Laserfiche WebLink
10 <br /> <br />3rd Trimester <br />Duration 0.25 2.7E-07 <br />3rd <br />Trimester <br />Exposure <br />2.7E-06 <br />Construction 1.75 0.1954 1090 5.6E-06 10 5.6E-05 <br />Operation 0.25 0.1606 1090 6.6E-07 10 6.6E-06 <br />Infant Exposure <br />Duration 2.00 6.3E-06 Infant <br />Exposure 6.3E-05 <br />Operation 14.00 0.1606 572 1.9E-05 3 5.8E-05 <br />Child Exposure <br />Duration 14.00 1.9E-05 Child <br />Exposure 5.8E-05 <br />Operation 14.00 0.1606 261 6.5E-06 1 6.5E-06 <br />Adult Exposure <br />Duration 14.00 6.5E-06 Adult <br />Exposure 6.5E-06 <br />Lifetime Exposure <br />Duration 30.00 3.2E-05 Lifetime <br />Exposure 1.3E-04 <br />* We, along with CARB and SCAQMD, recommend using the more updated and health protective 2015 OEHHA guidance, which includes ASFs. <br />As indicated in the tables above, the excess cancer risk posed to adults, children, infants, and during the <br />third trimester of pregnancy at the closest receptor, located approximately 100 meters away, over the <br />course of Project construction and operation, utilizing age sensitivity factors, are approximately 6.5, 58, <br />63, and 2.7 in one million, respectively. The excess cancer risk over the course of a residential lifetime <br />(30 years) at the closest receptor, with age sensitivity factors, is approximately 130 in one million. The <br />adult, child, infant, and lifetime cancer risks, using age sensitivity factors, exceed the SCAQMD threshold <br />of 10 in one million, thus resulting in a potentially significant impact not previously addressed or <br />identified by the Addendum. Utilizing age sensitivity factors is the most conservative, health-protective <br />analysis according to the most recent guidance by OEHHA and recommendations from the air district. <br />Results without age sensitivity factors are presented in the table above, although we do not recommend <br />utilizing these values for health risk analysis. <br />An agency must include an analysis of health risks that connects the Project’s air emissions with the <br />health risk posed by those emissions. Our analysis represents a screening-level HRA, which is known to <br />be conservative and tends to err on the side of health protection. The purpose of the screening-level <br />construction HRA shown above is to demonstrate the link between the proposed Project’s emissions <br />and the potential health risk. Our screening-level HRA demonstrates that construction of the Project <br />could result in a potentially significant health risk impact, when correct exposure assumptions and up- <br />to-date, applicable guidance are used. Therefore, since our screening-level construction HRA indicates a <br />potentially significant impact, an updated CEQA analysis should include a reasonable effort to connect <br />the Project’s air quality emissions and the potential health risks posed to nearby receptors. Thus, an <br />updated CEQA analysis should include a quantified air pollution model as well as an updated, quantified <br />refined health risk assessment which adequately and accurately evaluates health risk impacts associated <br />with both Project construction and operation.