Cancer Risk Analysis

7/29/2019 Cancer Risk Analysis

1/21

World Logistics Center ProjectDraft Environmental Impact Report

4.3-72 Air Quality Chapter 4.3

Cancer Risks.As noted in Section 4.3.3, Methodology, the project health risk assessment examinedtwo scenarios:

Scenario 1: No Project scenario in which cancer risks are estimated given vehicle traffic anddiesel PM emissions spanning the 70-year cancer risk exposure time period from the existing

condition 2012 to 2081 under the assumption that existing land uses plus other past, present, andreasonably foreseeable projects (both land development and roadway improvements) areimplemented in 2017, 2022, and 2035. Within the City of Moreno Valley, full buildout of theGeneral Plan was assumed in 2035, except for the project site, which was assumed to beunchanged from existing conditions.

Scenario 2: the With Project scenario shows the effect of project-related construction andoperational traffic diesel PM emissions if the project were built out in accordance with itsproposed phased buildout schedule and then added to the No Project scenario during the 70-yearcancer exposure time period from 2012 to 2081. This scenario forms the basis of comparison withthe No Project to quantify the incremental impacts from the project.

Table 4.3.Z compares the total operational diesel PM emissions estimated for Scenario 1 No Projectand Scenario 2 With Project including project truck yards, local roadway network internal to the

project site, local surface streets, and freeway mainline segments in this assessment for the years2012, 2017, 2022, and 2035.

Table 4.3.Z: Operational Diesel PM Emissions (pounds per day)

Year

Daily Diesel PM Emissions (pounds per day)

Scenario 1 (No Project) Scenario 2 (With Project) Project Increment

2012 823 823 0

2017 265 289 24

2022 260 314 54

2035 362 413 51

Source: Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Health Risk Assessment Report, January 2013.

Of note from the above table is that diesel PM emissions decline significantly from the existingcondition in 2012 throughout the future years due to the effects of mandated emission controls onheavy duty diesel vehicles. Further, the Scenario 2 With Project emissions for 2017, 2022, and 2035are all less than the existing 2012 emissions. Note further that the future decline in emissions wouldeven be greater than indicated except that the emission totals reflect growth in future vehicle trafficthat offsets some of the emission declines resulting simply from the mandated emission controls.

Table 4.3.AA compares the maximum cancer risks for Scenario 1, No Project, Scenario 2, WithProject, and the projects incremental impact at three locations: at the maximum individual cancerrisk anywhere in the area covered by the dispersion model, at the sensitive receptors located withinthe boundaries of the WLC Specific Plan, and at the sensitive receptors located in the residentialareas to the west of the project across Redlands Boulevard. Note that each scenario quantified

cancer risks over the 20122081 70-year risk exposure time period. Note further that the projectsincremental impacts include both construction and operational emissions.


2/21


Chapter 4.3 Air Quality 4.3-73

Table 4.3.AA: Estimated Cancer Risks, Without Mitigation

Receptor Location

Cancer Risk (risk per million) ProjectIncrementExceeds

Threshold?Scenario 1No Project

Scenario 2With Project

B

ProjectIncrement

B

SignificanceThreshold

Maximum Individual CancerRisk

C

183.9 190.4 6.5 10 No

Cancer Risk within the SpecificPlan

D

21.0 121.7 100.7 10 Yes

Cancer Risk in Residential AreasAcross Redlands Boulevard

E

25.0 47.2 22.2 10 Yes

A. 70-year lifetime exposures over the 2012 to 2081 time period.B. Projects incremental impacts assume unmitigated construction diesel PM emissions.C. The maximum individual cancer risk is located near the intersection of Interstate 10 and State Route 60 near the City of

Beaumont.D. The maximum affected sensitive receptor located within the Specific Plan is located near the Intersection of Theodore

Street, Street E and Street F.E. The maximum impacted sensitive receptor within the residential areas to the west of the project across Redlands

Boulevard is located near the intersection of Redlands Boulevard and Eucalyptus Avenue.

Source: Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Health Risk Assessment Report, January 2013.

As noted in Table 4.3.AA, the projects incremental cancer risks exceed the SCAQMDs cancer risksignificance threshold of 10 in a million at sensitive receptor locations both within the WLC SpecificPlan boundaries (existing residences) as well as within the residential areas located to the west of theWLC Specific Plan across Redlands Boulevard.

Figure 4.3.9 shows a plot of the No Project cancer risks while Figure 4.3.10 shows the With Projectcancer risks. Figure 4.3.11 shows a plot of the projects incremental cancer risks compared to the NoProject scenario prior to any mitigation. Figure 4.3.12 provides the cancer risk within the immediatevicinity of the project.

As shown in Table 4.3.AA, the estimated cancer risk at the sensitive receptors located within the

boundaries of the Specific Plan from the project is 100.7 in one million, above the threshold of 10 inone million. Within the existing residential areas to the west of the project across RedlandsBoulevard, the cancer risk from the project is 22.2 in 1 million, also above the threshold of 10 in onemillion. This is a significant impact and mitigation is required.

A risk level of 1 in a million implies a likelihood that up to one person, out of one million equallyexposed people would contract cancer if exposed continuously (24 hours per day) to the specificconcentration over 70 years (an assumed lifetime). This risk would be an excess cancer risk that is inaddition to any cancer risk borne by a person not exposed to these air toxics.

1

Mitigation Measures. The mitigation measures previously identified under Impact 4.3.6.2 (MitigationMeasures 4.3.6.2A, 4.3.6.2B,and 4.3.6.2D)and Impact 4.3.6.3 (Mitigation Measures 4.3.6.3A and4.3.6.3B) to reduce construction and operational emissions of criteria pollutants would reduce theestimated cancer risks associated with the project.

Level of Significance after Mitigation. Table 4.3.AB summarizes the 70-year lifetime cancer risksafter implementation of mitigation for the project-related health risk impacts. As shown, cancer risks

1Definition of a 1 in a million cancer risk from the US EPA, Technology Transfer Network Air Toxics, Glossary of KeyTerms, Website: www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/natamain/gloss1.html.


3/21



THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK


4/21

Lak e Perr is

No Project Cancer RSOURCE: County of Riverside, 2011; ESRI World Imagery, 2010; Michael Brandman Assoicates, World Logistics Center Specific Plan, 2012

I:\HFV1201\Reports\EIR\fig4-3-9_NoProjectCancerRisk8x11.mxd (1/30/2013)

World Logistics Center Pro

Environmental Impact Rep

FIGURE 4.

0 20,000 40,000

Feet

S!!N


5/21





6/21

Lak e Perr is

With Project Cancer RiSOURCE: County of Riverside, 2011; ESRI World Imagery, 2010; Michael Brandman Assoicates, World Logistics Center Specific Plan, 2012

I:\HFV1201\Reports\EIR\fig4-3-10_WithProjectCancerRisk8x11.mxd (1/30/2013)



FIGURE 4.3

0 20,000 40,000

Feet

S!!N


7/21





8/21

Lak e P err is

Project Incremental Cancer RSOURCE: County of Riverside, 2011; ESRI World Imagery, 2010; Michael Brandman Assoicates, World Logistics Center Specific Plan, 2012I:\HFV1201\Reports\EIR\fig4-3-11_IncrementalCancerRisk8x11.mxd (1/30/2013)



FIGURE 4.3

0 8,800 17,600

Feet

S!!N


9/21





10/21

Project Cancer Risk Near Project ASOURCE: County of Riverside, 2011; ESRI World Imagery, 2010; Michael Brandman Assoicates, World Logistics Center Specific Plan, 2012

I:\HFV1201\Reports\EIR\fig4-3-12_CancerRiskNearProj8x11.mxd (1/30/2013)



FIGURE 4.3

0 1,900 3,800

Feet

S!!N


11/21





12/21



exceed the threshold of 10 in one million. Despite implementation of mitigation measures, impactsremain significant and unavoidable. Figure 4.3.13 displays the projects cancer risks after mitigation.

Table 4.3.AB: Estimated Cancer Risks for Sensitive Receptors With Mitigation

Receptor Location

Cancer Risk (risk per million) ProjectIncrementExceeds

Threshold?Scenario 1No Project

Scenario 2With Project

B

ProjectIncrement

B

SignificanceThreshold

Maximum Individual Cancer Risk 183.9 190.2 6.3 10 No

Cancer Risk within the SpecificPlan

D

21.0 97.8 76.8 10 Yes

Cancer Risk in Residential AreasAcross Redlands Boulevard

E

25.0 45.9 20.9 10 Yes

A. 70-year lifetime exposures over the 2012 to 2081 time period.B. Projects incremental impacts assume unmitigated construction diesel PM emissions.C. The maximum individual cancer risk is located near the intersection of Interstate 10 and State Route 60 near the City of

Beaumont.D. The maximum affected sensitive receptor located within the Specific Plan is located near the Intersection of Theodore Street,

Street E and Street F.E. The maximum impacted sensitive receptor within the residential areas to the west of the project across Redlands Boulevard is

located near the intersection of Redlands Boulevard and Eucalyptus Avenue.Source: Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Health Risk Assessment Report, January 2013.

4.3.7 Cumulative Impacts

4.3.7.1 Short-Term Air Quality Impacts

The cumulative area for air quality impacts is the Basin. It is generally accepted that if a projectexceeds the regional threshold for a nonattainment pollutant, then it would result in a cumulativelyconsiderable net increase of that pollutant and result in a significant cumulative impact. The Basin iscurrently in nonattainment for ozone, nitrogen dioxide, and particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5). Theimplementation of the project would contribute criteria pollutants to the area during project

construction. A number of individual projects in the area may be under construction simultaneouslywith the proposed project. Depending on construction schedules and actual implementation ofprojects in the area, generation of fugitive dust and pollutant emissions during construction wouldresult in substantial short-term increases in air pollutants. Each project would be required to complywith the SCAQMDs standard construction measures; however, despite adherence to SCAQMDsstandard construction measures and Mitigation Measures 4.3.6.2A through 4.3.6.2D identifiedpreviously, project-related emissions would still exceed applicable SCAQMD thresholds for all criteriapollutants. Therefore, cumulative impacts associated with short-term air quality impacts would besignificant and unavoidable.

4.3.7.2 CO Hot Spot Impacts

As identified in Section 4.3.5.2, no significant CO hot spot impacts would occur. It is anticipated that

CO emissions in the future will decrease with advances in technology. As previously identified,background concentrations in future years are anticipated to continue to decrease as the concertedeffort to improve regional air quality progresses. Therefore, CO concentrations in the future yearswould generally be lower than existing conditions. Based on the analysis, because no CO hot spotimpacts would occur, it is reasonable to assume that a less than significant cumulative CO impactwould occur.


13/21





14/21

Project Cancer Risk Near Project Area with MitigatiSOURCE: County of Riverside, 2011; ESRI World Imagery, 2010; Michael Brandman Assoicates, World Logistics Center Specific Plan, 2012

I:\HFV1201\Reports\EIR\fig4-3-13_CancerRiskNearProjWmitig8x11.mxd (1/30/2013)



FIGURE 4.3

0 1,900 3,800

Feet

S!!N


15/21





16/21



4.3.7.3 Long-Term Regional Air Quality Impacts

As previously identified in Tables 4.3.X and 4.3.Y, the long-term operation and the combinedconstruction and operational emissions of the project would contribute to long-term regional airpollutants despite implementation of mitigation measures. The Basin is in nonattainment for ozone,nitrogen dioxide, and particulate matter (PM

10and PM

2.5) at the present time; therefore, the operation

of the proposed project would exacerbate nonattainment of air quality standards within the Basin andcontribute to adverse cumulative air quality impacts. Implementation of the proposed project wouldunavoidably contribute to significant long-term cumulative air quality impacts.

4.3.7.4 Health Risk Impacts

As noted from the results shown in previously referenced Table 4.3.AA and Table 4.3.AB, since theproject on its own exceeds the SCAQMDs cancer risk significance threshold with mitigation, theproject would also result in a cumulatively considerable impact. The cumulative cancer risk noted asthe With Project Scenario (No Project + Project) is depicted in previously referenced Figure 4.3.13,which shows the maximum cumulative cancer risk is estimated to be 190 in a million and was foundto occur near the intersection of Interstate 10 and State Route 60 near Banning, California. Maximum

cumulative risk occurs at a different location than the projects maximum risk. At the location of themaximum cumulative risk, the project contributes a risk of approximately 6 in a million or less than 4percent of the total. The projects maximum cancer risk occurs at the existing sensitive receptorslocated within the boundaries of the WLC Specific Plan near the intersection of Theodore Street andStreet E and Street F. At the location of the projects maximum incremental impact, the projectcontributes approximately 78 percent of the total cumulative risk.

SCAQMD MATES Studies. The SCAQMD conducted detailed toxic air contaminant emissioninventory, air sampling, and dispersion modeling studies: Multiple Air Toxics Exposure Study(MATES-II and (MATES-III). The MATES studies provide health risk estimates of various toxic aircontaminants as well as their spatial magnitude and distribution across the Basin. The MATES-IIIprogram results indicate that the cancer risks in the area where the project site is located areestimated to be approximately 500 in one million of which diesel PM contributes approximately 84percent of the total cancer risk. The remaining portion of the total cancer risk consists mainly ofexposures to benzene, formaldehyde, acrolein, and 1,3-butadiene. The MATES-III study found thatthe population weighted cancer risk in the entire Basin was estimated to be 853 in one million.

The MATES risks are estimated using assumptions that are substantially different than used in theassumptions used in the projects impact assessment. The MATES risks represent a snapshot in timebased on the inventory of toxic air emissions from the year 2005, which are assumed to remainconstant over the next 70 years. In reality, the toxic emissions in the South Coast Air Basin havechanged dramatically since 2005 with reductions noted in virtually all toxic levels, including diesel PMemissions. The MATES risks also do not take account of the fact that a number of emission controlregulations have been adopted particularly on heavy duty diesel trucks, which will substantiallyreduce their per mile emissions over the next 10 years. In accordance with guidance from theSCAQMD, the diesel PM emissions from the project as well as from the No Project diesel PM

emission sources incorporate the mandated changes in future vehicle emissions. Using comparableemissions assumptions, the MATES risks would be substantially lower than the levels indicated inTable 4.3.AC.


17/21



Table 4.3.AC: Comparison of Cancer Risk Values

Receptor Location

Cancer Risk (risk per million)

Project Increment Cumulative MATES-III

Maximum affected receptor located outside of the

boundaries of the WLC Specific Plan

451

1931

1,0292

Maximum affected sensitive receptor located within ofthe boundaries of the WLC Specific Plan

76.8 121.1 496

Existing residences located across Redlands Boulevard 20.9 45.9 496

1 The locations of the respective maximum risks are not coincident. The location of the project maximum is near theintersection of Theodore Street and State Route 60. The location of the cumulative maximum is near the intersection ofInterstate 10 and State Route 60 near Beaumont, California. At the location of the cumulative maximum, the projectsimpact is 6 in one million.

2 The MATES maximum risk was focused on the area from the SR-91/SR-60 interchange to BeaumontSource of project risk: dispersion modeling conducted by Michael Brandman Associates (see tables above).Source of cumulative risk: dispersion modeling conducted by Michael Brandman Associates (see tables above).Source of MATES-III risk: South Coast Air Quality Management District (refer to MATES Cancer Risk Exhibit 18.).Source: Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Health Risk Assessment Report, MBA January 2013.

Figure 4.3.14 displays the cancer risk in the project area as estimated by the SCAQMD MATES-IIIstudy and shows the estimated cancer risk on the project site ranges from 497 near the highway to409 farthest in the southeastern corner of the project site.

Table 4.3.AC displays a summary of the cancer risk values. The project values represent themaximum cancer risk values from project-related diesel emissions. The cumulative values representthe project impact plus the impact of other diesel trucks in the area. The MATES-III values areestimated by the SCAQMD. If the cancer risk values were compared with the project-specificthreshold of 10 cancers per million, the cancer risk values would exceed the threshold. In fact,virtually all areas within the SCAQMD would exceed the 10 in a million significance threshold.

The 70-year lifetime cancer risks after implementation of mitigation are summarized in previouslyreferenced Table 4.3.AB for the project-related health risk impacts. As shown, cancer risks exceedthe threshold of 10 in one million. The cumulative impacts include the impacts from both the project

trucks and motor vehicles and trucks and other motor vehicles from all other existing, planned, andreasonably foreseeable projects. Appling the SCAQMDs cancer risk significance threshold of 10 in amillion would result in a cumulative impact that exceeds the threshold. Impacts would remainsignificant and unavoidable as there are no other feasible mitigations that would reduce health risksassociated with implementation of the proposed project.

Worker Exposure. There are a variety of State and Federal programs that protect onsite workersfrom safety hazards, including high air pollutant concentrations (California Division of OccupationalSafety and Health; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 2012).

On-site workers are not required to be addressed through this health risk assessment process. Adocument published by the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (2009), Health Risk

Assessments for Proposed Land Use Projects, indicates that on-site receptors are included in riskassessments if they are persons not employed by the project. Persons not employed by the projectwould not remain on-site for any significant period. Therefore, a health risk assessment for on-siteworkers is not required or recommended. With regards to offsite worker exposures, assuming theworker exposure assumptions of 40 years, 8 hours per day, and 49 weeks per year as per theOEHHA recommendations, the highest offsite worker exposure cancer risk due to the projects DPMemissions was found to be 7.0 in a million. This risk level is less than the SCAQMD cancer riskthreshold of 10 in one million.


18/21

SCAQMD MATES Can

Risks for the Proposed ProjSOURCE: County of Riverside, 2011; ESRI World Imagery, 2010; Michael Brandman Assoicates, World Logistics Center Specific Plan, 2012

I:\HFV1201\Reports\EIR\fig4-3-14_SCAQMD_CancerRisks8x11.mxd (1/30/2013)



FIGURE 4.3

0 1,500 3,000

Feet

S!!N


19/21





20/21



Non-Cancer Hazards Impacts. As previously identified, the maximum non-cancer chronic hazardindex from the operation of the project is estimated to be less than 0.05 at any location outside of theboundaries of the WLC Specific Plan. This index value is less than the SCAQMDs non-cancerhazard index significance threshold of 1.0. Therefore, the project would have a less than significantnon-cancer hazard impact.


21/21



Cancer Risk Analysis

Documents

Transcript of Cancer Risk Analysis