75C - PH - THE BOWERY - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

3rd 3rd Trimester 0.25 7.3E-08 Trimester 7.3E-07 Duration Exposure Construction 1.93 fl'mri5 1090 1.7E-06 10 1.7E-05 Operation 0.07 0.122 1090 1.4E-07 10 1.4E-06 Infant Exposure infant 2.OD ].BE-06 I.8E-05 Duration Exposure Operation 14,00 0.122 572 1.5E-05 3 4.4E-05 Child Exposure Child Durutian I'Loo 1.5E-05 Exposure 4.4E-05 Operation 14.00 0.122 261 4.9E-06 1 4.9E-06 Adult Exposure Adak 74.00 4.9E-06 4.9E-06 Duration Exposure Lifetime Exposure Lifetime 30.00 2.2E-03 6.8E-05 Duration Exposure Y we, aleng with C R& and XAQMo, recommend uxlngrne mare upe Mae one nearch prh of 2015 oENNA gumanca, which Includes Asa. The excess cancer risk posed to adults, children, infants, and during the third trimester of pregnancy at the closest receptor, located approximately 450 meters away, over the course of Project construction and operation, utilizing age sensitivity factors, are approximately4.9, 44,180, and 0.73 in one million, respectively. The excess cancer risk over the worse of a residential lifetime (30 years) at the closest receptor, with age sensitivity factors, is approximately 68 in one million. The infant, child, and lifetime cancer risks, using age sensitivity factors, all exceed the SCAQMD threshold of 10 in one million, thus resulting in a potentially significant impact not previously addressed or identified by the DEIR. Results without age sensitivity factors are presented in the table above, although we do not recommend utilizing these values for health risk analysis, as they are less conservative and health -protective according to the most recent guidance. Regardless., the excess cancer risk over the course of a residential lifetime (30 years) at the closest receptor, without age sensitivity factors, is approximately 22 in one million. Thus, the Project may result in a significant impact regardless of the use of age sensitivity factors. Ana gency must include an analysis of health risks that connects the Project's a iremissions with the health risk posed by those emissions. Our analysis represents a screening -level HRA, which is known to be conservative and tends to err on the side of health protection. The purpose of the screening -level construction HRA shown above is to demonstrate the link between the proposed Project's emissions and the potential health risk. Our screening -level HRA demonstrates that construction of the Project could result in a potentially signifieanthealth risk impact, when correct exposureassumptions and up- to-date, applicable guidance are used. Therefore, since our screening -level construction HRA indicates a potentially significant impact, an updated CEQA analysis should include a reasonable effort to connect the Project's air qua Iityemissions and the potential health risks posed to nearby receptors. Thus, an updated CEQA analysis should include a quantified air pollution model as well as an updated, quantified 13 36 75C-181