HomeMy WebLinkAbout3 - The Bowery_PUBLIC COMMENT (SAFER)
May 11, 2020
Via Email
Mark McLoughlin, Chair
Cynthia Conteras-Leo, Vice Chair
Thai V. Phan, Commissioner
Norma Garcia, Commissioner
Kenneth Nguyen, Commissioner
Felix Rivera, Commissioner
Angie Cano, Commissioner
Santa Ana Planning Commission
Santa Ana Council Chambers
20 Civic Center Plaza, 2nd Floor
Santa Ana, CA 92702
ecomments@santa-ana.org
Jerry C Guevara, Assistant Planner I
City of Santa Ana Planning and Building
Agency
PO Box 1988
Santa Ana, CA 92702
jguevara@santa-ana.org
Sarah Bernal
Recording Secretary
City of Santa Ana
20 Civic Center Plaza – M20
Santa Ana, CA 92701
ecomments@santa-ana.org
Re: Final Environmental Impact Report for the Bowery Mixed-Use Project (SCH
No. 2019080011)
Dear Honorable Commissioners:
I am writing on behalf of Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility and its
members living and working in and around the City of Santa Ana (collectively “SAFER”)
regarding the Final Environmental Impact Report (“FEIR”) prepared for the Bowery Mixed-Use
Project, located in Santa Ana, California (SCH No. 2019080011) (“Project”). After reviewing
the FEIR, together with our consultants, it is clear that the document fails to comply with CEQA,
and fails to adequately analyze and mitigate the Project’s impacts.
Certified Industrial Hygienist, Francis “Bud” Offermann, PE, CIH, has conducted a
review of the Project, the EIR and relevant appendices regarding the Project’s indoor air
emissions. Mr. Offerman concludes that it is likely that the Project will expose future residents of
the Project to significant impacts related to indoor air quality, and in particular, emissions of the
cancer-causing chemical formaldehyde. Mr. Offermann is one of the world’s leading experts on
indoor air quality and has published extensively on the topic. Mr. Offerman’s expert comments
and CV are attached hereto as Exhibit A.
The Bowery Mixed-Use Project
CEQA Comment
May 11, 2020
Page 2
Traffic engineer Dan Smith also reviewed the EIR and provided expert comments
detailing numerous deficiencies in the EIR’s traffic impact analysis. In particular, the analysis
violates CEQA because it relies on a hypothetical baseline, rather than actual conditions that
existed at the time environmental analysis began. As a result, the baseline traffic level is
significantly higher than it should be, which artificially reduced the traffic impacts created by the
Project when compared to the baseline levels of traffic. Mr. Smith’s expert comments and CV
are attached hereto as Exhibit B.
In addition, environmental consulting firm Soil/Water/Air Protection Enterprise
(“SWAPE”) has reviewed the Project, the DEIR, and the FEIR. SAFER concludes that the
Project’s analysis and mitigation of impacts related to hazardous materials are inadequate.
SWAPE’s expert comments, as well as the CVs of the SWAPE’s consultants who prepared the
comments are attached hereto as Exhibit C.
A revised EIR should be prepared and recirculated prior to Project approval to analyze all
impacts and require implementation of all feasible mitigation measures, as described more fully
below.
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Project is a mixed-use development that includes up to 1,150 multi-family residential
units and up to 80,000 square feet of commercial retail and restaurant space on a 14.58 acre site
in Santa Ana, California. The Project includes demolition of three existing buildings and
removal of all existing improvements, landscaping, and pavement. In its place, the Project
would develop three mixed-use buildings, each of which would be 6-stores, and one residential
building that would be 5-stories in height. Each building would have an adjacent parking
structure. Two parking structures would provide 7-levels of above-ground parking and two
would provide 6 levels of above-ground parking. In addition, the Project would also develop
two one-story retail/restaurant commercial buildings and a surface parking lot. The Project
would provide a total of 174,555 square feet of exterior open space area, with each of the four
residential buildings having a recreation space that includes a pool, spa/hot tub, outdoor kitchen,
seating areas, fitness center, and club room. At full occupancy, the Project would house
approximately 2,081 residents, and the commercial space would generate 320 employees.
The Project site is designated as Professional and Administrative Office (“PAO”) in the
General Plan, and has a zoning designation of Light Industrial (M-1). The Project seeks to
change the General Plan land use designation to District Center and to change the zone to
Specific Development.
The Project site is currently developed with three partially occupied industrial buildings,
parking areas, and vehicle circulation drives. The buildings are currently used by various
lessees, including 119,121 square feet that is used by warehousing and distribution operations,
5,000 square feet being used for research and development, and 30,000 square feet being used as
The Bowery Mixed-Use Project
CEQA Comment
May 11, 2020
Page 3
a 200-bed temporary homeless shelter. The remaining 53,000 square feet of building area is
currently vacant.
II. LEGAL STANDARDS
CEQA requires that an agency analyze the potential environmental impacts of its
proposed actions in an EIR (except in certain limited circumstances). (See, e.g., Pub. Resources
Code, § 21100.) The EIR is the very heart of CEQA. (Dunn-Edwards v. BAAQMD (1992) 9
Cal.App.4th 644, 652.) “The ‘foremost principle’ in interpreting CEQA is that the Legislature
intended the act to be read so as to afford the fullest possible protection to the environment
within the reasonable scope of the statutory language.” (Communities for a Better Environment
v. Cal. Resources Agency (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 98, 109 (“CBE v. CRA”).)
CEQA has two primary purposes. First, CEQA is designed to inform decision makers and
the public about the potential, significant environmental effects of a project. (14 Cal. Code Regs.
(“CEQA Guidelines”) § 15002(a)(1).) “Its purpose is to inform the public and its responsible
officials of the environmental consequences of their decisions before they are made. Thus, the
EIR ‘protects not only the environment but also informed self-government.’” (Citizens of Goleta
Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal. 3d 553, 564.) The EIR has been described as “an
environmental ‘alarm bell’ whose purpose it is to alert the public and its responsible officials to
environmental changes before they have reached ecological points of no return.” (Berkeley Keep
Jets Over the Bay v. Bd. of Port Comm’rs. (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 1344, 1354 (“Berkeley Jets”);
County of Inyo v. Yorty (1973) 32 Cal.App.3d 795, 810.)
Second, CEQA requires public agencies to avoid or reduce environmental damage when
“feasible” by requiring “environmentally superior” alternatives and all feasible mitigation
measures. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15002(a)(2) and (3); See also Berkeley Jets, 91 Cal.App.4th at
1354; Citizens of Goleta Valley, 52 Cal.3d at 564.) The EIR serves to provide agencies and the
public with information about the environmental impacts of a proposed project and to “identify
ways that environmental damage can be avoided or significantly reduced.” (CEQA Guidelines,
§15002(a)(2).) If the project will have a significant effect on the environment, the agency may
approve the project only if it finds that it has “eliminated or substantially lessened all significant
effects on the environment where feasible” and that any unavoidable significant effects on the
environment are “acceptable due to overriding concerns.” (Pub. Resources Code, § 21081;
CEQA Guidelines, § 15092(b)(2)(A) & (B).)
While the courts review an EIR using an “abuse of discretion” standard, “the reviewing
court is not to ‘uncritically rely on every study or analysis presented by a project proponent in
support of its position. A ‘clearly inadequate or unsupported study is entitled to no judicial
deference.’” (Berkeley Jets, 91 Cal.App.4th at 1355 (emphasis added), quoting, Laurel Heights
Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California (1988) 47 Cal. 3d 376, 391 409, n. 12.)
As the court stated in Berkeley Jets, 91 Cal.App.4th at 1355:
A prejudicial abuse of discretion occurs “if the failure to include relevant
information precludes informed decisionmaking and informed public
The Bowery Mixed-Use Project
CEQA Comment
May 11, 2020
Page 4
participation, thereby thwarting the statutory goals of the EIR process.” (San
Joaquin Raptor/Wildlife Rescue Center v. County of Stanislaus (1994) 27
Cal.App.4th 713, 722; Galante Vineyards v. Monterey Peninsula Water
Management Dist. (1997) 60 Cal. App. 4th 1109, 1117; County of Amador v. El
Dorado County Water Agency (1999) 76 Cal. App. 4th 931, 946.)
More recently, the California Supreme Court has emphasized that:
When reviewing whether a discussion is sufficient to satisfy CEQA, a court must
be satisfied that the EIR (1) includes sufficient detail to enable those who did not
participate in its preparation to understand and to consider meaningfully the issues
the proposed project raises [citation omitted]....
(Sierra Club v. Cty. of Fresno (2018) 6 Cal.5th 502, 510 (2018), citing Laurel Heights
Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 405.) The Court
in Sierra Club v. Cty. of Fresno also emphasized at another primary consideration of sufficiency
is whether the EIR “makes a reasonable effort to substantively connect a project’s air quality
impacts to likely health consequences.” (6 Cal.5th at 510.) “Whether or not the alleged
inadequacy is the complete omission of a required discussion or a patently inadequate one-
paragraph discussion devoid of analysis, the reviewing court must decide whether the EIR serves
its purpose as an informational document.” (Id. at 516.) Although an agency has discretion to
decide the manner of discussing potentially significant effects in an EIR, “a reviewing court must
determine whether the discussion of a potentially significant effect is sufficient or insufficient,
i.e., whether the EIR comports with its intended function of including ‘detail sufficient to enable
those who did not participate in its preparation to understand and to consider meaningfully the
issues raised by the proposed project.’” (6 Cal.5th at 516, citing Bakersfield Citizens for Local
Control v. City of Bakersfield (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 1184, 1197.) “The determination whether
a discussion is sufficient is not solely a matter of discerning whether there is substantial evidence
to support the agency’s factual conclusions.” (6 Cal.5th at 516.) As the Court emphasized
(Sierra Club v. Cty. of Fresno, 6 Cal.5th at 514.):
[W]hether a description of an environmental impact is insufficient because it
lacks analysis or omits the magnitude of the impact is not a substantial evidence
question. A conclusory discussion of an environmental impact that an EIR deems
significant can be determined by a court to be inadequate as an informational
document without reference to substantial evidence.
In general, mitigation measures must be designed to minimize, reduce or avoid an
identified environmental impact or to rectify or compensate for that impact. (CEQA Guidelines
§ 15370.) Where several mitigation measures are available to mitigate an impact, each should be
discussed and the basis for selecting a particular measure should be identified. (Id. at §
15126.4(a)(1)(B).) A lead agency may not make the required CEQA findings unless the
administrative record clearly shows that all uncertainties regarding the mitigation of significant
environmental impacts have been resolved.
The Bowery Mixed-Use Project
CEQA Comment
May 11, 2020
Page 5
III. ANALYSIS
A. THERE IS SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE THAT THE PROJECT WILL
HAVE SIGNIFICANT INDOOR AIR QUALITY IMPACTS.
Certified Industrial Hygienist, Francis “Bud” Offermann, PE, CIH, has conducted a
review of the proposed Project and relevant documents regarding the Project’s indoor air
emissions. Indoor Environmental Engineering Comments (May 4, 2020) (Exhibit A). Mr.
Offermann concludes that it is likely that the Project will expose residents of the Project and
employees who work in the commercial space to significant impacts related to indoor air quality,
and in particular, emissions of the cancer-causing chemical formaldehyde. Mr. Offermann is a
leading expert on indoor air quality and has published extensively on the topic. See attached CV.
Mr. Offermann explains that many composite wood products used in modern apartment
home construction contain formaldehyde-based glues which off-gas formaldehyde over a very
long time period. He states, “The primary source of formaldehyde indoors is composite wood
products manufactured with urea-formaldehyde resins, such as plywood, medium density
fiberboard, and particleboard. These materials are commonly used in building construction for
flooring, cabinetry, baseboards, window shades, interior doors, and window and door trims.”
Offermann, pp. 2-3.
Formaldehyde is a known human carcinogen. Mr. Offermann states that there is a fair
argument that future residents of the Project will be exposed to a cancer risk from formaldehyde
of approximately 112 per million, assuming all materials are compliant with the California Air
Resources Board’s formaldehyde airborne toxics control measure. Id., p. 3-4. This more than 11
times the South Coast Air Quality Management District’s (“SCAQMD”) CEQA significance
threshold for airborne cancer risk of 10 per million. In addition, Mr. Offermann concludes that
people working the commercial spaces of the Project will be exposed to an increased cancer risk
from formaldehyde of 16.4 per million, which also exceeds the threshold of significance. Id. at
5. Mr. Offermann concludes that these significant environmental impacts must be analyzed in
the EIR and mitigation measures should be imposed to reduce the risk of formaldehyde
exposure. Id., p. 4-5.
Mr. Offermann also notes that the high cancer risk that may be posed by the Project’s
indoor air emissions likely will be exacerbated by the additional cancer risk that exists as a result
of the Project’s location near roadways with moderate to high traffic (i.e. CA-55, Carnegie
Avenue, Warner Drive, Red Hill Avenue, and Pullman Street) and the high levels of PM 2.5
already present in the ambient air. Offermann, pp. 10-11. No analysis has been conducted of the
significant cumulative health impacts that will result to future residents of the Project.
Mr. Offermann identifies mitigation measures that are available to reduce these
significant health risks, including the preferred mitigation measure that would require the
applicant use only composite wood materials (e.g. hardwood plywood, medium density
The Bowery Mixed-Use Project
CEQA Comment
May 11, 2020
Page 6
fiberboard, particleboard) for all interior finish systems that are made with CARB approved no-
added formaldehyde (NAF) resins or ultra-low emitting formaldehyde (ULEF) resins in the
buildings’ interiors. Id. at 12-13. Proposed mitigation also includes the installation of air filters
and outdoor air ventilation. Id.
The City has a duty to investigate issues relating to a project’s potential environmental
impacts, especially those issues raised by an expert’s comments. See Cty. Sanitation Dist. No. 2
v. Cty. of Kern, (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 1544, 1597–98 (“under CEQA, the lead agency bears a
burden to investigate potential environmental impacts”). In addition to assessing the Project’s
potential health impacts to residents, Mr. Offermann identifies the investigatory path that the
City should be following in developing an EIR to more precisely evaluate the Projects’ future
formaldehyde emissions and establishing mitigation measures that reduce the cancer risk below
the SCAQMD level. Id., pp. 5-10. Such an analysis would be similar in form to the air quality
modeling and traffic modeling typically conducted as part of a CEQA review.
The failure to address the project’s formaldehyde emissions is contrary to the California
Supreme Court’s decision in California Building Industry Ass’n v. Bay Area Air Quality Mgmt.
Dist. (2015) 62 Cal.4th 369, 386 (“CBIA”). At issue in CBIA was whether the Air District could
enact CEQA guidelines that advised lead agencies that they must analyze the impacts of adjacent
environmental conditions on a project. The Supreme Court held that CEQA does not generally
require lead agencies to consider the environment’s effects on a project. CBIA, 62 Cal.4th at 800-
801. However, to the extent a project may exacerbate existing adverse environmental conditions
at or near a project site, those would still have to be considered pursuant to CEQA. Id. at 801
(“CEQA calls upon an agency to evaluate existing conditions in order to assess whether a project
could exacerbate hazards that are already present”). In so holding, the Court expressly held that
CEQA’s statutory language required lead agencies to disclose and analyze “impacts on a
project’s users or residents that arise from the project’s effects on the environment.” Id. at 800
(emphasis added).
The carcinogenic formaldehyde emissions identified by Mr. Offermann are not an
existing environmental condition. Those emissions to the air will be from the Project. Residents
and workers will be users of the Project. Currently, there is presumably little if any formaldehyde
emissions at the site. Once the project is built, emissions will begin at levels that pose significant
health risks. Rather than excusing the City from addressing the impacts of carcinogens emitted
into the indoor air from the project, the Supreme Court in CBIA expressly finds that this type of
effect by the project on the environment and a “project’s users and residents” must be addressed
in the CEQA process.
The Supreme Court’s reasoning is well-grounded in CEQA’s statutory language. CEQA
expressly includes a project’s effects on human beings as an effect on the environment that must
be addressed in an environmental review. “Section 21083(b)(3)’s express language, for example,
requires a finding of a ‘significant effect on the environment’ (§ 21083(b)) whenever the
‘environmental effects of a project will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly.’” CBIA, 62 Cal.4th at 800 (emphasis in original). Likewise, “the
The Bowery Mixed-Use Project
CEQA Comment
May 11, 2020
Page 7
Legislature has made clear—in declarations accompanying CEQA’s enactment—that public
health and safety are of great importance in the statutory scheme.” Id., citing e.g., §§ 21000,
subds. (b), (c), (d), (g), 21001, subds. (b), (d). It goes without saying that the hundreds of future
residents and employees of the Project are human beings and the health and safety of those
individuals is as important to CEQA’s safeguards as nearby residents currently living and
working near the project site.
Mr. Offermann’s expert comments constitute substantial evidence of a fair argument of a
significant environmental impact to future users of the project, but this potentially significant
impact is not analyzed in the EIR. A revised EIR must be prepared to disclose and mitigate
those impacts.
B. THE EIR FAILS TO ADEQUATELY ANALYZE AND MITIGATE
TRAFFIC IMPACTS.
As detailed more fully in the attached comments of traffic engineer Dan Smith (Ex. B),
the Project will have significant impacts on traffic that have either been underestimated or have
not been addressed at all in the EIR. By failing to disclose the full extent of the Project’s traffic
impacts, the EIR fails as an informational document.
1. The EIR violets CEQA because it relies on a hypothetical baseline rather
than conditions that exist at the time environmental analysis begins.
Every CEQA document must start from a “baseline” assumption. The CEQA “baseline”
is the set of environmental conditions against which to compare a project’s anticipated impacts.
Cmty. for a Better Env’t v. So. Coast Air Qual. Mgmnt. Dist. (2010) 48 Cal. 4th 310, 321.
Section 15125(a) of the CEQA Guidelines (14 C.C.R., § 15125(a)) states in pertinent part that a
lead agency’s environmental review under CEQA:
“…must include a description of the physical environmental conditions in the vicinity of
the project, as they exist at the time [environmental analysis] is commenced, from both a
local and regional perspective. This environmental setting will normally constitute the
baseline physical conditions by which a Lead Agency determines whether an impact is
significant.”
See, Save Our Peninsula Committee v. County of Monterey (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 99, 124-125.
As the court of appeal has explained, “the impacts of the project must be measured against the
‘real conditions on the ground,’” and not against hypothetical permitted levels. (Save Our
Peninsula, 87 Cal.App.4th at 121-123. Using such a skewed baseline “mislead(s) the public”
and “draws a red herring across the path of public input.” San Joaquin Raptor Rescue Center v.
County of Merced (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 645, 656; Woodward Park Homeowners v. City of
Fresno (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 683, 708-711.
The Bowery Mixed-Use Project
CEQA Comment
May 11, 2020
Page 8
Here, the EIR’s traffic analysis does precisely what the courts prohibit. The EIR relies on
hypothetical permitted levels of use rather than the real conditions on the ground when the
environmental analysis began. By relying on a skewed baseline, the EIR understates the
Project’s traffic impact.
In order to determine the amount of traffic generated by the Project compared to the
baseline levels, the EIR calculated the Project’s projected traffic, and then deducted “trip credits”
based on estimates of existing traffic levels. Mr. Smith explains in his comments that the “trip
credits” taken for existing use of the site are excessive, overstating existing traffic, and as a result
understates the Project’s traffic impacts.
Ricoh Electronics, Inc., a manufacturer and distributer of thermal paper and toner,
formerly occupied the entire Project site from 1985 through 2017. DEIR, 3-1. The DEIR lists
the Project site’s current uses as: 1) 119,121 square feet of warehouse and distribution, 2) 5,000
square feet of research and development, 3) 53,000 square feet of vacant space, and 4) 30,000
square feet in use as a temporary homeless shelter. DEIR, 3-1. The DEIR specifies that these
“tenants began utilizing the site after cessation of the Ricoh Electronics operations.” DEIR, 5.9-
13.
Rather than relying on baseline traffic conditions existing at the time the Notice of
Preparation (“NOP”) was issued July 26, 2019, the EIR’s traffic analysis relies on a baseline that
assumes the entire 212,121 square feet of existing building area is fully occupied and being used
as an industrial park. Smith, p. 1. There is no evidence that the Project site was fully occupied
and operating as an industrial park when the NOP was issued or when the EIR was prepared. It
is unclear whether the EIR’s baseline assumption is premised on the site being zoned for Light
Industrial, or if it was based on the site previously being fully operated with industrial uses.
Either explanation requires use of a hypothetical baseline, which violates CEQA.
Table 1 – Trip Rates Based on Prior Land Use*
Land Use Category Use Size (sq.
ft.)
Daily Trips** AM Peak** PM Peak**
Warehouse 119,121 279 27 31
Research & Development 5,000 56 2 2
Homeless Shelter 30,000 negligible 0 0
Vacant Space 53,000 0 0 0
Total trips from existing uses 207,121*** 335 29 33
EIR Baseline based on Industrial
Park Use
212,121 1,326 159 159
Percent increase when EIR
baseline is compared to
Existing Use baseline
395% 540% 481%
*Data based on Trip Generation, 10th Edition.
** Numbers are trips in passenger car equivalents (“PCE”).
The Bowery Mixed-Use Project
CEQA Comment
May 11, 2020
Page 9
**The existing uses described in the EIR only add up to 207,121 square feet, while the
EIR’s traffic study relied on 212,121 square feet of land uses at the Project site.
When Mr. Smith analyze trip generation based on uses existing at the time the
environmental analysis began in July 2019, he determined that baseline traffic levels are
significantly lower than was analyzed in the EIR. The DEIR concludes that based on a fully
occupied industrial park, the baseline trip generation would be 159 passenger car equivalent
(“PCE”) trips in the AM peak hour and the PM peak hour, with a daily total of 1,326. Smith, p.
2, (citing DEIR, 5.14-11, table 5.14-5). In contrast, based on the actual existing land uses at the
time the NOP was circulated, the maximum trip generation is 29 PCE trips in the AM peak, and
33 PCE trips in the PM peak hour, for a daily total of 335 trips. Smith, p. 2. In other words,
while existing uses generate only 29 PCE trips in the AM peak, the EIR takes credit for 159 PCE
trips, an increase of 540%. Similarly, the EIR’s baseline inflates the trips generated in the PM
peak and daily trips by 481% and 395%, respectively.
Overstating baseline traffic skews the calculation of what additional traffic the Project
will generate. For example, the DEIR assumes the Project will generate 604 PM peak trips. By
deducting an additional 126 trips 1 based on an existing industrial park use, the DEIR
underestimates the Project’s traffic impact by nearly 21 percent. “This flaw alone is
sufficient to significantly alter findings of impact and mitigation requirements.” Smith, p. 2.
The EIR’s error is similar to that in Woodward Park Homeowners v. City of Fresno
(“Woodward”) (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 683, 708-711.) In that case, a developer proposed to
build a shopping mall on a vacant lot. The EIR erroneously used as a baseline an office park that
was previously approved for the parcel, and subtracted the difference. The court held that the
baseline should have been zero since the property was actually vacant. Using the non-zero
baseline for the vacant parcel misled the public into thinking the proposed shopping mall’s
impacts would be much less than they would be when compared to the existing vacant parcel.
This is exactly what happened here. The EIR underestimates traffic generated from the
Project because it relies on excessive deductions of traffic of the prior use of the Project site.
Using an inflated baseline premised on a hypothetical use of the Project site as an industrial park
misleads the public and decision makers into believing the Project’s traffic impacts will be much
less than they are when compared to the existing land uses. The EIR’s traffic baseline violates
CEQA. The EIR must be revised to analyze the Project’s traffic impact using a baseline as it
existed at the time the environmental analysis began.
2. The EIR improperly classifies 18,000 square feet of retail in the Project as
a shopping center.
To calculate the amount of traffic generated from the 18,000 square feet of retail space
included in the Project, the EIR relied on “Land Use Category 820, “Shopping Center.” Smith,
1 (159 trips based on full industrial park use) – (33 trips based on uses at time NOP issued) = 126 excess trips.
The Bowery Mixed-Use Project
CEQA Comment
May 11, 2020
Page 10
p. 2. But Mr. Smith observes that 18,000 square feet of retail does not make a shopping center.
Id. He explains:
Shopping centers only generate trips at the average rates employed in the subject analysis
when they reach a size of about 400,000 square feet of floor area. Small footprint retail
normally generates trips at much higher peak and daily rates per thousand square feet
than the shopping center average. The 18,000 square feet of retail in the Project is about
the typical size of a boutique grocery like a Trader Joe’s or a Walgreens Pharmacy.
Smith, pp. 3-4.
By inappropriately relying on the Shopping Center land use category, the EIR greatly
underestimates the Project’s trip generation. Table 1, below, compares the significant difference
in trips generated by a Shopping Center compared to a Pharmacy or Supermarket land use
category. For example, a Shopping Center land use would generate only 37.75 daily trips per
1,000 square feet, while a Supermarket would generate 106.78 daily trips, nearly three times as
many.
Table 2 – Trip Rates Per 1,000 Square Feet Based on Land Use Category
Land Use Category Daily AM Peak PM Peak
Supermarket 106.78 3.82 9.24
Pharmacy 90.08 2.94 8.51
Shopping Center 37.75 0.94 3.81
Table 2 compares the trips generated for the Projects 18,000 square feet of retail when the
three different land use categories are applied.
Table 3 – Trip Rates for 18,000 Square Feet of Retail Based on Land Use Category
Land Use Category Daily AM Peak PM Peak
Supermarket 1,922 69 166
Pharmacy 1,622 53 153
Shopping Center 680 17 69
Mr. Smith concludes that these difference in trip generation rates, “when added to
adjustment of the improper credit for the prior use, take on cumulative significance.” Smith, p.
3.
There is no evidence to support the EIRs use of the Shopping Center land use category
for the Project’s 18,000 square feet of retail when that category is meant for structures of
400,000 square feet of retail or more. As a result, there is no evidence to support the EIR’s
findings regarding the severity of the Project’s traffic impact.
The Bowery Mixed-Use Project
CEQA Comment
May 11, 2020
Page 11
3. The EIR makes excessive assumptions of trip reductions from
internalization and passer-by attraction.
The EIR assumes that internal trips and attracted passers-by will account for 31.5 percent
of the Project’s gross trip generation in the AM traffic peak hour and 42 percent of the Project’s
gross trip generation in the PM traffic peak hour. Smith, p. 4. When combined with the
improper deductions taken for the abandoned prior use as an industrial park, deductions
eliminate 47.2 percent of the gross AM peak trip generation and 54 percent of the gross PM peak
trip generation. Id.
This analysis assumes internalization rates and attracted passerby rates at the maximum
end of the range provided for in the Trip Generation Handbook, 3rd Edition. Id. In doing so, the
EIR makes another in a series of assumptions, all most favorable to the Project, and all
minimizing trip and traffic generation. CEQA requires more than merely disclosing the most
generous interpretation of potential impacts. CEQA requires a lead agency to disclose the full
scope of potential impacts. By relying solely on the most favorable assumptions, with no
discussion of the possibility of greater impacts, the EIR misleads the public and decision makers,
and fails as an informational document.
4. The EIR fails to adequately respond to comments on traffic by the Orange
County Transportation Agency.
In its comments on the DEIR, the Orange County Transportation Agency identifies
numerous roadways for which the DEIR’s description of roadway cross-section is wrong. FEIR,
2-35 to 2-37. In response, “the FEIR corrects the text of the relevant table but fails to analyze
whether the changes have any consequential impact on the outcomes of impact analysis.” Smith,
p. 4. Overstating the number of lanes on several roadways could have significant consequences
on the Project’s traffic impacts and the mitigation required for those impacts. The FEIR must be
revised to address the impact of these changes on the traffic analysis.
5. As a result of numerous deficiencies, the EIR’s traffic analysis violates
CEQA.
Based on the above deficiencies, Mr. Smith correctly concludes as follows:
Because the DEIR improperly deducted trips for a prior use of the Project site that was
not present when the NOP was circulated nor when baseline traffic counts for the analysis
were taken, because it unreasonably treats 18,000 square feet of unspecified retail
commercial as a “shopping center” rather than a logical specific use or range of uses that
would occupy a retail floor area of this size and because the analysis consistently makes
assumptions most favorable to the Project with regard to trip internalization and passer-
by attraction, the FEIR should not be certified, the traffic analysis should be redone and
the environmental document should be recirculated in “draft” status.
The Bowery Mixed-Use Project
CEQA Comment
May 11, 2020
Page 12
Smith, p. 4.
It would be an abuse of discretion for the City to approve the EIR because the traffic
analysis fails to include relevant information, as discussed above, which precludes informed
decision making and informed public participation. By failing to disclose the full extent of the
Project’s traffic impacts, the EIR fails as an informational document.
C. THE PROJECT WILL HAVE A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON
POPULATION AND HOUSING BECAUSE IT WILL DISCLOSE 200
HOMELESS PEOPLE, RESULTING IN THE NEED FOR NEW
HOUSING.
CEQA requires the lead agency to determine whether the “environmental effects
of a project will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly.”
Pub Res. Code § 21083(b)(3), (d). CEQA Guidelines Appendix G, Section XIV provides that a
project will have a significant impact on population and housing if it will “[d]isplace substantial
numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere.”
Here, 30,000 square feet of the Project site is currently being used as a homeless shelter,
housing 200 homeless. DEIR, 5.11-3. By converting the homeless shelter into market rate
housing, the Project will displace up to 200 people, who by definition have no other housing.
The DEIR claims that the Project would not displace substantial numbers of existing
people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. DEIR,
5.11-11. The DEIR supports this conclusion based solely on the statement that “Santa Ana is
working on various homeless shelter solutions, including the purchase of a permanent homeless
shelter site, that are anticipated to be available for the existing persons on the Project site prior to
construction of the proposed Project.” Id. This statement does not constitute substantial
evidence to support the DEIR’s conclusion that the Project will not have a significant impact.
While Santa Ana may be working on “various homeless shelter solutions,” this is not
evidence that up to 200 homeless people will be displaced as a result of the Project, and those
200 people will require housing elsewhere. Moreover, if the City is looking to purchase a
permanent homeless shelter site, it will need to construct replacement housing on that site,
constituting a significant impact under CEQA.
The City’s conclusion that the Project will not have a significant impact stemming from
displacement of up to 200 homeless people violates CEQA because it is not supported by
substantial evidence.
The Bowery Mixed-Use Project
CEQA Comment
May 11, 2020
Page 13
D. THE EIR FAILS TO ADEQUATELY DISCLOSE, ANALYZE, AND
MITIGATE THE PROJECT’S IMPACTS RELATED TO HAZARDS AND
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS.
1. The EIR fails as an informational document because it fails to disclose that
the Project site is contaminated with hazardous materials and is on the
Cortese List.
A Project has a significant impact on the environment if it is “located on a site that is
included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section
65962.5 [the Cortese List] and, as a result, create[s] a significant hazard to the public or the
environment.” CEQA, Appendix G; DEIR, 5.7-21.
The DEIR states that the Project would have no such impact. It claims:
No Impact. The Phase I Environmental Site Assessments that was conducted database
searches to determine if the Project area or any nearby properties are identified as
currently having hazardous materials. The record searches determined that although the
site has a history of various uses, and identified as previously generating hazardous
wastes and clean-up activities, the Project site is not located on or near by a site which is
included on a list of hazardous materials sites pursuant to Government Code Section
65962.5 (Phase I 2018).
The Phase I ESA did not identify any nearby or surrounding area sites that are included
on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section
65962.5, and as a result, impacts related to hazards from being located on or adjacent to a
hazardous materials site would not occur from implementation of the proposed Project.
DEIR, 5.7-26.
The FEIR goes on to claim that “Sites where response actions have been completed and
no operation and maintenance activities are required are not included on the list.” This statement
is false and the EIR provides not evidence to support it or the DEIR’s analysis.
The Department of Toxic Substances Control states in no uncertain terms in its comments
that the Project is on the Cortese List. See, FEIR, 2-3. The DEIR even acknowledges DTSC’s
expertise in this area, noting that DTSC “is responsible for a portion of the information contained
in the Cortese List.” DEIR, 5.7-4.
Closure of an underground storage tank case does not take a site off the Cortese List. A
case is closed if clean-up activities achieve certain standards. The level of remediation required
depends on the proposed future use of the site. For example, a site may be closed because it was
remediated to a level sufficient for the site to be used for industrial purposes, but residual
The Bowery Mixed-Use Project
CEQA Comment
May 11, 2020
Page 14
contamination may remain at levels that would not be safe for residential development. This is
why it is important to keep sites on the Cortese List even if they are closed.
But even assuming arguendo the Project site was no longer on the Cortese List because it
was a closed site – which is untrue – the EIR still needed to discuss the Cortese List because,
according to the Phase I and II reports, the site will need to be reopened for additional
remediation, which - under the EIR’s reasoning – would put the site back on the List once again.
In addition to not disclosing that the site is on the Cortese List, the EIR also fails to
disclose material information about the Project site. Instead, to truly learn about the hazardous
materials and contamination at the Project site, the public and decision makers are required to dig
through thousands of pages in the appendices in order to find out basic information about the
Project. This violates CEQA.
For example:
• The DEIR does not disclose that the Project site is contaminated with
hazardous materials at levels that exceed residential human health screening
levels.
• The DEIR does not disclose the impact the existing contamination could have
on human health of construction workers or future residents of the Property.
• The DEIR does not mention or describe previous hazardous materials
remediation efforts at the Project site.
• The DEIR does not disclose that the Project will need to re-open its formerly
closed case in order to further remediate existing contamination such that the
site would meet residential contamination standards.
This important information is only available in the EIR’s appendices. Burying this
information in hundreds of pages of appendices does not remedy this omission from the EIR.
Multiple courts have held that relevant information about a Project’s environmental impact must
be presented in the EIR itself. “Information ‘scattered here and there in EIR appendices’ or a
report ‘buried in an appendix’ is not a substitute for ‘a good faith reasoned analysis.” Vineyard
Area Citizens for Responsible Growth v. City of Rancho Cordova (2007) 40 Cal.4th 412, 442.
The EIR’s failure to disclose the above information renders the EIR inadequate as an
informational document.
2. The EIR fails to provide a good faith reasoned response to comments from
DTSC.
Public and sister-agency participation is an essential part of the CEQA process. Public
review of environmental documents serves the following purposes: (a) sharing expertise; (b)
disclosing agency analyses; (c) checking for accuracy; (d) detecting omissions; (e) discovering
public concerns; and (f) soliciting counter proposals. CEQA Guidelines, § 15200.
The Bowery Mixed-Use Project
CEQA Comment
May 11, 2020
Page 15
An agency’s responses to comments must specifically explain the reasons for rejecting
suggestions received in comments and for proceeding with a project despite its environmental
impacts. Such explanations must be supported with specific references to empirical information,
scientific authority, and/or explanatory information. (Cleary v. County of Stanislaus (1981) 118
Cal.App.3d 348, 357.) The responses, moreover, must manifest a good faith, reasoned analysis;
conclusory statements unsupported by factual information will not suffice. (People v. County of
Kern (1974) 39 Cal.App.3d 830, 841.)
The responses to comments on a draft EIR must state reasons for rejecting suggestions
and objections concerning significant environmental issues. City of Maywood v Los Angeles
Unified Sch. Dist. (2012) 208 CA4th 362, 391. Responses to comments must manifest a good
faith, reasoned analysis; conclusory statements unsupported by factual information will not
suffice. People v. County of Kern (1974) 39 Cal.App.3d 830, 841. The need for a reasoned,
factual response is particularly acute when critical comments have been made by other agencies
or experts. Berkeley Keep Jets Over the Bay Com. v. Board of Port Cmrs., (2001) 91
Cal.App.4th 1344, 1367, 1371 (“Berkeley Jets”) (conclusory responses to comments from
experts and other agencies that criticized data and methodologies used to assess impacts and that
were based on extensive supporting studies rendered EIR legally inadequate). “Where
comments from responsible experts or sister agencies disclose new or conflicting data or
opinions that cause concern that the agency may not have fully evaluated the project and its
alternatives, these comments may not simply be ignored. There must be good faith, reasoned
analysis in response.” Id. at 1367 (EIR inadequate due to failure to respond to expert evidence
on toxic air contaminants).
The City’s responses to comments made by the Department of Toxic Substances Control
(“DTSC”) were cursory and inadequate. DTSC noted in its comments that the “EIR states that
this Project is not located on or near by a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials
sites pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5,” commonly referred to as the “Cortese
List.” FEIR, 2-3. DTSC requested that the EIR be revised to state that the Project is in fact
listed on Geotracker and is located near several hazardous materials sites. Id.
In response to DTSC’s comment, the FEIR states:
The State Water Resources Control Board GeoTracker site identifies that previous
contamination on the site occurred from an underground storage tank (UST) occurred
onsite and that cleanup and UST removal activities occurred onsite from 1986 through
2006. The cleanup and remediation activities resulted in a “Completed - Case Closed”
status as of August 13, 2010, as shown in the attached GeoTracker Listing for the project
site. The GeoTracker information identifies only one other hazardous materials site
within 1,000 feet of the project site, which is a military UST site located in the former
Tustin Marine Corps Air Station. The GeoTracker information can be accessed at the
following link:
https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/profile_report.asp?global_id=T0605900440
The Bowery Mixed-Use Project
CEQA Comment
May 11, 2020
Page 16
FEIR, 2-7.
The City’s response does not clearly or adequately reply to DTSC’s comments. DTSC
says that the DEIR incorrectly states that the Project site is not on the Cortese List, when in fact
it is. DTSC therefore requested that the EIR be corrected to inform the public and
decisionmakers of the listing and the potential hazards relating to the site. Rather than replying
by fixing the EIR, or providing some evidence that the site is not on the Cortese List, the City
neither admits that the Project is on the Cortese List nor denies that it is. Instead, the City tries to
obfuscate the issue by noting that a previous remediation resulted in a Case Closure status as of
August 2010.
This is particularly troubling because the EIR admits that DTSC is an expert on this
subject, noting that DTSC “is responsible for a portion of the information contained in the
Cortese List.” DEIR, 5.7-4 If the City disagrees with DTSC’s conclusion that the Project is on
the Cortese List, it must say so, accompanied by a reasoned explanation. “[W]here comments
from responsible experts or sister agencies disclose new or conflicting data or opinions that cause
concern that the agency may not have fully evaluated the project and its alternatives, these
comments may not simply be ignored.” Banning Ranch Conservancy v. City of Newport Beach
(2017) 2 Cal. 5th 918, 940. The FEIR does not include a good faith, reasoned explanation as to
why it did not revise the EIR to correct the false statement that the Project site is not on the
Cortese List. This was an abuse of discretion.
The City also failed to respond at all to DTSC’s comments relating to the inadequacy of
the EIR’s analysis of “whether the Project Site was remediated to meet the residential land use
cleanup goals.” FEIR, 2-3. The FEIR’s response to DTSC’s comments never even mentions
residential land use clean up goals, or provides evidence that the site has been remediated to such
levels.
3. The EIR does not Adequately Mitigate Hazards and Hazardous Waste
Impacts.
Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 does not fully mitigate the Project’s hazardous materials
impacts. As environmental consulting firm SWAPE explains in its expert comments:
Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 requires a soil management plan to be used during
construction to guide the removal and disposal of the areas of TPH-impacted soil. On its
own, a soil management plan is insufficient. To ensure the adequacy and the health-
protectiveness of the cleanup, engagement of the DTSC is necessary. DTSC engagement
should be formalized through a voluntary cleanup agreement and the cleanup of the
Project site should follow an assessment and cleanup program directed by DTSC.
SWAPE, p. 1.
SWAPE explains that “a soil management plan is not an instrument that is used by DTSC
The Bowery Mixed-Use Project
CEQA Comment
May 11, 2020
Page 17
or any other regulatory agency in assessing the need for cleanups or in planning for cleanups to
be health protective.” SWAPE, p. 2. The soil management plan that would be required by
Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 would include:
• A certified hazardous waste hauler to remove all potentially hazardous soils
• Excavation and removal of contaminated soils
• Sampling of soil during excavation to ensure that all contaminated soils are removed, and
that residential Environmental Screening Levels (ESLs) for residential uses are not
exceeded.
• Subsurface materials exposed during construction activities that appear suspect of
contamination, either from visual staining or suspect odors, shall require immediate
cessation of excavation activities and soils suspected of contamination shall be tested.
• If contamination is found to be present per the California Department of Toxic
Substances Control (DTSC) or Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) ESLs
for residential uses, it shall be transported and disposed of per California Hazardous
Waste Regulations
• Preparation of a Health and Safety Plan.
Contrary to the EIR’s claims in response to comments from DTSC, the soil management
plan would in no way “meet the same intent and requirements as the Removal Action Workplan
or a Remedial Action Plan.” SWAPE, p. 2. For example, SWAPE notes that a removal action
work plan, as recommended by DTSC in its comments, shall:
• Identify the nature and the extent of contaminants
• Describe the health effects of the contaminants
• Perform a health risk evaluation
• Identify cleanup goals
• Perform an engineering evaluation and cost analysis
• Compare remedial alternatives
• Describe the selected remedy
• Allow for public participation
• Provide dust control
• Conduct confirmatory sampling.
SWAPE, p. 2.
A Removal Workplan or a Remedial Action Plan is necessary for mitigation of the
Project’s significant impacts stemming from on-site contamination.
4. Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 constitutes deferred mitigation under CEQA.
CEQA disallows deferring the formulation of mitigation measures to post-approval
The Bowery Mixed-Use Project
CEQA Comment
May 11, 2020
Page 18
studies. CEQA Guidelines § 15126.4(a)(1)(B); Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino (1988) 202
Cal.App.3d 296, 308-309. “[M]itigation measure[s] [that do] no more than require a report be
prepared and followed” do not provide adequate information for informed decisionmaking under
CEQA. Endangered Habitats League, Inc. v. County of Orange (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 777,
794; Guidelines § 15126.4(a)(1)(B). Deferral of formulation of mitigation measures pending the
completion of a future study is appropriate only where there is a practical reason that prevents
formulation of a mitigation measures during CEQA review. Sacramento Old City Assn. v. City
Council (1991) 229 Cal.App.3d 1011, 1028-29.
Moreover, by deferring the development of specific mitigation measures, the Applicant
has effectively precluded public input into the development of those measures. CEQA prohibits
this approach. As explained by the Sundstrom court:
An EIR … [is] subject to review by the public and interested agencies. This requirement
of “public and agency review” has been called “the strongest assurance of the adequacy
of the EIR.” The final EIR must respond with specificity to the “significant
environmental points raised in the review and consultation process.” . . . Here, the
hydrological studies envisioned by the use permit would be exempt from this process of
public and governmental scrutiny.
Sundstrom, 202 Cal.App.3d at 308.
Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 requires that, prior to issuance of a grading permit, a “Soil
Management Plan (SMP) shall be prepared by a qualified hazardous materials consultant and
shall detail procedures and protocols for excavation and disposal of onsite hazardous
materials…” DEIR, 1-12.
Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 constitutes precisely the type of deferred mitigation CEQA
prohibits. The EIR defers preparation of the soil management plan until after completion of
CEQA review, without imposing any substantive standards, and without providing for any pubic
review.
Moreover, there is no requirement that the Soil Management Plan be submitted to any
agency for approval, so the applicant in essence is itself determining what constitutes sufficient
mitigation. Deferral of mitigation is also impermissible if it removes the CEQA decision-making
body from its decision-making role. The City may not delegate the formulation and approval of
mitigation measures to address environmental impacts because an agency’s legislative body must
ultimately review and vouch for all environmental analysis mandated by CEQA. Sundstrom v
County of Mendocino (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 296, 306-308. Thus, the EIR may not rely on
programs to be developed and implemented later without approval by the City. Yet that is
precisely what MM HAZ-1 does.
The EIR may not rely on the soil management plan to be developed, approved, and
implemented later without any approval by the City, at some future time after the Project has
The Bowery Mixed-Use Project
CEQA Comment
May 11, 2020
Page 19
been approved. Without valid mitigation, the Project’s significant hazardous materials impact
remains significant.
5. The EIR’s conclusions related to hazardous impacts from contaminated
groundwater are not supported by substantial evidence.
The EIR must be revised to correct its inconsistent statements about the likelihood of
encountering contaminated groundwater during Project construction. The FEIR states:
[I]t is described on page 5.5-5 in Section 5.5, Geology and Soils, of the Draft EIR that
based on onsite borings the depth of groundwater is in the range of 24 to 33 feet below
ground surface (bgs). This depth of groundwater would not impact persons onsite during
operation of the proposed mixed-uses. Also, the Draft EIR page 3-19, Section 3.0, Project
Description, describes that excavation and grading during project construction would be a
minimum of 5 feet below the bottom of the building foundations. As the depth of
groundwater currently ranges between 24 to 33 feet, project excavation of approximately
5 feet below building foundations would not result in encountering groundwater. Thus,
construction workers would also not be in contact with, and therefore impacted by,
contaminated groundwater. Therefore, the potential risk to future receptors associated
with groundwater contamination would be less than significant.
FEIR, 2-8.
But SWAPE points out that the assertion that groundwater is in the range of 24 to 33 feet
deep contradicts the case closure summary attached to the SARWQCB No Further Action letter
for the Project site, which states that groundwater is at depths of 5.67 to 13 feet deep (as
excerpted in the below table). SWAPE, p. 3 (citing No Further Action Letter, attached hereto as
Exhibit D).
Based on this data, SWAPE concludes that “if Project excavation is ‘a minimum of 5 feet
below the bottom of building foundations’ (FEIR, p. 2-8), groundwater is likely to be
encountered if found at depths as shallow as 5.67 feet as stated by the SARWQCB in the table
The Bowery Mixed-Use Project
CEQA Comment
May 11, 2020
Page 20
above. The FEIR needs to plan for protection of construction workers who may encounter
contaminated groundwater when excavation is conducted.” SWAPE, p. 4.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, SAFER requests the Planning Commission decline to
recommend approval of the Project and certification of the FEIR, and instead require preparation
of a revised EIR that conforms with CEQA, as described above.
Sincerely,
Rebecca L. Davis
EXHIBIT A
INDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING
1448 Pine Street, Suite 103 San Francisco, California 94109
Telephone: (415) 567-7700
E-mail: offermann@IEE-SF.com http://www.iee-sf.com
Date: May 4, 2020
To: Rebecca Davis
Lozeau | Drury LLP
1939 Harrison Street, Suite 150
Oakland, California 94612
From: Francis J. Offermann PE CIH
Subject: Indoor Air Quality: The Bowery – Santa Ana, CA
(IEE File Reference: P-4358)
Pages: 19
Indoor Air Quality Impacts
Indoor air quality (IAQ) directly impacts the comfort and health of building occupants, and
the achievement of acceptable IAQ in newly constructed and renovated buildings is a well-
recognized design objective. For example, IAQ is addressed by major high-performance
building rating systems and building codes (California Building Standards Commission,
2014; USGBC, 2014). Indoor air quality in homes is particularly important because
occupants, on average, spend approximately ninety percent of their time indoors with the
majority of this time spent at home (EPA, 2011). Some segments of the population that are
most susceptible to the effects of poor IAQ, such as the very young and the elderly, occupy
their homes almost continuously. Additionally, an increasing number of adults are working
from home at least some of the time during the workweek. Indoor air quality also is a
serious concern for workers in hotels, offices and other business establishments.
The concentrations of many air pollutants often are elevated in homes and other buildings
relative to outdoor air because many of the materials and products used indoors contain
and release a variety of pollutants to air (Hodgson et al., 2002; Offermann and Hodgson,
2 of 19
2011). With respect to indoor air contaminants for which inhalation is the primary route of
exposure, the critical design and construction parameters are the provision of adequate
ventilation and the reduction of indoor sources of the contaminants.
Indoor Formaldehyde Concentrations Impact. In the California New Home Study (CNHS)
of 108 new homes in California (Offermann, 2009), 25 air contaminants were measured,
and formaldehyde was identified as the indoor air contaminant with the highest cancer risk
as determined by the California Proposition 65 Safe Harbor Levels (OEHHA, 2017a), No
Significant Risk Levels (NSRL) for carcinogens. The NSRL is the daily intake level
calculated to result in one excess case of cancer in an exposed population of 100,000 (i.e.,
ten in one million cancer risk) and for formaldehyde is 40 µg/day. The NSRL concentration
of formaldehyde that represents a daily dose of 40 µg is 2 µg/m3, assuming a continuous
24-hour exposure, a total daily inhaled air volume of 20 m3, and 100% absorption by the
respiratory system. All of the CNHS homes exceeded this NSRL concentration of 2 µg/m3.
The median indoor formaldehyde concentration was 36 µg/m3, and ranged from 4.8 to 136
µg/m3, which corresponds to a median exceedance of the 2 µg/m3 NSRL concentration of
18 and a range of 2.3 to 68.
Therefore, the cancer risk of a resident living in a California home with the median indoor
formaldehyde concentration of 36 µg/m3, is 180 per million as a result of formaldehyde
alone. The CEQA significance threshold for airborne cancer risk is 10 per million, as
established by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD, 2015).
Besides being a human carcinogen, formaldehyde is also a potent eye and respiratory
irritant. In the CNHS, many homes exceeded the non-cancer reference exposure levels
(RELs) prescribed by California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment
(OEHHA, 2017b). The percentage of homes exceeding the RELs ranged from 98% for the
Chronic REL of 9 µg/m3 to 28% for the Acute REL of 55 µg/m3.
The primary source of formaldehyde indoors is composite wood products manufactured
with urea-formaldehyde resins, such as plywood, medium density fiberboard, and
3 of 19
particleboard. These materials are commonly used in building construction for flooring,
cabinetry, baseboards, window shades, interior doors, and window and door trims.
In January 2009, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) adopted an airborne toxics
control measure (ATCM) to reduce formaldehyde emissions from composite wood
products, including hardwood plywood, particleboard, medium density fiberboard, and also
furniture and other finished products made with these wood products (California Air
Resources Board 2009). While this formaldehyde ATCM has resulted in reduced emissions
from composite wood products sold in California, they do not preclude that homes built
with composite wood products meeting the CARB ATCM will have indoor formaldehyde
concentrations that are below cancer and non-cancer exposure guidelines.
A follow up study to the California New Home Study (CNHS) was conducted in 2016-2018
(Chan et. al., 2019), and found that the median indoor formaldehyde in new homes mostly
(69 of 70) built in 2012 or later with CARB Phase 2 Formaldehyde ATCM materials had
lower indoor formaldehyde concentrations, with a median indoor concentrations of 22.4
µg/m3 (18.2 ppb) as compared to a median of 36 µg/m3 found in the 2007 CNHS.
Thus, while new homes built after the 2009 CARB formaldehyde ATCM have a 38% lower
median indoor formaldehyde concentration and cancer risk, the median lifetime cancer risk
is still 112 per million for homes built with CARB compliant composite wood products,
which is more than 11 times the OEHHA 10 in a million cancer risk threshold (OEHHA,
2017a).
With respect to this project, the buildings in The Bowery Mixed-Use Project in Santa Ana,
CA consist of residential and commercial retail and restaurant spaces.
The residential occupants will potentially have continuous exposure (e.g. 24 hours per day,
52 weeks per year). These exposures are anticipated to result in significant cancer risks
resulting from exposures to formaldehyde released by the building materials and furnishing
commonly found in residential construction.
4 of 19
Because these residences will be constructed with CARB Phase 2 Formaldehyde ATCM
materials, and be ventilated with the minimum code required amount of outdoor air, the
indoor residential formaldehyde concentrations are likely similar to those concentrations
observed in residences built with CARB Phase 2 Formaldehyde ATCM materials, which
is a median of 22.4 µg/m3 (Chan et. al., 2019)
Assuming that the residential occupants inhale 20 m3 of air per day, the average 70-year
lifetime formaldehyde daily dose is 448 µg/day for continuous exposure in the residences.
This exposure represents a cancer risk of 112 per million, which is more than 11 times the
South Coast Air Quality Management District CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million
(SCAQMD, 2015). For occupants that do not have continuous exposure, the cancer risk
will be proportionally less but still substantially over the SCAQMD CEQA cancer risk of
10 per million (e.g. for 12/hour/day occupancy, more than 5 times the SCAQMD CEQA
cancer risk of 10 per million).
The employees of the commercial spaces are also expected to experience significant indoor
exposures (e.g., 40 hours per week, 50 weeks per year). These exposures for employees are
anticipated to result in significant cancer risks resulting from exposures to formaldehyde
released by the building materials and furnishing commonly found in offices, warehouses,
residences and hotels.
Because these commercial will be constructed with CARB Phase 2 Formaldehyde ATCM
materials, and be ventilated with the minimum code required amount of outdoor air, the
indoor warehouse formaldehyde concentrations are likely similar to those concentrations
observed in residences built with CARB Phase 2 Formaldehyde ATCM materials, which
is a median of 22.4 µg/m3 (Chan et. al., 2019).
Assuming that the commercial space employees work 8 hours per day and inhale 20 m3 of
air per day, the formaldehyde dose per work-day at the offices is 149 µg/day.
Assuming that the commercial space employees work 5 days per week and 50 weeks per
year for 45 years (start at age 20 and retire at age 65) the average 70-year lifetime
5 of 19
formaldehyde daily dose is 65.6 µg/day.
This is 1.64 times the NSRL (OEHHA, 2017a) of 40 µg/day and represents a cancer risk
of 16.4 per million, which exceeds the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million. This impact
should be analyzed in an environmental impact report (“EIR”), and the agency should
impose all feasible mitigation measures to reduce this impact.
Several feasible mitigation measures are discussed below and these and other measures
should be analyzed in an EIR.
While measurements of the indoor concentrations of formaldehyde in residences built with
CARB Phase 2 Formaldehyde ATCM materials (Chan et. al., 2019), indicate that indoor
formaldehyde concentrations in buildings built with similar materials (e.g. hotels,
residences, offices, warehouses, schools) will pose cancer risks in excess of the CEQA
cancer risk of 10 per million, a determination of the cancer risk that is specific to this project
and the materials used to construct these buildings can and should be conducted prior to
completion of the environmental review.
Appendix A, Indoor Formaldehyde Concentrations and the CARB Formaldehyde ATCM,
provides analyses that show utilization of CARB Phase 2 Formaldehyde ATCM materials
will not ensure acceptable cancer risks with respect to formaldehyde emissions from
composite wood products.
The following describes a method that should be used prior to construction in the
environmental review under CEQA, for determining whether the indoor concentrations
resulting from the formaldehyde emissions of the specific building materials/furnishings
selected for the building exceed cancer and non-cancer guidelines. Such a design analyses
can be used to identify those materials/furnishings prior to the completion of the City’s
CEQA review and project approval, that have formaldehyde emission rates that contribute
to indoor concentrations that exceed cancer and non-cancer guidelines, so that alternative
lower emitting materials/furnishings may be selected and/or higher minimum outdoor air
ventilation rates can be increased to achieve acceptable indoor concentrations and
6 of 19
incorporated as mitigation measures for this project.
Pre-Construction Building Material/Furnishing Formaldehyde Emissions Assessment.
This formaldehyde emissions assessment should be used in the environmental review under
CEQA to assess the indoor formaldehyde concentrations from the proposed loading of
building materials/furnishings, the area-specific formaldehyde emission rate data for
building materials/furnishings, and the design minimum outdoor air ventilation rates. This
assessment allows the applicant (and the City) to determine before the conclusion of the
environmental review process and the building materials/furnishings are specified,
purchased, and installed if the total chemical emissions will exceed cancer and non-cancer
guidelines, and if so, allow for changes in the selection of specific material/furnishings
and/or the design minimum outdoor air ventilations rates such that cancer and non-cancer
guidelines are not exceeded.
1.) Define Indoor Air Quality Zones. Divide the building into separate indoor air quality
zones, (IAQ Zones). IAQ Zones are defined as areas of well-mixed air. Thus, each
ventilation system with recirculating air is considered a single zone, and each room or
group of rooms where air is not recirculated (e.g. 100% outdoor air) is considered a separate
zone. For IAQ Zones with the same construction material/furnishings and design minimum
outdoor air ventilation rates. (e.g. hotel rooms, apartments, condominiums, etc.) the
formaldehyde emission rates need only be assessed for a single IAQ Zone of that type.
2.) Calculate Material/Furnishing Loading. For each IAQ Zone, determine the building
material and furnishing loadings (e.g., m2 of material/m2 floor area, units of furnishings/m2
floor area) from an inventory of all potential indoor formaldehyde sources, including
flooring, ceiling tiles, furnishings, finishes, insulation, sealants, adhesives, and any
products constructed with composite wood products containing urea-formaldehyde resins
(e.g., plywood, medium density fiberboard, particleboard).
3.) Calculate the Formaldehyde Emission Rate. For each building material, calculate the
formaldehyde emission rate (µg/h) from the product of the area-specific formaldehyde
7 of 19
emission rate (µg/m2-h) and the area (m2) of material in the IAQ Zone, and from each
furnishing (e.g. chairs, desks, etc.) from the unit-specific formaldehyde emission rate
(µg/unit-h) and the number of units in the IAQ Zone.
NOTE: As a result of the high-performance building rating systems and building codes
(California Building Standards Commission, 2014; USGBC, 2014), most manufacturers of
building materials furnishings sold in the United States conduct chemical emission rate
tests using the California Department of Health “Standard Method for the Testing and
Evaluation of Volatile Organic Chemical Emissions for Indoor Sources Using
Environmental Chambers”, (CDPH, 2017), or other equivalent chemical emission rate
testing methods. Most manufacturers of building furnishings sold in the United States
conduct chemical emission rate tests using ANSI/BIFMA M7.1 Standard Test Method for
Determining VOC Emissions (BIFMA, 2018), or other equivalent chemical emission rate
testing methods.
CDPH, BIFMA, and other chemical emission rate testing programs, typically certify that a
material or furnishing does not create indoor chemical concentrations in excess of the
maximum concentrations permitted by their certification. For instance, the CDPH emission
rate testing requires that the measured emission rates when input into an office, school, or
residential model do not exceed one-half of the OEHHA Chronic Exposure Guidelines
(OEHHA, 2017b) for the 35 specific VOCs, including formaldehyde, listed in Table 4-1 of
the CDPH test method (CDPH, 2017). These certifications themselves do not provide the
actual area-specific formaldehyde emission rate (i.e., µg/m2-h) of the product, but rather
provide data that the formaldehyde emission rates do not exceed the maximum rate allowed
for the certification. Thus for example, the data for a certification of a specific type of
flooring may be used to calculate that the area-specific emission rate of formaldehyde is
less than 31 µg/m2-h, but not the actual measured specific emission rate, which may be 3,
18, or 30 µg/m2-h. These area-specific emission rates determined from the product
certifications of CDPH, BIFA, and other certification programs can be used as an initial
estimate of the formaldehyde emission rate.
8 of 19
If the actual area-specific emission rates of a building material or furnishing is needed (i.e.
the initial emission rates estimates from the product certifications are higher than desired),
then that data can be acquired by requesting from the manufacturer the complete chemical
emission rate test report. For instance if the complete CDPH emission test report is
requested for a CDHP certified product, that report will provide the actual area-specific
emission rates for not only the 35 specific VOCs, including formaldehyde, listed in Table
4-1 of the CDPH test method (CDPH, 2017), but also all of the cancer and
reproductive/developmental chemicals listed in the California Proposition 65 Safe Harbor
Levels (OEHHA, 2017a), all of the toxic air contaminants (TACs) in the California Air
Resources Board Toxic Air Contamination List (CARB, 2011), and the 10 chemicals with
the greatest emission rates.
Alternatively, a sample of the building material or furnishing can be submitted to a
chemical emission rate testing laboratory, such as Berkeley Analytical Laboratory
(https://berkeleyanalytical.com), to measure the formaldehyde emission rate.
4.) Calculate the Total Formaldehyde Emission Rate. For each IAQ Zone, calculate the
total formaldehyde emission rate (i.e. µg/h) from the individual formaldehyde emission
rates from each of the building material/furnishings as determined in Step 3.
5.) Calculate the Indoor Formaldehyde Concentration. For each IAQ Zone, calculate the
indoor formaldehyde concentration (µg/m3) from Equation 1 by dividing the total
formaldehyde emission rates (i.e. µg/h) as determined in Step 4, by the design minimum
outdoor air ventilation rate (m3/h) for the IAQ Zone.
𝐶𝐶𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖= 𝐸𝐸𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑄𝑄𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡 (Equation 1)
where:
Cin = indoor formaldehyde concentration (µg/m3)
Etotal = total formaldehyde emission rate (µg/h) into the IAQ Zone.
Qoa = design minimum outdoor air ventilation rate to the IAQ Zone (m3/h)
The above Equation 1 is based upon mass balance theory, and is referenced in Section
9 of 19
3.10.2 “Calculation of Estimated Building Concentrations” of the California Department
of Health “Standard Method for the Testing and Evaluation of Volatile Organic Chemical
Emissions for Indoor Sources Using Environmental Chambers”, (CDPH, 2017).
6.) Calculate the Indoor Exposure Cancer and Non-Cancer Health Risks. For each IAQ
Zone, calculate the cancer and non-cancer health risks from the indoor formaldehyde
concentrations determined in Step 5 and as described in the OEHHA Air Toxics Hot Spots
Program Risk Assessment Guidelines; Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk
Assessments (OEHHA, 2015).
7.) Mitigate Indoor Formaldehyde Exposures of exceeding the CEQA Cancer and/or Non-
Cancer Health Risks. In each IAQ Zone, provide mitigation for any formaldehyde exposure
risk as determined in Step 6, that exceeds the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million or the
CEQA non-cancer Hazard Quotient of 1.0.
Provide the source and/or ventilation mitigation required in all IAQ Zones to reduce the
health risks of the chemical exposures below the CEQA cancer and non-cancer health risks.
Source mitigation for formaldehyde may include:
1.) reducing the amount materials and/or furnishings that emit formaldehyde
2.) substituting a different material with a lower area-specific emission rate of
formaldehyde
Ventilation mitigation for formaldehyde emitted from building materials and/or
furnishings may include:
1.) increasing the design minimum outdoor air ventilation rate to the IAQ Zone.
NOTE: Mitigating the formaldehyde emissions through use of less material/furnishings, or
use of lower emitting materials/furnishings, is the preferred mitigation option, as mitigation
with increased outdoor air ventilation increases initial and operating costs associated with
the heating/cooling systems.
10 of 19
Further, we are not asking that the builder to “speculate” on what and how much composite
materials be used, but rather at the design stage to select composite wood materials based on
the formaldehyde emission rates that manufacturers routinely conduct using the California
Department of Health “Standard Method for the Testing and Evaluation of Volatile
Organic Chemical Emissions for Indoor Sources Using Environmental Chambers”,
(CDPH, 2017), and use the procedure described earlier (i.e. Pre-Construction Building
Material/Furnishing Formaldehyde Emissions Assessment) to insure that the materials
selected achieve acceptable cancer risks from material off gassing of formaldehyde.
Outdoor Air Ventilation Impact. Another important finding of the CNHS, was that the
outdoor air ventilation rates in the homes were very low. Outdoor air ventilation is a very
important factor influencing the indoor concentrations of air contaminants, as it is the
primary removal mechanism of all indoor air generated air contaminants. Lower outdoor air
exchange rates cause indoor generated air contaminants to accumulate to higher indoor air
concentrations. Many homeowners rarely open their windows or doors for ventilation as a
result of their concerns for security/safety, noise, dust, and odor concerns (Price, 2007). In
the CNHS field study, 32% of the homes did not use their windows during the 24‐hour Test
Day, and 15% of the homes did not use their windows during the entire preceding week.
Most of the homes with no window usage were homes in the winter field session. Thus, a
substantial percentage of homeowners never open their windows, especially in the winter
season. The median 24‐hour measurement was 0.26 ach, with a range of 0.09 ach to 5.3 ach.
A total of 67% of the homes had outdoor air exchange rates below the minimum California
Building Code (2001) requirement of 0.35 ach. Thus, the relatively tight envelope
construction, combined with the fact that many people never open their windows for
ventilation, results in homes with low outdoor air exchange rates and higher indoor air
contaminant concentrations.
The Bowery Mixed-Use Project in Anaheim, CA is close to roads with moderate to high
traffic (e.g. CA-55, Carnegie Avenue, Warner Drive, Red Hill Avenue, and Pullman Street)
and the John Wayne Airport. As a result of the outdoor vehicle and air traffic noise, the
Project site is likely to be a sound impacted site. The noise analyses provided in the Draft
11 of 19
Environmental Impact Report (EPD Solutions. 2020), reports in Appendix I, Table 8-2, that
the exterior traffic noise levels will range from 68.6 to 73.2 dBA CNEL.
As a result of the high outdoor noise levels, the current project will require the need for
mechanical supply of outdoor air ventilation air to allow for a habitable interior environment
with closed windows and doors. Such a ventilation system would allow windows and doors
to be kept closed at the occupant’s discretion to control exterior noise within building
interiors.
PM2.5 Outdoor Concentrations Impact. An additional impact of the nearby motor vehicle
traffic associated with this project, are the outdoor concentrations of PM2.5. According to
the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EPD Solutions. 2020), this Project is located in
South Coast Air Basin, which is a State and Federal non-attainment area for PM2.5.
An air quality analyses should to be conducted to determine the concentrations of PM2.5 in
the outdoor and indoor air that people inhale each day. This air quality analyses needs to
consider the cumulative impacts of the project related emissions, existing and projected
future emissions from local PM2.5 sources (e.g. stationary sources, motor vehicles, and
airport traffic) upon the outdoor air concentrations at the project site. If the outdoor
concentrations are determined to exceed the California and National annual average PM2.5
exceedence concentration of 12 µg/m3, or the National 24-hour average exceedence
concentration of 35 µg/m3, then the buildings need to have a mechanical supply of outdoor
air that has air filtration with sufficient PM2.5 removal efficiency, such that the indoor
concentrations of outdoor PM2.5 particles is less than the California and National PM2.5
annual and 24-hour standards.
It is my experience that based on the projected high traffic noise levels, the annual average
concentration of PM2.5 will exceed the California and National PM2.5 annual and 24-hour
standards and warrant installation of high efficiency air filters (i.e. MERV 13 or higher) in
all mechanically supplied outdoor air ventilation systems.
12 of 19
Indoor Air Quality Impact Mitigation Measures
The following are recommended mitigation measures to minimize the impacts upon indoor
quality:
- indoor formaldehyde concentrations
- outdoor air ventilation
- PM2.5 outdoor air concentrations
Indoor Formaldehyde Concentrations Mitigation. Use only composite wood materials (e.g.
hardwood plywood, medium density fiberboard, particleboard) for all interior finish
systems that are made with CARB approved no-added formaldehyde (NAF) resins or ultra-
low emitting formaldehyde (ULEF) resins (CARB, 2009). Other projects such as the AC by
Marriott Hotel – West San Jose Project (Asset Gas SC Inc.) and 2525 North Main Street,
Santa Ana (AC 2525 Main LLC, 2019) have entered into settlement agreements stipulating
the use of composite wood materials only containing NAF or ULEF resins.
Alternatively, conduct the previously described Pre-Construction Building
Material/Furnishing Chemical Emissions Assessment, to determine that the combination of
formaldehyde emissions from building materials and furnishings do not create indoor
formaldehyde concentrations that exceed the CEQA cancer and non-cancer health risks.
It is important to note that we are not asking that the builder to “speculate” on what and how
much composite materials be used, but rather at the design stage to select composite wood
materials based on the formaldehyde emission rates that manufacturers routinely conduct using
the California Department of Health “Standard Method for the Testing and Evaluation of
Volatile Organic Chemical Emissions for Indoor Sources Using Environmental
Chambers”, (CDPH, 2017), and use the procedure described earlier (i.e. Pre-Construction
Building Material/Furnishing Formaldehyde Emissions Assessment) to insure that the
materials selected achieve acceptable cancer risks from material off gassing of
formaldehyde.
Outdoor Air Ventilation Mitigation. Provide each habitable room with a continuous
mechanical supply of outdoor air that meets or exceeds the California 2016 Building Energy
13 of 19
Efficiency Standards (California Energy Commission, 2015) requirements of the greater of
15 cfm/occupant or 0.15 cfm/ft2 of floor area. Following installation of the system conduct
testing and balancing to insure that required amount of outdoor air is entering each habitable
room and provide a written report documenting the outdoor airflow rates. Do not use
exhaust only mechanical outdoor air systems, use only balanced outdoor air supply and
exhaust systems or outdoor air supply only systems. Provide a manual for the occupants or
maintenance personnel, that describes the purpose of the mechanical outdoor air system and
the operation and maintenance requirements of the system.
PM2.5 Outdoor Air Concentration Mitigation. Install air filtration with sufficient PM2.5
removal efficiency (e.g. MERV 13 or higher) to filter the outdoor air entering the
mechanical outdoor air supply systems, such that the indoor concentrations of outdoor PM2.5
particles are less than the California and National PM2.5 annual and 24-hour standards.
Install the air filters in the system such that they are accessible for replacement by the
occupants or maintenance personnel. Include in the mechanical outdoor air ventilation
system manual instructions on how to replace the air filters and the estimated frequency of
replacement.
References
AC 2525 Main LLC. 2019. Environmental Settlement Agreement with Laborers’
International Union of North America Local 652.
Asset Gas SC. Inc. 2019. Settlement Agreement and Release with Jose Mexicano,
Alejandro Martinez, and Laborers’ International Union of North America Local 652.
BIFA. 2018. BIFMA Product Safety and Performance Standards and Guidelines.
www.bifma.org/page/standardsoverview
California Air Resources Board. 2009. Airborne Toxic Control Measure to Reduce
Formaldehyde Emissions from Composite Wood Products. California Environmental
14 of 19
Protection Agency, Sacramento, CA.
https://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2007/compwood07/fro-final.pdf
California Air Resources Board. 2011. Toxic Air Contaminant Identification List.
California Environmental Protection Agency, Sacramento, CA.
https://www.arb.ca.gov/toxics/id/taclist.htm
California Building Code. 2001. California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 2 Volume 1,
Appendix Chapter 12, Interior Environment, Division 1, Ventilation, Section 1207: 2001
California Building Code, California Building Standards Commission. Sacramento, CA.
California Building Standards Commission (2014). 2013 California Green Building
Standards Code. California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 11. California Building
Standards Commission, Sacramento, CA http://www.bsc.ca.gov/Home/CALGreen.aspx.
California Energy Commission, 2015. 2016 Building Energy Efficiency Standards for
Residential and Nonresidential Buildings, California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 6.
http://www.energy.ca.gov/2015publications/CEC-400-2015-037/CEC-400-2015-037-
CMF.pdf
CDPH. 2017. Standard Method for the Testing and Evaluation of Volatile Organic Chemical Emissions
for Indoor Sources Using Environmental Chambers, Version 1.1. California Department of Public
Health, Richmond, CA. https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CCDPHP/
DEODC/EHLB/IAQ/Pages/VOC.aspx.
Chan, W., Kim, Y., Singer, B., and Walker I. 2019. Ventilation and Indoor Air Quality in
New California Homes with Gas Appliances and Mechanical Ventilation. Lawrence
Berkeley National Laboratory, Energy Technologies Area, LBNL-2001200, DOI:
10.20357/B7QC7X.
EPD Solutions. 2020. Draft Environmental Impact Report – The Bowery Mixed-Use Project
– Santa Ana, CA. State Clearinghouse No. 2019080011.
15 of 19
EPA. 2011. Exposure Factors Handbook: 2011 Edition, Chapter 16 – Activity Factors.
Report EPA/600/R-09/052F, September 2011. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, D.C.
Hodgson, A. T., D. Beal, J.E.R. McIlvaine. 2002. Sources of formaldehyde, other aldehydes
and terpenes in a new manufactured house. Indoor Air 12: 235–242.
OEHHA (Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment). 2015. Air Toxics Hot Spots
Program Risk Assessment Guidelines; Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk
Assessments.
OEHHA (Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment). 2017a. Proposition 65 Safe
Harbor Levels. No Significant Risk Levels for Carcinogens and Maximum Allowable Dose
Levels for Chemicals Causing Reproductive Toxicity. Available at:
http://www.oehha.ca.gov/prop65/pdf/safeharbor081513.pdf
OEHHA - Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. 2017b. All OEHHA Acute,
8-hour and Chronic Reference Exposure Levels. Available at:
http://oehha.ca.gov/air/allrels.html
Offermann, F. J. 2009. Ventilation and Indoor Air Quality in New Homes. California Air
Resources Board and California Energy Commission, PIER Energy‐Related Environmental
Research Program. Collaborative Report. CEC-500-2009-085.
https://www.arb.ca.gov/research/apr/past/04-310.pdf
Offermann, F. J. and A. T. Hodgson. 2011. Emission Rates of Volatile Organic Compounds
in New Homes. Proceedings Indoor Air 2011 (12th International Conference on Indoor Air
Quality and Climate 2011), June 5-10, 2011, Austin, TX USA.
Price, Phillip P., Max Sherman, Robert H. Lee, and Thomas Piazza. 2007. Study of
Ventilation Practices and Household Characteristics in New California Homes.
16 of 19
South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 2015. California Environmental Quality
Act Air Quality Handbook. South Coast Air Quality Management District, Diamond Bar,
CA,http://www.aqmd.gov/home/rules-compliance/ceqa/air-quality-analysis-handbook
USGBC. 2014. LEED BD+C Homes v4. U.S. Green Building Council, Washington, D.C.
http://www.usgbc.org/credits/homes/v4
17 of 19
APPENDIX A
INDOOR FORMALDEHYDE CONCENTRATIONS
AND THE
CARB FORMALDEHYDE ATCM
With respect to formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products, the CARB ATCM
regulations of formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products, do not assure
healthful indoor air quality. The following is the stated purpose of the CARB ATCM
regulation - The purpose of this airborne toxic control measure is to “reduce formaldehyde
emissions from composite wood products, and finished goods that contain composite wood
products, that are sold, offered for sale, supplied, used, or manufactured for sale in
California”. In other words, the CARB ATCM regulations do not “assure healthful indoor
air quality”, but rather “reduce formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products”.
Just how much protection do the CARB ATCM regulations provide building occupants
from the formaldehyde emissions generated by composite wood products ? Definitely some,
but certainly the regulations do not “assure healthful indoor air quality” when CARB Phase
2 products are utilized. As shown in the Chan 2019 study of new California homes, the
median indoor formaldehyde concentration was of 22.4 µg/m3 (18.2 ppb), which
corresponds to a cancer risk of 112 per million for occupants with continuous exposure,
which is more than 11 times the Bay Area Air Quality Management District CEQA cancer
risk of 10 per million.
Another way of looking at how much protection the CARB ATCM regulations provide
building occupants from the formaldehyde emissions generated by composite wood
products is to calculate the maximum number of square feet of composite wood product that
can be in a residence without exceeding the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million for
occupants with continuous occupancy.
For this calculation I utilized the floor area (2,272 ft2), the ceiling height (8.5 ft), and the
number of bedrooms (4) as defined in Appendix B (New Single-Family Residence Scenario)
of the Standard Method for the Testing and Evaluation of Volatile Organic Chemical Emissions for Indoor
18 of 19
Sources Using Environmental Chambers, Version 1.1, 2017, California Department of Public Health,
Richmond, CA. https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CCDPHP/
DEODC/EHLB/IAQ/Pages/VOC.aspx.
For the outdoor air ventilation rate I used the 2019 Title 24 code required mechanical
ventilation rate (ASHRAE 62.2) of 106 cfm (180 m3/h) calculated for this model residence.
For the composite wood formaldehyde emission rates I used the CARB ATCM Phase 2 rates.
The calculated maximum number of square feet of composite wood product that can be in
a residence, without exceeding the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million for occupants with
continuous occupancy are as follows for the different types of regulated composite wood
products.
Medium Density Fiberboard (MDF) – 15 ft2 (0.7% of the floor area), or
Particle Board – 30 ft2 (1.3% of the floor area), or
Hardwood Plywood – 119 ft2 (5.3% of the floor area), or
Thin MDF – 46 ft2 (2.0 % of the floor area).
For offices and hotels the calculated maximum amount of composite wood product (% of
floor area) that can be used without exceeding the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million for
occupants, assuming 8 hours/day occupancy, and the California Mechanical Code minimum
outdoor air ventilation rates are as follows for the different types of regulated composite
wood products.
Medium Density Fiberboard (MDF) – 3.6 % (offices) and 4.6% (hotel rooms), or
Particle Board – 7.2 % (offices) and 9.4% (hotel rooms), or
Hardwood Plywood – 29 % (offices) and 37% (hotel rooms), or
Thin MDF – 11 % (offices) and 14 % (hotel rooms)
Clearly the CARB ATCM does not regulate the formaldehyde emissions from composite
wood products such that the potentially large areas of these products, such as for flooring,
baseboards, interior doors, window and door trims, and kitchen and bathroom cabinetry,
19 of 19
could be used without causing indoor formaldehyde concentrations that result in CEQA
cancer risks that substantially exceed 10 per million for occupants with continuous
occupancy.
If CARB Phase 2 compliant composite wood products are utilized in construction, then the
resulting indoor formaldehyde concentrations should be determined in the design phase
using the specific amounts of each type of composite wood product, the specific
formaldehyde emission rates, and the volume and outdoor air ventilation rates of the indoor
spaces, and all feasible mitigation measures employed to reduce this impact (e.g. use less
formaldehyde containing composite wood products and/or incorporate mechanical systems
capable of higher outdoor air ventilation rates). See the procedure described earlier (i.e.,
Pre-Construction Building Material/Furnishing Formaldehyde Emissions Assessment) to
insure that the materials selected achieve acceptable cancer risks from material off gassing
of formaldehyde.
Alternatively, and perhaps a simpler approach, is to use only composite wood products (e.g.
hardwood plywood, medium density fiberboard, particleboard) for all interior finish
systems that are made with CARB approved no-added formaldehyde (NAF) resins or ultra-
low emitting formaldehyde (ULEF) resins. These products are now readily available and
many other projects such as the AC by Marriott Hotel – West San Jose Project and 2525
North Main Street, Santa Ana have entered into settlement agreements stipulating the use
of composite wood materials only containing NAF or ULEF resins.
Francis (Bud) J. Offermann III PE, CIH
Indoor Environmental Engineering
1448 Pine Street, Suite 103, San Francisco, CA 94109
Phone: 415-567-7700
Email: Offermann@iee-sf.com
http://www.iee-sf.com
Education
M.S. Mechanical Engineering (1985)
Stanford University, Stanford, CA.
Graduate Studies in Air Pollution Monitoring and Control (1980)
University of California, Berkeley, CA.
B.S. in Mechanical Engineering (1976)
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, N.Y.
Professional Experience
President: Indoor Environmental Engineering, San Francisco, CA. December, 1981 -
present.
Direct team of environmental scientists, chemists, and mechanical engineers in
conducting State and Federal research regarding indoor air quality instrumentation
development, building air quality field studies, ventilation and air cleaning performance
measurements, and chemical emission rate testing.
Provide design side input to architects regarding selection of building materials and
ventilation system components to ensure a high quality indoor environment.
Direct Indoor Air Quality Consulting Team for the winning design proposal for the new
State of Washington Ecology Department building.
Develop a full-scale ventilation test facility for measuring the performance of air
diffusers; ASHRAE 129, Air Change Effectiveness, and ASHRAE 113, Air Diffusion
Performance Index.
Develop a chemical emission rate testing laboratory for measuring the chemical
emissions from building materials, furnishings, and equipment.
Principle Investigator of the California New Homes Study (2005-2007). Measured
ventilation and indoor air quality in 108 new single family detached homes in northern
and southern California.
Develop and teach IAQ professional development workshops to building owners,
managers, hygienists, and engineers.
2
Air Pollution Engineer: Earth Metrics Inc., Burlingame, CA, October, 1985 to March,
1987.
Responsible for development of an air pollution laboratory including installation a forced
choice olfactometer, tracer gas electron capture chromatograph, and associated
calibration facilities. Field team leader for studies of fugitive odor emissions from sewage
treatment plants, entrainment of fume hood exhausts into computer chip fabrication
rooms, and indoor air quality investigations.
Staff Scientist: Building Ventilation and Indoor Air Quality Program, Energy and
Environment Division, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley, CA. January, 1980 to
August, 1984.
Deputy project leader for the Control Techniques group; responsible for laboratory and
field studies aimed at evaluating the performance of indoor air pollutant control strategies
(i.e. ventilation, filtration, precipitation, absorption, adsorption, and source control).
Coordinated field and laboratory studies of air-to-air heat exchangers including
evaluation of thermal performance, ventilation efficiency, cross-stream contaminant
transfer, and the effects of freezing/defrosting.
Developed an in situ test protocol for evaluating the performance of air cleaning systems
and introduced the concept of effective cleaning rate (ECR) also known as the Clean Air
Delivery Rate (CADR).
Coordinated laboratory studies of portable and ducted air cleaning systems and their
effect on indoor concentrations of respirable particles and radon progeny.
Co-designed an automated instrument system for measuring residential ventilation rates
and radon concentrations.
Designed hardware and software for a multi-channel automated data acquisition system
used to evaluate the performance of air-to-air heat transfer equipment.
Assistant Chief Engineer: Alta Bates Hospital, Berkeley, CA, October, 1979 to January,
1980.
Responsible for energy management projects involving installation of power factor
correction capacitors on large inductive electrical devices and installation of steam meters
on physical plant steam lines. Member of Local 39, International Union of Operating
Engineers.
Manufacturing Engineer: American Precision Industries, Buffalo, NY, October, 1977 to
October, 1979.
3
Responsible for reorganizing the manufacturing procedures regarding production of shell
and tube heat exchangers. Designed customized automatic assembly, welding, and testing
equipment. Designed a large paint spray booth. Prepared economic studies justifying new
equipment purchases. Safety Director.
Project Engineer: Arcata Graphics, Buffalo, N.Y. June, 1976 to October, 1977.
Responsible for the design and installation of a bulk ink storage and distribution system
and high speed automatic counting and marking equipment. Also coordinated material
handling studies which led to the purchase and installation of new equipment.
PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATION MEMBERSHIP
American Society of Heating, Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE)
• Chairman of SPC-145P, Standards Project Committee - Test Method for Assessing
the Performance of Gas Phase Air Cleaning Equipment (1991-1992)
• Member SPC-129P, Standards Project Committee - Test Method for Ventilation
Effectiveness (1986-97)
- Member of Drafting Committee
• Member Environmental Health Committee (1992-1994, 1997-2001, 2007-2010)
- Chairman of EHC Research Subcommittee
- Member of Man Made Mineral Fiber Position Paper Subcommittee
- Member of the IAQ Position Paper Committee
- Member of the Legionella Position Paper Committee
- Member of the Limiting Indoor Mold and Dampness in Buildings Position Paper
Committee
• Member SSPC-62, Standing Standards Project Committee - Ventilation for
Acceptable Indoor Air Quality (1992 to 2000)
- Chairman of Source Control and Air Cleaning Subcommittee
• Chairman of TC-4.10, Indoor Environmental Modeling (1988-92)
- Member of Research Subcommittee
• Chairman of TC-2.3, Gaseous Air Contaminants and Control Equipment (1989-92)
- Member of Research Subcommittee
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM)
• D-22 Sampling and Analysis of Atmospheres
- Member of Indoor Air Quality Subcommittee
• E-06 Performance of Building Constructions
American Board of Industrial Hygiene (ABIH)
American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH)
• Bioaerosols Committee (2007-2013)
4
American Industrial Hygiene Association (AIHA)
Cal-OSHA Indoor Air Quality Advisory Committee
International Society of Indoor Air Quality and Climate (ISIAQ)
• Co-Chairman of Task Force on HVAC Hygiene
U. S. Green Building Council (USGBC)
- Member of the IEQ Technical Advisory Group (2007-2009)
- Member of the IAQ Performance Testing Work Group (2010-2012)
Western Construction Consultants (WESTCON)
PROFESSIONAL CREDENTIALS
Licensed Professional Engineer - Mechanical Engineering
Certified Industrial Hygienist - American Board of Industrial Hygienists
SCIENTIFIC MEETINGS AND SYMPOSIA
Biological Contamination, Diagnosis, and Mitigation, Indoor Air’90, Toronto, Canada,
August, 1990.
Models for Predicting Air Quality, Indoor Air’90, Toronto, Canada, August, 1990.
Microbes in Building Materials and Systems, Indoor Air ’93, Helsinki, Finland, July,
1993.
Microorganisms in Indoor Air Assessment and Evaluation of Health Effects and Probable
Causes, Walnut Creek, CA, February 27, 1997.
Controlling Microbial Moisture Problems in Buildings, Walnut Creek, CA, February 27,
1997.
Scientific Advisory Committee, Roomvent 98, 6th International Conference on Air
Distribution in Rooms, KTH, Stockholm, Sweden, June 14-17, 1998.
Moisture and Mould, Indoor Air ’99, Edinburgh, Scotland, August, 1999.
Ventilation Modeling and Simulation, Indoor Air ’99, Edinburgh, Scotland, August,
1999.
Microbial Growth in Materials, Healthy Buildings 2000, Espoo, Finland, August, 2000.
5
Co-Chair, Bioaerosols X- Exposures in Residences, Indoor Air 2002, Monterey, CA, July
2002.
Healthy Indoor Environments, Anaheim, CA, April 2003.
Chair, Environmental Tobacco Smoke in Multi-Family Homes, Indoor Air 2008,
Copenhagen, Denmark, July 2008.
Co-Chair, ISIAQ Task Force Workshop; HVAC Hygiene, Indoor Air 2002, Monterey,
CA, July 2002.
Chair, ETS in Multi-Family Housing: Exposures, Controls, and Legalities Forum,
Healthy Buildings 2009, Syracuse, CA, September 14, 2009.
Chair, Energy Conservation and IAQ in Residences Workshop, Indoor Air 2011, Austin,
TX, June 6, 2011.
Chair, Electronic Cigarettes: Chemical Emissions and Exposures Colloquium, Indoor Air
2016, Ghent, Belgium, July 4, 2016.
SPECIAL CONSULTATION
Provide consultation to the American Home Appliance Manufacturers on the
development of a standard for testing portable air cleaners, AHAM Standard AC-1.
Served as an expert witness and special consultant for the U.S. Federal Trade
Commission regarding the performance claims found in advertisements of portable air
cleaners and residential furnace filters.
Conducted a forensic investigation for a San Mateo, CA pro se defendant, regarding an
alleged homicide where the victim was kidnapped in a steamer trunk. Determined the air
exchange rate in the steamer trunk and how long the person could survive.
Conducted in situ measurement of human exposure to toluene fumes released during
nailpolish application for a plaintiffs attorney pursuing a California Proposition 65
product labeling case. June, 1993.
Conducted a forensic in situ investigation for the Butte County, CA Sheriff’s Department
of the emissions of a portable heater used in the bedroom of two twin one year old girls
who suffered simultaneous crib death.
Consult with OSHA on the 1995 proposed new regulation regarding indoor air quality
and environmental tobacco smoke.
6
Consult with EPA on the proposed Building Alliance program and with OSHA on the
proposed new OSHA IAQ regulation.
Johnson Controls Audit/Certification Expert Review; Milwaukee, WI. May 28-29, 1997.
Winner of the nationally published 1999 Request for Proposals by the State of
Washington to conduct a comprehensive indoor air quality investigation of the
Washington State Department of Ecology building in Lacey, WA.
Selected by the State of California Attorney General’s Office in August, 2000 to conduct
a comprehensive indoor air quality investigation of the Tulare County Court House.
Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory IAQ Experts Workshop: “Cause and Prevention of Sick
Building Problems in Offices: The Experience of Indoor Environmental Quality
Investigators”, Berkeley, California, May 26-27, 2004.
Provide consultation and chemical emission rate testing to the State of California
Attorney General’s Office in 2013-2015 regarding the chemical emissions from e-
cigarettes.
PEER-REVIEWED PUBLICATIONS :
F.J.Offermann, C.D.Hollowell, and G.D.Roseme, "Low-Infiltration Housing in
Rochester, New York: A Study of Air Exchange Rates and Indoor Air Quality,"
Environment International, 8, pp. 435-445, 1982.
W.W.Nazaroff, F.J.Offermann, and A.W.Robb, "Automated System for Measuring Air
Exchange Rate and Radon Concentration in Houses," Health Physics, 45, pp. 525-537,
1983.
F.J.Offermann, W.J.Fisk, D.T.Grimsrud, B.Pedersen, and K.L.Revzan, "Ventilation
Efficiencies of Wall- or Window-Mounted Residential Air-to-Air Heat Exchangers,"
ASHRAE Annual Transactions, 89-2B, pp 507-527, 1983.
W.J.Fisk, K.M.Archer, R.E Chant, D. Hekmat, F.J.Offermann, and B.Pedersen, "Onset of
Freezing in Residential Air-to-Air Heat Exchangers," ASHRAE Annual Transactions, 91-
1B, 1984.
W.J.Fisk, K.M.Archer, R.E Chant, D. Hekmat, F.J.Offermann, and B.Pedersen,
"Performance of Residential Air-to-Air Heat Exchangers During Operation with Freezing
and Periodic Defrosts," ASHRAE Annual Transactions, 91-1B, 1984.
F.J.Offermann, R.G.Sextro, W.J.Fisk, D.T.Grimsrud, W.W.Nazaroff, A.V.Nero, and
K.L.Revzan, "Control of Respirable Particles with Portable Air Cleaners," Atmospheric
Environment, Vol. 19, pp.1761-1771, 1985.
7
R.G.Sextro, F.J.Offermann, W.W.Nazaroff, A.V.Nero, K.L.Revzan, and J.Yater,
"Evaluation of Indoor Control Devices and Their Effects on Radon Progeny
Concentrations," Atmospheric Environment, 12, pp. 429-438, 1986.
W.J. Fisk, R.K.Spencer, F.J.Offermann, R.K.Spencer, B.Pedersen, R.Sextro, "Indoor Air
Quality Control Techniques," Noyes Data Corporation, Park Ridge, New Jersey, (1987).
F.J.Offermann, "Ventilation Effectiveness and ADPI Measurements of a Forced Air
Heating System," ASHRAE Transactions , Volume 94, Part 1, pp 694-704, 1988.
F.J.Offermann and D. Int-Hout "Ventilation Effectiveness Measurements of Three
Supply/Return Air Configurations," Environment International , Volume 15, pp 585-592
1989.
F.J. Offermann, S.A. Loiselle, M.C. Quinlan, and M.S. Rogers, "A Study of Diesel Fume
Entrainment in an Office Building," IAQ '89, The Human Equation: Health and
Comfort, pp 179-183, ASHRAE, Atlanta, GA, 1989.
R.G.Sextro and F.J.Offermann, "Reduction of Residential Indoor Particle and Radon
Progeny Concentrations with Ducted Air Cleaning Systems," submitted to Indoor Air,
1990.
S.A.Loiselle, A.T.Hodgson, and F.J.Offermann, "Development of An Indoor Air Sampler
for Polycyclic Aromatic Compounds", Indoor Air , Vol 2, pp 191-210, 1991.
F.J.Offermann, S.A.Loiselle, A.T.Hodgson, L.A. Gundel, and J.M. Daisey, "A Pilot
Study to Measure Indoor Concentrations and Emission Rates of Polycyclic Aromatic
Compounds", Indoor Air , Vol 4, pp 497-512, 1991.
F.J. Offermann, S. A. Loiselle, R.G. Sextro, "Performance Comparisons of Six Different
Air Cleaners Installed in a Residential Forced Air Ventilation System," IAQ'91, Healthy
Buildings, pp 342-350, ASHRAE, Atlanta, GA (1991).
F.J. Offermann, J. Daisey, A. Hodgson, L. Gundell, and S. Loiselle, "Indoor
Concentrations and Emission Rates of Polycyclic Aromatic Compounds", Indoor Air,
Vol 4, pp 497-512 (1992).
F.J. Offermann, S. A. Loiselle, R.G. Sextro, "Performance of Air Cleaners Installed in a
Residential Forced Air System," ASHRAE Journal, pp 51-57, July, 1992.
F.J. Offermann and S. A. Loiselle, "Performance of an Air-Cleaning System in an
Archival Book Storage Facility," IAQ'92, ASHRAE, Atlanta, GA, 1992.
S.B. Hayward, K.S. Liu, L.E. Alevantis, K. Shah, S. Loiselle, F.J. Offermann, Y.L.
Chang, L. Webber, “Effectiveness of Ventilation and Other Controls in Reducing
Exposure to ETS in Office Buildings,” Indoor Air ’93, Helsinki, Finland, July 4-8, 1993.
8
F.J. Offermann, S. A. Loiselle, G. Ander, H. Lau, "Indoor Contaminant Emission Rates
Before and After a Building Bake-out," IAQ'93, Operating and Maintaining Buildings for
Health, Comfort, and Productivity, pp 157-163, ASHRAE, Atlanta, GA, 1993.
L.E. Alevantis, Hayward, S.B., Shah, S.B., Loiselle, S., and Offermann, F.J. "Tracer Gas
Techniques for Determination of the Effectiveness of Pollutant Removal From Local
Sources," IAQ '93, Operating and Maintaining Buildings for Health, Comfort, and
Productivity, pp 119-129, ASHRAE, Atlanta, GA, 1993.
L.E. Alevantis, Liu, L.E., Hayward, S.B., Offermann, F.J., Shah, S.B., Leiserson, K.
Tsao, E., and Huang, Y., "Effectiveness of Ventilation in 23 Designated Smoking Areas
in California Buildings," IAQ '94, Engineering Indoor Environments, pp 167-181,
ASHRAE, Atlanta, GA, 1994.
L.E. Alevantis, Offermann, F.J., Loiselle, S., and Macher, J.M., “Pressure and Ventilation
Requirements of Hospital Isolation Rooms for Tuberculosis (TB) Patients: Existing
Guidelines in the United States and a Method for Measuring Room Leakage”, Ventilation
and Indoor air quality in Hospitals, M. Maroni, editor, Kluwer Academic publishers,
Netherlands, 1996.
F.J. Offermann, M. A. Waz, A.T. Hodgson, and H.M. Ammann, "Chemical Emissions
from a Hospital Operating Room Air Filter," IAQ'96, Paths to Better Building
Environments, pp 95-99, ASHRAE, Atlanta, GA, 1996.
F.J. Offermann, "Professional Malpractice and the Sick Building Investigator," IAQ'96,
Paths to Better Building Environments, pp 132-136, ASHRAE, Atlanta, GA, 1996.
F.J. Offermann, “Standard Method of Measuring Air Change Effectiveness,” Indoor Air,
Vol 1, pp.206-211, 1999.
F. J. Offermann, A. T. Hodgson, and J. P. Robertson, “Contaminant Emission Rates from
PVC Backed Carpet Tiles on Damp Concrete”, Healthy Buildings 2000, Espoo, Finland,
August 2000.
K.S. Liu, L.E. Alevantis, and F.J. Offermann, “A Survey of Environmental Tobacco
Smoke Controls in California Office Buildings”, Indoor Air, Vol 11, pp. 26-34, 2001.
F.J. Offermann, R. Colfer, P. Radzinski, and J. Robertson, “Exposure to Environmental
Tobacco Smoke in an Automobile”, Indoor Air 2002, Monterey, California, July 2002.
F. J. Offermann, J.P. Robertson, and T. Webster, “The Impact of Tracer Gas Mixing on
Airflow Rate Measurements in Large Commercial Fan Systems”, Indoor Air 2002,
Monterey, California, July 2002.
M. J. Mendell, T. Brennan, L. Hathon, J.D. Odom, F.J.Offermann, B.H. Turk, K.M.
Wallingford, R.C. Diamond, W.J. Fisk, “Causes and prevention of Symptom Complaints
9
in Office Buildings: Distilling the Experience of Indoor Environmental Investigators”,
submitted to Indoor Air 2005, Beijing, China, September 4-9, 2005.
F.J. Offermann, “Ventilation and IAQ in New Homes With and Without Mechanical
Outdoor Air Systems”, Healthy Buildings 2009, Syracuse, CA, September 14, 2009.
F.J. Offermann, “ASHRAE 62.2 Intermittent Residential Ventilation: What’s It Good
For, Intermittently Poor IAQ”, IAQVEC 2010, Syracuse, CA, April 21, 2010.
F.J. Offermann and A.T. Hodgson, “Emission Rates of Volatile Organic Compounds in
New Homes”, Indoor Air 2011, Austin, TX, June, 2011.
P. Jenkins, R. Johnson, T. Phillips, and F. Offermann, “Chemical Concentrations in New
California Homes and Garages”, Indoor Air 2011, Austin, TX, June, 2011.
W. J. Mills, B. J. Grigg, F. J. Offermann, B. E. Gustin, and N. E. Spingarm, “Toluene and
Methyl Ethyl Ketone Exposure from a Commercially Available Contact Adhesive”,
Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene, 9:D95-D102 May, 2012.
F. J. Offermann, R. Maddalena, J. C. Offermann, B. C. Singer, and H, Wilhelm, “The
Impact of Ventilation on the Emission Rates of Volatile Organic Compounds in
Residences”, HB 2012, Brisbane, AU, July, 2012.
F. J. Offermann, A. T. Hodgson, P. L. Jenkins, R. D. Johnson, and T. J. Phillips,
“Attached Garages as a Source of Volatile Organic Compounds in New Homes”, HB
2012, Brisbane, CA, July, 2012.
R. Maddalena, N. Li, F. Offermann, and B. Singer, “Maximizing Information from
Residential Measurements of Volatile Organic Compounds”, HB 2012, Brisbane, AU,
July, 2012.
W. Chen, A. Persily, A. Hodgson, F. Offermann, D. Poppendieck, and K. Kumagai,
“Area-Specific Airflow Rates for Evaluating the Impacts of VOC emissions in U.S.
Single-Family Homes”, Building and Environment, Vol. 71, 204-211, February, 2014.
F. J. Offermann, A. Eagan A. C. Offermann, and L. J. Radonovich, “Infectious Disease
Aerosol Exposures With and Without Surge Control Ventilation System Modifications”,
Indoor Air 2014, Hong Kong, July, 2014.
F. J. Offermann, “Chemical Emissions from E-Cigarettes: Direct and Indirect Passive
Exposures”, Building and Environment, Vol. 93, Part 1, 101-105, November, 2015.
F. J. Offermann, “Formaldehyde Emission Rates From Lumber Liquidators Laminate
Flooring Manufactured in China”, Indoor Air 2016, Belgium, Ghent, July, 2016.
F. J. Offermann, “Formaldehyde and Acetaldehyde Emission Rates for E-Cigarettes”,
Indoor Air 2016, Belgium, Ghent, July, 2016.
10
OTHER REPORTS:
W.J.Fisk, P.G.Cleary, and F.J.Offermann, "Energy Saving Ventilation with Residential
Heat Exchangers," a Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory brochure distributed by the
Bonneville Power Administration, 1981.
F.J.Offermann, J.R.Girman, and C.D.Hollowell, "Midway House Tightening Project: A
Study of Indoor Air Quality," Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, Report
LBL-12777, 1981.
F.J.Offermann, J.B.Dickinson, W.J.Fisk, D.T.Grimsrud, C.D.Hollowell, D.L.Krinkle, and
G.D.Roseme, "Residential Air-Leakage and Indoor Air Quality in Rochester, New York,"
Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, Report LBL-13100, 1982.
F.J.Offermann, W.J.Fisk, B.Pedersen, and K.L.Revzan, Residential Air-to-Air Heat
Exchangers: A Study of the Ventilation Efficiencies of Wall- or Window- Mounted
Units," Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, Report LBL-14358, 1982.
F.J.Offermann, W.J.Fisk, W.W.Nazaroff, and R.G.Sextro, "A Review of Portable Air
Cleaners for Controlling Indoor Concentrations of Particulates and Radon Progeny," An
interim report for the Bonneville Power Administration, 1983.
W.J.Fisk, K.M.Archer, R.E.Chant, D.Hekmat, F.J.Offermann, and B.S. Pedersen,
"Freezing in Residential Air-to-Air Heat Exchangers: An Experimental Study," Lawrence
Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, Report LBL-16783, 1983.
R.G.Sextro, W.W.Nazaroff, F.J.Offermann, and K.L.Revzan, "Measurements of Indoor
Aerosol Properties and Their Effect on Radon Progeny," Proceedings of the American
Association of Aerosol Research Annual Meeting, April, 1983.
F.J.Offermann, R.G.Sextro, W.J.Fisk, W.W. Nazaroff, A.V.Nero, K.L.Revzan, and
J.Yater, "Control of Respirable Particles and Radon Progeny with Portable Air Cleaners,"
Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, Report LBL-16659, 1984.
W.J.Fisk, R.K.Spencer, D.T.Grimsrud, F.J.Offermann, B.Pedersen, and R.G.Sextro,
"Indoor Air Quality Control Techniques: A Critical Review," Lawrence Berkeley
Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, Report LBL-16493, 1984.
F.J.Offermann, J.R.Girman, and R.G.Sextro, "Controlling Indoor Air Pollution from
Tobacco Smoke: Models and Measurements,", Indoor Air, Proceedings of the 3rd
International Conference on Indoor Air Quality and Climate, Vol 1, pp 257-264, Swedish
Council for Building Research, Stockholm (1984), Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory,
Berkeley, CA, Report LBL-17603, 1984.
11
R.Otto, J.Girman, F.Offermann, and R.Sextro,"A New Method for the Collection and
Comparison of Respirable Particles in the Indoor Environment," Lawrence Berkeley
Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, Special Director Fund's Study, 1984.
A.T.Hodgson and F.J.Offermann, "Examination of a Sick Office Building," Lawrence
Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, an informal field study, 1984.
R.G.Sextro, F.J.Offermann, W.W.Nazaroff, and A.V.Nero, "Effects of Aerosol
Concentrations on Radon Progeny," Aerosols, Science, & Technology, and Industrial
Applications of Airborne Particles, editors B.Y.H.Liu, D.Y.H.Pui, and H.J.Fissan, p525,
Elsevier, 1984.
K.Sexton, S.Hayward, F.Offermann, R.Sextro, and L.Weber, "Characterization of
Particulate and Organic Emissions from Major Indoor Sources, Proceedings of the Third
International Conference on Indoor Air Quality and Climate, Stockholm, Sweden, August
20-24, 1984.
F.J.Offermann, "Tracer Gas Measurements of Laboratory Fume Entrainment at a Semi-
Conductor Manufacturing Plant," an Indoor Environmental Engineering R&D Report,
1986.
F.J.Offermann, "Tracer Gas Measurements of Ventilation Rates in a Large Office
Building," an Indoor Environmental Engineering R&D Report, 1986.
F.J.Offermann, "Measurements of Volatile Organic Compounds in a New Large Office
Building with Adhesive Fastened Carpeting," an Indoor Environmental Engineering
R&D Report, 1986.
F.J.Offermann, "Designing and Operating Healthy Buildings", an Indoor Environmental
Engineering R&D Report, 1986.
F.J.Offermann, "Measurements and Mitigation of Indoor Spray-Applicated Pesticides",
an Indoor Environmental Engineering R&D Report, 1988.
F.J.Offermann and S. Loiselle, "Measurements and Mitigation of Indoor Mold
Contamination in a Residence", an Indoor Environmental Engineering R&D Report,
1989.
F.J.Offermann and S. Loiselle, "Performance Measurements of an Air Cleaning System
in a Large Archival Library Storage Facility", an Indoor Environmental Engineering
R&D Report, 1989.
F.J. Offermann, J.M. Daisey, L.A. Gundel, and A.T. Hodgson, S. A. Loiselle, "Sampling,
Analysis, and Data Validation of Indoor Concentrations of Polycyclic Aromatic
Hydrocarbons", Final Report, Contract No. A732-106, California Air Resources Board,
March, 1990.
12
L.A. Gundel, J.M. Daisey, and F.J. Offermann, "A Sampling and Analytical Method for
Gas Phase Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons", Proceedings of the 5th International
Conference on Indoor Air Quality and Climate, Indoor Air '90, July 29-August 1990.
A.T. Hodgson, J.M. Daisey, and F.J. Offermann "Development of an Indoor Sampling
and Analytical Method for Particulate Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons", Proceedings
of the 5th International Conference on Indoor Air Quality and Climate, Indoor Air '90,
July 29-August, 1990.
F.J. Offermann, J.O. Sateri, “Tracer Gas Measurements in Large Multi-Room Buildings”,
Indoor Air ’93, Helsinki, Finland, July 4-8, 1993.
F.J.Offermann, M. T. O’Flaherty, and M. A. Waz “Validation of ASHRAE 129 -
Standard Method of Measuring Air Change Effectiveness”, Final Report of ASHRAE
Research Project 891, December 8, 1997.
S.E. Guffey, F.J. Offermann et. al., “Proceedings of the Workshop on Ventilation
Engineering Controls for Environmental Tobacco smoke in the Hospitality Industry”,
U.S. Department of Labor Occupational Safety and Health Administration and ACGIH,
1998.
F.J. Offermann, R.J. Fiskum, D. Kosar, and D. Mudaari, “A Practical Guide to
Ventilation Practices & Systems for Existing Buildings”, Heating/Piping/Air
Conditioning Engineering supplement to April/May 1999 issue.
F.J. Offermann, P. Pasanen, “Workshop 18: Criteria for Cleaning of Air Handling
Systems”, Healthy Buildings 2000, Espoo, Finland, August 2000.
F.J. Offermann, Session Summaries: Building Investigations, and Design &
Construction, Healthy Buildings 2000, Espoo, Finland, August 2000.
F.J. Offermann, “The IAQ Top 10”, Engineered Systems, November, 2008.
L. Kincaid and F.J. Offermann, “Unintended Consequences: Formaldehyde Exposures in
Green Homes, AIHA Synergist, February, 2010.
F.J. Offermann, “ IAQ in Air Tight Homes”, ASHRAE Journal, November, 2010.
F.J. Offermann, “The Hazards of E-Cigarettes”, ASHRAE Journal, June, 2014.
PRESENTATIONS :
"Low-Infiltration Housing in Rochester, New York: A Study of Air Exchange Rates and
Indoor Air Quality," Presented at the International Symposium on Indoor Air Pollution,
Health and Energy Conservation, Amherst, MA, October 13-16,1981.
13
"Ventilation Efficiencies of Wall- or Window-Mounted Residential Air-to-Air Heat
Exchangers," Presented at the American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air
Conditioning Engineers Summer Meeting, Washington, DC, June, 1983.
"Controlling Indoor Air Pollution from Tobacco Smoke: Models and Measurements,"
Presented at the Third International Conference on Indoor Air Quality and Climate,
Stockholm, Sweden, August 20-24, 1984.
"Indoor Air Pollution: An Emerging Environmental Problem", Presented to the
Association of Environmental Professionals, Bar Area/Coastal Region 1, Berkeley, CA,
May 29, 1986.
"Ventilation Measurement Techniques," Presented at the Workshop on Sampling and
Analytical Techniques, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia, September 26,
1986 and September 25, 1987.
"Buildings That Make You Sick: Indoor Air Pollution", Presented to the Sacramento
Association of Professional Energy Managers, Sacramento, CA, November 18, 1986.
"Ventilation Effectiveness and Indoor Air Quality", Presented to the American Society of
Heating, Refrigeration, and Air Conditioning Engineers Northern Nevada Chapter, Reno,
NV, February 18, 1987, Golden Gate Chapter, San Francisco, CA, October 1, 1987, and
the San Jose Chapter, San Jose, CA, June 9, 1987.
"Tracer Gas Techniques for Studying Ventilation," Presented at the Indoor Air Quality
Symposium, Georgia Tech Research Institute, Atlanta, GA, September 22-24, 1987.
"Indoor Air Quality Control: What Works, What Doesn't," Presented to the Sacramento
Association of Professional Energy Managers, Sacramento, CA, November 17, 1987.
"Ventilation Effectiveness and ADPI Measurements of a Forced Air Heating System,"
Presented at the American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air Conditioning
Engineers Winter Meeting, Dallas, Texas, January 31, 1988.
"Indoor Air Quality, Ventilation, and Energy in Commercial Buildings", Presented at the
Building Owners &Managers Association of Sacramento, Sacramento, CA, July 21,
1988.
"Controlling Indoor Air Quality: The New ASHRAE Ventilation Standards and How to
Evaluate Indoor Air Quality", Presented at a conference "Improving Energy Efficiency
and Indoor Air Quality in Commercial Buildings," National Energy Management
Institute, Reno, Nevada, November 4, 1988.
"A Study of Diesel Fume Entrainment Into an Office Building," Presented at Indoor Air
'89: The Human Equation: Health and Comfort, American Society of Heating,
Refrigeration, and Air Conditioning Engineers, San Diego, CA, April 17-20, 1989.
14
"Indoor Air Quality in Commercial Office Buildings," Presented at the Renewable
Energy Technologies Symposium and International Exposition, Santa Clara, CA June 20,
1989.
"Building Ventilation and Indoor Air Quality", Presented to the San Joaquin Chapter of
the American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air Conditioning Engineers,
September 7, 1989.
"How to Meet New Ventilation Standards: Indoor Air Quality and Energy Efficiency," a
workshop presented by the Association of Energy Engineers; Chicago, IL, March 20-21,
1989; Atlanta, GA, May 25-26, 1989; San Francisco, CA, October 19-20, 1989; Orlando,
FL, December 11-12, 1989; Houston, TX, January 29-30, 1990; Washington D.C.,
February 26-27, 1990; Anchorage, Alaska, March 23, 1990; Las Vegas, NV, April 23-24,
1990; Atlantic City, NJ, September 27-28, 1991; Anaheim, CA, November 19-20, 1991;
Orlando, FL, February 28 - March 1, 1991; Washington, DC, March 20-21, 1991;
Chicago, IL, May 16-17, 1991; Lake Tahoe, NV, August 15-16, 1991; Atlantic City, NJ,
November 18-19, 1991; San Jose, CA, March 23-24, 1992.
"Indoor Air Quality," a seminar presented by the Anchorage, Alaska Chapter of the
American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air Conditioning Engineers, March 23,
1990.
"Ventilation and Indoor Air Quality", Presented at the 1990 HVAC & Building Systems
Congress, Santa, Clara, CA, March 29, 1990.
"Ventilation Standards for Office Buildings", Presented to the South Bay Property
Managers Association, Santa Clara, May 9, 1990.
"Indoor Air Quality", Presented at the Responsive Energy Technologies Symposium &
International Exposition (RETSIE), Santa Clara, CA, June 20, 1990.
"Indoor Air Quality - Management and Control Strategies", Presented at the Association
of Energy Engineers, San Francisco Bay Area Chapter Meeting, Berkeley, CA,
September 25, 1990.
"Diagnosing Indoor Air Contaminant and Odor Problems", Presented at the ASHRAE
Annual Meeting, New York City, NY, January 23, 1991.
"Diagnosing and Treating the Sick Building Syndrome", Presented at the Energy 2001,
Oklahoma, OK, March 19, 1991.
"Diagnosing and Mitigating Indoor Air Quality Problems" a workshop presented by the
Association of Energy Engineers, Chicago, IL, October 29-30, 1990; New York, NY,
January 24-25, 1991; Anaheim, April 25-26, 1991; Boston, MA, June 10-11, 1991;
Atlanta, GA, October 24-25, 1991; Chicago, IL, October 3-4, 1991; Las Vegas, NV,
December 16-17, 1991; Anaheim, CA, January 30-31, 1992; Atlanta, GA, March 5-6,
1992; Washington, DC, May 7-8, 1992; Chicago, IL, August 19-20, 1992; Las Vegas,
15
NV, October 1-2, 1992; New York City, NY, October 26-27, 1992, Las Vegas, NV,
March 18-19, 1993; Lake Tahoe, CA, July 14-15, 1994; Las Vegas, NV, April 3-4, 1995;
Lake Tahoe, CA, July 11-12, 1996; Miami, Fl, December 9-10, 1996.
"Sick Building Syndrome and the Ventilation Engineer", Presented to the San Jose
Engineers Club, May, 21, 1991.
"Duct Cleaning: Who Needs It ? How Is It Done ? What Are The Costs ?" What Are the
Risks ?, Moderator of Forum at the ASHRAE Annual Meeting, Indianapolis ID, June 23,
1991.
"Operating Healthy Buildings", Association of Plant Engineers, Oakland, CA, November
14, 1991.
"Duct Cleaning Perspectives", Moderator of Seminar at the ASHRAE Semi-Annual
Meeting, Indianapolis, IN, June 24, 1991.
"Duct Cleaning: The Role of the Environmental Hygienist," ASHRAE Annual Meeting,
Anaheim, CA, January 29, 1992.
"Emerging IAQ Issues", Fifth National Conference on Indoor Air Pollution, University of
Tulsa, Tulsa, OK, April 13-14, 1992.
"International Symposium on Room Air Convection and Ventilation Effectiveness",
Member of Scientific Advisory Board, University of Tokyo, July 22-24, 1992.
"Guidelines for Contaminant Control During Construction and Renovation Projects in
Office Buildings," Seminar paper at the ASHRAE Annual Meeting, Chicago, IL, January
26, 1993.
"Outside Air Economizers: IAQ Friend or Foe", Moderator of Forum at the ASHRAE
Annual Meeting, Chicago, IL, January 26, 1993.
"Orientation to Indoor Air Quality," an EPA two and one half day comprehensive indoor
air quality introductory workshop for public officials and building property managers;
Sacramento, September 28-30, 1992; San Francisco, February 23-24, 1993; Los Angeles,
March 16-18, 1993; Burbank, June 23, 1993; Hawaii, August 24-25, 1993; Las Vegas,
August 30, 1993; San Diego, September 13-14, 1993; Phoenix, October 18-19, 1993;
Reno, November 14-16, 1995; Fullerton, December 3-4, 1996; Fresno, May 13-14, 1997.
"Building Air Quality: A Guide for Building Owners and Facility Managers," an EPA
one half day indoor air quality introductory workshop for building owners and facility
managers. Presented throughout Region IX 1993-1995.
“Techniques for Airborne Disease Control”, EPRI Healthcare Initiative Symposium; San
Francisco, CA; June 7, 1994.
16
“Diagnosing and Mitigating Indoor Air Quality Problems”, CIHC Conference; San
Francisco, September 29, 1994.
”Indoor Air Quality: Tools for Schools,” an EPA one day air quality management
workshop for school officials, teachers, and maintenance personnel; San Francisco,
October 18-20, 1994; Cerritos, December 5, 1996; Fresno, February 26, 1997; San Jose,
March 27, 1997; Riverside, March 5, 1997; San Diego, March 6, 1997; Fullerton,
November 13, 1997; Santa Rosa, February 1998; Cerritos, February 26, 1998; Santa
Rosa, March 2, 1998.
ASHRAE 62 Standard “Ventilation for Acceptable IAQ”, ASCR Convention; San
Francisco, CA, March 16, 1995.
“New Developments in Indoor Air Quality: Protocol for Diagnosing IAQ Problems”,
AIHA-NC; March 25, 1995.
"Experimental Validation of ASHRAE SPC 129, Standard Method of Measuring Air
Change Effectiveness", 16th AIVC Conference, Palm Springs, USA, September 19-22,
1995.
“Diagnostic Protocols for Building IAQ Assessment”, American Society of Safety
Engineers Seminar: ‘Indoor Air Quality – The Next Door’; San Jose Chapter, September
27, 1995; Oakland Chapter, 9, 1997.
“Diagnostic Protocols for Building IAQ Assessment”, Local 39; Oakland, CA, October 3,
1995.
“Diagnostic Protocols for Solving IAQ Problems”, CSU-PPD Conference; October 24,
1995.
“Demonstrating Compliance with ASHRAE 62-1989 Ventilation Requirements”, AIHA;
October 25, 1995.
“IAQ Diagnostics: Hands on Assessment of Building Ventilation and Pollutant
Transport”, EPA Region IX; Phoenix, AZ, March 12, 1996; San Francisco, CA, April 9,
1996; Burbank, CA, April 12, 1996.
“Experimental Validation of ASHRAE 129P: Standard Method of Measuring Air Change
Effectiveness”, Room Vent ‘96 / International Symposium on Room Air Convection and
Ventilation Effectiveness"; Yokohama, Japan, July 16-19, 1996.
“IAQ Diagnostic Methodologies and RFP Development”, CCEHSA 1996 Annual
Conference, Humboldt State University, Arcata, CA, August 2, 1996.
“The Practical Side of Indoor Air Quality Assessments”, California Industrial Hygiene
Conference ‘96, San Diego, CA, September 2, 1996.
17
“ASHRAE Standard 62: Improving Indoor Environments”, Pacific Gas and Electric
Energy Center, San Francisco, CA, October 29, 1996.
“Operating and Maintaining Healthy Buildings”, April 3-4, 1996, San Jose, CA; July 30,
1997, Monterey, CA.
“IAQ Primer”, Local 39, April 16, 1997; Amdahl Corporation, June 9, 1997; State
Compensation Insurance Fund’s Safety & Health Services Department, November 21,
1996.
“Tracer Gas Techniques for Measuring Building Air Flow Rates”, ASHRAE,
Philadelphia, PA, January 26, 1997.
“How to Diagnose and Mitigate Indoor Air Quality Problems”; Women in Waste; March
19, 1997.
“Environmental Engineer: What Is It?”, Monte Vista High School Career Day; April 10,
1997.
“Indoor Environment Controls: What’s Hot and What’s Not”, Shaklee Corporation; San
Francisco, CA, July 15, 1997.
“Measurement of Ventilation System Performance Parameters in the US EPA BASE
Study”, Healthy Buildings/IAQ’97, Washington, DC, September 29, 1997.
“Operations and Maintenance for Healthy and Comfortable Indoor Environments”,
PASMA; October 7, 1997.
“Designing for Healthy and Comfortable Indoor Environments”, Construction
Specification Institute, Santa Rosa, CA, November 6, 1997.
“Ventilation System Design for Good IAQ”, University of Tulsa 10th Annual Conference,
San Francisco, CA, February 25, 1998.
“The Building Shell”, Tools For Building Green Conference and Trade Show, Alameda
County Waste Management Authority and Recycling Board, Oakland, CA, February 28,
1998.
“Identifying Fungal Contamination Problems In Buildings”, The City of Oakland
Municipal Employees, Oakland, CA, March 26, 1998.
“Managing Indoor Air Quality in Schools: Staying Out of Trouble”, CASBO,
Sacramento, CA, April 20, 1998.
“Indoor Air Quality”, CSOOC Spring Conference, Visalia, CA, April 30, 1998.
“Particulate and Gas Phase Air Filtration”, ACGIH/OSHA, Ft. Mitchell, KY, June 1998.
18
“Building Air Quality Facts and Myths”, The City of Oakland / Alameda County Safety
Seminar, Oakland, CA, June 12, 1998.
“Building Engineering and Moisture”, Building Contamination Workshop, University of
California Berkeley, Continuing Education in Engineering and Environmental
Management, San Francisco, CA, October 21-22, 1999.
“Identifying and Mitigating Mold Contamination in Buildings”, Western Construction
Consultants Association, Oakland, CA, March 15, 2000; AIG Construction Defect
Seminar, Walnut Creek, CA, May 2, 2001; City of Oakland Public Works Agency,
Oakland, CA, July 24, 2001; Executive Council of Homeowners, Alamo, CA, August 3,
2001.
“Using the EPA BASE Study for IAQ Investigation / Communication”, Joint
Professional Symposium 2000, American Industrial Hygiene Association, Orange County
& Southern California Sections, Long Beach, October 19, 2000.
“Ventilation,” Indoor Air Quality: Risk Reduction in the 21st Century Symposium,
sponsored by the California Environmental Protection Agency/Air Resources Board,
Sacramento, CA, May 3-4, 2000.
“Workshop 18: Criteria for Cleaning of Air Handling Systems”, Healthy Buildings 2000,
Espoo, Finland, August 2000.
“Closing Session Summary: ‘Building Investigations’ and ‘Building Design &
Construction’, Healthy Buildings 2000, Espoo, Finland, August 2000.
“Managing Building Air Quality and Energy Efficiency, Meeting the Standard of Care”,
BOMA, MidAtlantic Environmental Hygiene Resource Center, Seattle, WA, May 23rd,
2000; San Antonio, TX, September 26-27, 2000.
“Diagnostics & Mitigation in Sick Buildings: When Good Buildings Go Bad,” University
of California Berkeley, September 18, 2001.
“Mold Contamination: Recognition and What To Do and Not Do”, Redwood Empire
Remodelers Association; Santa Rosa, CA, April 16, 2002.
“Investigative Tools of the IAQ Trade”, Healthy Indoor Environments 2002; Austin, TX;
April 22, 2002.
“Finding Hidden Mold: Case Studies in IAQ Investigations”, AIHA Northern California
Professionals Symposium; Oakland, CA, May 8, 2002.
“Assessing and Mitigating Fungal Contamination in Buildings”, Cal/OSHA Training;
Oakland, CA, February 14, 2003 and West Covina, CA, February 20-21, 2003.
19
“Use of External Containments During Fungal Mitigation”, Invited Speaker, ACGIH
Mold Remediation Symposium, Orlando, FL, November 3-5, 2003.
Building Operator Certification (BOC), 106-IAQ Training Workshops, Northwest Energy
Efficiency Council; Stockton, CA, December 3, 2003; San Francisco, CA, December 9,
2003; Irvine, CA, January 13, 2004; San Diego, January 14, 2004; Irwindale, CA,
January 27, 2004; Downey, CA, January 28, 2004; Santa Monica, CA, March 16, 2004;
Ontario, CA, March 17, 2004; Ontario, CA, November 9, 2004, San Diego, CA,
November 10, 2004; San Francisco, CA, November 17, 2004; San Jose, CA, November
18, 2004; Sacramento, CA, March 15, 2005.
“Mold Remediation: The National QUEST for Uniformity Symposium”, Invited
Speaker, Orlando, Florida, November 3-5, 2003.
“Mold and Moisture Control”, Indoor Air Quality workshop for The Collaborative for
High Performance Schools (CHPS), San Francisco, December 11, 2003.
“Advanced Perspectives In Mold Prevention & Control Symposium”, Invited Speaker,
Las Vegas, Nevada, November 7-9, 2004.
“Building Sciences: Understanding and Controlling Moisture in Buildings”, American
Industrial Hygiene Association, San Francisco, CA, February 14-16, 2005.
“Indoor Air Quality Diagnostics and Healthy Building Design”, University of California
Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, March 2, 2005.
“Improving IAQ = Reduced Tenant Complaints”, Northern California Facilities
Exposition, Santa Clara, CA, September 27, 2007.
“Defining Safe Building Air”, Criteria for Safe Air and Water in Buildings, ASHRAE
Winter Meeting, Chicago, IL, January 27, 2008.
“Update on USGBC LEED and Air Filtration”, Invited Speaker, NAFA 2008
Convention, San Francisco, CA, September 19, 2008.
“Ventilation and Indoor air Quality in New California Homes”, National Center of
Healthy Housing, October 20, 2008.
“Indoor Air Quality in New Homes”, California Energy and Air Quality Conference,
October 29, 2008.
“Mechanical Outdoor air Ventilation Systems and IAQ in New Homes”, ACI Home
Performance Conference, Kansas City, MO, April 29, 2009.
“Ventilation and IAQ in New Homes with and without Mechanical Outdoor Air
Systems”, Healthy Buildings 2009, Syracuse, CA, September 14, 2009.
20
“Ten Ways to Improve Your Air Quality”, Northern California Facilities Exposition,
Santa Clara, CA, September 30, 2009.
“New Developments in Ventilation and Indoor Air Quality in Residential Buildings”,
Westcon meeting, Alameda, CA, March 17, 2010.
“Intermittent Residential Mechanical Outdoor Air Ventilation Systems and IAQ”,
ASHRAE SSPC 62.2 Meeting, Austin, TX, April 19, 2010.
“Measured IAQ in Homes”, ACI Home Performance Conference, Austin, TX, April 21,
2010.
“Respiration: IEQ and Ventilation”, AIHce 2010, How IH Can LEED in Green buildings,
Denver, CO, May 23, 2010.
“IAQ Considerations for Net Zero Energy Buildings (NZEB)”, Northern California
Facilities Exposition, Santa Clara, CA, September 22, 2010.
“Energy Conservation and Health in Buildings”, Berkeley High SchoolGreen Career
Week, Berkeley, CA, April 12, 2011.
“What Pollutants are Really There ?”, ACI Home Performance Conference, San
Francisco, CA, March 30, 2011.
“Energy Conservation and Health in Residences Workshop”, Indoor Air 2011, Austin,
TX, June 6, 2011.
“Assessing IAQ and Improving Health in Residences”, US EPA Weatherization Plus
Health, September 7, 2011.
“Ventilation: What a Long Strange Trip It’s Been”, Westcon, May 21, 2014.
“Chemical Emissions from E-Cigarettes: Direct and Indirect Passive Exposures”, Indoor
Air 2014, Hong Kong, July, 2014.
“Infectious Disease Aerosol Exposures With and Without Surge Control Ventilation
System Modifications”, Indoor Air 2014, Hong Kong, July, 2014.
“Chemical Emissions from E-Cigarettes”, IMF Health and Welfare Fair, Washington,
DC, February 18, 2015.
“Chemical Emissions and Health Hazards Associated with E-Cigarettes”, Roswell Park
Cancer Institute, Buffalo, NY, August 15, 2014.
“Formaldehyde Indoor Concentrations, Material Emission Rates, and the CARB ATCM”,
Harris Martin’s Lumber Liquidators Flooring Litigation Conference, WQ Minneapolis
Hotel, May 27, 2015.
21
“Chemical Emissions from E-Cigarettes: Direct and Indirect Passive Exposure”, FDA
Public Workshop: Electronic Cigarettes and the Public Health, Hyattsville, MD June 2,
2015.
“Creating Healthy Homes, Schools, and Workplaces”, Chautauqua Institution,
Athenaeum Hotel, August 24, 2015.
“Diagnosing IAQ Problems and Designing Healthy Buildings”, University of California
Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, October 6, 2015.
“Diagnosing Ventilation and IAQ Problems in Commercial Buildings”, BEST Center
Annual Institute, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, January 6, 2016.
“A Review of Studies of Ventilation and Indoor Air Quality in New Homes and Impacts
of Environmental Factors on Formaldehyde Emission Rates From Composite Wood
Products”, AIHce2016, May, 21-26, 2016.
“Admissibility of Scientific Testimony”, Science in the Court, Proposition 65
Clearinghouse Annual Conference, Oakland, CA, September 15, 2016.
“Indoor Air Quality and Ventilation”, ASHRAE Redwood Empire, Napa, CA, December
1, 2016.
EXHIBIT B
May 5, 2020
Ms. Rebecca Davis
Lozeau Drury
1939 Harrison Street, Suite 150
Oakland, CA 94612
Subject: The Bowery Project, Santa Ana (SCH # 2019080011)
P20008
Dear Ms. Davis:
At your request, I have reviewed the Final Environmental Impact Report (the
“FEIR” for The Bowery Mixed Use Project (the “Project “) in the City of Santa Ana
(the “City”). I have also reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Report (the
“DEIR”) for the Project and the Appendices supporting both documents. My
review is specific to Traffic and Circulation.
My qualifications to perform this review include registration as a Civil and Traffic
Engineer in California and over 50 years professional consulting engineering
practice in the traffic and transportation industry. I have both prepared and
performed adequacy reviews of numerous transportation and circulation sections
of environmental impact reports prepared under the California Environmental
Quality Act. My professional resume is attached. Findings of my review are
summarized below.
Excessive Deduction Of Traffic Credit For Prior Use of Project Site
Trip credits taken for prior use of the site are excessive from several
perspectives. First, the traffic analysis takes trip credit for the entire 212,121
square feet of building area at full occupancy in an industrial park use. However,
by 2017, well before the time of circulation of the Notice of Preparation (NOP)
and the time the existing condition traffic counts were taken, the industrial park
Ms. Rebecca Davis
May 5, 2020
Page 2
use had terminated, a considerable portion of the site was vacant and the non-
vacant portions were mostly occupied by uses that generate trips at considerably
lower trip rates than industrial park use.
Table 1 – Trip Rates Based on Prior Land Use
Land Use Category Use Size
(sq. ft.)
Daily
Trips*
AM
Peak*
PM Peak*
Warehouse 119,121 279 27 31
Research &
Development
5,000 56 2 2
Homeless Shelter 30,000 negligible 0 0
Vacant Space 53,000 0 0 0
Total trips from
existing uses
207,121* 335 29 33
EIR Baseline based on
Industrial Park Use
212,121 1,326 159 159
Percent increase when
EIR baseline is
compared to Existing
Use baseline
395% 540% 481%
The DEIR lists the existing uses of the site as 119,121 square foot of warehouse
and distribution (Trip Generation,10th Edition Land Use Category 150), 5,000
square feet of Research and Development (Trip Generation,10th Edition Land
Use Category 760), 53,000 square feet vacant and 30,000 square feet in use as
a temporary homeless shelter. The 119,121 square feet of warehouse would
generate 1.74 trips per thousand square feet daily, .17 trips per thousand in the
AM peak hour, and .19 trips per thousand in the PM peak hour. This would be
207 trips daily, 20 trips in the AM Peak and 23 trips in the PM peak, or, adjusting
for passenger car equivalences (PCEs) for heavy truck percentages at this use
per the Fontana Truck Study or SCAQMD, 279 daily, 27 AM peak and 31 PM
peak passenger car equivalent trips. The 5,000 square feet of Research and
Development facility would generate 11.26 trips per thousand square feet daily,
0.42 trips per thousand in the AM peak and 0.49 trips per thousand in the pm
peak. This would amount to 56 trips daily, 2 trips in the am peak and 2 trips in
the PM peak. The served population at the homeless shelter generally do not
generate any vehicle trips and the staff generally has shifts involving commutes
outside of commute peak hours, so they do not generate any peak hour trips and
an unknown but negligible number of daily trips. The vacant space generates
essentially zero vehicle trips. So the maximum trip generation of the existing use
at the time of the NOP and the when the existing traffic baseline data was
collected (not the long term prior use that was previously vacated) is about 29
Ms. Rebecca Davis
May 5, 2020
Page 3
trips in PCEs in the AM peak hour and 33 PCE trips in the PM peak hour. This is
less than 21 percent of the 159 PCE trip deduction for traffic of existing use
allowed from the Project trip generation per DEIR Table 5.14-5. The allowance
of an undeserved extra 126 trip deduction amounts to an understatement of
almost 21 percent from the net PM peak trip generation of 604 trips for the
Project assumed in the analysis. This flaw alone is sufficient to significantly alter
findings of impact and mitigation requirements.
The 18,000 Square Feet of Unspecified Retail in the Project Is Not a
Shopping Center
The DEIR estimates the trip generation of the 18,000 square feet of unspecified
retail in the Project at average rates for Land Use Category 820, Shopping
Center per Trip Generation,10th Edition. However, 18,000 square feet of retail is
not a shopping center. Shopping centers only generate trips at the average rates
employed in the subject analysis when they reach a size of about 400,000
square feet of floor area. Small footprint retail normally generates trips at much
higher peak and daily rates per thousand square feet than the shopping center
average. The 18,000 square feet of retail in the Project is about the typical size
of a boutique grocery like a Trader Joe’s or a Walgreens Pharmacy. A
Supermarket (Land Use Category 850) generates trips at rates of 106.78 trips
per thousand square feet daily, 3.82 per thousand in the AM peak hour and 9.24
per thousand in the PM peak hour. A Pharmacy with no drive-up window (Land
Use Category 880) generates trips at rates of 90.08 trips per thousand square
feet daily, 2.94 per thousand in the AM peak and 8.51 per thousand in the PM
peak. This starkly contrasts with the Shopping center rates of 37.75 trips per
thousand square feet daily, 0.94 per thousand in the AM peak and 3.81 per
thousand in the PM peak.
Table 2 – Trip Rates Per 1,000 Square Feet Based on Land Use Category
Land Use Category Daily AM Peak PM Peak
Supermarket 106.78 3.82 9.24
Pharmacy 90.08 2.94 8.51
Shopping Center 37.75 0.94 3.81
If the DEIR had analyzed the 18,000 square feet of retail as a supermarket, it
would generate 1922 gross trips daily, 69 gross AM peak trips and 166 gross PM
peak trips. Analyzed as a Category 880 Pharmacy, the same floor area of retail
generates 1621 gross daily trips, 53 in the AM peak and 153 in the PM peak.
These are significantly higher than the 680 daily, 17 AM peak and 69 PM peak
gross trips the DEIR predicts for this floor area as a so called shopping center.
Ms. Rebecca Davis
May 5, 2020
Page 4
Table 3 – Trip Rates for 18,000 Square Feet of Retail Based on Land Use
Category
Land Use Category Daily AM Peak PM Peak
Supermarket 1,922 69 166
Pharmacy 1,622 53 153
Shopping Center 680 17 69
With the same percentage of internal and attracted passerby trips the DEIR
assumes for the shopping center use category, the boutique supermarket
generates 882 more net daily, 28 more net AM peak and 28 more net PM peak
trips than the improperly applied shopping center category. With the same
percentage of internal and attracted passerby trips the DEIR assumes for the
shopping center use category, the pharmacy generates 1668 more net daily, 15
more net AM peak and 13 more net PM peak trips than the improperly applied
shopping center category. While these differences, particularly in the peak
hours, may seem small, when added to adjustment of the improper credit for the
prior use, take on cumulative significance.
Excessive Assumptions of Trip Reductions Due To Internalization and
Passer-by Attraction
The DEIR assumes that internal trips and attracted passers-by will account for
31.5 percent of the Project’s gross trip generation in the AM traffic peak hour and
42 percent of the Project’s gross trip generation in the PM traffic peak hour.
Coupled with the improper deductions taken for the abandoned prior use of the
site, deductions eliminate 47.2 percent of the gross AM peak trip generation and
54 percent of the gross PM peak trip generation. The analysis appears to have
assumed internalization and attracted passer-by rates at maximum percentages
of the ranges observed in Trip Generation Handbook, 3rd Edition. Making a
series of assumptions, all the most favorable to the Project possible, is not
consistent with the good faith effort to disclose impact that CEQA demands. The
analysis should be recompiled with more moderate percentage assumptions for
internalization and passer-by attraction.
Consequences of Improper Descriptions of Roadway Cross Sections Is Not
Analyzed
In a comment now labeled A6-5 in the FEIR response, the Orange County
Transportation Agency identifies several roadways where the DEIR’s description
of the roadway cross-section is in error. In response, the FEIR corrects the text
of the relevant table but fails to analyze whether the changes have any
consequential impact on the outcomes of impact analysis. It would seem that
Ms. Rebecca Davis
May 5, 2020
Page 5
overstating the number of lanes on several roadways could have consequences
for impact and mitigation needs.
Conclusion
This concludes my comments on the Bowery Mixed Use Project FEIR. Because
the DEIR improperly deducted trips for a prior use of the Project site that was not
present when the NOP was circulated nor when baseline traffic counts for the
analysis were taken, because it unreasonably treats 18,000 square feet of
unspecified retail commercial as a “shopping center” rather than a logical specific
use or range of uses that would occupy a retail floor area of this size and
because the analysis consistently makes assumptions most favorable to the
Project with regard to trip internalization and passer-by attraction, the FEIR
should not be certified, the traffic analysis should be redone and the
environmental document should be recirculated in “draft” status.
Sincerely,
Smith Engineering & Management
A California Corporation
Daniel T. Smith Jr., P.E.
President
Attachment 1
Resume of Daniel T. Smith Jr., P.E.
Ms. Rebecca Davis
May 5, 2020
Page 6
Ms. Rebecca Davis
May 5, 2020
Page 7
Transportation Centers. Project manager for Daly City Intermodal Study which developed a $7 million surface
bus terminal, traffic access, parking and pedestrian circulation improvements at the Daly City BART station plus
development of functional plans for a new BART station at Colma. Project manager for design of multi-modal
terminal (commuter rail, light rail, bus) at Mission Bay, San Francisco. In Santa Clarita Long Range Transit
Development Program, responsible for plan to relocate system's existing timed-transfer hub and development of
three satellite transfer hubs. Performed airport ground transportation system evaluations for San Francisco
International, Oakland International, Sea-Tac International, Oakland International, Los Angeles International, and
San Diego Lindberg.
Campus Transportation. Campus transportation planning assignments for UC Davis, UC Berkeley, UC Santa
Cruz and UC San Francisco Medical Center campuses; San Francisco State University; University of San Francisco;
and the University of Alaska and others. Also developed master plans for institutional campuses including medical
centers, headquarters complexes and research & development facilities.
Special Event Facilities. Evaluations and design studies for football/baseball stadiums, indoor sports arenas, horse
and motor racing facilities, theme parks, fairgrounds and convention centers, ski complexes and destination resorts
throughout western United States.
Parking. Parking programs and facilities for large area plans and individual sites including downtowns, special
event facilities, university and institutional campuses and other large site developments; numerous parking
feasibility and operations studies for parking structures and surface facilities; also, resident preferential parking .
Transportation System Management & Traffic Restraint. Project manager on FHWA program to develop
techniques and guidelines for neighborhood street traffic limitation. Project manager for Berkeley, (Calif.),
Neighborhood Traffic Study, pioneered application of traffic restraint techniques in the U.S. Developed residential
traffic plans for Menlo Park, Santa Monica, Santa Cruz, Mill Valley, Oakland, Palo Alto, Piedmont, San Mateo
County, Pasadena, Santa Ana and others. Participated in development of photo/radar speed enforcement device and
experimented with speed humps. Co-author of Institute of Transportation Engineers reference publication on
neighborhood traffic control.
Bicycle Facilities. Project manager to develop an FHWA manual for bicycle facility design and planning, on
bikeway plans for Del Mar, (Calif.), the UC Davis and the City of Davis. Consultant to bikeway plans for Eugene,
Oregon, Washington, D.C., Buffalo, New York, and Skokie, Illinois. Consultant to U.S. Bureau of Reclamation for
development of hydraulically efficient, bicycle safe drainage inlets. Consultant on FHWA research on effective
retrofits of undercrossing and overcrossing structures for bicyclists, pedestrians, and handicapped.
MEMBERSHIPS
Institute of Transportation Engineers Transportation Research Board
PUBLICATIONS AND AWARDS
Residential Street Design and Traffic Control, with W. Homburger et al. Prentice Hall, 1989.
Co-recipient, Progressive Architecture Citation, Mission Bay Master Plan, with I.M. Pei WRT Associated, 1984.
Residential Traffic Management, State of the Art Report, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1979.
Improving The Residential Street Environment, with Donald Appleyard et al., U.S. Department of Transportation,
1979.
Strategic Concepts in Residential Neighborhood Traffic Control, International Symposium on Traffic Control
Systems, Berkeley, California, 1979.
Planning and Design of Bicycle Facilities: Pitfalls and New Directions, Transportation Research Board, Research
Record 570, 1976.
Co-recipient, Progressive Architecture Award, Livable Urban Streets, San Francisco Bay Area and London, with
Donald Appleyard, 1979.
EXHIBIT C
2656 29th Street, Suite 201
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Matt Hagemann, P.G, C.Hg.
(949) 887-9013
mhagemann@swape.com
May 11, 2020
Rebecca Davis
Lozeau | Drury LLP
1939 Harrison Street, Suite 150
Oakland, CA 94618
Subject: Comments on the Final Impact Report for the Bowery Mixed Use Project
Dear Ms. Davis:
I have reviewed the May 2020 Final Impact Report for the Bowery Mixed Use Project (“Project”) in Santa
Ana, California for impacts related to Hazards and Hazardous Waste. Prior to Project approval, the
applicant needs to engage California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) in a voluntary
cleanup agreement to ensure adequate contaminated soil cleanup at the Project site. The Project site
contains approximately 900 cubic yards of TPH contaminated soils above residential screening levels
that will require excavation and disposal (FEIR, p. 2-7). Past land uses at the Project site, according a
Phase I and two Phase II environmental site assessments, include Ricoh thermal paper processing and
toner manufacturing operations.
Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 requires a soil management plan to be used during construction to guide the
removal and disposal of the areas of TPH-impacted soil. On its own, a soil management plan is
insufficient. To ensure the adequacy and the health-protectiveness of the cleanup, engagement of the
DTSC is necessary. DTSC engagement should be formalized through a voluntary cleanup agreement and
the cleanup of the Project site should follow an assessment and cleanup program directed by DTSC.
DTSC itself, in commenting on the Project DEIR, said:
“Please note that all environmental investigations, sampling and/or remediation for the project
Site should be conducted under a workplan approved and overseen by a regulatory agency that
has jurisdiction to oversee hazardous substance cleanup. Clarify in this section that a Removal
Action Workplan (RAW) or a Remedial Action Plan (RAP) would be prepared and specify the
oversight agency to review and approve the RAW or RAP”
“Please note that a land use covenant may be required for the Project Site if both soil and
groundwater cannot be remediated to meet cleanup goals for residential use.” (Final EIR, p. 2-
3).
2
In the response to this comment, the FEIR states (p. 2-8):
Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 requires approval of a Soil Management Plan (SMP) to ensure that
the contaminated soils would be excavated and removed during Project excavation and grading
activities pursuant to the regulations of DTSC, California Integrated Waste Management Board,
RWQCB, OCFA, and the Orange County Health Care Agency (OCHCA). The SMP required by
Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 would meet the same intent and requirements as the Removal
Action Workplan or a Remedial Action Plan mentioned in this comment.
A soil management plan is not an instrument that is used by DTSC or any other regulatory agency in
assessing the need for cleanups or in planning for cleanups to be health protective. The soil
management plan, as described in Mitigation Measure HAZ-1, is to include
• A certified hazardous waste hauler to remove all potentially hazardous soils
• Excavation and removal of contaminated soils
• Sampling of soil during excavation to ensure that all contaminated soils are removed, and that
residential Environmental Screening Levels (ESLs) for residential uses are not exceeded.
• Subsurface materials exposed during construction activities that appear suspect of
contamination, either from visual staining or suspect odors, shall require immediate cessation
of excavation activities and soils suspected of contamination shall be tested.
• If contamination is found to be present per the California Department of Toxic Substances
Control (DTSC) or Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) ESLs for residential uses, it
shall be transported and disposed of per California Hazardous Waste Regulations
• Preparation of a Health and Safety Plan.
This is in no way would “meet the same intent and requirements as the Removal Action Workplan or a
Remedial Action Plan” as asserted in the FEIR in response to the DTSC as cited above. For example, a
removal action work plan, as recommended by DTSC in their DEIR response as cited above, shall:1
• Identify the nature and the extent of contaminants
• Describe the health effects of the contaminants
• Perform a health risk evaluation
• Identify cleanup goals
• Perform an engineering evaluation and cost analysis
• Compare remedial alternatives
• Describe the selected remedy
• Allow for public participation
• Provide dust control
• Conduct confirmatory sampling.
Given the complex history of the Project site, we recommend entry into a voluntary cleanup program
with DTSC.2 DTSC oversight will ensure the implementation of the step-wise approach of a remedial
1 https://dtsc.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/31/2018/09/SMBR_FORM_RAW_Template.pdf
2 https://dtsc.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/31/2018/07/eo-95-006-pp.pdf
3
action workplan, to include a health risk assessment, a critical step for implementation of a remedy that
is protective of the health of future Project residents.
Regulatory review of the cleanup at the Project site is essentially required under the terms of the site
closure issued by the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (SARWQCB) who, in their August
13, 2010 No Further Action Letter, stated:
“If land use changes at the site, a review of the corrective actions may be warranted if on site
excavation or construction expose contaminated soil or if changes in land use indicates that the
residual contamination at the site poses a risk to site occupants.”3
The Project will change the land use from commercial/industrial to residential and the Project will
involve excavation of contaminated soils; therefore, according to the No Further Action Letter, the
SARWQCB may need to review the plan for removal of the 900 cubic yards of TPH-contaminated soil
outlined in the FEIR. No record of notification of the SARWQCB of the intent to clean up contaminated
soils for a change to residential land use was provided in the DEIR or the FEIR.
Engagement of DTSC, rather than the SARWQCB, is recommended to provide for proper oversight of a
health risk assessment. DTSC has professionals on staff capable of the review of human health risk
assessments.
Finally, the issue of encountering contaminated groundwater during Project excavation must be
considered. The FEIR states (p. 2-8):
“it is described on page 5.5-5 in Section 5.5, Geology and Soils, of the Draft EIR that based on
onsite borings the depth of groundwater is in the range of 24 to 33 feet below ground surface
(bgs). This depth of groundwater would not impact persons onsite during operation of the
proposed mixed-uses. Also, the Draft EIR page 3-19, Section 3.0, Project Description, describes
that excavation and grading during project construction would be a minimum of 5 feet below
the bottom of the building foundations. As the depth of groundwater currently ranges between
24 to 33 feet, project excavation of approximately 5 feet below building foundations would not
result in encountering groundwater. Thus, construction workers would also not be in contact
with, and therefore impacted by, contaminated groundwater. Therefore, the potential risk to
future receptors associated with groundwater contamination would be less than significant.”
The assertion in the DEIR that groundwater is in the range of 24 to 33 feet deep contradicts with the
case closure summary attached to the SARWQCB No Further Action letter for the Project site which
states groundwater is 5.67 to 13 feet deep:4
3https://documents.geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/regulators/deliverable_documents/2435468375/NFA_RicohEl
ec_MedranoPedro.pdf, p. 4
4https://documents.geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/regulators/deliverable_documents/2435468375/NFA_RicohEl
ec_MedranoPedro.pdf, p. 2
4
if Project excavation is “a minimum of 5 feet below the bottom of building foundations” (FEIR, p. 2-8),
groundwater is likely to be encountered if found at depths as shallow as 5.67 feet as stated by the
SARWQCB in the table above. The FEIR needs to plan for protection of construction workers who may
encounter contaminated groundwater when excavation is conducted. The FEIR also needs to state how
the Project would comply with the Statewide General Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharges to
Land with a Low Threat to Water Quality (Order No. 2003-0003-DWQ) or the De Minimis Waste
Discharge Requirements for the Santa Ana Region (Order No. R82015-0004, NPDES No. CAG998001).
SWAPE has received limited documentation regarding this project. Additional information may become
available in the future; thus, we retain the right to revise or amend this report when additional
information becomes available. Our professional services have been performed using that degree of
care and skill ordinarily exercised, under similar circumstances, by reputable environmental consultants
practicing in this or similar localities at the time of service. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is
made as to the scope of work, work methodologies and protocols, site conditions, analytical testing
results, and findings presented. This report reflects efforts which were limited to information reasonably
accessible at the time of the work, and may contain informational gaps, inconsistencies, or otherwise be
incomplete due to the unavailability or uncertainty of information obtained or provided by third parties.
Sincerely,
Matt Hagemann, P.G., C.Hg.
1640 5th St.., Suite 204 Santa
Santa Monica, California 90401
Tel: (949) 887‐9013
Email: mhagemann@swape.com
Matthew F. Hagemann, P.G., C.Hg., QSD, QSP
Geologic and Hydrogeologic Characterization
Industrial Stormwater Compliance
Investigation and Remediation Strategies
Litigation Support and Testifying Expert
CEQA Review
Education:
M.S. Degree, Geology, California State University Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, 1984.
B.A. Degree, Geology, Humboldt State University, Arcata, CA, 1982.
Professional Certifications:
California Professional Geologist
California Certified Hydrogeologist
Qualified SWPPP Developer and Practitioner
Professional Experience:
Matt has 25 years of experience in environmental policy, assessment and remediation. He spent nine
years with the U.S. EPA in the RCRA and Superfund programs and served as EPA’s Senior Science
Policy Advisor in the Western Regional Office where he identified emerging threats to groundwater from
perchlorate and MTBE. While with EPA, Matt also served as a Senior Hydrogeologist in the oversight of
the assessment of seven major military facilities undergoing base closure. He led numerous enforcement
actions under provisions of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) while also working
with permit holders to improve hydrogeologic characterization and water quality monitoring.
Matt has worked closely with U.S. EPA legal counsel and the technical staff of several states in the
application and enforcement of RCRA, Safe Drinking Water Act and Clean Water Act regulations. Matt
has trained the technical staff in the States of California, Hawaii, Nevada, Arizona and the Territory of
Guam in the conduct of investigations, groundwater fundamentals, and sampling techniques.
Positions Matt has held include:
•Founding Partner, Soil/Water/Air Protection Enterprise (SWAPE) (2003 – present);
•Geology Instructor, Golden West College, 2010 – 2014;
•Senior Environmental Analyst, Komex H2O Science, Inc. (2000 ‐‐ 2003);
• Executive Director, Orange Coast Watch (2001 – 2004);
• Senior Science Policy Advisor and Hydrogeologist, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1989–
1998);
• Hydrogeologist, National Park Service, Water Resources Division (1998 – 2000);
• Adjunct Faculty Member, San Francisco State University, Department of Geosciences (1993 –
1998);
• Instructor, College of Marin, Department of Science (1990 – 1995);
• Geologist, U.S. Forest Service (1986 – 1998); and
• Geologist, Dames & Moore (1984 – 1986).
Senior Regulatory and Litigation Support Analyst:
With SWAPE, Matt’s responsibilities have included:
• Lead analyst and testifying expert in the review of over 100 environmental impact reports
since 2003 under CEQA that identify significant issues with regard to hazardous waste, water
resources, water quality, air quality, Valley Fever, greenhouse gas emissions, and geologic
hazards. Make recommendations for additional mitigation measures to lead agencies at the
local and county level to include additional characterization of health risks and
implementation of protective measures to reduce worker exposure to hazards from toxins
and Valley Fever.
• Stormwater analysis, sampling and best management practice evaluation at industrial facilities.
• Manager of a project to provide technical assistance to a community adjacent to a former
Naval shipyard under a grant from the U.S. EPA.
• Technical assistance and litigation support for vapor intrusion concerns.
• Lead analyst and testifying expert in the review of environmental issues in license applications
for large solar power plants before the California Energy Commission.
• Manager of a project to evaluate numerous formerly used military sites in the western U.S.
• Manager of a comprehensive evaluation of potential sources of perchlorate contamination in
Southern California drinking water wells.
• Manager and designated expert for litigation support under provisions of Proposition 65 in the
review of releases of gasoline to sources drinking water at major refineries and hundreds of gas
stations throughout California.
• Expert witness on two cases involving MTBE litigation.
• Expert witness and litigation support on the impact of air toxins and hazards at a school.
• Expert witness in litigation at a former plywood plant.
With Komex H2O Science Inc., Matt’s duties included the following:
• Senior author of a report on the extent of perchlorate contamination that was used in testimony
by the former U.S. EPA Administrator and General Counsel.
• Senior researcher in the development of a comprehensive, electronically interactive chronology
of MTBE use, research, and regulation.
• Senior researcher in the development of a comprehensive, electronically interactive chronology
of perchlorate use, research, and regulation.
• Senior researcher in a study that estimates nationwide costs for MTBE remediation and drinking
water treatment, results of which were published in newspapers nationwide and in testimony
against provisions of an energy bill that would limit liability for oil companies.
• Research to support litigation to restore drinking water supplies that have been contaminated by
MTBE in California and New York.
2
• Expert witness testimony in a case of oil production‐related contamination in Mississippi.
• Lead author for a multi‐volume remedial investigation report for an operating school in Los
Angeles that met strict regulatory requirements and rigorous deadlines.
3
• Development of strategic approaches for cleanup of contaminated sites in consultation with
clients and regulators.
Executive Director:
As Executive Director with Orange Coast Watch, Matt led efforts to restore water quality at Orange
County beaches from multiple sources of contamination including urban runoff and the discharge of
wastewater. In reporting to a Board of Directors that included representatives from leading Orange
County universities and businesses, Matt prepared issue papers in the areas of treatment and disinfection
of wastewater and control of the discharge of grease to sewer systems. Matt actively participated in the
development of countywide water quality permits for the control of urban runoff and permits for the
discharge of wastewater. Matt worked with other nonprofits to protect and restore water quality, including
Surfrider, Natural Resources Defense Council and Orange County CoastKeeper as well as with business
institutions including the Orange County Business Council.
Hydrogeology:
As a Senior Hydrogeologist with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Matt led investigations to
characterize and cleanup closing military bases, including Mare Island Naval Shipyard, Hunters Point
Naval Shipyard, Treasure Island Naval Station, Alameda Naval Station, Moffett Field, Mather Army
Airfield, and Sacramento Army Depot. Specific activities were as follows:
• Led efforts to model groundwater flow and contaminant transport, ensured adequacy of
monitoring networks, and assessed cleanup alternatives for contaminated sediment, soil, and
groundwater.
• Initiated a regional program for evaluation of groundwater sampling practices and laboratory
analysis at military bases.
• Identified emerging issues, wrote technical guidance, and assisted in policy and regulation
development through work on four national U.S. EPA workgroups, including the Superfund
Groundwater Technical Forum and the Federal Facilities Forum.
At the request of the State of Hawaii, Matt developed a methodology to determine the vulnerability of
groundwater to contamination on the islands of Maui and Oahu. He used analytical models and a GIS to
show zones of vulnerability, and the results were adopted and published by the State of Hawaii and
County of Maui.
As a hydrogeologist with the EPA Groundwater Protection Section, Matt worked with provisions of the
Safe Drinking Water Act and NEPA to prevent drinking water contamination. Specific activities included
the following:
• Received an EPA Bronze Medal for his contribution to the development of national guidance for
the protection of drinking water.
• Managed the Sole Source Aquifer Program and protected the drinking water of two communities
through designation under the Safe Drinking Water Act. He prepared geologic reports,
conducted public hearings, and responded to public comments from residents who were very
concerned about the impact of designation.
4
• Reviewed a number of Environmental Impact Statements for planned major developments,
including large hazardous and solid waste disposal facilities, mine reclamation, and water
transfer.
Matt served as a hydrogeologist with the RCRA Hazardous Waste program. Duties were as follows:
• Supervised the hydrogeologic investigation of hazardous waste sites to determine compliance
with Subtitle C requirements.
• Reviewed and wrote ʺpart Bʺ permits for the disposal of hazardous waste.
• Conducted RCRA Corrective Action investigations of waste sites and led inspections that formed
the basis for significant enforcement actions that were developed in close coordination with U.S.
EPA legal counsel.
• Wrote contract specifications and supervised contractor’s investigations of waste sites.
With the National Park Service, Matt directed service‐wide investigations of contaminant sources to
prevent degradation of water quality, including the following tasks:
• Applied pertinent laws and regulations including CERCLA, RCRA, NEPA, NRDA, and the
Clean Water Act to control military, mining, and landfill contaminants.
• Conducted watershed‐scale investigations of contaminants at parks, including Yellowstone and
Olympic National Park.
• Identified high‐levels of perchlorate in soil adjacent to a national park in New Mexico
and advised park superintendent on appropriate response actions under CERCLA.
• Served as a Park Service representative on the Interagency Perchlorate Steering Committee, a
national workgroup.
• Developed a program to conduct environmental compliance audits of all National Parks while
serving on a national workgroup.
• Co‐authored two papers on the potential for water contamination from the operation of personal
watercraft and snowmobiles, these papers serving as the basis for the development of nation‐
wide policy on the use of these vehicles in National Parks.
• Contributed to the Federal Multi‐Agency Source Water Agreement under the Clean Water
Action Plan.
Policy:
Served senior management as the Senior Science Policy Advisor with the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 9. Activities included the following:
• Advised the Regional Administrator and senior management on emerging issues such as the
potential for the gasoline additive MTBE and ammonium perchlorate to contaminate drinking
water supplies.
• Shaped EPA’s national response to these threats by serving on workgroups and by contributing
to guidance, including the Office of Research and Development publication, Oxygenates in
Water: Critical Information and Research Needs.
• Improved the technical training of EPAʹs scientific and engineering staff.
• Earned an EPA Bronze Medal for representing the region’s 300 scientists and engineers in
negotiations with the Administrator and senior management to better integrate scientific
principles into the policy‐making process.
• Established national protocol for the peer review of scientific documents.
5
Geology:
With the U.S. Forest Service, Matt led investigations to determine hillslope stability of areas proposed for
timber harvest in the central Oregon Coast Range. Specific activities were as follows:
• Mapped geology in the field, and used aerial photographic interpretation and mathematical
models to determine slope stability.
• Coordinated his research with community members who were concerned with natural resource
protection.
• Characterized the geology of an aquifer that serves as the sole source of drinking water for the
city of Medford, Oregon.
As a consultant with Dames and Moore, Matt led geologic investigations of two contaminated sites (later
listed on the Superfund NPL) in the Portland, Oregon, area and a large hazardous waste site in eastern
Oregon. Duties included the following:
• Supervised year‐long effort for soil and groundwater sampling.
• Conducted aquifer tests.
• Investigated active faults beneath sites proposed for hazardous waste disposal.
Teaching:
From 1990 to 1998, Matt taught at least one course per semester at the community college and university
levels:
• At San Francisco State University, held an adjunct faculty position and taught courses in
environmental geology, oceanography (lab and lecture), hydrogeology, and groundwater
contamination.
• Served as a committee member for graduate and undergraduate students.
• Taught courses in environmental geology and oceanography at the College of Marin.
Matt taught physical geology (lecture and lab and introductory geology at Golden West College in
Huntington Beach, California from 2010 to 2014.
Invited Testimony, Reports, Papers and Presentations:
Hagemann, M.F., 2008. Disclosure of Hazardous Waste Issues under CEQA. Presentation to the Public
Environmental Law Conference, Eugene, Oregon.
Hagemann, M.F., 2008. Disclosure of Hazardous Waste Issues under CEQA. Invited presentation to U.S.
EPA Region 9, San Francisco, California.
Hagemann, M.F., 2005. Use of Electronic Databases in Environmental Regulation, Policy Making and
Public Participation. Brownfields 2005, Denver, Coloradao.
Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water
in Nevada and the Southwestern U.S. Presentation to a meeting of the American Groundwater Trust, Las
Vegas, NV (served on conference organizing committee).
Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Invited testimony to a California Senate committee hearing on air toxins at
schools in Southern California, Los Angeles.
6
Brown, A., Farrow, J., Gray, A. and Hagemann, M., 2004. An Estimate of Costs to Address MTBE
Releases from Underground Storage Tanks and the Resulting Impact to Drinking Water Wells.
Presentation to the Ground Water and Environmental Law Conference, National Groundwater
Association.
Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water
in Arizona and the Southwestern U.S. Presentation to a meeting of the American Groundwater Trust,
Phoenix, AZ (served on conference organizing committee).
Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water
in the Southwestern U.S. Invited presentation to a special committee meeting of the National Academy
of Sciences, Irvine, CA.
Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River. Invited presentation to a
tribal EPA meeting, Pechanga, CA.
Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River. Invited presentation to a
meeting of tribal repesentatives, Parker, AZ.
Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Impact of Perchlorate on the Colorado River and Associated Drinking Water
Supplies. Invited presentation to the Inter‐Tribal Meeting, Torres Martinez Tribe.
Hagemann, M.F., 2003. The Emergence of Perchlorate as a Widespread Drinking Water Contaminant.
Invited presentation to the U.S. EPA Region 9.
Hagemann, M.F., 2003. A Deductive Approach to the Assessment of Perchlorate Contamination. Invited
presentation to the California Assembly Natural Resources Committee.
Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate: A Cold War Legacy in Drinking Water. Presentation to a meeting of
the National Groundwater Association.
Hagemann, M.F., 2002. From Tank to Tap: A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater. Presentation to a
meeting of the National Groundwater Association.
Hagemann, M.F., 2002. A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater and an Estimate of Costs to Address
Impacts to Groundwater. Presentation to the annual meeting of the Society of Environmental
Journalists.
Hagemann, M.F., 2002. An Estimate of the Cost to Address MTBE Contamination in Groundwater
(and Who Will Pay). Presentation to a meeting of the National Groundwater Association.
Hagemann, M.F., 2002. An Estimate of Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Underground Storage
Tanks and the Resulting Impact to Drinking Water Wells. Presentation to a meeting of the U.S. EPA and
State Underground Storage Tank Program managers.
Hagemann, M.F., 2001. From Tank to Tap: A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater. Unpublished
report.
7
Hagemann, M.F., 2001. Estimated Cleanup Cost for MTBE in Groundwater Used as Drinking Water.
Unpublished report.
Hagemann, M.F., 2001. Estimated Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Leaking Underground Storage
Tanks. Unpublished report.
Hagemann, M.F., and VanMouwerik, M., 1999. Potential Water Quality Concerns Related
to Snowmobile Usage. Water Resources Division, National Park Service, Technical Report.
VanMouwerik, M. and Hagemann, M.F. 1999, Water Quality Concerns Related to Personal Watercraft
Usage. Water Resources Division, National Park Service, Technical Report.
Hagemann, M.F., 1999, Is Dilution the Solution to Pollution in National Parks? The George Wright
Society Biannual Meeting, Asheville, North Carolina.
Hagemann, M.F., 1997, The Potential for MTBE to Contaminate Groundwater. U.S. EPA Superfund
Groundwater Technical Forum Annual Meeting, Las Vegas, Nevada.
Hagemann, M.F., and Gill, M., 1996, Impediments to Intrinsic Remediation, Moffett Field Naval Air
Station, Conference on Intrinsic Remediation of Chlorinated Hydrocarbons, Salt Lake City.
Hagemann, M.F., Fukunaga, G.L., 1996, The Vulnerability of Groundwater to Anthropogenic
Contaminants on the Island of Maui, Hawaii. Hawaii Water Works Association Annual Meeting, Maui,
October 1996.
Hagemann, M. F., Fukanaga, G. L., 1996, Ranking Groundwater Vulnerability in Central Oahu,
Hawaii. Proceedings, Geographic Information Systems in Environmental Resources Management, Air
and Waste Management Association Publication VIP‐61.
Hagemann, M.F., 1994. Groundwater Characterization and Cleanup a t Closing Military Bases
in California. Proceedings, California Groundwater Resources Association Meeting.
Hagemann, M.F. and Sabol, M.A., 1993. Role of the U.S. EPA in the High Plains States Groundwater
Recharge Demonstration Program. Proceedings, Sixth Biennial Symposium on the Artificial Recharge of
Groundwater.
Hagemann, M.F., 1993. U.S. EPA Policy on the Technical Impracticability of the Cleanup of DNAPL‐
contaminated Groundwater. California Groundwater Resources Association Meeting.
8
Hagemann, M.F., 1992. Dense Nonaqueous Phase Liquid Contamination of Groundwater: An Ounce of
Prevention... Proceedings, Association of Engineering Geologists Annual Meeting, v. 35.
Other Experience:
Selected as subject matter expert for the California Professional Geologist licensing examination, 2009‐
2011.
9
EXHIBIT D
California Regional Water Quality Control Board
Santa Ana Region
3737 Main Street, Suite 500, Riverside, California 92501-3348
Phone (951 )782-4130· FAX (951)781-6288 • TOO (951 )782-3221Linda S. Adams Arnold Schwarzenegger www.waterboards.ca.gov/sanlaanaSecretary for Governor
EnvIronmental ProtecllOn
August 13, 2010
Pedro Medrano
Ricoh Electronics
1100 Valencia Avenue
Tustin, Ca 92780
SUBJECT: No Further Action
Ricoh Electronics Facility
2320 Redhill, Santa Ana
LUSTIS Case Number 083000552T
Dear Mr. Medrano:
This letter confirms the completion of site investigation and remedial action for the underground
storage tanks formerly located at the above described location. Enclosed is the Case Closure
Summary for the referenced site for your records.
Based on the available information, including the current land use, and with the provision that the
information provided to this agency was accurate and representative of site conditions, no further
action related to the underground storage tank release is required.
This notice is issued pursuant to a regulation contained in Title 23, California Code of Regulations,
Division 3, Chapter 16, Section 2721 (e).
Please telephone Carl Bernhardt of our Underground Storage Tank Section at 951-782-4495 or by
electronic mail at cbernardt@waterboards.ca.gov if you have any questions regarding this matter.
Sincerely,
~~~
Executive Officer
Enclosures: Case Closure Summary
Addressee: Pedro Medrano, Ricoh Pedro_A_Medrano@rei.ricoh.com
cc with enclosures: Diana Plotkin, Karney Property Mgmt: Diana_Plotkin@karney.net
Mark Gilmartin, Law Offices: mbgilmartin@earthlink.net
Anri Suzuki, Ricoh Electronics: Anri_Suzuki@rei.ricoh.com
Jay Neuhaus, Mactec: jrneuhaus@mactec.com
David Rice, SWRCB: drice@waterboards.ca.gov
Diana Conkle, SWRCB: dconkle@waterboards.ca.gov
Eric Floyd, Wayne Perry, Inc: efloyd@wpi.com
CABI ricoh closure letter
California Environmental Protection Agency
#0 ~J Recycled Paper
CASE CLOSURE SUMMARY
Leaking Underground Fuel Tank Program
I A I normaf Ion. l~ency ~
Agency Name California Regional Water Quality Control Board
Santa Ana Region
Staff Carl A. Bernhardt
Address 3737 Main St. Suite 500 Title Engineering Geologist
City/State/ Zip Riverside CA 92501-3348 Phone (951) 782-4495, Main # 782-4130
II. Case Information
Site Name Ricoh Electronics, Inc.
Location 2320 Redhill Avenue, Santa Ana
Regional Board Case # I 083000552T II Local Agency Case #
Responsible Parties Address Phone Number
Ricoh Electronics
Contact: Mr. Jeff Simko
1100 Valencia Avenue
Tustin, CA 92780
Tank No. Size in Gallons Contents Closed in place/
Removed
Date
1 30,000 Isoparaffin aliphatic hydrocarbons Removed September 1998
2 50,000 Isoparaffin aliphatic hydrocarbons Removed JUly 1998
3 50,000 Isoparaffin aliphatic hydrocarbons Removed September 1998
5 40,000 Isoparaffin aliphatic hydrocarbons Removed October 2006
III. Release and Site Characterization Information
Cause and type of release: Unknown
Site characterization
complete?
Moderate to low concentration of
petroleum hydrocarbons were detected
in the soil and groundwater to the
south and southwest of the UST. The
affected soil and groundwater was not
defined to non-detect.
Date approved by agency
Monitoring wells
installed?
Yes Number 11 Proper screen
interval?
Yes
Deepest GW depth 13 feet Shallowest GW depth 5.67 feet
Groundwater, most sensitive current use: Municipal
Are drinking water wells affected? No Aquifer name Orange County Groundwater Management Zone
Is surface water affected? No Nearest SW name San Diego Creek
Off-site beneficial use Impacts (addressesllocations): None
Where is/are report(s) filed? Report(s) on file? Yes SARWQCB, 3737 Main Street, Suite 500
Riverside, CA 92501
Case Closure Summary
Site Name: Ricoh Electronics Case # 083000552T
TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL OF AFFECTED MATERIAL
Material Amount Action (treatment, disposal)1 Date
Destination
Soil Unknown Excavated and disposed off-site July -Sept. 1998
Soil Unknown Excavated and disposed off-site Sept. 2006
Groundwater 2,160,000 gallons Extracted and treated using GAC Aug. 1988 -May 1999
Isopar 4,371 gallons Extracted and disposed off-site Feb. 1988 -May 1992
Excavation Water 100,000 gallons Extracted and treated using GAC July -Sept. 1998
III. Release and Site Characterization Information (Continued)
Maximum Documented Contaminant Concentration -Before and After Cleanup
Contaminant Soil (mg/kg) Groundwater (ug/l)
1986 1998 2006 2008 Nov. March Feb. April Sept.
1986 1997 2003 2005 2009
TPH 1,000 4,000 360 (C13-28) 490 N/A 95,000 2,100 400 190 (VFH)
860 (C29-40) (VFH) 660 (EFH)
Free product N/A 1 N/A N/A ND 6' ND 2 ND ND ND
Benzene N/A N/A N/A 0.0023 N/A N/A <2.0 N/A ND
Toluene N/A N/A N/A 0.003 N/A N/A 5.1 N/A ND
Ethyl Benzene N/A N/A N/A ND N/A N/A <0.2 N/A ND
Xylene N/A N/A N/A ND N/A N/A <2.0 N/A ND
MTBE N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A <5 . N/A ND
TBA N/A N/A N/A N/A, N/A N/A <5 N/A 7.9
Comments regarding investigation and remediation
In July 1986, leakage was detected from piping associated with three USTs. The USTs stored ISOPAR G (C1 0-C11) and
H (C11-C12), which was used in the manufacture of toner. Based on the results of a soil gas survey, four soil borings
were advanced at the site. TPH (C6-C8) were detected at a concentration ranging from 50 to 1000 ppm. Six
groundwater monitoring wells and twenty groundwater well points were installed to characterize the groundwater.
1 N/A -Not Analyzed
2 ND -Not Detected
2
Case Closure Summary
Site Name: Ricoh Electronics Case # 083000552T
Comments regarding investigation and remediation -continued
Groundwater was encountered at approximately 10 feet bgs and was found to flow to the south. Free product was
detected up to 6.9 ft. In February 1988, FP recovery was initiated. On July 8, 1988 the Board issued Cleanup and
Abatement Order CAO No. 88-78, requiring Ricoh to implement corrective measures and to establish waste discharge
limits. In August 1988, Ricoh implemented groundwater extraction and treatment. Up to 14,000 gallons per day were
discharged to the local storm drain which discharged into San Diego Creek. In September 1992, Ricoh requested
cessation of groundwater remediation because free product was no longer detected in the lsopar/groundwater recovery
system. In a letter dated December 15, 1992, Regional Board staff denied the request due to the continued presence of
free product in some groundwater monitoring wells and the lack of consistent groundwater monitoring. The recovery
system reportedly operated until July 1998, when the three USTs were removed and replaced.
In July through September 1998, the three USTs were removed and replaced by one 40,OOO-galion lsopar UST. The UST
area was reportedly excavated to a depth of 16 feet, approximately 100,000 gallons of groundwater from the excavation
were treated and discharged, and ORC was placed in the backfill. .
Due to the continued detection of elevated concentration of TPH in the groundwater, a subsurface investigation was
conducted in December 2000. Five soil borings were advanced to 17 to 20 feet and three grab groundwater samples
were collected. TPH was detected at a concentration of up to 1.9 mg/kg in the soil samples and up to 8,000,000 ug/I
TPH was detected in the groundwater. In January 2003, two confirmatory wells were installed at the site. TPH was
detected at a concentration of up to 2,100 ug/l in the groundwater. In February 2003, a 24-hour two phase extraction
test was conducted. Vapor influent concentrations peaked at 1,060 ppmv after 18 hours of operation. Approximately
13.5 Ibs (2.1 gallons) of petroleum hydrocarbons were recovered.
In April 2005, the TPH concentrations in the groundwater monitoring wells have reduced to 400 ug/1. As a result, Ricoh
requested site closure. Final consideration of closure of the site was delayed due to the pending removal of the one
remaining UST.
In September 2006, the 40,000-galion UST was removed. Two soil samples were collected each from under the UST
and the dispenser. TPH (C13-C28) and TPH (C29-C40) were detected at concentrations up to 360 ppm and 860 ppm,
respectively. TPH (C13-C28) and TPH (C29-C40) were detected in groundwater samples collected from the excavation
at concentrations up to 530 ug/l and not detected, respectively.
In July 2008, six soil borings were advanced on the Ricoh and adjacent Jaydee property to depths ranging from 17 to 45
feet bgs. The results indicated TPH at a concentration of 300 and 490 ppm in soil sampled from boring B-5 at depths
of 10 and 15 feet bgs, respectively. Groundwater was sampled from two of the borings at depths ranging from 35 to 45
feet bgs. No TPH or VOCs were detected in the groundwater samples.
In September 2009, two groundwater monitoring wells were installed on the adjacent Jaydee property next to boring
locations B-5 and B-6. Groundwater was found at approximately 13 feet bgs and groundwater flow was to the south to
southwest. TPH-g and TPH-d were detected at a concentration of 190 ug/l and 660 ug/l, respectively.
On May 11, 2010, Board staff notified the legal counsel and property manger representing the fee holder of the adjacent
property of the pending site closure. Board staff has not received any comments in response to the May 11, 2010 letter.
Based on this data, Ricoh's consultant asserts the following:
• In June 2008, volatile fuel petroleum hydrocarbons were detected at a maximum concentration of 490 mg/kg in
soil samples collected from the Jay Dee property indicating that the concentrations are decreasing laterally from
the former UST.
3
Case Closure Summary
Site Name: Ricoh Electronics Case # 083000552T
• Groundwater samples collected on the Jaydee property indicate petroleum fuel concentrations are not at a
concentration of concern and are stable.
• No further action should be required because the low levels of petroleum hydrocarbons in the soil and
groundwater do not pose a health risk.
Board staff is recommending site closure for the following reasons:
• The USTs have been removed from the site.
• A significant volume of the source petroleum hydrocarbons in the soil has been removed.
• The residual petroleum hydrocarbons in the soil and groundwater appear not to pose a significant enough risk to
groundwater quality or the underlying groundwater's beneficial uses to warrant the expense of further
remediation.
• It is anticipated that the concentration and mass of residual petroleum hydrocarbons would continue to decline
due to biodegration and natural attenuation.
• The SARWQCB has not established TPH cleanup levels for soil for protection of human health and, at this time,
no statewide TPH cleanup levels have been established. However, the residual concentrations of petroleum
hydrocarbons detected in the soil borings do not exceed the environmental screening levels (ESLs) established
by the San Francisco RWQCB for direct exposure for commercial workers (450 ppm for soils <3 m deep and
4200 ppm for soils >3 m deep for gasoline and diesel and 3700 ppm for residual fuels with a carbon chain> 24)
and the Gross Contamination Ceiling Levels (for odors, etc.) for shallow soils (500 ppm for gasoline and diesel
and 2500 ppm for residual fuels). Furthermore, according to Mullin, et al (1990), isoparaffinic hydrocarbon
compounds "have a very low order of acute toxicity, being practically non-toxic by oral, dermal and inhalation
routes. However, aspiration of liquid isopariffins into the lungs during oral ingestion could result in severe
pulmonary injury" and non-evaporative dermal exposure by liquid isopariffins "have produced slight to moderate
irritation". Given that no free product isopar is currently being detected at the site, it appears that there is a low
likelihood that commercial workers would be exposed to liquid isopar. Based on these criteria, Board staff is not
requiring a quantitative risk assessment of the residual petroleum hydrocarbons or vapor intrusion studies to
determine if the residual petroleum hydrocarbons pose any risk to the nearby building occupants in the soil at
this time.
On August 6,2010, five groundwater monitoring wells and two groundwater extraction wells were abandoned on the
Ricoh and adjacent JayDee Enterprises properties.
If land use changes at the site, a review of the corrective actions may be warranted if on-site excavation or construction
activities expose contaminated soil or if changes in land use indicates that the residual contamination at the site poses a
risk to site occupants.
4
Case Closure Summary
Site Name: Ricoh Electronics Case # 083000552T
IV. Closure
Does completed corrective action protect existing beneficial uses per Regional Board Basin Yes
Plan?
Does completed corrective action protect potential beneficial uses per the Regional Board Basin Yes
Plan?
Does corrective action protect public health for current land Yes
use?
Site Management requirements? None
Should corrective action be reviewed if land use See above discussions.
changes?
Monitoring/Extraction wells 11 Number 11 Number 0
decommissioned decommissioned retained
List enforcement actions taken CAO, 88-78, Site Specific NPDES Permit -Order 89-11
List enforcement actions Order 89-11 was superseded by General Groundwater Treatment Permit 91-63.
rescinded Order 88-78 rescinded on February 2,2007
Name
Signature
Supervisor, Pollutant Investigation Section
VII. References
Linda S. Mullin, Allan W. Ader, Wayne C Daughtrey, Debra Z. Frost, Michael R. Greenwood, 1990, Toxicology update
isoparaffinic hydrocarbons: A summary of physical properties, toxicity studies and human exposure data, Journal of
Applied Toxicology, Volume 10, Issue 2, Pages 135-142.
5