HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016/02/02 Item 5 - Additional Information . I-1�M 5
� � C �� N ����,o� ���� �
An Employee-Owned Company
Februarv 1. 2016
\-Ir. Jeff Steichen
Development Service� Department
City of Chula��i;ta
276 Fourth:�venue
Chula��i;ta. C�, 91910
Reference: 701 D Street rlir Quality Anah�ais— Em•ironmental Health Coalition Comment L.etter
(RECO\ \umber 7937)
Dear \4r. Steichen:
Thank}°ou for}our comments on the Air Quality� Analysis prepared for 701 D Street in Chula Vista,
California.
RECO\ has revie«ed the comment lecter submitted by the Environmental Health Coalition (EHC)on the
701 D 9partment Project. Thi; letter pro��ides the Cicq «�ich additional in£ormation relatire w our Air
Quality Anal}-sis.
1. The EHC comment letter idencified che ���ording of the Chula Vi;ta General Plan Polic}- E 610. The
EHC statement that the policy ha� not been met ia incorrect. A Health Risk Aasessment (HRa) «�as
prepared for the project, and the attendant healch risks were mitigated to the excent feasible and
maeimum es[ent practicable.
2. An EHC comment stated "[t]he health ri;k as;essment in incomplete and doea not reflect current of
£uture espected conditions', as it does not include modeling for the widening of the [-o free«�ay
betn een the 90o and 59 freewa�-s. Ho���ever. the Health Risk Asressment u,es the�merican
\Ieteorological Socien�/Environmental Protection Agenc}� Regulator}� �lodel (AER\IOD) to model
cehicular emi;;ion; from the free«•a}'. AER\40D is the current regulator}� model and has been
deaigned to provide a, accurate an anal}•sis aa pos�ible and is u=ed for health riek a�sessments
throughout the linited States as �cell as the state of California. It is necessar} to represent the
free�vay spatially «•ithin AER�40D. Thuc, the £reeway is characterized as a series of partiall}-
ocerlapped volume sources, e.g., cube�. The emissions from the freewa} �cere assigned to each
volume source, �vhich�vere gi��en dimensions adequate to cover the entire �vidth of the free«ay,
which provide� a reasonable prediction of the dispersion o£diesel particulate matter(PV�� for the
ecaluation of potential risk to future residents of the project. «'hile «�idening the freen�ay may� mo�-e
traffic closer to some residents. it «•ould also move traffic farther from the residents on the other�ide
of the £ree«�ay. Furthermore, the emissions used in the anal}�sis are based on current emission ratee.
Ho�ce�-er, emission rates from diesel engines ��•ill decrease due to increasingly s[ringent emission
standards and phase-out of older vehicles. 13ased on the emission estimates included in the
California Air Resources Board's (CARB)current Emissions Factor \lodel (Eil•IFAC), emissions rate;
becn•een 2015 and '2020 ��ould be reduced by approximatel}� 94 percent by 2020, 80.5 percent by
2030, and 90.5 percent by 2050. A; the «�idening of the freewa}° «ould not occur until •2035, the
anah-si� is based on the free�ca�• configuration during the highest risk period and evaluates potential
health risks £rom traffic in a reasonable manner.
1927 Fifth Avenue,San Diego,CA 92107 � 619.308.9333 � reconenvironmental.wm
SAN DIEGO � CENTRAL COAST � BERKELEY � TUCSON
\ir. Jeff Steichen
Page 2
Februarv 1. 2016
The EHC comment letter further staces that°the cancer risk analc;i; i; ba�ed on diesel particulate
only' Thi; is correct. A; stated in the report, the region-wide risk from diesel P�4 i; approximatel}-
420 in a million, thus CARB atatec "die�el Pil[ poses [he greateat health ri�k ....".' Therefore, the
health risk assessment addresses the risk-dri�•ing substance, diesel P�4, and u;ed segment-speci£ic
traffic information to calculate the risk from the ri;k-driving;ubatance. :ldditionally, the comment
attempts to adjuat to the risk resulta based on general information about contributions from other
pollutants. It is noc appropriate to simpl}- adjust the risk estimates without site-;pecific information.
Therefore, regardlesa of whether or not the impacta from benzene, 1,3-butadiene, and eth}-lbenzene
�rere included in the anal}�sis, the conclusions and mitigation pro�zded in the anal}-si��vould be
unchanged.
3. An EHC comment indicates that background lecel;of pollutants are undereatimated. The anah-si;
presents background air qualit}� data from the nearest air qualit}� monitoring;tation to the project
site aa recommended by the San Diego Air Pollution Control District. This is the onl}� source of valid
data in the project cicinity and is therefore appropriate £or this project and adequate to characterize
the air pollution at the site. It is not feasible, necessary, nor required to conduct ambient monitoring
at e��en'project �ite. Furthermore, the air qualitp analysis assesses the potential health risk from
the free«a}-, i.e., the nearest air pollution source to the project.
9. An EHC commenc states that an "acute health hazard analyais ia miaaing." This i; a correct
�tatement. Ho�recer, a; there is no state or federal acute reference espo�ure lecel for diesel Pill,
cchich as noted is the risk-driving sub�tance, the anal}'ais could not conduc[ this evaluation. The
comment also noted that California does not have a reference expoaure le��el (REL) for diesel P\I.
This i; incorrect, as California has identified an inhalation REL of 5 microgram;per cubic meter
(ug/m3)*, n hich «as u�ed in the anah�si,.
5. A comment scates that''effecti�•enesa of mitigation; i, not escablished" The comment implies that
modeling ia required to indicate ho« a �rall or cegetation �eould alter the pollution plumes or cancer
risks do«mvind of the free«�a�-. This ;tatement indicates a lack of understanding as to ho«� au
diapersion modela such as AER\10D function. There is no means of in�erting a u all or cegetation
�rithin the model to demonscrate reductions in concentration;. The model is a Gaussian plume model
and does not recognize barriers or regetation in ita calculation of do�cn«ind concentrations. IC ia
therefore not po��ible to model the effectivenes�of the micigation measurea as suggested by the
comment The anal}sis therefore must rely on published studie� sho�cing the e£fectiveness of
mitigation measurea. «�hich ���ere based on the recommendations of the California rlir Pollution
Con[rol Officers 9sc_ociation (CAPCO�,) in their 2009 guidance Health Risk dssessments(or Proposed
I,and Use Projectsj.
6. A comment states that'threshold of significance for esposure of sensitive receptor; to toxic air
contaminants should be no higher than background:' ��'hile thi� is a laudable goal, i[ is not realiatic
nor i�it consistent nith £ederal or state standards for health risk assessment; for other ,ources. �1s
the �tate and federal levels o£goaernments ha�•e identified acceptable levels of risk, the City-relie�on
the expertise of CARB and the li.5. Environmental Protection agenc�-. Additionally, it should be
noted as stated in the air quality anal}'sie:
' 77ie Ca(i(ornia.4lmm�ac o(Emissions mtd Air Qualih�-?009 Edition.
ht t p:lhvn�a�.a rb.ca.goc/aqd/a Im a nadalm anac09/pdflch a po09.p d f.
t Air Toxicolo��and Epidemiolo��. OEHHA Acu(e, 8-hour and Chronie ReJerence Esposure Leuel(REL)Sununarv.
h t tp:/!a•nn-n�.oehha.ca.goc/air/allrels.h t ml.
� Health Risk.Assessments for Proposed Land Gse Projec�s http:/h���vw•.capwa.orehcp�
conreuJuploads/'2012/03/C.4PC0 a_HRA_Lli_Guidelines_&6-09.pdf.
\Ir. Jeff Steichen
Page 3
Februar}' 1, 201G
This analysis is considered to be conser�•a[i�•e as the potential methods u;ed tend to
overestimate rather than underestimace health ri,ks . . . . �1 fir,t tier (Tier 1)
evaluation u;es the high-end point estimate (i.e., the 95th percenciles) breathing
rates for the inhalation . . . . These higher breathing rates result in incremental
cancer risk estimates that represent the upper-range of predictions and therefore
health ri;k, that ma}• be associated �cith exposure to vehicles.
Therefore, the Ci[c's reliance on the methoda and ;tandards of these agencies is appropriate.
7. An EHC comment states that the "project fails to heed the science-based guidance in the r1RB Air
Qicolity ond Lond lise Horadbook" The comment goes on to state that the project should not be
located within 500 feet of the free�cay. However, aa stated by CARB �S�hen the Hmidbook �+�as
prepared (2004):
. . long-term goal [of CARB] is to reduce diesel P\I emi;aions 85% by� 2020.
Ho�cerer, cleaning up diesel engine� �rill take time as nec� engine standarda pha;e in
and programs to accelerate flee[ turno��er or retrofit exicting enginea are
implemeuted.
At this point in time, the majorit}' of CARB',diesel Pil4 reduction regulations hace been
implemented, �rhich have reduced and will continue to reduce dieael P\I emissions, as discussed
under respon�e 2. Thu;, the 500-foot�eoback is based on older emi�sions data and is offered as
precautionary distance based on the set-back required for schoola unless an anah�sis is conducted.
Baaed on the mitigation provided. the o00-foot ;et-back i, not necessarq. Ho�verer, aa stated b}-
CARB:
. anv recommendations or considerations contained in the Handbook are �oluntarc
and do not mnstimce a requirement or mandate for either land u,e agencies or local
air districts."
8. An EHC comment states the °HRA does not include all feasible mitigations." The anal}-sis haa
provided mitigation sufficient to reduce the impacts to the extenc feasible and practicable. As the
impacts n�ere mitigated to lesa than significan[, [he project doe� noc need to implement all feasible
mitigation measures. The identified mitigation would be included in the project requirements and in
rental disclosures. Furthermore, the �ugge�tion that the project moce all future resident� 000 feet
from the free«�ac ia not a fea;ible measure. as the encire site is located «ithin 500 feet of the
free�cay, and this mea�ure �vould, by definition, create a different project. In addition, as the project
site i� zoned R3P (Apartment Residen[ial Precise Plan) and is designated as RH (Residential—High)
in the General Plan, the project�could be con,i;tent �eith the General Plan land u;e designa[ion and
�vith the gro�vth anticipated b}� the General Plan and San Diego�1�aociation of Governments.
Please let me kno«• if}ou have any questions or require an}� further information.
Sincereh'.
i
w�,�.,� -�'�. �.�'-�=-�{
R'illiam \laddux
Senior Technical Speciali;t
\\'A\Leab
\4eedn� of the Cit�� Council
Febivarv 2, 2016
ITE�4 � �
ATTACHED IS ADDITIO\'AL I\'FORi�lAT10\� RECEIVED SUBSEQUENT TO THE
F[LI�G OF THE APPEAL BY THE APPELLA\'T O\ DECEMBER 1�, 2015.
. Jeff Steichen
From: Pauicia Hguilar
Sent Friday, January 15, 2016 1:G4 PFA
To:
Cc: Jeff Steichen
� Su6ject: FW: Environmenial Health Coalition comments on condo proposal at 701 D Street
Attachments: EHC toCouncil CondoProject Final.pdf
Dear Mr. Spooner; I wanted to make you aware of the attached correspondence members of the City Council received
from the Environmental Health Coalition (EHC) regarding the 701 D St. project. City staff is looking into the health-
related issues raised in EHCs letter. I am writing to let you know this may cause a delay in the date your appeal will be
heard by the city muncil,which was ientatively set for february 2.
We will try io keep you informed. And of course you can always reach out to the project manager, leff Steichen, for
inEormation.
Let us know if you have any quesiions. Best,
Councilrnernber Patricia Aguilar
Ciry ojGutt�: Vistn
(629) 641-5(14�
yagui]orQdr�rin aistaca.goa
From: Laura Hunter
Sent: Thursday, )anuary 14, 2016 3:15 PM
To: Mary Salas; Pamela Bensoussan; Patrida Aguilar; John McCann; Steve Miesen
Subject: Environmental Health Coalition comments on condo proposal at 701 D Street
Dear Mayor Salas and Ciry Council,
We hope you had a great New Year! I �vill be contaciing all of you soon to request a meeting about a few issues in Chula
Vista.
In the meantime, Environmental Health Coalition has asked me to transmit this comment letter regarding the proposed
development at 701 D street. There are very significant deficiencies in the Health Risk Assessment that should be
resolved before this project is considered. further,given the very serious heaith risks posed by freeway air pollution to
children,this should be evaluated for consistency with the recently adopted Healthy Chula Vista Action Plan initiative.
As Joy\Nilliams will be on vacation for several weeks, please direct any comments or questions to me.
Thznk you for conside�ing these comments.
laura Hunter
i
. ��91'+�.a1.y .
'i� 'y i�'�:f'�;'i�
:=�`+�i�y���p'e :,r:
�.�E�vi�a��aFr�ia� = �� � �.:,... . _ _��� e4 _ - -< -
HEALTH C�al1TlOM , •�� � �' � � � :� , `. �, s : . ` �., � r~,� �i : i::`�=�','�J
_ - °':` •'�:.i �:� r�."�'r � -,-"y. '- 'ro,; =rx°_ - i
Ianuary l7, 2016
b4ayor Salas and City Council
Chula Vista City Council
Chula Vista, CA
RE: Opposition to location of residential uses�vithin 500 feet of a free�vay
Dear Mayor Salas and City Council members,
Environmental Health Coali[ion (EHC) �vas involved in the creation of[he Chula Vista
General Plan Update and the Specific Plan. One of the significant improvements to the
General plan policies was the inclusion of policy E 6.10. that attempted to reflect the
guidance from the Air Resources Board that homes and other sensitive uses should not be
located �vithin 500 fee[of a free�vay.
General Plan Policy E 6.10 reads: The siting of new sensitive receivers�vithin 500 feet of
highways resulting from development or redevelopment projects shall require the
preparation of a health risk assessment as part ojthe CEQA �evie�v o�the project Attendant
health risks identi�ed in the Health RiskAssessment(HR.9)shQll be feasibly mitigated to the
maximum extent practicable, in accordance with CEQA, in order to help ensure that
applicoble federal and state standords are not exceeded.
We have recently learned of a project[hat is proposed that would put people in harm's way
by locating residences within this buffer zone.
While a project Health Risk Assessment (HRA] has been drafted, this policy has not been
met It is impor[ant to remember the point of a HRA is to assess the situation so that the
project can be revised to prevent health risks to future residents. There are several
deficiencies with the HRA listed belo�v and there are mitigation measures that should be
adopted that have not been.
Due to major health concerns for future residents living there and [he precedent this
action may set, Environmental Health Coalition unequivocally opposes the location
of condos within the 500 foot zone from the freeway and the off-ramp.
There are several reasons for this position.
1. The Health Risk Assessment in incomplete and does not reflect current or future
expected conditions.
EMPOWfRING PEUPIE.OR6AHIIING COMMUNITIES.sCNIEVIN6 JUSTICE.
EHPODERANDO p LA GENTE.ORGdHIIGNDO A LAS COMUNIUADES.L06R�NDO lA JUSTICIA.
,
The Srli\'DAG Phased Revenue Consu'ained \'etwork plan for 203� includes two additionaf
lanes on the l-5 freeway in Chula Vista benveen the 40� and the i4 free�vays.� fFthese lanes are
added [o the outer lanes of the freemay, the edge of[he freeway witl be even closer ro residencu.
The ne�v Ianes will increase capacity on the road�vay, uitimately resulting in additional V\9T on
this segment of road�vay, as induced demand increases the volume of traffia The HRA must
address this potentially major impact on the freeway and the resulting exposure to trafEic
pol lutanu.
Immediately to the north, the I-5 will be expanded with hro additional managed lanes and two
additional general purpo'se lanes. The impacts of these expansions on the Chula Vista portion of
the 1-� must be examined as well, as a bottleneck resulting from the"southbound flow of traffic
from National City into Chula Vista may create congestion and added traffic pollutant exposure
to [he residents at 701 D Street.
Ic also does not appear that the Flo�v of traff'ic in the oFf-ramp to 54 is included in the .
analysis.
2. The Cancer Risk Anal}�sis is Based on Diesel Only
Even without the estimates of future freeway impacts, the estimated cancer hazards of freeway
traffic impacts are over 10/million for the most exposed residential recep[ors:
• �1.8 per million £or a 70-year exposure;
• 38.1 per million for a 30-year exposure;
• 27.2 per million for 9 years of childhood exposure.
Based on the discussion of cancer risk on page 32 of the draft air quality analysis, the cancer risk
analysis �vas based exclusivety on diesel inhalation. It is true that diesel is the dominant health
hazard in California's air and accounu for appro.+cimately 70%oCthe cancer risk hazazd from
ambient air pollution, according to Califomia ARB. However, it is not the sole cancer-causing
a�ent in haffic pollurion. Other pollutants such as benzene, ethylbenzene, and butadiene also add
to the hazard. The l00% cancer risks [o the most exposed residential receptors, then, would be:
• 64 per million for a 70-year exposure;
• 54 per million for a 30-year exposure; and
• 38.8 per million for 9 years ofchildhood exposure.
The conclusion of the cancer risk analysis, that health hazards are below 10 per million, is cleazly
untrue.
3. Background Pollution Levels are Underestimated
� h�://w�F�v.sdforn�ard.com,pd(vRP tinaU.Annendi�-
T2ns�o�tationProjecuCosUandPliasi ne.udf
�
Fwther; the background level of puitution Eor residenis in tiiis area is underestimated. The HRA
should have anal;zecl the site as a `localized hotspor noc as part oF the region. Peopte who live
in the project ���ill be directly adjacent to significant air pollution. These are the levels of
pollution they will breathe, not the air at tlie station ai 30 E. ! street(over 2 miles a�vay) where
ihe potlution has already diluted.
d..Acute Health Hazard Analysis is �•lissing
The hazards of short-term impacts of high levels of eaposure, such as happens during rush hours
and ot6er periods of high traffic levels, are noi addressed at a1L It should be no[ed in the analysis
ti�at Cafifornia does not have a REL for dieselZ and the question of shorter term impacts, such as
as�hma exacerbations, is outs[anding. Placement of resideatial housing within �00 feet of a
� . &ee�vay creates an obvious question about potential impacts of exposure to peak periods of
traffic pollution, and the RECON analysis does not answer that question, or even aclrnowledge
that decision makers and potential residents might reasonably want this information.
5. Effectiveness of 1litigations is Not Established
The document asserts that mitigations such as sound rvalls and vegetation ���ill reduce.the health
hazard to le��els considered acceptable by agencies. Ho�ve��er, oo modeling is included to
indicate how a wall or vegetation would alter the pollution plumes or risk isopleths do«mwind of
the free���ay. A related question is whether a sound �vall mal:es pollution levels further from the
&eeway higher, as at least some modeling sho«•s.3 No recommendations are pro�rided on how
hiah a w�all would be needed ro effecti<<ely reduce levels oF traffic pollurion to back�ound le��els.
No miri�ations aze proposed that would locate the residential buildin�s beyond �00 feet of the
&eeway, such as by siting the parking areas on the side of the parcel that is closest to the
free�vav.
6. Threshold of Significance For Exposure of Sensiti�•e Receptors to Toric rtir
Contaminants Should Be \'o Righer Than Background
The Lead A�ency for a project has the legal authority and, in fact, is eacouraged under CEQA -
Guidelines §15064.7 to develop and publish its o�vn thresholds of significance. In determining
���hether an effect will be adverse or beneficial, the lead apenc�� shall consider t6e ��e�vs held
by members of the public io all areas affected as eipressed in the «�hole record before the
lead agency. (§ 1�064.7(c)) Lead agencies may also consider thresholds of significance
pre��ously adopted or recommended by other public a2encies, or recommended by experts,
pro�ided the decision of the lead anenc�� to adopt such thresholds is supported b}�
substantial evideuce. (§15064.7(b))
=h:to�/1ww4v.oehha.ca.¢ov/air/allrels.html
'Nerg et al.,2010,summarized in htio'//www aqmd Rov/docsldefault-source/txhnoloRV-resezrfi/Technoloev-
Forumslnear-roa d-mitiQation-measures/ucr-ven<a tram.odi?svrsn=2
3
CEQA Guidelines recognize that the level of impacts and their significance depends upon a
multitude of Eactors such as project setting, desi�n; constttiction, etc. CEQA Guidelines also call
for careful judgment based on scientific and factual data to dfe extent possible and esplain, "For
example, an activity which may not be significant in an urban area may be significant in a nral
area." (§ I�06d(b)).
The census hact in ��•hich the site is located ranks hieh on Califomia's screenine mode( for
environmental justice, CalEnviroScreen. The census tract ranks in the top 36-90% state�vide,
meaoing that it scores hi�her on combined indicators for environmental pollution and
socioeconomic �vinerability than 36 to 90% of all census tracts wiihin the state. �Vithin the San
Diego re�ion, this tract is the l0`�highest, ou[of 623 tracts. A CalEn�zroScreen indicator of
particulaz rele��ance is the traffic deosity indicator; on this measure of traffic impact, the site
census tract is at the 91.3� percentile statewide. Clearly, residents in this census tract are already
exposed ro traf5c at higher than normal le��els, e.en for Califomia. Other indicaton on which
tivs tract has Ev�h CalEm�iroScreen percentiles include Cleanup Sites, Hazardous �Vaste, Low
Birth \Veight, Education levels, Linguistic [solation, Poverty, and Unemplo}Tnent.
According to the most recent APCD Air Quality Nehvork Analysis, The ciry ojChida Yisto hos
one of the highest rates ojrespiratory aiLnents in the County. 4
Table 3.1 Health Risks Sucnmary by Stadon in the \'en��ork Assessment notes that the Chula
Vista area has "Very high rates jor rhrs locotion/starron and surrounding orea... " The maximum
ranking is 10 (the �vorst). Chula Vista is a 9.
Residents of this communiry aeed affordable housin� [hat does oot create illness or��rorsen the'u
, health status. EHC recommends that additional anal}sis be completed to fully elucidate the
health hazazds of this site, and de��elop site-specific mitigations that will reduce health hazards to
background levels.
7. Project fails to heed the science-based guidance in the ARB Air Quality and Land
Use Handbook.
Another serious deticiency is the location of homes �vithin 500•1,000 feet of the freeway.
The Air Resources Board Air Quolity and Lend Use Hondbook:A Community Health
Perspective is relevant here. The ARB guidelines recommend a minimum separation
beriveen residential development and free�vays of S00 feet to avoid increased cancer
and non-cancer risks.�
Further, the Handbook finds that additiona] non-cancer health risks are attributable to
prmcimity within 1,000 feetb The project directly contravenes the Air Resources Board
�hi:n:Nwwwsdaocd.or�/air/reports/2015 Network Assessment.odf, page 5. -
>200�April http://�+�nv.arb.ca�ov/ch/handbook.odf
6 200�Ibid,ARB land Use Guidelines,Table 2-2
4
Land Use guidance. Any homes�vithin this area should be abandoned as they are too close
to the iree��ray For good health of the residents.
t-Ve understand that this guidance is not regulation. Ho�vever, it is the guidance of the air
reo lators based on the abundant science, is clear—locating homes within 500•1000 feet
of a free�vays is unhealthful.
The developers are urged to examine their conscience to see if they really want to be the
vehicle by which future residents, including pregnant women, children, and elderly are at
high risk of asthma, birtti de{ec[s, cancer, and oiher health hazards due to their poor
planning. The City shoufd evaluate this as well as a matter of policy. If no change is made,
then this issue is a significant and unmitigated impact and the Council shouid deny the
• project altoge[her.
To better protect future residents, the project should be revised to remove all homes from
the knotm unhealthful areas within 1,000 feet of the fi-eeway. We hope the Ciry�vill
require the developers to move residents out oi harm's �vay.
8. HRA does not include all feasible mitigations.
The most obvious and feasible mitigation is to move all homes out of the 500 foot zone.
The filters cannot be assumed to protect residents since there is no guarantee they�vili be
run or maintained. To be effective, the planning would have to have a filtration system that
could not be.controlled by individual owners and was maintained as a mitigation measure.
Such a mitigation is not included so any benefiCS of the filters are not guaranteed. There
are many reason �vhy future residents may not run their filters—cost, desire to reduce
energy use, etc...
Even if[he electrostatic filters remove all par[iculates, children �vill be playing outside
�vhere the air is unfiltered. The project should be re-designed to move all residendal and
playground areas away from the free�vay.
Thank you for the opportuniry ro comment on this matter.
Sincerely,
� GI�uLc�`'`'`
Joy�VIlliams, A-1PH
Research Director
�
. �eff Steichen
from: Valorie Thompson
Sent_ � i,ionday, January 18, 2016 12:38 Ptvt
To: Je(f Steichen
Subjed: RE: Air Quality Analysis, 701 D Street, City of Chula Uista (RECON Plumber 7937)
Attachments: 701 D AQ Comment Letter 011816.docx
1eff, �
Here are my preliminary thoughts on the letter that was sent. In my opinion the only issue that has potential merit is
the issue regarding other pollutanis(benzene, 1,3-butadiene, and ethylbenzene); however, I do not believe that the
conclusions o(the study would change, nor would the mitigation measures.
let me know if you want to discuss
Valorie
From: Jeffi Steichen [mailto:JsteichenCalchulavistaca.aov]
Sent: Friday, January 15, 201b 2:05 PM
To: Valorie Thompson
Subject: RE: Air Quafity Analysis, 701 D Street, City of Chula Vista (RECON Number 7937)
Importance: High
Valerie,
Per my voicemail message to you, I've been asked by our director to have you review the attached letter that was just
sent to the Mayor and City Council questioning the adequacy of the health risk assessment that was prepared for the
701 "D" Street project, for which you conducted ihe third party review. Could you please review and comment on this
letter at the earliest convenience. We will pay you for the time you spend on this.
Thanks,
Jefi
From: Valorie Thompson
Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2015 9:22 AM
To: ]eff Steichen
Subject: RE: Air Quality Analysis, 701 D Street, City of Chula Vista (RECON Number 7937)
leff,
I have two minor comments, plezse see the attached letter. Otherwise I am satisfied thai the report has been corrected.
Valorie
From: Jeff Steichen [mailto:)steichen�chulavis�ca.gov]
Sent: i�londay, Odober 12, 2015 11:47 AM
To: Valorie Thompson
Subject: RE: Air Qualiry Analysis, 701 D Street, Ciry of Chula Vsta (RECON Number 7937)
i
�/a'�Olie, � ' . .
i.icC�led is response ta com:neni!eLtFf 3iV!I�fCVISe�i1!�QUdiiC�A�21y515. PICBSZ COflf�fill feC2lj�i.
rhanics,
leff
From: Valorie Thompson
Sent: �Nzdnesday, October 07, 2015 820 AM
To: ]eff Steichen
Subjed: RE: Air Qualiry Analysis, 701 D Street, City of Chula Vista (RECON Number 7937)
leff,
I have no additional comments on the GHG analysis. i do, however, have continued concernz about the Air Quality
Analysis with regard to the air toxics analysis that has been conducied for[he project. Please see the attached letter
and let me know if you have any questions. Thanks.
valorie
From: Jeff Steichen [mailto:JsteichenCa�chulavistaca.gov]
Sent: Tuesday, October 06, 2015 2:13 PM
To: Valorie Thompson
Subject: FVJ: Air Quality Analysis, 701 D Street, City of Chula Vista (RECON Number 7937)
valorie,
Atiached please find response to previous comments and revised Air Quality Report. Please review this revised
document and provide comments (revised GHG Analysis will be sent in separate email).
Thank You,
Jeff
z
T'ft;iLl�i�i"��.a�i�1.�=y�- •v�•,N�.
=.��-�c' �,s'-f.���i�'�7�� ''„�� •
��;�;��-`"� �- =�'^''���
.g.� 4 '�"r�_ � .
F, ��+��j?,--���='�'�--�rc-c_�=c
r;!"Q�-:*:'-iL-'t�'_.v°"-�"" '
cientific Resources ssociai�d �
)anuary 13, 2016
�4r. Jeff Steichen
Development Services Departmenf
City of Chuta Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
RE: 701 D Street Air Quality Analysis
EHC Comment Letter
Dear Mr. Steichen:
Scientific Resources Associated (SRA) has reviewed the comment letter submitted by the
Pnvironmental Health Coalition on the 70l D Aparhnent Project. �Ve aze providing this
letter to provide the City with additional information relative to our revie«� of the Air
Quality Mal}5is.
1. The EHC has stated that the health risk assessment is incomplete because it does
not consider�a�idening of the I-5 freeway beni�eeu the 90� and 54 free�ti•a}5. The
Health Risk Assessment relies on use of the AERI�40D model to represent traffic
on the freeway. Within the model, the freeway is treated as a series of�rolume
sources. The r1ER�VIOD model is a tool that is designed to provide as accurate an
analysis as possible, and is used for health risk assessments throughout the state of
Califomia. It is necessary within the model to represent the freeway spatially. _
7he emissions from the freeway ���ere allocated to the �rolume sources, which
cover the width of the freeway and pro�ide a reasonable evaluation of risk to
residents at the project. Nidening of the freeway may mo��e some traffic closer to
the residents, but cvill also move traffic farther from residents on the other side of
the free�vay. Furthermore, because the emissions aze highest in the early part of '
the exposure period due to increasingly stringent emission standards and phase-
out of older vehicles, and the widening of the freeway would not occur unti1.2035,
the analysis takes into account the freeway configuration during the highest risk
period. The analysis therefore accounts for impacts from traffic in a reasonable
manner.
1328 Kaimafino Lane San Diego, CA 92109 (858)48&2987
. \qr. JeffSieichen
Jai�uary !S, 2016
Page 2
2. The comment siates that fhe health risk assessment is lackine because it does not
address iisks fi�om pollutanis other than diesel paRiculate; and further attempts to
adjust the risk results based on genera! information about contributions from other
pollutants. The health risk assessment addresses the risk-drivin� substance, diesel
particulate matter, and used segment-specific traffic information to calculate the
risk from the risk-dm�in�substance. It is not appropriate to simply adjust the risk
estimates without site-specific information.
Regardless of whether the impacts from benzene, l 3-butadiene, and ethylbenzene
are added to the analysis, the conclusions of ihe study would be unchanged.
3. The comment indicates that background levels of pollutants are underestimated.
The analysis presents backgound air quality data from the closest monitoring
station to the project site, which is the orily data in the immediate vicinity of the
site and is therefore appropriate for this project. It is not necessary nor required io
conduct ambient monitoring at every project site. Furthem�ore, the analysis does
present an evaluation of impacts from the freeway, �i�hich is the closest air
pollution souree ro che site.
4. The comment states that an acute risk analysis was not conducted. As the
eomment corcecdy points out, there is no acute reference exposure level for diesel
particulate matter, the risk-dri��ng substance. The anal}5is did look at impacts
from PM 10 emissions, which were analyzed on a short-term basis.
5. The comment states d�at the effectiveness of the mitigation �ras not analyzed.
The comment that no modeling is induded to indicate how a ���all or vegetation
would aher the polludon plumes or risk isopleths downwind of[he �eeway indicates
a lack of understanding as to how air dispersion models such as AER�90D a�ork.
T6ere is no means of inserting a wall or ve�etation within the model to demonstrate
reductions in concentrations. The model is a Gaussian plume model and does not
recognize barriers or vegetation in iu calculation ofdownwind concentrations. It is
therefore not possible to model the ef£ectiveness of the mitigation measures as
suggested by the comment. The analysis �herefore must rely on published studies
showing the effectiveness of mitigation measures proposed for the pro}ect.
The remauung comments deal «1th policies established by the City of Chula Vista, and
aze not technical in nature. We have therefore responded to the technical commenu on
the health risk assessment.
1328 Kaimalino Lane San Diego, CA 92109 (858)488-2987
• \-fr. JeffSteichen
1ar�uary I Q; 2016
PdoC �
�Ve appreciate the opportunity to �vurk with you on itiis project. Please lei me know if
you have any questions oi require any finther infonnation.
Sincerely,
(/�� �
Valorie L. Thompson, Ph.D.
Principal
1328 Kaimalrno Lane San Diego, CA 92109 (858)488-2987
, �
� Jeff SYeichen
From: Kelly Broughton .
Sent: Tuesday, Februar�02, 2016 1227 PNt �
To: Jef(Steichen
Subject: F�N:Additionai studies on health risks and living near a freeway
Attachments: ehp.1408865.alt.pdf; ehp.1�09430.alt.pdf
Here's the recent correspondence.
---Original Message-----
From: Pamela Bensoussan (PBensoussan@chulavistaca.gov]
Received: Monday,Ol Feb 2016,4:48PM
To: Gary Halbert [GHalbert@chulavisiaca.govJ
CC: Kelly Broughton [kbroughton@chulavistaca.gov)
Subject: FW: Additional studies on health risks and living near a freeway
FYI - this just came in this aftemoon. -PB
From: Laura Hunter
Sent: Monday, February O1, 2016 3:01 PM
To: Pamela Bensoussan
Subject: Additional studies on health risks and living near a freeway
HI Pamela,
I know there has been a response to our letter but it is highly flawed. Here is just one quick follow up...here are two
studies hot off the presses that discuss more health impacts from living near a free�vay. The one about near-roadway
pollution includes a statement that health risks from iraffic will rise even as the level of exposure goes down, because
the population will be aging—a response [o the consultant's statement that health risks in 2035 will be less.
The other one is about kids and noise. I don't remember what the HRA says a6out noise and the extent to which it will
be prevented by a sound wall. It just adds to our concerns about the lack of envl review and the lack of
comprehensiveness of ihe analysis that was done.
last the consultants site the need to rely on 'studies'but we cannot find any in the record that they are referring to.
More soon
7hank5
Laura .
Near-Roadway Air Pollution and Coronary Heart Disease: Burden of Disease and Potential
Impact of a Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategy in Southern California eoke:n�nosn,iFrederick
(urmonn,:Laurv Perez,;a Bryan Penjold,s5ylvia Brandt,slohn Wilson,sMeredith Milet�Nino Xunrli,3,aand Rob McCOnnelti iDepar��i o:
Pm�rnu��c TSedituc,Kak School oC�fedicoe,Universiry of Sovihem Cxliforni�Lns.1ngelq Califomi�USA;�Sonoma Talmobgy hrc.,Pnalu.va,Califomia,
IiSA:�Saia T`opiral xnd Public Hmlth Instimtc,Basel,$wiacrixnd;.Uaivcrsiry of Base4 Haul,Swi¢eiaad;slioi••crsiry of!�fassackauts Am.hast,M�has,
\faaachueat:sSpaoxl Scienca hsstimu.Dana and Darid Domsife College of Let[ers,Ms,a�Seirnees,Univasiry of Southem Cali:omia,Ins Angela,Califomia,
USA;�CzGfomia Depanm�of Rb1ic Hnitl;RicMrwnd,CaGtomi�USA B.c4meea: Se�'eral s[udies hace esomated the burdm of eoronary heart disnse
(CHD)mortali[y Gom ambieol regional paru<ulate matter 5?Sµm(P\tz�).The burdeo a(near-road�cap air pollurioo(�(UP)gmerallp hu no[
beeu examined,despite e�idmce of a causal liuk��'ith CHD.os]�i.<: N'e investigated Ihe CHD burdeu from\fUP aod compared it with the PDtu
burden in the California Sou[h Coast Air Basin for 2008 and uoder a tompact urbao gro��'lh green6ouse gas reducrim sceoario for 2035.\fezees:We
aumated Ihe populafioo attribuUble Gattlon and oumber of CHD ereuLS attribuPabk to residcuual tratrc dmsiq',proximiry�to a major road,
demeo[al carbon(E�,aod PJtzs compared�rith t6e ezpec[ed disease burden if the populapoo��ere ezposed to bsckgroaod le��els of air polluUOn.
rsm: (o?008,au esumated 1,300 CHD dea[hs(6.8%of the total)�vcre altributablc to[rattic deusiry',J30 dea[hs(2A%)to rcsidmBal proximin�Io a
� major road,aod 690(3.i%)lo EC.There«ere 1,900 deaths(10.3°/.)at[ributable to PA1zs.AltM1ou�h reduced exposures io?03i should ra¢I[iu
smaller(racdoos of CHD attributable to tratTc densiq',EC,aad PJ1=�,tEe oumbers of esUmated deaths attributable to tach af t6ese ecposures are
1 `
aniicipated lo increate to 2,�00,900,and?900,respc<ticcly,duc to population^oiny,,-\simil�r p��tcrn of intrcasin��RAP-aliribntablc CIID
i�ospitaliiations v:u esiim�tcd to o<.ur bchrecn ?OOS and?035.ca,�maao:Thcsc resulti sug�cs[that a largc burden of preven[ablc CIID mortalih•is
� attribuublc to NR.�P and is Iil:cly to incre�>c cecn��'iih dta'c��in�ecposnrc bc 203=dnc to�'u�nM'ibilily o(an a�in�pOpulntim�.CrccnLouic��s
reductiou sva[c�ies deceloped to milieate dimate ci�an�c o(ttr une��ploited opportuni�ici for air pollution health co-brucfia.camu�: Ghosh R,
Lurmann F,Yerez L,Pcofold B,6r�nJt S;��'il5on J,dlilci JI,Kiu¢li N,:\IcConnNl H.3016.i�car-rosd�ray air pollutim�end corouarp i�tart diieasc:
6urden of Aise�se and potential imp�[t of a grecntm�ae g�s mduclion s�rateoc in SOUd�crn Califnrnia. Emiron f(ealth Perspect 1?d:193—?OD;
Lt co d/d cdoi.or J I0.I?39/eii p.1403565
2
. ��
�,�'
ASectian3G3-cw�iorntntHiMLeersionofchoz�ticfe � (., �` �"S=-'
is:vailablea;la� az.doi.o� �D.R53irhu.1a08d5i. i\eSEC1TCll ���s�-�
P'�%� S'
�ear-�oaav+�ay Air �oll��ii�n and Coronary �lea�t �issase: B�rdzn o�
Dis�ase and �'otential Impaci o� a Greenhouse Gas Rec�ucticn St�a:2gy
in Southern California
Rakesh Ghosh,� Fredericir Lurmann,z�aura Perez,3•4 Bryan Penfold,z Sylvia Brandt,s John 6Yilson,6
Meredifh Milet,�Nino Kunzli,3•0 and Rob McConnell�
'Department o(7reventive triedicine,Keck School ai Niediune,Universiry ot Southern Califorria,Los Angeles,Calitornia,USA;
�Sonoma Technology Inc.,Pe�aluma.Calitornia,USA;3Svriss Tropiwl and Public Heal:h Institute,Basel,S�vi�erland;�Universiry of
6asel,Sasel,Svii�edand;SUniversiry of fvlassachusetts Amherst,Amhecs4 A9assachusettr,ESpatial Sciences Ins:i.ute.Dana and Da•rid
DornsiEe Cotlege of Letters,ArcS,and Sciences,University o(Southern Calilomia,Los Angeles,California,USA;�Caliiornia Department
of Public Nealth,Richmond,California,USA ,
�:. . ,,,,... _.�._;_; � _ .�......_ ..�.�__�: � gmcnhousc gu emissions ($G1G 2012a).
. :=i.�'�'r�^e.a � r � .x�: - t^�. _.�ii:3'.ac'�..y..
BACRGROUYD:'Sevenl•siudies�have;utim�ced�t6e bvrdm�ohcoronary-,;hnrrdisnse:(CHD) This is co bc acwm �ished �cich a �and use
.�_-^�G---.n'�evcx:..�..�"-_ . _ 3r- •r-=_.a-z-..iaa:��.: P
'Toit3liCd_fmm;am6i<ni rtgionalEpamcu6m mactec:<:?;g;�m;(PFlz,s}.v,'Ihc,burden�of nni-road..�v derelo men[ stnee desi ned to reduce
-�:----.�cr_..��..�..c^-r�catsr=-�r_u-.....• r.���r��:���.^a-�--.�.,. P' % 8
aF.pF Ilv'tiom(1<Rr1P.):grner+llj hu noc been rnmmed;despne rndence of a ausa(Lnk oiih CHD.
��_Y��;�_:1.'4.�'^�;����:�r�.:�_.��-��-__-s�„o.-,�y..-;*" .-,G.;,s;.. che r.eed For aucomo6ile crxcel by rncour-
OejECmErQ4in.�uugaecd`J�aCHDburdeM���:(rom�NRAPandcom�ued�ic�.nh�ch<•-���y,�iudm aging denser rcsiden.ial developmenc in
. ( im-.�-�e•�-.a_^:_t--c-a.:l'._ --�-_rz��., zn.._.�-.,: .n._z-r=r.
{in:�heC5lifomu•Soueh•`Coasr_.ur�Basin:(oc.2003°and:under;a comp�n�uiban gro�t6:.grem6ouse �����d de��dop cd urbzn areas that ue
t,.`L':"v'�"_:,r:r�.�.G"�'�'_...}F.�'�'9A�Y_.Y:�^.� .� "!y'��W ...y�.� Y`^ Y f
rcduaioa urnano for203���.c ..�. �'''�x '�'=' 's_
�' -��.r�'P-°"��-6'c+--•' - :�� ��_=�`� sencd b �blic vans ort and b diseour-
E..__€�� � -��_-' 3-3�_",�"���:'+==�c..`=iP.-+�s: . �-4s3z.=a:� Y P' P 7'
�3�-ss.--"�aa`?^r._=-r�Tr.�c..i.. r .'_..
°�It17fOD5:_��'e esuma[cd�tAe populauan aanbum6laFramonmd nwnlier'of CHD n'enu+aembu[_ � �n new de��elo menc in currend unde-
:.x-r__�. h��rx..v_�..r.�zs_--��_�.�e . �:a._v-`-*�:-_.`_ 8 B P Y
ible.to�rutdcnnal�mE'uddensi ,;mocic�m�geo a'ma�or;wad <IvnaniaPca�bon�(EC),•andiP�S� ����o ed areas SCAG 2012a . To support
�sitir�c __r:'_-� ry_..•i�_i. _i_=. �'s-�.��slrsvi?•'si�!n. P ( )
compued..��e e�eaed�dusnse b'urde_n�d:ihapopu6aon:a�ae aposad.m��round Inrls of com aec urban dndo mene eonduei��e ro
'_ri���_.�"L� ."�4=::.as^=..:...���,.'tia:.�.T?- -�p� P P
w�_pollu'uonr c.i:.r�':�?.�__._ ��•_z�_ ���e T>.-;i"__ _
.rr_'��_�-��:.:.g ..>_3:�'� �Y. !. .y.�- ..,,.�V-'� _ x�ll;ino and uc o( �blic tuns oruuon,
--�"-o--�z= �v'. a�s �—�iLi.a^ ac:._ cyyT:. a 1 o P' P
Risurrs::In-2003;-an�oumaccd�It300_'C-HD�duths�(6:54o-oF�he=�on1)��.ircaan6ue�ble�m��nAc ���ntporca:ion in.�escmenc w•ill foeus on
d'"e�isi'�430;dnihs:�%):[o;a dmuil�nmi'�o m'or d��a'nd;G90_'.3v7.%te EC:�"ihcre
ry;' °' im ro�•in ublic crans orc b increuin
l P _..._�-" �7 ( _�
y _� ���.:v....,... .w.... _,3: ��'��r�'�7+r..: _.. ... , "'��: P B P 7 Y B
�avl'900'Fd:��hs:(10.F%)Caxcnbut�ble co�C�65.Alihoadrreduccd'apoturcs:�n:�_03J:should
o Ii;insniillenGa-c�uo`ns oC(6HD�u�n-��'6uu61e o�m(Gc:d-�env�:EC�ld'C�lu{ihe�n�"-wn6�ers of strvitt frequeney md cransi� mnncaions,
-- ar-�-�-�'-.f-=-�=--.=.T.f'�.?=«s----�-r:;+r.r==-'s..-a»',+-'--�^"-- and crcatir.g 6icyde and pedestrian infn-
uumated�da�l:s ac„<<utabl��to.ano��aposules_ue��.pa�e�rorue�x to_2,�00;900'
?``T'"' � "" nemoEincreuin NItAP:aiv:bunble struemre The Califoroia Air Resouree
and`2,900�.rapeccn'e}}',due oo po`pulado_n'�igin��A s�milai:pa g
-c-_— r_�.y!_• �:.is_ •-�T�-- uS-_ �'i7:?n_x-v�e�_r_•
CHDhospinlinuonswzsaumated7o'a�w,beew-een-200S'and-_03�i,;,?,x_g�At,.�r4�.= Boud's and che U.S. Environmennl
=�^.��-ccYr.s'�$i aid.b`-'r�_;F�-�"�,'�=�����:'v"'..�-•.2'i�.a .��c�� Proccaion Agcnc}'s (EPA) s�ricccr cehicl:
CA�t�oS�O�:�Thae��ulesiw�esc_y��tiuge.Lurd_�n'oE:p�.V�er.ta�c�CHD:morialisry�sa,aanbut-
ible co'\�d__L�Jy;�n�an�sc�e�en.wn^ch drana��ng opo y6>:'03_S.due_Yo�vine�6iLo, ��°us[ tmission seanduds, requiremencs
of�in'a'�no populuionC-Cr«nhonic'gis;rrducuo�'s�nce�es:deCiloptd.co mmgaie_d�mim�a��e (or incrcucd propo�tions oE uro emissinn
o(E�r.u�ploi;e'dop�iiie°fdrvrpoll�yonh�blih�brnefi�s�_��:�>':�e<�;�:.-�C'_�c�v�� �'ehidet, andhig6ecFvdeconomrsnnduds
C�rArio Ghos6�'�R.+.�L'ui'�E ni nn!Frurs�4?P.enfold;B,;Br�'az�E'S;Qilson J;�Silee�'�7�Ku��; u� expec�ed eo subseaneinlly redece fucure
-..�-?.-=r "r�--�� tt�"'=.
••r"—. ' �s..�:c_:ave. �....�-� �..-i,_ '- ".z,..,�::r�=.
��lffannd!•R�?076'Na-roadk�y,vr;pollu'uod:md w��o`ur}�han di'sease:�burden oPduau�md, �n.�entional and grcenhoux gss emiuions
-:ee=�r..:.��-ta:sJ."_._.,:ai-en-.�?.=� _ �.r:�_.°�i 2:_�-�.T.
�potcntul.�mpa�:o$rgrcenhovu gas reducuan�smeegein'Southem:ESli(omia-Fs�vomHnlih per mile of vchide envd Wt acimated che
PPe`�i��1=4:19� 0�0'h�'//dzAoi[o�l10i11S9/e6''(405&bj�'��YT•:"':��°�'
P_,.r.�a E �R� B P- •�r�-ir--°-�ir.=: populuion czposurc ;o \•RAP and P\f2.5,
-.,. � .,r.i�_:irrr=.. �xc�.`�<..-::�i�� �s-l:h::m �.r.:cv�n-_.
� ��•=:�-*���:--��i£�:- - - - ..E�`.,=. .� - u�Aich ��ill bc associa:ed w�ich implemenca-
. uon of chcse changa, and cht corraponding
Introduetion al:hough regional PAi Ic.�els have been pollurion-accri6unble CHD.
Emerging eridence suggrs:s a causal lirik dec!ining in most of ehe Unircd Staca over
benvmn n:ar-mad«�ay air Polluuon (NRAP) sn�eral dcrades (Monllebi e� al. z003) d�e -,ad��: mrr:sponlence co A A1<Conncll, ?001
�1. $a�o Sc.. Deparaae��oi Pro�enuve A1�ieina
�nd mronup 6carc disnse (CHD) morai,y eo effec[ice reoularory poliq•, some indic�- tiKk School oE Nrdid�c,Univcrsiry of Sou�hcrn
and morbidicv (Gan c[ al. 2010, 2011; mtsoFI�RAPuposuren:chu �'chidemilet ��(o�r.u.losA.ngde.U90039US�Tdephone
Hoffmann et z. 20Q6; ICan et al. 2008). The ua.rled Iu�-e inermsed mukcd)v o.�er ehe sarn: (323)S+?-t096.E-mLF.:r.�ao:+��.srd�
?O10 e�m:rinn Hnrt Assoeution ieien:ifie period (U.S. Departmen[ of Trnns�ortarion Supplemrn;il>t:e,.--ial u a�ai661e anline(h:r�ll
statement ou unbicr.c partidrs noced tha[ 2013). There is a need eo asas the \R4I'- �-doi.orvf10.�2591c��.t`.Oo5G5).
\�p 'xs a �e6olt appears eo be a sp:cifie ar.ributable burden ofd'�sase H. Kan pwsided Selp��l .oalyiic�l .d.�«.
M.Ruaan asisccd..-iiS Sc liruaeu:e:evics�.
rourcc assxia:td ��ith Urdiovas[ulu tisk° �'c atscssed the butdcn of CHD This s;udy Was ?a�cially supporad�b� (uads
(Brook a a1. ?O10). $ince chen, addicional ar.ributablc co \RaP rclati�'e �o P\�12.5 (�m an air yun!iry�.ioL-dons scc:lmcnc agrcemcc
longieudinal studies hrve demonstn:ed mnsis- in Southern Californi�, whith has high l<c.:�«��h�Soc�h Cnss�Ai�Q�aliry?.Swgersen:
ecnt assoiiadons be�veen NRAP and CHD, re�onal PD1Z.5 levels �nd a dense ne[�vor:c D:suin.a Gli°omia s:ac rer�6rory agrncy.and BP
�ssir.g ;ratne densiq•, prozimin ro roadways, of hig4-colume cnffie eorridoa in dose B��h Pa�ofcc�).OcSc F�oding suppoa i�u�ded
and a nnr-roadway pollutant surrogate, proximiry eo retideneu. Ne ilso eseimamd �a:ianal Insom�3 of Hoh6 gr�nu PoIE5022S45,
PolFS011627,Pi0FS0074:8,and ROIES016535;
elem:ntal ai,�on(Gut a al. 2010,201Ip Kut �6e CHD healeh eo-btntfitt of Gliforoio'S U.S. Enrimnmen:al Pm:ecuon Agenq 5�an�
ec a�. 2008).Although tht speci6e pollu:anu landmark legitla[ion (SB 7%i) co rcduce RD33>44101; md �6c Na��ings Fovnda�ion
in \'[L�P raporsi6lc(on c�alih cf(cus uc not gmcn6ous< gat emiuions (mom �han onr (Paadw.Gli.�om"v).
tr.:irdy dar, evidenee sugoaes chac IdR4P �hud o(wtie6 eome from eus and ;rve'ss) F. L�rrn�o� .�d B. Pe�iold are <rnplo��ed by
e�ec:s are independrne o(those of parucvlaee b;� 16% in 2035. The $ou:6em CaliFornia Soao:ni Techookgy!x,Peeilumy Gi�or�ii T.::e
mancr < 2J un (P\i�.y) (HofFinann a al. .issoeiacion of Go�•ernmena (SCAG) oiSu mchors LccL-:e:tq F.arc no oc.iu aa�o1 or
pomaaul mmpcn:�F�nc.al ir.:aa•s.
?00�. Hmcn�cr, im m�[ru[ co P\1,_5, u5cre 6zs dn•dopcd a rcgioml plan �6a� aims ro �o...t.d:?i Jurc?014:Acccprcd: 151-^�?015:
has bec� licde enmimtion of che \RAP- reduce per capiea vehide miles tnveled, .�d.�c�P�Slira:ion:7 Jely?015:Fiful P�66ndoa: �
a:cribunblc dis:asc Surdcn. Furchcrmorc, bccausc chis has subscamial impacc on ! F<bwry'_mG.
$IVI(qlif0l4J Y.2:�ff1 PtIS�1ECI1Vt5 ' 4DtU4E 11�I INMct.21 Februzry 2Jlc 193
:iv .
;'� ` _
� Ghcsh e�ai.
Nleihods :, C2F �hac ic isrd in mor,alitp risk assas- lhc rnpcla:ion�nd r.r.mhcr nC6ousc!iolds b;�
Comrimation-rrtpwuelruictiorr;. �Ihrrc ar: �menc for rev�tdx.ury purposcs by thc U.S. EPA I�AL �.��ere xtquiral t�om $CAG along wicn
only a (nv s[edies oi associocions of CHD (Kreua4i e:�I.ZC09; U.S.EPA 2009). thc Gcneal Pisn land ust for fumm dcvrl-
morcalin• and hospicalizaiion a•i�h \RAp Popu[atiou darn spari.r[ nUarntion. opmcnc xmss ($CAG ?Ol2a). The popula-
conductcd iri Norch Amcrica ond thcrc- Thc geognphic domain For our stud,v was tion assignmtn: mctnod For uistina pxrc:ls
;ore morc likdy w be «Ievanc co Souehern Califomis's SoacF Coas� Air Basin (SoC:AB), «•u che samc (or 2035 as 2008. To n�oid
Cali(omia [han sccdics From o.hcr parts of tomorising :ht sou�hcm part oF Los �ingcles auignin� largc popufa[ions m the ttnmr
;6c wrodd. We ustd concen;ncion-raponse Co�n:y, wa:crn purcions of RiecrsiJe and of laroe areu daigna:td for fumrc rcsiden-
funtdons (CRF) from zmdics of rn�o surro- San Brmadino councia,and al!of Onngc ti�l groa�th in =.hc Gcncal Plan, wc uscd a
gaces of t+R.4P tzposu«: �raffic densi[v Couney (Figurc 1), a region with histoti- grid-li'.ce appmach :o deGne po[en�ial nn�•
and ruidcr.:ial proximiry co a major road ully� high air pollucion Ic��ds. Daca for chc parccls nur esiscing and Fumm road�cays,
(Table 1). The cra(Ot densite CRF was ronl popula:ion, 6ous:Lolds, land usq and and ro apporcion [he future poPulation ro
based on a four�ommunieics zmdy in che boundary polygons of the Iegally deflned chese parcds. The resulc of ehis procedure
�tida•amm and Eu:tm Unieed $n:a (Ku� real aeate parcdz w�;r: �cquimd from the was :o.al populacion es:imaeu for aboue 4
r. al. 2003). 0.�e used a CRF for residen- .rcgional planning agrncy, SCAG, for 2003. million ocis:ing and pomnci�l new pucek in
cial ckmcnal orbon (EC), bucd on black Tht populacion and household data wcrc dr.SoCr1B in 2008 and 2035.
urbon, dtmtd From an �dminisva:ive dan spaciolly raolved in app�oximamly 11,000 Benuse che ;pidemiological studict
se, cocering chc rncim V�ncouver, Cmada, cn��el aaiviry mnes (L1Zs) chnc are issed in oF eEfcas oi air pollueion on CHD �crrc
. population (Gan ec al. 2011).�(For eseimadng the agency's tn.�cl demand modds (SCAG consisand,v conducmd on che population �
EGucributable burden of diseasq black 20126). �e TAL populadons wcre assigned a 45 yvrs of zgq we arima:ed rhe 2003 ar:d
cazbon was eonvermd to EC, as dacribcd co rctidencul-wncd paacls«ichln nch TAZ. 2035 parcd populacions in chis age group
7❑ cne Supplemeoul Macu[�1, '\�eehods.") If all parcels.viehin a LiZ.vere sinode-family using c6c mlaeire age disvibu[ions from `Le
EC 8 an indiator of dicscl cxhausc oposum rtsidcnca, che popula:ion per houschold 2010 Ccnsus ma dan and 203>wunry-Icvd
in $ouchem California (Gdler et al. 200�) «�s assigned uni�ormly. If n!I parcels wiehin projeuion, respeaicely, obcained from ehc
and is commonly considacd a ncu-;omdway a TAZ were mul�i-6mily residrocez, ihe California Deparemrnt of Fufantt(2013).
pollucanc (�L'u a al. 2009). EC may pm�idc paraJ populauoas wuc appordoncd baud on CND morra[rty and hoipirali.:arion.
a lar.icc for toxicolagically rcicvanc mc;als parcel a�cas. If boch cxis:cd, che sine e-fam8y Causrspccific mornlity and hospi:aliza-
ard adsorbed organiu that am inhaled residence parcd: w�:re usigncd �tie counq•- tion (or 2005 were a�•ailable by ZIP rodt
dcep in:o :he Ieng(Bell ec aL ?009;Janssen a.tnge number oF peesons per household, from [6e Califomia Departmene oF Public
ec al. 2012). We sdececd ehe CRF from ehe and�he temainder of:he TAZ popuhtion wzs Healeh 6y age group (45-54, 55-G4, � �
Var.covvcr smdy, brnusc it �cas cscimaccd asiomcd bsscd on vhc arns of chc muLi-6mily 6)-74, %5-84, and ? 8i ynrs). Dcuhs in
" :rom a ncn�ork o�mcuurcmcn;s rcflccci��c parcds.Thc popularion�.�as assumcd ro residc Intm�ctiona! CGwif"irc:ion of Dii�attL 10i6�
of 6ncscale zpr.ial variacion hca��ilv inFlu- at [he cencmid of the lar.d parttl. �vhich is Rr�irior. (ICD-10) coda 120.l25, bucd on
cnrrd by roadway sourccs, and �vas dcrivcd morc zccuncc chan cradi�ional mc[hods of chox cccd in dic scudies from w6ic6 cLr EC
for a similu ogc ditvibucion and ivr CHD locacing popul�don at ansus-block ccntroids and proximiry to a major road CRFt�ccrc
ou:comct compu:bic ro chc CRFs Cnr othcr or b!od:�oup ccn¢oids. dcriccd (Gan c[al. ?010,2011),xece uud;a
\R4P indiarors esed in �his ar.al;3is. For We escinued �6e 303� popui�eion aurtuce CHD mortaliry nca For the popala-
consismney, w•e used a CRF for pro:imiry d'u:ribu:ion bated on ehe 2035 uemrio of uon a��rega;ed eo Ihe Z[P codelorl.We used
co a m:jor rotd dai�•ed from ehe �'ancouver che Sustainab!c Communiucs Smmgy of c6e chac same ICD outcomrs and nta in aei-
smdp (Gan ec al. 2010). For eomoarison rcgional cnrsparn;ion pizn `}uc was daigned macing che :n,�e drnsiry-nuibunblc duihs,
wi:h ehe \RAP effeca, .�r�lw aumac:d che to mazimallv mduce greenhouse gas emis- c�•en [hough ehc CRF for [ntTic densiry wu
burden of regional P\1iy ezposurq based on sions in Souchern Glifomia ($G1G ?012a). obnined irom a seudy dnc indudcd iddirional
TaAle 1.Sb�dy cha�acterisdcs and ihe concenUaUO�response funceons�L�F�uzed in the attributable haction esunauon.
Snriy Gan�zl.ZOt 1
�a:x�zris'us YanetaL24� Gxieta1.2010 Haspitati�uons A4a�txli,y Kre,�atieiaL2N?
E ra Yucar�a� ��NC:_JrtsaiAti.- Vaxau:vl;Czna�'.a:�"-",--�.:t4arcau:a:Gnada'!rsvr::: :Vancar:g;fzmd>..=—=USA ��ar�+dz'--_
'-�9_?._. +�Y '-i=� --c,cr..�n�1*—----'r� �.u�,.,r-,..� '- --�. ,_.._. �
3:.i"-:-- 6:AANr�-�^ .�.._..��'r:----:_�::�_':�:x:?s"''i;r'° c_�.s�-�_�`+�c="�i.yr'�
_.._.£'_..MM.,B''jpf S'sr-s..==�-,:� ��.y ?rv�.`;.g��-=.r��.=aR�•��
_� � � c � . � ...._. .d.�
Yattvnf�0!4`. �� ,_ ^sr�.cW - tc.�°�..: rcac........ _ .._....._....�-�_ .
='a�--�� M6USAz^s_."'Y,�...:�:.._-'d':_a:.:.....s_�.�.r�:v__.�_.__._..sx:. ._._�... W�-=� >.�¢r.�_�-��
imdYY=ai R�'UiNCn:i987-19�. i7eazesDnuee�l�i� St°a:etpanc2l{447-139�, SW..at�t�i?37-799¢�,:::.�Wa+el�?}TXA.
FolYnv�vr�wyh2Q71 a.y�tolb.v-upli�.4-Z�Q21 -V°arto�w+�.�1i994-200?I a}varfollov.v�li�?OQZI ;o7a ivt�s."32-�t ,700
—'c a-----•-�------�----a-'^'--�a---_
=MF2n� .SO=:�::sr�5.9'_S�m����==:58:1.'=.iQ�_��i:lm���Sd:7...i0.G�? �-��7=��r�'s:.°�'-•.'_-s'�,`i�,' Soa_:1�1i�"'__a
g' � -� �''-"'a�- a� .::.
xs�." _.:.�>•'�w �..•—=.�„<4i$!+_'.' 4r33en...::r �
�tdpg?.�5E3fS�S��"�:v45 u�:...m.,.a:�._...._-�::�e:cCTA3__=sii-z--=.�._ =rr..:c_:r?x�: _ �:s:�e-:-F-=�-•_'
�spos!;e i2;5c de�si,ry cam;p�.�dzY P.esiCrnre s 7Y m�om a ttiy;n•rdy 91ack ca�bai• fitack(z�aY ^ rMZy�pPJ i0�g/n�
� ICe�1 log uniq a s A n fwn a mzja rcad (7g 0.9e*iQ'S/ml (��0.9;.hi`/rl
compared vrich afl a;ters �
? 2 i.:'���. . �3G3� ^ �l'�'�'� ' 4
�n(rsesl--._._s_=-13.i�91976�deat4s) 7i=:753(3:lilcacrs�r:;y�,;Y�527?Sll'0.312`_?-.y:i���2:7::5�3:i[.''�ttLh's�;r;�.;•`''_-'.-.'_43H:i70�25.�d<-;..�'�
_' - :i=:� -�=:.�''tt�i�"rr�. .r;��_:.:...:,,.` _ _ .:..
��...:rt^:c�_,_. . f."ir.� _...__rc:�._.:.__..__;::as�;�.z '.' Pt"c:�._�.��_.:.„�"ra:.j_�.. _=�t-fi.�.__.,��•
- _-�»:t��_..-hospaLzauons��.;�.��:r,—�—��.=-.-.__.-.'�..-.--..... �_�a�
ar•cor> h,��ocxNialinfucuoNcvrcz:{ CHDmorali:y� �� CH�hospiuli!auons� CN�r.,orali,f G{Dr.wr,zli;y�'
r.asMa�i�auayO:D d�.h'
;CP�F�IS595C11==t�.tt3lnorpliYlit.Oi.-.t.0.)�.1:291mor,afy��i:�s,i;i1�:-�=:�.mli�osp�;���i2iu7,1::T:�:�s�:�l�^r�rq•�It�m"ios1:�=:i;TS_I�Ara)�q�'_-"_-_°-°j-_°-x
��..v,'...�.c -r_ r -��i.�,si�,.Y_�-h:�':,._ r"i���101,^105�.5.i-.._-,�. ���-��� �..�113:11Q��c=,�,..rs^.',.-.�
Rrz:SC densey nhes r2�e p:oDOrt's:.af w;rar.izr.y'weigG;eO veNCles per Gry�:�here ane Lemay enit co�rtsDOndstl U FS vetvci_s pe:day�,i'v m:roo Ne�caCrny.lt G=c6.es
Gneut�.•.vh disunc<m m;o ve�ucl=s De+OaY z:390 m(mn uhe:ozdxay.9hct ca:boa x�l!d�o v:erpuanilrnnqe incrmsz ia a6sorSance`iLOA coGes SOt,�IO-+7a,<27,�H,
SiB::ICD�1GCO.aElo-ll.lia11.R1-S.I;rr51.17P.157.J91.J%.HS6,ft��?9.9CD-9co2es:10-711.Im.ZIC��IOcade:IXN2i9L�-9caJes:70-+.iL�w,a�sare:zardrxios
�55%psl,::Eich�veia uzleE:0 45e populxioo-vai;tsd mem ezyar.es:.r 2�7id znd 2N5 xnd uzed in Ne a:viEutzhlu:rscaan czicuW:ion
194 uoiu:.F 12c�rNx�ee.=.2 I Feb.v=_ry 2016 � Lmii;onmrn�rJ Heal`h Pers�ec:nes
k;.��."9
� .=. . ::
,.~,�-�
Mear-road�vay Folluticn �nc coron;ry hcart disease �`�
iCD coecs (E10-14. (10-I I, IAG-il. U0. port o(thc Air Qualit� bianagcm<nt Plan distanccs from chc ca�mr nl cxch :csidrn-
19i, JSt, J9G, R96. R93-�9) (Kan c: aI. (SGQ�{D 201:i).'ihc domain �ws spatiil!}• tial pui:c: co cF.c nnres: ro�d in groups l-?
20D8)..U.hovah using chc rcduccd r.umbcr resol.ccl uting 4 .l'm x 4 km horimnral �rids (frecKa;� or m�jor �rtcrial) �vcrc competnl
of ICD codcs IJ;cly resul[cd in undcresumaccd and 13 rer[ical laycrs. �iod:I simula[ions usin� FSRI's ArcGl$ �ools.lhis is consis;u;c
daffic dcnaicy-aeviburable CHD dn[hs, ie w<rc run by �he Souch Coase Air Qualiry �cich che CRF corraponding to the dis.ancc
made i[possiblt[o mmparc the mv'fie densiry k[onitoring Dis[rie[u par.of che.1ir Qualiry m free�vxe> or major mads inarker (l j0 m
at"vuatrs�vich chost tor FC and proximiry:o �\�tarngrmcnt Plan (SCAQ\�fD 2013). Annu�l from c6e doscs� frcn��y or )0 m Erom the
major mtd. Hospical2ttio�u for ICD-9 (9r'm m�dirions��im simula;td for a?OOS buclinc closcsc major road)(Gan ct�I.2010).
Revinar.)coda 410-d14 and 429.2 w-ere used and Eor?035 ���ch eht «aional rransportaeion �The trafFic densi+y marker represencs
to nlculam CHD hospinlivtion nces (Gan plan dcmcncs ($CAG 2012a). Thc cmicsions distanco-dccigcd annua! avcngc daily cnfTic
ec al.2071). and memorologial inpuq modding proee- eolume surrounding eaeh residenci�l pazed
� Bxauu c6e pmjecccd 2035 �e distribu- dura, occputs, and modd performance art locuion. Thc SC4G ro�dw�y gcomary and
uon�.as a�ailable only ae ehe rnunry la�cl,che detcribed elze.chem [SCAQDID (2013). link-based va(Fc .roluma were uscd ni:h a
2008 aecspccific mortaliry and hospi[alizz- Appcndica V and VI).The tcgion�l mald's Art1'i5 dcnsi.y firtaion t}ut linarly dmyxd
don n:es�am a�rtaated co e6e comry ln-1 griddcd atirru;a for annua! actta�c EC and :raffic�•olurt+.es from 100% ae thc roadwry�
and applied co che pmjeered 203)age-speci5c PMZ_g mass roncen�ncions w•cre assigned centaline m i0%a[300 m perpendieulnr ro
popul.don in nch SoG1B eounry ro aumas ro all pareds ��'ich een;roids within eaeh :he road��zr.This decay nte is eonsiscen:wich
:he corresponding dach and hoipinl'vacion 4 x 4'an grid. d:e obun•cd primary poLuanc mnccnmcion
couna(and nta in eht 2 45yeu age group) Benuu regional modds car.noc ruoh2 gradiencs nnr roadways (Karner et al. 2D10;
in 2035. Because SoG18 rompris�s only a loal pollunnc gndicna nw mad���;s, a line Zhu ec al. 2002, 200�. The traftic dcosiry
porcion of some councics, this nlcuheion sourec dispersian modd, Caline4 (Benson be�ond che i00.m ndius buPrtr uzs auigned a
icn:med rhat [he projttced 2035 populuion 1992), am applied co chancceriu �he loeal- ralue of mro. Benuse che marker w,s inicially
.' agc dis:ribudon for cht gcognphic poruon of snlc impaca of omroad mobilc source EC dn�dopcd for CHD and vaffic dcnsiry CRF
nch counry in ehe $oG18 will be che same emiuions from mads «-i:hin 2 km of cach in 1957-1939 (Kan et al. 2003), and rehidc
u chac of ihe rnurc munry. The aumaca oF parcd.The Calinc4 modd's aumua of annual cmission ata per kilomcttr of cnvJ ha��e
mortaGry and hospicalizaeion also assumed a�-cage EC incremrncal concenmeions from dedioed s�bs:aneiaJly sinct this cime period,
�hac e}ee agrspedfic nea in 2003 w�l be chc loal ro�dway sou�ces were superimposed on ehe .nsTx der.siry mac�er�ras adjustrd 6as�
sune iu 203i. chc regional model aunucu for nch pucel. on c6e E\iFAC201! modd (GRB 2013a)
Fsparurc auarmrnr. The �pprozch 'ror The Calinc4 modcl a�a.s applied uzing lonl estima:cs of chc changes in Fltte a�enge
aposurc azsesmrnc imrohxd thincecri:uuon surface wv:d dan(rom che nnrac moni:orirsfi P\-f�� emission n:es bentren 1959 and 2008
oi nar-road apaawes iuing v�ffic dcnvn md scacion, ligho-du�r ,od hn.y-duq� vehide (-G2.14o)and pmjmcd For 2035(-76.�`.70)-
tnfic prozimiry markcrs md appliations of aniaion fattoa hom chc E�1FAC1011 modd Usir.g chc modcicd c<pomra for cach
regional-and loal-snle�ir quali,y disPe:sion (CARB 201], ?Ol3S), and roadway gmmem o( the chrce cuntinuous exposura (cn�c
modeLc:o aeimam pucd la�d annual a.ange and ar.r.ual avenge mf}ic.•olumes from che densiry, EC, xnd P�f=.5), ehe popuJuion-
EC and P?�i,.j rnaa COnan:nrions. Re�iomi SGAG aa�'cldcmand modd. � uei�h¢d man cxpomre �wu nlcula:cd by
oposu:e zwa$ouchcm Glifomia ms csd- The SCAG �nvd-dcmand modd for mulcipl;ing eh: populuion z 4j ycars of agc
ma[ed usin� ;he Communiry \iultiscale.�iir roadwaps wu us<d to simulut cnflie for in eac6 parcel ��•ic6 [he exposure usigned
Qu�licy mod:l, �•ccsion 4.7.1 (hap://waw. chc 2003 basclinc and 203� (vcurc sccmrio .o chac parccl (pJ. Thc summuion of chis
cpa.gov/seram001n (Carmr 2000), and che uich che «gional :tanspomcion plan convol produc. ovcr all pateeLs was di��id� b}• :he
Weac6er Research and Forrnsiing modd mcuura (SCAC 20126). The model us:s rotal popclatioo,ss shown in Fquation F (by
ravo� 3.3 mctmrologial 6dds (hcryd/wti.�w. gcognphically accuntc roadw•ay loncioas munry and for chc cno¢SoCAB).
wrE-modeLorgn. The modd analysa ���crc for frcc��aps and cxprcssways (graup 1),
cor.ductcd for a large Southcrn California major armcials (group 2), and minor um- 1'oPuGrtiorw�r.'ghud meunaporun=
domain ezmnding from 160 km w•uc of chc rials and major tollcaorz (group 3). Each �-+
poa of Los:ingeles [o chc Colondo Riccr ia envel diaaian was rcpracnted scparacd,v L �Pop:sletionP X EiposurtT.�
chc cas:, and from Bakcrsfidd in chc ooah for largc roads, and cSc sm�ller toads �.rorc f'-� , (1J
;n �00 km soe:h of San Diego in ehc sou:h. bidircnional. $CAG developcd sepance .�Toml paps!ar.'on
:.iodd simula:ions ��em run by :he Souch tnfiic dcmand modds and cnffic��oluma
Couc Air Qualiry \1onitocing Distric: as (or Gg6:-ducy and hesvydury�•ehida on �ll Arrriburab(e bLrden rrrimarion. For
mad..�ay links. .A.rorage daily crv�e �roluma che populacion ? 4� ycars, �•�e cr.ima:ed
� ``Kem`" `���''�-�'°� �eerc de;emined b r ri thc sim�:la:cd cac CHD o ulr,ionaaribunble faaion
�a_�,.��-�:aout±.; Y�° �`e' ^� P P
� �a�� craFtic.�olumcs for morr.iny midday, ah:r- (PAF) du: ro ruidm�ial p:o�imiry� co r.ujor
ye����� t �:;:-.�_� noon, e.xning, and nighccimc craffie SCAG madways in 2003 md ?03) bnscd on .he
��,.�` '�a' .z„- 'T � _. �� aPPlicd [hc mwlds co simuluc traffic Fo: chc p�opor.ion cxposcd (P��) and c6< cor�c-
-Lmtrtpelei
c�.- � �.ss� " 2005 b�sclinc and 203� Fumrc ynr wich chc spondin�CRf from chc origina!scudy,in c6c
.'-,:�='-"��i �u�"�' —'�'�' �� ¢gional mnsportarion plam m�trol mcuures. s:andard PAF formula(Equa;ion 2).
.���'"-�.�.1 - �,,,, t'�-;'"'"�.�'~'' Th^_ cscimaced fu[ure cmission invenrorv
�' .`._
L�:.i-�.'-.'� �: rtNrs.de �,`��`1-
;_ �-?.� '�-- ��L�Ch='� --�i included grou2h md anissiom m�trols 6azcd PAF=p�(CRF- l)/
�-��''i�4�. '�='- � .g on chc$ouch Coas`Air uali tiloni;orinp �p (CRF- I)+ t�. [2�
-�;'£-� -''�--'Y�... r -���'�•: Q t}' � cR
-"i°'�- °•�`•�" ` 1R:^n7��s3> Dir.ric:s Air Qualiry Slanagemenc Plan
• � 5s0�"`°"'� ^���lsSFa.^t.�. (SCAQViD 2013) and SGCs regioml T:affic drnsiry, EC, and P\1Z_y CRFs
figure 1.Ge�Sr2p5ical coverage oi Ne smdy xrea tnnspomuon Plan($GAG 2012a). (Table i) �.rrt origimlly rcportcd per 1 lo�
is shm:n Sy�it'�'iick 61ack bordec Thin blue lin?s Othcr czpomre marlcrs��crc thc dis:ance ueic(proximiry-wti�[ed�ehida p�r dar),per
showth=eou��/6omu'ariesandtherozsU6�^. eo nearcsc roads and cnt}ic densiry. Thc 1 in[erqu�r,ilc nngc (IQR = 0.9-`. x IQ-�lm
Em'vor��nentd Hez7`h Perspttuves � �v�u 12a I r.u:r._c�21 F^bruary 20i6 195
<<_r
...•F{ '
�j�_�'
��':.
Gnosh ec al. � � .
of 61aci carbon rc(ltctaucc). or Pcr Totiiuinguish t6e impzc�OF[Ill'tlN�CtiIRI I:cd w�s I.! z 0.� µ�lm' in 2003 and is
10 u�/:n'. rczpcaivcly. 'I'hc popula;ion- �chanpt in rxpusu:c in ?03i irom :hc i�upaa a:prccd cn dccrcasc �0 0.7 � 03 pglmj in
Kng6[cd mean exPosure eseimamd usino of the projec:ed change in [ne popula[ior. 20i>(sec Supplemer.[al 1{amrial,Fi�ure J!c). �
Equacion t ..ns di.•ided by d�e rcsp.ccive age disiribuiion in 2035, ��'c estimatcd cht The cnrrespondin� mtdiaiss {or thc
!QR (EC) or !0 pg/�nj (Yh12,�) and chis aaribucablen'a:afor203iforah}'po[ha�cal two periudx �vcre idcn�ical m �he mean,
calec was used m rescak [he CRF to che scenario in which the 200$ age discribu[ion !.I pg/ml (IQR = O.S-1 E) ar.d 0.% p�m�
poPclation-w•tighted mean ���luc by ezPo- �vere applied m ihe 203>popclacion. (IQR = 0.5-0.9), respeeciecly. (The aneici-
ntnoauon(Fquauon 3). EC (micrognms per Sretirrirnl unrrnninry annlysir. \C'e paeal deernu is prir.urilp due m ehe eepeaed
" cubie m:eer) was com�ereed to bl�c<acbon constivatd thc 95%uncecninry intenal(U� «duccian oF EC emissiont From diad-Fuded
(1�5/m)ro ma¢fi xitfi the orig"uul CRF.(See � around eha point aumata aaounting for thc vchidcs.) The populaciom m�n P\{��
Supp!emennl?.fa:erial,'\�Itthods.' uncerninry in ach of ch: parunercrs used :o nposurt�cu 131 3 4.2 pglm3 in 2003,and
afcvla;c-cf�e PAF, u su�scd by Grcenlar:d is pmjececd ro deanu:o 10.9-i.%ygfm3 in
C1tF?oa�da+.aet�i mo�Q�:-._ (2004). Thc UI for t4c cnfhc dcnsiry, EG ?035(m Supplemenul?�laccriil,Figurc Sld).
�CFF�,,,;��.�p�p�lma�+.�.`�7m�a�=� and P\{25 PAF .cas calculaced by incorpo- In 2003, an acimaud 6.S% (9)4o UI:
�3� ncing che unartainry af chc resc�lyd CRF, 2.4, 11.0) of cht roul CHD dachs among
thac is, ;he hazard ntio aponrn,ueed :o che �he populnciou z 4i yurs could be a�erib-
Becausc che PAFs (or enKc drnsiry, EC, populacion-wci�hred mnn. The UI for [he umd eo eraffit dtnsiry (Figurc ?A).The PAF
ind PM�g wr.c alculamd (or a populacion- proximiry PAF �ru escimued accouncing for is ezpected ro deueue :o G.E% (9�% UL
�ecighmd mean ezposure For che tntire ehe unctminry in both parameters(pro:imiry 22, l03) in 203>, refler.ina chc expecad
populadon, [hc proportion ciposcd (paa in CRF and chc pmpoaion oposcd). dccrcasc in populuiomwcighad vaffic
Equa�ion 2 beeomu unity and Equa:ion 2 RBSUI25 densiry. The atimated 2003 Pr1F for rai-
rcduccs co Equuion 4: drnciil distmcc o(s i 50 m from frccwayz or
lhc roul$oG�B popuh�ion��ns li.� m11Gon 5 50 m 6om rmjor`oadw��s(2.4%;9)%UI:
PAF=(CRF- 1)/CRF. �$� in 2003 and is projcc[cd [o inunsc by 1.4, 33) u�s tmallu�an thc PAF for eichv
approzimudy 3 million in 203). Howcver, vnfFic dcnsity or EC, buc was projccmd ro
lC'c scicucd a bacl:ground lo�d abovc which �hc proportion z 4� ynrs ac rizk for CHD incrm.0 in 2035 ro 3.I%(9i%UI: 2.1, 4.0),
the imp�ce w-u quantified. For EC ard is apected to inemut from 3�4o in 2005 cefleccing :he incrcuc in proportion li.-ing
P\iZ,�, PAFs w�ere acima¢d (or the reduo- eo 43% in 203i (Table 2). As a resule, ehe dose :o major to�dw�n_ Bssed on atimat�
:ion of ehe popularion-wcighted rocan Ic�ds increast in ehe CHD mor.aliry' nccs, ��6ich burdcn of EC ciposurc, 3.7% (95% UI:
to backo ound la'cls of 0.12�nd 5.6µglmj, rcf�ca thc chmgc in thc populacion agc 1.9, 5.>) of chc ro:al CHD duths in thc
resp^cci��dy, based on measuremenes in a discribecion, are projecced m inaease dispro- z 4$ynrs age gmup in 2008 mcld ha.t ban
dan Cencral Cali(otnia eoas�al communiry portionamly �cieh the pooula;ion ir.crose, pm•enecd if the popiJadon-��Yigheed mcan EC
(Lompoc) .or �e paiod 1994-2001 (Per.rs from 3.4 ro 9.9 deaths per 1,000 popula- exposure Ireds 6ad Seen ac eF.:backgrovnd
ec aL 206�-Prniau ztudia used similu 6adc- [ion. $oCAB CHD hospi:aliu[iort nies are levd of 0.12 µglm; insccad of 1.1 pg/m3.
ground Ic+'ds and mechodolooy (Aoenberg pmjecmd ro incrcue from 8.9 per 7,000 in Decrcasing populacion-���eighecd mnn EC
a :1. ZO10; Ewns a�l. 2013). &cnusc vatTic 2003 co 11.3 per 1,000 in 203�. Icrd u upcc[cd [o racl� in dcacascd PAF
is md¢ly an:lvopogeniq du h�d:gou�lo'd Annual avcrage populaeion-a•cig6md ro 2.3% in 203� (9�% Ui: 1.2, 3.4). The
for v+�c densiry w�s 1.0, u incrnud CHD enffie densiry �vas markedly skeacd (see escima;ed rcgional PMig PAF wu 10.4%
risk(i'ablc 1)wzs only obsen�cd u �pon,ra Supplcmcnnl �iuerial, Figurc Sla). The (95% U1: 7.3, 12.9) in 2003 and is projcaed
> 1 (lo�in(ficdrnv�•ofacro). mtdian 2008 tnF(ic dcnsiry was 14.4 cohllro7.5%(9i%Lr1:5.6,93)in?Ai>.
7he 2003 md 2035 �ttributabk nunbers (IQR = 3.9-30.1), af�er eorreaing for Bazed on �he \RAP PAFz for enffie
.cere atimued by mulciplying eh:populaoon che fleet aver�ge P\t,.y emission rcduo densi:y, �n :seimaced 1300 (95% UI:
245yrarsby[heCHDmoraliryorhospieali- cion, and is projec[ed �o decrcase ro 11.6 440, 2,000) prtvencabl: dn[hs occer¢d
ucion ra�es and che PAF(Fqmuon 5). (IQR- 4.1-22.3) in 2035 (from gcomarie in 2005, and Z,500 (9�% UI: 360, 4,000)
man of 10.5 in ?00$ ro 23 in 203�). In pre.�entab!e dnchs will occur in ?Oi5 due
Popuarioaracaibua6le number�._,.��;.,,�e„ �onerast, �he p�oportion of the popula�ion ro vuTic densin•within 300 m of residenr.a
=Popula�ion��5 li�ing wichin 150 m from a f;ecw�y or�0 m (Fi�2B�.This I�.-ve Cumm i�ansc is duc co
X��..,c:�n,v,�de,am from o major road is upecmd m ir.crtase� [he projectcd inause in popula:io�,s�6o11}'
x PAFo,,,,���oy,,,;�. (5] from 83% :0 109% I'rom 2008 co 203> ro �he disproporcionz:e incrcasc in cl:c aging
(scc Supplemen[al 7.�uerial, Figure 516). popala;ion ac risk o:CHD.This cffeec na be
U�c calcvlucd cht PAF and �hc a.ribuo- Thc mcan (f SD) popula:ioa-�ccighc:d EC qiunti6cd using�hc h;-po�haid?03)sccnario
ablc nurubcc for thc porcion of nch coun,y
wiehin [he $oC.AB and also for chc cacirc Tahle i Population z<5 yezrs xnd coronxry heart disease ICHD)monxliry and hasqialiia:ion ates
$oG1B rcgion. Thc PAF and �hc uvibueabk overall far the SouN Coast Air 3asin and by counUes tor 2008 and Droj^tted�r 2035.
nvnbcr for i6t dinance ro roada�ys markcr CHDrva-ati,f CHDias;ialraams
of�RAP aposucc nn be in:erprcccd as cFe Fc7�aaafi��Sy°atsf`FF' I;x:l.f:a1 IP°�i.00�)
proportion ar.d numbcr oi dcuhs, aspcc- ��n Z� � 2� � � py
-;n�d,v, ,hac muld bc prcvrntcd if no or.c?i��cd l��geles 3.321)0.i(>=1 5.7�.6i51aP1 3J i:] 9.1 10]
wi[6in 1 j0 m fmm a frccway'or �0 m From a O:atge 1.0&i.13'(3i.3) 1,501.=96(:5.11 2.6 u.8 9J
major foad. For EC ar.d P\1py chc FAF (or Rivervde SSa.oi6�'i.01 76d.776I<0.51 d.l '.i 733 i3.1
r.w-n6:r of a;ttibu:able n�rnes) nr� be inme- ���y�gp e55,x2ry_6) 672,L35�:OJ) 2.2 5.= 9.1 139
Pre.cd u [h: ptoPortion (numbcr) chu muld ia�a1 - 5,?r,535�35.1) 8.0.75.1521�3.31 3.= t9 8.9 i1.3
be Pm'cr.[cd if[}Ie POPu�a[ion-w2ip�:td man RoC�'�a�n is tor�he paaioo o!�e cour.y;:.xt u criiin he Sa�rh Lozs;Ri�Bzs'e.oa•r.i.y.ezcer.;u Oranye Coc�:�
ecPnutrtSw't:ereduced[ObaCA�mundle�Tis. whue;heer.;i`ernor.Ya�••-+��°=uFzsiz°Per:ea-a:eol.amal{e1laSeslPW�=bti
�cxj vauv[12=1nvx:�Ea 21 February 2016 � Emi:onmenal HezJ3i Perspecd�xs
�`��^i
4.�
aa=Y�
idear-road:•:ay po[lu�ion and coronar/heart disease
in whid� chc wczl population w;u incrcssrd Tnc tstima[cd ^AP for CHD imcNial- Esimaccs of che 2D03 pra�a:cable CHD
as projcc:rd bu: nas assigncd ;hc 2003 ag: iza;io� auribucabk m F.(: csposurc in �hc morcali:}•duc ro\'R\Y arwug ihe>_45 petrs �
_ diseribucion (essen:ialfy kcepin� che ocerall �oCAB was i.9°.'0 (9i% UI: 0.7, 3.t) �opu!a;ion in :hc SoCAB viricd liom 2 f^6
monaliry n¢ unchangccl). Under chis hppo- in 200S, and is c�pared m dcdinc :o (f30 dei:hsl, bazcd on cfFcat o(rtiidcr.cial
thc;irrl xrnuio, a mucn smalicr numbcr of 12% (9i% UL 0.4, L9) in 2035 (scc pmsimip� to a major road, w 6.S?o (1,300
dachs(1,700:95°.b U!:600, ?,800)xrould bc Supp!cmennl a�laceri:d,Ta6le S4).The corte- dnths),based on emissioiu-wcighced [nf}ic
� artri6ucable�o�raf6c dcn:iry•. Biscd on rfm PAF sponding a�:ribunblt rtumber of hospical- d:nsi.y. The :nffic dcnsicr-rclaad bcrdcn
Eor caidcncial major ruxd pmsimin•(5 150 m iucions wss 920 (95% UI: 320, I,500) for in 2008 �vas abou� nvu-thirds chc burdcn
Cmm a frmvay or 5 �0 m from anocher major 2009 and is rxpeacd co increase slighd,v :o (10.490, 1,900 deaehs) aecribunbk m «ge-
mad), ehere wtrt 430 preventable CHD 1.100 (9i4o UI: 330, ].700) in 20i5 a(:cr laeed rc��onal P�fis.Thus. ,o �he e�crne ehae
deac6s (9>% UL 270, 600) in 2005 and a accouncin� for incrrua in populacion and NfL1P xnd P\�2 y ct}�ccu am indcpendent,
pmjcctcd 1�00(9i%Ui:820, 1,600)in 2035, hospicaliuion ntc in an aging population. If bc�usc r eional P�tis doa no[chanacrizc
mmp�cd+.;ch s3o(95% UI: 570, I,too) ehae che 2003 a¢e disvibuuon�.�erc applicd ro the [he sharp �ndirnc in <Fkas of ehe near-
woad bc anddpucd iF�he 2035 age dicrribu- ?035 populuion, e6e hypodicrial nwnber oE roadway po!luunt mi:tvrc, a risk ztscssm;nc
uon w�crc :lec same as in 2008. For EC, 690 hospi:aliucions mighc be ap:aed co deerease bascl on P\1,�alone it li}:ely ro bc a rubs:an-
CHD dnchs w'em a:uibutable to ezposum ro SSO (9>%V1 300, 1,400). �ihe projecmd [ial undertr.imaa of the vut pollucion-
abo�r bad�tow�d Incls(95% UI:3(0, 1,000) partcm of char.gc occr timc in the counry- anribu�able CHD morcaliry. Thc 2035
in ?008, abouc 6alf of the cscima:cd :raf6c spcd6c rnimacrs was grn<nlly similar to :hai o ccnhouse gas rcducrioo-planning sccnuio
densiry�-ac�ibuuSk dnchs buc more�han 1.5 - for ehe enurc$oCAB. is projecced co raulc in reduced population
rima che major road proximiry'-anribuublc pI5CUS5iOf1 �posure and reduced PAF for P`tip m6ic
d:achs The EC-accribun6.c dachz��crc also dcnsiry, and EC (buc not for raidcntial
projttccd m inernx Iess chan ihat For vaf"c This s�udy is onc of thc fint risk atu_umenu oE prosimiry• co major road�nyt). Howc��er, a
dcnsiry,to 900(9�°.5 U[:47D, 1,.i00)in 2035. CHD morzaliry and hospiulivacion aariSut- sucprising 6cdiog was chac chc a:cribc[xblc
Mosc of ehc cseimaccd increase ac�ribenblc ablc .o \R�1P markers nnd ehc fir�c, co oec nmabcr oECHD dn�hs duc boch co P\{,5
ro EC is duc ro che aging populauon secuo- �o.clydge, ro projecc fumre eseimates oE �nd ro uch NRAP aposure, orn under che
�a�e neher chan jesc ehe incrnse in popula- ehe burden in a luge metropolinn region, optimis.ic planning uenario considered, iz
cion, �chich by iself would raulc in a smafl
dnc.au in dezihs co 6�0 (95% UI: 330.920) �J e ir�.Tn Gem�ry ��' ! - , � ' -u �'�'" _ = �
bccausc chc popula[ion-�ccig6ccd nposurc is _ �s ❑o�asoaumam . . a. -� .-; - - ,�
Pro'cctcd ro darnst o�'cr cimc.About 1,900 = s s.�.�ai�,:b� i' , } ��,j -h � � :+,y �F � I .
} ` u 'n.4, � . � 1... -t�- ���. � s� `"„�.'.' - ..
dn;}u (9">90 Ll: 1,400 2,4Q0) in 2003.�•ero _ _ ... _ . , ,_ .
�-;r �. . . .. , ' . _ C `- e�,,`:.
cstimaced co be anrtbuoblc eo regional P\1�5. - n:_ ?•>s-�:,� °p"-...r �
��:��.:` q.r-�-- i'-1�:'.- _ _.-,: o - .'t�`�'`I�
A subsur.eial ir.crease ro 2,900 (9>% UI: _ e �' - _ _ _ " � �' '
z f �_ �
2.200. 3.600) is apened in 203�, dapim a = �� �;. '+' �.'r'.r:;. :.;�_ �`.?;::��_�:��Y...�,�5`;, d�,
i.�•.;` ,�__�: _ � . _,i;.-`'-�-. -,° T��.;at�..�.a�:.�
2i% dcucuc io PAF, duc co :hc changc in � � �- . . _ - - p ' .
P°P��on and ag dis:riburion. In che hyPu- a = !,���;��•.�:��.�?�b-���1�_> ��',.F,`-�
��- .± .
thaial sccnario in ���hich only :he popul�- o :i'��" `__=,...' � .:,��.:F�f�`r,'�t.a;':_-�o•-_._ ,-''- ,
;ion incrosa in 2035 wichouc any change ,�g° \�S'R .A' �3c�° .d? ���c .�4' ��.+�,;°
in agc dis.ribu�ion, thc PMis-ar.ribuublc ��C �� �� oq�d
dnchs would nill incrosc ro 2,000 (9590 UI:
isoo zsoo>. �J =� j.,,-,,;.. :. � . �f;°_ s_- , —; . .
�....`��:
lht ovcall putcrn oEthanp ng ccposurc �pm __ _^ '-�p—_.:� '�;- -."����--'
�nd\R;1P-a[:ribunble CHD wu grnerally _ � ':"`�'f. �' °� � . . _ ' -�'`s� ..� �:"'� '==`x'�-�
similac across all SoCAB counties. Tnf�'ic t,�.''K:'•:. ,.. . :.� 'z;-:-�i�=�-,._--�CF�� `_ --Y� '�3,-�d . " '-�
�nm —�-r----, �-
dcr.sity and EC Icvds w'crt 6ighuc in Los � -F-y 40� %..T- • .�+,•'-.i£ � ' 'y_��-+- ;;� � u- . --:`:" � -
Angeles Counry and lon�ut in Ri.•erside _ Z� . ��I� _ � .z� _ _ ,y� l _
:�,u•� �':- .�� . �_x'4t� -`
Counry and are projccted :o d:creue in all ° � � - � -�-. ��__ _
four coun[i-s from 2008 ro 203J. (scc � �� ��'���-d' ��"-'"`'�T"-i-��'_�.���-f�=��-�` ��t: �
s _ . .�._.-- - - r::..3.—_
$u?p!��n��ul W;erial.Table$! .Im m�ms.� a ,�a,�?.L�,'%. , .XI-� -=y"' '�(r��:'.� . .d?:-�:
) r' <•�•'._'-:-_ q. ..y: ��..a�-.:
thc propotcio» licing nnr a major road is ��°0 � 't''p�i���_t aa��d"��
a, t; y_�� 7 r;j-- '� c�: .
-.r„�hTT� . . � LS.� ��"�`i��y. �. .f�-.e�lY _ ..
PID)tCtGA f0 tt1C(OS: lf1 dII WLLt1:l6 AL`Me i}1C sx �, ��,,,o,,:_�: �.t�-. ,- . . , _ _
same perind Los�`da Counry wnsa,enc}y ° , �-:a-_s.+��-.��e+i� - �'�-"-.6�;"�."=_i-
o �_.. .L.LS:. ..�. ti
had the highac avmarcd PAf and Ri.�:rside 1¢ $3�r �.F ,� �2 o�°g ,rs'� .�F .��a .� 3�° �!�e
Counq�chc lowcsc 6ucd on each tzposurc � ��.�qa�� �y`�'� ,Q�4�,°`�°°�` ,Pfi,,`d,s�,p`
in boch Z003 and in ?035 (scc Supplemen:al ��` �., .c' e�
Macrrial,T�b!e 52).lhc rstimaced popJarion- ''? �
aaribuablc numbcr��'u consistcnd�� highese Figure 2 Populatiomartributa6le�ractions(A1 and papulavon-atibutx�le oum6ers�B)and SX uncer-
in Los Angcles (scc $upplemenul Aiucrial, tziny intervals for coronary heart disease nor.aliry in�he Sou:h Loast Air Basin in 200H and 20's5,•
T�blc S3), bue �nFfic densiry-, EG, and xr,rihu:ed ro cra��ic densi,y�vi;hin 300-m bufter L•on resid>nce,�^sidmazl dis;ance;o nearest:re^way
P\1� ar.ribuoS!c r.w�nbers�cere nch lo��rs� Is li0 m�ur najor road lz i0 m),elemental car6on,znd regional PA7i5 above hackgmund Ievzis oF 1�or
in San Bcrmrdino in 2003 md are cspcc:ed Ja�c L=_nsry,O% b� prmciniy,0.12 pyr�otor EC,and:.6 y�/m�tvr PMiy Populauon-weigh[ed nean
ro increuc mukcdl;�bl•?03�,re�cctin onuci- exC�su�=s ia 2003 and 2D3i vrere 10.3 ar�d_3 ar va:a densi.y, 1.7 and 0.7 pg(rP(or EC,and 112 and
g 1�3pglrtP:o�PM�s�espec[ivery.
P'dted Popu�zuon incrnu undct[he comPac[ 7a�.ufz�aaiv',nDle r.s:rAer 7a:r..iGh:te tyttsd L�L1>5 i:?e zye ciza�cion a:7�2(L•5�c7u1x]er.+rt:e 3e
urban dnrlopmrnc scenario. sxme as in m3
Emh;onmentalHealNPerspecwes � wtux:1241.u�,=.=.21Februxry201fi 197
�--.,
�F��F�:
`"'...`�'� Ghosh ai al.
cspcacu m incrcaic subs�an:ially b� ?035. c!�c aFwsurc y�d wucia;cd popul:;r.on burdrn P\{,.i and :hc rucnc ro ���nici� chdr oflcccs
larocly dur co�vlr.crabiliiy uE an agir.g popu- of CHU nwrbidi��aud murtalicr. par[ini6�dv arc iodc�ndrn:.
- lation.71m proportion 2 G� purt, a� F.ighcs[ ;or t};c dderty. ll:c uncacain;��of chc acim:ves bua{on
. risk oF CHD (Ford and Capncc0 200%), i; lhcrc art unccrtaiNiti in che u�imaczs. Eumrc cxposure sctmrio is likcly ro bc g�ca:cr
pmjcacJ ro doublc o�•cr chc r.csc rnro dcada. 'Ihc scaunical uncr.�ainq' inccmis xrc laroc chan for chc currcnc cccimaccs, for ccamplc,
Thcse rescl•s havc imporcan[ implica- The acimamd uuibunble burdcn also u•c mrrttctd ihc:nfFc-dcpsiry�CRF hased on
uons (or hnith and urban plannino policy. .aricd dcpcnding on chc mar4cr for NRAP.. an �ssumpcion cha: the eifca of och cchidc
" CHD accounts for most oF the mormliry� Thc 200$ mf}ic dcnsi;��-u:ribunbie CHD czpomm w�oiJd dttlinc in propordon w tht
accribuablt co P�i=.g Icvcls in a�ctst of ch: mortalin wu largac (6.3%) and thc major dccrasc in flcc:a�Yragc Pil1,S cchide cmiuion
nacional sundnrd (12 p�m;) and thercfo¢ road..ay pro�imiryaRribuab!c mortaliry was nca per kilomacr o�vard sina ;he origin�l
for thc largrsc pollucion-a«ribunblc annual smallat (2.4Yo). Thc cn(iic dcnsiry burdcn cpidcmiologial smdy��as cnnduacd,cqui�a-
cconomic cosa, approsimud}' S4.G billion ��-as bucd on a CRF ;hat used concinuous Im: co 154b from 2003 to?03).7hc crudcr
(adjusud co 2014 using thc U.S. Burnu of ezposure and accounmd for volume of cn�c procimiry�c�pnsurc india:or�vu not
I�bor Sucistia Consumcr Nricc Indez in9a- cc6ida on all nnrby rwdx•a;z (Kan et al. adjuncd ior chmgu in �•chicular cmiuions
don acuhror)(13.5. ES'A 2013).Accounciry ?003), and ic �+•as correcccd for changir.g and chcrcforc mzy mxratimatc ch:cEkct of
for thc cffcas of i iR.4P is likdy co markcdly vchicics cmissions o.•er :ime. Thc smallcr ;his indinror. Alcemui.�dy, chc prozimicy-�
incrcasc aumua of ccopomic wsc of pollc- bcrden a:imunl From major road..ay proz- u.ribucablc 6urdcn may rcflccc cfsrca noc
uon. Thc incr�sing populauon-ac[ribunblc imi.y migh:be apeccd beousc:hc CRF wu sral�blc �o c5anga in PM msss—for mmple,
number due ro ao aping populaeiom m�ns based on a eichotomous dassifica.ion :hat i(the morc toxic mmponena of the muw-e of
ehac addiuonal fiospiul bnis and o:her healeh does noe aeeoune for ;heu:accors (Gan a al. frah.thia:lar anissions changed ro�diEarnc
tu:Ji�ia xill be needed(or CHD vncmrnc. 2QI0), and :huefomis �}:e crudese surroo ce proportion chan P\tZ_5 mass, oe if compo-
\uional air poliueion regulations alrndy (or che�'RAP mi:�um.Nci;her oF eheu expo- ocnes of resuspcndcd road dust chat mighc
adop:ed will have impac[s over �he next sura aanuna for mecmmlo�y and dispersion not change a[ all a•erc the mlevan[ 6anrd
20 rnrs;aampla indudc Tier-? and Tier3 of a bioloa dly rde�anc vaEfic pollu�an�such ($chwartz 1999)- The uncorrectcd cnf6e
�•c6ide s[andards (U.S. EPA 2014), md ss EG for.chich �6c numbv of accribunble densiry is acmally projected w invnse (by
non-ro�d dicsel rcquirements (U.S. EPA dca�hs in 2003(n=G90)wzs becwren chac;or 6j%)from 2003 ro 203�,az is the popilaoon
2004). Theu and [he likely ongoing a�olu- major road�y prozimiq•aposem (r. = Si0) li.ing near a mnjor road[from 83%m 10.9"6
[ion of mnerol [echnoloq rcquircmenes.cill and traffic densicy (n = 1,300). EC had c6e (sre Suppltmen[nl \4attrial, Figure Sib)j.
wnvibum ro fcduccd PM,g and EC emi4iont, smalJac increase in 2035 NRAP-ucribunblc Bcmusc ihc burdrn and msa of\R,4P are
and likd,v will reduce che impaa of road��zy morcalirv (which would be expecced ro luge, additional ranrth is ��'arnnted ro
proiimicy and cr��c dcnsiry (CRC 2013). drdinc if�hc�pulouon wuc noi agin�.The redua char so:i:ca of unccretinry.
\��e ha�•e noe aeimamd ihe impaa specific smaller EGacvibucable burden in ?03i �•u Anocher importanc assumpeion is chu
:o grttn6ouse gas-reduaiom m�sura, inde- dut m m an[icipaced deancr burr.ing disd �he aee-speciFic CHD races will remain
pendcne oEochcr polluciomrcduttion strate- v:hide fl:e:. EG (and PMz_5-) n:cribueaSle unchangcd From 2005 to 203j. CHD
gia. Hm��n•eq our cesul[s mgget[ [hr, chcrc burdrn w•crc also bascd on an auumption mortality nt�s havc falltn markcdly ovcr thc
aze u;ee unaploi:ed opportunida for 6nl�h chac no CHD ei(cc.s M�ould occur bdow Isse se��enl drada in ehe Uni:ed$a:c(Ford
bcncfia �hac..ould rault Gom rcgularion of bac'iground Icrcls of 0.12 pe/m3 (EC) and cc al. 2007J duc co s:�'cnl (acmrs. Howrvcr,
\RAP, and chu addicioml hdch co-bcncfics i.6 pe,/m3 (PM2.�, w�hi� may hn�c resul:cd incrcascd praacncc of obtsiry and ics mcn-
could be obnin� from e}t: 203> green6ouse in an er.daescimxced budea bolic constqu:nces are likdy w slow ehis
ns reducdon-planning process. The 203) EC is a toxicologidl. rdecane mmpo- dedine in CHD mortziiy rata and could
wmpaa gro�'eh scrnuio used for [his s:udy nene oi parciculate ma:mr Qanzsen e[ al. po:en;i�lly reverse :Sem. T6ere(o:e, ic is
��ill p.omo:e utban¢dnelopmrne with mulri- 201?) zubs.an:ially influenced by pollerion di�.�icul� io quv�tifc ehe net impact of thac
family homn in corridors wich good public (rom 6nry du.y(diacl) ��c!uda in Sou�hun :rcnds on the aumua of NRi+PaariSwb!:
mnsport :o rcdua rcliancc on priva:c au:o- CaliComia (Manc6acco-\crnig ec aL 2003). burdrn oFdisasc.
mobila. The plan ��ill promo:e im•uunen� In chis smd,v, che eseimaetd parcd Icvel EC A limiu[ion co che comparison of e1:e
in biq•dina and walking infnswcmre, and ezpomre used in nlculacino the bucden N24P- and Pht,_5-acvibunble burden of
�mtma [hac ch:re Hill be inc�vsed .-ehicular accounted Eor che inlucnce oi meeeorology CHD is ihac ehe originil source CR.°s wxrc
Rctt b:d efficieney and reduced emissions. on dispusion Gom lonl roadu•�ys, unlike a�imucd for diEcrrn� agc discribuuons. 7hc
Howec�r, if ehis planning sanario inuo.us ehe o[her t�.v e\°R4P markers. Howo•eq che P�1,.5 CRF ..as dn�doped (or a populazion
chc popularion czposal ro �'RAP by p6dng arimaccd EC ciposure indudcd boc6 cans- >_ 30 pcars (Krc�.�ski a al. 2009), which ac
pcople doser w bury mad���yz, chey may be por,cd md loal NR4P EC. \�ost (- 90?6) usigned eo che popul�uon>_45}'nrs in oedcr
pu� ae inereased CHD risk, unlas �•chide of thc rotal EC upoa:re was regional�nd�r�s ro be compaab!c co che populaeion for ehe
emisxions���erc m dcvcax mo¢sa6san:ially m:nmon �o all part:ls in earh 4 I:m x 4 1:m CRFs for all �hrce indices oE\`RAP (Gan
ehan currendy ancieipaced. Varianes on �he EC ecpos�:re grid.Thus,c�:c acicnual burden ee al. 2010. 201 l: Ku� et al. 2003). PS[�.y-
p!�nning sccnuio, sucti u polici� ro dc�clop for EC �cflccccd boch rcgional and nnr- accribucablc burdcn was mnsidcnb!y largcr if
a zcro-or dox-:o-uro-enission ��ehidc flccc, ro�d�..�y effcas, and EC eEee.s may noc bc applied co t i0 yars age group (3,100 iacal
muldopumizchdeheo-benefiaofgrcnhouse cncircly indepevdenc oE:6: burden assio ed CHD c�-ems in 2003, e.g., eompared wieh
gu rcducrion. Moc.�cr �pproach miohe be eo co ehe P\dz.s polluoan,modded solcly on the :6e 1,900 estima:ed based on ch< popula-�
encounge bu�ers bee.�mn m�jor �n.�ic eorei- regional snle Them(orq ehe simple �ddiuon don 2 4j yors).�ihe largu estimve i:geneo-
dors and hig6-densi.y da�clopm:ne chrough of c6e EC- ar.d P\{,_�-a::ributable c.en:s allv consincnc wi�h o�her smdiez mmining
zor.ing and o:her Imd use policirs. Benuse may ovtrenimam thc tacc: oi that �olluc- che burdrn of P�iZ_yaivibucabic CHD
markcrs to�thc\`RAP mi<nuc dccrosc shzrply u,cs. lc a dimaJc co uscss chc d�g«c of suo', moruliry sncca•idc {CARB 2010). If c6e
.�i:h disnn« ro tnf(c, buffcrs oF c.�rn a fav docb!c coundn„u chuc has bccn!icck smdy CRFs (or \R4P w'crc applicd co c6c popula-
IOs to l50 m arc likdy ;o dttrcase markedl� oE�Se joine cficcts of ccposu;e w EC and cion 2 30 pnrs, chc aeimated berden aso
�9$ wm:•.e i2�I xu::s[s 21 Feb:uary 2416 � Environrt�m;zl HerJch Perspecdves
��-rt'G�'
��
Uearrozdray pollution and mronzry h=art diszase �'�'.�'"�
iucrc+>ed markcdlp (dac:i roc zho.�:�). \C�c micioat�d, and�) �VR�I'' (and P31_�) aarib- pcllution usin; sei=_:ii;e im,.gery. E�vima .°.es
havc dccxd m uw chc common \W1P C1tf' unblc CHD is I�kclv:o in�TCUC cccn iF popc- �x*3.vt. .
sge uistribueiar. for �Il es;imata becausc la[iontsEwsurcisreducedbcvusea(incrc¢ud «rzES,i,jaciU�t,G;hJB,Cri:c:deyJA,lz�a^,.:eCR,
�l�1P is thc cz ose�c of rimarv in;cresc vulner�b7li�pofana�in� uhtion. Kc�keL.etxLhN.FSFl��gthedecreasee�U.S.
P P o o WP „_�;;�s;rom caronxy�is¢xse.I?90-11K-0.N ingl J
Howcvcr, ihc cscima[cd burdcn for bod� ki=d356:Y3.q-�'J�. Lo210.1056'NEJMsaGSStS
' \RAP and PAdZ� ratric[cd �o �hc 2 f>yur REFERFR[ES Ford ES,Cxpev:ell S.?W7.Coronxry heart disease
popula�ion it likely co bc conscrvatiee. martali.^/aneng your.g adWts in the U.S.tron
TrafTiorela:cd noist has bcen associ- Anenberg SC.Hormviu LW.Tong OQ,lNezt J.2010. 15��timugh 2P7c mncealed leve6ng et nereati.y
a[cd «�ich CHD, buc �.•hcchcr ic confounds, An estima;e of the glohal Curden ot antNO- ra:et.JAmCoOCardid5Q2129-213t:doi:10.1016(.
pogenic azane and fine Dar.iculate me;:er m jacc2f107.9i.0.ic.
mcdiattt, or inmac[s wi[h ncar-roadu•ay p�enature hcman mortali:y usinq aunospheric Fritschi l. Bro�vn AL, Rim R, Schwela D,
pollueion is undar (Fricschi ct �I. 2011). A modetinp.EmironHeal�Perspect118:1189-II''i5: K_phalopolous5.=ds.]Qii.Burdenol0is=as=toi
�eccn[review sugves:ed �}ut che mv ue likcly doi:10.1269leAp.090121U. . Fnvironmentnl M1oice:�uanufication of Hext�r Li:e
independcnc risk facrots oFCHD (Daei�and Bell Ml.E6isu K,Peng AD,Samet JM,�ominici F. Yez�s lnst in Eu:cpe.CoD�ag=n,OenmarkiVodd
Kunp 2012),buc this condusion wys bsscd ��Hospfal aCm+ssions and cAenical comyov- Heal:tiDryaru.a6vRAegionxlORCetorEorape.
on only�iour s[udia.-If¢CRFS wc uitd e'crt uan c7 5n!particle air palNlion.Am J 3espi�Crit Gan VIQ, Koehoom IA, Oavies HW, Oeners ?A,
Gre Med 1799ll�ri120. Ta.Duric t,3ave:M.Mll.tong-terr.n ezposure
no[ adjusccd for noise, so thc nnc-road�ray Benson PE. 19?t.A revieir c:tSe developnen:znd ;o:�aKc-�ela;�d air pallueion a�d :he risk o�
pollu:iona;tribucable burdei rnuld be indr pp�ication of Ltie CALINE3 and:models.A;nos co:mary heart disrase ho:pi;ali:a:ion and
pcndenc or parcinlly ovcrlapping wi:h �hc Fnviron 2631�390, r..ortzli.y. Eavircn Heal;h 7e�spec[119:i01-507;
noisc bvden. Braok ft0, Rajagopalan$, Pope CA 111, B+ook JH, ddr.iU.l2Eyehp.i0Dti11.
� The hrzl:h bcncfit from rcduc[ion in Bh:maqarq0iez-RouaA�,enLM10.?articula:x Gan tY4 Tam6mic 4 Daeies HW, Demen ?A,
NR.iP is unlikd;•eo be limi.cd ro rcduaions r+ar.e�air poiiatian and cxrdiavascufar disease: Koehoom M,3rau^r Ai.i010.Changes in resi-
an update to �he scien[ific statemem t�o� dentlal prosi�i.y m�ozd uatfic a�d th^risk ot
in CHD mortaliry. \Y�c ha�•e no[ cseima[cd Ne American Hean Associacion. Circulatian deatifromcoronzryhear,disease.EpiEemiolagy
burdrn of I�R.4P-atcriburablc mordiry asso- �2�;��_�7gdai:l0.li61ICIR0l013e3181dSecel. 21ia:2�:9.
cia[ed wi:h ot6er ou�comes, such u serolce Cali:omia 9epartment at Fnance.t0i3.Hepart P-2: GeDer MD,Szrda:S3,?huleria H,Fne Ph{Sio�as C.
and rhronic obswcm'e pulmonary discntt in S:xte and Cocnry PoDula:ion Proiecrions�Race/ 200i.Measvre:.�e,rs of pxrucle nvmber xnd nxu
;hc ddcd,v, for which chc ousal ¢laoonships ENniu,ry and 5-Year Age GrouDS,2016-2115 0 1'+Y concenuarians and si:e dis;ribuuor.s in a;ennel
arc Iess dcar (HEI 2010). However, uehma Year).Avada6le:hcplMnvw.dot.ca.qov/rezearcFJ environmer.t Envimn Sci Techno139:CE53-6c63; -
Ceno3�aphiclrepans/pmjecDOnsJPLlaccessed do[IOJ�tlles4i0.i';Os.
and sschuu wcubacion in c6ildrtn arc lil:dy t0 Sep•snber2013J. GreeNand S.h70i.I,z:ervzl esumaticn by sir..ufarion
aesed by \TW1P and hare a largc associued �qpB(Cxlifomia Environnental 2m:ecuan Agency as an xl'=maive�and enension ol cor.ldence
Serden(Ptra tt al.201?). Cafitomia Air Fesoerces Bva�dL 2070. Esdma:e E��rnals.laJ E�iEecc�13i:13E,4-1397.
Rjc daila:ed:hc PAF uing th:uandard of 7rema:ure Dea:hs Associa;ed with Fine NEI liezl.h Effec's Ins.iiu:e).2010.T�aYorelz:ed
P�£ formula (Equuion 2). How•c��cr, this Pa:ri:le?otlouen(?1Ayy)Li Czti:omia Using a U.S. Air PolluSon:A Cri7cxl fleview of:he Li:era:ure
escima[c may be biased irt [hc prc5ence of Eraironren:xl P:o:ectivn.An,encY Me:Aadalogy.� ¢n 6�issior.s,Esposure,and Hexl�eYeca.EEI
Avadxble h�!/vnwi.uAw.9�'�rtsearcfJhezl:.i! Special Aepon i7.9osmn, MA:HEI.Avxila6le:
confounding by chanaerisuu in ehe smdy P;�.maJpm-repon_IDIO.pdf laccessed 5 January h:p9/pubz.heahSeRecs.o�g/qet5le.php?u=5i3
�om w6ich eLe CRF is dcmrd if eh«eo.ari- p�,�. facc=ssed 2�.1�e 2]nl.
ates ore nor availablc for [he �uget Popula- CA39. 2U11. EMFAC2011-NO User'z GciEe. 'r.c;~aon3,�dceSusS,S3n�qBeckEM1iDraga:vq,
cion (DarrowandS[ttnland3011). There Sava�nefr.o,CA{AAB.RvzlaSle:h:tp��/vn-m.arS. Mdh!=nkanaS,etzLttt5.a_sidencedasetohi9h
���as li[[Jc confounding of[hc CRFs for tnffic �a.qavinsede�:actDlt�hd-uzers�gui7e-Final.pLf ezNC znd prevalence a1 comnary hean disezse.
dcnziry md EC 6�a�ailablc covariaea in che Iaccessed 5 February N17?]. Ee�4eart J D1p�2iU2
Y � (G�� LARB.n1{3a.EMFAC2U11 Technicel Oocumen;a�o�. Janss_n NA G=_rlofs-NijlandlAE,lanid T,Salonen fi0,
s.udiu �rom which [hc n-cre dcriv Avada6le:ht¢J/wr.w.arb.ca.gcv(mseVemtac20n- [zssee F,Hoek G,_:al.2012.Hexl,h eYects a�
tt il. 2011; Kan « al. 2008). However, the documen:a:ion-final.pd7 Iaccessed 17 Oc;o6er Elack carhan. Copenhagen, Dennark:Worid
CNdf CRF 140C1][Cd MIL�I II�IRe nnr a major 201tJ, - Heath Organ'veuon,�ieqi�nal Office:u Ecrope.
road wu 1.69 and reduced to 1.29 ��ter L4ft8. 20136. EMFAL2011-1OV User's Guide. Avxilable: hap:/W++v�v.ee+o.who.inV_datz/
�djescing for confoundcrs (age, scz, socio- Sacraneato,LAtA48.GvxlaSle:h:p7h+��arS. asseu/pdt_RIeI�7:1t52aii7e%S:LDdflaccessed
economic znces, and co-morbidieiu) (Gan ca.yovlmseUen;ac2UlLldv�uterv5uide-CinaLpdf i2J;nuaryxlltJ,
c[ al. 2010).Theu co�ariata are noe a�yJ- �ac<_uedSFebvaryi01:34 Kan H,ieiss G.3cse RM,Whiuel E0.����ann F,
Carter W7.2000.�ocumen;a5on cF,he 54PAC�99 lonCon SJ.2008.7mspective zr.alysis cf,rat6c
able in our $ouchem CaliFornia population Cheraical Mechanism :o� VOC Reac;i�•i;y expasure as a :izk facbr for inciden:carcnxry
dan me. Haw•c.v, for a wdc CRFladjuseed Azsessment. Final Repor; to California Air Sea:: Eiseaze: .he A�heroscle�osis 3isk io
CRFoF7.G911.?9(i.e, 1.3) andanapasurc ResouaesBw�d.CmvactNO.92-329xndfnPe:J Cammur.iva(:RICI�-•dy.EmvanF!ezt_h?ers7ect
prcvalcncc of 8.345 (chc Propor[ion of chc 9>��Avadable:hap9A+�++v.engr.uccedul-cat.e:l 116:ti53-1=5b;doi:idRE9�ehp.11290.
2008 $oCAB Populacion living nur a major ?uSsls�OOC.pdf Ia¢e:se�5 Fe6ma.ry 2013L Karr.er:N,Eisinge+OS.Niemeier DA.2010.Near
road), our [s[ina:tdtnfticprozimi;yPAF �RLfCoo�dna5r.gfleseerthCouncllnc1.Z073.ENeca :oxLwayairquzli.y.M�esiimgU�eSnd"s�gslmn
ol li9h[�Ou.y Vehicla Emissions an Ozone and?M :exl-vmrld dat�.Emi�on$ci Technd:=533--St-s_
islil:clymundttetcimaccthcwcpro�imiry Wi;hPasLPresentandFu;ureCommis:TierO K:wrsldD,Jeneah;dumen�iT,MaRHur,hes�ShiY,
PAF(Duro«•and S:eenlu:d 201 IJ. venes O:her Swnarios.CflC AeDon No.A-i&2. et aL MJ9.fXenO_d Fdlv.Wlp and SpaSal Cnalysa
Our raua azt fikely co bc rdrnnt ro o�hcr ti�pharer.a, GA:Coo�dineunq 8esearch Council ot Ihe Anerican Cancer Sociery Smdy Unkinq
lar e Nonh Ameci�n ci;ies wi�h dis crsed Inc.Arxilable: hnplh•.ti�v.u<ao.org/�epar,s/ PamculeteAir?al¢iorendMafaSry.HOResezrcS
popul�cions aad high m(Fic ��olum s. We �e.en•stedies20�LA�I67JCAL Pmjec[A76-2 nnzf depon i<0.3ostan,MA:Healih E^ects Insvtu:e.
Repo�pdt�sccesse0 i Api11013�. Available:h¢p!/pu6s.healtheilec;s.o��/gedile.
concludc �ha: a) air polleeion-uvibu:able Der.owL'tS:ee�Jand1�KA71.Lon:ocadinSar.dSias ph>?u=<7Zlaccess^dNMaxm6e�1D13L
bu�den oE CHD mo�ealiry may have Secn ���ea�ibu:ableGacucaEp+Cer.eo!og/22:53-53. hlxnchzsL=r-Neesvig JB, $chave� !J, Czss GP.
unduadmaced in most ecis�ing Pbfi_y-bucd Davies 4,Kar..p IV.2i112.N.oise end cardiovascular 2003.i'}ie Gis4ibu:ian of paf�cle-phase e:qavc
risk assasmcnes b:crose ihcy ignorc !�'Rr1P Gisexse: a revie�v of the li:e�ature 2003-2711. ccmpeu�es in[:e acnasphere ane� their ese
cEf�ccs, b) gr.:nhocsc e s-¢duc[ion planning Mrse Hez{'�41=287-291. 70: sourro appertianment during:he So��em
ofic::addi:ional opportuniiia .or impro��ing �`'ar.s J,van Denkelam A, Aixran RV, BumeG B, Cali:o�nia Chiltreo's Heal-,h SwdY�����Wxs:^
dainha:a DG, Birke:t NJ,?; xL iJl3. Estlnz,=_s hlaneg Aswc St106�1079.
fumm cardi.c hnl:h, if ehc NR1P risks ae o;S��yal monaliry a��iSutaEle:o pani:ulace air AtotzilzSi N,Txyfor LA Jr,Cmes BE M03.Pxracela:�
fmironmenvJ Heal3��e`specm'es ' vaux•,! 12a I nuvst�21 February 20 i6 I�
��;�
�T�. .. .
� .Gncsh et aL
ner.er in La!i;oniz:Pan 2—sPZtial.:e�peral. i:v?ila6le:i:np�livr.r.i ua4-w.gr.90a;adndTeW� DC:U.S.E?A.E'�Yd'i4^+.-63II33E A•+ail:blz:napl/
�nd:em�esi5onzipatt_msofP�!zy,7id�Yiyxr7 Oacu�en:s/`/aliCation5u:naryieyan_ c;puh.epa.gavinceal�isklrecmd+splay.cfm?deid
?hi��J:.irk9as;-l3aragAsstt9:1517-1530. SG1G2Pi54al tJ12_�6_ii.pLllatces=^d2I'rday _ti6i4u&CF10=i?366?{58CFT0<ET:=90�3I599
P=:ez L,Wmann F,Wdson J,Pasmr M, Brard;SJ,� i675G I�«essed SJanuaryNf54
Kunzfi N,et al.e012.i�eorroEdwzy po➢u;i;a ar0 . SCAU!AD ISauth Loar. Hir �uzlity 'nianagemen: U.S. EPA.2013.ftequlamry Irpact Analysis lor:he
childhaodas;hna:inplisationztorde•:eloping Oisuicq.2013.Fina120iiAirQualiql.lanage�ent Finalftevisions:oL5eNa5onalAmS�entAitQuality
"r:in-ivin" canpact urban Eeeelepment xnd 71an SotSh CoaStAif QuaE,yMEnxger..en;Oistrict, 5[anda�ds ;or ?artiavlare Matt_r. Aesearch
Nezn vehidz stra;egies.Env.ron Neal;h Perspece OianonC Bxr,CA,FeDruzry.dexda`.le:h,^,pJh�+•:•+. Triangle Park. Y.C.Available:httpy/::^•vreepa.
120:1514-1o26;do[10.125yehp.li67785. aqnd.goc/hamellibrary/clezn-air-plznyair-�vali.y� gw/tNecasl/regda:a(dlAyfinalria.pdf�accessed
Je[ers JN, Avol E, Berhane K, Gacde�man WJ, mgt-plaNfina14012-air-qua6r�-managemen;-plan 19Marth201<j.
Gillilar.d F,Je�re�M,et al.26'!:.Epidemiologic Iaccessed SFe6ruary20131. U.S. EPA. 2014. EPA Se:s Tier 3 l./a[ar Vehicle
Im•estigaoon:�Iderdfy Chronic Ft;ec•s oFlJr.hi=m Schwara J. i999.Air polluion and hospital admis- Emission end Fuel Stx�Eatds. E7A�<20-FI��G09.
Air Pcllv:anis in Sou:hern Cali�ornia.Prepzred sions lor heart disease in eigh:U.S. cau�ties. Available: hnpyp•rcn�i.epa.gov�o:aq�:i=r3.h:m
for;he Cali:c:nix Air flesources 9oard and the ,E,v.de.�iulogy 1Q17-22 �acces5ed I l.larch M1sG
California Envi�onmer.;al Protection Agency, LLS.Oep�nsent of Transporta;ioa 2017.Ta51e 1-36. 1VU J,Hausron D,lurmann F,Ong P,VYr.er A 2009.
Car;rac:No.9:-331.Availahle:hnplP��'�v.xrh. In:Naaonal Transpor.ation SzasScs.�Yashiny,on, Ezpesure a;PA1iy a.id EC;mm diesel and gasd6ie
ca.g��yresearcNap:/past5Y331a.pG;leccessed DC:U.S.Departnert ol Transportauon,qesexrch vehicles in ca�muniues near the par,s cf les
2kLvary201« ani7nnwaoveTechnalogyAdR:eisazficn,8urexu A.igelesandlmg3each,Califomia.AtrrosFmiran
SCAG ISou;hero Cali7ornia Assccia:ion oi o� Transportatian S;a;ir,ics.Availa6le: hnpy/ d3:1%2-1971;doi:lO.IGI�.aLmesemi10R901�f.'9.
Govem�en:sl.20i2a.Regional T�ansecrta5ca �vww.ri:a.docgov/bts/si:ez(rita.dotgov.6[slfilezl 2hu Y,Hinds WC,K'w S,Shen S,Siou:as C.2002.
Pian 2012-2Qi5.5uszinable Cor�er.umdes Strz•syy. NTS_FnSre 134<,pdf laccessed t�February701eG S1udy ct WtraSne pzrdcl?s near a najor Nyhway
iowa�ds a Svsiainable Pu:u�e.Lcs 0.ngetes, U.S.EPA(US.Emimrmeneal Pro:^c5on Agencyl.�. wi:h hexvy-du,y diesei vaffic.Atmos Environ
CA:SCAG.Available:hr,p!/rtpscsscag.ca.govl LO CF8 7art 1039--Control af emissi�ns:ram nevi 35:43L3-4335.
Oacunen;yAiNmxV�2012flT�SCS.pdt(accessed znd in-use n�nraad com�ressan-i�ni6cn engin_s. Zhu Y,Kuhn i,Meyo?,Hinds WC.2CA6.Cemparison
SFeb�uaryi0i36 fe�fleq6433213-3989. of daytime and nigG¢ime concentra5on prcfiles
SLAG.2012h.SCAG?eyional Travel Oenand Mo]el LLS.EPA.2609.Inregrated Science Aszezsmert for and zi:e dizr6uuons af ulvafine partidzs near a
and1003MOdNVeGLaucn.lasAr.getes,fASCAG. ?anicularehlatrerlFiralRepartl.Washingion, majorhigMvay.FnH�anSciTechnol4P]531-1535.
200 ' �ar.:t 12t I r.vtzea 21 February 2016 � Liw.uvnm:�!Hetl;h Perspecdves
' !efr Steichen
�rom: Keily Broughton
Sent: Tuesday, February 02, 2016 1227 Ptvt
To: le�f Steichen
Subject: F�N:Additional studies on health risks and living near a free�.va�
Attachments: ehp.1408865.alt.pdf; ehp.1409430.alt.pdf
Here's the recent correspondence.
---0riginal Message-----
From: Pamela Bensoussan �?Bensoussan@chulavis[aca.govJ
Received: Monday,Ol Feb 2016, 4:48PM
To:Gary Halbert [GHalbert@chulavistaca.gov]
Cf: Kelly Broughton [kbroughton@chulavistaca.gov]
Subject: FW:Addiiional studies on health risks and living near a freeway
FYI - this jusi came in this aftemoon. -PB
From: Laura Hunter
Sent: Monday, February Ol, 2016 3:01 PM
To: ?amela Bensoussan
Subject: Additional studies on health risks and iiving near a freeway
HI Pamela,
I know there has been a response to our letter but it is highly flawed. Here is just one quick follow up...here are iwo
studies hot oft the presses that discuss more health impacts from living near a freeway. The one about near-roadway
pollution includes a statement [hat health risks from traffic will rise even as the level of exposure goes down, because
the population will be aging—a response to the consultanYs statement that health risks in 2035 will be less.
The other one is about kids and noise. I don't remember what the HRA says about noise and the extent to which it wili
be prevented by a sound wall. It just adds to our concerns about the Izck of envl review and the lack of
comprehensiveness of the analysis that was done.
last the consultants site the need to rely on 'studies'but we cannot find any in the record that they are referring to.
More soon
Thanks
laura
Near-Roadway Air Pollution and Coronary Heart Disease: Burden of Disease and Potential
Impad of a Greenhouse Gas Redudion Strategy in Southern California eoke:n�nosn,iFrederick
Lurmann,i Laurn Perez,�,.8ryon Penfold,z Sylvia Brandt,s/ohn Wilson,s Meredi[h Mifet,�Nino Kunzli,3�ond Ro6 MKonnelli�Dcpzswim;of
Pm�mti��e�ledici^.S Kak School of hfaficiaS Unirersiry of Soutban Czli:omia,los Angdes,Califomi�US,��Sonoma 7a`.00!ogy tx.,Paaluma,Caiifo:nia,
USl4 xSaiss Tcopicxl and PuSlic Hrzh.h InsivtS�I,Swiavlatd;.Uni.asiry o(BasN,Bascl.Swieaiaad;�Uni��cmry of�lassachusccs Amhast,Amh�s[,
\fatmchiseas:LSpaual Scimca Iasvtute,Dana a�Da�id DomsiCe Cultege o(Lcnas,Aru.xnd Scirnccs.Uai�aziry of Southan Cali.fom=,a [ns Aagdq Califamia,
IiSA;lCaliiomia Depar�mt of Pu6Gc Hraltb,Richmond,Califomi�USr�B.ny�a:Sc��cral ztudies 6are csrimated the burdea o(corouery-heart disnse
(CHD)mortaliry from ambieu[regional pardculate mattrr 5 25µm(PD13).T6e burdeo of neor-roadw'ay air polladoo(��iUP)geuerally has uo[
been ezamined,despite t�idence of s causal Gnk��ith CHD.oe��cu..:�Ve io�rosugated the CHD burdro Gom�RAP aud compared i[��i[h the P�Izs
borden in[he Califor¢ia South Coast Air 6asin for 2008 aod ooder a compact urban p o���th grxnhause gas reducuou scenaria for 2035.�Imom: ��'e
esuma[ed[he populaboo attribatable fraconn and number of CHD e�'eo[5 a[triboFable to residendal tra(fic deosity,prosimiq'to a major road,
elemmtal tarban(EC�,and PJlsscompared��ith the ezpectM disease burdeo if eEe populafioa�rere esposed to backgrouod le�'els of air po0atiou.
r�x.:[o?008,au esOmattd 1,300 CHD deeths(6.8%of the total)�rere a[triba[sble ro traffic devsih�,430 deachs(:A•/.)to residmrial prozimiq�ro a
major road,and 690(3.iX)to EC.T6ere H�cre 1,900 dea[As Q0.47.)attributable[o P�tx.s.Uthough reduced ezposures in 203i should result in
smaller fracoons of Cf�ettributable to tra�c deosin�,EC,aod P�tu,t6e oumbers of esumated drat6s attribvtable to each of ihese exposures are
i
ontiripated tu increoSC Io?��00,900,and?,960,respecticcly,Juc to population i�in�.A siinilar pat[rrn of incrcaiin�\RAP-at[ributoble CHD
hospitali>ntions w�as esGm�tcd�o occur benrccu '_OOS and?03_.ce.a�„so�:7'hrsc res�ilts zu��cst�hat�lar�e burden Of preventa6lc Ct1U mor[ali[.�is
:uiributable to\lL\P ond is liltcly lo incrcasc c�•cn�riih de�reasiu,csposurc by?03�Jue to eulnersbilin�of an a�in�populaCOn.Crecnhouse�as
redaction Slrai e;u de��eloped lo miti�ate clinmte chanee of�er uncsploiled oppor[unitict for air poliu[ion hr.ddi co-benefits.cn�:�oe:Clmsh R
Lurm�nn F,PerCZ L,Penfold B, BranJt S,�Vilson J,�lilet i\I,Kuntli�,��ItConucll R.?016.Neer-road�ca7•air pollurion and coronary Iceart discasc:
hurden o(disease and potential imp�ct of a erecnliousc�as reduction slra�rn'in Sou[hcrn California. Em�iron Heslth Pcrspect 12J:193—?00;
li«u://ds.doi.m��/I0.1289/ehn.1908565
2
Sheree Kansas
From: Pamela Bensoussan
Sent: Tuesday, February 02, 2016 2:16 PM
To: Donna Norris
Cc: David Miller
Subject: FW:Additional studies on health risks and living near a freeway
Attachments: ehp.140886i.ait.pdf; ehp.1409430.alt.pdf
Donna,
Here is correspondence I received today regarding the agenda item �5. I am sending it to you for the record and in part
in response to David Miller's request by email earlier today.
Thanks, Pamela
From: Laura Hunter
Sent: Tuesday, February 02, 2016 11:11 AM
To: Mary Salas; Pamela Bensoussan; John McCann; Steve Miesen; Patricia Aguilar
Cc: Gary Halbert '
Subject: Additional studies on health risks and living near a freeway
Hi Mayor Salas and Councilmembers,
In preparation for today, please note these two recent health studies that discuss more health impacts from living near a
freeway.
The one about near-roadway pollution includes a statement that health risks from traffic will rise even as the level of
exposure goes down, because the population will be aging—a response to the consultanYs statement that health risks in
2035 will be less.
The other one is about kids and noise.Thank you for your consideration of these important issues.
' Laura
Near-Roadway Air Pollution and Coronary Heart Disease: Burden of Disease and Potential
Impact of a Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategy in Southern California Rake:n enoSn,iFrederick
� (urmann,z Laura Perez,3,a 8ryon Penfold,z Sylvia BrandY,slohn Wilsan,e Meredith Milet,�Nino Kunzli,s,a ond Ro6 MtCannelli�Deparvnent of
Pre��en[ive Medicine,Keck School of Medicine,Universiry of Southem Califomia Los?,nfeles,Califomia,USA;z5onoma Technolow Inc.,Pe[aluma,Califomia
USA:;Swiss Tropical and Public Health Ins[ituce,Bazel,Su'i¢edand:+Univeain�of Bazel,Basel,Sx�iturland:eUniversiry of Mazsazhusetu Amheat,Amherst,
Dfassachuse[u:sSpatial Sciences Insti[u[q Dana and Darid Domsife Colleee of Lencrs,Arts,and Sciences,Uni��ersin�of Southem Califomia,Los?,nsela,CaliFomi�
USA:Califomia Departmen[of Publit Hcalth,Richmond,Caliiomia USA B,��.eosa: $e��erol s[udies hace es[ima[ed[he burden of coronan•heart disease
(CHD)mor�alin-from ambient reoiooal particulate matter<25µm(P:�Iz<).The burden of nearvroadrar air pollution(\R.4P)oenerall��has not
been esamined,despi[e ecidence o(a causal link with CHD.os��ca.�: �l'e im�es[i�a[eJ the CHD burden(rom�R4P and compared i[�'i[h[he P�f�s
burden in the California$outh Caas�Air Basin for?008 and under a compact urban�roH�th oreenhouse eas reduction scenario for?035.�Iana:: ���e -'
estimated[he population attributable(raction and number of CHD eren[s a[[ribut-abk to residential traffic densin�,proximin�to a major road,
demental carbon(EC).and P�L•<compared with the espected disease burden if the population nerc e�posed to bacl:Eround lerels of air pollution.
raw�: In?008,an estimated 1300 CHD deaths(6.8%of the to[al)w'ere attributable to traRc densin�.330 dea[hs(?.J%)to residential prosimin�to a
majar road,and 690(3.i%)to EG There were 1,900 deaths(10.3%)a«ributable to P�L.s al[hou�h reduced esposurcs in?035 should rault in
smaller frac[ions of CHD a[tributable[a[raffic densin�.EC.and PJLs.the numbers of estimated dea[hs attributable[o each of[hese ezpasures arc
an[icipated[o increase[o?500,900,and 2.900,respec[i��ek.due to popula[ion a¢ino,p similar pattern of increasino\"R.4p_attribu[able CHD
hospitalizations wa5 es[imated[o occur beM�een 2008 and?035.caoa�:�oo:These results su_gest that a larve burden of pre��enuble CHD mortalin�is
a[tributable[o�R4P and is likeh'to increase eren with decreasin�esposure b�'?035 due[o.'ulnerabilin�of an aQin�population.Creenhouse oas
reduc[ion stra[eeies developed Io mi[iHate climate chan�e ofier unesploi[ed opportuni[ies(or air pollution health co-benefie5.auroo:Ghosh R.
Lurmann F.Perez L,Peufold B.Brandt S.��'ilson J,dlilet>L Kunzli\,�IcConnell R.?016.\'earvroad..�ay air pollution and coronan•heart disease:
burden o(disease and pocential impact of a greenhouse qas reduction strateer in Southern California.Enciron Health Perspect 1?3:19�200:
http:/!d s.doi.orJ10.1289lehn.l JOR865
1
A Sec[ion 508-coniorman;HTML version o`this article �,s-�
is available at h:cp:f/ds.doi.org/10.1289lenp.l COSB65.
Research �`��-�
� Near-Roadway Air Pollution and Coronary Heart Disease: Burden of
Disease and Potential Impact of a Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategy
in Southern California
Rakesh Ghosh,� Frederick Lurmann,1 Laura Perez,3•°Bryan Penfold,z Sylvia Brandt 5 John �(son,6
Meredith Milet,�Nino Kunzli,3•°and Ro6 McConnell�
'Department of Preventive Medicine,Keck School of Medicine,Universiry of Southern California,Los Angeles,California,USA;
�Sonoma Technology Inc.,Petaluma,California,USA;35wiss Tropical and Public Healch Institute, Basel,Switzerland;`Universiry of
Basel,Basel,Swi�erland;`Universiry of Massachusetts Amherst,Amherst,Massachusetts;6Spatial Sciences tnstitute,Dana and David
Dornsife College of Letters,Arts,and Sciences,Universiry of Sou[hern California,Los Angeles,California,USA;�California Departmen[
of Public Health,Richmond,California,USA
- � oreenhouu �as emissions ($CAG 2012a).
BACAGROU�D: SOVt[SI scudies ha.�e �scimued che b�d�n of coronary 6eu:disease (CHD) This is m bc accomplishcd wich a land usc
mordiry 6om ambieac ce�ioval puvnilam vuaer 5 2.5 pm(P!.1:,y).The 6urden of uear-roadway devdopmtnt s[n[tgy dai�ntd :o :educe
air polluuon(I�R�U')grn<nik 6u noc been ar�mincl,despim ccidenm of a ousal6n{c.�icL CHD. �hc nccd for anromobile travd bv encour-
Oe�ecm'E:We iu.caige�ed[he CHD burdev&om NRAP and mmpued ic.�ich[he P�f,.y burden aoing dcnscr residcncial dcvdopmenc in
in[he Califomia$wc6 Cassc Air Buin for 2008 and under a mmpaa urban groa�ch greeu6ouse already dcvdoped urban arcas cha: are
gu reduction scevario Eoc 203J. ' . . .
� scrvcd by public �ranspoa and by discour-
Mi-nio�i:We csrimated[he populadon aaribunble&amon and number of CHD evencs aaribuc- a�ing nc�v dtvdopmcnc in turmndp unde-
a61e ro«sidenual craffic densfry-,proamiry[o a major rmd,el<men�al nrbon(EC), and P�1ig ��eloped artas ($GAG ?012a). To support
compared..i�h che acpeaed disrase burden if the populuion were exposed co background IeveLs of compaa urban dcvclopmcn[ conduci.�c to
airpolluuon. - � . ' . " ., - � �. . � walking and usc of public cransporta:ion,
RF5ULT5: [u 2008,an esuma[ed 1300 CHD datf�s(6.8%oF[6e[onI)were aa+ibunble co aa&c ��ansportation invtstmtn[ will focut on
densiq•,430 dea�6s(2.4%)m residenti�l proxuniry ro a major mad,and 690(3.i%)ro EC."I7sre �mo�ovina ub�ic trans or[ by inacasin�
wue I,900 dnchs(10.4%)acvibu�bfe�o PMZ,y.A1rLoug6 reduced aposures in 2035 s6ould servicc frequcncy and t ansic connec�ions,
ruulc in smallu fncuons of CHD�cuibunble w va�c deniin-, EC,and P:�1,5, c6e numben oF
�csumamd dnthc atuibuubl<[o nc6 oF[Lese ecposures�re antidpazed ro inaease[0 2,500,900, and trtatin� bicyc�c and pcdatrian intra-
and2,900,respecu.nly,duempopulntionaging.AsimilarpaaemofinQessig\ILV'-aaribunble s«ucmre. Thc Ca�i(ornia Air Rtsourte
CHDhospinliiauoas�.asccdmacedrooccvrbern�een2008and?03j. � ... Board's and [hc U.S. Envi;onmcncal
- - Coua.us�ou:Th«resulu s��ea duc a luge burden of prnznta6le CHD mortaliry�is anribuo- P�oceaion A�enry�s (EPA) scriacr vchidc
a61e ro NRAl'and'a lil:ely[o inQase een wi[h decr¢�ing e�osure bp 2035 due tu��ilnenbiliry �xhausc emission s[andards, «quimn:nts
oFan aging populnuon.Greenhouse gu reducuon smmgies developed w miu�am dimate cLange for incrtastd ProPortions of zero emission
offer unocploited opportuniuu for vr polluuon heil[h rn-bene6ct � � �'chida, and hi�her Euel economy standar�s
Gienov: G6osh R,Lurmam F, Peia L, PenFold B, Brand[S,WiLson J,hiilec ht, Kunzli N, am expecmd m subsnn[ially reduce Eumm
McConnell R 2016.Near-roaduay air polluuon md coronary heaa diseau:bivden oE disease md convtntional and o�eenhouse Qas emissions
pomntiil impacc oE a�men6ouse gas reductiou suamp�in Southem Califomia. Emiron Healcb per mil< of vthidt�[ravd. We escima¢d the
- Peapea 124:193-Z00; 6ap://dvdoi.ovg/10.1289/ehp.140886i � - - " � � � population expomrc co NRAP and P�6.�,
' � - � � , which will be associnmd with implementa-
uon of[hac chanea, and che corccspondin� .
Introduction alchou�h resional PM levds have bcen oollucion-aaribu[abl<CHD.
EmerLin� evidencc suqoescs a causal link dcdining in mosc oF eht Uniced Seaecs over
becwmn near-roadway aii pollucion (NR,4P) several decades (.Morallebi a al. 2003) due �jddress correspondence co R. McConn<ll, 2001 .
�. Som$c. Deparun<nc of Pr<vencive Medicinq
and eoronary hean disease(CHD) mortaliry m eEfeaive re�ulaeory poliev, some indica- ��ck School of Medicinq Gni�ersin�oF Soe;necn
and morbidiry- (Gan ec al. ?O 10, ?O l I; cors of NR�1P acposure such as vchidc milcs ��(amia,[ns Angele,G 90099 liS.1.Tdephone:
Hofr'mann ec al. ?006; Kan cc al. ?008).The cravdcd have inQUSCo markedly o�•er che samc (3?3)4l?-1096.E-mail:rmcmnne�asc.edu
?O10 Ameriun Hean A.ssoeiaeion seiencifie paiod (U.S. Depanm<ne of Transporueion Sepplemenul!�4aceriil u�.a;lable online(h2p://
scatement on ambirnc parcida no[ed chat ?013). There is a need [o assas ch< NRAP- ��doi.org/l0.1?89/ehp.1403865). -
NRAP "as a whok appears [o be a speeifie attributabk burdrn ofdivase H. Kan provided helpful analyeicil �d.ice.
sourceassoeiamdwichcardiovaseularrisk" We assessed che burden of CHD �`��R'°"'„ss�s�°dwi;h�heficmmmrrna.�.
This smd,v was par[ially suppor[ed by icnds
(Brook a al. ?0I0). Sin<e chen, addi[ional at[ribucable co NIL1P relacive [o PM,5 &om an air cualin viofuio�u ttcdcmrn�a�recmrnc �
longicudinal scudia kuve demonsuaced wnsa- in Souchecn California, whieh has hi�h ben.�een[h<Sou�h Cossi.�r Qu�lir,hiana«.men�
¢nt auociacions beeween NRAP and CHD, reoional PbI,� levds and.a dense neoz�orR D:svia,a CaliFocnu svm regulaory�aeeon�,md BP
usin� craffic densiey, pmzimiry m roadways, of hieh-volume eraffic corridors in dose B"��'ewteum).O�hu fi:nding suppor,induded
and a near-madway pollucanc surro�atq proximin• co residencu. Wc also u:ima¢d �'auorul lnsdmic oFHnl�h granrs POtE502354i,
dememal carbon Gan c�al.2010,2011; Kan [he CHD 6ealch co-benefi�s of California's ������627,P30F5007048,and ROlES01655i;
� li.$. Environmennl Pcomccion .agency granc
a al. 2005). Alchouoh che specific polluunrs landmark le�islacion ($8 3i)) ro reduce RD8354410I; and �hc Hucinos Focnda:ion
in NRAP raponsiblc[or hnlch•irecu are noc gmenhousc gas cmissions (morc [han onc- (Pasadrna,GliFomia). �
cncirely dcar, evidenm su�ars chac \RAP chird of a•hich come from urs and [mcl:s) F. Lurmann and B. Pmfold arc cmo!oycd by
etiec[s are independen:oi ehos<of particulaee by 16°,6 in 203). Th< Southern California ��oma Technolo�y Ine.Penlu�+i,Gl�ioa�u Tnc
matta < 2j um (P61:�) (Hoffmann et al. Association of Governments ($CAG) °�'er au�hors decfare iney hav<no ocher aaea!or
poccnual mmpe[ing financial inttr�s.
200�. Howorer, in con¢ase ro P!�6 5, chere hu developed a re�ional plan ehac aims m Rccci�cd: ?4 June?014;Accepmd: IS jene?OIS;
has been licde examinacion oF che NRAP- reduce per capica vchide miles [ravded, ,qd�u�«Publiciuon:7 Ju(y?OtS;Final Publia�ion:
aaribucabk disease burden. Furchermorq because chis has subscaneial impaa on 1 Febrvary2016.
Environmental Hezlu'�Perspecdves � •rouME 12n I xur.e�a 21 Fehruary 2070 193
y•; �
-:�:
.:�up
'^''�= Ghosh et al.
Methods a CRF [ha[ is used in mortaliry risk assess- The populacion and number of households bv
Concentraiia»-respanse functiorzc. There are mcn[for rcgulamry purposes by che U.S. EPA �I'AZ were acquired from SCAG alon�wich
only a fcw smdiu oE associa�ions of CHD (Krcwski cc al.2009;U.S.EPA?009). the General Plan land use for fumm devel-
moaalicy and hospicalizacion wich NRAP Population data sparia[ allacatiors. opmcnc areas (SCAG 2012a). The popula-
conduc¢d in North America and chcro Thrgcographic domain for our smdy was tion assignment method for txistin� parcds
forc morc likcly to bc rclevan[ [o Sou[hcm Califomia's Sou[h Coasc Air Bazin (SoCAB), was [he same for 203� as 2003. To avoid
California chan smdia from ocher para of comprisin� chc sou�hem parz of Los Mgelu assignin� lar�e populacions to thc ccnmr
che world. We used concenvacion-response Counry, wesmm poaions of Rivuside and of largc areas designa[ed Eor fuma residen-
funaions (CRF) from smdia of�wo suao- $an Bcrnardino counties, and all of Orange cial growch in [he General Plan, we used a
�aces of NRAP cxposu¢: [raffic densi[y Counry (Figure 1), a rcgion with hiscori- grid-like approach m definc poccncial ncw
and residential prozimiry [o a major road cally high air pollu[ion levels. Data for [he parccls near exiscin� and Fumm roadwa}'s,
(Table 1). The crafFic dcnsiry CRF was roca! populacion, households, land use, and and ro apporcion che fumr< populacion co
based on a fouo-communicia smdy in che boundary polygons of che legally defined [hese parcels. The resul[ of this proc<durc
Midwes¢rn and Eas¢m Uniced $�aces (Kan real acam parccls wem acquired from che was mtal population estimams for about 4
et al. 2008). We used a CRF for msiden- regional planning agency, SCAG, for 2008. million ezis[ino and pomn[ial new parcel5 in
cial elemencal carbon (EC), based on black Thc popula[ion and household da�a werc thc SoCr�B in 2008 and 2035.
carbon, derived Erom an administrative data spatially resolvcd in approximately 11,000 Bctause che epidtmiological studies
. se[covcring [hc cn[irc Vancouveq Canada, aavcl aaiviry zona (TAZs) chac are used in of eFfcccs of air pollucion on CHD wac
populacion (Gan a al.2011). (For estimatin� che agency's vavel demand models (SCAG consismndy condu<ted on che populacion �
EC-a[[ributablc burden oF disease, black 20126). Thc TAZ popula�ions were azsigned ? 4j years of age,we estimaced chc 2008 and
carbon was convcr[ed [o EC, as descri6ed co residcncial-zoned parcels within nch TAZ. 203> pa¢el populations in chis a�c group
in che Supplemcn[al Ma¢rial, "Mechods.") If all parcds wirhin a TAZ were single-family using che rela[ive age disaibucions from che
EC is an indica[or of dicscf czhausc exposure msidenca, [hc popula[ion per household 2010 Census craa data and 2035 counry-level
in South<rn CaliEomia (Geller ec al. 200j) �vu assigncd uniformly. If all parcels within projtc[ion, respettively, ob[ained from [he
and is commonly wnsidered a near-roadwa}• a TAZ wcre mul[i-Family residences, the California Deparvnent of Finance(2013).
pollutanc (Wu tt al. 2009). EC may provide partel populations were apportioned based on CHD mortality and bospitalizatiori.
a la[[icc for [oxicologicalty relevanc metals parccl amas. If bo[h exis[cd, che single-family. Causc-specific mortaliry and hospicaliza- "
and adsorbcd organics that are inhaled residence parals were assigned che counry- cion Eor 2008 were available 6y ZIP code
deep into thc lung (Bell ct al. 2009;Janssen avua�e number of persons per household, from che California Deparcmenc of Public
c[ al. 201?). Wc scicc[cd [hc CRF from che and che rcmainder of[he TAZ population was Healch by age group (4j-j4, jj-64,
- Vancouver smdy, because i[ was es[ima¢d azsigned bazcd on[hc areas of chc mul[i-f.�nily 65-74, 75-84, and >_ 8� years). Dcachs in
from a necwork of mcasurcmena reElcc[ivc parrrls. Thc populacion was assumed [o reside Inurnationa[ Clnrrification of Dircara, IOth
of fine-scak spacial variation heavily influ- ac [he an[roid of che land parccl, which is Rtuition QCD-10) mdcs ]20-I2j, bazed on
� cnmd by roadway sourccs, and waz derived morc accuracc [han cradicional me[hods of chose used in [he smdies from which che EC
For a similar agc discribu[ion and for CHD loca[ing populacion a[census-block cencroids and proximiry co a major road CRFs wcm
outcomes comparablc [o [he CRFs for ocher or block-group cenvoids. daived (Gan ec al. 2010, 2011),wcrc uscd co
NRAP indica[ors uscd in [his analysis. Eor We escimamd che 2035 population cscimam CHD moaaliry rares for chc popula-
. consis[cnry, we uscd a CRF for proximiry discribu[ion based on�che 203> scenario.ol cion a�re�a�ed m che�ZIP wde level.Wc used
to a majoc road dcrivtd from the Vanmuver the$ustainable Communities Saate��of the �hese satne ICD outcomes and ratts in uti- .
scudy (Gan ec al. 2010). For wmparison re�ional cranspoaacion plan chac�was desi�ned ma�ing the aaffic densi[v-aaribucable duchs,
with the NfU1P effeca, we also escimaced the to maximally reduce greenhouse gas emis- even chough the CRF for traffic densiry was
burden of regional PMz,s exposure, bazed on sions in Southern California (SCAG 2012a). ob[ained from a smdy that induded additional
Ta61e 1.Study characteristics and the concentration-response funclions(CRF)used in Ihe attributa6le fraction estimatlon.
SNdy - Ganeta1.20n
characteristics Kaneta1.2008 Ganeta1.2070 Hospitalizatians Mortaliry Krewtkieta1.2009
Geographic area Forsyth,NC:Jackson,M5; ' Vancouver,Canada � Vancauver,Canada Vancouver,Canada . USA Ina[ionwidel �
�Minneapolis,MN; � " . � � . ' -
__ , Washington,MD;115A � � - ' '
SNdyyear Recmitmentl9W-1989, 5-yearp�posure11 99 4-1 9 9 81. 5-yearezposure�1994-19981. 5-yearexposure�1994-19981. Fxposure1999-2000,
- Follow-uplhmugh2002 4-yearfollaw-up11999-2W21 4-yearfollow-up17999-20021 4-yearfollow-up11999-2002) follow-up19H2-2000 �
Meanage�mS�l, . SS.Hm5.6 587m104 � 067-1�.d . 58.i_10.4 56.6�10.5
rangelyears) � 45-64 , 45�3 ' � . 45-83,_ 45�3 � _ �
Expasure Traffic densiry count per daya Residence s 150 m�mm a highway Black carbona Black carhon° PMZ s(per 10 U9/m��
(per 1 log unit) or s 50 m fmm a major road IPer 0.94.10-5/m� �per 0.94 x 10-s/m)
compared with all others
n�casesl � ,_13,309�976deaths�, . 474,793�3,133deaths) � 452,735110,312 .. 452.73513,104deathsl 488,370�29,989deathsl
. � � -. � - - - hospitalizationsl � �
Outcame Myocardial infa¢tioNcororary CHD mortaliry° CH�hospitalizations' CHO mortaliry° CHD mortalirya
revasculariutioNCH�death�
CRFe�95%CII 1.031mortaliry111.01,1A51 129�martaliry��1.18,1411 1.031hospitalizationl 1.O61mortaliry111.03,1.09� 1.15�mortaliry�
11.07.1.051 � (i.73.1.201
Rraffc densiry values were pmportional ro pmnimrty-weighted vehicles per daV�+here one densiry uni[correspanded m 295 vehicles per Eay at 70 m fmm ffie madway.It declines
lineady w¢h distance co xero vehicles per day a[300 m trom[he rwdway.Black carhon scaled m imerquartile-range increase in ahsorhance.qC0-9 codes�102,410-313,d27,628,
StBA;IC�-70 codes E70.16,110.11,121-25,Iafr51,I70,197,J87,J9fi,R96,fl98-99.9COA catles 470-614,4291;ICO-10 codes 12o-125.°ICO-9 rodes 310-611.°Estimates are hazartl rztios
195%Clsl,which were scaled ro the paPUlation-weighied mean ex0osures tor 2008 anA 2035 and used in the attri6utahle fraction calculation.
194 vo�ume 1241 Nurneea 21 Fe6ruary 2016 � Environmentdl Health Perspectives
���.
Near-roadway pollution and cororary hear diszas= ""`
ICD coda (E10.14, I10-ll, i46-jl, [70, part of chc Air Qualin� Manaecmcnc Plan discanca from che anccr oEcach ccsidcn-
19i. J81, J96, F96, A98-99) (Kan ec aL (SC4QA4D 20Li). 1'nc domain u�az spa�ially cial parcd �o the nearest road in `;ocps 1-?
- 2008).Alchou�h usins [hc rcduced number ruoh�ed usin�? I:m = 4 I:m horizonral grids (fineway or major arcerial) were compu:ed
of ICD coda lil:d}'raul�ed in undera¢maced and 18 vertical layers. �4odel simula:ions using ESRI's.�ircG[S ;ook. �Ihis is corsis.enc
er�c deasirv-acribu�able CHD dachs, ic wecc mn by [he Sou[h Coasc Air Qualiry uich che CRF correspondino co che dsance
made ic passible[o compare che c�zf`nc de.^siry• Monitorin� Disvia as pa.�c oE che Ai.Qualin� co Ereeways or major roads ma.ku (li0 m
csumaca wi[h rhau for EC and pmximiry m Man�cmenc Plan(SG4QD4D 2013j.�ual from che dosut freeway or �0 m ,rom .hc
major road. Hospi:ali�a�ions :or ICD-9 (9nc �ondirions wac simulamd for a 2003 bascfinc doscst major road)(Gan a al.2010).
Revuian)coda 410-414 and E?91 wem used and for 203j wich che re�ional c:ansporcation The [nFfic densiry� marker repmsen�s
ro calcula[c CHD hospicaliuuon racu (Gan plan demenu (SCAG 2012a). iae emissions d'unncrdecayzd annual averye daily canc
ec al.?011). and mamrolo�ical inpuu, moddin�pmm- colume surroundin¢cach residencial pazcd
Btrause the projecced 203j a�t disaibu- dura, outpucs, and model pe:formantt are location. The SCAG madway�eometrv and
tion was availablc only at the cnunry levcl,che destribed dsewhem [SCAQ]iD (2013), link-based traf}ic volumts were used with a
2008 ago-specific moaalin•and hospitali�a- Appendices V and VI]. �Ihe reqional modefs ArcG1S densiry function chae lineariv decaved
uon ncet were a�m�aced ro che wunry Icvd gridded cscimaca for annual averagc EC and cnffic volumes from 100% ac che roadazy
and applitd to the projected 203�a�c-specific PM,.g mass concencracions wem assi�ned ¢nmdine co 10%a[300 m pclpendicular ro
populacion in each SoGB counry ro escimam to all parcds wich cenvoids wichin each �he roadway.Thit detav ate is co.sisecne wieh
chc corrupondin�dcach and hospicaliution 4.4 km grid. .chc obxrvcd priman�pollutanc conccnvauon
counrs(and aees in che i 4�-year age�roup) Beeause regional modds <annot msolve gadiena near maduz}s (Karner ec al. 2010;
in 203�. Because SoGB comp:ises onh a loca! pollutan[grzdien¢nea:roaduays, a line Zhu e[ al. ?002, 200�. The craffic dcnsiry�
portion of some coun�ies, chis calculacion sourtt dispersion modd, Caline4 (Benson beyand[he 300.m zdius buffer was assioned a
assumed that `h< projec[ed 203� populauon ]992),wu applied [o charac:erize che local- .alue oEuro. Bmuse ehe marl:e;was inivally
a�e discribution for che geomaphic portion of scale impac[s of omroad mobile source EC devdoped for CHD and craffic densis CRF
each coun[y in che SoC4B u�ill be che same emissions from roads w�i:hin ? l:m of each in 1987-1989 (Kan e[al. ?00S), and vdvdc
as [ha[oE che enure coung. The u:imaces oF parc:1.�Ihe Caline4 model's esdmacs of annual emission nces per kilomemr oE eravd ha�e
mornliry and hospi:alilacion also assumed avaa�e EC inuemencal concenaacions from dedined subscanually:ince [}iis timt period,
[ha[ :he aeo-specific racu in 2005 will be ehe local wadway sources w'ac superimposed on the vaffit density marka was adjusmd bazed
same in 203�. che re�ional model escimaca for uch parcel. on ehe EDIFAC2011 modd (G4RB 2013a)
Fxporwe arsersmrnt. Thc approach for The Caline4 modd wu applied usin� loul escima[es of[he chan�es in flecc avcragc
exposure assessmene involved charaae:ization surfa¢wind dan from che nearac monimrin� PVI;.�emission a[a becween 1989 and?008
of near-road apomru using ua,4c dcnsiry and scacion, lighc-dury and heaw-dury vchide (�i2.1%)and projcacd for 203j(-76.4%).
craffic prozimin�markers and applirauons of emission faaors from rhe E.�4FAC2011 modd Using [he modded exposuas Foc each
reeional- and lod-sralc air qualiry dupersion (CARB 2011, 20136),and roadway�mmecry of[he [hree concinuous cxposures (craffic
modeLs co aumace parcd In�d annual n�aage and annual avera�e craffic voluma from che densiry•, EC, and P\1,_�), che popula�ion-
EC and P.M,.g mass con¢nvauons. Regional SGG vavddemand modd. wei�hced mcan exposuec wu calculaecd by
_ cxposurc aaoss Souchcrn California waz a[i- Thc SCAG [ravd-dcmand modd for mciciplyin� chc popula[im a 4� ycarz oFyc
maccd using thc Communicy Mulcisulc Air roadways was uscd to simulacc traffi< for in cach parttl wi:h chc cxposurc assigncd
� Qualiry model, vcrsion 4.7.1 (hap://wwu�. [he ?005 baseline and 203� fumre scenazio to ehac parcel (p;). The summacion oi chis
epa.gov/scram001n (Carmr 2000), and [he ai[h [he regional vansportauon plan con[rol produa over all parcels�vas divided by [he
W<a[her Research and Forecascin� modd measuru (SCAG 20126). The model uses rod populauon, az shown in Eeuauon 1 (by
vasion 3S me¢omlosical ndds (hr.p:f/uww. geo�raphicalle accura¢ roadway lota�ions county and for`ht enure$oCAB).
wrf-modd.ocen- The modd analyses were for Fmeways and ezpresswayz (�roup I), �
eonduc¢d for a laroe Socchem California major armrials (�roup 2), and minor arce- Populatiorrmrighud meanrxporurr=
� domain exmndin�Fmm 160 I:m wese of chc rials and major collecma (oroup 3). Each �
poa of Los M�da m che Colorado River in cravd direaion was ap¢senccd scparacdy � �Popn(anon? x Fxparure,�
che easc, and Erom Ba};cafi^Id in [hc noah (or lar�e roads, and thc smallu roads wcrc P• . [1]
ro 100 km souch of San Diceo in the sou[h. bidircaional. SCAG dcedopcd separace � Tota!po�ulazion
Modd simula[ions wem run bv che Sou[h traffic demand models and erafEic volumes
Coast Air Qualiry Monicorin� Dis[ricc as for lightducy and hnw-dug�vehides on all Arrnbutab[e bu�den estimation. For
madway links. Acerage daik cratnc volumes [he populacion >_ 4� years, we escima�ed
- x:.i,ca.- � ° -'-' ` �� �vere decermined by a�r�acing che simulamd chc CHD oopula[ion-ac[ribu[ablc frac[ion '
1 ��: � cnffit volumu for mornino, midday, afuo- (PAF) duc to residcnual proximiry to major
sar.ce:narGao-
..eemv:s� �;�r7- ; ea. - noon, evening, and nigh¢ime craffie SGG roadways in 2003 and ?035 basec on che
-��0-�'� "� � applied the modek :o simulam aamc for che propor[ion cxpoud (p�P) and chc corrc-
— tdsArt�eres-_� � _ �
� [o.��--.."a. �:y-^r_ 2008 bazeline and 203j ;ucure year with �ht spondin�CRE from che orioinal s:udv,in che
��- - � �l ` rcqional cransportauon plam m�crol mcasures. standard P.SF formula(Fq�auon 2).
� � � -- - /-� �;,gyyo The acimamd fumrt emission invcncory
.r�=':��< �Ora�gec . �
- -r_=.' =�. -� ��°- . indudcd growch and cmission con¢ok bascd �'�F=Pap(CRF- i)/
•-ti=_-,g2-=:�. � Q P CRF- i i
.a�r:`_:=-_>''"-� - - on ch<$ouch Couc.�ir ualiry \4oni[orine �Pa � )` )� ��)
` '� District'S .4ir Qualiry- Mana�ement Plan
� •5xh Com a"v Bas.: ` San�i?SC Ci!� o
� t=� = ($CAQ\1D 2013) and SC.4G's rc�ional Tnffic densiw, EC, and P!.(,.� CRFs
Figure 1.Geographical coverage of;he s.udy area «�P°�OOn pIan(SG4G?012a). (Tablc 1) were ori�inallv rePortec per i lo�
is shawn by;he Nick hlack 6ordec Thin blue lines Ocha cxPosure mazkus wac[hc durancc unic(proximicy-weiohmd vehides ou day),per
showthe coun.y6oundaries andthe coasdine. co ncaresc roads and :.affic dcnsiry. Thc 1 inmrquarcilc ranec (IQR= 0.94 x 10-'/m
Environmen�al Heali�Perspecrives � vowu[1241 xuue[a 21 Fehruary 2016 195
�;`���.�
:�^`� .-
"'- - Ghosh e� al.
of black carbon rcfleccance), or per Todiscin�uish[heimpacenfcheprojec[ed level was 1.1 ± 0.4 pg/m3 in 2008 and is
10 µ�/m', respeccively. The populacion- change in exposure in 2035 from �he impac[ expec[ed co decrease to 0.7 t 0.3 pg/m3 in
weigheed mean exposure escimamd usin� of che projeaed change in che popula�ion 2035 (see Supplemencal Macerial,Fi�u¢Slc).
Equacion I was divided by che respeaive a�e discribucion in 2035, we eseimaced che The coaesponding medians for �he
IQR (EC) or IO µg/m3 (Pi�l2_5) and ehis aaributable evencs for 2035 for a hypothecical cwo periods were idencical [o [he mean, .
value was used eo rescale the CRF m che scrnario in which che 2008 age distribu[ion 1.1 pg/m3 (IQR= 0.8-1.4) and 0.7 pg/m3
populacion-wei�hmd mean value by ezpo- were applied co che 2035 popula�ioa (IQR = OS-0.9), respcaively. (The ancici-
nenuation(Equauon 3). EC (miaograms per Statistica[ uncertainry analysis. We pared decrease is primazily due ro ehe ezpecmd
cubic memr) wu conver[ed [o btack carbon ronscrucred che 9j%uneercainry inmrval(UI) reduaion of EC emissions from diud-fueled
(10-'/m)m maech wirh rhe ori�inal CRF. (See around rhe poinc ucima¢s accoun[ing for che vehides.) The populacion mean PD4z_5
Supplemenral�(arerial,"Me[hods.") unmaaing�in each oF the paramemrs used eo exposure was 13.2 z 4.2 µg/m3 in 2003, and
calculace che PP.F, az su�aced by Gmrnland is projeaed ro decrease eo 10.9 s 3J pg/m3 in
� C�poaw,�;�^-w=sh��mn^u�:�«_ (2004). Thc UI for che craffic densiry, EC, 2035 (see Supplemencal Mamrial,Figurc Sld).
(Cj� Jwa�uo�-.K�gh«d�,«�� and PM,� PAF was calculared by incorpo- In 2008, an escimaced 6.8% (95°/a UI:
����w racing [hc unccr[ainry of chc rescaled CRF, 3.4, 11.0) oF che cocal CHD deachs amon�
[3]
ehac is, the hazard racio expontnciated m che che populacion >_ 4j years eould be a¢rib-
Because che PAFs for aaffic densiry, EC, populacion-weiah[ed mean. The UI for che uced m aaffic densin' (Figure ?A). The PAF
and PM,,g were calculared for a popula[ion- prozimiry PAF was es�imared accoun[ina for is expecced ro decrease m G.4°/o (95% UI:
weighced mean exposurc for the encire ehe uncertainry in boch parame[as(proximiry 2.2, 103) in 2035, refleccin� the expec¢d
popula[ioq che proporcion exposed (p�,P) in CRF and che proporcion exposed). decrease in populacion-weigh[ed [raffic
Equacion 2 becomcs uniry and Equacion ? Results densiry. The estimared 2008 PAF for resi-
reduca[o Equation 4: dencial discance of s 150 m From freeways or
Ihe[ocal$oCAB populacion waz 15.5 million < 50 m Erom major roadways(2.4%;95°ib UI:
PAF=(CRF- I)/CRF. �y) in 2008 and is projec[ed ro increase by 1.4, 33)was smaller[han the PAF for ei�her
approxima¢ly 3 million in 2035. However, craf£ic densi[y or EC, bu[ was projec[ed ro
We selec[ed a bacicground Ievd above which �he proportion >_ 4j ycars ac risk for CHD increase in 203� to 3.1% (95°/a UL 2.1,4.0),
che impacc was quaneified. For HC and is expec[ed w incaase fmm 35% in 2008 reflec[ing che incmase in proporcion living
PM�.S, PAFs were ucimaccd for che reduo- co 43°/a in ?03� (Table 2). As a resulc, che dose co major roadways. Based on u[ima¢d
cion of the populacion-wei�hred mean levels incrcaze in che CHD morcaliry ra[u, which burden of EC exposure, 3.7% (9�% UI:
co back�round Ievels oF 0.12 and 5.6 µg/m3, refle<e the change in che populacion a�e 1.9, �S) of the to[al CHD dea[hs in che
respeaively, based on measuremenes in a distribution, are projecred ro increase dispro- a 45 years age a oup in 2008 could 6ave been
dean Cen[ral Califomia mucal communiry portionamly wi[h [he popula[ion increase, pmvcn�ed if the populacion-wcigh[ed mcan EC
(Lompoc) for the period 199�2001 (Pemrs from 3.4 [0 49 deaths per 1,000 popula- exposure levels had been at the background
ec al.2004).Previous smdia used similar 6ack- tioa $oC�B CHD hospitalizacion rams arc level of 0.12 µg/m3_insread of 1.1 p�/m3.
ground levels and me�hodology (Anenberg projecced co increase from 8.9 per 1,000 in Decreasing popula[ion-weight<d mean EC
et al. 2010; Evans ec al. 2013). Because craffic 2008 to I13 per 1,000 in 2035. level is expected to result in decrcased PAF
is enurely anchwpo�enic, che background level Annual average popula[ion-wcighced eo 2.3°/o in 203j (95% UL L2, 3.4). The
. for craffic densicy wu 1.Q as incrcued CHD craffic densiry was markedly skewed (see escimared re�ional Pblz.g PAF was 10.4%
risk(Table I) was only observcd a[aposuru Supplcmen[al Material, Figure Sla). The (95% UI: 7.8, 12.9) in 2008 and is pmjec[ed
> 1 (log[afficdrnsiryofzero). mcdian 2008 aaEfic density was 14.4 rofallco7.5°k(95%UI:5.6,93)in2035. �
The 2008 and 2035 a¢ributable numbea ([QR = 3.9-30.1), aE[er cormeeing for Based, on [he NFLiP PAFs for vaffic
were acimaced by mulciplying[he populacion che fleec avera�e PM�.g emission rcduo- densicy, an cstimamd 1300 (9�°h UI:
z 4j yrars by che CHD mortaliry or hospi�ali- tion, and is projecred to decrease ro 11.6 440, 2,000) preventable deaths occurred
racion raca and che PAF(Equation 5). ([QR= 4.1-223) in 203) (From geomecric in 2008, and 2,500 (9i°h UI: 860, 4,000)
mean of 10.8 in 2008 [0 9.3 in 2035). In prevencable deaths will occur in 203) due
Populauon-aaribuoble numbermo,�,�;r�,o,P;d;,,,;o„ concruc, che pmpor[ion of che population co aaffic drnsiry wi[hin 300 m of ruidences
=Populacionz 45 livin�wi[hin li0 m Fran a freeway or 50 m (Fi�ue 2B).Tha la ae fitmre intreau is due[o
X Ratemomlirylhovpidiva�o� from a major road is expec[ed m increase rhe projec[ed increase in popula[ion,specifically
x�'�momliry/hospidiunon� �S] from 83°/a co 10.9% From 2008 �0 2035 co che dispmpoaiona[c increase in che a�ing
(see Supplemen[al Ma[erial, Figure S 16). popula[ion a[ risk of CHD.This effea can be
We calcula[ed che PAF and che a[vibuc- The mean (± SD) popula�ion-weighted EC quan[ified using rhe hypochetical 2035 seenazio �
able number for che poaion of tach counry
wi�hin che SoCAB and also for [he en�ire Ta61e 2 PoDUlation z 45 years and coronary heart disease(CH�I mortaliry and hospitalization rates
SoCAB reoion.�Ihe Pi1F and [he a¢ribucable overall forthe South Coast Air Basin and by counties for 2008 and projected far 2035.
number Eor che distance ro roadways marker CHD martaliry CHD hospitalizations
of NR�U' exposure can be inmrprcmd az [he Population'z 45 years(kl° Iper 1,0001 Iper 1.0001
proporcion and number oF dcachs, respec- Counry 2008 2035 2008 2035 2008 2035
uvdy, rhac could be preveneed if no one fived Los Angeles 3.321 703135.41 5,189,815144.81 3] 5.0 9.1 10.7
wichin 1j0 m Erom a fretway or)0 m fcom a Orange 1.085,184137.31 1,501 496145.11 2.6 44 68 97
major mad. For EC and PM1[,,y, [he PAF (or Riverside 554.fi56133.0) 768.170140.61 9.1 4.6 13.3 13.1
number of aaributablc even[s) can be in�co- San Bemartlino 466.992131.6I 672,435140.31 22� SA 8.1 13.8
pratd as the proporuon (number) cha�could Total 5.428.535135.11 8,005.1521433) 3.4 d.9 8.9 11.3
be prevenced if[he populacion-weigh�ed mcan +papulatlon is far[he partion of the counry that Is within fie South Coast Air Basin boundary,except for Orange Caunry
txposurts were reduced m baclsmund Ievels. where the entire county is within�he air basin.°Percentage of fie mtal(all ages�populatian.
7 96 vownne 1241 r�umeen 21 February 2016 � Environmental Health Perspectives
� ,-.
=,=..
���=:
Near-roadway pollution and coronary hzar diseasz c'=�4
in which che cocal popula[ion waz increased Thc cscimamd PAF for CHD hospical- Er,imaces of the ?00� preventabic CHD
as projcaed bu: was assiencd chc 1005 ye izacion acvibucablc co EC exposure in chc mortalin•due co IdRAP a.monQ che z 4�ytars
disaibu[ion (esunciallv kccpine chc ovcrall SoCA6 was 1.9% (9�96 liI: 0.7, 3.1) popula[ion in [hc SoG4B razied fmm 2.4%
mortaliry�n[e unchanged). linda chis hypo- in 2005, and is ezpectec [o dedinc [o (430 deaths), bazed on eY`.ccrs of ruidenual
chcci�al scemrio, a much smaller rmmbcr of l.?% (9�% UI: 0.4, 1.9) in 203� (scc prozimin� co a major road, [0 6.5% (1,300
dnehs(1,i00; 9)% UI: 600,2,300)would be Supplemrntal Mamrial,Table S4).The cor.r deachs), based on emissions-weigheed ¢affic
aaributablc[o uamc densia�.Base;on ch:PAF sponding aaribucable number of hospical- densiry. The crari�c dcnsi,y-relaccd bu;dcn
for raidcnual rtujor road pmzi.�nia�(<_ li0 m iiacions was 920 (9J46 liI: 320, 1,j00) for in ?008 was abou[ two-thirds chc burdcn
&om a freew�ay or s j0 m from anocher major ?00S and is expeaed ro inaease sliqhdy co (10.4%, 1,900 duchs) ae:ribu,able m rew-
road), chc:c wem 430 preven.able CHD 1,100 (9�% liI: 380, 1,700) in 203) afrer la:ed moional PM._g. Tnus, ro :he a:en:c}u[
deaehs (9)% UI: ?%0, 600) in 2003 and a attounting for inereasu in population and \R.qP and PM,.g effeccs are independent,
projeaed l,?00(9�%U[:820, 1,600)in 203j, hospicaliu�ion ram in an �aing populauon. If bepuse regional PM._g does noc charaaerize
compared with S30(9�%UI: >70, 1,100)chac chc 2003 age distribuuon were applied ro che che sharp gradien[ in cff:as oE che ncao-
would be anucipatcd if tht 203� a�c distribu- 203� population, the hypotherical num6er of roadway pollunnt mixture, a risk asscssmcnc
[ion were che same as in 2008. For EC, 690 hospicaliu�ions migh[be erzpecmd m decreau bated on PM;,_g alone[s lil:dy ro be a subsran-
CHD dea;hs were attributable .o exposu¢ eo 840 (9�96 UI: 300, 1,400). The projeceed [ial underes[imam of che vue pollueion-
above bad:,�round IeveLs(9�%UI:360, I,000) pa¢em of chan�e over cime ia che counry- ac.ributable CHD mo:.alicy. The 203�
in 2008, abou[ half of[he uumasd eraffic specific escimaees waz generally similar m ihac g«<nhouse gaz reduction-planning scenario
density-aaribunble deac}u bu:mo¢:nan IS for ehe eneirc SoCAB. is projecced to raulc in reduced populacion
cima chc major road proxiniry�-aaribucablc DISCUSSIOfI �posurc md ¢duccd P.�1F for PM,g, cranc
dachs. Thc EGaaributablc dcachs wac alw densiry, and EC (buc noc for raidcncial
projeued co inaease less chan chaz tor craffic This seud,v k one oE che nac risk assessmen¢oi proximiry co major roadwavs). Howeva, a
densiro,ro 900(9j%lJi:470, 1,300)in 203). CHD martaliry and haspiraliuuon aaribuo- mrprisin� findin�was [hac [he ar.ributablc
Mosc of che acimamd inccaz: aaribucablc able co \RAP markcrs and che fiac, ro our number of CHD deachs due boch co PM,_y
co EC is duc ro chc �ino populacion svuo- knowlcd4�. m projca fumrc atimaca of and ro uch NRAP csposurc, c�xn unda chc
cu�e ra[hu ehan juse ehe increase in popula- [he burden in a lar�e mecropoliean re�ion. op:imis[ic plannine scena:io considered, is
cion, which bp iadE would rsuh in a small
deaeau in dearhs co 630(9�°h lil.330, 920) � •rramc aenv.y - '
because ehe populacion we�ghecd acposure is 1B cmrannmmaes � - - -- - '
projccccd co dcaeas< ova um<.Abou[ 1,900 x •eiemmm�emo, • - a i ' - �� ' -
dnt}u (9>% U6 1,400, ?,400) m 2008 wcrc = �2 'P� ^`_„ ' 'x� � - - . � .
.1.
acimatcd ro bc atvibutablc[o�c;ionzl P��f,5. -�� T � 'i� i' s _ ' ,� ' '
A subscantial incrcasc [0 2,900 (9�% UI: e �� I -. �� � . .. �:� T � �
2.200. 3.G00) is espec¢d in 203J, despim a _ •. - �� . .--. _ . ' . . . - . . .1--.- •
2�% decrnu in PAF, du^_ [o :he chm�e in ° � � . .�'r` . --- -.. - - . ' ` . . , .
poPulation and age disvibuuon. In :he hypo- a , .11 � :f' .. �` . "¢�. _ . i � o - � '• � -
thctical sccnazio in which only chc popula- o � -� - " � '
- tion incrcuu in 203� a'ichouc an}'change . ,� g•e ,� g`.e ,�¢ ��'a n ,� ,,°,s-
in a�e dis[cibucion, che P\4,_�ar.ribucable �ti'��` _ �y'�,!`� �5'z,y ��;'S�•
dmtht would still incrcuc m 2,000 (9�°•6 UI:
1,i00,?J00)- �sm .°-. .-._ ._ ... .., ,.-._ . . .... . _ - _ � .�. . ._ .
B
The overall paaern of changino acposure .,mo '. ' . � . . � ' ..- .. . _ . .- - .
and NEL1P-acc:ibucable CHD was gcnerally = 3� ` - _ - - " ' - , ' �"
similar across all SoCA6 coun[ics. Traffic � ' - - � - - " -- , � I� �
dcnsiry and EC Icvds wcrc hiehesc in Los = 3'0°° ' � - ' � �� ' - � - - � ` � - - ^
Angda Counry and lowu[ in Riverside tsm � !.'s Y - - ' ' -- - '.- - � I �..
Counry and arc projccccd co dccrcasc in all 2� ' - :_ - . .. - . . . � -��-�- - I :
four councics from 2003 m 203j. (see '- � • -� - � � � � - � � � '� ' � � ��
Supplemenral Ma[aial,Table S1),In con¢as�, � �.� I�' � �. . ��.� . . � '
tht proportion living near a major mad is ��� � - "" "' � ' i " T � j�� - - ' '
projcc[cd[o incmu in all wunua during chc sm . I-�_ ' _' _ __ _ ' ' ' . " . _ .i_'_� -. i .:. .-__.' .. _ ' . . �
samt period. Los�4n�des Cow�a�cocuisccndy p ? -.- .- _. .. - . . . .. .
had che hiohesc es:imaced P.-1F and Rivaside ,� ,q•:a ,�g9 g•e .�:p ,� ���•F �°p ,g'� �'�•`e :t g
Counry chc lowac baz<d on cach cxporurc �hy�•``�°y„ ��;'�,.o <•�; ��+'.m <"�: �+4„^ .
in bo[h ?005 and in 203� (sr_ Supplemrntal � �� ' ��Q • � �,�°c�
,�fa[crial,Table 52).The s.ina;ed populauon-
attributable nunba wu consisrendy hiqhrsc Figum 2 Populauomar.ribu.able irac�ons(A1 and pooulauomattribu.able numoers(81 and 95%uncer
in Los Moda (stt Suppkmental �{a[crial, tainry intervals for coronarr Sear.disease mortaliry in the$outh Coas:Air Basin fn 2008 xnd 2035,'
Table S3), buc :raFfic deasiro-, EC-, and a.-,rihu:ed ro tra�c densttywi[hin 300-m 6uRer from residence,residen2ial dis:ance[o nearer.treeway
PDi,5-aaributablc numbers wcrc cach lowesc (s 150 m)or major road�<;p mL alemental car6on,and regional PMzs ahove backgmund levels of 1 for
in San Bcrnardino in ?OOS and are esPeaed «affic densiry,0% for prcximiry,0.12 pg(m�for cC,and 5.6 pg/m�for PMzs.Popu3a:ian-weigh;ed mean
ro increasc markcdly by 20i�, mflsun�ancici- QxPOSUres in 2008 and 2035 w=_re 10.8 and 9.3 for traffic densiry, 1.1 and OJ pgfm tor EC,and 13.2 and
^ 10.9 pg/m for PMis respecuvely.
pamd popu�ation in<rcase under :}ie compac[ •populatiomaeributable num6er;ha;mighc be expec:ed in 2035 if Ne age dis;ributian of�e 20.,v5 pooularion were Ne
urban devdopmcnt scenario. same as in Ztpe.
Eill'IfOfIRICII(dI HPIICiI PEI$pCCClN25 ' VJIIIME�2d I NIJIABEi Z I CQSNdfy ZO�a 197
a4 •�-'
�ei. ..'
��� . Gnosh et al.
ezpecmd [o increasc subs[ancially by 203>, chc esposurc and assxia[ed popula�ion burden PM2.5 and che cxcenc co which cheir effcca
lazgely duc [o�vinerabiliry of an agin�popu- of CHD morbidiry and mortaliry, pazticularly are independen[.
lacion. The proporcion t 65 years, ac highac for[hc elderly. The uncer[ain[y of[he ucimaces based on ,
risk of CHD (Ford and Capewell 2007), is There are uncertaincies in the estimates. fumre exposure sccnario is Iikely m be greamr
projeaed ro double over[he nexc nvo decades. The sta[iscical uncercainry incervals are larae. chan for chc currenc escima�es. For exarnple,
Thesc results havc importan[ implica- The escimatcd aaributable burden also we correcred [he craffic-densiry CRF bazed on
cions for healch and urban plannin� poliry. varied dependin�on [hc marker for NRAP. an assump[ion chac che effea oE each vehide�
CHD accouna for mosc of che mortafiry' - Thc 2008 craffic dcnsiry—aaribu�able CHD exposurc �wuld decline in propoaion co [he
ac[ributable to PMZ.g Icvels in ezcess oE che mortaliry was largest (6.8%) and che major decreasc in flmc average PM,_�vehide emission
na[ional scandard (12 pg/m3) and [herefore madway pmzimiry-aaribu[able mortaliry was nca pa kilomc[cr of[ravd sinm che original
Eor chc larguc pollu[ion-accribucablc annual smallest (2.4%). The vaffic densiry burden epidemiological smdy was conduaed,eqwva-
economic cosrs, approximamly 54.6 billion �eas based on a CRF ehae used con[inuous Irne m 15% from 2008 [0 203�. �Ihe cmder
(adjusced ro 2014 using che U.S. Bureau oE exposum and aeeounced for volume of [raffic proximiry ezposure indiwcoe was noc
Iabor Staeiscics Consumer Price (ndez infla- vehides on all nearby roadways (Kan e[al. adjusmd for chan�es in vehicular emissions
cion calculamr) (U.S. EPA?013).Accoun[in� 2008), and ic was cor¢emd for changing and cherefore may overes[imace rhe effec[ of
for [he effeas of NRAI' is likely m markedly vehicks emissions over cime. The smaller [his indicaror. Alternazively, che.prozimiry-
increase utimates of economic cosc oE pollu- burden eccimamd from major roadway prox- accribu�able burdtn may reflea eFfeccs not.
cion. "Ihe inueasing populaciomaaribucable imiry miah�bt tzpected because ehe CRF was scalabk eo changa in PM mass—for exampk,
number due �o an aging populacion means based on a dichoeomous classiFicacion ehaz if che more corzic componenrs of the mixmre of
cha�additional hospi[al beds and o[her healch does noc acmunt for [hese facmrs (Gan e[al. fresh vehicular emissions changed m a differenc
facili�ia will be needed Eor CHD treacmenc 2010), and chereFore is the crudest suaoga[e pmpoaion [han PM�,S mass, or iF compo-
Nacional air poflucion regula[ions already for rhe NRAP mixmre.Neicher oE�hese expo- nenes of resuspended road duse ehac mi�h[
adopted will havc imPac[s ov<r the nexe sures accounts for mettorology and dispersion not change ae all we¢ the relevant hazard
20 years; examples include Tier-2 and Tier3 of a biologically rdevan[vaffic poflutanc su<h (Schwara 1999). The uncorrecced craffic
vehide seandards (U.S. EPA 2014), and az EC, For which che number oFaaribucable densiry is acmally projec[ed co inereue (by
non-road diesel requiremencs (U.S. EPA deaehs in 2008(n=G90)was benveen cha[for 6.5%) fmm 2008 co 203�,as a che populacion
2004). Thae and the likely on�oing evolu- major roadway proximiry exposure (n = 430) livin�near a major road(from 83°h ro 109%
eion oFconaol eechnolo�requiremen¢u�ill and vaffic densiry (n = 1300). EC had the (see Supplemen[al Ma[erial, Fi�ure S16)].
mncribum to rtduced PM2_5 and EC emissions, smallest increase in 203J NRAI'-a¢ributable Because che burden and cosa of NRAI' arc
and likely will rcduce che impact of roadway morcaliry (which would be expeaed [o targe, addieional research is warranmd co
proximiry and craffic densiry (CRC 2013). dedine if che popula[ion were noc agin�.'Ihe reduce rhue sources oFun<ertainry.
We have noc escima¢d che impaa specific smaller EC-aaributable burden in 2035 wu Ano[her important assump[ion is cha[
[o greenhousc gas—reduaion measures, inde- due ro an ancicipated dcaner burning diesel the age-specific CHD rates will remain
pendent oFotha pollution.rtduction saacc vehide fleet. HG (and PM25-) attrib�cable unchanged from 2003 [0 203�. CHD
�ies. However, our ruula suggest [hac chere burden were also based on an assumption mortaliry races have fallen markedly ovec che
are u yee unexploimd opportunitiu for healch [hat no CHD effects would occur below tasc several decades in [he Uniced Staces(Ford
benefics chat would resulc From re�ulacion oF background levels of 0.12 µg/m3 (EC) and ec al. 2007) due co several facwrs. However,
. NRAP, and that addieional health co-benefia �b µg/m3 (PMZ.g), whieh may have resulced inereased prtvalenct of obuiry and ics meca-
could be obtained from ehe 203> �reenhouse in an underescimated burden. bolic consequcnces am likely m slo«• chis
gas reductioo—planning proass. The 203� EC is a mxicotogically rele"vanc compo- decline in CHD mor[aliry ra[es and could
mmpaa growch sccnario uscd For chis smdy nenc of particula[e macmr Qanssen e[ al. pocencially reverse them. Therefore, ic is
will promom urban «developmrnc wieh mulu- 2012) subseaneially influenced by pollu[ion difficulc eo quancify ehe nec impaa of chue
family homa in corridors with �ood public fmm htary dury(diuel) vehidu in Southem crends on eht eseimaces of NRAP-aaributable
¢ansport co aduce rdiance on priva[e auco- CaliFomia (ManchumrvNeesvig e[al. 2003). burden of diseaze.
mobiles. The plan will promoee invu[menc In chis smdy, [he escimaeed parcel level EC . A limiea�ion co ehe comparison of che
in bicyding and wallun� inFrastmcmre, and exposure used in calculacing che burden NRAP- and PMZ_g-actributable burden oE
usuma ehac chem will be inereased vehicular acrouneed for [he influence of ine[eomlogy CHD is ehaz ehe original source CRFs were
fleec fuel efficienry and reduced emissions. on dispeaion &om local roadways, unlike es[imamd for differene ape disaibucions. �Ihe
Howeveq if chis plannin�setnario increasu the o[her ewo NRAP markers. Howtver, the PM�g CRF was developed for a population
[he populacion exposed [o NRAP by placin� es[imamd EC exposure included boch crans- a 30 years (Krewski e� al. 2009), which we
people closer to busy roadways, they may be poaed and local NRAP EC. Mos[ (- 90%) assigned co[he populaeion a 4j veazs in order ,
� puc ac inereased CHD risk, unless vehicle of che mtal EC exposure was regionai;uiti w;vs to be comparabie m ehe populaeion for che
emissions were co decrease more subscancially common to all parcels in each 4 km x 4 km CRFs for alt chrce indices of NRAP (Gan
�han cuaendy anticipattd. Variancs on ehe EC erzposure grid.'Ihus, [he eseimaced burden et al. 2010, 20l I; Kan ec al. 2008). PMZ.�
planning scenario, such as policies ro da�elop For EC reflecmd bo[h regional and near- aari6ucable burden waz mnsiderably lar�er iF
a zem- or dose-ro-zero-emission vehide Elee�, roadway effeas, and EC effeccs may noe be applied co ? 30 years a�e �roup (3,100 fa[al
could opcimiu heal[h co-benefia oFgreenhouse encirely independen[ oF�he burden assi�ned CHD even[s in 2008, e.�., compared wich
gaz reduaion. Anocher approach miah[be co m che PMZ.g pollu[ion, modeled solzly on rhe che 1,900 ucima[ed based on ehe popula-
encourage buffers beeu�ten major tra�c corri- re�ional scale. Thaefore, the simple addi�ion cion ?45 years).The larger ucimace is ge�er- ,
dors and hi�h-drnsiry dtvelopmtnt chrough of che EG and PMZ_g-acvibutable events ally consis¢nt with ocher smdies examinin�
zonin� and oeher land use policiu. Berause may overes[imam che effec[ of chese polluo- che burden oF PMZ.�-aecribu�able CHD
markers For che NRP,P mizmre decreaze sharply ancs. It is diffitule eo assess che de�ree of such morcaliry scamwide (CARB 2010). If che
wich discance to traffic, buffers of even a few double councing,as chere has been li[de smdy CRFs for NRAP were applicd co che popula-
lOs to li0 m am likely�o decrcase markedly of che joint effec[s of exposure co EC and tion a 30 years, che escimamd burden also
�9$ . vo�unne 1241 NuMaea 21 Fe6ruary 2016 • Environmental Health Perspectives
�s`=
.�t-ti
Near-roadwa 1
y pollution ard coronary hear disease "-�-�-
increased markedf}' (da[a not shown). \X'c miu�acec, and c) NR4P- (and PMZS-) a¢rib- pollution using sarellite imagery. Environ fies
harc dccced:o uc�hc common ��RAP CRF u•,able CHD is likcl}�ro inumu cvrn if popu- ���Z
ao� dscribution tor all escimatcs bccausc lauon acposure is mduccd bmusc of incrcaud �ord E5.Alani U0.CmfrJ9,Critchley J0.Lz6arthe DR.
NR�I' is chc cx osure of rima in[¢ac. .vinrrabili ofana_�in ularioa Ko�ceTE,?taL3777.&GlainingtfiedecrezseinitS.
P P ry� ry �P°P. deaths from<oronary disease,196a2I100.N Engl J
Howevc:, chc cstimamd burden for boch Med356:Zi28-Zt98;do�t0.1�61NEJMSaOS'635.
ATR�ll' and P!.i,5 racriacd co chc >4j ycar REFERENCES Ford ES,Capewell S.2007.Caronary hean disease
popularion is W:dy to bc conscnauvc. mortaliry among young adults in Ne U.S.fmn
Tra:io:damd noisc has bccn associ- Anen6erq SC,Horawitz lW,Tonq DQ,West J.2010. 1980 uhrough 2002 cancealed leveling af moraliry
accd wi;}i CHD, buc whccher ic mnfounds, An es:imate af Ne glo6al hurden ot anthro- ra:es.JAmCoIlCardioli02128-213Zdoi9�.lO1Wj.
poger,ic ozone and fine Darticulare matter on jacc20�7A5.056. �
mcdiams, or in[eraccs wi[h ncar-roadu�ay prema:ure human mor.aliry using atmospheric Fritschi L, Brown Al, Kim fl, S<hwela D,
pollucion is undur (Fricschi a al. 2011). A nade6ng.Envimn HeaIN Perspect 118:1189-1195; Kephalo0e�cus S,eds2➢71.3urdenafDiseasehom
mccnc miew su�esced�hac�he nvo arc likdy doi:10.17891ehp.W01220. En�mnmental Noise:�uan4ficauon of 4eahhy Gfe
indcpcndcn[:isk faaors of CHD (Da�ia and Bell ML,E6isu K, Peng RQ Samet JM,Dominici F. Years lostin EumDe.CoOenhagen,DenmarkWodG
Kamp 2012), bu[ chis mndusion wu bazcd Z00°-.Hospical admissions and chemical composi- Heahh Organ¢avon,fle;ional Office for Eumpe.
on only four smdia. The CRFs we used were ��cn af nne particle air polluuon.Am J Respir Crit Gan WQ, Koehoorn M, Davies HW, Demers ?A,
Care Med 1799115-1120. Tam6uric L,5raver M.201I.long-term ezDasure
noc adjus¢d for noisc, so chc ncar-roadway gensan PE. 1992.A review ot the development and m traffiorela[ed air pollution and the risk of
pollucion-aaributable burden could be indr applicatlan of Ne CALINE3 and<models.Atmas coronary heart disease haspitalization and
pendenc or pa:[ially ovcdappin� wi[h [hc Envimn 2637�390. monaliry.Envimn Heal[h Perspect 119:SOt-507;
noise burdcn. Brook fl0,Fajagopalan S, PoDe CA III, Brook JH, doi:1�.12F9/ehp.70025n.
Thc hcalch bcncfi[ from rcduccion in bhamagarA,Diez-ROmeAV,eta1.21170.Par6cula.e Gan WQ, Tam6uric L, Davies HW, Demers PA,
NR,�iP is unli�:ch�co bc limi[cd [o ¢duc[ioat �a¢er air pollutian and cardiovascular disease: Koehoorn M,d:auer M.2010.Chan9es in resi-
zn update m [he scientific statemen[ from den[ial prazimiry m road traffic and the risk of
ia CHD mor[aliry. We havt not escimamd the American Heart Associa[ion. Circulatian deafi from coranary hean disease.Epidemiology
burdcn of\RAI'-acdbu[able mornliry zsso- ;Zy.Zi37_ya7g;doi:10.i167lCI�.Ob073e3181dbece7. 21:64N'i79.
cia[eG wi[a o[aer outtomt5, Suth a5 Stm�:e Califamia Oepartment of Flnante.2013.fleport P-2: Geller MD,SarCar SB,Phuleria H,Fne PM,$ioutas C.
and chronic obswaivc pulmona+y discasc in Stzte and County Population Pmjecaans-fiacel 2005.Measuremenu of DartiUe num6er and mass
:}m elderlv, ior wfiic}t[fm causa� rt�auonships `�niciry and 5-Year Age Groups,207�2060(6y concenvauons and size disvibutions in a tunnel
are las dear(HEI 2010). However, uthma Yead.Fvailahle:htt0lAwm.doLca.gov�researcN environmeni Envimn Sci Technol 3?:E653--8663;
demographic/repartslpmjeclionslP-2/�accessed doi:70.1@i�esO5Qifi0s.
and as-.hma acamr6auon in children arc likdv ip Seo:em6er 20731. Greenland 5.200s.Interval es4mafion b simulauon
caisscd by NR.�iP and have a larqc assxiamd CARB ICaliiornia Envimnmental Pmtectlon Agency as an alternauve to and eztension of confidence
burden(Pcr¢c[a�. ?0l2). Calfiomia Air Resourtes BoardL 20I0.Estlmate intervalsJntJ'cpiderttio133:1389-1397.
IX�c calculaccd[hc PAF using thc sandard of Premamre �eaths Associated with Fine HEI IHealth Effects Institutel.20ID.Traffic-relared
PAF formula (Equacion 2). Ho�vcvcr, chis Partide Pollurion IPMiyI in Califomia Using a U.S. Air Polluuon:A CriSCal Feview of the Lireramre
acimacc ma}' bc biascd in thc pmscncc of �nvironmental Protecuon Agency MeNodology. on Emissions,EcOOSUre,and Health Ettects:HEI
confounding by chazaucrisciu in che smdy Available:hnpy/w�xv.arb.ca.gov/research/healthl Special Repan 17. Bosron,MA:HEI.Availahle:
pm-morUpm-repon 207�.pdf�accessed 5 January http://puhs.heal:heffec[s.org/get(ile.Dh0�u=5i3
Kom w�hich rhe CRF is derived if[hae covari- Zp�y� [accessed 27 dune 20ts�.
aces arc no: availablc for [hc ur�cc popula- CARB. 2017. EMFAC2017-HD User's Guide. Hoffinanr e,MaehusS.SeangA,BeckEM,OraganoN,
cion (Dar:ow and S[ccnland 2011). Thcm Sacramenm,CA:CAPB.Availa6le:httpJ/wvnv.arb. Mfihlenkamp S,eeal.2fA6.Pesidence clase co high
- waz licdt conioendine of thc CRFs:or tanc �a.cov/msei/emfac201bad-users-guide-final.pdf va�c and prevalence af coronary hean disease.
dcnsi!y and EC by available co��a.-ia[cs in [he [acceued iFebmary707?L EurHeartJ272fi9Fr270L
CAR6.2013a.EMFAC2�71 Technical Oocumentation. Janssen idA,Gedafs�Nijland ME,Lanki T,Salonen R0,
s[udiu fmm which thcy wem daived (Gan pvzilahle:httpJ/v,mwarb.ca.gov/msei/emfac201b Cassee F,Ho=_k G,e[al.2072.4ealth effec's of
c. al. 2011; Kan a al. ?008). How'ever, che documen:aeiomfinal.pdf[accessed 77 Ocmbe: black car6on. Copenhagen, �enmark:Wodd
wde CRF acwciamd wi[h living neaz a majoc 2074J. Heal•,h Organizauon,Regional Offire tor Europe.
road was 1.69 and reduccd [0 1.29 afmr CAHB. 2013h. EMFAC2011-LDV User's Guide. Available: httpy/www.euro.who.inV_Ea:a�
adjuscino �or confounders (a�q Scs, socio- Szcramenm,CA:CAFB.Availa6le:h[[pJ/vnw�.arh. asseulOdf_51efOW4/16253i/e965dt.pd;�atcessed
economic sums, and co-morbidicics) (Gan ���9p°�^seJemfac2011-Idv-users-9uide�(nal.pdf z2JanuaryNt-].
ec al. 2010). Thac covariaccs are noc avail- ����eued 5:ehmary 1D733�. Kan H,Heiss G,Rose KM,Whitsel EA,Lurmann F,
Carter WP. 2000. Documentation of the SAPRC-99 Loncon SJ.2008.ProsOective analysis of vaFfic
ab�e in out $ou.htm California populacion Chemfcal Mechanism for VOC fleactivity exposure as a risk facror for incident comnary
data sec Howner, for a crude CRF/adjusmd Assessment. Final fiepon m Califamia Air heart disease: ehe Atherosclerosis Risk in
CRF oE 1.69/1.29 (i.e, 1.3) and an czposurc Resources Board,Contract No.92-329 and lin PaN Communiries(ARICI smdy.enviran Heal•,h Perspect
prevalence of S.3°h (chc propor[ion of chc =�-��Available:h¢p9M+�w+.engr.uccedu/-carter/ 116:1:G1-1:68;dai:10.i229/ehp.11290.
2005 SoGiB popula[ion �ivin� ncar a majo[ Puhs/sSSdocpdt[accessedSFehmary20131. Karner AA,Eisinger�5,Niemeier�A.2�10.Near '�
CflC ICmrdinaung fiesearch Councii inci.2uii.cfiecis roadway xir quali:y.synthesizing Ne findings fmm
road), our acimaccd traf4ic prozimiry PAF of!ighrDury Vehicle Emisvons an Ozone and PM real-wodd daa.Environ Sci Technol u:53J7-i34.1.
is Iikely� m underestimaa [}m ccue proximity Wifi?ast,Present,and FuNre Con[rols:Tier 0 Krewski�,JerreII M,BumeII RT,Ma R,Hughes�,SN Y,
PAF(Dar:ow and$men�ind?Ol l�. verses Other Scenarias.CflC fleport No.A-76-2. et n1.2W9.x,ended FoOavrUp and Sparial Fnalysis
Our raulcs azc likdy co bc rdevane co ocha Alpharer.a,GA:Caordinating flesearch Covncil cf.he American Cancer Society Smdy Linking
large \'orch .�nerican ci[ics wich dispersed Ine. Available: http:l/www.crcao.or9lreportsl Pxrticula�etirP011u�onandMOrtaliry.HElReuarch
popula�ions and high vaffit volumes. A°e �ecentsydies201yA-76-LCftC Project A76-2 Fnal q_pon M4 Boscon,MA:Health Ettec:s ins5m:e.
6aporpdf[accessed7Apr72073]. Availahle:h¢py/7ubs.healtheffects.arglgeCile.
condudc [hac a) air pollu�ion-aaribucablc pzRow Ly Steenland NK IDll.Canfoundinq and hias pno?u=i7A[acceued 2+Navember27731.
bu:dea oi CHD mortaliry may have b<cn fn;hea¢ri6uca61eEracriortEpidemiologyZ253-i8. Manchester-Neesviq J8, Schauer JJ, Cass GR.
underadmaced in mose atistin�PM,�bazcd Davies H,Kamp IV.2012.Noise and cardiovascular ZW3.The dis;rihurion of particle-phase organic
;isk usasmcncs bc�ausc thcv ignorc \RAP disease: a review a(Ne literamre 2008-20n. conoounds in the atmasphere and Neir use
Noise Heai•,h 7 4 28 7-291. for source a ortionment durin the Sauthe:n
ececs, b)�rteahouse gss-reduccion plannin� PP 9
ouea addi[ional opportunitia ior imPro�ino =�ans d,van �onkelaar A, Mar,in flV, Bumett R, ry�„��nia Children's FeaIN$Ndy.J Air Waste -
� ' Rainhzm 9G, 3irkea NJ,et aL 2073. ESima:es Manag Assoc ii:lO6rriW9.
Fi:mre etr�iac hea�[fi, if[}�e `RAP ri5�:5 are at Slohal mortaliry anrihutahle m Darticulate air Mo:alle6i N,Taylor CA Jr,Cmes BE.2W3.ParticWa:e
Environmenal Health PerspecWes • vauME 7241 uuMS_:21:ecvxry 2076 � 199
�� _
.z�
Ghosh et al.
matter in California: Part 2-spa[ial,temporal, Availa6le:http:�/wwwscag.ca.gov�OataAndTOOlsI OC:U.S.EPA.EPN600IB-OS/139F.Availahle:http://
andcompositionalpattemsofPMiyPMio-zyand �ocuments/Validation5ummaryfleport_ cfpu6.epa.gov�ncealrisklrecordisplay.cfm?deid
PM�o.JAirWasteManaAAssoc53:i517-1530. SCAG2008Va1_2012_06_OS.pdflaccessetl27May =21fi54fi&CF10=44366845&CFTOKEN=80481999
Perez L,Wrmann F,Wilson J,Pasror M,Brandt SJ, 20151. faccessed 5 January2014�.
Kunzli N,et aL 2012.Nearmadway polWcion and SCAQM� ISouth Coast Air Qualiry Managemen[ U.S. EPA.2013.Regulamry Impact Analysis for the
childhood asthma: impliwtions for developing �isVictL 2013.Finat 2012 Air Qualiry Management Final Revisions m the Natlonal AmbientAir Quaiiry
'wirwin" compact urban developmen[ and Plan SouN CoastAir Qualiry Management DistricL Standards for Particula[e Ma[ter. Fesearch
dean ve�icle strategies.Envimn Health Perspect Diamond Bar,CA,February.Availa6le:http7/www. Triangle Park,NC.Availa6le:http://www.epa.
120:1fi19-1626;dai70.1289/ehp.11�47A5. aqmd.gov/nomeflibrary/clean-airvplans/air-qualiry- gov/ttnecas7/regdatalfllAs/fnalria.pdf�accessed
Perers JM, Avol E, Berhane K, Gauderman WJ, mgrplan/final-2a12-air-qualiry-management-plan 78March211141.
Gilliland F,Jerrett M,et al.2004.Epidemiologic laccessed 5 February 2013]. U.S. EPA. 2014. EPA Sets Tier 3 Momr Vehicle
Invesvga0on[o Identify Chranic EHecGS of Amhient Schwartz J. 1999.Air pollution and hospital admis Emission and Fuel Standards.EPA-420-R4-009.
Air Pallutants in Southem California. Prepared sions for hean disease in eigh[ LLS. counties. Availa6le: http://www.epa.gov�otaq/tier3.htm
for the California Air Resaurces Board and the Epidemiology 1097-22. [accessed 1 March 207a1�
California Environmental Pratection Agency, LLS.Oepartment of Transportation.2013.7ahle 1-36. Wu J,Houston D,Lurmann F, Ong P,Winer A.2009.
Contract No.94-331. Avaiiable: http://www.ar6. In:Nauonal TransOorta[ion Statistics.Washington, 6cposure of PMis and EC imm diesel and gasoline
ca.gov/research/apr/pasU94-331a.pdf�accessed DC:U.S.Oepartment of Transportatian,Research �vehicles in communi[ies near the ports of Los
.2Febmary20141, and Innovative Technology Administration,Bureau Angeles and Long Beach,Califomia.Atmos Envimn
SCAG (Southern California Association of of Transportation S[atistics. Availahle: http:/� 43:1962-1971;doi:10.101�.atmosenv2009.01009.
Govemmencs�.2012a. Regional Transportation www.rita.dotgov/b[s�si[es/rita.dotgov.hts/files� Zhu Y, Hinds WC, Kim $, $hen S, Sioutas C. 2002.
Plan 2012-2035.Sustaina6le Communifies Strategy. NTS_Entire_13Q4.pdf[accessetl 10 Fehruary2014]. Study of ulVafine par[icles near a major highway
Towards a Sustainahle Future. Los Angeles, LLS.EPA W.S.Emironmental Protection Agency�.20W. wi[h heavy�duty diesel traffic. Atmos Emiron
CA:SCAG.Availahle: http:qrtpscsscag.ca.qov/ 4�CPH Part 1039-Control of emissions from new 3fi:4323-4335.
�ocuments�201yfnal/f2012flTPSCS.pdf laccessed and in-use nonroad compression-ignition engines. Zhu Y,Kuhn T,Mayo P,Hinds WG 2006.Comparison
5 Fehmary 20731. Fed Reg 69:39213-39259. of daytime and nighnime concentration profiles
SCA6.2012h.SCAG Regional Travel Demand Model U.S.EPA.2009. In[egrated Science Assessment tor and size distri6utions of ultrafine particles near a
and 2008 Model Validation.Los Angeles,CA:SCAG. Particulate Matter�Final Reportl.Washington, maior highway.Environ Sci Techno1 40253 7-2536.
200 vo�ume 1241 Numaea 21 Fehruary 2016 • Environmen[al Health Perspe[nvu
�,�,�
��r��� r ASec:ion508-mn;orman;HTM!versiano`misartide
-= Research � Children s Heafth i5dvailableathRp://dx.�oLO:yRG.t2H9lenc.l<09:30.
Exposure to Road Traffic Noise and Behavioral Problems in 7-Year-Old
Children: A Cohort Study
Dorrit Hjorte6jerg,�Anne Marie Ny6o Andersen,Z Jeppe Schuhz Christensen,� Matthias Ke�el,3
Ole Raaschou-Nielsen,�Jordi Sunyer,°Jordi Julvez,°Joan Forns,s and Mette Sarensen�
'Danish Canc=r Society Research Centre,Danish Cancer Sociery,Copenhagen,Denmark;ZSec[ion of$ocial Medicine,Department of Public
Health,Universiry of Copenhagen,Copenhagen,Denmark;3Departm=nt of Environmental Science,Aarhus Universi,y,Roskilde,Denmark;
°Cen2er for Research in Environmental Epidemiology,Barcelona,Spain;'Department of Genes and Environment,Norwegian Institute of
Public Health,Oslo,Norway
- - A`o studia havc imsci�amd a.ssociauons
BeCKGrtOUan: Fiposure [o v�rooise hu beeo associated a�ith adverse effec[s on neuio- becween aposure to camc noise dur�na pre�-
pryc6olo�ral ou[wmes in�ildren,bue findings uinc�egard m be6a.ioal pmblexns are imm�sis¢nc panR• and bcha�'ioral probltms. Howeetr,
Oe7EGrn'E:IX'e investigated w6etfmr «sidenual road craEFc voiu aposure is azsocia�ed wi[L noise is an cnvironmental s[rcssor (Stansfeld
be6a.ionl pmblems in 7-ynr-old children. , - and V(achuoa 200i),and ma�anal ocposure
M¢['xous:We idenufied 46,940 children from�he Danish Nauonal Birth Cohort wifh mmple[e ro stress during premancp haz been su�a[td
inFovmauou ou behavioral problems at 7 ynrs of age md mmplem address 6ismry�Gom concep- ro be associamd w�itl: prvchological c=ecu in
uon ro 7 va�z of age.Road rraf6c noise(Lym)..�s modded ac all preunt and historid addresses. �jfdrrn, indudin�comi;i�'e, bchavionl, and
Be6z�iaral problems.vere sssessed by�he pazen�-reported Stren�hs and Difficulties Quesuoneuirt �mo[ional dtvdopmrnt (Grai�nio-Philippe
(SD�.Assodatioas bemeen Preguanc}'and childhood eaposure ro noiu and behavionl problems �t al. 2014).A pocenaal nec6zlusm is aai�a-
were walyzed by mulrinomiil or logistic regression and adjuserd fo�pocenti�l conEoundas.
tion oE chc maccmal h}pochalamio-picwtary-
RES�aiS:A IO�B incresse in avenge ume-weighmd mad ciaBc noise aposure from bin6 eo . ad:enal axis, Itadin� m an inacase in lo�e�s �
7 yars of a¢e..zs assocuced wi�6 a 7%inuease(95%CL L00, Ll4)in abnoemal rersus ooraul' of ma¢rnal co:tisol (Beijeis ec al. 2014).
conl difficulaes scoces; j% (9�% CL 1.00, 1.10) and 9%(9i% C6 1.03, 1.18) increases in ����sol can pass [he :e:al-placencal ba:rier
borderline aud abnarmal hypenctiviryl'wamuon su6s�le uneec.mpecri.�dy:and j%(95%CI:
0.98, 1.14)aad 6%(9�%CL 0.99, I1?)inaeues in abnoemal conduct pcobfem and peee relauan- and mi�he subsequendp inFluence the fttal
ship problem subscale scoru,re�pecvvdy. Exposure ro road enfnc mue d'^�pregeunry was mc nervous sqs¢m and emouonal and mgnicive
azsodated wirf�cfWd beha�ionl problems a�i yan oFage. � �unc[ioning of the eFWd (Davis and Sandman
Couetusro�s: Residrntial road�raftic ooise in earlv childhood mav be azsotiaeed kirh behavioral z012;Stckl and Holma 200i).A�w,ma[trnal
pmblems,pamevlacly hypenedvin-/inaaenrion s�mproms. . _ s�tep dismrbance during pre�nance has bttn
Crreno�:Hjortebjerg D,Mdersen AM,Chrisma.en JS,Ke¢eL�i,Ftaaschou-\ieLun O,Sunyer J, P�oposed m affect ;he neurxndocrine s}scem
Julvez J, Forns J, Sor<nsrn ht. 2016. &eposua m road ¢affic ooise and behaviocal problems �&ijtn a al.?014).
in 7-year-old c6ildrea: a w6orlsmdy. Environ HealcL Perspea 124123-34; 6«p://dm.doi. We ustd data fror.i a large population-
a�g/IO.L39/ehp.1409430 bued birth cohor. :o invesu�am che associa-
- [ions bemeen�posures m road aaffic noise a[
che raiden«durino pre�nancy and eazly lik
Introduction exposure co airport noise«as associa�ed wi�h ancl bthavioral problems in%-year-old child:en.
Exposure m .:a.:ic noise is considerabk in an incrcased scorc oF hypuaaieiry, whueas
� many paru of ehe wodd and has been asso- exposure eo road cr�c noise a< <he schools Materials and Methods �
ciaced wic4 healch effeccs among adults, �aas not azsodated wirh h}peacti��ty,bue wi`h Strdy popularioa The seudv is bazed on ehe
indudina psycholo�ical svmpwms such as lowcr scores for concua problcros (i.c. fcwcr popula[ion-bascd Danish Vacional Bir;h
arixicry and chaaees in mood (S;ansfdd and condua pmblcros) (S[ansfeld ec al. 2009).Thc Cohort(DN6CJ (O!scn ec al. ?001). During
Mathcson 2003).Children are aLso suzpecced onl}�smdr investiatin�associauons between
co be �vinerable to vaffic noisq aptcially residenual eeposure :o road v�c noise md �ddress corvespondrnce�o D. Hjorzebjerg Danish
Canca $ociery Resca:cS Cen�eq Danish Gncee
durin� sensicive s[agcs of derelopmen[ behavioral pmblems in childan repor[ed �m,,Suandbo�nudm;9.2t00Coprn�y_�rn0.
(Scansfeld ec al. 200j). Smdiu invati�aeing azmeiaeions wich h;peraeciviry and possibly Denmark. TdepSone: ?i 3i?5 7316. E-mail:
eFfeccs on neumpsccholo�ial devdopment emouonal ry�nprortu in a smd,v of 900 Gemun dorhjo�+nnca.dk
due m cra;nc noise exPosure in ehildren cftildten(I�iale[a aI.?OG). $upplemencal�iam:ial is a��ihble online(hap:!/
ha�a focused mainly on Iearnin�and cogni- Residential exposurt eo craffic noiu mi�he ��doi.or�,J10.1?&9/eho.14094i0).
cive per;nrmaacq wich consismn[ findin¢s of be a morc rde�anc exposurc window [han The E�ropon Raciran Council;EU 7�h�esnrrh
Erunework Prwnmmc scppoacd chis smdy(ganc
impairmenc in readin�and memory of aircrafc oeposum ac school wich meard [o [he inves- ?S�iGO).Ihc Danish\ade�ul Rcuarch Foundauon
noise exposure (Haines a al. ?OOIa, 20016; ci�a[ed behavioral problems. Fiac, ehildrrn an6luhed che Dan;sh Ep�dem;ologv Sdrna Cenve �
Hyae a al. 300?; $tansfdd a al. 200j).The soend more rime at home chan at the sehool; due inivaeed and an�ed�he Danrsh Nauonil Birth
few scudics �hat have invesugaeed associauons and second, niohctime exposure mi�hc be verv Coho.c.71x mhor,is fi�nh�orc a�aul�of i majo�
benveen acoosum m aaf�c no¢e and pazeno- importane, beause e:affic noise at normal S°2c irom ehis foendadon.Addicional zeppor,for
rtported child bthavioral probltms are inton- urban levds has ban associa¢d with slecp `�'e Danish Na�onat Birt:�Cohort is obnined Erom
sisctne (Haines cc al. 2001a, ?0016; StatuFeld disturban�e,w�th rc`�ard ro boch uality and `f'e P!vanacy Focnda;ion,ctic E�-mone Found�on,
9 [he\luch oF Dima Binh Deiecrz Foundauon,;he
a al. 2009; Tiesler ec al. ?013). Two small quanory(Pirrea a al.20I0).In children,sleep ,li;�-�nu Foencaaon,and:he Hml�h Fo�:ndauoa
studies oi srhook nrar Heathrow ai`port found, dunubance and sleep problems are suspec[td The i-year follow--ep recci�ed suppor, from �he �
rape:.vveh•,no acsocia¢on and a wnk assoeia- to aftea child beha��or (Gregocy and Sadeh Lundbeck Founda:ion (19i/04) and en< Danish
cion becct�eer. uhool aposure ro airport noise ?012; Quach ee al. 2009), possibly chroush mcdid Resnrch C«:na!(SSVF 064�.
and hypeaei�i.y and psvehosoaal morbidin• slr_p dencics, which aaect ;he frontal lobt— �auehors dedue chn•have no aaual o.po�enlial
wmpecin�Cuvndal in�-rss
(Haina e[al. 2W la, ?0016).In?009,a s[udy rhe par.oi che brain r�ion [ha[,among o[her Recei�ed:4 ti�m�e:�ber 20t4;Accep�ed: '_i June
ot> ?000 c:tile�ren from sehools near airpoas Fune.ions, concrols behavior and emocions 2015;Ad�ance Peblicacion: i0 june ?015; Final
in r'ture Europcin counaia found chac school (Quach r.al.2009). Publinuon: t Fcbn:ar.?O16.
228 vowu[1241 r+urAer.i 21�ehruary 2010 � Environmen[al Health Perspe[aves
:u:��,�
��_
Traffic noise and child benavforal problems �=+"'
1996-2002, pregnanc womcn who ma chc Expos+ere. Residencial address hiscory wcrc obcained From che railwav en[crprisc
indusion requircmen�s of imm�din� co tarry durin�pr�nanry and from biah until 7 years Banedanmark, operacing and developin� thc
cheir prc�nancp co 2rm, bcing ablc w spcal: of aae wat collected usin�rhe Danish civil regis- Danish sta¢ rail�va}' netwrotk (hap://ww�a.
Danish, and having a permanent address in [ra[ion s}smm (Pedersen 2011). Road craFfic banc.dk). Thc daity aain len�hs wem�iven
Denmark were invired m paaicipam in chc noise exposure was calcula¢d For chdycars for 1997 and 2012. Furthermore, buildin�
DNBC.The ineitauon mok place ac che office 199j, 2000, 200j, and 2010 Eor all pmsenc polygons wcm induded in [he model as well
of che grneral practicioner, where rhe women and hismrical addresses using $oundPLAN, as all noise bazriers along[he railway. Etailwzy
mccived wricten informa[ion and an inFormed which calculacu road[raffic noise in accord.lnce [raffic noise was�pressed as Ld�„ ac che mosc
consenc ro sign. All paaicipacin� womcn wi[h [he Nordic prediction mechod (Bend¢cn exposcd fatadc of the dwellin�.In che anal;na,
provided informed mnsrnc 1999). Bazed on chis, For each child we calcu- railway noise ezposurt < ?0 dB was uc co 0
Par[icipacion involved cwo prenacal la[ed �ime-weighced exposures (during preg- because we es[ima[ed overall back�mund noise
compu[er-assis[ed eelephone inmrviews nanry and childhood), [aking all addresses the ro be no lower�han 20 dB.
conducted by [rained imm��iewea. The first child had lived in during rhe period of i�terrsr The noise impact from all Danish airports
inmrview cook place around che l2ch pre� ineo accoun[, wei�hted by the time the child and airfields was decermined from inForma-
nancy week and in<luded,among ochers,ques- had Gved at each address [ion abouc noise zones (j-dB cace�ories)
uons rdaeed ro macemal IiEes[yle faaors during For each address, ehe geo�raphical coordi- ob[ained from bcal auehoricies.The pmgrarns
pregnancy, mch as alcohol consumpcion and naees and heigh[ (floor), mrresponding m [he DANSIM (Danish Airport Noise$imulacion
smolung habi�s as well as qua[ions rdared co poinc of noise escimacion were used as inpu[ Model)and I[��M3(Incegraeed Noise Model),
mamrnal meneal health.Fuahermore,when�he variabla for che noise model,induding dan on which fu1611 che joinc Nordic<rieeria for air
child«as 7 years old,a follow-up quesdonnaire road lines, wich inFormaeion on yeazly avee�e [raFfic noise calculacions were used (Liazje
was mailed to che pamn[s oF che child. This daily eraffic,vehicle diseribueion (ligh4 heary), and Graneien 1993). The cirves for airporc
7-year quucionnaire induded, amon�o[hers, cra(fic specd, and road rype, ob[ained from noise wem aansformcd inro digiral maps and
ques�ions reoardine behavioral problems of DCE-Danish Cenere for Environmen[ and linked co each residential address hiscory by
che child and u�as bued on [he Scren�chs and Ener��, Aarhus Universi[y (hap://www.dce. g<ogaphical coordi�a[a.
Difficulties Quucionnaire(SD�. au.dk)and Erom The Danish Road Direc[orare Air poliution a[ all��eographical c000-
"Ihe DNBC was mnduc[ed in accordance (h¢p://uu�w.vejdirekroracee.dk), u described dina[<s was calculated wich the use oF the
wi[h [he Helsinl:i Decluacion and approved in deeail elsewhere Qensen et al. 2009). Danish AirGl$ modeling syseem, az dacribed
by the Danish echia commitcee. Topo�raphical parame¢rs induded data on in detail elsewhere (Keael ec al. 201 I).
Asse.rsment of behavioral probleras. bwldin�pol}'gonsforallsurroundingbuildings, This system altows calcu(acion oFair pollu-
Behavioral problems ac 7 years of age were as well az data on buildin�hei�hc, provided by [ion as che sum of local air pollution from
assassed by che Danish pazeno-repor[ed version rhe Danish Geodata�enry(hctp:/hw�no.eng. vaffic in [he sereecs b:ued on the Operacional
of the SDQ(SDQ-Dan) (Goodman 1997; gscdk). We assumed ehac �he cerrain was flac, Sveec Pollueion Model (OSPM), che urban
Goodman ec al. 2003; Obel ee al. ?003). The which is a rtasonable usumpcion in Denmark, background mnaibution based on an�arca
$DQ is an internationally validactd bthav- and that urban areas, mads, and amas wich dispersion modd, and con¢ibuuons from the
ioral screening quescionnaia for children warer were hard surEaces,whereas all oeher areas regional background (Berko�via ec al. 2008).
and adolescenes. ]c enmmpasses the child's were acousucally porous. No informazion was We used leveis of nicro�en ozides (NO�)
behavior in the preccdin�6 monchs and is used availabte on noiu barriers or rype of azphalt as an indicamr of air pollution, which was
. woddwide For dinical and rerearch purposa. Road eraffic noise was-calculaced as the talculared 6azed on data for rhe relevanc years
The SDQconsisa of 2j items and gtneo- tquivalenc emtinuous A-weighred sound abou� vaffit data for individual road lines,
ata scoms wichin five subscales. emocional pressure level (LA�q), ac che mosc exposed tmiuion facmrs for Danish car fleec,svret and
rympcoms, condua pmblems, hyperacciviry/ facade of che dwellin� ae each address for buildin�geomecry, including building hei�h[
inacmn�ion, peer relationship pmblems, and [he day (Ld; 0700-1900 hours), evenina (L�; as well az memomlogical daca. elir pollucion
pmsotial behaviors. Each subscale is covaed 1900-2200 hours),and ni�ht(L�; 2200-0700 txposure was expressed as che yearly mean
by five imrtu,which can be ra[ed wi[h a chmo- hours). Road crafHc noise waz expressed u L,��„ concentraeion oF NO, (micro�eams pe�cubic
poin[swlt opdon: "not [me" (0), "somewha[ b}' applyin�a j-dB penalry for ehe evenin� merer). We focused on NOr as proxy for air
aue' (1), or "cercainly cme" (2), and each and a 10-dB penalty for [he nighc. Decibel is pollucion from eraffic because meacured NO,
subscale score is generaced by sum`nin�up che a logarichmic scale, whicli means chat a 3-dB corrclares scrongly wich ocher aafFirrela¢d
raeings. The total difficulties score is obcained hi�htr level of noise mrruponds to a doubling polluctn�s in Danish sveea in<luding cotal
by summing up all subscale smre excepe che in acouseical energy. tUl values < 40 d8 were pazcicle number concenaacion (10-700 nm;
prosocial behavior score as ducribed in detail set ro 40 dB because chis was wnsidered �he r = 0.93) and PM�o (parciculace maerer
elsewhem (You[himh4ind 201 j). The higher lower limit of mad[raffic noise. 5 10µm)(r=0.70)(Ke¢el et al.2003). �
che scores are wichin each scale, che more Residential esposure eo raiiway vainc Statistical ar,a[yses. The associa[ions
behavioral problertu are indica[ed (except for noise was eilcula[ed for rhe years 1995, 200Q be[ween exposure eo residencial-road aaffic
che prosocia!behavior s<ore). 2005, and 2010 For all pruenc and hiscorical and railway noise and behavioral problems ae
In che presen� smd,v, che cocal difficul- addresses usin� SoundPLAN, which calcu- 7 years oF age were analyzed by mulcinomial
[ia score and che scoms wichin rhe subscala laees railway craFfic noise in accordance wirh logiseic regmssion models (For road craf6c
of emo[ional sympmms, condua problems, NORD?000, a Nordic calculacion method noise) and lo�istic regression models (for
hyperaaiviry/inacreneion, and peer alacion- for prediction of noise propagaung for railway raihvay noise). Ezposure to road craffic noisc
ship problems were divided inm che caeeyories craffic noise (h[cp://ww�vsoundplan.dk). was modeled az cime-weighced mean during
normal, bordedine, or abnormal, by the use Geographical coordinaces and hei�h[ (floor) two difkrene exposure �cindows: a) pre�
of che normacive age- and sex-speci6c cut-off for each residen[ial address were used in du nancy ptriod, and b) fmm birch co%years oF
swres for Danish children (Niclasen a al. noise model, induding railway lines, wich a�e, taking all presrnc and hismrical addressa
2012;YouchinMind 201j).Onlychildren wirh informa�ion on annual average daily erain in[o account. Exposure m railway noise was
no missin�valuu on che icemswere induded. len�chs, crain eypes,and travel spced, which modeltd as con�inuous ae che eesideneial
Environmental Health Perspectives • vowMe 7241 rvuMeea 21 Fehruary 201fi 229
ri'."
�_-!
�="'� Hjor,ebjerg et al.
add¢ss ac a) cime oF birch, and 6) cimc oF Dcnmark (hap:/lwunv.dsc.dl;). lilso, a cacc- analyscs we¢donc in $AS (vcrsion 93; SAS
fillin�in [he SDQ(7 ycazs) and uzs anal}zcd gorical analysis u-ich n"ve road craffic noisc Insd[ute Inc,Can•,NC,USAJ.
az a ra[cgorical�ariablc amon`all paniapancs cac�oria of< j0, j�jj, jj-G0,60--(j,and
(unexposed, 5 60 dB, and > 60 dB) and u a z 6�dB was per,"orncd for chc co�al difficulues ReSU�YS
lincar acnd (per !0 dB) ia �h- subsc[oF chc scorc and thc hypcacu�in�linaacnuon subsnla Of chc scud,v baze of parucipacin� mothcr-
childrtn wich railway noisc cxposurc Thc Po[cncial modificauon oE chc associacion child pairs w�i:h in;ormacion on SDQ
azsump�ion of linca:iry of roac c:a&"�c and bcnvccn road caffic noisc From birch uncil (n = 57,281), we includcd only chc firs:
railway noiu fo:boch cxposurc w�indows in 7 ycars oi aoc (pec 10-dB inucazc in mad rnrolled pre�nunc}�[o awid non-independen:
rdation to child bctiaviocal problcros wss ci.alw crainc) and che mrzl di5nilues scorc as wdl as obscn�auons(n=jE,103)and n:dudcd 2,2i2
atcd bc Etr.ing modek with the ocposure�•ari- the hyperaaivig'/ina:¢ntion subs�tic bv sex, mochecs u�i[h mulciple prc�nanciu, 1,533
abla on wn[inuous scale simultanmuslv wi�h biah wcigh., ecucadonal kvd, incomc, and wich incompku inEorma:ion on bchavioral
chc quadrauc man of che exposure variablcs.All nih�ay noise w-em e�aluaccd by induding inccr- problcros, 1 i0 wich missing noisc ocposurc
wcrc Eound[o bc linez(p>0.05)acccp�Eor chc acuon cer.ns inm a lo,iscic rcgrcssion modd. da.a, and 2,&SS x•ich incomplctc informa-
coral difficulcies score wich regard ro road craffic Pomnual eftecc modi5c:s wac scicc[cd a pnan cion on onc or morc po[cn[ial confoundcrs,
noiu cxposure from birrh unril 7 ycan of�q based on previous studia([.crchcr c[al. ?002). Ica��ng a smdy cohoa oE46,940 children.
which uas bordc-linc lincar(p=0.64). Boch srales w�ere dichoromiud inco abnormal Chaac[erisua of chc s:udy populauon and
For mad craffic noise, wc cscimaccd chc casus normal/borduline brhavioq and pomn- cazes classLSed ac bordaline and abnocmal on
associauons az odds racios (OR) with mrzo cial cffca modifiracions wcm ¢sccd by chc che coca! dincul.ics sco;e are summariud in
spondinL 9�%confidence in¢n•als (CI) (or \t�ald ¢st.4n alpha In�d of j% (nvo-sided) Table 1. Of:he 4G,940 children, 11%were
bein� dsssified in.che bo:dcdinc.or in [he uas ustd to define scaustical significance. All dassiSed u bordcrlinc md 8%were dassined
abnormal racc�on�per 10-dB inucau in I.�, �
road using thc normal ca[c�ory as a rcfco- Table 1.LharacL=ristics of the swdy popula[ion 6y case status using�he toal difficuhies score.
cncc. For �ailwa}' noisc, wc ucimaccd OR Conort 3orcedinewses^ Ahimr�xl¢s_s'
. For bcing dassificd as abnormal using [hc Ca.aria,as �n=GS,�:G) In=i,309� (n=37701
normal/bordcrlinc ca[cgory az a rcEcrcncc S�
U�e ulculamd cmde ORs and adjus¢d for aw Si-1 Sc.1 523
poantial tonfounders,seleaed a prion, tuing 9�'� =8.9 C5.6 ' '.7.7
a avo-scage apProach. Fia:, modds wcrc A ea[SDQlyearsl J.13�7.Q3-7.=1� 7.iC�i.03-iSt 7.iC 7.0.'i7A7�
Gestationzl aGe at birth�vreeks)
adjusmd for sez, a�e ac fillin� in che SDQ �37 aZ =9 6�
(3'ears). gescacional aoe (< 37. t 3i wetks), z37 95.8 g.t 93.6
birch wei�hc (< 2,jOQ z 2,j00 �, from che Birthweich.�g�
Danish Mcdical Binh Rc�iscn�), macvnal�c <2.SW 2.6 33 a.5
ac ddiverv(ycan),parin'(Q 1,2 2),smolcin� =z.`�0 c�_�, r�� og c �
during che fiac c:imesmr of pregnancy (no/ Mz:emal;cez[5irthlyearsl 303123�37.51 29.i�23.1-37.31 29.11220-37.3)
Pariry
}�cs), avera�c alcohol consumpuon (< I, t 1 �ulli�mes "-99 So] �c.p
drinl:s per wcck) du:ing [hc firs[ vimattr Unipamus � 3=S 31.A 32.i
of prcgnancy, Ic��cl of cducacion [highac MulSxrous i�5 i1.5 11.3
- aaaincd cdunuon 1 vear beiore conccpuon: Matemal snakir�c curfng is:vimzstzr � �
basic (7-12 ycars of Primary, sccondary, No . i5.? � 71.5 65.8
and �rammar-sthool educacion), vocatioml Yes 2=-1 25.5 3'1
(]0-12 years of cducation), and higher MatemBlalcoiwlrAnsump;ionduringist;rimes;er
(2 l3}'ears oi edutauon)],disposable income <7 drinks p=_r week 882 �.3 90.1
(quinciles; household income afmr eaza�ion z i drinks perweek 11.8 1p.2 . 9.9
and inmresc r erson, ad"usecd for number Highes;arainec education
� P � Basicl7-12yzarsl 13.3 18J 26.9
of persons in chc household and deflaced Vocationtlp0-12yezrsl � �2-3 548 53a
acwrding co chc 2000 caluc of chc Danish Higherizi3y_arsl 33.9 26.i 192
crown), railwav(nq < 60 dB, > GO d8) and Uisposa6le incame
airporc noisc (ya, no) ac birch (for analysa �o+v 1?° i?] 21.3
of road cra�c cxposurc durin� prc�nanry) ��eciun 3Q.i 31.= 31 a
and at i vcars o;a�c (for a„alyscs of child- H'Sh st.c co o �g
hood cx surc), and macanal mcncal hcalch Ma:_mal n_ncal haal�pro6lems suring ist Jimes:=_r ,
roblcrtu durine [he Firs[ c:imts[cr rs" or No °�? 9A.i 97.9
P ��7' Yes l.t � l.5 2.2
"no" bazed on [he followin� ox�o questions poyd�a�cnoise�CB�° � �i9�5u.3-58.11 x7.i150.5--68.21 �8.6I`�.b-b8.i1
in che 1?-wmk prc�nanry inmrvieu�: `Have Ecposec to raiMray noise at 7 years o�age
you cvcr had psychological disordas or bad Na � 8G.9 A7.0 86.°
ncrvcs?" and °havc vou had nuisancc of Yes 13.7 i3.0 13Z
chis disorder during pmonann-?"). Scmnd, �ongezposedlc8l =8.=13"-.6-n".91 =7J�3=.8-55.81 49.61347�0.0�
analyses oi:oad aaific noise were fur[her �P°szc;oraflwaynaiseatbirJi
adjus[cd for cimc-weighccd mcan of NO, No &=.3 &1.3 33.9
Yes 15.7 15.7 15.1
(microerams per cubic memr) correspondin� �onc zxposec Id5) �L.5130.i--fii�I 50.=130.0-fi7 al SL2129.u-fi27)
[o cach exposurc window. All inEormation �ppsy�;oai;por,noisea[7yearsofage 1.3 1.3 15
on sociocconomic posicion (SEP�ma¢rnal 4irpolluvonlN0,.p9/rr'I' 722110.�:r1.;1 1?2U0.�33.51 12.3UQ�7.3'31
educa[ion and disposable incOme-was yaluesarepe¢en:ormedian�5?95MperceneJe51.
obtai�cd trom �he nauona� reat:er, $[ariS[i6 �ocal di:ficul5es score.°hlean 5ne-weigh;ed expasure:mm bv;:.un;il i years ai age.
230 wwu[12a I r+ur.ccv 21 F=c��ary 2076 � Emimnmen[al Health Perspec�ves
�
' .� ..
._�: ,�:
Trafiic noise and child behavioral problems '��''�'�•"
as abnormal. Comparcd wi[h [he whor[, problcro scoru(9�%CI:098, 1.14)and with co[al difficulcies scoru (OR= 0.9�; 9�°/a CI:
bordcrline and abnormal cases werc more a 6% incrcasc in abnormal peer refacionship 0.90, 0.99) buc was no[ associamd wich
likely [o be boys, be the fiacbom child, bc scores (9j% Cl: 0.99, 1.12). Further adjuso- abnormal mcal difficulues scores (OR= 0.99;
exposed to maternal smol:in�during the 6at ment for NO. raulted in small inc¢ases in 95% CI: 0.94, 1.Oj). For boch exposure time
crimesmq and have morhe�wich lower educa- [hc a[ima[u (ruula no[shown). Also, NOx windows, adjus[in� for airport and railway
cional levd and disposable inwme.The corre- cxposurc in i[sdF(in models wi[houc adjuso- noise did noc affea associacions of road �raffic
lacion(R) bccween I.d�„road durin�pre�nancy ment for noisc) was noc associaced with noisc with borderline or abnormal scoru for
and childhood was 0.74, and becween Ld�„ behavioral problcros: For exarnple,a 20-µglm� cocal difficulcies score or any oE[he subscalcs
road and air pollucion (NOx) the correlacion increasc in time-weighted mean exposum m (see Supplemental Ivlacerial, Table SI).
was 0.59 for thc prcgnanry period and 0.42 NOy from birth m 7 years was associaced with Adjuuing for road vaf(c and airpor[nois<had
for thc period from birch until 7}'ears of age. ORs of 0.9j (9�% CI: 0.90, 1.00) and 0.9� no influcnce on odds racios for railway noise
There was a high mrrelacion becween dte L�� (9j% Ci: 0.89, 1.01) for scoring borderline at birth or a[7 ycars of 2ge(see Supplemenral
and L„ road for[he pm�nanty period (0.97) and abnormal, respec[ively, on [he[ocol dif6- Macuial,Table$2).
and during childhood (0.90). The correlacion culcia smrq and of097(9�%CI:092, 1.02) Among che subsec of childrcn wich
benvccn Ld�„road and Ld�„ailway arnong che and 0.99 (9j% CI: 0.93. 1.06) for scoring raihvay noiu exposure ac 7 }�cars, a 10-dB
paaicipana czposcd[o railway noiu(131%ac borderlinc and abmrmat, rupeaively, on che increazc in cxposure waz posicively azsociamd
7 years of a�c)was vcryweal:(O.Oi). hypetaaiviry/inaccencion subscale. There were wi[h abnormal scores for mtal diEficulcia
For cimc-wcigh[cd mean exposure from no dcar azsociauons becween rxposure co road (OR = 1.13; 9�°h CI: 1.02, 1.25) and peer
birch co i years of a�c, we u[imaced chac a vaffic noiu during pregnancy and behavioral yda[ionship pmblzms (OR= 1.13; 95% CI:
10-dB higha cxposurc [o road a�c noise problems (Tablc 3). Ezposure during preg- 1.03, 1.2j) (I'ablc 3). We Found no signifi-
waz assotiaad with a 7%inaetsc in abnormal nanq�was inversdy usotiaced wich botderli�e canc associacions becween chu exposure and�hc
cotal difficulcies smres (9�% CI: 1.00, 1.14)
(Table 2), which sccmed w follow a mono- i b �I ' '' �,6 �T
conic exposure-responsc rctacionsh�p un[il �s U -. T TI s ❑' � I
60-6� dB, afccr which [he curve leveled ofF �° � '� I ; 1 � e �? TI �
I] T - 1.3 � T .• I
(Fioure IA). On tht hyperactiviry/inaaenoon �°- I q I I
• . � r�n t1 I r • I . i
s u b s c a l e, a 1 0-d B h i g h c r r o a d a a ff�c n o�s e 9 i a - 9 � ,
exposure waz usocia[cd wi[h a�°k increase m o i� , '� I p u � �
bordedint (95°/a CI: ].00, 110) and a 10% _ I 1-� . � �
incaasc in abnormal (9�% CI: 1.03, 1.18) � i� � � - 1
smres az compared with normal srores in the oy �' _ �' - °�9 ���G
adjusmd modds (Tablc 2), which seemed [o so u � so ss w ss so� � � cs
Eollow a monoronic czposuro-ruPonre reIa- Expomre m mad Iraffic noise�d6� Exposure to mad tralfic naise(d8� �
cionship un�il 60-6) dB, af¢r which che Figure 1.Associations between expasure ta road traffic noise ILc,,,l at childhoad and ahnormal scares on
curve leveled off(Figure 18).A ]0-dB higher the total difficulties score IA)and hyperactivity/inattention subscale(BL The vertical whiskers show odds
exposurc ro road craffic noise waz associa¢d ratios with 95%confdence intervals at[he median of four exposure categaries 15�55,55-fi0,fi0--fi5,and
wich a 5°/a incmasc in abnormal condua z 65 d81 when compared wi[h[he reference cateyary of<50 dB. �
Tahle 2.Associations hetween exposure ro road traffic noise(Laa�,per 10-dB increasel during pregnancy and early childhaod and child hehaviorai borderiine or
a6normal scares. -
- Exposure m mad traffic noise I�oe��durinq pregnanry' Exposure ro road[raffc noise Ilae�l fmm 6irth to 7 years of age'
StrengthsandDiffculiies CrudeOR AtljustedOA CrudeOR AdjustedOfl
�uestionnairelSD�1 n �95%CI) (°-5%C1�° n �95%CI� - ��95%CII6
Total difficulties � - ' � �� � �
Normal 37.861 1.00 1.00 - 37,861 1.00 1.00
Borderline 5.309 0.°.910.95.1.Oa1" �.9510.90,0.991 5,309 1.07�7.01,1.13� 7.0�(0.95.I.O61
ASnormal 3.770 1.0511.f10.1.111 0.9910.94.1.051 3)70 1.1711.11.L251 1.0711.00.1.141
Emotional symptoms - . � � ' _ -
Normal d�.245 1.00 7.00 40,245 1.00 1.00
Bortledine 3,099 1.0811.02,1.151 1.0010.95.1.061 3,099 1.721L�5,1.79) 1.0310.9fi,1.101
A6normal 3,596 1.0811.02,1.141 0.97(0.92,1.031 3,596 I.I 1 I1.04,1.1 BI 0.9810.92.1.051 ,
Contluctpmhlems . � � - �
Normal 4�,374 1,00 1.00 40,374 L�0 7.00
Bardedine 4,045 0.9910.94,1.041 0.9910.94,1 D51 � 4,045 1 A2�0.97,1.091 1�110.96,1.07)
A6normal 2,521 0.9810.92,1.05) �.9810.92,tA51 2.521 1.1�1L�3,1.181 1.0510.98,1.14)
Hyperactiviry/inattention - � � . � - . '
Normal 3779° 1.00 1.00 37799 1.00 1.00
Borderline 6,097 1.0310.99,1.OBI 1.0110.96,tA51 6,097 1.09pA5,1.15� tA511.00,1.101
Abnormal 3,044 1.0410.99,1.111 1.011�.96,1.081 3,044 I.1811.11,L26f 1.10U.03,1.181
Peer relationship problems
Normal 37,590 1.00 1.00 37,690 1.00 1.00
Bordedine 5,243 iD2(0.98,1.07) 1.01�0.97.1.06� 5,243 1.0611.01,1.12� tA510.99,1.101
Abnormal 4,007 1.0210.97,1.08) 0.9910.94,1.04) 4,007 1.12 p.Ofi,1.19) 1.Ofi(0.°_9,1.121
'Mean time-weighted exposure.°AdNSted for sex,age at SOQ,gestatianal age,birth weight,matemal age at tlelivery,pariry,educational level,disposable income,smoking and
alcohal consumption during Irt tnmester,railway and alrpor noise at hirth(for exposure during pregnancy�anG aV yesrs of age,and self-reported maremal mental heafch pmblems
tlunng tst[nmester tyes/nol.
Environmen[al Health Perspecrives � wwME 124 I NumeeA 2 I Fe6ruary 201 fi 231
C��
X��4
ti,;+_
Hjortebjera =: al.
rcmaining outcoma, thouoh for ;he hypuar found no consisccnc azsociacions be�wccn Our findinqs su��ac chac cxposum ro
tivi�dinaacnuon subscale a 10-dB ina�se in esposurc co cieher maG ez,"s or railwae noisc ruiden[ial road vafiic noise durine child-
:ailuay noise uas azwdaced ui�h a 996 inaeau ac home during the p;cgnancy pe:iod and hood and pomntiallv railuay r,oisc mae
in abnormal scora (9>°r6 CI: 0.97, i22). ]n bcha�iora!proolems. inacasc che risk for hypc.activig�/inaacnuon
che cnhor,as a u�hole,ceposwe co ailway noise
<_ 60 dB ac chc cimc oE bir.h waz posicivcly Table 4.Modification of associa:ions 6e!ween time-weigh:ed mean exposure.o mad:rafnc nois_(L�e„�
associa[ed uich abnormal cmouonal s}�nprom from bir.h[o 7 years ot age lper 7�7-d3 increasel'and a6normal scores on;he ictal difficuhies scar=xnd
scoru (OR = L11; 95% C6 1.00, ].?3 [hehyperecvviry(na¢ennonsubscalebysex,hirhweighteducatlon,income,andraiMiaynoise.
rompared wich enapostd child:cn) buc chis Toial dimculties score H,ryeracsrirylnaZZntion
ouccqme uas noc associaecd uirh :ail�cay noise qb�p�y� Abnotmal
> 60 dB (OR = I.O1; 9j°,6 CL 0.33, 122). Characterisoc caseslnl Ofl195%CIW pinL=raztlon casesln� OR�95%CIN o-tn�erac;ion
\o onc�r azsociacions bcnaccn cxposua ro SeA . O.C9 0.10
railuay noiu ac rhe dmc of binh and abnormal Gid 1J98 1.0911.00,7.19� 1,339 1.1E�1.�5,129)
b�ha��oral problems were obscrved. goy 1�72 1 0510.97.t.t a) 1 JOS 1.6=10.96.1.1"-)
�Y'c found no sionifiuni cffec: modifica- BirthweighE�g� 0.17 O1J6
cion by scx, low birch u�cighc, cdecacional <2.500 i76 13010.97.iJ6) 1=0 1.d9�106.2051
Icvd, incomc, or railway noisc. cSough For z2.500 3,596 IA610.°9.1.13) 2.96= lAcUnl.i.lcl
birth w'cight wc found a bordaline slninrane Parenal ecuratioral level 0.98 Oal
ezs�c i.ms i.o�lo.4^.i.nl ��e i.�il9��.�.�1
e6ea modifincion (p = 0.0� «i:h svonger Vmation;l 2.030 iA610.98.i.li) 1.653 1.0510.�6.1.151 �
associacion be:ween road cafr's noise and Higher 72= i.ui�0.9=.t23) 673 7.}9�i1J5,ta61
hyperaaivin�/inacmncion tor children wich pisposableircame° 0.99 OJ2
low birzh u�ci�hc(Cablc 4). low 1.352 tA710.97.1.191 i.003 i.121i.W.1251
Figh Z.Ci3 1.0710.9°_.I.151 2.001 LWII.O7.1.181
Discussion - aa�n,-aYnorse o.e7 o.z;
Using a largc national birch mhore smdy, Unexposed 3,270 1.�fi 10.99,1.13) 2,6C3 1.07�1.00,1.15�
ae found chat cumulativc cxposurc durin� s60d8 420 i_i310.95,1.351 341 L2811.O6,L55�
childhood ro road [raffi< aoisc ac homc =60dB 80 0.951�.62.745I 60 1.0110.63,1.631
wa5 po5iti�Y�v associattd wi.h bchavio:a� 'Mean fime-weighted exposure.°AdjuY.ed for se�age at SUQ gertauonel age,birthweigh�maternal age at deGvery.
pan,y,educatianal level,dispasahle income,smaking antl alco�ol consumpuon durinq lst o-�mer.er,raihvay and a'vpar,
roblcros at 7 years of aee, articularl
P P Y noise at]years ot age,and seli-reported matemal men:al heahh pmhlems during lr.[rvnes.er(yeslno�.'Cut pomt is
h}'PcraCiivin'/ina[tcntion 5}'[nPtoms. �c medianincameofNeOanishbackgmundpopulauon�agesmndaN¢ed�,obtainedfrom5atisticsDenmafK
Table 1 Associations benveen exoesurx.o rxiAvay noite at time of birth and at SDQ(7 y=_ars1,and a6normal scores an[he roal dii5cuF�es score a�d suhscales.
Srengths a�d Ditirculties �POri�e m raihvay rroise(La„1 at time af birth Exposure m raihvay misa�.�,f 7-yezr SDQ
�uesuonrairelSDQ) >Lr,crr.ialcases�nl CruCeOftl°..+'%Cq Adjus;zcO:I�fiCIN ,Sbnormalrasesl�l Crude0R195�,C11 Adj��st=_dORI'S%CI�'
ioal dificulties uore
In=3.7701
_ Unexposed 3.13" 1.00 1.00 3.P0 1.00 - 1.00 .
sWdB . 1i3 0.9810.88.t.Wl 09810.89.1.7'al � 420 09510.96.1.Ofil 0.9"-IO.E5.1.06)
>50d9 133 1.0.1D.87.1251 0971051.t.i7) BO 11010.95.1.�21 1_1410.�.te51
Linear vend per tO dB° fi06 1.0310.&�.i.121 1.011��.1.70) F+� 1.i 511.6=.L271 1.1311.OZ.i.Z51
Emotional rymptoms_ ' � � � .
�In=3.5961 _ ' . .
Unezposed 2,9i7 1.00 L00 3,0&5 1.00 1.00 �
s6�dB 509 1.1c11.03.1261 7.7111.00.1231 C39 1.1710.%J.1°I 1.0510.4=.1.751
>50d6 130 1.W_10.91,7.311 1.0110.83,t.Z21 72 1.1410.89,1c5� I.t0�0.E6,1it)
LinearuendperlOdB° fi39 1.0310.°.S.i.i21 1.0210.9z.i.i1) �il 1.0110.91.i.i21 1.0010.?O.i.ti)
Co�uc yablems �
In=2.52i1
Unexposed 2,12E 1.00 i.D"u 2.17: 1.00 190
s6�dB 313 �9610.86.1.�P.1 aeeia.s�.i.��� 300 1.7310.°i.t_l7) 10510.02.11E) '
>5008 ?A 0?210.73.1.161 �90107i.i.i3) =7 1.Oa10.�.1.'il iD11�.i5.i3i1
Linear venc per 10 dB° ?53 0.°610.87.t.Ofil 0.9"10.65.1.�7"-1 3"-i 0 9610.5.i.0=1 0.951�3=.LOiI '
HyperaGivi,y/naaznuon � �
In=3,OS'I
Unexposed 2,Si0 1.00 1.W 2.6-3 1��0 1.00
5 60 d8 368 0.3d 10.&1.1.051 0.9e Ip.pt.1�51 �=1 0.9610.BE.1.08) 0-9C 1�„5.i O71
>60dB 106 1.0210.83.1151 �.9710.i9.i.191 c0 1.1010.65.1�"-I 1.0510.80.1381
Linear�endperi0d8° �7e paa�0.90.1.091 0.9810.5i.iD71 �01 1.1110.99.i.2'1 1.0°10.°_7.1�21
Peer relacionship prablems
In=a.om1
Unexpaszd 3,362 1.00 1.00 3.470 1.00 1.00
s 60 d8 50° 0.?910.90.1.U91 0.9810.?0.1.Lp) �=6 0.9610.E6.i.061 �9610.86.1.061
>60d8 i36 0.9910.83.1.191 0.9il�.aCi.i.ifil 91 1.3011.D:.1.52) 11711.01.1.58)
Linearven�per i0d9° 6"-5 0.9810.°i.1.071 0°_810.90.i.U61 53i 1.1517.6"-.i.Dl i.i311.03.1:?5)
•Atljustetl for sez,age at SDQ 9esa�onal age,birth weight mammal age at delivery,pari.y,educa:ional level,dispasable income,smaking an0 alcohol cor.sump5on during Is.
vimezmr,ai:par,noize at hfrth�for expascre a:bleh�and at SOQ,road vaffic naise during;recnanry�far expomre at birth�and From bircA unGl 7 years of age.and selt-reparted
ma;emal neo;al i0 heal�during is:aineser tyes/noy°linear associatian among exposed.
232 vo�!�M=12d I i+uu=__a 21�ehruary 2076 � Eivironmenral iealth Perspeoves
'a �'ka
� .k' ,
Traffic noise and child behavioral problems � ' ?'�'�
symptoms at 7 ycars of age. Hvpzrac[ive et al. 2009; �Citsla a al. 2013). Howedec, m alrport or road v:dfic noise and childreds
children are normally more casily disaacmd chese previous smdics are smaller �han the mental heal[h (Crombie ec al. 2011). h4ore
by bacl:�round noisc (Gray ec af. 2002), and presenc smdy (< 2,014 children), wich less smdies in this arca are needcd.
i[ seems possibte [ha[ craffic noise may exao- power co dc[cc[ chc ra[hcr small associacions Screngrhs of our study include che laroe
erba[e thcse childrcn's difficulcies, �hereby seen�in the prescn[ smd}'� �e [ocal difficul- smdy poputacion, wich informacion on
malcin� an cziscin� [cndency [oward hypeo- ues scoa is a combina[ion of four behae�ioral various po¢n[ial confounders obcained from
acciviry woae or morc obvious. Our ruulcs domains, and ic scems likely chat in our quescionnaires and nacionwide re�is[ers, as
arc in linc wich chosc of mosc prcvious s[udies s[udy chc associa[ion wich chis score is driven well az moddcd air polfucioa Anocher major
investi�ating associacions bccwccn czposurc mainly by chc posicive azsociacion found For scren�h is access [o residcncial address hisro-
co aafic noisc ei[her a[ home and in schods che hvpera<tiviry/inat¢ntion subscale. ries from conccption ro 7 ycars of age,which
and behavioral problcros(Haincs a al. 30016; Wc found no azsocia[ions be[ween mad makes i[ possiblc [o invescigacc differen[
Scansfeld a al. 2009; Ticsler ec al. 2013). A vaffic noise and emotional sympmms, and exposure cimc windows.
similar chough smallcr Gcrman smdy (900 weak, insignificant azsocia[ions wi[h co�ducc Somc limicacions havc [o be considered.
children) repormd road [rafl�ic noise at home pmbltm and peer rclationship problems. We used the Nordic prcdiction method for
(for che addrus ac cime oFSD� [o be si�nifi- "Ihae resulcs are similar m �hose of scudies on noise es[ima�ion, and al[hou�h [he Nordic
candy associamd wich more hyperac[iviry/ sthool exposum w craffic noise but in cmvut prediccion mechod has bcen used For many
inaaencion sympcoms in 10-ycar-old children widt cht smdy by'I�ialcr a al. on residen�ial years, estimation of noise may be usociamd
(Tiesler a al. 2013). �I'ht publishtd smdles road craffit noisq which indicated an azsocia- wich somt degrc< of uncatainry. Noise esti-
on airport and road [raffic noise at schools cion wi[h emo[ional rymptoms (Tiesler e[al. ma[ion depends on accurate input data, and
are less consisren[. Two studies repoaed 2013).A possible explanacion for the different we had no inFormation on noise bazriers or
posicive associations bttwttn road craEfie resula mighe be difFtrtnces in adjus�ment road surFare in the modelin�of road aaffic
noise and hyperactiviry/ina[¢n[ion sympmms for pocential confounders, be�ause we found noise. This could havc resulmd in exposure
(Haines et al. 2001a; Stansfeld ec al. 2009), posieivc associacions with borderline and misdassifitation, but such misclassificaeion is
whereu the chird smdy rtpor¢d no associa- abnormal emocional symptom smru in our believed m be nondiffurntial, and, in mosc
tion (Haina ec al. 20016). A possible ezpla- cntde analysis. Howtvtr, no associa�ions�were simations, this would influence [he acimaces
nacion For chis inconsis[enry migh� be chac obseeved in[he adjusted analysa. coward che ncucral value. In addicion,because
exposure m traffic noise a[ home is pocen- Our s[udy indicaced [hac railway noise che mrrelation berneen Ld�„and L„was very
cially morc hazardous than school ezposure, exposure at 7 ytars of age was positively associ- high in thc present smd,v, we were not able
perhaps betause childrtn typically spend more aced with peer relationship problems in our m separam the eAett of these two ezposures.
time at home chan ac school, and that nigho- study populacion.However,we have no expla- Mother limitation is that we had informa-
�ime exposure ro noise mi�ht be pazticulazly nacion for this finding; it may be a chance tion only on residtncial addresses oE the
hazardous because it dismrbs sleep (Basner finding, because we find no azsocia[ions with child and noc, For examp(e, che address of a
et al. 2011; Hume et al. 2012; Pirrera et al. road[raffit noise. sin�le Parent, if tht pamna wer< divo:ced or
2010), which is suspmctd oE affectin�child Our resulrs indirated that erzposure durin� livin� apart, wich whom the child could be
behavior (Gregory and $adeh 2012; Quach pre�nancy was not usociaced wi[h childhood s[aying par[of[he[ime Momovey we had no
e�al. 2009). However,wt had no informacion behavior at 7 yean oE age.The only significant informacion on whetha the child's bedroom
on sleep dismrbanct among the children and findin�wu an inverse usociation for scorin� faced a busy road or backyard, or on noise
. could mt separare eht tfftca of ni�haimz bordedine on ehe meal difficul[ia score,which insulacion or window-openin� habia, all of
exposure eo mad �raffic noise from daycime we believe m be a chance findin� because which inftuence [he child's personal ecposure
exposure because of ehe hi�h correlacion chis is opposice our hypo[huis and found co noise. Smdies have found associations
becween Ld<„ and L,,; cherefore, speculacions onlv for che bordedine scorc and noe for che be[ween noise and cardiovascular outcomes
regazding hvardous effeca of nighttime noise abnormal store Associations betv+een pre� to be svonger when factors likt these art
in the Present smdy azt hypochttical. nann�exposure ro [raffic noise and behavioral considered(Foruter tt al.2014;Sdander a al.
One poteneially important confounder in pmblems in thildhood have�o our knowledae 2009). Thercfort, lack of this information
che Presrnt smd}' is tzposurc ro air pollution, no[been imesci�ared btfore, but our results mighc have convibut<d to underestimacion
because air pollueion is correla¢d wich road su,�uc cha[prenacal s[rrss due [o vaffic noise of che effeccs of road traffic noise and raihvay
cra�c noise and is also suspecmd of havin� is no�impottant in rdation to this oumome. noise on behavioral problems. Furthermore,
damaging impacc on [he cenaal nervous We found a borderline significan� effea behavioral problems wem bazed on[he pareno-
syscem (Block e[ al. 2012), possibly affeccin� modificaeion by bir[h weighc, wich scron�er repoaed version of che $DQ and ree�llin�
che wgnicive developmrne oFchildren(Giixens associa�ian between road aaFfi< noise and oF che child's behavior in ehe pase 6 monchs,
e�al. 2014). However, NO„ an indicamr oF hvperaaiviry/inactention for children wich �vhich may be associa¢d wieh some rerall bias. ,
craffio-rela[ed air pollu[ion,wu noc associared Iow birth weiphc. Previous smdies on enis Also, che parental version of che SDQ hu in
with behavioral problems, and adjustmtnt for are inconsisttnt. One smd,v found chac �he tommuniry samples bten suggesced not m
ic ruulced in only minor chan�a in esumaca. associa[ion be[ween ambirnc ncighborhood capmre emocional sympcoms as welt as che
To ocr knowledge, [his is the first smdy noise (predominandy road and raihvay noise) ocher subs<alu, which may have affeaed che
w repoa a positive association becween aaffic and mental hcaleh probltms in children ruutrs oFehis subscalt(Goodman ee al. ?003).
noise—bo[h road vaffic and railwav noise— waz modified by low bir[h wei�hc or bein� Momoveq ma[emal meneal healch problems
and scorin� abnormal on ehe rocal difficul- bom premamre, wich scrongesc associacion were based on a combinaeion oE noo ieems
eies smre, corresponding m an es[ima�e oE among children wich low birth weight or in che L[h-w<ek pregnancy inmrview and
overall behavioral problems. None oFchc four prema[uriry (Lercher et al. 2002). On the may noc havc adequa[ely capcured macernal
previous smdies invatigaeing [his For <zpo- ocher hand, a rccen� smdy found no effea psychopa�holo�. Reviewin� medical records
sures ro traEfic noise a[ home or in school modi6ca[ion (in[eraccion p-valuu > 0.0�) by co obtain informacion on confirmed dia5
have found craffic noise associated with chis low birch weight or preterm birth in relacion noses and usin� a cime inmrval lon�er than
score (Haines et al. 2001a, 2001b; ScansFeld m �he associa�ion be[ween school exposure �he firse trimescer mighc have improved ehe
Environmental Health PerspecHves � wwMe 1241 NuMaex 21 February 2016 233
�-,�--
:�
"`�lY Hjorebjerg =: al.
adjus[mtn[ o[this con}oundr.. I.asc, cha< Foraster M,Kunzli N,Aguilera I,Rivera M,Agis D, Liasja KH,Granoien IW.iSP3.Sanmenlignirg av flys-
might bc residual confoundin� by SEP. V�a J,et al.2014.High hlood przssure and long- myheregningsD�ogrammeme INM-L6,INM-3/9,
- Howcva,wc havc decailed informa�ion from [erm exposure to indoor noise and air polluuan INM-3/10,DANSIM og N015"eMA?@eregninger
qucssionnaires and re�is¢rs on chc mos[ from road traffic. Environ Health PersDect og m5linger vedc Fomebul(in Norwegian].$imef
171:1193-1200;doi:10.1289/ehp.13071i6. DelabSFT70A93063.
imporcanc confoundcrs. 91so, in Denmark Goodman R. 1997. The Strengiis and �ifficulties NiclasenJ,Teasdale7W,MdersenAM,SkovgaxrdAM,
a ftiglt ProPor.ion oF hig'nI}'tduca[td pcoplc Quesuonnaire:a resxarch noce.J Child Psychol Elbeding H,Ohel C.IDI2 Prychometric properties of
live in ccn[ral urban arcas a�ch rclativcly high PrychiaW��`�i-586. Ne Danish Sveng�and�iffcWnes�uesriomaire:
cratncnoisqmdiaaencainnoiscacposu¢ Goodmanfl,Pordi,SimmonsH,GxtwardR.Mel¢erH. IheSD�assessedformoreNan70,0002tersinfour
aaordin� ro SEP is no� pronounced in [he Z003. Using the Strengths and DifFiculties diHerent cohorts.PLOSOne 7:e3202i;dai:70.i3fl/
Quesuonnaire(SOQI to screen for child psychi- joumal.pone.OQi2@5.
pruenc smdy: Dlochcrs wi�h Iow, mcdium, avic disorders in a connuniry sanple.Int Rev Obel C, DalsgaarE S.Stax HP, Bilenberg N. 2003.
and hi�h Icvds of educacion werc exposed pry�hiacry 15:76�172 StrengJ�s and Oifficuttles DuesSOnnaire I�DQ-Danl.
[o medians of j8.8, �i.9. ane 57.7 dB road Graignic-Philippe F,Dayan J,Chok:on 5,Jacquet AY, A new ins'JUment for prychapallologfc screening
traffiC noist. rtsptc[i��tlp, seqLCS[ing [ha[ iordiman 5.8115.EH<c:s af prtnaal streu onfztal of children aged 7-i6 years�in Daniso].Ugeskr
ruidual confoundin�b}•SEP s noc a major and child developmene a cr'r,ical literamre review. laeger ifi5::S2-.65.
problem in[hc p[cun[studv. Neumsci Biobehav Fevd3C:737-162. Ols_n J,Melhye M,Olsen SF,Serens=n i I,Axhy?,
In condusion, chis smdy provida Eurthcr Gray lC,Breier JI,Poo:man 83,Fletcher JM.2002. Andersen AM,e;al.N01.i he�anish Nadon=_I
Continuum of impulsiven=ss cavsed by audimry Birth Cahort--rts uackgmund,svucmre and aim.
in5i�h[ in[o :hc :dacionshi� be:w•een cra�c �asking.IntJPediaVO;orhinolarynga166:T65-272 ScandJ?uhlicNeal',h2930�3�7.
noisc and bcha�ior in childrrn. Thc caulcs Gregory AM,Sadeh A.2012. Sleep,emotional and Pedersen CB. 2071.The �anish Civil 5egistratian
indica[c [ha[, in our smdv populaeion, behavioraldifficuFJesinchildrenandadolescen¢. Synem.5candJPuSficHealth�Usuppll:�-u.
ceposurc [o residendal road cacic noise;rom SIeeO Med flev 16:129-13fi. Pirrera 5,De Valck E,CluyLa R.201�.Nocmmal road
bi¢h until 7}'�s of a�e wu usociaecd wieh Guxens M,Garcia-Estehan R,Giorgis-Allemand L, traffic naise: a review on iu assessmer,t and
parrn[ally rcpoacd hypaaaiviry/inaacncion Poms J,Badaloni C,dalles;er F,et al.201a.Air consequences on sleep and health. Envimn Int
polluuon during pregnancy and childhood cagni- 36:49T-a98.
sympmms a: 7 yea;s, whercas cxposurc to uve and Osychomamr development six European Quach J,Hiscack H,Canterford L,Wake M.2009.
noiu during prt�nancy was no[ azsocia[cd birthcohares.Epideniolagy2i:63GE77. Outcomes of child sleep O�o6lems aver the -
wi�h bchavioral problcros in ch9dhood. Morc Haines MM,SCansfeld SA,9rena�all S,Head J,Berry 9, schoobVansitlon period:Australian po0��ation
smdics aze nttc�ed [o understar.d [Iic mtclia- ��9q��s M,et al.200ia.The West London Schools longicudinal nuCy.Pedia7ics 173:1287-1292.
nism ehrough which .ra�c noiu mi�h�a6ca Smdy Ne effecuaf chmnic airr.ahnoise ezposure Seckl JR,Holmes MC.2007.Mechanisms of disease:
childrensbcha�ior. onchadheahh.PrycholMed3193Eri3%, glucororticaids,cheirplacentalmetabalismand
Haines MM,Stansfeld SA,JoS RF,Berglund 8,Head J. fecal'pmgramr.ung'af adult pathoDhysiology.Nat
20016. Chmnic ai:craftnoise exposure, svess ClinPractEnAocrinolMetab3:379-e88.
REFEPENCES responses,mental heal•,n and cogniuve peAor- Selander J, Nilsson ME, Blu„m G, Rosenlund M,
manceinschoolchildrert?rychelMed3126�r277. Lindqvis: M, IJise G, et al. 2005. long-term
Basner M,Mfiller U,Elmenhorst EM.2011.Sinqle and Hume KI,Brink M,Basner M.2072.Effec�s of envimn- ezpasure to road va:fic noise and myocardial
conhin_d eftecis ef air,read,and:ail traffic noise menul noise on sleep.Noise Health 14297-302. infartuort Epidemiolo9y 20272-279. '
on sleep and recuperatioa SIeeO��>>-b� Hygge S,Evans GW,BWlinger M 20@.A pmspeccive S;ansfeld SA,Berglund B,Cla:k C,Lopez-8arrio I,
Beiiers R Buaelaar JK de Weerth C.2073.Mechznisms � study of some effects of aircraft naise on cogni- Fischer P,Ohrs�dm E,e:a1.2005.Airc:a::and mad
underlying;he eHecss o(prenatal psychasocial tive Dertormance in scheolchild:en.Psychal Sci tratfic noise and children's cognl�on and heaFh:a
sveu on child autcomes:beyond ehe HPA aus.Eur 133fi9-i74. cross-nauonal svdy.Lancet 3E594f2-14t9.
ChildAColescPrychiaVyZ3:J73-B56. ' Jensen S, Hvidberg M, Pedersen J, Smrm L, SIDnsfeldSA,LIarkC,Cane;an3M,AlfredT,4eadJ,
. Bendtsen H. 1?99.The Nordic prediction meehod for Stausgaard L. Becker T,e;aL 2009.GIS-based Haines MM,et a1.2009.Aircrah znd read;:a�c
roadtratficnoise.SciTOCaIEnNroni9l-338. NadonalSVeetandTrafScDaaBase1S66-20051in noiseexposureandchildren'smentalheal:h.
Berkowicz R, Ke[zel M,Jensen SS, Hvid6erg M, DanisN.NERI Technical fteport No.fi78.floskilde, J Envimn Prycho179:203-207.
RaaschowNielsen0.20�e.Evaluaoonandappli- Denmark:NationalEnvironmentalResearch StansfeldSA,MathesonMP.20ai.Noisepollutlartnon-
cauon of OS?M For trafic pallu�on assessment far Institu[e,Aarhus Universiry. aud'aary eHecis on heatLh.Br Med Bull 6827�2i7.
alargenumberofsveetlocauons.EnvironMOdel Ketzel M, Berkowicz H, Hvidberg M, Jensen S, � LeslerLM,BirkM,ThieringE,KOhIbSCkG,KOleekoS,
SohwZ129F3C0. � flaaschou-Nielsen 0.N71.Evaluation of AirGIS: Bauer CP,et al.2073.Ecposure m road tta�c
dlotkM�BderA,AuenF�9iISoSD,ChenH,ChenJC, a GIS-hased air pollu6on and human exposure noise and children's hehavioural pm6lems and
e:al.2012.The outdoar air Da��vuon and hrain . moEelling system. Int J Environ Pallutian 47; sleep dismrhance:resul's fram:he GlNlplus and
heahhwarksnap.Neummucolo9y33972-9&t. dai:10.150SpJEP.ID11.037317. � LISApWsstudies.Enriron�esR3:1 7.
Cmmbie fl,Clark C,Sttnsfeld SA.2077.Envimnmental Kecel M,W3hlin P,Serkowic 3,?almgren i:2003. Youchialdind.201i S�Q Infama�on(or flesearchers
noise expasure,earty 6iological risk and mental Particle and trace gas enission tacrors under and Professionals about�e Strenguhs 8�i;5culties
healN in nine tv Ln year old children:a cross- urban driving condP,ions in Copenhagen based on Ques[ionnaires. �5::engths and OiEficulties
sectional field s:udy. Envirvn Heaith 1039; street and maf-level ohservarions.Avnas Envimn Queslionnaire Honepage.�AvaflaSle:hcpJ(vrvnv.
dd:10.1186/ii7&0�X-i0.39. 37273�27�9. - sdqinfo.arylnccessedi2June29ii1.
�avis EP,Sandman CA. 2�12.Prenatxl psychohio� le¢her P, Evans GW,Meis M, Kafler WW. 2002. -.
logical predicmrs of a`ixiery risk in preadolescen[ Ambient neigh6aurhoeG aci,z a:�d :::E:zn's
thildreaPrychonecmendocrinalagy37:1223-1ID. mentalhealN.OccuoEnvi:anMed59:380.366. �
234 w_'�wu.�12-I uu�¢e�2 I Feoruary 2076 � ��vironmen[�riealdi Perspec�ves
Sheree Kansas
From: Pamela Bensoussan
Sent: Tuesday, February 02, 2016 220 PM
To: Donna Norris; David Miller
Subject: FW: Environmental Health Coalition comments on condo proposal at 701 D Street
Attachments: EHC_toCouncil_CondoProject_Final.pdf
This is the original communication I received from Laura.
-Pamela
From: Laura Hunter
Sent: Thursday, ]anuary , 016 3:14 PM
To: Mary Salas; Pamela Bensoussan; Patricia Aguilar; ]ohn McCann; Steve Miesen
Subject: Environmental Health Coalition comments on condo proposal at 701 D Street
Dear Mayor Salas and City Council,
�Ne hope you had a great New Year! I will be contacting all of you soon to request a meeting about a few issues in Chula
Vista.
In the meantime, Environmental Health Coalition has asked me to transmit this comment letter regarding the proposed
development at 701 D street. There are very significant deficiencies in the Health Risk Assessment that should be
resolved before this project is considered. Further,given the very serious health risks posed by freeway air pollution to
children, this should be evaluated for consistency with the recently adopted Healthy Chula Vista Action Plan initiative.
As Joy Williams will be on vacation for several weeks, please direct any comments or questions to me.
Thank you for considering these comments.
Laura Hunter
1
fY...
L<
� �5���������4
�ENVIRONMENTAL •• ° -- - --
NEALTH C�ALITION ' '"'' '' � �� " ' ' ' � � r� !'� t : r ; ; i��. _
- - y .r, .:��. �._ -- - -
Januan� 14. 2016
Mayor Salas and City Council
Chula Vista City Council
Chula Vista, CA
RE: Opposition to location of residential uses within S00 feet of a freeway
Dear Mayor Salas and City Council members,
Environmental Health Coalition (EHC) was involved in the creation of the Chula Vista
General Plan Update and the Specific Plan. One of.the significant improvemenks [o the
General plan policies was the inclusion of policy E 6.10. that attempted to refled[he
guidance from the Air Resources Board that homes and other sensitive uses should not be
located within 500 feet of a freeway.
General Plan Policy E 6.10 reads: The siting of new sensitive receivers within SOOfeet of
highways resulting from developmentor redevelopment projects shall require Che
preparation of a health risk assessment as part of the CEQA review of the projecC Attendant
health risks identified in the Health RiskAssessment(HR.9)shall be feasibly mitigated to the
maximum ex[en[practicable, in accordance with CEQA, in order to help ensure that
applicable federal pnd state standards are not exceeded.
We have recently learned of a project that is proposed that would put people in harm's way
by locating residences within this buffer zone.
While a project Health Risk Assessment (HRA) has been drafted,this policy has not been
met It is important to remember the point of a HRA is to assess the situation so that the
projed can be revised to prevent heal[h risks [o future residents. There are several
deficiencies with the HRA listed below and there are mitigation measures that should be
adopted that have not been.
Due to major health concerns for future residents living there and the precedent this
action may set, Environmental Health Coalition uneouivocally opposes the location '
of condos within the S00 foot zone from the freeway and the off-ramp.
There are several reasons for this position.
1. The Health Risk Assessment in incomplete and does not reflect current or future
expecced conditions.
EMPOWERIN6 PEOPLE.ORGANIZING COMMUNITIES.ACHIEVIN6 JUSTICE.
EMPODERANUO A LA GENTE.ORG�NIZANDO A LAS CUMUNIDADES.LO6RANDO lA JUSTICIA.
The SANDAG Phased Revenue Constrained Network plan for 203� includes two additional
Ianes on the 1-� freeway in Chula Vista between the 90� and the 54 freeways.� Ifthese lanes are
added to the outer lanes of the freeway, the edge of the freeway will be even doser to residences.
The new lanes will increase capacity on the roadway, ultimately resulting in additional VMT on
this segment of roadway, as induced demand increases the volume of traffia The HRA must
address this potentialh�major impact on the freeway and the resulting exposure to traffic
pollutants.
[mmediately to the north; the I-� will be expanded with rivo additional manaoed lanes and hi�o
additional general purpose lanes. The impacts ofthese expansions on the Chula Vista portion of
the 1-� must be esamined as well, as a bottleneck resultin� from the southbound flow of traffic
from National City into Chula Vista may create congestion and added traffic pollutant exposure
to the residents at 701 D Street.
It also does not appear that the flow of traffic in the off-ramp to 54 is included in the
analysis. �
2. The Cancer Risk Analysis is Based on Diesel Only
Even without the estimates of future freeway impacts, the estimated cancer hazards of free�vay
traffic impacts are over 10/million for the most exposed residential receptors:
• 44.8 per million for a 70-year exposure;
• 38.1 per million for a 30-year esposure;
• 27.2 per million for 9 years of childhood exposure.
Based on the discussion of cancer risk on page 32 of the draft air quality analysis, the cancer risk
analysis was based exdusively on diesel inhalation. It is true that diesel is the dominant health
hazard in Califomia's air and accounts for approximately 70% of the cancer risk hazard from
ambient air pollution, accordin�to Califomia ARB. Ho�vever, it is not the sole cancer-causing-
agent in traffic pollution. Other pollutants such as benzene, ethylbenzene, and butadiene also add
to the hazard. The 100%cancer risks to the most exposed residential receptors, then, would be:
• 64 per million for a 70-year exposure;
• 54 per million for a 30-year exposure; and �
• 38.8 per million for 9 years of childhood exposure.
The conclusion of the cancer risk analysis; that health liazards are below 10 per million, is clearly
untrue.
3. Background Pollution Levels are Underestimated
� http://wwwsdfonvard.com/pdfs/RP final/AppendixA-
TransportationProiectsCostsandPhasina.pdf
2
Further, the background le��el of pollution for residents in this area is underestimated. The I IRA
should have anahzed the site u a `localized houpor not as part of the reQion. People�vho live
in the project�ti�ill be directly adjacent to sianificant air pollution. 'These are the levels of
pollution the���vill breathe; not the air at the station at 80 E. J street (over 2 miles a�t�ay) �<<here
the pollution has already diluted.
d. Acute Health Hazard Analysis is AZissing
The hazards of short-term impacts of high levels of exposure, such as happens durine rush hours
and other periods of high traffic levels; are not addressed at aIL It should be noted in the anah•sis
that Califomia does not have a REL for diesel' and the question of shorter rerm impacts, such as
' asthma esacerbations, is outstanding. Placement of residential housin� within �00 feet of a
free�vay creates an ob��ious question about potential impacts of exposure to peak periods of
traffic pollution, and the RECON anah�sis does not answer that question, or even ackno���ledge
that decision mal:ers and potential residents mioht reasonably�ti�ant this information.
�. Effectiveness of illitipations is No[ Established
The document asserts that mitieations such as sound walls and veeetation �ti�ill reduce the health
hazazd to levels considered acceptable by asencies. However, no modeline is included to
indicate how a wall or aegetation �+�ould alter the pollution plumes or risk isopleths do�vmvind of
the freeway. A related question is whether a sound wall makes pollution levets further from the
freeway higher, as at least some modeling shows.'No recommendations are provided on ho�v
hieh a wall would be needed to effectively reduce levels of traffic pollution to background levels. ,
No mitieations are proposed that would locate the residential buildines bevond �00 feet of the
free�va}•.�such as by siting the parking areas on the side of the parcel that is closest to the
free«�av.
6. Threshold of Si�nificance For Exposure of Sensitice Receptors to Tosic.Air
Contaminants Should Be No Aigher Than Bacl:around
The Lead Agencv for a project has the legal authority and; in fact, is encouraeed under CEQA
Guidelines §1�06�J to develop and publish its o�vn thresholds of sienificance. In determinine
�vhether an effect will be adverse or beneficiaL the lead anenc�� shall consider the views held
bti� members of the public in all areas afFected as etpressed in the whole record before the
lead agency. (§ 1�064J(c)) Lead asencies may also consider thresholds of sienificance
previously adopted or recommended by other public aeencies, or recommended by experts,
provided the decision of the lead agency to adopt such thresholds is supported b}- �
substantial e��idence. (y 1�06=�J(b))
'hro://www.oehha.ca.eov/air/allrels.html
'Neng et al.,2010, summarized in htio://www.aomd.eov/docs/default-sourte/tethnobev-resezrcn/Technoloev-
Forums/nzarrozd-mi;ieation-mea sures/ucr-venkatra m.odi?sfvrsn=2
�
CEQA Guidelines recognize that the level of impacts and their significance depends upon a
multitude of factors such as project•setting, design, construction, eta CEQA Guidelines also call
for careful judgment based on scientific and factual data to the extent possible and explain, "For
example, an activity which may not be sienificant in an urban area may be significant in a rural
area." (§ 1�064(b)). �
The census tract in which the site is located ranks high on California's screenina model for
environmental justice; CalEnviroScreen. The census tract ranks in the top 86-90% statewide,
meanine that it scores hieher on combined indicators for environmental pollution and
socioeconomic vulnerabiliry than 86 to 90% of all census tracts withi� the state. Within the San
Diego reeion, this tract is the 10`h highest, out of 628 tracts. A CalEnviroScreen indicator of .
particular relevance is the traffic density indicator; on this measure of traffic impact, the site
census tract is at the 91.8i percentile statewide. Clearly, residents in this census tract are already
exposed to traffic at hi�her than nocmal levels; even for Califomia. Other indicators on which
this tract has high CalEnviroScreen percentiles include Cleanup Sites, Hazardous Waste, Low
Birth Weight, Education levels, Lin�uistic Isolation, Poverty, and Unemployment.
According to the most recent APCD Air Quality Network Analysis,The ciry of Chada Vista has
one of the hrghest rates of respiratory ailments in the Counry. 4
Table 3.1 Health Risks Summary by Station in the Network Assessment notes that the Chula -
V ista area has "Very high rates for thrs location/station and szo•rounding area... °The marimum
ranking is 10 (the worst). Chula Vista is a 9.
Residents of this community need affordable housing that does not create illness or worsen their
health status. EHC recommends that additional analysis be completed to fully elucidate the
health hazards of this site, and develop site-specific mitigations that will reduce health hazards to
background levels.
7. Project fails to heed the science-based guidance in the ARB Air Quality and Land
Use Handbook.
Another serious deficiency is the location of homes within 500-1,000 feet of the freeway.
The Air Resources Board Air Qualiry and Land Use Hondbook:A Community Heolth
Perspective is relevant here. The ARB guidelines recommend a minimum separation
between residential development and freeways of S00 feet to avoid increased cancer
and non-cancer risks.s �
Further,the Handbook finds that additional non-cancer health risks are attributable to
proximity within 1,000 feet.b The project directly contravenes the Air Resources Board
°htto://wwwsdaocd.ora/air/reoorts/2015 Network Assessment.odf, page 5.
5 2005_April h[tp_(/www.arb.ca.Qov/ch/handbook.�df
6 2005_Ibid,ARB Land Use Guidelines,Table 1-2
�
Land Use widance. Any homes within this area should be abandoned as they are too close
to the free�vay for good health of the residents.
We understand that this e idance is not regulation. However, it is the guidance of the air
reo lators based on [he abundan[science, is clear—locating homes within 500-1000 feet
of a freeways is unhealthful.
The developers are urged to examine their conscience to see if they really want to be the
vehicle by which future residents, including pregnant women, children,and elderly are a[
high risk of asthma, birth defects, cancer, and other health hazards due to their poor
planning. The City should evaluate this as well as a matter of policy. If no change is made,
then this issue is a significant and unmi[igated impact and the Council should deny the
projed altoge[her.
To better protect future residents, the project should be revised to remove all homes from
the known unhealthful areas within 1,000 feet of the freeway. We hope the City wifl
require the developers to move residen[s out of harm's way.
8. HRA does not include all feasible mitigations.
The most obvious and feasible mitigation is to move all homes out of the 500 foot zone.
The filters cannot be assumed to protect residents since there is no guarantee they will be
run or maintained. To be effective,the planning would have to have a filtration system that
could not be controlled by individual owners and was maintained as a mitigation measure.
Such a mitigation is not included so any benefits of the filters are not guaranteed. There
are many reason �vhy future residents may not run their filters—cost, desire to reduce
energy use, etc...
Even if the electrostatic filters remove all particulates, children will be pla'ying outside
where the air is unfiltered. The project should be re-designed to move all residential and
playground areas away from the freeway.
Thank }�ou for the opportunirv to comment on this matter.
Sincereh�.
�� %si�l..�a�"�
f�, G, -,
.
Jov R'il(iams. MPH �
Research Director
�
Sheree Kensas
From: Pamela Bensoussan
Sent: Tuesday, February 02, 2016 2:17 PM
To: Donna Norris
Subject: FW:Item 5 - Appeal of Design Review Permit DR15-0003
FYI - here's David's email.
-Pamela
From: David Miller
Sent: Tuesday, February 02, 2016 2:09 PM
To: Mary Salas; Patricia Aguilar; Pamela Bensoussan; John McCann; Steve Miesen
Cc: Glen Googins; Gary Halbert; Kelly Broughton; Ed Batchelder
Subject: Item 5 - Appeal of Design Review Permit DR15-0003
Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers,
Tonight you will be hearing an appeal of a Planning Commission decision which approved a Design Review Permit DR15-
0003 for a development project to be located at 701 "D" Street. This is item 5 on the Council Agenda.
As many of you are aware,an appeal is a "quasi-judicial" hearing in which a trier of fact reviews only the information
presented at the hearing when making his/her decision. If information is obtained outside of the hearing, it must be
disclosed at the hearing and prior to consideration. Information includes written or oral communications, site visits,or
independent investigation.This requirement ensures that an applicant or appellant is afforded due process and the
opportunity to question such facts before a decision on the appeal is made.
With regards to this appeal, it has come to our attention that one or more of you may have obtained information about
this project prior to the hearing from the applicant, the appellant or other third parties and/or by visiting the site.
Following the staff presentation on this item and in order to ensure that the interested parties are afforded due process,
the City Attorney will request that each of you disclose whether you have had conversations related to this project with
outside parties, the content of such conversations, and any information acquired by other means, including site visits, if
any.
Thank you in advance for your assistance in ensuring that the City has a proper record of the hearing and is thereby
complying with the law.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact, Glen R. Googins, Gary Halbert,or me to discuss.
Sincerely, �
' David E. Iviiller
Depucv Cirv Attorney II
Cin�of Chula Vista
(619)691-5037(p)
(6l9)�t09-5323 (�
dmillzr(a�chulavistaca eov
i
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:
This e-mail and any attachments to it contain information from the Office of the City Attorney, and are intended solely for the use of
the named recipient or recipients.This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications and/or confidential attorney
work product. It may therefore be protected from unauthorized use or dissemination by the attorney-client and/or attorney work-
product privileges.Any dissemination of this e-mail by anyone other than an intended recipient is strictly prohibited. If you are not a
named recipient,you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail
or attachments. If you believe you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the e-
mail, any attachments, and all copies thereof from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts of the e-mail or
attachments.
2
Sheree Kansas
From: Pamela Bensoussan
Sent: Tuesday, February 02, 2016 223 PM
To: David Miller, Donna Norris
Subject: RE:ARB Laniiuse Handbook
I wiil mention the emails during the meeting and refer to the documents that I submitted to the Clerk.
Thanks, Pamela
From: David Miller
Sent: Tuesday, February 02, 2016 2:20 PM
To: Pamela Bensoussan; Donna Norris
Subject: RE: ARB Landuse Handbook
Thank you. Glen will probably also ask that this be revealed on the record.
�
David E. Mdler
Deputy Ciry Attome}�II
Citv of Chula V ista
(619)691-5037(p)
(619)409-�82i (�
dmiller rni chulavistaca.00v �
I CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:
� This e-mail and any attachments to ii contain information from the Office of the City Attorney, and are intended solely for the use of
the named recipient or recipients.This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications and/or confidential attorney
work product. it may therefore be protected from unauthorized use or dissemination by the attorney-client and/or attorney work-
product privileges.Any dissemination of this e-mail by anyone other than an intended recipient is strictly prohibited. If you are not a
named recipient,you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail
or attachments. If you believe you have received this e-mail in error, notify[he sender immediately and permanently delete the e-
mail,any attachments,and all copies thereof from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts of the e-mail or
attachments.
From: Pamela Bensoussan
Sent: Tuesday, February 02, 2016 2:19 PM
To: Donna Norris; David Miller ,
Subject: FW: ARB Landuse Handbook
FYI
-Pamela
From: Laura Hunter [earthiover@sbcglobal.net]
Sent: Thursday, )anuary 28, 2016 11:31 AM
To: Pamela Bensoussan
Subject: ARB Landuse Handbook
HI Pamela,
i
I also wanted to be sure you saw this. The science is very clear on the health hazards of locating sensitive receptors
(children etc...) within 100 feet of a freeway. Please see Page 4-11 of the attached document.
As always, please call with any questions.Thanks so much
La u ra
2
Sheree Kansas
From: Pamela Bensoussan
Sent: Tuesday, February 02, 2016 2:19 PM
To: Donna Norris; David Miller
Subject: FW:ARB Landuse Handbook
Attachments: ARB_Landuse Guidance Handbook.pdf
FYI
-Pamela
From: Laura Hunter
Sent: Thursday, January 28, 2016 11:31 AM
To: Pamela Bensoussan
Subject: ARB Landuse Handbook
HI Pamela,
I also wanted to be sure you saw this. The science is very clear on the health hazards of locating sensitive receptors
(children etc...) within 100 feet of a freeway. Please see Page 4-11 of the attached document.
As always, please call with any questions. Thanks so much
Laura
i
Sheree Kansas
From: Pamela Bensoussan
Sent: Tuesday, February 02, 2016 2:19 PM
To: Donna Norris; David Miller
Subject: FW: ARB Landuse Handbook
Attachments: ARB Landuse Guidance_Handbook.pdf
FYI •
-Pamela
From: Laura Hunter �
Sent: Thursday, )anuary 28, 2016 11:31 AM
To: Pamela Bensoussan
Subject: ARB Landuse Handbook
HI Pamela,
I also wanted to be sure you saw this. The science is very clear on the heaith hazards of locating sensitive receptors
(children etc...)within 100 feet of a freeway. Please see Page 4-11 of the attached document.
As always, please call with any questions.Thanks so much
Laura
i
AIR QUALITY AND LAND USE HANDBOOK:
A COMMUNITY HEALTH PERSPECTIVE
��� - -
-�_,�..� -� _ �.
�;:� . .: _. �;.
=, . --�.
.,� ` ;. =�;,:
- `�, ' r � .�-' �
- i� =' ,����
-e 5 -
y i f..
r ' �
� . ���� �� 3' � � •:��"�-=
_. '�. ��J �C`_ _ ` ��'� +-��'�":
' ' �'=::
_ ,�._ �_�� � �_ { j `�� `"'�``.f'-��`.
_ t '� q.l� } . s.-
- � c� F
� �7i :�= f �+�u�n �
- #�., J �=.���
,�-��X: � �
April 2005
California Environmental Protection Agency
California Air Resources Board
�'
Air Agency Contacts
Federel-
Great Basin Uni£ed APCD Sacramento Metro AQMD
U.S.EPA, Region 9 Phone:(760)872-8211 Phone:(916)87a-4800
Phone:(866)-EPA-WEST Website:www.obuaocd.oro Website:www.airoualiN.om
Website:www.eoa.00v/reaion09 E-Mail:ab1(a�oreatbasinaocd.ora E-Mail:kshearer(alairoualitv-oro
Email:r9.info(o�eoa.00v
Imperial County APCD San Diego County APCD
-Stat2- Phone: (760)482-4606 Phone:(858)650-4700 �
E-MaiC revesmmem(�imoerialcountv.net �NebSile:www.SdaDCd.ora
California Air Resources Board
Phone:(9i6)322-2990(public info) Kem County APCD San Joaquin Valley APCD
(800)363-7664(public info) � Phone:(667)862-5250 Phone:(559)230-6000(General)
(800)952-5588(complaints) Website:www.kemair.ora (800)281-7003 .
(866)-397-5462(env.justice) E-Mail:kcaocd(o�co.keraca.us . (San Joaquin,Stanislaus,Merced)
Website:www.arb.ca.00v (800)870-1037
Email:helpllnefa�arb.ca.aov Lake County AQMD (Madera,Fresno,Kings)
Phone:(707)263-7000 (800)926-5550
-Locab Website:www.lcaamd.net (Tulare and Valley portion of Kem)
� E-Mail:bobrna oacifc.net Website:www.vallevair.orq
E-Mail:sivaocd(a�vallevair.orq
AmadorCounry APCD
Phone:(209)257-Oi 12 Lassen County APCD San Luis Obispo County
Website:www.amadoraocd.oro Phone:(530)257-8710 APCD
E-Mail:iharris(�amadoraocd.oro E-Mail:lassenaano osln.com
Phone:(SOS)781-5912
Antelo e Valle AQMD - Mariposa County APCD `i`/ebsite:wwwsioUeanair.om
P Y E-Mail:info(a�slocleanair.orq
Phone:(661)723-8070 Phone:(209)966-2220
Complaint Line:(888)732-8070 . E-Mail:airno manoosacounN.om Santa Barbara County APCD �
Website:www.avaomd.ca.aov Phone(805)961-8800
E-Mail:bbanks(a�avaomd.ca.00v Mendocino County AQMD �n/e6site:www.sbcaocd.om
Phone:(707)463-4354 Email us:aocdlo�sbcaocd.orq .
Bay Area AQMD we6site:
Phone:(a15)749-5000 . www.co.mendocino.ca.us/aomd Shasta County AQMD
Complaint Line:(800)334-6367 E-Mail: phone:(530)225-5789
� Website:www.baaamd.qov _ mcaamd(o�co.mendocino.ca.us ,
E-Mail:webmasterCa�baaomd.00v ' . Website:
, Modoc County APCD ��co.shasta.ca.us/Deoanments/R
Butte County AQMD Phone:(530)233-6419 esourcemomUdrm/aamain.htm
Phone:(530)891-2882 E-Mail:modaocd(a�hdo.net E-Mail:scdrmno snowcrest.net
website:www.bcaomtl.ora � Siskiyou County APCD
E-Mail:air(dbwamd.oro Mojave Desert AQMD phone:(530)8470029
Phone: (760)2451661 E-Mail:e6eck(o�siskivou.ca.us . -
Calaveras County APCD (800)635-a617
Phone:(209)754-6504 Nlebsite:www.mdaamd.ca.aov South Coast AQMD -
E-Mail:larewal(a�co.calaveras.ca.us Phone:(909)396-2000
Monterey Bay Unified APCD
Colusa County APCD Phone: (831)647-9417 Complaint Line: 1-800-CUT-SMOG
Phone:(530)458-0590 (800)253-6028(Complaints) Website:www.aamd.00v
Website:www colusanet.com/aocd Website:www.mbuapcd.oro Email: bwallerstein(a�aamdaov
E-Mail:ccairlo�colusanetcom E-Mail:tlouetin(a�mbuaoctl.oro Tehama County APCD �
EI Dorado Counry AQMD North Coast Unified AQMD Website�53www.ehcoaocd.net
Phone:(530)621-6662 Phone:Q07)443-3093 � Email: deneralno tehcoaocd.net
Website: Website:www.ncuaamd.or4 .
www.co.e�ilorado.ca.uslemdlaocd E-Mail:lawrencefo�ncuaomd.oro Tuolumne County APCD
E-Mail:mcctaaoart(a�co.el-dorado.ca.us
Northern Sierra AQMD Phone:(209)533-5693 -
Feather River AQMD Phone:(530)27a-9360 E-Mail:
Phone:(530)634-7659 Website:www.mvairdistrict.com bsandman(o�co.NOlumne.w.us
Website:www.fraamd.ora � E-Mail:office(a�mvairdisMct.wm
E-Mail:freomdna fraomd.ora Ventura County APCD
Northern Sonoma County Phone:(805)645-1400
Glenn Counry APCD �APCD Webslienwww.vcaocd.oso 2797
Phone:(530)934�500 Phone:(707)433-5911 E-Mail:infofa�vcaocd.oro
htto:Uwvnv.counNOfolenn.neVair oollution E-Mail:nscC�sonic.net
control Yolo-Solano AQMD
E-Mail:kiokunaoana countvofalenn.net Place�County APCD Phone:(530)757-3650
Phone:(530)889-7130 Website:www.vsaomd.oro
Website: Email:atlministration@ysaqmd.org
htlD'Uwww Dlacer.ca.qov/airoollUti _
on/airooluLhtm
E-Mail:ocaoctl(ololacer.ca.aov
To lV1y Cacai Governr»enf Colleagues....
I am pisased � in��uce`t}iis informaiior=!guid�to:ai�Guali:y �na la�d use
issues focus°d or� com�unity heafth. .^,s 2 romier coun.y superviso�, I knoN
�roT� expe;iC��cE �_ �mpfexityo�loca_I i�nd us2 decisio�s. Tr�ra are mulii;{e
fac?ors fo cor�si�0f 2�r� �'aI2f1C2. Ti'1;5 C�O�'t,1�i1°fii-pfOVIC]8S IITi*�O�i3fti 7l1DIIC f1�v8lfFi
in�erniation tnat�na hop° wilt oe coriside�zd:along vriih housina ne2�s, e�nomic
d�velopmeni �rioriSES. and otherqualiiy o�Ir� issues.
ian impor�ant focus or this documert is �tave,-�ucn. 4Ve hcpe t;�e air qu?IPiy
information pro�ri�2d vrl! help infdrm f�8G5���-7i2keTS abouf��e �ene:ds o�
avaiding c2rain s�ang sruations. �e cvera,�n;ng goaf is to 2void g�l8cina peo¢le
in harm's w�y.� Kecen:s?udi2s havz shovm 1��ai.puolic ezposure to air,pcilu5on
cari 6e suGsta�SGlh%ei=vated n=�rfreev:a}'S 2�d GBR�l71 Oifl2i iaCl�f�iAS. V��ilBt IS _
2nCOUraging is tnai u�e neaith risk is gr��Jy roduced wi:h dista��c�: �or�,'�at
(@E350f7� W2 i12`JB y^(G`e9C{8� SOI7'�° g�a2r�l recanmerdatior�s�2irc��d ai ke=oing
2pproprizte distcnc;,s osiW80(1 SOUtC°.S OT zir:,oilution and 12ff� lJ5?5 SllG(1 85
residences.-
Land use decisions arz � local ga�emm�r�i r�soensbility. i,ic' r�.0 I�ESvUrC05
3oard's role is adviscry and these reco����°rdGScns do not _s�'�lisn r-_culatcry
�Si3(7da�d5 OT d�i;� :'��id_ F"�GY�e�er, We Fope tnai��e in(orma`ien in :his dccument.
:vill be seriousty cor:sid�red by lo�! eleC:� omcials znd land use 2g�riciAs, .+.Ne
215o hope th�4 u�is cacum�ntwill preno�e enh�nced communicc-.tion b�hveen
I�nd use zg�ncies.2n� lacal air poil�.tien c,ntr�l agencies. lfd= develqpzd ihis_
Bocumen#in d�sa.�ord'mation wi!n tha C2lrarni2 •?.ir Poiluf+�n Chntrol �cers
Associaiion v,'ti(i ifi�i �:C21 in mind_
I hope you fir�d :nis dod!ment botti informz.�:e znd useful.
� �.��
, t
Mrs. B2�zr �+o��i2�
tntenm C;��i��� an
C2lifomia P.ir R�sources 8oard
TABLE OFCONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY........................................................................................................................ES-1
1. ARB RECOMMENDATIONS ON SITING NEW SENSITIVE LAND USES..........................................1
FREEWAYS AND HIGH TRAFFIC ROADS.....................................................................................................8
DISTRIBUTIONCENTERS........................................................................................................................ 11
Rni�YaROS.........................................................................................................:................................ 15
PoRrs.................................................................................................................................................. 19
PETROLEUMREFINERIES.......................................................................................................................21
CHROME PLATING OPER4TIONS.............................................................................................................Z3
DRY CLEANERS USING PERCHLOROETHYLENE(PERC DRY CLEANERS�...................................................27
GASOIINE DISPENSING FACILITIES.........................................................................................................30
OTHER FACILIN TYPES THAT EMIT AIR POLLUTANTS OF CONCERN.........................................................32
POTENTIAL SOURCES OF ODOR AND DUST COMPLAINTS.........................................................................32
2. HANDBOOK DEVELOPMENT............................................................................................................35
3. KEY COMMUNITY FOCUSED ISSUES LAND USE AGENCIES SHOULD CONSIDER..................38
INCOMPATIBLE LAND USES ....................................................................................................................38
- CUMULATIVE AIR POILUTION IMPACTS ...................................................................................................39
4. MECHANISMS FOR INTEGRATING LOCALIZED AIR QUALITY CONCERNS INTO LAND
USEPROCESSES...............................................................................................................................40
GENERALPLANS...........................................................................................................:.......................41
ZONING.................................................................................................................................................42
LAND USE PERMITTING PROCESSES ......................................................................................................43
OUTREACHTO OTHERAGENCIES.........................................................................�..................................51
5. AVAILABLE TOOLS TO EVALUATE CUMULATIVE AIR POLLUTION EMISSIONS AND
RISK.......................................................................................................................:.............................53
6. ARB PROGRAMS TO REDUCE AIR POLLUTION IN COMMUNITIES.............................................55
7. WAYS TO ENHANCE MEANINGFUL PUBLIC PARTICIPATION.....................................................58
APPENDICES
Appendix A Land Use Classifications And Associated Facility Categories That
Could Emit Air Pollutants
Appendix B Land Use-Based Reference Tools To Evaluate New Projects For
Potential Air Pollution Impacts
Appendix C ARB And Local Air District Information And Tools Concerning
Cumulative Air Pollution Impacts
Appendix D Land Use And Air Quality Agency Roles In The Land Use Process
Appendix E Special Processes That Apply To School Siting
Appendix F General Processes Used By Land Use Agencies To Address Air
Poilution Impacts
Appendix G Glossary Of Key Air Pollution Terms
Acknowledgments
The ARB staff would like to acknowledge the exceptional contributions made to
this document by members of the ARB Environmental Justice Stakeholders
Group. Since 2001, ARB staff has consistently relied on this group to provide
critical and constructive input on implementing the specifcs of ARB's
environmental justice policies and actions. The Stakeholders Group is convened
by the ARB, and comprised of representatives from local land use and air
agencies, community interest groups, environmental justice organizations,
academia, and business. Their assistance and suggestions throughout the
development of this Handbook have been invaluable.
Executive Summary
The Air Resources Board's (ARB) primary goal in developing this document is to
provide information that will help keep California's children and other vulnerable
populations out of harm's way with respect to nearby sources of air pollution.
Recent air pollution studies have shown an association between respiratory and
other non-cancer health effects and proximity to high traffic roadways. Other
studies have shown that diesel exhaust and other cancer-causing chemicals
emitted from cars and trucks are responsible for much of the overall cancer risk
from airborne toxics in California. Also, ARB community health risk assessments
and regulatory programs have produced important air quality information about
certain types of facilities that should be considered when siting new residences,
schools, day care centers, playgrounds, and medical facilities (i.e., sensitive land
uses). Sensitive land uses deserve special attention because children, pregnant
women, the elderly, and those with existing health problems are especially
vulnerable to the non-cancer effects of air pollution. There is also substantial
evidence that children are more sensitive to cancer-causing chemicals.
Focusing attention on these siting situations is an important preventative action.
ARB and local air districts have comprehensive efforts underway to address new
and existing air pollution sources under their respective jurisdictions. The issue of
siting is a local government function. As more data on the connection between
proximity and health risk from air pollution become available, it is essential that air
agencies share what we know with land use agencies. We hope this document
will serve that purpose.
The first section provides ARB recommendations regarding the siting of new
sensitive land uses near freeways, distribution centers, rail yards, ports, refineries,
chrome plating facilities, dry cleaners, and gasoline dispensing facilities. This list
consists of the air pollution sources that we have evaluated from the standpoint of
the proximity issue. It is based on available information and reflects ARB's
primary areas ofjurisdiction — mobile sources and toxic air contaminants. A key
air pollutant common to many of these sources is particulate matter from diesel
engines. Diesel particulate matter (diesel PM) is a carcinogen identified by.AR6
as a toxic air contaminant and contributes to particulate pollution statewide.
Reducing diesel particulate emissions is one of ARB's highest public health
priorities and the focus of a comprehensive statewide control program that is
reducing diesel PM emissions each year. ARB's long-term goal is to reduce diesel -
PM emissions 85% by 2020. However, cleaning up diesel engines will take time
as new engine standards phase in and programs to accelerate fleet turnover or
retrofit existing engines are implemented. Also, these efforts are reducing diesel
particulate emissions on a statewide basis, but do not yet capture every site where
diesel vehicles and engines may congregate. Because living or going to school
too close to such air pollution sources may increase both cancer and non-cancer
health risks, we are recommending that proximity be considered in the siting of
new sensitive land uses.
ES - 1
There are also other key toxic air contaminants associated with specific types of
facilities. Most of these are subject to stringent state and local air district
regulations. However, what we know today indicates that keeping new homes and
other sensitive land uses from siting too close to such facilities would provide
additional health protection. Chrome platers are a prime example of facilities that
should not be located near vulnerable communities because of the cancer health
risks from exposure to the toxic material used during their operations.
In addition to source specific recommendations, we also encourage land use
agencies to use their planning processes to ensure the appropriate separation of
industrial facilities and sensitive land uses. While we provide some suggestions,
how to best achieve that goal is a local issue. In the development of these
guidelines, we received valuable input from local government about the spectrum
of issues that must be considered in the land use planning process. This includes
addressing housing and transportation needs, the benefits of urban infill,
community economic development priorities, and other quality of life issues. All of
these factors are important considerations. The recommendations in the
Handbook need to be balanced with other State and local policies.
Our purpose with this document is to highlight the potential health impacts
associated with proximity to air pollution sources so planners explicitly consider
this issue in pianning processes. We believe that with careful evaluation, infill
development, mixed use, higher density, transit-oriented development, and other
concepts that benefit regional air qualiry can be compatible with protecting the
health of individuals at the neighborhood level. One suggestion for achieving this
goal is more communication between air agencies and land use planners. Local
air districts are an important resource that should be consulted regarding sources
of air pollution in their jurisdictions. ARB staff will also continue to provide updated
technicai information as it becomes available.
Our recommendations are as specific as possible given the nature of the available
data. In some cases, like refineries, we suggest that the siting of new sensitive
land uses should be avoided immediately downwind. However, we leave definition
of the size of this area to local agencies based on facility specific considerations.
Also, project design that would reduce air pollution exposure may be part of the
picture and we encourage consuitation with air agencies on this subject.
In developing the recommendations, our first consideration was the adequacy of
the data available for an air poilution source category. Using that data, we '
assessed whether we could reasonably characterize the relative exposure and
health risk from a proximity standpoint. ThaYscreening provided the list of air
pollution sources that we were able to address with specific recommendations.
We also considered the practical implications oi making hard and fast
recommendations where the potential impact area is large, emissions will be
reduced with time, and air agencies are in the process of looking at options for
additional emission control. In the end, we tailored our recommendations to
minimize the highest exposures for each source category independently. Due to
the large variability in relative risk in the source categories, we chose not to apply
ES - 2
a uniform, quantified risk threshold as is typically done in air quality permitting
programs. Instead, because these guidelines are not regulatory or binding on
local agencies, we took a more qualitative approach in developing the distance-
based recommendations.
Where possible, we recommend a minimum separation between a new sensitive
land use and known air pollution risks. In other cases, we acknowledge that the
existing health risk is too high in a relatively large area, that air agencies are
working to reduce that risk, and that in the meantime, we recommend keeping new
sensitive land uses out of the highest exposure areas. However, it is critical to
note that our implied identiflcation of the high exposure areas for these sources
does not mean that the risk in the remaining impact area is insignificant. Rather,
we hope this document will bring further attention to the potential health risk
throughout the impact area and help garner support for our ongoing efforts to
reduce health risk associated with air pollution sources. Areas downwind of major
ports, rail yards, and other inter-modal transportation facilities are prime examples.
We developed these recommendations as a means to share impoRant public
health information. The underlying data are publicly available and referenced in
this document. We also describe our rationale and the factors considered in
developing each recommendation, including data limitations and uncertainties.
These recommendations are advisory and should not be interpreted as defned .
"buffer zones." We recognize the opportunity for more detailed site-specific
analyses always exists, and that there is no "one size fits all" solution to land use
planning.
As California continues to grow, we.collectively have the opportunity to use all the
information at hand to avoid siting scenarios that may pose a health risk. As paR
of ARB's focus on communities and children's health, we encourage land use
agencies to apply these recommendations and work more closely with air
agencies. We also hope that this document will help educate a wider audience
about the value of preventative action to reduce environmental exposures to air
pollution.
ES - 3
1. ARB Recommendations on Siting New Sensitive Land Uses
Protecting California's communities and our children from the health effects of air
pollution is one of the most fundamental goals of state and local air pollution
control programs. Our focus on children reflects their special vulnerability to the
health impacts of air pollution. Other vulnerable populations include the elderly,
pregnant women, and those with serious health problems affected by air
pollution. With this document, we hope to more effectively engage local land use
agencies as partners in our efforts to reduce health risk from air pollution in all
California communities.
Later sections emphasize the need to strengthen the connection between air
quality and land use in both planning and permitting processes. Because the
siting process for many, but not all air pollution sources involves permitting by
local air districts, there is an opportunity for interagency coordination where the
proposed location might pose a problem. To enhance the evaluation process
from a land use perspective, section 4 includes recommended project related
questions to help screen for potential proximity related issues.
Unlike industrial and other stationary sources of air pollution, the siting of new
homes or day care centers does not require an air quality permit. Because these
situations fall outside the air quality permitting process, it is especially important
that land use agencies be aware of potential air pollution impacts.
The following recommendations address the issue of siting "sensitive land uses"
near specific sources of air pollution; namely:
. High tra�c freeways and roads
• Distribution centers
. Rail yards
. Ports
• Refineries
. Chrome plating facilities
. Dry cleaners
. Large gas dispensing facilities
The recommendations for each category include a summary of key information
and guidance on what to avoid from a public health perspective. ,
Page 1
Sensitive individuals refer to those segments of the
population most suscepti6/e to poor air quality (i.e.,
children, the eldeAy, and ihose with pre-existing senous
health pro6lems affected by air quality). Land uses where
sensitive individuals are most likely to spend time include
schools and schoolyards, parks and playgrounds, daycare
centers, nursing homes, hospitals, and 2sidential
communities(sensitive sites or sensitive land uses).
We are characterizing sensitive land uses as simply as we can by using the
example of residences, schools, day care centers, playgrounds, and medical
facilities. However, a variety of facilities are encompassed. For example,
residences can include houses, apartments, and senior living complexes.
Medical facilities can include hospitals, convalescent homes, and health clinics.
Playgrounds could be play areas associated with parks or community centers.
In developing these recommendations, ARB first considered the adequacy of the
data available for each air pollution source category. We assessed whether we
could generally characterize the relative exposure and health risk from a
proximity standpoint. The documented non-cancer health risks include triggering
of asthma attacks, heart attacks, and increases in daily mortality and
hospitalization for heart and respiratory diseases. These health impacts are weil
documented in epidemiological studies, but less easy to quantify from a particular
air pollution source. Therefore, the cancer health impacts are used in this
document to provide a picture of relative risk. This screening process provided
the list of source categories we were able to address with specific
recommendations. In evaluating the available information, we also considered
the practical implications of making hard and fast recommendations where the
potential impact area is large, emissions will be reduced with time, and air
agencies are in the process of looking at options for additional emission control.
Due to the large variability in relative risk between the source categories, we
chose not to apply a uniform, quantified risk threshold as is typically done in
regulatory programs. Therefore, in the end, we tailored our recommendations to
minimize the highest exposures for each source category independently.
Additionally, because this guidance is not regulatory or binding on local agencies,
we took a more qualitative approach to developing distance based
recommendations.
Where possible, we recommend a minimum sapara;ion betwzen rew sensitive
land uses and existing sources. However, this is not always possible, paRicularly
where there is an elevated health risk over large geographical areas. Areas
downwind of ports and rail yards are prime examples. In such cases, we
recommend doing everything possibie to avoid locating sensitive receptors within
the highest risk zones. Concurrently, air agencies and others will be working to
reduce the overall risk through controls and measures within their scope of
authority.
Page 2
The recommendations were developed from the standpoint of siting new
sensitive land uses. Project-specific data for new and existing air pollution
sources are available as part of the air quality permitting process. Where such
information is available, it should be used. Our recommendations are designed
to fill a gap where information about existing facilities may not be readily
available. These recommendations are only guidelines and are not designed to
substitute for more specific information if it exists.
A summary of our recommendations is shown in Table 1-1. The basis and
references' supporting each of these recommendations, including health studies,
air quality modeling and monitoring studies is discussed below beginning with
freeways and summarized in Table 1-2. As new information becomes available,
it will be included on ARB's communiry health web page.
'Detailed information on these references are available on ARB's website at:
httA://ww�v.ARB.ca.qov/chllanduse.htm.
Page 3
Table 1-1
Recommendations on Siting New Sensitive Land Uses
Such As Residences, Schools, Daycare Centers, Playgrounds, or Medical
Facilities*
Source Advisory Recommendations
Category
Freeways and • Avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 500 feet of a freeway,
High-Tra�c urban roads with 100,000 vehicles/day, or rural roads with 50,000
Roads vehicles/da .
, Avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 1,000 feet of a
distribution center(that accommodates more than 100 trucks per
day, more than 40 trucks with operating transport refrigeration
Distribution units (TRUs) per day, or where TRU unit operations exceed 300
Centers hours per week).
Take into account the configuration of existing distribution centers
and avoid locating residences and other new sensitive land uses
near ent and exit oints.
Avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 1,000 feet of a major
Rail Yards service and maintenance rail yard.
Within one mile of a rail yard, consider possible siting limitations
and miti ation a roaches.
Avoid siting of new sensitive land uses immediately downwind of
Ports ports in the most heavily impacted zones. Consult local air districts
or the ARB on the status of endin anal ses of health risks.
Avoid siting new sensitive land uses immediately downwind of
Refineries petroleum refineries. Consult with local air districts and other local
agencies to determine an appropriate separation.
Chrome Platers ' Avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 1,000 feet of a chrome
later.
Avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 300 feet of any dry
Dry Cleaners cleaning operation. For operations with two or more machines,
Using provide 500 feet. For operations with 3 or more machines, consult
Perchloro- with the local air district.
ethylene Do not site new sensitive land uses in the same building with perc
d cleanin o erations.
Gasoline • Avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 300 feet of a large gas -,
Dispensing station (defined as a faciii'ry wiin a inroughpui of 3.6 miilion gallons
Facilities per year or greater). A 50 foot separation is recommended for
ical as dis ensin facilities.
*Notes:
• These recommendations are advisory. Land use agencies have to balance
other considerations: inc�uding housing and transportation needs, economic
development priorities, and other quality of life issues.
Page 4
. Recommendations are based primarily on data showing that the air pollution
exposures addressed here (i.e., localized) can be reduced as much as 80%
with the recommended separation.
• The relative risk for these categories varies greatly (see Table 1-2). To
determine the actual risk near a particular facility, a site-specific analysis
would be required. Risk from diesel PM will decrease over time as cleaner
technology phases in.
• These recommendations are designed to fill a gap where information about
existing facilities may not be readily available and are not designed to
substitute for more specific information if it exists. The recommended
distances take into account other factors in addition to available health risk
data (see individual category descriptions).
• Site-specific project design improvements may help reduce air pollution
exposures and should also be considered when siting new sensitive land
uses.
• This table does not imply that mixed residential and commercial development
in general is incompatible. Rather it focuses on known problems like dry
cleaners using perchloroethylene that can be addressed with reasonable
preventative actions.
. A summary of the basis for the distance recommendations can be found in
Table 1-2.
Page 5
Table 1-2
Summary of Basis for Advisory Recommendations
Range of
Source Relative Summary of Basis for Advisory Recommendations
Category Cancer
Risk'��
Freeways • In traffic-related studies, the additional non-cancer health risk
and High- 300— attributable to proximity was seen within 1,000 feet and was
Traffic 1,700 strongest within 300 feet. Califomia freeway studies show about
Roads a 70%drop off in particulate pollution levels at 500 feet.
Because ARB regulations will resirid truck idling at distribution
centers, transport refrigeration unit(TRU)operations are the
largest onsite diesel PM emission source followed by truck iravel
Distribution Up to in and out of distribution centers.
Centers' S00 Based on ARB and South Coast Distnct-emissions and modeling
analyses,we estimate an 80 percent dro�roff in pollutant
concentrations at approximately 1,000 feet from a distribution
center.
The air quality modeling conducted for the Roseville Rail Yard
Study predicted the highest impact is within 1,000 feet of the
Rail Yards 500 Yard, and is associated with service and maintenance activities.
The next highest impact is between a haif to one mile of the Yard,
depending on wind direction and intensity.
ARB will evaluate the impacts of poRs and develop a new
Studies �mprehensive plan that will describe the steps needed to reduce
Ports underway Public health impacts from poR and rail adivities in Califomia. In
the interim, a general advisory is appropriate based on the
magnitude of diesei PM emissions associated with poRs.
Risk assessments conducted at Cafifomia refineries sliow risks
from air toxics to be under 10 chances of cancer per million.°
Refineries Under 10 • Distance recommendations were based on the amount and
potentially hazardous nature of many of the pollutants released
as par[of the refinery process, particularly during non-routine
emissions releases.
• ARB modeling and monitoPing studies show localized risk of
hexavalent chromium diminishing significantly at 300 feet. There
are data limitations in both the modeling and monitoring studies.
Chrome �0-100 These include variability of plating activities and unceRainty of
Platers emissions such as fugitive dust. Hexavalent chromium is one of
the most potent toxic air contaminants. Considering these •
factors, a distance of 1,000 feet was used as a precautionary
measure.
Dry Local air district studies indicate that individual cancer risk can be
Cleaners reduced by as much as 75 percent by establishing a 300 foot
Using �5-150 separation between a sensitive land use and a one-machine perc
Perchloro- dry cleaning operation. For larger operations (2 machines or
ethylene more), a separation of 500 feet can reduce risk by over 85
(perc) percent.
Page 6
Range of
Source Relative Summary of Basis for Advisory Recommendations
Category Cancer
Risk''z
• Based on the CAPCOA Gasoline Service Station Industry-wide
Typical Risk Assessment Guidelines, most typical GDFs (less than
GDF: 3.6 million gallons per year) have a risk of less than 10 at 50 feet
Less under urban air dispersion conditions. Over the last few years,
Gasoline than 10 there has been a growing number of extremely large GDFs with
Dispensing sales over 3.6 and as high as 19 million gallons per year. Under
Facilities Large rural air dispersion conditions, these large GDFs can pose a
(GDF)5 GDF: larger risk at a greater distance.
Between
Less
than 10
and 120
'For cancer health effeds, risk is expressed as an estimate of the increased chances of getting
cancer due to facility emissions over a 70-year lifetime. This increase in risk is expressed as
chances in a million (e.g., 10 chances in a million).
zThe estimated cancer risks are a function of the proximity to the specific category and were
calculated independent of the regional health risk from air pollution. For example, the estimated
regional cancer risk from air toxics in the Los Angeles region (South Coast Air Basin) is
approximately 1,000 in a million.
'Analysis based on refrigerator trucks.
"Although risk assessments performed by ref neries indicate they represent a low cancer risk,
there is limited data on non-cancer effects of pollutants that are emitted from these facilities.
Refineries are also a source of non-routine emissions and odors.
5A typical GDF in California dispenses under 3.6 million gallons of gasoline per year. The cancer
risk for this size facility is likely to be less than 10 in a million at the fence line under urban air
dispersion conditians.
A large GDF has fuel throughputs that can range from 3.6 to 19 million gallons of'gasoline per
year. The upper end of the risk range (i.e., 120 in a million) represents a hypothetical worst case
scenario for an extremely large GDF under rural air dispersion conditions.
Page 7
Freewavs and Hiqh Traffic Roads
Air pollution studies indicate that living close to high traffic and the associated
emissions may lead to adverse health effects beyond those associated with
regional air pollution in urban areas. Many of these epidemiological studies have
focused on children. A number of studies identify an association between
adverse non-cancer health effects and living or attending school near heavily
traveled roadways (see findings below). These studies have reported
associations between residential proximity to high traffic roadways and a variety
of respiratory symptoms, asthma exacerbations, and decreases in lung function
in children.
One such study that found an association between traffic and respiratory
symptoms in children was conducted in the San Francisco Bay Area.
Measurements of traffic-related pollutants showed concentrations within
300 meters (approximately 1,000 feet) downwind of freeways were higher than
regional values. Most other studies have assessed exposure based on proximity
factors such as distance to freeways or traffic density.
These studies linking traffic emissions with health impacts build on a wealth of
data on the adverse health effects of ambient air pollution. The data on the
effects of proximity to traffic-related emissions provides additional information
that can be used in land use siting and regulatory actions by air agencies. The
key observation in these studies is that ciose proximity increases both exposure
and the potential for adverse health effects. Other effects associated with traffic
emissions include premature death in eiderly individuals with heart disease.
Kev Health Findinqs
• Reduced lung function in children was associated with traffic density,
especially trucks, within 1,000 feet and the association was strongest within
300 feet. (Brunekreef, 1997)
. Increased asthma hospitalizations were associated with living within 650 feet
of heavy traffic and heavy truck volume. (Lin, 2000)
• Asthma symptoms increased with proximity to roadways and the risk was
greatest within 300 feet. (Venn, 2001)
. Asthma and bronchitis symptoms in children were associated with prozimity -.
to high tra�c in a San Francisco Bay Area community with good overali
regional air quality. (Kim, 2004)
• A San Diego study found increased medical visits in children living within
550 feet of heavy traffic. (English; 1999)
In these and other proximity studies, the distance from the roadway and truck
traffic densities were key factors affecting the strength of the association with
adverse health effects. In the above health studies, the association of traffic-
related emissions with adverse health effects was seen within 1,000 feet and was
Page 8
strongest within 300 feet. This demonstrates that the adverse effects diminished
with distance.
In addition to the respiratory health effects in children, proximity to freeways
increases potential cancer risk and contributes to total particulate matter
exposure. There are three carcinogenic toxic air contaminants that constitute the
majority of the known health risk from motor vehicle traffic— diesel particulate
matter (diesel PM) from trucks, and benzene and 1,3-butadiene from passenger
vehicles. On a typical urban freeway (truck traffic of 10,000-20,000/day), diesel
PM represents about 70 percent of the potential cancer risk from the vehicle
traffic. Diesel paRiculate emissions are also of special concern because health
studies show an association between particulate matter and premature mortality
in those with existing cardiovascular disease. •
Distance Related Findinas
A southern California study (Zhu, 2002) showed measured concentrations of
vehicle-related pollutants, including ultra-fine particles, decreased dramatically
within approximately 300 feet of the 710 and 405 freeways. Another study
looked at the validity of using distance from a roadway as a measure of exposure
Figure 1-1
Decrease In Concentration of Freeway Diesel PM Emissions
� With Distance
z00000
� '� —405 freeway - Diesel <5% �
� 150000
a �710 freeway - Diesel >25%
E
�
y 700000
u
C
m
a 50000
m
0
�
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000
Distance from Freeway(fee[) '
to traffic related air pollution (Knape, 1999). This study showed that
concentrations of traffic related pollutants declined with distance from the road,
primarily in the first 500 feet. .
These findings are consistent with air quality modeling and risk analyses done by
ARB staff that show an estimated range of potential�cancer risk that decreases
with distance from freeways. The estimated risk varies with the local
meteorology, including wind pattern. As an example, at 300 feet downwind from
a freeway (Interstate 80) with truck traffic of 10,000 trucks per day, the potential
cancer risk was as high as 100 in one million (ARB Roseville Rail Yard Study).
The cancer health risk at 300 feet on the upwind side of the freeway was much
Page 9
less. The risk at that distance for other ireeways will vary based on local
conditions — it may be higher or lower. However, in all these analyses the
relative exposure and healtFi risk dropped substantially within the first 300 feet.
This phenomenon is illustrated in Figure 1-1.
State law restricts the siting of new schools within 500 feet of a freeway, urban
roadways with 100,000 vehicles/day, or rural roadways with 50,000 vehicles with
some exceptions.Z However, no such requirements apply to the siting of
residences, day care centers, playgrounds, or medical facilities. The available
data show that exposure is greatly reduced at approximately 300 feet. In the
traffic-related studies the additional health risk attributable to the proximiry effect
was strongest within 1,000 feet.
The combination of the children's health studies and the distance related findings
suggests that it is important to avoid exposing children to elevated air pollution
levels immediately downwind of freeways and high traffic roadways. These
studies suggest a substantial benefit to a 500-foot separation.
The impact of traffic emissions is on a gradient that at some point becomes
indistinguishable from the regional air pollution problem. As air agencies work to
reduce the underiying regional health risk from diesel PM and other pollutants,
the impact of proximity will also be reduced. In the meantime, as a preventative
measure, we hope to avoid exposing more children and other vulnerable
individuais to the highest concentrations of traffic-related emissions.
Recommendation
• Avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 500 feet of a freeway, urban roads
with 100,000 vehicles/day, or rural roads with 50,000 vehicles/day.
References
• Brunekreef, B. et al. °Air pollution from truck traffic and lung function in
children living near motonvays." Eoidemioloqv: 1997; 8298-303
. Lin, S. et al. 'Childhood asthma hospitalization and residential exposure to
sfate route tra�c." Environ Res. 2002;88:73-81
. Venn. et al. °Living near a main road and the risk of wheezing illness in
chi/dren.°American Journal of Respiratorv and Critical Care Medicine. 2001; �
Vo1.164, PP. 2177-2180
. Kim, J. et al. °Tra�c-related air pollution and respiratory health: East Bay
Children's Respiratory Health Study.°American Journal of Respiratorv and
Critical Care Medicine 2004; Vol. 170. pp. 520-526
z Section 17213 of the California Education Code and section 21151.8 of the California Public
Resources Code. See also Appendix E for a description of special processes that apply to
school siting.
Page 10
. Zhu, Y et al. °Study of Ultra-Fine Particles Near A Major Highway With Heavy-
Duty Diesel Traffic."Atmospheric Environment. 2002 ; 36:4323-4335
. Knape, M. "Traffic relateii airpollution in city districts nearmotonvays." The
Science of the Total Environment. 1999; 235:339-341
• Roseville Rail Yard Study. ARB (October 2004)
. ARB Diesel Risk Reduction Plan. (2000)
• Delfino RJ "Epidemiologic Evidence forAsthma and Exposure to Air Toxics:
Linkages Between Occupational, Indoor, a"nd Community Air Po/lution
Research." Environmental Health Perspectives. (2002),110 (supplement 4):
573-589
• English P., Neutra R., Scalf R. Sullivan M. Waller L. Zhu L. "Examining
Associations Between Childhood Asthma and Traffic Flow Using a
Geographic Information System." (1999) Environmental Health Persoectives
107(9): 761-767
Distribution Centers
Distribution centers or warehouses are facilities that serve as a distribution point
for the transfer of goods. Such facilities include cold storage warehouses, goods
transfer facilities, and inter-modal facilities such as ports. These operations
involve trucks, trailers, shipping containers, and other equipment with diesel
engines. A distribution center can be comprised of multiple centers or
warehouses within an area. The size can range from several to hundreds of
acres, involving a number of different transfer operations and long waiting
periods. A distribution center can accommodate hundreds of diesel trucks a day
that deliver, load, and/or unload goods up to seven days a week. To the extent
that these trucks are transporting perishable goods, they are equipped with
diesel-powered transport refrigeration units (TRUs) or TRU generator sets.
The activities associated with delivering, storing, and Ioading freight produces
diesel PM emissions. Although TRUs have relatively small diesel-powered
- engines, in the normal course of business, their emissions can pose a significant
health risk to those nearby. In addition to onsite emissions, truck travel in and
out of distribution centers contributes to the local pollution impact.
ARB is working to reduce diesel PM emissions through regulations, financial �
incentives, and enforcement programs. In 2004, ARB adopted two airborne toxic
control measures that will reduce diesel PM emissions associated with �
distribution centers. The first will limit nonesseniiai �or unnecessary) idling of
diesel-fueled commercial vehicles, including those entering from other states or
countries. This statewide measure, effective in 2005, prohibits idling of a vehicle
more than five minutes at any one location.3 The elimination of unnecessary
idling will reduce the localized impacts caused by diesel PM and other air toxics
' For further information on the Anti-Idling ATCM, please dick on:
htto:/h.wvw.arb.ca.qovltoxicsldlinq/outreachlfactsheet.odf
Page 11
in diesel vehicle exhaust. This should be a very effective new strategy for
reducing diesel PM emissions at distribution centers as well as other locations.
The second measure requires that TRUs operating in California become cleaner
over time. The measure establishes in-use performance standards for existing
TRU engines that operate in California, including out-of-state TRUs. The
requirements are phased-in beginning in 2008, and eutend to 2019."
ARB also operates a smoke inspection program for heavy-duty diesel trucks that
focuses on reducing truck emissions in California communities. Areas with large
numbers of distribution centers are a high priority.
Kev Health Findinqs
Diesel PM has been identified by ARB as a toxic air contaminant and represents
70 percent of the known potential cancer risk from air toxics in California. Diesel
PM is an important contributor to particulate matter air pollution. Particulate
matter exposure is associated with premature moRality and health effects such
as asthma exacerbation and hospitalization due to aggravating heart and lung
disease.
Distance Related Findinas
Aithough distribution centers are located throughout the state, they are usually
clustered near transportation corridors, and are often located in or near
population centers. Diesel PM emissions from associated delivery truck traffic
and TRUs at these facilities may result in elevated diesel PM concentrations in
_ neighborhoods surrounding those sites. Because ARB regulations will restrict
truck idling at distribution centers, the largest continuing onsite diesel PM
emission source is the operation of TRUs. Truck travel in and out of distribution
centers also contributes to localized exposures, but specific travel patterns and
truck volumes would be needed to identify the exact locations of the highest .
concentrations.
As part of the development of ARB's regulation for TRUs, ARB staff performed
air quality modeling to estimate exposure and the associated potential cancer
risk of onsite TRUs for a typical distribution center. For an individual person,
cancer risk estimates for air pollution are commonly expressed as a probability of _
developing cancer from a lifetime (i.e., 70 years) o�axposure. These risks were
calculated independent of regional risk. For.example, the estimated regional
cancer risk from air toxics in the Los Angeles region (South Coast Air Basin) is
approximately 1,000 additional cancer cases per one million population.
° For further infortnation on the Transport Refigeration Unit ATCM, piease click on:
htto://wwva.arb.ca.aov/diesel/documents/trufaa.pdf
Page 12
The diesel PM emissions from a facility are dependent on the size (horsepower),
age, and number of engines, emission rates, the number of hours the truck
engines and/or TRUs operate, distance, and meteorological conditions at the
site. This assessment assumes a total on-site operating time for all TRUs of
300 hours per week. This would be the equivalent of 40 TRU-equipped trucks a
day, each loading or unloading on-site for one hour, 12 hours a day and seven
days a week. .
As shown in Figure 1-2 below, at this estimated level of activity and assuming a
current fleet diesel PM emission rate, the potential cancer risk would be over 100
in a miltion at 800 feet from the center of the TRU activity. The estimated
potential cancer risk would be in the 10 to 100 per million range between 800 to
3,300 feet and fall off to less than 10 per million at approximately 3,600 feet.
However with the implementation of ARB's regulation on TRUs, the risk will be
significantly reduced.5 We have not conducted a risk assessment fo� distribution
centers based on truck traffic alone, but on an emissions basis, we would expect
similar risks for a facility with truck volumes in the range of 100 per day.
Figure 1-2
Estimated Risk Ran e versus Distance from Center of TRU Activit Area*
Emission Rate � -
2000(070 g/bhp-hr) --.-� " - =� _ _ � � ��-�-_.���,�,,.
2070(024 g/bhp-hr) �. €�_'__ 7 I� gp � ry I� h� RIIdy �yd�'�t'�I� �ti �i�+3��t��0 ppi1 !1 � Hy7 � ��IIi:�7 C
2020(0.05 g/bhp'hr) ; � �s� __��� .d'�.���3h� I!X I� ��G �I��`�f� W� �}�If��I�1I����II��N� �I��I�� 1V I�����'I ���H�g��'-N�RJ I� I R7 � �S�i.'i{.;f .
Distance from Center of 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 600 700 800 900 1000. 1100
Source(meters)
KEY:
Potenlial Cancer Risk>100 per million �
Po�ential Cancer Risk t 10 and<100 per million r= _- � �
Potential Cancer Risks<10 per million P,� k�l Y .
'Assumes 300 hours per week of TRU engine operalion at 60%load factor �
The estimated potential cancer risk level in Figure 1-2 is based on a number of
assumptions that may not reflect.actual conditions for a specific site. For
example, increasing or decreasing the hours of diesel engine operations would
change the potential risk levels. Meteorological and other facility specific
parameters can also impact the results. Therefore, the results presented here
are not directly applicable to any particular faril.ity �r r��eration. Rather, ?his �
information is intended to provide an indication as to the potential relative levels
of risk that may be observed from operations at distribution centers. As shown in
Figure 1-2, the estimated risk levels will decrease over time as lower-emitting
diesel engines are used.
5 These risk values assume an exposure duration of 70 years for a nearby resident and uses the
methodology specified in the 2003 OEHHA health risk assessment guidelines.
Page 13
Another air modeling analysis, performed by the South Coast Air Quality
Management District (South Coast AQMD), evaluated the impact of diesel PM
emissions from distribution center operations in the community of Mira Loma in
southern California. Based on dispersion of diesel PM emissions from a large
distribution center, Figure 1-3 shows the relative pollution concentrations at
varying distances downwind. As Figure 1-3 shows, there is about an 80 percent
drop off in concentration at approximately 1,000 feet.
Figure 13
Decrease In Relative Concentration of Risk
Wi[h Distance
Sensitivity of Concentration to Downwind Distance from a
Distribution Center with TRUs
1
0.8
ci
0 0.6
U
� 0.4
�
0.2
0 , . . . . , .
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
Distance (feet)
Both the ARB and the South Coast AQMD analyses indicate that providing a
separation of 1,000 feet would substantially reduce diesel PM concentrations and
public exposure downwind of a distribution center. While these analyses do not
provide specific risk estimates for distribution centers, they provide an indication
of the range of risk and the benefits of providing a separation. ARB recommends
a separation of 1,000 feet based on the combination of risk analysis done for
TRUs and the decrease in exposure predicted with the South Coast AQMD
modeling. However, ARB staff plans to provide further information on distribution
centers as we collect more data and implement the TRU control measure. -
Taking into account the configuration of distribution centers can also reduce
population exposure and risk. For example, locating new sensitive land uses
away from the main entry and exit points helps to reduce cancer risk and other
health impacts.
Page 14
Recommendations
. Avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 1,000 feet of a distribution center
(that accommodates more than 100 trucks per day, more than 40 trucks with
operating TRUs per day, or where TRU. unit operations exceed 300 hours per
week).
. Take into account the configuration of existing distribution centers and avoid
locating residences and other new sensitive land uses near entry and exit
points.
References
. Airborne Toxic Control Measure To Limit Diesel-Fueled Commercial Motor
Vehicle Idling. ARB (August 20, 2004). Rule effectiveness date awaiting
submittal of regulation to the Office of Administration Law.
http://www.arb.ca.qov/reqacUidlinq/idlinq.htm
. Revised Staff Report: Initial Statement of Reasons for Proposed Rulemaking.
Airborne Toxic Control Measure for In-Use Diesel-Fueled Transport
Refrigeration Units (TRU) and TRU Generator Sets, and Facilities Where
TRUs Operate. ARB (October 28, 2003).
httq://www.arb.ca.qov/req acUtrude03/revisor.doc
. Health Risk Assessment Guidance for Analyzing Cancer Risks from Mobile
Source Diesel Idling Emissions for CEQA Air Quality Analysis. SCAQMD
(August 2003) http://www.apmd.qov/ceaa/handbook/diesel analysis.doc
. "Mira Loma Study: Analysis of the Impact of Diesel Particulate Emissions '
from Warehouse/Distribution Center Operations", PowerPoint presentation.
SCAQMD (July 31, 2002)
Rail Yards
Rail yards are a major source of diesel particulate air pollution. They are usually
located near inter-modal facilities, which attract heavy truck tra�c, and are often
sited in mixed industrial and residential areas. ARB, working with the Placer
County air district and Union Pacific Railroad, recently completed a stud,vs of the '
Roseville Rail Yard (Yard) in northern California that focused on the health risk
from diesel particulate. A comprehensive emissions analysis and air quality
modeling were conducted to characterize the estimated potential cancer risk .
associated with the facility.
6 To review the study, please click on: httq:/lwww.arb.ca.qov/diesel/documents/rrstudv htm
Page 15
The Yard encompasses about 950 acres on a one-quaRer mile wide by four-mile
long strip of land that parallels Interstate 80. It is surrounded by commercial,
industrial, and residential properties. The Yard is one of the largest service and
maintenance rail yards in the West with over 30,000 locomotives visiting
annually.
Using data provided by Union Pacific Railroad, the ARB determined the number
and type of locomotives visiting the Yard annually and what those locomotives
were doing - moving, idling, or undergoing maintenance testing. Union Pacific
provided the annual, monthly, daily, and hourly locomotive activity in the yard
including locomotive movements; routes for arrival, departure, and through trains;
and locomotive service and testing. This information was used to estimate the
emissions of particulate matter from the locomotives, which was then used to
model the potential impacts on the surrounding community.
The key findings of the study are:
• Diesel PM emissions in 2000 from locomotive operations at the Roseville
Yard were estimated at about 25 tons per year.
. Of the total diesel PM in the Yard, moving locomotives accounted for about
50 percent, idling locomotives about 45 percent, and locomotive testing about
five percent.
• Air quality modefing predicts potential cancer risks greater than 500 in a
million (based on 70 years of exposure) in a 10-40 acre area immediately
adjacent to the Yard's maintenance operations.
• The risk assessment also showed elevated cancer risk impacting a larger
area covering about a 10 by 10 mile area around the Yard.
The elevated concentrations of diesel PM found in the study contribute to an
increased risk of cancer and premature death due to cardiovascular disease, and
non-cancer health effects such as.asthma and other respiratory illnesses. The
magnitude of the risk, the general location, and the size of the impacted area
depended on the meteorological data used to characterize conditions at the
Yard, the dispersion characteristics, and exposure assumptions. In addition to
these variables, the nature of locomotive activity will influence a risk •
characterization at a particular rail yard. For these reasons, the quantified risk
estimates in the Roseville Rail Yard Study cannot be directly applied to other rail
yards. However, the study does indicate the health risk due to diesel PM from
rail yards needs to be addressed. ARB, in conjunction with the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), and local air districts, is
working with the rail industry to identify and implement short term, mid-term and
long-term mitigation strategies. ARB also intends to conduct a second rail study
in southern California to increase its understanding of rail yard operations and
the associated public health impacts.
Page 16
Kev Health Findinqs
Diesel PM has been identified by ARB as a toxic air contaminant and represents
70 percent of the known potential cancer risk from air toxics in California. Diesel
PM is an important contributor to particulate matter air pollution. Particulate
matter exposure is associated with premature mortality and health effects such
as asthma exacerbation and hospitalization due to aggravating heart and lung
disease.
Distance Related Findinqs
Two sets of ineteorological data were used in the Roseville study because of
technical limitations in the data. The size of the impact area was highly
dependent on the meteorological data set used. The predicted highest impact
area ranged from 10 - 40 acres with the two different meteorological data sets.
This area, with risks estimated above 500 in a million, is adjacent to an area that
includes a maintenance shop (see Figure 1-4). The high concentration of diesel
PM emissions is due to the number of locomotives and nature of activities in this
area, particularly idling locomotives.
The area of highest impact is within 1,000 feet of the Yard. The next highest
impact zone as defined in the report had a predicted risk between 500 and 100 in
one million and extends out between a half to one mile in some spots, depending
on which meteorological conditions were assumed. The impact areas are
irregular in shape making it difficult to generalize about the impact of distance at ,
a particular location. However, the Roseville Rail Yard Study clearly indicates
that the localized health risk is high, the impact area is large, and mitigation of
the locomotive diesel PM emissions is needed.
For facilities like rail yards and ports, the potential impact area is so large that the .
real solution is to substantially reduce facility emissions. However, land use
planners can avoid encroaching upon existing rail facilities and those scheduled
for expansion. We also recommend that while air agencies tackle this problem,
land use planners try not to add new sensitive individuals into the highest
exposure areas. Finally, we recommend that land use agencies consider the
potential health impacts of rail yards in their planning and permitting processes.
Additional limitations and mitigation may be feasible to further reduce exposure
on a site-specific basis.
Page 17
Figure 1�
Estimated Cancer Risk from the Yard
(100 and SQO in a million risk isopleths)
� ' I i '�-�..,
lanno - `-- �., -
,.�- .-�.� ��� . .
e �
' 1 .
� � _ �. _
_ . ` � �
F _ T .
E � - ... - ' , -� .--�-� _
u�?o --(;,_: ' _ _ -::;._ .. ---
��;; '- ' .i'c.�;
���_ :..,._�.J .
� --�� . � � i � i� -�r��a'/h _ '
i � .P . . � / . l '
f � . � . � t ( �' - � l
� ,o� E • � � ';h, ; �: , ,:
� , �. �. �
� � � � _ '�.,. r � i _' 1 � :
I 1 } 3 ;�� �' r-
1 -
80_M ���� - � . .1 r': . . '.
.��-- i .. _ a . _ .-i' " Pla¢�r
f.�'f-�"" 1 ' _ _' -?=i' "'L•' " Coiary
°- . - 1 _' - _ _ - _ ' ���'_,_"_ '�_ '_, _
F- _ _ ' ,a ' ' '-__- - �'_ - ',t'— �
�JO � � t ` 1� •�' ?_r} '_ Ca°t) .
�.r.d..
i - t ' I _ " .. i .,._. •
1 . y-._'.'� .e: . .,if-. _ - 'i " I i: �'
' L_ ' - _�r �� I . . ._ ._
t . '
t - -t � � - 'I,i:~ -,��:
J000 :.�na
1dCW 16000 18fM]0 20000 22000
Esstmg(m) - .. �
Notzs: 1CU61ilion Cor¢ours: SoGtl Line- P.osarile Ai�t�ata; �ashed Ltr�H.k�CleBan P.iet
� Data, Urt,an Disparsion Co?fficiFnts. 8d°Per=ntile BreeNmg Rate.All Lecort�:es'
Actit�ti?s(23 TFY),7!LY?ar E7cposur . . " �
Recommendation
• Avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 1,000 feet of a major service and
maintenance rail yard'.
. Within one mile of a rail yard, consider possible siting limitations and
mitigation approaches. ,
References
. Roseville Rail Yard Study. ARB (2004)
' The rail yard risk analysis was conducted for the Union Pacific rail yard in Roseville, Califomia.
This rail yard is one of the largest in the state. There are other rail yards in Califomia with
comparable levels of activity that should be considered"major°for purposes of this Handbook.
Page 18
Ports
Air pollution from maritime port activities is a growing concern for regional air
quality as well as air quality in nearby communities. The primary air pollutant
associated with poR operations is directly emitted diesel particulate. Port-related
activities also result in emissions that form ozone and secondary particulate in
the atmosphere. The emission sources associated with ports include diesel
engine-powered ocean-going ships, harbor craft, cargo handling equipment,
trucks, and locomotives. The size and concentration of these diesel engines
makes ports one of the biggest sources of diesel PM in the state. For that
reason, ARB has made it a top priority to reduce diesel PM emissions at the
poRs, in surrounding communities, and throughout California.
International, national, state, and local government collaboration is critical to
reducing port emissions based on both legal and practical considerations. For
example, the international Maritime Organization (IMO) and the U.S. EPA
establish emission standards for ocean-going vessels and U.S.-flagged harbor
craft, respectively. ARB is pursuing further federal actions to tighten these
standards. In addition, ARB and local air districts are reducing emissions from
ports through a variety of approaches. These include: incentive programs to
fund cleaner engines, enhanced enforcement of smoke emissions from ships and
trucks, use of dockside electricity instead of diesel engines, cleaner fuels for
ships, harbor craft, locomotives, and reduced engine idling. The two ATCMs that
limit truck idling and reduce emissions from TRUs (discussed under "Distribution -
Centers") also apply to ports.
ARB is also developing several other regulations that will reduce port-related
emissions. One rule would require ocean-going ships to use a cleaner marine
diesel fuel to power auxiliary engines while in California coastal waters and at
dock. Ships that frequently visit California ports would also be required to further
reduce their emissions. ARB has adopted a rule that would require harbor craft
to use the same cleaner diesel fuel used by on-road trucks in California. In 2005,
ARB will consider a rule that would require additional controls for in-use harbor
craft, such as the use of add-on emission controls and accelerated turnover of
older engines.
Kev Health Findinqs
Port activities are a major source of diesel ?nn. Diese! ?M has been identified by �
ARB as a toxic air contaminant and represents 70 percent of the known potential
cancer risk from air toxics in California. Diesel PM is an important contributor to
paRiculate matter air pollution. Particulate matter exposure is associated with
premature mortality and health effects such as asthma exacerbation and
hospitalization due to aggravating heart and lung disease.
Page 19
Distance Related Findinqs
The Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach provide an example of the emissions
impact of port operations. A comprehensive emissions inventory was completed
in June 2004. These poRs combined are one of the world's largest and busiest
seaports. Located in San Pedro Bay, about 20 miles south of downtown Los
Angeles, the poR complex occupies approximately 16 square miles of land and
water. Port activities inciude five source categories that produce diesel
emissions. These are ocean-going vessels, harbor craft, cargo handling
equipment, railroad locomotives, and heavy-duty trucks.
The baseline emission inventory provides emission estimates for all major air
pollutants. This analysis focuses on diesel PM from in-port activity because
these emissions have the most potential health impact on the areas adjacent to
the port. Ocean vessels are the largest overall source of diesel PM related to the
ports, but these emissions occur primarily outside of the port in coastal waters,
making the impact more regional in nature.
The overall in-port emission inventory for diesel paRiculate for the ports of
Los Angeles and Long Beach is estimated to be 550 tons per year. The
emissions fall in the following major categories: ocean-going vessels (17%),
harbor craft (25°/a), cargo handling (47%), railroad locomotive (3°/o), and heavy
duty vehicles (8%). In addition to in-port emissions, ship, raii, and trucking
activities also contribute to regional emissions and increase emissions in nearby
neighborhoods. Off-port emissions associated with related ship, rail, and
trucking activities contribute an additional 680 tons per year of diesel particulate
at the Port of Los Angeles alone.
To put this in perspective, the diesel PM emissions estimated for the Roseville
Yard in ARB's 2004 study are 25 tons per year. The potential cancer risk
associated with these emissions is 100 in one million at a distance of one mile, or
one half mile, depending on the data set used. This rail yard covers one and a
half square miles. The Los Angeles and Long Beach ports have combined diesel
PM emissions of 550 tons per year emitted from a facility that covers a much
larger area - 16 miles. The ports have about twice the emission density of the
rail yard - 34 tons per year per square mile compared to 16 tons per year per
square mile. However, while this general comparison is illustrative of the overall
size of the complex, a detailed air quality modeling analysis would be needed to ,
assess the potential health impact on speciiic dowi7wind areas near the ports.
ARB is in the process of evaluating the various port-related emission sources
from the standpoint of existing emissions, growth forecasts, new control options,
regional air qualiry impacts, and localized health risk. A number of public
processes - both state and local - are underway to address various aspects of
these issues. Until more of these analyses are complete, there is little basis for
recommending a specific separation between new sensitive land uses and ports.
Page 20
For example, the type of data we have showing the relationship between air
pollutant concentrations and distance from freeways is not yet available.
Also, the complexiry of the poR facilities makes a site-specific analysis critical.
Ports are a concentration of multiple emission sources with differing dispersion
and other characteristics. In the case of the Roseville rail yard, we found a high,
very localized impact associated with a particular activity, service and
maintenance. By contrast, the location, size, and nature of impact areas can be
expected to vary substantially for different port activities. For instance, ground
level emissions from dockside activities would behave differently from ship stack
level emissions.
Nonetheless, on an emissions basis alone, we expect locations downwind of
ports to be substantially impacted. For that reason, we recommend that land use
agencies track the current assessment effoRs, and consider limitations on the
siting of new sensitive land uses in areas immediately downwind of ports.
Recommendations
Avoid siting new sensitive land uses immediately downwind of ports in the most
heavily impacted zones. Consult local air districts or the ARB on the status of
pending analyses of health risks.
References
. Roseville Rail Yard Study. ARB (2004)
. Final Draft, "Port-Wide Baseline Air Emissions Inventory_" Port of Los
Angeles (June 2004)
. Final Draft, "2002 Baseline Air Emissions Inventory." Port of Long Beach
(February 2004)
Petroleum Refineries
A petroleum refinery is a complex facility where crude oil is converted into
petroleum products (primarily gasoline, diesel fuel, and jet fuel), which are then
transpoRed through a system of pipelines and storage tanks for final distribution
by delivery truck to fueling facilities throughout the state. In California, most
crude oil is delivered either by ship from Alaska or foreign sources, or is delivered ,
via pipeline from oil production felds within ±he s?a?�. ?he crude cil then
undergoes many complex chemical and physical reactions, which include
distillation, catalytic cracking, reforming, and flnishing. These refning processes
have the potential to emit air contaminants, and are subject to extensive
emission controls by district regulations.
As a result of these regulations covering the production, marketing, and use of
gasoline and other oiI by-products, California has seen significant regional air
quality benefits both in terms of cleaner fuels and cleaner operating facilities. In
Page 21
the 1990s, California refineries underwent significant modifications and
modernization to produce cleaner fuels in response to changes in state law.
Nevertheless, while residual emissions are smali when compared to the total
emissions controlled from these major sources, refineries are so large that even
srriall amounts of fugitive, uncontrollable emissions and associated odors from
the operations, can be significant. This is particularly the case for communities
that may be directly downwind of the refinery. Odors can cause health
symptoms such as nausea and headache. Also, because of the size, complexity,
and vast numbers of refinery processes onsite, the occasional refinery upset or
malfunction can potentially result in acute or short-term health effects to exposed
individuals.
Kev Health Findinqs
Petroleum refineries are large single sources of emissions. For volatile organic
compounds (VOCs), eight of the ten largest stationary sources in California are
petroleum refineries. For oxides of nitrogen (NOx), four of the ten largest
stationary sources in California are petroleum refineries. Both of these
compounds react in the presence of sunlight to form ozone. Ozone impacts lung
function by irritating and damaging the respiratory system. Petroleum refineries
are also large stationary sources of both particulate matter under 10 microns in
size (PM�o) and paRiculate matter under 2.5 microns in size (PMz.$). Exposure to
particulate matter aggravates a number of respiratory illnesses, including
asthma, and is associated with premature mortality in people with existing
cardiac and respiratory disease. Both long-term and short-term exposure can
have adverse health impacts. Finer paRicles pose an increased health risk
because they can deposit deep in the lung and contain substances that are
particularly harmful to human health. NOx are also significant contributors to the
secondary formation of PMZ_5.
Petroleum refineries also emit a variety of toxic air pollutants. These air toxics
vary by faciliry and process operation but may include: acetaldehyde, arsenic,.
antimony, benzene, beryllium, 1,3-butadiene, cadmium compounds, carbonyl
sulfide, carbon disulfide, chlorine, dibenzofurans, diesel particulate matter,
formaldehyde, hexane, hydrogen chioride, lead compounds, mercury
compounds, nickel compounds, phenol, 2,3,7,8 tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin,
toluene, and xylenes (mixed) among others. The potential health effects
associated with these air toxics can include cancer, respiratory irritation, and ,
damage to the central nervous system, deper�dir�g or� exposure levels.
Distance Related Findinqs
Health risk assessments for petroleum refineries have shown risks from toxic air
pollutants that have quantifiable health risk values to be around 10 potential
cancer cases per million. Routine air monitoring and several air monitoring
studies conducted in the San Francisco Bay Area (Crockett) and the South Coast
Air Basin (Wilmington) have not identified significant health risks specifically
Page 22
associated with refneries. However, these studies did not measure diesel PM as
no accepted method currently exists, and there are many toxic air pollutants that
do not have quantifiable health risk values.
In 2002, ARB published a report on the results of the state and local air district air
monitoring done near oil refineries. The purpose of this evaluation was to try to
determine how refinery-related emissions might impact nearby communities.
This inventory of air monitoring activities included 10 ambient air monitoring
stations located near refineries in Crockett and four stations near refineries in
Wilmington. These monitoring results did not identify significant increased health
risks associated with the petroleum refineries. In 2002-2003, ARB conducted
additional monitoring studies in communities downwind of refineries in Crockett
and Wilmington. These monitoring results also did not indicate significant
increased health risks from the petroleum refineries.
Consequently, there are no air quality modeling or air monitoring data that
provides a quantifiable basis for recommending a specific separation between
refineries and new sensitive land uses. However, in view of the amount and
potentially hazardous nature of many of the pollutants released as part of the
refinery process, we believe the siting of new sensitive land uses immediately
downwind should be avoided. Land use agencies should consult with the local
air district when considering how to define an appropriate separation for
refineries within their jurisdiction.
Recommendations
. Avoid siting new sensitive land uses immediately downwind of petroleum
refineries. Consult with local air districts and other local agencies to
determine an appropriate separation.
References
• Review of Current Ambient Air Monitoring Activities Related to California Bay
Area and South Coast Refineries. ARB (March 2002)
http://www.arb.ca.qov/aaqm/qmosqual/special/mldrefinerv.qdf
• Community Air Quality Monitoring: Special Studies— Crockeft. ARB
(September 2004)
http /lwww.arb.ca.qov/ch/communities/studies/crocketUcrockett.htm
. Wilmington Study-Air Monitoring Resu!rs. a.!?B ;2n03) '
htto://www.arb.ca.qovlch/communities/studieslwilminqton/wilminqton.htm
Chrome Platinq Operations
Chrome plating operations rely on the use of the toxic metal hexavalent
chromium, and have been subject to ARB and local air district control programs
for many years. Regulation of chrome plating operations has reduced statewide
emissions substantially. However, due to the nature of chrome plating
Page 23
operations and the highly toxic nature of hexavalent chromium, the remaining
health risk to nearby residents is a continuing concern.
Chrome plating operations convert hexavalent chromium in solution to a
chromium metal layer by electroplating, and are categorized based upon the
thickness of the chromium metal layer applied. In "decorative plating", a layer of
nickel is first plated over a metal substrate. Following this step, a thin layer of
chromium is deposited over the nickel layer to provide a decorative and
protective finish, for example, on faucets and automotive wheels. "Hard chrome
plating" is a process in which a thicker layer of chromium metal is deposited
directly on metal substrates such as engine parts, industrial machinery, and tools
to provide greater protection against corrosion and wear.
Hexavalent chromium is emitted into the air when an electric current is applied to
the plating bath. Emissions are dependent upon the amount of electroplating
done per year and the control requirements. A unit of production referred to as
an ampere-hour represents the amount of electroplating produced. Small
facilities have an annual production rate of 100,000 — 500,000 ampere-hours,
while medium-size facilities may have a production rate of 500,000 to about
3 million ampere-hours. The remaining larger facilities have a range of
production rates that can be as high as 80 million ampere-hours.
The control requirements, which reduce emissions from the plating tanks, vary
according to the size and type of the operation. Facilities either install add-on
pollution control equipment, such as filters and scrubbers, or in-tank controls,
such as fume suppressants and polyballs. With this combination of controls, the
overall hexavalent chromium emissions have been reduced by over 90 percent.
Larger facilities typically have better controls that can achieve efficiencies greater
than 99 percent. However, even with stringent controls, the lack of maintenance
and good housekeeping practices can lead to problems. And, since the material
itself is inherently dangerous, any lapse in compliance poses a significant risk to
nearby residents.
A 2002 ARB study in the San Diego community of Barrio Logan measured
unexpectedly high concentrations of hexavalent chromium near chrome platers.
The facilities were located in a mixed-use area with residences nearby. The
study found that fugitive dust laden with hexavalent chromium was an important
source of emissions that likely contributed to the elevated cancer risk. Largely as ,
a result of this study, ARB is in the process of updating the current requirements
to further reduce the emissions from these facilities.
In December 2004, the ARB adopted an ATCM to reduce emissions of
hexavalent cfiromium and nickel from thermal spraying operations through the
installation of best available control technology. The ATCM requires all existing
facilities to comply with its requirements by January 1, 2006. New and modified
thermal spraying operations must comply upon initial startup. An existing thermal
spraying facility may be exempt from the minimum control efficiency
Page 24
requirements of the ATCM if it is located at least 1,640 feet from the nearest
sensitive receptor and emits no more than 0.5 pound per year of hexavalent
chromium.8
Kev Health Findinqs
Hexavalent chromium is one of the most toxic air pollutants regulated by the
State of California. Hexavalent chromium is a carcinogen and has been
identified in worker health studies as causing lung cancer. Exposure to even
very low levels of hexavalent chromium should be avoided.
The California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment has found .
that: 1) many epidemiological studies show a strong association between
hexavalent chromium exposure in the work place and respiratory cancer; and 2)
all short-term assays reported show that hexavalent chromium compounds can
cause damage to human DNA.
Hexavalent chromium when inhaled over a period of many years can cause a
variety of non-cancer health effects. These health effects include damage to the
nose, blood disorders, lung disease, and kidney damage. The non-cancer health
impacts occur with exposures considerably higher than exposures causing
significant cancer risks. It is less likely that the public would be exposed to
hexavalent chromium at levels high enough to cause these non-cancer health
effects. Non-cancer health effects, unlike cancer health effects, have a threshold
or exposure level below which non-cancer health effects would not be expected.
Distance Related Findinqs
ARB's 2002 Barrio Logan Study measured concentrations of hexavalent
chromium in the air near two chrome plating facilities. The study was conducted
from December 2001 to May 2002. There were two chrome platers on the street
- one decorative and one hard plater. The purpose of the study was to better ,
understand the near source impact of hexavalent chromium emissions. Air
monitors were placed at residences next to the platers and at varying distances
down the street. The monitors were moved periodically to look at the spatial
distribution of the impact. Source testing and facility inspections identified one of
the facilities as the likely source.
The first two weeks of monitoring results sho::�ed U^�Xr^,8Ct2dl`y' high levels of l
hexavalent chromium at a number of the monitoring sites. The high
concentrations were intermittent. The concentrations ranged from 1 to 22 ng/m3
compared to the statewide average of 0.1 ng/m3. If these levels were to
continue for 70 years, the potential cancer risk would be 150 in one million. The
highest value was found at an air monitor behind a house adjacent to one of the
e For further information on the ATCM, please refer to:
htto://www.arb.ca.qov/reqacUthermspdthermalspr.htm
Page 25
plating facilities—approximately 30 feet from the back entrance. Lower, but
significant concentrations were found at an ambient air monitor 250 feet away.
The monitoring covered a period when the facility was not operating its plating
tank. During this period, one of the highest concentrations was measured at an
adjacent house. It appears that chromium-laden dust was responsible for high
concentrations at this location since there was no plating activity at the time.
Dust samples from the facility were tested and found to contain high levels of
hexavalent chromium. On the day the highest concentration was measured at
the house next door, a monitor 350 feet away from the plater's entrance showed
very little impact. Similar proximity effects are shown in ARB modeling studies.
Figure 1-5 shows how the relative health risk varies as a function of distance
from a chrome plater. This analysis is based on a medium-sized chrome piater
with an annual production rate of 3 million ampere-hours. As shown in
Figure 1- 5, the potential health risk drops off rapidly, with over 90 percent
reduction in risk within 300 feet. This modeling was done in 2003 as part of a
review of ARB's current air toxic control measure for chrome platers and is based
on data from a recent ARB survey of chrome platers in California. The emission
Figure 1-5
Risk vs. Distance From Chrome Plater .
(Based an plating tank emissions) � - .
700%
90%
_ 80% I
0
.0 70%
= 60°h I
.�
F 50%
o`
Z 40°h �
G
Q 30°h
F
— 20%
70%
- 0% . . . . . . .
0 200 a00 600 800 7000 7200 1400 1600
Disiance From Edge of Facility(feet) "
rates are only for plating operations. Because there are insufficient data
available to directly quantify the impacts, the analysis does not include fugitive
emissions, which the Barrio Logan analysis indicated could be significant.
Both the ARB Barrio Logan monitoring results and ARB's 2003 modeling analysis
suggests that the localized emissions impact of a chrome plater diminishes
significantiy at 300 feet. However, in developing our recommendation, we also
considered the following factors:
Page 26
. some chrome platers will have higher volumes of plating activity, .
- potential dust impacts were not modeled,
• we have only one monitoring study looking at the impact of distance, and,
. hexavalent chromium is one of the most potent toxic air contaminants ARB
has identified.
Given these limitations in the analysis, we recommend a separation of 1,000 feet
as a precautionary measure. For large chrome platers, site specifc information
should be obtained from the local air district.
Recommendation
• Avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 1,000 feet of a chrome plater.
References
• Ambient Air Monitoring for Hexavalent Chromium and Metals in Barrio Logan:
May 2001 through May 2002. ARB, Monitoring and Laboratory Division
(October 14, 2003)
. Draft Barrio Logan Report. ARB, Planning and Technical Support Division
(November 2004)
. Proposed Amendments to the Hexavalent Chromium Control Measure for
Decorative and Hard Chrome Plating and Chromic Acid Anodizing Facilities.
ARB (April 1998)
• Murchison, Linda; Suer, Carolyn; Cook, Jeff. "Neighborhood Scale
Monitoring in Barrio Logan,"(AWMA Annual Conference Proceedinqs,
June 2003)
Drv Cleaners Usinq Perchloroethvlene (Perc Drv Cleaners)
` Perchloroethylene (perc) is the solvent most commonly used by the dry cleaning
industry to clean clothes or other materials. The ARB and other public health
agencies have identifed perc as a potential cancer-causing compound. Perc
persists in the atmosphere long enough to contribute to both regional air pollution
and localized exposures. Perc dry cleaners are the major source of perc
emissions in California.
Since 1990, the statewide concentrations and 'neaiin risk from exposure to perc I
has dropped over 70 percent. This is due to a number of regulatory
requirements on perc dry cleaners and other sources, including degreasing
operations, brake cleaners, and adhesives. ARB adopted an Airborne Toxic
Control Measure (ATCM) for Perc Emissions from Dry Cleaning Operations in
1993. ARB has also prohibited the use of perc in aerosol adhesives and
automotive brake cleaners.
Page 27
� Perc dry cleaners statewide are required to comply with ARB and local air district
regulations to reduce emissions. However, even with these controls, some
emissions continue to occur. Air quality studies indicate that there is still the
potential for significant risks even near well-controlled dry cleaners. The South
Coast AQMD has adopted a rule requiring that all new dry cleaners use
alternatives to perc and that existing dry cleaners phase out the use of perc by
December 2020. Over time, transition to non-toxic alternatives should occur.
However, while perc continues to be used, a preventative approach should be
taken to siting of new sensitive land uses.
Kev Health Findinqs
Inhalation of perc may result in both cancer and non-cancer health effects. An
assessment by California's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment
(OEHHA) concluded that perc is a potential human carcinogen and can cause
non-cancer health effects. In addition to the potential cancer risk, the effects of
long-term exposure include dizziness, impaired judgment and perception; and
damage to the liver and kidneys. Workers have shown signs of liver toxicity
following chronic exposure to perc, as well as kidney dysfunction and
neurological effects. Non-cancer health effects occur with higher exposure levels
than those associated with significant cancer risks. The public is more likely to
be exposed to perchloroethylene at levels causing significant cancer risks than to
levels causing non-cancer health effects. Non-cancer health effects, unlike
cancer health effects, have a threshold or exposure level below which non-
cancer health effects would not be expected. The ARB formally identified perc
as a toxic air contaminant in October 1991.
_ One study has determined that inhalation of perc is the predominant route of
exposure to infants living in apartments co-located in the same building with a
business operating perc dry cleaning equipmerit. Results of air sampling within
co-residential buildings indicate that dry cleaners can cause a wide range of
exposures depending on the type and maintenance of the equipment. For
example, a well-maintained state-of-the-art system may have risks in the range
of 10 in one million, whereas a badly maintained machine with major leaks can
have potential cancer risks of thousands in one million.
The California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) is developing
Industry-wide Risk Assessment Guidelines for Perchioroethylene Dry Cleaners _,
which, when published, will provide detailed ir�for���at�or� on public heaii� risk from
exposure to emissions from this source.
Distance Related Findinas
Risk created by perc dry cleaning is dependent on the amount of perc emissions,
the type of dry cleaning equipment, proximity to the source, and how the
emissions are released and dispersed (e.g., type of ventilation system, stack
parameters, and local meteorology). Dry cleaners are often located near
Page 28
residential areas, and near shopping centers, schools, day-care centers, and
restaurants.
The vast majority of dry cleaners in California have one dry cleaning machine per
facility. The South Coast AQMD estimates that an average well-controlled dry
cleaner uses about 30 to 160 gallons of cleaning solvent per year, with an
average of about 100 gallons. Based on these estimates, the South Coast
AQMD estimates a potential cancer risk between 25 to 140 in one million at
residential locations 75 feet or less from the dry cleaner, with an average of
about 80 in one million. The estimate could be as high as 270 in one million for
older machines.
CAPCOA's draft industry-wide risk assessment of perc dry cleaning operations
indicates that the potential cancer risk for many dry cleaners may be in excess of
potential cancer risk levels adopted by the local air districts. The draft document
also indicates that, in general, the public's exposure can be reduced by at least
75 percent, by providing a separation distance of about 300 feet from the
operation. This assessment is based on a single machine with perc use of about
100 gallons per year. At these distances, the potential cancer risk would be less
than 10 potential cases per million for most scenarios.
The risk would be proportionately higher for large, industrial size, dry cleaners.
These facilities typically have two or more machines and use 200 gallons or more
per year of perc. Therefore, separation distances need to be greater for large dry
cleaners. At a distance of 500 feet, the remaining risk for a large plant can be
reduced by over 85 percent.
In California, a small number of dry cleaners that are co-located (sharing a
common wall, floor, or ceiling) with a residence have tlie potential to expose the
inhabitants of the residence to high levels of perc. However, while special
requirements have been imposed on these existing facilities, the potential for
exposure still exists. Avoiding these siting situations in the future is an important
preventative measure.
Local air districts are a source of information regarding specific dry cleaning
operations—particularly for large industrial operations with multiple machines.
The 300 foot separation recommended below reflects the most common situation
– a dry cleaner with only one machine. While we recommend 500 feet when
there are two or more machines, site specific informa±�on shou!d be obtained �
from the local air district for some very large industrial operations. Factors that
can impact the risk include the number and type of machines, controls used,
source configuration, building dimensions, terrain, and meteorological data.
Page 29
Recommendation
. Avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 300 feet of any dry cleaning
operation. For operations with two or more machines provide 500 feet. For
operations with 3 or more machines, consult with the local air district.
• Do not site new sensitive land uses in the same building with perc dry
cleaning operations.
References
. Proposed Amended Rule 1421 — Control of Perchloroethylene Emissions
from Dry Cleaning Systems, Final Staff Report. South Coast AQMD.
(October 2002)
. Air Toxic Control Measure for Emissions of Perchloroethylene from Dry
Cleaning Operations. ARB (1994)
(httA://www.arb.ca.qov/toxicslatcm/percatcm.htm)
. An Assessment of Tetrachloroethylene in Human Breast Milk", Judith
Schreiber, New York State Department of Health — Bureau of Toxic
Substance Assessment, Journal of Exposure Analvsis and Environmental
Epidemioloqv, Vol.2, Suppl.2, pp. 15-26, 1992.
. Draft Air Toxics "Hot Spots°Program Perchloroethylene Dry Cleaner Industry-
wide Risk Assessment Guidelines. (CAPCOA (November 2002)
. Final Environmental Assessment for Proposed Amended Rule 1421 — Control
of Perchloroethylene Emissions from Dry Cleaning Systems. SoutH Coast
AQMD. (October 18, 2002)
Gasoline Dispensinq Facilities
Refueling at gasoline dispensing facilities releases benzene into the air.
Benzene is a potent carcinogen and is one of the highest risk air pollutants
regulated by ARB. Motor vehicles and motor vehicle-related activity account for
over 90 percent of benzene emissions in California. While gasoline-dispensing
facilities account for a small part of total benzene emissions, near source
exposures for large facilities can be significant.
Since 1990, benzene in the air has been reduced by over 75 percent statewide,
primarily due to the implementation of emissions controls on motor vehicle vapor ,
recovery equipment at gas stations, and a i educiior� ir� benzene leveis i�
gasoline. However, benzene levels are still.significant. In urban areas, average
benzene exposure is equivalent to about 50 in one million.
Gasoline dispensing facilities tend to be located in areas close to residential and
shopping areas. Benzene emissions from the largest gas stations may result in
near source health risk beyond the regional background and district health risk
thresholds. The emergence of very high gasoline throughput at large retail or
Page 30
wholesale outlets makes this a concern as these types of outlets are projected to
account for an increasing market share in the next few years.
Kev Health Findinas
Benzene is a human carcinogen identified by ARB as a toxic air contaminant.
Benzene also can cause non-cancer health effects above a certain level of
exposure. Brief inhalation exposure to high concentrations can cause central
nervous system depression. Acute effects include central nervous system
symptoms of nausea, tremors, drowsiness, dizziness, headache, intoxication,
and unconsciousness. It is unlikely that the public would be exposed to levels of
benzene from gasoline dispensing facilities high enough to cause these non-
cancer health effects.
Distance Related Findinqs
A well-maintained vapor recovery system can decrease emissions of benzene by
more than 90% compared with an uncontrolled facility. Almost all facilities have
emission control systems. Air quality modeling of the health risks from gasoline
dispensing facilities indicate that the impact from the facilities decreases rapidly
as the distance from the facility increases.
Statistics reported in the ARB's staff reports on Enhanced Vapor Recovery
released in 2000 and 2002, indicated that almost 96 percent of the gasoline
dispensing facilities had a throughput less than 2.4 million gallons per year. The
remaining four percent, or approximately 450 facilities, had throughputs
exceeding 2.4 million gallons per year. For these stations, the average gasoline
throughput was 3.6 million gallons per year.
Figure 1-6 '
Gasoline Dispensing Facility Health Risk
for 3,600,000 gal/yr throughput
c 15.0
0
'� 10.0
�
°� 5.0
s
N �
� D.Q
0 100 200 300 400 500 '
Distance From Fenceline(feet)
As shown in Figure 1-6, the risk levels for a gasoline dispensing facility with a
throughput of 3.6 million gallons per year is about 10 in one million at a distance
of 50 feet from the fenceline. However, as the throughput increases, the
potential risk increases.
Page 31
As mentioned above, air pollution levels in the immediate vicinity of large
gasoline dispensing facilitie"s may be higher than the surrounding area (although
taiipipe emissions from motor vehicles dominates the health impacts). Very large
gasoline dispensing facilities located at large wholesale and discount centers
may dispense nine million gallons of gasoline per year or more. At nine million
gallons, the potential risk could be around 25 in one million at 50 feet, dropping to
about five in one million at 300 feet. Some facilities have throughputs as high as
19 million gallons.
Recommendation
• Avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 300 feet of a large gasoline
dispensing facility (defined as a facility with a throughput of 3.6 million gallons
per year or greater). A 50 foot separation is recommended for typical gas
dispensing facilities.
References
• Gasoline Service Stafion Industry-wide Risk Assessment Guidelines.
California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (December 1997 and
revised November 1, 2001)
• Staff Report on Enhanced Vapor Recovery. ARB (February 4, 2000)
• The Califomia Almanac of Emissions and Air Quality. ARB (2004)
• Staff Report on Enhanced Vapor Recovery Technology Review. ARB
(October 2002)
Other Facilitv Tvpes that Emit Air Pollutants of Concern
In addition to source specific recommendations, Table 1-3 includes a list of other
industrial sources that could pose a significant health risk to nearby sensitive
individuals depending on a number of factors. These factors include the amount
of pollutant emitted and its toxicity, the distance to nearby individuals, and the
type of emission controls in place. Since these types of facilities are subject to
air permits from local air districts, facility specific information should be obtained
where there are questions about siting a sensitive land use close to an industrial
facility.
Potential Sources of Odor and Dust Comolaints .
Odors and dust from commercial activities are the most common sources of air
poilution complai�ts and concerns from the public. Land use planning and
permitting processes should consider the potential impacts of odor and dust on
surrounding land uses, and provide for adequate separation between odor and
dust sources. As with other types of air poilution, a number of factors need to be
considered when determining an adequate distance or mitigation to avoid odor or
Page 32
Table 13 — Examples of Other Facility Types That Emit' Air Pollutants of Concern
,:,,s;Gateqones?A .>,.��v,;Facilitir..Tvpe 3 Y� �r;Air.PollutantsbfConcern _
Commercial -:: - :- .•.. . --. ,-. . �
� . . :_ �_ , ._ . . -' _;
Autobody Shops Metals, Solvents
Furniture Repair SolventsZ Methylene Chloride
Film Processing Services Solvents, Perchloroethylene
Distribution Centers Diesel Particulate Matter
Printing Shops Solvents
Diesel Engines Diesel Particulate Matter
Industrial .
Construction Particulate Matier, Asbestos
Manufacturers Solvents, Metals
Metal Platers, Welders, Metal Hexavalent Chromium, Nickel,
Spray (flame spray) Operations Metals
Chemical Producers Solvents, Metals
Furniture Manufacturers Solvents
Shipbuilding and Repair Hexavalent chromium and other
metals, Solvents
Rock Quarries and Cement Particulate Matter, Asbestos
Manufacturers
Hazardous Waste Incinerators Dioxin, Solvents, Metals
Power Plants Benzene, Formaldehyde,
Particulate Matter
Research and Development Solvents, Metals, etc.
Facilities
..,,,, . . _. . . . .
Public.. _ . .:<' - : . ._ , . . . ,,.
.._. ._ . ,: - , ._ _... .,. .. --
_. _ ._:�... . _.::--... -'-_ :_:. .,._:� ,., , . ..: ::: .�. . .. . ..:. .
Landfills Benzene, Vinyl Chloride, Diesel
Particulate Matter
Waste Water Treatment Plants Hydrogen Sulfide
Medical Waste Incinerators Dioxin, Benzene, PAH, PCBs,
1,3-Butadiene
Recycling, Garbage Transfer Diesel Particulate Matter
Stations
Municipal Incinerators Dioxin, Benzene, PAH, PCBs,
1,3-Butad ie ne'
,._ �_� ,_ .. :
: t• ,:,. ;:
Transportation"' " ` '
_ _ �_.. ' .
Truck Stops Diesel Particulate Matter
Agricultural. .�; : ...: ;�:.,��.: _; _ -:_: :.._;�. . , ,_
Operations - ~ .;��: .`."_.':•- : _ • .
, .. . _. .
_. .. _,. � . _
Farming Operations Diesel Particulate Matter, VOCs,
NOx, PM10, CO, SOx, Pesticides
Livestock and Dai O erations Ammonia, VOCs, PM10
'Noi all facilities will emit pollutants of concem due to proce=_s cha.^.�es or chemical substitutior.. Consult
the local air distnct regarding specific facilities. � �
ZSome solvents may emit toxic air pollutants, but not all solvents are toxic air contaminants.
Page 33
dust complaints in a specific situation. Local air districts should be consulted for
advice when these siting situations arise.
Table 1-4 lists some of the most
common sources of odor complaints Table 1-4
received by local air districts. Sources of Odor Complaints
Complaints about odors are the . Sewa e Treatment Plants
responsibility of local air districts and 9
are covered under state law. The ■ Landfills
■ Recycling Facilities
types of facilities that can cause odor � Waste Transfer Stations
complaints are varied and can range . petroleum Refineries
from small commercial facilities to large . giomass Operations
industrial facilities, and may include ■ Autobody Shops
waste disposal and recyciing ■ Coating Operations
operations. Odors can cause health ■ Fiberglass Manufacturing
symptoms such as nausea and ■ Foundries
headache. Facilities with odors may ■ Rendering Plants
also be sources of toxic air pollutants ■ Livestock Operations
(See Table 1-3). Some common
sources of odors emitted by facilities
are suifur compounds, organic solvents, and the decomposition/digestion of
biological materials. Because of the subjective nature of an individual's
sensitivity to a particular type of odor, there is no specific rule for assigning
appropriate separations from odor sources. Under the right meteorological
conditions, some odors may still be offensive several miles from the source.
Sources of dust are also common sources of air pollution-related complaints.
_ Operations that can result in dust problems are rock crushing, gravel production,
stone quarrying, and mining operations. A common source of complaints is the
dust and noise associated with blasting that may be part of these operations.
Besides the health impacts of dust as particulate matter, thick dust also impairs
visibility, aesthetic values, and can soii homes and automobiles. Local air
districts typically have rules for regulating dust sources in their jurisdictions, but
dust sources can still be a concern. Therefore, separation of these facilities from
residential and other new sensitive land uses should be considered.
In some areas of California, asbestos occurs naturally in stone deposits.
Asbestos is a potent carcinogenic substance when inhaled. Asbestos-containing ,
dust may be a public health concern in areas whera asuestos-containing rock is
mined, crushed, processed, or used. Situations where asbestos-containing
gravel has been used in road paving materials are also a source of asbestos
exposure to the general public. Planners are advised to consult with local air
pollution agencies in areaswhere asbestos-containing gravel or stone products
are produced or used.
Page 34
2. Handbook Development
ARB and local air districts share responsibility for improving statewide air quality.
As a result of California's air pollution control programs, air quality has improved
and health risk has been reduced statewide. However, state and federal air
qualiry standards are still exceeded in many areas of California and the statewide
health risk posed by toxic air contaminants (air toxics) remains too high. Also,
some communities experience higher pollution exposures than others - making
localized impacts, as well regional or statewide impacts, an important
consideration. It is for this reason that this Handbook has been produced - to
promote better, more informed decision-making by local land use agencies that
will improve air quality and public health in their communities.
Land use policies and practices, including planning, zoning; and siting activities,
can play a critical role in air quality and public health at the local level. For
instance, even with the best available control technology, some projects that are
sited very close to homes, schools, and other public places can result in elevated
air pollution exposures. The reverse is also true — siting a new school or home
too close to an existing source of air pollution can pose a public health risk. The
ARB recommendations in section 1 address this issue.
This Handbook is an informational document that we hope will
strengthen the relationship between air quality and land use
agencies. It highlights the need for land use agencies to
add2ss the potential !or new projects to result in localized
health nsk or contnbute to cumulative impacts where air
pol/ution sources are concentrated.
Avoiding these incompatible land uses is a key to reducing localized air pollution
exposures that can result in adverse health impacts, especially to sensitive
individuals.
Individual siting decisions that result in incompatible land uses are often the
result of locating "sensitive" land uses next to polluting sources. These decisions
can be of even greater concern when existing air pollution exposures in a
community are considered. in general terms, this is often referred to as the issue �
of"cumulative impacts." ARB is working with local air districts to better define
these situations and to make information about existing air pollution levels (e.g.,
from local businesses, motor vehicles, and other areawide sources) more readily
available to land use agencies.
In December 2001, the ARB adopted "Policies and Actions for Environmental
Justice" (Policies). These Policies were developed in coordination with a group .
of stakeholders, representing local government agencies, community interest
Page 35
groups, environmental justice organizations, academia, and business
(Environmental Justice Stakeholders Group).
The Policies included a commitment to work with land use planners,
transportation agencies, and local air districts to develop ways to identify,
consider, and reduce cumulative air pollution emissions, exposure, and health
risks associated with land use planning and decision-making. Developed under
the auspices of the ARB's Environmental Justice Stakeholders Group, this
Handbook is a first step in meeting that commitment.
ARB has produced tfiis Handbook to help achieve several objectives:
■ Provide recommendations on situations to avoid when siting new
residences, schools, day care centers, playgrounds, and medical-related
facilities (sensitive sites or sensitive land uses);
■ Identify approaches that land use agencies can use to prevent or reduce
potential air pollution impacts associated with general plan policies, new
land use development, siting, and permitting decisions;
■ Improve and facilitate access to air qualiry data and evaluation tools for
use in the land use decision-making process;
■ Encourage stronger collaboration between land use agencies and local air
districts to reduce community exposure to source-specific and cumulative
air pollution impacts; and
. ■ Emphasize community outreach approaches that promote active public
involvement in the air quality/land use decision-making process.
This Handbook builds upon California's 2003 Generai Plan Guidelines. These
Guidelines, developed by the Governor's Office of Planning and Research
(OPR), explain the land use planning process and applicable legal requirements.
This Handbook also builds u�on a 1997 ARB report, "The Land Use-Air Quality
Linkage" ("Linkage RepoR"). The Linkage Report was an outgrowth of the
California Clean Air Act which, among other things, called upon local air districts
to focus particular attention on reducing emissions from sources that indirectly
cause air pollution by attracting vehicle trips. Such indirect sources include, but ,
are not limited to, shopping centers, schools ar�d ur�iJersities, employment
centers, warehousing, airport hubs, medical.offices, and sports arenas. The
Linkage Report summarizes data as of 1997 on the relationships between land
use, transportation, and air quality, and highlights strategies that can help to
reduce the use of single occupancy automobiie use. Such strategies
S To access this report, please refer to ARB's website or click on:
htto://www.arb.ca.qov/ch/oroqrams/link97.odf
Page 36
complement ARB regulatory programs that continue to reduce motor vehicle
emissions.
In this Handbook, we identify types of air quality-related information that we
recommend land use agencies consider in the land use decision-making
processes such as the development of regional, general, and community plans;
zoning ordinances; environmental reviews; project siting; and permit issuance.
The Handbook provides recommendations on the siting of new sensitive land
uses based on current analyses. It also contains information on approaches and
methodologies for evaluating new projects from an air pollution perspective.
The Handbook looks at air quality issues associated with emissions from
industrial, commercial, and mobile sources of air pollution. Mobile sources
continue to be the largest overall contributors to the state's air pollution problems,
representing the greatest air pollution health risk to most Californians. Based on
current health risk information for air toxics, the most serious pollutants on a
statewide basis are diesel PM, benzene, and 1,3-butadiene, all of which are
prlmarily emitted by motor vehicles. From a state perspective, ARB continues to
pursue new strategies to further reduce motor vehicle-related.emissions in order
to meet air quality standards and reduce air toxics risk.
While mobile sources are the largest overall contributors to the state's air
pollution problems, industrial and commercial sources can also pose a health
risk, particularly to people near the source. For this reason, the issue of
incompatible land uses is an important focus of this document.
Handbook Audience
Even though the primary users of the Handbook will likely be agencies
responsible for air quality and land use planning, we hope the ideas and
technical issues presented in this Handbook will also be useful for:
■ public and community organizations and community residents;
. federal, state and regional agencies that fund,.review, regulate, oversee, or
otherwise influence environmental policies and programs affected by land use
policies; and
■ private developers.
Page 37
3. Key Community Focused issues Land Use Agencies Should Consider
Two key air quality issues that land use agencies should consider in their
planning, zoning, and permitting processes are:
1) Incompatible Land Uses. Localized air pollution impacts from incompatible
� land use can occur when polluting sources, such as a heavily traffcked
roadway, warehousing facilities, or industrial or commercial facilities, are
located near a land use where sensitive individuals are found such as a
school, hospital, or homes.
2) Cumulative Impacts. Cumulative air pollution impacts can occur from a
concentration of multiple sources that individually comply with air pollution
control requirements or fall below risk threshoids, but in the aggregate may
pose a public health risk to exposed individuals. These sources can be heavy
or light-industrial operations, commercial facilities such as autobody shops,
large gas dispensing facilities, dry cleaners, and chrome platers, and
freeways or other nearby busy transportation corridors.
Incompatible Land Uses
Land use policies and prectices can worsen air pollution exposure and adversely
affect public health by mixing incompatible land uses. Examples include locating
new sensitive land uses, such as housing or schools, next to small metal plating
facilities that use a highly toxic form of chromium, or very near large industrial
facilities or freeways. Based on recent monitoring and health-based studies, we
. now know that air quality impacts from incompatible land uses can contribute to
increased risk of illness, missed work and school, a lower quality of life, and
higher costs for public health and pollution con4rol.10
Avoiding incompatible land uses can be a challenge in the context of mixed-use
industrial and residential zoning. For a variery of reasons, government agencies
and housing advocates have encouraged the proximiry of affordable housing to
empioyment centers, shopping areas, and transportation corridors, partially as a
means to reduce vehicle trips and their associated emissions. Generally
speaking, typical distances in mixed-use communities between businesses and
industries and other land uses such as homes and schools: should be adequate ,
to avoid health risks. However, generalizaiions do r�oi always holci as �ve
addressed in section 1 of this Handbook.
In terms of siting air pollution sources, the proposed location of a project is a
major factor in determining whether it will result in localized air quality impacts.
Often, the problem can be avoided by providing an adequate distance or setback
10 For more information, the reader should refer to ARB's website on community health:
htto://www.arb.ca.qov/ch/ch.htm
Page 38
between a source of emissions and nearby sensitive land uses. Sometimes,
suggesting project design changes or mitigation measures in the project review
phase can also reduce or avoid potential impacts. This underscores the
importance of addressing potential incompatible land uses as early as possible in
the project review process, ideally in the general plan itself.
Cumulative Air Pollution Impacts --
The broad concept of cumulative air pollution impacts reflects the combination of
regional air poflution levels and any localized impacts. Many factors contribute to
air pollution levels experienced in any location. These include urban background
air pollution, historic land use patterns, the prevalence of freeways and other
transpoRation corridors, the concentration of industrial and commercial
businesses, and local meteorology and terrain.
When considering the potential air quality impacts of polluting sources on .
individuals, project location and the concentration of emissions from air pollution
sources need to be considered in the land use decision-making process. In
section 4, the Handbook offers a series of questions that helps land use agencies
determine if a project should undergo a more careful analysis. This holds true
regardless of whether the project being sited is a polluting source or a sensitive
land use project.
Large industrial areas are not the only land uses that may result in public health '
concerns in mixed-use communities. Cumulative air pollution impacts can also
occur if land uses do not adequately provide setbacks or otherwise protect
sensitive individuals from potential air pollution impacts associated with nearby
light industrial sources. This can occur with activities such as truck idling and
tra�c congestion, or from indirect sources such as warehousing facilities that are
located in a community or neighborhood.
In October 2004, CaI/EPA published its Environmental Justice Action Plan. In
February 2005, the Cal/EPA Interagency Working.Group approved a working
definition of"cumulative impacts" for purposes of initially guiding the pilot projects
that are being conducted pursuant to that plan. Cal/EPA is now in the process of
developing a Cumulative Impacts Assessment Guidance document. Cal/EPA will
revisit the working definition of"cumulative impacts" as the Agency develops that
guidance. The following is the working definition:
"Cumulative impacts means exposures, public health or environmenta/effects
from the combined emissions and discharges, in a geographic area, including
environmental pollution from all sources, whethersing/e ormulti-media,
routinely, accidentally, or othenvise released. Impacts will take into account
sensitive populations and socio-economic factors, where applicable, and to
the extent data are available."
Page 39
4. Mechanisms for Integrating Localized Air Quality Concerns Into Land
Use Processes �
Land use agencies should use each of their existing planning, zoning, and
permitting authorities to address the potential health risk associated with new
projects. Land use-specific mechanisms can go a long way toward addressing -
both localized and cumulative impacts from new air pollution sources that are not
otherwise addressed by environmental regulations. Likewise, close collaboration
and communication between land use agencies and local air districts in both the
planning and project approval stages can further reduce these impacts. Local
agency partnerships can also result in early identification of potential impacts
from proposed activities that might otherwise escape environmental review.
When this happens, pollution problems can be prevented or reduced before
projects are approved, when it is less complex and expensive to mitigate.
The land use entitlement process requires a series of planning decisions. At the
highest level, the General Plan sets the policies and direction for the jurisdiction,
and includes a number of mandatory elements dealing with issues such as
housing, circulation, and health hazards. Zoning is the primary tool for
implementing land use policies. Specific or community plans created in
conjunction with a specific project also perform many of the same functions as a
zoning ordinance. Zoning can be modified by means of variances and
conditional use permits. The latter are frequently used to insure compatibility
between otherwise conflicting land uses. Finally, new development usually
requires the approval of a parcel or tract map before grading and building permits
can be issued. These parcel or tract maps must be consistent with the
. applicable General Plan, zoning and other standards.
Land use agencies can use their pianning authority to separate industrial and
residential land uses, or to require mitigation where separation is not feasible. By
separatirig incompatible land uses, land use agencies can prevent or reduce both
localized and cumulative air pollution impacts without denying what might
otherwise be a desirable project." For instance:
■ a dry cleaner could open a storefront operation in a community with actual
cleaning operations performed at a remote location away from residential
areas; ,
■ gas dispensing facilities with lower fuel tiivugi��put could be sited in mixed-
use areas;
■ enhanced building ventilation or filtering systems in schools or senior care
centers can reduce ambient air from nearby busy arterials; or
■ landscaping and regular watering can be used to reduce fugitive dust at a
building construction site near a school yard.
" It should be noted that such actions should also be considered as part of the General Plan or
Plan element process.
Page 40
The following general and specific land use approaches can help to reduce
potential adverse air pollution impacts that projects may have on public health.
General Plans
The primary purpose of planning, and the source of government authority to
engage in planning, is to protect public health, safety, and welfare. In its most
basic sense, a local government General Plan expresses the community's
development goals and embodies public policy relative to the distribution of
future land uses, forming the basis for most land use decisions. Therefore, the
most effective mechanism for dealing with the central land use concept of
compatibility and its relationship to cumulative air pollution impacts is the General
Plan. Well before projects are proposed within a jurisdiction, the General Plan
sets the stage for where projects can be sited, and their compatibility with
comprehensive community goals, objectives, and policies.
In 2003, OPR revised its General Plan Guidelines, highlighting the importance of
incorporating sustainable development and environmental justice policies in the
planning process. The.OPR General Plan Guidelines provides an effective and
long-term approach to reduce cumulative air pollution impacts at the earliest
planning stages. In light of these important additions to the Guidelines, land�use
agencies should consider updating their General Plans or Plan elements to
address these revisions.
The General Plan and related Plan elements can be used to avoid incompatible
land uses by incorporating air quality considerations into these documents. For
instance, a General Plan safety element with an air quality component could be
used to incorporate policies or objectives that are intended to protect the public
from the potential for facility breakdowns that may result in a dangerous release
of air toxics. Likewise, an air quality component to the transportation circulation
element of the General Plan could include policies or standards to prevent or
reduce local exposure to diesel exhaust from trucks and other vehicles. For
instance, the transportation circulation element could encourage the construction
of aiternative routes away from residential areas for heavy-duty diesel trucks. By
considering the relationship between air quality and transportation, the circulation
element could also include air quality policies to prevent or reduce trips and
travel, and thus vehicle emissions. Policies in the land use element of the
General Plan could identify areas appropriate fnr fi i4iw"° industrial, cemmercial, �
and residential uses. Such policies could also introduce design and distance
parameters that reduce emissions, exposure, and risk from industrial and some
commercial land uses (e.g., dry cleaners) that are in close proximity to residential
areas or schools.
Land use agencies should also consider updating or creating an air quality
element in the jurisdiction's General Plan. In the air quality element, local
decision-makers could develop long-term, effective plans and policies to address
Page 41
air quality issues, including cumulative impacts. The air quality element can also
provide a general reference guide that informs local land use planners about
regional and community level air quality, regulatory air pollution control
requirements and guidelines, and references emissions and pollution source data
bases and assessment and modeling tools. As is further described in
Appendix C of the Handbook, new assessment tools that ARB is developing can
be included into the air quality element by reference. For instance, ARB's
statewide risk maps could be referenced in the air quality element as a resource
that could be consulted by developers or land use agencies
Zoninq
The purpose of"zoning" is to separate different land uses. Zoning ordinances
establish development controls to ensure that private development takes place
within a given area in a manner in which:
■ Aii uses are compatible (e.g., an industrial plant is not permitted in a
residential area);
■ Common development standards are used (e.g., all homes in a given area
are set back the same minimum distance from the street); and,
■ Each development does not unreasonably impose a burden upon its
neighbors (e.g., parking is required on site so as not to create neighborhood
parking problems).
To do this, use districts called "zones" are established and standards are
developed for these zones. The four basic zones are residential, commerciai,
industrial and institutional.
Land use agencies may wish to consider how zoning ordinances, particularly
those for mixed-use areas, can be used to avoid exacerbating poor land use
practices of the past or contributing to localized and cumulative air pollution
impacts in the community.
Sometimes, especially in mixed-use zones, there is a potential for certain
categories of existing businesses or industrial operations to result in cumulative
air pollution impacts to new development projects. For example:
■ An assisted living project is proposed for a mixed-use zone adjacent to an _,
existing chrome plating facility, or several ury c{eaners;
■ Muitiple industrial sources regulated by a locai air district are Iocateci directly
upwind of a new apartment complex;
. A new housing development is sited in a mixed-use zone that is downwind or
adjacent to a distribution center that attracts diesei-fueled delivery trucks and
TRUs; or
■ A new housing development or sensitive land use is sited without adequate
setbacks from an existing major transportation corridor or rail yard.
Page 42
As part of the public process for making zoning changes, local land use agencies
could work with community planning groups, local businesses, and community
residents to determine how best to address existing.incompatible land uses.
Land Use Permittinq Processes
■ Questions to Consider Whe� Reviewing New Projects
Very often, just knowing what questions to ask can yield critical information about
the potential air pollution impacts of proposed projects — both from the
perspective of a specific project as well as in the nature of existing air pollution
sources in the same impact area. Available land use information can reveal the
proximiry of air pollution sources to sensitive individuals, the potential for
incompatible land uses, and the location and nature of nearby air pollution
sources. Air quality data, available from the ARB and locel air districts;can
provide information about the types and amounts of air pollution emitted in an
area, regional air quality concentrations, and health risk estimates for specific
sources.
General Plans and zoning maps are an excellent starting point in reviewing
project proposals for their potential air pollution impacts. These documents
contain information about existing or proposed land uses for a specific location -
as well as the surrounding area. Often, just looking at a map of the proposed
location for a facility and its surroundirig area will help to identify a potential
adjacent incompatible land use.
The following pages are a "pull-ouY' list of questions to consider along with cross-
references to pertinent information in the Handbook. These questions are
intended to assist land use agencies in evaluating potential air quality-related
concerns associated with new project proposals.
The first group of questions contains project-related queries designed to help
identify the potential for localized project impacts, particularly associated with
incompatible land uses. The second group of questions focuses on the issue of
potential cumulative impacts by including questions about existing emissions and
air quality in the community, and community feedback. Depending on the
answers to these questions, a land use agency may decide a more detailed
review of the proposal is warranted. ,
The California Department of Education has already developed a detailed
process for school siting which is outlined in Appendix E. However, school
districts may also find this section helpful when evaluating the most appropriate
site for new schools in their area. At a minimum, using these questions may
encourage school districts to engage throughout their siting process with land
use agencies and local air districts. The combined expertise of these entities can
be useful in devising relevant design standards and mitigation measures that can
Page 43
reduce exposure to cumulative emissions, exposure, and health risk to students
and school workers.
As indicated throughout the Handbook, we strongly encourage land use agencies
to consult early and often with local air districts. Local air districts have the
expertise, many of the analytical tools, and a working knowledge of the sources
they regulate. It is also critical to fully involve the public and businesses that
could be affected by the siting decision. The questions provided in the chart
below do not imply any particular action should be taken by land use agencies.
Rather the questions are intended to improve the assessment process and
facilitate informed decision-making.
Page 44
v Project-Related Questions
This section includes project-related questions that, in conjunction with the
questions in the next section, can be used to tailor the project evaluation. These
questions are designed to help identify the potential for incompatible land uses
from localized project impacts.
Questions to Consider When Reviewing New Projects
Pro�ect.Related Questions , ` ��� ''^ ' °` Cross Reference to Relevant �
, t = �' Handbook Sections a, r, .� '<
1. Is the proposed project: See Appendix A for typical land use
♦ A business or commercial license renewal classifcations and associated project
♦ A new or modified commercial project categories that could emit air
♦ A new or modifed industrial project pollutants.
♦ A new or modified public facility project
♦ A new or modified transpoRation project
♦ A housing or other development in which
sensitive individuals ma live or la
2. Does the proposed project: See Appendix F for a general
♦ Conform to the zoning designation? explanation of land use processes.
♦ Require a variance to the zoning In addition, Section 3 contains a
designation? discussion of how land use planning,
♦ Include plans to expand operations over Zoning, and permitting practices can
the life of the business such that additional result in incompatible land uses or
emissions may increase the pollution cumulative air pollution impacts.
burden in the community(e.g., from
additional truck operations, new industrial
operations or process lines, increased
hours of operation, build-out to the propeRy
line, etc. ?
3. Has the local air district provided comments or See Section 5 and Appendix C for a
information to assist in the analysis? description of air quality-related tools
that the ARB and local air districts use
to provide information on potential air
ollution im acts.
4. Have public meetings been scheduled with the See Section 7 for a discussion of
affected community to solicit their involvement in public participation, information and
the decision-making process for the proposed outreach tools.
project?
5. .If the proposed project will be subject to local air See Appendix C for a description of ,
district regulations: local air district programs.
♦ Has the project received a permit from the
local air district?
♦ Would it comply with applicable local air
district requirements?
♦ Is the local air district contemplating new
regulations that would reduce emissions
from the source over time?
♦ Will otential emissions from the ro'ect
Page 45
Project-Related Questioris Cross-Reference to Relevanf �
- " - " .Handbook Sections
trigger the local air districYs new source
review for cnteria pollutants or air toxics
emissions?
♦ Is the local air district expeded to ask the
proposed projed to perform a risk
assessment?
♦ Is there sufficient new information or public
concem to call for a more thorough
environmental anafysis of the proposed
projed?
♦ Are there plans to expand operations over
time?
♦ Are there land-use based air quality
significance thresholds or design standards
that could be applied to this project in
addition to applicable air district
requirements?
6. If the proposed project will release air pollution
emissions, either directly or indirectly, but is not
regulated by the local air district:
• Is the local air district informed of the
projed?
♦ Does the local air district beiieve that there
could be potential air pollution impacts
associated with this project category
because of the proximity of the project to
sensitive individuals? See Section 1 for recommendations
♦ If the project is one in which individuals live on situations to avoid when siting
or play(e.g., a home, playground, projects where sensitive individuals
convalescent home, etc.), does the local air �,�rould be located (sensitive sites).
district believe that the projecYs proximity
to nearby sources could pose potential air
pollution impacts?
♦ Are there indired emissions that could be
associated with the project(e.g., truck
traffic or idling, transport refrigeration unit
operations, stationary diesel engine
operations, etc.)that will be in close
proximity to sensitive individuals?
♦ Will the proposed project increase or serve
as a magnet for diesel tra�c?
♦ Are there land-use based air quality �"
significance thresholds or design standards
that could be applied to this
projed in addition to applicable air district
requirements?
♦ Is there sufficient new information or public
concem to call for a more thorough
environmental analysis of the proposed
projed?
♦ Should the site approval process include
identification and miti ation of otential
Page 46
Project-Related QuesUOns- ., ,,, Cross Reference to Relevant .
Handbook Se'ctions
direct or indirect emissions associated with
the otential ro ect?
7. Does the local air district or land use agency have See Appendix C for a description of
peRinent information on the source, such as: local air district programs.
♦ Available permit and enforcement data, See Appendix B for a listing of useful
including for the owner or operator of the information that land use agencies
proposed source that may have other should have on hand or have
sources in the State. accessible when reviewing proposed
♦ Proximity of the proposed project to projects for potential air pollution
sensitive individuals. impacts.
♦ Number of potentially exposed individuals
from the proposed project. Also, do not hesitate to contact your
♦ Potential for the proposed project to local air district regarding answers to
expose sensitive individuals to odor or any of these questions that might not
other air pollution nuisances. be available at the land use agency.
♦ Meteorology or the prevailing wind pattems See Section 1 for recommendations
between the proposed project and the on situations to avoid when siting
nearest receptor, or between the proposed Projects where sensitive individuals
sensitive receptor project and sources that �,ould be located (sensitive sites).
could pose a localized or cumulative air
ollution im act.
S. Based upon the project application, its location, and See Section 3 for a discussion of
the nature of the source, could the proposed what is an incompatible land use and
project: the potential cumulative air pollution
♦ Be a polluting source that is located in impacts.
proximity to, or otherwise upwind, of a See Section 1 for recommendations
location where sensitive individuals live or on situations to avoid when siting
play? projects where sensitive individuals
♦ Attrect sensitive individuals and be located Would be iocated (sensitive sites).
in proximity to or otherwise downwind, of a
source or multiple sources of pollution,
including polluting facilities or
transportation-related sources that
contribute emissions either directly or
indirectly?
♦ Result in health risk to the surrounding
communi ?
9. If a CEQA categorical exemption is proposed,were See CEQA Guidelines section 15300,
the following questions considered: and Public Resources Code, section.
♦ Is the project site environmentally sensitive 21084. •
as defined by the projecYs location? (A See Section 1 for recommendations �
project that is ordinarily insignificant in i?s on situations to avoid when siting
impact on the environment may in a projects where sensitive individuals
particularly sensitive environment be Would be located (sensitive sites).
significant.)
♦ Would the project and successive future See also Section 5 and Appendix C
projects of the same type in the for a description of air quality-related
approximate location potentially result in tools that the ARB and local air
cumulative impacts? districts use to provide information on
♦ Are there"unusual circumstances" creating potential air pollution impacts.
the ossibili of si nifcant effects?
Page 47
■ Questions Related to Cumulative Impact Assessment
The following questions cari be used to provide the decision-maker with a better
understanding of the potential for cumulative air pollution impacts to an affected
community. Answers to these questions will help to determine if new projects or
activities warrant a more detailed review. It may also help to see potential
environmental concerns from the perspective of the affected community.
Additionally, responses can provide local decision-makers with information with
which to assess the best policy options for addressing neighborhood-scale air
pollution concems.
The questions below can be used to identify whether existing tools and
procedures are adequate to address land use-related air pollution issues. This
process can also be used to pinpoint project characteristics that may have the
greatest impact on community-level emissions, exposure, and risk. Such
elements can include: the compliance record of existing sources including those
owned or operated by the project proponent; the concentration of emissions from
polluting sources within the approximate area of sensitive sites; transportation
circulation in proximity to the proposed project; compatibility with the General
Plan and General Plan elements; etc.
The local air district can provide useful assistance in the coilection and evaluation
of air quality-related information for some of the questions and should be
consulted early in the process.
Questions Related to Cumulative Im act Assessment
Technical Questions. .� � -�` . _ . V'.=Cross-Reference to Relevant
- s � • - - - - ��Handbook Sections
7. Is the community home to industrial facilities? - See Appendix A for typical land use -
dassifications and associated projed
cate ories that could emit air Ilutants.
2. Do one or more major freeways or high-traffic volume See transportation circulation element
surface streets cut through the wmmunity? of your general plan. See also
Appendix B for useful information that
land use agencies should have on hand
or have accessible when reviewing
proposed projects for poten5al air _
pollution impacts.
See Sedion 1 for recommendations on �
siivaiions to avoid when siting projects
where sensitive individuals would be
located sensitive sites).
3. Is the area classified for mixed-use zoning? . See your general plan and zoning I
� ordinances.
4. Is there an available list of air pollution sources in the Contaci your local air distrid.
community?
5. Has a walk-through of the community been conducted See Appendix B for a listing of useful
to gather the following infortnation: information that land use agencies
Page 48
Technical Questions -- , � �'' ' Cross-Reference to Relevant'
- '."Handbook Sections
♦ Corroborate available information on land use should have on hand or have
activities in the area (e.g., businesses, accessible when reviewing proposed
housing developments, sensitive individuals, projects for potential air pollution
etc.)? impacts. Also contact your local air
♦ Determine the proximity of existing and district.
anticipated future projects,to residential areas
or sensitive individuals?
♦ Determine the concentretion of emission
sources(including anticipated future projects) �
to residential areas or sensitive individuals?
6. Has the local air district been contacted to obtain See Section 7 for a discussion of
information on sources in the community? public participation, information and
outreach tools.
7. What categories of commercial establishments are See Appendix A for typical land use
currently located in the area and does the local air classifications and associated project
district have these sources on file as being categories that could emit air
regulated or permitted? pollutants. Also contact your local air
district.
8. What categories of indirect sources such as See Appendix A for typical land use
distribution centers or warehouses are currently classifications and associated project
located in the area? categories that emit air po�lutants.
9. What air quality monitoring data are available? Contact your local air district.
10. Have any risk assessments been performed on Contact your local air district.
emission sources in the area?
11. Does the land use agency have the capability of See Appendix B for a listing of useful
applying a GIS spatial mapping tool that can information that land use agencies
overlay zoning, sub-development information, and should have on hand or have
other neighborhood characteristics, with air accessible when reviewing proposed
pollution and transportation data? projects for potential air pollution
impacts. Also contact your local air
district for tools that can be used to
supplement available land use
a enc tools.
12. Based on available information, is it possible to Contact your local air district. Also
determine if the affected community or see Section 1 for recommendations
' neighborhood experiences elevated health risk due on situations to avoid when siting
to a concentration of air pollution sources in close projects where sensitive individuals
proximity, and if not, can Ihe necessary information would be located (sensitive sites).
be obtained?
13. Does the community have a history of chronic See Section 7 for a discussion of public
complaints about air quality? . participation, information and outreach
tools. Also contact our local air district.�
14. Is the affected community included in the public See Sedion 7 for a discussion of public
participation process for the agency's decision? participation, information and outreach �
tools.
15. Have community leaders or groups been contacted See Section 7 for a discussion of public
aboui any pre-existing or chronic community air participation, informa�ion and outreach
quality concerns? tools. Also contact your local air district.
Page 49
■ Mitigation Approaches
In addition to considering the suitability of the project location, opportunities for
mitigation of air pollution impacts should be considered. Sometimes, a land use
agency may find that selection of a different project location to avoid a health risk
is not feasibie. When that happens, land use agencies shouid consider design
improvements or other strategies that would reduce the risk. Such strategies
could include performance or design standards, consultation with local air
districts and other agencies on appropriate actions that these agencies should, or
plan to, undertake, and consultation and outreach in the affected community.
Potential mitigation measures should be feasible, cost-effective solutions within
the available resources and authority of implementing agencies to enforce.'Z
■ Conditional Use Permits and Performance Standards
Some types of land uses are only allowed upon approval of a conditional use
permit (also called a CUP or special use permit). A conditional use permit does
not re-zone the land but specifies conditions under which a paRicular land use
will be permitted. Such land uses could be those with potentiaily significant
environmental impacts. Local zoning ordinances specify the uses for which a
conditional use permit is required, the zones they may be allowed in, and public
hearing procedures. The conditional use permit imposes special requirements to
ensure that the use will not be detrimental to its surroundings.
In the context of land use planning, performarice standards are requirements
imposed on projects or project categories through conditional use permits to
ensure compliance with general plan policies and local ordinances. These
. standards could apply to such project categories as distribution centers, very
large gas dispensing facilities, autobody shops, dry cleaners, and metal platers.
Land use agencies may wish (o consider adding land use-based performance
standards to zoning ordinances in existing mixed-use communities for certain air
pollution project categories. Such standards would provide certainty and
equitable treatment to all projects of a similar nature, and reserve the more
resource intensive conditional or special use permits to projects that require a
more detailed analysis. In developing project design or performance standards,
land use agencies should consult with the local air district. Early and regular
consultation can avoid duplication or inconsistency with local air district control
requirements when considering the site-specific design and operation of a _,
project.
�Z A land use agency has the authority to condition or deny a project based upon information
collected and evaluated through the land use decision-making process. However, any denial
would need to be based upon identifiable, generally applicable, aRiculated standards set forth in
the local govemmenYs General Plan and zoning codes. One way of averting this is to conduct
earfy and regular outreach to the community and the iocal air district so that community and
environmental concems can be addressed and accommodated into the project proposal.
Page 50
Examples of land use-based air quality-specific performance standards include
the following:
■ Placing a process vent away from the direction of the local playground that
is nearby or increasing the stack height so that emissions are dispersed to
reduce the emissions impact ori surrounding homes or schools.
■ Setbacks between the project fence line and the population center.
■ Limiting the hours of operation of a facility to avoid excess emissions
exposure or foul odors to nearby individuals.
■ An ordinance that requires fleet operators to use cleaner vehicles before
project approval (if a new business), or when expanding the fleet (if an
existing business); and
■ Providing alternate routes for truck operations that discourage detours into
residential neighborhoods.
Outreach to Other Aqencies
When questions arise regarding the air quality impacts of projects, including
potential cumulative impacts, land use agencies should consult the local air
district. Land use agencies should also consider the following suggestions to
avoid creating new incompatible land uses:
■ Consult with the local air district to help determine if emissions from a
paRicular project will adversely impact sensitive individuals in the area, if
existing or future effective regulations or.permit requirements will affect the
proposed project or other sources in the vicinity of the proposed project, or
if additional inspections should be required.
■ Check with ARB for new information and modeling tools that can help
evaluate projects seeking to site within your jurisdiction.
■ Become familiar with ARB's Land Use-Air Quality Linkage Report to
determine whether approaches and evaluation tools contained in the
Report can be used to reduce transportatioh-related impacts on
communities.
■ Contact and collaborate with other state agencies that play a role in the
land use decision-making process, e.g., the State Department of
Education, the California Energy Commission, and Caltrans. These
agencies have information on mitigation measures and mapping tools that
could be useful in addressing local problems.
■ Information Clearinghouse
■ Land use agencies can refer to the ARB statewide electronic information
clearinghouse for information on what measures other jurisdictions are
using to address comparable issues or sources.13
13 This information can be accessed from ARB's website by going to:
htto:!/www.arb.ca.qov/ch/clearinq house.htm
Page 51
The next section addresses available air quality assessment tools that land use
agencies can use to evaluate the potential for localized or cumulative impacts in _
their communities.
Page 52
5. Available Tools to Evaluate Cumulative Air Pollution Emissions and
Risk
Until recently, California has traditionally approached air pollution control from the
perspective of assessing whether the pollution was regional, category-specific, or
from new or existing sources. This methodology has been generally effective in
reducing statewide and regional air pollution impacts and risk levels. However,
such an incremental, category-by-category, source-by-source approach may not
always address community health impacts from multiple sources - including
mobile, industrial, and commercial facilities.
As a result of air toxics and children's health concerns over the past several
years, ARB and local air districts have begun to develop new tools to evaluate
and inform the public about cumulative air pollution impacts at the community
level. One aspect of ARB's programs now undenvay is to consolidate and make
accessible air toxics emissions and monitoring data by region, using modeling
tools and other analytical techniques to take a preliminary look at emissions,
exposure, and health risk in communities.
ARB has developed multiple tools to assist local air districts perform
assessments of cumulative emissions, exposure, and risk on a neighborhood
scale. These tools include:
■ Regional risk maps that show trends in potential cancer risk from toxic air
pollutants in southern and central California between 1990 and 2010. These
maps are based on the U.S. EPA's ASPEN model. These maps provide an
estimate of background levels of toxic air pollutant risk but are not detailed
enough to assess individual neighborhoods or facilities.14
■ The Community Health Air Pollution Information System (CHAPIS) is a user-
friendly, Internet-based system for displaying information on emissions from
sources of air pollution in an easy to use mapping format. CHAPIS contains
information on air pollution emissions from selected large facilities and small
businesses that emit criteria and toxic air pollutants. It also contains
information on air pollution emissions from motor vehicles. When released in
2004, CHAPIS did not contain information on every source of air pollution or
every air pollutant. However, ARB continues to work with local air districts to
include all of the largest air pollution sources and those with the highest
documented air pollution risk. Additional fa�iiit�P� �����1 be added to CHAPIS as '
more data become available.t5
'" For further information on these maps, please visit ARB's website at:
http:(/www.arb.ca.aovltoxics/cti/hlthrisk/h Ithrisk.htm
'� For further information on CHAPIS, please click on:
htto://www.arb.ca.aov/ch/chaois�/chaois t.htm
�
Page 53
■ The Hot Spots Analysis and Reporting Program (HARP) is a software
database package that evaluates emissions from one or more facilities to
determine the overall health risk posed by the facility(-ies) on the surrounding
community. Proper use of HARP ensures that the risk assessment meets the
latest risk assessment guidelines published by the State Office of
Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA). HARP is designed with
air quality professionals in mind and is available from the ARB.
■ The Urban Emissions Model (URBEMIS) is a computer program that can be
used to estimate emissions associated with land development projects in
California such as residential neighborhoods, shopping centers, office
buildings, and construction projects. URBEMIS uses emission factors
available from the ARB to estimate vehicle emissions associated with new
land uses.
Local air districts, and others can use these tools to assess a new project, or plan
revision. For example, these tools can be used to:
■ Identify if there are multiple sources of air pollution in the communiry;
■ Identify the major sources of air pollution in the area under consideration;
■ Identify the background potential cancer risk from toxic air pollution in the
area under consideration;
■ Estimate the risk from a new facility and how it adds to the overall risk from
other nearby facilities; and
■ Provide information to decision-makers and key stakeholders on whether
there may be significant issues related to cumulative emissions, exposure,
and health risk due to a permitting or land use decision.
If an air agency wishes to perform a cumulative air pollution impact analysis
using any of these tools, it shouid consuit with the ARB and/or the local air district
to obtain information or assistance on the data inputs and procedures necessary
to operate the program. In addition, land use agencies could consult with local.
air districts to determine the availabiliry of land use and air poliution data for entry
into an electronic Geographical Information System (GIS) format. GIS is an
easier mapping tool than the more sophisticated models described in
Appendix C. GIS mapping makes it possible to superimpose land use with air
pollution information so that the spatial relationship between air pollution sources,
sensitive receptors, and air quality can be visualiy represented. Appendix C ,
provides a general description of the impact aas2ss�2r�t process and micro-
scale, or community level modeling tools that are available to evaluate potential
cumulative air pollution impacts. Modeling protocols will be accessible on ARB's
website as they become available. The ARB will also provide land use agencies
and local air districts with statewide regional modeling results and information
regarding micro-scale modeling.
Page 54
6. ARB Programs to Reduce Air Pollution in Communities
ARB's regulatory programs reduce air pollutant emissions through statewide
strategies that improve public health in all California communities. ARB's overall
program addresses motor vehicles, consumer products, air toxics, air-quality
planning, research, education, enforcement, and air monitoring. Community
health and environmental justice concerns are a consideration in all these
programs. ARB's programs are statewide but recognize that extra efforts may be
needed in some communities due to historical mixed land-use patterns, limited
participation in public processes in the past, and a greater concentration of air
pollution sources in some communities.
ARB's strategies are intended to result in better air quality and reduced health
risk to residents throughout California. The ARB's priority is to prevent or reduce
the public's exposure to air pollution, including from toxic air contaminants that
pose the greatest risk, particularly to infants and children who are more
vulnerable to air pollution.
In October 2003, ARB updated its statewide control strategy to reduce emissions
from source categories within its regulatory authority. A primary focus of the
strategy is to achieve federal and state air quality standards for ozone and
paRiculate matter throughout California, and to reduce health risk from diesel
PM. Along with local air districts, ARB will continue to address air toxics
emissions from regulated sources (see Table 6-1 for a summary of ARB
activities). As indicated earlier, ARB will also provide analytical tools and
information to land use agencies and local air districts to help assess and
mitigate cumulative air pollution impacts.
The ARB will continue to consider the adoption of or revisions to needed air
toxics control measures as part of the state's ongoing air toxics assessment
program.16
As paR of its effoR to reduce particulate matter and air toxics emissions from
diesel PM, the ARB has developed a Diesel Risk Reduction Program" that lays
out several strategies in a three-pronged approach to reduce emissions and their
associated risk:
. Stringent emission standards for all new d?ese!_fl!�!ed engines; '
■ Aggressive reductions from in-use engines; and .
■ Low sulfur fuel that will reduce PM and still provide the quality of diesel fuel
needed to control diesel PM.
16 For continuing information and updates on state measures, the reader can refer to ARB's
website at http:/lwww.arb.ca.qov/toxics/toxicshtm.
'� For a comprehensive description of the program, please refer to ARB's website at
http:/lwvnv.arbB.ca.qov/diesel/dieselrro.htm.
Page 55
Table 6-1
ARB ACTIONS TO ADDRESS
CUMULATIVE'AIR POLLUTION IMPACTS IN COMMUNITIES
Information Collection
Improve emission inventories, air monitoring data, and analysis tools that can help
to identify areas with high cumulative air pollution impacts
• Conduct studies in coordination with OEHHA on the potential for cancer and non-
cancer health effects from air pollutants emitted by specific source categories
• Establish web-based clearinghouse for local land use strategies
Emission Reduction Aooroaches(2004-20061'
• Through a public process, consider development and/or amendment of regulations
and related guidance to reduce emissions, exposure, and health risk at a statewide
and local level for the following sources:
- Diesel PM sources such as stationary diesel engines, transport refrigeration
units, portable diesel engines, on-road public fleets, off-road public fleets,
heavy-duty diesel truck idling, harbor craft vessels,wasie haulers
- Other air toxics sources, such as formaldehyde in composite wood produds,
hexavalent chromium for chrome plating and chromic acid anodizing, thermal
spraying, and perchloroethylene dry cleaning
• Develop technical information for the following:'
- Distribution centers
- Modeling tools such as HARP and CHAPIS
• Adopt rules and pollution prevention initiatives within legal authority to reduce
emissions from mobile sources and fuels, and consumer products
Develop and maintain Air Quality Handbook as a tool for use by land use agencies
and local air districts to address cumulative air pollution impacts
Other Approaches
• Establish guidelines for use of statewide incentive funding for high priority mobile
source emission reduction projects
'Because ARB will continue to review the need to adopt or revise statewide measures,
the information contained in this chart will be updated on an ongoing basis.
A number of ARB's diesel risk reduction strategies have been adopted. These
include measures to reduce emissions from refuse haulers, urban buses, _,
transport refrigeration units, stationary and pc�abla diasel enyines, ard idling
trucks and school buses. These sources are ail important from a community
perspective.18
'`The reader can refer to ARB's website for information on its mobile source-related programs at:
http:/hwvw.arb.ca.qov/msproa/msoroa.htm, as well as regulations adopted and under
consideration as paR of the Diesel Risk Reduction Program at:
htt o:llwv,�N.arb.ca.qov/diesel/dieselrro.htm
Page 56
The ARB will continue to evaluate the health effects of air pollutants while
implementing programs with Iocal air districts to reduce air pollution in all
Califomia communities.
Local air districts also have ambitious programs to reduce criteria pollutants and
air toxics from regulated sources in their region. Many of these programs also
benefit air quality in local communities as well as in the tiroader region. For more
information on what is being done in your area to reduce cumulative air pollution
impacts through air pollution control programs, you should contact your local air
district.19
19 Local air district contacts can be found on the inside cover to this Handbook.
Page 57
7. Ways to Enhance Meaningfui Public Participation
Communiry invoivement is an important part of the land use process. The public
is entitled to the best possible information about the air they breathe and what is
being done to prevent or reduce unheaithful air pollution in their communities. In
particular, information on how land use decisions can affect air pollution and
public health should be made accessible to all communities, including low-
income and minority communities.
Effective community participation consistently relies on a two-way flow of
information -from public agencies to community members about opportunities,
constraints, and impacts, and from community members back to public officials
about needs, priorities, and preferences. The outreach process needed to build
understanding and local neighborhood involvement requires data,
methodologies, and formats tailored to the needs of the specific community.
More importantly, it requires the strong collaboration of locai government
agencies that review and approve projects and land uses to improve the physical
and environmental surroundings of the local community.
Many land use agencies, especially those in major metropolitan areas, are
familiar with, and have a long-established public review process. Nevertheless,
public outreach can often be improved. Active public involvement requires
engaging the public in ways that do not require their previous interest in or
knowledge of the land use or air pollution control requirements, and a
commitment to taking action where appropriate to address the concerns that are
raised.
■ Direct Community Outreach
In conjunction with local air districts, land use agencies should consider
designing an outreach program for community groups, other stakeholders, and
local government agency staffs that add�ess the problem of cumulative air
pollution impacts, and the public and government role in reducing them. Such a
program could consider analytical tools that assist in the preparation and
presentation of information in a way that supports sensible decision=making and
public invoivement. Table 7-1 contains some general outreach approaches that
might be considered. _,
Page 58
Table 7-1
Public Participation Approaches
• Staff and community leadership awareness training on
environmental justice programs and community-based issues
• Surveys to identify the website information needs of interested
community-based organizations and other stakeholders
• Information materials on local land use and air district
authorities
Community-based councils to facilitate and invite resident
participation in the planning process
• Neighborhood CEQA scoping sessions that allows for
community input prior to technical analysis
• Public information materials on siting issues are under review
including materials written for the affected community, and in
different media that widens accessibility
• Public meetings
• Identify other opportunities to include community-based
organizations in the process
To improve outreach, local land use agencies should consider the following
activities:
■ Hold meetings in communities affected by agency programs, policies, and
projects at times and in places that encourage public participation, such as
evenings and weekends at centrally Iocated community meeting rooms,
libraries, and schools.
■ Assess the need for and provide translation services at public meetings.
■ Hold community meetings to update residents on the results of any special
air monitoring programs conducted in their neighborhood.
e Hold community meetings to discuss and evaluate the various options to
address cumulative impacts in their community.
■ In coordination with local air districts, make staff available to attend
meetings of community organizations and neighborhood groups to listen
to and, where appropriate, act upon community concerns.
■ Establish a specific contact person for environmental justice issues.
■ Increase student and community awareness of local government land use
activities and policies through outreach opportunities.
■ Make air quality and land use information available to communities in an
easily understood and useful format, includina fact sheets, mailings, '
brochures, public service announcements, and web pages, in English and
other languages.
■ On the local government web-site, dedicate a page or section to what the
lanii use program is doing regarding environmental justice and cumulative
environmental impacts, and, as applicable, activities conducted with local
air districts such as neighborhood air monitoring studies, pollution
prevention, air pollution sources in neighborhoods, and risk reduction.
Page 59
■ Allow, encourage, and promote community access to land use activities,
including public meetings, General Plan or Community Plan updates,
zoning changes, special studies, CEQA reviews, variances, etc.
■ Distribute information in multiple languages, as needed, on how to contact
the land use agency or local air district to obtain information and
assistance regarding environmental justice programs, including how to
participate in public processes.
■ Create and distribute a simple, easy-to-read, and understandable public
participation handbook, which may be based on the "Public Participation
Guidebook" developed by ARB.
■ Other Opportunities for Meaningful Public Outreach
■ Communitv-Based Plannina Committees
Neighborhood-based or community planning advisory counciis could be
established to invite and facilitate direct resident participation into the
planning process. With the right training and technical assistance, such
councils can provide valuable input and a forum for the review of proposed
amendments to plans, zone changes, land use permits, and suggestions as
to how best to prevent or reduce cumulative air pollution impacts in their
community.
■ Reqional PaRnerships
Consider creating regional coalitions of key growth-related organizations from
both the private and pubiic sectors, with corporations, communities, other
jurisdictions, and government agencies. Such partnerships could facilitate
agreement on common goals and win-win solutions tailored specifically for
the region. Wth this kind of dialogue, shared vision, and coliaboration,
barriers can be overcome and locally acceptable sustainable solutions
implemented. Over the long term, such strategies will help to bring about .
clean air in communities as well as regionally.
Page 60
APPENDIX A
LAND USE CLASSIFICATIONS AND ASSOCIATED FACILITY CATEGORIES
THAT COULD EMIT AIR POLLUTANTS
Lan(d)Use (z) (3) AirPo�lution
Classifications— Facility or Project Examples Key Pollutants':'"' ;,.
b Activi ' Permits
- � �COMMERCIAL!LIGHT _ r,t ,�' � -� .�, r � f�`y� � � ,,z �, t q� . "
�INDUSTRIAC.,, -�. �.'. s - `3� .»3�: y _ d �,�; s -:
SHOPPING, BUSINESS,: �' � � ' -'�7 � !t.'.�i�'�� '� '� ��� �
�AND�COMMERCIAL�`� �. i � :_:.' .....'. ._:�.r x . .,; •. .'. � :.�,..".
_ , ..' , ,;, �- _ .
„"
. . .. , . - . � . . . u:. •� ' rr ��` � : .' .
Dry cleaners;drive-through
restaurants;gas dispensing facilities;
♦ Pnmarily retail shops auto body shops; metal plating shops;
and stores, office, � photogrephic processing shops;
commercial textiles;apparel and fumiture VOCs, air toxics, including Limited; Rules for
activities, and lighi upholsiery; leather and leather ' diesel PM, NOx, CO, SOx applicable
industnal or small produds; appliance repair shops; equipment
business mechanical assembly cleaning; � �
printing shops ' �
♦ Goods storage or .
handling adivities, .
characterized by .
loading and
unloading goods at Warehousing; freighFfonvarding VOCs, air toxics, including .
warehouses, large centers;drop-off and loading areas; diesel PM, NOx, CO,SOx No
storage structures, distribution centers "
movement of goods,
shipping, and
irucking.
F'
. LIGHT INDUSTRIAL � - f '� -' � � '0, '
�RESEARCH.AND "_ ,. �i� ''rS' +r�a 5.� ��,:," M i ti p � t x r t�', � "r 'ie .
�DEVELOPMENT,f}-. .:a� oZ_+,t,4 -,.t�� � �: r '.�, -�F � ,��� s"� .a:- ',
.��
♦ Medical waste at Incineration;surgical and medical
research hospitals insWment manufacturers,
and labs pharmaceutical manufacturing, biotech Air toxics, NOx, CO, SOx Yes
research facilities
♦ Electronics, electrical �
apparetus, Computer manufacturer; integrated
components, and circuit board manufacturer, semi- Air toxics,VOCs Yes
accessories �nductorprodudion -
♦ College or university Medical waste incinerators; lab Air toxics, NOx, CO, SOx,
lab or research chemicals handling, storage and P���� Yes �
center dis osal --- "
Satellite manufacturer,fiber-optics. -
' ♦ Research and manufacturer;defense contractors; �
development labs space research and technology; new Air toxics,VOCs Yes
vehicle and fuel testing labs
♦ Commercial testing Consumer products; chemiral
labs handling, storage and disposal
Airtoxics,VOCs Yes
A-1
APPENDIX A
Lan(d Use (2) (3) Air Po4lution
Classifications— Facility or Project Examples Key Pollutants""' pertnits'"
b Activi '
INDUSTRIAL:_NON- ' . I�. . _ . .-�..__. ; _ _ .. . _. _ :I .- _,_- � '
ENERGY-RELATED -
Adhesives;chemical;textiles; apparel
and fumiture upholstery; Gay,glass,
and stone products production;asphalt
materials; cement manufacturers,
wood produds;paperboard coniainers �
and boxes;metai plating; metal and
canned food product fabrication;auto
manufacturing; food processing;
printing and publishing;drug,vitamins,
♦ Assembly plants, and phartnaceuticals;dyes; paints;
manufacturing Pesticides; photogrephic chemicals; VOCs, air toxics, including
polish and wax;consumer produds; diesel PM, NOu, PM, CO, Yes
faalities, industrial metal and mine2l smelters and SOx
- � machinery foundries;fiberboard;floor tile and
cover,wood and metal fumiture and �
fuctures; leather and leaiher produds;
generel industrial and metalworking
machinery;musical instruments;office
supplies; rvbber products and plastics
production; sawmilis; solveni -- -
recycling;shingle and siding;surface
coatings
INDUSTRIAC:- ENERGY�' . ?-?�-- . -�e�f ` s��^. _°:.1:'_�'r: ' ' . , . -- � . -_ . -
AND UTILITIES � s- ' - ' - � ,'� , --
♦ Water and sewer pumping stations; air vents;ireatmeni VOCs,air toxics, NOx, Yes
o erations CO, SOx, PM70
Power plant boilers and heaters;
. ♦ Power generation portable diesel engines;gas turbine NOx,diesel PM, NOx, � Yes
� and distribution engines CO,SOu, PM70,VOCs
Refinery boilers and heaters;coke VOCs, air toxics,including
♦ ReSnery operations uacking units;valves and flanges; diesel PM, NOx.CO, SOx, Yes
Flares PM10 .
♦ Oil and gas pil recovery systems; uncovered welis NOx, diesel PM,VOCs, Yes
eMraction CO, SOx, PM�O
♦ Gasoline sto2ge, I Above and below ground storage VOCs,air toxics, including I
t2nsmission, and tanks; Floating roof tanks;tank fartns; diesel PM, NOx,CO, SOx, Yes
marketing pipelines PM10
♦ Solid and hazardous Landfills; methane digester systems; ��
waste treatment, process recyGing facility for concrete ��v'Cs, air ioxics, NOx, I Yes
storage, and and asphali materials . CO, SOx, PM10
disposal activities.
CONSTRUCTION(NON- - - � - � '
TRANSPORTATION �. : t ,'=:i;�" � r � . - ., _ . . . . _ _.�,�„ � - � -
, PM(re�nirained road
dust), asbestos,diesel Limited; state
Building construaion;demolition sites PM, NOx, CO,SOx, and federal off-
PM10,VOCs road equipment
standards
A-2
APPENDIX A
Lan(d)Use (z) (3) AirPo�lution
ClassiTications— Facility or Project Examples Key Pollutants""' ;�
b Activi ' Permits
- - .:., .. ,.,... , g. .;;C. � ' :: �,< ,rr
DEFENSE;.,• . "C ' ..- i' .,. .. >. : �, :),. . .:-. � . .. ..h z..
Ordnance and explosives demolition; Limited;
renge and testing activities;chemical VOCs,air toxics, including prescnbed �
production;degreasing; surface � diesel PM, NOx, CO, SOx, burning;
� coatings; vehicle refueling;vehicle and PM10 equipment and
engine operations and maintenance solvent rules
�
�TRANSPORTATION -- = nr �...��«? aa " + ?,.�,', . ..'j
VOCs, NOx, PM(re-
Residential area circulation systems; entrained road dust)air
� parking and idling at parking toxics e.g., benzene,
♦ Vehicular movement structures; drive-through � diesel PM, formaldehyde, No
� establishments; carwashes; special acetaldehyde, 1,3
events;schools;shopping malls, etc. butadiene,CO, SOx,
PM10
♦ Road construction Street paving and repair, new highway VOCs, air toxics, including
and surfacing construction and expansion �diesel PM, NOx, CO, SOx, No
PM10
♦ Trains Railroads; switch yards; maintenance �
yards
Recreational sailing; commercial
♦ Marine and ort marine operations; hotelling
P Limited;
activities operations; loading and un-loading; Applicable state
servicing;shipping operations; port or VOCs, NOx, CO, SOz, and federal MV
marina expansion; truck idling PM10, air toxics, including standards, and
diesel PM - ossible
♦ Aircraft Takeoff, landing, and taxiing; aircraft P
� maintenance;ground support activities equipment rules
� ♦ Mass iransit and gus repair and maintenance
school buses �
NATURAL�� '.. } .#' r �a. 1j'?iivr � , s�� �1 + s , .�, { r s.:' x s: . .
RESOURCES , � � " G# � x Cpa.. l.1. > a ,, . '�,�...
Limited";
� Agricultural
Agricultural buming;diesel operated burning
engines and heaters;small food Diesel PM,VOCs, NOx, requirements,
♦ Fartning operations PM10, CO, SOx, applicable state
processors; pesticide application; Pesticides and federal �
agricultural off-road equipment
� mobile source
standards;
esticide rules '
♦ Livestock and dairy � � „;
o erations Daines and feed bts , Ammonia, VOCs, PM10 Yes
Limifed;
Off-road equipmeni e.g.,diesef fueled Diesel PM, NOx, CO, Applicable
♦ Logging chippers, brush hackers,etc. SOx, PM10,VOCs state/federal
mobile source
� standards -
Quarrying or stone cutting; mining; PM10, CO, SOx,VOCs, Applicable
♦ Mining operations NOx, and asbestos in equipment rules
dnlling or dredging some eo ra hical areas and dust controls
A-3
APPENDIX A
(�) �4�
Land Use �Z) (3) Air Pollution
Classifications— Facility or Project Examples Key Pollutants""'
b Activi ' Pertnits'"
RESIDENTIAL � � _ � � �"" - ' �� ' - ' •� "� ' � "
Fireplace emissions
Housing developments; retirement �PM70,NOx,VOCs, CO,
Housing developmenis; affordable housing air toxics); No"°
Water heater combustion
(NOx,VOCs,CO)
ACADEMIC AND � - � . � � �. � � '
INSTITUTIONAL - ' �- . � - - � . ,. - �.
♦ Schools,induding ( Schools; school yards;vocational
school-related training labs/dassrooms such as auto Air toxics Yes/No"�
recreational aciivities repair/painiing and aviation mechanics
♦ Medical waste ( Incineration Air toxics,NOx,CO, Yes
PM10
♦ Clinics, hospitals,
convalescent homes Air toxics Yes �
'These dassifications were adapted from the American Planning Association's'Land Based Classification
Standards.' The Siandards provide a consisient model for dassiTying land uses based on their characteristics.
The model classifies land uses by refining traditional categories into multiple dimensions, such as activities, .
functions, building types, site development character, and ownership constraints. Each dimension has its own
set of categories and subcategories. These multiple dimensions allow users to have predse control over land-
use dassifications. For more information,the reader should refer to the Association's website at
htt p Jlwvnv.pla n ni nq.ora/LBC S/G e n eral I nfo/. �
� 'This column includes key criteria pollutants and air toxic contaminants that are most typically associated with
the identified source categories. � �
Additional information on specific air toxics that are attributed to facility categories can be found in ARB's
� Emission Inventory Criteria and Guidelines Report for the Air Toxics Hot Spots Program(May 15, 1997). This
information can be viewed at ARB's web site at http://www.arb.ca.gov/ab2588ffinal96fguide96.pdf.
�Criteria air pollutanis are those air pollutants for which acceptable levels of exposure can be detertnined and for
which an ambient air quality standard has been set. Criteria pollutants include ozone(formed by the readion of �
volatile organic compounds and nitrogen oxides in the presence of sunlight), particulate matter,nitrogen
dioxide, sulfur dioxide,carbon monoxide, and lead.
Volatile organic compounds(VOCs)combine with nitrogen oxides to form ozone, as well as particulate matter. -•
VOC emissions result primarily from incomplete fuel combustion and ine evaporation of chemical solvents and
fuels. On-road mobile sources are the largest contributors to statewide VOC.emissions. Stationary sources of
VOC emissions include processes that use solvents(such as dry-Geaning,degreasing, and coating operations)
and peVOleum-related processes(such as petroleum refining,gasoline marketing and dispensing,and oil and
gas extraction). Areawide VOC sources inGude consumer products, pesticides, aerosois and paints, asphalt
paving and roofing,and other evaporative emissions.
Nitrogen oxides(NOx)are a group of gaseous compounds of nitrogen and oxygen, many of which wntribute to
the formation of ozone and particulate matter. Most NOx emissions are produced by the combustion of fuels.
. Mobile sources make up about 80 percent of the total statewide NOx emissions. Mobile sources inGude on- �
� road vehicles and trucks,aircraft,treins, ships, reaeational boats, industnal and construdion equipment,farm
A-4
APPENDIX A
equipment, off-road recreational vehicles, and other equipment. Stationary sources of NOx include both
internal and euternal combustion processes in industries such as manufacturing, food processing, electric
� utilities,and petroleum refining. Areawide source,which include residential fuel combustion, waste burning,
and fres, contribute only a small portion of the total statewide NOx emissions, but depending on the
community, may-contribute to a cumulative air pollution impact.
Particulate matter(PM) refers to particles small enough to be breathed into the lungs(under 10 microns in
size). It is not a single substance, but a mixture of a number of highly diverse types of particles and liquid
droplets. It can be formed directly, primarily as dust from vehicle travel on paved and unpaved roads,
agricultural operations, construdion and demolition.
Carbon monoxide(CO) is a colorless and odorless gas that is directly emitted as a by-product of combustion.
The highest concentrations are generally associated with cold stagnant weather conditions that occur during
winter. CO problems tend to be localized. �
An Air Toxic Contaminant (air toxic) is defined as an air pollutant that may cause or contribute to an increase in
mortality or in serous illness, or which may pose a present or potential hazard to human health. Similar to
criteria pollutants, air toxics are emitted from stationary, areawide, and�mobile sources. They contribute to
elevated regional and localized risks near industrial and commercial facilities and busy roadways. The ten
compounds that pose the greatest statewide risk are: acetaldehyde; benzene; 1,3-butadiene;carbon
tetrachloride;diesel paRiculate matter(diesel PM); formaldehyde; hexavalent chromium; methylene chloride;
para-dichlorobenzene; and perchloroethylene. The risk from diesel PM is by far the largest, representing about
70 percent of the known statewide cancer risk from outdoor air toxics. The exhaust from diesel-fueled engines
is a complex mixture of gases,vapors, and particles, many of which are known human carcinogens. Diesel PM
is emitted from both mobile and stationary sources. In California, on-road diesel-fueled vehicles contribute
about 26 percent of statewide diesel PM emissions,with an additional 72 percent attributed to other mobile .
sources such as construction and mining equipment, agricultural equipment, and other equipment. Stationary
engines in shipyards,warehouses, heavy equipment repair yards, and oil and gas production operations
contribute about two percent of statewide emissions. However,when ihis number is disaggregated to a sub-
� regional scale such as neighborhoods,the risk factor can be far greater. �
"'The level of pollution emitted is a major determinant of the significance of the impact.
"Indicates whether facility activities listed in column 4 are generally subject to local air district permits to
- operate. This does not include regulated products such as solvents and degreasers that may be used by �
sources that may not require an operating permit per se, e.g., a gas station or dry cleaner.�
"Generally speaking,warehousing or distribution centers are not subject to local air district permits. However,
depending on the district, motor vehicle fleet rules may apply to trucks or off-road vehicles operated and
maintained by the faciliry operator. Additionally, emergency generators or intemal combustion engines �
operated on the site may require an operating permit. -
"Authorized by recent legislation SB700.
"' Local air districts do not require permits for woodburning fireplaces inside private homes. However, some
local air districts and land use agencies do have rules or ordinances that require new housing developments or
home re-sales to install U.S. EPA�ertified stoves. Some local air districts also ban residential woodburning ,
during weather inversions that concentrate smoke in residen5a!areac. Li�ewise, hcme water hzaters are not
subject to permits; however, new heaters could be subject to emission limits that are imposed by federal or
local agency regulations.
""'Technical training schools that conduct activities normally permitted by a local air district could be subject to
an air permit.
A-5
APPENDIX B
LAND USE-BASED REFERENCE TOOLS TO EVALUATE
NEW PROJECTS FOR POTENTIAL AIR POLLUTION IMPACTS
Land use agencies generally heve a variety of tools and approaches at hand, or
accessible from local air districts that can be useful in performing an analysis of
potential air pollution impacts associated with new projects. These tools and
approaches include:
■ Base map of the city or county planning area and terrain elevations.
■ General Plan designations of land use (existing and proposed).
■ Zoning maps.
■ Land use maps that identify existing land uses, including the location of facilities that
are permitted or otherwise regulated by the local air district. Land use agencies
should consult with their local air district for information on regulated facilities.
■ Demographic data, e.g., population location and density, distribution of population by
income, distribution of population by ethnicity, and distribution of population by age.
The use of population data is a normal part of the planning process. However, from
an air quality perspective, socioeconomic data is useful to identify potential
community health and environmental justice issues.
■ Emissions, monitoring, and risk-based maps created by the ARB or local air districts
that show air pollution-related health risk by community across the state.
■ Location of public facilities that enhance community quality of life, including parks,
community centers, and open space.
■ Location of industrial and commercial facilities and other land uses that use
hazardous materials, or emit air pollutants. These include chemical storage
facilities, hazardous waste disposal sites, dry cleaners, large gas dispensing
facilities, auto body shops, and metal plating and finishing shops.
■ Location of sources or facility types that result in diesel on-road and off-road
emissions, e.g., stationary diesel power generators, forklifts, cranes, construction
equipment, on-road vehicle idling, and operation of transportation refrigeration units.
Distribution centers, marine terminals and ports, rail yards, large industrial facilities,
and facilities that handle bulk goods are all examples of complex facilities where
these types of emission sources are frequently concentrated.' Very large facilities,
such as ports, marine terminals, and airports, could be analyzed regardless of
proximity to a receptor if they are within the modeiing area.
s Location and zoning designations for existing and proposed schools, buildings, or
outdoor areas where sensitive individuals may live or play.
■ Location and density of existing and proposed residential development.
■ Zoning requirements, property setbacks, traffic flow requirements, and idling �
restrictions for trucks, trains, yard hostlersZ, consiruciion equipment, or school
buses.
■ Traffic counts (including diesel truck traffic counts), within a community to validate or
augment existing regional motor vehicle trip and speed data.
' The ARB is currently evaluating the types of facilities that may act as complex point sources and
developing methods to identify them.
2 Yard hostler means a tractor less than 300 horsepower that is used to transfer semi-truck or tractor-
trailer containers in and around storege, transfer, or distribution yards or areas and is often equipped with
a hydraulic lifting fifth wheel for connection to trailer containers.
B-1
APPENDIX C
ARB AND LOCAL AIR DISTRICT INFORMATION AND TOOLS
CONCERNING CUMULATIVE AIR POLLUTION IMPACTS
It is the ARB's policy to support research and data collection activities toward the goal of
reducing cumulative air pollution impacts. These efforts include updating and improving
the air toxics emissions inventory, performing special air monitoring studies in sPecific
communities, and conducting a more complete assessment of non-cancer health effects
associated with air toxics and criteria pollutants.' This information is important because
it helps us better understand links between air pollution and the health of sensitive
individuals -- children, the elderly, and those with pre-existing serious health problems
affected by air quality.
ARB is working with CAPCOA and OEHHA to improve air pollutant data and evaluation
tools to determine when and where cumulative air pollution impacts may be a problem.
The following provides additional information on this effort.
How are emissions assessed?
Detailed information about the sources of air pollution in an area is collected and
maintained by local air districts and the ARB in what is called an emission inventory..
Emission inventories contain information about the nature of the business, the location,
type and amount of air pollution emitted, the air pollution-producing processes, the type
of air pollution control equipment, operating hours, and seasonal variations in activity.
Local districts collect emission inventory data for most stationary source categories.
Local air districts collect air pollution emission information directly from facilities and
businesses that are required to obtain an air pollution operating permit. Local air
districts use this information to compile an emission inventory for areas within their
jurisdiction. The ARB compiles a statewide emission inventory based on the
information collected by the ARB and local ai� districts. Local air districts provide most
of the stationary source emission data, and ARB provides mobile source emissions as
well as some areawide emission sources such as consumer products and paints. ARB
is also developing map-based tools that will display information on air pollution sources.
Criteria pollutant data have been collected since the early 1970's, and toxic pollutant
inventories began to be developed in the mid-1980's.
' A criteria pollutant is any air pollutant for which EPA has established a National Ambient Air Quality
Standard or for which California has established a State Ambient Air Quality Standard, including: carbon
monoxide, lead, nitrogen oxides, ozone, particulates and sulfur oxides. Criteria pollutants are measured
in each of California's air basins to determine whether the area meets or does not meet specific federal or
state air quality standards. Air toxics or air toxic contaminants are listed pollutants recognized by
California or EPA as posing a potential risk to health.
Page C-1
APPENDIX C
How is the toxic emission inventorv developed?
Emissions data for toxic air pollutants is a high priority for communities because of
concerns about potential health effects. Most of ARB's air toxics data is collected
through the toxic "Hot Spots" program. Local air districts collect emissions data from
industrial and commercial facilities. Facilities that exceed health-based thresholds are
required to report their air toxics emissions as part of the toxic "Hot Spots° program and
update their emissions data every four years. Facilities are required to report their air
toxics emissions data if there is an increase that would trigger the reporting threshold of
the hotspots prog�am. Air toxics emissions from motor vehicles and consumer products
are estimated by the ARB. These estimates are generally regional in nature, reflecting
traffic and population.
The ARB also maintains chemical speciation profiles that can be used to estimate toxics
emissions when no toxic emissions data is available.
What additional toxic emissions information is needed?
In order to assess cumulative air pollution impacts, updated information from individual
facilities is needed. Even for sources where emissions data are available, additional
information such as the location of emissions release points is often needed to better
model cumulative impacts. In terms of motor vehicles, emissions data are currentiy
based on traffic models that only contain major roads and freeways. Local traffic data
are needed so that traffic emissions can be more accurately assigned to specific streets .
and roads. Local information is also needed for off-road emission sources, such as
ships, trains, and construction equipment. In addition, hourly maximum emissions data
are needed for assessing acute air pollution impacts.
What work is underwav?
ARB is working with CAPCOA to improve toxic emissions data, developing a community
health air pollution information system to improve access to emission information, .
conducting neighborhood assessment studies to better understand toxic emission
sources, and conducting surveys of sources of toxic pollutants.
How is air pollution monitored?
While emissions data identify how much air pollution is going into the air, the state's air ,
qualiry monitoring network measures air pollutar�i ievei� in outdoor air. The statewide
air monitoring network is primarily designed to measure regional exposure to air
pollutants, and consists of more than 250 air monitoring sites.
The air toxics monitoring network consists of approximately 20 permanent sites. These
sites are supplemented by special monitoring studies conducted by ARB and local air
districts. These sites measure approximately sixty toxic air pollutants. Diesel PM,
which is the major driver of urban air toxic risk, is not monitored directiy. Ten of the
Page G2
APPENDIX C
60 toxic pollutants, not including diesel, account for most of the remaining potential
cancer risk in California urban areas.
What additional monitorinq has been done?
Recently, additional monitoring has been done to look at air quality at the community
level. ARB's.community monitoring was conducted in six communities located
throughout the state. Most sites were in low-income, minority communities located near
major sources of air pollution, such as refineries or freeways. The monitoring took place
for a year or more in each community, and included measurements of both criteria and
toxic pollutants.
What is beinq learned from communitv monitorinq?
In some cases, the ARB or local air districts have performed air quality monitoring or
modeling studies covering a particular region of the state. When available, these
studies can give information about regional air pollution exposures.
The preliminary results of ARB's community monitoring are providing insights into air
pollution at the community level. Urban background levels are a major contributor to the
overall risk from air toxics in urban areas, and this urban background tends to mask the
differences between communities. When localized elevated air pollutant levels were
measured, they were usually associated with local ground-level sources of toxic
pollutants. The most common source of this type was busy streets and freeways. The
impact these ground-level sources had on local air quality decreased rapidly with
distance from the source. Poltutant levels usually returned to urban background levels
within a few hundred meters of the source.
These results indicate that tools to assess cumulative impacts must be able to account
for both localized, near-source impacts, as well as regional background air pollution.
The tools that ARB is developing for this purpose are air quality models.
How can air qualitv modelinq be used?
While air monitoring can directly measure cumulative exposure to air pollution, it is
limited because all locations cannot be monitored. To address this, air quality modeling
provides the capability to estimate exposure wheri air monitoring is not feasible. Ai�
quality modeling can be refined to assess local exposure, identify locations of potential ,
hot spots, and identify the relative contribution nf?miccinn sources to exposure at
specific locations. The ARB has used this type of information to develop regional
cumulative risk maps that estimate the cumulative cancer air pollution risk for most of
California. While these maps only show one air pollution-related health risk, it does
provide a useful starting point.
Page C-3
APPENDIX C
What is needed for communitv modelinq?
Air quality models have been d'eveloped to assess near-source impacts, but they have
very exacting data requirements. These near-source models estimate the impact of
local sources, but do not routinely include the contribution from regional air pollution
background. To estimate cumulative air pollution exposure at a neighborhood scale, a
modeling approach needs to combine features of both micro-scale and regional models.
In addition, improved methods are needed to assess near-source impacts under light
and variable wind conditions, when high local concentrations are more likely to occur. A
method for modeling long-term exposure to air pollutants near freeways and other high
traffic areas is also needed.
What modelinq work has ARB developed?
A key component of ARB's Community Health Program is the Neighborhood
Assessment Program (NAP). As described later in this section; the NAP studies are
being conducted to better understand pollution impacts at the community level.
Through two such studies conducted in Barrio Logan (San Diego) and Wimington
(Los Angeles), ARB is refining community-level modeling methodologies. Regional air
toxics modeling is also being performed to better understand regional air pollution
background levels.
In a parallel effort, ARB is developing modeling protocols for estimating cumulative
emissions, exposure, and risk from air pollution. The protocols will cover modeling
approaches and uncertainties, procedures for running the models, the development of
statewide risk maps, and methods for estimating health risks. The protocols are subject
_ to an extensive peer review process prior to release.
How are air pollution imaacts on communitv health assessed?
On a statewide basis, ARB's toxic air contaminant program identifies and reduces pubiic
exposure to air toxics. The focus of the program has been on reducing potential cancer
risk, because monitoring results show potential urban cancer risk levels are too high.
ARB has also looked for potential non-cancer risks based on health reference levels
provided by OEHHA. On a regional basis, the poilutants measured in ARB's toxic
monitoring network are generally below the OEHHA non-cancer reference exposure
levels. ,
As part of its community health program, the ARB is looking at potential cancer and
non-cancer risk. This could include chronic or acute health effects. If the assessment
work shows elevated exposures on a localized basis, ARB will work with OEHHA to
assess the health impacts.
Page C-4
APPENDIX C
What tools has ARB developed to assess cumulative air pollution impacts?
ARB has developed the following tools and reports to assist land use agencies and local
air districts assess and reduce cumulative emissions, exposure, and risk on a
neighborhood scale. �
Statewide Risk Maps
ARB has produced regional risk maps that show the statewide trends for Southern and
Central California in estimated potential cancer risk from air toxics between 1990 and
2010.z These maps will supplement U.S. EPA's ASPEN model and are available on the
ARB's Internet site. These maps are best used to obtain an estimate of the regional
background air pollution health risk and are not detailed enough to estimate the exact
risk at a specific location.
ARB also has maps that focus in more detail on smaller areas that fall within the
Southern and Central California regions for these same modeled years. The finest
visual resolution available in the maps on this web site is two by two kilometers. These
maps are not detailed enough to assess individual neighborhoods or facilities.
Community Health Air Pollution Information System (CHAPIS)
CHAPIS is an Internet-based procedure for displaying information on emissions from
sources of air pollution in an easy to use mapping format. CHAPIS uses Geographical
Information System (GIS) software to deliver interactive maps over the Internet.
CHAPIS relies on emission estimates reported to the ARB's emission inventory
database - California Emissions Inventory Development and Reporting System, or
CEIDARS.
Through CHAPIS, air district staff can quickly and easily identify pollutant sources and
emissions within a specified area. CHAPIS contains information on air pollution
emissions from selected large facilities and small businesses that emit criteria and toxic
air pollutants. It also contains information on air pollution emissions from motor vehicle
and areawide emissions. CHAPIS does not contain information on every source of air
pollution or every air pollutant. It is a major long-term objective of CHAPIS to include all
of the largest air pollution sources and those with the highest documented air pollution
risk. CHAPIS will be updated on a periodic basis and additional facilities will be added
to CHAPIS as more data becomes available.
CHAPIS is being developed in stages to assure data quality. The initial release of
CHAPIS will include facilities emitting 10 or more tons per year of nitrogen oxides, sulfur
dioxide, carbon monoxide, PM10, or reactive organic gases; air toxics from refineries
and power plants of 50 megawatts or more; and facilities that conducted health risk
2AR6 maintains state trends and local potential cancer risk maps that show statewide trends in potential
inhalable cancer risk from air toxics between 1990 and 2010. This information can be viewed at ARB's
web site at http://www.arb.ca.qov/toxics/ctilhlthrisk/hlthrisk.htm)
Page GS
APPENDIX C
assessments under the California Air Toxics `Hot Spots" Information and Assessment
Program.3 �
CHAPIS can be used to identify the emission contributions from mobile, area, and point
sources on that community.
"Hot Spots" Analysis and Reporting Program (HARP)
HARP" is a software package availabie from the ARB and is designed with air quality
professionals in mind. It models emissions and release data from one or more facilities
to estimate the potential health risk posed by the selected facilities on the neighboring
community. HARP uses the latest risk assessment guidelines published by OEHHA.
With HARP, a user can perform the following tasks:
■ Create and manage facility databases;
■ Perform air dispersion modeling;
■ Conduct health risk analyses;
■ Output data repoRs; and
. Output results to GIS mapping software.
HARP can model downwind concentrations of air toxics based on the calculated
emissions dispersion at a single facility. HARP also has the capabiliry of assessing the
risk from multiple facilities, and for multiple locations of concern near those facilities.
While HARP has the capability to assess multiple source impacts, there had been
limited application of the multiple facility assessment function in the field at the time of
HARP's debut in 2003. HARP can also evaluate multi-pathway, non-inhalation health
_ risk resulting from air pollution exposure, including skin and soil exposure, and ingestion .
of ineat and vegetables contaminated with air toxics, and other toxics that have
accumulated in a mother's breast milk.
Neighborhood Assessment Program (NAP)
The NAPS has been a key component of ARB's Community Health Program. It includes
the development of tools that can be used to perform assessments of cumulative air
pollution impacts on a neighborhood scale. The NAP studies have been done to better
understand how air pollution affects individuals at the neighborhood level. Thus far,
ARB has conducted neighborhood scale assessments in Barrio Logan and Wilmington. ,
As paR of these studies, ARB is collecting data.and developing a modeling protocol that
can be used to conduct cumulative air pollution impact assessments. Initially these
'California Health & Safety Code section 44300, et seq.
` More detailed information can be found on ARB's website at:
htto:/Mranv.arb.ca.qov/toxics/harp/harp.htm
' For more information on ihe Program, please refer to: htto:/hwnv.arb.ca.aov/ch/proaramslnaolnap.htm
Page C-6
APPENDIX C
assessments will focus on.cumulative inhalation cancer health risk and chronic non-
cancer impacts. The major challenge is developing modeling methods that can
combine both regional and localized air pollution impacts, and identifying the critical
data necessary to support these models. The objective is to develop methods and tools
from these studies that can ultimately be applied to other areas of the state. In addition,
the ARB plans to use these methods to replace the ASPEN regional risk maps currently
posted on the ARB Internet site.
Urban Emissions Model (URBEMIS)
URBEMIS6 is a computer program that can be used to estimate emissions associated
with land development projects in California such as residential neighborhoods,
shopping centers, office buildings, and construction projects. URBEMIS uses emission
factors available from the ARB to estimate vehicle emissions associated with new land
uses. URBEMIS estimates sulfur dioxide emissions from motor vehicles in addition to
reactive organic gases, nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, and PM10.
Land-Use Air Quality Linkage Report'
This report summarizes data currently available on the relationships between land use,
transportation and air quality. It also highlights strategies that can help to recJuce the
use of the private automobile. It also briefly summarizes two ARB-funded research
projects. The first project analyzes the travel patterns of residents living in five higher
density, mixed use neighborhoods in California, and compares them to travel in more
auto-oriented areas. The second study correlates the relationship between travel
behavior and community characteristics, such as density, mixed land uses, t�ansit
service, and accessibility for pedestrians.
6 For more information on this model, please refer to ARB's website at
http://www.arb.ca.gov/html/soft.htm.
'To access this report, please refer to ARB's website or click on:
http://www.arb.ca.qov/ch/proo rams/li nk97.pdf
Page C-7
APPENDIX D
LAND USE AND AIR QUALITY AGENCY ROLES
IN THE LAND USE PROCESS
A wide variety of federal, state, and local government agencies are responsible for
regulatory, planning, and siting decisions that can have an impact on air pollution. They
include local land use agencies, regional councils of government, school districts, local
air districts, ARB, the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), and the
Governor's Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to name a few. This Section will
focus on the roles and responsibilities of local and state agencies. The role of school
districts will be discussed in Appendix E.
Locai Land Use Agencies
Under the State Constitution, land use agencies have the primary authority to plan and
control land use.' Each of California's incorporated cities and counties are required to
adopt a comprehensive, long-term General Plan.z
The General Plan's long-term goals are implemented through zoning ordinances.
These are local laws adopted by counties and cities that describe for specific areas the
kinds of development that will be allowed within their boundaries.
Land use agencies are also the lead for doing environmental assessments under CEQA
for new projects that may pose a significant environmental impact, or for new or revised
General Plans.
Local Agency Formation Commissions (LAFCOs)
Operating in each of California's 58 counties, LAFCOs are composed of local elected
officials and public members who are responsible for cooriiinating changes in local
governmental boundaries, conducting special studies that review ways to reorganize,
simplify, and streamline governmentai structures, and preparing a sphere of influence
for each city and special district within each county. Each Commission's efforts are
directed toward seeing that local government services are provided efficiently and
economically while agricultural and open-space lands are protected. LAFCO decisions
strive to balance the competing needs in California for efficient services, affordable
housing, economic opportunity, and conservation of natural resources.
' The legal basis for planning and land use regulation is the "police power" of the city or county to protect
the public's health, safety and welfare. The California Constitution gives cities and counties the power to
make and enforce all local police, sanitary and other ordinances and regulations not in conflict with
�qeneral laws. State law reference: California Constitution,Article XI §7.
OPR General Plan Guidelines, 2003:
http://www.opr.ca.qovlplanninq/PDFS/General Plan Guidelines 2003.pdf
Page D-1
APPENDIX D
Councils of Government (COG)
COGs are organizations composed of local counties and cities that serve as a focus for
the development of sound regional planning, including plans for transportation, growth
management, hazardous waste management, and air quality. They can also function
as the metropolitan planning organization for coordinating the region's transpoRation
programs. COGs also prepare regional housing need allocations for updates of
General Plan housing elements. �
Local Air Districts
Under state law, air pollution control districts or air quality management districts (local
air districts) are the local government agencies responsible for improving air quality and
are generally the first point of contact for resolving local air pollution issues or
complaints. There are 35 local air districts in California3 that have authority and primary
responsibility for regional clean air planning. Local air iiistricts regulate stationary
sources of air pollutants within their jurisdiction including but not limited to industrial and
commercial facilities, power plants, construction activities, outdoor burning, and other
non-mobile sources of air pollution. Some local air districts also regulate public and
private motor vehicle fleet operators such as public bus systems, private shuttle and taxi
services, and commercial truck depots.
■ Regional Clean Air Plans
Local air districts are responsibie for the development and adoption of clean air plans
that protect the public from the harmful effects of air pollution. These plans incorporate
strategies that are necessary to attain ambient air quality standards. Also included in
. these regional air plans are ARB and local district measures to reduce statewide
emissions from mobile sources, consumer products, and industrial sources. __.
■ Facility-Specific Considerations -
Permittinq. In addition to the planning function, local air districts adopt and enforce
regulations, issue permits, and evaluate the potential environmental impacts of projects.
Pollution is regulated through permits and technology-based rules that limit emissions
from operating units within a facility or set standards that vehicle fleet operators must
meet. Permits to construct and permits to operate contain very specific requirements ,
and conditions that tell each regulated source wi at it ���ust do to limit iis air pollution in
compliance with local air district rules, regulations, and state law. Prior to receiving a
permit, new facilities must go through a New Source Review (NSR) process that
establishes air pollution control requirements for the facility. Permit conditions are
typically contained in the permit to operate and specify requirements that businesses
must follow; these may include limits on the amount of pollution that can be emitted, the
3 Contaci information for local air districts in California is fisied in the front of this Handbook.
Page D-2
APPENDIX D
type of pollution control equipment that must be installed and maintained, and various
record-keeping requirements.
Local air districts also notify the public about new permit applications for major new
facilities, or major modifications to existing facilities that seek to locate within 1,000 feet
of a school.
Local air districts can also regulate other types of sources to reduce emissions. These
include regulations to reduce emissions from the following sources:
■ hazardous materials in products used by industry such as paints, solvents, and de-
greasers;
■ agricultural and residential burning;
■ leaking gasoline nozzles at service stations;
■ public fleet vehicles such as sanitation trucks and school buses; and ,
■ fugitive or uncontrolled dust at construction sites.
However, while emissions from industrial and commercial sources are typically subject
to the permit authority of the local air district, sensitive sites such as a day care center,
convalescent home, or playground are not ordinarily subject to an air permit. Local air
district permits address the air pollutant emissions of a project but not its location.
Under the state's air toxics program, local air districts regulate air toxic emissions by
adopting ARB air toxic control measures, or more stringent district-specific
requirements, and by requiring individual facilities to perform a health risk assessment if
emissions at the source exceed district-specific health risk thresholds", 5 (See the
section on ARB programs for a more detailed summary of this program).
One approach by which local air districts regulate air toxics emissions is through the
"Hot Spots" program.6 The risk assessments submitted by the facilities under this
°Cal/EPA's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment has published "A Guide to Health Ftisk
Assessment"for lay people involved in environmental health issues, including policymakers,
businesspeople, members of community groups, and others with an interest in the potential health effects
of toxic chemicals. To access this information, please refer to
http://www.oehha.ca.qov/pdflH RSquide2001.Adf
' Section 44306 of the California Health 8 Safety Code defines a health risk assessment as a detailed
comprehensive analysis that a polluting facility uses to evaluate and predict the dispersion of hazardous
substances in the environment and the potential for exposure of human populations, and to assess and '
quantify both the individual and population-wide health risks associated with those levels of exposure.
6 AB-2588 (the Air Toxics"Hot Spots" Information and Assessment Act) requires local air districts to
prioritize facilities by high, intermediate, and low priority categories to determine which must perform a
health risk assessment. Each district is responsible for establishing the prioritization score threshold at
which facilities are required to prepare a health risk assessment. In establishing priorities for each facility,
local air districts must consider the potency, toxicity, quantity, and volume of hazardous materials
released from the facility, the proximity of the facility to potential receptors, and any other factors that the
district determines may indicate that the facility may pose a signifcant risk. All facilities within the highest
category must prepare a health risk assessment. In addition, each district may require facilities in the
intermediate and low priority categories to also submit a health risk assessment.
Page D-3
APPENDIX D
Table D-1
Local Sources of Air Pollution, Responsible Agencies,
and Associated Regulatory Programs
Sour'ceE��� Examples'�K-".�` � P�imary;A°gency'�A`pp"lica6le`Regulatio`ns.c?�
�:�'������-.� �.��-—'-',s��--�_�:��
Large Refineries, power Local air districts Operating permit rules
Stationary plants, chemical Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Law
facilities, certain (AB 2588)
manufacturing Local district rules
plants Air Toxic Control Measures
(ATCMs)'
New Source Review rules
Title V ermit ruies
Small Dry cleaners, auto Local air districts Operating permit conditions,
Stationary body shops, Air Toxics"Hot Spots" Law
welders, chrome (AB 2588)
plating facilities, Local district rules
service stations, ATCMs`
certain New Source Review rules
manufacturing
lants
Mobile (non- Cars, trucks, buses ARB Emission standards
fleet) Cleaner-burning fuels
(e.g., unleaded gasoline,
low-sulfur diesel)
Inspection and repair
programs (e.g., Smog
Check
- Mobile Construction ARB, U.S. EPA ARB rules
E ui ment e ui ment U.S. EPA rules
Mobile (fleet) Truck depots, Local air districts, Local air district rules
school buses, taxi ARB ARB urban bus fleet rule
services
Areawide Paints and Local air district, ARB rules
consumer products ARB Local air district rules
such as hair spray
and s ra aint
'ARB adopts ATCMs, but local air districts have the responsibility to implement and enforce these
measures or more stringeni ones. '
program are reviewed by OEHHA and approved by the local air district. Risk
assessments are available by contacting the local air district.
Enforcement. Local air districts also take enforcement action to ensure compliance with
air quality requirements. They enforce air toxic control measures, agricultural and
residential burning programs, gasoline vapor control regulations, laws that prohibit air
pollution nuisances, visible emission limits, and many other requirements designed to
Page D-4
APPENDIX D
clean the air. Local districts use a variety of enforcement tools to ensure compliance.
These include notices of violation, monetary penalties, and abatement orders. Under
some circumstances, a permit may be revoked.
■ Environmental Review
As required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), local air districts also
review and comment on proposed land use plans and development projects that can
have a significant effect on the environment or public health.'
California Air Resources Board
The ARB is the air pollution control agency at the state level that is responsible for the
preparation of air plans required by state and federal law. In this regard, it coordinates
the activities of all local air districts to ensure all statutory requirements are met and to
reduce air pollution emissions for sources under its jurisdiction.
Motor vehicles are the single largest emissions source category under ARB's jurisdiction
as well as the largest overall emissions source statewide. ARB also regulates
emissions from other mobile equipment and engines as well as emissions from
consumer products such as hair sprays, perfumes, cleaners, and aerosol paints.
Air Toxics Program
Under state law, the ARB has a critical role to play in the identification, prioritization, and
control of air toxic emissions. The ARB statewide comprehensive air toxics program
was established in the early 1980's. The Toxic Air Contaminant Identification and
Control Act of 1983 (AB 1807, Tanner 1983) created California's program to reduce
exposure to air toxics.8 The Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Information and Assessment Act
(Hot Spots program) supplements the AB 1807 program, by requiring a statewide air
toxics inventory, notification of people exposed to a signifcant health risk, and facility
plans to reduce these risks.
Under AB 1807, the ARB is required to use certain criteria to prioritize the identification
and control of air toxics. In selecting substances for review, the ARB must consider
criteria relating to emissions, exposure, and health risk, as well as persistence in the
atmosphere, and ambient concentrations in the community. AB 1807 also requires the
ARB to use available information gathered from the Hot Spots program when prioritizing
compounds. �
The ARB identifies pollutants as toxic air contaminants and adopts statewide air toxic
control measures (ATCMs). Once ARB adopts an ATCM, local air districts must
'Section 4 of this Handbook contains more information on the CEQA process.
e For a general background on California's air toxics program, the reader should refer to ARB's website at
htto://wwvo.arb.ca.qov/toxics/tac/apoendxb.htm.
Page D-5
APPENDIX D
implement the measure, or adopt and implement district-specific measures that are at
least as stringent as the state standard. Taken in the aggregate, these ARB programs
will continue to further reduce emissions, exposure, and health risk statewide.
With regard to the land use decision-making process, ARB, in conjunction with local air
districts, plays an advisory role by providing technical information on land use-related air
issues.
Other Agencies
Govemors Office of Planning and Research (OPR)
In addition to serving as the Governor's advisor on land use planning, research, and
liaison with local government, OPR develops and implements the state's policy on land
use planning and coordinates the state's environmental justice programs. OPR updated
its General Plan Guidelines in 2003 to highlight the importance of sustainable
development and environmental justice policies in the planning process. OPR aiso
advises project proponents and government agencies on CEQA provisions and
operates the State Clearinghouse for environmental and federal grant documents.
California Department of Housing and Community Development
The Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) administers a variety
of state laws, programs and policies to preserve and expand housing opportunities,
including the development of affordable housing. All local jurisdictions must update
their housing elements according to a staggered statutory schedule, and are subject to
certification by HCD. In their housing elements, cities and counties are required to
include a land inventory which identifies and zones sites for future residential.
development to accommodate a mix of housing types, and to remove barriers to the
development of housing.
An objective of state housing element law is to increase the overali supply and
affordability of housing. Other fundamental goals include conserving existing affordable
housing, improving the condition of the existing housing stock, removing regulatory
barriers to housing production, expanding equal housing opportunities, and addressing
the special housing needs of the state's most vulnerable residents (frail elderiy,
disabled, large families with children, farmworkers, and the homeless).
Transportation Agencies
Transportation agencies can also influence mobile source-related emissions in the land
use decision-making process. Local transportation agencies work with land use
agencies to develop a transportation (circulation) element for the General Plan. These
local government agencies then work with other transportation-related agencies, such
as the Congestion Management Agency (CMA), Metropolitan Planning Organization
Page D-6
APPENDIX D
(MPO), Regional Transportation Planning Agency (RTPA), and Caltrans to develop long
and short range transpoRation plans and projects.
Caltrans is the agency responsible for setting state transportation goals and for state
transpoRation planning, design, construction, operations and maintenance activities.
Caltrans is also responsible for delivering California's multibillion-dollar state
Transportation Improvement Program, a list of transportation projects that are approved
for funding by the California Transportation Commission in a 4-year cycle.
When safety hazards or traffic circulation problems are identified in the existing road
system, or when land use changes are proposed such as a new residential subdivision,
shopping mall or manufacturing center, Caltrans and/or the local transportation agency
ensure the projects meet applicable state, regional, and local goals and objectives.
Caltrans also evaluates transportation-related projects for regional air quality impacts,
from the perspective of travel-related emissions as well as road congestion and
increases in road capacity (new lanes).
California Energy Commission (CEC)
The CEC is the state's CEQA lead agency for permitting large thermal power plants (50
megawatts or greater). The CEC works closely with local air districts and other federal,
state and local agencies to ensure compliance with applicable laws, ordinances,
regulations and standards in the permitting, construction, operation and closure of such
plants. The CEC uses an open and public review process that provides communities
with outreach and multiple opportunities to participate and be heard. In addition to its
comprehensive environmental impact and engineering design assessment process, the
CEC also conducts an environmental justice evaluation. This evaluation involves an
initial demographic screening to determine if a qualifying minority or low-income
population exists in the vicinity of the proposed project. If such a population is present,
staff considers possible environmental justice impacts including from associated project
emissions in its technical assessments.9
Department of Pesticides Regulation (DPR)
Pesticides are industrial chemicals produced specifically for their toxicity to a target
pest. They must be released into the environment to do their job. Therefore, regulation
of pesticides focuses on using toxicity and other information to ensure that when
pesticides are used according to their label directions: ootential for harm to people and '
the environment is minimized. DPR imposes strict controls on use, beginning before
pesticide products can be sold in California, witli an extensive scientific program to
ensure they can be used safely. DPR and county enforcement staff tracks the use of
pesticides to ensure that pesticides are used properly. DPR collects periodic
9 See California Energy Commission, "Environmental Performance Report," July 2001 at
htt�://www.enerqv.ca.qov/reoorts/2001-11-20 700-01-001.PDF
Page D-7
APPENDIX D
measurements of any remaining amounts of pesticides in water, air, and on fresh
produce. If unsafe levels are found, DPR requires changes in how pesticides are used,
to reduce the possibility of harm. If this cannot be done - that is, if a pesticide cannot be
used safely - use of the pesticide wiil be banned in California.10
Federal Agencies
Federal agencies have permit authority over activities on federal lands and certain
resources, which have been the subject of congressional legislation, such as air, water
quality, wildlife, and navigable waters. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
generally oversees implementation of the federal Clean Air Act, and has broad authority
for regulating certain activities such as mobile sources, air toxics sources, the disposal
of toxic wastes, and the use of pesticides. The responsibility for implementing some
federal regulatory programs such as those for air and water quality and toxics is
delegated by management to specific state and local agencies. Although federal
' agencies are not subject to CEQA they must follow their own environmental process
established under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
10 For more information, the reader is encouraged to visit the DepaRment of Pesticide Regulation web site
at v,�rn.v.cdor.ca.qov/docs/empm/pubs/tacmenu.htm.
Page D-8
APPENDIX E
SPECIAL PROCESSES THAT APPLY TO SCHOOL SITING
The California Education Code and the California Public Resources Code place primary
authority for siting public schools with the local school district, which is the 'lead agency'
for purposes of CEQA. The California Education Code requires public school districts to
notify the local planning agency about siting a new public school or expanding an
existing school. The planning agency then reports back to the school district regarding
a projecYs conformity with the adopted General Plan. However, school districts can
overrule local zoning and land use designations for schools if they follow specified
procedures. In addition, all school districts must evaluate new school sites using site
selection standards established in Section 14010 of Title 5 of the California Code of
Regulations. Districts seeking state funding for school site acquisition must also obtain
site approval from the California Department of Education. .
Before making a final decision on a school site acquisition, a school district must comply
with CEQA and evaluate the proposed site acquisition/new school project for air
emissions and health risks by preparing and certifying an environmental impact report
or negative declaration. Both the California Education Code section 17213 and the
California Public Resources Code section 21151.8 require school districts to consult
with administering agencies and local air districts when preparing the environmental
assessment. Such consultation is required to identify both permitted and non-permitted
"facilities" that might significantly affect health at the new site. These facilities include,
but are not limited to, freeways and other busy traffic corridors, large agricultural
operations, and rail yards that are within one-quarter mile of the proposed school site,
and that might emit hazardous air emissions, or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous
materials, substances, or waste.
As part of the CEQA process and before approving a school site, the school district
must make a finding that either it found none of the facilities or significant air pollution
sources, or alternatively, if the school district fnds that there are such facilities or
sources, it must determine either that they pose no significant health risks, or that
corrective actions by another governmental entity would be taken so that there would be
no actual or potential endangerment to students or school workers.
In addition, if the proposed school site boundary is within 500 feet of the edge of the
closest traffic lane of a freeway or tra�c corridor that has specified minimum average
daily traffc counts, the school district is required to determine through specified risk
assessment and air dispersion modeling that neither short-term nor long term exposure
poses significant heath risks to pupils. �
State law changes effective Ja�uary 1, 2004 (S6352, Escutia 2003, amending
Education Code section 17213 and Public Resources Code section 21151.8) also
provides for cases in which the school district cannot make either of those two findings
and cannot find a suitable alternative site. When this occurs, the school district must
adopt a statement of over-riding considerations, as part of an environmental impact
Page E-1
APPENDIX E
report, that the project should be approved based on the ultimate balancing of the
merits.
Some school districts use a standardized assessment processto determine the
environmental impacts of a proposed schooi site. In the assessment process, school
districts can use maps and other available information to evaluate risk, including a local
air districYs database of permitted source emissions. School districts can also perform
field surveys and record searches to identify and calculate emissions from non-
permitted sources within one-quarter mile radius of a proposed site. Traffic count data
and vehicular emissions data can also be obtained from Caltrans for major roadways
and freeways in proximity to the proposed site to model potential emissions impacts to
students and school employees. This information is available from the local COG,
Caltrans, or local cities and counties for non-state maintained roads.
Page E-2
APPENDIX F
GENERAL PROCESSES USED BY LAND USE AGENCIES
TO ADDRESS AIR POLLUTION IMPACTS
There are several separate but related processes for addressing the air pollution
impacts of land use projects. One takes place as part of the planning and zoning
function. This consists of preparing and implementing goals and policies contained in
county or city General Plans, community or area plans, and specific plans governing
land uses such as residential, educational, commercial, industrial, and recreational
activities. it also includes recommending locations for thoroughfares, parks and other
public improvements.
Land use agencies also have a permitting function that includes performing
environmental reviews and mitigation when projects may pose a significant
environmental impact. They conduct inspections for zoning permits issued, enforce the
zoning regulations and issue violations as necessary, issue zoning certificates of
compliance, and check compliance when approving certificates of occupancy.
Planninq
■ General Plan'
The General Plan is a local government "blueprinY' of existing and future anticipated
land uses for long-term future development. It is composed of the goals, policies, and
general elements upon which land use decisions are based. Because the General Plan
is the foundation for all local planning and development, it is an important tool for
implementing policies and programs beneficial to air quality. Local governments may
choose to adopt a separate air quality element into their General Plan or to integrate air
quality-beneficial objectives, policies, and strategies in other elements of the Plan, such
as the land use, circulation, conservation, and community design elements.
More information on General Plan elements is contained in Appendix D.
■ Community Plans
Community or area plans are terms for plans that focus on a particular region or
community wfthin the overall general plan area. It refines the policies of the general
plan as they apply to a smaller geographic area and is implemented by ordinances and
other discretionary actions, such as zoning.
' In October 2003, OPR revlsed its General Plan Guidelines. An entire chapter is now devoted to a
discussion of how sustainable development and environmental justice goals can be incorporated into the
land use planning process. For further information, the reader is encouraged to obtain a copy of OPR's
General Plan Guidelines, or refer to their website at:
htto:!/www.opr.ca.qovlolanninq/PDFs/General Plan Guidelines 2003.qdf
Page F-1
APPENDIX F
■ Specific Plan
A specific plan is a hybrid that can combine policies with development regulations or
zoning requirements. It is often used to address the development requirements for a
single project such as urban infill or a planned community. As a result, its emphasis is
on concrete standards and development criteria.
■ Zoning
Zoning is the public regulation of the use of land. It involves the adoption of ordinances
that divide a community into various districts or zones. For instance, zoning ordinances
designate what projects and activities can be sited in particular locations. Each zone
designates allowable uses of land within that zone, such as residential, commercial, or
industrial. Zoning ordinances can address building development standards, e.g.,
minimum lot size, maximum building height, minimum building setback, parking,
signage, density, and other allowable uses.
Land Use Permittinq
In addition to the planning and zoning function, land use agencies issue building and
business permits, and evaluate the potential environmental impacts of projects. To be
approved, projects must be located in a designated zone and comply with applicable
ordinances and zoning requirements.
Even if a project is sited properly in a designated zone, a land use agency may require
a new source to mitigate potential localized environmental impacts to the surrounding
_ community below what would be required by the local air district. In this case, the land
use agency could condition the permit by limiting or prescribing allowable uses including
operating hour restrictions, building standards and codes, property setbacks between
the business property and the street or other structures, vehicle idling restrictions, or
traffic diversion.
Land use agencies also evaluate the environmental irnpacts of proposed land use
projects or activities. If a project or activity falls under CEQA, the land use agency
requires an environmental review before issuing a permit to determine if there is the
potentiai for a significant impact, and if so, to mitigate the impact or possibly deny the
project. ,
■ Land Use Pertnitting Process
In California, the authority to regulate land use is delegated to city and county
governments. The local land use planning agency is the local government
administrative body that typically provides information and coordinates the review of
development project applications. Conditional Use Permits (CUP) typically fall within a
land use agency's discretionary authority and therefore are subject to CEQA. CUPs are
Page F-2
APPENDIX F
intended to provide an opportunity to review the location, design, and manner of
development of land uses prior to project approval. A traditional purpose of the CUP is
to enable a municipality to control certain uses that could have detrimental
environmental effects on the
COmmUnity. What is a "Lead Aqencv"?
The fOCeSS fOf ermittin neW A lead agency is the public agency that has
P P 9 the principal responsibility for carrying out or
discretionary projects is quite approving a project that is subject to CE4A.
el2bo�ate, bUt can be bi'Ok2n down In general, the land use agency is the
IntO fiVe fUndam2ntal COmpOnentS: preferred public agency serving as lead
agency because it has jurisdiction over
■ Pf0 2Ct a liCation general land uses. The lead agency is
1 PP responsible for determining the appropriate
■ Environmental assessment environmental document, as well as its
■ Consultation preparation.
■ Pubiic comment
■ Public hearing and decision what is a °°Responsible Aqencv"?
A responsible agency is a public agency with
P�o12Ct AppliCatlon discretionary approval authority over a
poRion of a CEQA project (e.g., projects
The pe�mit prOC2ss begins when the requiring a permit). As a responsible agency,
land use agency receives a project the agency is available to the lead agency
a IiCatiOn, With a detailed r0 eCt and project proponent for early consultation
PP P J on a project to apprise them of applicable
desc�iption, 2nd support rules and regulations, potential adverse
documentation. During this phase, impacts, alternatives, and mitigation
the agency reviews the submitted measures, and provide guidance as needed
application for completeness. When on applicable methodologies or other related
the agency deems the application to issues.
be complete, the perinit process what is a ��commentina aaencv'°?
moves into the environmental review A commenting agency is any public agency
ph858. that corriments on a CEQA document, but is
neither a lead agency nor a responsible
Envifonmental AsseSSm2nt agency. For example, a local air district, as
the agency with the responsibility for
comprehensive air pollution control, could
If the proj2ct is disc�etionary and the review and comment on an air qualiry
application is accepted as complete, analysis in a CEQA document for a proposed
the project proposal or activity must distribution center, even though the project
was not subject to a permit or other pollution
undergo an environmental clearance controi requirements.
process under CEQA and the CEQA
Guidelines adopted by the California
Resources Agency.2 The purpose of the CEQA process is to inform decision-makers
and the public of the potential significant environmental impacts of a project or activity,
to identify measures to minimize or eliminate those impacts to the point they are no
longer significant, and to discuss alternatives that will accomplish the project goals and
objectives in a less environmentally harmful manner.
Z Projects and activities that may have a significant adverse impact on the environment are evaluated
under CEQA Guidelines set forth in title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, sections 15000 et seq.
Page F-3
APPENDIX F
To assist the lead agency in determining whether the project or activity may have a
significant effect that would reqUire the preparation of an EIR, the land use agency may
consider criteria, or thresholds of significance, to assess the potential impacts of the
project, including its air quality impacts. The land use agency must consider any
credible evidence in addition to the thresholds, however, in determining whether the
project or activity may have a significant effect that would trigger the preparation of an
EIR.
The screening criteria to determine significance is based on a variety of factors,
including local, state, and federal regulations, administrative practices of other public
agencies, and commonly accepted professional standards. However, the final
determination of significance for individual projects is the responsibility of the lead
agency. In the case of land use projects, the lead agency would be the City Council or
County Board of Supervisors.
A new land use plan or project can also trigger an environmental assessment under
CEQA if, among other things, it will expose sensitive sites such as schools, day care
centers, hospitals, retirement homes, convalescence facilities, and residences to
substantial pollutant concentrations.3
CEQA only applies to "discretionary projects." Discretionary means the public agency
must exercise judgment and deliberation when deciding to approve or disapprove a
particular project or activity, and may append specific conditions to its approval.
Examples of discretionary projects inciude the issuance of a CUP, re-zoning a property,
or widening of a public road. Projects that are not subject to the exercise of agency
discretion, and can therefore be approved administratively through the application of set
standards are referred to as ministerial projects. CEQA does not apply to ministerial
projects.4 Examples of typicai ministerial projects include the issuance of most building
permits or a business license.
Once a potential environmental impact associated with a project is identified through an
environmental assessment, mitigation must be considered. A land use agency should
incorporate mitigation measures that are suggested by the local air district as part of the
project review process.
Consultation
Application materials are provided to various depa����e�„a and agencies th�t may have
an interest in the project (e.g., air pollution, building, police, fire, water agency, Fish and
Game, etc.) for consultation and input.
' Readers interested in leaming more about CEQA should contact OPR or visit their website at
hif D:lhM+NJ.O p f.C2.q O V/.
° See California Public Resources Code section 21080(b)(1).
Page F-4
APPENDIX F
Public Comment
Following the environmental review process, the Planning Commission reviews
application along with the stafFs report on the project assessment and a public
comment period is set and input is solicited.
Public Hearinq and Decision
Permit rules vary depending on the particular permit authority in question, but the.
process generally involves comparing the proposed project with the land use agency
standards or policies. The procedure usually leads to a public hearing, which is
followed by a written decision by the agency or its designated officer. Typically, a
project is approved, denied, or approved subject to specified conditions.
Page F-5
0
'c.
O.V
C � �
LL � �� y �
N C C
m U = II O . . . . . . . ; � O
O ;._._._._._._._._'_'_"_._.___._._"_._ _ LL D 3 � N � p �
Z 1 G C
m�
W ' � = m
/� 1 � Y =
Y� � N
� �
C � > y
Q N � > V
N.C v D H C O
� 'N y O N OI p O m O
�(n U O N a m N m � v+ O
W � U a m ��2 a� - c o
Q o
U a �u a� � _ ��
� � ' �' '
�ya o'a o
� �� . U`oa � o a � � Hy
d � o ' o m = �
� U ^
O 2� 00] y � O C�
- r.o
W O �d d O ? - �-
� m U
U� U � � �U p, O �=_�
� C v d d E N2 C J - •
W � O C N Oi O U C p N C n_'
� � a a o� a ��U o � � m R
c � `
Z �.^m U N� �
O Z C ^ U � ' ^
C F? Q >
�� U
F� CUn Z o ° c°
U K c o0
Q W VI j p�
�N O N OC 'u
Y� 0 U O C4
O
Q Z 0' N Q � = j n
Z �� x �=
O oU T o= E �
c c aE °�c vi F?o LL
W a °- . a wO c=iE �-� N
D = U �` ry C �
� � � C! N � � O_ � O N � ' Q.
(„� N C 0. O�> N " F = U s G �
N U N @ N� 'O a � N (n N (J � �i.� 'U
O � ��p N � � CC N '� � _ � N
� .CC-' C � � y U W Q _c' y � C'�
c '� p O a Z � O �
C O U O�
' � C
W � N
d U a _ a C T
QE � @ .. _
fA Qc°i c�O.�`o° �a�
� � c � >. nn� � m
i c� a ` � d v � � Q
� � � m o d Q
o � m `� � ^ V � L
� �
� O 9 C N �` O O C 'U` S3 c.Ci
N Q�- T C O Z U G� C N O
� <0 U
l:.'- t0 = �
U C '1'- �- C � U CS � .
om � 3H�m �� 3 Q. �
� _ y `o � . �
= n'c � t � d'> >.� U �
'3c .°-o`o@ ad'um " �
i
- _ o= a�, d R { .
yL�� ._�.� � � a ,
oin � � Q- o � V � �
a d
U D W N � O O. V d •� �
= C � �
2 U C � !
1 a O � a !
� � !
UI � U 'C -- 1
• ! o aa �
� �----------------------------------- a` m y -
N
�
L
'a
APPENDIX G
GLOSSARY OF KEY AIR POLLUTION TERMS
Air Pollution Control Board or Air Quality Management Board: Serves as the
governing board for local air districts. It consists of appointed or elected members from
the public or private sector. It conducts public hearings to adopt local air pollution
regulations.
Air Poilution Control Districts or Air Quality Management Districts (local air
district): A county or regional agency with authority to regulate stationary and area
sources of air pollution within a given county or region. Governed by a district air
pollution control board.
Air Pollution Control Officer (APCO): Head of a local air pollution control or air
quality management district.
Air Toxic Control Measures (ATCM): A control measure adopted by the ARB (Health
and Safety Code section 39666 et seq.), which reduces emissions of toxic air
contaminants.
Ambient Air Quality Standards: An air quality standard defines the maximum amount
of a pollutant that can be present in the outdoor air during a specific time period without
harming the public's health. Only U.S. EPA and the ARB may establish air quality
standards. No other state has this authority. Air quality standards are a measure of
clean air. More specifically, an air quality standard establishes the concentration at
which a pollutant is known to cause adverse health effects to sensitive groups within the
population, such as children and the elderly. Federal standards are referred to as
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS); state st8ndards are referred to as
California ambient air quality standards (CAAQS).
Area-wide Sources: Sources of air pollution that individually emit small amounts of
pollution, but together add up to significant quantities of pollution. Examples include
consumer products, fireplaces, road dust, and farming operations.
Attainment vs. Nonattainment Area: An attainment area is a geographic area that
meets the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for the criteria pollutants and a non-
attainment area is a geographic area that doesn't meet the NAAQS for criteria
pollutants. �
Attainment Plan: Attainment plans lay out measures and strategies to attain one.or
more air quality standards by a specified date.
California Clean Air Act (CCAA): A California law passed in 1988, which provides the
basis for air quality planning and regulation independent of federal regulations. A major
element of the Act is the requirement that local air districts in violation of the CAAQS
Page G-1
APPENDIX G
must prepare attainment plans which identify air quality problems, causes, trends, and
actions to be taken to attain and maintain California's air quality standards by the
earliest practicable date. '
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA): A California law that sets forth a
process for pubiic agencies to make informed decisions on discretionary project
approvals. The process helps decision-makers determine whether any potential,
significant, adverse environmental impacts are associated with a proposed project and
to identify alternatives and mitigation measures that will eliminate or reduce such
adverse impacts.'
California Health and Safety Code: A compilation of California laws, including state
air pollution laws, enacted by the Legislature to protect the health and safety of people
in California. Government agencies adopt regulations to implement specific provisions
of the California Health and Safery Code.
Clean Air Act (CAA): The federal Ciean Air Act was adopted by the United States
Congress and sets forth standards, procedures, and requirements to be implemented
by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) to protect air quality in the
United States.
Councils of Government (COGs): There are 25 COGs in California made up of city
and county elected officials. COGs are regional agencies concemed primarily with
transportation planning and housing; they do not directly regulate land use.
Criteria Air Pollutant: An air pollutant for which acceptable levels of exposure can be
determined and for which an ambient air quality standard has been set. Examples
include ozone, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, and PM10 and PM2.5. .
The term "criteria air pollutants" derives from the requirement that the U.S. EPA and
ARB must describe the characteristics and potential health and welfare effects of these
poilutants. The U.S. EPA and ARB periodically review new scientific data and may
propose revisions to the standards as a result.
District Hearing Board: Hears local air district permit appeals and issues variances
and abatement orders. The local air district board appoints the members of the hearing
board.
Emission Inventory: An estimate of the amount of pollutants emitted into the ,
atmosphere from mobile, stationary: area-wide, ar�d ��atural source categories over a
specific period of time such as a day or a year. .
Environmentai impact Report (EIR): The public document used by a governmental
agency to analyze the significant environmental effects of a proposed project, to identify
' To track the submittai of CEQA documents to the State Clearinghouse within the Office of Planning and
Research, the reader can refer to CEQAnet at htto:!/www.ceaanet.ca.aov.
Page G-2
APPENDIX G
alternatives, and to disclose possible ways to reduce or avoid the possible negative
environmental impacts.
Environmental Justice: California law defines environmental justice as the fair
treatment of people of people of all races, cultures, and incomes with respect to the
development, adoption, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws,
regulations; and policies (California Government Code sec.65040.12(c)).
General Plans: A statement of policies developed by local governments, including text
and diagrams setting forth objectives, principles, standards, and plsn proposals for the
future physical development of the city or county.
Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs): An air pollutant listed under section 112 (b) of the
federal Clean Air Act as paRicularly hazardous to health. U.S. EPA identifies emission
sources of hazardous air pollutants, and emission standards are set accordingly. In
California, HAPs are referred to as toxic air contaminants.
Land Use Agency: Local government agency that performs functions associated with
the review, approval, and enforcement of general plans and plan elements, zoning, and
land use permitting. For purposes of this Handbook, a land use agency is typically a
local planning department. �
Mobile Source: Sources of air pollution such as automoblles, motorcycles, trucks, off-
road vehicles, boats, and airplanes.
National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS): A limit on the level of an outdoor
air pollutant established by the US EPA pursuant to the Clean Air Act. There are two
types of NAAQS. Primary standards set limits to protect public health and secondary
standards set limits to protect public welfare.
Negative Declaration (ND): When the lead agency (the agency responsible for
preparing the EIR or ND) under CEQA, finds that there is no substantial evidence that a
project may have a significant environmental effect, the agency will prepare a "negative
declaration" instead of an EIR.
New Source Review (NSR): A federal Clean Air Act requirement that state
implementation plans must include a permit review process, which applies to the
construction and operation of new or modified stationary sources in nonattainment
areas. Two major elements of NSR to reduce emissio.^.s are best availab!e control
technology requirements and emission offsets. .
Office of Planning and Research (OPR): OPR is part of the Governor's o�ce. OPR
has a variety of functions related to local land-use planning and environmental
programs. It provides General Plan Guidelines for city and county planners, and
coordinates the state clearinghouse for Environmental Impact RepoRs.
Page G-3
APPENDIX G
Ordinance: A law adopted by a City Council or Counry Board of Supervisors.
Ordinances usually amend, repeal or supplement the municipal code; provide zoning
specifications; or appropriate money for specific purposes.
Overriding Considerations: A ruling made by the lead agency in the CEQA process
when the lead agency finds the importance of the project to the community outweighs
potentiai adverse environmental impacts.
Public Comment: An opportunity for the general public to comment on regulations and
other proposals made by government agencies. You can submit written or oral
comments at the public meeting or send your written comments to the agency.
Public Hearing: A public hearing is an opportunity to testify on a proposed action by a
governing board at a public meeting. The public and the media are welcome to attend
the hearing and listen to, or paRicipate in, the proceedings.
Public Notice: A public notice identifies the person, business, or local government
seeking approval of a specific course of action (such as a regulation). It describes the
activity for which approval is being sought, and describes the location where the
proposed activity or public meeting will take place.
Public Nuisance: A public nuisance, for the purposes of air pollution regulations, is
defined as a discharge from any source whatsoever of such quantities of air
contaminants or other material which cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to .
any considerable number of persons or to the public, or which endanger the comfort,
repose, health, or safety of any such persons or the pubiic, or which cause, or have a
natural tendency to cause, injury or damage to business or property. (Health and
Safety Code section 41700).
Property Setback: In zoning parlance, a setback is the minimum amount of space
required between a lot line and a building line. -
Risk: For cancer health effects, risk is expressed as an estimate of the increased
chances of getting cancer due to facility emissions over a 70-year lifetime. This increase
in risk is expressed as chances in a million (e.g.,10 chances in a million).
Sensitive individuals: Refers to those segments of the population most susceptible to
poor air quality (i.e., children, the elderly, and those with pre-existing serious health ,
problems affected by air quality).
Sensitive Sites or Sensitive Land Uses: Land uses where sensitive individuals are
most likely to spend time, including schools and schoolyards, parks and playgrounds,
day care centers, nursing homes, hospitals, and residential communities.
Setback: An area of land separating one parcel of land from another that acts to soften
or mitigate the effects of one land use on the other.
Page G1}
APPENDIX G
State Implementation Plan (SIP): A plan prepared by state and local agencies and
submitted to U.S. EPA describing how each area will attain and maintain national
ambient air quality standards. SIPs include the technical information about emission
inventories, air quality monitoring, control measures and strategies, and enforcement
mechanisms. A SIP is composed of local air quality management plans and state air
quality regulations.
Stationary Sources: Non-mobile sources such as power plants, refneries, and
manufacturing facilities:
Toxic Air Contaminant (TAC): An air pollutant, identified in regulation by the ARB,
which may cause or contribute to an increase in deaths or in serious illness, or which
may pose a present or potential hazard to human health. TACs are considered under a
different regulatory process (California Health and Safety Code section 39650 et seq.)
than pollutants subject to State Ambient Air Quality Standards. Health effects
associated with TACs may occur at extremely low levels. It is often difficult to identify
safe levels of exposure, which produce no adverse health effects.
Urban Background: The term is used in this Handbook to represent the ubiquitous,
elevated, regional air pollution levels observed in large urban areas in California.
Zoning ordinances: City councils and county boards of supervisors adopts zoning
ordinances that set forth land use classifications, divides the county or city into land use
zones as delineated on the official zoning, maps, and set enforceable standards for
future develop
Page G-5