(8-19)
16
(8 - 22)
13
(8-19)
2
(-4-10)
1.9%
(1.1% -2.8%)
2.3%
(1.2% -3. 3%)
1.9%
(1.1% -2.8%)
0.4%
(-0.6% - 1 .4%)
*For the short-term exposure studies, incidence was quantified down to the estimated policy relevant background level of 2.5 pg/m3. For the long-term exposure studies, incidence was quantified down to 7.5 ug/m3, which
was the lowest of the lowest measured levels in the long-term exposure studies. Incidences are rounded to the nearest whole number; percents are rounded to the nearest tenth.
Note: Numbers in parentheses are 95% confidence intervals based on statistical uncertainty surrounding the PM2.5 coefficient.
Abt Associates Inc.
D-6
June 2005
-------
Exhibit D.5. Estimated Annual Health Risks Associated with "As Is" PM2 5 Concentrations
Pittsburgh, PA, 2003
Health
Effects
Short-
Term
Exposure
Mortality
Long-
Term
Exposure
Mortality
Study
Type
Ages
Lag
Other Pollutants
in Model
Health Effects Associated with PM2.5 Above Specified Levels*
Incidence
Incidence per 100,000
General Population
Percent of Total Incidence
Single Pollutant Models (Total Mortality)
Chock et al. (2000)
Chock et al. (2000)
Non-accidental
Non-accidental
<75
75+
Oday
0 day
69
(-55-188)
77
(-166-311)
5
(-4-15)
6
(-13-24)
1 .4%
(-1.1% -3. 7%)
0.8%
(-1.7% -3.2%)
Multi-Pollutant Models (Total Mortality)
Chock et al. (2000)
Chock et al. (2000)
Non-accidental
Non-accidental
<75
75+
u day
Oday
CO, O3, SO2,
NO2, PM10-2.5
CO, O3, SO2,
NO2, PM10-2.5
88
(-60 - 230)
52
(-238 - 330)
7
(-5-18)
4
(-19-26)
1 .7%
(-1.2% -4.5%)
0.5%
(-2.4% - 3.4%)
Single Pollutant Models
Krewski et al. (2000) - ACS
Krewski et al. (2000) -ACS
Pope etal. (2002) -ACS
extended
Pope etal. (2002) -ACS
extended
Pope etal. (2002) -ACS
extended
AN cause
Cardiopulmonary
All cause
Cardiopulmonary
Lung cancer
30+
30+
30+
30+
30+
651
(338 - 988)
626
(408 - 857)
816
(282-1430)
574
(202 - 960)
116
(36-177)
51
(26 - 77)
49
(32 - 67)
64
(22-112)
45
(16-75)
9
(3-14)
4.3%
(2.2% - 6.5%)
8.5%
(5.6% - 1 1 .7%)
5.4%
(1.9% -9.4%)
7.8%
(2.8% -13.1%)
1 1 .6%
(3.6% -17.8%)
Multi-Pollutant Models
Krewski et al. (2000) - ACS
Krewski etal. (2000) -ACS
Krewski etal. (2000) -ACS
Krewski etal. (2000) -ACS
AN cause
All cause
All cause
All cause
30+
30+
30+
30+
CO
NO2
O3
SO2
942
(550-1341)
1124
(601 -1586)
942
(550-1341)
173
(-304-701)
73
(43-105)
88
(47-124)
73
(43-105)
13
(-24 - 55)
6.2%
(3.6% - 8.8%)
7.4%
(3.9% -10.4%)
6.2%
(3.6% - 8.8%)
1.1%
(-2.0% - 4.6%)
*For the short-term exposure studies, incidence was quantified down to the estimated policy relevant background level of 3.5 ug/m3 . For the long-term exposure studies, incidence was quantified down to 7.5 ug/m3, which
was the lowest of the lowest measured levels in the long-term exposure studies. Incidences are rounded to the nearest whole number; percents are rounded to the nearest tenth.
Note: Numbers in parentheses are 95% confidence intervals based on statistical uncertainty surrounding the PM2.5 coefficient.
A bt Associates Inc.
D-7
June 2005
-------
Exhibit D.6. Estimated Annual Health Risks Associated with "As Is" PIV^5 Concentrations
San Jose, CA, 2003
Health
Effects
Short-
Term
Exposure
Mortality
Long-Term
Exposure
Mortality
Study
Type
Ages
Lag
Other
Pollutants
in Model
Health Effects Associated with PM2.5 Above Specified Levels*
Incidence
Incidence per 100,000 General
Population
Percent of Total Incidence
Single Pollutant Models (Total Mortality)
Fairley (2003) [reanalysis of Fairley
(1999)]
Fairley (2003) [reanalysis of Fairley
(1999)1
Non-accidental
Non-accidental
all
all
Oday
1 day
218
(45 - 387)
-110
(-278 - 50)
13
(3 - 23)
-7
(-17-3)
2.6%
(0.5% - 4.7%)
-1 .3%
(-3.4% - 0.6%)
Single Pollutant Models (Cause-Specific Mortality)
Fairley (2003) [reanalysis of Fairley
(1999)]
Fairley (2003) [reanalysis of Fairley
(1999)]
Kespiratory
Cardiovascular
all
all
(Jday
Oday
32
(-32 - 88)
72
(-50-188)
2
(-2 - 5)
4
(-3-11)
3.7%
(-3. 7% -10. 2%)
2.1%
(-1 .5% - 5.4%)
Multi-Pollutant Models (Total Mortality)
Fairley (2003) [reanalysis of Fairley
(1999)]
Fairley (2003) [reanalysis of Fairley
(1999)]
Fairley (2003) [reanalysis of Fairley
(1999)]
Non-accidental
Non-accidental
Non-accidental
all
all
all
(Jday
Oday
Oday
NO2
CO
O3 - 8hr
277
(74 - 472)
251
(60 - 432)
236
(60 - 404)
16
(4 - 28)
15
(4 - 26)
14
(4 - 24)
3.3%
(0.9% - 5.7%)
3.0%
(0.7% - 5.2%)
2.8%
(0.7% - 4.9%)
Single Pollutant Models
Krewskietal. (2000) -ACS
Krewskietal. (2000) -ACS
Pope et al. (2002) - ACS extended
Pope et al. (2002) - ACS extended
Pope et al. (2002) - ACS extended
All cause
Cardiopulmonary
All cause
Cardiopulmonary
Lung cancer
30+
30+
30+
30+
30+
137
(71 -210)
137
(88-190)
172
(59 - 306)
125
(43-213)
23
(7 - 35)
8
(4-12)
8
(5-11)
10
(4-18)
7
(3-13)
1
(0-2)
1 .6%
(0.8% - 2.5%)
3.3%
(2.1% -4. 6%)
2.1%
(0.7% - 3.6%)
3.0%
(1.1% -5.1%)
4.6%
(1.4% -7.1%)
Multi-Pollutant Models
Krewski et al. (2000) - ACS
Krewskietal. (2000) -ACS
Krewskietal. (2000) -ACS
Krewskietal. (2000) -ACS
All cause
All cause
All cause
All cause
30+
30+
30+
30+
CO
NO2
O3
SO2
199
(115-287)
239
(126-341)
199
(115-287)
36
(-63-148)
12
(7-17)
14
(8 - 20)
12
(7-17)
2
(-4 - 9)
2.4%
(1.4% -3. 4%)
2.9%
(1.5% -4.1%)
2.4%
(1.4% -3. 4%)
0.4%
(-0.8% - 1 .8%)
Tor the short-term exposure studies, incidence was quantified down to the estimated policy relevant background level of 2.5 |jg/m3 . For the long-term exposure studies, incidence was quantified down to 7.5 ug/m3, which was the lowest of
the lowest measured levels in the long-term exposure studies. Incidences are rounded to the nearest whole number; percents are rounded to the nearest tenth.
Note: Numbers in parentheses are 95% confidence intervals based on statistical uncertainty surrounding the PM2.5 coefficient.
Abt Associates Inc.
D-8
June 2005
-------
Exhibit D.7. Estimated Annual Health Risks Associated with "As Is" PM25 Concentrations
Seattle, WA, 2003
Health
Effects*
Long-Term
Exposure
Mortality
Hospital
Admissions
Study
Type
Ages
Lag
Other
Pollutants in
Model
Health Effects Associated with PM2.5 Above Specified Levels**
Incidence
Incidence per 100,000
General Population
Percent of Total Incidence
Single Pollutant Models
Krewskietal. (2000) -ACS
Krewskietal. (2000) -ACS
Popeetal. (2002) -ACS
extended
Popeetal. (2002) -ACS
extended
Popeetal. (2002) -ACS
extended
All cause
Cardiopulmonary
All cause
Cardiopulmonary
Lung cancer
30+
30+
30+
30+
30+
40
(20-61)
36
(23 - 50)
50
(17-89)
33
(11-57)
8
(2-12)
2
(1-3)
2
(1-3)
3
(1-5)
2
(1-3)
0
(0-1)
0.4%
(0.2% - 0.6%)
0.7%
(0.5% -1.0%)
0.5%
(0.2% - 0.8%)
0.7%
(0.2% -1.1%)
1.0%
(0.3% - 1 .6%)
Multi-Pollutant Models
Krewskietal. (2000) -ACS
Krewskietal. (2000) -ACS
Krewskietal. (2000) -ACS
Krewskietal. (2000) -ACS
All cause
All cause
All cause
All cause
30+
30+
30+
30+
CO
NO2
03
SO2
58
(33 - 83)
69
(36 - 99)
58
(33 - 83)
10
(-18-43)
3
(2-5)
4
(2-6)
3
(2-5)
1
(-1 - 2)
0.5%
(0.3% - 0.8%)
0.6%
(0.3% - 0.9%)
0.5%
(0.3% - 0.8%)
0.1%
(-0.2% - 0.4%)
Single Pollutant Models
Sheppard (2003) [reanalysis of
Sheppard etal. (1999)]***
Astnma
<65
1 day
30
(8 - 45)
2
(0-3)
1.9%
(0.5% -2. 8%)
"Health effects are associated with short-term exposure to PM2.5 unless otherwise specified.
**For the short-term exposure studies, incidence was quantified down to the estimated policy relevant background level of 2.5 pg/m3 . For the long-term exposure studies, incidence was quantified down to 7.5 ug/m3,
which was the lowest of the lowest measured levels in the long-term exposure studies. Incidences are rounded to the nearest whole number; percents are rounded to the nearest tenth.
***Sheppard (2003) [reanalysis of Sheppard et al. (1999)] used daily PM2.5 values obtained from nephelometer measurements rather than from air quality monitors.
Note: Numbers in parentheses are 95% confidence intervals based on statistical uncertainty surrounding the PM2.5 coefficient.
Abt Associates Inc.
D-9
June 2005
-------
Exhibit D.8. Estimated Annual Health Risks Associated with "As Is" PM25 Concentrations
St. Louis, MO, 2003
Health
Effects*
Short-Term
Exposure
Mortality
Long-Term
Exposure
Mortality
Study
Type
Ages
Lag
Other
Pollutants
in Model
Health Effects Associated with PM2.5 Above Specified Levels**
Incidence
Incidence per 100,000
General Population
Percent of Total Incidence
Single Pollutant Models (Total Mortality)
Schwartz (2003b) [reanalysis of
Schwartz etal. (1996)]
Schwartz (2003b) [reanalysis of
Schwartz et al. (1996)] - 6 cities
Non-accidental
Non-accidental
all
all
mean of
lag 0 & 1
mean of
lag 0 & 1
233
(86 - 379)
312
(224-401)
9
(3-15)
12
(9-16)
1.1%
(0.4% - 1 .7%)
1 .4%
(1.0% -1.8%)
Single Pollutant Models (Cause-Specific Mortality)
Klemm and Mason (2003) [reanalysis
ofKlemmetal. (2000)]
Klemm and Mason (2003) [reanalysis
ofKlemmetal. (2000)]
Klemm and Mason (2003) [reanalysis
ofKlemmetal. (2000)]
Klemm and Mason (2003) [reanalysis
of Klemm et al. (2000)] - 6 cities
Klemm and Mason (2003) [reanalysis
of Klemm et al. (2000)] - 6 cities
Klemm and Mason (2003) [reanalysis
of Klemm et al. (2000)] - 6 cities
cum
Ischemic heart
disease
Pneumonia
COPD
Ischemic heart
disease
Pneumonia
all
all
all
all
all
all
U day
0 day
0 day
0 day
0 day
0 day
6
(-31 - 42)
70
(16-127)
8
(-18-31)
23
(1-44)
96
(59-132)
28
(13-41)
0
(-1 - 2)
3
(1-5)
0
(-1-1)
1
(0-2)
4
(2-5)
1
(1-2)
0.6%
(-3.2% - 4.2%)
1 .4%
(0.3% -2. 5%)
1.1%
(-2.7% - 4.7%)
2.4%
(0.1% -4. 5%)
1.9%
(1.1% -2. 6%)
4.1%
(2.0% -6.1%)
Single Pollutant Models
Krewski et al. (2000) - Six Cities
Krewskietal. (2000) -ACS
Krewski et al. (2000) - Six Cities
Krewskietal. (2000) -ACS
Pope et al. (2002) - ACS extended
Pope et al. (2002) - ACS extended
Pope et al. (2002) - ACS extended
All cause
All cause
Cardiopulmonary
Cardiopulmonary
All cause
Cardiopulmonary
Lung cancer
25+
30+
25+
30+
30+
30+
30+
1773
(606 - 2878)
671
(348-1022)
1028
(353-1636)
659
(428 - 907)
842
(290-1486)
603
(211 -1018)
125
(38-192)
70
(24-114)
27
(14-41)
41
(14-65)
26
(17-36)
33
(12-59)
24
(8 - 40)
5
(2-8)
7.8%
(2.7% -12.6%)
3.0%
(1.5% -4.5%)
10.4%
(3.6% -16.6%)
6.0%
(3.9% - 8.2%)
3.7%
(1.3% -6.6%)
5.5%
(1.9% -9.2%)
8.2%
(2. 5% -12.6%)
Abt Associates Inc.
D-10
June 2005
-------
Health
Effects*
Respiratory
Symptoms***
Study
Type
Ages
Lag
Other
Pollutants
in Model
Health Effects Associated with PM2.5 Above Specified Levels**
Incidence
Incidence per 100,000
General Population
Percent of Total Incidence
Multi-Pollutant Models
Krewskietal. (2000) -ACS
Krewskietal. (2000) -ACS
Krewskietal. (2000) -ACS
Krewskietal. (2000) -ACS
All cause
All cause
All cause
All cause
30+
30+
30+
30+
CO
N02
03
S02
973
(566-1392)
1164
(619-1651)
973
(566-1392)
177
(-310-723)
39
(22 - 55)
46
(25 - 66)
39
(22 - 55)
7
(-12-29)
4.3%
(2.5% - 6.2%)
5.2%
(2.7% -7. 3%)
4.3%
(2.5% - 6.2%)
0.8%
(-1.4% -3. 2%)
Single Pollutant Models
Schwartz and Neas (2000) - 6 cities
Schwartz and Neas (2000) -- 6 cities
Lower respiratory
symptoms
Cough
7-14
7-14
1 day
0 day
10800
(4300-16300)
17600
(-1300-34000)
400
(200 - 600)
700
(-100-1300)
19.2%
(7.7% - 28.9%)
10.7%
(-0.8% - 20.7%)
Multi-Pollutant Models
Schwartz and Neas (2000) -- 6 cities
Schwartz and Neas (2000) - 6 cities
Lower respiratory
symptoms
Cough
7-14
7-14
1 day
Oday
PM1 0-2.5
PM1 0-2.5
9800
(2500-16100)
8300
(-14000-26400)
400
(100-600)
300
(-600-1000)
17.4%
(4.4% - 28.6%)
5.1%
(-8. 5% -16.0%)
"Health effects are associated with short-term exposure to PM2.5 unless otherwise specified.
** For the short-term exposure studies, incidence was quantified down to the estimated policy relevant background level of 3.5 pg/m3. For the long-term exposure studies, incidence was quantified down to 7.5 ug/m3, which was
the lowest of the lowest measured levels in the long-term exposure studies. Incidences are rounded to the nearest whole number, except respiratory symptoms incidences which are rounded to the nearest 100; percents are
rounded to the nearest tenth.
***The C-R functions for lower respiratory symptoms and cough were calculated for the summer period April 1 through August 31.
Note 1: Numbers in parentheses are 95% confidence intervals based on statistical uncertainty surrounding the PM2.5 coefficient.
Note 2: Multi-city short-term exposure C-R functions were applied only to urban areas included among the cities used to estimate the function.
Abt Associates Inc.
D-ll
June 2005
-------
Exhibit D.9. Estimated Annual Mortality Associated with Short-Term and Long-Term Exposure to "As Is"
PM2.s Concentrations, Assuming Various Outpoint Levels*
Boston, MA, 2003
Health
Effects
Short-
Term
Exposure
Mortality
Long-
Term
Exposure
Mortality
Study
Type
Ages
Lag
Other
Pollutants
in Model
Incidence Associated with PM2.5 Assuming Various Outpoint Levels**
(95% Confidence Interval)
Percent of Total Incidence
(95% Confidence Interval)
Policy Relevant
Background
=3.5 ug/m3
Cutpoint
=10 ug/m3
Cutpoint
=15 ug/m3
Cutpoint
=20 ug/m3
Single Pollutant Models (Total Mortality]
Schwartz (2003b) [reanalysis
of Schwartz et al. (1996)]
Schwartz (2003b) [reanalysis
of Schwartz et al. (1996)] - 6
cities
Non-accidental
Non-accidental
all
all
mean of
lag 0 & 1
mean of
lag 0 & 1
390
(265-514)
1 .8%
(1.2% -2.4%)
261
(186-334)
1 .2%
(0.9% - 1 .5%)
Cutpoint
= 7.5 ug/m3
173
(118-228)
0.8%
(0.5% -1.1%)
109
(78-140)
0.5%
(0.4% - 0.6%)
Cutpoint
=10 ug/m3
82
(56-109)
0.4%
(0.3% - 0.5%)
49
(35 - 63)
0.2%
(0.2% - 0.3%)
Cutpoint
=12 ug/m3
41
(28 - 53)
0.2%
(0.1% -0.2%)
23
(16-29)
0.1%
(0.1% -0.1%)
Single Pollutant Models
Krewski et al. (2000) - Six
Cities
Krewski et al. (2000) - ACS
Pope etal. (2002) -ACS
extended
All cause
All cause
All cause
25+
30+
30+
IV
Krewski et al. (2000) - ACS
Krewski et al. (2000) - ACS
Krewski et al. (2000) - ACS
Krewski et al. (2000) - ACS
All cause
All cause
All cause
All cause
30+
30+
30+
30+
1258
(427 - 2058)
5.6%
(1.9% -9.1%)
473
(245 - 722)
2.1%
(1.1% -3.2%)
594
(204-1053)
2.7%
(0.9% - 4.7%)
661
(222-1091)
2.9%
(1 .0% - 4.8%)
238
(123-364)
1.1%
(0.6% - 1 .6%)
309
(106-551)
1 .4%
(0.5% - 2.5%)
44
(15-73)
0.2%
(0.1% -0.3%)
15
(8 - 23)
0.1%
(0.0% -0.1%)
20
(7 - 36)
0.1%
(0.0% - 0.2%)
ulti-Pollutant Models
CO
NO2
O3
SO2
688
(399 - 986)
3.1%
(1 .8% - 4.4%)
824
(436 - 1 1 72)
3.7%
(2.0% - 5.2%)
688
(399 - 986)
3.1%
(1 .8% - 4.4%)
124
(-217-510)
0.6%
(-1.0% -2.3%)
347
(200 - 499)
1 .6%
(0.9% - 2.2%)
416
(219-594)
1 .9%
(1.0% -2.7%)
347
(200 - 499)
1 .6%
(0.9% - 2.2%)
62
(-109-257)
0.3%
(-0.5% - 1 .2%)
22
(13-32)
0.1%
(0.1% -0.1%)
26
(14-38)
0.1%
(0.1% -0.2%)
22
(13-32)
0.1%
(0.1% -0.1%)
4
(-7-16)
0.0%
(0.0% -0.1%)
*For the short-term exposure studies, incidence was quantified down to policy relevant background level of 3.5 M9/m3, as well as down to each of the alternative cutpoints. For
the long-term exposure studies, incidence was quantified down to 7.5 M9/m3, the lowest of the lowest measured levels in the long-term exposure studies, as well as down to each
of the alternative cutpoints. For the cutpoints above policy relevant background, the slope of the C-R function has been modified based on a simple hockeystick model (see
discussion in section 2.5).
"Incidences are rounded to the nearest whole number; percents are rounded to the nearest tenth.
Abt Associates Inc.
D-12
June 2005
-------
Exhibit D.10. Estimated Annual Health Risks of Short-Term and Long-Term Exposure Mortality
Associated with "As Is" PM2.5 Concentrations Assuming Various Outpoint Levels*
Los Angeles, CA, 2003
Health
Effects
Short-
Term
Exposure
Mortality
Long-
Term
Exposure
Mortality
study
Type
Ages
Model
Single F
Moolgavkar (2003)
[reanalysis of Moolgavkar
Moolgavkar (2003)
[reanalysis of Moolgavkar
Non-accidental
Non-accidental
all
all
log-linear, GAM
(stringent), 30 df
log-linear, GAM
(stringent), 30 df
Lag
Other Pollutants
in Model
ollutant Models (Total
Oday
1 day
Incidence Associated with PM2.5 Assuming Various Outpoint Levels**
(95% Confidence Interval)
Percent of To al Incidence
(95% Confidence Interval)
Policy Relevant
Background
=2.5 ug/m3
Cutpoint
=10 ug/m3
Cutpoint
=15 ug/m3
Cutpoint
=20 ug/m3
Mortality
494
(-62-1038)
0.9%
(-0.1% -1.9%)
540
(2-1067)
1.0%
(0.0% -1.9%)
308
(-38 - 647)
0.6%
(-0.1% -1.2%)
336
(1 - 665)
0.6%
(0.0% -1.2%)
212
(-26 - 445)
0.4%
(-0.1% -0.8%)
231
(1 - 457)
0.4%
(0.0% - 0.8%)
146
(-18-306)
0.3%
(0.0% - 0.6%)
159
(0-314)
0.3%
(0.0% - 0.6%)
Multi-Pollutant Models (Total Mortality)
Moolgavkar (2003)
[reanalysis of Moolgavkar
Non-accidental
all
log-linear, GAM
(stringent), 30 df
1 day
CO
Single Pollutant Mode
Krewski et al. (2000) - ACS
Pope et al. (2002) - ACS
extended
All cause
All cause
30+
30+
log-linear
log-linear
-492
(-1235-232)
-0.9%
(-2.2% - 0.4%)
Cutpoint
= 7.5 ug/m3
-306
(-770-144)
-0.6%
(-1.4% -0.3%)
Cutpoint
=10 ug/m3
-211
(-531 - 99)
-0.4%
(-1.0% -0.2%)
Cutpoint
=12 ug/m3
-145
(-366 - 68)
-0.3%
(-0.7% -0.1%)
s
2945
(1534-4456)
5.2%
(2.7% - 7.9%)
3684
(1280-6426)
6.6%
(2.3% -11. 4%)
2528
(1314-3834)
4.5%
(2.3% - 6.8%)
3267
(1132-5715)
5.8%
(2.0% -10.2%)
2134
(1108-3242)
3.8%
(2.0% - 5.8%)
2846
(984 - 4994)
5.1%
(1.8% -8.9%)
Multi-Pollutant Models
Krewski et al. (2000) - ACS
Krewski et al. (2000) - ACS
Krewski et al. (2000) - ACS
Krewski et al. (2000) - ACS
All cause
All cause
All cause
All cause
30+
30+
30+
30+
log-linear
log-linear
log-linear
log-linear
CO
N02
03
S02
4249
(2487-6031)
7.6%
(4.4% -10.7%)
5065
(2718-7119)
9.0%
(4.8% -12.7%)
4249
(2487-6031)
7.6%
(4.4% -10.7%)
783
(-1386-3169)
1.4%
(-2.5% - 5.6%)
3654
(2134-5199)
6.5%
(3.8% - 9.3%)
4360
(2332-6147)
7.8%
(4.2% -10.9%)
3654
(2134-5199)
6.5%
(3.8% - 9.3%)
671
(-1183-2722)
1.2%
(-2.1% -4.8%)
3089
(1800-4406)
5.5%
(3.2% - 7.8%)
3691
(1968-5217)
6.6%
(3.5% - 9.3%)
3089
(1800-4406)
5.5%
(3.2% - 7.8%)
565
(-993 - 2298)
1.0%
(-1.8% -4.1%)
*For the short-term exposure studies, incidence was quantified down to policy relevant background level of 2.5 ug/m3, as well as down to each of the alternative cutpoints. For the long-term exposure
studies, incidence was quantified down to 7.5 ug/m3, the lowest of the lowest measured levels in the long-term exposure studies, as well as down to each of the alternative cutpoints. For the cutpoints
above policy relevant background, the slope of the C-R function has been modified based on a simple hockeystick model (see discussion in section 2.5).
"Incidences are rounded to the nearest whole number; percents are rounded to the nearest tenth. Numbers in parentheses are 95% confidence intervals based on statistical uncertainty surrounding the
PM2.5 coefficient.
Abt Associates Inc.
-------
Exhibit D.11. Estimated Annual Mortality Associated with Short-Term and Long-Term Exposure to
"As Is" PM2.s Concentrations Assuming Various Cutpoint Levels*
Philadelphia, PA, 2003
Health
Effects
Short-
Term
Exposure
Mortality
Long-
Term
Exposure
Mortality
Study
Type
Ages
Lag
Other
Pollutants
in Model
Incidence Associated with PM2.5 Assuming Various Cutpoint Levels**
(95% Confidence Interval)
Percent of Total Incidence
(95% Confidence Interval)
Policy Relevant
Background
=3.5 ug/m3
Cutpoint
=10 ug/m3
Cutpoint
=15 ug/m3
Cutpoint
=20 ug/m3
Single Pollutant Models (Total Mortality)
Lipfertetal. (2000) - 7
counties
Cardiovascular
all
1 day
412
(197-628)
2.5%
(1 .2% - 3.9%)
Cutpoint
= 7.5 ug/m3
231
(110-352)
1.4%
(0.7% - 2.2%)
Cutpoint
=10 ug/m3
141
(67-215)
0.9%
(0.4% - 1 .3%)
Cutpoint
=12 ug/m3
83
(40-127)
0.5%
(0.2% - 0.8%)
Single Pollutant Models
Krewskietal. (2000) -ACS
Pope etal. (2002) -ACS
extended
All cause
All cause
30+
30+
518
(268 - 789)
3.1%
(1.6% -4.7%)
650
(224-1146)
3.9%
(1 .3% - 6.9%)
359
(186-548)
2.2%
(1.1% -3.3%)
466
(160-825)
2.8%
(1 .0% - 4.9%)
209
(108-319)
1.3%
(0.6% - 1 .9%)
280
(96 - 497)
1.7%
(0.6% - 3.0%)
Multi-Pollutant Models
Krewskietal. (2000) -ACS
Krewskietal. (2000) -ACS
Krewskietal. (2000) -ACS
Krewskietal. (2000) -ACS
All cause
All cause
All cause
All cause
30+
30+
30+
30+
CO
N02
03
S02
751
(437- 1074)
4.5%
(2.6% - 6.4%)
899
(478- 1273)
5.4%
(2.9% - 7.6%)
751
(437- 1074)
4.5%
(2.6% - 6.4%)
137
(-240 - 558)
0.8%
(-1 .4% - 3.3%)
522
(303 - 749)
3.1%
(1 .8% - 4.5%)
625
(331 - 889)
3.8%
(2.0% - 5.3%)
522
(303 - 749)
3.1%
(1 .8% - 4.5%)
94
(-165-387)
0.6%
(-1 .0% - 2.3%)
304
(1 76 - 437)
1.8%
(1.1% -2. 6%)
364
(192-520)
2.2%
(1.2% -3.1%)
304
(1 76 - 437)
1.8%
(1.1% -2. 6%)
55
(-95 - 225)
0.3%
(-0.6% - 1 .4%)
*For the short-term exposure studies, incidence was quantified down to policy relevant background level of 3.5 M9/m3, as well as down to each of the alternative cutpoints.
For the long-term exposure studies, incidence was quantified down to 7.5 M9/m3, the lowest of the lowest measured levels in the long-term exposure studies, as well as down
to each of the alternative cutpoints. For the cutpoints above policy relevant background, the slope of the C-R function has been modified based on a simple hockeystick
model (see discussion in section 2.5).
"Incidences are rounded to the nearest whole number; percents are rounded to the nearest tenth.
Abt Associates Inc.
D-14
June 2005
-------
Exhibit D.12. Estimated Annual Health Risks of Short-Term and Long-Term Exposure Mortality
Associated with "As Is" PM25 Concentrations Assuming Various Cutpoint Levels*
Phoenix, AZ, 2001
Health
Effects
Short-
Term
Exposure
Mortality
Long-
Term
Exposure
Mortality
Study
Type
Ages
Lag
Other
Pollutants
in Model
Incidence Associated with PM2.5 Assuming Various Cutpoint Levels**
(95% Confidence Interval)
Percent of Total Incidence
(95% Confidence Interval)
Policy Relevant
Background
=2.5 ug/m3
Cutpoint
=10 ug/m3
Cutpoint
=15 ug/m3
Cutpoint
=20 ug/m3
Single Pollutant Models (Total Mortality)
Mar (2003) [reanalysis of
Mar (2000)]
Cardiovascular
65+
1 day
323
(97 - 536)
5.0%
(1 .5% - 8.3%)
Cutpoint
= 7.5 ug/m3
115
(35-190)
1.8%
(0.5% - 2.9%)
Cutpoint
=10 ug/m3
67
(21 -109)
1.0%
(0.3% - 1 .7%)
Cutpoint
=12 ug/m3
43
(13-69)
0.7%
(0.2% -1.1%)
Single Pollutant Models
Krewskietal. (2000) -ACS
Pope etal. (2002) -ACS
extended
All cause
All cause
30+
30+
277
(143-424)
1.3%
(0.7% - 2.0%)
349
(119-620)
1.7%
(0.6% - 3.0%)
42
(22 - 65)
0.2%
(0.1% -0.3%)
55
(19-98)
0.3%
(0.1% -0.5%)
0
(0-0)
0.0%
(0.0% - 0.0%)
0
(0-0)
0.0%
(0.0% - 0.0%)
Multi-Pollutant Models
Krewskietal. (2000) -ACS
Krewskietal. (2000) -ACS
Krewskietal. (2000) -ACS
Krewskietal. (2000) -ACS
All cause
All cause
All cause
All cause
30+
30+
30+
30+
CO
N02
03
S02
404
(233 - 580)
1.9%
(1.1% -2.8%)
484
(255 - 690)
2.3%
(1 .2% - 3.3%)
404
(233 - 580)
1.9%
(1.1% -2.8%)
73
(-127-299)
0.4%
(-0.6% - 1 .4%)
62
(36 - 89)
0.3%
(0.2% - 0.4%)
74
(39-106)
0.4%
(0.2% - 0.5%)
62
(36 - 89)
0.3%
(0.2% - 0.4%)
11
(-19-46)
0.1%
(-0.1% -0.2%)
0
(0-0)
0.0%
(0.0% - 0.0%)
0
(0-0)
0.0%
(0.0% - 0.0%)
0
(0-0)
0.0%
(0.0% - 0.0%)
0
(0-0)
0.0%
(0.0% - 0.0%)
*For the short-term exposure studies, incidence was quantified down to policy relevant background level of 2.5 M9/m3, as well as down to each of the alternative cutpoints.
For the long-term exposure studies, incidence was quantified down to 7.5 M9/m3, the lowest of the lowest measured levels in the long-term exposure studies, as well as down
to each of the alternative cutpoints. For the cutpoints above policy relevant background, the slope of the C-R function has been modified based on a simple hockeystick
model (see discussion in section 2.5).
"Incidences are rounded to the nearest whole number; percents are rounded to the nearest tenth.
Abt Associates, Inc.
D-15
June 2005
-------
Exhibit D.13. Estimated Annual Mortality Associated with Short-Term and Long-Term Exposure to "As Is"
PM2.5 Concentrations Assuming Various Outpoint Levels*
Pittsburgh, PA, 2003
Health
Effects
Short-
Term
Exposure
Mortality
Long-
Term
Exposure
Mortality
Study
Type
Ages
Lag
Other Pollutants
in Model
Incidence Associated with PM2.5 Assuming Various Cutpoint Levels**
(95% Confidence Interval)
Percent of Total Incidence
(95% Confidence Interval)
Policy Relevant
Background
=3.5 ug/m3
Single Pollutant Models (Total Mortalit
Chock et al. (2000)
Chock et al. (2000)
Non-accidental
Non-accidental
<75
75+
Oday
Oday
69
(-55-188)
1 .4%
(-1.1% -3.7%)
77
(-166-311)
0.8%
(-1 .7% - 3.2%)
Cutpoint
=10ug/m3
Cutpoint
=15ug/m3
Cutpoint
=20 ug/m3
I
43
(-34 - 1 1 7)
0.8%
(-0.7% - 2.3%)
48
(-103-193)
0.5%
(-1.1% -2.0%)
28
(-22 - 76)
0.5%
(-0.4% - 1 .5%)
31
(-67-125)
0.3%
(-0.7% - 1 .3%)
18
(-14-48)
0.4%
(-0.3% - 1 .0%)
20
(-43 - 80)
0.2%
(-0.4% - 0.8%)
Multi-Pollutant Models (Total Mortality]
Chock et al. (2000)
Chock et al. (2000)
Non-accidental
Non-accidental
<75
75+
Oday
Oday
CO, O3, SO2,
NO2, PM10-2.5
CO, O3, SO2,
NO2, PM10-2.5
88
(-60 - 230)
1 .7%
(-1.2% -4.5%)
52
(-238 - 330)
0.5%
(-2.4% - 3.4%)
Cutpoint
= 7.5 ug/m3
55
(-37-143)
1.1%
(-0.7% - 2.8%)
32
(-148-204)
0.3%
(-1.5% -2.1%)
Cutpoint
=10ug/m3
36
(-24 - 92)
0.7%
(-0.5% - 1 .8%)
21
(-96-133)
0.2%
(-1 .0% - 1 .4%)
Cutpoint
=12ug/m3
23
(-15-59)
0.5%
(-0.3% - 1 .2%)
14
(-62 - 85)
0.1%
(-0.6% - 0.9%)
Single Pollutant Models
Krewskietal. (2000) -ACS
Pope et al. (2002) - ACS
extended
All cause
All cause
30+
30+
651
(338 - 988)
4.3%
(2.2% - 6.5%)
816
(282-1430)
5.4%
(1 .9% - 9.4%)
524
(272 - 797)
3.4%
(1 .8% - 5.2%)
678
(234-1193)
4.5%
(1 .5% - 7.8%)
403
(209-614)
2.6%
(1 .4% - 4.0%)
539
(185-951)
3.5%
(1 .2% - 6.2%)
Multi-Pollutant Models
Krewskietal. (2000) -ACS
Krewskietal. (2000) -ACS
Krewskietal. (2000) -ACS
Krewskietal. (2000) -ACS
All cause
All cause
All cause
All cause
30+
30+
30+
30+
CO
NO2
O3
SO2
942
(550-1341)
6.2%
(3.6% - 8.8%)
1124
(601 -1586)
7.4%
(3.9% -10.4%)
942
(550-1341)
6.2%
(3.6% - 8.8%)
173
(-304 - 701)
1.1%
(-2.0% - 4.6%)
759
(442-1084)
5.0%
(2.9% -7.1%)
907
(483-1284)
6.0%
(3.2% - 8.4%)
759
(442-1084)
5.0%
(2.9% -7.1%)
138
(-243 - 564)
0.9%
(-1 .6% - 3.7%)
585
(340 - 838)
3.8%
(2.2% - 5.5%)
700
(372 - 994)
4.6%
(2.4% - 6.5%)
585
(340 - 838)
3.8%
(2.2% - 5.5%)
106
(-186-434)
0.7%
(-1.2% -2.9%)
*For the short-term exposure studies, incidence was quantified down to policy relevant background level of 3.5 Mg/m3, as well as down to each of the alternative cutpoints. For the long-
term exposure studies, incidence was quantified down to 7.5 M9/m3, the lowest of the lowest measured levels in the long-term exposure studies, as well as down to each of the
alternative cutpoints. For the cutpoints above policy relevant background, the slope of the C-R function has been modified based on a simple hockeystick model (see discussion in
section 2.5).
"Incidences are rounded to the nearest whole number; percents are rounded to the nearest tenth.
Abt Associates Inc.
D-16
June 2005
-------
Exhibit D.14. Estimated Annual Health Risks of Short-Term and Long-Term Exposure Mortality
Associated with "As Is" PM25 Concentrations Assuming Various Outpoint Levels*
San Jose, CA, 2003
Health
Effects
Short-
Term
Exposure
Mortality
Long-
Term
Exposure
Mortality
Study
Type
Ages
Lag
Other Pollutants
in Model
Incidence Associated with PM2.5 Assuming Various Cutpoint Levels**
(95% Confidence Interval)
Percent of Total Incidence
(95% Confidence Interval)
Policy Relevant
Background
=2.5 ug/m3
Single Pollutant Models (Total Mortalit
Fairley (2003) [reanalysis of
Fairley (1999)]
Fairley (2003) [reanalysis of
Fairley (1999)]
Non-accidental
Non-accidental
all
all
Oday
1 day
218
(45 - 387)
2.6%
(0.5% - 4.7%)
-110
(-278 - 50)
-1 .3%
(-3.4% - 0.6%)
Cutpoint
=10ug/m3
Cutpoint
=15ug/m3
Cutpoint
=20 ug/m3
I
80
(17-141)
1 .0%
(0.2% - 1 .7%)
-41
(-103-18)
-0.5%
(-1.2% -0.2%)
44
(9 - 77)
0.5%
(0.1% -0.9%)
-22
(-57-10)
-0.3%
(-0.7% -0.1%)
28
(6 - 50)
0.3%
(0.1% -0.6%)
-14
(-37 - 7)
-0.2%
(-0.4% -0.1%)
Multi-Pollutant Models (Total Mortality]
Fairley (2003) [reanalysis of
Fairley (1999)]
Fairley (2003) [reanalysis of
Fairley (1999)]
Fairley (2003) [reanalysis of
Fairley (1999)]
Non-accidental
Non-accidental
Non-accidental
all
all
all
Oday
Oday
Oday
NO2
CO
O3 - 8hr
277
(74 - 472)
3.3%
(0.9% - 5.7%)
251
(60 - 432)
3.0%
(0.7% - 5.2%)
236
(60 - 404)
2.8%
(0.7% - 4.9%)
Cutpoint
= 7.5 ug/m3
101
(27-172)
1 .2%
(0.3% -2.1%)
92
(22-158)
1.1%
(0.3% - 1 .9%)
86
(22-148)
1 .0%
(0.3% - 1 .8%)
Cutpoint
=10ug/m3
56
(15-94)
0.7%
(0.2% -1.1%)
51
(12-86)
0.6%
(0.2% - 1 .0%)
47
(12-81)
0.6%
(0.2% - 1 .0%)
Cutpoint
=12ug/m3
36
(10-60)
0.4%
(0.1% -0.7%)
32
(8 - 55)
0.4%
(0.1% -0.7%)
30
(8 - 52)
0.4%
(0.1% -0.6%)
Single Pollutant Models
Krewskietal. (2000) -ACS
Pope et al. (2002) - ACS
extended
All cause
All cause
30+
30+
137
(71 -210)
1 .6%
(0.8% - 2.5%)
172
(59 - 306)
2.1%
(0.7% - 3.6%)
45
(23 - 68)
0.5%
(0.3% - 0.8%)
58
(20-104)
0.7%
(0.2% - 1 .2%)
0
(0-0)
0.0%
(0.0% - 0.0%)
0
(0-0)
0.0%
(0.0% - 0.0%)
Multi-Pollutant Models
Krewskietal. (2000) -ACS
Krewskietal. (2000) -ACS
Krewskietal. (2000) -ACS
Krewskietal. (2000) -ACS
All cause
All cause
All cause
All cause
30+
30+
30+
30+
CO
NO2
O3
SO2
199
(115-287)
2.4%
(1 .4% - 3.4%)
239
(126-341)
2.9%
(1.5% -4.1%)
199
(115-287)
2.4%
(1 .4% - 3.4%)
36
(-63-148)
0.4%
(-0.8% - 1 .8%)
65
(38 - 94)
0.8%
(0.5% -1.1%)
78
(41 -112)
0.9%
(0.5% - 1 .3%)
65
(38 - 94)
0.8%
(0.5% -1.1%)
12
(-20 - 48)
0.1%
(-0.2% - 0.6%)
0
(0-0)
0.0%
(0.0% - 0.0%)
0
(0-0)
0.0%
(0.0% - 0.0%)
0
(0-0)
0.0%
(0.0% - 0.0%)
0
(0-0)
0.0%
(0.0% -0.0%)
*For the short-term exposure studies, incidence was quantified down to policy relevant background level of 2.5 Mg/m3, as well as down to each of the alternative cutpoints. For the long-
term exposure studies, incidence was quantified down to 7.5 M9/m3, the lowest of the lowest measured levels in the long-term exposure studies, as well as down to each of the
alternative cutpoints. For the cutpoints above policy relevant background, the slope of the C-R function has been modified based on a simple hockeystick model (see discussion in
section 2.5).
"Incidences are rounded to the nearest whole number; percents are rounded to the nearest tenth.
Abt Associates Inc.
D-17
June 2005
-------
Exhibit D.15. Estimated Annual Health Risks of Short-Term and Long-Term Exposure Mortality
Associated with "As Is" PM2.5 Concentrations Assuming Various Outpoint Levels*
Seattle, WA, 2003
Health
Effects
Long-
Term
Exposure
Mortality
Study
Type
Ages
Lag
Other
Pollutants
in Model
Incidence Associated with PM2.5 Assuming Various
Outpoint Levels**
(95% Confidence Interval)
Percent of Total Incidence
(95% Confidence Interval)
Cutpoint
= 7.5 ug/m3
Cutpoint
=10 ug/m3
Cutpoint
=12 ug/m3
Single Pollutant Models
Krewskietal. (2000) -ACS
Popeetal. (2002) -ACS
extended
All cause
All cause
30+
30+
M
Krewskietal. (2000) -ACS
Krewski et al. (2000) - ACS
Krewski et al. (2000) - ACS
Krewski et al. (2000) - ACS
All cause
All cause
All cause
All cause
30+
30+
30+
30+
40
(20-61)
0.4%
(0.2% - 0.6%)
50
(17-89)
0.5%
(0.2% - 0.8%)
0
(0-0)
0.0%
(0.0% - 0.0%)
0
(0-0)
0.0%
(0.0% - 0.0%)
0
(0-0)
0.0%
(0.0% - 0.0%)
0
(0-0)
0.0%
(0.0% - 0.0%)
ulti-Pollutant Models
CO
NO2
O3
SO2
58
(33 - 83)
0.5%
(0.3% - 0.8%)
69
(36 - 99)
0.6%
(0.3% - 0.9%)
58
(33 - 83)
0.5%
(0.3% - 0.8%)
10
(-18-43)
0.1%
(-0.2% - 0.4%)
0
(0-0)
0.0%
(0.0% - 0.0%)
0
(0-0)
0.0%
(0.0% - 0.0%)
0
(0-0)
0.0%
(0.0% - 0.0%)
0
(0-0)
0.0%
(0.0% - 0.0%)
0
(0-0)
0.0%
(0.0% - 0.0%)
0
(0-0)
0.0%
(0.0% - 0.0%)
0
(0-0)
0.0%
(0.0% - 0.0%)
0
(0-0)
0.0%
(0.0% - 0.0%)
*For the short-term exposure studies, incidence was quantified down to policy relevant background level of 2.5 ug/m3, as well as down to each of the
alternative cutpoints. For the long-term exposure studies, incidence was quantified down to 7.5 ug/m3, the lowest of the lowest measured levels in the
long-term exposure studies, as well as down to each of the alternative cutpoints. For the cutpoints above policy relevant background, the slope of the C-R
function has been modified based on a simple hockeystick model (see discussion in section 2.5).
"Incidences are rounded to the nearest whole number; percents are rounded to the nearest tenth.
Abt Associates Inc.
D-18
June 2005
-------
Exhibit D.16. Estimated Annual Mortality Associated with Short-Term and Long-Term Exposure to "As Is"
PM2.s Concentrations Assuming Various Outpoint Levels*
St. Louis, MO, 2003
Health
Effects
Short-
Term
Exposure
Mortality
Long-
Term
Exposure
Mortality
Study
Type
Ages
Lag
Other
Pollutants
in Model
Incidence Associated with PM2.5 Assuming Various Outpoint Levels**
(95% Confidence Interval)
Percent of Total Incidence
(95% Confidence Interval)
Policy Relevant
Background
=3.5 ug/m3
Cutpoint
=10 ug/m3
Cutpoint
=15 ug/m3
Cutpoint
=20 ug/m3
Single Pollutant Models (Total Mortality]
Schwartz (2003b) [reanalysis
of Schwartz et al. (1996)]
Schwartz (2003b) [reanalysis
of Schwartz et al. (1996)] - 6
cities
Non-accidental
Non-accidental
all
all
mean of
lag 0 & 1
mean of
lag 0 & 1
233
(86 - 379)
1.1%
(0.4% - 1 .7%)
312
(224 - 401)
1 .4%
(1 .0% - 1 .8%)
Cutpoint
= 7.5 ug/m3
114
(42-185)
0.5%
(0.2% - 0.8%)
146
(105-188)
0.7%
(0.5% - 0.9%)
Cutpoint
=10 ug/m3
55
(20 - 89)
0.3%
(0.1% -0.4%)
68
(49 - 87)
0.3%
(0.2% - 0.4%)
Cutpoint
=12 ug/m3
23
(8 - 38)
0.1%
(0.0% -0.2%)
28
(20 - 35)
0.1%
(0.1% -0.2%)
Single Pollutant Models
Krewski et al. (2000) - Six
Cities
Krewski et al. (2000) - ACS
Pope etal. (2002) -ACS
extended
All cause
All cause
All cause
25+
30+
30+
IV
Krewski et al. (2000) - ACS
Krewski et al. (2000) - ACS
Krewski et al. (2000) - ACS
Krewski et al. (2000) - ACS
All cause
All cause
All cause
All cause
30+
30+
30+
30+
1773
(606 - 2878)
7.8%
(2.7% -12.6%)
671
(348-1022)
3.0%
(1 .5% - 4.5%)
842
(290-1486)
3.7%
(1 .3% - 6.6%)
1247
(423-2041)
5.5%
(1 .9% - 9.0%)
453
(234-691)
2.0%
(1.0% -3.1%)
587
(201 -1041)
2.6%
(0.9% - 4.6%)
706
(238-1165)
3.1%
(1.0% -5.1%)
246
(127-376)
1.1%
(0.6% - 1 .7%)
330
(113-587)
1 .5%
(0.5% - 2.6%)
lulti-Pollutant Models
CO
NO2
O3
SO2
973
(566-1392)
4.3%
(2.5% - 6.2%)
1164
(619-1651)
5.2%
(2.7% - 7.3%)
973
(566-1392)
4.3%
(2.5% - 6.2%)
177
(-310-723)
0.8%
(-1 .4% - 3.2%)
658
(381 - 944)
2.9%
(1 .7% - 4.2%)
788
(417-1122)
3.5%
(1 .9% - 5.0%)
658
(381 - 944)
2.9%
(1 .7% - 4.2%)
119
(-208 - 488)
0.5%
(-0.9% - 2.2%)
358
(207-516)
1 .6%
(0.9% - 2.3%)
430
(227-614)
1 .9%
(1.0% -2.7%)
358
(207-516)
1 .6%
(0.9% - 2.3%)
64
(-112-265)
0.3%
(-0.5% - 1 .2%)
*For the short-term exposure studies, incidence was quantified down to policy relevant background level of 3.5 Mg/m3, as well as down to each of the alternative cutpoints. For
the long-term exposure studies, incidence was quantified down to 7.5 M9/m3, the lowest of the lowest measured levels in the long-term exposure studies, as well as down to eac
of the alternative cutpoints. For the cutpoints above policy relevant background, the slope of the C-R function has been modified based on a simple hockeystick model (see
discussion in section 2.5).
"Incidences are rounded to the nearest whole number; percents are rounded to the nearest tenth.
Abt Associates Inc.
D-19
June 2005
-------
D.2 Sensitivity analyses
Exhibit D.17. Sensitivity Analysis: Estimated Annual Health Risks Associated with Short-Term Exposure to "As Is"
Estimates of Policy Relevant Background Level
Boston, MA, 2003
Concentrations, Using Different
Health Effects
Short-Term
Exposure
Mortality
Respiratory
Symptoms**
Study
Type
Ages
Lag
Other
Pollutants
in Model
S
Schwartz (2003b)
[reanalysis of Schwartz et
al. (1996)]
Schwartz (2003b)
[reanalysis of Schwartz et
al. (1996)1 -6 cities
Non-accidental
Non-accidental
all
all
mean of
lag 0&
1
mean of
Iag0&
1
Health Effects Associated with PM2.5 Above Policy Relevant Background of: *
2 ug/m3
Incidence
Percent of Total
Incidence
ngle Pollutant Models (Total Morta
455
(310-600)
304
(218-390)
2.1%
(1.4% -2.8%)
1 .4%
(1 .0% - 1 .8%)
3.5 ug/m3
Incidence
Percent of Total
Incidence
5 ug/m3
Incidence
Percent of Total
Incidence
ity)
390
(265-514)
261
(186-334)
1 .8%
(1.2% -2.4%)
1 .2%
(0.9% - 1 .5%)
325
(221 - 428)
217
(155-278)
1 .5%
(1.0% -2.0%)
1 .0%
(0.7% - 1 .3%)
Single Pollutant Models (Cause-Specific Mortality)
Klemm and Mason (2003)
[reanalysis of Klemm et al.
(2000)]
Klemm and Mason (2003)
[reanalysis of Klemm et al.
(2000)]
Klemm and Mason (2003)
[reanalysis of Klemm et al.
(2000)]
Klemm and Mason (2003)
[reanalysis of Klemm et al.
(2000)] - 6 cities
Klemm and Mason (2003)
[reanalysis of Klemm et al.
(2000)] - 6 cities
Klemm and Mason (2003)
[reanalysis of Klemm et al.
(2000)] - 6 cities
CUPD
Ischemic heart
disease
Pneumonia
COPD
Ischemic heart
disease
Pneumonia
all
all
all
all
all
all
Uday
Oday
Oday
Oday
Oday
Oday
28
(-14-66)
92
(52-131)
42
(19-62)
23
(1 - 45)
62
(38 - 85)
30
(14-44)
2.8%
(-1 .4% - 6.5%)
2.7%
(1 .5% - 3.8%)
5.7%
(2.6% - 8.5%)
2.3%
(0.1% -4.4%)
1 .8%
(1.1% -2. 5%)
4.0%
(1 .9% - 5.9%)
24
(-12-56)
79
(44-112)
36
(16-53)
20
(1 - 38)
53
(33 - 73)
25
(12-37)
2.4%
(-1 .2% - 5.6%)
2.3%
(1 .3% - 3.3%)
4.9%
(2.2% - 7.3%)
2.0%
(0.1% -3.8%)
1 .6%
(1.0% -2.1%)
3.5%
(1.6% -5.1%)
20
(-10-47)
66
(37 - 93)
30
(14-44)
17
(1 - 32)
44
(27-61)
21
(10-31)
2.0%
(-1 .0% - 4.6%)
1 .9%
(1.1% -2. 7%)
4.1%
(1.9% -6.1%)
1 .6%
(0.1% -3.1%)
1 .3%
(0.8% - 1 .8%)
2.9%
(1 .4% - 4.3%)
Single Pollutant Models
Schwartz and Neas (2000)
— 6 cities
Schwartz and Neas (2000)
- 6 cities
Lower respiratory
symptoms
Cough
7-14
7-14
1 day
Oday
9100
(4400- 16700)
14500
(-1100-28100)
17.4%
(8.5% -32.1%)
9.6%
(-0.7% -18.6%)
7900
(3800- 14500)
12500
(-900 - 24300)
15.1%
(7.3% - 27.9%)
8.3%
(-0.6% -16.1%)
6700
(3200- 12300)
10500
(-800 - 20500)
12.8%
(6.1% -23.6%)
6.9%
(-0.5% -13.5%)
Multi-Pollutant Models
Schwartz and Neas (2000)
— 6 cities
Schwartz and Neas (2000)
- 6 cities
Lower respiratory
symptoms
Cough
7-14
7-14
1 day
Oday
PM10-2.5
PM10-2.5
8200
(2500- 16500)
6900
(-11600-21800)
15.8%
(4.8% - 31 .7%)
4.5%
(-7.6% -14.4%)
7100
(2200- 14300)
5900
(-9900-18900)
13.7%
(4.2% - 27.6%)
3.9%
(-6.5% -12.5%)
6000
(1800- 12100)
4900
(-8200- 15800)
1 1 .6%
(3.5% - 23.3%)
3.3%
(-5.4% -10.5%)
^Incidences are rounded to the nearest whole number, except respiratory symptoms incidences which are rounded to the nearest 100; percents are rounded to the nearest tenth.
**The C-R functions for lower respiratory symptoms and cough were calculated for the summer period April 1 through August 31.
Note 1: Numbers in parentheses are 95% confidence intervals based on statistical uncertainty surrounding the PM2.5 coefficient.
Note 2: Multi-city short-term exposure C-R functions were applied only to urban areas included among the cities used to estimate the function
Abt Associates Inc.
D-20
June 2005
-------
Exhibit D.18a. Sensitivity Analysis: Estimated Annual Mortality Associated with Short-Term Exposure to "As Is" Pl^5 Concentrations, Using Different
Estimates of Policy Relevant Background Level
Los Angeles, CA, 2003
Health Effects
Short-Term
Exposure
Mortality
Study
Type
Ages
Model
Lag
Sing
Moolgavkar (2003)
[reanalysis of Moolgavkar
(2000a)]
Moolgavkar (2003)
[reanalysis of Moolgavkar
(2000a)]
Moolgavkar (2003)
[reanalysis of Moolgavkar
(2000a)]
Moolgavkar (2003)
[reanalysis of Moolgavkar
(2000a)]
Non-accidental
Non-accidental
Non-accidental
Non-accidental
all
all
all
all
log-linear, GAM
(stringent), 30 df
log-linear, GAM
(stringent), 30 df
log-linear, GAM
(stringent), 30 df
log-linear, GAM
(stringent), 30 df
Oday
1 day
Oday
1 day
Single Po
Moolgavkar (2003)
[reanalysis of Moolgavkar
(2000a)]
Moolgavkar (2003)
[reanalysis of Moolgavkar
(2000a)]
Cardiovascular
Cardiovascular
all
all
log-linear, GAM
(stringent), 30 df
log-linear, GAM
(stringent), 30 df
(Jday
1 day
Other
Pollutants
in Model
Health Effects Associated with PM2.5 Above Policy Relevant Background of: *
1 ug/m3
Incidence
Percent of Total
Incidence
2.5 ug/m3
Incidence
Percent of Total
Incidence
4 ug/m3
Incidence
Percent of Total
Incidence
e Pollutant Models (Total Mortality)
539
(-67-1131)
588
(2-1162)
539
(-67-1131)
588
(2-1162)
lutant Models (Cause-S
350
(36 - 654)
364
(56 - 662)
1 .0%
(-0.1% -2.1%)
1.1%
(0.0% -2.1%)
1 .0%
(-0.1% -2.1%)
1.1%
(0.0% -2.1%)
494
(-62-1038)
540
(2-1067)
494
(-62-1038)
540
(2-1067)
0.9%
(-0.1% -1.9%)
1 .0%
(0.0% -1.9%)
0.9%
(-0.1% -1.9%)
1 .0%
(0.0% -1.9%)
450
(-56 - 945)
491
(1 -971)
450
(-56 - 945)
491
(1-971)
0.8%
(-0.1% -1.7%)
0.9%
(0.0% - 1 .8%)
0.8%
(-0.1% -1.7%)
0.9%
(0.0% - 1 .8%)
pecific Mortality)
1 .8%
(0.2% - 3.3%)
1 .9%
(0.3% - 3.4%)
321
(33-601)
334
(52 - 608)
1 .6%
(0.2% -3.1%)
1 .7%
(0.3% -3.1%)
292
(30 - 547)
304
(47 - 554)
1 .5%
(0.2% - 2.8%)
1 .5%
(0.2% - 2.8%)
Multi-Pollutant Models (Total Mortality)
Moolgavkar (2003)
[reanalysis of Moolgavkar
(2000a)l
Non-accidental
all
log-linear, GAM
(stringent), 30 df
1 day
Multi-Pol
Moolgavkar (2003)
[reanalysis of Moolgavkar
(2000a)]
Moolgavkar (2003)
[reanalysis of Moolgavkar
(2000a)]
Cardiovascular
Cardiovascular
all
all
log-linear, GAM
(stringent), 100df
log-linear, GAM
(stringent), 100df
(Jday
1 day
CO
utant Mod
CO
CO
-536
(-1347-252)
-1 .0%
(-2.4% - 0.5%)
-492
(-1235-232)
-0.9%
(-2.2% - 0.4%)
-447
(-1123-211)
-0.8%
(-2.0% - 0.4%)
els (Cause-Specific Mortality)
623
(271 - 963)
322
(.44 . 675)
3.2%
(1 .4% - 4.9%)
1 .6%
(-0.2% - 3.4%)
572
(249 - 884)
296
(-40 - 620)
2.9%
(1.3% -4. 5%)
1 .5%
(-0.2% -3.1%)
521
(226 - 806)
269
(-37 - 564)
2.6%
(1.2% -4.1%)
1 .4%
(-0.2% - 2.9%)
"Incidences are rounded to the nearest whole number; percents are rounded to the nearest tenth.
Note: Numbers in parentheses are 95% confidence intervals based on statistical uncertainty surrounding the PM2.5 coefficient.
Abt Associates Inc.
D-21
June 2005
-------
Exhibit D.18b. Sensitivity Analysis: Estimated Annual Morbidity Associated with Short-Term Exposure to "As Is" Pl^5 Concentrations, Using Different
Estimates of Policy Relevant Background Level
Los Angeles, CA, 2003
Health Effects
Hospital
Admissions
Study
Type
Ages
Model
Lag
Other
Pollutants
in Model
Health Effects Associated with PM2.5 Above Policy Relevant Background of:*
1 ug/m3
Incidence
Percent of Total
Incidence
2.5 ug/m3
Incidence
Percent of Total
Incidence
4 ug/m3
Incidence
Percent of Total
Incidence
Single Pollutant Models
Moolgavkar (2003)
[reanalysis of Moolgavkar
(2000b)]
Moolgavkar (2003)
[reanalysis of Moolgavkar
(2000b)]
Moolgavkar (2003)
[reanalysis of Moolgavkar
(2000c)]
Moolgavkar (2003)
[reanalysis of Moolgavkar
(2000c)]
Moolgavkar (2003)
[reanalysis of Moolgavkar
(2000c)]
Cardiovascular
Cardiovascular
COPD+
COPD+
COPD+
65+
65+
all
all
all
log-linear, GAM
(stringent), 30 df
log-linear, GAM
(stringent), 30 df
log-linear, GAM
(stringent), 30 df
log-linear, GAM
(stringent), 30 df
log-linear, GAM
(stringent), 30 df
(Jday
1 day
Oday
1 day
2 day
1947
(1135-2740)
1717
(866 - 2547)
897
(377-1400)
643
(125-1144)
992
(454-1511)
2.8%
(1 .6% - 4.0%)
2.5%
(1 .3% - 3.7%)
3.0%
(1 .3% - 4.6%)
2.1%
(0.4% - 3.8%)
3.3%
(1 .5% - 5.0%)
1787
(1042-2516)
1576
(795 - 2339)
824
(346-1286)
591
(115-1050)
911
(417-1387)
2.6%
(1.5% -3. 6%)
2.3%
(1.2% -3. 4%)
2.7%
(1.1% -4. 3%)
2.0%
(0.4% - 3.5%)
3.0%
(1.4% -4. 6%)
1627
(949-2291)
1435
(724-2130)
750
(315-1171)
538
(105-957)
829
(380-1264)
2.4%
(1 .4% - 3.3%)
2.1%
(1.0% -3.1%)
2.5%
(1 .0% - 3.9%)
1 .8%
(0.4% - 3.2%)
2.7%
(1 .3% - 4.2%)
Multi-Pollutant Models
Moolgavkar (2003)
[reanalysis of Moolgavkar
(2000b)]
Moolgavkar (2003)
[reanalysis of Moolgavkar
(2000b)]
Moolgavkar (2003)
[reanalysis of Moolgavkar
(2000c)]
Moolgavkar (2003)
[reanalysis of Moolgavkar
(2000c)]
Moolgavkar (2003)
[reanalysis of Moolgavkar
(2000c)]
Cardiovascular
Cardiovascular
COPD+
COPD+
COPD+
65+
65+
all
all
all
log-linear, GAM
(stringent), 100df
log-linear, GAM
(stringent), 100df
log-linear, GAM
(stringent), 100df
log-linear, GAM
(stringent), 100df
log-linear, GAM
(stringent), 100df
(Jday
1 day
Oday
1 day
2 day
CO
CO
NO2
NO2
NO2
488
(-558-1503)
301
(-823-1390)
229
(-506-931)
-22
(-909-817)
191
(-571 -917)
0.7%
(-0.8% - 2.2%)
0.4%
(-1.2% -2.0%)
0.8%
(-1.7% -3.1%)
-0.1%
(-3.0% - 2.7%)
0.6%
(-1.9% -3.0%)
448
(-512-1380)
276
(-755-1276)
210
(-464 - 855)
-20
(-833 - 750)
176
(-524 - 842)
0.7%
(-0.7% - 2.0%)
0.4%
(-1.1% -1.8%)
0.7%
(-1 .5% - 2.8%)
-0.1%
(-2.8% - 2.5%)
0.6%
(-1 .7% - 2.8%)
407
(-466-1256)
251
(-687-1161)
192
(-422 - 778)
-18
(-758 - 682)
160
(-476 - 767)
0.6%
(-0.7% - 1 .8%)
0.4%
(-1.0% -1.7%)
0.6%
(-1.4% -2.6%)
-0.1%
(-2.5% - 2.3%)
0.5%
(-1.6% -2.5%)
"Incidences are rounded to the nearest whole number; percents are rounded to the nearest tenth.
Note: Numbers in parentheses are 95% confidence intervals based on statistical uncertainty surrounding the PM2.5 coefficient.
Abt Associates Inc.
D-22
June 2005
-------
Exhibit D.19. Sensitivity Analysis: Estimated Annual Health Risks Associated with Short-Term Exposure to "As Is" PlVfe 5 Concentrations, Using
Different Estimates of Policy Relevant Background Level
Philadelphia, PA, 2003
Health
Effects
Short-Term
Exposure
Mortality
Study
Type
Ages
Lag
Other
Pollutants
in Model
Single Pol
Lipfert et al. (2000) - 7
counties
Cardiovascular
all
1 day
Health Effects Associated with PM2.5 Above Policy Relevant Background of: *
2 ug/m3
Incidence
utant Models
469
(224-714)
Percent of Total
Incidence
Cause-Specific M
2.9%
(1 .4o/0 . 4.4%)
3.5 ug/m3
Incidence
Percent of Total
Incidence
5 ug/m3
Incidence
Percent of Total
Incidence
ortality)
412
(197-628)
2.5%
(1 .2% - 3.9%)
357
(170-544)
2.2%
(1.1% -3.4%)
"Incidences are rounded to the nearest whole number; percents are rounded to the nearest tenth.
Note 1: Numbers in parentheses are 95% confidence intervals based on statistical uncertainty surrounding the PM2.5 coefficient.
Note 2: Multi-county short-term exposure C-R functions were applied only to counties included among those used to estimate the function.
Abt Associates Inc.
D-23
June 2005
-------
Exhibit D.20. Sensitivity Analysis: Estimated Annual Health Risks Associated with Short-Term Exposure to "As Is" PM2.5 Concentrations,
Using Different Estimates of Policy Relevant Background Level
Phoenix, AZ, 2001
Health
Effects*
Short-
Term
Exposure
Mortality
Study
Type
Ages
Lag
Other
Pollutants
in Model
Health Effects Associated with PM2.5 Above Policy Relevant Background of: *
1 ug/m3
Incidence**
Percent of Total
Incidence**
2.5 ug/m3
Incidence**
Percent of Total
Incidence**
4 ug/m3
Incidence**
Percent of Total
Incidence**
Single Pollutant Models (Cause-Specific Mortality)
Mar (2003) [reanalysis
of Mar (2000)]
Mar (2003) [reanalysis
of Mar (2000)]
Cardiovascular
Cardiovascular
65+
65+
0 day
1 day
219
(-62 - 483)
383
(115-636)
3.4%
(-1.0% -7.5%)
5.9%
(1.8% -9. 9%)
185
(-52 - 407)
323
(97 - 536)
2.9%
(-0.8% - 6.3%)
5.0%
(1.5% -8. 3%)
150
(-42-331)
262
(79 - 435)
2.3%
(-0.7% -5.1%)
4.1%
(1.2% -6. 7%)
"Incidences are rounded to the nearest whole number; percents are rounded to the nearest tenth.
Note: Numbers in parentheses are 95% confidence intervals based on statistical uncertainty surrounding the PM2.5 coefficient.
Abt Associates Inc.
D-24
June 2005
-------
Exhibit D.21. Sensitivity Analysis: Estimated Annual Health Risks Associated with Short-Term Exposure to "As Is"
Using Different Estimates of Policy Relevant Background Level
Pittsburgh, PA, 2003
Concentrations,
Health
Effects
Short-
Term
Exposure
Mortality
Study
Type
Ages
Lag
Other Pollutants
in Model
Health Effects Associated with PM2.5 Above Policy Relevant Background of: *
2 ug/m3
Incidence
Percent of Total
Incidence
3.5 ug/m3
Incidence
Percent of Total
Incidence
5 ug/m3
Incidence
Percent of Total
Incidence
Single Pollutant Models (Total Mortality)
Chock etal. (2000)
Chock etal. (2000)
Non-accidental
Non-accidental
<75
75+
Oday
0 day
71
(-57-195)
80
(-172-322)
1 .4%
(-1.1% -3.8%)
0.8%
(-1.8% -3.3%)
69
(-55-188)
77
(-166-311)
1 .4%
(-1.1% -3. 7%)
0.8%
(-1.7% -3.2%)
61
(-49-168)
69
(-148-277)
1 .2%
(-1.0% -3.3%)
0.7%
(-1.5% -2.8%)
Multi-Pollutant Models (Total Mortality)
Chock etal. (2000)
Chock etal. (2000)
Non-accidental
Non-accidental
<75
75+
Oday
0 day
CO, O3, SO2,
NO2, PM10-2.5
CO, 03, S02,
N02, PM 10-2.5
92
(-62 - 238)
54
(-247 - 342)
1.8%
(-1 .2% - 4.7%)
0.6%
(-2.5% - 3.5%)
88
(-60 - 230)
52
(-238 - 330)
1 .7%
(-1.2% -4. 5%)
0.5%
(-2.4% - 3.4%)
79
(-53 - 205)
47
(-212-294)
1.5%
(-1.0% -4.0%)
0.5%
(-2.2% - 3.0%)
"Incidences are rounded to the nearest whole number; percents are rounded to the nearest tenth.
Note: Numbers in parentheses are 95% confidence intervals based on statistical uncertainty surrounding the PM2.5 coefficient.
Abt Associates Inc.
D-25
June 2005
-------
Exhibit D.22. Sensitivity Analysis: Estimated Annual Health Risks Associated with Short-Term Exposure to "As Is"
Using Different Estimates of Policy Relevant Background Level
San Jose, CA, 2003
5 Concentrations,
Health
Effects
Short-
Term
Exposure
Mortality
Study
Type
Ages
Lag
Other
Pollutants
in Model
Health Effects Associated with PM2.5 Above Policy Relevant Background of: *
1 ug/m3
Incidence
Percent of Total
Incidence
2.5 ug/m3
Incidence
Percent of Total
Incidence
4 ug/m3
Incidence
Percent of Total
Incidence
Single Pollutant Models (Total Mortality)
Fairley (2003) [reanalysis of
Fairley (1999)]
Fairley (2003) [reanalysis of
Fairley (1999)]
Non-accidental
Non-accidental
all
all
0 day
1 day
231
(48 - 409)
-117
(-295 - 53)
2.8%
(0.6% -4. 9%)
-1 .4%
(-3.6% - 0.6%)
218
(45 - 387)
-110
(-278 - 50)
2.6%
(0.5% - 4.7%)
-1 .3%
(-3.4% - 0.6%)
181
(37 - 320)
-91
(-230-41)
2.2%
(0.5% - 3.9%)
-1.1%
(-2.8% - 0.5%)
Single Pollutant Models (Cause-Specific Mortality)
Fairley (2003) [reanalysis of
Fairley (1999)]
Fairley (2003) [reanalysis of
Fairley (1999)]
Kespiratory
Cardiovascular
all
all
U day
Oday
34
(-34 - 93)
76
(-53-199)
3.9%
(-3.9% -10.8%)
2.2%
(-1.5% -5.7%)
32
(-32 - 88)
72
(-50-188)
3.7%
(-3.7% -10.2%)
2.1%
(-1.5% -5.4%)
26
(-26 - 73)
60
(-42-155)
3.1%
(-3.0% - 8.4%)
1.7%
(-1.2% -4.5%)
Multi-Pollutant Models (Total Mortality)
Fairley (2003) [reanalysis of
Fairley (1999)]
Fairley (2003) [reanalysis of
Fairley (1999)]
Fairley (2003) [reanalysis of
Fairley (1999)]
Non-accidental
Non-accidental
Non-accidental
all
all
all
U day
Oday
Oday
NO2
CO
O3 - 8hr
293
(79 - 499)
266
(63 - 457)
250
(63 - 428)
3.5%
(1.0% -6.0%)
3.2%
(0.8% - 5.5%)
3.0%
(0.8% - 5.2%)
277
(74 - 472)
251
(60 - 432)
236
(60 - 404)
3.3%
(0.9% - 5.7%)
3.0%
(0.7% - 5.2%)
2.8%
(0.7% - 4.9%)
229
(62 - 390)
208
(49 - 357)
195
(49 - 335)
2.8%
(0.7% - 4.7%)
2.5%
(0.6% -4.3%)
2.4%
(0.6% -4.0%)
"Incidences are rounded to the nearest whole number; percents are rounded to the nearest tenth.
Note: Numbers in parentheses are 95% confidence intervals based on statistical uncertainty surrounding the PM2.5 coefficient.
Abt Associates Inc.
D-26
June 2005
-------
Exhibit D.23. Sensitivity Analysis: Estimated Annual Health Risks Associated with Short-Term Exposure to "As Is" PIV25 Concentrations,
Using Different Estimates of Policy Relevant Background Level
Seattle, WA, 2003
Health
Effects
Hospital
Admission
Study
Type
Ages
Lag
Other
Pollutants
in Model
Health Effects Associated with PM2.5 Above Policy Relevant Background of: *
1 ug/m3
Incidence
Percent of Total
Incidence
2.5 ug/m3
Incidence
Percent of Total
Incidence
4 ug/m3
Incidence
Percent of Total
Incidence
Single Pollutant Models
Sheppard (2003)
[reanalysis of Sheppard
etal. (1999)]**
Astnma
<65
i day
30
(8-45)
1.9%
(0.5% -2.8%)
30
(8 - 45)
1.9%
(0.5% - 2.8%)
23
(6 - 34)
1 .4%
(0.4% -2.1%)
"Incidences are rounded to the nearest whole number; percents are rounded to the nearest tenth.
"Sheppard (2003) [reanalysis of Sheppard et al. (1999)] used daily PM2.5 values obtained from nephelometer measurements rather than from air quality monitors.
Note: Numbers in parentheses are 95% confidence intervals based on statistical uncertainty surrounding the PM2.5 coefficient.
A bt Associates Inc.
D-27
June 2005
-------
Exhibit D.24. Sensitivity Analysis: Estimated Annual Health Risks Associated with Short-Term Exposure to "As Is" PM2.5 Concentrations, Using Different
Estimates of Policy Relevant Background Level
St. Louis, MO, 2003
Health Effects
Short-Term
Exposure
Mortality
Respiratory
Symptoms**
Study
Type
Ages
Lag
Other
Pollutants
in Model
Health Effects Associated with PM2.5 Above Policy Relevant Background of: '
2 ug/m3
Incidence
Percent of Total
Incidence
3.5 ug/m3
Incidence
Percent of Total
Incidence
5 ug/m3
Incidence
Percent of Total
Incidence
Single Pollutant Models (Total Mortality)
Schwartz (2003b) [reanalysis of
Schwartz et al. (1996)]
Schwartz (2003b) [reanalysis of
Schwartz et al. (1996)] - 6 cities
Non-accidental
Non-accidental
all
all
mean of
lag 0 & 1
mean of
lag 0 & 1
266
(98 - 433)
357
(255 - 457)
1 .2%
(0.5% - 2.0%)
1 .6%
(1.2% -2.1%)
Single Pollutant Models (Cause-Specific Mortality
Klemm and Mason (2003) [reanalysis
of Klemm et al. (2000)]
Klemm and Mason (2003) [reanalysis
of Klemm et al. (2000)]
Klemm and Mason (2003) [reanalysis
of Klemm et al. (2000)]
Klemm and Mason (2003) [reanalysis
of Klemm et al. (2000)] -- 6 cities
Klemm and Mason (2003) [reanalysis
of Klemm et al. (2000)] -- 6 cities
Klemm and Mason (2003) [reanalysis
of Klemm et al. (2000)] -- 6 cities
COPD
Ischemic heart
disease
Pneumonia
COPD
Ischemic heart
disease
Pneumonia
all
all
all
all
all
all
Oday
0 day
0 day
0 day
0 day
0 day
Sine
Schwartz and Neas (2000) - 6 cities
Schwartz and Neas (2000) - 6 cities
Lower respiratory
symptoms
Cough
7-14
7-14
1 day
0 day
Mu
Schwartz and Neas (2000) - 6 cities
Schwartz and Neas (2000) - 6 cities
Lower respiratory
symptoms
Cough
7-14
7-14
1 day
0 day
PM10-2.5
PM10-2.5
7
(-36 - 47)
80
(19-1 45)
9
(-21 - 36)
27
(1-51)
110
(68- 151)
31
(15-46)
0.7%
(-3.6% - 4.8%)
1 .5%
(0.4% - 2.8%)
1 .3%
(-3.1% -5.3%)
2.7%
(0.1% -5.1%)
2.1%
(1.3% -2.9%)
4.7%
(2.2% - 6.9%)
233
(86 - 379)
312
(224-401)
1.1%
(0.4% - 1 .7%)
1 .4%
(1 .0% - 1 .8%)
200
(74 - 326)
268
(192-344)
0.9%
(0.3% - 1 .5%)
1 .2%
(0.9% - 1 .6%)
6
(-31 - 42)
70
(16-1 27)
8
(-18-31)
23
(1 - 44)
96
(59 - 1 32)
28
(13-41)
0.6%
(-3.2% - 4.2%)
1 .4%
(0.3% - 2.5%)
1.1%
(-2.7% - 4.7%)
2.4%
(0.1% -4.5%)
1 .9%
(1.1% -2.6%)
4.1%
(2.0% -6.1%)
5
(-27 - 36)
60
(14-1 09)
7
(-16-27)
20
(1 - 38)
83
(51 - 114)
24
(1 1 - 35)
le Pollutant Models
12100
(4900-18100)
19700
(-1400-37900)
21.4%
(8. 6% -32.1%)
12.0%
(-0.9% - 23.0%)
10800
(4300-16300)
17600
(-1300-34000)
19.2%
(7.7% - 28.9%)
10.7%
(-0.8% - 20.7%)
9500
(3800-14400)
15400
(-1 1 00 - 29900)
0.5%
(-2.7% - 3.6%)
1 .2%
(0.3% -2.1%)
1 .0%
(-2.3% - 4.0%)
2.0%
(0.1% -3.9%)
1 .6%
(1.0% -2.2%)
3.5%
(1 .7% - 5.2%)
16.9%
(6.7% - 25.6%)
9.4%
(-0.7%- 18.2%)
ti-Pollutant Models
11000
(2800- 17900)
9400
-15900-29500
19.4%
(4.9% -31 .7%)
5.7%
(-9.7% -18.0%)
9800
(2500- 16100)
8300
-14000-26400
17.4%
(4.4% - 28.6%)
5.1%
(-8.5% -16.0%)
8600
(2200- 14300)
7200
-12100-23200
15.3%
(3.8% - 25.3%)
4.4%
(-7.4% -14.1%)
^Incidences are rounded to the nearest whole number, except respiratory symptoms incidences which are rounded to the nearest 100; percents are rounded to the nearest tenth.
**The C-R functions for lower respiratory symptoms and cough were calculated for the summer period April 1 through August 31.
Note 1: Numbers in parentheses are 95% confidence intervals based on statistical uncertainty surrounding the PM2.5 coefficient.
Note 2: Multi-city short-term exposure C-R functions were applied only to urban areas included among the cities used to estimate the function.
Abt Associates Inc.
D-28
June 2005
-------
Exhibit D.25. Sensitivity Analysis: Estimated Annual Health Risks of Short-Term Exposure Mortality Associated with "As Is" PM2.5
Concentrations With Adjustments for the Estimated Increases in Incidence if Distributed Lag Models Had Been Estimated
Boston, MA, 2003
Health
Effects
Short-
Term
Exposure
Mortality
Study
Type
Ages
Lag
Other
Pollutants
in Model
Health Effects Associated with PM-2.5
Above Policy Relevant Background:*
Single Lag
Incidence
Percent of Total
Incidence
Adjusted for Distributed Lag
Incidence
Percent of Total
Incidence
Single Pollutant Models (Total Mortality)
Schwartz (2003b)
[reanalysis of Schwartz
etal. (1996)]
Schwartz (2003b)
[reanalysis of Schwartz
etal. (1996)1 -6 cities
Non-accidental
Non-accidental
all
all
mean of
lag 0 & 1
mean of
lag 0 & 1
390
(265-514)
261
(186-334)
1.8%
(1.2% -2. 4%)
1.2%
(0.9% -1.5%)
761
(519-999)
511
(367 - 654)
3.5%
(2.4% - 4.6%)
2.4%
(1.7% -3.0%)
"Health effects incidence was quantified down to estimated policy relevant background level of 3.5 ug/m3. Incidences are rounded to the nearest whole number; percents are rounded to the nearest tenth.
Note 1: Numbers in parentheses are 95% confidence intervals based on statistical uncertainty surrounding the PM2.5 coefficient.
Note 2: Multi-city short-term exposure C-R functions were applied only to urban areas included among the cities used to estimate the function.
Abt Associates Inc.
D-29
June 2005
-------
Exhibit D.26. Sensitivity Analysis: Estimated Mortality Associated with Short-Term Exposure to "As Is" PM2.5 Concentrations, With
Adjustments for the Estimated Increases in Incidence if Distributed Lag Models Had Been Estimated
Los Angeles, CA, 2003
Health
Effects
Short-Term
Exposure
Mortality
Study
Type
Ages
Model
Lag
Other
Pollutants
in Model
Health Effects Associated with PM2.5 Above Policy Relevant Background*
Single Lag
Incidence
Percent of Total
Incidence
Adjusted for Distributed Lag
Incidence
Percent of Total
Incidence
Single Pollutant Models (Total Mortality)
Moolgavkar (2003)
[reanalysis of
Moolgavkar (2000a)]
Moolgavkar (2003)
[reanalysis of
Moolgavkar (2000a)]
Moolgavkar (2003)
[reanalysis of
Moolgavkar (2000a)]
Moolgavkar (2003)
[reanalysis of
Moolgavkar (2000a)]
Non-accidental
Non-accidental
Non-accidental
Non-accidental
all
all
all
all
log-linear, GAM
(stringent), 30 df
log-linear, GAM
(stringent), 30 df
log-linear, GAM
(stringent), 30 df
log-linear, GAM
(stringent), 30 df
0 day
1 day
0 day
1 day
494
(-62-1038)
540
(2-1067)
494
(-62-1038)
540
(2-1067)
0.9%
(-0.1% -1.9%)
1.0%
(0.0% -1.9%)
0.9%
(-0.1% -1.9%)
1.0%
(0.0% -1.9%)
971
(-122-2026)
1060
(3-2081)
971
(-122-2026)
1060
(3-2081)
1.8%
(-0.2% -3. 7%)
1.9%
(0.0% -3. 8%)
1.8%
(-0.2% -3. 7%)
1.9%
(0.0% -3. 8%)
Multi-Pollutant Models (Total Mortality)
Moolgavkar (2003)
[reanalysis of
Moolgavkar (2000a)]
Non-accidental
all
log-linear, GAM
(stringent), 30 df
1 day
CO
-492
(-1235-232)
-0.9%
(-2.2% - 0.4%)
-979
(-2484 - 457)
-1.8%
(-4.5% -0.8%)
"Health effects incidence was quantified down to estimated policy relevant background level of 2.5 ug/m3. Incidences are rounded to the nearest whole number; percents are rounded to the nearest tenth.
Note: Numbers in parentheses are 95% confidence intervals based on statistical uncertainty surrounding the PM2.5 coefficient.
Abt Associates Inc.
D-30
June 2005
-------
Exhibit D.27. Sensitivity Analysis: Estimated Annual Mortality Associated with Short-Term Exposure to "As Is" PlVfe 5
Concentrations With Adjustments for the Estimated Increases in Incidence if Distributed Lag Models Had Been Estimated
Pittsburgh, PA, 2003
Health
Effects
Short-Term
Exposure
Mortality
Study
Type
Ages
Lag
Other Pollutants
in Model
Health Effects Associated with PM2.5 Above Policy Relevant Background*
Single Lag
Incidence
Percent of Total
Incidence
Adjusted for Distributed Lag
Incidence
Percent of Total
Incidence
Single Pollutant Models (Total Mortality)
Chock et al.
(2000)
Chock et al.
(2000)
Non-
accidental
Non-
accidental
<75
75+
Oday
0 day
69
(-55-188)
77
(-166-311)
1 .4%
(-1.1% -3.7%)
0.8%
(-1.7% -3.2%)
135
(-109-361)
151
(-332 - 600)
2.6%
(-2.1% -7.1%)
1 .6%
(-3. 4% -6. 2%)
Multi-Pollutant Models (Total Mortality)
Chock et al.
(2000)
Chock et al.
(2000)
Non-
accidental
Non-
accidental
<75
75+
u day
0 day
CO, O3, SO2,
NO2, PM1 0-2.5
CO, O3, SO2,
NO2, PM1 0-2.5
88
(-60 - 230)
52
(-238 - 330)
1 .7%
(-1.2% -4.5%)
0.5%
(-2.4% - 3.4%)
172
(-119-439)
103
(-480 - 635)
3.4%
(-2.3% - 8.6%)
1.1%
(-4.9% -6.5%)
'Health effects incidence was quantified down to estimated policy relevant background level of 3.5 ug/m3. Incidences are rounded to the nearest whole number; percents are rounded to the nearest tenth.
Note: Numbers in parentheses are 95% confidence intervals based on statistical uncertainty surrounding the PM2.5 coefficient.
Abt Associates Inc.
D-31
June 2005
-------
Exhibit D.28. Sensitivity Analysis: Estimated Annual Mortality Associated with Short-Term Exposure to "As Is" PN\>.5
Concentrations, With Adjustments for the Estimated Increases in Incidence if Distributed Lag Models Had Been Estimated
San Jose, CA, 2003
Health
Effects
Short-
Term
Exposure
Mortality
Study
Type
Ages
Lag
Other
Pollutants
in Model
Health Effects Associated with PM2.5 Above Policy Relevant Background*
Single Lag
Incidence
Percent of Total
Incidence
Adjusted for Distributed Lag
Incidence
Percent of Total
Incidence
Single Pollutant Models (Total Mortality)
Fairley (2003) [reanalysis
of Fairley (1999)]
Fairley (2003) [reanalysis
of Fairley (1999)]
Non-
accidental
Non-
accidental
all
all
Oday
1 day
218
(45 - 387)
-110
(-278 - 50)
2.6%
(0.5% - 4.7%)
-1 .3%
(-3.4% - 0.6%)
422
(89 - 736)
-221
(-567 - 98)
5.1%
(1.1% -8.9%)
-2.7%
(-6.8% - 1 .2%)
Multi-Pollutant Models (Total Mortality)
Fairley (2003) [reanalysis
of Fairley (1999)]
Fairley (2003) [reanalysis
of Fairley (1999)]
Fairley (2003) [reanalysis
of Fairley (1999)]
Non-
accidental
Non-
accidental
Non-
accidental
all
all
all
0 day
Oday
0 day
NO2
CO
O3 - 8hr
277
(74 - 472)
251
(60 - 432)
236
(60 - 404)
3.3%
(0.9% - 5.7%)
3.0%
(0.7% - 5.2%)
2.8%
(0.7% - 4.9%)
533
(146-890)
485
(118-818)
456
(118-768)
6.4%
(1.8% -10. 7%)
5.8%
(1 .4% - 9.8%)
5.5%
(1 .4% - 9.3%)
'Health effects incidence was quantified down to estimated policy relevant background level of 2.5 ug/m3. Incidences are rounded to the nearest whole number; percents are rounded to the nearest tenth.
Note: Numbers in parentheses are 95% confidence intervals based on statistical uncertainty surrounding the PM2.5 coefficient.
Abt Associates Inc.
D-32
June 2005
-------
Exhibit D.29. Sensitivity Analysis: Estimated Annual Mortality Associated with Short-Term Exposure to "As Is" Pl\^ 5
Concentrations, With Adjustments for the Estimated Increases in Incidence if Distributed Lag Models Had Been Estimated
St. Louis, MO, 2003
Health
Effects
Short-Term
Exposure
Mortality
Study
Type
Ages
Lag
Other
Pollutants
in Model
Health Effects Associated with PM2.5 Above Policy Relevant Background*
Single Lag
Incidence
Percent of Total
Incidence
Adjusted for Distributed Lag
Incidence
Percent of Total
Incidence
Single Pollutant Models (Total Mortality)
Schwartz (2003b)
[reanalysis of Schwartz
etal. (1996)]
Schwartz (2003b)
[reanalysis of Schwartz
etal. (1996)1 -6 cities
Non-
accidental
Non-
accidental
all
all
mean of
lag 0 & 1
mean of
lag 0 & 1
230
(90 - 380)
310
(220 - 400)
1.1%
(0.4% -1.7%)
1 .4%
(1 .0% - 1 .8%)
460
(170-740)
610
(440 - 780)
2.1%
(0.8% - 3.4%)
2.8%
(2.0% - 3.6%)
'Health effects incidence was quantified down to estimated policy relevant background level of 3.5 ug/m3. Incidences are rounded to the nearest whole number; percents are rounded to the nearest tenth.
Note 1: Numbers in parentheses are 95% confidence intervals based on statistical uncertainty surrounding the PM2.5 coefficient.
Note 2: Multi-city short-term exposure C-R functions were applied only to urban areas included among the cities used to estimate the function.
Abt Associates Inc.
D-33
June 2005
-------
Exhibit D.30. Sensitivity Analysis: The Effect of Assumptions About Historical Air Quality on Estimates of
Mortality Associated with Long-Term Exposure to "As Is" PM2.5 Concentrations
Boston, MA, 2003
Health Effects
Long-Term
Exposure
Mortality
Study
Type
Ages
Other
Pollutants
in Model
Percent of Total Incidence*
Base Case: Assuming
AQ as Reported
Assuming relevant AQ
50% higher
Assuming relevant AQ
twice as high
Single Pollutant Models
Krewski et al. (2000) - Six
Cities
Krewski et al. (2000) - ACS
Krewski et al. (2000) - Six
Cities
Krewski et al. (2000) - ACS
Pope et al. (2002) - ACS
extended
Pope et al. (2002) - ACS
extended
Pope et al. (2002) - ACS
extended
All cause
All cause
Cardiopulmonary
Cardiopulmonary
All cause
Cardiopulmonary
Lung cancer
25+
30+
25+
30+
30+
30+
30+
5.6%
(1.9% -9.1%)
2.1%
(1.1% -3. 2%)
7.5%
(2.6% -12.1%)
4.3%
(2.8% - 5.9%)
2.7%
(0.9% - 4.7%)
3.9%
(1 .4% - 6.6%)
5.9%
(1.8% -9.1%)
3.8%
(1 .3% - 6.2%)
1 .4%
(0.7% - 2.2%)
5.1%
(1 .7% - 8.2%)
2.9%
(1 .9% - 4.0%)
1 .8%
(0.6% - 3.2%)
2.6%
(0.9% - 4.5%)
4.0%
(1 .2% - 6.2%)
2.8%
(1 .0% - 4.7%)
1.1%
(0.6% - 1 .6%)
3.8%
(1 .3% - 6.3%)
2.2%
(1 .4% - 3.0%)
1 .3%
(0.5% - 2.4%)
2.0%
(0.7% - 3.4%)
3.0%
(0.9% - 4.7%)
Multi-Pollutant Models
Krewski et al. (2000) - ACS
Krewski et al. (2000) - ACS
Krewski et al. (2000) - ACS
Krewski et al. (2000) - ACS
All cause
All cause
All cause
All cause
30+
30+
30+
30+
CO
N02
O3
S02
3.1%
(1 .8% - 4.4%)
3.7%
(2.0% - 5.2%)
3.1%
(1 .8% - 4.4%)
0.6%
(-1 .0% - 2.3%)
2.1%
(1 .2% - 3.0%)
2.5%
(1 .3% - 3.5%)
2.1%
(1 .2% - 3.0%)
0.4%
(-0.7% - 1 .5%)
1 .6%
(0.9% - 2.2%)
1 .9%
(1 .0% - 2.7%)
1 .6%
(0.9% - 2.2%)
0.3%
(-0.5% - 1 .2%)
For the long-term exposure studies, health effects incidence was quantified down to 7.5 ug/m3, which was the lowest of the lowest measured levels in the long-term exposure studies. Percents
are rounded to the nearest tenth.
Note: Numbers in parentheses are 95% confidence intervals based on statistical uncertainty surrounding the PM2.5 coefficient.
Abt Associates Inc.
D-34
June 2005
-------
Exhibit D.31. Sensitivity Analysis: The Effect of Assumptions About Historical Air Quality on Estimates of
Mortality Associated with Long-Term Exposure to "As Is" PM2.5 Concentrations
Los Angeles, CA, 2003
Health
Effects
Long-
Term
Exposure
Mortality
Study
Type
Ages
Other
Pollutants
in Model
Percent of Total Incidence*
Base Case: Assuming
AQ as Reported
Assuming relevant AQ
50% higher
Assuming relevant AQ
twice as hiqh
Single Pollutant Models
Krewski et al. (2000) - ACS
Krewski et al. (2000) - ACS
Pope et al. (2002) - ACS
extended
Pope et al. (2002) - ACS
extended
Pope et al. (2002) - ACS
extended
All cause
Cardiopulmonary
All cause
Cardiopulmonary
Lung cancer
30+
30+
30+
30+
30+
5.2%
(2.7% - 7.9%)
10.4%
(6.8% -14.2%)
6.6%
(2.3% - 1 1 .4%)
9.5%
(3.4% -15.9%)
14.1%
(4.5% - 21 .4%)
3.5%
(1 .8% - 5.4%)
7.1%
(4.6% - 9.7%)
4.4%
(1 .5% - 7.8%)
6.5%
(2.3% -10.9%)
9.7%
(3.0%- 14.8%)
2.7%
(1.4% -4.1%)
5.3%
(3.5% - 7.4%)
3.3%
(1 .2% - 5.9%)
4.9%
(1 .7% - 8.3%)
7.3%
(2.3% - 1 1 .3%)
Multi-Pollutant Models
Krewski et al. (2000) - ACS
Krewski et al. (2000) - ACS
Krewski et al. (2000) - ACS
Krewski et al. (2000) - ACS
All cause
All cause
All cause
All cause
30+
30+
30+
30+
CO
NO2
03
SO2
7.6%
(4.4% -10. 7%)
9.0%
(4.8% -12.7%)
7.6%
(4.4% -10.7%)
1 .4%
(-2.5% - 5.6%)
5.1%
(3.0% - 7.3%)
6.1%
(3.3% - 8.6%)
5.1%
(3.0% - 7.3%)
0.9%
(-1 .6% - 3.8%)
3.9%
(2.2% - 5.5%)
4.6%
(2.5% - 6.6%)
3.9%
(2.2% - 5.5%)
0.7%
(-1 .2% - 2.9%)
* For the long-term exposure studies, health effects incidence was quantified down to 7.5 ug/m3, which was the lowest of the lowest measured levels in the long-term exposure studies.
Percents are rounded to the nearest tenth.
Note: Numbers in parentheses are 95% confidence intervals based on statistical uncertainty surrounding the PM2.5 coefficient.
Abt Associates Inc.
D-35
June 2005
-------
Exhibit D.32. Sensitivity Analysis: The Effect of Assumptions About Historical Air Quality on Estimates of
Mortality Associated with Long-Term Exposure to "As Is" PM2.5 Concentrations
Philadelphia, PA, 2003
Health Effects
Long-Term
Exposure
Mortality
Study
Type
Ages
Other
Pollutants
in Model
Percent of Total Incidence*
Base Case: Assuming
AQ as Reported
Assuming relevant AQ
50% higher
Assuming relevant AQ
twice as high
Single Pollutant Models
Krewski et al. (2000) -
ACS
Krewski et al. (2000) -
ACS
Pope et al. (2002) - ACS
extended
Pope et al. (2002) - ACS
extended
Pope et al. (2002) - ACS
extended
All cause
Cardiopulmonary
All cause
Cardiopulmonary
Lung cancer
30+
30+
30+
30+
30+
3.1%
(1 .6% - 4.7%)
6.2%
(4.1% -8.6%)
3.9%
(1 .3% - 6.9%)
5.7%
(2.0% - 9.6%)
8.6%
(2.6% -13.2%)
2.1%
(1.1% -3. 2%)
4.2%
(2.7% - 5.8%)
2.6%
(0.9% - 4.6%)
3.8%
(1 .3% - 6.5%)
5.8%
(1 .8% - 9.0%)
1 .6%
(0.8% - 2.4%)
3.2%
(2.0% - 4.4%)
2.0%
(0.7% - 3.5%)
2.9%
(1 .0% - 4.9%)
4.4%
(1 .3% - 6.8%)
Multi-Pollutant Models
Krewski et al. (2000) -
ACS
Krewski et al. (2000) -
ACS
Krewski et al. (2000) -
ACS
Krewski et al. (2000) -
ACS
All cause
All cause
All cause
All cause
30+
30+
30+
30+
CO
N02
O3
S02
4.5%
(2.6% - 6.4%)
5.4%
(2.9% - 7.6%)
4.5%
(2.6% - 6.4%)
0.8%
(-1 .4% - 3.3%)
3.0%
(1 .8% - 4.3%)
3.6%
(1 .9% - 5.2%)
3.0%
(1 .8% - 4.3%)
0.6%
(-1 .0% - 2.2%)
2.3%
(1 .3% - 3.3%)
2.7%
(1 .4% - 3.9%)
2.3%
(1 .3% - 3.3%)
0.4%
(-0.7% - 1 .7%)
* For the long-term exposure studies, health effects incidence was quantified down to 7.5 ug/m3, which was the lowest of the lowest measured levels in the long-term exposure studies. Percents
are rounded to the nearest tenth.
Note: Numbers in parentheses are 95% confidence intervals based on statistical uncertainty surrounding the PM2.5 coefficient.
Abt Associates Inc.
D-36
June 2005
-------
Exhibit D.33. Sensitivity Analysis: The Effect of Assumptions About Historical Air Quality on Estimates of
Mortality Associated with Long-Term Exposure to "As Is" PM2.5 Concentrations
Phoenix, AZ, 2001
Health
Effects
Long-
Term
Exposure
Mortality
Study
Type
Ages
Other
Pollutants
in Model
Percent of Total Incidence*
Base Case: Assuming
AQ as Reported
Assuming Relevant AQ
50% higher
Assuming Relevant AQ
Twice as High
Single Pollutant Models
Krewski et al. (2000) - ACS
Krewski et al. (2000) - ACS
Pope et al. (2002) - ACS
extended
Pope et al. (2002) - ACS
extended
Pope et al. (2002) - ACS
extended
All cause
Cardiopulmonary
All cause
Cardiopulmonary
Lung cancer
30+
30+
30+
30+
30+
1 .3%
(0.7% - 2.0%)
2.7%
(1 .7% - 3.8%)
1 .7%
(0.6% - 3.0%)
2.5%
(0.9% - 4.2%)
3.7%
(1.1% -5.8%)
0.9%
(0.5% - 1 .4%)
1 .8%
(1 .2% - 2.5%)
1.1%
(0.4% - 2.0%)
1 .7%
(0.6% - 2.8%)
2.5%
(0.8% - 3.9%)
0.7%
(0.3% - 1 .0%)
1 .4%
(0.9% - 1 .9%)
0.8%
(0.3% - 1 .5%)
1 .2%
(0.4% -2.1%)
1 .9%
(0.6% - 3.0%)
Multi-Pollutant Models
Krewski et al. (2000) - ACS
Krewski et al. (2000) - ACS
Krewski et al. (2000) - ACS
Krewski et al. (2000) - ACS
All cause
All cause
All cause
All cause
30+
30+
30+
30+
CO
N02
O3
S02
1 .9%
(1.1% -2.8%)
2.3%
(1 .2% - 3.3%)
1 .9%
(1.1% -2.8%)
0.4%
(-0.6% - 1 .4%)
1 .3%
(0.8% - 1 .9%)
1 .6%
(0.8% - 2.2%)
1 .3%
(0.8% - 1 .9%)
0.2%
(-0.4% - 1 .0%)
1 .0%
(0.6% - 1 .4%)
1 .2%
(0.6% - 1 .7%)
1 .0%
(0.6% - 1 .4%)
0.2%
(-0.3% - 0.7%)
* For the long-term exposure studies, health effects incidence was quantified down to 7.5 ug/m3, which was the lowest of the lowest measured levels in the long-term exposure studies.
Percents are rounded to the nearest tenth.
Note: Numbers in parentheses are 95% confidence intervals based on statistical uncertainty surrounding the PM2.5 coefficient.
Abt Associates Inc.
D-37
June 2005
-------
Exhibit D.34. Sensitivity Analysis: The Effect of Assumptions About Historical Air Quality on Estimates of
Mortality Associated with Long-Term Exposure to "As Is" PM2.5 Concentrations
Pittsburgh, PA, 2003
Health
Effects
Long-
Term
Exposure
Mortality
Study
Type
Ages
Other
Pollutants
in Model
Percent of Total Incidence*
Base Case: Assuming
AQ as Reported
Assuming relevant AQ
50% higher
Assuming relevant AQ
twice as high
Single Pollutant Models
Krewski et al. (2000) - ACS
Krewski et al. (2000) - ACS
Pope et al. (2002) - ACS
extended
Pope et al. (2002) - ACS
extended
Pope et al. (2002) - ACS
extended
All cause
Cardiopulmonary
All cause
Cardiopulmonary
Lung cancer
30+
30+
30+
30+
30+
4.3%
(2.2% - 6.5%)
8.5%
(5.6% - 1 1 .7%)
5.4%
(1 .9% - 9.4%)
7.8%
(2.8% -13.1%)
1 1 .6%
(3.6% -17.8%)
2.9%
(1 .5% - 4.4%)
5.8%
(3.7% - 7.9%)
3.6%
(1 .2% - 6.4%)
5.3%
(1 .8% - 8.9%)
7.9%
(2.4% -12.2%)
2.2%
(1.1% -3.3%)
4.4%
(2.8% - 6.0%)
2.7%
(0.9% - 4.8%)
4.0%
(1 .4% - 6.8%)
6.0%
(1 .8% - 9.3%)
Multi-Pollutant Models
Krewski et al. (2000) - ACS
Krewski et al. (2000) - ACS
Krewski et al. (2000) - ACS
Krewski et al. (2000) - ACS
All cause
All cause
All cause
All cause
30+
30+
30+
30+
CO
N02
O3
S02
6.2%
(3.6% - 8.8%)
7.4%
(3.9% -10.4%)
6.2%
(3.6% - 8.8%)
1.1%
(-2.0% - 4.6%)
4.2%
(2.4% - 6.0%)
5.0%
(2.6% -7.1%)
4.2%
(2.4% - 6.0%)
0.8%
(-1.3% -3.1%)
3.1%
(1 .8% - 4.5%)
3.8%
(2.0% - 5.4%)
3.1%
(1 .8% - 4.5%)
0.6%
(-1 .0% - 2.3%)
* For the long-term exposure studies, health effects incidence was quantified down to 7.5 ug/m3, which was the lowest of the lowest measured levels in the long-term exposure studies.
Percents are rounded to the nearest tenth.
Note: Numbers in parentheses are 95% confidence intervals based on statistical uncertainty surrounding the PM2.5 coefficient.
Abt Associates Inc.
D-38
June 2005
-------
Exhibit D.35. Sensitivity Analysis: The Effect of Assumptions About Historical Air Quality on Estimates of
Mortality Associated with Long-Term Exposure to "As Is" PM2.5 Concentrations
San Jose, CA, 2003
Health Effects
Long-Term
Exposure
Mortality
Study
Type
Ages
Other
Pollutants
in Model
Percent of Total Incidence*
Base Case: Assuming
AQ as Reported
Assuming relevant AQ
50% higher
Assuming relevant AQ
twice as high
Single Pollutant Models
Krewski et al. (2000) -
ACS
Krewski et al. (2000) -
ACS
Pope et al. (2002) - ACS
extended
Pope et al. (2002) - ACS
extended
Pope et al. (2002) - ACS
extended
All cause
Cardiopulmonary
All cause
Cardiopulmonary
Lung cancer
30+
30+
30+
30+
30+
1 .6%
(0.8% - 2.5%)
3.3%
(2.1% -4. 6%)
2.1%
(0.7% - 3.6%)
3.0%
(1.1% -5.1%)
4.6%
(1.4% -7.1%)
1.1%
(0.6% - 1 .7%)
2.2%
(1.4% -3.1%)
1 .4%
(0.5% - 2.4%)
2.0%
(0.7% - 3.5%)
3.1%
(0.9% - 4.8%)
0.8%
(0.4% - 1 .3%)
1 .7%
(1.1% -2.3%)
1 .0%
(0.4% - 1 .8%)
1 .5%
(0.5% - 2.6%)
2.3%
(0.7% - 3.6%)
Multi-Pollutant Models
Krewski et al. (2000) -
ACS
Krewski et al. (2000) -
ACS
Krewski et al. (2000) -
ACS
Krewski et al. (2000) -
ACS
All cause
All cause
All cause
All cause
30+
30+
30+
30+
CO
NO2
03
SO2
2.4%
(1 .4% - 3.4%)
2.9%
(1.5% -4.1%)
2.4%
(1 .4% - 3.4%)
0.4%
(-0.8% - 1 .8%)
1 .6%
(0.9% - 2.3%)
1 .9%
(1 .0% - 2.7%)
1 .6%
(0.9% - 2.3%)
0.3%
(-0.5% - 1 .2%)
1 .2%
(0.7% - 1 .7%)
1 .4%
(0.8% -2.1%)
1 .2%
(0.7% - 1 .7%)
0.2%
(-0.4% - 0.9%)
*For the long-term exposure studies, health effects incidence was quantified down to 7.5 ug/m3, which was the lowest of the lowest measured levels in the long-term exposure studies. Percents
are rounded to the nearest tenth.
Note: Numbers in parentheses are 95% confidence intervals based on statistical uncertainty surrounding the PM2.5 coefficient.
Abt Associates Inc.
D-39
June 2005
-------
Exhibit D.36. Sensitivity Analysis: The Effect of Assumptions About Historical Air Quality on Estimates of
Mortality Associated with Long-Term Exposure to "As Is" PM2.5 Concentrations
Seattle, WA, 2003
Health Effects
Long-Term
Exposure
Mortality
Study
Type
Ages
Other
Pollutants
in Model
Percent of Total Incidence*
Base Case: Assuming
AQ as Reported
Assuming relevant AQ
50% higher
Assuming relevant AQ
twice as high
Single Pollutant Models
Krewski et al. (2000) -
ACS
Krewski et al. (2000) -
ACS
Pope et al. (2002) - ACS
extended
Pope et al. (2002) - ACS
extended
Pope et al. (2002) - ACS
extended
All cause
Cardiopulmonary
All cause
Cardiopulmonary
Lung cancer
30+
30+
30+
30+
30+
0.4%
(0.2% - 0.6%)
0.7%
(0.5% - 1 .0%)
0.5%
(0.2% - 0.8%)
0.7%
(0.2% -1.1%)
1 .0%
(0.3% - 1 .6%)
0.2%
(0.1% -0.4%)
0.5%
(0.3% - 0.7%)
0.3%
(0.1% -0.5%)
0.4%
(0.2% - 0.8%)
0.7%
(0.2% -1.1%)
0.2%
(0.1% -0.3%)
0.4%
(0.2% - 0.5%)
0.2%
(0.1% -0.4%)
0.3%
(0.1% -0.6%)
0.5%
(0.2% - 0.8%)
Multi-Pollutant Models
Krewski et al. (2000) -
ACS
Krewski et al. (2000) -
ACS
Krewski et al. (2000) -
ACS
Krewski et al. (2000) -
ACS
All cause
All cause
All cause
All cause
30+
30+
30+
30+
CO
NO2
03
SO2
0.5%
(0.3% - 0.8%)
0.6%
(0.3% - 0.9%)
0.5%
(0.3% - 0.8%)
0.1%
(-0.2% - 0.4%)
0.4%
(0.2% - 0.5%)
0.4%
(0.2% - 0.6%)
0.4%
(0.2% - 0.5%)
0.1%
(-0.1% -0.3%)
0.3%
(0.2% - 0.4%)
0.3%
(0.2% - 0.5%)
0.3%
(0.2% - 0.4%)
0.1%
(-0.1% -0.2%)
*For the long-term exposure studies, health effects incidence was quantified down to 7.5 ug/m3, which was the lowest of the lowest measured levels in the long-term exposure studies.
Percents are rounded to the nearest tenth.
Note: Numbers in parentheses are 95% confidence intervals based on statistical uncertainty surrounding the PM2.5 coefficient.
Abt Associates Inc.
D-40
June 2005
-------
Exhibit D.37. Sensitivity Analysis: The Effect of Assumptions About Historical Air Quality on Estimates of
Mortality Associated with Long-Term Exposure to "As Is" PM2 5 Concentrations
St. Louis, MO, 2003
Health Effects
Long-Term
Exposure
Mortality
Study
Type
Ages
Other
Pollutants
in Model
Percent of Total Incidence*
Base Case: Assuming
AQ as Reported
Assuming relevant AQ
50% higher
Assuming relevant AQ
twice as high
Single Pollutant Models
Krewski et al. (2000) - Six
Cities
Krewski etal. (2000) -ACS
Krewski et al. (2000) - Six
Cities
Krewski etal. (2000) -ACS
Pope etal. (2002) -ACS
extended
Pope etal. (2002) -ACS
extended
Pope etal. (2002) -ACS
extended
All cause
All cause
Cardiopulmonary
Cardiopulmonary
All cause
Cardiopulmonary
Lung cancer
25+
30+
25+
30+
30+
30+
30+
7.8%
(2. 7% -12. 6%)
3.0%
(1 .5% - 4.5%)
10.4%
(3. 6% -16. 6%)
6.0%
(3.9% - 8.2%)
3.7%
(1 .3% - 6.6%)
5.5%
(1 .9% - 9.2%)
8.2%
(2. 5% -12. 6%)
5.3%
(1 .8% - 8.6%)
2.0%
(1 .0% - 3.0%)
7.1%
(2.4% - 1 1 .4%)
4.0%
(2.6% - 5.6%)
2.5%
(0.9% - 4.4%)
3.7%
(1 .3% - 6.2%)
5.5%
(1 .7% - 8.6%)
4.0%
(1 .3% - 6.5%)
1 .5%
(0.8% -2.3%)
5.4%
(1 .8% - 8.7%)
3.0%
(2.0% -4.2%)
1 .9%
(0.6% - 3.3%)
2.8%
(1 .0% - 4.7%)
4.2%
(1 .3% - 6.5%)
Multi-Pollutant Models
Krewski etal. (2000) -ACS
Krewski etal. (2000) -ACS
Krewski etal. (2000) -ACS
Krewski etal. (2000) -ACS
All cause
All cause
All cause
All cause
30+
30+
30+
30+
CO
NO2
O3
SO2
4.3%
(2.5% -6.2%)
5.2%
(2.7% - 7.3%)
4.3%
(2.5% -6.2%)
0.8%
(-1.4% -3. 2%)
2.9%
(1 .7% - 4.2%)
3.5%
(1 .8% - 4.9%)
2.9%
(1 .7% - 4.2%)
0.5%
(-0.9% -2.1%)
2.2%
(1.3% -3.1%)
2.6%
(1 .4% - 3.7%)
2.2%
(1.3% -3.1%)
0.4%
(-0.7% - 1 .6%)
*For the long-term exposure studies, health effects incidence was quantified down to 7.5 ug/m3, which was the lowest of the lowest measured levels in the long-term exposure studies.
Percents are rounded to the nearest tenth.
Note: Numbers in parentheses are 95% confidence intervals based on statistical uncertainty surrounding the PM2.5 coefficient.
Abt Associates Inc.
D-41
June 2005
-------
Appendix E. Estimated Annual Reduced Risks Associated with PM2 5 Concentrations
When the Current and Alternative Standards Are Just Met
Abt Associates Inc. June 2005
-------
E. 1 Primary analysis
Exhibit E.1. Estimated Annual Mortality Associated with Short-Term Exposure to Pl\^5 When Alternative
Standards Are Just Met, Assuming Various Outpoint Levels*
Boston, MA, 2003
(2003 As Is Levels = 12.1 ug/m3 Annual Average; 34.1 ug/m3 98th Percentile Daily Value)
Alternative Standards
Annual (ug/m3)
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
Daily (ug/m3)
65, 98th percentile value***
40, 98th percentile value
35, 98th percentile value
30, 98th percentile value
25, 98th percentile value
65, 99th percentile value
40, 99th percentile value
35, 99th percentile value
30, 99th percentile value
25, 99th percentile value
40, 98th percentile value
35, 98th percentile value
30, 98th percentile value
25, 98th percentile value
40, 99th percentile value
35, 99th percentile value
30, 99th percentile value
Percent Reduction in Incidence from As Is Levels
(95% Confidence Interval)
Percent Reduction in Incidence from As is Levels
Policy Relevant
Background
=3.5 ug/m3
390
(265-514)
0.0%
351
(239 - 462)
10.0%
302
(206 - 398)
22.6%
254
(173-334)
34.9%
206
(140-270)
47.2%
390
(265-514)
0.0%
251
(171 -330)
35.6%
216
(147-284)
44.6%
182
(124-239)
53.3%
147
(100-193)
62.3%
351
(239 - 462)
10.0%
302
(206 - 398)
22.6%
254
(173-334)
34.9%
206
(140-270)
47.2%
251
(171 -330)
35.6%
216
(147-284)
44.6%
182
(124-239)
53.3%
Cut point**
=10 ug/m3
173
(118-228)
0.0%
139
(95-183)
19.7%
99
(67-130)
42.8%
63
(43 - 83)
63.6%
35
(24 - 46)
79.8%
173
(118-228)
0.0%
61
(42 - 80)
64.7%
40
(28 - 53)
76.9%
24
(16-31)
86.1%
11
(8-15)
93.6%
139
(95-183)
19.7%
99
(67-130)
42.8%
63
(43 - 83)
63.6%
35
(24 - 46)
79.8%
61
(42 - 80)
64.7%
40
(28 - 53)
76.9%
24
(16-31)
86.1%
Cutpoint**
=15 ug/m3
82
(56-109)
0.0%
60
(41 - 79)
26.8%
37
(25 - 48)
54.9%
20
(14-26)
75.6%
9
(6-12)
89.0%
82
(56-109)
0.0%
19
(13-25)
76.8%
11
(7-14)
86.6%
5
(3-7)
93.9%
1
(1-2)
98.8%
60
(41 - 79)
26.8%
37
(25 - 48)
54.9%
20
(14-26)
75.6%
9
(6-12)
89.0%
19
(13-25)
76.8%
11
(7-14)
86.6%
5
(3-7)
93.9%
Cutpoint**
=20 ug/m3
41
(28 - 53)
0.0%
27
(19-36)
34.1%
16
(11 -20)
61.0%
7
(5-9)
82.9%
2
(1-2)
95.1%
41
(28 - 53)
0.0%
6
(4-8)
85.4%
2
(2-3)
95.1%
1
(1-1)
97.6%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
27
(19-36)
34.1%
16
(11 -20)
61.0%
7
(5-9)
82.9%
2
(1-2)
95.1%
6
(4-8)
85.4%
2
(2-3)
95.1%
1
(1-1)
97.6%
Abt Associates Inc.
E-l
June 2005
-------
Alternative Standards
Annual (ug/m3)
14
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
Daily (ug/m3)
25, 99th percentile value
40, 98th percentile value
35, 98th percentile value
30, 98th percentile value
25, 98th percentile value
40, 99th percentile value
35, 99th percentile value
30, 99th percentile value
25, 99th percentile value
40, 98th percentile value
35, 98th percentile value
30, 98th percentile value
25, 98th percentile value
40, 99th percentile value
35, 99th percentile value
30, 99th percentile value
25, 99th percentile value
Percent Reduction in Incidence from As Is Levels
(95% Confidence Interval)
Percent Reduction in Incidence from As is Levels
Policy Relevant
Background
=3.5 ug/m3
147
(100-193)
62.3%
339
(231 - 447)
13.1%
302
(206 - 398)
22.6%
254
(173-334)
34.9%
206
(140-270)
47.2%
251
(171 -330)
35.6%
216
(147-284)
44.6%
182
(124-239)
53.3%
147
(100-193)
62.3%
303
(206 - 399)
22.3%
302
(206 - 398)
22.6%
254
(173-334)
34.9%
206
(140-270)
47.2%
251
(171 -330)
35.6%
216
(147-284)
44.6%
182
(124-239)
53.3%
147
(100-193)
62.3%
Cut point**
=10 ug/m3
11
(8-15)
93.6%
129
(88-170)
25.4%
99
(67-130)
42.8%
63
(43 - 83)
63.6%
35
(24 - 46)
79.8%
61
(42 - 80)
64.7%
40
(28 - 53)
76.9%
24
(16-31)
86.1%
11
(8-15)
93.6%
99
(68-131)
42.8%
99
(67-130)
42.8%
63
(43 - 83)
63.6%
35
(24 - 46)
79.8%
61
(42 - 80)
64.7%
40
(28 - 53)
76.9%
24
(16-31)
86.1%
11
(8-15)
93.6%
Cutpoint**
=15 ug/m3
1
(1-2)
98.8%
54
(37-71)
34.1%
37
(25 - 48)
54.9%
20
(14-26)
75.6%
9
(6-12)
89.0%
19
(13-25)
76.8%
11
(7-14)
86.6%
5
(3-7)
93.9%
1
(1-2)
98.8%
37
(25 - 49)
54.9%
37
(25 - 48)
54.9%
20
(14-26)
75.6%
9
(6-12)
89.0%
19
(13-25)
76.8%
11
(7-14)
86.6%
5
(3-7)
93.9%
1
(1-2)
98.8%
Cutpoint**
=20 ug/m3
0
(0-0)
100.0%
24
(16-32)
41.5%
16
(11 -20)
61.0%
7
(5-9)
82.9%
2
(1-2)
95.1%
6
(4-8)
85.4%
2
(2-3)
95.1%
1
(1-1)
97.6%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
16
(11-21)
61.0%
16
(11 -20)
61.0%
7
(5-9)
82.9%
2
(1-2)
95.1%
6
(4-8)
85.4%
2
(2-3)
95.1%
1
(1-1)
97.6%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
*This analysis used a C-R function from Schwartz (2003b).
**Forthe cutpoints above policy relevant background, the slope of the C-R function has been modified based on a simple hockeystick model (see discussion in section 2.5).
***Current standards.
Note: Incidences are rounded to the nearest whole number; percentsare rounded to the nearest tenth.
Abt Associates Inc.
E-2
June 2005
-------
Exhibit E.2. Estimated Annual Mortality Associated with Short-Term Exposure to PlVfe.s When Alternative
Standards Are Just Met, Assuming Various Outpoint Levels*
Los Angeles, CA, 2003
Alternative Standards
Annual (ug/m3)
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
Daily (ug/m3)
65, 98th percentile value***
40, 98th percentile value
35, 98th percentile value
30, 98th percentile value
25, 98th percentile value
65, 99th percentile value
40, 99th percentile value
35, 99th percentile value
30, 99th percentile value
25, 99th percentile value
40, 98th percentile value
35, 98th percentile value
30, 98th percentile value
25, 98th percentile value
40, 99th percentile value
35, 99th percentile value
30, 99th percentile value
25, 99th percentile value
Incidence Associated with PM2.5
(95% Confidence Interval)
Percent Reduction in Incidence from Current Standards
Policy Relevant
Background
=2.5 ug/m3
292
(-37-612)
0.0%
292
(-37-612)
0.0%
269
(-34 - 564)
7.9%
228
(-28 - 476)
21 .9%
186
(-23 - 389)
36.3%
292
(-37-612)
0.0%
197
(-25-413)
32.5%
171
(-21 - 358)
41 .4%
145
(-18-302)
50.3%
118
(-15-247)
59.6%
269
(-34 - 562)
7.9%
269
(-34 - 562)
7.9%
228
(-28 - 476)
21 .9%
186
(-23 - 389)
36.3%
197
(-25-413)
32.5%
171
(-21 - 358)
41 .4%
145
(-18-302)
50.3%
118
(-15-247)
59.6%
Cut point**
=10 ug/m3
115
(-14-240)
0.0%
115
(-14-240)
0.0%
96
(-12-200)
16.5%
65
(-8-135)
43.5%
39
(-5 - 80)
66.1%
115
(-14-240)
0.0%
45
(-6-94)
60.9%
30
(-4 - 63)
73.9%
18
(-2 - 37)
84.3%
9
(-1-18)
92.2%
96
(-12-199)
16.5%
96
(-12-199)
16.5%
65
(-8-135)
43.5%
39
(-5-80)
66.1%
45
(-6-94)
60.9%
30
(-4 - 63)
73.9%
18
(-2 - 37)
84.3%
9
(-1 - 18)
92.2%
Cutpoint**
=15 ug/m3
58
(-7-121)
0.0%
58
(-7-121)
0.0%
45
(-6 - 94)
22.4%
26
(-3 - 54)
55.2%
13
(-2 - 27)
77.6%
58
(-7-121)
0.0%
16
(-2 - 33)
72.4%
10
(-1 - 20)
82.8%
5
(-1-10)
91.4%
2
(0-4)
96.6%
45
(-6 - 93)
22.4%
45
(-6 - 93)
22.4%
26
(-3 - 54)
55.2%
13
(-2-27)
77.6%
16
(-2 - 33)
72.4%
10
(-1 - 20)
82.8%
5
(-1-10)
91.4%
2
(0-4)
96.6%
Cutpoint**
=20 ug/m3
29
(-4-61)
0.0%
29
(-4-61)
0.0%
22
(-3 - 46)
24.1%
12
(-2 - 25)
58.6%
5
(-1-11)
82.8%
29
(-4-61)
0.0%
7
(-1 - 14)
75.9%
3
(0-7)
89.7%
1
(0-3)
96.6%
0
(0-1)
100.0%
22
(-3-45)
24.1%
22
(-3 - 45)
24.1%
12
(-2 - 25)
58.6%
5
(-1-11)
82.8%
7
(-1-14)
75.9%
3
(0-7)
89.7%
1
(0-3)
96.6%
0
(0-1)
100.0%
Abt Associates Inc.
June 2005
-------
Alternative Standards
Annual (ug/m3)
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
Daily (ug/m3)
40, 98th percentile value
35, 98th percentile value
30, 98th percentile value
25, 98th percentile value
40, 99th percentile value
35, 99th percentile value
30, 99th percentile value
25, 99th percentile value
40, 98th percentile value
35, 98th percentile value
30, 98th percentile value
25, 98th percentile value
40, 99th percentile value
35, 99th percentile value
30, 99th percentile value
25, 99th percentile value
Incidence Associated with PM2.5
(95% Confidence Interval)
Percent Reduction in Incidence from Current Standards
Policy Relevant
Background
=2.5 ug/m3
245
(-31 -513)
16.1%
245
(-31 -513)
16.1%
228
(-28 - 476)
21.9%
186
(-23 - 389)
36.3%
197
(-25-413)
32.5%
171
(-21 - 358)
41 .4%
145
(-18-302)
50.3%
118
(-15-247)
59.6%
222
(-28 - 464)
24.0%
222
(-28 - 464)
24.0%
222
(-28 - 464)
24.0%
186
(-23 - 389)
36.3%
197
(-25-413)
32.5%
171
(-21 - 358)
41 .4%
145
(-18-302)
50.3%
118
(-15-247)
59.6%
Cut point**
=10 ug/m3
77
(-10-161)
33.0%
77
(-10-161)
33.0%
65
(-8-135)
43.5%
39
(-5-80)
66.1%
45
(-6-94)
60.9%
30
(-4-63)
73.9%
18
(-2-37)
84.3%
9
(-1 - 18)
92.2%
61
(-8-126)
47.0%
61
(-8-126)
47.0%
61
(-8-126)
47.0%
39
(-5-80)
66.1%
45
(-6-94)
60.9%
30
(-4-63)
73.9%
18
(-2-37)
84.3%
9
(-1 - 18)
92.2%
Cutpoint**
=15 ug/m3
34
(-4-69)
41 .4%
34
(-4-69)
41 .4%
26
(-3-54)
55.2%
13
(-2-27)
77.6%
16
(-2 - 33)
72.4%
10
(-1-20)
82.8%
5
(-1-10)
91 .4%
2
(0-4)
96.6%
24
(-3-50)
58.6%
24
(-3-50)
58.6%
24
(-3-50)
58.6%
13
(-2-27)
77.6%
16
(-2 - 33)
72.4%
10
(-1-20)
82.8%
5
(-1-10)
91 .4%
2
(0-4)
96.6%
Cutpoint**
=20 ug/m3
16
(-2 - 33)
44.8%
16
(-2 - 33)
44.8%
12
(-2-25)
58.6%
5
(-1-11)
82.8%
7
(-1-14)
75.9%
3
(0-7)
89.7%
1
(0-3)
96.6%
0
(0-1)
100.0%
11
(-1-23)
62.1%
11
(-1-23)
62.1%
11
(-1-23)
62.1%
5
(-1-11)
82.8%
7
(-1-14)
75.9%
3
(0-7)
89.7%
1
(0-3)
96.6%
0
(0-1)
100.0%
"This analysis was performed using Moolgavkar (2003).
"For the outpoints above policy relevant background, the slope of the C-R function has been modified based on a simple hockeystick model (see discussion in section 2.5).
•"Current standards.
Note: Incidences are rounded to the nearest whole number; percentsare rounded to the nearest tenth.
Abt Associates Inc.
E-4
June 2005
-------
Exhibit E.3. Estimated Annual Cardiovascular Mortality Associated with Short-Term Exposure to Pl\^.5 When
Alternative Standards Are Just Met, Assuming Various Outpoint Levels*
Philadelphia, PA, 2003
Alternative Standards
Annual (ug/m3)
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
Daily (ug/m3)
65, 98th percentile value***
40, 98th percentile value
35, 98th percentile value
30, 98th percentile value
25, 98th percentile value
65, 99th percentile value
40, 99th percentile value
35, 99th percentile value
30, 99th percentile value
25, 99th percentile value
65, 98th percentile value
40, 98th percentile value
35, 98th percentile value
30, 98th percentile value
25, 98th percentile value
40, 99th percentile value
35, 99th percentile value
30, 99th percentile value
Incidence Associated with PM2.5
(95% Confidence Interval)
Percent Reduction in Incidence from Current Standards
Policy Relevant
Background
=3.5 ug/m3
367
(175-560)
0.0%
317
(151 -482)
13.6%
273
(130-416)
25.6%
230
(110-350)
37.3%
187
(89 - 284)
49.0%
297
(142-451)
19.1%
176
(84 - 268)
52.0%
152
(72-231)
58.6%
128
(61 -195)
65.1%
104
(49-158)
71 .7%
336
(160-511)
8.4%
317
(151 -482)
13.6%
273
(130-416)
25.6%
230
(110-350)
37.3%
187
(89 - 284)
49.0%
176
(84 - 268)
52.0%
152
(72-231)
58.6%
128
(61 -195)
65.1%
Cut point**
=10 ug/m3
189
(90 - 288)
0.0%
143
(68-218)
24.3%
106
(50-161)
43.9%
71
(34-108)
62.4%
41
(20 - 63)
78.3%
126
(60-191)
33.3%
35
(17-53)
81 .5%
22
(11-34)
88.4%
12
(6-19)
93.7%
5
(2-8)
97.4%
160
(76 - 243)
15.3%
143
(68-218)
24.3%
106
(50-161)
43.9%
71
(34-108)
62.4%
41
(20 - 63)
78.3%
35
(17-53)
81 .5%
22
(11-34)
88.4%
12
(6-19)
93.7%
Cutpoint**
=15 ug/m3
106
(51 - 162)
0.0%
71
(34-107)
33.0%
45
(22 - 69)
57.5%
25
(12-38)
76.4%
11
(5-16)
89.6%
58
(28 - 89)
45.3%
8
(4-12)
92.5%
3
(2-5)
97.2%
1
(1-2)
99.1%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
83
(40-127)
21.7%
71
(34-107)
33.0%
45
(22 - 69)
57.5%
25
(12-38)
76.4%
11
(5-16)
89.6%
8
(4-12)
92.5%
3
(2-5)
97.2%
1
(1-2)
99.1%
Cutpoint**
=20 ug/m3
57
(27 - 87)
0.0%
34
(16-51)
40.4%
18
(9-28)
68.4%
7
(3-11)
87.7%
2
(1-3)
96.5%
26
(12-40)
54.4%
1
(1-2)
98.2%
0
(0-1)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
42
(20 - 63)
26.3%
34
(16-51)
40.4%
18
(9 - 28)
68.4%
7
(3-11)
87.7%
2
(1-3)
96.5%
1
(1-2)
98.2%
0
(0-1)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
Abt Associates Inc.
E-5
June 2005
-------
Alternative Standards
Annual (ug/m3)
14
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
Daily (ug/m3)
25, 99th percentile value
40, 98th percentile value
35, 98th percentile value
30, 98th percentile value
25, 98th percentile value
40, 99th percentile value
35, 99th percentile value
30, 99th percentile value
25, 99th percentile value
40, 98th percentile value
35, 98th percentile value
30, 98th percentile value
25, 98th percentile value
40, 99th percentile value
35, 99th percentile value
30, 99th percentile value
25, 99th percentile value
Incidence Associated with PM2.5
(95% Confidence Interval)
Percent Reduction in Incidence from Current Standards
Policy Relevant
Background
=3.5 ug/m3
104
(49-158)
71 .7%
304
(145-462)
17.2%
273
(130-416)
25.6%
230
(110-350)
37.3%
187
(89 - 284)
49.0%
176
(84 - 268)
52.0%
152
(72-231)
58.6%
128
(61 -195)
65.1%
104
(49-158)
71 .7%
272
(130-414)
25.9%
272
(130-414)
25.9%
230
(110-350)
37.3%
187
(89 - 284)
49.0%
176
(84 - 268)
52.0%
152
(72-231)
58.6%
128
(61 -195)
65.1%
104
(49-158)
71 .7%
Cut point**
=10 ug/m3
5
(2-8)
97.4%
132
(63 - 200)
30.2%
106
(50-161)
43.9%
71
(34-108)
62.4%
41
(20 - 63)
78.3%
35
(17-53)
81 .5%
22
(11-34)
88.4%
12
(6-19)
93.7%
5
(2-8)
97.4%
104
(50-159)
45.0%
104
(50-159)
45.0%
71
(34-108)
62.4%
41
(20 - 63)
78.3%
35
(17-53)
81 .5%
22
(11-34)
88.4%
12
(6-19)
93.7%
5
(2-8)
97.4%
Cutpoint**
=15 ug/m3
0
(0-0)
100.0%
62
(30 - 95)
41.5%
45
(22 - 69)
57.5%
25
(12-38)
76.4%
11
(5-16)
89.6%
8
(4-12)
92.5%
3
(2-5)
97.2%
1
(1-2)
99.1%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
44
(21 - 68)
58.5%
44
(21 - 68)
58.5%
25
(12-38)
76.4%
11
(5-16)
89.6%
8
(4-12)
92.5%
3
(2-5)
97.2%
1
(1-2)
99.1%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
Cutpoint**
=20 ug/m3
0
(0-0)
100.0%
29
(14-44)
49.1%
18
(9-28)
68.4%
7
(3-11)
87.7%
2
(1-3)
96.5%
1
(1-2)
98.2%
0
(0-1)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
18
(9-27)
68.4%
18
(9-27)
68.4%
7
(3-11)
87.7%
2
(1-3)
96.5%
1
(1-2)
98.2%
0
(0-1)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
*This analysis used a C-R function from Lipfert et al. (2000).
**For the outpoints above policy relevant background, the slope of the C-R function has been modified based on a simple hockeystick model (see discussion in section 2.5).
•"Current standards.
Note: Incidences are rounded to the nearest whole number; percentsare rounded to the nearest tenth.
Abt Associates Inc.
E-6
June 2005
-------
Exhibit E.4. Estimated Annual Cardiovascular Mortality Associated with Short-Term Exposure to Pl\^.5 When
Alternative Standards Are Just Met, Assuming Various Outpoint Levels*
Phoenix, AZ, 2001
(2001 As Is Levels = 10.4 ug/m3 Annual Average; 28.9 ug/m3 98th Percentile Daily Value)
Alternative Standards
Annual (ug/m3)
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
Daily (ug/m3)
65, 98th percentile value***
40, 98th percentile value
35, 98th percentile value
30, 98th percentile value
25, 98th percentile value
65, 99th percentile value
40, 99th percentile value
35, 99th percentile value
30, 99th percentile value
25, 99th percentile value
40, 98th percentile value
35, 98th percentile value
30, 98th percentile value
25, 98th percentile value
40, 99th percentile value
35, 99th percentile value
30, 99th percentile value
25, 99th percentile value
Incidence Associated with PM2.5
(95% Confidence Interval)
Percent Reduction in Incidence from As Is Levels
Policy Relevant
Background
=2.5 ug/m3
323
(97 - 536)
0.0%
323
(97 - 536)
0.0%
323
(97 - 536)
0.0%
272
(82 - 449)
15.8%
221
(67 - 363)
31 .6%
323
(97 - 536)
0.0%
314
(94-521)
2.8%
271
(82 - 447)
16.1%
228
(69 - 375)
29.4%
185
(56 - 304)
42.7%
323
(97 - 536)
0.0%
323
(97 - 536)
0.0%
272
(82 - 449)
15.8%
221
(67 - 363)
31 .6%
314
(94-521)
2.8%
271
(82 - 447)
16.1%
228
(69 - 375)
29.4%
185
(56 - 304)
42.7%
Cut point**
=10 ug/m3
115
(35-190)
0.0%
115
(35-190)
0.0%
115
(35-190)
0.0%
78
(24-127)
32.2%
48
(15-76)
58.3%
115
(35-190)
0.0%
109
(33-178)
5.2%
78
(24-126)
32.2%
52
(16-82)
54.8%
30
(10-46)
73.9%
115
(35-190)
0.0%
115
(35-190)
0.0%
78
(24-127)
32.2%
48
(15-76)
58.3%
109
(33-178)
5.2%
78
(24-126)
32.2%
52
(16-82)
54.8%
30
(10-46)
73.9%
Cutpoint**
=15 ug/m3
(21 - 109)
0.0%
67
(21 - 109)
0.0%
67
(21 - 109)
0.0%
40
(13-64)
40.3%
21
(7-33)
68.7%
67
(21 - 109)
0.0%
62
(19-101)
7.5%
40
(13-64)
40.3%
24
(8-37)
64.2%
11
(4-16)
83.6%
67
(21 - 109)
0.0%
67
(21 - 109)
0.0%
40
(13-64)
40.3%
21
(7-33)
68.7%
62
(19-101)
7.5%
40
(13-64)
40.3%
24
(8-37)
64.2%
11
(4-16)
83.6%
Cutpoint**
=20 ug/m3
43
(13-69)
0.0%
43
(13-69)
0.0%
43
(13-69)
0.0%
22
(7-35)
48.8%
8
(3-12)
81.4%
43
(13-69)
0.0%
39
(12-63)
9.3%
22
(7-34)
48.8%
10
(3-15)
76.7%
4
(2-6)
90.7%
43
(13-69)
0.0%
43
(13-69)
0.0%
22
(7-35)
48.8%
8
(3-12)
81.4%
39
(12-63)
9.3%
22
(7-34)
48.8%
10
(3-15)
76.7%
4
(2-6)
90.7%
Abt Associates Inc.
E-7
June 2005
-------
Alternative Standards
Annual (ug/m3)
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
Daily (ug/m3)
40, 98th percentile value
35, 98th percentile value
30, 98th percentile value
25, 98th percentile value
40, 99th percentile value
35, 99th percentile value
30, 99th percentile value
25, 99th percentile value
40, 98th percentile value
35, 98th percentile value
30, 98th percentile value
25, 98th percentile value
40, 99th percentile value
35, 99th percentile value
30, 99th percentile value
25, 99th percentile value
Incidence Associated with PM2.5
(95% Confidence Interval)
Percent Reduction in Incidence from As Is Levels
Policy Relevant
Background
=2.5 ug/m3
323
(97 - 536)
0.0%
323
(97 - 536)
0.0%
272
(82 - 449)
15.8%
221
(67 - 363)
31 .6%
314
(94-521)
2.8%
271
(82 - 447)
16.1%
228
(69 - 375)
29.4%
185
(56 - 304)
42.7%
323
(97 - 536)
0.0%
323
(97 - 536)
0.0%
272
(82 - 449)
15.8%
221
(67 - 363)
31 .6%
314
(94-521)
2.8%
271
(82 - 447)
16.1%
228
(69 - 375)
29.4%
185
(56 - 304)
42.7%
Outpoint**
=10 ug/m3
115
(35-190)
0.0%
115
(35-190)
0.0%
78
(24-127)
32.2%
48
(15-76)
58.3%
109
(33-178)
5.2%
78
(24-126)
32.2%
52
(16-82)
54.8%
30
(10-46)
73.9%
115
(35-190)
0.0%
115
(35-190)
0.0%
78
(24-127)
32.2%
48
(15-76)
58.3%
109
(33-178)
5.2%
78
(24-126)
32.2%
52
(16-82)
54.8%
30
(10-46)
73.9%
Outpoint**
=15 ug/m3
67
(21 - 109)
0.0%
67
(21 - 109)
0.0%
40
(13-64)
40.3%
21
(7-33)
68.7%
62
(19-101)
7.5%
40
(13-64)
40.3%
24
(8-37)
64.2%
11
(4-16)
83.6%
67
(21 - 109)
0.0%
67
(21 - 109)
0.0%
40
(13-64)
40.3%
21
(7-33)
68.7%
62
(19-101)
7.5%
40
(13-64)
40.3%
24
(8-37)
64.2%
11
(4-16)
83.6%
Outpoint**
=20 ug/m3
43
(13-69)
0.0%
43
(13-69)
0.0%
22
(7-35)
48.8%
8
(3-12)
81.4%
39
(12-63)
9.3%
22
(7-34)
48.8%
10
(3-15)
76.7%
4
(2-6)
90.7%
43
(13-69)
0.0%
43
(13-69)
0.0%
22
(7-35)
48.8%
8
(3-12)
81.4%
39
(12-63)
9.3%
22
(7-34)
48.8%
10
(3-15)
76.7%
4
(2-6)
90.7%
*This analysis used a C-R function from Mar et al. (2003), 1 -day lag model.
"For the outpoints above policy relevant background, the slope of the C-R function has been modified based on a simple hockeystick model (see discussion in section 2.5).
•"Current standards.
Note: Incidences are rounded to the nearest whole number; percents are rounded to the nearest tenth.
Abt Associates Inc.
E-8
June 2005
-------
Exhibit E.5. Estimated Annual Mortality Associated with Short-Term Exposure to PIV^.s When Alternative
Standards Are Just Met, Assuming Various Outpoint Levels*
Pittsburgh, PA, 2003
Alternative Standards
Annual (ug/m3)
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
Daily (ug/m3)
65, 98th percentile value***
40, 98th percentile value
35, 98th percentile value
30, 98th percentile value
25, 98th percentile value
65, 99th percentile value
40, 99th percentile value
35, 99th percentile value
30, 99th percentile value
25, 99th percentile value
40, 98th percentile value
35, 98th percentile value
30, 98th percentile value
25, 98th percentile value
40, 99th percentile value
35, 99th percentile value
30, 99th percentile value
25, 99th percentile value
Incidence Associated with PM2.5
(95% Confidence Interval)
Percent Reduction in Incidence from Current Standards
Policy Relevant
Background
=3.5 ug/m3
50
(-108-200)
0.0%
47
(-102-189)
6.0%
41
(-88-162)
18.0%
34
(-74-136)
32.0%
28
(-60-110)
44.0%
50
(-108-200)
0.0%
42
(-92-168)
16.0%
36
(-79-145)
28.0%
31
(-67-122)
38.0%
25
(-54 - 99)
50.0%
46
(-99-182)
8.0%
41
(-88-162)
18.0%
34
(-74-136)
32.0%
28
(-60-110)
44.0%
42
(-92-168)
16.0%
36
(-79-145)
28.0%
31
(-67-122)
38.0%
25
(-54 - 99)
50.0%
Cut point**
=10 ug/m3
22
(-48 - 87)
0.0%
19
(-43-77)
13.6%
14
(-31 - 56)
36.4%
9
(-21 - 37)
59.1%
5
(-12-20)
77.3%
22
(-48 - 87)
0.0%
15
(-34-61)
31 .8%
11
(-24 - 43)
50.0%
7
(-15-27)
68.2%
4
(-8-14)
81 .8%
18
(-40 - 72)
18.2%
14
(-31 - 56)
36.4%
9
(-21 - 37)
59.1%
5
(-12-20)
77.3%
15
(-34-61)
31 .8%
11
(-24 - 43)
50.0%
7
(-15-27)
68.2%
4
(-8-14)
81 .8%
Cutpoint**
=15 ug/m3
10
(-23-41)
0.0%
9
(-19-34)
10.0%
5
(-12-21)
50.0%
3
(-6-11)
70.0%
1
(-3-5)
90.0%
10
(-23-41)
0.0%
6
(-13-24)
40.0%
4
(-8-14)
60.0%
2
(-4 - 7)
80.0%
1
(-2-3)
90.0%
8
(-17-31)
20.0%
5
(-12-21)
50.0%
3
(-6-11)
70.0%
1
(-3-5)
90.0%
6
(-13-24)
40.0%
4
(-8-14)
60.0%
2
(-4 - 7)
80.0%
1
(-2-3)
90.0%
Cutpoint**
=20 ug/m3
5
(-11-18)
0.0%
4
(-9-15)
20.0%
2
(-5 - 8)
60.0%
1
(-2 - 4)
80.0%
0
(-1-2)
100.0%
5
(-11 -18)
0.0%
3
(-6-10)
40.0%
1
(-3 - 5)
80.0%
1
(-2-3)
80.0%
0
(-1 - 1)
100.0%
3
(-8-13)
40.0%
2
(-5 - 8)
60.0%
1
(-2-4)
80.0%
0
(-1-2)
100.0%
3
(-6-10)
40.0%
1
(-3 - 5)
80.0%
1
(-2-3)
80.0%
0
(-1 - 1)
100.0%
Abt Associates Inc.
E-9
June 2005
-------
Alternative Standards
Annual (ug/m3)
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
Daily (ug/m3)
40, 98th percentile value
35, 98th percentile value
30, 98th percentile value
25, 98th percentile value
40, 99th percentile value
35, 99th percentile value
30, 99th percentile value
25, 99th percentile value
40, 98th percentile value
35, 98th percentile value
30, 98th percentile value
25, 98th percentile value
40, 99th percentile value
35, 99th percentile value
30, 99th percentile value
25, 99th percentile value
Incidence Associated with PM2.5
(95% Confidence Interval)
Percent Reduction in Incidence from Current Standards
Policy Relevant
Background
=3.5 ug/m3
41
(-90-165)
18.0%
41
(-88-162)
18.0%
34
(-74-136)
32.0%
28
(-60-110)
44.0%
41
(-90-165)
18.0%
36
(-79-145)
28.0%
31
(-67-122)
38.0%
25
(-54 - 99)
50.0%
37
(-80-147)
26.0%
37
(-80-147)
26.0%
34
(-74-136)
32.0%
28
(-60-110)
44.0%
37
(-80-147)
26.0%
36
(-79-145)
28.0%
31
(-67-122)
38.0%
25
(-54 - 99)
50.0%
Cut point**
=10 ug/m3
15
(-32 - 58)
31 .8%
14
(-31 - 56)
36.4%
9
(-21 - 37)
59.1%
5
(-12-20)
77.3%
15
(-32 - 58)
31 .8%
11
(-24 - 43)
50.0%
7
(-15-27)
68.2%
4
(-8-14)
81 .8%
11
(-25 - 44)
50.0%
11
(-25 - 44)
50.0%
9
(-21-37)
59.1%
5
(-12-20)
77.3%
11
(-25 - 44)
50.0%
11
(-24 - 43)
50.0%
7
(-15-27)
68.2%
4
(-8-14)
81 .8%
Cutpoint**
=15 ug/m3
6
(-13-22)
40.0%
5
(-12-21)
50.0%
3
(-6-11)
70.0%
1
(-3 - 5)
90.0%
6
(-13-22)
40.0%
4
(-8-14)
60.0%
2
(-4 - 7)
80.0%
1
(-2-3)
90.0%
4
(-8-15)
60.0%
4
(-8-15)
60.0%
3
(-6-11)
70.0%
1
(-3-5)
90.0%
4
(-8-15)
60.0%
4
(-8-14)
60.0%
2
(-4 - 7)
80.0%
1
(-2-3)
90.0%
Cutpoint**
=20 ug/m3
2
(-5-9)
60.0%
2
(-5-8)
60.0%
1
(-2 - 4)
80.0%
0
(-1 - 2)
100.0%
2
(-5-9)
60.0%
1
(-3 - 5)
80.0%
1
(-2 - 3)
80.0%
0
(-1 - 1)
100.0%
1
(-3-6)
80.0%
1
(-3 - 6)
80.0%
1
(-2 - 4)
80.0%
0
(-1-2)
100.0%
1
(-3-6)
80.0%
1
(-3 - 5)
80.0%
1
(-2 - 3)
80.0%
0
(-1 - 1)
100.0%
*This analysis used a C-R function from Chock et al. (2000), age 75+ model.
"For the cutpoints above policy relevant background, the slope of the C-R function has been
•"Current standards.
Note: Incidences are rounded to the nearest whole number; percents are rounded to the nea
modified based on a simple hockeystick model (see discussion in section 2.5).
rest tenth.
Abt Associates Inc.
E-10
June 2005
-------
Exhibit E.6. Estimated Annual Mortality Associated with Short-Term Exposure to PIV^.s When Alternative
Standards Are Just Met, Assuming Various Outpoint Levels*
San Jose, CA, 2003
(2003 As Is Levels = 11.1 ug/m3 Annual Average; 37.6 ug/m3 98th Percentile Daily Value)
Alternative Standards
Annual (ug/m3)
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
Daily (ug/m3)
65, 98th percentile value***
40, 98th percentile value
35, 98th percentile value
30, 98th percentile value
25, 98th percentile value
65, 99th percentile value
40, 99th percentile value
35, 99th percentile value
30, 99th percentile value
25, 99th percentile value
40, 98th percentile value
35, 98th percentile value
30, 98th percentile value
25, 98th percentile value
40, 99th percentile value
35, 99th percentile value
30, 99th percentile value
25, 99th percentile value
Incidence Associated with PM2.5
(95% Confidence Interval)
Percent Reduction in Incidence from As Is Levels
Policy Relevant
Background
=2.5 ug/m3
218
(45 - 387)
0.0%
183
(38 - 324)
16.1%
158
(33 - 279)
27.5%
134
(28 - 235)
38.5%
109
(23-191)
50.0%
218
(45 - 387)
0.0%
161
(33 - 284)
26.1%
139
(29 - 245)
36.2%
118
(24 - 207)
45.9%
96
(20-168)
56.0%
183
(38 - 324)
16.1%
158
(33 - 279)
27.5%
134
(28 - 235)
38.5%
109
(23-191)
50.0%
161
(33 - 284)
26.1%
139
(29 - 245)
36.2%
118
(24 - 207)
45.9%
96
(20-168)
56.0%
Cut point**
=10 ug/m3
80
(17-141)
0.0%
55
(1 1 - 96)
31 .3%
39
(8 - 68)
51 .3%
26
(6-45)
67.5%
16
(3-27)
80.0%
80
(17-141)
0.0%
41
(9-71)
48.8%
29
(6-50)
63.8%
19
(4-33)
76.3%
11
(2 - 20)
86.3%
55
(1 1 - 96)
31 .3%
39
(8 - 68)
51 .3%
26
(6-45)
67.5%
16
(3 - 27)
80.0%
41
(9-71)
48.8%
29
(6-50)
63.8%
19
(4-33)
76.3%
11
(2 - 20)
86.3%
Cutpoint**
=15 ug/m3
44
(9 - 77)
0.0%
29
(6-50)
34.1%
20
(4-34)
54.5%
12
(3 - 20)
72.7%
6
(1-10)
86.4%
44
(9 - 77)
0.0%
21
(4-36)
52.3%
13
(3 - 23)
70.5%
8
(2-13)
81.8%
3
(1-6)
93.2%
29
(6-50)
34.1%
20
(4-34)
54.5%
12
(3 - 20)
72.7%
6
(1-10)
86.4%
21
(4-36)
52.3%
13
(3 - 23)
70.5%
8
(2-13)
81.8%
3
(1-6)
93.2%
Cutpoint**
=20 ug/m3
28
(6-50)
0.0%
17
(3-29)
39.3%
10
(2-17)
64.3%
5
(1-8)
82.1%
1
(0-2)
96.4%
28
(6-50)
0.0%
11
(2-18)
60.7%
6
(1-10)
78.6%
2
(0-4)
92.9%
1
(0-1)
96.4%
17
(3-29)
39.3%
10
(2-17)
64.3%
5
(1-8)
82.1%
1
(0-2)
96.4%
11
(2-18)
60.7%
6
(1-10)
78.6%
2
(0-4)
92.9%
1
(0-1)
96.4%
Abt Associates Inc.
E-ll
June 2005
-------
Alternative Standards
Annual (ug/m3)
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
Daily (ug/m3)
40, 98th percentile value
35, 98th percentile value
30, 98th percentile value
25, 98th percentile value
40, 99th percentile value
35, 99th percentile value
30, 99th percentile value
25, 99th percentile value
40, 98th percentile value
35, 98th percentile value
30, 98th percentile value
25, 98th percentile value
40, 99th percentile value
35, 99th percentile value
30, 99th percentile value
25, 99th percentile value
Incidence Associated with PM2.5
(95% Confidence Interval)
Percent Reduction in Incidence from As Is Levels
Policy Relevant
Background
=2.5 ug/m3
183
(38 - 324)
16.1%
158
(33 - 279)
27.5%
134
(28 - 235)
38.5%
109
(23-191)
50.0%
161
(33 - 284)
26.1%
139
(29 - 245)
36.2%
118
(24 - 207)
45.9%
96
(20-168)
56.0%
171
(35-301)
21.6%
158
(33 - 279)
27.5%
134
(28 - 235)
38.5%
109
(23-191)
50.0%
161
(33 - 284)
26.1%
139
(29 - 245)
36.2%
118
(24 - 207)
45.9%
96
(20-168)
56.0%
Cut point**
=10 ug/m3
55
(1 1 - 96)
31 .3%
39
(8 - 68)
51 .3%
26
(6 - 45)
67.5%
16
(3 - 27)
80.0%
41
(9-71)
48.8%
29
(6 - 50)
63.8%
19
(4 - 33)
76.3%
11
(2 - 20)
86.3%
47
(10-81)
41 .3%
39
(8 - 68)
51 .3%
26
(6 - 45)
67.5%
16
(3-27)
80.0%
41
(9-71)
48.8%
29
(6 - 50)
63.8%
19
(4 - 33)
76.3%
11
(2 - 20)
86.3%
Cutpoint**
=15 ug/m3
29
(6-50)
34.1%
20
(4-34)
54.5%
12
(3-20)
72.7%
6
(1-10)
86.4%
21
(4-36)
52.3%
13
(3-23)
70.5%
8
(2-13)
81.8%
3
(1-6)
93.2%
24
(5-41)
45.5%
20
(4-34)
54.5%
12
(3-20)
72.7%
6
(1-10)
86.4%
21
(4-36)
52.3%
13
(3-23)
70.5%
8
(2-13)
81.8%
3
(1-6)
93.2%
Cutpoint**
=20 ug/m3
17
(3 - 29)
39.3%
10
(2-17)
64.3%
5
(1-8)
82.1%
1
(0-2)
96.4%
11
(2-18)
60.7%
6
(1-10)
78.6%
2
(0-4)
92.9%
1
(0-1)
96.4%
13
(3 - 22)
53.6%
10
(2-17)
64.3%
5
(1-8)
82.1%
1
(0-2)
96.4%
11
(2-18)
60.7%
6
(1-10)
78.6%
2
(0-4)
92.9%
1
(0-1)
96.4%
*This analysis used a C-R function from Fairley (2003).
"For the outpoints above policy relevant background, the slope of the C-R function has been modified based on a simple hockeystick model (see discussion in section 2.5).
•"Current standards.
Note: Incidences are rounded to the nearest whole number; percents are rounded to the nearest tenth.
Abt Associates Inc.
E-12
June 2005
-------
Exhibit E.7. Estimated Annual Hospital Admissions for Asthma (Age < 65) Associated with Short-Term Exposure
to PM2.s When Alternative Standards Are Just Met, Assuming Various Outpoint Levels*
Seattle, WA, 2003
(2003 As Is Levels = 8.3 ug/m3 Annual Average; 21.7 ug/m3 98th Percentile Daily Value)
Alternative Standards
Annual (ug/m3)
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
Daily (ug/m3)
65, 98th percentile value***
40, 98th percentile value
35, 98th percentile value
30, 98th percentile value
25, 98th percentile value
65, 99th percentile value
40, 99th percentile value
35, 99th percentile value
30, 99th percentile value
25, 99th percentile value
40, 98th percentile value
35, 98th percentile value
30, 98th percentile value
25, 98th percentile value
40, 99th percentile value
35, 99th percentile value
30, 99th percentile value
25, 99th percentile value
Incidence Associated with PM2.5
(95% Confidence Interval)
Percent Reduction in Incidence from As Is Levels
Policy Relevant
Background
=2.5 ug/m3
30
(8 - 45)
0.0%
29
(8 - 43)
3.3%
25
(7 - 37)
16.7%
21
(6 - 32)
30.0%
18
(5-26)
40.0%
30
(8 - 45)
0.0%
25
(6 - 37)
16.7%
21
(6 - 32)
30.0%
18
(5-27)
40.0%
15
(4 - 22)
50.0%
29
(8 - 43)
3.3%
25
(7-37)
16.7%
21
(6 - 32)
30.0%
18
(5 - 26)
40.0%
25
(6 - 37)
16.7%
21
(6 - 32)
30.0%
18
(5-27)
40.0%
15
(4 - 22)
50.0%
Cut point**
=10 ug/m3
7
(2-11)
0.0%
7
(2-10)
0.0%
4
(1-7)
42.9%
3
(1-4)
57.1%
1
(0-2)
85.7%
7
(2-11)
0.0%
4
(1-6)
42.9%
3
(1-4)
57.1%
1
(0-2)
85.7%
1
(0-1)
85.7%
7
(2-10)
0.0%
4
(1-7)
42.9%
3
(1-4)
57.1%
1
(0-2)
85.7%
4
(1-6)
42.9%
3
(1-4)
57.1%
1
(0-2)
85.7%
1
(0-1)
85.7%
Cutpoint**
=15 ug/m3
3
(1-4)
0.0%
2
(1-3)
33.3%
1
(0-2)
66.7%
0
(0-1)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
3
(1-4)
0.0%
1
(0-2)
66.7%
0
(0-1)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
2
(1-3)
33.3%
1
(0-2)
66.7%
0
(0-1)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
1
(0-2)
66.7%
0
(0-1)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
Cutpoint**
=20 ug/m3
1
(0-1)
0.0%
0
(0-1)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
1
(0-1)
0.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-1)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
Abt Associates Inc.
E-13
June 2005
-------
Alternative Standards
Annual (ug/m3)
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
Daily (ug/m3)
40, 98th percentile value
35, 98th percentile value
30, 98th percentile value
25, 98th percentile value
40, 99th percentile value
35, 99th percentile value
30, 99th percentile value
25, 99th percentile value
40, 98th percentile value
35, 98th percentile value
30, 98th percentile value
25, 98th percentile value
40, 99th percentile value
35, 99th percentile value
30, 99th percentile value
25, 99th percentile value
Incidence Associated with PM2.5
(95% Confidence Interval)
Percent Reduction in Incidence from As Is Levels
Policy Relevant
Background
=2.5 ug/m3
29
(8 - 43)
3.3%
25
(7-37)
16.7%
21
(6 - 32)
30.0%
18
(5 - 26)
40.0%
25
(6-37)
16.7%
21
(6 - 32)
30.0%
18
(5 - 27)
40.0%
15
(4 - 22)
50.0%
29
(8 - 43)
3.3%
25
(7 - 37)
16.7%
21
(6 - 32)
30.0%
18
(5-26)
40.0%
25
(6-37)
16.7%
21
(6 - 32)
30.0%
18
(5 - 27)
40.0%
15
(4 - 22)
50.0%
Outpoint**
=10 ug/m3
7
(2-10)
0.0%
4
(1-7)
42.9%
3
(1-4)
57.1%
1
(0-2)
85.7%
4
(1-6)
42.9%
3
(1-4)
57.1%
1
(0-2)
85.7%
1
(0-1)
85.7%
7
(2-10)
0.0%
4
(1-7)
42.9%
3
(1-4)
57.1%
1
(0-2)
85.7%
4
(1-6)
42.9%
3
(1-4)
57.1%
1
(0-2)
85.7%
1
(0-1)
85.7%
Outpoint**
=15 ug/m3
2
(1-3)
33.3%
1
(0-2)
66.7%
0
(0-1)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
1
(0-2)
66.7%
0
(0-1)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
2
(1-3)
33.3%
1
(0-2)
66.7%
0
(0-1)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
1
(0-2)
66.7%
0
(0-1)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
Outpoint**
=20 ug/m3
0
(0-1)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-1)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
*This analysis used a C-R function from Sheppard (2003)
"For the outpoints above policy relevant background, the slope of the C-R function has been
•"Current standards.
Note: Incidences are rounded to the nearest whole number; percents are rounded to the nea
modified based on a simple hockeystick model (see discussion in section 2.5).
rest tenth.
Abt Associates Inc.
E-14
June 2005
-------
Exhibit E.8. Estimated Annual Mortality Associated with Short-Term Exposure to PIV^.s When Alternative
Standards Are Just Met, Assuming Various Outpoint Levels*
St. Louis, MO, 2003
Alternative Standards
Annual (ug/m3)
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
Daily (ug/m3)
65, 98th percentile value***
40, 98th percentile value
35, 98th percentile value
30, 98th percentile value
25, 98th percentile value
65, 99th percentile value
40, 99th percentile value
35, 99th percentile value
30, 99th percentile value
25, 99th percentile value
40, 98th percentile value
35, 98th percentile value
30, 98th percentile value
25, 98th percentile value
40, 99th percentile value
35, 99th percentile value
30, 99th percentile value
25, 99th percentile value
Incidence Associated with PM2.5
(95% Confidence Interval)
Percent Reduction in Incidence from Current Standards
Policy Relevant
Background
=3.5 ug/m3
191
(70-311)
0.0%
191
(70-311)
0.0%
190
(70-310)
0.5%
160
(59 - 260)
16.2%
130
(48-211)
31 .9%
191
(70-311)
0.0%
191
(70-311)
0.0%
172
(63 - 280)
9.9%
145
(53 - 235)
24.1%
118
(43-191)
38.2%
175
(64 - 284)
8.4%
175
(64 - 284)
8.4%
160
(59 - 260)
16.2%
130
(48-211)
31 .9%
175
(64 - 284)
8.4%
172
(63 - 280)
9.9%
145
(53 - 235)
24.1%
118
(43-191)
38.2%
Cut point**
=10 ug/m3
75
(28-122)
0.0%
75
(28-122)
0.0%
75
(27-121)
0.0%
49
(18-80)
34.7%
28
(10-45)
62.7%
75
(28-122)
0.0%
75
(28-122)
0.0%
59
(22 - 96)
21.3%
38
(14-62)
49.3%
20
(7-33)
73.3%
61
(22 - 99)
18.7%
61
(22 - 99)
18.7%
49
(18-80)
34.7%
28
(10-45)
62.7%
61
(22 - 99)
18.7%
59
(22 - 96)
21.3%
38
(14-62)
49.3%
20
(7-33)
73.3%
Cutpoint**
=15 ug/m3
29
(11 -46)
0.0%
29
(1 1 - 46)
0.0%
28
(10-46)
3.4%
14
(5-23)
51.7%
5
(2-8)
82.8%
29
(1 1 - 46)
0.0%
29
(11 -46)
0.0%
19
(7-31)
34.5%
9
(3-14)
69.0%
3
(1-4)
89.7%
20
(7-33)
31 .0%
20
(7-33)
31 .0%
14
(5-23)
51.7%
5
(2-8)
82.8%
20
(7-33)
31 .0%
19
(7-31)
34.5%
9
(3-14)
69.0%
3
(1-4)
89.7%
Cutpoint**
=20 ug/m3
9
(3-14)
0.0%
9
(3-14)
0.0%
8
(3-14)
11.1%
3
(1-4)
66.7%
1
(0-1)
88.9%
9
(3-14)
0.0%
9
(3-14)
0.0%
5
(2-7)
44.4%
2
(1-3)
77.8%
0
(0-1)
100.0%
5
(2-8)
44.4%
5
(2-8)
44.4%
3
(1-4)
66.7%
1
(0-1)
88.9%
5
(2-8)
44.4%
5
(2-7)
44.4%
2
(1-3)
77.8%
0
(0-1)
100.0%
Abt Associates Inc.
E-15
June 2005
-------
Alternative Standards
Annual (ug/m3)
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
Daily (ug/m3)
40, 98th percentile value
35, 98th percentile value
30, 98th percentile value
25, 98th percentile value
40, 99th percentile value
35, 99th percentile value
30, 99th percentile value
25, 99th percentile value
40, 98th percentile value
35, 98th percentile value
30, 98th percentile value
25, 98th percentile value
40, 99th percentile value
35, 99th percentile value
30, 99th percentile value
25, 99th percentile value
Incidence Associated with PM2.5
(95% Confidence Interval)
Percent Reduction in Incidence from Current Standards
Policy Relevant
Background
=3.5 ug/m3
158
(58 - 256)
17.3%
158
(58 - 256)
17.3%
158
(58 - 256)
17.3%
130
(48-211)
31 .9%
158
(58 - 256)
17.3%
158
(58 - 256)
17.3%
145
(53 - 235)
24.1%
118
(43-191)
38.2%
141
(52 - 229)
26.2%
141
(52 - 229)
26.2%
141
(52 - 229)
26.2%
130
(48-211)
31 .9%
141
(52 - 229)
26.2%
141
(52 - 229)
26.2%
141
(52 - 229)
26.2%
118
(43-191)
38.2%
Cut point**
=10 ug/m3
47
(17-77)
37.3%
47
(17-77)
37.3%
47
(17-77)
37.3%
28
(10-45)
62.7%
47
(17-77)
37.3%
47
(17-77)
37.3%
38
(14-62)
49.3%
20
(7-33)
73.3%
35
(13-57)
53.3%
35
(13-57)
53.3%
35
(13-57)
53.3%
28
(10-45)
62.7%
35
(13-57)
53.3%
35
(13-57)
53.3%
35
(13-57)
53.3%
20
(7-33)
73.3%
Cutpoint**
=15 ug/m3
13
(5-21)
55.2%
13
(5-21)
55.2%
13
(5-21)
55.2%
5
(2-8)
82.8%
13
(5-21)
55.2%
13
(5-21)
55.2%
9
(3-14)
69.0%
3
(1-4)
89.7%
8
(3-12)
72.4%
8
(3-12)
72.4%
8
(3-12)
72.4%
5
(2-8)
82.8%
8
(3-12)
72.4%
8
(3-12)
72.4%
8
(3-12)
72.4%
3
(1-4)
89.7%
Cutpoint**
=20 ug/m3
3
(1-4)
66.7%
3
(1-4)
66.7%
3
(1-4)
66.7%
1
(0-1)
88.9%
3
(1-4)
66.7%
3
(1-4)
66.7%
2
(1-3)
77.8%
0
(0-1)
100.0%
1
(1-2)
88.9%
1
(1-2)
88.9%
1
(1-2)
88.9%
1
(0-1)
88.9%
1
(1-2)
88.9%
1
(1-2)
88.9%
1
(1-2)
88.9%
0
(0-1)
100.0%
*This analysis used a C-R function from Schwartz (2003b).
"For the cutpoints above policy relevant background, the slope of the C-R function has been modified based on a simple hockeystick model (see discussion in section 2.5).
•"Current standards.
Note: Incidences are rounded to the nearest whole number; percents are rounded to the nearest tenth.
Abt Associates Inc.
E-16
June 2005
-------
Exhibit E.9. Estimated Annual Mortality Associated with Long-Term Exposure to PM2.s When
Alternative Standards Are Just Met, Assuming Various Outpoint Levels*
Boston, MA, 2003
(2003 As Is Levels = 12.1 ug/m3 Annual Average; 34.1 ug/m3 98th Percentile Daily Value)
Alternative Standards
Annual (ug/m3)
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
14
14
14
14
14
14
Dally (ug/m3)
65, 98th percentile value***
40, 98th percentile value
35, 98th percentile value
30, 98th percentile value
25, 98th percentile value
65, 99th percentile value
40, 99th percentile value
35, 99th percentile value
30, 99th percentile value
25, 99th percentile value
40, 98th percentile value
35, 98th percentile value
30, 98th percentile value
25, 98th percentile value
40, 99th percentile value
35, 99th percentile value
Incidence Associated with PM2.5
(95% Confidence Interval)
Percent Reduction In Incidence from As Is Levels
Cutpoint**
=7.5 ug/m3
594
(204- 1053)
0.0%
484
(166-855)
18.5%
346
(119-611)
41 .8%
209
(72 - 368)
64.8%
73
(25- 129)
87.7%
594
(204- 1053)
0.0%
200
(69 - 352)
66.3%
103
(35- 180)
82.7%
6
(2-10)
99.0%
0
(0-0)
1 00.0%
484
(166-855)
18.5%
346
(119-611)
41 .8%
209
(72 - 368)
64.8%
73
(25-129)
87.7%
200
(69 - 352)
66.3%
103
(35- 180)
82.7%
Cutpoint**
=10 ug/m3
309
(106-551)
0.0%
185
(63 - 328)
40.1%
30
(10-53)
90.3%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
1 00.0%
309
(106-551)
0.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
1 00.0%
0
(0-0)
1 00.0%
185
(63 - 328)
40.1%
30
(1 0 - 53)
90.3%
0
(0-0)
1 00.0%
0
(0-0)
1 00.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
Cutpoint**
=12 ug/m3
20
(7 - 36)
0.0%
0
(0-0)
1 00.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
1 00.0%
20
(7 - 36)
0.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
1 00.0%
0
(0-0)
1 00.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
1 00.0%
0
(0-0)
1 00.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
Abt Associates Inc.
E-17
June 2005
-------
Alternative Standards
Annual (ug/m3)
14
14
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
Dally (ug/m3)
30, 99th percentile value
25, 99th percentile value
40, 98th percentile value
35, 98th percentile value
30, 98th percentile value
25, 98th percentile value
40, 99th percentile value
35, 99th percentile value
30, 99th percentile value
25, 99th percentile value
40, 98th percentile value
35, 98th percentile value
30, 98th percentile value
25, 98th percentile value
40, 99th percentile value
35, 99th percentile value
30, 99th percentile value
25, 99th percentile value
Incidence Associated with PM2.5
(95% Confidence Interval)
Percent Reduction In Incidence from As Is Levels
Cutpoint**
=7.5 ug/m3
6
(2-10)
99.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
451
(1 55 - 796)
24.1%
346
(119-611)
41 .8%
209
(72 - 368)
64.8%
73
(25- 129)
87.7%
200
(69 - 352)
66.3%
103
(35-180)
82.7%
6
(2-10)
99.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
348
(120-615)
41 .4%
346
(119-611)
41 .8%
209
(72 - 368)
64.8%
73
(25- 129)
87.7%
200
(69 - 352)
66.3%
103
(35-180)
82.7%
6
(2-10)
99.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
Cutpoint**
=10 ug/m3
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
147
(50 - 262)
52.4%
30
(10-53)
90.3%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
1 00.0%
0
(0-0)
1 00.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
33
(1 1 - 58)
89.3%
30
(10-53)
90.3%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
1 00.0%
0
(0-0)
1 00.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
1 00.0%
Cutpoint**
=12 ug/m3
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
1 00.0%
0
(0-0)
1 00.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
1 00.0%
0
(0-0)
1 00.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
1 00.0%
0
(0-0)
1 00.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
1 00.0%
0
(0-0)
1 00.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
1 00.0%
This analysis used a C-R function from Pope et al. (2002) -- ACS extended.
**Forthe outpoints above 7.5 ug/m3, the slope of the C-R function has been modified based on a simple hockeystick model (see discussion in section 2.5).
***Current standards.
Note: Incidences are rounded to the nearest whole number; percents are rounded to the nearest tenth.
Abt Associates Inc.
E-18
June 2005
-------
Exhibit E.10. Estimated Annual Mortality Associated with Long-Term Exposure to PIV^.5 When
Alternative Standards Are Just Met, Assuming Various Outpoint Levels*
Los Angeles, CA, 2003
Alternative Standards
Annual (ug/m3)
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
Daily (ug/m3)
65, 98th percentile value***
40, 98th percentile value
35, 98th percentile value
30, 98th percentile value
25, 98th percentile value
65, 99th percentile value
40, 99th percentile value
35, 99th percentile value
30, 99th percentile value
25, 99th percentile value
40, 98th percentile value
35, 98th percentile value
30, 98th percentile value
25, 98th percentile value
40, 99th percentile value
35, 99th percentile value
30, 99th percentile value
Incidence Associated with PM2.5
(95% Confidence Interval)
Percent Reduction in Incidence from Current Standards
Cutpoint**
=7.5 ug/m3
1507
(531 - 2587)
0.0%
1507
(531 - 2587)
0.0%
1265
(446-2168)
16.1%
829
(293-1416)
45.0%
396
(140-675)
73.7%
1507
(531 - 2587)
0.0%
514
(182-876)
65.9%
240
(85 - 408)
84.1%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
1259
(444-2158)
16.5%
1259
(444-2158)
16.5%
829
(293-1416)
45.0%
396
(140-675)
73.7%
514
(182-876)
65.9%
240
(85 - 408)
84.1%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
Cutpoint**
=10 ug/m3
823
(290-1415)
0.0%
823
(290-1415)
0.0%
553
(195-949)
32.8%
65
(23-111)
92.1%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
823
(290-1415)
0.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
546
(192-937)
33.7%
546
(192-937)
33.7%
65
(23-111)
92.1%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
Cutpoint**
=12 ug/m3
138
(48 - 237)
0.0%
138
(48 - 237)
0.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
138
(48 - 237)
0.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
Abt Associates Inc.
E-19
June 2005
-------
Alternative Standards
Annual (ug/m3)
14
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
Daily (ug/m3)
25, 99th percentile value
40, 98th percentile value
35, 98th percentile value
30, 98th percentile value
25, 98th percentile value
40, 99th percentile value
35, 99th percentile value
30, 99th percentile value
25, 99th percentile value
40, 98th percentile value
35, 98th percentile value
30, 98th percentile value
25, 98th percentile value
40, 99th percentile value
35, 99th percentile value
30, 99th percentile value
25, 99th percentile value
Incidence Associated with PM2.5
(95% Confidence Interval)
Percent Reduction in Incidence from Current Standards
Cutpoint**
=7.5 ug/m3
0
(0-0)
100.0%
1013
(358-1732)
32.8%
1013
(358-1732)
32.8%
829
(293-1416)
45.0%
396
(140-675)
73.7%
514
(182-876)
65.9%
240
(85 - 408)
84.1%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
767
(271 -1310)
49.1%
767
(271 -1310)
49.1%
767
(271 -1310)
49.1%
396
(140-675)
73.7%
514
(182-876)
65.9%
240
(85 - 408)
84.1%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
Cutpoint**
=10 ug/m3
0
(0-0)
100.0%
270
(95 - 463)
67.2%
270
(95 - 463)
67.2%
65
(23-111)
92.1%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
Cutpoint**
=12 ug/m3
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
*This analysis used a C-R function from Pope et al. (2002) -- ACS extended.
**For the outpoints above 7.5 M9/m3, the slope of the C-R function has been modified based on a simple hockeystick model (see discussion in section 2.5).
""Current standards.
Note: Incidences are rounded to the nearest whole number; percents are rounded to the nearest tenth.
Abt Associates Inc.
E-20
June 2005
-------
Exhibit E.11. Estimated Annual Mortality Associated with Long-Term Exposure to PM25 When
Alternative Standards Are Just Met, Assuming Various Cutpoint Levels*
Philadelphia, PA, 2003
Alternative Standards
Annual (ug/m3)
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
Dally (ug/m3)
65, 98th percentile value***
40, 98th percentile value
35, 98th percentile value
30, 98th percentile value
25, 98th percentile value
65, 99th percentile value
40, 99th percentile value
35, 99th percentile value
30, 99th percentile value
25, 99th percentile value
65, 98th percentile value
40, 98th percentile value
35, 98th percentile value
30, 98th percentile value
25, 98th percentile value
40, 99th percentile value
35, 99th percentile value
30, 99th percentile value
Incidence Associated with PM2.5
(95% Confidence Interval)
Percent Reduction In Incidence from Current Standards
Cutpoint**
=7.5 ug/m3
536
(185-943)
0.0%
408
(141 -716)
23.9%
299
(104-524)
44.2%
191
(67 - 334)
64.4%
84
(29-146)
84.3%
357
(124-626)
33.4%
58
(20-101)
89.2%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
456
(157-799)
14.9%
408
(141 -716)
23.9%
299
(104-524)
44.2%
191
(67 - 334)
64.4%
84
(29-146)
84.3%
58
(20-101)
89.2%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
Cutpoint**
=10 ug/m3
338
(116-597)
0.0%
194
(67-341)
42.6%
72
(25-126)
78.7%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
137
(47-241)
59.5%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
247
(85 - 435)
26.9%
194
(67-341)
42.6%
72
(25-126)
78.7%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
Cutpoint**
=12 ug/m3
137
(47 - 244)
0.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
37
(13-65)
73.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
Abt Associates, Inc.
E-21
June 2005
-------
Alternative Standards
Annual (ug/m3)
14
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
Dally (ug/m3)
25, 99th percentile value
40, 98th percentile value
35, 98th percentile value
30, 98th percentile value
25, 98th percentile value
40, 99th percentile value
35, 99th percentile value
30, 99th percentile value
25, 99th percentile value
40, 98th percentile value
35, 98th percentile value
30, 98th percentile value
25, 98th percentile value
40, 99th percentile value
35, 99th percentile value
30, 99th percentile value
25, 99th percentile value
Incidence Associated with PM2.5
(95% Confidence Interval)
Percent Reduction In Incidence from Current Standards
Cutpoint**
=7.5 ug/m3
0
(0-0)
100.0%
375
(130-657)
30.0%
299
(104-524)
44.2%
191
(67 - 334)
64.4%
84
(29-146)
84.3%
58
(20-101)
89.2%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
295
(102-516)
45.0%
295
(102-516)
45.0%
191
(67 - 334)
64.4%
84
(29-146)
84.3%
58
(20-101)
89.2%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
Cutpoint**
=10 ug/m3
0
(0-0)
100.0%
157
(54 - 276)
53.6%
72
(25-126)
78.7%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
67
(23-118)
80.2%
67
(23-118)
80.2%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
Cutpoint**
=12 ug/m3
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
This analysis used a C-R function from Pope et al. (2002) - ACS extended.
**For the outpoints above 7.5 ug/m3, the slope of the C-R function has been modified based on a simple hockeystick model (see discussion in section 2.5).
***Current standards.
Note: Incidences are rounded to the nearest whole number; percents are rounded to the nearest tenth.
Abt Associates, Inc.
E-22
June 2005
-------
Exhibit E.12. Estimated Annual Mortality Associated with Long-Term Exposure to PIV^.5 When
Alternative Standards Are Just Met, Assuming Various Outpoint Levels*
Phoenix, AZ, 2001
(2001 As Is Levels = 10.4 ug/m3 Annual Average; 28.9 ug/m3 98th Percentile Daily Value]
Alternative Standards
Annual (ug/m3)
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
Daily (ug/m3)
65, 98th percentile value***
40, 98th percentile value
35, 98th percentile value
30, 98th percentile value
25, 98th percentile value
65, 99th percentile value
40, 99th percentile value
35, 99th percentile value
30, 99th percentile value
25, 99th percentile value
40, 98th percentile value
35, 98th percentile value
30, 98th percentile value
25, 98th percentile value
40, 99th percentile value
35, 99th percentile value
30, 99th percentile value
Incidence Associated with PM2.5
(95% Confidence Interval)
Percent Reduction in Incidence from As Is Levels
Outpoint**
=7.5 ug/m3
349
(119-620)
0.0%
349
(119-620)
0.0%
349
(119-620)
0.0%
202
(69 - 358)
42.1%
56
(19-100)
84.0%
349
(119-620)
0.0%
324
(1 1 1 - 576)
7.2%
200
(69 - 355)
42.7%
77
(26-136)
77.9%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
349
(119-620)
0.0%
349
(119-620)
0.0%
202
(69 - 358)
42.1%
56
(19-100)
84.0%
324
(1 1 1 - 576)
7.2%
200
(69 - 355)
42.7%
77
(26-136)
77.9%
Outpoint**
=10 ug/m3
55
(19-98)
0.0%
55
(19-98)
0.0%
55
(19-98)
0.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
55
(19-98)
0.0%
27
(9 - 48)
50.9%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
55
(19-98)
0.0%
55
(19-98)
0.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
27
(9 - 48)
50.9%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
Outpoint**
=12 ug/m3
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
Abt Associates Inc.
E-23
June 2005
-------
Alternative Standards
Annual (ug/m3)
14
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
Daily (ug/m3)
25, 99th percentile value
40, 98th percentile value
35, 98th percentile value
30, 98th percentile value
25, 98th percentile value
40, 99th percentile value
35, 99th percentile value
30, 99th percentile value
25, 99th percentile value
40, 98th percentile value
35, 98th percentile value
30, 98th percentile value
25, 98th percentile value
40, 99th percentile value
35, 99th percentile value
30, 99th percentile value
25, 99th percentile value
Incidence Associated with PM2.5
(95% Confidence Interval)
Percent Reduction in Incidence from As Is Levels
Outpoint**
=7.5 ug/m3
0
(0-0)
100.0%
349
(119-620)
0.0%
349
(119-620)
0.0%
202
(69 - 358)
42.1%
56
(19-100)
84.0%
324
(1 1 1 - 576)
7.2%
200
(69 - 355)
42.7%
77
(26-136)
77.9%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
349
(119-620)
0.0%
349
(119-620)
0.0%
202
(69 - 358)
42.1%
56
(19-100)
84.0%
324
(1 1 1 - 576)
7.2%
200
(69 - 355)
42.7%
77
(26-136)
77.9%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
Outpoint**
=10 ug/m3
0
(0-0)
100.0%
55
(19-98)
0.0%
55
(19-98)
0.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
27
(9 - 48)
50.9%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
55
(19-98)
0.0%
55
(19-98)
0.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
27
(9 - 48)
50.9%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
Outpoint**
=12 ug/m3
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
*This analysis used a C-R function from Pope et al. (2002) -- ACS extended.
**For the outpoints above 7.5 M9/m3, the slope of the C-R function has been modified based on a simple hockeystick model (see discussion in section 2.5).
""Current standards.
Note: Incidences are rounded to the nearest whole number; percents are rounded to the nearest tenth.
Abt Associates Inc.
E-24
June 2005
-------
Exhibit E.13. Estimated Annual Mortality Associated with Long-Term Exposure to PM2.5 When
Alternative Standards Are Just Met, Assuming Various Outpoint Levels*
Pittsburgh, PA, 2003
Alternative Standards
Annual (ug/m3)
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
Daily (ug/m3)
65, 98th percentile value***
40, 98th percentile value
35, 98th percentile value
30, 98th percentile value
25, 98th percentile value
65, 99th percentile value
40, 99th percentile value
35, 99th percentile value
30, 99th percentile value
25, 99th percentile value
40, 98th percentile value
35, 98th percentile value
30, 98th percentile value
25, 98th percentile value
40, 99th percentile value
35, 99th percentile value
30, 99th percentile value
Incidence Associated with PM2.5
(95% Confidence Interval)
Percent Reduction in Incidence from Current Standards
Cutpoint**
=7.5 ug/m3
403
(141 -699)
0.0%
361
(126-626)
10.4%
264
(93 - 456)
34.5%
168
(59 - 289)
58.3%
72
(25-124)
82.1%
403
(141 -699)
0.0%
287
(100-495)
28.8%
200
(70 - 345)
50.4%
114
(40-197)
71.7%
29
(10-50)
92.8%
338
(118-585)
16.1%
264
(93 - 456)
34.5%
168
(59 - 289)
58.3%
72
(25-124)
82.1%
287
(100-495)
28.8%
200
(70 - 345)
50.4%
114
(40-197)
71.7%
Cutpoint**
=10 ug/m3
215
(75 - 373)
0.0%
168
(58-291)
21.9%
59
(21 -102)
72.6%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
215
(75 - 373)
0.0%
84
(29-145)
60.9%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
141
(49 - 245)
34.4%
59
(21 -102)
72.6%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
84
(29-145)
60.9%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
Cutpoint**
=12 ug/m3
25
(9 - 43)
0.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
25
(9 - 43)
0.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
Abt Associates Inc.
E-25
June 2005
-------
Alternative Standards
Annual (ug/m3)
14
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
Daily (ug/m3)
25, 99th percentile value
40, 98th percentile value
35, 98th percentile value
30, 98th percentile value
25, 98th percentile value
40, 99th percentile value
35, 99th percentile value
30, 99th percentile value
25, 99th percentile value
40, 98th percentile value
35, 98th percentile value
30, 98th percentile value
25, 98th percentile value
40, 99th percentile value
35, 99th percentile value
30, 99th percentile value
25, 99th percentile value
Incidence Associated with PM2.5
(95% Confidence Interval)
Percent Reduction in Incidence from Current Standards
Cutpoint**
=7.5 ug/m3
29
(10-50)
92.8%
273
(96-471)
32.3%
264
(93 - 456)
34.5%
168
(59 - 289)
58.3%
72
(25-124)
82.1%
273
(96-471)
32.3%
200
(70 - 345)
50.4%
114
(40-197)
71.7%
29
(10-50)
92.8%
208
(73 - 358)
48.4%
208
(73 - 358)
48.4%
168
(59 - 289)
58.3%
72
(25-124)
82.1%
208
(73 - 358)
48.4%
200
(70 - 345)
50.4%
114
(40-197)
71.7%
29
(10-50)
92.8%
Cutpoint**
=10 ug/m3
0
(0-0)
100.0%
68
(24-118)
68.4%
59
(21 -102)
72.6%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
68
(24-118)
68.4%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
Cutpoint**
=12 ug/m3
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
*This analysis used a C-R function from Pope et al. (2002) -- ACS extended.
**For the outpoints above 7.5 M9/m3, the slope of the C-R function has been modified based on a simple hockeystick model (see discussion in section 2.5).
""Current standards.
Note: Incidences are rounded to the nearest whole number; percents are rounded to the nearest tenth.
Abt Associates Inc.
E-26
June 2005
-------
Exhibit E.14. Estimated Annual Mortality Associated with Long-Term Exposure to PIV^.5 When
Alternative Standards Are Just Met, Assuming Various Outpoint Levels*
San Jose, CA, 2003
(2003 As Is Levels = 11.1 ug/m3 Annual Average; 37.6 ug/m3 98th Percentile Daily Value]
Alternative Standards
Annual (ug/m3)
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
Daily (ug/m3)
65, 98th percentile value***
40, 98th percentile value
35, 98th percentile value
30, 98th percentile value
25, 98th percentile value
65, 99th percentile value
40, 99th percentile value
35, 99th percentile value
30, 99th percentile value
25, 99th percentile value
40, 98th percentile value
35, 98th percentile value
30, 98th percentile value
25, 98th percentile value
40, 99th percentile value
35, 99th percentile value
30, 99th percentile value
Incidence Associated with PM2.5
(95% Confidence Interval)
Percent Reduction in Incidence from As Is Levels
Outpoint**
=7.5 ug/m3
172
(59 - 306)
0.0%
107
(37-189)
37.8%
60
(21 -106)
65.1%
14
(5 - 24)
91.9%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
172
(59 - 306)
0.0%
65
(22-115)
62.2%
24
(8 - 43)
86.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
107
(37-189)
37.8%
60
(21 -106)
65.1%
14
(5 - 24)
91.9%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
65
(22-115)
62.2%
24
(8 - 43)
86.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
Outpoint**
=10 ug/m3
58
(20-104)
0.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
58
(20-104)
0.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
Outpoint**
=12 ug/m3
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
Abt Associates Inc.
E-27
June 2005
-------
Alternative Standards
Annual (ug/m3)
14
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
Daily (ug/m3)
25, 99th percentile value
40, 98th percentile value
35, 98th percentile value
30, 98th percentile value
25, 98th percentile value
40, 99th percentile value
35, 99th percentile value
30, 99th percentile value
25, 99th percentile value
40, 98th percentile value
35, 98th percentile value
30, 98th percentile value
25, 98th percentile value
40, 99th percentile value
35, 99th percentile value
30, 99th percentile value
25, 99th percentile value
Incidence Associated with PM2.5
(95% Confidence Interval)
Percent Reduction in Incidence from As Is Levels
Outpoint**
=7.5 ug/m3
0
(0-0)
100.0%
107
(37-189)
37.8%
60
(21 -106)
65.1%
14
(5 - 24)
91.9%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
65
(22-115)
62.2%
24
(8 - 43)
86.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
83
(28-146)
51.7%
60
(21 -106)
65.1%
14
(5 - 24)
91.9%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
65
(22-115)
62.2%
24
(8 - 43)
86.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
Outpoint**
=10 ug/m3
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
Outpoint**
=12 ug/m3
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
*This analysis used a C-R function from Pope et al. (2002) -- ACS extended.
**For the outpoints above 7.5 M9/m3, the slope of the C-R function has been modified based on a simple hockeystick model (see discussion in section 2.5).
""Current standards.
Note: Incidences are rounded to the nearest whole number; percents are rounded to the nearest tenth.
Abt Associates Inc.
E-28
June 2005
-------
Exhibit E.15. Estimated Annual Mortality Associated with Long-Term Exposure to PIV^.5 When
Alternative Standards Are Just Met, Assuming Various Outpoint Levels*
Seattle, WA, 2003
(2003 As Is Levels = 8.3 ug/m3 Annual Average; 21.7 ug/m3 98th Percentile Daily Value]
Alternative Standards
Annual (ug/m3)
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
Daily (ug/m3)
65, 98th percentile value***
40, 98th percentile value
35, 98th percentile value
30, 98th percentile value
25, 98th percentile value
65, 99th percentile value
40, 99th percentile value
35, 99th percentile value
30, 99th percentile value
25, 99th percentile value
40, 98th percentile value
35, 98th percentile value
30, 98th percentile value
25, 98th percentile value
40, 99th percentile value
35, 99th percentile value
30, 99th percentile value
Incidence Associated with PM2.5
(95% Confidence Interval)
Percent Reduction in Incidence from As Is Levels
Outpoint**
=7.5 ug/m3
50
(17-89)
0.0%
40
(14-72)
20.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
50
(17-89)
0.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
40
(14-72)
20.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
Outpoint**
=10 ug/m3
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
Outpoint**
=12 ug/m3
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
Abt Associates Inc.
E-29
June 2005
-------
Alternative Standards
Annual (ug/m3)
14
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
Daily (ug/m3)
25, 99th percentile value
40, 98th percentile value
35, 98th percentile value
30, 98th percentile value
25, 98th percentile value
40, 99th percentile value
35, 99th percentile value
30, 99th percentile value
25, 99th percentile value
40, 98th percentile value
35, 98th percentile value
30, 98th percentile value
25, 98th percentile value
40, 99th percentile value
35, 99th percentile value
30, 99th percentile value
25, 99th percentile value
Incidence Associated with PM2.5
(95% Confidence Interval)
Percent Reduction in Incidence from As Is Levels
Outpoint**
=7.5 ug/m3
0
(0-0)
100.0%
40
(14-72)
20.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
40
(14-72)
20.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
Outpoint**
=10 ug/m3
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
Outpoint**
=12 ug/m3
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
*This analysis used a C-R function from Pope et al. (2002) -- ACS extended.
**For the outpoints above 7.5 M9/m3, the slope of the C-R function has been modified based on a simple hockeystick model (see discussion in section 2.5).
""Current standards.
Note: Incidences are rounded to the nearest whole number; percents are rounded to the nearest tenth.
Abt Associates Inc.
E-30
June 2005
-------
Exhibit E.16. Estimated Annual Mortality Associated with Long-Term Exposure to PIV^.5 When
Alternative Standards Are Just Met, Assuming Various Outpoint Levels*
St. Louis, MO, 2003
Alternative Standards
Annual (ug/m3)
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
Daily (ug/m3)
65, 98th percentile value***
40, 98th percentile value
35, 98th percentile value
30, 98th percentile value
25, 98th percentile value
65, 99th percentile value
40, 99th percentile value
35, 99th percentile value
30, 99th percentile value
25, 99th percentile value
40, 98th percentile value
35, 98th percentile value
30, 98th percentile value
25, 98th percentile value
40, 99th percentile value
35, 99th percentile value
30, 99th percentile value
Incidence Associated with PM2.5
(95% Confidence Interval)
Percent Reduction in Incidence from Current Standards
Cutpoint**
=7.5 ug/m3
596
(206-1047)
0.0%
596
(206-1047)
0.0%
592
(204-1039)
0.7%
414
(144-726)
30.5%
239
(83-417)
59.9%
596
(206-1047)
0.0%
596
(206-1047)
0.0%
486
(168-853)
18.5%
327
(113-571)
45.1%
168
(58 - 293)
71.8%
498
(172-874)
16.4%
498
(172-874)
16.4%
414
(144-726)
30.5%
239
(83-417)
59.9%
498
(172-874)
16.4%
486
(168-853)
18.5%
327
(113-571)
45.1%
Cutpoint**
=10 ug/m3
311
(107-548)
0.0%
311
(107-548)
0.0%
306
(105-539)
1 .6%
107
(37-188)
65.6%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
311
(107-548)
0.0%
311
(107-548)
0.0%
188
(65 - 330)
39.5%
8
(3-15)
97.4%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
201
(69 - 354)
35.4%
201
(69 - 354)
35.4%
107
(37-188)
65.6%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
201
(69 - 354)
35.4%
188
(65 - 330)
39.5%
8
(3-15)
97.4%
Cutpoint**
=12 ug/m3
23
(8 - 40)
0.0%
23
(8 - 40)
0.0%
17
(6 - 30)
26.1%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
23
(8 - 40)
0.0%
23
(8 - 40)
0.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
Abt Associates Inc.
E-31
June 2005
-------
Alternative Standards
Annual (ug/m3)
14
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
Daily (ug/m3)
25, 99th percentile value
40, 98th percentile value
35, 98th percentile value
30, 98th percentile value
25, 98th percentile value
40, 99th percentile value
35, 99th percentile value
30, 99th percentile value
25, 99th percentile value
40, 98th percentile value
35, 98th percentile value
30, 98th percentile value
25, 98th percentile value
40, 99th percentile value
35, 99th percentile value
30, 99th percentile value
25, 99th percentile value
Incidence Associated with PM2.5
(95% Confidence Interval)
Percent Reduction in Incidence from Current Standards
Cutpoint**
=7.5 ug/m3
168
(58 - 293)
71.8%
401
(139-702)
32.7%
401
(139-702)
32.7%
401
(139-702)
32.7%
239
(83-417)
59.9%
401
(139-702)
32.7%
401
(139-702)
32.7%
327
(113-571)
45.1%
168
(58 - 293)
71.8%
304
(106-532)
49.0%
304
(106-532)
49.0%
304
(106-532)
49.0%
239
(83-417)
59.9%
304
(106-532)
49.0%
304
(106-532)
49.0%
304
(106-532)
49.0%
168
(58 - 293)
71.8%
Cutpoint**
=10 ug/m3
0
(0-0)
100.0%
92
(32-162)
70.4%
92
(32-162)
70.4%
92
(32-162)
70.4%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
92
(32-162)
70.4%
92
(32-162)
70.4%
8
(3-15)
97.4%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
Cutpoint**
=12 ug/m3
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
*This analysis used a C-R function from Pope et al. (2002) -- ACS extended.
**For the outpoints above 7.5 M9/m3, the slope of the C-R function has been modified based on a simple hockeystick model (see discussion in section 2.5).
""Current standards.
Note: Incidences are rounded to the nearest whole number; percents are rounded to the nearest tenth.
Abt Associates Inc.
E-32
June 2005
-------
Exhibit E.17. Estimated Annual Cardiopulmonary Mortality Associated with Long-Term Exposure
to PM2.5 When Alternative Standards Are Just Met, Assuming Various Outpoint Levels*
Boston, MA, 2003
(2003 As Is Levels = 12.1 ug/m3 Annual Average; 34.1 ug/m3 98th Percentile Daily Value)
Alternative Standards
Annual (ug/m3)
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
14
14
14
14
14
14
Daily (ug/m3)
65, 98th percentile value***
40, 98th percentile value
35, 98th percentile value
30, 98th percentile value
25, 98th percentile value
65, 99th percentile value
40, 99th percentile value
35, 99th percentile value
30, 99th percentile value
25, 99th percentile value
40, 98th percentile value
35, 98th percentile value
30, 98th percentile value
25, 98th percentile value
40, 99th percentile value
35, 99th percentile value
Incidence Associated with PM2.5
(95% Confidence Interval)
Percent Reduction in Incidence from As Is Levels
Cutpoint**
=7.5 ug/m3
380
(132-645)
0.0%
309
(108-523)
18.7%
221
(77 - 372)
41 .8%
133
(47 - 224)
65.0%
47
(16-78)
87.6%
380
(132-645)
0.0%
127
(45-214)
66.6%
65
(23-110)
82.9%
4
(1-6)
98.9%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
309
(108-523)
18.7%
221
(77 - 372)
41 .8%
133
(47 - 224)
65.0%
47
(16-78)
87.6%
127
(45-214)
66.6%
65
(23-110)
82.9%
Cutpoint**
=10 ug/m3
198
(68 - 339)
0.0%
118
(41 - 202)
40.4%
19
(7 - 33)
90.4%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
198
(68 - 339)
0.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
118
(41 - 202)
40.4%
19
(7-33)
90.4%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
Cutpoint**
=12 ug/m3
13
(4-22)
0.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
13
(4-22)
0.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
Abt Associates Inc.
June 2005
-------
Alternative Standards
Annual (ug/m3)
14
14
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
Daily (ug/m3)
30, 99th percentile value
25, 99th percentile value
40, 98th percentile value
35, 98th percentile value
30, 98th percentile value
25, 98th percentile value
40, 99th percentile value
35, 99th percentile value
30, 99th percentile value
25, 99th percentile value
40, 98th percentile value
35, 98th percentile value
30, 98th percentile value
25, 98th percentile value
40, 99th percentile value
35, 99th percentile value
30, 99th percentile value
25, 99th percentile value
Incidence Associated with PM2.5
(95% Confidence Interval)
Percent Reduction in Incidence from As Is Levels
Cutpoint**
=7.5 ug/m3
4
(1-6)
98.9%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
288
(100-487)
24.2%
221
(77 - 372)
41 .8%
133
(47 - 224)
65.0%
47
(16-78)
87.6%
127
(45-214)
66.6%
65
(23-110)
82.9%
4
(1-6)
98.9%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
222
(78 - 375)
41 .6%
221
(77 - 372)
41 .8%
133
(47 - 224)
65.0%
47
(16-78)
87.6%
127
(45-214)
66.6%
65
(23-110)
82.9%
4
(1-6)
98.9%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
Cutpoint**
=10 ug/m3
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
94
(33-161)
52.5%
19
(7 - 33)
90.4%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
21
(7-35)
89.4%
19
(7 - 33)
90.4%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
Cutpoint**
=12 ug/m3
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
This analysis used a C-R function from Pope et al. (2002) -- ACS extended.
**For the outpoints above 7.5 |jg/m3, the slope of the C-R function has been modified based on a simple hockeystick model (see discussion in section 2.5).
***Current standards.
Note: Incidences are rounded to the nearest whole number; percents are rounded to the nearest tenth.
Abt Associates Inc.
June 2005
-------
Exhibit E.18. Estimated Annual Cardiopulmonary Mortality Associated with Long-Term Exposure
to PM2.s When Alternative Standards Are Just Met, Assuming Various Outpoint Levels*
Los Angeles, CA, 2003
Alternative Standards
Annual (ug/m3)
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
Daily (ug/m3)
65, 98th percentile value***
40, 98th percentile value
35, 98th percentile value
30, 98th percentile value
25, 98th percentile value
65, 99th percentile value
40, 99th percentile value
35, 99th percentile value
30, 99th percentile value
25, 99th percentile value
40, 98th percentile value
35, 98th percentile value
30, 98th percentile value
25, 98th percentile value
40, 99th percentile value
35, 99th percentile value
30, 99th percentile value
Incidence Associated with PM2.5
(95% Confidence Interval)
Percent Reduction in Incidence from Current Standards
Cutpoint**
=7.5 ug/m3
1151
(416-1873)
0.0%
1151
(416-1873)
0.0%
966
(350-1567)
16.1%
632
(230-1020)
45.1%
301
(110-485)
73.8%
1151
(416-1873)
0.0%
391
(143-630)
66.0%
182
(67 - 292)
84.2%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
961
(348-1559)
16.5%
961
(348-1559)
16.5%
632
(230-1020)
45.1%
301
(110-485)
73.8%
391
(143-630)
66.0%
182
(67 - 292)
84.2%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
Cutpoint**
=10 ug/m3
629
(227-1025)
0.0%
629
(227-1025)
0.0%
422
(153-686)
32.9%
50
(18-80)
92.1%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
629
(227-1025)
0.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
417
(151 -677)
33.7%
417
(151 -677)
33.7%
50
(18-80)
92.1%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
Cutpoint**
=12 ug/m3
105
(38-172)
0.0%
105
(38-172)
0.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
105
(38-172)
0.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
Abt Associates Inc.
E-35
June 2005
-------
Alternative Standards
Annual (ug/m3)
14
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
Daily (ug/m3)
25, 99th percentile value
40, 98th percentile value
35, 98th percentile value
30, 98th percentile value
25, 98th percentile value
40, 99th percentile value
35, 99th percentile value
30, 99th percentile value
25, 99th percentile value
40, 98th percentile value
35, 98th percentile value
30, 98th percentile value
25, 98th percentile value
40, 99th percentile value
35, 99th percentile value
30, 99th percentile value
25, 99th percentile value
Incidence Associated with PM2.5
(95% Confidence Interval)
Percent Reduction in Incidence from Current Standards
Cutpoint**
=7.5 ug/m3
0
(0-0)
100.0%
772
(280-1250)
32.9%
772
(280-1250)
32.9%
632
(230-1020)
45.1%
301
(110-485)
73.8%
391
(143-630)
66.0%
182
(67 - 292)
84.2%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
584
(213-943)
49.3%
584
(213-943)
49.3%
584
(213-943)
49.3%
301
(110-485)
73.8%
391
(143-630)
66.0%
182
(67 - 292)
84.2%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
Cutpoint**
=10 ug/m3
0
(0-0)
100.0%
206
(75 - 334)
67.2%
206
(75 - 334)
67.2%
50
(18-80)
92.1%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
Cutpoint**
=12 ug/m3
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
*This analysis used a C-R function from Pope et al. (2002) -- ACS extended.
**For the outpoints above 7.5 M9/m3, the slope of the C-R function has been modified based on a simple hockeystick model (see discussion in section 2.5).
""Current standards.
Note: Incidences are rounded to the nearest whole number; percents are rounded to the nearest tenth.
Abt Associates Inc.
E-36
June 2005
-------
Exhibit E.19. Estimated Annual Cardiopulmonary Mortality Associated with Long-Term Exposure to
PM2.5 When Alternative Standards Are Just Met, Assuming Various Outpoint Levels*
Philadelphia, PA, 2003
Alternative Standards
Annual (ug/m3)
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
Daily (ug/m3)
65, 98th percentile value***
40, 98th percentile value
35, 98th percentile value
30, 98th percentile value
25, 98th percentile value
65, 99th percentile value
40, 99th percentile value
35, 99th percentile value
30, 99th percentile value
25, 99th percentile value
65, 98th percentile value
40, 98th percentile value
35, 98th percentile value
30, 98th percentile value
25, 98th percentile value
40, 99th percentile value
35, 99th percentile value
30, 99th percentile value
Incidence Associated with PM2.5
(95% Confidence Interval)
Percent Reduction in Incidence from Current Standards
Cutpoint**
=7.5 ug/m3
349
(122-586)
0.0%
265
(93 - 443)
24.1%
194
(69 - 324)
44.4%
124
(44 - 206)
64.5%
54
(19-90)
84.5%
232
(82 - 387)
33.5%
37
(13-62)
89.4%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
296
(104-496)
15.2%
265
(93 - 443)
24.1%
194
(69 - 324)
44.4%
124
(44 - 206)
64.5%
54
(19-90)
84.5%
37
(13-62)
89.4%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
Cutpoint**
=10 ug/m3
220
(77 - 372)
0.0%
126
(44-212)
42.7%
47
(16-78)
78.6%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
89
(31 -149)
59.5%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
161
(56-271)
26.8%
126
(44-212)
42.7%
47
(16-78)
78.6%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
Cutpoint**
=12 ug/m3
90
(31 -153)
0.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
24
(8-41)
73.3%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
Abt Associates, Inc.
E-37
June 2005
-------
Alternative Standards
Annual (ug/m3)
14
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
Daily (ug/m3)
25, 99th percentile value
40, 98th percentile value
35, 98th percentile value
30, 98th percentile value
25, 98th percentile value
40, 99th percentile value
35, 99th percentile value
30, 99th percentile value
25, 99th percentile value
40, 98th percentile value
35, 98th percentile value
30, 98th percentile value
25, 98th percentile value
40, 99th percentile value
35, 99th percentile value
30, 99th percentile value
25, 99th percentile value
Incidence Associated with PM2.5
(95% Confidence Interval)
Percent Reduction in Incidence from Current Standards
Cutpoint**
=7.5 ug/m3
0
(0-0)
100.0%
243
(86 - 407)
30.4%
194
(69 - 324)
44.4%
124
(44 - 206)
64.5%
54
(19-90)
84.5%
37
(13-62)
89.4%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
191
(68-319)
45.3%
191
(68-319)
45.3%
124
(44 - 206)
64.5%
54
(19-90)
84.5%
37
(13-62)
89.4%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
Cutpoint**
=10 ug/m3
0
(0-0)
100.0%
102
(36-171)
53.6%
47
(16-78)
78.6%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
44
(15-73)
80.0%
44
(15-73)
80.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
Cutpoint**
=12 ug/m3
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
"This analysis used a C-R function from Pope et al. (2002) - ACS extended.
"Forthe outpoints above 7.5 pg/mS, the slope of the C-R function has been modified based on a simple hockeystick model (see discussion in section 2.5).
•"Current standards.
Note: Incidences are rounded to the nearest whole number; percents are rounded to the nearest tenth.
Abt Associates, Inc.
E-38
June 2005
-------
Exhibit E.20. Estimated Annual Cardiopulmonary Mortality Associated with Long-Term Exposure
to PM2.5 When Alternative Standards Are Just Met, Assuming Various Outpoint Levels*
Phoenix, AZ, 2001
(2001 As Is Levels = 10.4 ug/m3 Annual Average; 28.9 ug/m3 98th Percentile Daily Value]
Alternative Standards
Annual (ug/m3)
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
14
14
14
14
14
14
Daily (ug/m3)
65, 98th percentile value***
40, 98th percentile value
35, 98th percentile value
30, 98th percentile value
25, 98th percentile value
65, 99th percentile value
40, 99th percentile value
35, 99th percentile value
30, 99th percentile value
25, 99th percentile value
40, 98th percentile value
35, 98th percentile value
30, 98th percentile value
25, 98th percentile value
40, 99th percentile value
35, 99th percentile value
Incidence Associated with PM2.5
(95% Confidence Interval)
Percent Reduction in Incidence from As Is Levels
Cutpoint**
=7.5 ug/m3
237
(82 - 405)
0.0%
237
(82 - 405)
0.0%
237
(82 - 405)
0.0%
137
(48 - 233)
42.2%
38
(13-65)
84.0%
237
(82 - 405)
0.0%
220
(76 - 376)
7.2%
136
(47 - 231 )
42.6%
52
(18-89)
78.1%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
237
(82 - 405)
0.0%
237
(82 - 405)
0.0%
137
(48 - 233)
42.2%
38
(13-65)
84.0%
220
(76 - 376)
7.2%
136
(47 - 231 )
42.6%
Cutpoint**
=10 ug/m3
38
(13-65)
0.0%
38
(13-65)
0.0%
38
(13-65)
0.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
38
(13-65)
0.0%
19
(6 - 32)
50.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
38
(13-65)
0.0%
38
(13-65)
0.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
19
(6 - 32)
50.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
Cutpoint**
=12 ug/m3
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
Abt Associates Inc.
E-39
June 2005
-------
Alternative Standards
Annual (ug/m3)
14
14
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
Daily (ug/m3)
30, 99th percentile value
25, 99th percentile value
40, 98th percentile value
35, 98th percentile value
30, 98th percentile value
25, 98th percentile value
40, 99th percentile value
35, 99th percentile value
30, 99th percentile value
25, 99th percentile value
40, 98th percentile value
35, 98th percentile value
30, 98th percentile value
25, 98th percentile value
40, 99th percentile value
35, 99th percentile value
30, 99th percentile value
25, 99th percentile value
Incidence Associated with PM2.5
(95% Confidence Interval)
Percent Reduction in Incidence from As Is Levels
Outpoint**
=7.5 ug/m3
52
(18-89)
78.1%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
237
(82 - 405)
0.0%
237
(82 - 405)
0.0%
137
(48 - 233)
42.2%
38
(13-65)
84.0%
220
(76 - 376)
7.2%
136
(47 - 231 )
42.6%
52
(18-89)
78.1%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
237
(82 - 405)
0.0%
237
(82 - 405)
0.0%
137
(48 - 233)
42.2%
38
(13-65)
84.0%
220
(76 - 376)
7.2%
136
(47 - 231 )
42.6%
52
(18-89)
78.1%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
Outpoint**
=10 ug/m3
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
38
(13-65)
0.0%
38
(13-65)
0.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
19
(6 - 32)
50.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
38
(13-65)
0.0%
38
(13-65)
0.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
19
(6 - 32)
50.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
Outpoint**
=12 ug/m3
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
"This analysis used a C-R function from Pope et al. (2002) - ACS extended.
**Forthe outpoints above 7.5 Mg/m3, the slope of the C-R function has been modified based on a simple hockeystick model (see discussion in section 2.5).
•"Current standards.
Note: Incidences are rounded to the nearest whole number; percents are rounded to the nearest tenth.
Abt Associates Inc.
E-40
June 2005
-------
Exhibit E.21. Estimated Annual Cardiopulmonary Mortality Associated with Long-Term Exposure
to PM2.s When Alternative Standards Are Just Met, Assuming Various Outpoint Levels*
Pittsburgh, PA, 2003
Alternative Standards
Annual (ug/m3)
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
Daily (ug/m3)
65, 98th percentile value***
40, 98th percentile value
35, 98th percentile value
30, 98th percentile value
25, 98th percentile value
65, 99th percentile value
40, 99th percentile value
35, 99th percentile value
30, 99th percentile value
25, 99th percentile value
40, 98th percentile value
35, 98th percentile value
30, 98th percentile value
25, 98th percentile value
40, 99th percentile value
35, 99th percentile value
30, 99th percentile value
Incidence Associated with PM2.5
(95% Confidence Interval)
Percent Reduction in Incidence from Current Standards
Cutpoint**
=7.5 ug/m3
282
(101 -464)
0.0%
252
(90-415)
10.6%
184
(66 - 302)
34.8%
117
(42-191)
58.5%
50
(18-82)
82.3%
282
(101 -464)
0.0%
200
(72 - 328)
29.1%
139
(50 - 228)
50.7%
80
(29-130)
71.6%
20
(7 - 33)
92.9%
236
(84 - 388)
16.3%
184
(66 - 302)
34.8%
117
(42-191)
58.5%
50
(18-82)
82.3%
200
(72 - 328)
29.1%
139
(50 - 228)
50.7%
80
(29-130)
71.6%
Cutpoint**
=10 ug/m3
150
(53 - 248)
0.0%
117
(42-193)
22.0%
41
(15-68)
72.7%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
150
(53 - 248)
0.0%
59
(21 - 96)
60.7%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
99
(35-163)
34.0%
41
(15-68)
72.7%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
59
(21 - 96)
60.7%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
Cutpoint**
=12 ug/m3
17
(6 - 29)
0.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
17
(6 - 29)
0.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
Abt Associates Inc.
E-40
June 2005
-------
Alternative Standards
Annual (ug/m3)
14
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
Daily (ug/m3)
25, 99th percentile value
40, 98th percentile value
35, 98th percentile value
30, 98th percentile value
25, 98th percentile value
40, 99th percentile value
35, 99th percentile value
30, 99th percentile value
25, 99th percentile value
40, 98th percentile value
35, 98th percentile value
30, 98th percentile value
25, 98th percentile value
40, 99th percentile value
35, 99th percentile value
30, 99th percentile value
25, 99th percentile value
Incidence Associated with PM2.5
(95% Confidence Interval)
Percent Reduction in Incidence from Current Standards
Cutpoint**
=7.5 ug/m3
20
(7 - 33)
92.9%
190
(68-312)
32.6%
184
(66 - 302)
34.8%
117
(42-191)
58.5%
50
(18-82)
82.3%
190
(68-312)
32.6%
139
(50 - 228)
50.7%
80
(29-130)
71.6%
20
(7 - 33)
92.9%
145
(52 - 237)
48.6%
145
(52 - 237)
48.6%
117
(42-191)
58.5%
50
(18-82)
82.3%
145
(52 - 237)
48.6%
139
(50 - 228)
50.7%
80
(29-130)
71.6%
20
(7 - 33)
92.9%
Cutpoint**
=10 ug/m3
0
(0-0)
100.0%
48
(17-78)
68.0%
41
(15-68)
72.7%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
48
(17-78)
68.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
Cutpoint**
=12 ug/m3
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
*This analysis used a C-R function from Pope et al. (2002) -- ACS extended.
**For the outpoints above 7.5 M9/m3, the slope of the C-R function has been modified based on a simple hockeystick model (see discussion in section 2.5).
""Current standards.
Note: Incidences are rounded to the nearest whole number; percents are rounded to the nearest tenth.
Abt Associates Inc.
E-41
June 2005
-------
Exhibit E.22. Estimated Annual Cardiopulmonary Mortality Associated with Long-Term Exposure
to PM2.s When Alternative Standards Are Just Met, Assuming Various Outpoint Levels*
San Jose, CA, 2003
(2003 As Is Levels = 11.1 ug/m3 Annual Average; 37.6 ug/m3 98th Percentile Daily Value]
Alternative Standards
Annual (ug/m3)
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
Daily (ug/m3)
65, 98th percentile value***
40, 98th percentile value
35, 98th percentile value
30, 98th percentile value
25, 98th percentile value
65, 99th percentile value
40, 99th percentile value
35, 99th percentile value
30, 99th percentile value
25, 99th percentile value
40, 98th percentile value
35, 98th percentile value
30, 98th percentile value
25, 98th percentile value
40, 99th percentile value
35, 99th percentile value
30, 99th percentile value
Incidence Associated with PM2.5
(95% Confidence Interval)
Percent Reduction in Incidence from As Is Levels
Outpoint**
=7.5 ug/m3
125
(43-213)
0.0%
77
(27-131)
38.4%
44
(15-74)
64.8%
10
(4-17)
92.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
125
(43-213)
0.0%
47
(16-80)
62.4%
18
(6 - 30)
85.6%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
77
(27-131)
38.4%
44
(15-74)
64.8%
10
(4-17)
92.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
47
(16-80)
62.4%
18
(6 - 30)
85.6%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
Outpoint**
=10 ug/m3
42
(15-73)
0.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
42
(15-73)
0.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
Outpoint**
=12 ug/m3
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
Abt Associates Inc.
E-42
June 2005
-------
Alternative Standards
Annual (ug/m3)
14
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
Daily (ug/m3)
25, 99th percentile value
40, 98th percentile value
35, 98th percentile value
30, 98th percentile value
25, 98th percentile value
40, 99th percentile value
35, 99th percentile value
30, 99th percentile value
25, 99th percentile value
40, 98th percentile value
35, 98th percentile value
30, 98th percentile value
25, 98th percentile value
40, 99th percentile value
35, 99th percentile value
30, 99th percentile value
25, 99th percentile value
Incidence Associated with PM2.5
(95% Confidence Interval)
Percent Reduction in Incidence from As Is Levels
Outpoint**
=7.5 ug/m3
0
(0-0)
100.0%
77
(27-131)
38.4%
44
(15-74)
64.8%
10
(4-17)
92.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
47
(16-80)
62.4%
18
(6 - 30)
85.6%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
60
(21 -102)
52.0%
44
(15-74)
64.8%
10
(4-17)
92.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
47
(16-80)
62.4%
18
(6 - 30)
85.6%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
Outpoint**
=10 ug/m3
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
Outpoint**
=12 ug/m3
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
*This analysis used a C-R function from Pope et al. (2002) -- ACS extended.
**For the outpoints above 7.5 M9/m3, the slope of the C-R function has been modified based on a simple hockeystick model (see discussion in section 2.5).
""Current standards.
Note: Incidences are rounded to the nearest whole number; percents are rounded to the nearest tenth.
Abt Associates Inc.
E-43
June 2005
-------
Exhibit E.23. Estimated Annual Cardiopulmonary Mortality Associated with Long-Term Exposure
to PM2.s When Alternative Standards Are Just Met, Assuming Various Outpoint Levels*
Seattle, WA, 2003
(2003 As Is Levels = 8.3 ug/m3 Annual Average; 21.7 ug/m3 98th Percentile Daily Value]
Alternative Standards
Annual (ug/m3)
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
Daily (ug/m3)
65, 98th percentile value***
40, 98th percentile value
35, 98th percentile value
30, 98th percentile value
25, 98th percentile value
65, 99th percentile value
40, 99th percentile value
35, 99th percentile value
30, 99th percentile value
25, 99th percentile value
40, 98th percentile value
35, 98th percentile value
30, 98th percentile value
25, 98th percentile value
40, 99th percentile value
35, 99th percentile value
30, 99th percentile value
Incidence Associated with PM2.5
(95% Confidence Interval)
Percent Reduction in Incidence from As Is Levels
Outpoint**
=7.5 ug/m3
33
(11-57)
0.0%
27
(9 - 46)
18.2%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
33
(11-57)
0.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
27
(9 - 46)
18.2%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
Outpoint**
=10 ug/m3
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
Outpoint**
=12 ug/m3
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
Abt Associates Inc.
E-44
June 2005
-------
Alternative Standards
Annual (ug/m3)
14
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
Daily (ug/m3)
25, 99th percentile value
40, 98th percentile value
35, 98th percentile value
30, 98th percentile value
25, 98th percentile value
40, 99th percentile value
35, 99th percentile value
30, 99th percentile value
25, 99th percentile value
40, 98th percentile value
35, 98th percentile value
30, 98th percentile value
25, 98th percentile value
40, 99th percentile value
35, 99th percentile value
30, 99th percentile value
25, 99th percentile value
Incidence Associated with PM2.5
(95% Confidence Interval)
Percent Reduction in Incidence from As Is Levels
Outpoint**
=7.5 ug/m3
0
(0-0)
100.0%
27
(9 - 46)
18.2%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
27
(9 - 46)
18.2%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
Outpoint**
=10 ug/m3
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
Outpoint**
=12 ug/m3
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
*This analysis used a C-R function from Pope et al. (2002) -- ACS extended.
**For the outpoints above 7.5 M9/m3, the slope of the C-R function has been modified based on a simple hockeystick model (see discussion in section 2.5).
""Current standards.
Note: Incidences are rounded to the nearest whole number; percents are rounded to the nearest tenth.
Abt Associates Inc.
E-45
June 2005
-------
Exhibit E.24. Estimated Annual Cardiopulmonary Mortality Associated with Long-Term Exposure
to PM2.s When Alternative Standards Are Just Met, Assuming Various Outpoint Levels*
St. Louis, MO, 2003
Alternative Standards
Annual (ug/m3)
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
Daily (ug/m3)
65, 98th percentile value***
40, 98th percentile value
35, 98th percentile value
30, 98th percentile value
25, 98th percentile value
65, 99th percentile value
40, 99th percentile value
35, 99th percentile value
30, 99th percentile value
25, 99th percentile value
40, 98th percentile value
35, 98th percentile value
30, 98th percentile value
25, 98th percentile value
40, 99th percentile value
35, 99th percentile value
30, 99th percentile value
Incidence Associated with PM2.5
(95% Confidence Interval)
Percent Reduction in Incidence from Current Standards
Cutpoint**
=7.5 ug/m3
426
(150-715)
0.0%
426
(150-715)
0.0%
423
(148-709)
0.7%
296
(104-494)
30.5%
170
(60 - 283)
60.1%
426
(150-715)
0.0%
426
(150-715)
0.0%
347
(122-581)
18.5%
233
(82 - 388)
45.3%
120
(42-198)
71.8%
356
(125-596)
16.4%
356
(125-596)
16.4%
296
(104-494)
30.5%
170
(60 - 283)
60.1%
356
(125-596)
16.4%
347
(122-581)
18.5%
233
(82 - 388)
45.3%
Cutpoint**
=10 ug/m3
223
(78 - 376)
0.0%
223
(78 - 376)
0.0%
219
(77 - 369)
1 .8%
76
(27-128)
65.9%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
223
(78 - 376)
0.0%
223
(78 - 376)
0.0%
134
(47 - 226)
39.9%
6
(2-10)
97.3%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
144
(50 - 242)
35.4%
144
(50 - 242)
35.4%
76
(27-128)
65.9%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
144
(50 - 242)
35.4%
134
(47 - 226)
39.9%
6
(2-10)
97.3%
Cutpoint**
=12 ug/m3
16
(6 - 27)
0.0%
16
(6 - 27)
0.0%
12
(4-21)
25.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
16
(6 - 27)
0.0%
16
(6 - 27)
0.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
Abt Associates Inc.
E-46
June 2005
-------
Alternative Standards
Annual (ug/m3)
14
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
Daily (ug/m3)
25, 99th percentile value
40, 98th percentile value
35, 98th percentile value
30, 98th percentile value
25, 98th percentile value
40, 99th percentile value
35, 99th percentile value
30, 99th percentile value
25, 99th percentile value
40, 98th percentile value
35, 98th percentile value
30, 98th percentile value
25, 98th percentile value
40, 99th percentile value
35, 99th percentile value
30, 99th percentile value
25, 99th percentile value
Incidence Associated with PM2.5
(95% Confidence Interval)
Percent Reduction in Incidence from Current Standards
Cutpoint**
=7.5 ug/m3
120
(42-198)
71.8%
286
(101 -478)
32.9%
286
(101 -478)
32.9%
286
(101 -478)
32.9%
170
(60 - 283)
60.1%
286
(101 -478)
32.9%
286
(101 -478)
32.9%
233
(82 - 388)
45.3%
120
(42-198)
71.8%
217
(77-361)
49.1%
217
(77-361)
49.1%
217
(77-361)
49.1%
170
(60 - 283)
60.1%
217
(77-361)
49.1%
217
(77-361)
49.1%
217
(77-361)
49.1%
120
(42-198)
71.8%
Cutpoint**
=10 ug/m3
0
(0-0)
100.0%
66
(23-110)
70.4%
66
(23-110)
70.4%
66
(23-110)
70.4%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
66
(23-110)
70.4%
66
(23-110)
70.4%
6
(2-10)
97.3%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
Cutpoint**
=12 ug/m3
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
*This analysis used a C-R function from Pope et al. (2002) -- ACS extended.
**For the outpoints above 7.5 M9/m3, the slope of the C-R function has been modified based on a simple hockeystick model (see discussion in section 2.5).
""Current standards.
Note: Incidences are rounded to the nearest whole number; percents are rounded to the nearest tenth.
Abt Associates Inc.
E-47
June 2005
-------
Exhibit E.25. Estimated Annual Lung Cancer Mortality Associated with Long-Term Exposure to
PM2.5 When Alternative Standards Are Just Met, Assuming Various Outpoint Levels*
Boston, MA, 2003
(2003 As Is Levels = 12.1 ug/m3 Annual Average; 34.1 ug/m3 98th Percentile Daily Value)
Alternative Standards
Annual (ug/m3)
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
14
14
14
14
14
14
Daily (ug/m3)
65, 98th percentile value***
40, 98th percentile value
35, 98th percentile value
30, 98th percentile value
25, 98th percentile value
65, 99th percentile value
40, 99th percentile value
35, 99th percentile value
30, 99th percentile value
25, 99th percentile value
40, 98th percentile value
35, 98th percentile value
30, 98th percentile value
25, 98th percentile value
40, 99th percentile value
35, 99th percentile value
Incidence Associated with PM2.5
(95% Confidence Interval)
Percent Reduction in Incidence from As Is Levels
Cutpoint**
=7.5 ug/m3
91
(28-141)
0.0%
73
(23-114)
19.8%
52
(16-81)
42.9%
32
(10-48)
64.8%
11
(3-17)
87.9%
91
(28-141)
0.0%
30
(9 - 46)
67.0%
15
(5 - 24)
83.5%
1
(0-1)
98.9%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
73
(23-114)
19.8%
52
(16-81)
42.9%
32
(10-48)
64.8%
11
(3-17)
87.9%
30
(9 - 46)
67.0%
15
(5 - 24)
83.5%
Cutpoint**
=10 ug/m3
47
(14-74)
0.0%
28
(9 - 44)
40.4%
5
(1-7)
89.4%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
47
(14-74)
0.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
28
(9 - 44)
40.4%
5
(1-7)
89.4%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
Cutpoint**
=12 ug/m3
3
(1-5)
0.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
3
(1-5)
0.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
Abt Associates Inc.
E-48
June 2005
-------
Alternative Standards
Annual (ug/m3)
14
14
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
Daily (ug/m3)
30, 99th percentile value
25, 99th percentile value
40, 98th percentile value
35, 98th percentile value
30, 98th percentile value
25, 98th percentile value
40, 99th percentile value
35, 99th percentile value
30, 99th percentile value
25, 99th percentile value
40, 98th percentile value
35, 98th percentile value
30, 98th percentile value
25, 98th percentile value
40, 99th percentile value
35, 99th percentile value
30, 99th percentile value
25, 99th percentile value
Incidence Associated with PM2.5
(95% Confidence Interval)
Percent Reduction in Incidence from As Is Levels
Outpoint**
=7.5 ug/m3
1
(0-1)
98.9%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
68
(21 -106)
25.3%
52
(16-81)
42.9%
32
(10-48)
64.8%
11
(3-17)
87.9%
30
(9-46)
67.0%
15
(5-24)
83.5%
1
(0-1)
98.9%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
53
(16-81)
41 .8%
52
(16-81)
42.9%
32
(10-48)
64.8%
11
(3-17)
87.9%
30
(9-46)
67.0%
15
(5-24)
83.5%
1
(0-1)
98.9%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
Outpoint**
=10 ug/m3
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
23
(7-35)
51.1%
5
(1-7)
89.4%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
5
(2-8)
89.4%
5
(1-7)
89.4%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
Outpoint**
=12 ug/m3
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
"This analysis used a C-R function from Pope et al. (2002) - ACS extended.
"Forthe outpoints above 7.5 pg/mS, the slope of the C-R function has been modified based on a simple hockeystick model (see discussion in section 2.5).
•"Current standards.
Note: Incidences are rounded to the nearest whole number; percents are rounded to the nearest tenth.
Abt Associates Inc.
E-49
June 2005
-------
Exhibit E.26. Estimated Annual Lung Cancer Mortality Associated with Long-Term Exposure to
PM2.s When Alternative Standards Are Just Met, Assuming Various Outpoint Levels*
Los Angeles, CA, 2003
Alternative Standards
Annual (ug/m3)
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
Daily (ug/m3)
65, 98th percentile value***
40, 98th percentile value
35, 98th percentile value
30, 98th percentile value
25, 98th percentile value
65, 99th percentile value
40, 99th percentile value
35, 99th percentile value
30, 99th percentile value
25, 99th percentile value
40, 98th percentile value
35, 98th percentile value
30, 98th percentile value
25, 98th percentile value
40, 99th percentile value
35, 99th percentile value
30, 99th percentile value
Incidence Associated with PM2.5
(95% Confidence Interval)
Percent Reduction in Incidence from Current Standards
Cutpoint**
=7.5 ug/m3
179
(58 - 264)
0.0%
179
(58 - 264)
0.0%
150
(49-221)
16.2%
98
(32-143)
45.3%
47
(15-68)
73.7%
179
(58 - 264)
0.0%
60
(20 - 88)
66.5%
28
(9-41)
84.4%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
150
(49 - 220)
16.2%
150
(49 - 220)
16.2%
98
(32-143)
45.3%
47
(15-68)
73.7%
60
(20 - 88)
66.5%
28
(9-41)
84.4%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
Cutpoint**
=10 ug/m3
98
(32-145)
0.0%
98
(32-145)
0.0%
66
(21 - 97)
32.7%
8
(3-11)
91.8%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
98
(32-145)
0.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
65
(21 - 96)
33.7%
65
(21 - 96)
33.7%
8
(3-11)
91.8%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
Cutpoint**
=12 ug/m3
16
(5 - 24)
0.0%
16
(5 - 24)
0.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
16
(5 - 24)
0.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
Abt Associates Inc.
E-50
June 2005
-------
Alternative Standards
Annual (ug/m3)
14
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
Daily (ug/m3)
25, 99th percentile value
40, 98th percentile value
35, 98th percentile value
30, 98th percentile value
25, 98th percentile value
40, 99th percentile value
35, 99th percentile value
30, 99th percentile value
25, 99th percentile value
40, 98th percentile value
35, 98th percentile value
30, 98th percentile value
25, 98th percentile value
40, 99th percentile value
35, 99th percentile value
30, 99th percentile value
25, 99th percentile value
Incidence Associated with PM2.5
(95% Confidence Interval)
Percent Reduction in Incidence from Current Standards
Cutpoint**
=7.5 ug/m3
0
(0-0)
100.0%
120
(39-176)
33.0%
120
(39-176)
33.0%
98
(32-143)
45.3%
47
(15-68)
73.7%
60
(20 - 88)
66.5%
28
(9-41)
84.4%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
91
(30-132)
49.2%
91
(30-132)
49.2%
91
(30-132)
49.2%
47
(15-68)
73.7%
60
(20 - 88)
66.5%
28
(9-41)
84.4%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
Cutpoint**
=10 ug/m3
0
(0-0)
100.0%
32
(10-47)
67.3%
32
(10-47)
67.3%
8
(3-11)
91.8%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
Cutpoint**
=12 ug/m3
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
*This analysis used a C-R function from Pope et al. (2002) -- ACS extended.
**For the outpoints above 7.5 M9/m3, the slope of the C-R function has been modified based on a simple hockeystick model (see discussion in section 2.5).
""Current standards.
Note: Incidences are rounded to the nearest whole number; percents are rounded to the nearest tenth.
Abt Associates Inc.
E-51
June 2005
-------
Exhibit E.27. Estimated Annual Lung Cancer Mortality Associated with Long-Term Exposure to
PM2 5 When Alternative Standards Are Just Met, Assuming Various Outpoint Levels*
Philadelphia, PA, 2003
Alternative Standards
Annual (ug/m3)
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
Dally (ug/m3)
65, 98th percentile value***
40, 98th percentile value
35, 98th percentile value
30, 98th percentile value
25, 98th percentile value
65, 99th percentile value
40, 99th percentile value
35, 99th percentile value
30, 99th percentile value
25, 99th percentile value
65, 98th percentile value
40, 98th percentile value
35, 98th percentile value
30, 98th percentile value
25, 98th percentile value
40, 99th percentile value
35, 99th percentile value
30, 99th percentile value
Incidence Associated with PM2.5
(95% Confidence Interval)
Percent Reduction In Incidence from Current Standards
Cutpoint**
=7.5 ug/m3
77
(24-118)
0.0%
58
(18-89)
24.7%
43
(13-65)
44.2%
27
(9 - 41)
64.9%
12
(4-18)
84.4%
51
(16-78)
33.8%
8
(3-12)
89.6%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
65
(20-100)
15.6%
58
(18-89)
24.7%
43
(13-65)
44.2%
27
(9 - 41)
64.9%
12
(4-18)
84.4%
8
(3-12)
89.6%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
Cutpoint**
=10 ug/m3
49
(15-75)
0.0%
28
(9 - 43)
42.9%
10
(3-16)
79.6%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
20
(6 - 30)
59.2%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
36
(1 1 - 55)
26.5%
28
(9 - 43)
42.9%
10
(3-16)
79.6%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
Cutpoint**
=12 ug/m3
20
(6-31)
0.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
5
(2-8)
75.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
Abt Associates, Inc.
E-52
June 2005
-------
Alternative Standards
Annual (ug/m3)
14
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
Dally (ug/m3)
25, 99th percentile value
40, 98th percentile value
35, 98th percentile value
30, 98th percentile value
25, 98th percentile value
40, 99th percentile value
35, 99th percentile value
30, 99th percentile value
25, 99th percentile value
40, 98th percentile value
35, 98th percentile value
30, 98th percentile value
25, 98th percentile value
40, 99th percentile value
35, 99th percentile value
30, 99th percentile value
25, 99th percentile value
Incidence Associated with PM2.5
(95% Confidence Interval)
Percent Reduction In Incidence from Current Standards
Cutpoint**
=7.5 ug/m3
0
(0-0)
100.0%
54
(17-82)
29.9%
43
(13-65)
44.2%
27
(9 - 41)
64.9%
12
(4-18)
84.4%
8
(3-12)
89.6%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
42
(13-64)
45.5%
42
(13-64)
45.5%
27
(9 - 41)
64.9%
12
(4-18)
84.4%
8
(3-12)
89.6%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
Cutpoint**
=10 ug/m3
0
(0-0)
100.0%
23
(7 - 34)
53.1%
10
(3-16)
79.6%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
10
(3-15)
79.6%
10
(3-15)
79.6%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
Cutpoint**
=12 ug/m3
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
This analysis used a C-R function from Pope et al. (2002) - ACS extended.
**For the outpoints above 7.5 ug/m3, the slope of the C-R function has been modified based on a simple hockeystick model (see discussion in section 2.5).
***Current standards.
Note: Incidences are rounded to the nearest whole number; percents are rounded to the nearest tenth.
Abt Associates, Inc.
E-53
June 2005
-------
Exhibit E.28. Estimated Annual Lung Cancer Mortality Associated with Long-Term Exposure to
PM2.5 When Alternative Standards Are Just Met, Assuming Various Outpoint Levels*
Phoenix, AZ, 2001
(2001 As Is Levels = 10.4 ug/m3 Annual Average; 28.9 ug/m3 98th Percentile Daily Value]
Alternative Standards
Annual (ug/m3)
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
14
14
14
14
14
14
Daily (ug/m3)
65, 98th percentile value***
40, 98th percentile value
35, 98th percentile value
30, 98th percentile value
25, 98th percentile value
65, 99th percentile value
40, 99th percentile value
35, 99th percentile value
30, 99th percentile value
25, 99th percentile value
40, 98th percentile value
35, 98th percentile value
30, 98th percentile value
25, 98th percentile value
40, 99th percentile value
35, 99th percentile value
Incidence Associated with PM2.5
(95% Confidence Interval)
Percent Reduction in Incidence from As Is Levels
Cutpoint**
=7.5 ug/m3
48
(14-74)
0.0%
48
(14-74)
0.0%
48
(14-74)
0.0%
27
(8 - 43)
43.8%
8
(2-12)
83.3%
48
(14-74)
0.0%
44
(13-69)
8.3%
27
(8 - 42)
43.8%
10
(3-16)
79.2%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
48
(14-74)
0.0%
48
(14-74)
0.0%
27
(8 - 43)
43.8%
8
(2-12)
83.3%
44
(13-69)
8.3%
27
(8 - 42)
43.8%
Cutpoint**
=10 ug/m3
8
(2-12)
0.0%
8
(2-12)
0.0%
8
(2-12)
0.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
8
(2-12)
0.0%
4
(1-6)
50.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
8
(2-12)
0.0%
8
(2-12)
0.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
4
(1-6)
50.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
Cutpoint**
=12 ug/m3
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
Abt Associates Inc.
E-54
June 2005
-------
Alternative Standards
Annual (ug/m3)
14
14
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
Daily (ug/m3)
30, 99th percentile value
25, 99th percentile value
40, 98th percentile value
35, 98th percentile value
30, 98th percentile value
25, 98th percentile value
40, 99th percentile value
35, 99th percentile value
30, 99th percentile value
25, 99th percentile value
40, 98th percentile value
35, 98th percentile value
30, 98th percentile value
25, 98th percentile value
40, 99th percentile value
35, 99th percentile value
30, 99th percentile value
25, 99th percentile value
Incidence Associated with PM2.5
(95% Confidence Interval)
Percent Reduction in Incidence from As Is Levels
Outpoint**
=7.5 ug/m3
10
(3-16)
79.2%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
48
(14-74)
0.0%
48
(14-74)
0.0%
27
(8 - 43)
43.8%
8
(2-12)
83.3%
44
(13-69)
8.3%
27
(8 - 42)
43.8%
10
(3-16)
79.2%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
48
(14-74)
0.0%
48
(14-74)
0.0%
27
(8 - 43)
43.8%
8
(2-12)
83.3%
44
(13-69)
8.3%
27
(8 - 42)
43.8%
10
(3-16)
79.2%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
Outpoint**
=10 ug/m3
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
8
(2-12)
0.0%
8
(2-12)
0.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
4
(1-6)
50.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
8
(2-12)
0.0%
8
(2-12)
0.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
4
(1-6)
50.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
Outpoint**
=12 ug/m3
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
"This analysis used a C-R function from Pope et al. (2002) - ACS extended.
**Forthe outpoints above 7.5 Mg/m3, the slope of the C-R function has been modified based on a simple hockeystick model (see discussion in section 2.5).
•"Current standards.
Note: Incidences are rounded to the nearest whole number; percents are rounded to the nearest tenth.
Abt Associates Inc.
E-55
June 2005
-------
Exhibit E.29. Estimated Annual Lung Cancer Mortality Associated with Long-Term Exposure to
PM2.s When Alternative Standards Are Just Met, Assuming Various Outpoint Levels*
Pittsburgh, PA, 2003
Alternative Standards
Annual (ug/m3)
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
Daily (ug/m3)
65, 98th percentile value***
40, 98th percentile value
35, 98th percentile value
30, 98th percentile value
25, 98th percentile value
65, 99th percentile value
40, 99th percentile value
35, 99th percentile value
30, 99th percentile value
25, 99th percentile value
40, 98th percentile value
35, 98th percentile value
30, 98th percentile value
25, 98th percentile value
40, 99th percentile value
35, 99th percentile value
30, 99th percentile value
Incidence Associated with PM2.5
(95% Confidence Interval)
Percent Reduction in Incidence from Current Standards
Cutpoint**
=7.5 ug/m3
56
(18-84)
0.0%
50
(16-75)
10.7%
37
(12-55)
33.9%
23
(8 - 34)
58.9%
10
(3-15)
82.1%
56
(18-84)
0.0%
40
(13-59)
28.6%
28
(9-41)
50.0%
16
(5 - 23)
71.4%
4
(1-6)
92.9%
47
(15-70)
16.1%
37
(12-55)
33.9%
23
(8 - 34)
58.9%
10
(3-15)
82.1%
40
(13-59)
28.6%
28
(9-41)
50.0%
16
(5 - 23)
71.4%
Cutpoint**
=10 ug/m3
30
(10-45)
0.0%
23
(7 - 35)
23.3%
8
(3-12)
73.3%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
30
(10-45)
0.0%
12
(4-17)
60.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
20
(6 - 30)
33.3%
8
(3-12)
73.3%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
12
(4-17)
60.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
Cutpoint**
=12 ug/m3
4
(1-5)
0.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
4
(1-5)
0.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
Abt Associates Inc.
E-56
June 2005
-------
Alternative Standards
Annual (ug/m3)
14
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
Daily (ug/m3)
25, 99th percentile value
40, 98th percentile value
35, 98th percentile value
30, 98th percentile value
25, 98th percentile value
40, 99th percentile value
35, 99th percentile value
30, 99th percentile value
25, 99th percentile value
40, 98th percentile value
35, 98th percentile value
30, 98th percentile value
25, 98th percentile value
40, 99th percentile value
35, 99th percentile value
30, 99th percentile value
25, 99th percentile value
Incidence Associated with PM2.5
(95% Confidence Interval)
Percent Reduction in Incidence from Current Standards
Cutpoint**
=7.5 ug/m3
4
(1-6)
92.9%
38
(12-56)
32.1%
37
(12-55)
33.9%
23
(8 - 34)
58.9%
10
(3-15)
82.1%
38
(12-56)
32.1%
28
(9-41)
50.0%
16
(5 - 23)
71.4%
4
(1-6)
92.9%
29
(9 - 43)
48.2%
29
(9 - 43)
48.2%
23
(8 - 34)
58.9%
10
(3-15)
82.1%
29
(9 - 43)
48.2%
28
(9-41)
50.0%
16
(5 - 23)
71.4%
4
(1-6)
92.9%
Cutpoint**
=10 ug/m3
0
(0-0)
100.0%
10
(3-14)
66.7%
8
(3-12)
73.3%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
10
(3-14)
66.7%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
Cutpoint**
=12 ug/m3
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
*This analysis used a C-R function from Pope et al. (2002) -- ACS extended.
**For the outpoints above 7.5 M9/m3, the slope of the C-R function has been modified based on a simple hockeystick model (see discussion in section 2.5).
""Current standards.
Note: Incidences are rounded to the nearest whole number; percents are rounded to the nearest tenth.
Abt Associates Inc.
E-57
June 2005
-------
Exhibit E.30. Estimated Annual Lung Cancer Mortality Associated with Long-Term Exposure to
PM2.s When Alternative Standards Are Just Met, Assuming Various Outpoint Levels*
San Jose, CA, 2003
(2003 As Is Levels = 11.1 ug/m3 Annual Average; 37.6 ug/m3 98th Percentile Daily Value]
Alternative Standards
Annual (ug/m3)
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
Daily (ug/m3)
65, 98th percentile value***
40, 98th percentile value
35, 98th percentile value
30, 98th percentile value
25, 98th percentile value
65, 99th percentile value
40, 99th percentile value
35, 99th percentile value
30, 99th percentile value
25, 99th percentile value
40, 98th percentile value
35, 98th percentile value
30, 98th percentile value
25, 98th percentile value
40, 99th percentile value
35, 99th percentile value
30, 99th percentile value
Incidence Associated with PM2.5
(95% Confidence Interval)
Percent Reduction in Incidence from As Is Levels
Outpoint**
=7.5 ug/m3
23
(7 - 35)
0.0%
14
(4 - 22)
39.1%
8
(2-12)
65.2%
2
(1-3)
91.3%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
23
(7 - 35)
0.0%
8
(3-13)
65.2%
3
(1-5)
87.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
14
(4 - 22)
39.1%
8
(2-12)
65.2%
2
(1-3)
91.3%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
8
(3-13)
65.2%
3
(1-5)
87.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
Outpoint**
=10 ug/m3
8
(2-12)
0.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
8
(2-12)
0.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
Outpoint**
=12 ug/m3
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
Abt Associates Inc.
E-58
June 2005
-------
Alternative Standards
Annual (ug/m3)
14
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
Daily (ug/m3)
25, 99th percentile value
40, 98th percentile value
35, 98th percentile value
30, 98th percentile value
25, 98th percentile value
40, 99th percentile value
35, 99th percentile value
30, 99th percentile value
25, 99th percentile value
40, 98th percentile value
35, 98th percentile value
30, 98th percentile value
25, 98th percentile value
40, 99th percentile value
35, 99th percentile value
30, 99th percentile value
25, 99th percentile value
Incidence Associated with PM2.5
(95% Confidence Interval)
Percent Reduction in Incidence from As Is Levels
Outpoint**
=7.5 ug/m3
0
(0-0)
100.0%
14
(4 - 22)
39.1%
8
(2-12)
65.2%
2
(1-3)
91.3%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
8
(3-13)
65.2%
3
(1-5)
87.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
11
(3-17)
52.2%
8
(2-12)
65.2%
2
(1-3)
91.3%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
8
(3-13)
65.2%
3
(1-5)
87.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
Outpoint**
=10 ug/m3
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
Outpoint**
=12 ug/m3
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
*This analysis used a C-R function from Pope et al. (2002) -- ACS extended.
**For the outpoints above 7.5 M9/m3, the slope of the C-R function has been modified based on a simple hockeystick model (see discussion in section 2.5).
""Current standards.
Note: Incidences are rounded to the nearest whole number; percents are rounded to the nearest tenth.
Abt Associates Inc.
E-59
June 2005
-------
Exhibit E.31. Estimated Annual Lung Cancer Mortality Associated with Long-Term Exposure to
PM2.s When Alternative Standards Are Just Met, Assuming Various Outpoint Levels*
Seattle, WA, 2003
(2003 As Is Levels = 8.3 ug/m3 Annual Average; 21.7 ug/m3 98th Percentile Daily Value]
Alternative Standards
Annual (ug/m3)
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
Daily (ug/m3)
65, 98th percentile value***
40, 98th percentile value
35, 98th percentile value
30, 98th percentile value
25, 98th percentile value
65, 99th percentile value
40, 99th percentile value
35, 99th percentile value
30, 99th percentile value
25, 99th percentile value
40, 98th percentile value
35, 98th percentile value
30, 98th percentile value
25, 98th percentile value
40, 99th percentile value
35, 99th percentile value
30, 99th percentile value
Incidence Associated with PM2.5
(95% Confidence Interval)
Percent Reduction in Incidence from As Is Levels
Outpoint**
=7.5 ug/m3
8
(2-12)
0.0%
6
(2-10)
25.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
8
(2-12)
0.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
6
(2-10)
25.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
Outpoint**
=10 ug/m3
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
Outpoint**
=12 ug/m3
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
Abt Associates Inc.
E-60
June 2005
-------
Alternative Standards
Annual (ug/m3)
14
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
Daily (ug/m3)
25, 99th percentile value
40, 98th percentile value
35, 98th percentile value
30, 98th percentile value
25, 98th percentile value
40, 99th percentile value
35, 99th percentile value
30, 99th percentile value
25, 99th percentile value
40, 98th percentile value
35, 98th percentile value
30, 98th percentile value
25, 98th percentile value
40, 99th percentile value
35, 99th percentile value
30, 99th percentile value
25, 99th percentile value
Incidence Associated with PM2.5
(95% Confidence Interval)
Percent Reduction in Incidence from As Is Levels
Outpoint**
=7.5 ug/m3
0
(0-0)
100.0%
6
(2-10)
25.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
6
(2-10)
25.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
Outpoint**
=10 ug/m3
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
Outpoint**
=12 ug/m3
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
*This analysis used a C-R function from Pope et al. (2002) -- ACS extended.
**For the outpoints above 7.5 M9/m3, the slope of the C-R function has been modified based on a simple hockeystick model (see discussion in section 2.5).
""Current standards.
Note: Incidences are rounded to the nearest whole number; percents are rounded to the nearest tenth.
Abt Associates Inc.
E-61
June 2005
-------
Exhibit E.32. Estimated Annual Lung Cancer Mortality Associated with Long-Term Exposure to
PM2.s When Alternative Standards Are Just Met, Assuming Various Outpoint Levels*
St. Louis, MO, 2003
Alternative Standards
Annual (ug/m3)
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
Daily (ug/m3)
65, 98th percentile value***
40, 98th percentile value
35, 98th percentile value
30, 98th percentile value
25, 98th percentile value
65, 99th percentile value
40, 99th percentile value
35, 99th percentile value
30, 99th percentile value
25, 99th percentile value
40, 98th percentile value
35, 98th percentile value
30, 98th percentile value
25, 98th percentile value
40, 99th percentile value
35, 99th percentile value
30, 99th percentile value
Incidence Associated with PM2.5
(95% Confidence Interval)
Percent Reduction in Incidence from Current Standards
Cutpoint**
=7.5 ug/m3
88
(27-134)
0.0%
88
(27-134)
0.0%
87
(27-133)
1.1%
61
(19-92)
30.7%
35
(11-53)
60.2%
88
(27-134)
0.0%
88
(27-134)
0.0%
71
(22-109)
19.3%
48
(15-72)
45.5%
24
(8 - 37)
72.7%
73
(23-112)
17.0%
73
(23-112)
17.0%
61
(19-92)
30.7%
35
(11-53)
60.2%
73
(23-112)
17.0%
71
(22-109)
19.3%
48
(15-72)
45.5%
Cutpoint**
=10 ug/m3
46
(14-71)
0.0%
46
(14-71)
0.0%
45
(14-70)
2.2%
16
(5 - 24)
65.2%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
46
(14-71)
0.0%
46
(14-71)
0.0%
28
(9 - 42)
39.1%
1
(0-2)
97.8%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
30
(9 - 46)
34.8%
30
(9 - 46)
34.8%
16
(5 - 24)
65.2%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
30
(9 - 46)
34.8%
28
(9 - 42)
39.1%
1
(0-2)
97.8%
Cutpoint**
=12 ug/m3
3
(1-5)
0.0%
3
(1-5)
0.0%
3
(1-4)
0.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
3
(1-5)
0.0%
3
(1-5)
0.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
Abt Associates Inc.
E-62
June 2005
-------
Alternative Standards
Annual (ug/m3)
14
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
Daily (ug/m3)
25, 99th percentile value
40, 98th percentile value
35, 98th percentile value
30, 98th percentile value
25, 98th percentile value
40, 99th percentile value
35, 99th percentile value
30, 99th percentile value
25, 99th percentile value
40, 98th percentile value
35, 98th percentile value
30, 98th percentile value
25, 98th percentile value
40, 99th percentile value
35, 99th percentile value
30, 99th percentile value
25, 99th percentile value
Incidence Associated with PM2.5
(95% Confidence Interval)
Percent Reduction in Incidence from Current Standards
Cutpoint**
=7.5 ug/m3
24
(8 - 37)
72.7%
59
(18-89)
33.0%
59
(18-89)
33.0%
59
(18-89)
33.0%
35
(11-53)
60.2%
59
(18-89)
33.0%
59
(18-89)
33.0%
48
(15-72)
45.5%
24
(8 - 37)
72.7%
44
(14-67)
50.0%
44
(14-67)
50.0%
44
(14-67)
50.0%
35
(11-53)
60.2%
44
(14-67)
50.0%
44
(14-67)
50.0%
44
(14-67)
50.0%
24
(8 - 37)
72.7%
Cutpoint**
=10 ug/m3
0
(0-0)
100.0%
14
(4-21)
69.6%
14
(4-21)
69.6%
14
(4-21)
69.6%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
14
(4-21)
69.6%
14
(4-21)
69.6%
1
(0-2)
97.8%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
Cutpoint**
=12 ug/m3
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
*This analysis used a C-R function from Pope et al. (2002) -- ACS extended.
**For the outpoints above 7.5 M9/m3, the slope of the C-R function has been modified based on a simple hockeystick model (see discussion in section 2.5).
""Current standards.
Note: Incidences are rounded to the nearest whole number; percents are rounded to the nearest tenth.
Abt Associates Inc.
E-63
June 2005
-------
E.2 Sensitivity analyses
Exhibit E.33. Sensitivity Analysis: Estimated Annual Reductions of Short-Term and Long-Term Exposure Mortality Associated with Rolling Back PIV^5
Concentrations to Just Meet the Current Annual Standard of 15 ug/m3 and the Current Daily Standard of 65 ug/m3 Using an Alternative Rollback
Method
Los Angeles, CA, 2003
Health
Effects
Short-
Term
Exposure
Mortality
Long-Term
Exposure
Mortality
Study
Type
Ages
Model
Lag
Other
Pollutants
in Model
Annual and Daily
Standards
Percent Change in PM-Associated Incidence*
AIIPM
concentrations
rolled back
equally
Percent rollback of upper 10%
of AQ d istribution = 1 .6 x
percent rollback of lower 90%
of AQ distribution
Portion of
Proportional Rollback
Incidence Reduction
Achieved by
Alternative Rollback
Method
Single Pollutant Models (Total Mortality)
Moolgavkar (2003) [reanalysis of
Moolqavkar (2000a)l
Moolgavkar (2003) [reanalysis of
Moolgavkar (2000a)]
Moolgavkar (2003) [reanalysis of
Moolgavkar (2000a)]
Moolgavkar (2003) [reanalysis of
Moolgavkar (2000a)l
Non-accidental
Non-accidental
Non-accidental
Non-accidental
all
all
all
all
log-linear, GAM
(stringent), 30 df
log-linear, GAM
(stringent), 30 df
log-linear, GAM
(stringent), 30 df
log-linear, GAM
(stringent), 30 df
Oday
1 day
Oday
1 day
15 ug/m3 annual
65 ug/m3 daily
15 ug/m3 annual
65 ug/m3 daily
15 ug/m3 annual
65 ug/m3 daily
15 ug/m3 annual
65 ug/m3 daily
40.9%
0.0%
40.9%
0.0%
40.9%
0.0%
40.9%
0.0%
41 .0%
0.0%
41 .0%
0.0%
41 .0%
0.0%
41 .0%
0.0%
100.2%
100.2%
100.2%
100.2%
Single Pollutant Models
Krewski et al. (2000) - ACS
Pope etal. (2002) -ACS
extended
All cause
All cause
30+
30+
log-linear
log-linear
15 ug/m3 annual
65 ug/m3 daily
15 ug/m3 annual
65 ug/m3 daily
58.9%
0.0%
59.1%
0.0%
59.1%
0.0%
59.3%
0.0%
100.3%
100.3%
Multi-Pollutant Models
Krewski et al. (2000) - ACS
Krewski et al. (2000) - ACS
Krewski et al. (2000) - ACS
Krewski et al. (2000) - ACS
All cause
All cause
All cause
All cause
30+
30+
30+
30+
log-linear
log-linear
log-linear
log-linear
CO
NO2
O3
SO2
15 ug/m3 annual
65 ug/m3 daily
15 ug/m3 annual
65 ug/m3 daily
15 ug/m3 annual
65 ug/m3 daily
15 ug/m3 annual
65 ug/m3 daily
59.2%
0.0%
59.4%
0.0%
59.2%
0.0%
58.5%
0.0%
59.4%
0.0%
59.6%
0.0%
59.4%
0.0%
58.6%
0.0%
100.3%
100.3%
100.3%
100.2%
* For the short-term exposure studies, health effects incidence was quantified down to estimated policy relevant background level of 2.5 ug/m3. For the long-term exposure studies, health effects incidence was quantified down to 7.5 ug/m3,
which was the lowest of the lowest measured levels in the long-term exposure studies. Percents are rounded to the nearest tenth.
Note: Only those C-R functions for which rollbacks are predicted to result in a positive number of cases avoided are included.
Abt Associates Inc.
E-64
June 2005
-------
Exhibit E.34. Sensitivity Analysis: Estimated Annual Reductions of Short-Term and Long-Term Exposure Mortality Associated
with Rolling Back PM25 Concentrations to Just Meet the Current Annual Standard of 15 ug/m3 and the Current Daily Standard of 65
ug/m3 Using an Alternative Rollback Method
Philadelphia, PA, 2003
Health
Effects
Short-Term
Exposure
Mortality
Long-Term
Exposure
Mortality
Study
Type
Ages
Lag
Other
Pollutants
in Model
Annual and Daily
Standards
Percent Change in PM-Associated Incidence*
AIIPM
concentrations
rolled back
equally
Percent rollback of upper 10%
of AQ distribution = 1.6 x
percent rollback of lower 90%
of AQ distribution
Portion of Proportional
Rollback Incidence
Reduction Achieved by
Alternative Rollback
Method
Single Pollutant Models (Total Mortality)
Lipfertetal.(2000)
Non-accidental
all
Oday
15 ug/m3 annual
65 ug/m3 daily
10.9%
0.0%
10.6%
0.0%
97.2%
Multi-Pollutant Models (Total Mortality)
Lipfertetal.(2000)
Non-accidental
all
0 day
O3
15 ug/m3 annual
65 ug/m3 daily
10.9%
0.0%
10.6%
0.0%
97.2%
Single Pollutant Models
Krewski et al. (2000)
-ACS
Pope et al. (2002) -
ACS extended
All cause
All cause
30+
30+
15 ug/m3 annual
65 ug/m3 daily
15 ug/m3 annual
65 ug/m3 daily
17.4%
0.0%
17.5%
0.0%
17.6%
0.0%
17.6%
0.0%
101.1%
100.6%
Multi-Pollutant Models
Krewski et al. (2000)
-ACS
Krewski et al. (2000)
-ACS
Krewski et al. (2000)
-ACS
Krewski et al. (2000)
-ACS
All cause
All cause
All cause
All cause
30+
30+
30+
30+
CO
NO2
O3
SO2
15 ug/m3 annual
65 ug/m3 daily
15 ug/m3 annual
65 ug/m3 daily
15 ug/m3 annual
65 ug/m3 daily
15 ug/m3 annual
65 ug/m3 daily
17.6%
0.0%
17.6%
0.0%
17.6%
0.0%
17.3%
0.0%
17.7%
0.0%
17.7%
0.0%
17.7%
0.0%
17.4%
0.0%
100.6%
100.6%
100.6%
100.6%
*For the short-term exposure studies, health effects incidence was quantified down to estimated policy relevant background level of 3.5 ug/m3. For the long-term exposure studies, health effects incidence was
quantified down to 7.5 ug/m3, which was the lowest of the lowest measured levels in the long-term exposure studies. Percents are rounded to the nearest tenth.
Note: Only those C-R functions for which rollbacks are predicted to result in a positive number of cases avoided are included.
Abt Associates Inc.
E-65
June 2005
-------
Exhibit E.35. Sensitivity Analysis: Estimated Annual Reductions of Short-Term and Long-Term Exposure Mortality
Associated with Rolling Back PM25 Concentrations to Just Meet the Current Annual Standard of 15 ug/m3 and the
Current Daily Standard of 65 ug/m3 Using an Alternative Rollback Method
Pittsburgh, PA, 2003
Health
Effects
Short-Term
Exposure
Mortality
Long-Term
Exposure
Mortality
Study
Type
Ages
Lag
Other Pollutants
in Model
Annual and Daily
Standards
Percent Change in PM -Associated Incidence*
AIIPM
concentrations
rolled back
equally
Percent rollback of upper 10%
of AQ distribution = 1.6 x
percent rollback of lower 90%
of AQ distribution
Portion of Proportional
Rollback Incidence
Reduction Achieved by
Alternative Rollback
Method
Single Pollutant Models (Total Mortality)
Chock et al.
(2000)
Chock et al.
(2000)
Non-
accidental
Non-
accidental
<75
75+
0 day
0 day
15 ug/m3 annual
65 ug/m3 daily
15 ug/m3 annual
65 ug/m3 daily
35.3%
0.0%
35.2%
0.0%
35.4%
0.0%
35.3%
0.0%
100.3%
100.3%
Multi-Pollutant Models (Total Mortality)
Chock et al.
(2000)
Chock et al.
(2000)
Non-
accidental
Non-
accidental
<75
75+
Oday
0 day
CO, 03, S02,
NO2, PM10-2.5
CO, 03, S02,
N02, PM10-2.5
15 ug/m3 annual
65 ug/m3 daily
15 ug/m3 annual
65 ug/m3 daily
35.3%
0.0%
35.1%
0.0%
35.5%
0.0%
35.3%
0.0%
100.6%
100.6%
Single Pollutant Models
Krewski et al.
(2000) - ACS
Pope et al. (2002)
- ACS extended
All cause
All cause
30+
30+
15 ug/m3 annual
65 ug/m3 daily
15 ug/m3 annual
65 ug/m3 daily
50.4%
0.0%
50.6%
0.0%
50.6%
0.0%
50.8%
0.0%
100.4%
100.4%
Multi-Pollutant Models
Krewski et al.
(2000) - ACS
Krewski et al.
(2000) - ACS
Krewski et al.
(2000) - ACS
Krewski et al.
(2000) - ACS
All cause
All cause
All cause
All cause
30+
30+
30+
30+
CO
N02
03
SO2
15 ug/m3 annual
65 ug/m3 daily
15 ug/m3 annual
65 ug/m3 daily
15 ug/m3 annual
65 ug/m3 daily
15 ug/m3 annual
65 ug/m3 daily
50.7%
0.0%
50.8%
0.0%
50.7%
0.0%
50.0%
0.0%
50.9%
0.0%
51.1%
0.0%
50.9%
0.0%
50.2%
0.0%
100.4%
100.6%
100.4%
100.4%
*For the short-term exposure studies, health effects incidence was quantified down to estimated policy relevant background level of 3.5 ug/m3. For the long-term exposure studies, health effects incidence was
quantified down to 7.5 ug/m3, which was the lowest of the lowest measured levels in the long-term exposure studies. Percents are rounded to the nearest tenth.
Note: Only those C-R functions for which rollbacks are predicted to result in a positive number of cases avoided are included.
Abt Associates Inc.
E-66
June 2005
-------
Exhibit E.36. Sensitivity Analysis: Estimated Annual Reductions of Short-Term and Long-Term Exposure Mortality Associated with
Rolling Back PM2.5 Concentrations to Just Meet the Current Annual Standard of 15 ug/m3 and the Current Daily Standard of 65 ug/m3
Using an Alternative Rollback Method
St. Louis, MO, 2003
Health
Effects
Short-
Term
Exposure
Mortality
Long-
Term
Exposure
Mortality
Study
Type
Ages
Lag
Other
Pollutants
in Model
Annual and Daily
Standards
Percent Change in PM-Associated Incidence*
AIIPM
concentrations
rolled back
equally
Percent rollback of upper 10%
of AQ distribution = 1.6 x
percent rollback of lower 90%
of AQ distribution
Portion of
Proportional
Rollback Incidence
Reduction Achieved
by Alternative
Rollback Method
Single Pollutant Models (Total Mortality]
Schwartz (2003b)
[reanalysis of Schwartz et
al. (1996)]
Schwartz (2003b)
[reanalysis of Schwartz et
al. (1996)1 -6 cities
Non-
accidental
Non-
accidental
all
all
mean of
lag 0 & 1
mean of
lag 0 & 1
15 ug/m3 annual
65 ug/m3 daily
15 ug/m3 annual
65 ug/m3 daily
18.0%
0.0%
18.0%
0.0%
17.5%
0.0%
1 7.6%
0.0%
97.2%
97.8%
Single Pollutant Models
Krewski et al. (2000) - Six
Cities
Krewski et al. (2000) -
ACS
Popeetal. (2002) -ACS
extended
All cause
All cause
All cause
25+
30+
30+
15 ug/m3 annual
65 ug/m3 daily
15 ug/m3 annual
65 ug/m3 daily
15 ug/m3 annual
65 ug/m3 daily
29.7%
0.0%
29.1%
0.0%
29.2%
0.0%
29.8%
0.0%
29.2%
0.0%
29.3%
0.0%
100.3%
100.3%
100.3%
Multi-Pollutant Models
Krewski et al. (2000) -
ACS
Krewski et al. (2000) -
ACS
Krewski et al. (2000) -
ACS
Krewski et al. (2000) -
ACS
All cause
All cause
All cause
All cause
30+
30+
30+
30+
CO
NO2
O3
SO2
15 ug/m3 annual
65 ug/m3 daily
15 ug/m3 annual
65 ug/m3 daily
15 ug/m3 annual
65 ug/m3 daily
15 ug/m3 annual
65 ug/m3 daily
29.3%
0.0%
29.4%
0.0%
29.3%
0.0%
28.9%
0.0%
29.4%
0.0%
29.5%
0.0%
29.4%
0.0%
29.0%
0.0%
100.3%
100.3%
100.3%
100.3%
*For the short-term exposure studies, health effects incidence was quantified down to estimated policy relevant background level of 3.5 ug/m3. For the long-term exposure studies, health effects incidence was
quantified down to 7.5 ug/m3, which was the lowest of the lowest measured levels in the long-term exposure studies. Percents are rounded to the nearest tenth.
Note 1: Multi-city short-term exposure C-R functions were applied only to urban areas included among the cities used to estimate the function.
Note 2: Only those C-R functions for which rollbacks are predicted to result in a positive number of cases avoided are included.
Abt Associates Inc.
E-67
June 2005
-------
Exhibit E.37. Sensitivity Analysis: Estimated Annual Mortality Associated with Short-Term Exposure to PM25
When Alternative Standards Are Just Met, Assuming Various Outpoint Levels - Rollbacks
to Meet Annual Standards Using Design Values Based on Maximum vs. Average of Monitor-Specific Averages*
Pittsburgh, PA, 2003
Alternative Standards
Annual (ug/m3)
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
14
14
Daily (ug/m3)
65, 98th percentile value***
40, 98th percentile value
35, 98th percentile value
30, 98th percentile value
25, 98th percentile value
65, 99th percentile value
40, 99th percentile value
35, 99th percentile value
30, 99th percentile value
25, 99th percentile value
40, 98th percentile value
35, 98th percentile value
Incidence Associated with PM2.5 Using an Annual Design Value Based on the Maximur
of Monitor-Specific Averages**
(95% Confidence Interval)
Percent Reduction in Incidence from Current Standards
Policy Relevant
Background
=3.5 ug/m3
50
(-108-200)
0.0%
47
(-102-189)
6.0%
41
(-88-162)
18.0%
34
(-74-136)
32.0%
28
(-60-110)
44.0%
50
(-108-200)
0.0%
42
(-92-168)
16.0%
36
(-79-145)
28.0%
31
(-67-122)
38.0%
25
(-54 - 99)
50.0%
46
(-99-182)
8.0%
41
(-88-162)
18.0%
Cutpoint**
=10 ug/m3
22
(-48 - 87)
0.0%
19
(-43 - 77)
13.6%
14
(-31-56)
36.4%
9
(-21-37)
59.1%
5
(-12-20)
77.3%
22
(-48 - 87)
0.0%
15
(-34-61)
31 .8%
11
(-24 - 43)
50.0%
7
(-15-27)
68.2%
4
(-8 - 14)
81 .8%
18
(-40 - 72)
18.2%
14
(-31-56)
36.4%
Cutpoint**
=15ug/m3
10
(-23-41)
0.0%
9
(-19-34)
10.0%
5
(-12-21)
50.0%
3
(-6-11)
70.0%
1
(-3-5)
90.0%
10
(-23-41)
0.0%
6
(-13-24)
40.0%
4
(-8-14)
60.0%
2
(-4 - 7)
80.0%
1
(-2-3)
90.0%
8
(-17-31)
20.0%
5
(-12-21)
50.0%
Cutpoint**
=20 ug/m3
5
(-11-18)
0.0%
4
(-9 - 15)
20.0%
2
(-5 - 8)
60.0%
1
(-2 - 4)
80.0%
0
(-1 - 2)
100.0%
5
(-11-18)
0.0%
3
(-6 - 10)
40.0%
1
(-3 - 5)
80.0%
1
(-2 - 3)
80.0%
0
(-1 - 1)
100.0%
3
(-8 - 13)
40.0%
2
(-5 - 8)
60.0%
Incidence Associated with PM2.5 Using an Annual Design Value Based on the Average
of Monitor-Specific Averages**
(95% Confidence Interval)
Percent Reduction in Incidence from Current Standards
Policy Relevant
Background
=3.5 ug/m3
59
(-128-238)
0.0%
47
(-102-189)
20.3%
41
(-88-162)
30.5%
34
(-74-136)
42.4%
28
(-60-110)
52.5%
59
(-128-238)
0.0%
42
(-92-168)
28.8%
36
(-79-145)
39.0%
31
(-67-122)
47.5%
25
(-54 - 99)
57.6%
47
(-102-189)
20.3%
41
(-88-162)
30.5%
Cutpoint**
=10 ug/m3
31
(-66-122)
0.0%
19
(-43 - 77)
38.7%
14
(-31-56)
54.8%
9
(-21-37)
71 .0%
5
(-12-20)
83.9%
31
(-66-122)
0.0%
15
(-34-61)
51 .6%
11
(-24 - 43)
64.5%
7
(-15-27)
77.4%
4
(-8 - 14)
87.1%
19
(-43 - 77)
38.7%
14
(-31-56)
54.8%
Cutpoint**
=15ug/m3
17
(-37-67)
0.0%
9
(-19-34)
47.1%
5
(-12-21)
70.6%
3
(-6-11)
82.4%
1
(-3-5)
94.1%
17
(-37-67)
0.0%
6
(-13-24)
64.7%
4
(-8-14)
76.5%
2
(-4 - 7)
88.2%
1
(-2-3)
94.1%
9
(-19-34)
47.1%
5
(-12-21)
70.6%
Cutpoint**
=20 ug/m3
9
(-19-35)
0.0%
4
(-9 - 15)
55.6%
2
(-5 - 8)
77.8%
1
(-2 - 4)
88.9%
0
(-1 - 2)
100.0%
9
(-19-35)
0.0%
3
(-6 - 10)
66.7%
1
(-3 - 5)
88.9%
1
(-2 - 3)
88.9%
0
(-1 - 1)
100.0%
4
(-9 - 15)
55.6%
2
(-5 - 8)
77.8%
Abt Associates Inc.
E-68
June 2005
-------
Alternative Standards
Annual (ug/m3)
14
14
14
14
14
14
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
Daily (ug/m3)
30, 98th percentile value
25, 98th percentile value
40, 99th percentile value
35, 99th percentile value
30, 99th percentile value
25, 99th percentile value
40, 98th percentile value
35, 98th percentile value
30, 98th percentile value
25, 98th percentile value
40, 99th percentile value
35, 99th percentile value
30, 99th percentile value
25, 99th percentile value
Incidence Associated with PM2.5 Using an Annual Design Value Based on the Maximui
of Monitor-Specific Averages**
(95% Confidence Interval)
Percent Reduction in Incidence from Current Standards
Policy Relevant
Background
=3.5 ug/m3
34
(-74-136)
32.0%
28
(-60-110)
44.0%
42
(-92-168)
16.0%
36
(-79-145)
28.0%
31
(-67-122)
38.0%
25
(-54 - 99)
50.0%
41
(-90-165)
18.0%
41
(-88-162)
18.0%
34
(-74-136)
32.0%
28
(-60-110)
44.0%
41
(-90-165)
18.0%
36
(-79-145)
28.0%
31
(-67-122)
38.0%
25
(-54 - 99)
50.0%
Cutpoint**
=10 ug/m3
9
(-21-37)
59.1%
5
(-12-20)
77.3%
15
(-34-61)
31 .8%
11
(-24 - 43)
50.0%
7
(-15-27)
68.2%
4
(-8 - 14)
81 .8%
15
(-32 - 58)
31 .8%
14
(-31 - 56)
36.4%
9
(-21-37)
59.1%
5
(-12-20)
77.3%
15
(-32 - 58)
31 .8%
11
(-24 - 43)
50.0%
7
(-15-27)
68.2%
4
(-8 - 14)
81 .8%
Cutpoint**
=15ug/m3
3
(-6-11)
70.0%
1
(-3-5)
90.0%
6
(-13-24)
40.0%
4
(-8-14)
60.0%
2
(-4 - 7)
80.0%
1
(-2-3)
90.0%
6
(-13-22)
40.0%
5
(-12-21)
50.0%
3
(-6-11)
70.0%
1
(-3-5)
90.0%
6
(-13-22)
40.0%
4
(-8-14)
60.0%
2
(-4 - 7)
80.0%
1
(-2-3)
90.0%
Cutpoint**
=20 ug/m3
1
(-2 - 4)
80.0%
0
(-1 - 2)
100.0%
3
(-6 - 10)
40.0%
1
(-3 - 5)
80.0%
1
(-2 - 3)
80.0%
0
(-1 - 1)
100.0%
2
(-5 - 9)
60.0%
2
(-5 - 8)
60.0%
1
(-2 - 4)
80.0%
0
(-1 - 2)
100.0%
2
(-5 - 9)
60.0%
1
(-3 - 5)
80.0%
1
(-2 - 3)
80.0%
0
(-1 - 1)
100.0%
Incidence Associated with PM2.5 Using an Annual Design Value Based on the Average
of Monitor-Specific Averages**
(95% Confidence Interval)
Percent Reduction in Incidence from Current Standards
Policy Relevant
Background
=3.5 ug/m3
34
(-74-136)
42.4%
28
(-60-110)
52.5%
42
(-92-168)
28.8%
36
(-79-145)
39.0%
31
(-67-122)
47.5%
25
(-54 - 99)
57.6%
47
(-102-189)
20.3%
41
(-88-162)
30.5%
34
(-74-136)
42.4%
28
(-60-110)
52.5%
42
(-92-168)
28.8%
36
(-79-145)
39.0%
31
(-67-122)
47.5%
25
(-54 - 99)
57.6%
Cutpoint**
=10 ug/m3
9
(-21-37)
71 .0%
5
(-12-20)
83.9%
15
(-34-61)
51 .6%
11
(-24 - 43)
64.5%
7
(-15-27)
77.4%
4
(-8 - 14)
87.1%
19
(-43 - 77)
38.7%
14
(-31 - 56)
54.8%
9
(-21-37)
71 .0%
5
(-12-20)
83.9%
15
(-34-61)
51 .6%
11
(-24 - 43)
64.5%
7
(-15-27)
77.4%
4
(-8 - 14)
87.1%
Cutpoint**
=15ug/m3
3
(-6-11)
82.4%
1
(-3-5)
94.1%
6
(-13-24)
64.7%
4
(-8-14)
76.5%
2
(-4 - 7)
88.2%
1
(-2-3)
94.1%
9
(-19-34)
47.1%
5
(-12-21)
70.6%
3
(-6-11)
82.4%
1
(-3-5)
94.1%
6
(-13-24)
64.7%
4
(-8-14)
76.5%
2
(-4 - 7)
88.2%
1
(-2-3)
94.1%
Cutpoint**
=20 ug/m3
1
(-2 - 4)
88.9%
0
(-1 - 2)
100.0%
3
(-6 - 10)
66.7%
1
(-3 - 5)
88.9%
1
(-2 - 3)
88.9%
0
(-1 - 1)
100.0%
4
(-9 - 15)
55.6%
2
(-5 - 8)
77.8%
1
(-2 - 4)
88.9%
0
(-1 - 2)
100.0%
3
(-6 - 10)
66.7%
1
(-3 - 5)
88.9%
1
(-2 - 3)
88.9%
0
(-1 - 1)
100.0%
Abt Associates Inc.
E-69
June 2005
-------
Alternative Standards
Annual (ug/m3)
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
Daily (ug/m3)
40, 98th percentile value
35, 98th percentile value
30, 98th percentile value
25, 98th percentile value
40, 99th percentile value
35, 99th percentile value
30, 99th percentile value
25, 99th percentile value
Incidence Associated with PM2.5 Using an Annual Design Value Based on the Maximui
of Monitor-Specific Averages**
(95% Confidence Interval)
Percent Reduction in Incidence from Current Standards
Policy Relevant
Background
=3.5 ug/m3
37
(-80-147)
26.0%
37
(-80-147)
26.0%
34
(-74-136)
32.0%
28
(-60-110)
44.0%
37
(-80-147)
26.0%
36
(-79-145)
28.0%
31
(-67-122)
38.0%
25
(-54 - 99)
50.0%
Cutpoint**
=10 ug/m3
11
(-25 - 44)
50.0%
11
(-25 - 44)
50.0%
9
(-21-37)
59.1%
5
(-12-20)
77.3%
11
(-25 - 44)
50.0%
11
(-24 - 43)
50.0%
7
(-15-27)
68.2%
4
(-8 - 14)
81 .8%
Cutpoint**
=15ug/m3
4
(-8-15)
60.0%
4
(-8-15)
60.0%
3
(-6-11)
70.0%
1
(-3-5)
90.0%
4
(-8-15)
60.0%
4
(-8-14)
60.0%
2
(-4 - 7)
80.0%
1
(-2-3)
90.0%
Cutpoint**
=20 ug/m3
1
(-3 - 6)
80.0%
1
(-3 - 6)
80.0%
1
(-2 - 4)
80.0%
0
(-1 - 2)
100.0%
1
(-3 - 6)
80.0%
1
(-3 - 5)
80.0%
1
(-2 - 3)
80.0%
0
(-1 - 1)
100.0%
Incidence Associated with PM2.5 Using an Annual Design Value Based on the Average
of Monitor-Specific Averages**
(95% Confidence Interval)
Percent Reduction in Incidence from Current Standards
Policy Relevant
Background
=3.5 ug/m3
44
(-95-175)
25.4%
41
(-88-162)
30.5%
34
(-74-136)
42.4%
28
(-60-110)
52.5%
42
(-92-168)
28.8%
36
(-79-145)
39.0%
31
(-67-122)
47.5%
25
(-54 - 99)
57.6%
Cutpoint**
=10 ug/m3
17
(-36 - 66)
45.2%
14
(-31 - 56)
54.8%
9
(-21-37)
71 .0%
5
(-12-20)
83.9%
15
(-34-61)
51 .6%
11
(-24 - 43)
64.5%
7
(-15-27)
77.4%
4
(-8 - 14)
87.1%
Cutpoint**
=15ug/m3
7
(-15-27)
58.8%
5
(-12-21)
70.6%
3
(-6-11)
82.4%
1
(-3-5)
94.1%
6
(-13-24)
64.7%
4
(-8-14)
76.5%
2
(-4 - 7)
88.2%
1
(-2-3)
94.1%
Cutpoint**
=20 ug/m3
3
(-7-11)
66.7%
2
(-5 - 8)
77.8%
1
(-2 - 4)
88.9%
0
(-1 - 2)
100.0%
3
(-6 - 10)
66.7%
1
(-3 - 5)
88.9%
1
(-2 - 3)
88.9%
0
(-1 - 1)
100.0%
"This analysis used a function from Chock et al. (2000), age 75+ model.
"For the cutpoints above policy relevant background, the slope of the C-R function has been modified based on a simple hockeystick model (see discussion in section 2.5).
•"Current standards.
Note: Incidences are rounded to the nearest whole number; percents are rounded to the nearest tenth.
Abt Associates Inc.
E-70
June 2005
-------
Exhibit E.38. Sensitivity Analysis: Estimated Annual Mortality Associated with Long-Term Exposure to PIV2.5
When Alternative Standards Are Just Met, Assuming Various Outpoint Levels - Rollbacks
to Meet Annual Standards Using Design Values Based on Maximum vs. Average of Monitor-Specific Averages*
Pittsburgh, PA, 2003
Alternative Standards
Annual (ug/m3)
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
Daily (ug/m3)
65, 98th percentile value***
40, 98th percentile value
35, 98th percentile value
30, 98th percentile value
25, 98th percentile value
65, 99th percentile value
40, 99th percentile value
35, 99th percentile value
30, 99th percentile value
25, 99th percentile value
Incidence Associated with PM2.5 Using an Annual Design Value
Based on the Maximum of Monitor-Specific Averages**
(95% Confidence Interval)
Percent Reduction in Incidence from Current Standards
Cutpoint**
=7.5 ug/m3
403
(141 -699)
0.0%
361
(126-626)
10.4%
264
(93 - 456)
34.5%
168
(59 - 289)
58.3%
72
(25-124)
82.1%
403
(141 -699)
0.0%
287
(100-495)
28.8%
200
(70 - 345)
50.4%
114
(40-197)
71.7%
29
(10-50)
92.8%
Cutpoint**
=10 ug/m3
215
(75 - 373)
0.0%
168
(58-291)
21.9%
59
(21 -102)
72.6%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
215
(75 - 373)
0.0%
84
(29-145)
60.9%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
Cutpoint**
=12 ug/m3
25
(9-43)
0.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
25
(9-43)
0.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
Incidence Associated with PM2.5 Using an Annual Design Value
Based on the Average of Monitor-Specific Averages**
(95% Confidence Interval)
Percent Reduction in Incidence from Current Standards
Cutpoint**
=7.5 ug/m3
546
(190-950)
0.0%
361
(126-626)
33.9%
264
(93 - 456)
51 .6%
168
(59 - 289)
69.2%
72
(25-124)
86.8%
546
(190-950)
0.0%
287
(100-495)
47.4%
200
(70 - 345)
63.4%
114
(40-197)
79.1%
29
(10-50)
94.7%
Cutpoint**
=10 ug/m3
375
(130-654)
0.0%
168
(58-291)
55.2%
59
(21 -102)
84.3%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
375
(130-654)
0.0%
84
(29-145)
77.6%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
Cutpoint**
=12 ug/m3
202
(70 - 354)
0.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
202
(70 - 354)
0.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
Abt Associates Inc.
E-71
June 2005
-------
Alternative Standards
Annual (ug/m3)
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
13
13
13
13
Daily (ug/m3)
40, 98th percentile value
35, 98th percentile value
30, 98th percentile value
25, 98th percentile value
40, 99th percentile value
35, 99th percentile value
30, 99th percentile value
25, 99th percentile value
40, 98th percentile value
35, 98th percentile value
30, 98th percentile value
25, 98th percentile value
Incidence Associated with PM2.5 Using an Annual Design Value
Based on the Maximum of Monitor-Specific Averages**
(95% Confidence Interval)
Percent Reduction in Incidence from Current Standards
Cutpoint**
=7.5 ug/m3
338
(118-585)
16.1%
264
(93 - 456)
34.5%
168
(59 - 289)
58.3%
72
(25-124)
82.1%
287
(100-495)
28.8%
200
(70 - 345)
50.4%
114
(40-197)
71.7%
29
(10-50)
92.8%
273
(96-471)
32.3%
264
(93 - 456)
34.5%
168
(59 - 289)
58.3%
72
(25-124)
82.1%
Cutpoint**
=10 ug/m3
141
(49 - 245)
34.4%
59
(21 -102)
72.6%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
84
(29-145)
60.9%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
68
(24-118)
68.4%
59
(21 -102)
72.6%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
Cutpoint**
=12 ug/m3
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
Incidence Associated with PM2.5 Using an Annual Design Value
Based on the Average of Monitor-Specific Averages**
(95% Confidence Interval)
Percent Reduction in Incidence from Current Standards
Cutpoint**
=7.5 ug/m3
361
(126-626)
33.9%
264
(93 - 456)
51 .6%
168
(59 - 289)
69.2%
72
(25-124)
86.8%
287
(100-495)
47.4%
200
(70 - 345)
63.4%
114
(40-197)
79.1%
29
(10-50)
94.7%
361
(126-626)
33.9%
264
(93 - 456)
51 .6%
168
(59 - 289)
69.2%
72
(25-124)
86.8%
Cutpoint**
=10 ug/m3
168
(58-291)
55.2%
59
(21 -102)
84.3%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
84
(29-145)
77.6%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
168
(58-291)
55.2%
59
(21 -102)
84.3%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
Cutpoint**
=12 ug/m3
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
Abt Associates Inc.
E-72
June 2005
-------
Alternative Standards
Annual (ug/m3)
13
13
13
13
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
Daily (ug/m3)
40, 99th percentile value
35, 99th percentile value
30, 99th percentile value
25, 99th percentile value
40, 98th percentile value
35, 98th percentile value
30, 98th percentile value
25, 98th percentile value
40, 99th percentile value
35, 99th percentile value
30, 99th percentile value
25, 99th percentile value
Incidence Associated with PM2.5 Using an Annual Design Value
Based on the Maximum of Monitor-Specific Averages**
(95% Confidence Interval)
Percent Reduction in Incidence from Current Standards
Cutpoint**
=7.5 ug/m3
273
(96-471)
32.3%
200
(70 - 345)
50.4%
114
(40-197)
71.7%
29
(10-50)
92.8%
208
(73 - 358)
48.4%
208
(73 - 358)
48.4%
168
(59 - 289)
58.3%
72
(25-124)
82.1%
208
(73 - 358)
48.4%
200
(70 - 345)
50.4%
114
(40-197)
71.7%
29
(10-50)
92.8%
Cutpoint**
=10 ug/m3
68
(24-118)
68.4%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
Cutpoint**
=12 ug/m3
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
Incidence Associated with PM2.5 Using an Annual Design Value
Based on the Average of Monitor-Specific Averages**
(95% Confidence Interval)
Percent Reduction in Incidence from Current Standards
Cutpoint**
=7.5 ug/m3
287
(100-495)
47.4%
200
(70 - 345)
63.4%
114
(40-197)
79.1%
29
(10-50)
94.7%
312
(109-539)
42.9%
264
(93 - 456)
51 .6%
168
(59 - 289)
69.2%
72
(25-124)
86.8%
287
(100-495)
47.4%
200
(70 - 345)
63.4%
114
(40-197)
79.1%
29
(10-50)
94.7%
Cutpoint**
=10 ug/m3
84
(29-145)
77.6%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
112
(39-194)
70.1%
59
(21 -102)
84.3%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
84
(29-145)
77.6%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
Cutpoint**
=12 ug/m3
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
"This analysis used a C-R function from Pope et al. (2002) - ACS extended.
"Forthe outpoints above 7.5 pg/mS, the slope of the C-R function has been modified based on a simple hockeystick model (see discussion in section 2.5).
•"Current standards.
Note: Incidences are rounded to the nearest whole number; percents are rounded to the nearest tenth.
Abt Associates Inc.
E-73
June 2005
-------
Exhibit E.39. Sensitivity Analysis: Estimated Annual Mortality Associated with Short-Term Exposure to PM25
When Alternative Standards Are Just Met, Assuming Various Outpoint Levels - Rollbacks
to Meet Annual Standards Using Design Values Based on Maximum vs. Average of Monitor-Specific Averages*
St. Louis, MO, 2003
Alternative Standards
Annual (ug/m3)
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
14
14
Daily (ug/m3)
65, 98th percentile value***
40, 98th percentile value
35, 98th percentile value
30, 98th percentile value
25, 98th percentile value
65, 99th percentile value
40, 99th percentile value
35, 99th percentile value
30, 99th percentile value
25, 99th percentile value
40, 98th percentile value
35, 98th percentile value
Incidence Associated with PM2.5 Using an Annual Design Value Based on the Maximur
of Monitor-Specific Averages**
(95% Confidence Interval)
Percent Reduction in Incidence from Current Standards
Policy Relevant
Background
=3.5 ug/m3
191
(70-311)
0.0%
191
(70-311)
0.0%
190
(70-310)
0.5%
160
(59 - 260)
16.2%
130
(48-211)
31 .9%
191
(70-311)
0.0%
191
(70-311)
0.0%
172
(63 - 280)
9.9%
145
(53 - 235)
24.1%
118
(43 - 191)
38.2%
175
(64 - 284)
8.4%
175
(64 - 284)
8.4%
Cutpoint**
=10 ug/m3
75
(28-122)
0.0%
75
(28-122)
0.0%
75
(27-121)
0.0%
49
(18-80)
34.7%
28
(10-45)
62.7%
75
(28-122)
0.0%
75
(28-122)
0.0%
59
(22 - 96)
21.3%
38
(14-62)
49.3%
20
(7-33)
73.3%
61
(22 - 99)
18.7%
61
(22 - 99)
18.7%
Cutpoint**
=15ug/m3
29
(11-46)
0.0%
29
(11-46)
0.0%
28
(10-46)
3.4%
14
(5 - 23)
51 .7%
5
(2-8)
82.8%
29
(11-46)
0.0%
29
(11-46)
0.0%
19
(7 - 31)
34.5%
9
(3 - 14)
69.0%
3
(1-4)
89.7%
20
(7 - 33)
31 .0%
20
(7 - 33)
31 .0%
Cutpoint**
=20 ug/m3
9
(3-14)
0.0%
9
(3-14)
0.0%
8
(3-14)
11.1%
3
(1-4)
66.7%
1
(0-1)
88.9%
9
(3-14)
0.0%
9
(3-14)
0.0%
5
(2-7)
44.4%
2
(1-3)
77.8%
0
(0-1)
100.0%
5
(2-8)
44.4%
5
(2-8)
44.4%
Incidence Associated with PM2.5 Using an Annual Design Value Based on the Average
of Monitor-Specific Averages**
(95% Confidence Interval)
Percent Reduction in Incidence from Current Standards
Policy Relevant
Background
=3.5 ug/m3
201
(74 - 327)
0.0%
201
(74 - 327)
0.0%
190
(70-310)
5.5%
160
(59 - 260)
20.4%
130
(48-211)
35.3%
201
(74 - 327)
0.0%
200
(74 - 325)
0.5%
172
(63 - 280)
14.4%
145
(53 - 235)
27.9%
118
(43-191)
41 .3%
184
(68 - 299)
8.5%
184
(68 - 299)
8.5%
Cutpoint**
=10 ug/m3
84
(31 - 137)
0.0%
84
(31 - 137)
0.0%
75
(27- 121)
10.7%
49
(18-80)
41 .7%
28
(10-45)
66.7%
84
(31 - 137)
0.0%
83
(31 - 135)
1 .2%
59
(22 - 96)
29.8%
38
(14-62)
54.8%
20
(7-33)
76.2%
69
(25-112)
17.9%
69
(25-112)
17.9%
Cutpoint**
=15ug/m3
34
(13-56)
0.0%
34
(13-56)
0.0%
28
(10-46)
17.6%
14
(5 - 23)
58.8%
5
(2-8)
85.3%
34
(13-56)
0.0%
34
(12-55)
0.0%
19
(7 - 31)
44.1%
9
(3 - 14)
73.5%
3
(1-4)
91 .2%
25
(9 - 40)
26.5%
25
(9 - 40)
26.5%
Cutpoint**
=20 ug/m3
11
(4-19)
0.0%
11
(4-19)
0.0%
8
(3-14)
27.3%
3
(1-4)
72.7%
1
(0-1)
90.9%
11
(4-19)
0.0%
11
(4-18)
0.0%
5
(2-7)
54.5%
2
(1-3)
81 .8%
0
(0-1)
100.0%
7
(3-11)
36.4%
7
(3-11)
36.4%
Abt Associates Inc.
E-74
June 2005
-------
Alternative Standards
Annual (ug/m3)
14
14
14
14
14
14
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
Daily (ug/m3)
30, 98th percentile value
25, 98th percentile value
40, 99th percentile value
35, 99th percentile value
30, 99th percentile value
25, 99th percentile value
40, 98th percentile value
35, 98th percentile value
30, 98th percentile value
25, 98th percentile value
40, 99th percentile value
35, 99th percentile value
30, 99th percentile value
25, 99th percentile value
Incidence Associated with PM2.5 Using an Annual Design Value Based on the Maximui
of Monitor-Specific Averages**
(95% Confidence Interval)
Percent Reduction in Incidence from Current Standards
Policy Relevant
Background
=3.5 ug/m3
160
(59 - 260)
16.2%
130
(48-211)
31 .9%
175
(64 - 284)
8.4%
172
(63 - 280)
9.9%
145
(53 - 235)
24.1%
118
(43 - 191)
38.2%
158
(58 - 256)
17.3%
158
(58 - 256)
17.3%
158
(58 - 256)
17.3%
130
(48-211)
31 .9%
158
(58 - 256)
17.3%
158
(58 - 256)
17.3%
145
(53 - 235)
24.1%
118
(43 - 191)
38.2%
Cutpoint**
=10 ug/m3
49
(18-80)
34.7%
28
(10-45)
62.7%
61
(22 - 99)
18.7%
59
(22 - 96)
21.3%
38
(14-62)
49.3%
20
(7 - 33)
73.3%
47
(17-77)
37.3%
47
(17-77)
37.3%
47
(17-77)
37.3%
28
(10-45)
62.7%
47
(17-77)
37.3%
47
(17-77)
37.3%
38
(14-62)
49.3%
20
(7 - 33)
73.3%
Cutpoint**
=15ug/m3
14
(5 - 23)
51 .7%
5
(2-8)
82.8%
20
(7 - 33)
31 .0%
19
(7 - 31)
34.5%
9
(3 - 14)
69.0%
3
(1-4)
89.7%
13
(5 - 21)
55.2%
13
(5 - 21)
55.2%
13
(5 - 21)
55.2%
5
(2-8)
82.8%
13
(5 - 21)
55.2%
13
(5 - 21)
55.2%
9
(3 - 14)
69.0%
3
(1-4)
89.7%
Cutpoint**
=20 ug/m3
3
(1-4)
66.7%
1
(0-1)
88.9%
5
(2-8)
44.4%
5
(2-7)
44.4%
2
(1-3)
77.8%
0
(0-1)
100.0%
3
(1-4)
66.7%
3
(1-4)
66.7%
3
(1-4)
66.7%
1
(0-1)
88.9%
3
(1-4)
66.7%
3
(1-4)
66.7%
2
(1-3)
77.8%
0
(0-1)
100.0%
Incidence Associated with PM2.5 Using an Annual Design Value Based on the Average
of Monitor-Specific Averages**
(95% Confidence Interval)
Percent Reduction in Incidence from Current Standards
Policy Relevant
Background
=3.5 ug/m3
160
(59 - 260)
20.4%
130
(48-211)
35.3%
184
(68 - 299)
8.5%
172
(63 - 280)
14.4%
145
(53 - 235)
27.9%
118
(43-191)
41 .3%
166
(61 - 270)
17.4%
166
(61 - 270)
17.4%
160
(59 - 260)
20.4%
130
(48-211)
35.3%
166
(61 - 270)
17.4%
166
(61 - 270)
17.4%
145
(53 - 235)
27.9%
118
(43-191)
41 .3%
Cutpoint**
=10 ug/m3
49
(18-80)
41 .7%
28
(10-45)
66.7%
69
(25-112)
17.9%
59
(22 - 96)
29.8%
38
(14-62)
54.8%
20
(7 - 33)
76.2%
54
(20 - 88)
35.7%
54
(20 - 88)
35.7%
49
(18-80)
41 .7%
28
(10-45)
66.7%
54
(20 - 88)
35.7%
54
(20 - 88)
35.7%
38
(14-62)
54.8%
20
(7 - 33)
76.2%
Cutpoint**
=15ug/m3
14
(5 - 23)
58.8%
5
(2-8)
85.3%
25
(9 - 40)
26.5%
19
(7 - 31)
44.1%
9
(3 - 14)
73.5%
3
(1-4)
91 .2%
17
(6 - 27)
50.0%
17
(6 - 27)
50.0%
14
(5 - 23)
58.8%
5
(2-8)
85.3%
17
(6 - 27)
50.0%
17
(6 - 27)
50.0%
9
(3 - 14)
73.5%
3
(1-4)
91 .2%
Cutpoint**
=20 ug/m3
3
(1-4)
72.7%
1
(0-1)
90.9%
7
(3-11)
36.4%
5
(2-7)
54.5%
2
(1-3)
81 .8%
0
(0-1)
100.0%
4
(1-6)
63.6%
4
(1-6)
63.6%
3
(1-4)
72.7%
1
(0-1)
90.9%
4
(1-6)
63.6%
4
(1-6)
63.6%
2
(1-3)
81.8%
0
(0-1)
100.0%
Abt Associates Inc.
E-75
June 2005
-------
Alternative Standards
Annual (ug/m3)
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
Daily (ug/m3)
40, 98th percentile value
35, 98th percentile value
30, 98th percentile value
25, 98th percentile value
40, 99th percentile value
35, 99th percentile value
30, 99th percentile value
25, 99th percentile value
Incidence Associated with PM2.5 Using an Annual Design Value Based on the Maximui
of Monitor-Specific Averages**
(95% Confidence Interval)
Percent Reduction in Incidence from Current Standards
Policy Relevant
Background
=3.5 ug/m3
141
(52 - 229)
26.2%
141
(52 - 229)
26.2%
141
(52 - 229)
26.2%
130
(48-211)
31 .9%
141
(52 - 229)
26.2%
141
(52 - 229)
26.2%
141
(52 - 229)
26.2%
118
(43 - 191)
38.2%
Cutpoint**
=10 ug/m3
35
(13-57)
53.3%
35
(13-57)
53.3%
35
(13-57)
53.3%
28
(10-45)
62.7%
35
(13-57)
53.3%
35
(13-57)
53.3%
35
(13-57)
53.3%
20
(7 - 33)
73.3%
Cutpoint**
=15ug/m3
8
(3 - 12)
72.4%
8
(3 - 12)
72.4%
8
(3 - 12)
72.4%
5
(2-8)
82.8%
8
(3 - 12)
72.4%
8
(3 - 12)
72.4%
8
(3 - 12)
72.4%
3
(1-4)
89.7%
Cutpoint**
=20 ug/m3
1
(1-2)
88.9%
1
(1-2)
88.9%
1
(1-2)
88.9%
1
(0-1)
88.9%
1
(1-2)
88.9%
1
(1-2)
88.9%
1
(1-2)
88.9%
0
(0-1)
100.0%
Incidence Associated with PM2.5 Using an Annual Design Value Based on the Average
of Monitor-Specific Averages**
(95% Confidence Interval)
Percent Reduction in Incidence from Current Standards
Policy Relevant
Background
=3.5 ug/m3
149
(55-241)
25.9%
149
(55-241)
25.9%
149
(55-241)
25.9%
130
(48-211)
35.3%
149
(55-241)
25.9%
149
(55-241)
25.9%
145
(53 - 235)
27.9%
118
(43-191)
41 .3%
Cutpoint**
=10 ug/m3
41
(15-66)
51 .2%
41
(15-66)
51 .2%
41
(15-66)
51 .2%
28
(10-45)
66.7%
41
(15-66)
51 .2%
41
(15-66)
51 .2%
38
(14-62)
54.8%
20
(7 - 33)
76.2%
Cutpoint**
=15ug/m3
10
(4 - 16)
70.6%
10
(4 - 16)
70.6%
10
(4 - 16)
70.6%
5
(2-8)
85.3%
10
(4 - 16)
70.6%
10
(4 - 16)
70.6%
9
(3 - 14)
73.5%
3
(1-4)
91 .2%
Cutpoint**
=20 ug/m3
2
(1-3)
81 .8%
2
(1-3)
81 .8%
2
(1-3)
81 .8%
1
(0-1)
90.9%
2
(1-3)
81 .8%
2
(1-3)
81 .8%
2
(1-3)
81 .8%
0
(0-1)
100.0%
"This analysis used a C-R function from Schwartz (2003b).
"For the cutpoints above policy relevant background, the slope of the C-R function has been modified based on a simple hockeystick model (see discussion in section 2.5).
•"Current standards.
Note: Incidences are rounded to the nearest whole number; percents are rounded to the nearest tenth.
Abt Associates Inc.
E-76
June 2005
-------
Exhibit E.40. Sensitivity Analysis: Estimated Annual Mortality Associated with Long-Term Exposure to PIV2.5
When Alternative Standards Are Just Met, Assuming Various Outpoint Levels - Rollbacks
to Meet Annual Standards Using Design Values Based on Maximum vs. Average of Monitor-Specific Averages*
St. Louis, MO, 2003
Alternative Standards
Annual (ug/m3)
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
Daily (ug/m3)
65, 98th percentile value***
40, 98th percentile value
35, 98th percentile value
30, 98th percentile value
25, 98th percentile value
65, 99th percentile value
40, 99th percentile value
35, 99th percentile value
30, 99th percentile value
25, 99th percentile value
Incidence Associated with PM2.5 Using an Annual Design Value
Based on the Maximum of Monitor-Specific Averages**
(95% Confidence Interval)
Percent Reduction in Incidence from Current Standards
Cutpoint**
=7.5 ug/m3
596
(206-1047)
0.0%
596
(206-1047)
0.0%
592
(204- 1039)
0.7%
414
(144-726)
30.5%
239
(83-417)
59.9%
596
(206- 1047)
0.0%
596
(206- 1047)
0.0%
486
(168-853)
18.5%
327
(113-571)
45.1%
168
(58 - 293)
71 .8%
Cutpoint**
=10 ug/m3
311
(107-548)
0.0%
311
(107-548)
0.0%
306
(105-539)
1 .6%
107
(37-188)
65.6%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
311
(107-548)
0.0%
311
(107-548)
0.0%
188
(65 - 330)
39.5%
8
(3-15)
97.4%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
Cutpoint**
=12 ug/m3
23
(8-40)
0.0%
23
(8-40)
0.0%
17
(6 - 30)
26.1%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
23
(8-40)
0.0%
23
(8-40)
0.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
Incidence Associated with PM2.5 Using an Annual Design Value
Based on the Average of Monitor-Specific Averages**
(95% Confidence Interval)
Percent Reduction in Incidence from Current Standards
Cutpoint**
=7.5 ug/m3
655
(226-1153)
0.0%
655
(226-1153)
0.0%
592
(204-1039)
9.6%
414
(144-726)
36.8%
239
(83-417)
63.5%
655
(226-1153)
0.0%
647
(223-1138)
1 .2%
486
(168-853)
25.8%
327
(113-571)
50.1%
168
(58 - 293)
74.4%
Cutpoint**
=10 ug/m3
377
(130-667)
0.0%
377
(130-667)
0.0%
306
(105-539)
18.8%
107
(37-188)
71 .6%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
377
(130-667)
0.0%
368
(127-651)
2.4%
188
(65 - 330)
50.1%
8
(3-15)
97.9%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
Cutpoint**
=12 ug/m3
97
(33-171)
0.0%
97
(33-171)
0.0%
17
(6 - 30)
82.5%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
97
(33-171)
0.0%
87
(30-153)
10.3%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
Abt Associates Inc.
E-77
June 2005
-------
Alternative Standards
Annual (ug/m3)
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
13
13
13
13
Daily (ug/m3)
40, 98th percentile value
35, 98th percentile value
30, 98th percentile value
25, 98th percentile value
40, 99th percentile value
35, 99th percentile value
30, 99th percentile value
25, 99th percentile value
40, 98th percentile value
35, 98th percentile value
30, 98th percentile value
25, 98th percentile value
Incidence Associated with PM2.5 Using an Annual Design Value
Based on the Maximum of Monitor-Specific Averages**
(95% Confidence Interval)
Percent Reduction in Incidence from Current Standards
Cutpoint**
=7.5 ug/m3
498
(172-874)
16.4%
498
(172-874)
16.4%
414
(144-726)
30.5%
239
(83-417)
59.9%
498
(172-874)
16.4%
486
(168-853)
18.5%
327
(113-571)
45.1%
168
(58 - 293)
71 .8%
401
(139-702)
32.7%
401
(139-702)
32.7%
401
(139-702)
32.7%
239
(83-417)
59.9%
Cutpoint**
=10 ug/m3
201
(69 - 354)
35.4%
201
(69 - 354)
35.4%
107
(37-188)
65.6%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
201
(69 - 354)
35.4%
188
(65 - 330)
39.5%
8
(3-15)
97.4%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
92
(32-162)
70.4%
92
(32-162)
70.4%
92
(32-162)
70.4%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
Cutpoint**
=12 ug/m3
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
Incidence Associated with PM2.5 Using an Annual Design Value
Based on the Average of Monitor-Specific Averages**
(95% Confidence Interval)
Percent Reduction in Incidence from Current Standards
Cutpoint**
=7.5 ug/m3
552
(191 -970)
15.7%
552
(191 -970)
15.7%
414
(144-726)
36.8%
239
(83-417)
63.5%
552
(191 -970)
15.7%
486
(168-853)
25.8%
327
(113-571)
50.1%
168
(58 - 293)
74.4%
450
(156-788)
31 .3%
450
(156-788)
31 .3%
414
(144-726)
36.8%
239
(83-417)
63.5%
Cutpoint**
=10 ug/m3
262
(90-461)
30.5%
262
(90-461)
30.5%
107
(37-188)
71 .6%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
262
(90-461)
30.5%
188
(65 - 330)
50.1%
8
(3-15)
97.9%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
147
(51 - 258)
61 .0%
147
(51 - 258)
61 .0%
107
(37-188)
71 .6%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
Cutpoint**
=12 ug/m3
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
Abt Associates Inc.
E-78
June 2005
-------
Alternative Standards
Annual (ug/m3)
13
13
13
13
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
Daily (ug/m3)
40, 99th percentile value
35, 99th percentile value
30, 99th percentile value
25, 99th percentile value
40, 98th percentile value
35, 98th percentile value
30, 98th percentile value
25, 98th percentile value
40, 99th percentile value
35, 99th percentile value
30, 99th percentile value
25, 99th percentile value
Incidence Associated with PM2.5 Using an Annual Design Value
Based on the Maximum of Monitor-Specific Averages**
(95% Confidence Interval)
Percent Reduction in Incidence from Current Standards
Cutpoint**
=7.5 ug/m3
401
(139-702)
32.7%
401
(139-702)
32.7%
327
(113-571)
45.1%
168
(58 - 293)
71 .8%
304
(106-532)
49.0%
304
(106-532)
49.0%
304
(106-532)
49.0%
239
(83-417)
59.9%
304
(106-532)
49.0%
304
(106-532)
49.0%
304
(106-532)
49.0%
168
(58 - 293)
71 .8%
Cutpoint**
=10 ug/m3
92
(32-162)
70.4%
92
(32-162)
70.4%
8
(3-15)
97.4%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
Cutpoint**
=12 ug/m3
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
Incidence Associated with PM2.5 Using an Annual Design Value
Based on the Average of Monitor-Specific Averages**
(95% Confidence Interval)
Percent Reduction in Incidence from Current Standards
Cutpoint**
=7.5 ug/m3
450
(156-788)
31 .3%
450
(156-788)
31 .3%
327
(113-571)
50.1%
168
(58 - 293)
74.4%
348
(121 -608)
46.9%
348
(121 -608)
46.9%
348
(121 -608)
46.9%
239
(83-417)
63.5%
348
(121 -608)
46.9%
348
(121 -608)
46.9%
327
(113-571)
50.1%
168
(58 - 293)
74.4%
Cutpoint**
=10 ug/m3
147
(51 - 258)
61 .0%
147
(51 - 258)
61 .0%
8
(3-15)
97.9%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
32
(11-56)
91 .5%
32
(11-56)
91 .5%
32
(11-56)
91 .5%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
32
(11-56)
91 .5%
32
(11-56)
91 .5%
8
(3-15)
97.9%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
Cutpoint**
=12 ug/m3
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
0
(0-0)
100.0%
"This analysis used a C-R function from Pope et al. (2002) - ACS extended.
"Forthe outpoints above 7.5 pg/mS, the slope of the C-R function has been modified based on a simple hockeystick model (see discussion in section 2.5).
•"Current standards.
Note: Incidences are rounded to the nearest whole number; percents are rounded to the nearest tenth.
Abt Associates Inc.
E-79
June 2005
-------
Appendix F. Estimated Annual Health Risks Associated with PM10_2 5 Concentrations
Abt Associates Inc. F-0 June 2005
-------
F.I Primary Analysis
Exhibit F.1. Estimated Annual Health Risks Associated with Short-Term Exposure to "As Is" PM10.2.5 Concentrations
Seattle, WA, 2003
Health Effects
Hospital
Admissions
Study
Type
Ages
Lag
Other
Pollutants
in Model
Health Effects Associated with PM10.2.5 Above Policy Relevant Background*
Incidence
Incidence per 100,000
General Population
Percent of Total Incidence
Single Pollutant Models
Sheppard (2003) [reanalysis of Sheppard et
al. (1999)]**
Asthma
<65
1 day
27
(0-65)
2
(0-4)
1.7%
(0.0% -4.1%)
"Health effects incidence was quantified down to the estimated policy relevant background level of 3.5 ug/m3. Incidences are rounded to the nearest whole number; percents are rounded to the nearest tenth.
"Sheppard (2003) [reanalysis of Sheppard et al. (1999)] used daily PM10_25 values obtained from nephelometer measurements rather than from air quality monitors.
Note: Numbers in parentheses are 95% confidence intervals based on statistical uncertainty surrounding the PM 10_25 coefficient.
Abt Associates Inc.
F-1
June 2005
-------
Exhibit F.2. Estimated Annual Health Risks Associated with Short-Term Exposure to "As Is" PM10.2.5 Concentrations
St. Louis, MO, 2003
Health Effects
Respiratory
Symptoms**
Study
Type
Ages
Lag
Other
Pollutants
in Model
Health Effects Associated with PM10.2.5 Above Policy Relevant Background*
Incidence
Incidence per 100,000
General Population
Percent of Total Incidence
Single Pollutant Models
Schwartz and Neas, 2000 - 6
cities
Schwartz and Neas, 2000 - 6
cities
Lower respiratory
symptoms
Cough
7-14
7-14
Oday
0 day
6900
(-1200-20800)
27000
(11000-40900)
300
(0 - 800)
1100
(400-1600)
12.3%
(-2.2% - 36.9%)
16.4%
(6.7% -24.9%)
Multi-Pollutant Models
Schwartz and Neas, 2000 - 6
cities
Schwartz and Neas, 2000 - 6
cities
Lower respiratory
symptoms
Cough
7-14
7-14
0 day
0 day
PM2.5
PM2.5
2800
(-6900-10300)
24800
(6500-40100)
100
(-300 - 400)
1000
(300-1600)
4.9%
(-12.2% -18. 3%)
15.1%
(4.0% - 24.4%)
"Health effects incidence was quantified down to the estimated policy relevant background level of 4.5 ug/m3. Incidences are rounded to the nearest 100; percents are rounded to the nearest tenth.
"The C-R functions for lower respiratory symptoms and cough were calculated for the summer period April 1 through August 31.
Note 1: Numbers in parentheses are 95% confidence intervals based on statistical uncertainty surrounding the PM,0-2.5 coefficient.
Note 2: Multi-city short-term exposure C-R functions were applied only to urban areas included among the cities used to estimate the function.
Abt Associates Inc.
F-2
June 2005
-------
Exhibit F.3. Estimated Annual Health Risks Associated with Short-Term Exposure to "As Is" PM10.2.5 Concentrations,
Assuming Various Cutpoint Levels*
Seattle, WA, 2003
Health Effects
Hospital
Admissions
Study
Type
Ages
Lag
Other
Pollutants
in Model
Incidence Associated with PM10.2.5 Assuming Various Cutpoint Levels**
(95% Confidence Interval)
Percent of Total Incidence
(95% Confidence Interval)
Policy Relevant
Background
=3.5 ug/m3
Cutpoint
=10 ug/m3
Cutpoint
=15 ug/m3
Cutpoint
=20 ug/m3
Single Pollutant Models
Sheppard (2003) [reanalysis of
Sheppard etal. (1999)]***
Asthma
<65
1 day
27
(0 - 65)
1 .7%
(0.0% -4.1%)
12
(0 - 28)
0.7%
(0.0% -1.8%)
5
(0-11)
0.3%
(0.0% - 0.7%)
2
(0-4)
0.1%
(0.0% - 0.3%)
"Incidence was quantified down to policy relevant background level of 3.5 pg/m3, as well as down to each of the alternative cutpoints. For the cutpoints above policy relevant background, the slope of the C-R
function has been modified based on a simple hockeystick model (see discussion in section 2.5).
"Incidences are rounded to the nearest whole number; percents are rounded to the nearest tenth.
***Sheppard (2003) [reanalysis of Sheppard et al. (1999)] used daily PM10-2.5 values obtained from nephelometer measurements rather than from air quality monitors.
Abt Associates Inc.
F-3
June 2005
-------
Exhibit F.4. Estimated Annual Health Risks Associated with Short-Term Exposure to "As Is" PM10-2.5 Concentrations,
Assuming Various Cutpoint Levels*
St. Louis, MO, 2003
Health Effects
Respiratory
Symptoms
Study
Type
Ages
Lag
Other
Pollutants
in Model
Incidence Associated with PM1 0-2.5 Assuming Various Cutpoint Levels**
(95% Confidence Interval)
Percent of Total Incidence
(95% Confidence Interval)
Policy Relevant
Background
=4.5 ug/m3
Cutpoint
=1 0 ug/m3
Cutpoint
=15 ug/m3
Cutpoint
=20 ug/m3
Single Pollutant Models
Schwartz and Neas, 2000 -- 6
cities
Schwartz and Neas, 2000 -- 6
cities
Lower respiratory
symptoms
Cough
7-14
7-14
Oday
Oday
6900
(-1200-20800)
12.3%
(-2.2% - 36.9%)
27000
(11000-40900)
16.4%
(6.7% - 24.9%)
3100
(-600-9100)
5.5%
(-1.0% -16.2%)
12100
(4900-18100)
7.3%
(3.0% -11.0%)
1500
(-300 - 4200)
2.7%
(-0.5% - 7.4%)
5800
(2500 - 8600)
3.6%
(1.5% -5.2%)
800
(-100-1800)
1.3%
(-0.3% - 3.2%)
2900
(1300-4000)
1 .7%
(0.8% - 2.5%)
"Incidence was quantified down to policy relevant background level of 4.5 ug/m3, as well as down to each of the alternative cutpoints. For the cutpoints above policy relevant background, the slope of the C-R
function has been modified based on a simple hockeystick model (see discussion in section 2.5).
"Incidences are rounded to the nearest 100; percents are rounded to the nearest tenth.
Abt Associates, Inc.
F-4
June 2005
-------
Exhibit F.5. Estimated Annual Hospital Admissions for Asthma (Age < 65) Associated with Short-Term
Exposure to PM10.2.5 When Alternative Standards Are Just Met, Assuming Various Outpoint Levels*
Seattle, WA, 2003
(2003 As Is Levels = 11.4 ug/m3 Annual Average; 26.2 ug/m3 98th Percentile Daily Value)
"As Is" PM10^ 6 Concentrations and Alternative Daily
Standards (ug/m3)
"As is" PM10.2.5 concentrations
80 ug/m3 daily 98th percentile value
65 ug/m3 daily 98th percentile value
50 ug/m3 daily 98th percentile value
30 ug/m3 daily 98th percentile value
25 ug/m3 daily 98th percentile value
100 ug/m3 daily 99th percentile value
80 ug/m3 daily 99th percentile value
60 ug/m3 daily 99th percentile value
35 ug/m3 daily 99th percentile value
30 ug/m3 daily 99th percentile value
Incidence Associated with PM10_26
(95% Confidence Interval)
Percent Reduction in Incidence from "As Is" PM10^5 Concentrations
Policy Relevant
Background
=3.5 ug/m3
27
(0 - 65)
0.0%
27
(0 - 65)
0.0%
27
(0 - 65)
0.0%
27
(0 - 65)
0.0%
26
(0 - 63)
3.7%
21
(0-51)
22.2%
27
(0 - 65)
0.0%
27
(0 - 65)
0.0%
27
(0 - 65)
0.0%
24
(0 - 58)
11.1%
20
(0 - 48)
25.9%
Cutpoint**
=10 ug/m3
12
(0 - 28)
0.0%
12
(0 - 28)
0.0%
12
(0 - 28)
0.0%
12
(0 - 28)
0.0%
11
(0 - 26)
8.3%
7
(0-16)
41 .7%
12
(0 - 28)
0.0%
12
(0 - 28)
0.0%
12
(0 - 28)
0.0%
9
(0 - 22)
25.0%
6
(0-14)
50.0%
Cutpoint**
=15 ug/m3
5
(0-11)
0.0%
5
(0-11)
0.0%
5
(0-11)
0.0%
5
(0-11)
0.0%
4
(0-10)
20.0%
2
(0-5)
60.0%
5
(0-11)
0.0%
5
(0-11)
0.0%
5
(0-11)
0.0%
3
(0-8)
40.0%
2
(0-4)
60.0%
Cutpoint**
=20 ug/m3
2
(0-4)
0.0%
2
(0-4)
0.0%
2
(0-4)
0.0%
2
(0-4)
0.0%
1
(0-3)
50.0%
0
(0-1)
100.0%
2
(0-4)
0.0%
2
(0-4)
0.0%
2
(0-4)
0.0%
1
(0-2)
50.0%
0
(0-1)
100.0%
*This analysis used a C-R function from Sheppard (2003).
**For the outpoints above policy relevant background, the slope of the
Note: Incidences are rounded to the nearest whole number; percents
C-R function has been modified based on a simple hockeystick model (see discussion in sect
are rounded to the nearest tenth.
Abt Associates Inc.
June 2005
-------
Exhibit F.6. Estimated Annual Days of Cough Among Children Associated with Short-Term
Exposure to PM10_25 When Alternative Standards Are Just Met, Assuming Various Cutpoint Levels*
St. Louis, MO, 2003
(2003 As Is Levels = 12.0 ug/m3 Annual Average; 24.1 ug/m3 98th Percentile Daily Value)
"As Is" PM10.25 Concentrations and Alternative Daily
Standards (ug/m3)
"As is" PM ,0.2.5 concentrations
80 ug/m3 daily 98th percentile value
65 ug/m3 daily 98th percentile value
50 ug/m3 daily 98th percentile value
30 ug/m3 daily 98th percentile value
25 ug/m3 daily 98th percentile value
100 ug/m3 daily 99th percentile value
80 ug/m3 daily 99th percentile value
60 ug/m3 daily 99th percentile value
35 ug/m3 daily 99th percentile value
30 ug/m3 daily 99th percentile value
Incidence Associated with PM10^6
(95% Confidence Interval)
Percent Reduction in Incidence from "As Is" PM10.2.5 Concentrations
Policy Relevant
Background
=4.5 ug/m3
27000
(11000-40900)
0.0%
27000
(11000-40900)
0.0%
27000
(11000-40900)
0.0%
27000
(11000-40900)
0.0%
23800
(9800 - 35600)
11.9%
18600
(7800 - 27400)
31.1%
27000
(11000-40900)
0.0%
27000
(11000-40900)
0.0%
27000
(11000-40900)
0.0%
18600
(7700 - 27300)
31.1%
15200
(6400 - 22200)
43.7%
Cutpoint**
=10ug/m3
12100
(4900-18100)
0.0%
12100
(4900-18100)
0.0%
12100
(4900-18100)
0.0%
12100
(4900-18100)
0.0%
9100
(3800-13300)
24.8%
5300
(2300 - 7300)
56.2%
12100
(4900-18100)
0.0%
12100
(4900-18100)
0.0%
12100
(4900-18100)
0.0%
5200
(2300 - 7300)
57.0%
3300
(1500-4400)
72.7%
Cutpoint**
=15ug/m3
5800
(2500 - 8600)
0.0%
5800
(2500 - 8600)
0.0%
5800
(2500 - 8600)
0.0%
5800
(2500 - 8600)
0.0%
4200
(1800-6000)
27.6%
2000
(900 - 2500)
65.5%
5800
(2500 - 8600)
0.0%
5800
(2500 - 8600)
0.0%
5800
(2500 - 8600)
0.0%
1900
(900 - 2500)
67.2%
1100
(600-1400)
81.0%
Cutpoint**
=20ug/m3
2900
(1300-4000)
0.0%
2900
(1300-4000)
0.0%
2900
(1300-4000)
0.0%
2900
(1300-4000)
0.0%
2200
(1000-2900)
24.1%
1300
(600-1600)
55.2%
2900
(1300-4000)
0.0%
2900
(1300-4000)
0.0%
2900
(1300-4000)
0.0%
1200
(600-1600)
58.6%
700
(400 - 900)
75.9%
*This analysis used a C-R function from Schwartz and Neas (2000) -- 6 cities.
**For the cutpoints above policy relevant background, the slope of the C-R function has been modified based on a simple hockeystick model (see discussion in section 2.5).
Note: Incidences are rounded to the nearest 100; percents are rounded to the nearest tenth.
Abt Associates Inc.
F-6
June 2005
-------
F.2 Sensitivity Analyses
Exhibit F.7. Sensitivity Analysis: Estimated Annual Health Risks Associated with Short-Term Exposure to "As Is" P^0-2.5
Concentrations, Using Different Estimates of Background Level
Seattle, WA, 2003
Health
Effects
Hospital
Admissions
Study
Type
Ages
Lag
Other
Pollutants
in Model
Health Effects Associated with PM10-2.5 Above Policy Relevant Background of:*
1 ug/m3
Incidence
Percent of Total
Incidence
3.5 ug/m3
Incidence
Percent of Total
Incidence
7 ug/m3
Incidence
Percent of Total
Incidence
Single Pollutant Models
Sheppard (2003)
[reanalysis of Sheppard
etal. (1999)]**
Astnma
<65
i day
35
(0 - 85)
2.2%
(0.0% -5. 3%)
27
(0 - 65)
1 .7%
(0.0% -4.1%)
17
(0-41)
1.1%
(0.0% - 2.5%)
"Incidences are rounded to the nearest whole number; percents are rounded to the nearest tenth.
"Sheppard (2003) [reanalysis of Sheppard et al. (1999)] used daily PM10_25 values obtained from nephelometer measurements rather than from air quality monitors.
Note: Numbers in parentheses are 95% confidence intervals based on statistical uncertainty surrounding the PM 10_2 5 coefficient.
Abt Associates Inc.
F-7
June 2005
-------
Exhibit F.8. Sensitivity Analysis: Estimated Annual Health Risks Associated with Short-Term Exposure to "As Is" PIV]o-2.5 Concentrations, Using
Different Estimates of Background Level
St. Louis, MO, 2003
Health Effects
Respiratory
Symptoms**
Study
Type
Ages
Lag
Other
Pollutants
in Model
Health Effects Associated with PM10_2 5 Above Policy Relevant Background of:*
1 ug/m3
Incidence
Percent of Total
Incidence
4.5 ug/m3
Incidence
Percent of Total
Incidence
9 ug/m3
Incidence
Percent of Total
Incidence
Single Pollutant Models
Schwartz and Neas,
2000 - 6 cities
Schwartz and Neas,
2000 - 6 cities
Lower respiratory
symptoms
Cough
7-14
7-14
Oday
Oday
9700
(-1700-27900)
37500
(15400-56100)
17.2%
(-3.1% -49.4%)
22.8%
(9.4% -34.1%)
6900
(-1200-20800)
27000
(11000-40900)
12.3%
(-2.2% - 36.9%)
16.4%
(6.7% - 24.9%)
3600
(-600-10700)
13900
(5700-21000)
6.3%
(-1.1% -19.1%)
8.5%
(3.4% -12.8%)
Multi-Pollutant Models
Schwartz and Neas,
2000 - 6 cities
Schwartz and Neas,
2000 - 6 cities
Lower respiratory
symptoms
Cough
7-14
7-14
(Jday
Oday
PM2.5
PM2.5
3900
(-9900-14300)
34600
(9200 - 55000)
6.9%
(-17.5% -25.4%)
21.0%
(5.6% - 33.4%)
2800
(-6900-10300)
24800
(6500-40100)
4.9%
(-12.2% -18.3%)
15.1%
(4.0% - 24.4%)
1400
(-3600 - 5300)
12800
(3400 - 20600)
2.5%
(-6.3% - 9.4%)
7.8%
(2.0% -12.5%)
"Incidences are rounded to the nearest whole number, except respiratory symptoms incidences which are rounded to the nearest 100; percents are rounded to the nearest tenth.
**The C-R functions for lower respiratory symptoms and cough were calculated for the summer period April 1 through August 31.
Note 1: Numbers in parentheses are 95% confidence intervals based on statistical uncertainty surrounding the PI10-2.5 coefficient.
Note 2: Multi-city short-term exposure C-R functions were applied only to urban areas included among the cities used to estimate the function.
Abt Associates Inc.
F-8
June 2005
-------
Appendix G. Estimated Annual Health Risks Associated with "As Is" PM10
Concentrations
Abt Associates Inc., January 2005 G-0 DRAFT: Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
G.I. Relevant Population Sizes
Exhibit G.I. Relevant Population Sizes for PM10 Risk Assessment Locations
City
Boston1
Detroit2
Los Angeles3
Philadelphia4
Phoenix5
Pittsburg6
San Jose7
Seattle8
St. Louis9
Population3
Total
2,806,000
2,061,000
9,519,000
1,518,000
3,072,000
1,282,000
1,683,000
1,737,000
2,518,000
Ages 7-14
283,000 (10%)
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
307,000 (12%)
Ages ^30
—
—
5,092,000 (53%)
—
—
—
—
—
—
Ages <65
—
—
—
—
—
—
1,555,000 (90%)
—
Ages £ 65
—
249,000 (12%)
927,000 (10%)
—
359,000 (12%)
—
—
—
—
Ages <75
—
—
—
—
—
1,166,000 (91%)
—
—
—
Ages ^75
—
—
—
—
—
116,000(9%)
—
—
—
a Total population and age-specific population estimates taken from the CDC Wonder website are based on 2000 U.S. Census data. See
http://factfinder.census.gov/. Populations are rounded to the nearest thousand. The urban areas given in this exhibit are those considered in the studies used in the
PM2 5 risk assessment. The percentages in parentheses indicate the percentage of the total population in the specific age category.
1 Middlesex, Norfolk, and Suffolk Counties. 2 Wayne County. 3 Los Angeles County. 4 Philadelphia County.
5 Maricopa County. 6 Allegheny County. 7 Santa Clara County. s King County.
9 St. Louis, Franklin, Jefferson, St. Charles, Clinton (IL), Madison (IL), Monroe (IL), and St. Clair (IL) Counties and St. Louis City.
Abt Associates Inc.
G-l
June 2005
-------
G.2. Baseline Incidence Rates
Exhibit G.2. Baseline Mortality Rates for 2001 for PM10 Risk Assessment Locations*
Health Effect
Boston1
Detroit2
Los
Angeles3
Philadelphia4
Phoenix5
Pittsburgh6
San
Jose7
St.
Louis8
Seattle9
National
Average
Mortality3:
A. Mortality Rates Used in Risk Analysis for Short-Term Exposure Studies'" (deaths per 100,000 general population/year)
Non-accidental (all
ages): ICD-9 codes < 800
Non-accidental (75+):
ICD-9 codes < 800
Non-accidental (<75):
ICD-9 codes < 800
Cardiovascular (all ages):
ICD-9 codes: 390-459
Cardiovascular (all ages):
ICD-9 codes: 390-448
Cardiovascular (65+):
ICD-9 codes: 390-448
Cardiovascular (all ages):
ICD-9 codes: 390-429
776
—
—
—
—
—
—
916
—
—
416
—
—
—
581
—
—
—
—
—
207
—
—
—
—
418
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
211
—
—
761
399
—
—
—
—
494
—
—
206
—
—
—
869
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
791
469
322
328
324
273
252
Abt Associates Inc.
G-l
June 2005
-------
Health Effect
Respiratory (all ages):
ICD-9 codes: 11,35,472-
519,710.0,710.2,710.4
Respiratory (all ages):
ICD-9 codes: 460-5 19
Boston1
—
—
Detroit2
—
72
Los
Angeles3
—
—
Philadelphia4
—
—
Phoenix5
—
—
Pittsburgh6
—
—
San
Jose7
51
—
St.
Louis8
—
—
Seattle9
—
—
National
Average
80
79
*The epidemiological studies used in the risk assessment reported causes of mortality using the ninth revision of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-
9) codes. However, the tenth revision has since come out, and baseline mortality incidence rates for 2001 shown in this exhibit use ICD-10 codes. The groupings
of ICD-9 codes used in the epidemiological studies and the corresponding ICD-10 codes used to calculate year 2001 baseline incidence rates is given in Exhibit
5.4.
a Mortality figures were obtained from CDC Wonder for 2001. See http://wonder.cdc. gov/.
b Mortality rates are presented only for the locations in which the C-R functions were estimated. All incidence rates are rounded to the nearest unit. Mortality
rates for St. Louis may be slightly underestimated because some of the mortality counts in the smaller counties were reported as missing in CDC Wonder.
1 Middlesex, Norfolk, and Suffolk Counties. 2 Wayne County. 3 Los Angeles County. 4 Philadelphia County.
5 Maricopa County. 6 Allegheny County. 7 Santa Clara County.
8 St. Louis, Franklin, Jefferson, St. Charles, Clinton (IL), Madison (IL), Monroe (IL), and St. Clair (IL) Counties and St. Louis City.
9 King County.
Abt Associates Inc.
G-3
June 2005
-------
This page was intentionally left blank.
Abt Associates Inc. G-4 June 2005
-------
Exhibit G.3. Baseline Hospitalization Rates for PM10 Risk Assessment Locations'
Health Effect
Detroit1
Los Angeles2
Seattle3
Hospital Admissions (per 100,000 general population/year)
Pneumonia admissions (65 and over): ICD codes 480-487
Pneumonia admissions (65 and over): ICD codes 480-486
COPD and asthma admissions (all ages): ICD codes 490-496
COPD and asthma admissions (65 and over): ICD codes 490-496
COPD without asthma admissions (65 and over): ICD codes 490-492, 494-496
Asthma admissions (30 and over): ICD code 493
Asthma admissions (<65): ICD code 493
Cardiovascular admissions (65 and over): ICD codes: 390-429
Ischemic heart disease (65 and over): ICD codes 410-414
Dysrhythmias (65 and over): ICD code 427
Congestive heart failure (65 and over): ICD code 428
252
250
—
192
163
—
—
—
487
161
341
—
—
152
—
—
70
—
728
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
92
—
—
—
—
a Hospitalization rates are presented only for the locations in which the C-R functions were estimated. For each location, the number of discharges was divided by
the location's population from the 2000 U.S. Census estimates to obtain rates. All incidence rates are rounded to the nearest unit.
1 Wayne County. Year 2000 hospitalization data were obtained from the Michigan Health and Hospital Association.
2 Los Angeles County. Year 1999 hospitalization data were obtained from California's Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development - Health Care
Information Resource Center.
3 King County. Year 2000 hospitalization data were obtained from the State of Washington Department of Health, Center for Health Statistics, Office of Hospital
and Patient Data Systems.
Abt Associates Inc.
G-5
June 2005
-------
G.3. The PM,n data
10
PM10 data for Boston, Detroit, Los Angeles, Philadelphia, Phoenix, Pittsburgh, San Jose,
Seattle, and St. Louis were obtained for the years 1999 through 2002 from EPA's Air Quality
System (AQS). For all urban areas except Boston and San Jose, year 2002 data were used. For
Boston and San Jose, there were no monitors in any year after 1999 that met the inclusion
criterion, so year 1999 data were used.
PM10 data for all cities were obtained from monitors measuring concentrations at standard
temperature and pressure, because significantly more AQS PM10 data are reported under standard
conditions than local conditions. The numbers of days of observations by monitor and at the
composite monitor, by quarter and for the year, along with annual averages and maximum
concentrations, are given in Exhibits G.4 through G. 12 for each of the locations in the PM10 risk
assessment.
Exhibit G.4. Number of Days on which PM10 Concentration Data are Available, by Monitor
and by Quarter, and PM10 Concentrations. Boston, 1999*
Monitor
AQS 2502500248 11021
Composite1
Qi
11
11
Q2
14
14
Q3
15
15
Q4
12
12
Year
Total
52
52
Annual
Avg.
24.3
24.3
98th
Percentile
50
50
*A11 concentrations are in ng/m3; includes Middlesex, Norfolk and Suffolk Counties.
1. The number of days at the composite monitor is the number of days on which at least one of the monitors reported.
Exhibit G.5. Number of Days on which PM10 Concentration Data are Available, by Monitor
and by Quarter, and PM10 Concentrations. Detroit, 2002*
Monitor
AQS 261630001811021
Composite1
Qi
15
15
Q2
15
15
Q3
15
15
Q4
14
14
Year
Total
59
59
Annual
Avg.
20.2
20.2
98th
Percentile
49
49
*A11 concentrations are in ng/m3; includes Wayne County.
1. The number of days at the composite monitor is the number of days on which at least one of the monitors reported.
Abt Associates Inc., January 2005
G-6
DRAFT: Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Exhibit G.6. Number of Days on which PM10 Concentration Data are Available, by Monitor
and by Quarter, and PM10 Concentrations. Los Angeles, 2002*
Monitor
AQS 0603700028 11022
AQS 06037 10028 11022
AQS 0603740028 11022
AQS 060375001811021
AQS 060376012811021
AQS 060379033811021
Composite1
Qi
14
14
14
15
15
14
18
Q2
15
14
15
15
15
15
19
Q3
16
16
15
16
16
14
20
Q4
12
14
14
15
14
15
18
Year
Total
57
58
58
61
60
58
75
Annual
Avg.
45.8
37.7
36.0
37.2
33.3
29.7
36.6
98th
Percentile
79
71
62
97
56
48
55
*A11 concentrations are in ng/m3; includes Los Angeles County.
1. The number of days at the composite monitor is the number of days on which at least one of the monitors reported.
Exhibit G.7. Number of Days on which PM10 Concentration Data are Available, by Monitor
and by Quarter, and PM10 Concentrations. Philadelphia, 2002*
Monitor
AQS 42 10 100048 11021
AQS 421010037811021
AQS 421010149811021
AQS 42 10 104498 11021
Composite1
Qi
12
15
11
11
15
Q2
15
13
15
11
15
Q3
14
15
16
15
16
Q4
15
11
14
14
15
Year
Total
56
54
56
51
61
Annual
Avg.
22.3
26.5
24.6
25.1
25.4
98th
Percentile
51
83
71
64
72
*A11 concentrations are in ng/m3; includes Philadelphia County.
1. The number of days at the composite monitor is the number of days on which at least one of the monitors reported.
Abt Associates Inc., January 2005
G-7
DRAFT: Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Exhibit G.8. Number of Days on which PM10 Concentration Data are Available, by Monitor
and by Quarter, and PM10 Concentrations. Phoenix, 2002*
Monitor
AQS 040130019811021
AQS 040131003811021
AQS 040131004811021
AQS 040132001811021
AQS 040133002811022
AQS 040133003811021
AQS 040133006811021
AQS 040133007811022
AQS 040133010811021
AQS 040134003811021
AQS 040134004811021
AQS 040134006811021
AQS 040134007811021
AQS 040139812811021
AQS 040139993811021
Composite1
Qi
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
14
15
15
15
13
14
15
15
15
Q2
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
14
15
15
15
Q3
16
16
16
16
16
16
13
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
15
16
Q4
15
15
14
14
15
15
13
15
15
15
15
14
15
15
14
15
Year
Total
61
61
60
60
61
61
56
60
61
61
61
58
59
61
59
61
Annual
Avg.
52.5
37.9
36.9
40.3
43.1
36.7
44.6
80.5
54.6
59.5
38.5
62.5
31.9
69.9
28.8
47.9
98th
Percentile
98
86
72
85
76
62
90
174
102
123
77
134
67
158
78
83.9
*A11 concentrations are in ng/m3; includes Maricopa County.
1. The number of days at the composite monitor is the number of days on which at least one of the monitors reported.
Exhibit G.9. Number of Days on which PM10 Concentration Data are Available, by Monitor
and by Quarter, and PM10 Concentrations. Pittsburgh, 2002*
Monitor
AQS 4200300678 11021
AQS 4200300928 11021
AQS 4200300958 11021
Composite1
Qi
13
13
13
13
Q2
15
14
13
15
Q3
16
16
16
16
Q4
13
15
13
15
Year
Total
57
58
55
59
Annual
Avg.
19.3
23.2
18.5
20.5
98th
Percentile
54
61
59
58
*A11 concentrations are in ng/m3; includes Allegheny County.
1. The number of days at the composite monitor is the number of days on which at least one of the monitors reported.
Abt Associates Inc., January 2005
G-8
DRAFT: Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Exhibit G.10. Number of Days on which PM10 Concentration Data are Available, by
Monitor and by Quarter, and PM10 Concentrations. San Jose, 1999*
Monitor
AQS 0608500048 11024
Composite1
Qi
13
13
Q2
15
15
Q3
12
12
Q4
15
15
Year
Total
55
55
Annual
Avg.
24.6
24.6
98th
Percentile
77
77
*A11 concentrations are in ng/m3; includes Santa Clara County.
1. The number of days at the composite monitor is the number of days on which at least one of the monitors reported.
Exhibit G.ll. Number of Days on which PM10 Concentration Data are Available, by
Monitor and by Quarter, and PM10 Concentrations. Seattle, 2002*
Monitor
AQS 530332004811022
Composite1
Qi
15
15
Q2
15
15
Q3
16
16
Q4
15
15
Year
Total
61
61
Annual
Avg.
18.0
18.0
98th
Percentile
44
44
*A11 concentrations are in ng/m3; includes King County.
1. The number of days at the composite monitor is the number of days on which at least one of the monitors reported.
Exhibit G.12. Number of Days on which PM10 Concentration Data are Available, by
Monitor and by Quarter, and PM10 Concentrations. St. Louis, 2002*
Monitor
AQS 171630010811021
AQS 291895001811022
Composite1
Qi
15
15
15
Q2
13
15
15
Q3
15
16
18
Q4
15
15
15
Year
Total
58
61
63
Annual
Avg.
29.8
16.7
22.8
98th
Percentile
93
36
69
*A11 concentrations are in i-ig/m3; includes St. Louis (MO), Franklin (MO), Jefferson (MO), St. Charles (MO), Clinton
(IL), Madison (IL), Monroe (IL), and St. Clair (IL) Counties and St. Louis City (MO).
1. The number of days at the composite monitor is the number of days on which at least one of the monitors reported.
Abt Associates Inc., January 2005
G-9
DRAFT: Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
G.4 Results
Exhibit G.13. Estimated Annual Health Risks Associated with Short-Term Exposure to "As Is" PM,0 Concentrations
Boston, MA, 1999
Health Effects
Short-Term
Exposure
Mortality
Respiratory
Symptoms**
Study
Type
Ages
Lag
Other
Pollutants
in Model
Health Effects Associated with PM10 Above Policy Relevant Background*
Incidence
Incidence per 100,000
General Population
Percent of Total
Incidence
Single Pollutant Models (Total Mortality)
Klemm and Mason (2003)
[reanalysis of Klemm et al.
(2000)]
Klemm and Mason (2003)
[reanalysis of Klemm et al.
(2000)] - 6 cities
Dominici et al. (2003) [reanalysis
ofSametetal. (2000)]-
regional
Non-accidental
Non-accidental
Non-accidental
all
all
all
0 day
0 day
1 day
420
(247 - 590)
247
(142-351)
145
(13-276)
15
(9-21)
9
(5-13)
5
(0-10)
1.9%
(1.1% -2.7%)
1.1%
(0.7% -1.6%)
0.7%
(0.1% -1.3%)
Single Pollutant Models
Schwartz et al. (1994) - 6 cities
Lower
respiratory
symptoms
7-14
1 day
11600
(16400-49600)
400
(600-1800)
22.2%
(31. 6% -95.4%)
"Incidence was quantified down to the estimated policy relevant background level of 8 ug/m3. Incidences are rounded to the nearest whole number, except respiratory symptoms incidences which are rounded to
the nearest 100; percents are rounded to the nearest tenth.
**The C-R functions for lower respiratory symptoms and cough were calculated for the summer period April 1 through August 31.
Note 1: Numbers in parentheses are 95% confidence intervals based on statistical uncertainty surrounding the PM10 coefficient.
Note 2: Multi-city short-term exposure C-R functions were applied only to urban areas included among the cities used to estimate the function.
A bt Associates Inc.
G-10
June 2005
-------
Exhibit G.14. Estimated Annual Health Risks Associated with Short-Term Exposure to "As Is" PM10 Concentrations
Detroit, Ml, 2002
Health Effects
Short-Term
Exposure
Mortality
Hospital
Admissions
Study
Type
Ages
Lag
Other
Pollutants
in Model
Health Effects Associated with PM10 Above Policy Relevant Background*
Incidence
Incidence per 100,000
General Population
Percent of Total Incidence
Single Pollutant Models (Total Mortality)
Dominici et al. (2003) [reanalysis of Samet
etal. (2000)1
Ito (2003) [reanalysis of Lippmann et al.
(2000)]
Dominici et al. (2003) [reanalysis of Samet
etal. (2000)1 - regional
Non-
accidental
Non-
accidental
Non-
accidental
all
all
all
1 day
1 day
1 day
54
(9 - 99)
151
(-92 - 389)
45
(9 - 80)
3
(0-5)
7
(-4-19)
2
(0-4)
0.3%
(0.1% -0.5%)
0.8%
(-0.5% -2.1%)
0.2%
(0.1% -0.4%)
Single Pollutant Models (Cause-Specific Mortality)
Ito (2003) [reanalysis of Lippmann et al.
(2000)]
Ito (2003) [reanalysis of Lippmann et al.
(2000)1
Circulatory
Respiratory
all
all
1 day
Oday
110
(-57 - 267)
26
(-42 - 89)
5
(-3-13)
1
(-2 - 4)
1 .3%
(-0.7% -3.1%)
1 .8%
(-2.8% - 6.0%)
Single Pollutant Models
Schwartz and Morris (1995)
Ito (2003) [reanalysis of Lippmann et al.
(2000)]
Zanobetti and Schwartz (2003) [reanalysis
of Samet et al. (2000)] - distr. lag model
Zanobetti and Schwartz (2003) [reanalysis
of Samet et al. (2000)] - 14 cities
Ito (2003) [reanalysis of Lippmann et al.
(2000)]
Schwartz and Morris (1995)
Ito (2003) [reanalysis of Lippmann et al.
(2000)]
Schwartz and Morris (1995)
Ito (2003) [reanalysis of Lippmann et al.
(2000)]
Congestive
heart failure
Congestive
heart failure
COPD
COPD
COPD+
Dysrhythmias
Dysrhythmias
Ischemic heart
disease
Ischemic heart
disease
65+
65+
65+
65+
65+
65+
65+
65+
65+
mean of
lag 0 & 1
Oday
unconst.
unconst.
3 day
1 day
1 day
Oday
2 day
84
(32-134)
149
(-5 - 297)
127
(68-185)
101
(49-151)
60
(-81 -193)
24
(-5 - 54)
23
(-96-134)
68
(19-120)
187
(-7 - 376)
4
(2-7)
7
(0-14)
6
(3-9)
5
(2-7)
3
(-4-9)
1
(0-3)
1
(-5-7)
3
(1 -6)
9
(0-18)
1 .2%
(0.5% - 1 .9%)
2.1%
(-0.1% -4.2%)
3.8%
(2.0% - 5.5%)
3.0%
(1 .5% - 4.5%)
1 .5%
(-2.1% -4.9%)
0.7%
(-0.2% - 1 .6%)
0.7%
(-2.9% -4.1%)
0.7%
(0.2% - 1 .2%)
1 .9%
(-0.1% -3.8%)
Abt Associates Inc.
G-11
June 2005
-------
Health Effects
Study
Zanobetti and Schwartz (2003) [reanalysis
of Samet et al. (2000)] - distr. lag model
Ito (2003) [reanalysis of Lippmann et al.
(2000)]
Zanobetti and Schwartz (2003) [reanalysis
of Samet et al. (2000)1 - 14 cities
Type
Pneumonia
Pneumonia
Pneumonia
Ages
65+
65+
65+
Lag
unconst.
1 day
unconst.
Other
Pollutants
in Model
Health Effects Associated with PM10 Above Policy Relevant Background*
Incidence
59
(-2 - 1 20)
203
(64 - 335)
100
(60-141)
Incidence per 100,000
General Population
3
(0-6)
10
(3-16)
5
(3-7)
Percent of Total Incidence
1 .2%
(0.0% - 2.3%)
4.0%
(1 .3% - 6.5%)
1 .9%
(1 .2% - 2.7%)
"Incidence was quantified down to the estimated policy relevant background level of 8 ug/m3. Incidences are rounded to the nearest whole number; percents are rounded to the nearest tenth.
Note 1: Numbers in parentheses are 95% confidence intervals based on statistical uncertainty surrounding the PM10 coefficient.
Note 2: Multi-city short-term exposure C-R functions were applied only to urban areas included among the cities used to estimate the function.
Abt Associates Inc.
G-12
June 2005
-------
Exhibit G.15. Estimated Annual Health Risks Associated with Short-Term Exposure to "As Is" PM10 Concentrations
Los Angeles, CA, 2002
Health
Effects
Short-
Term
Exposure
Mortality
Study
Type
Ages
Model
Lag
Other
Pollutants
in Model
Health Effects Associated with PM10 Above Policy Relevant Background*
Incidence
Incidence per 100,000
General Population
Percent of Total Incidence
Single Pollutant Models (Total Mortality)
Kinney et al. (1995)
Moolgavkar (2003) [reanalysis
of Moolgavkar (2000a)]
Moolgavkar (2003) [reanalysis
of Moolgavkar (2000a)]
Dominici etal. (2003)
[reanalysis of Samet et al.
Non-accidental
Non-accidental
Non-accidental
Non-accidental
all
all
all
all
log-linear
log-linear, GAM
(stringent), 30 df
log-linear, GAM
(stringent), 30 df
log-linear, GLM,
Bayes adjusted
Oday
0 day
1 day
1 day
819
(0-1735)
85
(-610-770)
169
(-447 - 778)
459
(52-861)
9
(0-18)
1
(-6 - 8)
2
(-5 - 8)
5
(1-9)
1.5%
(0.0% -3.1%)
0.2%
(-1.1% -1.4%)
0.3%
(-0.8% -1.4%)
0.8%
(0.1% -1.6%)
Single Pollutant Models (Cause-Specific Mortality)
Moolgavkar (2003) [reanalysis
of Moolgavkar (2000a)l
Moolgavkar (2003) [reanalysis
of Moolgavkar (2000a)l
Cardiovascular
Cardiovascular
all
all
log-linear, GAM
(stringent), 30 df
log-linear, GAM
(stringent), 30 df
0 day
1 day
198
(-138-528)
168
(-177-507)
2
(-1-6)
2
(-2 - 5)
1.0%
(-0.7% - 2.7%)
0.9%
(-0.9% - 2.6%)
Multi-Pollutant Models (Total Mortality)
Kinney etal. (1995)
Kinney etal. (1995)
Dominici etal. (2003)
[reanalysis of Samet et
Dominici etal. (2003)
[reanalysis of Samet et
Dominici etal. (2003)
[reanalysis of Samet et
Dominici etal. (2003)
[reanalysis of Samet et
Non-accidental
Non-accidental
Non-accidental
Non-accidental
Non-accidental
Non-accidental
all
all
all
all
all
all
log-linear
log-linear
log-linear, GLM,
Bayes adjusted
log-linear, GLM,
Bayes adjusted
log-linear, GLM,
Bayes adjusted
log-linear, GLM,
Bayes adjusted
0 day
0 day
1 day
1 day
1 day
1 day
O3
CO
O3
03, N02
O3, SO2
03, CO
819
(0-1735)
660
(-343-1437)
454
(203 - 738)
354
(-17-738)
354
(34 - 704)
404
(85-721)
9
(0-18)
7
(-4-15)
5
(2-8)
4
(0-8)
4
(0-7)
4
(1-8)
1.5%
(0.0% -3.1%)
1 .2%
(-0.6% - 2.6%)
0.8%
(0.4% - 1 .3%)
0.6%
(0.0% -1.3%)
0.6%
(0.1% -1.3%)
0.7%
(0.2% - 1 .3%)
Abt Associates Inc.
G-13
June 2005
-------
Health
Effects
Hospital
Admission
Study
Type
Ages
Model
Lag
Other
Pollutants
in Model
Health Effects Associated with PM10 Above Policy Relevant Background*
Incidence
Incidence per 100,000
General Population
Percent of Total Incidence
Single Pollutant Models
Moolgavkar (2003) [reanalysis
of Moolgavkar (2000b)l
Moolgavkar (2003) [reanalysis
of Moolgavkar (2000b)]
Moolgavkar (2003) [reanalysis
of Moolgavkar (2000c)]
Moolgavkar (2003) [reanalysis
of Moolgavkar (2000c)]
Moolgavkar (2003) [reanalysis
of Moolgavkar (2000c)]
Linnetal. (2000) - Calif.
South Coast Air Basin**
Cardiovascular
Cardiovascular
COPD+
COPD+
COPD+
Astrima
65+
65+
all
all
all
30+
log-linear, GAM
(stringent), 30 df
log-linear, GAM
(stringent), 30 df
log-linear, GAM
(stringent), 30 df
log-linear, GAM
(stringent), 30 df
log-linear, GAM
(stringent), 30 df
log-linear
M
Moolgavkar (2003) [reanalysis
of Moolgavkar (2000b)]
Moolgavkar (2003) [reanalysis
of Moolgavkar (2000c)]
Moolgavkar (2003) [reanalysis
of Moolgavkar (2000c)l
Cardiovascular
COPD+
COPD+
65+
all
all
log-linear, GAM
(stringent), 100df
log-linear, GAM
(stringent), 100 df
log-linear, GAM
(stringent), 100df
0 day
1 day
0 day
1 day
2 day
0 day
1404
(508 - 2286)
1071
(160-1970)
473
(198-743)
482
(208 - 750)
651
(370 - 926)
61
(-100-217)
15
(5 - 24)
11
(2-21)
5
(2-8)
5
(2-8)
7
(4-10)
1
(-1-2)
2.0%
(0.7% - 3.3%)
1 .6%
(0.2% - 2.8%)
3.3%
(1.4% -5.1%)
3.3%
(1.4% -5.2%)
4.5%
(2.6% - 6.4%)
0.9%
(-1.5% -3.3%)
ulti-Pollutant Models
0 day
0 day
1 day
CO
N02
NO2
-554
(-1631 -506)
-13
(-391 - 354)
167
(-166-491)
-6
(-17-5)
0
(-4 - 4)
2
(-2 - 5)
-0.8%
(-2.4% - 0.7%)
-0.1%
(-2.7% - 2.4%)
1 .2%
(-1 .2% - 3.4%)
"Incidence was quantified down to the estimated policy relevant background level of 6 pg/m3. Incidences are rounded to the nearest whole number; percents are rounded to the nearest tenth.
**The California South Coast Air Basin represents the area included in Los Angeles, Riverside, San Bernadino and Orange Counties, excluding the mountain and desert regions of the first three counties.
Note 1: Numbers in parentheses are 95% confidence intervals based on statistical uncertainty surrounding the PM10 coefficient.
Note 2: Multi-city or multi-county short-term exposure C-R functions were applied only to counties included among those used to estimate the function.
Abt Associates Inc.
G-14
June 2005
-------
Exhibit G.16. Estimated Annual Health Risks Associated with Short-Term Exposure to "As Is" PM10 Concentrations
Philadelphia, PA, 2002
Health Effects
Short-Term
Exposure
Mortality
Study
Type
Ages
Lag
Other
Pollutants
in Model
Health Effects Associated with PM10 Above Policy Relevant Background*
Incidence
Incidence per 100,000
General Population
Percent of Total Incidence
Single Pollutant Models (Cause-Specific Mortality)
Lipfertetal. (2000) -- 7
counties
Cardiovascular
all
1 day
538
(248 - 828)
35
(16-55)
8.5%
(3. 9% -13.1%)
"Incidence was quantified down to the estimated policy relevant background level of 8 pg/m3. Incidences are rounded to the nearest whole number; percents are rounded to the nearest tenth.
Note 1: Numbers in parentheses are 95% confidence intervals based on statistical uncertainty surrounding the PM10 coefficient.
Note 2: Multi-city or multi-county short-term exposure C-R functions were applied only to counties included among those used to estimate the function.
Abt Associates Inc.
G-15
June 2005
-------
Exhibit G.17. Estimated Annual Health Risks Associated with Short-Term Exposure to "As Is" PM10 Concentrations
Phoenix, AZ, 2002
Health
Effects
Short-Term
Exposure
Mortality
Study
Type
Ages
Lag
Other
Pollutants
in Model
Health Effects Associated with PM10 Above Policy Relevant
Background*
Incidence
Incidence per 100,000
General Population
Percent of Total
Incidence
Single Pollutant Models (Cause-Specific Mortality]
Mar et al. (2003) [reanalysis of Mar et al
(2000)1
Mar et al. (2003) [reanalysis of Mar et al
(2000)1
Cardiovascular
Cardiovascular
65-100
65-100
0 day
1 day
478
(107-862)
373
(0 - 776)
16
(3-28)
12
(0-25)
7.4%
(1.7% -13.4%)
5.8%
(0.0% -12.0%)
"Incidence was quantified down to the estimated policy relevant background level of 6 |jg/m3. Incidences are rounded to the nearest whole number; percents are rounded to the nearest tenth.
Note 1: Numbers in parentheses are 95% confidence intervals based on statistical uncertainty surrounding the PM10 coefficient.
Abt Associates Inc.
G-16
June 2005
-------
Exhibit G.18. Estimated Annual Health Risks Associated with Short-Term Exposure to "As Is" PM10 Concentrations
Pittsburgh, PA, 2002
Health
Effects
Short-Term
Exposure
Mortality
Study
Type
Ages
Lag
Other
Pollutants
in Model
Health Effects Associated with PM10 Above Policy Relevant Background*
Incidence
Incidence per 100,000
General Population
Percent of Total
Incidence
Single Pollutant Models (Total Mortality)
Chock etal. (2000)
Chock etal. (2000)
Non-accidental
Non-accidental
<75
75+
Oday
Oday
Multi-Pollutant Models i
Chock etal. (2000)
Chock etal. (2000)
Non-accidental
Non-accidental
<75
75+
Oday
Oday
NO2
CO
39
(3 - 75)
48
(-23-118)
3
(0-6)
4
(-2 - 9)
0.8%
(0.1% -1.5%)
0.5%
(-0.2% - 1 .2%)
Total Mortality)
54
(9 - 99)
88
(3-171)
4
(1-8)
7
(0-13)
1.1%
(0.2% -1.9%)
0.9%
(0.0% -1.8%)
"Incidence was quantified down to the estimated policy relevant background level of 8 ug/m3. Incidences are rounded to the nearest whole number; percents are rounded to the nearest tenth.
Note 1: Numbers in parentheses are 95% confidence intervals based on statistical uncertainty surrounding the PM10 coefficient.
A bt Associates Inc.
G-17
June 2005
-------
Exhibit G.19. Estimated Annual Health Risks Associated with Short-Term Exposure to "As Is" PM10 Concentrations
San Jose, CA, 1999
Health
Effects
Short-Term
Exposure
Mortality
Study
Type
Ages
Lag
Other
Pollutants
in Model
Health Effects Associated with PM10 Above Policy Relevant Background*
Incidence
Incidence per 100,000
General Population
Percent of Total Incidence
Single Pollutant Models (Total Mortality)
Dominici et al. (2003) [reanalysis of
Sametetal. (2000)]
Fairley (2003) [reanalysis of Fairley
(1999)]
Fairley (2003) [reanalysis of Fairley
(1999)]
Dominici et al. (2003) [reanalysis of
Samet et al. (2000)1 -- regional
Non-accidental
Non-accidental
Non-accidental
Non-accidental
all
all
all
all
1 day
0 day
1 day
1 day
30
(1 - 59)
204
(76 - 329)
-31
(-160-94)
25
(-6 - 55)
2
(0-3)
12
(5 - 20)
-2
(-9 - 6)
1
(0-3)
0.4%
(0.0% - 0.7%)
2.5%
(0.9% - 4.0%)
-0.4%
(-1.9% -1.1%)
0.3%
(-0.1% -0.7%)
Single Pollutant Models (Cause-Specific Mortality)
Fairley (2003) [reanalysis of Fairley
(1999)1
Fairley (2003) [reanalysis of Fairley
(1999)1
Respiratory
Cardiovascular
all
all
Oday
0 day
28
(-11 -65)
92
(7-173)
2
(-1 - 4)
5
(0-10)
3.3%
(-1.3% -7.5%)
2.7%
(0.2% - 5.0%)
Multi-Pollutant Models (Total Mortality)
Dominici et al.(2003) [reanalysis of
Samet et al.(2000)] -- national
Dominici et al.(2003) [reanalysis of
Samet et al.(2000)] -- national
Dominici et al.(2003) [reanalysis of
Samet et al.(2000)] -- national
Dominici et al.(2003) [reanalysis of
Samet et al. (2000)1 -- national
Non-accidental
Non-accidental
Non-accidental
Non-accidental
all
all
all
all
1 day
1 day
1 day
1 day
O3
O3, NO2
O3, SO2
O3, CO
37
(17-60)
29
(-1 - 60)
29
(3 - 58)
33
(7 - 59)
2
(1-4)
2
(0-4)
2
(0-3)
2
(0-4)
0.5%
(0.2% - 0.7%)
0.4%
(0.0% - 0.7%)
0.4%
(0.0% - 0.7%)
0.4%
(0.1% -0.7%)
"Incidence was quantified down to the estimated policy relevant background level of 6 ug/m3. Incidences are rounded to the nearest whole number; percents are rounded to the nearest tenth.
Note 1: Numbers in parentheses are 95% confidence intervals based on statistical uncertainty surrounding the PM10 coefficient.
Note 2: Multi-city short-term exposure C-R functions were applied only to urban areas included among the cities used to estimate the function.
A bt Associates Inc.
G-18
June 2005
-------
Exhibit G.20. Estimated Annual Health Risks Associated with Short-Term Exposure to "As Is" PM10 Concentrations
Seattle, WA, 2002
Health Effects
Hospital
Admissions
Study
Type
Ages
Lag
Other
Pollutants
in Model
Health Effects Associated with PM10 Above Policy Relevant Background*
Incidence
Incidence per 100,000
General Population
Percent of Total Incidence
Single Pollutant Models
Sheppard (2003) [reanalysis of
Sheppardetal. (1999)]**
Asthma
<65
1 day
39
(10-66)
2
(1-4)
2.4%
(0.6% -4.1%)
"Incidence was quantified down to the estimated policy relevant background level of 6 ug/m3. Incidences are rounded to the nearest whole number; percents are rounded to the nearest tenth.
"Sheppard (2003) [reanalysis of Sheppard et al. (1999)] used daily PM2.5 values obtained from nephelometer measurements rather than from air quality monitors.
Note 1: Numbers in parentheses are 95% confidence intervals based on statistical uncertainty surrounding the PM10 coefficient.
A bt Associates Inc.
G-19
June 2005
-------
Exhibit G.21. Estimated Annual Health Risks Associated with Short-Term Exposure to "As Is" PM10 Concentrations
St. Louis, MO, 2002
Health Effects
Short-Term
Exposure
Mortality
Respiratory
Symptoms**
Study
Type
Ages
Lag
Other
Pollutants in
Model
Health Effects Associated with PM10 Above Policy Relevant Background*
Incidence
Incidence per 100,000
General Population
Percent of Total Incidence
Single Pollutant Models (Total Mortality)
Klemm and Mason (2003) [reanalysis of
Klemmetal. (2000)1
Klemm and Mason (2003) [reanalysis of
Klemm et al. (2000)] -- 6 cities
Dominici et al. (2003) [reanalysis of
Samet et al. (2000)1 - regional
Non-accidental
Non-accidental
Non-accidental
all
all
all
Oday
Oday
1 day
130
(0 - 259)
227
(1 30 - 322)
63
(13-112)
5
(0-10)
9
(5-13)
2
(1 -4)
0.6%
(0.0% - 1 .2%)
1 .0%
(0.6% - 1 .5%)
0.3%
(0.1% -0.5%)
Single Pollutant Models
Schwartz et al. (1 994) - 6 cities
Lower respiratory
symptoms
7-14
1 day
4000
(1900-5700)
200
(100-200)
7.1%
(3.3% -10.2%)
"Incidence was quantified down to the estimated policy relevant background level of 8 ug/m3. Incidences are rounded to the nearest whole number, except respiratory symptoms incidences which are rounded to the nearest 100; percents
are rounded to the nearest tenth.
"The C-R functions for lower respiratory symptoms and cough were calculated for the summer period April 1 through August 31.
Note 1: Numbers in parentheses are 95% confidence intervals based on statistical uncertainty surrounding the PM10 coefficient.
Note 2: Multi-city short-term exposure C-R functions were applied only to urban areas included among the cities used to estimate the function.
June 2005
Abt Associates Inc.
G-20
-------
United States Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards Publication No. EPA 452/R-05-007A
Environmental Protection Air Quality Strategies and Standards Division December 2005
Agency Research Triangle Park, NC
------- |