Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Public Comment 5.2 Soluri Meserve
February 27, 2024 SENT VIA EMAIL (vtarka@chulavistaca.gov) City of Chula Vista Development Services Department Attention: Valeria Tarka 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, California 91910 RE: February 28, 2024, Planning Commission Hearing re: Agenda Item No. 5.2 [Project No. DR23-0019] Dear Members of the Planning Commission and Ms. Tarka: This letter is submitted on behalf of Service Employees International Union – United Healthcare Workers West (“SEIU-UHW West”) regarding the Chula Vista Center Medical Office Project, project number DR23-0019 (Project”). As explained more fully below, the City’s reliance on a nearly 20-year-old Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) results in informational deficiencies that violate the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”). At minimum, a mitigated negative declaration (“MND”) or supplemental EIR appears to be required for the Project. The City’s CEQA compliance strategy for the Project is to prepare a consistency evaluation (“Evaluation”) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines sections 15162 and 15168, subdivision (c). However, the Project would result in environmental and human health impacts that were not examined in the earlier program EIR for the Urban Core Specific Plan (“PEIR”). Further, supplemental review is triggered in accordance with CEQA Guidelines section 15162. A few representative examples include, but are not limited to, the following. Construction Noise The Evaluation recognizes that single-family dwellings are located immediately southeast of the Project site. As a result of this extreme proximity, the Evaluation recognizes the construction noise “has the potential to reach 84 dBA Leq at the nearest sensitive receptors during grading.” City of Chula Vista February 27, 2024 Page 2 of 7 Recent case law clarifies an agency’s duty under CEQA to correlate emissions to health impacts applies to noise. (Sierra Watch v. County of Placer (2021) 69 Cal.App.5th 86, 107-108.) Several studies describe numerous health impacts from exposure to noise. In an evaluation of children, the World Health Organization notes that indirect effects include impacts to stress hormones, blood pressure, muscle spasms, annoyance, sleep disturbance, mental health, ability to read and concentrate, and trouble with memory and attention. (See World Health Organization, Children and Noise: Children’s Health and the Environment (2009) [“Children and Noise”], attached as Exhibit 1, pdf p. 23.) The study also found that exposure to noise levels greater than 70 dBA causes “increases in vasoconstriction, heart rate and blood pressure.” (Children and Noise, pdf p. 24.) A different study found that “noise levels measured in this study are of sufficient intensity to be injurious. For example, a 5-dB(A) increase in noise level between 45 and 65 dB(A) has been associated with 38% increased odds for hypertension even after control for several well-known risk factors.” (See King et al., The New York Academy of Medicine, Noise Levels Associated with Urban Land Use (2012), attached as Exhibit 2, p. 1028.) Even short-term exposure to construction noise at levels as low as 55 dB can have negative cardiovascular impacts. (See M. Mir et al. Construction noise effects on human health: evidence from physiological measures. Sustainable Cities and Society 2023, 91, 104470, attached as Exhibit 3.) Another study indicates that noise levels from 64 –75 dB increase the likelihood of cognitive impairment in children by 50 percent and also cause a 1.36 percent chance of myocardial infarction in people 60 – 64 years old. (See J. Xiao et al. DALY-Based Health Risk Assessment of Construction Noise in Beijing, China. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2016, 13, 1045, attached as Exhibit 4.) The Evaluation discloses that the Project’s construction noise would be well above the level resulting in human health effects. This potentially significant environmental and human health impact to residents needs to be addressed.1 The Evaluation instead attempts to dismiss the impact by asserting, “Construction noise is a short-term noise impact and is exempt from noise control by the City’s Municipal Code section 19.68.060(c)(2).” There are two flaws with this analysis. First, the Evaluation fails to define “short-term” versus “long-term” noise that would warrant dismissive treatment. In any event, the above-cites reports demonstrate that health risks from construction noise can occur over “short-term” exposure. Second, the Evaluation’s reliance on the absence of any City-based standard does not excuse the agency from evaluating the potential CEQA impact. “[I]n preparing an EIR, the agency must consider and resolve every fair argument that can be made about the possible significant 1 Neither the PEIR (pp. 5-196 – 210) nor its mitigation measures (5.9-1 -4) address construction noise, much less correlate predicted construction noise levels to human health impacts. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15168, subd. (c)(1).) City of Chula Vista February 27, 2024 Page 3 of 7 environmental effects of a project.” (Protect the Historic Amador Waterways v. Amador Water Agency (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 1099, 1109 (Amador Waterways).) This is particularly true where, as here, the significance standard is linked to human health impacts. (Sierra Club v. County of Fresno (2018) 6 Cal.5th 502, 516 (Sierra Club); CEQA Guidelines, § 15126.2, subd. (a) [CEQA requires an EIR to “identify and focus on the significant environmental effects of the proposed project . . . examin[ing] changes in the existing physical condition in the affected area,” including “health and safety problems caused by the physical changes”].) That the City declines to regulate construction noise does not excuse its failure to analyze the potential human health impacts under CEQA where, as here, substantial evidence supports a fair argument of such impacts. Toxic Air Contaminants Both construction and operation of the Project may result in toxic air contaminant (“TAC”) emissions and human health impacts to nearby residents. Both the Evaluation and the PEIR ignore this potentially significant impact. Here, the Project would result in both construction and operational TAC emissions. Construction emissions would result from diesel-powered construction equipment. Operational emissions would result from diesel-powered trucks, diesel- powered generators and other engines onsite, and potential medical waste incinerators.2 The San Diego County Air Pollution Control District recommends analyzing these issues pursuant to CEQA (“Air District”). (Exhibit 5, available at https://www.sdapcd.org/ content/sdapcd/planning/ceqa.html.) The Air District recommends agencies apply the County’s CEQA thresholds of significance for TAC emissions, which provide in relevant part: The following Guidelines for Determining Significance must be used for determining whether or not the project will expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations: • Project implementation will result in exposure to TACs resulting in a maximum incremental cancer risk greater than 1 in 1 million without application of Toxics-Best Available Control Technology or a health hazard index greater than one would be deemed as having a potentially significant impact. (See Exhibit 6 [emphasis added], p. 25.) 2 The Evaluation fails to explain whether the Project will result in incineration of medical waste or other fume hoods that generate significant TAC emissions. City of Chula Vista February 27, 2024 Page 4 of 7 As with the PEIR, the Evaluation simply ignores whether construction or operation of the Project would result in potentially significant human health impacts resulting from TAC emissions. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15168, subd. (c)(1) [“later activity would have effects that were not examined in the program EIR”].) The City’s revised CEQA document will need to include a full TAC analysis as required by Sierra Club in order to understand and disclose the nature and extent of these impacts on neighbors. We caution against attempts to sidestep the City’s duty of full disclosure. The City cannot rely on the fact that the Air District has not formally adopted its own CEQA significance threshold as an excuse to avoid analyzing mobile source TAC emissions and health impacts. “[A] threshold of significance cannot be applied in a way that would foreclose the consideration of other substantial evidence tending to show the environmental effect to which the threshold relates might be significant.” (See Amador Waterways, supra, 116 Cal.App.4th at 1109.) Similarly, a lead agency has a duty to inform itself about available methodologies for assessing an impact. (Berkeley Keep Jets Over the Bay Comm. v. Board of Port Comm’rs (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 1344, 1367.) For example, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District has adopted CEQA Guidelines setting for both significance thresholds and analytical methodologies for analyzing construction and operational TAC emissions on both the project and cumulative level.3 Inadequate Sewer Capacity The Project would result in impacts regarding the provision of wastewater treatment that were not evaluated in the PEIR. Specifically, the PEIR acknowledged that additional sewer treatment capacity was necessary but had not yet been secured. This is precisely why PEIR mitigation measure 5.12.2-1 required, “Prior to the approval of subsequent individual development projects, project plans shall demonstrate that there is sufficient wastewater capacity available to serve the proposed project.” Incredibly, the Evaluation fails to plainly state that the additional capacity has been secured. The Evaluation’s evasion on this critical point strongly suggests that the additional capacity has not been secured. Thus, the PEIR fails to analyze the situation presented here, namely where an “individual development project[]” fails to demonstrate adequate treatment capacity. The Evaluation also recognizes that existing sewer infrastructure is inadequate, explaining that an upgrade to 1,428 linear feet of sewer line is required as part of the Project. The Evaluation, however, fails to analyze the potentially significant impacts 3 Available at https://www.baaqmd.gov/plans-and-climate/california-environmental- quality-act-ceqa/updated-ceqa-guidelines City of Chula Vista February 27, 2024 Page 5 of 7 associated with this component of the Project. (Santiago County Water District v. County of Orange (1981) 11 Cal.App.3d 818.) Inadequate Analysis of Cumulative Impacts As explained above, the Project would result in potentially significant impacts to adjacent residents resulting from construction noise and TAC emissions. Additionally, the Evaluation discloses a “future multi-family residential [development] to the south,” but fails to provide any information about this Project that would inform a meaningful cumulative impact analysis. Will construction overlap? If so, for how long? Overlapping construction would result in increased TAC and noise emissions. If the construction does not overlap, what will be the total length of construction activities? This information is necessary because the Evaluation dismisses construction noise impacts as “short-term.” In short, these two projects (and perhaps other undisclosed cumulative projects) have the potential to result in significant cumulative impacts to adjacent neighbors even for highly-localized impacts such as PM2.5, PM10, TAC and noise emissions as well as sewer capacity. These are just examples of the various resources areas that may result in cumulatively considerable impacts. The Evaluation fails to meaningfully identify cumulative projects, much less analyze the resulting potentially significant cumulative impacts. The City has Correctly Abandoned Reliance on Unsupported and Inapplicable Alternative CEQA Compliance Strategies The City’s public hearing notice for the Project purports to identify three alternative CEQA compliance strategies in addition to the procedure addressed above. The City appears to have abandoned these alternative strategies since they are not at all addressed, much less supported, by the City’s staff report or draft City resolution approving the Project. The City’s decision to abandon these alternative CEQA strategies is correct. First, the City has failed to support these strategies with adequate findings supported by facts. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15091, subd. (a); Rio Vista Farm Bureau Center v. County of Solano (1992) 5 Cal.App.4th 351, 373.) Indeed, the City’s public hearing notice does not describe with adequate specificity the “previously approved 2023 Addendum” identified as alternative strategy (2) in the hearing notice. With respect to alternative (3), the Project’s staff report does not attach, publicly disclose, or make any reference to the “proposed 2024 Addendum” mentioned in the hearing notice, which appears to not have been prepared for the Project. City of Chula Vista February 27, 2024 Page 6 of 7 With respect to the proposed CEQA compliance alternative (4), reliance on the “in-fill development” categorical exemption, neither the staff report nor draft Resolution made adequate factual findings supporting such reliance. This is unsurprising since the exemption is inapplicable here. The above analysis demonstrates that the Project may result in potentially significant impacts related to noise and air emissions. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15332, subd. (d).) These significant impacts result from the Project’s unusual proximity to residential dwellings, which constitutes an unusual circumstance. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15300.2, subd. (c).) Finally, the Evaluation acknowledges that the Project is not adequately served by wastewater treatment and sewer infrastructure. (Pub. Resources Code, § 1532, subd. (e).) * * * In conclusion, the City’s reliance on a nearly 20-year-old PEIR predictably fails to provide information required by CEQA. The Project will result in effects in a variety of resource areas that have not been examined in the PEIR. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15168, subd. (c)(1).) Further, new information as well as changes in surrounding circumstances require an updated CEQA analysis. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15162, subdivision (a).) We urge the Planning Commission to refer the Project back to staff in order to prepare an updated CEQA analysis. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Very truly yours, SOLURI MESERVE A Law Corporation By: Patrick M. Soluri Attachments: Exhibit 1 World Health Organization, Children and Noise: Children’s Health and the Environment (2009) Exhibit 2 King et al. Noise Levels Associated with Urban Land Use. J Urban Health (2012), 89, 6 Exhibit 3 M. Mir et al. Construction noise effects on human health: evidence from physiological measures. Sustainable Cities and Society 2023, 91, 104470 City of Chula Vista February 27, 2024 Page 7 of 7 Exhibit 4 J. Xiao et al. DALY-Based Health Risk Assessment of Construction Noise in Beijing, China. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2016, 13, 1045 Exhibit 5 San Diego County Air Pollution Control District’s CEQA Guidelines Exhibit 6 March 2007, County of San Diego’s Guidelines for Determining Significance and Report Format and Content Requirements for Air Quality cc (via email): Planning Commission Staff Contacts Laura Black, Director, lblack@chulavistaca.gov Todd Philips, Planning Manager, tphilips@chulavistaca.gov EXHIBIT 1 1 TRAINING FOR HEALTH CARE PROVIDERSTRAINING FOR HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS [Date [Date ……Place Place ……EventEvent……SponsorSponsor……Organizer]Organizer] CHILDREN AND NOISECHILDREN AND NOISE Children's Health and the Environment WHO Training Package for the Health Sector World Health Organization www.who.int/ceh <<NOTE TO USER: Please add details of the date, time, place and<<NOTE TO USER: Please add details of the date, time, place and<<NOTE TO USER: Please add details of the date, time, place and<<NOTE TO USER: Please add details of the date, time, place and sponsorship of the meeting for which you sponsorship of the meeting for which you sponsorship of the meeting for which you sponsorship of the meeting for which you are using this presentation in the space indicated.>>are using this presentation in the space indicated.>>are using this presentation in the space indicated.>>are using this presentation in the space indicated.>> This presentation on Children and Noise is part of a comprehensive set of training materials for health care providers on children, the environment and health. <<NOTE TO USER: This is a large set of slides from which the pr<<NOTE TO USER: This is a large set of slides from which the pr<<NOTE TO USER: This is a large set of slides from which the pr<<NOTE TO USER: This is a large set of slides from which the presenter should select the most relevant ones esenter should select the most relevant ones esenter should select the most relevant ones esenter should select the most relevant ones to use in a specific presentation. These slides cover many facetto use in a specific presentation. These slides cover many facetto use in a specific presentation. These slides cover many facetto use in a specific presentation. These slides cover many facets of the problem. Present only those slides that s of the problem. Present only those slides that s of the problem. Present only those slides that s of the problem. Present only those slides that apply most directly to the local situation in the region. It is apply most directly to the local situation in the region. It is apply most directly to the local situation in the region. It is apply most directly to the local situation in the region. It is also very useful if you present regional/local examples also very useful if you present regional/local examples also very useful if you present regional/local examples also very useful if you present regional/local examples of noise prevention programs, if available, and choose local relof noise prevention programs, if available, and choose local relof noise prevention programs, if available, and choose local relof noise prevention programs, if available, and choose local relevant pictures.>>evant pictures.>>evant pictures.>>evant pictures.>> Children and noise Children and noise 2 1.1.IntroductionIntroduction 2.2.Vulnerability of childrenVulnerability of children 3.3.Adverse health effectsAdverse health effects 4.4.Effects by ageEffects by age--group group 5.5.Taking actionTaking action 6.6.DiscussionDiscussion CONTENTSCONTENTS Children and noise Children and noise 3 To understand, recognize and know 1. Definition and characteristics of sound and noise 2. Sources and settings of noise exposure 3. Adverse effects of noise exposure -On physical health -On psychological health -On cognition 4.Weight of the evidence of the harm to children –Special vulnerability of children –Various noise exposure scenarios in settings where children develop 5. Interventions and preventive strategies LEARNING OBJECTIVESLEARNING OBJECTIVES These are the learning objectives for this module. After the presentation, the audience should understand, recognize and know <<READ SLIDE>><<READ SLIDE>><<READ SLIDE>><<READ SLIDE>> Children and noise Children and noise 4 1.Introduction 2. Vulnerability of children 3. Adverse health effects 4. Effects by age-group 5. Taking action 6. Discussion CONTENTS CONTENTS Children and noise Children and noise 5 DEFINITION: SOUND AND NOISEDEFINITION: SOUND AND NOISE Sound is characterized by: Vibration •Frequency (Hz) •Intensity (Pa or dB) •Decibel scale logarithmic •Begins at threshold of hearing Periodicity Duration “Noise is an unwanted or objectionable sound” NASA What is sound?What is sound?What is sound?What is sound?Sound is a mechanic vibration propagated by elastic media (as air and water) which alters the pressure displacing the particles, and can be recognized by a person or an instrument. Vibration and noise can never be separated but vibration can exist without audible noise. Sound is characterized by its intrinsic characteristics: •Vibration: Vibration: Vibration: Vibration: Sound is a mechanic vibration, expressed as a combination of pressure (Pascals, Pa) and frequency (Hertz, Hz) •FrequencyFrequencyFrequencyFrequency or pitch is the number of cycles per second (Hertz, Hz or kilo Hertz, KHz). •Intensity Intensity Intensity Intensity or loudness is the “level of sonorous pressure” and is measured in Pascals (Pa) or decibels (dB). The audible spectrum of the human ear is between 0.00002 Pa (corresponds to 0 dB) and 20 Pa (corresponds to 120 dB). The intensity of human speech is approximately 50 dB. Decibels are used for convenience to express sound on a compressed, logarithmic scale in the human audible spectrum. •Periodicity: Periodicity: Periodicity: Periodicity: describes the pattern of repetition of a sound within a period of time: short sounds that are repeated. •DurationDurationDurationDuration: is the acoustic sense developed by the continuity of a sound in a period of time, for example music, voice or machinery. What is noise? What is noise? What is noise? What is noise? Noise is an unwanted or objectionable sound. Generally, the acoustic signals that produce a pleasant sense (music, bells) are recognized as “sound” and the unpleasant sounds as “noise” (for example: produced by a machine or airplane). It can be a pollutant and environmental stressor, and the meaning of sound is important in determining reaction of different individuals to the same sound. One person’s music is another’s noise. The human ear is an instrument that detects vibration within a set range of frequencies. Air, liquid or solid propagates vibration; without them, sound does not exist. Sound does not exist in the vacuum. The higher the level of pressure of the sonorous wave, the shorter the period of time needed to be perceived by the ear. Why are not all vibrations audible?Why are not all vibrations audible?Why are not all vibrations audible?Why are not all vibrations audible? The ear is a frequency analyzer. The eardrum separates tone and conduction in two different ways: by the nervous system and by the bones. The nervous system connects the cochlea to the temporal region of both hemispheres of the brain. The cochlea perceives vibration transmitted directly from the bones of the head. Picture: •NASA Children and noise Children and noise Frequency (KHz) 6 THRESHOLDS OF HUMAN HEARINGTHRESHOLDS OF HUMAN HEARING Sound level (dB)EPA Why is noise sometimes inaudible?Why is noise sometimes inaudible?Why is noise sometimes inaudible?Why is noise sometimes inaudible? Threshold of hearing is defined as the minimum efficient sonorous pressure (Pa or dB) that can be heard without background noise of a pure tone at a specific frequency (Hz or KHz, cycles per second). The human audible frequency range is from 20 to 20.000 Hertz (Hz). Frequencies out of this range are not detected by the human ear. The ear is not equally sensitive to all the frequencies.* The most audible frequencies are between 2000 and 3000 Hz (range within which the least pressure is needed to provoke the conscious recognition of a sound). This range can be easily identified where the curve is at its minimum and corresponds to human speaking frequencies. For this reason, sound meters are usually fitted with a filter whose response to frequency is a bit like that of the human ear. The most widely used sound level filter is the A scale, which roughly corresponds to the inverse of the 40 dB (at 1 kHz) equal-loudness curve. Using this filter, the sound level meter is thus less sensitive to very high and very low frequencies. Measurements made on this scale are expressed as dBAdBAdBAdBA. The "normal threshold" of hearing is defined in The "normal threshold" of hearing is defined in The "normal threshold" of hearing is defined in The "normal threshold" of hearing is defined in ““““young people with a healthy auditory systemyoung people with a healthy auditory systemyoung people with a healthy auditory systemyoung people with a healthy auditory system””””. . . . The ““““pain thresholdpain thresholdpain thresholdpain threshold””””is the high level (high dB) audible sound where the level of pressure of the sound produces discomfort or pain. The pressures of the sounds are over the curve: “ultrasounds”. Very powerful levels of sound can be perceived by the human ear but cause discomfort and pain. *Pressures below the audible level are called “infra-sounds”: the pressure is detected but our hearing mechanism is not adapted to making the sound evident to the human ear (under the curve in the graphic). These frequencies (less than 20 Hz, not audible for the human ear) can be produced by machines or “ultrasonic" motors of planes. Out of the limits of the human threshold of hearing exists sound that can be perceived by special equipment or animals such as dolphins and bats that are equipped to perceive sound that humans can not perceive. The human being hears a very short portion of the existing sounds, the very weak and the ones above and below of the thresholds are not perceived or they are accompanied by pain, and can produce damage to a system and can produce damage to a system and can produce damage to a system and can produce damage to a system that is not prepared to perceive them as the person may not be athat is not prepared to perceive them as the person may not be athat is not prepared to perceive them as the person may not be athat is not prepared to perceive them as the person may not be able to protect her/himself from this deleterious exposureble to protect her/himself from this deleterious exposureble to protect her/himself from this deleterious exposureble to protect her/himself from this deleterious exposure. There is individual variation within these general parameters. Reference: •Noise effects handbook, National Association of Noise Control Officials. Office of the Scientific Assistant, Office of Noise Abatement and Control, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1979, revised 1981 (www.nonoise.org/library/handbook/handbook.htm). Picture: •EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency) Children and noise Children and noise 7 MAGNITUDE AND EFFECTS OF SOUNDMAGNITUDE AND EFFECTS OF SOUND COMMON EXAMPLE dBA EFFECT Breathing 0-10 Hearing threshold Conversation at home 50 Quiet Freeway traffic (15 m), vacuum cleaner, noisy party 70 Annoying, intrusive, interferes with phone use Average factory, train (at 15 m) 80 Possible hearing damage Jet take-off (at 305 m), motorcycle 100 Damage if over 1 minute Thunderclap, textile loom, chain saw, siren, rock concert 120 Human pain threshold Toy cap pistol, Jet takeoff (at 25 m), firecracker 150 Eardrum rupture This abbreviated table correlates common sounds with effects on hearing. Additional examples for discussion are listed below: -Quiet suburb or quiet conversation 50 dB A No significant effect -Conversation in a busy place, background music or traffic 60 dB A Intrusive -Freeway traffic at 15 metres 70 dB A Annoying -Average factory, train at 15 metres 80 dB A Possible hearing damage -Busy urban street, diesel truck 90 dB A Chronic hearing damage if exposure over 8 hours -Subway noise 90 dB A Chronic hearing damage, speech interfering -Jet take-off 300 metres 100 dB A More severe than above -Stereo held close ear 110 dB A More severe than above -Live rock music, jet take off 160 mts 120 dB A As above, human pain threshold -Earphones at loud level 130 dB A More severe than above -Toy cap pistol, firecracker close ear 150 dB A Acute damage (eardrum rupture) dBAdBAdBAdBA weighting curve: response of a filter that is applied to sound level meters to mimic (roughly) the response of human hearing. So a typical human equal loudness curve is somewhat similar to the dBA curve, but inverted. Reference: •Children's health and the environment: A review of evidence. Tamburlini G et al., eds.EEA-WHO, 2002 (www.eea.europa.eu/publications/environmental_issue_report_2002_29) Children and noise Children and noise 8 SOURCES OF NOISESOURCES OF NOISE Outdoor sources Transport •Aircraft •Road •Rail Occupational •Machinery Neighbours •Machinery •Loud music Indoor sources Ambient noise outside Building design and location Room acoustics Activities of occupants •Children Common sources of outdoor noise arise from transportation (aircraft, car and truck traffic, and trains), occupations (construction machinery, assembly lines), and even from neighbours (yard equipment, loud music). Indoor noise is affected by outdoor noise, and indoor sources such as TV, radio, music and children at play. The level is modified by building design and location as well as room acoustics. Children and noise Children and noise 9 Hypothesized lifestyle noise exposure patterns SETTINGS OF NOISE EXPOSURE: SETTINGS OF NOISE EXPOSURE: ““NOISENOISE--SCAPESCAPE”” EPA Sleep Eat, Relax, Watch TVSleepEat, Dress Noon MidnightMidnight HOUR OF DAY The concept of a “noise-scape” can be useful in thinking about noise exposures. That is, obvious loud noises are imposed upon a background of noises that will vary according to general location (urban vs. rural), time of day (day vs. night) and activity (school vs. play). This image is a schematic representation which illustrates these different aspects of the “noise-scape”. Reference: •Noise effects handbook, National Association of Noise Control Officials. Office of the Scientific Assistant, Office of Noise Abatement and Control, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1979, revised 1981 (www.nonoise.org/library/handbook/handbook.htm). Picture: •EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency) Children and noise Children and noise NOISE EXPOSURE IN EUNOISE EXPOSURE IN EU 40% of population exposed to Leq > 55 dBA during the day 20% of population exposed to Leq > 65 dBA during the day 30% of population exposed to Lmax > 55 dBA during the night Hazard is increasing 10 Leq: average sound level over the period of the measurement, usually measured A-weighted Lmax: maximum A-weighted noise level dBA weighting curve: response of a filter that is applied to sound level meters to mimic (roughly) the response of human hearing. So a typical human equal loudness curve is somewhat similar to the dBA curve, but inverted. Reference: •Berglund B et al., eds. Guidelines for Community Noise. Geneva, WHO, 1999. Children and noise Children and noise 11 NOISE CONTAMINATIONNOISE CONTAMINATION Noise exceeding safety threshold is widespread: •In neighbourhoods •Schools, hospitals and care centres •Urban and suburban areas •Activities inside the buildings (elevators, water tubs, music in discotheque) •From children themselves (toys, equipment, children playing or practicing sports in a close yard) •Traffic: heavy road, railways, highways, subways, airports •Industrial activities •Building and road construction, renovation Increased environmental noise levels - more noise sources Also linked to population growth Noise contamination or noise pollution is a concept which implies harmful levels of excess noise. Noise intense enough to cause harm is widely spread. <<READ SLIDE>><<READ SLIDE>><<READ SLIDE>><<READ SLIDE>> Children and noise Children and noise 12 1. Introduction 2.Vulnerability of children 3. Adverse health effects 4. Effects by age-group 5. Taking action 6. Discussion CONTENTS CONTENTS Children and noise Children and noise 13 VULNERABLE GROUPS OF CHILDRENVULNERABLE GROUPS OF CHILDREN The fetus and babies Preterm, low birth weight and small for gestational age babies Children with dyslexia and hyperactivity Children on ototoxic medication It is logical to consider certain subgroups of children (since conception) to be particularly at risk for harm from excess noise exposure. These include the fetus, babies and very young infants born preterm, with low birth weight or small for gestational age. Also, children who have learning disabilities or attention difficulties may be more likely to develop early problems with mild hearing loss compared to children without these challenges, and children on ototoxic medications may have higher likelihood of developing problems from exposure to excess noise. Reference: •Carvalho WB, et al. Noise level in a pediatric intensive care unit. J Pediatr , 2005, 81:495-8. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to verify the noise level at a PICU. METHODS: This prospective observational study was performed in a 10 bed PICU at a teaching hospital located in a densely populated district within the city of São Paulo, Brazil. Sound pressure levels (dBA) were measured 24 hours during a 6-day period. Noise recording equipment was placed in the PICU access corridor, nursing station, two open wards with three and five beds, and in isolation rooms. The resulting curves were analyzed. RESULTS: A basal noise level variation between 60 and 70 dBA was identified, with a maximum level of 120 dBA. The most significant noise levels were recorded during the day and were produced by the staff. CONCLUSION: The basal noise level identified exceeds International Noise Council recommendations. Education regarding the effects of noise on human hearing and its relation to stress is the essential basis for the development of a noise reduction program. Children and noise Children and noise 14 VULNERABILITY OF CHILDRENVULNERABILITY OF CHILDREN Different perception of dangers of noise •Can not recognize the dangerous exposures Lack of ability to control the environment •Are not able to identify and avoid the source of noxious noise •Exposure intra utero Noise can interfere with communication of danger May be more exposed due to their behaviour •Exploratory or risk behaviour (in children and teenagers) Special vulnerability of children to noise. The known increased risk is due to <<READ SLIDE>><<READ SLIDE>><<READ SLIDE>><<READ SLIDE>> Noise effects in childrenNoise effects in childrenNoise effects in childrenNoise effects in childrenNoise effects in childrenNoise effects in childrenNoise effects in childrenNoise effects in children ““Children may be more prone to the adverse effects of noise becauChildren may be more prone to the adverse effects of noise because they may be more frequently se they may be more frequently exposedexposed…….and they are more susceptible to the impact of noise.and they are more susceptible to the impact of noise ””. (Tamburlini, 2002). (Tamburlini, 2002) ReferenceReference:: •Children's health and the environment: A review of evidence. Tamburlini G et al., eds.EEA-WHO, 2002 (www.eea.europa.eu/publications/environmental_issue_report_2002_29) Children and noise Children and noise 15 Why might children be more susceptible to noise effects? Possible increased risk due to immaturity Increased cochlear susceptibility? •In utero •Animal data studies Critical periods in relation to learning Lack of developed coping repertoires Vulnerable tasks \ Vulnerable settings (schools, home, streets) What might be the implications of noise effects? Lifelong impairment of learning and education Short-term deficit followed by adaptation Non intentional lesions VULNERABILITY OF CHILDRENVULNERABILITY OF CHILDREN <<READ SLIDE>><<READ SLIDE>><<READ SLIDE>><<READ SLIDE>> Exposure to excessive noise and vibration during pregnancy may result in high frequency hearing loss in the newborn, may be associated with prematurity and growth retardation, although the scientific evidence remains inconclusive. The role of the amniotic fluid is not yet defined, nor when and which noises or vibrations can damage the fetal development of the auditory system (e.g. cochlea). Concern about synergism between exposure to noise and ototoxic drugs remains incompletely defined. There are studies on fetal audition dating from 1932 that explore the reaction of the fetus to external noises but even today this remains incompletely characterized. References: •Children's health and the environment: A review of evidence, Ed. Tamburlini G. et al, EEA-WHO, 2002 (www.eea.europa.eu/publications/environmental_issue_report_2002_29). •National Institute of Public Health Denmark. Health Effects of Noise on Children and Perception of the Risk of Noise. Bistrup ML, ed. Copenhagen, Denmark: National Institute of Public Health Denmark, 2001, 29. Children and noise Children and noise 16 1. Introduction 2. Vulnerability of children 3.Adverse health effects 4. Effects by age-group 5. Taking action 6. Discussion CONTENTS CONTENTS Children and noise Children and noise 17 ADVERSE EFFECTS ADVERSE EFFECTS FROM EXCESS NOISE EXPOSUREFROM EXCESS NOISE EXPOSURE Direct ear damage •Noise induced hearing loss •Noise induced threshold shift Indirect adverse effects •Physiological effects •Psychological effects Impaired cognition Characteristics of the sound can modify effect Adverse effects can be divided into direct damage, indirect adverse effects and impaired cognition. Many effects of noise exposure are more thoroughly studied in adults than in children. The degree of adverse effect is modified by the sound characteristics. •Vibration:Vibration:Vibration:Vibration:can be acute or chronic, audible or inaudible. Vibration can be transmitted to all the body directly through the skin or bones. ••Frequencies: Frequencies: Frequencies: Frequencies: Frequencies: Frequencies: Frequencies: Frequencies: lower and higher (ultra and infra sounds) can also damage the human hearing system, despite being imperceptible, and have important consequences for life (loss of hearing). These consequences can also be present after chronic exposure to low frequency non audible sounds (chronic back noise exposure). Incubators are an example of this exposure. •Intensity: Intensity: Intensity: Intensity: Direct blows to the ears, very loud noise (pneumatic hammer or drill, fire arms, rocket), and sudden but intense sounds can destroy the eardrum and damage the hair cells of the cochlea by bypassing the protective reflexes. Acute trauma can cause a lifelong lesion. •Periodicity and DurationPeriodicity and DurationPeriodicity and DurationPeriodicity and Duration: Impulse noise is more harmful than continuous because it bypass the natural protective reaction, the damping-out of the ossicles mediated by the facial nerve. Loud noise may result in temporary decrease in the sensitivity of hearing and tinnitus, but repeated exposure may cause these temporary conditions to become permanent. Children and noise Children and noise 18 ORGAN DAMAGEORGAN DAMAGE NOISE INDUCED HEARING LOSSNOISE INDUCED HEARING LOSS Normal hair cell Noise damaged hair cell VIMM DIRECT DAMAGE VIMM Normal healthy “hair cells” transform vibration into nerve impulses sending messages to the brain. Trauma to the hair cells of the cochlea results in hearing loss. Prolonged exposure to sounds louder than 85 dBA is potentially injurious (85 dBA is tolerable for an occupational exposure). Continuous exposure to hazardous levels of noise tend to affect high frequencies regions of the cochlea first. Noise induces hearing loss gradually, imperceptibly, and often painlessly. Often, the problem is not recognized early enough to provide protection. Further, it may not be recognized as a problem, but merely considered a normal consequence of ordinary exposure, and part of the environment and daily life. References: •Moeller, Environmental health, Harvard University Press, 1992 •VIMM (Veterinarian Institute of Molecular Medicine, Italy): www.vimm.it/cochlea/cochleapages/theory/hcells/hcells.htm Pictures: •VIMM (Veterinarian Institute of Molecular Medicine, Italy): www.vimm.it/cochlea/cochleapages/theory/hcells/hcells.htm - used with copyright permission. Children and noise Children and noise 19 AUDIOGRAMAUDIOGRAM OSHA DIRECT DAMAGE Noise-induced hearing loss << << << << NOTE TO USERNOTE TO USERNOTE TO USERNOTE TO USER: If possible place an audiogram of a child living in your local: If possible place an audiogram of a child living in your local: If possible place an audiogram of a child living in your local: If possible place an audiogram of a child living in your local environment here to environment here to environment here to environment here to illustrate either normal hearing, or hearing damaged by environmillustrate either normal hearing, or hearing damaged by environmillustrate either normal hearing, or hearing damaged by environmillustrate either normal hearing, or hearing damaged by environmental noise. >> ental noise. >> ental noise. >> ental noise. >> Noise-induced hearing loss is insidious, but increases with time, usually beginning in adolescent years. As shown here, it affects the high frequencies first. The speech window is between 500 and 4000 Hz, so it is not surprising that high frequency loss of large magnitude could go undetected for long periods of time without formal testing. Picture: •OSHA (U.S. Department of Labor Occupational Safety & Health Administration) www.osha.gov/dts/osta/otm/noise/images/sensorineural_loss_audiogram.gif Children and noise Children and noise 20 CHILDREN AND NOISE: SETTINGSCHILDREN AND NOISE: SETTINGS Noise at home 50 - 80 dB A Home appliances 78 - 102 dB A Noise in incubators 60 - 75 dB A, peak sounds 120 dB A Noise in hospitals > 70 dB A Day-care institutions 75 – 81 dB A Noise from toys peak sounds 79 - 140 dB A Background noise in schools 46.5 – 77.3 dB A DIRECT DAMAGE These ranges represent excessive everyday exposures of children These ranges represent excessive everyday exposures of children to sound.to sound. References:References: ••Committee on Environmental Health. Noise: A Hazard for the Committee on Environmental Health. Noise: A Hazard for the FetusFetus and Newborn.and Newborn. PediatricsPediatrics,,1997, 100:7241997, 100:724--2727.. ••Etzel RA, ed. Etzel RA, ed. PediatricPediatric Environmental Health.Environmental Health.2nd ed. American Academy of 2nd ed. American Academy of PediatricsPediatrics Committee on Environmental Health.; Committee on Environmental Health.; Elk Grove Village, IL: American Academy of Elk Grove Village, IL: American Academy of PediatricsPediatrics, , 2003.2003. Children and noise Children and noise 21 NOISE INDUCED THRESHOLD SHIFT (NITS)NOISE INDUCED THRESHOLD SHIFT (NITS) Initially - a temporary condition •Decrease in sensitivity to noise •Tinnitus Caused by exposure to loud noises May be reversible or irreversible •Severity and duration of exposure •Continuous and recurrent exposure DIRECT DAMAGE Exposure to loud noise may result in a temporary decrease in the sensitivity of hearing and tinnitus. This condition, called temporary noise-induced threshold shift (NITS), lasts for several hours depending on the degree of exposure, and may become permanent depending on the severity and duration of noise exposure. Noise induced threshold shifts may be reversible; however, continued excessive noise exposure could lead to progression of NITS to include other frequencies and lead to increase severity and permanent hearing loss. The consequences of these measured NITS may be enormous if they progress to a persistent minimal sensorineural hearing loss. In school-aged children, minimal sensorineural hearing loss has been associated with poor school performance and social and emotional dysfunction. Children and noise Children and noise Non-metropolitan 22 PREVALENCE NOISE INDUCED THRESHOLD SHIFTSPREVALENCE NOISE INDUCED THRESHOLD SHIFTS Niskar AS, Pediatrics, 2001, 108(1):40-3 National survey US children (n=5249) DIRECT DAMAGE Characteristics % (95% CI) Age: Sex: Urban status: 6-11 years old 12-19 years old Male Female Metropolitan 8.5 15.5 14.8 10.1 11.9 13.0 (6.9-10.0) (13.3-17.6) (12.3-17.3) (8.3-11.8) (9.8-14.0) (11.3-14.6) This is evidence that children are experiencing changes in hearing which are consistent with excess noise exposure. These data show the prevalence of Noise Induced Threshold Shift (NITS) in children which increases with age. The prevalence of NITS in one or both ears among children 6-19 year of age in the USA was recently found to be 12.5% (or 5.2 million) children affected. Most children with NITS have an early phase of NITS in only one ear and involving only a single frequency, however among children with NITS, 4.9% had moderate to profound NITS. This table demonstrates several points. First, older children have a higher prevalence of NITS compared to younger children suggesting that ongoing exposure to excess noise in the environment may be causing cumulative hearing damage. Boys in this survey were more likely to have evidence of excess noise exposure measured as NITS compared to girls, but there was little difference between urban and non-urban status. Reference: •Niskar AS. Estimated prevalence of noise-induced hearing threshold shifts among children 6 to 19 years of age: the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 1988-1994, United States.Pediatrics, 2001, 108(1):40-3 This analysis estimates the first nationally representative prevalence of noise-induced hearing threshold shifts (NITS) among US children. Historically, NITS has not been considered a common cause of childhood hearing problems. Among children, NITS can be a progressive problem with continued exposure to excessive noise, which can lead to high-frequency sound discrimination difficulties (eg, speech consonants and whistles). The Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES III) was conducted from 1988 to 1994. NHANES III is a national population-based cross-sectional survey with a household interview, audiometric testing at 0.5 to 8 kHz, and compliance testing. A total of 5249 children aged 6 to 19 years completed audiometry and compliance testing for both ears in NHANES III. The criteria used to assess NITS included audiometry indicating a noise notch in at least 1 ear. RESULTS: Of US children 6 to 19 years old, 12.5% (approximately 5.2 million) are estimated to have NITS in 1 or both ears. In the majority of the children meeting NITS criteria, only 1 ear and only 1 frequency are affected. In this analysis, all children identified with NITS passed compliance testing, which essentially rules out middle ear disorders such as conductive hearing loss. The prevalence estimate of NITS differed by sociodemographics, including age and sex. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that children are being exposed to excessive amounts of hazardous levels of noise, and children's hearing is vulnerable to these exposures. These data support the need for research on appropriate hearing conservation methods and for NITS screening programs among school-aged children. Public health interventions such as education, training, audiometric testing, exposure assessment, hearing protection, and noise control when feasible are all components of occupational hearing conservation that could be adapted to children's needs with children-specific research. Children and noise Children and noise 23 INDIRECT ADVERSE EFFECTSINDIRECT ADVERSE EFFECTS Stress-related somatic effects •Stress hormone •Blood pressure •Muscle spasm Psychological effects •Annoyance / Isolation •Sleep disturbance •Mental health Cognitive effects •Reading, concentration, memory, attention INDIRECT DAMAGE The next section will review the indirect adverse effects of noise listed here. Children and noise Children and noise 24 There might be harmful consequences to health during the state of alertness as well as when the body is unaware or asleep. PHYSIOLOGICAL EFFECTS OF NOISEPHYSIOLOGICAL EFFECTS OF NOISE INDIRECT DAMAGE EPA There are a variety of physiological effects that have been documented or postulated as a result of excess noise exposure. <<READ SLIDE>><<READ SLIDE>><<READ SLIDE>><<READ SLIDE>> References: Stress response:Stress response:Stress response:Stress response: •Frankenhaeuser M. Immediate and delayed effects of noise on performance and arousal. Biol Psychol, 1974, 2:127- 33 Increased excretion of adrenaline and noradrenaline demonstrated in humans exposed to noise at 90 dBA for 30 minutes. •Henkin RI. Effect of sound on the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis. Am J. Physiol, 1963, 204:710-14 Hypothalamic- pituitary- adrenal axis is sensitive to noise as low as 65 dBA (53% increase in plasma 17 HO corticosteroid levels). •Rosenberg J. Jets over Labrador and Quebec: noise effects on human health.Can. Med. Assoc. J., 1991, 144(7):869-75. Biochemical evidence of the stress response was found in elevated urinary cortisol and hypertension accompanied a 30 minute exposure to 100dBA in 60 children aged 11 to 16 years. Sleep derivation:Sleep derivation:Sleep derivation:Sleep derivation: Noise levels at 40-50 dBA result in 10-20% increase in awakening or EEG changes •Falk SA. Hospital noise levels and potential health hazards. Engl. J Med., 1973, 289(15):774-81 •Hilton BA. Quantity and quality of patient’s sleep and sleep-disturbing factors in respiratory intensive care unit, J Adv Nurs,1976, 1(6):453-68 •Thiessen GJ. Disturbance of sleep by noise. J. Acoustic Soc. Am., 1978, 64(1):216-22 Cardiovascular effects: Cardiovascular effects: Cardiovascular effects: Cardiovascular effects: ••Etzel RA, ed. Etzel RA, ed. PediatricPediatric Environmental Health. Environmental Health. 2nd ed. American Academy of 2nd ed. American Academy of PediatricsPediatrics Committee on Committee on Environmental Health. Elk Grove Village, IL: American Academy ofEnvironmental Health. Elk Grove Village, IL: American Academy of PediatricsPediatrics; 2003.; 2003. Exposure to noise levels greater than 70 dBA causes increases in vasoconstriction, heart rate and blood pressure Picture: •EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency) Children and noise Children and noise 25 STRESS HORMONES STRESS HORMONES --CHILDRENCHILDREN + increase with noise, - decrease with noise, 0 no effect INDIRECT DAMAGE Adapted from Babisch W, Noise Health, 2003, 5(18):1-11 Evans, 1998 Ising, 1999 Stansfeld, 2001 Haines, 2001 Evans, 2001 Ising, 2001 AuthorCortisolNoradrenalineAdrenaline + ++ 00 0 0 0 + 0 0 + 00 N° Noise exposure Noise type (leq) Aircraft 53, 62 217 40 115 56 238 204 56, 70 <50, >60 <57, >66 53, 62 30-54, 55-78 Aircraft Aircraft Aircraft Road, Rail Road In experimental studies with humans carried out in the laboratory, unequivocal findings of noise exposure on the endocrine system have been sometimes observed. However, exposure conditions vary considerably between experiments. Furthermore, secretory patterns of hormone excretion vary between individuals. It is not clear as to what extent findings from experimental studies on endocrine responses of noise reflect a potential health hazard. To more completely characterize these indirect adverse effects of excess noise, there is a need to 1) develop a consensus on measurement techniques, 2) replicate results of adult studies in children, and 3) link hormone levels to health impairment. When it is done, stress hormone responses may identify risk groups. Leq: average sound level over the period of the measurement, usually measured A-weighted N°: number of subjects Reference: •Babisch W. Stress hormones in the research on cardiovascular effects of noise. Noise Health, 2003, 5(18):1-11 In recent years, the measurement of stress hormones including adrenaline, noradrenaline and cortisol has been widely used to study the possible increase in cardiovascular risk of noise exposed subjects. Since endocrine changes manifesting in physiological disorders come first in the chain of cause-effect for perceived noise stress, noise effects in stress hormones may therefore be detected in populations after relatively short periods of noise exposure. This makes stress hormones a useful stress indicator, but regarding a risk assessment, the interpretation of endocrine noise effects is often a qualitative one rather than a quantitative one. Stress hormones can be used in noise studies to study mechanisms of physiological reactions to noise and to identify vulnerable groups. A review is given about findings in stress hormones from laboratory, occupational and environmental studies. Children and noise Children and noise 26 BLOOD PRESSUREBLOOD PRESSURE --AIRCRAFT NOISEAIRCRAFT NOISE Study Psys (mmHg) Pdia (mmHg) Sound level (Leq) Karagodina, 1969 abnormalities abnormalities distance from airport Cohen, 1980 3-7 3-4 <70 dBA (indoors) Cohen, 1981 no effect no effect 70 dBA (indoors) Evans, 1995 2 0 68 dBA (outdoors) Evans, 1998 3 3 64 dBA (outdoors) Morrell, 1998 negative negative ANE I 45 (outdoors) Morrell, 2000 no effect negative ANE I 45 (outdoors) Inconsistent picture: 3 positive, 4 negative studies Prospective studies: 1 positive, 1 negative study Magnitude of effect found in positive studies may be relevant INDIRECT DAMAGE Studies on elevated blood pressure and noise exposure (from aircraft) are also inconsistent. Only the cross-sectional study of Cohen shows that aircraft noise exposure (specifically at school) is statistically significantly associated with increases in systolic and diastolic blood pressure. Leq: average sound level over the period of the measurement, usually measured A-weighted Psys: systolic pressure Pdia: diastolic pressure dBA weighting curve: response of a filter that is applied to sound level meters to mimic (roughly) the response of human hearing. So a typical human equal loudness curve is somewhat similar to the dBA curve, but inverted. ANEI: Australian Noise Exposure Index. References: Aircraft Noise: •Cohen S. Physiological, motivational and cognitive effects of aircraft noise on children: moving from the laboratory to the field. Am Psychol., 1980, 35:231-43. •Cohen S. Aircraft noise and children: longitudinal and cross-sectional evidence on adaptation to noise and the effectiveness of noise abatement. J. Pers Soc Psychol., 1981, 40:331-45 •Evans G. Chronic noise and psychological stress. Psychological Science,1995, 6:333-38 •Evans G. Chronic noise exposure and physiological response: a prospective study of children living under environmental stress. Psychological Science, 1998, 9:75-77 •Karagodina IL. Effect of aircraft noise on the population near airports. Hygiene and Sanitation, 1969, 34:182187 •Morrell S. Cross-sectional relationship between blood pressure of school children and aircraft noise. In N.L. Carter, & R.F.S Job (Eds.), Noise Effects. Proceedings of the 7th International on Noise as a Public Health Problem. Sydney, Australia: Noise Effects Inc, 1998, 275-79. •Morrell S. Cross sectional and longitudinal results of a follow up examination of child blood pressure and aircraft noise. The Inner Sydney Child Blood Pressure Study. Proceedings Internoise, SFA, Nice, France, 2000, 4:2071. •van Kempen E. et al. Noise exposure and children's blood pressure and heart rate: the RANCH project. Occup Environ Med.,2006, 63:632-39 BACKGROUND: Conclusions that can be drawn from earlier studies on noise and children's blood pressure are limited due to inconsistent results, methodological problems, and the focus on school noise exposure. OBJECTIVES: To investigate the effects of aircraft and road traffic noise exposure on children's blood pressure and heart rate. METHODS: Participants were 1283 children (age 9-11 years) attending 62 primary schools around two European airports. Data were pooled and analysed using multilevel modelling. Adjustments were made for a range of socioeconomic and lifestyle factors. RESULTS: After pooling the data, aircraft noise exposure at school was related to a statistically non-significant increase in blood pressure and heart rate. Aircraft noise exposure at home was related to a statistically significant increase in blood pressure. Aircraft noise exposure during the night at home was positively and significantly associated with blood pressure. The findings differed between the Dutch and British samples. Negative associations were found between road traffic noise exposure and blood pressure, which cannot be explained. CONCLUSION: On the basis of this study and previous scientific literature, no unequivocal conclusions can be drawn about the relationship between community noise and children's blood pressure. Traffic Noise: •Babisch W. Blood pressure of 8-14 year old children in relation to traffic noise at home--results of the German Environmental Survey for Children (GerES IV). The Science of the total environment, 2009, 407(22):5839-43. •Babisch W, Kamp I. Exposure-response relationship of the association between aircraft noise and the risk of hypertension. Noise Health. 2009 Jul-Sep, 11(44):161-8. •Belojevic G et al. Urban road-traffic noise and blood pressure and heart rate in preschool children.Environ Int.2008, 34(2):226-31. Epub 2007 Sep 14. Children and noise Children and noise HYPERTENSION AND EXPOSURE TO NOISE HYPERTENSION AND EXPOSURE TO NOISE NEAR AIRPORTS NEAR AIRPORTS The The HyENAHyENA study study 27 INDIRECT DAMAGE Results Significant exposure-response relationship Night time aircraft noise exposure: borderline significant relationship Risk of myocardial infarction in relation to noise exposure: analysis ongoing Effects of noise exposure on stress hormone level (cortisol): statistical analyses and epidemiological ongoing Conclusion Prevalence of hypertension increased with increasing noise exposure Long-term road traffic noise exposure effects on BP Acute effect on hypertension of night-time aircraft noise Highly annoyed people are found at aircraft noise levels An increasing number of people live near airports with considerable noise and air pollution. The Hypertension and Exposure to Noise near Airports (HYENA) project aims to assess the impact of airport-related noise exposure on blood pressure (BP) and cardiovascular disease using a cross- sectional study design. Although the study has been made in adults (men and women between 45-70 years old), it might be a good cardiovascular disease predictor in children. Reference: •Jarup L. Hypertension and Exposure to Noise near Airports (HYENA): Study Design and Noise Exposure Assessment. Environ Health Perspect., 2005, 113(11):1473–1478. Children and noise Children and noise 28 PSYCHOLOGICAL DAMAGEPSYCHOLOGICAL DAMAGE Exposure to moderate level of noise can cause •Psychological stress •Annoyance, interference with activity, isolation •Headache, tiredness and irritability; may impair intellectual function and performance of complex tasks Exposure to intense level of noise can •Cause personality changes and aggressive/violent reactions •Reduce ability to cope •Alter work performance and intellectual function •May cause muscle spasm and also break a bone (when combined with strong vibration) •Sleep disturbance •Changes in mental health. Exposure to sudden, unexpected noise can cause •Startle reaction with stress responses •Cause non intentional injuries INDIRECT DAMAGE Psychological effects correlate with intensity (or loudness) of Psychological effects correlate with intensity (or loudness) of the noise.the noise. Exposure to moderate levels of noisemoderate levels of noisemoderate levels of noisemoderate levels of noise can cause psychological stress. Other effects can be: • Annoyance (fear, anger, feeling bothered, feelings of being involuntarily and unavoidably harmed, and feelings of having privacy invaded), interference with activity. •Headache, tiredness and irritability are also common reactions to noise. •Possible impairment of intellectual function and performance of complex tasks. Depends on the nature of sound and individual tolerance. Exposure to intense level of noiseintense level of noiseintense level of noiseintense level of noise can: • Cause personality changes and provoke aggressive and violent reactions. • Reduce ability to cope. • Alter work performance and intellectual function. • Cause muscle spasm and also break a bone (when combined with strong vibration). • Cause sleep disturbance. • Provoke changes in mental health. Exposure to sudden, unexpected noisesudden, unexpected noisesudden, unexpected noisesudden, unexpected noise can cause: • Startle reaction with stress responses. •Cause non intentional injuries. Stress response consisting in acute terror and panic was described in children upon exposure to sonic booms. References: •Kam PC. Noise pollution in the anaesthetic and intensive care environment. Anaesthesia, 1994, 49(11):982-6 •Kujala T, Brattico E. Detrimental noise effects on brain's speech functions. Biol Psychol.2009, 81(3):135-43. Epub 2009 Apr 8. •Rosenberg J. Jets over Labrador and Quebec: noise effects on human health. Can. Med. Assoc. J., 1991, 144(7):869-75 Children and noise Children and noise 29 IMPAIRED COGNITIVE FUNCTIONIMPAIRED COGNITIVE FUNCTION Chronic noise exposure impairs cognitive function •Reading comprehension •Long term memory Dose-response relationships •Supported by both laboratory and field studies Study of possible mechanisms and noise reduction interventions •Tuning out of attention / concentration •Impairment of auditory discrimination INDIRECT DAMAGE The most robust area of study on noise and effects in children comes from studies which evaluate the effect of noise on learning and cognitive function; there are possible mechanisms, including noise- related changes in attention or distraction and impaired auditory discrimination. <<READ SLIDE>><<READ SLIDE>><<READ SLIDE>><<READ SLIDE>> Children and noise Children and noise 30 ENVIRONMENTAL NOISE AND COGNITIVE ENVIRONMENTAL NOISE AND COGNITIVE DEVELOPMENT IN PRESCHOOL CHILDRENDEVELOPMENT IN PRESCHOOL CHILDREN Children 6 months - 5 years Inverse associations between noise level at home and cognitive development IMPAIRED COGNITION Wachs TD. Early Experience and Human Development. New York Plenum, 1982 Evans GW. Children's Environments,1993,10(1):31-51 Effects of noise on cognitive development have been documented in preschool ages as well. Higher levels of noise at home are associated with decrements in cognitive development for age. References: •Evans GW. Non-auditory effects of noise on children: A critical review. Children's Environments, 1993,10(1):31-51. •Maxwell LE et al. The effects of noise on pre-school children's pre-reading skills. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 2000, 20(1):91-97. •Wachs TD. Early Experience and Human Development.New York Plenum, 1982. •Yang W, Bradley JS. Effects of room acoustics on the intelligibility of speech in classrooms for young children. J Acoust Soc Am. 2009, 125(2):922-33. Children and noise Children and noise 31 APARTMENT NOISE AND READING ABILITYAPARTMENT NOISE AND READING ABILITY 54 children living in apartments above interstate highway 32nd floor: 55 dBA, 20th floor: 60 dBA, 8th floor: 66 dBA Measures of auditory discrimination and reading ability Correlations between floor level and auditory discrimination vary by duration of residence Floor level correlates with reading-abolished by adjustment for auditory discrimination Reading powerfully associated with mothers’ education IMPAIRED COGNITION Cohen S. Journal of Experimental and Social Psychology, 1973, 9:407-22. This study shows that street traffic noise measured on different floors of a multilevel apartment correlates inversely with auditory discrimination and reading ability. The higher floors were quieter and children scored better on reading ability and auditory discrimination. Correlations varied with duration of residence, and when reading level scores were adjusted for auditory discrimination measures, the floor level effect disappeared. Reading is also powerfully associated with mother’s education. Reference: •Cohen S. Apartment noise, auditory discrimination, and reading ability in children. Journal of Experimental and Social Psychology, 1973, 9:407-22. Children and noise Children and noise Reading scores compared between classes in same school Exposed/not exposed to railway noise No selection of children into classes Poorer performance on achievement test on noisy side Measuring reading age 3-4 months behind on noisy side 32 RAILWAY NOISE AND READING SCORESRAILWAY NOISE AND READING SCORES IMPAIRED COGNITION Bronzaft AL. Environment and Behavior, 1975, 7:517-28 This study compared reading scores between classrooms in the same school that were exposed and not exposed to railway noise. Poorer performance was noted on the noisy side with a 3-4 month delay compared to the quieter side. There was no selection of the children in each class. This is supportive evidence that noise impaired reading learning. Reference: •Bronzaft AL. The effect of elevated train noise on reading ability.Environment and Behavior. 1975, 7:517-28. Children and noise Children and noise 33 Los Angeles airport study Cohen S. Am Psychol., 1980, 35:231-43. New York airport city Evans G. Environment and Behavior, 1997, 29(5):638-656. Munich airport study Evans G. Psychological Science, 1998, 9:75-77; Psychological Science, 1995,6:333-38 Heathrow studies Haines MM. Psychological Medicine, 2001a,b,c; J Epidemiol Community Health, 2002, 56(2):139 IMPAIRED COGNITIVE FUNCTIONIMPAIRED COGNITIVE FUNCTION Over 20 studies have reported that noise adversely affectsadversely affects children’s academic performance IMPAIRED COGNITION Many studies have reported that noise can adversely affect children’s academic performance. Transport noise is well-studied. Some of the most important studies are the Los Angeles airport study, the New York airport study, the Munich and Heathrow studies. References: •Cohen S. Physiological, motivational and cognitive effects of aircraft noise on children: moving from the laboratory to the field. Am Psychol., 1980, 35:231-43. •Cohen S. Aircraft noise and children: longitudinal and cross-sectional evidence on adaptation to noise and the effectiveness of noise abatement. J. Pers Soc Psychol., 1981, 40:331-45 •Evans G. Chronic noise and psychological stress. Psychological Science,1995, 6:333-38 •Evans G. Chronic noise exposure and physiological response: a prospective study of children living under environmental stress. Psychological Science,1998, 9:75-77 •Evans G. Chronic noise exposure and reading deficits: The mediating effects of language acquisition. Environment and Behavior, 1997, 29(5):638-656. •Haines MM. Chronic aircraft noise exposure, stress responses, mental health and cognitive performance in school children. Psychological Medicine, 2001a, 31:265-77. •Haines MM. The West London Schools Study: the effects of chronic aircraft noise exposure on child health. Psychological Medicine, 2001b, 31:1385-96. •Haines MM. A follow-up study of effects of chronic noise exposure on child stress responses and cognition.International Journal of Epidemiology, 2001c, 30:839-45. •Haines MM. Multilevel modelling of aircraft noise on performance tests in schools around Heathrow Airport London.J Epidemiol Community Health, 2002, 56(2):139-44 •Ristovska G. et al. Psychosocial effects of community noise: cross sectional study of school children in urban center of Skopje, Macedonia. Croat Med J.2004, 45(4):473-6. AIM: To assess noise exposure in school children in urban center in different residential areas and to examine psychosocial effects of chronic noise exposure in school children, taking into account their socioeconomic status. METHODS: We measured community noise on specific measurement points in residential-administrative-market area and suburban residential area. We determined the average energy-equivalent sound level for 8 hours (LAeq, 8 h) or 16 hours (LAeq, 16 h) and compared measured noise levels with World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines. Psychological effects were examined in two groups of children: children exposed to noise level LAeq, 8 h >55 dBA (n=266) and children exposed to noise level LAeq, 8 h <55 dBA (n=263). The examinees were schoolchildren of 10-11 years of age. We used a self-reported questionnaire for each child - Anxiety test (General Anxiety Scale) and Attention Deficit Disorder Questionnaire intended for teachers to rate children's behavior. We used Mann Whitney U test and multiple regression for identifying the significance of differences between the two study groups. RESULTS: School children who lived and studied in the residential-administrative-market area were exposed to noise levels above WHO guidelines (55 dBA), and school children who lived and studied in the suburban residential area were exposed to noise levels below WHO guidelines. Children exposed to LAeq, 8 h >55 dBA had significantly decreased attention (Z=-2.16; p=0.031), decreased social adaptability (Z =-2.16; p=0.029), and increased opposing behavior in their relations to other people (Z=-3; p=0.001). We did not find any correlation between socioeconomic characteristics and development of psychosocial effects. CONCLUSION: School children exposed to elevated noise level had significantly decreased attention, and social adaptability, and increased opposing behavior in comparison with school children who were not exposed to elevated noise levels. Chronic noise exposure is associated with psychosocial effects in school children and should be taken as an important factor in assessing the psychological welfare of the children. •Stansfeld SA. Aircraft and road traffic noise and children’s cognition and health: a cross-national study. Lancet,2005, 365: 1942– 49. •van Kempen EE et al. Children's annoyance reactions to aircraft and road traffic noise. J Acoust Soc Am. 2009, 125(2):895-904. Children and noise Children and noise 34 MUNICH AIRPORT MUNICH AIRPORT SCHOOL PERFORMANCE Closure of old airport, opening of new airport Deficits in long-term memory and reading around old airport Impairments diminish within 2 years after airport closed Same impairments develop in new group of children within 2 years of new airport opening IMPAIRED COGNITION Hygge S, Psychol Sci. (2002)13(5):469 US Transportation Security Administration When an old airport was closed down in Munich, deficits in long term memory and reading in children exposed to the old airport improved within 2 years of the airport's closure and the associated decreased noise exposure. Interestingly, the children exposed to noise from the new airport replacing the old began to have the same deficits in long term memory and reading that were seen in the children exposed to the old airport—also within 2 years. Reference: •Hygge S. et al. A prospective study of some effects of aircraft noise on cognitive performance in schoolchildren, Psychol Sci., 2002, 13(5):469. Before the opening of the new Munich International Airport and the termination of the old airport, children near both sites were recruited into aircraft-noise groups (aircraft noise at present or pending) and control groups with no aircraft noise (closely matched for socioeconomic status). A total of 326 children (mean age = 10.4 years) took part in three data-collection waves, one before and two after the switch-over of the airports. After the switch, long-term memory and reading were impaired in the noise group at the new airport. and improved in the formerly noise-exposed group at the old airport. Short- term memory also improved in the latter group after the old airport was closed. At the new airport, speech perception was impaired in the newly noise-exposed group. Mediational analyses suggest that poorer reading was not mediated by speech perception, and that impaired recall was in part mediated by reading. Picture: •US Transportation Security Administration Children and noise Children and noise 35 STRENGTH OF EVIDENCE FOR EFFECTS OF STRENGTH OF EVIDENCE FOR EFFECTS OF AIRCRAFT NOISE ON CHILDRENAIRCRAFT NOISE ON CHILDREN InadequateImmune effects InadequateBirth weight Inadequate / no effectSleep disturbance Inconclusive / no effectPsychiatric disorder Limited (weak associations)Hypertension Limited / inconclusiveCatecholamine secretion Sufficient / limitedWellbeing/perceived stress Sufficient / limitedMotivation InconclusiveCognitive performance -attention SufficientCognitive performance -academic performance SufficientCognitive performance -speech perception SufficientCognitive performance -auditory discrimination SufficientCognitive performance -memory SufficientCognitive performance -reading SufficientHearing loss SufficientAnnoyance STRENGTH OF EVIDENCEHEALTH OUTCOME IMPAIRED COGNITION Here is a brief summary slide examining the weight of the evidence for health outcomes in children from aircraft noise. We are indebted to Dr. Stephen Stansfeld (Queen Mary, University of London) for kindly lending us this and many of the previous slides for this project. This slide highlights the clear associations in children between annoyance, hearing loss and impaired cognitive performance and excess noise. The lower categories are still in need of investigation. <<READ SLIDE>><<READ SLIDE>><<READ SLIDE>><<READ SLIDE>> Children and noise Children and noise 36 1. Introduction 2. Vulnerability of children 3. Adverse health effects 4.Effects by age-group 5. Taking action 6. Discussion CONTENTS CONTENTS Children and noise Children and noise 37 EFFECTS OF NOISE BY AGEEFFECTS OF NOISE BY AGE --GROUPGROUP Fetus Infant Pre-school, school-aged children Teenager Youth Children and noise Children and noise 38 EFFECTS OF NOISE ON THE EFFECTS OF NOISE ON THE FETUSFETUS Growth retardation •Occupational exposure of the mother to noise •Environmental noise unlikely to cause effects, but exposure to chronic low-dose noise requires more study Hearing impairment •Possible effects There are several paediatric populations which may be at increased risk of harm from noise. The fetus is one in which there is some evidence that occupational exposure to a pregnant woman may result in growth retardation and/or hearing impairment. Little is known about the effects of non-occupational noise on fetal development, and further studies are needed. Reference: •American Academy of Paediatrics, Committee on Environmental Health. Noise: a hazard to the fetus and newborn. Pediatrics. 1997, 100:724-727. Children and noise Children and noise Pre-term and full-term baby Exposed to “Neonatal Intensive Care Unit" (NICU) noise •Pre-term babies have immature hearing organs / systems Adverse noise-induced effects on the pre-term baby •Hearing impairment:possible effect •Sleep disturbances: awakening, sleep disruption •Others: crying 39 EFFECTS OF NOISE ON EFFECTS OF NOISE ON INFANTSINFANTS Babies who are born pre-term or require intensive care in hospital are exposed to large amounts of noise from incubators and busy hospital settings. Furthermore, this noise may be continuous, 24 hours/day. They are exposed to “Neonatal Intensive Care Unit" (NICU) noise (60 - 90 dBA max. 120 dBA) and noise inside the incubators (60 – 75 dBA max. 100 dBA). Pre-term babies must cope with their environment with immature organ systems (auditory, visual and central nervous system). These last stages of maturation occur, in part, during the time the pre-term child is in an incubator or neonatal intensive care unit (NICU). References: •Brandon DH. Effect of Environmental Changes on Noise in the NICU. Advances in Neonatal Care, 2008, 8(5):S5-S10 •Milette IH, Carnevale FA. I'm trying to heal...noise levels in a pediatric intensive care unit. Dynamics, 2003, 14:14-21. The literature demonstrates clearly that most intensive care units exceed the standard recommendations for noise levels in hospitals, and that high noise levels have negative impacts on patients and staff. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the level of noise in a PICU and compare it to the recommendations of ternational bodies. We outline recommendations to promote the awareness of this problem and suggest strategies to decrease the level of noise in a PICU. The orientations of these strategies are threefold: 1) architectural-acoustic design, 2) equipment design and, most importantly, 3) staff education. Children and noise Children and noise 40 EFFECTS OF NOISE EFFECTS OF NOISE IN IN PREPRE--SCHOOLSCHOOL AND AND SCHOOLSCHOOL--AGEDAGED CHILDRENCHILDREN Hearing impairment •In isolated cases by toys or equipment Sleep disturbances •Earlier responses than adults (EEG awakenings) Somatic effects •Blood pressure and stress hormones Psycho-social effects •No studies on behaviour with high environmental noise levels •Cognitive tasks are impaired, like reading, long term memory, attention and motivation Vocal nodule EEG: electroencephalogram <<READ SLIDE>><<READ SLIDE>><<READ SLIDE>><<READ SLIDE>> Children raise their voices and risk developing hoarseness and vocal nodules because of noise and relative overcrowding. The number of children screaming so much and so loudly that their voices are damaged and require treatment increased in Denmark during the 1990s. Noise in schools and day care institutions results in boys’ voices getting hoarse and girls’ voices squeaky. Children with vocal nodules can be difficult to understand and risk losing their voices altogether. Other children become so tired of screaming or of trying to make themselves heard that they give up saying anything at all and, for example, do not raise their hands in class. If children give up speaking, their voices do not develop properly and language learning is not reinforced. References: •Boman, E. The effects of noise and gender on children's episodic and semantic memory. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 2004, 45:407 –416. •Bowen C.Vocal nodules and voice strain in pre-adolescents. 1997 (members.tripod.com/Caroline_Bowen/teen- nodules.htm, accessed November 2009). •Clark C et al. Exposure-effect relations between aircraft and road traffic noise exposure at school and reading comprehension: the RANCH project. Am J Epidemiol. 2006, 163:27-37. Transport noise is an increasingly prominent feature of the urban environment, making noise pollution an important environmental public health issue. This paper reports on the 2001-2003 RANCH project, the first cross-national epidemiologic study known to examine exposure-effect relations between aircraft and road traffic noise exposure and reading comprehension. Participants were 2,010 children aged 9-10 years from 89 schools around Amsterdam Schiphol, Madrid Barajas, and London Heathrow airports. Data from The Netherlands, Spain, and the United Kingdom were pooled and analyzed using multilevel modeling. Aircraft noise exposure at school was linearly associated with impaired reading comprehension; the association was maintained after adjustment for socioeconomic variables (beta = -0.008, p = 0.012), aircraft noise annoyance, and other cognitive abilities (episodic memory, working memory, and sustained attention). Aircraft noise exposure at home was highly correlated with aircraft noise exposure at school and demonstrated a similar linear association with impaired reading comprehension. Road traffic noise exposure at school was not associated with reading comprehension in either the absence or the presence of aircraft noise (beta = 0.003, p = 0.509; beta = 0.002, p = 0.540, respectively). Findings were consistent across the three countries, which varied with respect to a range of socioeconomic and environmental variables, thus offering robust evidence of a direct exposure-effect relation between aircraft noise and reading comprehension. •Jessen B, Ruge G. Skolebørn skriger sig syge [Schoolchildren scream until they get sick]. Berlingske Tidende, 2000:26. Children and noise Children and noise 41 EFFECTS OF NOISEEFFECTS OF NOISE ……. . A WORD APART FOR A WORD APART FOR TEENAGERSTEENAGERS!!!! Potential sources of hearing impairment •Noisy toys, firecrackers, boom-cars, musical instruments, others Discotheques and pop concerts •Exposure similar to occupational exposures •Use of music headphones Loss of hearing may go undetected for many years after chronic exposure to high levels of noise Increased rates of adolescent hearing impairment in last 3 decades Protection needed from the start •Be instructed to use personal hearing protection •Not only at work but also at technical and polytechnic schools <<READ SLIDE>><<READ SLIDE>><<READ SLIDE>><<READ SLIDE>> Noise is associated with youth. Often, teenagers' exposure is constant. Prolonged exposure can lead to a transitory loss of 10-30 dB for several minutes after the noise ceases. Frequency of exposure, personal variability, and age of exposure determine the pattern of the damage. Music occurs outside of the major frequencies of the human voice and over exposure to loud music causes loss of discrimination at low frequencies which may not be detected without formal testing for years. “Walkman” equipment is designed for emissions not higher than 80 dB, but the combination of an immature hearing system and a prolonged use may cause cumulative damage. Technology can be modified to bypass factory-imposed limitations and result in very loud music/noise exposure. Loss of concentration because of the focus on the music, in the presence of a potentially dangerous situation, makes a young person more vulnerable to accidents. Teenagers should be instructed to use personal hearing protection as soon as they start being exposed to high noise levels, not only at work, but also at technical and polytechnic schools. If noise-abatement measures are not taken, good hearing will not be preserved and noise-induced tinnitus will not be prevented. The extent of hearing impairment in teenagers, caused by occupational noise exposure, and exposure at technical and polytechnic schools is unknown. There are insufficient numbers of studies on somatic, psycho-social and behavioural effects of noise in teenagers. References: •Axelsson A. et al. Early noise-induced hearing loss in teenage boys. Scand Audiol, 1981:10: 91–96. •Baig LA. et al. Health and safety measures available for young labourers in the cottage industries of Karachi.J Coll Physicians Surg Pak, 2005, 15:380. •Fontana AM. et al. Brazilian young adults and noise: Attitudes, habits, and audiological characteristics. International Journal of Audiology, 2009, 48(10):692-699 •Plontke SK et al. The incidence of acoustic trauma due to New Year's firecrackers. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol, 2002, 259:247-52. •Ryberg JB. A national project to evaluate and reduce high sound pressure levels from music. Noise Health,2009, 11(43):124-8. •Segal S. et al. Inner ear damage in children due to noise exposure from toy cap pistols and firecrackers: a retrospective review of 53 cases. Noise Health,2003, 5:13-8. •Vogel I et.al. Young People’s Exposure to Loud Music. A Summary of the Literature. Am J Prev Med,2007, 33(2):124-133. Children and noise Children and noise 42 1. Introduction 2. Vulnerability of children 3. Adverse health effects 4. Effects by age-group 5.Taking action 6. Discussion CONTENTS CONTENTS Children and noise Children and noise 43 PREVENTIONPREVENTION AND AND INTERVENTIONINTERVENTION More research needed, especially in vulnerable groups Preventive action Noise has to be controlled at the source Hearing protection devices are a last resort Child hearing conservation programs Education and dissemination Future research:Future research:Future research:Future research: •Effects of noise on cognitive functions. •Effects of noise on children’s sleep. •Magnitude/significance of noise annoyance. •Children’s perception and risk perception. •Settings: home, schools, hospital, day care centres. •Teenagers' attention when driving and listening to loud music. •Effect of non-audible noise. •Identification of more vulnerable groups! •Intervention programs/best practices for preventing harmful effects. Preventive actionsPreventive actionsPreventive actionsPreventive actions Noise has to be controlled at the source by: •Reducing. •Enclosing the vibrating surfaces. •Placing sound absorbers and other protections. Hearing protection devices are a last resort! Child hearing conservation programChild hearing conservation programChild hearing conservation programChild hearing conservation program •Noise monitoring where children live, study and play. •Hearing protection programs diffusion for teachers and parents. •Vibration detection and protection. •Protection of the pregnant woman. Education and disseminationEducation and disseminationEducation and disseminationEducation and dissemination References: •Folmer RL, et al. Hearing conservation education programs for children: a review.J Sch Health.2002;72:51-7. Prevalence of noise-induced hearing loss (NIHL) among children is increasing. Experts have recommended implementation of hearing conservation education programs in schools. Despite these recommendations made over the past three decades, basic hearing conservation information that could prevent countless cases of NIHL remains absent from most school curricula. This paper reviews existing hearing conservation education programs and materials designed for children or that could be adapted for classroom use. This information will be useful as a resource for educators and school administrators and should encourage further development, implementation, and dissemination of hearing conservation curricula. The overall, and admittedly ambitious, goal of this review is to facilitate implementation of hearing conservation curricula into all US schools on a continuing basis. Ultimately, implementation of such programs should reduce the prevalence of noise-induced hearing loss among children and adults. •Moeller. Environmental Health, Harvard University Press, 1992. Children and noise Children and noise 44 WHEREWHERE TO INTERVENE?TO INTERVENE? Techniques for reducing or eliminating noise •At the source •By installing a barrier between the source and the recipient •At the point of reception / At the human recipient Potential settings for intervention •NICU •Child care settings •Primary schools •Discotheques and rock festivals Address external and internal noise sources TAKING ACTION <<READ SLIDE>> <<READ SLIDE>> <<READ SLIDE>> <<READ SLIDE>> Identified potential settings for interventionIdentified potential settings for interventionIdentified potential settings for interventionIdentified potential settings for intervention 1.NICU 2.Child care settings : more and more children stay in various child care settings. These play an important role in the initial stages of children beginning to establish their basic education. 3.Primary schools : primary school children often spend long periods of time in one classroom, and a noisy room can adversely affect the occupants of that room. 4.Discotheques and rock festivals : the noise level can be very high in discotheques, often resulting in tinnitus or a temporary threshold shift among patrons. Many major cities have festivals, and many of the noisier attractions inevitably appeal to younger people. References: •Bistrup M.L., Keiding L., ed. (2002). Children and noise - prevention of adverse effects. Copenhagen, National Institute of Public Health (also available at www.niph.dk). •Byers JF, et al. Sound level exposure of high-risk infants in different environmental conditions. Neonatal Netw. 2006, 25(1):25-32. PURPOSES: To provide descriptive information about the sound levels to which high-risk infants are exposed in various actual environmental conditions in the NICU, including the impact of physical renovation on sound levels, and to assess the contributions of various types of equipment, alarms, and activities to sound levels in simulated conditions in the NICU. DESIGN: Descriptive and comparative design. SAMPLE: Convenience sample of 134 infants at a southeastern quarternary children's hospital. MAIN OUTCOME VARIABLE: A-weighted decibel (dBA) sound levels under various actual and simulated environmental conditions. RESULTS: The renovated NICU was, on average, 4-6 dBA quieter across all environmental conditions than a comparable nonrenovated room, representing a significant sound level reduction. Sound levels remained above consensus recommendations despite physical redesign and staff training. Respiratory therapy equipment, alarms, staff talking, and infant fussiness contributed to higher sound levels. CONCLUSION: Evidence-based sound-reducing strategies are proposed. Findings were used to plan environment management as part of a developmental, family-centered care, performance improvement program and in new NICU planning. Children and noise Children and noise 45 HOWHOW TO INTERVENE?TO INTERVENE? TechnicallyTechnically Planning and designing outdoors and indoors “soundscapes” Improving road surfaces and developing green spaces and green barriers Developing noise barriers, building sound insulation Planning internal spaces according to activities (e.g. schools, sports- centres, others that involve noise), strategically using the space & location Reducing internal noise (eg. fans, ventilators) Using sound-absorbent materials Setting sound limits for concerts Increasing public and professional education to recognize noise pollution and reduction! <<READ SLIDE>><<READ SLIDE>><<READ SLIDE>><<READ SLIDE>> Children and noise Children and noise 46 Organizationally and EducationallyOrganizationally and Educationally Educating children, adults, professionals Teaching methods/interventions Disseminating information Informing the media and decision-makers and health professionals! Creating silent areas (“silence islands”) for resting Distributing earplugs at work and setting limits for the earphones Identifying and turning off noise at the source! HOWHOW TO INTERVENE?TO INTERVENE? <<READ SLIDE>><<READ SLIDE>><<READ SLIDE>><<READ SLIDE>> Children and noise Children and noise 47 PlanningPlanning Identifying noise sources and recognizing noise as a problem Recognizing health effects in children caused by noise Recognizing and diagnosing adults' health problems originated in childhood exposure Raising awareness Setting-up noise control campaigns in hospitals and schools Applying the “Precautionary Principle” Thinking about noise exposure when planning the settings where children dwell Promoting sound landscape design Developing noise mapping, action plans, community involvement Standardizing noise measurements HOWHOW TO INTERVENE?TO INTERVENE? <<READ SLIDE>><<READ SLIDE>><<READ SLIDE>><<READ SLIDE>> Children and noise Children and noise 48 POINTS FOR POINTS FOR DISCUSSIONDISCUSSION <<NOTE TO USER: Add points for discussion according to the needs<<NOTE TO USER: Add points for discussion according to the needs<<NOTE TO USER: Add points for discussion according to the needs<<NOTE TO USER: Add points for discussion according to the needs of your audience.>>of your audience.>>of your audience.>>of your audience.>> Children and noise Children and noise 49 First draft prepared by Lilian Corra, MD, Argentina With the advice of the Working Group on Training Package for the Health Sector: Cristina Alonzo, MD (Uruguay); Yona Amitai, MD, MPH (Israel); Stephan Boese- O’Reilly, MD, MPH (Germany); Stephania Borgo MD (ISDE, Italy); Irena Buka, MD (Canada); Ligia Fruchtengarten, MD (Brazil); Amalia Laborde, MD (Uruguay); Leda Nemer, TO (WHO/EURO); R. Romizzi, MD (ISDE, Italy); Katherine M. Shea, MD, MPH (USA) . Reviewers: Yoon JungWon (Republic of Korea) WHO CEH Training Project Coordination: Jenny Pronczuk, MD Medical Consultant: Ruth A. Etzel, MD, PhD Technical Assistance: Marie-Noel Bruné, MSc Latest update: December 2009 (C. Espina, PhD) ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSACKNOWLEDGEMENTS WHO is grateful to the US EPA Office of ChildrenWHO is grateful to the US EPA Office of Children ’’s Health Protection for the s Health Protection for the financial support that made this project possible and for the dafinancial support that made this project possible and for the da ta, graphics and text ta, graphics and text used in preparing these materials.used in preparing these materials. We are indebted to Dr. Stephen Stansfeld (Queen Mary, University of London) for kindly lending us slides for this project. Children and noise Children and noise 50 DISCLAIMER •The designations employed and the presentation of the material in this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the World Health Organization concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. Dotted lines on maps represent approximate border lines for which there may not yet be full agreement. •The mention of specific companies or of certain manufacturers’ products does not imply that they are endorsed or recommended by the World Health Organization in preference to others of a similar nature that are not mentioned. Errors and omissions excepted, the names of proprietary products are distinguished by initial capital letters. •The opinions and conclusions expressed do not necessarily represent the official position of the World Health Organization. •This publication is being distributed without warranty of any kind, either express or implied. In no event shall the World Health Organization be liable for damages, including any general, special, incidental, or consequential damages, arising out of the use of this publication •The contents of this training module are based upon references available in the published literature as of June 2004. Users are encouraged to search standard medical databases for updates in the science for issues of particular interest or sensitivity in their regions and areas of specific concern. •If users of this training module should find it necessary to make any modifications (abridgement, addition or deletion) to the presentation, the adaptor shall be responsible for all modifications made. The World Health Organization disclaims all responsibility for adaptations made by others. All modifications shall be clearly distinguished from the original WHO material. EXHIBIT 2 Journal of Urban Health: Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine, Vol. 89, No. 6 doi:10.1007/s11524-012-9721-7 *2012 The New York Academy of Medicine Noise Levels Associated with Urban Land Use Gavin King, Marek Roland-Mieszkowski, Timothy Jason, and Daniel G. Rainham ABSTRACT Recent trends towards the intensification of urban development to increase urban densities and avoid sprawl should be accompanied by research into the potential for related health impacts from environmental exposure. The objective of the current study was to examine the effect of the built environment and land use on levels of environmental noise. Two different study areas were selected using a combination of small area census geography, land use information, air photography, and ground- truthing. The first study area represented residential land use and consisted of two- to three-story single-family homes. The second study area was characteristic of mixed-use urban planning with apartment buildings as well as commercial and institutional development. Study areas were subdivided into six grids, and a location was randomly selected within each grid for noise monitoring. Each location was sampled four times over a 24-h day, resulting in a total of 24 samples for each of the two areas. Results showed significant variability in noise within study areas and significantly higher levels of environmental noise in the mixed-use area. Both study areas exceeded recommended noise limits when evaluated against World Health Organization guidelines and yielded average noise events values in the moderate to serious annoyance range with the potential to obscure normal conversation and cause sleep disturbance. KEYWORDS Noise, Land use, Urban, Geographic information systems, Sound level meter INTRODUCTION The human environment has become increasingly shaped by urbanization and the built environment, which comprises the physical infrastructure arising from urban development as well as managed green space such as urban forests, parks, and sport fields.1 Indeed, more than half of the global population and over 80 % of North Americans now reside in urban areas. 2 The built environment is now attracting the attention of public and environmental health researchers, as its inherent quality, characteristics, and spatial orientation (i.e., urban sprawl) have been linked both positively (e.g., parks, trails) and negatively (obesity, injuries, stress) to a variety of health outcomes. 3,4 Increasing urbanization has been linked to a rise in the prevalence of health disparities, as well as a growing culture of sedentary living, King is with the Department of Community Health and Epidemiology, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada; Roland-Mieszkowski is with the Digital Recordings—Advanced Research and Development, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada; Jason and Rainham are with the Environmental Science, Faculty of Science, LSC827, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada. Correspondence: Daniel G. Rainham, Environmental Science, Faculty of Science, LSC827, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada. (E-mail: daniel.rainham@dal.ca) 1017 contributing to the development of several chronic disease outcomes. 5 In efforts to improve urban conditions and enhance human well-being, municipal planning groups have developed and promoted several initiatives, including mixed-use development strategies. A potential consequence of these strategies is an increase in environmental noise levels. Environmental noise is an increasingly common feature of urban areas that can be described as an unwanted or undesirable sound within non-occupational settings. Road, rail, and air traffic sources account for the majority of noise in urban and surrounding areas. 6 Additional sources of noise include industrial/commercial enterprise, construction projects, and such familiar domestic sources as pets and radios/stereos. Municipal planning strategies emphasizing increases in urban development densities, mixed-uses, as well as a continuation of automobile-centered traffic planning policies may lead to an increase in population level exposure to traffic and related urban environmental noise. At present, little is known regarding how noise levels may vary with forms of urban development and affect the health of a population. Environmental noise has been linked to several non-auditory, biologically relevant health outcomes, including: increased levels of hypertension and high blood pressure,7 lowered cognitive ability, 8 and an increased prevalence of cardiovascular disease.9 Exposure to environmental noise from traffic-related sources is reportedly the most annoying of all urban pollution types, 10 interfering with enjoyment of daily activities and largely affecting sleep and rest patterns. 10–12 In a recent Canadian survey, 20–28 % of urban populations attributed noise from road trafficto disruptions during sleep, conversation, and communication tasks such as reading and writing. 13 Few studies have conducted field measurements to assess levels of environmental noise in Canadian cities; furthermore, it is still unknown whether recent trends towards the intensification of urban development will impact environmental noise levels and in turn population health. Acceptable noise level guidelines have been developed by several agencies based on levels of annoyance, interference with communications, disturbance to sleep, and the potential to cause hearing impairments. 14,15 For example the US Environmental Protection Agency recommended a maximum indoor noise level of 45 dB(A) *and outdoor noise level of 55 dB to allow for intelligible communication. 16 Typically, values are derived for specific settings and time periods. Some agencies also provide guidelines according to land use and population density (e.g., Italian legislation in 1997). Recommended urban residential noise levels generally range from 45 to 55 dB depending on the time of day and location of measurement. For example, Australian Environmental Protection Authority noise guidelines state that noise levels in urban residential neighborhoods should not exceed 55 dB(A) during the day and 47 dB(A) at night (i.e., from 22:00 to 06:00). The maximum recommended noise levels generally increase in relation to the amount of commercial activity, which presents challenges for cities developing policies related to integrated residential and commercial land uses. As with many urban centers in Canada and abroad, the Halifax Regional Municipality intends to intensify urban development by combining residential and *Sound is measured by comparing the logarithm of a given sound to a reference sound pressure, and is expressed on a logarithmic decibel (dB) scale. The A-weighting [dB (A)] system was devised to adjust results in studies examining the impact of environmental noise on human hearing specifically. KING ET AL.1018 commercial land-use types. The objective is to promote mixed-use neighborhoods with focused development in core areas. A number of reasons have been cited for this development strategy including the high costs of municipal services and rising costs of health care (e.g., obesity, transportation injuries) related to sprawl and associated increased automobile use. 17–19 Research into these issues is required not only to protect the health and well-being of urban inhabitants, but also to ensure that planning decisions are based on evidence that considers the potential health and environmental consequences of development. To date, few studies have examined how noise varies as a function of urban development. The aim of this study was to assess and compare noise levels in two urban neighborhoods: one completely residential and comprised of mostly single and multi-family dwellings, and the other characteristic of mixed residential and commercial land uses. Ambient environmental noise was recorded, measured, and analyzed within defined spatial locales in order to determine the potential for cumulative exposure to the local population. This research is timely and potentially informative given current trends in urban development. METHODS For the purpose of this study, two neighborhoods were selected: one almost exclusively residential to represent traditional planning strategies and the other comprised of residential and commercial land uses to represent more modern planning strategies that emphasize mixed-use development in urban core areas. The boundaries of each neighborhood matched the smallest statistical boundaries developed for the dissemination of Canadian census data (see Figure 1). Area 1, the representative residential area, mostly contained single-family dwelling units up to 10 m in height with 653 residents and a population density of approximately 3,950 persons per square kilometer. Buildings in this area are generally free standing and constructed of wood, stone, and brick. Area 1 also included seven roads (total length=3,506 m) that either border or are situated within the area. Area 2, representing mixed commercial and residential land uses, was larger in area yet housed a smaller population of 566 residents (1,836.5 persons per square kilometer). This area is bounded by several major roads and is generally oriented east to west. Area 2 contains commercial, institutional, and residential zones, with mostly concrete multi-story buildings. Sixteen roads traversed the area totaling 6,271 m in length. Sampling Strategy Study areas 1 and 2 were each divided by a grid into six identical cells. A geographic information system was used to randomly select one sample site location within each cell in the following manner. First, road network polygons were imported and a 4-m buffer polygon was inserted from the edge of the road. Second, a spatial random point generator, constrained to one point per grid cell within the buffer polygon, identified six sampling locations per study area. As a result, one randomly selected sample point per grid square was included in the analysis (Figure 1). Forty-five- minute noise recordings were randomly sampled during each of four distinct time periods from each of the six sampling locations per study area. Environmental noise sampling methods vary considerably. For example, studies have used a sampling frequency of 15-min measurements every 2 h, 20 while others have employed continuous assessments. 21 Studies have measured noise levels during NOISE LEVELS ASSOCIATED WITH URBAN LAND USE 1019 the day and at night, 22 while others have only considered measurements during the day.23 In 2007, Ng and Tang adopted a three-period assessment in which a 24- h clock was divided into three periods (day, evening, and night) that differed slightly in their period start times and sample lengths. 24 For the purpose of the current study, we incorporated a modified version of the three-period assessment method with certain refinements, as discussed by Ng and Tang, 24 for improving statistical accuracy. Each sample location yielded 3 h of data distributed across four time periods (i.e., 45 min per sampling period for each location). Daytime periods were subdivided into morning (06:00–12:00 h) and afternoon (12:00–18:00 h) segments FIGURE 1.Study areas and sampling sites. KING ET AL.1020 to enhance assessment quality. In addition, hours in the evening period (18:00– 24:00 h) and the night period (24:00–06:00 h) were randomly sampled in order to capture the full daily spectrum of environmental noise production. Data Collection Noise data were collected using a Centre 322 Logging Sound Level Meter (SLM) and a Marantz PMD-660 Solid State Digital Recorder. The Centre SLM is an ANSI S1.4 Type 2 instrument with a 0.5″electrets condenser microphone, frequency range of 31.5 Hz to 8 KHz, measuring level range of 30–130 dB, and capacity to weight frequencies to either the A or C scale. The Marantz PMD-660 Solid State Digital Recorder was connected to an external microphone that can record 4 h of data at frequencies of 44.1/48 KHz. The SLM and sound recorder were mounted on a camera tripod and microphone stand at a height of 1.5 m, a distance of 0.5 m from the curb, and were oriented perpendicularly to the nearest road. The SLM logged noise using an average of 1 s measurements, while the digital sound recorder facilitated continuous recordings to qualitatively identify peak noise events. Recordings commenced at the top of each hour (e.g., 1:00, 2:00…); in addition, the particular time at which recordings commenced was randomly assigned to sample locations thereby ensuring that the full 6-h time period (i.e., day, afternoon, evening, and night) was sampled. No data collection occurred on days (n =2) with rain, snow, or high winds, because these elements can both damage equipment and decrease the accuracy of measurements. Preliminary analysis of noise data from a related and, as of yet, unpublished study found that weather conditions, precipitation and wind in particular, had no influence on noise levels measured at a frequency of one measurement per hour. This conclusion was derived from comparing statistically noise levels measured during high wind or rain events (or both) with noise levels during times when weatherproofing of instrumentation would not be required. Data Analysis The SLM data included the minimum and maximum sound pressure level (SPL) averaged over 1 s, which resulted in 2,700 data points for each sampled time period and 10,800 data points for each grid sample area in a 24-h period. Basic noise descriptors were calculated. In addition, the equivalent continuous sound pressure level (LAeq) and day–evening–night composite whole-day rating level (LRden) were derived for the sample periods, grid sample areas, and study areas to identify variations in environmental noise over both space and time. The two study areas were statistically evaluated and compared. First, each study area was examined individually to determine the spatial variation of environmental noise during each 6-h period and the full 24-h period. Noise levels associated with individual sample sites within each study area were compared statistically using a series of Kruskal–Wallis tests for non-parametric data. Then, the two primary study areas were compared statistically using the Mann–Whitney two-sample rank test. LAeq values were compared with environmental noise exposure limits as dictated by Italian legislation (see Piccolo et al. 2005 for the exposure limits). In order to accomplish this, the study data were recalculated to correspond with the standardized time periods adopted by Italian legislation. This approach provided a means to determine levels of noise exposure with comparison to standards developed to prevent potential human health risk. NOISE LEVELS ASSOCIATED WITH URBAN LAND USE 1021 Calculation Each study area yielded 18 h of data comprising 3 h per site (four time period samples of 45 min each). The Aweighted equivalent continuous sound pressure level (LAeq) was calculated for each sample using the following formula: LAeq ¼10 log 1 T R PA 2 ðt Þ po 2 dtðÞ ð1Þ PA 2 –The A-weighted instantaneous sound pressure at the running time t; po –The standard reference sound 20 μPa The resultant LAeq values were then adjusted according to the particular sampled time period (+5 dB for evening hours and +10 dB for night-time hours) using the formula indicated below: LReqj ;Tn ¼LAeqj ;Tn þ Kj ð2Þ Kj –Adjustment for the specified sample and time period; LAeqj,Tn –The actual LAeq value at the specified time period Using the adjusted LAeq values, the day–evening–night rating levels were derived using the following formula: LRden ¼10 log d 24 10LRd 10 þ e 24 10 LRe 10 þ 24 d eðÞ 24 10 LRn 10 db ð3Þ d –The number of daytime hours; n –The number of night-time hours; e –The number of evening hours; LRd –The rating level for daytime hours including adjustments; LRe –The rating level for evening hours including adjustments; LRn –The rating level for night-time hours including adjustments RESULTS Area 1 The distribution of sound in area 1 was skewed to the right and somewhat peaked with an overall mean sound level of 48.1 dB(A) (SD=7.6) and substantial variation among individual sites (Table 1). Maximum values for the individual sites ranged from 60.6 dB(A) at site 6 to 93.3 dB(A) at site 3, while minimum values ranged from 20.0 dB(A) at site 3 to 47.0 dB(A) at site 4. Site 3 evidenced the greatest range of sound with night recordings of 20.0 dB(A) to 93.3 dB(A).LA90 values (90th percentile), representing background noise in the area, ranged from a low of 38.2 dB (A) at site 3 to a high of 50.3 dB(A) at site 4. Site 3 yielded higher than average LA1 values (1st percentile), indicating high levels of road traffic near the sample points. Adjusted (Adj)LAeq values ranged from a low of 44.7 dB(A) at site 6 to a high of 76.8 dB(A) at site 3. A comparison of the four sample time periods across sites evidenced maximum SPLs between 71.3 dB(A) and 77.4 dB(A) and mean SPLs from a low of 44.0 dB(A) to a high of 51.5 dB(A) (Table 2).LA90 values for the four time periods ranged from a low of 41.6 dB(A) to a high of 45.4 dB(A), while Adj LAeq (x ¼57:3dBAðÞ) values ranged from a low of 56.0 dB(A) to a high of 59.1 dB(A). Table 1 shows site 3 (x ¼68:9dBAðÞ) and the night period (x ¼59:1dBAðÞ)as having the highest overall Adj LAeq levels. KING ET AL.1022 As evident from Table 1, Adj LAeq values peaked at 05:00, 09:00, 14:00, and 23:00 (site 3), as well as at 21:00 and 00:00 (site 4).LAeq values mirrored this trend. The results suggest that the maximum values associated with these particular sites may have augmented the average noise level of the study area. The composite whole day rating for area 1 equaled 63.8 dB(A). A significant difference in noise among individual sample sites in area 1 was observed,χ2 (5,N =24)=16.2,p =0.01. Site 6 was associated with the lowest Adj LAeq levels in the area (x ¼51:8) yet produced a comparatively high number of outlier values throughout the day from elevated noise events. Site 3, which contributed the highest levels of environmental noise in area 1 (x ¼68:9), yielded a different data distribution pattern with fewer outlier points all of which occurred in the evening and night-time periods. A similar comparison across time periods failed to yield a significant difference,χ2 (3,N =24)=0.55,p =0.91. TABLE 1 Summary statistics for area 1 Site Period Start time Max Min Mean Percentiles LAeq Adj LAeqLA1LA90 1 1 07:00 73.0 40.1 44.2 60.0 41.8 48.5 48.5 2 16:00 73.3 41.4 47.7 65.1 42.8 53.2 53.2 3 18:00 66.6 25.8 43.9 61.8 39.5 49.2 54.2 4 03:00 66.3 41.7 43.9 51.6 42.8 45.0 55.0 2 1 08:00 72.9 43.7 51.3 67.4 46.3 55.4 55.4 2 12:00 75.4 40.9 48.0 63.7 43.3 53.0 53.0 3 22:00 65.2 21 44.2 55.9 41.5 46.6 51.6 4 01:00 66.3 38.8 40.3 49.2 39.4 42.0 52.0 3 1 09:00 90.0 42.3 61.4 80.3 48.0 69.1 69.1 2 14:00 86.6 40.0 57.7 76.3 45.7 66.3 66.3 3 23:00 81.4 37.0 43.1 72.1 38.2 58.6 63.6 4 05:00 93.3 20.0 48.0 77.6 43.3 66.8 76.8 4 1 10:00 79.8 47.0 58.1 67.1 50.3 63.1 63.1 2 15:00 77.5 23.0 49.0 56.7 43.0 54.8 54.8 3 21:00 78.9 43.9 53.8 63.7 46.8 60.0 65.0 4 24:00 77.4 39.9 45.8 55.0 41.3 52.9 62.9 5 1 11:00 72.7 41.6 50.8 66.6 43.9 55.4 55.4 2 13:00 77.5 23.0 49.0 66.7 43.0 54.8 54.8 3 19:00 73.9 37.8 48.4 65.0 40.5 54.2 59.2 4 04:00 63.7 42.2 44.4 53.4 43.0 45.2 55.2 6 1 06:00 67.9 40.5 43.1 50.0 41.9 44.7 44.7 2 17:00 73.8 42.6 49.8 66.5 45.6 54.6 54.6 3 20:00 73.4 41.2 45.5 61.7 43.0 50.3 55.3 4 02:00 60.6 38.3 41.7 51.5 40.2 42.7 52.7 TABLE 2 Statistical values for area 1 by sample time period Max Mean LA1 LA90 LAeq Adj LAeq Morning 76.0 51.5 66.4 45.4 56.0 56.0 Afternoon 77.4 50.2 67.5 43.9 56.1 56.1 Evening 73.2 46.5 64.6 41.6 53.2 58.2 Night 71.3 44.0 57.8 41.7 49.1 59.1 NOISE LEVELS ASSOCIATED WITH URBAN LAND USE 1023 Area 2 Data from area 2 yielded a similar distribution to area 1 with an overall mean of 56.6 dB(A). However, area 2 evidenced less variation in recorded sound values among individual sites and time periods (Table 3). Peak SPLs ranged from 69.7 dB (A) at site 2 to 90.3 dB(A) at site 6, while LA90 values ranged from a low of 44.0 dB (A) at site 6 to a high of 59.3 dB(A) at site 1. Adj LAeq values across sites ranged from a low of 55.4 dB(A) at site 4 to a high of 72.2 dB(A) at site 6. A comparison of the four sample time periods across sites yielded maximum SPLs between 77.2 dB(A) and 84.9 dB(A).LA90 values for the four time periods ranged from a low of 47.1 dB (A) to a high of 54.6 dB(A), while Adj LAeq values ranged from 61.8 dB(A) in the afternoon to 66.3 dB(A) at night (Table 4). The results indicate that area 2, the mixed use area, is associated with a more consistent level of environmental noise across sample sites. For example,LA90 values were highest recording in the afternoon at 54.6 dB(A), which varied little from the morning value of 53.1 dB (A), and then decreased through the evening to 47.1 dB(A) at night. Site 6 (x ¼69:9dBAðÞ) and the night period (x ¼66:3dBAðÞ) were associated with the highest overall Adj LAeq values (Table 3). Table 3 displays LAeq and Adj LAeq values for selected sites over a 24-h period. As evident from this table, area 2 yielded Adj LAeq peaks at 01:00 (site 5), 03:00, 07:00, TABLE 3 Summary statistics for area 2 Site Period Start time Max Min Mean Percentiles LAeq Adj LAeqLA1LA90 1 1 09:00 87.0 52.3 63.1 79.1 56.4 68.2 68.2 2 12:00 88.3 55.4 65.1 75.9 59.3 68.1 68.1 3 20:00 77.3 49.1 56.0 69.1 51.4 59.0 64.0 4 02:00 79.4 42.3 50.0 65.3 45.9 55.8 65.8 2 1 08:00 89.0 46.7 58.3 75.1 52.2 65.0 65.0 2 14:00 85.9 46.7 56.0 69.3 51.9 60.8 60.8 3 23:00 77.8 48.9 53.4 67.3 50.2 56.7 61.7 4 04:00 69.7 42.5 47.3 59.9 44.9 49.6 59.6 3 1 10:00 86.8 54.5 60.8 77.0 56.2 66.0 66.0 2 15:00 85.2 54.3 60.3 71.6 56.6 62.7 62.7 3 18:00 83.3 54.1 60.4 72.5 55.9 63.5 68.5 4 05:00 75.1 49.7 54.0 67.5 51.5 56.4 66.4 4 1 11:00 72.7 45.4 52.6 65.9 49.0 55.4 55.4 2 13:00 83.4 47.3 53.7 67.7 50.0 58.5 58.5 3 22:00 75.1 28.6 50.4 66.0 47.2 54.1 59.1 4 24:00 71.9 45.7 49.7 62.9 47.3 52.4 62.4 5 1 06:00 77.3 47.4 54.0 70.1 49.0 58.9 58.9 2 16:00 86.0 23.7 60.9 72.1 55.0 64.0 64.0 3 19:00 77.6 48.5 57.7 72.3 51.7 62.1 67.1 4 01:00 85.7 46.2 53.8 73.5 49.1 61.3 71.3 6 1 07:00 90.3 49.8 65.6 81.3 56.0 71.1 71.1 2 17:00 80.4 49.6 63.1 75.7 54.9 66.7 66.7 3 21:00 83.7 46.7 60.1 74.3 51.8 64.8 69.8 4 03:00 81.4 23.6 51.7 75.6 44.0 62.2 72.2 KING ET AL.1024 and 21:00 (site 6).LAeq values, although deflated, mirrored this trend. The composite whole day rating was calculated and produced a result of 65.0 dB(A). A significant difference in noise among individual sample sites in area 2 was yielded,χ2 (5,N =24)=14.51,p =0.01. However, a similar comparison across time periods failed to yield a significant difference,χ2 (3,N =24)=1.29,p =0.73. Areas 2 and 1 sample sites exhibited similar patterns of variation among sample sites and time periods; still, area 2 evidenced fewer outlier points due to higher overall levels of environmental noise. Traffic events characteristic of area 2 were absorbed by ambient background noise and therefore did not produce significant increases in sound. In contrast, sample sites associated with less road traffic and therefore lower ambient levels of noise produced more outlier points. Comparison Between Areas 1 and 2 Differences were observed between the two sample areas both in terms of noise distribution and overall levels of environmental noise. First, Adj LAeq values among area 1 sites presented greater overall variability than area 2 sites (Figure 2). This difference can be attributed to variations in traffic volume related to land use, background institutional noise, and pedestrian activity. The noisier sites in area 1 were located near major roads, while sites associated with less noise were located further from the same roads. Although area 2 evidenced higher overall levels of environmental noise, sample sites produced fairly consistent and stable noise recordings. The consistency in noise levels across sites in area 2 likely relates to land use and background noise. More specifically, area 2 produces greater levels of background noise throughout the day from vehicle traffic in the area, industrial sounds (e.g., ventilation fans), delivery trucks, and high pedestrian traffic. This is confirmed by the higher LA90 values (representing background noise) in area 2 in addition to higher Adj LAeq values as aresultoflanduse. Results indicate that area 1 is more influenced by the disturbance effect of noise events. For example, a moving vehicle may generate an increase in sound levels of 10.0–30.0 dB(A), which would certainly lead to residential disturbances in area 1, yet remain unnoticed in the higher background sound levels inherent to area 2. It should be mentioned that the composite full day rating (LRden) values for the two areas evidenced very little difference in daily sound exposure (area 1=63.8 dB(A); area 2=65.0 dB(A)). Findings from the Kruskal–Wallis tests provide evidence of statistically different levels of environmental noise among sample sites in areas 1 and 2. Using the Mann– Whitney test, a significant difference in Adj LAeq values associated with area 1 (mdn =55.1) and area 2 (mdn =65.4) was obtained (U =102,p =0.0001,r =0.56), thus supporting the hypothesis that land use (e.g., built environments) affects levels of environmental noise. TABLE 4 Statistical values for area 2 by sample time period Max Mean LA1 LA90 LAeq Adj LAeq Morning 83.9 59.1 74.8 53.1 64.1 64.1 Afternoon 84.9 59.9 72.1 54.6 61.8 61.8 Evening 79.1 56.3 70.3 51.4 60.0 65.0 Night 77.2 51.1 67.5 47.1 56.3 66.3 NOISE LEVELS ASSOCIATED WITH URBAN LAND USE 1025 DISCUSSION The objective of the current research was to investigate and analyze spatial and temporal variations in environmental noise with respect to land use, specifically the built urban environment. In the analyses it was important to account for differences between neighborhood types in order to assess how increasing the frequency of mixed-used development land use would impact urban environmental noise levels. First, we found that noise levels varied significantly between residential and mixed- use neighborhoods. Noise levels in the mixed-use neighborhood were significantly greater than in the residential neighborhood. Second, noise values were analyzed to Area 1 Area 2 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 06:00-12:00 12:00-18:00 18:00-24:00 24:00-06:00 Site 1 Site 2 Site 3 Site 4 Site 5 Site 6 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 06:00-12:00 12:00-18:00 18:00-24:00 24:00-06:00 Site 1 Site 2 Site 3 Site 4 Site 5 Site 6 FIGURE 2.Adjusted LAeq values for areas 1 and 2. KING ET AL.1026 determine the spatial and temporal variability within and between sample sites. Greater variation in noise levels was found in the residential neighborhood. This reflected the co-location of the sound-level recording with major roads bounding the sample area, as well as specific traffic-related noise sources such as buses, trucks, and street cleaning equipment. Noise variation within the sample areas was much greater in the residential neighborhood. Analysesrevealedstatisticallysignificantlyhigherlevelsofenvironmentalnoise inthe mixed-use neighborhood (area 2) compared to the predominantly residential neigh- borhood(area1).Area1generatedabsoluteenvironmentalnoiselevelswithintherange of an office environment or normal conversation both of which are considered comfortable for human hearing. Area 2, on the other hand, produced higher absolute environmental noise levels considered, according to annoyance scales, intrusive and slightly annoying. Noise values were on average (Leq) 8 db(A) greater during the day and 6 dB(A) greater during night-time hours in the mixed-use neighborhood. The higher overall levels of noise in area 2 likely reflect the continual presence of vehicular and pedestrian traffic in the area as well as background noise generated by institutional and industrial noise sources such as delivery trucks and ventilation systems. Evaluated against World Health Organization guidelines, both study areas yielded average noise events values in the moderate to serious annoyance range with the potential to obscure normal conversation and cause sleep disturbance. 14 Our results also show significant variability in environmental noise within sample areas. With respect to area 1, environmental noise appeared to vary as a function of traffic patterns. For example, sites nearer to high traffic roads (e.g., heavy truck or bus traffic) presented higher levels of environmental noise. Because residential zones such as area 1 are associated with low(er) levels of background (i.e., continuous environmental noise) noise, traffic events can potentially contribute to high levels of disruption and disturbance. For example, people living close to site 3 in the residential area experienced on average a 10-dB(A) higher noise level during night- time hours compared to residents living elsewhere in the study area (Table 3). Site 3 is closest to two relatively major roads that are preferred routes for commuter, truck, and traffic from public transit (buses). In contrast, area 2 is associated with higher levels of background noise from steady traffic flow; consequently, results evidenced less intra-study area variability in noise despite the higher levels of noise associated with sites near high-traffic roads. Our sampling approach also included measurement atrandom points withindefined timeperiodstoensuresufficientnoisemeasurementsovera24-hperiod.Wedidnot find significantdifferencesinaveragenoisevaluesacrossstudysiteswithineachsamplearea (Figure 2). Noise levels were somewhat higher during daytime hours, although the differences with evening and night-time measurements were minimized once values were adjusted. The consistency of noise values among day, evening, and night-time periods in urban environments has also been found in other studies. 20,25 Although noise values in both study areas did not vary significantly over time, there was relatively good correspondence in the intensity of average adjusted values between areas for the time periods selected. For example, noise levels increased incrementally from the afternoon, through the evening, and peaked in the overnight hours for both study areas,even thoughthere was anoverall differencein absolutenoise levels. Inboth areas, adjusted noise levels were greater in the overnight hours, particularly for the residential study area (area 1). Adjusted noise levels in the residential study area will be affected greatly by unusual noise sources, such as loud motorcycles, automobiles, or evenbustraffic,sincetypicalnoisevaluesaremuchlowerthroughouttheday.Normally NOISE LEVELS ASSOCIATED WITH URBAN LAND USE 1027 quiet neighborhoods in urban areas may thus be particularly prone to noise disturbances, especially during evening and night-time periods. These findings support our initial hypothesis about the potential for variation in noise levels as a function of land use development in an urban environment. Urban planning initiatives developed to intensify urban development and promote mixed-use develop- ment may consider the potential for increased human exposure to noise and “design with noise in mind”, especially as there is good evidence in support of an association between environmental noise and stress-related health effects. 7,9 When compared to guidelines designed to protect environmental quality and human health, adjusted noise levels in both areas exceed available recommended values for residential and mixed-use development and are indicative of relatively intensive land use development strategy (Table 5). Although Halifax is not a large city (population in 2006 of 372,675), noise levels in the mixed-use neighborhood are comparable to those measured in much larger urban centers such as Stockholm and Göteborg (LAeq, 24h =62 dB), 26 San Fransisco (Ldn =65 dB), 12 and Vancouver (LAeq, 5min =61.7 dB). 27 From a public health perspective, noise levels measured in this study are of sufficient intensity to be injurious. For example, a 5-dB(A) increase in noise level between 45 and 65 dB(A) has been associated with a 38 % increased odds for hypertension even after control for several well-known risk factors. 28 The most deleterious health impacts arise from excessive noise exposures resulting in sleep disturbance. Sleep is a process of mental and physiological recovery essential to healthy functioning. It has been estimated that between 50 and 150 noise-induced awakenings per year may occur at outdoor noise levels equivalent to those measured in this study. 29 Subsequent impacts to health and well-being are numerous, including: impairment to cognitive performance, changes in hormone (epinephrine) levels, and changes in heart rate, sleep patterns, and mood. Ultimately, the constellation of noise-induced morbidities can lead to more severe health outcomes at noise levels not much greater than those measured in this study. Several studies have demonstrated an increased prevalence of cardiovascular diseases at noise levels as low as 70 dB(A). 9,30 Given the high prevalence of heart disease in Halifax, when compared to similar size cities in Canada, there is a clear rationale to investigate in more detail the level and distribution of noise for the rest of the city. Certain study limitations may affect the generalizability of the results. First, noise levels were measured in two neighborhoods and within a limited time period. Increasing the number of study areas to include additional land-use types would provide a deeper understanding of the relationship between environmental noise, the built environment, and human health risks. Second, an extended sampling campaign could investigate the potential for seasonal variation on noise levels. For example, the source and character of environmental noise may change with weather and road conditions. Third, the collection of full 24-h samples would help to eliminate TABLE 5 Study LAeq valuesa compared to noise exposure limits set by Italian legislation Area 1 (residential) Area 2 (mixed use) Noise exposure limits LAeq Noise exposure limits LAeq Day (06:00–22:00) 55.0 55.4 60.0 63.4 Night (22:00–06:00) 45.0 50.0 50.0 56.1 aExpressed in dB(A) KING ET AL.1028 measurement error in the LAeq calculation. Future research should consider the variation of noise with land use in a similar fashion to air quality research to enable prediction of noise levels in locations without direct noise measurement. This approach could be complemented by interviews with neighborhood residents in order to investigate annoyance and the potential for noise-related human health risks. Despite these limitations, this study provides important evidence concerning the relationship between land use and environmental noise. A planning strategy focused on mixed-use development may result in an increase in noise levels and human exposures to noise at levels with potential health implications. In a 2007 paper on urban growth and population health, the authors recommended the inclusion of urbanicity as a potential determinant of health. 31 Indeed, our findings suggest a sensitivity of residential areas to noise disruptions from such urban standards as traffic intensification. Municipal planning policies and initiatives should consider integrating traffic restrictions and controls in residential areas and school zones. At present there are no quantitative noise standards on which to compare measured noise levels or evaluate noise exceedances in Halifax, and all excess noise levels are controlled through a complaint driven process based on perceived noise levels. Municipal representatives should consider the institution of new environmental noise standards and policies in order to protect the health of residents and preserve urban environmental quality. Such policies could include improving the quality of mufflers on buses especially in light of findings that relate potentially harmful noise levels to mass transit systems. 32 Ideally, policy development and regulation should originate from sound planning and an inclusive multi-sectoral approach, 33 to protect and improve population health in increasingly urbanized living environments. No financial support was received for the conduct of this research. Geomatics support was provided by the Health Geomatics Laboratory at Dalhousie University (hgl.science.dal.ca). REFERENCES 1. Northridge ME, Sclar ED, Biswas P. Sorting out the connections between the built environment and health: a conceptual framework for navigating pathways and planning healthy cities.J Urban Health. 2003; 80(4): 556. 2. Grimm NB, Faeth SH, Golubiewski NE, et al. Global change and the ecology of cities. Science. 2008; 319(5864): 756–760. 3. Galea S, Ahern J, Rudenstine S, Wallace Z, Vlahov D. Urban built environment and depression: a multilevel analysis.J Epidemiol Commun H. 2005; 59: 822–827. 4. Kaczynski A, Potwarka L, Saelens B. Association of park size, distance, and features with physical activity in neighborhood parks.Am J Public Health. 2008; 98: 1451–1456. 5. Dannenberg AL, Jackson JR, Frumkin H, et al. The impact of community design and land-use choices on public health.Am J Public Health. 2003; 93: 1500–1508. 6. Brown AL, Lam KC. Urban noise surveys.Appl Acoust. 1987; 20: 23–39. 7. Regecová V, Kellerová E. Effects of urban noise pollution on blood pressure and heart rate in preschool children.J Hypertens. 1995; 13: 405–412. 8. Stansfeld SA, Berglund B, Clark C, et al. Aircraft and road traffic and children’s cognition and health: a cross-national study.Lancet. 2005; 365: 1942–1949. 9. Babisch W. Traffic noise and cardiovascular disease: epidemiological review and synthesis.Noise Health. 2000; 8: 9–32. NOISE LEVELS ASSOCIATED WITH URBAN LAND USE 1029 10. Dinno A, Powell C, King MM. A study of riders’noise exposure on a bay area rapid transit trains.J Urban Health. 2011; 88: 1–13. 11. de Coensel B, de Muer T, Yperman I, Botteldooren D. The influence of traffic flow dynamics on urban soundscapes.Appl Acoust. 2005; 66: 175–194. 12. Seto ETW, Holt A, Rivard T, Bhatia R. Spatial distribution of traffic induced noise exposures in a US city: an analytic tool for assessing the health impacts of urban planning decisions.Int J Health Geogr. 2007; 6: 24. 13. Michaud DS, Keith SE, McMurchy D. Annoyance and disturbance of daily activities from road traffic noise in Canada.J Acoust Soc Am. 2008; 123(2): 784–792. 14. World Health Organization (WHO) Guidelines for Community Noise. 1999. Available from:http://www.who.int/docstore/peh/noise/guidelines2.html 15. South Australia Office of Parliamentary Counsel. Environment Protection (Noise) Policy 2007. Available from:http://www.legislation.sa.gov.au/lz/c/pol/environment%20protec tion%20%28noise%29%20policy%202007/current/2007.-.un.pdf 16. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.Information on Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety. Washington, D.C: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; 1974. 17. Frenkel A. The potential effect of national growth-management policy on urban sprawl and the depletion of open spaces and farmland.Land Use Policy. 2004; 21(4): 357–369. 18. Eid J, Overman HG, Puga D, Turner MA. Fat city: questioning the relationship between urban sprawl and obesity.J Urban Econom. 2008; 63(2): 385–404. 19. Stone J. Urban sprawl and air quality in large US cities.J Environ Manage. 2008; 86(4): 688–698. 20. Piccolo A, Plutino D, Cannistraro G. Evaluation and analysis of the environmental noise of Messina, Italy.Appl Acoust. 2005; 66: 447–465. 21. Gaja E, Gimenez A, Sancho S, Reig A. Sampling techniques for the estimation of the annual equivalent noise level under urban trafficconditions.Appl Acoust. 2003; 64: 43–53. 22. Miedema HME, Oudshoorn CGM. Annoyance from transportation noise: relationships with exposure metrics DNL and DENL and their confidence intervals.Environ Health Pers. 2001; 109(4): 409–416. 23. Barrigon Morillas JM, Gomez Escobar V, Mendez Sierra JA, Vilchez GR, Trujillo CJ. An environmental noise study in the city of Caceres, Spain.Appl Acoust. 2002; 63: 1061–1070. 24. Ng CH, Tang SK. On monitoring community noise using arbitrarily chosen measurement periods.Appl Acoust. 2007; 69: 649–661. 25. Tsai K-T, Lin M-D, Chen Y-H. Noise mapping in urban environments.Appl Acoust. 2009; 70: 964–972. 26. Gildlöf-Gunnarsson A,Ӧhrström E. Noise and well-being in urban residential environ- ments: the potential role of perceived availability to nearby green areas.Land Urban Plan. 2007; 83: 115–126. 27. Davies HW, Vlaanderen JJ, Henderson SB, Brauer M. Correlation between co-exposures to noise and air pollution from traffic sources.Occup Environ Med. 2009; 66: 347–350. 28. Bluhm GL, Berglind N, Nordling E, Rosenlund M. Road traffic noise and hypertension. Occup Environ Med. 2007; 64: 122–126. 29. Health Council of the Netherlands: Committee on an Uniform Noise Metric. Assessing Noise Exposure for Public Health Purposes [Omgevingslawaai besordelen]. nr 1997/23E. The Hague: Health Council of the Netherlands, 1997. 30. Babisch W, Beule B, Schust M, Kersten N, Ising H. Traffic noise and risk of myocardial infarction.Epidemiol. 2005; 16: 33–40. 31. Vlahov D, Freudenberg N, Proietti F, et al. Urban as a determinant of health.J Urban Health. 2007; 84(3): i16–i26. 32. Neitzel R, Gershon RR, Zeltser M, Canton A, Akram M. Noise levels associated with New York City’s mass transit systems.Am J Public Health. 2009; 99: 1393–1399. 33. Northridge ME, Freeman L. Urban planning and health equity.J Urban Health. 2011; 88: 582–597. KING ET AL.1030 EXHIBIT 3 Sustainable Cities and Society 91 (2023) 104470 Available online 15 February 2023 2210-6707/© 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by- nc-nd/4.0/). fkqnj]hf dkial]ca6f sss*ahoarean*_ki+hk_]pa+o_of Sustainable Cities and Society 91 (2023) 104470 2 “” “” ´´ ¨ ø ¨ Sustainable Cities and Society 91 (2023) 104470 3 ¨ ˇ´´ˇ ¨¨¨ – ’ ’ ´ Sustainable Cities and Society 91 (2023) 104470 4 ’ ’ Sustainable Cities and Society 91 (2023) 104470 5 = = == === == == =<= <=< =< ==== ==== == == = < == =<=< === < =< == ’ ’ Sustainable Cities and Society 91 (2023) 104470 6 < < < ’ < < Sustainable Cities and Society 91 (2023) 104470 7 ¨ ¨ < Sustainable Cities and Society 91 (2023) 104470 8 ´´ << Sustainable Cities and Society 91 (2023) 104470 9 ’ – – — – – – – – – – … – ’ – – – – – ´ – –– ´ – — – Sustainable Cities and Society 91 (2023) 104470 10 … – – – ¨¨¨ –– – – – – – ’ – – ´ – … – – … – – – – – – – – – ˇ´´ˇ – ¨ – ¨ – – – – – – ¨ – ¨ – – – – … – – … – – – ¨ – – ˜ … ø ¨ – – ´´ – ø … – – – – ’ – Sustainable Cities and Society 91 (2023) 104470 11 – – … – – – — – – – … – ’ – – EXHIBIT 4 International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health Article DALY-Based Health Risk Assessment of Construction Noise in Beijing, China Jun Xiao, Xiaodong Li * and Zhihui Zhang School of Civil Engineering, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, China; xiaoj13@mails.tsinghua.edu.cn (J.X.); zhzhg@tsinghua.edu.cn (Z.Z.) *Correspondence: eastdawn@tsinghua.edu.cn; Tel.: +86-106-278-4957 Academic Editor: Peter Lercher Received: 20 July 2016; Accepted: 19 October 2016; Published: 26 October 2016 Abstract:Noise produced by construction activities has become the second most serious acoustic polluting element in China. To provide industry practitioners with a better understanding of the health risks of construction noise and to aid in creating environmentally friendly construction plans during early construction stages, we developed a quantitative model to assess the health impairment risks (HIA) associated with construction noise for individuals living adjacent to construction sites. This model classifies noise-induced health impairments into four categories: cardiovascular disease, cognitive impairment, sleep disturbance, and annoyance, and uses disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) as an indicator of damage. Furthermore, the value of a statistical life (VSL) is used to transform DALYs into a monetary value based on the affected demographic characteristics, thereby offering policy makers a reliable theoretical foundation for establishing reasonable standards to compensate residents suffering from construction noise. A practical earthwork project in Beijing is used as a case study to demonstrate the applicability of the proposed model. The results indicate that construction noise could bring significant health risks to the neighboring resident community, with an estimated 34.51 DALYs of health damage and 20.47 million yuan in social costs. In particular, people aged 45–54 are most vulnerable to construction noise, with the greatest health risks being caused by sleep disturbance. Keywords:construction noise; disability-adjusted life years; social cost; health risk 1. Introduction Noise pollution is a negative externality of construction activities, especially earthwork and concrete construction. People respond differently to noise pollution; however, when noise levels reach a certain threshold, people tend to be affected negatively [1]. In China, 42.1% of environmental complaints are associated with acoustic pollution, 25.6% of which are attributed to construction noise, and acoustic pollution is becoming a more serious problem as rapid urbanization occurs [2]. Given that the typical projected goals for population urbanization levels increase from 52.6% in 2012 to approximately 60% by 2020, vast construction projects underway to meet the needs of immigrants’ daily lives are creating pervasive environmental pollution and insufferable noise for the neighboring communities. In addition, the impacts of construction noise may be growing more serious because the increasing population density means that more individuals are becoming more exposed to construction noise. Thus, it is critical to take steps to balance the desire for urbanization with sustainable development. Many measures have been taken to mitigate construction noise pollution. One common method is to reduce noise emissions at the source by using quiet construction technology and equipment and limiting the duration of noisy activities. When source control is unable to reduce noise levels at receptors to below critical levels, the next most common measure is to place obstacles, Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2016,13, 1045; doi:10.3390/ijerph13111045 www.mdpi.com/journal/ijerph Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2016,13, 1045 2 of 18 such as soundproof barriers and enclosures, along the transmission path [3,4]. In addition, some novel techniques derived from industry, such as active noise control techniques [5] and off-site construction [6], can be introduced as supplemental measures to overcome the limitations of the above-mentioned method. However, these above-mentioned measures have high investment costs. For noise control to be successfully implemented in practice, governments must not only implement a strict regulatory system but also develop economic, social and environmental criteria that make such investments worthwhile. As economic leverage for motivating enterprises to take steps to consciously reduce their pollution, a noise pollution discharge and compensation fee rule has been enforced by the Chinese government in the first national law against noise pollution [7]. In most cities, the discharge fee is intended to fund activities related to noise abatement. A contractor must pay the noise discharge fees to the environmental protection department if the environmental noise boundary of a construction site exceeds the standard limits [8]. The amount of this fee depends on the degree of the violation, ranging from 350 yuan per month for 1 dB above the limit to 11,200 yuan per month for 16 dB or more above the limit [9]. In Beijing, in addition to the discharge fee, a contractor who violates standard limits [8] must compensate the neighboring community by household because of the noise nuisance [10]. According to the rule [10], the actual amount of compensation depends on a negotiation between the contractor and neighbors and is limited to 30–60 yuan per month. These current rules are easy to follow; however, they have three theoretical and operational drawbacks that make it difficult to provide persuasive judgments in their support. First, it is illogical to use the environmental noise level of a construction site boundary as a criterion to determine whether construction noise is a nuisance to neighboring communities, as the noise level at a receptor is not always consistent with that at a site boundary due to propagation attenuation [8,11]. Second, neither rule fully incorporates the health risks caused by noise pollution. Although the noise disturbance compensation rule [10] admits that construction noise can disturb people’s lives, it does not expound upon the exposure–response relationship or even provide a disturbance-grading reference. It is arbitrary to weigh a noise nuisance based on an approximate noise level at a construction site boundary and negotiation. In addition, these rules were enacted many years ago. As environmental awareness and pollution-prevention costs are increasing, the negative externality of construction noise valued by those rules can neither offset people’s losses nor force enterprises to lower noise emissions. Thus, objective pollution assessment methods, as well as convenient estimation methods, are crucial for the economic leverage function of these rules. Researchers worldwide have used two methods for studies of construction noise emission estimation: the first examines noise data from equipment [3,4,12–15] and the second from construction sites [16]. Taking advantage of such estimation methods, individual exposure levels can be plausibly measured during the planning phase. However, most studies related to the environmental impacts of construction noise pollution still anchor estimates to noise exposure levels and to the number of communities affected [16–18]. A few studies have targeted the negative externality of construction noise. In a study by Gilchrist [19], three sources of social cost (productivity reduction, property damage, and health cost) associated with construction noise are outlined and valued by current bid evaluation methods. Nevertheless, the impacts of construction noise on these three sources were not presented in detail. Moreover, Hong et al. [20] used official standards to calculate the environmental cost of construction noise, but the details of this standard are beyond the scope of this article. Thus, current estimates give no further reference regarding how pollution discharge and compensation fee rules for construction noise are developed and implemented. Researchers have extended the environmental assessment of transportation noise pollution to social cost valuation using revealed [21–25] and stated preference methods [26–30]. The most common end points for valuation are typically expressed in the form of the Noise Depreciation Index (NDI) or the willingness to pay (WTP), which represent, respectively, the average decrease in house value caused by a 1-decibel increase in the noise level or the amount of money people are willing to pay (WTP) for a 1-decibel decrease in the noise level. These measurements can be directly Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2016,13, 1045 3 of 18 applied to negotiate transportation-noise charge schemes. However, the models proposed by these studies are not suitable for the assessment of construction noise for two reasons. First, house prices are not vulnerable to construction noise because construction projects usually last 2 years or less. Additionally, the house prices of neighbors will go up if the building being constructed has a public service function.Second, it is questionable that people understand the associated health risks and will make corresponding choices when they value environmental goods [31]. Hence, health risks are apparently more appropriate for deriving the social costs of construction noise. It has long been recognized that noise has harmful impacts on health [32]. Both experimental and epidemiological studies have been conducted over the years, and the results have revealed an increased disease incidence during periods of noise exposure [33]. Disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) are one of the most widely used metrics for assessing the human burden of disease, and this measure has been adopted as an endpoint indicator for health risk assessment of noise [34–38]. The concept of DALYs was developed in the original 1990 Global Burden of Disease (GBD) study to assess disease burden consistently across different diseases, risk factors and regions [39], and the necessary parameters have been further updated by the World Health Organization (WHO) [40]. A DALY measures the gap between the affected health status and ideal health status and equates it to the sum of time lived with disability and the time lost due to premature death. Social preference, for example, values the life year and can be incorporated to make the results more applicable for environmental decision making [41]. As such, the DALY method is well suited for application in health risk assessment of construction noise. This paper aims to establish a health risk assessment model for construction noise in Beijing based on the concept of DALYs. The model is intended to serve as a tool to assist the government in improving noise pollution-charge fee rules and to assist contractors in predicting health risks due to noise in order to optimize construction plans during pre-construction and to promote green construction. A commercial building in Beijing is used as a case study to demonstrate how the model works. 2. Materials and Methods 2.1. Health Risk Analysis It is necessary to conduct a health risk analysis of construction noise due to the lack of a convenient reference. This section was created to summarize available information on the exposure–response relationships between construction noise and specific health impairments and to describe the background prevalence of disease and the disability weights (DWs) of the outcomes so that DALYs could be applied to assess the health risks of construction noise. Based on the currently available scientific evidence supporting a causal association, the health impairments considered in this study include cardiovascular disease (CVD), cognitive impairment, sleep disturbance and annoyance [33]. Notably, tinnitus was excluded because there are no empirical data to propose that an adverse effect is associated with noise-induced tinnitus [33]. 2.1.1. CVD Noise is considered a general stressor that leads to CVD via arousal of the autonomic nervous system and the endocrine system, which are associated with changes in physiological functions and metabolism, including blood pressure, heart rate, and other functions [32,33]. Recent epidemiological studies have increased understanding of the linkage between community noise and cardiovascular disease (CVD) [42,43], including hypertension [44,45], myocardial infarction [46–48] and stroke [49]. However, most CVDs, except myocardial infarction, have only been linked with construction noise by a biological reaction model [50–53]. An exposure–response relationship with myocardial infarction was demonstrated in a study by Babisch et al. [46]. In that study, the annoyance induced by construction noise had an odds ratio similar to that induced by road traffic noise with respect to myocardial infarction. Hence, our model only considers myocardial infarction when calculating DALYs due to Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2016,13, 1045 4 of 18 CVD and assumes that construction noise and road traffic noise have the same odds ratio as myocardial infarction at a different sound level. The detailed data shown in Table 1 was originated from local statistics [54] and meta-analysis research on noise exposure–response relationships [47]. Based on six studies and over 17,000 samples, this referenced meta-analysis [47] provided reliable results, and it has also been cited by a 2011 WHO report [33]. Thereafter, Babisch et al. continued their study including more data from five additional studies [48]. However, three of the studies provided information on the overall exposure–response relationship with respect to CVD [55], ischemic heart disease [56] and coronary heart disease [57], which are more common than myocardial infarction. Hence, the present paper relies on the results of previous research [47] to assess myocardial infarction. The categorical approach of Babisch’s work [47] is noise level-oriented. Relative risks from different studies referring to the same noise category were pooled to derive an exposure–response relationship. The results indicated that exposure to noise increases the incidence of myocardial infarction in people aged 25–74 and has no effects on myocardial infarction incidence in women. To infer the probability risk of myocardial infarction caused by exposure to construction noise, the background prevalence of myocardial infarction in Beijing is also cited. The details are as follows (Table 1): Table 1.Probability risk a of myocardial infarction caused by construction noise, in percent. Age Sound Level, Ldn , (dB(A)) <60 60–64 65–69 70–74 75 Disability Weight b , DW 25–34 0.0105 0.0106 0.0112 0.0121 0.013 0.443 35–44 0.0796 0.0808 0.0850 0.0924 0.1036 45–54 0.2059 0.2090 0.2197 0.2391 0.2681 55–64 0.3936 0.3995 0.4200 0.4570 0.5125 65–74 1.3436 1.3637 1.4336 1.5599 1.7493 a R =odds ratio Pmt , where odds ratio is derived from [47], and Pmt represents the local average mortality level of myocardial infarction [54];b The DW for myocardial infarction in the WHO WPRO B1 (mainly China) region is 0.433 [58]. 2.1.2. Cognitive Impairment The negative effects of noise on learning and memory in children have been studied for many years. Noise can reduce the clarity of a teacher’s voice [59,60], and exposure to noise increases the time required for children to process information [61,62]. The mechanism of this effect is similar to that of CVD. Acute and chronic noise increases the workload of cortical and sub-cortical brain structures, interrupting the original biological response [63]. Children residing in noisier areas of communities suffer psychological distress, as shown by increased systolic blood pressure, greater heart rate reactivity and higher overnight cortisol levels [64,65]. Evidence from recent, well-controlled epidemiological studies [66–68] with representative samples of children aged 5–19 has made it possible to quantify the magnitude of noise-induced cognitive impairment in children. Based on the results of these studies, the WHO performed a meta-analysis that created an approximate curve (Figure 1) to represent the exposure–response relationship between noise and impairment [33]. This curve assumes that 100% of children exposed to noise at 95 Ldn , dB(A) suffer from cognitive impairment and that no children are affected at an exposure level of 50 Ldn , dB(A). The approximate probability of a child developing noise-induced cognitive impairment (NICI) is shown in Table 2. NICI is not an outcome of a clinical diagnosis [33]. In 2002, WHO have suggested DWs for cognitive impairment and contemporaneous cognitive deficit of different diseases (Japanese encephalitis; Ascariasis; Trichuriasis; Hookworm disease; Iron-deficiency anaemia) in the WPRO B1 (mainly China) region [58]. In 2011, WHO [33] gave a conservative DW of 0.006 in estimates of NICI. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2016,13, 1045 5 of 18 Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2016, 13, 1045 5 of 17 Figure 1. Hypothetical exposure–risk curves and estimated percentages of affected people [33]. Table 2. Health risk of noise-induced cognitive impairment (NICI). Noise Level Ldn, (dB(A)) Percentage of Children Who Will Suffer from NICI Disability Weight, DW Boundary Condition <55 0% 0.006 Age: 7–19 years old 55–64 20% 64–75 50% >75 75% 2.1.3. Sleep Disturbance It is obvious that exposure to noise over a certain threshold during sleeping may cause a person to awaken. Complete sleep cycles are vital to maintaining performance during the day, as well as general good health. Humans perceive, evaluate and react to acoustic information even while asleep. Acute and chronic noise exposure induces the auditory system to continuously engage in these actions and results in sleep structure changes and an increased heart rate. Thus, sleep is disrupted, and its restorative power is decreased. Sleep disturbance is the most pervasive complaint in China [2], especially in metropolises such as Beijing, Shanghai and Shenzhen, where the traffic conditions make contractors favor arranging material transportation and work at night. Researchers worldwide [69–71] have investigated the adverse effects of construction noise exposure on sleep. For example, Sun [69] provided direct evidence in support of health risk assessment for estimating construction noise-induced sleep disturbance in China. In his study [69], 98% of respondents confessed that construction noise reduced their sleep quality, 95% of respondents admitted being awakened by construction noise, and 40% of them reported being awakened frequently. By analyzing the results of noise monitoring and the questionnaire survey, the threshold value of construction noise that leads to sleep disturbance was found to be 52 dB(A) [69]. However, the study did not address the exposure–response relationship between construction noise and sleep disturbance. In contrast, road-traffic noise has been well studied. Miedema [72,73] evaluated 43 data sets obtained from 36 field studies; the data were presented as a synthesis curve that can be seen as the exposure–response relationship between road traffic and sleep disturbance. The responses were gathered from people aged 12–98 years through self-reporting, and the questions addressed problems that included waking up or being disturbed by noise. These two analyses yielded very similar curves and included 95% confidence intervals that considered the variations across individuals and studies. Because construction noise at night in China mainly originates from engines of motor vehicles and heavy equipment, its character could be similar to road traffic noise. Hence, this study assumed that construction noise has the same health risk factor as road traffic noise. The risk factor can be calculated by the following Equation (1) [72]: Figure 1.Hypothetical exposure–risk curves and estimated percentages of affected people [33]. Table 2.Health risk of noise-induced cognitive impairment (NICI). Noise Level Ldn , (dB(A)) Percentage of Children Who Will Suffer from NICI Disability Weight, DW Boundary Condition <55 0% 0.006 Age: 7–19 years old55–64 20% 64–75 50% >75 75% 2.1.3. Sleep Disturbance It is obvious that exposure to noise over a certain threshold during sleeping may cause a person to awaken. Complete sleep cycles are vital to maintaining performance during the day, as well as general good health. Humans perceive, evaluate and react to acoustic information even while asleep. Acute and chronic noise exposure induces the auditory system to continuously engage in these actions and results in sleep structure changes and an increased heart rate. Thus, sleep is disrupted, and its restorative power is decreased. Sleep disturbance is the most pervasive complaint in China [2], especially in metropolises such as Beijing, Shanghai and Shenzhen, where the traffic conditions make contractors favor arranging material transportation and work at night. Researchers worldwide [69–71] have investigated the adverse effects of construction noise exposure on sleep. For example, Sun [69] provided direct evidence in support of health risk assessment for estimating construction noise-induced sleep disturbance in China. In his study [69], 98% of respondents confessed that construction noise reduced their sleep quality, 95% of respondents admitted being awakened by construction noise, and 40% of them reported being awakened frequently. By analyzing the results of noise monitoring and the questionnaire survey, the threshold value of construction noise that leads to sleep disturbance was found to be 52 dB(A) [69]. However, the study did not address the exposure–response relationship between construction noise and sleep disturbance. In contrast, road-traffic noise has been well studied. Miedema [72,73] evaluated 43 data sets obtained from 36 field studies; the data were presented as a synthesis curve that can be seen as the exposure–response relationship between road traffic and sleep disturbance. The responses were gathered from people aged 12–98 years through self-reporting, and the questions addressed problems that included waking up or being disturbed by noise. These two analyses yielded very similar curves and included 95% confidence intervals that considered the variations across individuals and studies. Because construction noise at night in China mainly originates from engines of motor vehicles and heavy equipment, its character could be similar to road traffic noise. Hence, this study Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2016,13, 1045 6 of 18 assumed that construction noise has the same health risk factor as road traffic noise. The risk factor can be calculated by the following Equation (1) [72]: R =20.8 1.05 (Lnight ) +0.01486 Lnight 2 (1) where Lnight represents the sound level from 11 pm to 7 am in dB(A). The threshold value was found to be 52 dB(A) [69]. Thus far, no DW is available for evaluating noise-induced sleep disturbance in the WPRO B1 (mainly China) region. The only suggested interval that has been published is in the Night Noise Guidelines for Europe [74]. In this report, the median of an interval (0.04, 0.1) was chosen as the DW for noise-induced sleep disturbance. With the assumption that the human response to noise is mainly founded on biological, racial, traditional and other subjective mechanisms, the present study uses a DW of 0.07 to calculate the DALY in Beijing. 2.1.4. Annoyance Annoyance is widely accepted as a basis for evaluating the impact of noise on an exposed population [33]. People who suffer annoyance may experience multiple negative physical and mental reactions, such as tiredness, stomach discomfort, anger, disappointment and anxiety. Because health is defined as a state of not only physical but also mental and social well-being [32], it is reasonable to consider noise-induced annoyance as a health risk. Transportation noise is considered the most common source of environmental noise that leads to annoyance. Based on the results of several high-quality papers [75–77], the European Commission has created synthesis curves of dose–response relationships for noise annoyance from aircraft, road traffic and railway noise, with their 95% confidence intervals taking into account the variation among individuals and studies [78]. Several studies have shown that construction noise is also a significant noise source that leads to people feeling annoyed [4,69,70,79–81]. In a study by Sun [69], field noise levels around a construction plant were measured, and self-reported responses of annoyance were collected. Based on these data, the threshold value of annoyance for construction noise was calculated as 60.3 dB(A); however, no reference to an exposure–response relationship was made. Hence, this study assumes that construction noise and road traffic have the same dose–response relationship with annoyance because the annoyance induced by construction noise is primarily caused by inner-combustion engine machines [46,69], which are also the main noise source for road noise. Based on Sun’s study [69] and a report made by the European Commission [78], the function used for risk factor be achieved by Equation (2): Rdaytime =9.994 10 4 (Ldn 60.3)3 1.523 10 2 (Ldn 60.3)2 +0.538 (Ldn 60.3)(2) where the unit of Ldn is dB(A). In the same vein as sleep disturbance, annoyance has no authentic DW. Fortunately, the report by the WHO [33] recommends a conservative DW of 0.02 for estimating DALYs due to annoyance. The age boundary is the same as that for sleep disturbance. 2.2. Assessment Model The health risk of construction noise can be assessed using a model that considers money as a term. First, the DALYs due to construction noise are estimated, using noise level as a dependent variable. Next, the economic value of the DALYs is calculated based on the value of a statistical life (VSL), which is calculated according to WTP. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2016,13, 1045 7 of 18 2.2.1. DALY Estimation Model In the original method, DALY calculation is performed by statistically analyzing actual data after damage to health has occurred. The following formula is used [33]: DALY =YLL +YLD (3) In the Equation (3), YLL represents the number of years of life lost, which is calculated by Equation (4): YLL =(Nm i lm i +Nf i lf i )(4) where Nm i and Nf i represent the numbers of deaths of males and females in age group i multiplied by the standard life expectancies lm i and lf i , of males and females, which is the age at which death occurs. YLD is the number of “years lived with disability”, and is estimated using Equation (5): YLD =I DW D (5) where I represents the number of incident cases multiplied by a DW and the average duration D of disability in years. DW is associated with each health condition and lies on a scale between 0 (indicating that the health condition is equivalent to full health) and 1 (indicating that the health condition is equivalent to death). According to this method, noise health risks can be accounted for with R ¥ 0 AD[L,n(L)]dL, where AD (L)representstheDALYlossofeachindividualexposedtonoiselevel L,and n (L)represents the densities of exposed persons at different noise levels. However, this type of statistical formula cannot satisfy the intention of environmental impact assessment [82]. Hence, in this model, DALYs are calculated using a method modified based on the methodology of the population attributable fraction (PAF), in which the key factor is the relative risk (RR). The expected Nm i ,Nf i and I can then be derived by n (L)RR (L, c), which depends not only on the exposed noise level, L, but also on personal characteristics, c, such as age and gender. In addition, data on the distributions of individuals, noise levels and health risks are often available as both discrete and continuous data sets. The formula used for calculating the environmental impact (EI) of noise is expressed as Equation (6): HR = L V [n (L)RR (L, c)(PDT l +(1 PDT )DW D), c](6) However, noise around construction sites consists both of background noise and construction noise. Residents could be affected by noise even when there is no construction noise. For example, an environmental noise level above 45 dB(A) could lead to sleep disturbance and annoyance [32], and the standard noise level in most regions of China is above 55 dB(A) [11]. Therefore, to assess construction noise objectively, it is very critical to take the background noise into consideration when calculating DALYs due to construction noise. The formula for this calculation is shown as Equation (7): DALYsc =DALYsd DALYsb =D [n (L)R (L, c)(l +DW D)](7) where DALYsc represents the DALYs caused by construction noise Lc ;DALYsb represents the DALYs caused by the background noise level Lb ; and DALYsd represents the DALYs caused by the environmental noise level Ld during construction. Hence, the environmental impact of construction noise, EIc , can be expressed as Equation (8): EIc = L DV [n (L)R (L, c)(l +DW D),c](8) Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2016,13, 1045 8 of 18 2.2.2. Monetization of Health Risk In this model, health risks are estimated by DALYs, which consist of both YLL and YLD. YLL influences the duration of life, and YLD influences the quality of life. The key to monetizing the DALY is determining the monetary value of human life. Because life is not a commodity that has a selling price, the economic value of life is not the price of actual life but rather the amount of money people or society are willing to pay for health damage prevention. This amount is the concept of the value of a statistical life (VSL) [83]. VSL is widely used for the valuation of human life in assessments of public safety issues, such as environmental problems and transportation safety [83]. Large quantities of basic data are needed for the estimation of VSL. For research efficiency, the current work calculated the VSL of a citizen in Beijing based on the existing research. Visusi [83] and Aldy [84] summarized numerous methods of estimating VSL and published the VSL for Americans according to the hedonic wage model, which is widely accepted in the field. The VSL is calculated by Equation (9): VSL =rf w t rv (9) where rf represents the mortality risk factor (0.00172 according to [85]), w represents the hourly after-tax wage rate, t represents the work hours per year, and rv represents the units of the mortality risk variable (100,000 according to [86,87]). Because the hourly after-tax wage rate and work hours per year are not provided by state-generated statistics [88], the present study instead uses the per capita disposable income (PCDI) for VSL calculation. After that, the value of a statistical life year (VSLY) for people living in each district of Beijing is calculated based on the VSL and Equation (10), as described below. The results are shown in Table 3. VSLY =VSL r h 1 (1 +r)n i (10) where r represents the discount rate (4% according to the European Commission Guideline [89]) and n represents the expected years of remaining life (31.81 according to [84,88]). Hence, the environmental impact of construction noise, EIc , can be expressed as Equation (11): EIc =DALYsc VSLY (11) Table 3.VSLY for Beijing citizens (in RMB). Location PCDI VSLY Dong Cheng 45,052 434,770.61 Xi Cheng 47,392 592,962.95 Chao Yang 44,646 558,605.34 Feng Tai 41,334 517,165.99 Shi Jingshan 41,943 524,785.73 Hai Dian 50,088 626,694.98 Men Tougou 38,023 475,739.16 Fang Shan 35,912 449,326.59 Tong Zhou 37,095 464,128.14 Shun Yi 36,428 455,782.72 Chang Ping 35,517 444,384.39 Da Xing 37,131 464,578.57 Huai Rou 35,771 447,562.41 Ping Gu 36,226 453,255.32 Mi Yun 35,499 444,159.18 Yan Qing 33,778 422,626.24 Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2016,13, 1045 9 of 18 In the next section, an example of estimating noise-induced health risks from an earthwork operation is presented to demonstrate the performance of the proposed assessment model. The results are presented for different types of buildings and ages. 3. Application to Earthwork This project is situated in the Da Shilan neighborhood, Xuan Wu District of Beijing, China. This project uses two work platforms, C1 and C2, and the earthwork construction is divided into five parts with a total workload of approximately 400,000 cubic meters. According to the project construction plan, the earthwork construction occurs 24 h a day, is executed by six excavators and eight dump trucks, and lasts 123 days. However, due to changes in site factors and the regulation limits of the Beijing city government, only two excavators are allowed to work, and the earthwork transportation is forbidden from 6:00 am to 11:00 pm, which extends the project schedule to at least 369 days. Additionally, there are six adjacent buildings, including hotels and residential buildings, within 100 m. According to the “Environmental quality standard for noise” [11], the level of environmental noise in the areas around this project should abide by the limits for the second area, which is 60 dB(A) during the daytime and 50 dB(A) at night. 3.1. Data Processing In this case, the earthwork occurs from 11:00 pm to 6:00 am, and the excavators work all day. Because the environmental impact documents from this project have no relevant data regarding noise, its noise pollution data are collected by field measurement and simulation. The field measurements are performed from 11:00 pm to 6:00 am, and other noise sources that may impact the accuracy of monitoring are virtually nonexistent. The types of data collected include the sound levels of construction noise sources (SL1 ), the local environmental noise levels around the site during construction (SL2 ) and the indoor noise levels in the adjacent buildings (SL3 ). For objectivity and convenience during analysis, data collection is conducted by field monitoring, following the guidelines of the “Emission standard of environmental noise for boundary of construction site” [8], and analysis is performed using the noise-modeling software package SoundPLAN TM Acoustics [90]. Details of the collected data are summarized in Table 4. Table 4.Description of the data. Data Type Collection Method Utility SL1 Field monitoring Forecast the acoustic environment of the adjacent buildings during construction SL2 Field monitoring and acoustics simulation software Test the validity of simulation SL3 Acoustics simulation software Represent the acoustic environment in the adjacent buildings during construction Based on the site conditions and the national standards [8], noise observation points are set to collect noise data. Four of the noise observation points, which are labeled with numbers, are used to measure the noise level of the site, while the other points are set to collect mechanical noise data. The orientation of the observation points and the site terrain are shown in Figure 2. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2016,13, 1045 10 of 18 Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2016, 13, 1045 9 of 17 noise in the areas around this project should abide by the limits for the second area, which is 60 dB(A) during the daytime and 50 dB(A) at night. 3.1. Data Processing In this case, the earthwork occurs from 11:00 pm to 6:00 am, and the excavators work all day. Because the environmental impact documents from this project have no relevant data regarding noise, its noise pollution data are collected by field measurement and simulation. The field measurements are performed from 11:00 pm to 6:00 am, and other noise sources that may impact the accuracy of monitoring are virtually nonexistent. The types of data collected include the sound levels of construction noise sources (SL1), the local environmental noise levels around the site during construction (SL2) and the indoor noise levels in the adjacent buildings (SL3). For objectivity and convenience during analysis, data collection is conducted by field monitoring, following the guidelines of the “Emission standard of environmental noise for boundary of construction site” [8], and analysis is performed using the noise-modeling software package SoundPLANTM Acoustics [90]. Details of the collected data are summarized in Table 4. Table 4. Description of the data. Data Type Collection Method UtilitySL1 Field monitoring Forecast the acoustic environment of the adjacent buildings during construction SL2 Field monitoring and acoustics simulation software Test the validity of simulation SL3 Acoustics simulation software Represent the acoustic environment in the adjacent buildings during construction Based on the site conditions and the national standards [8], noise observation points are set to collect noise data. Four of the noise observation points, which are labeled with numbers, are used to measure the noise level of the site, while the other points are set to collect mechanical noise data. The orientation of the observation points and the site terrain are shown in Figure 2. Figure 2. Locations of the observation points and adjacent buildings. The residents living adjacent to the project refused indoor data monitoring; therefore, the environmental noise level before construction was set to 50 dB(A), as authorized by the local denotes observation point denotes excavator Figure 2.Locations of the observation points and adjacent buildings. The residents living adjacent to the project refused indoor data monitoring; therefore, the environmental noise level before construction was set to 50 dB(A), as authorized by the local government [11]. The environmental noise levels in the adjacent buildings during construction were simulated by SoundPLAN noise-modeling software based on the measured sound power level of the excavator (113 dB) and the environmental noise level before construction. The simulation results are shown in Figure 3 and Table 5. This study first simulates noise levels at the observation points and tests the validity of simulation by comparing the measured data and the simulation data. According to Table 6, the correlation coefficient between the measured data and the simulation data is 1, which indicates a perfect correlation. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2016, 13, 1045 10 of 17 government [11]. The environmental noise levels in the adjacent buildings during construction were simulated by SoundPLAN noise-modeling software based on the measured sound power level of the excavator (113 dB) and the environmental noise level before construction. The simulation results are shown in Figure 3 and Table 5. This study first simulates noise levels at the observation points and tests the validity of simulation by comparing the measured data and the simulation data. According to Table 6, the correlation coefficient between the measured data and the simulation data is 1, which indicates a perfect correlation. Figure 3. Sound map of the construction site and its vicinity. Table 5. Simulated noise levels in the surrounding buildings (unit: dB(A)). Building No. Noise Level LAeq 1st Floor 2nd Floor 3rd Floor 4th Floor 5th Floor 6th Floor 1 80.6 80.0 79.2 78.2 77.2 76.2 2 69.5 68.0 67.4 67.6 67.7 69.2 3 73.0 73.2 72.9 72.6 72.3 72.0 4 75.0 74.8 74.4 74.0 73.6 73.1 5 52.6 52.9 53.0 53.0 52.9 52.8 6 59.3 59.1 59.5 59.6 59.8 59.9 Table 6. Description of the noise data (unit: dB(A)) Point No. Measured Value (LAeq) Simulation Value (LAeq) Errors a 1 67.8 66.4 1.4 2 73.0 73.2 −0.2 3 73.9 73.5 0.4 4 68.5 67.0 1.5 Correlation coefficient 1 b a Errors equals the measured value minus the simulation value. b Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). After noise data, population information (e.g., size, age and gender) is important for model application. Because the aim of this case study is not to investigate environmental impacts, but rather to present an application of the assessment model, the population-related data used were based on data collected by the local statistical bureau. According to the latest population census statistics of Beijing municipality [91], the per capita floor space for people living in Xuan Wu is 23.54 square Figure 3.Sound map of the construction site and its vicinity. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2016,13, 1045 11 of 18 Table 5.Simulated noise levels in the surrounding buildings (unit: dB(A)). Building No. Noise Level LAeq 1st Floor 2nd Floor 3rd Floor 4th Floor 5th Floor 6th Floor 1 80.6 80.0 79.2 78.2 77.2 76.2 2 69.5 68.0 67.4 67.6 67.7 69.2 3 73.0 73.2 72.9 72.6 72.3 72.0 4 75.0 74.8 74.4 74.0 73.6 73.1 5 52.6 52.9 53.0 53.0 52.9 52.8 6 59.3 59.1 59.5 59.6 59.8 59.9 Table 6.Description of the noise data (unit: dB(A)) Point No.Measured Value (LAeq ) Simulation Value (LAeq )Errors a 1 67.8 66.4 1.4 2 73.0 73.2 0.2 3 73.9 73.5 0.4 4 68.5 67.0 1.5 Correlation coefficient 1 b a Errors equals the measured value minus the simulation value; b Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). After noise data, population information (e.g., size, age and gender) is important for model application. Because the aim of this case study is not to investigate environmental impacts, but rather to present an application of the assessment model, the population-related data used were based on data collected by the local statistical bureau. According to the latest population census statistics of Beijing municipality [91], the per capita floor space for people living in Xuan Wu is 23.54 square meters. Combined with the building area, the population size of each building can therefore be inferred. Then, the expected age and gender distributions for the population in each building can be deduced based on local data and the population size. The Beijing Statistical Association has published census information for the Xi Cheng district that accounts for 10 years and includes the sex ratio [91]. In this case, the distributions of age and gender are assumed to be consistent with that of the Xi Cheng district. For the benefit of data integration, the age interval was set to 10 years, as shown in Figure 4. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2016, 13, 1045 11 of 17 meters. Combined with the building area, the population size of each building can therefore be inferred. Then, the expected age and gender distributions for the population in each building can be deduced based on local data and the population size. The Beijing Statistical Association has published census information for the Xi Cheng district that accounts for 10 years and includes the sex ratio [91]. In this case, the distributions of age and gender are assumed to be consistent with that of the Xi Cheng district. For the benefit of data integration, the age interval was set to 10 years, as shown in Figure 4. Figure 4. Distribution of age and gender. 3.2. Assessment Results Based on the above analysis of health risks and VSLY using the presented data on noise levels and population, the DALYs for each building were calculated and are presented in Figures 5 and 6. In the process of DALY calculation, the disability duration of each health impairment, D, is consistent with the duration of the construction period because the evidence showed that these health impairments would disappear once the noise faded away [33]. Figure 5. Distribution of environmental impact by building. Figure 4.Distribution of age and gender. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2016,13, 1045 12 of 18 3.2. Assessment Results Based on the above analysis of health risks and VSLY using the presented data on noise levels and population, the DALYs for each building were calculated and are presented in Figures 5 and 6. In the process of DALY calculation, the disability duration of each health impairment, D, is consistent with the duration of the construction period because the evidence showed that these health impairments would disappear once the noise faded away [33]. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2016, 13, 1045 11 of 17 meters. Combined with the building area, the population size of each building can therefore be inferred. Then, the expected age and gender distributions for the population in each building can be deduced based on local data and the population size. The Beijing Statistical Association has published census information for the Xi Cheng district that accounts for 10 years and includes the sex ratio [91]. In this case, the distributions of age and gender are assumed to be consistent with that of the Xi Cheng district. For the benefit of data integration, the age interval was set to 10 years, as shown in Figure 4. Figure 4. Distribution of age and gender. 3.2. Assessment Results Based on the above analysis of health risks and VSLY using the presented data on noise levels and population, the DALYs for each building were calculated and are presented in Figures 5 and 6. In the process of DALY calculation, the disability duration of each health impairment, D, is consistent with the duration of the construction period because the evidence showed that these health impairments would disappear once the noise faded away [33]. Figure 5. Distribution of environmental impact by building. Figure 5.Distribution of environmental impact by building.Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2016, 13, 1045 12 of 17 Figure 6. Environmental impacts on age groups. The total health risk for the neighboring community is 3.80 × 10 DALYs, and the corresponding expected social cost of construction noise in this case is almost 1.98 × 10 million yuan, of which Building No. 1, Building No. 3 and Building No. 4 are the main contributors. People living in these buildings faced significantly more health risk caused by construction noise for two reasons: (1) they are closer to the noise sources; and (2) there are no barriers to block the noise pathway. People living in Building No. 5 suffered the lowest DALYs because Building No. 4 obstructed the pathway between the noise sources and Building No. 5, where the residents were only slightly influenced by sleep disturbance. 4. Discussion 4.1. Impact of Noise on Human Health The present study clearly shows that noise is an important reason for the environmental impact of construction projects, as revealed by the higher health risk faced by the communities neighboring the studied construction site. Among the health risk categories assessed, sleep disturbance formed the largest proportion (more than 55%) and was pervasive in each building. This conclusion is consistent with the fact that most complaints associated with construction noise occurred at night. However, as another widely accepted basis for evaluating the impact of noise, annoyance was not found to have a strong impact, which is likely because its threshold in China is set at 60 dB(A), which is over 10 units higher than that in Europe. Thus, lowering noise emissions at night, developing low- noise equipment and avoiding performing noisy work during nighttime hours represent the most efficient ways to improve a building’s environmental performance, as well as to meet policy goals. The second most widespread health risk in this case was cognitive impairment, which is likely because noise exposure easily challenges a juvenile’s attention. Because only people aged between 5 and 19 years have been shown to be sensitive to NICI, this health risk is only responsible for approximately 0.36 DALYs, which is the smallest calculated health risk. However, cognitive impairment has a negative effect on learning, which is very important for children’s futures. Thus, both the government and contractors should pay special attention to this factor. Compared with the aforementioned risks, CVD only occurred in four buildings but caused approximately 13.93 DALYs, which accounted for 40% of the estimated environmental impact of construction noise. Due to its lethality, which leads to YLL, and the increase in mortality with age, CVD was identified as the most serious health risk for older individuals. 4.2. Methodological Limitations In a study reported by Gilchrist and Allouche [19], property damage was assessed to quantify the social cost of construction noise pollution. As a quiet acoustic climate is critical to recreation, the Figure 6.Environmental impacts on age groups. The total health risk for the neighboring community is 38.0 DALYs, and the corresponding expected social cost of construction noise in this case is almost 19.8 million yuan, of which Building No. 1, Building No. 3 and Building No. 4 are the main contributors. People living in these buildings faced significantly more health risk caused by construction noise for two reasons: (1) they are closer to the noise sources; and (2) there are no barriers to block the noise pathway. People living in Building No. 5 suffered the lowest DALYs because Building No. 4 obstructed the pathway between the noise sources and Building No. 5, where the residents were only slightly influenced by sleep disturbance. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2016,13, 1045 13 of 18 4. Discussion 4.1. Impact of Noise on Human Health The present study clearly shows that noise is an important reason for the environmental impact of construction projects, as revealed by the higher health risk faced by the communities neighboring the studied construction site. Among the health risk categories assessed, sleep disturbance formed the largest proportion (more than 55%) and was pervasive in each building. This conclusion is consistent with the fact that most complaints associated with construction noise occurred at night. However, as another widely accepted basis for evaluating the impact of noise, annoyance was not found to have a strong impact, which is likely because its threshold in China is set at 60 dB(A), which is over 10 units higher than that in Europe. Thus, lowering noise emissions at night, developing low-noise equipment and avoiding performing noisy work during nighttime hours represent the most efficient ways to improve a building’s environmental performance, as well as to meet policy goals. The second most widespread health risk in this case was cognitive impairment, which is likely because noise exposure easily challenges a juvenile’s attention. Because only people aged between 5 and 19 years have been shown to be sensitive to NICI, this health risk is only responsible for approximately 0.36 DALYs, which is the smallest calculated health risk. However, cognitive impairment has a negative effect on learning, which is very important for children’s futures. Thus, both the government and contractors should pay special attention to this factor. Compared with the aforementioned risks, CVD only occurred in four buildings but caused approximately 13.93 DALYs, which accounted for 40% of the estimated environmental impact of construction noise. Due to its lethality, which leads to YLL, and the increase in mortality with age, CVD was identified as the most serious health risk for older individuals. 4.2. Methodological Limitations In a study reported by Gilchrist and Allouche [19], property damage was assessed to quantify the social cost of construction noise pollution. As a quiet acoustic climate is critical to recreation, the value that non-residents attach to the amenity may also be relevant, especially in areas that attract large numbers of tourists or where employees working close by go out for lunch [21]. In the present research, Building No. 3, a hotel located on Qianmen Street, a tourist hot spot in Beijing, went from 80% occupancy to 20% occupancy in the second month after the construction began. Due to the absence of actual financial data, the economic loss experienced by this hotel was deduced as 665,118 yuan based on room price (218 RMB per day), number of rooms (15) and duration of construction (at least 369 days). Such costs suffered by businesses cannot be reflected by the model proposed in the present study. Hence, further studies aiming to quantify the social costs of construction noise should integrate property damage and health risk. Another limitation of our study is that the exposure–response factors used were derived from noise with little variation in roughness. The annoyance induced by concrete breaker noise increases as roughness increases [1]. Therefore, some of the risk factors used may have led us to underestimate the severity of the health risk induced by the construction noise produced during the demolition stage. Note, however, that this study focused on applying the DALY concept to quantify the health risks resulting from construction noise. Thus, at best, we can only propose this as a reasonable assessment model. As concern regarding the health impairments caused by construction noise [1,69–71] grows, this limitation is expected to be resolved by future studies. 5. Conclusions During urbanization, numerous construction projects occur, which benefit city development and have an environmental impact on the surroundings. As a common source of environmental noise, construction noise not only deteriorates the acoustic climate quality but also threatens resident health, leading to many complaints. To prevent construction noise pollution, some municipal governments, such as that in Beijing, have decided to impose noise discharge fees, which incentivize contractors to reduce emissions. However, these rules are not adequate for policy purposes because thorough Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2016,13, 1045 14 of 18 considerationoffactorsthatarerelatedtonoiselevel, impactmechanismsandindividualcharacteristics is lacking. Accordingly, the present study proposes a health risk assessment model for construction noise and establishes an evaluation index for construction projects in Beijing, which has been adopted by the local government to revise noise discharge regulations. Impact assessment is performed using the DALY metric. Four well-accepted health impairments related to noise are thoroughly analyzed. Considering the mechanisms underlying the different health impairments, the related DALYs were assessed by noise level and based on other key factors, such as age, gender and local disease incidence. VSLY was invoked as a monetary index to quantify the social cost of construction noise. Based on the availability of data, the VSLY of individuals living in each district of Beijing are presented, which adds salience to the current noise discharge regulations. In addition, a case study of a construction project in downtown Beijing was used to demonstrate an application of the model. The case study demonstrated the applicability of the proposed model for assessing the health risk of construction noise. Based on the construction plan, the health risks associated with construction noise from the earthwork case and the corresponding social cost were evaluated using the proposed model. The results of this case study indicate that the health risks caused by construction noise are limited to individuals living in buildings adjacent to construction sites; however, the social cost of the noise is serious. Using this model, administrative departments and contractors can directly predict the environmental impacts of construction noise and take the social cost of construction activity into consideration to implement environmentally friendly construction that helps avoid impairing the health of the people who live and work near a construction site. However, additional work remains to be conducted. Measurement and assessment efforts based on the methods proposed in the present study should be applied to additional construction sites to gain sufficient empirical data to attain statistical significance. In addition, economic loss should be further investigated to objectively assess the social cost of construction noise. Note that, in principle, property damages evaluated by rental loss, occupancy loss and other kinds of income loss are determined by people’s perceptions of noise nuisance. Hence, simply combing the value of health risks and economic loss would lead to overestimation. Therefore, future improvements should also emphasize strategies and approaches using integrated methodologies. Acknowledgments:The authors would like to thank the National Science Foundation of China (No. 51078200, No. 51378297) and the National High Technology Research and Development Program of China (No. 2103AA041306) for providing financial support for this study. In addition, the authors would like to thank the Beijing Municipal Commission of Housing and Urban-Rural Development and the Beijing Municipal Institute of Labor Protection for their data-collection efforts. Author Contributions:Jun Xiao designed the study with all co-authors and drafted the manuscript. The manuscript was revised by all authors, especially Xiaodong Li. All authors read and approved the final manuscript. Conflicts of Interest:The authors declare no conflicts of interest. References 1.Lee, S.C.; Hong, J.Y.; Jeon, J.Y. Effects of acoustic characteristics of combined construction noise on annoyance. Build. Environ.2015,92, 657–667. [CrossRef] 2.Ministry of Environmental Protection of the People’s Republic of China.China Environmental Noise Prevention and Control Annual Report 2013; Ministry of Environmental Protection of the People’s Republic of China: Beijing, China, 2014. 3.Gilchrist, A.; Allouche, E.N.; Cowan, D. Prediction and mitigation of construction noise in an urban environment.Can. J. Civ. Eng.2003,30, 659–672. [CrossRef] 4.Gannoruwa, A.; Ruwanpura, J.Y. Construction noise prediction and barrier optimization using special purpose simulation. In Proceedings of the Winter Simulation Conference, Washington DC, USA, 9–12 December 2007; pp. 2073–2081. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2016,13, 1045 15 of 18 5.Kwon, N.; Park, M.; Lee, H.-S.; Ahn, J.; Shin, M. Construction Noise Management Using Active Noise Control Techniques.J. Constr. Eng. Manag.2016,142, 04016014. [CrossRef] 6.Boyd, N.; Khalfan, M.M.A.; Maqsood, T. Off-Site Construction of Apartment Buildings.J. Archit. Eng.2013, 19, 51–57. [CrossRef] 7.Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress.Environmental Noise Pollution Prevention Law of the PRC; Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress: Beijing, China, 1996. 8.Ministry of Environmental Protection of China.China GB12523: Emission Standard of Environment Noise for Boundary of Construction Site; Ministry of Environmental Protection of China: Beijing, China, 2011. 9.The State Council Decree of the People’s Republic of China.State Council Administrative Regulations on Levy and Use of Pollutant Discharge Fee; The State Council Decree of the People’s Republic of China: Beijing, China, 2003. 10.Beijing Municipal People’s Government.Notice of the Beijing Municipal People’s Government on the Maintenance Order to Reduce Construction Noise; Beijing Municipal People’s Government: Beijing, China, 1996. 11.Ministry of Environmental Protection of the People’s Republic of China.China GB 3096: Environmental Quality Standard for Noise; Ministry of Environmental Protection of the People’s Republic of China: Beijing, China, 2008. 12.Manatakis, E.K. A new methodological trial on statistical analysis of construction equipment noise. Appl. Acoust.2000,59, 67–76. [CrossRef] 13.González, V.; Echaveguren, T. Exploring the environmental modeling of road construction operations using discrete-event simulation.Auto Constr.2012,24, 100–110. [CrossRef] 14.Haron, Z.; Yahya, K. Monte Carlo Analysis for Prediction of Noise from a Construction Site.J. Constr. Dev. Ctries 2009,14, 1–14. 15.Zhang, H.; Zhai, D.; Yang, Y.N. Simulation-based estimation of environmental pollutions from construction processes.J. Clean. Prod.2014,76, 85–94. [CrossRef] 16.Ballesteros, M.J.; Fernández, M.D.; Quintana, S.; Ballesteros, J.A.; González, I. Noise emission evolution on construction sites. Measurement for controlling and assessing its impact on the people and on the environment.Build. Environ.2010,45, 711–717. [CrossRef] 17.Ministry of Environmental Protection of the People’s Republic of China.Technical Guidelines for Noise Impact Assessment HJ 2.4-2009; Ministry of Environmental Protection of China: Beijing, China, 2009. 18.Mohamed, F.H. Modeling of Construction Noise for Environmental Impact Assessment.J. Constr. Dev. Ctries 2008,13, 79–89. 19.Gilchrist, A.; Allouche, E.N. Quantification of social costs associated with construction projects: State-of-the-art review.Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol.2005,20, 89–104. [CrossRef] 20.Hong, T.; Ji, C.; Park, J.; Leigh, S.-B.; Seo, D. Prediction of Environmental Costs of Construction Noise and Vibration at the Preconstruction Phase.J. Manag. Eng.2015,31, 04014079. [CrossRef] 21.Dekkers, J.E.C.; van der Straaten, J.W. Monetary valuation of aircraft noise: A hedonic analysis around Amsterdam airport.Ecol. Econ.2009,68, 2850–2858. [CrossRef] 22.Andersson, H.; Ögren, M. Noise charges in railway infrastructure: A pricing schedule based on the marginal cost principle.Transp. Policy 2007,14, 204–213. [CrossRef] 23.Mahashabde, A.; Wolfe, P.; Ashok, A.; Dorbian, C.; He, Q.; Fan, A.; Lukachko, S.; Mozdzanowska, A.; Wollersheim, C.; Barrett, S.R.H.; et al. Assessing the environmental impacts of aircraft noise and emissions. Prog. Aerosp. Sci.2011,47, 15–52. [CrossRef] 24.Łowicki, D.; Piotrowska, S. Monetary valuation of road noise. Residential property prices as an indicator of the acoustic climate quality.Ecol. Indic.2015,52, 472–479. [CrossRef] 25.Schläpfer, F.; Waltert, F.; Segura, L.; Kienast, F. Valuation of landscape amenities: A hedonic pricing analysis of housing rents in urban, suburban and periurban Switzerland.Landsc. Urban Plan.2015,141, 24–40. [CrossRef] 26.Martín, M.A.; Tarrero, A.; González, J.; Machimbarrena, M. Exposure-effect relationships between road traffic noise annoyance and noise cost valuations in Valladolid, Spain.Appl. Acoust.2006,67, 945–958. [CrossRef] 27.Lera-López, F.; Faulin, J.; Sánchez, M. Determinants of the willingness-to-pay for reducing the environmental impacts of road transportation.Transp. Res. D Transp. Environ.2012,17, 215–220. [CrossRef] Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2016,13, 1045 16 of 18 28.Matos, J.C.B.; Flindell, I.; Le Masurier, P.; Pownall, C. A comparison of hedonic price and stated preference methods to derive monetary values for aircraft noise disturbance and annoyance.Transp. Res. D Transp. Environ.2013,20, 40–47. [CrossRef] 29.Lera-López, F.; Sánchez, M.; Faulin, J.; Cacciolatti, L. Rural environment stakeholders and policy making: Willingness to pay to reduce road transportation pollution impact in the Western Pyrenees.Transp. Res. D Transp. Environ.2014,32, 129–142. [CrossRef] 30.Istamto, T.; Houthuijs, D.; Lebret, E. Willingness to pay to avoid health risks from road-traffic-related air pollution and noise across five countries.Sci. Total Environ.2014,497, 420–429. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 31.Kolstad, C.D.Environmental Economics; Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2000. 32.Guidelines for Community Noise. Available online:http://whqlibdoc.who.int/hq/1999/a68672.pdf (accessed on 21 October 2016). 33.Theakston, F. (Ed.)Burden of Disease from Environmental Noise; The WHO European Centre for Environment and Health, WHO Regional Office for Europe: Copenhagen, Demark, 2011. 34.Stassen, K.R.; Collier, P.; Torfs, R. Environmental burden of disease due to transportation noise in Flanders (Belgium).Transp. Res. D Transp. Environ.2008,13, 355–358. [CrossRef] 35.Brown, A.L. Effects of Road Traffic Noise on Health: From Burden of Disease to Effectiveness of Interventions. Procedia Environ. Sci.2015,30, 3–9. [CrossRef] 36.Tainio, M. Burden of disease caused by local transport in Warsaw, Poland.J. Transp. Health 2015,2, 423–433. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 37.Vienneau, D.; Perez, L.; Schindler, C.; Lieb, C.; Sommer, H.; Probst-Hensch, N.; Künzli, N.; Röösli, M. Years of life lost and morbidity cases attributable to transportation noise and air pollution: A comparative health risk assessment for Switzerland in 2010.Int. J. Hyg. Environ. Health 2015,218, 514–521. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 38.Ongel, A.; Sezgin, F. Assessing the effects of noise abatement measures on health risks: A case study in Istanbul.Environ. Impact Assess. Rev.2016,56, 180–187. [CrossRef] 39.Murray, C.J.L.; Lopez, A.D.The Global Burden of Disease: A Comprehensive Assessment of Mortality and Disability from Disease, Injury, and Risk Factors in 1990 and Projected to 2020; Harvard School of Public Health: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1996. 40.World Health Organization.Methods and Data Sources for Global Burden of Disease Estimates 2000–2011; Department of Health, Statistics and Information Systems: Geneva, Switzerland, 2013. 41.Murray, C.J.L.; Acharya, A.K. Understanding DALYs (disability-adjusted life years).J. Health Econ.1997,16, 703–730. [CrossRef] 42.Munzell, T.; Gori, T.; Babisch, W.; Basner, M. Cardiovascular effects of environmental noise exposure. Eur. Heart J.2014,35, 829–836. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 43.Basner, M.; Babisch, W.; Davis, A.; Brink, M.; Clark, C.; Janssen, S.; Stansfeld, S. Auditory and non-auditory effects of noise on health.Lancet 2014,383, 1325–1332. [CrossRef] 44.Leon Bluhm, G.; Berglind, N.; Nordling, E.; Rosenlund, M. Road traffic noise and hypertension. Occup. Environ. Med.2007,64, 122–126. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 45.Van Kempen, E.; Babisch, W. The quantitative relationship between road traffic noise and hypertension: A meta-analysis.J. Hypertens.2012,30, 1075–1086. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 46.Babisch, W.; Beule, B.; Schust, M.; Kersten, N.; Ising, H. Traffic noise and risk of myocardial infarction. Epidemiology 2005,16, 33–40. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 47.Babisch, W. Road traffic noise and cardiovascular risk.Noise Health 2008,10, 27–33. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 48.Babisch, W. Updated exposure–response relationship between road traffic noise and coronary heart diseases: A meta-analysis.Noise Health 2014,16, 1–9. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 49.Sørensen, M.; Hvidberg, M.; Andersen, Z.J.; Nordsborg, R.B.; Lillelund, K.G.; Jakobsen, J.; Tjønneland, A.; Overvad, K.; Raaschou-Nielsen, O. Road traffic noise and stroke: A prospective cohort study.Eur. Heart J. 2011,32, 737–744. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 50.McEwen, B.S. Stress, adaptation, and disease. Allostasis and allostatic load.Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci.1998,840, 33–44. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 51.Spreng, M. Central nervous system activation by noise.Noise Health 2000,2, 49–58. [PubMed] 52.Babisch, W. Stress hormones in the research on cardiovascular effects of noise.Noise Health 2003,5, 1–11. [PubMed] Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2016,13, 1045 17 of 18 53.Sabbah, W.; Watt, R.G.; Sheiham, A.; Tsakos, G. Effects of allostatic load on the social gradient in ischaemic heart disease and periodontal disease: Evidence from the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey.J. Epidemiol. Commumity Health 2008,62, 415–420. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 54.Sun, J.Y.; Liu, J.; Xie, X.Q.; Wei, Z.H.; Wang, W.; Wang, M.; Qi, Y.; Guo, M.N.; Zhang, X.Y.; Wan, H.; Zhao, D. Surveillance on the incidence of acute coronary events in the permanent residents of Beijing aged 25 years and more from 2007 to 2009.Chin. J. Cardiol.2012,40, 194–198. 55.Eriksson, C.; Nilsson, M.E.; Willers, S.M.; Gidhagen, L.; Bellander, T.; Pershagen, G. Traffic noise and cardiovascular health in Sweden: The roadside study.Noise Health 2012,14, 140–147. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 56.Beelen, R.; Hoek, G.; Houthuijs, D.; van den Brandt, P.A.; Goldbohm, A.; Fischer, P.; Schouten, L.J.; Armstrong, B.; Brunekreef, B. The joint association of air pollution and noise from road traffic with cardiovascular mortality in a cohort study.Occup. Environ. Med.2009,66, 243–250. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 57.Gan, W.Q.; Davies, H.W.; Koehoorn, M.; Brauer, M. Association of long-term exposure to community noise and traffic-related air pollution with coronary heart disease mortality.Am. J. Epidemiol.2012,175, 898–906. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 58.Global Burden of Disease in 2002: Data Sources, Methods and Results. Available online:http://apps.who. int/healthinfo/paper54.pdf (accessed on 21 October 2016). 59.Bradley, J.S.; Sato, H. The intelligibility of speech in elementary school classrooms.J. Acoust. Soc. Am.2008, 123, 2078–2086. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 60.Sato, H.; Bradley, J.S. Evaluation of acoustical conditions for speech communication in working elementary school classrooms.J. Acoust. Soc. Am.2008,123, 2064–2077. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 61.Yacullo, W.S.; Hawkins, D.B. Speech recognition in noise and reverberation by school-age children.Audiology 1987,26, 235–246. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 62.Klatte, M.; Lachmann, T.; Meis, M. Effects of noise and reverberation on speech perception and listening comprehension of children and adults in a classroom-like setting.Noise Health 2010,12, 270–282. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 63.Eggermont, J.J.; Roberts, L.E. The neuroscience of tinnitus.Trends Neurosci.2004,27, 676–682. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 64.Evans, G.W.; Lercher, P.; Meis, M.; Ising, H.; Kofler, W.W. Community noise exposure and stress in children. J. Acoust. Soc. Am.2001,109, 1023–1027. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 65.Lercher, P.; Evans, G.W.; Widmann, U. The ecological context of soundscapes for children’s blood pressure. J. Acoust. Soc. Am.2013,134, 773–781. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 66.Hygge, S.; Evans, G.W.; Bullinger, M. A prospective study of some effects of aircraft noise on cognitive performance in schoolchildren.Psychol. Sci.2002,13, 469–474. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 67.Lercher, P.; Evans, G.W.; Meis, M. Ambient noise and cognitive processes among primary schoolchildren. Environ. Behav.2003,35, 725–735. [CrossRef] 68.Stansfeld, S.A.; Berglund, B.; Clark, C.; Lopez-Barrio, I.; Fischer, P.; Öhrström, E.; Haines, M.M.; Head, J.; Hygge, S.; van Kamp, I.; et al. Aircraft and road traffic noise and children’s cognition and health: A cross-national study.Lancet 2005,365, 1942–1949. [CrossRef] 69.Sun,Y.T.StudyontheAnnoyanceThresholdoftheConstructionNoise. Master’sThesis, Chang’anUniversity, Xi’an, China, May 2008. 70.Ng, C.F. Effects of building construction noise on residents: A quasi-experiment.J. Environ. Psychol.2000,20, 375–385. [CrossRef] 71.Lee, P.J.; Shim, M.H.; Jeon, J.Y. Effects of different noise combinations on sleep, as assessed by a general questionnaire.Appl. Acoust.2010,71, 870–875. [CrossRef] 72.Miedema, H.M.E.; Passchier-Vermeer, W.; Vos, H.Elements for a Position Paper on Night-time Transportation Noise and Sleep Disturbance; Inro Report 2002-59; Netherlands Organization for Applied Science Research: Delft, The Netherlands, 2003. 73.Miedema, H.M.; Vos, H. Associations between self-reported sleep disturbance and environmental noise based on reanalyzes of pooled data from 24 studies.Behav. Sleep Med.2007,5, 1–20. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 74.Night Noise Guidelines for Europe. Available online:http://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/ 0017/43316/E92845.pdf (accessed on 21 October 2016). 75.Schultz, T.J. Synthesis of social surveys on noise annoyance.J. Acoust. Soc. Am.1978,64, 377–405. [CrossRef] [PubMed] Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2016,13, 1045 18 of 18 76.Fidell, S.; Barber, D.S.; Schultz, T.J. Updating a dosage-effect relationship for the prevalence of annoyance due to general transportation noise.J. Acoust. Soc. Am.1991,89, 221–233. [CrossRef] 77.Miedema, H.M.; Oudshoorn, C.G. Annoyance from transportation noise: Relationships with exposure metrics DNL and DENL and their confidence intervals.Environ. Health Perspect.2001,109, 409–416. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 78.European Commission Position Paper on Dose Response Relationships between Transportation Noise and Annoyance. Available online:http://www.ocs.polito.it/biblioteca/mobilita/NoiseAnnoyance.pdf (accessed on 21 October 2016). 79.Zannin, P.H.T.; Calixto, A.; Diniz, F.B.; Ferreira, J.A.C. A survey of urban noise annoyance in a large Brazilian city: The importance of a subjective analysis in conjunction with an objective analysis.Environ. Impact Assess. Rev.2003,23, 245–255. [CrossRef] 80.Paunovi´c, K.; Jakovljevi´c, B.; Belojevi´c, G. Predictors of noise annoyance in noisy and quiet urban streets. Sci. Total Environ.2009,407, 3707–3711. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 81.Xue, X.; Zhang, R.; Zhang, X.; Yang, R.J.; Li, H. Environmental and social challenges for urban subway construction: An empirical study in China.Int. J. Proj. Manag.2015,33, 576–588. [CrossRef] 82.Senécal, P.; Goldsmith, B.; Conover, S.; Workshop_Participants, I.I.; Sadler, B.; Brown, K.Principles of Environmental Impact Assessment Best Practice; International Association for Impact Assessment: Fargo, ND, USA; Institute of Environmental Assessment: Lincoln, UK, 1999; pp. 1–4. 83.Viscusi, W.K.; Aldy, J.E. The value of statistical life: A critical review of market estimates throughout the world.J. Risk Uncertain.2003,27, 5–76. [CrossRef] 84.Aldy, J.E.; Viscusi, W.K.Age Variations in Workers’ Value of Statistical Life; NBER Working Paper Series, Working Paper 10199; National Bureau of Economic Research: Cambridge, MA, USA; pp. 1–53. 85.Qin, X.Z.; Liu, Y.Y.; Li, L.X. The value of life and its regional difference: Evidence from China inter-census population survey.China Ind. Econ.2010,10, 33–43. 86.Li, X.; Zhu, Y.; Zhang, Z. An LCA-based environmental impact assessment model for construction processes. Build. Environ.2010,45, 766–775. [CrossRef] 87.Li, X.; Gao, Y.; Kong, X.; Zhang, Z. Health damage assessment of interior decorations based on the LCA methodology.J. Tsinghua Univ.2013,53, 66–71. 88.Beijing Municipal Bureau of Statistics.Beijing Statistical Yearbook; China Statistics Press: Beijing, China, 2014. 89.New Elements for the Assessment of External Costs from Energy Technologies. Available online: http://www.ier.uni-stuttgart.de/forschung/projektwebsites/newext/restricted/newpsimi.pdf (accessed on 24 October 2016). 90.SoundPLAN.Software for Noise Modeling, version 7.0; SoundPLAN Gmbh: Backnang, Germany, 2012. 91.The 2010 Population Census of Beijing Municipality. Available online:http://www.bjstats.gov.cn/tjnj/rkpc- 2010/indexch.htm (accessed on 21 October 2016). ©2016 by the authors; licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). EXHIBIT 5 CEQA The District assists project applicants and lead agencies to prepare environmental documents under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) by providing air quality data and other needed informa on. The District has prepared the following guidelines for the Lead Agencies to consider for calcula ng emissions, performing air dispersion modeling and conduc ng health risk assessment in prepara on of CEQA documents for projects in San Diego County. The District also recommends using the County of San Diego thresholds of significance when evalua ng air quality impacts for a project. District staff are available for consulta on at any me in the project review process. CEQA provides governmental decision makers and the public with informa on about the poten al, significant environmental effects of proposed projects. Projects are classified as either discre onary or ministerial. CEQA applies to all discre onary ac vi es proposed to be carried out or approved by California public agencies, unless an exemp on applies. When a public official in a governmental agency can use its judgment in deciding whether and how to carry out or approve a project, it is a discre onary project. If the public official of the governmental agency merely applies the law to the facts as presented, but uses li le or no personal judgment, the project is ministerial, and exempt from CEQA. The goals of CEQA are for California’s public agencies to iden fy the significant environmental effects of their ac ons; and, either avoid those significant environmental effects, where feasible; or mi gate those significant environmental effects, where feasible. By iden fying and discussing all significant impacts, CEQA allows the project applicant to change the project to mi gate adverse effects; lead agencies to be provided the informa on necessary to impose condi ons on the project to mi gate adverse effects; the public access to informa on about the effects of projects; and policy boards to receive important informa on for determining whether the project “protects the public health, safety and welfare.” It is recommended that the Lead Agency use the calcula on methods and emission factors published by the SDAPCD for equipment, processes and opera ons used at sta onary sources, found at the SDAPCD’s website AIR QUALITY FORECAST AQ FORECAST BY SITE ABOUTSan Diego County Air Pollu onControl District Search Select Language Powered by Translate What is CEQA? Emissions Calculations www.sdapcd.org . Other calcula on methods can be used if documenta on is provided regarding the validity, appropriateness and applicability to the project. Emissions associated with mobile sources should u lize the most recent EMFAC(on-road) and OFFROAD (off- road) emission factors published by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) found at www.arb.ca.gov .The District recommends using only approved and up to date models for calcula ng emissions from land use projects, such as the CalEEMod model. To complete an air quality impact assessment (AQIA) and health risk assessment (HRA) for the CEQA process, modeling is usually required. The SDAPCD requires that AERMOD, the EPA approved regulatory air dispersion model, be used to perform the air dispersion modeling for AQIAs and HRAs. The AERMOD executable is available for free from EPA at: h ps://ga p.epa.gov/Air/aqmg/SCRAM/models/preferred/aermod/aermod_exe.zip. The AERMOD user’s guide is at: h ps://ga p.epa.gov/Air/aqmg/SCRAM/models/preferred/aermod/aermod_userguide.pdf There are also fee-based so ware op ons available that incorporate a user-friendly interface. The SDAPCD does not endorse any specific interface, but one such product is Lakes Environmental AERMOD View so ware, which is used by SDAPCD modeling staff for all modeling projects using AERMOD. Lakes AERMOD View so ware can be obtained at the Lakes website at: h ps://www.weblakes.com/ The use of Lakes AERMOD view by the Lead Agency may help with the ease of review and sharing of files. AERMOD contains several regulatory op ons, include default op ons, and non-regulatory op ons. For most modeling projects, the regulatory default op ons should be used in the modeling. Emission Sources AERMOD requires the input of emission source informa on. There are four different types of sources - point, area, volume, and line. · Point Sources – A point source is the most common type of release and is characterized by a stack or vent. Examples of point sources are exhausts from emergency engines, stacks coming off combus on equipment, and roof vents. There are different types of point sources that can be modeled in AERMOD including non-capped ver cal stacks, a stack with a flapper valve, and stacks with a fixed rain cap. Point sources can also be modeled as having a horizontal orienta on. Point sources have stack parameters associated with them including exhaust temperature, stack diameter, flow rate, and stack height. · Area Sources – Area sources are used to model releases that occur over an area. Examples of area sources include landfills and open tanks and stockpiles. Different types of area sources are rectangular, circular, and polygonal (to represent an area that is irregularly shaped and has up to 20 sides). For an area source, you must determine the release height above ground. For example, a tank open to the atmosphere would have a release height equal to the tank height. For a landfill surface, the release height would be zero. · Volume Sources – Volume sources are used to model releases that occur over a three-dimensional volume. Examples of volume sources include fugi ve leaks, mul ple vents, gas sta ons, wipe cleaning and solvent use. Volume sources require a release height which is the height above ground at the center of the volume. An irregularly shaped volume can be represented by dividing the volume source into mul ple smaller volume sources. · Line Sources – Line sources are used to model releases from a variety of sources including roads, rail lines, and conveyor belts. AERMOD also allows line volume sources, which are volume sources arranged in a line. The SDAPCD typically uses this source type to represent heavy duty truck travel on unpaved haul roads as they are good at simula ng the kicking up of dust by the trucks’ wheels. Air Dispersion Modeling Meteorological Data SDAPCD-processed meteorological data should be used. The SDAPCD has processed meteorological data with the latest version of the EPA AERMET preprocessor that converts the raw data into an AERMOD-ready meteorological data input file. For more informa on on AERMET the user’s guide is at: h ps://ga p.epa.gov/Air/aqmg/SCRAM/models/met/aermet/aermet_userguide.pdf Please contact the SDAPCD to get the meteorological data for the site most appropriate for a modeling project. Receptors The receptor network must include adequate coverage to capture the maximum ground level concentra on. The receptor network should include a regularly spaced grid and include property boundary receptors. To limit the total number of receptors in a modeling, there is the op on to have a denser grid of receptors closer to the source, and a coarser grid further away from the source. A Health Risk Assessment (HRA) takes the expected airborne concentra ons of toxic air contaminants from the project being evaluated and calculates the poten al health risk to the surrounding popula on due to the project. The California Air Resourced Board (CARB) has developed the HARP program (Hotspots Analysis and Repor ng Program, available for free at: h ps://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/hot-spots-analysis- repor ng-program) to take the concentra ons from the air dispersion modeling so ware and calculate the health risks. This program incorporates the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment’s (OEHHA’s) Risk Assessment Guidelines for determining the risks (available at: h ps://oehha.ca.gov/air/crnr/no ce-adop on-air-toxics-hot-spots-program-guidance-manual-prepara on- health-risk-0). In addi on to the OEHHA Guidelines, the SDAPCD has published Supplemental Guidelines for how dispersion modeling and risk assessments should be conducted for projects within San Diego County (available at: h ps://www.sdapcd.org/content/dam/sdapcd/documents/permits/air-toxics/Hot-Spots- Guidelines.pdf). The types of health risk that must be calculated include the residen al 30-year cancer risk, the occupa onal 25-year cancer risk, the non-cancer chronic health hazard index (HHI), the non-cancer 8-hour chronic HHI, the non-cancer acute HHI and the cancer burden (70-year exposure). These risks shall each be made for the maximally exposed individual resident (MEIR), the maximally exposed individual worker (MEIW), the maximally exposed short-term receptor (if different than the MEIR or MEIW), as well as at nearby sensi ve receptors. If the project will have lead (Pb) emissions, the non-cancer sub-chronic (30-day average) lead risk must also be determined, following the CARB Lead Risk Management Guidelines (available at: h ps://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/documents/lead-risk-management-guidelines). District Comment Le ers Commen ng Agency The District may provide comments on projects in which there is no District approval necessary as a commen ng agency. Comments are prepared when it would be beneficial to protect public health, improve air quality or if inaccuracies are found in the document. Comments are submi ed to the Lead agency responsible for the project. Responsible Agency When the District proposes to carry out or approve a project, for which a lead agency is preparing or has prepared an EIR or nega ve declara on. For the purposes of CEQA, the term “responsible agency” includes all public agencies other than the lead agency which have discre onary approval power over the project. Lead Agency Health Risk Assessment When the District is the public agency which has principal responsibility for carrying out or approving a project which may have a significant effect upon the environment, CEQA documents are prepared and other agencies and or the public may provide comments. 2024 Lead Agency Le ers Silver Lining Crema ons 1/9/24 2022 Lead Agency Le ers Silver Lining Crema ons 3/1/22 Stay Informed The California Environmental Quality Act statute and guidelines are available from the Governor's Office of Planning & Research website. Ques ons for the District should be sent via email or phone (858) 586-2600. Planning Resources > Air Quality Planning Home > Reduce Air Pollu on > A ainment Status > Walk, Bike, Transit > CEQA > Rule Development > Climate and Pollu on VIEW > Air Quality Plans > A ainment Status 2023 Commenting Agency Letters 2022 Commenting Agency Letters I Want To > CEQA > Walk, Bike, Transit > Reduce Air Pollu on > Climate and Pollu on > Air Quality Forecast > Governing Board Agendas & Mee ngs SUBMIT > Permit Applica on > Complaint > Public Records Request SUBSCRIBE > APCD Email Updates CONTACT > Planning Staff Contact APCD Phone: (858) 586-2600 10124 Old Grove Road San Diego, CA 92131 Email: airinfo@sdapcd.org Main Fax: (858) 586-2601 EXHIBIT 6 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO GUIDELINES FOR DETERMINING SIGNIFICANCE AND REPORT FORMAT AND CONTENT REQUIREMENTS AIR QUALITY LAND USE AND ENVIRONMENT GROUP Department of Planning and Land Use Department of Public Works March 19, 2007 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO GUIDELINES FOR DETERMINING SIGNIFICANCE AIR QUALITY LAND USE AND ENVIRONMENT GROUP Department of Planning and Land Use Department of Public Works March 19, 2007 i EXPLANATION These Guidelines for Determining Significance for Air Quality and information presented herein shall be used by County staff for the review of discretionary projects and environmental documents pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). These Guidelines present a range of quantitative, qualitative, and performance levels for particular environmental effects. Normally, (in the absence of substantial evidence to the contrary), an affirmative response to any one Guideline will mean the project will result in a significant effect, whereas effects that do not meet any of the Guidelines will normally be determined to be “less than significant.” Section 15064(b) of the State CEQA Guidelines states: “The determination whether a project may have a significant effect on the environment calls for careful judgment on the part of the public agency involved, based to the extent possible on factual and scientific data. An ironclad definition of significant effect is not always possible because the significance of an activity may vary with the setting.” The intent of these Guidelines is to provide a consistent, objective and predictable evaluation of significant effects. These Guidelines are not binding on any decision- maker and do not substitute for the use of independent judgment to determine significance or the evaluation of evidence in the record. The County reserves the right to modify these Guidelines in the event of scientific discovery or alterations in factual data that may alter the common application of a Guideline. ii LIST OF PREPARERS AND TECHNICAL REVIEWERS County of San Diego Mario Covic, Primary Author Joseph DeStefano, Contributing Author Terry Dutton, Office of County Counsel, Contributing Author Jason Giffen, Contributing Author Eric Gibson, Contributing Author Air Quality Technical Review Panel County of San Diego Terry Dutton, Office of County Counsel Joseph DeStefano, MSCP Watershed Division Planning Manager Consultants Valorie Thompson, PhD., Scientific Resource Associated Michael Alberson, Douglas Eilar & Assoc. David Gottfredson, RECON iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................ 1 1.0 GENERAL PRINCIPLES AND EXISTING CONDITIONS .................................... 1 1.1 Air Quality Resource Information & Considerations ............................ 2 1.2 Regional Meteorology / Climate ............................................................. 5 1.3 Pollutant Transport .................................................................................. 6 1.4 Basin Attainment Status ......................................................................... 6 1.5 Toxic Air Contaminants......................................................................... 10 2.0 EXISTING REGULATIONS AND STANDARDS................................................ 12 2.1 Federal Regulations and Standards ..................................................... 12 2.2 State Regulations and Standards ......................................................... 13 2.3 Local Regulations and Standards ........................................................ 14 2.4 Toxic Air Contaminants......................................................................... 16 3.0 TYPICAL ADVERSE EFFECTS......................................................................... 17 3.1 Construction Impacts ............................................................................ 17 3.2 Operational Impacts .............................................................................. 18 4.0 GUIDELINES FOR DETERMINING SIGNIFICANCE ........................................ 19 4.1 Conformance to the Regional Air Quality Strategy............................. 19 4.2 Conformance to Federal and State Ambient Air Quality Standards .. 20 4.2.1 Ozone Precursors ....................................................................... 22 4.2.2 Carbon Monoxide........................................................................ 22 4.2.3 Particulate Matter ........................................................................ 22 4.3 Cumulatively Considerable Net Increase of Criteria Pollutants ........ 23 4.4 Impacts to Sensitive Receptors ............................................................ 25 4.5 Odor Impacts.......................................................................................... 26 5.0 STANDARD MITIGATION AND PROJECT DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS ....... 26 5.1 Typical Construction Phase Air Quality Mitigation Measures ........... 27 5.2 Typical Operational Phase Air Quality Mitigation Measures.............. 28 5.3 Additional Mitigation ............................................................................. 29 6.0 REFERENCES ................................................................................................... 30 iv LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Toxic Air Contaminant Incremental Cancer Risk for San Diego Air Basin............................................................................ 11 LIST OF TABLES Table 1 Criteria Pollutants & Pollutants of Concern, Sources, Recognized Health Effects and Controls .................................................................................. 2 Table 2 San Diego County Air Basin Attainment Status by Pollutant...................... 8 Table 3 Federal and State Ambient Air Quality Standards ..................................... 9 Table 4 State Ambient Air Quality Standards with No Federal Counterpart.......... 10 Table 5 Screening Level Thresholds for Air Quality Impact Analysis.................... 20 v List of Acronyms APCD Air Pollution Control District AQIA Air Quality Impact Analysis AQMD Air Quality Management District AQMP Air Quality Management Plans ARB California Air Resource Board BACMs Best Available Control Measures BACT Best Available Control Technology BMPs Best Management Practices CAA Federal Clean Air Act CAAA Clean Air Act Amendments CAAQS California Ambient Air Quality Standards CALINE 4 California LINE Source Dispersion Model, Version 4 Caltrans California Department of Transportation CCAA California Clean Air Act CFCs Chloroflourocarbons CEIDARS California Emission Inventory Data and Reporting System CO Carbon Monoxide DPLU Department pf Planning and Land Use EPA Environmental Protection Agency ECT Emission Control Technology ERCs Emission Reduction Credits FIP Federal Implementation Plan H2S Hydrogen Sulfide HAPs Hazardous Air Pollutants HARP Hotspots Analysis and Reporting Program HCFCs Hydrochloroflourocarbons HHI Health Hazard Index ISC Industrial Source Complex model mg/m3 Milligrams per cubic meter µg/m3 Micrograms per cubic meter MACT Maximum Achievable Control Technology MTBE Methyl tertiary butyl ether NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards NESHAPS National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants NH3 Ammonia NOX Oxides of Nitrogen NO2 Nitrogen Dioxide NSR New Source Review O3 Ozone Pb Lead PM2.5 Fine Particulate Matter PM10 Respirable Particulate Matter ppm Parts per million PSD Prevention of Significant Deterioration RAQS San Diego County’s Regional Air Quality Strategy ROCs Reactive Organic Compounds vi ROG Reactive Organic Gases SANDAG San Diego Association of Governments SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District SCAB South Coast Air Basin SDAB San Diego Air Basin SDAPCD San Diego County Air Pollution Control District SIP State Implementation Plan SLAMS State and Local Monitoring Stations network SLTs Screening Level Thresholds SO2 Sulfur Dioxide SOx Oxides of Sulfur SSAB Salton Sea Air Basin TACs Toxic Air Contaminants T-BACT Toxic Best Available Control Technology VOCs Volatile Organic Compounds VSP Visibility Reducing Particulates Guidelines for Determining Significance 1 Air Quality INTRODUCTION This document provides guidance for evaluating adverse environmental effects that a proposed residential development or other land development projects may have on Air Quality. Specifically, this document addresses the following questions listed in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Appendix G, III. Air Quality: Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the San Diego Regional Air Quality Strategy (RAQS) or applicable portions of the State Implementation Plan (SIP)? b) Result in emissions that would violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable Federal or State ambient air quality standard (PM10, PM2.5 or exceed quantitative thresholds for O3 precursors, oxides of nitrogen [NOX] and Volatile Organic Compounds [VOCs])? d) Expose sensitive receptors (including, but not limited to, schools, hospitals, resident care facilities, or day-care centers) to substantial pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? 1.0 GENERAL PRINCIPLES AND EXISTING CONDITIONS Air quality at a given location can be described by the concentrations of various pollutants in the atmosphere. Units of concentration are generally expressed in parts per million (ppm) or micrograms per cubic meter (µg/m3). The significance of a pollutant concentration is typically determined by comparing the concentration to an appropriate Federal and/or State ambient air quality standard. The standards represent the allowable atmospheric concentrations at which the public health and welfare are protected, and include a reasonable margin of safety to protect the more sensitive receptors in the population. When discussing air resources, existing conditions reflect four specific areas: (1) macroclimate (meteorological conditions within San Diego County in general); (2) microclimate (specific meteorological conditions affecting a specific portion of the County); (3) status of the air basin relating to Federal and State Ambient Air Quality Standards (AAQS); and (4) status of the air basin relating to emissions of toxic air contaminants based on the California Air Resource Board (ARB) summaries. Given the diverse nature of the microclimates that exist in San Diego County, only a general discussion of the meteorological conditions that affect the entire air basin is provided here. Guidelines for Determining Significance 2 Air Quality 1.1 Air Quality Resource Information & Considerations The Federal standards, established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), stemming from the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA) and subsequent amendments, are termed the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The NAAQS, other than for ozone and those based on annual averages, are maximum acceptable concentrations not to be exceeded more than once per year. The annual NAAQS may never be exceeded. (The ozone standard is not to be exceeded more than three times in three years.) The State standards, established by the ARB, are termed the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS). The CAAQS are defined as the maximum acceptable pollutant concentrations that are not to be equaled or exceeded, depending on the specific pollutant. NAAQS have been established for seven pollutants: Ozone (O3), Respirable Particulate Matter (PM10), Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5), Carbon Monoxide (CO), Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2), Lead (Pb), and Sulfur Dioxide (SO2). These pollutants are commonly known as "criteria" pollutants because their standards are based on certain "criteria" regarding impacts to health and human welfare. In addition, CAAQS have been established for Sulfates, Hydrogen Sulfide (H2S), Vinyl Chloride and Visibility Reducing Particulates (VSP). Table 1 below contains a listing of typical sources of each of the criteria pollutants, the recognized health effects, and typical controls applied for each. Table 1 Criteria Pollutants & Pollutants of Concern, Sources, Recognized Health Effects and Controls Pollutant Sources Health Effects Typical Controls Ozone (O3) Formed when reactive organic gases (ROG) and nitrogen oxides react in the presence of sunlight. ROG sources include any source that burns fuels (e.g., gasoline, natural gas, wood, oil); solvents; petroleum processing and storage. Breathing difficulties, lung tissue damage, vegetation damage, damage to rubber and some plastics. Reduce motor vehicle reactive organic gas (ROG) and nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions through emission standards, reformulated fuels, inspections programs, and reduced vehicle use. Limit ROG emissions from commercial operations, gasoline refueling facilities, and consumer products. Limit ROG and NOx emissions from industrial sources such as power plants and manufacturing facilities. Guidelines for Determining Significance 3 Air Quality Pollutant Sources Health Effects Typical Controls Respirable Particulate Matter (PM10) Road dust, windblown dust, agriculture and construction, fireplaces. Also formed from other pollutants (NOx, SOx, organics). Incomplete combustion. Increased respiratory disease, lung damage, cancer, premature death, reduced visibility, surface soiling. Control dust sources, industrial particulate emissions, woodburning stoves and fireplaces. Reduce secondary pollutants which react to form PM10. Conserve energy. Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) Fuel combustion in motor vehicles, equipment, and industrial sources; residential and agricultural burning. Also formed from reaction of other pollutants (NOx, SOx, organics, and NH3). Increases respiratory disease, lung damage, cancer, and premature death, reduced visibility, surface soiling. Particles can aggravate heart diseases such as congestive heart failure and coronary artery disease Reduce combustion emissions from motor vehicles, equipment, industries, and agricultural and residential burning. Precursor controls, like those for ozone, reduce fine particle formation in the atmosphere. Carbon Monoxide (CO) Any source that burns fuel such as automobiles, trucks, heavy construction and farming equipment, residential heating. Chest pain in heart patients, headaches, reduced mental alertness. Control motor vehicle and industrial emissions. Use oxygenated gasoline during winter months. Conserve energy. Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) See Carbon Monoxide. Lung irritation and damage. Reacts in the atmosphere to form ozone and acid rain. Control motor vehicle and industrial combustion emissions. Conserve energy. Lead Metal smelters, resource recovery, leaded gasoline, deterioration of lead paint. Learning disabilities, brain and kidney damage. Control metal smelters. No lead in gasoline or paint. Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) Coal or oil burning power plants and industries, refineries, diesel engines. Increases lung disease and breathing problems for asthmatics. Reacts in the atmosphere to form acid rain. Reduce use of high sulfur fuels (e.g., use low sulfur reformulated diesel or natural gas). Conserve energy. Guidelines for Determining Significance 4 Air Quality Pollutant Sources Health Effects Typical Controls Sulfates Produced by reaction in the air of SO2, (see SO2 sources), a component of acid rain. Breathing difficulties, aggravates asthma, reduced visibility. See SO2 Hydrogen Sulfide Geothermal power plants, petroleum production and refining, sewer gas. Nuisance odor (rotten egg smell), headache and breathing difficulties (higher concentrations). Control emissions from geothermal power plants, petroleum production and refining, sewers, and sewage treatment plants. Visibility Reducing Particulates See PM2.5 Reduced visibility (e.g. obscures mountains and other scenery), reduced airport safety. See PM2.5 Vinyl Chloride Exhaust gases from factories that manufacture or process vinyl chloride (construction, packaging, and transportation industries) Central nervous system effects (e.g. dizziness, drowsiness, headaches), kidney irritation, liver damage, liver cancer. Control emissions from plants that manufacture or process vinyl chloride, installation of monitoring systems. Toxic Air Contaminant (TAC) Combustion engines (stationary and mobile), diesel combustion, storage and use of TAC-containing substances (i.e. gasoline, lead smelting, etc.) Depends on TAC, but may include cancer, mutagenic and/or teratogenic effects, other acute or chronic health effects. Toxic Best Available Control Technologies (T-BACT), limit emissions from known sources. Table 1 also provides a general description of “toxic air contaminant (TAC),” a category of pollutants for which specific Federal or State ambient air quality standards have not been established. TAC include pollutants known or suspected to cause cancer or other adverse health effects such as respiratory irritation or reproductive effects. The regulatory structure for TAC is different than for criteria pollutants. Regulatory standards for most TAC involve the levels of public health risk from exposures, rather than specific concentrations of the pollutant. In San Diego, the Air Pollution Control District (APCD) is responsible for enforcing the rules and regulations protecting air quality. As part of this responsibility, the APCD has created a strategy that lays out a program for attaining the standards for O3. The strategy, called the San Diego County RAQS, outlines APCD's plans and control Guidelines for Determining Significance 5 Air Quality measures designed to attain the CAAQS for O3. In addition, the APCD’s Federally- enforceable control measures for ozone-precursors are included in the SIP, which is adopted by the ARB to ensure attainment of the O3 NAAQS. These plans accommodate emissions from all sources, including natural sources. Through the implementation of control measures on stationary sources, as well as through the control measures applied to mobile sources by ARB and EPA, these plans focus on attaining the standards for the San Diego Air Basin. However, the RAQS and the SIP do not address impacts from sources of PM10 or PM2.5, although the SIP does include control measures (rules) to regulate stationary source emissions of those pollutants. The RAQS relies on mobile source (vehicular) information from the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG), as well as information regarding projected growth in the County, to determine what strategies are necessary for the reduction of stationary source emissions through regulatory controls. Since APCD only regulates non-mobile (stationary) sources, only the stationary source control measures identified in the RAQS and SIP have been developed by the APCD into regulations. The rules are developed to set limits on the amount of emissions from various types of sources and/or require specific emission control technologies. Following rule adoption, a permit system is used to require air pollution controls on new and modified stationary sources and to ensure compliance with regulations by prescribing specific operating conditions, monitoring, record keeping, reporting, emissions testing, etc. Stationary sources are inspected by APCD on a regular basis to ensure compliance with all emissions, maintenance and operating requirements. San Diego County is presently designated a basic non-attainment area for the NAAQS for O3. The county is also a non-attainment area for the CAAQS for ozone and PM10,. As such the highest concern involving criteria pollutants is whether a project would result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of PM10, PM2.5, or exceed screening- level criteria thresholds for O3 precursors [oxides of nitrogen (NOX) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs)]. 1.2 Regional Meteorology/Climate The boundaries of the San Diego Air Basin are contiguous with the political boundaries of San Diego County. The County of San Diego encompasses approximately 4,260 square miles and is bounded on the north by Orange and Riverside Counties, on the east by Imperial County, on the west by the Pacific Ocean, and on the south by the Mexican State of Baja California. The County is divided by the Laguna Mountain Range which runs approximately parallel to the coast about 45 miles inland and separates the coastal area from the desert portion of the County. The Laguna Mountains have peaks reaching over 6,000 feet, with the highest point in the County being Hot Springs Mountain rising to 6,533 feet. The coastal region is made up of coastal terraces that rise from the ocean into wide mesas which then, moving farther east, transition into the Laguna Foothills. Farther east, the topography gradually rises to the rugged mountains. On the east side, the mountains drop off rapidly to the Anza-Borrego Desert, which is characterized by several broken mountain ranges with desert valleys in between. To the north of the County are the Santa Ana Mountains which run along the coast of Guidelines for Determining Significance 6 Air Quality Orange County, turning east to join with the Laguna Mountains near the San Diego- Orange County border. The climate of the San Diego Air Basin, as with all of Southern California, is largely dominated by the strength and position of the semi-permanent high-pressure system over the Pacific Ocean, known as the Pacific High. This high-pressure ridge over the West Coast often creates a pattern of late-night and early-morning low clouds, hazy afternoon sunshine, daytime onshore breezes, and little temperature variation year- round. The climatic classification for San Diego is a Mediterranean climate, with warm, dry summers and mild, wet winters. Average annual precipitation ranges from approximately 10 inches on the coast to over 30 inches in the mountains to the east (the desert regions of San Diego County generally receive between 4 and 6 inches per year). 1.3 Pollutant Transport The favorable climate of San Diego also works to create air pollution problems. Sinking, or subsiding air from the Pacific high pressure creates a temperature inversion, known as a subsidence inversion, which acts as a lid to vertical dispersion of pollutants. Weak summertime pressure gradients further limit horizontal dispersion of pollutants in the mixed layer below the subsidence inversion. Poorly dispersed anthropogenic emissions combined with strong sunshine leads to photochemical reactions, which results in the creation of ozone at this surface layer. Daytime onshore flow (i.e., sea breeze) and nighttime offshore flow (i.e., land breeze) are quite common in Southern California. The sea breeze helps to moderate daytime temperatures in the western portion of San Diego County, which greatly adds to the climatic draw of the region. This also leads to emissions being blown out to sea at night and returning to land the following day. Under certain conditions, this atmospheric oscillation results in the offshore transport of air from the Los Angeles region to San Diego County, which often results in high ozone concentrations being measured at San Diego County air pollution monitoring stations. Transport of air pollutants from Los Angeles to San Diego has also been shown to occur aloft within the stable layer of the elevated subsidence inversion. In this layer, removed from fresh emissions of oxides of nitrogen, which would scavenge and reduce ozone concentrations, high levels of ozone are transported into San Diego County. 1.4 Basin Attainment Status The EPA designates all areas of the United States as having air quality better than the NAAQS ("attainment"), worse than ("non-attainment") the NAAQS, or "unclassified" in areas where insufficient data exist. A non-attainment designation means that a primary NAAQS has been exceeded in a given area per a designated schedule depending on the pollutant. Pollutants in an area are often designated as unclassified when there is a lack of data for the EPA to form a basis of attainment status. Just as the EPA designates air basins as being in "attainment" or "non-attainment" of the NAAQS, the ARB designates areas of the State as either in attainment or non-attainment of the Guidelines for Determining Significance 7 Air Quality CAAQS. An area is deemed "non-attainment" if a primary NAAQS or CAAQS has been exceeded in a given area per a designated schedule depending on the pollutant. The San Diego APCD operates and maintains ten monitoring stations located throughout the region. The purpose of these stations is to measure concentrations of the criteria pollutants and determine whether the ambient air quality meets the NAAQS and the CAAQS. The stations are located in Alpine, Camp Pendleton, Chula Vista, Del Mar, El Cajon, Escondido, Kearny Mesa, Otay Mesa, and downtown San Diego (2). Over the past several years San Diego County has experienced substantial improvement in ambient ozone levels according to data collected at the monitoring stations. The number of days above the Federal one-hour ozone standard has decreased from 39 days in 1990 to 0 days in 2005. Similarly, the number of days above the more stringent State standard has decreased from 139 days in 1990 to 16 days in 2005. San Diego County reached a milestone when it was redesignated in 2003 as an attainment area for the Federal 1-hour ozone standard. This was achieved when each monitoring station in the region had no more than three days in a three-year period with a maximum hourly average concentration exceeding the standard. However, San Diego County was designated a basic non-attainment area for the new eight-hour ozone standard on June 15, 2004, and the one-hour ozone standard was revoked on June 15, 2005. Federal standards for PM10 have not been exceeded enough times for the SDAB to be considered in non-attainment. However, the stricter State standards have not been met in San Diego County or in most other parts of California. The EPA created the new standards targeting particles 2.5 microns or less in 1997 based on medical studies showing the tiny particles could lodge deeply into the lungs. In 2005, the federal EPA designated San Diego County as an attainment area for its new annual standard for fine particulates (PM2.5). San Diego has been designated as attainment for the federal 24- hour PM2.5 standard. Initially in 2004, EPA designated San Diego as non-attainment for the annual standard, which would have resulted in significant expense for the District and for affected business activities. The District recognized, however, that EPA had not used the most recent air quality data in its analysis, and that air quality in San Diego was near attainment and continuing to improve. The District expedited validation of air quality data for 2004 that demonstrated San Diego County met the annual Federal PM2.5 standard. Areas are considered in attainment for the annual PM2.5 standard when the three-year average of the annual arithmetic mean is equal to or less than 15 μg/m3. In 2006 the EPA revised the Federal PM2.5 24-hour standard to 35 μg/m3. The EPA will redesignate areas in 2007 according to this revised standard; it is likely that San Diego County will not be in attainment of the revised standard. A complete listing of the current attainment status by pollutant for San Diego County is shown on Table 2 below and the NAAQS/CAAQS are provided in Tables 3 & 4. Guidelines for Determining Significance 8 Air Quality Table 2 San Diego County Air Basin Attainment Status by Pollutant1 Pollutant Averaging Time California Standards Federal Standards 1 Hour No Federal Standard Ozone (O3) 8 Hour Non-attainment Basic Non-attainment Annual Arithmetic Mean Non-attainment No Federal Standard 24 Hour Non-attainment Unclassified1 Respirable Particulate Matter (PM10) Annual Arithmetic Mean No State Standard Unclassified2 24 Hour No State Standard Attainment Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) Annual Arithmetic Mean Non-attainment Attainment 8 Hour Carbon Monoxide (CO) 1 Hour Attainment Maintenance Area3 Annual Arithmetic Mean No State Standard Attainment Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) 1 Hour Attainment No Federal Standard 30 Day Average Attainment No Federal Standard Lead Calendar Quarter No State Standard Attainment Annual Arithmetic Mean No State Standard Attainment 24 Hour Attainment Attainment Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) 1 Hour Attainment No Federal Standard Sulfates 24 Hour Attainment No Federal Standard Hydrogen Sulfide 1 Hour Unclassified No Federal Standard Visibility Reducing Particulates 8 Hour (10 AM to 6 PM, PST) Unclassified No Federal Standard 1 Data reflects status as of March 19, 2007. 2 Unclassified; indicates data are not sufficient for determining attainment or nonattainment. 3 Maintenance Area (defined by U.S. Department of Transportation) is any geographic region of the United States previously designated nonattainment pursuant to the CAA Amendments of 1990 and subsequently redesignated to attainment subject to the requirement to develop a maintenance plan under section 175A of the CAA, as amended. Guidelines for Determining Significance 9 Air Quality Table 3 Federal and State Ambient Air Quality Standards California Standards Federal Standards Pollutant Averaging Time Concentration Primary Secondary 1 Hour 0.09 ppm (180 μg/m3) --- Ozone (O3) 8 Hour 0.070 ppm (137 μg/m3) 0.08 ppm (157 μg/m3) Same as Primary Standard 24 Hour 50 μg/m3 150 μg/m3 Respirable Particulate Matter (PM10) Annual Arithmetic Mean 20 μg/m3 --- Same as Primary Standard 24 Hour No Separate State Standard 35 μg/m3 Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) Annual Arithmetic Mean 12 μg/m3 15 μg/m3 Same as Primary Standard 8 Hour 9.0 ppm (10 mg/m3) 9.0 ppm (10 mg/m3) 1 Hour 20 ppm (23 mg/m3) 35 ppm (40 mg/m3) Carbon Monoxide (CO) 8 Hour (Lake Tahoe) 6 ppm (7 mg/m3) --- None Annual Arithmetic Mean --- 0.053 ppm(100 μg/m3) Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) 1 Hour 0.25 ppm (470 μg/m3) --- Same as Primary Standard 30 Day Average 1.5 μg/m3 --- --- Lead Calendar Quarter --- 1.5 μg/m3 Same as Primary Standard Annual Arithmetic Mean --- 0.030 ppm (80 μg/m3) --- 24 Hour 0.04 ppm (105 μg/m3) 0.14 ppm (365 μg/m3) --- 3 Hour --- --- 0.5 ppm (1300 μg/m3) Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) 1 Hour 0.25 ppm (655 μg/m3) --- --- Table Source: California Air Resources Board, 2006 ppm=parts per million mg/m3=milligrams per cubic meter µg/m3=micrograms per cubic meter Guidelines for Determining Significance 10 Air Quality Table 4 State Ambient Air Quality Standards with No Federal Counterpart California Standards Federal Standards Pollutant Averaging Time Concentration Primary Secondary Sulfates 24 Hour 25 μg/m3 Hydrogen Sulfide 1 Hour 0.03 ppm (42 μg/m3) Visibility Reducing Particulates 8 Hour (10 AM to 6 PM, PST) Extinction coefficient of 0.23 per kilometer — visibility of ten miles or more (0.07 — 30 miles or more for Lake Tahoe) due to particles when relative humidity is less than 70 percent. Method: Beta Attenuation and Transmittance through Filter Tape. Vinyl Chloride 24 Hour 0.01 ppm (26 µg/m3) NO FEDERAL STANDARDS Table Source: California Air Resources Board, 2006 ppm=parts per million mg/m3=milligrams per cubic meter µg/m3=micrograms per cubic meter 1.5 Toxic Air Contaminants Industrial, commercial, and governmental facilities still emit toxic air contaminants (TAC) although emissions from industrial and commercial sources have been reduced by approximately 75% since 1989. Based on the most recent estimates, those sites inventoried emit more than three million pounds of TACs annually (down from 4.5 million pounds in 1998). Motor vehicles and area and natural sources are also key contributors of TACs, emitting more than 27 million pounds. Although TAC emissions from stationary sources in San Diego County have been reduced by approximately 81% since 1989, large amounts of toxic compounds are still emitted into the air from a wide variety of sources including motor vehicles, industrial facilities, household products, area sources, and natural processes. Prioritizing and reducing these emissions further will require a continued, cooperative effort by the public, industry, environmental groups, ARB, and the APCD. The majority of local facilities are in compliance with current District emission standards, which now focus on criteria air pollutants and their precursors (e.g., VOC, oxides of nitrogen, particulate matter) and TACs. Guidelines for Determining Significance 11 Air Quality Figure 1: Toxic Air Contaminant Incremental Cancer Risk for San Diego Air Basin* 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 El Cajon Chula Vista * Excludes cancer risk level from diesel-fired particulates. The State ARB publishes detailed toxic sampling results from all California monitoring sites on its website. A summary of the ARB-approved results for the two San Diego County air toxic monitoring stations is provided in Figure 1. Excluding diesel particulates, a 71% reduction in the ambient incremental cancer risk from air toxics has been measured in Chula Vista and a 70% reduction in El Cajon since 1989 as shown in Figure 1. The estimated risk was 142 in one million for Chula Vista and 158 in one million for El Cajon in 2004, down from 481 and 545 in one million, respectively, in 1989. Typical land use projects that do not propose a stationary source of pollutants primarily generate diesel particulates from the increased traffic and temporary use of construction equipment. Diesel particulates also contribute significantly to ambient risk levels. Although a method does not exist to directly monitor diesel particulate concentrations, ARB has suggested methods that can be used to estimate diesel concentrations. Based on ARB estimates, diesel particulate emissions could add an additional 420 in one million to the ambient risk levels in San Diego County. ARB estimates that risk from diesel particulate has decreased by about 50 percent from 870 in one million since 1990. APCD continues to work with regulated stationary sources to produce more comprehensive and accurate emission inventories. With the release of ARB’s health risk assessment (HRA) software, the District is evaluating health risk assessments and continues to evaluate priorities based on the recently approved inventories. Ongoing implementation of toxic air contaminant control programs such as the Air Toxics "Hot Guidelines for Determining Significance 12 Air Quality Spots" Program, District Rules 1200 (Toxic Air Contaminants - New Source Review) and 1210 (Toxic Air Contaminant Public Health Risks - Public Notification and Risk Reduction) will further reduce local public health risks associated with emissions of toxic air contaminants. Those efforts will also improve information on levels of exposure and risk as well as identifying compounds, processes, and facilities that are potentially causing significant risks. Additionally, the District continues to implement State diesel engine air toxic control measures which will significantly reduce public risk from exposure to diesel engine particulate matter. Measures to reduce vehicle trips and miles traveled will reduce toxic emissions which result from the burning of gasoline. Finally, measures to reduce emissions of VOCs as ozone precursors will also decrease emissions of toxic VOCs. 2.0 EXISTING REGULATIONS AND POLICIES All levels of government have some responsibility for the protection of air quality, and each level (Federal, State, and regional/local) has specific responsibilities relating to air quality regulation. Due to the extensive nature of air pollution regulation, this regulatory framework provides only a brief overview of the pertinent air quality regulations and standards. 2.1 Federal Regulations and Standards National Environmental Policy Act1 Federal agencies that implement the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) consider potential air quality impacts when reviewing the environmental impacts of proposed federal projects. Federal Clean Air Act2 At the Federal level, the EPA has been charged with implementing the national air quality programs. The backbone of the EPA's air quality mandate is the Federal CAA signed into law in 1970, and the subsequent Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) of 1977 and 1990. Although the EPA deals primarily with international, national, and inter- State air pollution, the CAA and CAAA grant authority to the EPA to regulate air pollution on many levels. On the State level, the EPA is responsible for oversight of the State air quality programs. In addition, the EPA sets Federal vehicle and stationary source emission standards, and provides research and guidance for State and regional/local air quality programs. Under the CAA and CAAA, the EPA was required to establish National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for several air pollutants. The pollutants of main concern include ozone (O3), carbon monoxide (CO), oxides of nitrogen (NOX) expressed as nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), and particulate matter equal to or smaller than 10 microns and 2.5 microns in diameter (PM10 & PM2.5). As discussed above, the NAAQS represent the allowable atmospheric concentrations at which the public health 1 U.S. Code, Title 42, Chapter 55, as amended. [http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/42/ch55.html.] 2 US Code, Title 42, Chapter 85, as amended, known as the Clean Air Act. [http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/42/ch85.html; http://www.epa.gov/oar/oaq_caa.html] Guidelines for Determining Significance 13 Air Quality and welfare are protected, and include a reasonable margin of safety to protect the more sensitive receptors in the population. In addition, the CAA (and its subsequent amendments) required each State to prepare an air quality control plan referred to as the State Implementation Plan (SIP). The CAAA of 1990 required States containing areas that violate the NAAQS to revise their SIPs to incorporate additional control measures to reduce air pollution. The SIP is a living document that is periodically modified to reflect the latest emissions inventories, plans, and rules and regulations of air basins as reported by the agencies with jurisdiction over them. The EPA has the responsibility to review all SIPs to determine if they conform to the requirements of the CAAA, and will achieve air quality goals when implemented. If the EPA determines a SIP to be inadequate, it may prepare a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) for the non-attainment area, and may impose additional control measures. As a whole, FIPs tend to be more stringent than SIPs, and most jurisdictions make every effort to ensure their SIP is adequate. 2.2 State Regulations and Standards California Environmental Quality Act3 Under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) lead agencies are required to consider impacts relating to air quality. This includes the consideration of potential impacts resulting from pollutant emissions associated with the construction and operational phases of projects. California Air Resource Board4 The State agency responsible for coordination of State and local air pollution control programs is the ARB, a branch of the California EPA. A primary responsibility of ARB is to develop and implement air pollution control plans designed to achieve and maintain the NAAQS established by the EPA. Although the ARB has primary responsibility, and produces a major portion of the SIP for pollution sources that are State-wide in scope (e.g. motor vehicles), it relies on local air districts to provide additional strategies for sources under their jurisdiction. The ARB combines its data and plans with the plans provided by the local air districts, and submits the SIP to the EPA. As such, the SIP consists of the emissions standards for vehicular sources set by the ARB, and the attainment plans including the rules adopted by the local air districts and approved by the ARB. To ensure attainment of the NAAQS and to improve California's air quality, the ARB has established a stricter set of standards in the CAAQS. The CAAQS are defined as the maximum acceptable pollutant concentrations that are not to be equaled or exceeded, depending on the specific pollutant and averaging times. 3 Public Resources Code 21000-21178; California Code of Regulations, Guidelines for Implementation of CEQA, Title 14, Chapter 3, §15000-15387, Appendix G. [http://ceres.ca.gov/topic/env_law/ceqa/guidelines/] 4 California Code of Regulation Titles 13 & 17, California Health and Safety Code. [http://www.arb.ca.gov/regs.htm; http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/calaw.html] Guidelines for Determining Significance 14 Air Quality Further duties of the ARB include monitoring air quality. The ARB has established and maintains, in conjunction with local air pollution control agencies, a network of sampling stations known as the State and Local Air Monitoring Station (SLAMS) network. These stations monitor the pollutant levels in the ambient air around the monitoring station. ARB is also responsible for setting emission standards for motor vehicles, consumer products, small utility engines, and off-road vehicles. The ARB is additionally responsible, in conjunction with the local air districts, for developing and maintaining the AB 2588 Air Toxic "Hot Spots" program and for regulating toxic air contaminants (TAC) in general. 2.3 Local Regulations and Standards Air Quality Management Districts (AQMD) and Air Pollution Control Districts5 State law recognizes that air pollution does not respect political boundaries, and as such required the ARB to divide the State into separate air basins based on geographical and meteorological conditions. An Air Pollution Control District (APCD) is A county agency with authority to regulate stationary, indirect, and area sources of air pollution (e.g., power plants, highway construction, and housing developments) within a given county, and governed by a district air pollution control board composed of the elected county supervisors. An AQMD is a group of counties or portions of counties, or an individual county specified in law with authority to regulate stationary, indirect, and area sources of air pollution within the region and governed by a regional air pollution control board comprised mostly of elected officials from within the region. In the County of San Diego, protection and regulation of air quality is the responsibility of the San Diego County APCD. The Federal and State standards have been adopted by the APCD for assessing local air quality impacts. Air districts, such as the San Diego County APCD, have the primary responsibility for control of air pollution from all sources other than emissions from motor vehicles, which are the responsibility of the ARB and EPA. Under Federal and State law, air districts are required to adopt and enforce rules and regulations to achieve State and Federal AAQS, and enforce applicable Federal and State laws. Since the passage of the California Clean Air Act (CCAA) and the CAA and Amendments, this role has been expanded to include the implementation of transportation control measures, and indirect source control programs to reduce mobile source emissions. Regional Air Quality Plans6 As previously stated, a non-attainment designation means that a primary NAAQS or CAAQS has been exceeded in a given area per a designated schedule depending on the pollutant. For each non-attainment area within the State, the CCAA has specified air quality management strategies that must be adopted by the agency responsible for the non-attainment area. Each area must prepare and adopt an air quality management plan (AQMP) or regional air quality strategy (RAQS), which lays out programs for attaining the CAAQS and NAAQS for all criteria pollutants. At present, no attainment plan for PM2.5 or PM10 is required by the state regulations. 5 California Health & Safety Code § 4000 et seq. [http://www.sdapcd.org/rules/rules/randr.html] 6 California Health & Safety Code § 40911. [http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/calaw.html] Guidelines for Determining Significance 15 Air Quality The attainment plan for Ozone (O3) must demonstrate a five-percent-per-year reduction of ozone precursors. In cases where this reduction rate is not feasible, alternative strategies must be identified, and every feasible control measure implemented. The San Diego County RAQS for the San Diego Air Basin was initially adopted in 1991, and subsequently revised in 1995, then in 1998, again in 2001 and most recently in 2004. The RAQS outlines APCD's plans and control measures designed to attain the State air quality standards for O3. In addition, the APCD relies on the SIP, which includes the APCD's plans and control measures for attaining the O3 NAAQS. These plans accommodate emissions from all sources, including natural sources, through implementation of control measures, where feasible, on sources to attain the standards. The County of San Diego RAQS relies on information from the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) including the SANDAG Transportation Control Measures Plan (TCM Plan), as well as information regarding projected growth in the County, to identify strategies for the reduction of stationary source emissions through regulatory controls. APCD Rules and Regulations7 As discussed above, State law provides that local air districts such as the APCD have primary responsibility for controlling emissions from non-mobile (stationary) sources. The stationary source control measures identified in the RAQS and SIP have been developed by the APCD into regulations through a formal rulemaking process. Rules are developed to set limits on the amount of emissions from various types of sources and/or by requiring specific emission control technologies (ECTs). Following rule adoption, a permit system is used to impose controls on new and modified stationary sources and to ensure compliance with regulations by prescribing specific operating conditions or equipment on a source. Of particular difficulty in San Diego County is ensuring that new or modified sources do not interfere with attainment or maintenance of the established air quality standards for O3. Since O3 is a secondary pollutant (i.e. O3 is not directly emitted, but results from complex chemical reactions in the atmosphere from precursor pollutants) control of the precursors is required. Therefore, control of emissions of VOCs and oxides of nitrogen (NOX), the O3 precursors, is essential. New Source Review and Prevention of Significant Deterioration8 Federal and State law requires that air districts in non-attainment areas conduct New Source Review (NSR) prior to permitting "major" sources, or modifying existing "major" sources. The purpose of NSR is to allow continued industrial growth in non-attainment areas and, at the same time, ensure that new and modified sources do not aggravate existing air quality problems and/or negate emissions reductions from other sources. The SIP for the SDAB also requires non-major sources to undergo NSR. Under NSR, all existing and new stationary sources of emissions are required to conduct a Best Available Control Technology (BACT) analysis to evaluate the feasibility 7 APCD's Rules and Regulations I-XV. [http://www.sdapcd.org/rules/rules/randr.html] 8 APCD's Rules and Regulations II. [http://www.sdapcd.org/rules/rules//REG2.html] Guidelines for Determining Significance 16 Air Quality of implementing emission control devices. New sources may in some instances have to offset their own emission increases using Emission Reduction Credits (ERCs). In general, technological feasibility, economic, environmental, and energy issues must be taken into account when determining the applicable appropriate control technology. In addition, Rule 20 provides for the protection of Class I Airsheds. Class I Airsheds are Federal protected lands designated under Title I, Part C of the Clean Air Act. The object of the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) regulations is to prevent deterioration of air quality within attainment areas. Federal PSD regulations state that major sources of air pollution may not impact a Class I Airshed within 100 km of it. As of 2006, there were six Class I Airsheds within 100 km of San Diego County, with only one, the Agua Tibia National Wilderness Area within the boundaries San Diego County. San Diego County Grading, Clearing and Watercourses Ordinance SEC. 87.428. Dust Control Measures requires all clearing and grading to be carried out with dust control measures adequate to prevent creation of a nuisance to persons or public or private property. Clearing, grading or improvement plans shall require that measures such as the following be undertaken to achieve this result: watering, application of surfactants, shrouding, control of vehicle speeds, paving of access areas, or other operational or technological measures to reduce dispersion of dust. These project design measures are to be incorporated into all earth disturbing activities to minimize the amount of PM emissions from construction. 2.4 Toxic Air Contaminants9 Toxic air contaminants are controlled under a different regulatory process than criteria pollutants. Because no safe level of emissions can be established for toxic air pollutants region-wide, the regulation of toxic air pollutants is based on the levels of cancer risk and other health risks posed to persons who may be exposed. Joint Federal, State and local efforts to develop further regulation of air toxics will be ongoing for the foreseeable future. Under Federal law, 188 substances are listed as Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs). Major sources of specific HAPs are subject to the requirements of the National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPS) program. The EPA is establishing regulatory schemes for specific source categories, and requires implementation of Maximum Achievable Control Technologies (MACTs) for major sources of HAPs in each source category. State law has established the framework for California's toxic air contaminant identification and control program, which is generally more stringent than the Federal program, and is aimed at HAPs that are a problem in California. The State has formally identified more than 200 substances as TACs, and is adopting appropriate control measures for each. Once adopted at the State level, each district will be required to adopt a measure that is equally or more stringent. In addition, the California Air Toxics 9 Code of Federal Regulations; Title 40; Chapter 1; Part 63; California Health and Safety Code; Division 26; Part 2, § 39656; APCD's Rules and Regulations XII Guidelines for Determining Significance 17 Air Quality "Hot Spots" Information and Assessment Act (AB 2588) is a State-wide program enacted in 1987. AB 2588 requires hundreds of facilities in San Diego County to quantify the emissions of TACs, and in some cases conduct a health risk assessment, and notify the public, while developing risk reduction strategies. In San Diego County, APCD Rule 1210 implements the public notification and risk reduction requirements of the State Air Toxics “Hot Spots” Act, and requires facilities to reduce risks to acceptable levels within 5 years. In addition, Rule 1200 establishes acceptable risk levels, and emission control requirements for new and modified facilities that may emit additional TACs. Typically, land development projects generate diesel emissions from construction vehicles during the construction phase, as well as some diesel emissions from small trucks during the operational phase. Diesel exhaust is mainly composed of particulate matter and gases, which contain potential cancer-causing substances. Emissions from diesel engines currently include over 40 substances that are listed by EPA as hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) and by the ARB as TACs. On August 27, 1998, the ARB identified particulate matter in diesel exhaust as a toxic air contaminant, based on data linking diesel particulate emissions to increased risks of lung cancer and respiratory disease. In September 2000, ARB adopted a comprehensive diesel risk reduction plan to reduce emissions from both new and existing diesel-fueled engines and vehicles. The goal of the plan is to reduce diesel particulate matter emissions and the associated health risk by 75% in 2010 and by 85% by 2020. The plan identifies 14 measures that ARB will implement over the next several years, and diesel engines in both on-road and off-road mobile sources are already regulated by the United States EPA. 3.0 TYPICAL ADVERSE EFFECTS Development activities typically observed in applications reviewed by the Department of Planning and Land Use (DPLU) range from commercial/industrial operations to residential subdivisions. In general, air quality impacts from land use projects are typically the result of emissions from additional motor vehicle trips, and the short-term construction activities associated with such projects. If growth caused by a project was anticipated by SANDAG’s projections and all APCD rules and regulations are adhered to, then a proposed land use project would not be expected to have a significant project- level impact. However, if proposed projects result in growth greater than what was anticipated in the SANDAG projections, create traffic impacts, and/or move substantial amounts of soil, then those projects would need to be evaluated to ensure that the project would not exceed the NAAQS or CAAQS, impede their attainment, and/or create a cumulatively considerable net increase of PM10, PM2.5, or ozone precursors. If the project in question proposes any stationary sources of criteria pollutants, impacts from the equipment used on-site (e.g. boilers, diesel generators, paint booths, etc.) would need to be evaluated to ensure that the project would not create significant project-level or cumulative impacts. In general, large projects have the potential for impacts to air quality during construction and operational phases of the project. Guidelines for Determining Significance 18 Air Quality 3.1 Construction Impacts Construction impacts predominantly result from two sources: fugitive dust from surface disturbance activities; and exhaust emissions resulting from the use of construction equipment (including, but not-limited to: graders, dozers, back hoes, haul trucks, stationary electricity generators, and construction worker vehicles). One of the pollutants of concern during construction is particulate matter, since PM10 is emitted as windblown (fugitive) dust during surface disturbance, and as exhaust of diesel-fired construction equipment (particularly as PM2.5). The ARB’s Scientific Review Panel added diesel exhaust particulates to the California list of TACs as a carcinogenic material in 1998, under the so-called Tanner Act. The potential for an incremental cancer risk resulting from diesel-fired construction equipment exists. Other emissions of concern include architectural coating products off-gassing (VOCs), and other sources of mobile source (on-road and off-road) combustion (NOx, SOx, CO, PM10, PM2.5, and VOCs) associated with the project. 3.2 Operational Impacts Operational emissions are those which occur after project construction activities have been completed, and the project becomes operational. These emissions are a result of increased average daily vehicle trips by the new occupants of a facility, as well as any proposed stationary sources associated with the subject facility or development. Depending on the characteristics of the individual project, operational activities have the potential to generate emissions of criteria pollutants. Operational impacts from land development activities are predominantly the result of vehicular traffic associated with projects. Although industrial developments may have additional pollutants of concern, combustion emissions (NOx, SOx, CO, PM10, PM2.5, and VOCs) associated with mobile sources are generally the primary concern in development applications reviewed by the DPLU. This includes diesel particulate emissions from that portion of the mobile fleet that runs on diesel fuel (including buses). For those areas which have severe degradation in traffic flow (i.e., levels of service “E” or below and over 3,000 peak-hour trips), the possibility of microscale carbon monoxide “hot spots” exists. Other sources of emissions, including emissions of particulates and other combustion products from wood-burning fireplaces, exist in residential subdivisions, but generally to an insubstantial degree. Guidelines for Determining Significance 19 Air Quality 4.0 GUIDELINES FOR DETERMINING SIGNIFICANCE Land-use development projects primarily result in emissions from construction activities and the traffic associated with daily operation (occupancy) of a proposed project. In order to establish acceptable criteria for determining significance each question listed under the State CEQA Guidelines Appendix G must be addressed individually. The quantitative screening-level thresholds (SLTs) and guidelines for determining significance are discussed below. An affirmative response to or confirmation of any one of the following Guidelines will generally be considered a significant impact to air quality as a result of project implementation, in the absence of scientific evidence to the contrary: 4.1 Conformance to the Regional Air Quality Strategy The separate guidelines of significance discussed below have been developed to answer the following question from the State CEQA Guidelines Appendix G: • The project will conflict with or obstruct the implementation of the San Diego Regional Air Quality Strategy (RAQS) and/or applicable portions of the State Implementation Plan (SIP). The RAQS outlines APCD's plans and control measures designed to attain the State air quality standards for ozone. In addition, the APCD relies on the SIP, which includes the APCD's plans and control measures for attaining the ozone NAAQS. These plans accommodate emissions from all sources, including even natural sources, through implementation of control measures, where feasible, on stationary sources to attain the standards. (Mobile sources are regulated by the United States EPA and the California ARB, and the emissions and reduction strategies related to mobile sources are considered in the RAQS and the SIP.) The RAQS rely on information from ARB and SANDAG, including projected growth in the County, mobile, area and all other source emissions in order to project future emissions and determine from that the strategies necessary for the reduction of stationary source emissions through regulatory controls. The ARB mobile source emission projections and SANDAG growth projections are based on population and vehicle trends and land use plans developed by the cities and by the County. As such, projects that propose development that is consistent with the growth anticipated by the general plans would be consistent with the RAQS. In the event that a project would propose development which is less dense than anticipated within the general plan, the project would likewise be consistent with the RAQS. If a project proposes development that is greater than that anticipated in the County of San Diego General Plan and SANDAG’s growth projections, the project would be in conflict with the RAQS and SIP, and might have a potentially significant impact on air quality. This situation would warrant further analysis to determine if the proposed project and the surrounding projects exceed the growth projections used in the RAQS for the specific subregional area. Guidelines for Determining Significance 20 Air Quality At present, no particulate matter attainment plan is required by the statutes and no such plans have been developed for the SDAB. 4.2 Conformance to Federal and State Ambient Air Quality Standards The separate guidelines of significance discussed below have been developed to answer the following question (b) from the State CEQA Guidelines Appendix G: Would the project result in emissions that would violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? The San Diego APCD does not provide quantitative thresholds for determining the significance of construction or mobile source-related impacts. However, the district does specify Air Quality Impact Analysis (AQIA) trigger levels for new or modified stationary sources (APCD Rules 20.2 and 20.3). If these incremental levels for stationary sources are exceeded, an AQIA must be performed for the proposed new or modified source. Although these trigger levels do not generally apply to mobile sources or general land development projects, for comparative purposes these levels may used to evaluate the increased emissions which would be discharged to the SDAB from proposed land development projects. SDAPCD Rule 20.2, which outlines these SLTs, states that any project “which results in an emissions increase equal to or greater than any of these levels, must: “demonstrate through an AQIA . . . that the project will not (A) cause a violation of a State or national ambient air quality standard anywhere that does not already exceed such standard, nor (B) cause additional violations of a national ambient air quality standard anywhere the standard is already being exceeded, nor (C) cause additional violations of a State ambient air quality standard anywhere the standard is already being exceeded, nor (D) prevent or interfere with the attainment or maintenance of any State or national ambient air quality standard.” For projects whose stationary-source emissions are below these criteria, no AQIA is typically required, and project level emissions are presumed to be less than significant. For CEQA purposes, these SLTs can be used to demonstrate that a project’s total emissions (e.g. stationary and fugitive emissions, as well as emissions from mobile sources) would not result in a significant impact to air quality. The hourly and yearly SLTs are most appropriately used in situations when temporary emissions like emergency generators or other stationary sources are proposed as a part of a project. The daily SLTs are most appropriately used for the standard construction and operational emissions. When project emissions have the potential to approach or exceed the SLTs listed below in Table 5, additional air quality modeling may need to be prepared to demonstrate that ground level concentrations resulting from project Guidelines for Determining Significance 21 Air Quality emissions (with background levels) will be below Federal and State Ambient Air Quality Standards listed in Tables 3 and 4. APCD Rules 20.2 and 20.3 do not have AQIA thresholds for emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and PM2.5. The use of the screening level for VOCs specified by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), which generally has stricter emissions thresholds than San Diego’s APCD, is recommended for evaluating projects in San Diego County. For PM2.5, the EPA “Proposed Rule to Implement the Fine Particle National Ambient Air Quality Standards” published September 8, 2005, which quantifies significant emissions as 10 tons per year, will be used as the screening-level criteria as shown in Table 5 below: Table 5 Screening-Level Thresholds for Air Quality Impact Analysis Total Emissions Pollutant Lbs. Per Hour Lbs. per Day Tons per Year Respirable Particulate Matter (PM10) --- 100 15 Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) --- 55* 10* Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx) 25 250 40 Oxides of Sulfur (SOx) 25 250 40 Carbon Monoxide (CO) 100 550 100 Lead and Lead Compounds --- 3.2 0.6 Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) --- 75** 13.7*** * EPA “Proposed Rule to Implement the Fine Particle National Ambient Air Quality Standards” published September 8, 2005. Also used by the SCAQMD. ** Threshold for VOCs based on the threshold of significance for VOCs from the South Coast Air Quality Management District for the Coachella Valley. *** 13.7 Tons Per Year threshold based on 75 lbs/day multiplied by 365 days/year and divided by 2000 lbs/ton. In the event that project emissions exceed these SLTs, specific modeling will be required for NO2, SO2, CO, and lead to demonstrate that the project’s ground-level concentrations, including appropriate background levels, do not exceed the NAAQS and CAAQS. For ozone precursors, PM10 and PM2.5, exceedances of the SLTs results in a significant impact. The reason for this is that the SDAB is currently not in attainment for PM10, PM2.5 and ozone. Therefore, unless a project includes design considerations or mitigation measures that would reduce the daily emissions to below the applicable screening levels, the impact for these pollutants (ozone precursors, PM10, and PM2.5) will be significant as discussed below. Consideration of CO “hotspots” is also provided below. Guidelines for Determining Significance 22 Air Quality 4.2.1 Ozone Precursors • The project will result in emissions that exceed 250 pounds per day of NOx, or 75 pounds per day of VOCs. The Ambient Air Quality Standards reflect actual concentrations for each criteria pollutant. However, it is not economically feasible for individual land use projects to model actual concentrations for ozone based on emissions of its precursors due to the complex regional nature of ozone formation in the atmosphere. Therefore, exceedences of the SLTs for NOx and VOCs would result in a significant impact unless mitigation is incorporated that would reduce the emissions of these pollutants below the level of the screening thresholds. 4.2.2 Carbon Monoxide • The project will result in emissions of carbon monoxide that when totaled with the ambient concentrations will exceed a 1-hour concentration of 20 parts per million (ppm) or an 8-hour average of 9 ppm. CO emissions are the result of the combustion process and therefore primarily associated with mobile source emissions (vehicles). CO concentrations tend to be higher in urban areas where there are many mobile-source emissions. CO “hotspots” or pockets where the CO concentration exceeds the NAAQS and/or CAAQS, have been found to occur only at signalized intersections that operate at or below level of service (LOS) E with peak-hour trips for that intersection exceeding 3,000 trips10. Therefore, any project that would place receptors within 500 feet of a signalized intersection operating at or below LOS E (peak-hour trips exceeding 3,000 trips) must conduct a “hotspot” analysis for CO. Likewise, projects that will cause road intersections to operate at or below a LOS E (with intersection peak-hour trips exceeding 3,000) will also have to conduct a CO “hotspot” analysis. 4.2.3 Particulate Matter • The project will result in emissions of PM2.5 that exceed 55 pounds per day. • The project will result in emissions of PM10 that exceed 100 pounds per day and increase the ambient PM10 concentration by 5 micrograms per cubic meter (5.0 μg/m3) or greater at the maximum exposed individual. In June 2002, the California ARB adopted new, stricter standards for particulate matter that would affect both the coarse as well as fine particulate fraction. ARB delayed action on the proposed 24-hour PM2.5 standard in light of the findings related to statistical issues in several key short-term exposure health effects studies. The EPA, however, has a “Proposed Rule to Implement the Fine Particle National Ambient Air 10 Based on Table 5.4 Project Related CO Concentration Levels of the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District Guide to Air Quality Assessment. Guidelines for Determining Significance 23 Air Quality Quality Standards” published September 8, 2005, which quantifies significant emissions as 10 tons per year, which is the equivalent of 55 pounds per day. As previously stated, the PM10 screening-level threshold of 100 pounds per day comes from SDAPCD Rule 20.2. If a proposed project’s emissions exceed the 100 pounds per day of PM10, relying on the definition of “significant impact” in SDAPCD rule 20.1, the project would create a significant impact if the actual ambient 24-hour concentration is increased by 5.0 μg/m3 in a Class II area (1.0 μg/m3 in a Class I Area11). 4.3 Cumulatively Considerable Net Increase of Criteria Pollutants The separate guidelines of significance discussed below have been developed to answer the following question (c) from the State CEQA Guidelines Appendix G: The project will result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the San Diego Air Basin is non-attainment under an applicable Federal or State Ambient Air Quality Standard (including emissions which exceed the SLTs for ozone precursors listed in Table 5). In analyzing cumulative impacts from a proposed project, the analysis must specifically look at the project’s contribution to the cumulative increase in pollutants for which the San Diego Air Basin is listed as “non-attainment” for the State and Federal AAQS. Of the seven Federal “criteria” pollutants, only ozone occurs in concentrations high enough to violate Federal standards in San Diego County. Of the seven State “criteria” pollutants that have a Federal counterpart, only ozone, PM10, and PM2.5 occur in concentrations high enough to violate State standards in San Diego County. Since few sources (almost none) emit ozone directly, and ozone is caused by complex chemical reactions, control of ozone is accomplished by the control of emissions of NOx and VOCs. Cumulatively considerable net increases during the construction phase would typically happen if two or more projects near each other are simultaneously constructing projects. The following Guidelines for Determining Significance must be used for determining the cumulatively considerable net increases during the Construction Phase: • A project that has a significant direct impact on air quality with regard to emissions of PM10, PM2.5, NOx and/or VOCs, would also have a significant cumulatively considerable net increase. • In the event direct impacts from a proposed project are less than significant, a project may still have a cumulatively considerable impact on air quality if the emissions of concern from the proposed project, in combination with the emissions of concern from other proposed projects 11 Class I Area means any area designated as Class I under Title I, Part C of the federal Clean Air Act. As of December 2006, the Agua Tibia National Wilderness Area was the only area so designated within San Diego County. Class II areas means any area not designated as a Class I area. Guidelines for Determining Significance 24 Air Quality or reasonably foreseeable future projects within a proximity relevant to the pollutants of concern, are in excess of the guidelines identified in Section 4.2 of this document. The guidelines for the consideration of operational cumulatively considerable net increases are treated differently due to the mobile nature of the emissions. The San Diego Air Basin’s RAQS, based on growth projections derived from the allowed General Plan densities, are updated every three years by SDAPCD and lay out the programs for attaining the CAAQS and NAAQS for ozone precursors. It is assumed that a project which conforms to the County of San Diego General Plan, and does not have emissions exceeding the SLTs, will not create a cumulatively considerable net increase to ozone since the emissions were accounted for in the RAQS. The following Guidelines for Determining Significance must be used for determining the cumulatively considerable net increases during the Operational Phase: • A project that does not conform to the RAQS and/or has a significant direct impact on air quality with regard to operational emissions of PM10, PM2.5, NOx and/or VOCs, would also have a significant cumulatively considerable net increase. • Projects that cause road intersections to operate at or below a LOS E (analysis only required when the addition of peak-hour trips from the proposed project and the surrounding projects exceeds 2,000) and create a CO “hotspot” create a cumulatively considerable net increase of CO. Projects creating a cumulatively considerable significant impact can reduce the impact to less than significant with “fair share” mitigation. Section 15130(a)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines states, “An EIR may determine that a project's contribution to a significant cumulative impact will be rendered less than cumulatively considerable and thus is not significant. A project's contribution is less than cumulatively considerable if the project is required to implement or fund its fair share of a mitigation measure or measures designed to alleviate the cumulative impact.” Examples of “fair share” mitigation include but are not limited to the following: Construction Mitigation Measures • Contributing funds to Carl Moyer-like retrofit projects; • Purchasing ERCs; • Retrofit some of the construction equipment with cooled exhaust gas recirculation, lean-NOx catalysts, and/or diesel particulate filters; and/or • Utilizing newer equipment (newer than 1996). Operational Mitigation Measures • Construction of park and ride lots; • Lower-emission school bus projects; Guidelines for Determining Significance 25 Air Quality • Transit infrastructure; • Natural Gas fueling infrastructure; • Pedestrian infrastructure improvements; and • Funding for projects that reduce diesel combustion NOx and toxic particulate matter emissions. Appropriate “fair share” mitigation will be determined on a case-by-case basis. 4.4 Impacts to Sensitive Receptors The separate guidelines of significance discussed below have been developed to answer the following question from the State CEQA Guidelines Appendix G: • The project will expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Air quality regulators typically define sensitive receptors as schools (Preschool-12th Grade), hospitals, resident care facilities, day-care centers, or other facilities that may house individuals with health conditions that would be adversely impacted by changes in air quality. However, for the purposes of CEQA analysis in the County of San Diego the definition of a sensitive receptor also includes residents. The two primary emissions of concern regarding health effects for land development projects are diesel-fired particulates and carbon monoxide. The following Guidelines for Determining Significance must be used for determining whether or not the project will expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations: • The project places sensitive receptors near CO "hotspots" or creates CO "hotspots" near sensitive receptors. (See section 4.2.2 Carbon Monoxide) • Project implementation will result in exposure to TACs resulting in a maximum incremental cancer risk greater than 1 in 1 million without application of Toxics-Best Available Control Technology or a health hazard index greater than one would be deemed as having a potentially significant impact. In addition to impacts from criteria pollutants, typical land development project impacts may include emissions of pollutants identified by the State and Federal government as TACs or HAPs. Under Federal law, 188 substances are listed as HAPs. State law has established the framework for California's TAC identification and control program, which is generally more stringent than the Federal program, and is aimed at HAPs that are a problem in California. The State has formally identified more than 200 substances as TACs, and is adopting appropriate control measures for sources of these TACs. Once adopted at the State level, each air district will be required to adopt a measure that is equally or more stringent. For typical land use projects that do not propose stationary Guidelines for Determining Significance 26 Air Quality source of emissions regulated by APCD, diesel fired particulates are the primary TAC of concern. In San Diego County, APCD Rule 1210 implements the public notification and risk reduction requirements of State law, and requires facilties with high potential health risk levels to reduce health risks below significant risk levels. In addition, Rule 1200 establishes acceptable risk levels and emission control requirements for new and modified facilities that may emit additional TACs. Under Rule 1200, permits to operate may not be issued when emissions of TACs result in an incremental cancer risk greater than 1 in 1 million without application of Toxics-BACT (T-BACT), or an incremental cancer risk greater than 10 in 1 million with application of T-BACT, or a health hazard index (chronic and acute) greater than one. The human health risk analysis is based on the time, duration, and exposures expected. T-BACT will be determined on a case-by-case basis, however examples of T-BACT include diesel particulate filters, catalytic converters and selective catalytic reduction technology. 4.5 Odor Impacts The project which is not an agricultural, commercial or an industrial activity subject to SDAPCD standards, as a result of implementation will either generate objectionable odors or place sensitive receptors next to existing objectionable odors, which will affect a considerable number of persons or the public. APCD Rule 51 (Public Nuisance) and California Health & Safety Code, Division 26, Part 4, Chapter 3, Section §41700 prohibit the emission of any material which causes nuisance to a considerable number of persons or endangers the comfort, health or safety of the public. Projects required to obtain permits from APCD, typically industrial and some commercial projects, are evaluated by APCD staff for potential odor nuisance and conditions may be applied (or control equipment required) where necessary to prevent occurrence of public nuisance. Odor issues are very subjective by the nature of odors themselves and their measurements are difficult to quantify. As a result, this guideline is qualitative and each project will be reviewed on an individual basis, focusing on the existing and potential surrounding uses and location of sensitive receptors. Guidelines for Determining Significance 27 Air Quality 5.0 STANDARD MITIGATION AND PROJECT DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS The project design/mitigation measures suggested in this section are examples of the types of design measures/mitigation that could be applied to a project to reduce identified air quality impacts. If mitigation is required, the actual mitigation recommended for a project will vary depending on the project itself, the specific impact, and other issues that may arise on a case-by-case basis. It is not intended that each mitigation measure identified in this section be applied to every project or that the mitigation be written exactly as presented herein. Similarly, a project may require mitigation that is not specifically identified in this document. 5.1 Typical Construction Phase Air Quality Mitigation Measures Listed below are some examples of typical air quality design considerations that may be incorporated into projects to avoid impacts or mitigation measures that may be required for construction phase air quality impacts. PM10 Large-scale mass grading creates fugitive dust, which can cause PM10 screening levels to be exceeded. The following are typical mitigation / dust control measures for PM10: • Water the grading areas a minimum of twice daily to minimize fugitive dust; • Stabilize graded areas as quickly as possible to minimize fugitive dust; • Apply chemical stabilizer or pave the last 100 feet of internal travel path within the construction site prior to public road entry; • Install wheel washers adjacent to a paved apron prior to vehicle entry on public roads; • Remove any visible track-out into traveled public streets within 30 minutes of occurrence; • Wet wash the construction access point at the end of each workday if any vehicle travel on unpaved surfaces has occurred; • Provide sufficient perimeter erosion control to prevent washout of silty material onto public roads; • Cover haul trucks or maintain at least 12 inches of freeboard to reduce blow-off during hauling; • Suspend all soil disturbance and travel on unpaved surfaces if winds exceed 25 mph; • Cover/water onsite stockpiles of excavated material; • Enforce a 15 mile-per-hour speed limit on unpaved surfaces; • On dry days, dirt and debris spilled onto paved surfaces shall be swept up immediately to reduce re-suspension of particulate matter caused by vehicle movement. Approach routes to construction sites shall be cleaned daily of construction-related dirt in dry weather; • Disturbed areas shall be hydroseeded, landscaped, or developed as quickly as possible and as directed by the County to reduce dust generation; and • Limit the daily grading volumes/area. Guidelines for Determining Significance 28 Air Quality NOx Large-scale mass grading typically requires earth-moving equipment in the forms of bulldozers, graders, loaders, scrapers, backhoes, dump trucks, water tank trucks, etc. When projects propose activities requiring many pieces of the aforementioned equipment and the exhaust may cause screening levels to be exceeded or create air emissions that exceed Federal or State ambient air quality standards for NOx, the following may be conditioned as mitigation/control measures: • Grading or fuel use restriction (e.g., aqueous diesel fuel) may be imposed as a mitigation measure; • Use of modified equipment incorporating such measures as cooled exhaust gas recirculation or lean-NOx catalysts; • Require equipment to be maintained in good tune and to reduce excessive idling time; • Require the use of equipment models newer than 1996; and • Require a permit to operate from the SDAPCD for any generators that produce greater than 50 horsepower. VOCs If proposed projects require the construction of many phases of building occurring simultaneously, which would result in off-gassing of VOCs from architectural coatings and paints that exceed 75 pounds per day, any of the following design considerations / mitigation measures may be required: • The use of VOC-free coatings; • Limited volume usage per day verified with detailed record keeping; and • Renting or purchasing VOC ERCs. 5.2 Typical Operational Phase Air Quality Mitigation Measures Listed below are some examples of typical air quality mitigation measures and design control elements for operational phase, non-point source air quality impacts resulting from land development projects. Projects proposing point source air emissions requiring a permit from the SDAPCD will typically have operational conditions, and/or require BACT. Operational phase air quality impacts resulting from land development projects typically result from increased traffic. Proposed projects having traffic impacts that may exceed a criteria pollutant threshold may be required to construct park and ride lots, construct transit infrastructure, make traffic improvements, include project design measures that encourage carpooling, provide natural gas fueling infrastructure, and provide bicycle lanes and/or pedestrian infrastructure improvements. Another viable option is to fund projects that reduce diesel combustion, NOx and toxic particulate matter emissions. Odors Projects proposing activities that create a point source of odor emissions such as sewage lift stations, restaurants, equestrian centers, etc. may be conditioned to require project design measures, equipment design measures, BMPs, and/or off-site disposal of animal waste. Guidelines for Determining Significance 29 Air Quality 5.3 Additional Mitigation The 1993 SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook identifies potential mitigation for air quality impacts associated with construction and operational activities. These mitigation measures are in Tables 11-2, 11-3, 11-4, 11-6, and 11-7 of the handbook. Refer to the SCAQMD website for updates (http://www.aqmd.gov/CEQA/hdbk.html) and to access the aforementioned tables. These tables can also be consulted when developing mitigation requirements for individual projects. Guidelines for Determining Significance 30 Air Quality 6.0 REFERENCES California Code of Regulations Guidelines for Implementation of CEQA, Appendix G, Title 14, Chapter 3, §15000- 15387. http://ceres.ca.gov/topic/env_law/ceqa/gui delines/ Title 13 & 17; http://www.arb.ca.gov/regs.htm California Health and Safety Code Division 26; Parts 1-4 & 6;http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/ California Public Resources Code California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resource Code §21000-21178). CEQA Air Quality Handbook. South Coast Air Quality Management District, 1993. County of San Diego Air Pollution Control District's Rules and Regulations I-XV; http://www.sdapcd.org/rules/rules/randr.html Zoning Ordinance; Part 6, Section 6318; http://www.sdcounty.ca.gov/dplu/docs/z6000 .pdf Guide to Air Quality Assessment in Sacramento County. Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District, 2004. United States Code of Federal Regulations Title 42; Chapter 55; National Environmental Policy Act. As amended http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/42/c h55.html. Title 42, Chapter 85, Subchapter 1,The Clean Air Act. http://www.epa.gov/oar/oaq_caa.html United States Environmental Protection Agency. National Emission Standards For Hazardous Air Pollutants. Code of Federal Regulations. Title 40; Chapter 1; Part 6