Laserfiche WebLink
2011). With respect to indoor air contaminants for which inhalation is the primary route of <br />exposure, the critical design and construction parameters are the provision of adequate <br />ventilation and the reduction of indoor sources of the contaminants. <br />Indoor Formaldehyde Concentrations Impact. In the California New Home Study (CNHS) <br />of 108 new homes in California (Offermann, 2009), 25 air contaminants were measured, <br />and formaldehyde was identified as the indoor air contaminant with the highest cancer risk <br />as determined by the California Proposition 65 Safe Harbor Levels (OEHHA, 2017), No <br />Significant Risk Levels (NSRL) for carcinogens. The NSRL is the daily intake level <br />calculated to result in one excess case of cancer in an exposed population of 100,000 (i.e., <br />ten in one million cancer risk) and for formaldehyde is 40 µg/day. The NSRL concentration <br />of formaldehyde that represents a daily dose of 40 µg is 2 µg/m3, assuming a continuous <br />24-hour exposure, a total daily inhaled air volume of 20 m3, and 100% absorption by the <br />respiratory system. All of the CNHS homes exceeded this NSRL concentration of 2 pg/m3. <br />The median indoor formaldehyde concentration was 36 µg/m3, and ranged from 4.8 to 136 <br />µg/m3, which corresponds to a median exceedance of the 2 gg/m3 NSRL concentration of <br />18 and a range of 2.3 to 68. <br />19 <br />Therefore, the cancer risk of a resident living in a California home with the median indoor <br />formaldehyde concentration of 36 µg/m3, is 180 per million as a result of formaldehyde <br />alone. Assuming this project will be built using typical materials and construction methods <br />used in California, there is a fair argument that future residents will experience a cancer risk <br />from formaldehyde of approximately 180 per million. The CEQA significance threshold <br />for airborne cancer risk is 10 per million, as established by the South Coast Air Quality <br />Management District (SCAQMD, 2015). There is a fair argument that this project will <br />expose future residents to a significant airborne cancer risk of 180 per million, which is 18 <br />times above the CEQA significance threshold. This impact should be analyzed in an <br />environmental impact report ("EIR"), and the agency should impose all feasible mitigation <br />measures to reduce this impact. Several feasible mitigation measures are discussed below <br />and these and other measures should be analyzed in an EIR. <br />2 <br />75E-258 <br />